I'm saying the idea of a US military that exists in only a defensive capability is as realistic a possibility as no military and trusting the world to be chill.
They are both zero percent likely to happen. So why hypothesize and carry water for either idea? Like, "the US military should have peace beans that rainbow blast everyone into loving each other" is as cromulent a position as "if the US military were defense only, they'd be really good actually".
> I'm saying the idea of a US military that exists in only a defensive capability is as realistic a possibility as no military and trusting the world to be chill.
> They are both zero percent likely to happen.
You didn't provide a third option.
> So why hypothesize and carry water for either idea?
If all possible ideas are completely unrealistic, why comment at all? What could they do better?
The third option is the us military is and will remain an imperialist war machine. So trying to carry water for a fantasy version of it is just carrying water for the imperialist version.