Dilbert_X wrote:
If say Latvia were attacked by Belarus, would the US just send its armed services in unlimited numbers on an indefinite commitment or would it be subject to a vote in Congress?
If NATO were to respond (which they should), then there wouldn't be a requirement for a Congressional vote. The War Powers Act allows the President, as Commander In Chief, to deploy and employ forces without Congressional approval for a short period of time. Since it would also be part of a treaty, Congressional approval would be automatic (they approved the treaty), if required at all.
Dilbert_X wrote:
If it were say a Democrat controlled Congress elected on a mandate of no more involvement in pointless foreign wars would the President bother putting it to a vote?
So responding to an ally--per provisions of a treaty your government ratified--is "pointless"?
Dilbert_X wrote:
Treaty or not we know what would happen.
Since there is a treaty, we do know what would happen. If there weren't one...my guess would be no involvement.
Dilbert_X wrote:
I really don't see the point of the Afghan operation, and my apologies to those who have served there.
Thankfully, none of us nor the Afghan people have to rely on you for justification.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Pursuing Al Qaeda was one thing, although that was botched and half arsed if it was ever serious.
Botched at Tora Bora? Sure. Relying on the Afghans so early on was certainly a mistake. Botched when top AQ have been killed/captured or when Taliban get their asses kicked repeatedly? Not so much.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Trying to police a lawless land surrounded by other lawless and belligerent lands is a waste of time. Anyone remember Vietnam?
Vietnam was about stopping the spread of communism. Unfortunately, the S. Vietnamese people cared a lot less about that than their government. This is a different situation, so the comparison is only valid on the surface, if at all.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Afghanistan has not ever been able to govern itself. No other nation has come close. NATO nations will bankrupt themselves in trying.
Actually, they have been able to govern themselves in the past. They just happen to sit on historic trade routes that lend themselves to invasion from their neighbors.
Dilbert_X wrote:
The US doesn't concern itself too much about treaties its signed, why should any other nation?
I don't believe long term policing of former war zones is what NATO is about.
Certainly the US concerns itself with treaties it has signed, per the ratification caveats. Just like other nations do (as you so eloquently stated in the beginning of this). I agree that NATO wasn't originally about long term policing, but that's what it has become since the fall of the USSR.