North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Pragmatism or Paranoia: United States Approach to European Defense Institutions

Pragmatism or Paranoia: United States Approach to European Defense Institutions

Ultimately, a Europe that can enhance its own regional security and stability through military, economic, diplomatic, and judicial instruments, while more efficiently developing and procuring its military resources, aligns with U.S. interests. Such a security environment supports NATO’s focus on collective defense, as well as American ability to pursue its interests in other regions.

Why Doesn’t the Middle East Have a NATO?

Why Doesn’t the Middle East Have a NATO?

One critical ingredient may be required to establish a functioning collective security arrangement in the Middle East: the United States. The most important single factor to NATO’s success in the Cold War was the dedication and contributions by the U.S. in political capital, money, technology, military assets, and diplomacy. Canada, the United Kingdom, or any other member of the alliance could not replace the superpower status of America. Washington's goal of stabilizing the Middle East by creating a pro-American security alliance while significantly reducing its commitments presents a grim dilemma. It will likely prove impossible.

What Is NATO Good For?

What Is NATO Good For?

NATO is an instrument, one that has shown it can be adapted to different tasks and goals as the strategic setting changes. Those adaptations have not always been swift or graceful, yet the alliance’s endurance speaks to the fact that it eventually does meet its members’ needs. If NATO can reassert itself in the current environment as an engine of stability and not just a provider of military security it has a much stronger chance of persevering, even as its origins in the aftermath of World War II and the early years of the Cold War recede further into history.