We need to leave those decisions about timing to the President & his Generals. Only they have the facts about the situation on the ground.
We simply don't have the money to keep the seas open for the Chinese, or to subsidize the shipment of oil from the ME.
I sincerely doubt if those items are our function, purpose or aim. Middle East peace would be a big deal for America's saftey. For the first time under President Trump that is becoming a reality and it is possible because those Nations trust America to be a stable partner, a belief which your plan would sacrifice. Abrogating our commitments would squander irretrievably developments that will save many lives & most likely lead to the end of Islamic terrorism. The Arabs and Middle East countries are taking ownership of that issue, bringing their countries into more modern societies removing the rigid cultural drives toward fanaticism.
What of genocide? Do you propose to step aside? Once those peoples are dead there is no bringing them back. What about NK, should we cease protecting our allies in the region and let NK become a Nuclear power. That attitude on the part of the UK brought us WWII.
POTUS is pressuring NATO to assume more of the burden monetarily & with troops but that is a process not an on off switch. It's easy to armchair coach but POTUS is sworn to protect & defend the USA and makes his decisions with that weighty responsibility on his shoulders. He is balancing costs, risks and benefits based on information neither you nor I are privy too. Rand Paul too does not have the information or the breadth of vision to be making calls. There needs to be one CIC or we have chaos and America suffers.
The bigger threat is debt in this world. What do you think will happen once we can't afford anything because of the weakness of our currency. England failed for being overstretched and in debt. We are creating the same problems. We prospered by not involving ourselves in every world conflict.
That benefited us in the past and will in the future. China is currently following a similar edge. They didn't have to sacrifice and keep peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet they benefited. They don't keep the oceans safe. Yet they benefit, etc. All that advantage is on our debt.
You are advocating foreign welfare. That's never worked. Other countries benefit for our sacrifices and debt. European vacation, less spending on their militarism.
'What of genocide? Do you propose to step aside?'
Yep. Happens all the time. Big deal. At the end of the day, you have to help your country first. After that, it's gravy.
We pick and choose what genocide we will address and what genocide we will ignore and tolerate, based on our national interests and little else. Although the United States will engage in SJW causes if the leadership leans left, but historically such ventures have proved little in return. It is a cold hard world out there, and frankly it is tiring being the policemen of the world, with an all volunteer force. I was reading an interesting perspective of the people who join the military. It is mainly people who has served and their children who join (a family thing, if you will). Like me and mine. My grandfather was in WW II, my dad went to Vietnam, I spend 16 years in the Army and my daughter is a full time reservists in the Army. But this pool of recruits is shrinking, and kids graduating today are less inclined to join the military.