[Colonel Kangaroo]

I believe that an argument can be made that modern weaponry makes non-intervention an even more appealing path for the US. The big moats are still effective in preventing the invasions that threaten continental powers, so our military efforts need only be concerned with strategic defense. The power projection desired by interventionists only increases the incentive of others to attack us. Not only does drawing back save money, the lessened offensive threat to other nations means that measures of strategic defense, like an ABM system against rogue states, will not be as likely to be seen as a destabilizing threat to others.

[WayneS]

You make excellent points. We do need to maintain a standing army in order to properly manage and operate our modern strategic defenses. And that, of course, does not mean it is wise or prudent for our standing army to be inserted in to every crisis in the world. However, I think the “no standing army” folks are dreaming if they think we can rely on part-time soldiers to adequately defend our country.

I am perfectly happy with congress having the power to declare war, and I think the war powers act should be repealed or at the very least be revised to place more limits on the president’s ability to send U.S. troops in to harms way. If an offensive war outside the United States is justified, then the United States congress should declare war.