America's tardiness to both World Wars is certainly debatable but what treaty obligation did America have with any of the European Powers leading up to either war? The one treaty the US does have with Europe is via NATO and the US is still honoring that commitment.

My comment was directed to Anonymous and Zyme in regard to the refusal of some European nations to honor their NATO obligations by hinting that this refusal is justified by the tardiness of the US to enter the World Wars.

Let's for the moment assume that Park Inn Berlin had been attacked on 9/11 and then Germany invoked the relevant articles in the NATO Treaty. How popular would the US be in Germany if NATO, acting on a request from Chancellor Merkel, on the advice of senior officers in the Bundeswehr, requested that the US make satellite and AWACS intelligence available to the 25,000 or so German combat troops deployed in Afghanistan. But the US delayed this deployment and argued in Congress for 90 days. After which the US agreed to send this aid but only if the Germany promised not to use any of this information to kill Al Qaeda or Taliban combatants?

What might be in the back of the mind in some parts of Europe is the knowledge, not merely the suspicion, that the US, under the Democrats or Republicans, would honor its commitments. As such most Americans are probably pleased when those it regards as allies helps but is not generally surprised when they don't.

Simply put yes, under Articles 4, 5 and 6(1). Especially as as the UN has extended its original resolution, 1267, to cover the longer than anticipated military campaign. There are several mechanisms that Germany could adopt to call its troops home, they can withdraw from NATO next year, but as yet have behaved honorably and legally in keeping its commitments to NATO and the UN sanctioned activities in Afghanistan.

Now the Germans may view this predicament as being akin to the crew of the Pequod being invited to join him as he and Moby Dick dive beneath the waves. Yet America is not Rome, disagreements are solved or papered over. No German citizens will suffer the fates of the Pequod or Latium.

Saudi Arabia never claimed responsibility for the attacks while Al Qaeda consistently never denied responsibility. UN Resolution 1267 ordered Afghanistan to turn over Bin Laden in 2001 for the attacks in NYC and the earlier attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.

Here's the relevant passages of 1267, "It[Afghanistan] must cease providing sanctuary and training for international terrorists and their organizations, take effective measure to ensure that the terrority under its control was not used for terrorist innstallations and camps for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts against States or their citizens and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice."

But the main justification for continued involvement and essentially authorizing to stay and rebuild Afghanistan was later in the text, "Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan..."

NATO has chosen to operate under the aegis of this resolution and can argue that their continued presence is in keeping with the the UN's authorization of force. As well as the NATO articles. And like most thing thought up by committee its very blandness and vagueness can be used to prove contrary positions. The UN, feet dragging till the end, essentially said that the US, rather NATO, could go play in Afghanistan but to pick up afterwards.

I think that its probably too late to convice you of further involvement in Afghanistan. All the facts and arguments have been rehashed and reworked for the last 5 years and its doubtful that there is a convincing argument that would persuade either side.

But unlike the US, where its anti-war movement is selective according to the party in power, Germany has a large, and politically entrenched, anti-war movement that thinks all military action is illegitimate and has to be considered. Thus the polictical tendency is to do the minimal or nothing, regardless of the legality or morality of the situation. But then against popular opinion, which is much more critical in a parliamentary democracy, Germany has cooperated both officially and unofficially with US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the GWOT(what a stupid acronym) the mistrust of its elites by the citizens will grow.

If Al Qaeda are primarily acting in Iraq and Afghanistan where then is Germany fighting them outside of the borders of those two unfortunate areas? Even Madeline Albert correctly noted that a nation's military needs to fight once in a while. And sending only reconaissance jets and commando units with restrictive ROE will not prepare the military. Another simple question would be that of the two nations, say Germany and Romania, which one would make a better ally? The one with the twelve years of combat training throughout the world or the barracks army?

Sorry to post a response so late but the comment regarding the types of army was in reference to the combat training, in brigade and larger formations, that Canada, Britain, Romania and Poland are getting. Versus the use of small units by Germany, small units that are expensive and rarely provide knowledge or institutional memory that would help the larger formations.

Madeline Albright's comments were in regard to the use of smaller units ofAmerican combat troops in Serbia instead of Gen. Powell's theory of overwhelming force. but since I haven't found the quote it must remain instructive and apocryphal only.