NATO today is less than the sum of its parts

Submitted by Pat (United States), Oct 4, 2006 at 16:26

The NATO that was created to preserve Western democracies during the Cold War is no more. The UN was supposed to end wars and ensure peace and security among nations. It didn't turn out that way. It's a meeting place, but little more.

NATO members may cooperate from time to time, but Iraq proves that NATO doesn't speak with one voice. Two NATO members (Spain and USA) experienced attacks on their own soil by al Qaeda (London's attack was home-grown) and their governments reacted to it in entirely different ways. The US chose to fight. The Spanish chose retreat.

Like the UN, NATO is little more than an organization chart with rules for member nations to combine forces when they choose to do so. It can never replace the UN and it shouldn't try. Unless and until people around the world decide to speak with one voice against Islamic aggression, nothing will change. It won't matter if there's a NATO for them to join or not. We have a UN and it didn't work. Why should anyone believe that giving the job to NATO will work when even NATO's members cannot agree on the threat and the necessary response? Some still want to know: why do they hate us? NATO is not set up for fact-finding.

Debate is great in a democracy or in a bar or in the General Assembly. Debate is not going to solve the problem we face today.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".