> But the US not being allowed to use the bases it pays and maintains for Spain makes it questionable why it does so in the first place.

Why lie like this? I linked the agreement; the US doesn't maintain everything.

"Each Party shall bear the costs of operation and maintenance of services and installations, or parts thereof, referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article which it uses exclusively, as well as the identifiable direct costs for its use of jointly used installations and general services of the base."

"The bases listed in Annex 2 of this Agreement shall be under Spanish command... Consistent with the provisions of Article Sixteen, the security of each base shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the each base... The functioning and maintenance of general services and installations of the base, and the management of provisioning for these services and installations shall be the responsibility of the Commander of the base, who shall assure to the United States forces the availability-of these services and installations under conditions which guarantee the operations of United States units. To discharge this responsibility and promptly and effectively resolve any contingency, the Commander of the base will seek the collaboration of the United States forces. The general services and installations of a base are those which characterize it as such and are essential to the operability of the units."

> Restricting air space on top of that, makes me, originally a more sympathetic American NATO supporter, question the dynamics here. Why should the US help Spain when it's in need in a future conflict?

The Iran War is one of aggression, and Spain justifiably wants to be left out of it. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/coll...

NATO is a defensive alliance, and specific to... the North Atlantic in theory. (In fact, Hawaii isn't even covered under the NATO setup. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/us/nato-treaty-hawaii-intl-hn...)

The only country in history to invoke Article 5 was the US after 9/11. Spain stepped up, as expected of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan...

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The United States has never activated article 5. Get your facts straight before attempting to use an LLM to reply to me.

The coalition for Afghanistan was voluntary. This isn't even that, it's just flying our planes over Spain's airspace.

Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/intl/io/nato/index.htm

> After the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the collective-defense clause, for the first time in NATO's history.

No LLM needed, nor used. Direct from the US State Department!

> Even as a joint contributor I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

It continues to be able to use them. It has never been allowed to use them for things Spain finds objectionable.

▲

yesco 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Glad we are on the same page, because yes, as you pointed out, it literally says here in plaintext that it was NATO Allies that activated it, not the United States.

	▲	ceejayoz 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is the US not one of those "NATO allies"? I'm not clear on how a semantic quibble that amounts to "Spain and the rest of Europe proactively affirmed their Article 5 obligations to the US" helps your case here. You have, if anything, effectively demonstrated Spain's commitment to the agreement.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hate to say this, but they're correct, if only pedantically. The claim was:

> The United States has never activated article 5

The US didn't activate it. It was:

> The decision to invoke NATO's collective self-defense provisions was undertaken at NATO's own initiative, without a request by the United States

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...

Regardless, article 5 was activated _on behalf_ of the US, if not at the US's request.

▲

ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If we're gonna go to that level of splitting hairs, then I'd suggest "NATO - including Spain - did it without us even having to ask" is quite supportive of my position.

	▲	Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I tend to agree.

▲

Octoth0rpe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I see no reason for the US to pay for bases it's never going to be allowed to use.

Which isn't the situation being imposed by Spain. They're being told they can't use the airspace for one specific military action. They maintain use of their bases in other ways (training, presumably ship refueling, maintenance, etc). They may be able to use the airspace for _other_ military actions in the future.