What has always left me jaw gaping is that America's colonial infantry match their homeland's in overall quality. That is a MASSIVE advantage, 10.8 troops EVERYWHERE. In some ways, that would make the USA the easiest position by far - at least the British still have to worry about being swamped overseas unless they get some machineguns in place. Unlike the Americans, who can waltz in, spam 10.8 infantry, and against 7 or 8 attack Infantry, not worry anywhere near as much provided they engage in aggressive defense.
Another way to think about it, is the USA can produce its infantry overseas and let the homeland handle the industrial-level production. Unlike say France, Germany or Britain, which have to divide their - much smaller - industrial territories between Infantry, Cavalry, and all the other Industrial builds. That or pull a Napoleon, but that's easier said than done.
America was a great power, and unmatched at home(indeed, Britain's war strategy, AFAIK, was occupying a few major cities then hoping for reinforcements, as Canada simply did not have the means to hold out long against the USA), that much is true, but I'm with the opinion that troops should be lower quality like Japan's, albeit not as bad as the bottom of the barrel powers. Come WW1, of course, when America actually began flexing its muscles against competent powers, I can see justification for better units.
Having 9.9 units, furthermore, would allow for a Japanese-esque "build the same units everywhere" advantage that doesn't seem too unfair. Never mind, having weaker units in Colonial territories represents resistance to colonialism, I feel.
That said, at least they're not 10.10. America also needs to wait until it unlocks Col. Admin, but given they don't usually have many colonies until later on, that's not much of a setback.
