The problem as I see it, is even if we argue for the need for a global interventionist policy to keep America safe is a given, and 100% accepted for the sake of argument...
We still have to be able to pay for it.
And America's ability to "throw money at the problem" has been our #1 key strategic and tactical asset since WWII. It's ultimately how we defeated the Soviet bloc. And more so now than ever, as conflict continues on the double trend of ever more technical, and ever more asymmetrical warfare, our ability to develop new responses is key. (and it co$t$ us dearly) Simply marshaling our natural resources in industrial meat-grinder war as in WWI and WWII, supported on our internal economy only is probably never going to happen again.
Paul's geopolitical and military stances may make us vulnerable.
Anything other than a slash-n-burn restructuring of the fed.gov, our spending, and our monetary policy is guaranteed to leave us vulnerable.