I agree that the "why" is not as far-fetched as some of you think. For most of the last century, the U.S. has found itself in the position of being a world power. A huge part of that mantle is military power. In order to maintain that lofty position, one has to show the flag abroad, often attached to a rifle. If one is unwilling to walk the walk, they lose legitimacy at home and abroad. You just don't see any truly isolationist presidents since FDR took office. A lot of that has to do with the Cold War. No one wanted to be seen as soft on communism, or ceding world leadership to the Soviets. Entertaining such notions was political suicide. So, looking at it through that lens, it makes some sense.
In the v1.0 scenario, you have a president whose legitimacy is challenged openly by a competing faction. MilGov has a heavy presence in Europe. This gives them a degree of legitimacy, at home and abroad. The CivGov leader, seeing himself as the true head of the nation's federal government, wants the same sort of legitimacy, so he sends military forces to a region in Europe where they can fight the Soviets without much risk of a direct confrontation with MilGov forces. I agree that it's a rash, somewhat frivolous, wasteful move, but an American president has never used military forces in such a manner? It's a bad call, but people- yes, even presidents- do make bad calls.
|