Some valid points, but some utter stupidity as well.

Leaving the Europeans to their own devices sounds like a great idea to me. It should have happened immediately after the Cold War.

Negotiate with the Taliban? You've got to be kidding. Even if you favor withdrawal from Afghanistan, there would be no point in attempting to negotiate with the people who harbored Bin Laden.

Taking out Syria's Assad is very small potatoes and would pay big dividends, IMHO. Mr. Will ignores the Obama administration's snuggling up with Assad, which only ended very recently.

Iran is clearly a difficult nut to crack, but Mr Will is downright dishonest when he quotes Panetta, while ignoring 3 years of appeasement. The leadership in Iran undoubtedly believes it when they say that Obama is the "weak horse." Does anyone anywhere really believe that Obama would attack Iran, or even allow Israel to do so, regardless of what Panetta has recently said? At the very least, the Iranian leaders should live in morbid fear that an no-holds-barred attack is a possibility.

What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

Romney does not believe that the call to prayer is the best sound in the world. Romney does not believe we should enable the Muslim Brotherhood to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the Mid East and the alienation of Israel. I beleive Romney and the rest of the Republican (except for Ron Paul)field recognize who our enemies are, and who our friends are as well. There are areas to cut in the military, but our strengh must be matched to the threat, not some arbitrary number. Defense is one thing the Congress does authorize, but Chairman Obamao would have us defenseless and weak, instead subsidizing the usefull idiots in their own slavery and poverty, while he rules in oppulence and tyranny.

@jeremy

"Does anyone believe that Obama would attack Iran..?"

Obama is owned and operated by the same corporate interests that owned and operated Bush. The MIC, aka the military industrial complex, wants a new war to replace the ones shutting down in Iraq in Afghanistan. So... the short answer is, Yes, he'll do what he's told to do.

Thomas Jefferson once said that "Merchants have no country." The same can be said of the multi-national corporations that own the two major parties in the U.S. The worship Mammon and don't give a hoot about the U.S. otherwise.

Agree with wjmccrindle that strength should be matched to the threat, and we probably also agree that there's a lag time between funding, development, testing and deployment of weapons systems and platforms.

BUT where we disagree is on Ron Paul and a policy of non-interventionism. I'm not an Israel-firster, and neither is Paul. NO interest should be put above American interests.

Iran doesn't have to be an enemy, but is certainly a localized threat. As Mr. Will points out, the U.S. spends more on military than the next 17 nations combined (which includes some allies). Our navy has more firepower than the next 13 navies combined. The U.S. accounts for almost one half of the entire world's military expenditures.

It does seem ridiculous, OK, FOOLISH, even DERELICT to suggest that we cannot cut our military spending in many areas, by a LARGE amount, and still have a military larger than any combination of armies that might get suicidal and attack us.

Paul believes as I do that our miltary should be first about DEFENSE, not nation building, world policing, U.N. enforcer, occupiers or empire maintenance. Our DEFENSE should be second to none, unquestionably the best and most capable of any in the world. With world-wide financial interests, we need a navy that can protect our merchant fleets around the world from would-be Barbary pirates or Somali pirates -- whatever.

The GOP doesn't want to budge on military spending, citing any reduction on PLANNED INCREASES as cuts, while the Democrats act in the same manner on welfare and entitlement spending. BOTH sides have to give; if there are not REAL cuts in both very soon, then the U.S. will have very REAL problems dealing with bankruptcy and domestic anarchy that will make Iran moot and forgotten.

Remember the Romans and the Soviets. The BIGGER and more real and predictable threat is total financial meltdown and political chaos. Interest on the national debt is almost one third of total military spending. This is NOT counting the off-the-books obligations for entitlements totaling $120 Trillion. Crushing debt is making tax slaves and debt slaves of Americans who won't be born for decades. It is unconscionable for us to live "high on the hog" now and pass such a debt burden onto future generations.

"The U.S. defense budget is about 43 percent of the world's total military spending -- more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies."

Who cares what it comes out in comparison to a percentage of the world's total military spending? We already know that the majority would rather that we spend our own resources than their own on their protection. The better question should be, what percentage of our GDP is spent on our defense? Answer, about 7%! Really... you really think that that is too much! Pa-lease!

@TJ Morales

Precisely the point, TJ. We should focus our military spending on DEFENSE of America and her interests only. Japan, Germany, Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, etc., can defend themselves.

How much cash (paper currency) was sent to Iraq for the purpose of bribery? Over a billion dollars and none of it is accounted for. We send $50K-$100K vehicles over there (everything from Humvees to Suburbans) and just leave them. We send $10K air conditioners by the truckload... and just leave them. We send trainloads of ammo and ordnance on pallets... and just leave it. I could go on ALL DAY listing the waste in just one place, Iraq. Multiply that by troops stationed in 140 different countries, many of which we have no business being in.

What is the difference between what we spend on DEFENSE and what we spend on military other. That is called waste and graft.

Similar waste and graft can be found on the social/entitlement side of our budget (the proverbial $500 hammers). Heard this morning, just as an example, that we spend $1.6 billion annually to buy cell phones and provide cell service to 12 million 'needy' people.

The tax is hidden in your cell bill (for those that PAY their own). Really? We borrow 40 cents on every tax dollar to buy stuff like cell phones for the needy? Meanwhile, we enslave millions of unborn tax slaves with debt to be repaid decades from now.

@Steve

Your numbers are inflated and are representative of Democrat media talking points. I won't argue that there is waste in the military, after 26 years of service all over the world, I've seen plenty, but nowhere near your figures. Liberals always attack the military first, but it is also the only Constitutionally mandated funding. There are more appropriate agencies to go after, Depts of Energy, Education, Interior, Homeland Insecurity, Housing..... these waste money and provide nothing.