Really, I have yet to hear of the US being attacked and invaded by foreign armies.<quoted text>
If there is no duty to protect what makes you think that there is a duty to provide?
That is just 1 decision, the result is that there is no duty of protection.
What do you mean by "protect" and "provide"?
Where the term "protection", in a military sense, is concerned, the US is not targeted by any of its enemies and so the US government is doing a fine job of protecting its soil and citizens.
If by "provide" you mean that the US government should provide for its poor - then, well, the dole scheme in the US takes care of that despite being a huge drain on the exchequer. Besides, there exist many private charities that're actively involved in providing food, medical care and education to impoverished Americans.
Really, I am not in favor of mass charity schemes that only encourage the poor to remain poor and incompetent and to depend on state monetary help. The same story of incompetence and laziness is repeated in the UK.
Success largely boils down to efficient genes, hard work and a sound education.
How many American possess these valuable inputs?