Response to US Military Spending: Kicking Ass vs. Balancing the Budget

After reading my classmate's blog, US Military Spending: Kick Ass vs. Balancing the Budget, I had this to say:
I agree completely with your statements about down sizing our military. I personally am a strong believer in having a very powerful military, but in my opinion, the United States does not need to be the world police. We do not need to spend massive amounts of money to make sure that other countries do not  misbehave or do something against our interests. The purpose of a military is to defend your country against attack, not to protect the other side of the world against themselves. Our government spends way to much money on our military. Pulling our military out from the foreign countries where our military presence is not necessary would have a strong benefit on our national debt. It does not cost nearly as much money to have a large standing army as it does to have a large army in combat. Take China for example. China has the world’s largest standing army, but they spend around $500 billion less then us annually on their army. By cutting military spending, we could spend 100’s of billions of dollars on our infrastructure ,which in turn would generate more GDP that could go towards lessening our debt. It is a good solution to our problem, and like you, I wonder why nothing is being done about it.