Whilst I get your point, your way of thinking seems much too idealistic.
Anyone could justify whatever goals they have with this approach.
I think some fundamental question that must be addressed are: Who is entitled to decide which countries are “inferior” and which are not? Who is to determine what values and political systems are supposedly superior to others?

Take a hypothetical scenario, where we lived in a world where the majority of states ran “antithetical to the human good”-policies and practices, inter alia, slavery, cruel punishments and various other violations of human rights. Let’s say some of these states, which are functioning in a relatively stable manner, perceived their own governance as superior to that of others. Are they therefore also justified to invade and impose their form of governance on others, simply because they see it as better?

I feel like the logical crux of your argument here is that the sole justification for imperialism you name seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) the belief in one's own superiority to others, in terms of values, morales and the manner in which one governs their country. However, this belief in superiority alone alone does not provide sufficient legitimacy for any such endeavors, irrespective of their nature.

Furthermore, even if one were to attempt to force a certain form of governance on another country: For something like democracy to work and be properly maintained, it requires the active support and engagement in it and subsequently the will to sustain it. The people would have to yearn for it already, be willing and open to the possible changes that come along with it.
This, however, does not even address the (often complex) cultural dimension/side, nor the potential discord between the implementation of an external (political) system or issues with the invader's nation's cultural norms introduction to another country.

@Bob Ross

An incisive précis on literature in Pax Americana ...
https://lithub.com/viet-thanh-nguyen-most-american-literature-is-the-literature-of-empire/

addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/961000

An incisive précis on literature in Pax Americana ...
https://lithub.com/viet-thanh-nguyen-most-american-literature-is-the-literature-of-empire/

There is an impressive lack of self-awareness in that article given the way in which Americans are extremely prone to simply painting their own domestic politics onto other parts of the world, or that he cites as exemplary "anti-imperialist work" narratives that do exactly this.

There is an impressive lack of self-awareness in that article — Count Timothy von Icarus

When you say "lack of self-awareness", are you referring to the article's author, American readers? American writers? or ???

Thank you, I will take a look.

Americans are extremely prone to simply painting their own domestic politics onto other parts of the world — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Never has this been so apparent as today.

or that he cites as exemplary "anti-imperialist work" narratives that do exactly this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Anti-imperialist work" usually starts with the juxtaposition of the imperialist (Here, the US) and it's victim. The victim has little if any agency as the focus is on the actions of the imperialist. The focus of the Americans is thus solely on the Americans and their decisions and actions.

This creates a situation is where even in historical research a lot is not looked at.

I stumbled on a good example of this when Stephen Kotkin, a historian I enjoy listening, suddenly gave a huge praise to a Finnish historian Pekka Hämäläinen calling it one of the most important historical studies done at present as the Fin had wrote about Native Americans. Hämäläinen's viewpoint wasn't to list the atrocities that the European settlers did and how the US treated Native Americans, but focused on the tribes as independent actors, who had to adopt with lightning pace to new technologies and to a new situation basically by reinventing themselves. In his books The Comanche Empire and Lakota America, Hämäläinen treats native civilizations as polities making war and alliances.

Perhaps the fault is the idea that prevails so clearly in the works of Noam Chomsky. His first political book The Responsibility of Intellectuals tells in it's name what Chomsky views his role. Chomsky has stated clearly in interviews that he doesn't criticize other nations because it's not his job. He only criticizes the US, because he is an American. That if one criticizes that actions of let's say Turkey, then it is fitting for a Turkish dissident.

First of all, self criticism is good. Yet if one takes on this kind of role that Chomsky takes, one does get quite a biased US focused narrative of events where everything evolves around the US (and Washington and the Military-Industrial Complex and "the Blob").

This actually has bad consequences. You can see it now at the present how many Americans have a totally different understanding of events in Europe as Europeans have. And as now the Trump administration is truly going after what could be called classic imperialism and a trade war, the alliances the US has are really transforming.