A reduction in military force does not necessarily equate to a retreat into isolationism: there are all kinds of options for engagement that do not involve military force.
How large a force do we really need? For the last few years our forces have been stretched, but they've been stretched in wars of choice: Iraq was purely a war of choice, and while our initial engagement in Afghanistan was arguably necessary, it also did not involve large force commitments. Those came with the decision to occupy, which was entirely a choice.
If our military is being stretched to capacity in wars of choice, do we need more force or better choices?
Bookmarks