Quote:
Originally Posted by AlfieA
Not really. What I'm saying is that nations will do what is best in their national interest, regardless of alliance treaties - usually they go along with it because it is in their national interest. In your example, France will only have a "hard" time because not going along with your "friends" obviously has adverse consequences - other things remaining equal. But if there were in France, currently more pressing concerns, these consequences (e.g. deterioration in international standing and reduced potential for future economic partnerships) may become secondary. It's all a balancing exercise. If they were currently faced with projected financial deficits for the next five decades and uncontrolled domestic riots or something then I can't see France committing any serious resources to a war effort on the other side of the globe.
|
I think we are saying the same thing, but in different ways. Yes, oftentimes helping your allies IS in your national interest. In the most recent Iraq War it was VERY unpopular among citizens in Japan and Australia for their countries' forces to participate. But they did anyway.
No country would send so much help it would put the country in debt for five decades. I think Australia sent 8000 troops. Japan sent non-combat support. I agree, there is a balance struck, but still that commitment to help, even tiny, is maintained.