The United States military should be reduced in half.

I will first give a brief outline of realist theory, address my opponent's points, and then demonstrate that while seemingly substantive, they are wholly off the mark in framing US military spending in a historical and geopolitical context.RealismRealism is quite simple:"Given the difficulty of determining how much power is enough for today and tomorrow, great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive." [1]In plain English, this description at its core is very much like a common board game, RISK. In fact, the similarities are startling. The goal is the same: achieve hegemony. Attack opponents when they are weak. No one, except your opponent, knows what your opponent is up to. By attaining more territory, you become stronger. Only borders need to be heavily defended - inland states face no significant risk. Territories belong to the sovereign whose armies occupy the land. Any sign of weakness on your part is an opportunity for your opponent. The more opponents there are, the more total armies will be fielded. This is an arms race. The fewer opponents there are, the fewer total armies will be fielded. World peace is a result of achieving hegemony. [2, grossly paraphrased, it's in there somewhere]It is less important that these are viable strategies to a board game, than whether or not these strategies can actually be observed in reality. I will demonstrate that this is indeed the case.Rebuttal(PRO's words are in quoted italics.)1) My opponent has advanced a very common argument, that our military spending vis a vis other nations seems to be abnormally large - "we spend more than the next 26 nations combined - 25 of whom are allies!"While true, what she omits is that US military spending is at historic lows:"Between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending is set to fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), even though the nation has assigned more missions to the military over the past two decades." [3]"...tables from the Office of Management and Budget show[] national defense spending was below 5 percent only in the late 1940s, late 1970s and since the start of the early 1990s." [4]What this means is that since the early 1990s, we have achieved Pax Americana. If our military spending is at historic lows, that means that GLOBAL military spending is even lower. That "we spend more than the next 26 nations combined" is NOT a sign that our budget is abnormally large, but rather that global military budgets are at unprecedented lows.Therefore, my opponent's assertion that "Our ever-expanding institution is creating an arms race throughout the globe" is wholly irresponsible and nothing more than unsubstantiated fear-mongering.As you can see, this conforms to realism - "We [DO] have troops in more than 150 countries around the world," and because we do, there are very few borders to defend, and thus very little total military spending globally.Why is this the case? Let's analyse the American border. You may think it's the 50 states, but follow on a map if you will - amongst those "150 countries", we have military bases in England, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Afghanistan Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, (no bases, but India is an allied country), Australia, Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, and Alaska. Now, connect the dots, and you should be able to draw a distinct border. Neat, isn't it? Russia, China, Iran, Kazakhstan, and some neighboring countries are on one side, and our armies are on the other. This is the American border - recall that armies hold ground belonging to the sovereign. Countries within our border have unprecedentedly low military spending, because we provide protection. We are able to do so and STILL keep our military spending at historic lows. This is Pax Americana. There are very, very few opponents on the board. There are very, very few borders (imagine if each and every country in the world bordered a potential enemy, and then imagine how many more militarized borders there would be).What would happen if we pulled out? All of our "allies" (I call them protectorates) would all of a sudden require military protection. That neat border you just drew? It would vanish. This means that each and every state, no longer an American protectorate, would be bordering a potential enemy, one whose intentions they simply do not know. They would need to militarize to protect themselves. BY WITHDRAWING OUR TROOP PRESENCE, A REAL GLOBAL ARMS RACE WOULD BEGIN.This one point alone discredits most of my opponent's case.2) My opponent makes the false assertion that "The NDAA bill also awards the military 650 billion dollars for additional military supplies." This assertion is sourced from a blog that has Condi Rice as a "Thought Leader" because she answered one (and only one) question during an interview. [5] The NDAA IS the US military budget. It pays for soldiers' salaries, for equipment maintenance, for wrapping up wars, as well as alleged "military supplies". The proposed 2013 NDAA bill of $650 billion is LOWER than the 2012 NDAA bill. There is nothing "additional" about this spending. The trend is towards lower spending, not nearly close to half of what it is today, but a bit lower. This is appropriate, given our current economic situation.3) Regarding terrorism, we are lowering our military spending without compromising our counter-terrorism abilities, have withdrawn out of Iraq, and soon Afghanistan as well. I fully agree with PRO that we need to focus on the underlying causes of terrorism.4) Iraq was a huge mistake. The Arab Spring proved that usurping dictators does NOT require 200,000 troops, years of armed conflict, and hundreds of billions of dollars of unnecessary ADDITIONAL military spending. More than likely, if Saddam was alive when Mubarak was ousted from office, Iraq would also have underwent something similar, making a transition to democracy much easier and less painful for Iraqis. Keep in mind that the military is on HER side on this one. [6] Bush went against the advice of the Army Chief of Staff in 2003. [7] RIP Norman SchwarzkopfSchwarzkopf wrote that had "we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like a dinosaur in the tar pit -- we would still be there, and we, not the [UN], would be bearing the costs of that occupation." (Sept 1992)http://debate.org...http://www.cnn.com...Points 3) and 4) have no relevance to the resolution.5) I'm glad my opponent brought out cyber security! However, my opponent offers no solution to this problem, other than to increase "brain power". As security is a military concern, it follows that the answer is more military spending when we can afford to do so. The military is keenly aware of this threat. [8] My opponent has weakened her own case and has bolstered my own. My opponent needs to proffer an alternative to current reality to have a viable case. Your move.[1] Mearsheimer, John (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 35.[2] http://www.theatlantic.com...#[3] http://www.foreignpolicyi.org...[4] http://www.politifact.com...[5] http://www.policymic.com...[6] http://www.nytimes.com...[7] http://www.nytimes.com...[8] http://online.wsj.com...