From a historical point of view, the "remote" possibility isn't so awfully remote.

Recall the situation of France in 1928, for example.
Twelve years later they were weakened by a world economic crisis, overrun by a power that was marginal till 1935 and would probably have been overrun few years later by just another power (USSR) that was an equally "remote" threat in 1928.

And then there's an ethical problem.
How dare we to accept new NATO members if we aren't willing to think seriously about how to protect them?
Instead, some are expecting them to provide expeditionary forces for some distant adventures that have no advantageous effect for their national security.
Isn't that unethical?

Disclaimer:
I'm not all against small wars. I've got strict criteria, though. It would be much easier to convince me to intervene in Biafra, Rwanda & Darfur scenarios for a couple of months than to send a FFG for a pointless multi-year patrol off the Lebanese coast or some infantry with APCs to Afghanistan.