For a country to enter into a treaty/commitment to defend another is among the most profound decisions of statecraft. It is promising to spend immense blood and treasure--and if necessary call upon its servicemembers' oath to place their lives at risk 1/
foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/tru…
foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/tru…
2/5 Any nation should only assume the risk of such a solemn--and horrendously expensive--burden if its own security is inextricably linked to the country it proposes to defend. In the current case: Is defending the ROK and Japan critical to vital US interests?
3/5 There can be intense & useful debates about the answer--e.g. the "restraint"-oriented critique of US global commitments. If we buy the case that these alliances are marginal to US security, we can drop them. I disagree w/that, but the debate is wholly appropriate.
4/5 To argue, on the other hand, that the US will only stick w/ an alliance if it's paid enough gets the strategic and moral issues entirely backward. A mutual defense promise is either critical to US security, or it's not. But the current threats imply something very different:
5/5 They suggest that the alliances are NOT, after all, key to US security--so, w/o enough money, we'll bolt. But for a few billion, we will continue to risk massive costs, including thousands of our servicemembers' lives, for a commitment which is ultimately only a transaction.
