I don’t know the details of Rand Paul’s views on the military, but I certainly support a less interventionist military policy. If he means to get us out of Team America: World Police while maintaining a very strong national defense, then I’m for it.
As far a pot goes, that’s a matter that should be left to the states. The same thing goes for many other issues. Let the states decide. America can survive diversity among the states, but it’s doomed to fall apart or turn into a totalitarian state if Washington DC continues to impose its will on everyone.
I'm pleased to see many Republicans move in the direction of a less knee-jerk interventionist foreign policy. The focus of defense spending should be national defense, not nation building or keeping the peace between feuding tribes and sects in God-forsaken places.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this skepticism towards global policing and nation-building will be short-lived. While I'm pleased that most Republicans oppose intervention in Syria's civil war, I suspect that they only do so because it's under the watch of a Democratic President. If Bush (or, more to the point, McCain or Romney) were President, we'd probably have troops in Syria already with full backing of the party. All too often, it's not about the policy but about who is pushing it - so Democrats give their own a free pass on what they criticize Republicans for doing, and vice-versa.