Ill get back to you in a week or so. Im a very slow reader. 
So far he's basically just nailing Bush and the Neocons for overstretching our military. Comparing the USA to the Roman Empire and the British Empire. He claims we are the last great super power because in the past we've know how to stay out of wars until there is absolutely no other option.
I think Bush has definitely overstretched our military, but that trend actually began under Clinton. Not to use that as an excuse, but Bush didn't start the problem, just continued it.
Where I find fault with Buchanan on this issue is that he uses a period when we were not a superpower (the period before World War II) to advise how to remain a superpower. The fact is, back then we were largely inaccessible and had long periods of time to mobilize after threats developed, a luxury we don't have today. So I don't think we can go back to a completely reactive foreign policy, as Buchanan seems to be suggesting.
That's not to say that I like wars. I hate war, and think in general we've been involved in too many wars since World War II. The world is still way too dependent on the US cavalry to ride to the rescue when there is a problem. I especially resent the fact that the Europeans couldn't handle the Kosovo mess on their own. Would they help us in dealing with Central American problems?
Part of our problem is that we have enabled our "allies," many of whom are at best fair weather friends and hanger-oners, who want the benefit of our defense shield while they criticize everything we do and make not the slightest effort to defend themselves.
I'd love to be able to credibly and safely go back to an isolationist foreign policy and throw some of our nasty and ungrateful "allies" to the wolves, as Buchanan effectively suggests we should do, but that would hurt us in the end. That is the big conundrum we face.
