Stossel always takes a good argument and destroys it with sloppy logic and contradictions. First, soldiers don't fly helicopters just to burn gas. They fly helicopters so they can stay good at flying helicopters - get it. Time in the air for a pilot is never pointless. The more proficient they are the better. General Stossel should know that. Then he says he would not presume to suggest the "right" amount of spending then proceeds to do so - its too high.
And not to disappoint ericynit entertains with his usual display of ignorance on everything in the world. He misstates the nature of "military imperalism" and its pitfalls - Rome survived as an imperalistic power for over 500 years and died from internal rot.
On his recent trip abroad, Mitt Romney observed an American taboo by not criticizing President Obama's military policy. But before his trip, he made his position clear. Obama has "exposed the military to cuts that no one can justify," Romney said.
He meant that unless Congress intervenes, Pentagon spending will be cut by more than $500 billion over 10 years under the (bipartisan) budget sequestration scheduled for January. This terrifies those who fear that limiting the growth of the military-industrial complex will leave us less safe.
But is that true? Even if $500 billion is actually cut, America still will spend...
Although Rome's wars and its expansion into an empire almost certainly had much to do with the collapse of the Republic, the precise mechanisms by which this happened are not directly applicable to the U.S.
And are you suggesting that we break treaties to save money? In the case of the French alliance, the Founders had the excuse that France had suffered a revolution and was run by crazies to whom we were not morally obliged by a treaty signed with King Louis.
Finally, MOST of the savings to try to get us out of our debt hole are going to have to be made domestically. Our own post-Revolutionary "peace dividend" left us miserably unprepared for war in 1812.