Who Needs NATO?
Old bureaucracies neither die nor fade away. The latest, and perhaps most absurd, example of this timeless truth is NATO's refusal to shake hands and disband given the fact that the enemy it was primarily designed to counter is not only now gone but, for all intents and purposes, joining the alliance.
An agreement signed between the 19 nations of NATO and Russia this week in Italy, reports Reuters, commits them to "cooperation on counter-terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation, arms control and confidence-building measures, theater missile defense, search and rescue at sea, military-to-military cooperation and defense reform, civilian emergencies and 'new threats and challenges.'"
Clearly, there's a new NATO in town. Equally clearly, no one with any say in the matter is going to publicly raise the point: Maybe expensive and potentially dangerous alliance organizations that commit dozens of nations to war over any member nation's problems should disappear when their original purpose does.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?