Budget cuts already proposed by President Obama and those that could take effect if the “supercommittee” in Congress fails to agree on $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction could cut the defense budget more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years, devastating U.S. military capabilities. The Congress, as currently configured, is unlikely to allow such deep cuts in defense; but that doesn’t mean they eventually won’t happen. Despite our debt, America still has vast resources, but there’s growing disagreement on what we should spend them on, what threatens us, and the missions the U.S. armed forces should undertake, with one side of the argument wanting to cut America down to size.

Debates over how much defense spending is required and what it’s used for are always necessary, especially now when the national debt exceeds $15 trillion. Debates in recent years over defense spending have been about how many and what kind aircraft, ships, and armored fighting vehicles the armed services require and what kind of future threats the U.S. is likely to confront.

Major weapon systems are increasingly costly. We don’t want to build more stealth fighter/bombers and nuclear submarines than we might need if future wars are counterinsurgencies or counterterrorism conflicts. And we don’t want to build too few if the next war is with China. We want to spend the right amount of money on the right systems and have the flexibility to fight two vastly different conflicts at the same time if necessary.

But that’s not what the current debate is all about. The defense spending debate we’re having today is about two different visions for America. Should the U.S. military remain the strong, flexible, and responsive arm of an America that has dominated the world politically, economically, and militarily since the end of World War II? Or should it become a smaller, less capable military of a European style social-democratic state that is one nation among many, less likely to become involved in foreign conflicts so the U.S. government can spend more money on domestic programs and entitlements.

That’s not the way you hear the debate framed, but don’t let those who want large, long-term across-the-board defense cuts fool you. When they argue for such cuts that aren’t tied to any strategy or systems, they know what will result.

Complicating all this is America’s war weariness after 10 years of continuous war in the Islamic world. Polls show that a majority of Americans have serious doubts about what we are accomplishing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They agree with President Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq and would like to see a greatly reduced U.S. presence in Afghanistan. They also are concerned that the U.S. armed forces are overextended, squandering blood and treasure to the country's long-term detriment.

The ultimate wisdom of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan depends on many variables and must await the judgment of history. Future U.S. defense savings from the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, however, aren't likely to be all that large. The so called “peace dividend” touted following the end of the Cold War never materialized. That’s because new threats emerged, and America had to modernize U.S. weapons and equipment to deal with them.

Future cost increases in weapons procurement along with military personnel and healthcare costs will quickly suck up money no longer used to fund U.S forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Old weapons systems have to be replaced. F-16 and F-15 fighters, for example, the mainstay of the U.S. Air Force, have been in service since the 1970s. New high-tech weapons systems, such as the F-22 and F-35, cost much more to acquire and maintain than the ones they replace. The all-volunteer armed forces require pay and incentives to attract and retain the best people. And military retirement and healthcare costs, like those for the rest of the nation, are rising rapidly.

This doesn’t mean that the Department of Defense cannot achieve substantial cost savings by better forecasting future threats and adopting the best strategies to deal with them or by improving the defense acquisition process. Gutting the defense budget and making the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Forces fight over what’s left may save money in the short term, but it will almost certainly result in disaster in the long run like it did at Pearl Harbor.

The first and foremost responsibility of the federal government is to defend America. It is not to micromanage what the 50 states best can do themselves—healthcare, social services, and education. If we expect the federal government to do everything, it will do nothing well.

We must decide whether we want a federal government principally concerned with national security in a country that values individualism, freedom, and entrepreneurship or one principally concerned with social justice that values utopianism, collectivism, and big government.

Americans will have an opportunity in the coming year to choose members of Congress and a president that will lead us in one direction or the other. They will either transform America into a social-democratic welfare state or restore an exceptional America as the preeminent leader and defender of stability, freedom, and democracy around the world.