Military stuff
For those unaware, Texas Congressman Paul feels we should pull our troops home from all foreign countries, and in general terms strongly opposes most all military actions not in direct defense of invasions of, or attacks made on, the country. And while, due to our history over the last sixty years or so, this may seem odd to many, his views are pretty much in accordance with the Constitution. While it cedes to Congress the power "to provide and maintain a navy", the directive for an army is different - "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years."
My views on the military have evolved over the years, as I would guess is true of a number of us. Many, if not most, of the founding fathers felt strongly the federal government should not have the power to maintain a standing army, as rulers around the world had for centuries used their armies to control their own people. While this is certainly true, I have long felt that until humans achieve an un-earthly perfection, we have a valid need for a military. It follows from this they should be well trained, well equipped and prepared to defend that which needs defending.
Most will see pretty quickly the hole in that theory. For any group of people to do anything well together, they, almost without exception, need to actually experience that thing they do together. For the military to gain experience, they must fight. Combat tested and battle hardened are just two phrases used to describe an experienced army, or soldier. Its no wonder we've experienced all the police actions, skirmishes and undeclared wars we've gone through since WWII. Of course it also shows that Congressional backbones resemble those of Gumby, but that's another story.
There's another angle too. Eisenhower famously warned about the military-industrial complex and its really hard to argue he was wrong. Defense spending is astronomical, indeed it all but supports a number of cities around the country. Severe downsizing of the corporations who provide uniforms, weapons and other equipment would cause major unemployment and economic distress to many areas. Remembering that it took us two years to fully ramp up for WWII, it would also put us at a serious disadvantage when we are next attacked.
The flip side of this, as the last fifteen years have proved, is the propensity of politicians to use the military for purposes other than defense. One side of the political aisle "knows" that Clinton hit an aspirin factory with cruise missles to divert attention from his adolescent sexcapades, while those on the other side are just as sure Bush planned to invade Iraq before he was even inaugurated. Both views have some validity, and though I'm not smart enough to construct the right military balance, it was one of a number of subjects fun to discuss with delightful dinner companions.