No, but you are a Paul supporter. You are the one who is telling us what Paul stands for. You stated,:
In the long run it's debatable whether it's worthwhile to put your troops in friendly countries (like South Korea and Japan) rather than staying on good terms with them and having them provide for their own security. Grown-up countries should defend themselves; it's one of the legitimate functions of a sovereign government, and it's reasonable for Japan and Korea to shoulder their share of the load."
"Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. He favors diplomacy, trade, and defense; he just doesn't favor the US being the world's self-appointed policeman."
What does that mean in the real world? I hope you understand that Japan and South Korea are defraying much of our costs associated with our military presence there. I also hope that you know that South Korea and Japan have substantial military expenditures on their defense forces. Do you believe that Japan and Korea should develop their own nuclear deterrence given the fact that North Korea and China have nuclear weapons? What does "providing for their own security" mean specifically?
That's a very good question, and I can't provide the level of detail you ask for. Still, it's disingenuous in the extreme to assume therefore that there are no answers, or that the answers are farcical.
The way Paul folks paint it we are just using our troops to protect other countries. It goes much deeper. But then understanding 21st Century realities is not something that Paul and he’s folks are good at, despite their declarations of superior knowledge on all aspects of human existence...