It has always seemed to me that the reflexive argument for American military intervention in other nations rests on shaky ground. Contending that the United States must "police" the world, "build" nations, "spread" democracy, and "fight" for other people's freedom sounds convincing, even lofty. But sacrificing human and economic treasure to fight for people who've shown little willingness to fight for themselves smacks of contrived moral superiority and is logically indefensible.

I thought of the talking points when a reader called my attention to a post on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website. The author presents one of the best arguments that I've seen for severely curtailing U.S. military involvement across the globe. Jason Ivey observes:

Britain and other European states became the rotting cultural cesspools they are today because of the American military. Thanks to our superiority, none of these other Western nations had to train men to fight, nor did they need worry much about the enemy next door. They were allowed to grow soft because the U.S. was still hard. Their governments could become bloated service-providers furthering the objective of creating a permanent dependent class because they were safe to do so and no longer had to spend money on defense. America kept the Western safe for cultural destruction. Freeloaders can be freeloaders, because not only do we encourage and promote freeloading, we militarily protect it.

We can create and support millions of Amy Winehouses because others have created the necessary wealth, the social engineers have replaced stigma with romanticism, and the military ensures this path can continue indefinitely. As Frank Miniter noted at National Review Online, back in Winston Churchill's day, when Britons were fighting off Germans invading their shores, it's hard to imagine any proud Anglo stripping off his clothes at the demands of some hooligan, as happened during last week's riots. The Left's degenerative morality successfully strengthened the parasite while weakening the host, and we all know at some point the host will die.

When Americans are dying to stop the spread of aggressive Islamism into a Europe that mounts only the weakest resistance, a Europe that has grown diseased under economic and cultural Marxism, isn't it time to rethink our "morality?" And our economics? Or will our gallantry demand spending trillions more and sending American soldiers to die in Europe proper when it becomes impossible to ignore that the Europeans haven't the intestinal fortitude to do what must be done?

On one hand, progressive high-mindedness has bred the American welfare state. Consequently, trillions must be cut from spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- and Obamacare repealed -- if we are to avert a final downslide into a European-style socialist democracy. Yet on the other hand, what about "defense spending"--a grand illusion of linguistic gymnastics? Where will the trillions come from to support the military spending necessitated by a continuation of neocon high-mindedness?

A writer, physicist, former high tech executive, and Cajun, Chuck Rogér invites you to sign up to receive his "Clear Thinking" blog posts by email at http://www.chuckroger.com/. Contact Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.