How The Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Soured Americans On NATO

[corbe]

How The Iraq And Afghanistan Wars Soured Americans On NATO
 
To be effective, NATO needs the support of the American people. That means no more regime-change, occupations, or long term nation-building missions.

By John Daniel Davidson   
July 24, 2018
 
What is the purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? And is it worth the cost? Would the American people really be willing to treat an attack on any one of the 28 other NATO members as an attack on the United States? As Tucker Carlson put it to President Trump in an interview last week, “Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?” Trump replied, “I understand what you’re saying. I’ve asked the same question.”

Americans have been asking such questions for a long time, but especially since they soured on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, almost nothing would persuade the American people to support the deployment of U.S. troops overseas—not even chemical weapons attacks on civilians, as we’ve seen in Syria since 2013.

Now, we have a president who is deeply suspicious of alliances like NATO that commit the United States to military action abroad. The Tucker Carlson interview came on the heels of Trump’s recent meeting with NATO allies in Brussels, where he urged members to double their military spending, calling them “delinquent” because the United States “has had to pay for them.”

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/24/iraq-afghanistan-wars-soured-americans-nato/

[corbe]

   Surprisingly omitted by Mr. Davidson is that Libyan CF.

[dfwgator]

It was the Kosovo Stupidity that soured me on NATO.

[corbe]

   Using NATO, with obummer and hellary's approval, to secure Libyan Oil for France's Total was the icing on the cake, for me. 

[endicom]

Why should NATO partners keep supporting us in endless, aimless wars?