Then I suggest we be honest and not pretend that we can carry the load for NATO as soon as possible.
I’d rather we keep our integrity intact to our allies than continue to pretend that we will be there for them if we aren’t ready and willing to help defend them.
Ditto Japan, South Korea and the rest.
If the intent is to cut military spending because we have too much obligations and debt at home and we aren’t willing to cut our domestic spending on welfare, Obamacare and the like, and prefer that we cut our military, let’s be honest and tell everyone now.
We really have a choice —— either we limit the government to its most important constitutionally designated function -— DEFENDING OURSELVES AGAINST ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, or we expand the role of government in all other non-constitutional aspects — welfare, healthcare, retirement, etc.
And by saying “If our many enemies decide to test our promises at the same time, we are in deep trouble.”, I can tell you know it is not a matter of IF, it is a matter of WHEN.
Militant Islam with its apocalyptic vision of world conquest and a new caliphate is not going to let up. Iran wants to be a nuclear power because her Ayatollahs believe that this will usher in the return of their twelfth Imam. We might think that by leaving a country like Iran alone, they will spare us (Buchanan’s view), but that is a very naive view. Whether we like it or not, Iran considers us their MAIN ENEMY.
Neither is a resurgent China and now a belligerent Russia.
We might not be interested in war, but eventually, war will be interested in us. If we find ourselves cut to the bone because of some notion that doing so will make our current enemies hate us less, we deserve everything we get.
With your last post, we are in total agreement.