Priorities are important. Welcome back from your Winter Break; and don’t forget that, despite our unseasonably warm weather and the distractions of social life, there is still a full semester before May and summer vacation. While we were away, news happened.

The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture now has a director, Republicans in Iowa caucused to show their support for the seven-person field of candidates, and President Barack Obama unveiled a new plan for the military that includes spending and personnel cuts as well as changes to make it more agile, adaptable and technological.

And just like we students, governments and militaries have to prioritize their objectives and resources. Our recent history with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while attempting to pass constitutional amendments against flag burning, same-sex marriage and unbalanced budgets shows that we as a people also need to prioritize our activity.

We cannot take care of all our problems, whether they are related to national security, the economy or social issues, at once. Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II observed, perceptively, that “He who defends everything defends nothing.” Our own past demonstrates the timelessness of that medieval adage.

Obama’s plan, the specifics of which are unknown, makes goals according to that advice. As we withdraw from Iraq and draw out of Afghanistan, we are confronted with an opportunity to completely reassess our military role in other countries. Do current diplomatic conditions demand the deployment of more than 50,000 American soldiers in Germany? What about nearly 40,000 soldiers in Japan? Or the 10,000 in Italy?

What purpose do they serve? Are they there to support fragile governments, or to stop hostile invasions, or serve as a potential advance force of Americans already deployed should we go on an offensive?

And if they are stationed there to guard against attacks, how will they stop missiles launched from thousands of miles away with destinations thousands of miles away? We support national security as well as the military, but we have to ask — using technologies currently or soon to be at our disposal, could we not fulfill our current role having fewer soldiers stationed abroad?

The experience of the United Kingdom in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century and our own post-Cold War experience show that a policy of acting as world policeman is untenable. Perhaps we should concentrate on cultivating an ability to counter swiftly the aggressions of other countries and a systematic intelligence of other countries’ goings-on instead of maintaining a policy that we cannot afford and which undermines our ability to deal with our own troubles.