well, good luck with that charaterisation 
But on the flip side the basic idea is not ‘The US will save us and we will half-heartedly go along’, the spirit of the treaty is ‘we will all be ready for a fight, and an attack on one is an attack on all so we will scare off an aggressor’. If European nations don’t like the agreement, they can always come up with another one. But when in practice NATO isn’t effectively able to fulfil its duties under article 5, the question of why the US should stay in is a large and valid one.
And no, comparing criticism of Trump threatening to leave an agreement to the lack of criticism for other countries not following their part of an agreement is very much an apples to apples comparison, it’s not a ‘Hitler liked dogs too!’ argument.
God, this is desperate. It shouldn’t be necessary to go back past International Relations 101 to some mid high school grasp of geo-politics.
Is it your view the USA has gained no advantage from the worlds largest democratic, industrialised market in the past 60 years, or has no vested interests in maintaining that market. Don’t worry, it’s not a question.
If it helps any, the potential localised instability created in the Balkans was enough for the whole of NATO to respond in the 1990s. It wasn’t for shit and giggles.
It is not apples to apples. Where in the treaty does it say budget target agreements must be met? Nowhere. Mutual defense, however, is the core of the agreement.
If it’s really ‘international relations 101’, then why did you utterly fail to answer the question? It’s a simple, direct question, and while you’re snidely asserting that it’s so obvious and trivial that only a fool would ask it, you’ve demonstrated an inability to come up with an answer.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, as the US leaving NATO doesn’t mean that the US has to stop trading with Europe, or that it has to work to disrupt the European market. The question you sneered at but were unable to answer was about what the US gets from the NATO alliance specifically, and the US can continue to trade in a democratic, industrialized market without remaining in a treaty that European countries don’t think is important enough to fulfill their commitments to.
It was enough for the US to have to do the heavy lifting, demonstrated that the rest of the alliance couldn’t handle even weak opposition, and that the rest of the alliance lacked the supplies and expertise to maintain operations. Much like Libya in more recent years. The US had to deal with the Balkans in the 90s, the US could do it again if need be, there doesn’t need to be an alliance with countries that barely contribute to do so.
You said it yourself; Mutual defense is the core of the agreement. Not “The US defends Europe and Europe sneers at the US”, but mutual defense by partners contributing in an equitable fashion. The status quo since the 90s has been that Europe give lip service to the ‘mutual’ part, but isn’t actually capable of fulfilling it.
Oh, like how the Bush Administration determined that treaties that prohibit torture were not legally binding, so the US didn’t have to follow them. Those were just “loose policy agreements,” eh?
You seem to not understand that it was always about protecting Europe and the US was always doing the heavy lifting.
What exactly is this example supposed to show? That Europe’s refusal to raise their military budget is just like condoning torture?
Also if Germany and France built up big armies…there might be a temptation to use them on each other. (Learning from history can be damn scary.)
According to your last post, there are promises, and then there are promises.
Yes, there are promises and then there are promises. Signing and ratifying a treaty is a big promise. Joining/forming NATO went through the various Senates and Parliaments. This 2% promise did not. Thus, less of a promise. If you don’t agree there’s a big difference I don’t know what to tell you.
One is based on law, one is based on integrity.
Well, I’ll let you do your own moral integrity calculus on sanctioning torture and not raising defense budgets
From a purely military point of view NATO countries provide an enormous amount of intelligence necessary to carry out many of our military missions. While it’s true the US is provide the bulk of armed forces we aren’t carrying out missions without support from other countries. Intelligence and logistical support is support and it’s value should not be overlooked.
It’s a hell of a lot easier to carry out US missions throughout the globe when other countries are cooperative with us using their real estate. How well do you think we’d be able to project power if NATO countries told us to pack up and leave? If we aren’t willing to defend them why should they let us stay?
If you think the question is simple then you really are in trouble. I don’t have time to go back to high school. Go ask one of the last 12 US administrations. Or better still, impress the internet that you have a better idea than 12 US presidents.
Can I hold you to that, or do we need a treaty for it to be a “real” promise?
Where do you get this idea, and what’s your definition of “enormous?” Because I have never once heard anything to cause me to believe that this is accurate in the slightest. US capabilities in satellites, signals intelligence, electronic intelligence, and so on are vastly larger than NATOs. The US intelligence budget alone is roughly the size of the French, German, and Dutch defense budgets combined.
Bet you wish I had made a promise of some sort so that this witty response made some kind of sense.
So, you have no answer for my question, but want to use pseudo-intellectual posturing and insults to cover up the fact that you can’t. Not exactly a ‘great debate’, but not exactly uncommon on the internet for someone to have no real answer but try to bluster the other person into feeling bad for asking the question. It’s also pretty weak to make no distinction between the usefullness of NATO in the post-WWII, cold-war era, and it’s function in the post-Soviet Union area, which only covers 3 presidents.
You’re right, I’m speechless.