Allies helping allies

[AlfieA]

"No, of course not. Allies become enemies and vice-versa pretty consistently through history. If an ally acts in a way a country's people find abhorrent, then it is time to make some hard decisions."

That was really more of an extreme example, to illustrate the problems with an idea that an alliance places any kind of strict requirement on a nation to act in anyway. The real point is that whatever a country does must depend on what is in their nation's interests.

So even in a scenario where their ally is attacked, and they agree with the ally, it would be quite proper for them to refuse to provide any aid outside diplomatic support - for example if their own economy was sufferng an economic depression and can't afford millitary or economic aid - and the nation's populace consider that domestic problems are higher priority.

At the end of the day, nations will and must always act in their independent national interests. Alliance treaties serve to promote co-operation (usually economic) in times of peace, and in times of war, provide a casus belli to join the fight if the nation wants to anyway.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Sure.. but your original statement doesn't say anything like that.

To be clear, my original statement did not address an issue when an ally acts in a way you don't agree with. That's different than "needing help".

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

And I think your narrative of history isn't correct. The US and France didn't decide Iraq were in the wrong. They decided Iraq were no longer acting in their interests.

If Kuwait weren't in control of as much oil as they were I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have lifted a finger.

The world condemned Iraq for its actions in Kuwait. There were over 30 countries working together militarily to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. But it is a situation where one country invaded another with unprovoked, and the world responded first with attempts at diplomacy, and then force. Allies working together to right a wrong.

Originally Posted by AlfieA

That was really more of an extreme example, to illustrate the problems with an idea that an alliance places any kind of strict requirement on a nation to act in anyway. The real point is that whatever a country does must depend on what is in their nation's interests.

So even in a scenario where their ally is attacked, and they agree with the ally, it would be quite proper for them to refuse to provide any aid outside diplomatic support - for example if their own economy was sufferng an economic depression and can't afford millitary or economic aid - and the nation's populace consider that domestic problems are higher priority.

At the end of the day, nations will and must always act in their independent national interests. Alliance treaties serve to promote co-operation (usually economic) in times of peace, and in times of war, provide a casus belli to join the fight if the nation wants to anyway.

I think your examples are a little extreme here as well. If Japan were invaded by N. Korea next week, France would have a hard time, I think, saying, "We tried to talk to them. They didn't listen. Good luck!" That would be especially if other allies were rallying to help.

[Elenwe]

Originally Posted by MMM

To be clear, my original statement did not address an issue when an ally acts in a way you don't agree with. That's different than "needing help".



The world condemned Iraq for its actions in Kuwait. There were over 30 countries working together militarily to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. But it is a situation where one country invaded another with unprovoked, and the world responded first with attempts at diplomacy, and then force. Allies working together to right a wrong.

I see your point, so my point doesn't stand. My bad. Anyway, but I think that an ally can be in need of your help even if you don't agree with their actions, though. And if you really depend on them, you are forced to help even if you don't want. (I.E France VS USA, Canada and USA)

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

The world condemned Iraq for its actions in Kuwait. There were over 30 countries working together militarily to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. But it is a situation where one country invaded another with unprovoked, and the world responded first with attempts at diplomacy, and then force. Allies working together to right a wrong.

Don't be so naive.

Allies working together to promote their interests more like.

Where was the world during the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur?

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Don't be so naive.

Allies working together to promote their interests more like.

Where was the world during the genocide in Rwanda or Darfur?

Did you read the part where I said: I am not so naive to think that the Gulf War was charity work by the coalition forces. They had interests to protect as well. ?

[AlfieA]

Originally Posted by MMM

I think your examples are a little extreme here as well. If Japan were invaded by N. Korea next week, France would have a hard time, I think, saying, "We tried to talk to them. They didn't listen. Good luck!" That would be especially if other allies were rallying to help.

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.

[Ryzorian]

Kuwait was for oil of course and world markets. That's a no brainer. Rwanda and Durfar have nothing to offer anyone but headaches. The US learned that when it tried helping Somalia.

[MMM]

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.

[AlfieA]

Originally Posted by MMM

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.

Although I think, even that tiny commitment is also due to national interest - not from some ultruistic motive, comradership or obligation under any treaty. Had Australia not been so influenced by the US as a primary trade partner, and maybe some perception from our government that Iraq was of some real threat to national security, I highly doubt even those 8000 troops would have have been sent.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by AlfieA

Although I think, even that tiny commitment is also due to national interest - not from some ultruistic motive, comradership or obligation under any treaty. Had Australia not been so influenced by the US as a primary trade partner, and maybe some perception from our government that Iraq was of some real threat to national security, I highly doubt even those 8000 troops would have have been sent.

You are going back to my original point. As was stated earlier, if you are walking down the street with your friend, and he gets attacked, what do you do? You fight back. If you don't help your friend, you will likely lose him as a friend. Friends help each other out. It's not about altruism... that is part of the relationship.