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.
My question is based more on the official stance of the LP being that the military should only be used for national defense. Given that this battalion is tasked with security of the embassy, they should be considered defensive troops since they aren't conducting aggressive operations. The host country is expected to protect everything outside of the compound but US troops secure the inside.
My question is based more on the official stance of the LP being that the military should only be used for national defense. Given that [this battalion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Security_Guard) is tasked with security of the embassy, they should be considered defensive troops since they aren't conducting aggressive operations. The host country is expected to protect everything outside of the compound but US troops secure the inside.
There should never be one country's troops inside of another country's border except in times of war.
There should never be one country's troops inside of another country's border except in times of war.
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.
See my comment here: https://phuks.co/s/News/57791/53a2b436-9fdc-4377-baff-83c4235d75f5
For the lazy, troops of the host country are responsible for the security of the diplomatic facility.
If your question is: "should there be any troops at all" then compare it to this: "Should the US be the first country to completely eliminate its nuclear stockpile?" It's a self-evident question that doesn't take a lot to answer.