Maybe David Brooks should be reading Reid Smith:

Of course, very little of this money actually goes to the defense of American citizens; rather, it is geared toward defending foreign nationals and toward the uncertain proposition that global stability depends on U.S. military deployment.

Smith makes a fair point that it would be more advantageous for Ron Paul to emphasize the wastefulness of overseas military spending, particularly as it relates to providing for the defense of wealthy allies that can afford to defend themselves, but I think Smith understates how often Paul already does this. Even so, Paul can’t answer every policy question by pointing out the unaffordable and unsustainable nature of our foreign policy. It is also not enough to appeal to a fiscal conservatism that the Republican Party observes mostly in the breach and leave it at that. If Paul has blundered in being too concerned with other states’ sovereignty, it has to be said that virtually no one else in either party pays any attention to it when thinking about what the U.S. can and should do overseas. This provides a much-needed and valuable contrast with Obama as well.