• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member’s forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That’s just not true. These aren’t arcane pieces of information, they’re bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn’t happen in any of America’s other wars?

        NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It’s not a general “if you hurt an American soldier anywhere” treaty.