NATO

[Donkey]

Nato was created in 1949 to counter the threat of an expansive Soviet Union. It's essence is expressed in article five of the charter:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm), will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .


I think it is entirely credible to suggest that NATO was integral in keeping the "cold" war cold in Europe, stopping the USSR from expanding more than it did.
:commie:
However, the purpose and function of the alliance has has been somewhat ambiguous since the fall of the soviet union. The Big-Bad suddenly existed no more, and, with the exception of brief periods (such as at the moment) there has been an official Russia-NATO dialog.

But what does NATO do now? Article 5 has been invoked only once, after 9/11, which led to the current ISAF mission, NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. Other than that its operations have been limited to running ships around the Mediterranean (and now off the coast of Africa), some peacekeeping and the occasional terror-bombing of Serbs.

NATO's KFOR mission is slowly being taken over by the EU, which in my opinion is a more appropriate body to administer the situation in Kosovo.

Afghanistan... :erm: well, that's a cluster fuck isn't it. In some aspects I think it's been pretty succesful, but there are a lot of problems, such as US insistence on a certain fail-bound drug policy, and unequal contributions from member states (Canada, for instance, has a ton of dudes in the south getting shot at all the time. Germany, on the other hand, well, they are less willing to put their peeps on the line, for better or worse).

I think that a lot of people in NATO are wondering "where the hell are we going from here?" They are about to bring in Albania and Croatia, I believe, but probably not Ukraine and Georgia. I think NATO's fundamental problem is that, when you really get down to it, it is a military organization. I think that a military organization, in today's world, is pretty old hat. If it can't take on the role of a political and economic bloc, then it's going to fade, and it probably should.

:cavalry:

[Michael]

I think it is entirely credible to suggest that NATO was integral in keeping the "cold" war cold in Europe, stopping the USSR from expanding more than it did.
And the UN was created to prevent WW3... since we haven't had WW3, obviously the UN is useless and ought to be disbanded...

In other words, I don't buy this argument at all. Successfully serving the purpose to which the institution was designed is not a good argument to get rid of the institution.

And as a matter of fact, the existence of NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Europe is probably what pushed the 'cold war' from being a European issue into a planetary one where the US and USSR could face off in the Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Africa, South America and the South-east Asian region.

Fact is, the Cold War was expansive and certainly was never limited to European geography. The Soviets were seeking to expand even as late as the 1980s (invasion of Afghanistan).

Ergo, I don't see NATO's actual role as one of limiting the Cold War to Europe (since that's not what happened).

Indeed, I don't perceive that the USSR and Warsaw Pact ever posed a credible threat to Western Europe and thus, in my view, NATO never really stood just for defense of Europe. That's one of its functions, but probably the least salient one.

However, the purpose and function of the alliance has has been somewhat ambiguous since the fall of the soviet union. The Big-Bad suddenly existed no more, and, with the exception of brief periods (such as at the moment) there has been an official Russia-NATO dialog.
I think you are focusing too much on USSR and the Cold War. NATO serves a very important purpose far more important than playing political pissing matches with the USSR.

But what does NATO do now? Article 5 has been invoked only once, after 9/11, which led to the current ISAF mission, NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. Other than that its operations have been limited to running ships around the Mediterranean (and now off the coast of Africa), some peacekeeping and the occasional terror-bombing of Serbs.
That's a measure of NATO's success, not its failing. Successful alliances successfuly deter opponents from ever even trying to challenge them. NATO is one of those.

NATO's KFOR mission is slowly being taken over by the EU, which in my opinion is a more appropriate body to administer the situation in Kosovo.
Well yeah, now that the shooting has stopped.

I think the Kosovo episode is a perfect illustration of the EU non-functionality on issues that actually involve shooting bullets. EU is only suited to dealing with the economic and political aftermath.

Afghanistan... well, that's a cluster fuck isn't it. In some aspects I think it's been pretty succesful, but there are a lot of problems, such as US insistence on a certain fail-bound drug policy, and unequal contributions from member states (Canada, for instance, has a ton of dudes in the south getting shot at all the time. Germany, on the other hand, well, they are less willing to put their peeps on the line, for better or worse).
The 'cluster fuck' in Afghanistan is not the fault of NATO.

Undefined mission, with undefined goals, using undermanned forces operating in hostile environment.

All problems in Afghanistan are political and outside the purview of NATO. Can't blame the soldiers if they fail to win the war.

I think that a lot of people in NATO are wondering "where the hell are we going from here?" They are about to bring in Albania and Croatia, I believe, but probably not Ukraine and Georgia. I think NATO's fundamental problem is that, when you really get down to it, it is a military organization. I think that a military organization, in today's world, is pretty old hat. If it can't take on the role of a political and economic bloc, then it's going to fade, and it probably should.
I vehmently disagree with this. NATO is the most successful military and political alliance of the 20th century. It is the ONLY military group who's purpose is dedicated to organizing multinational military forces.

The UN doesn't do military and the US doesn't do multinational. That leaves NATO as the only group that does both. For this reason it is unique and necessary.

Bottom line is that NATO was designed to serve a political purpose and that's what it does. Its military role is entirely secondary. Credible military threats to Europe or North America are few and far between.