I think our allies have the ability to take care of their own problems. We may support them (which we do for Israel), but I think that is all that is necessary. I would say the same about Yemen.
I think that quote applies quite nicely to our national adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our leadership got our military bogged down trying to establish democracy amongst a bunch of Muslim tribes instead of focusing on a few basic goals and getting out. 20 years occupying a foreign country now.
While I do not defend some our our military adventures (think Iraq) and others were well-motivated but poorly prosecuted, I remain skeptical of the idea that "our allies have the ability to take care of their own problems," atleast as a universal statement. We were allied with England in the early 20th century, yet, were they really able to defeat the Third Reich without our help? ?
Our experience in WW1 soured us (naturally) to European wars to the degree Churchill quiped,
"you can always count on America to do the right thing .... after they try everything else first." Even the Japanese had invaded much of the western Pacific countries .... and we got annoyed and embargoed oil and steel.
But the Dec. 7th 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, and Hitler's declaration of war on America quickly thereafter destroyed any illusion of noninterference or neutrality we had.
We needed the alliances we had to prosecute the war against Tojo and Hitler.
If we are today, to remain neutral in a world
"Governed by the aggressive use of force," as Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out, we'd be well advised to maintain a sufficient military to defeat a major enemy such as a bigger, badder China without the need of allies ..... for we
might wind up with few of those.