I've often tried to point this out to US taxpayers I've met. While in my country the tax rates are about the same, or perhaps a bit lower, our defence force is miniscule in comparison and thus social spending takes place instead.
Though, to be fair on countries like mine (and Denmark) we receive positive externalities from excessive US Defense Force spending, because we don't have to maintain a full sized force due to our treaties with the USA. As a negative, we're compelled to join in on such adventures as Iraq and Afghanistan as a result.
However, many of the smaller nations with similar tax bases and larger social benefits compared to the USA tend to forget about the effective subsidies paid by the US taxpayer for our national defense.
Additionally, there is definitely a component of the US Defense spending that is arguably social policy - even if it is part of the military-industrial complex. It does provide a lot of people with taxpayer-funded positions, and allows otherwise-jobless areas to enjoy employment opportunities with establishment of bases.
I clearly think there is a case for a reduced defense force in the USA - just one or two less Nimitz class carriers could build a lot of public hospitals, for one example, and removing bases from Europe and Japan would be another saving. But I don't think you can have an honest and full comparison with other countries until you start looking at the massive US defense force spending, and it's effects on other countries who effectively get to forgo that same spending.