Replies

I think so by doing several things. First is taking troops out of nations where they are not actually needed. We have troops in 100 plus nations by accounts I've read. Ron Paul seems to follow a lot of Reagan policy and it would not surprise me to see him appoint a very much needed Cap Weinberger type Sec of Defense who has the actual smarts and insight to fix our military.

I also think the ongoing unending deployments of out National Guard and reserves would end and our military return to a more active duty focused operation. Since Gulf War one our reserve troops have been in ongoing call up deployments. We fought the Cold War and did better than this but now it seems that every time something or anything happens anywhere in the world our reply is calling up troops for deployments when more limited operations would be a better answer.

The Constitution provides for other actions short of war to take care of such issues as thug dictators who threaten our national security. They are called Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Meaning POTUS goes to congress {in closed session} and asks for the taking out of a leader. This is part of the reason we are in this whole mess. Jerry Ford tried to put a stop to it. Getting persons like Bin Ladden is much easier when they wander freely. But announcing to the world we're coming to get you is kinda foolish when you know they will go into hiding. The same with Saddam. We didn't need to announce to the world our intentions nor especially the persons we were going after. If we backed off on Bin Ladden we could have him likely within a year or two probably much quicker than our current operations. Remember the Russians chased him for 10 years. Afterward he began making public appearances again. Hit them when they feel safe and use resources more wisely.