Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have used a
stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I really don't see
what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium, Netherlands, Finland,
Estonia etc.
So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger navy would
have been in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Well now that the focus has sifted from Europe to places further away there
has been increased attention paid to power projection (airlift, naval troop
carriers).