It’s tacky to highlight your own writing. It gives the appearance of trying to lead a reader to draw a certain conclusion, when you’re already leading them there anyway. You could just use formatting to make block quotes for emphasis, but even then it is suspect, as that is usually done to emphasize what someone else has said. But, hey, I’m not your editor.

That being said, this being a sign of weakness is not as clear as it would seem. He didn’t raise the specter of not honoring the treaty because of American inability or cowardice. He rose the specter of non support because of the inability of others to fulfill their own obligations. And that’s pure Donald J. Trump — why should I fulfill my contract with you if you haven’t fulfilled yours with me? Putting the other NATO states on notice, saying that it goes both ways? That exposes the inherent weakness of the treaty and of the states who aren’t pulling their own weight.

Is it a misplaced opinion? Perhaps. But, suppose he is elected — would this have a downward or upward effect on NATO member states defense spending? Would we see more or less states meeting their 2% obligation based upon what he has said? I reckon we would see more. And remember, it is a percentage. If Latvia spends 2% of its GDP on defense, it would be spending 625 million. We spend more than that in Afghanistan in a week. So it wouldn’t be about capability — it would be about commitment.