Likewise they hold little value in protecting our allies should a nation decide it feels like aggressively expanding its borders. Practically speaking the only nation of consequence where this may be an issue is China. And as regards China the simple fact is a few military bases are nowhere near enough to stop the Chinese army if it gets frisky.

Additionally, the threat of Islamic expansionism manifests in two ways, none of which is of particular concern to our national interest as I perceive it. The first is intra-Islamic world, where different Islamic factions vie to expand their influence into the domains of other factions. This doesn’t really impact us, and if anything our actions thus far have aggravated the process rather than hampered it. The other class of Islamic expansionism is more cultural and comes from immigration from Islamic nations to non-Islamic ones. Once again a military presence isn’t going to do anything to counteract this.

I agree with you that we can’t ignore the problems facing the globalized world. The difference is I think the most effective route is an economic one. I actually have a 20 page paper I’m working on revising and expanding that might interest you if you’re much for IR theory. It develops an IR Theory that argues free markets, domestically and internationally, are the best, and only, routes to true peace, not military action. Let me know if you’d like and I’ll send it to you.

For the record I am a Ron Paul supporter but not of the foaming-at-the-mouth-at-the-slightest-criticism stripe. I’m also a former Diplomacy & International Relations major and so have both interest and some small degree of knowledge in these sort of issues.