Given that one of the tenets of Libertarianism is the NAP and thus military should only be used for defense, are military guards for diplomatic posts an acceptable use? Personally I think they would be allowed since their primary mission is protection of the staff and not one of aggression but I figured I'd see what y'all think.
But if an embassy is considered to be an extension of the home country's soil then are the troops still considered to be on foreign soil? If embassies are being afforded special status (which almost all are) and not really under the host country's rule then are the troops considered to legally be in another country if they are only actively serving in a military role while inside the embassy?
And yes I understand your point about not being in the other country at all but my question still stands given the special status of embassies. I believe other countries also have their own military providing security at their individual embassies.
But if an embassy is considered to be an extension of the home country's soil then are the troops still considered to be on foreign soil? If embassies are being afforded special status (which almost all are) and not really under the host country's rule then are the troops considered to legally be in another country if they are only actively serving in a military role while inside the embassy?
And yes I understand your point about not being in the other country at all but my question still stands given the special status of embassies. I believe other countries also have their own military providing security at their individual embassies.
The situation you're talking about is best described an an enclave. While my position still remains "zero foreign troops" because I have yet to see anything which legitimately mitigates my position, let's go ahead and talk about what you're really trying to get at here... How much trust would two counties gain with each other if the embassy/enclave were staffed by the foreign country while being guarded and protected by the host country's troops? You are teaching the staff about the host country and culture and training the host country troops to be diplomat soldiers. It increases the value of all involved and garners trust in any scenario where the soldiers are required to engage.
The situation you're talking about is best described an an enclave. While my position still remains "zero foreign troops" because I have yet to see anything which legitimately mitigates my position, let's go ahead and talk about what you're really trying to get at here... How much trust would two counties gain with each other if the embassy/enclave were staffed by the foreign country while being guarded and protected by the host country's troops? You are teaching the staff about the host country and culture and training the host country troops to be diplomat soldiers. It increases the value of all involved and garners trust in any scenario where the soldiers are required to engage.
There should never be one country's troops inside of another country's border except in times of war.