And I'm saying if Germany and Canada (or any other NATO members) disagree with that annual 2% target (a number that they actually
exceeded voluntarily when the Soviet Union is still intact),
why did they agree to it in the first place? If there's a change or heart between 2006 and now, why didn't they stand up and make the suggestion to lower that commitment target when the issue was once again brought up at the NATO meeting last month?
Or better yet, why not just suggest that the alliance do away with firm defense spending targets all together, if you truly think it doesn't matter and "other contributions" from everyone are already enough to sustain this alliance?
I hate to see other NATO members going Full Trudeau with lame excuses about
"holistic contribution" in
"other things", like
delivering troops or
participating in exercises. Those "other things" are something that you do on top of the 2% investments on your own military just to keep it functional.
Those "other things" doesn't actually replaces Germany's crumbling barracks, Germany's assault rifles that fail to shoots straight in hot weather, or the fact that only 29 out of 93 of Germany's commissioned jet fighters are combat-ready.
As of right now, there are still only 5 NATO members who do all those "other things" for our alliance each year, but not for one second do we ever think those costly activities should be deducted from our defense spending target. Because that is NOT what we collectively agreed on. What would happen to NATO forces if those 5 countries start using the same logic and just do "other things" as the other 23?
Making a clean-cut pledge to your allies and then actually keeping your word to keep the alliance strong is not "blind", it shows responsibility as a member.
Expecting everyone at the table to do something that they
unanimously agreed to do is not being
"isolationist" or
"ridiculously stupid". It's actually something normal that grown-ups do quite regularly.