We’ve left bases before when we’re no longer wanted. When I was on active duty we still had operations going in the Philippines and Greece–no longer. And the number of bases in western Europe was considerably higher then than now. Of course, we now have a much greater footprint in the Middle East, courtesy of Saddam’s little adventure in 1990.

Despise us? Some do, perhaps. More are simply resentful or envious. Some, like the Greeks, kicked us out for political reasons and took the economic hit. I rarely encountered any real anti-Americanism when I was abroad twenty years ago. Perhaps that’s changed now. Much of Europe that used to remember WWII is gone. But not everyone has short memories.

You could also add South Korea to this discussion as most of the leaders of South Korea don’t really want our presence there. Are we really going to go to war again over that pennisula when many of both the North and the South want unification (see Olympic participation).

As it stands, our current engagements are draining us, but when we have over two divisions elsewhere, protecting people who continually seem to despise us, something needs to be done.

I’m not sure I have the answer, but I am really skeptical of expanding NATO in this post-Soviet world.

NATO grew out of the WWII alliance against Nazi Germany in response to an increasingly aggressive Soviet Russia and her satellite states. Soviet Russia is gone (but I suspect there are still Soviets afoot and in high places in the Kremlin) and the satellite nations are now more or less independent countries. The USSR has also undergone a partial break-up, although it wouldn’t take much force to herd up the wanderers.

So what is NATO’s role today? Who are we defending ourselves against? And are our friends still on the same page we are? France jumped ship a long time ago and often liked to think of herself as a counterbalance to US superpowership in the period from de Gaulle to Chirac; Sarkozy seems a lot friendlier to the American perspective, but how much does he really represent the view of the French as a whole? As you said, the British are re-thinking, but that probably goes to the decline of their own civilization–I say that with great personal sorrow, but Britain is no longer great, for she has cast of the moorings of her own culture. She is where we may be in another generation or so if current trends continue. Ferg may be mad at me for saying that.

I think that is exactly the question that needs addressing.

As I said in earlier posts, I don’t even believe that the majority of Americans realize that the articles of NATO demand we go to war if a fellow NATO country is invaded. If they did I don’t believe they would say Georgia or Belarus or even Poland justifies our declaring war on Russia, if Russian sends troops in.

For that matter, with the disdain that France and other European countries show the United States, we should wonder if THEY would come to our defense.

My guess is, based on recent history, that we should have no confidence in anyone, but perhaps the Aussies and the Brits. And the Brits are beginning to re-think their allegiance to us.

And the Aussies aren’t even part of NATO, but they are our best ally when you look at who has supported us with actual troops.

With an illegal naval blockade that was successfully spun as a “quarantine.” It worked, the Soviets blinked, and the missles went away.

Look, I personally think it’s silly to posit what the Founders would think or say about the course of American foreign and defense policy in the 20th/21st century. Theirs was an entirely different world. The oceans really did constitute a barrier to European meddling (although the British very nearly proved that wrong in the War of 1812, but we probably brought that one on ourselves). Force projection was hard. Communications were exceedingly slow. Whatever rightful criticisms of current intelligence gathering and results, what is done now is far more sophisticated than what was available and practical then. What we have to decide is, what are vital American interests overseas? What does it take to defend those interests? How can we be good friends to our friends? How can we best confront and contain our enemies? How can we discourage aggression home and abroad? Like it or not, up until now at least, America has the role of leadership of the so-called free world. Is it legitimate or even desirable to relinquish that role? What would the outcome be if we decided to take our baseball and go home? Is it even possible to go home now?

“Is this article written from the perspective that American is “God’s country” and can do no wrong on the foreign policy front?”

Yes. It’s in the weekly standard. A newspaper founded by a guy named William Kristol who is on the nutball fringes of the neo-con movement.

Just like I don’t really listen to Democracy Now unless I’m looking to be entertained, I can’t see how a conservative can read the Weekly Standard with a straight face.

I agree that it is benign, but only in the sense of actual territory under U.S. control. However it is anything but benign in terms of personell and money.

Also, I do think the founders would consider declaring war on Russia over a country like Georgia insane at best.

While there were many conflicts that early America entered into, none of them were because of treaties signed saying that if that country were attacked, we would consider it an attack on America.

The last time I looked, none of the additional countries that have been included into NATO or are being included into NATO have ICBMs. In fact, we have more to worry about pushing NATO alliances into the backyard of Russia.

How did the US respond to the Soviets putting missiles in Cuba?

I will agree that Europe has largely indulged its post-war pacifism (hey, if I’d had to suffer through two widespread, destructive wars in the space of two generations I’d be unhappy about the prospect of starting another) because it had the luxury of US protection.

The 18th-century advice to avoid entangling alliances was designed to keep an isolated, distant America from getting embroiled in Europe’s perpetual family squabbles. I don’t think the Founders would find such advice tenable any longer. They never had to worry about ICBMs.