Steve - NATO is an entity that has outlived its usefulness. We have no longer a shared strategic interest in Northern Europe, which is the predicate for NATO. Europe doesn't want us there and it makes very little sense for us to be there, militarily. Honestly, what has NATO done lately? Provide 900 troops and 3 helicopters to Afghanistan -- whoo!!! All of which helicopters have already returned to their home -- Turkey.
I believe we need a new institution, not tied to old, stale "Cold War" principles (like representation on the Security Council is -- FRANCE is a world power deserving of a Security Council veto, but Japan and India aren't. Yeah....). NATO is on its way out, and to try to graft new responsibilities onto a Northern European agency to try to salvage it is unwise. Especially in that this will not necessarily be just for Anglo-Saxon "whites". India must participate, as should Japan, Australia, Turkey, Mexico and Canada ... as equals. What we need is specifically not an EU-esque, anti-democratic, bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's sake, self-perpetuating bloated deception with a 1000 page constitution. And, good news for all concerned, the EU should have one seat, as it purports to speak for all the interests of Europe, so it's relative "power" to move things toward Euro-centric pacifism and relativism would be tempered.
Bob - Do you really believe this "keep your enemies closer" pablum that we learn any more about what the dirtbags are up to just b/c of the UN? How, pray tell, do we find out more from the UN -- and I mean exactly the United Nations -- than we do from other sources? Maybe you know how, but I don't, so if you know specifically how, let me know. I'm not intending to be snide here; I'm willing to be educated on this point, but I'm very skeptical right now.
Strangely, you acknowledge that many of the evil (no quotes) doers out there are extra-statal entites; they're not governments and won't and don't have ambassadors or ministers. However, many members of the UN (including one or two on the Security Council, whose single opinions become
de facto what the "UN" has to say to the small minded) want to treat these terrorist groups with the same protection and deference under international law that a soverign government of a real territory would receive. It's preposterous.
I like your friend's quote.
I don't believe, however, that we're trying to force a "one size fits all" government on the rest of the world. Iraq's government is not particularly similar to ours -- it's more Parliamentary than our system -- and we're not crying foul. Nor are we complaining that more muslim/islamist forces than perhaps we'd prefer will be part of that representative government. It is
their government, after all. Afghanistan did their own thing and it's working very very well. How do I know it's going so well? B/c we're not hearing about it on the news. I'm not kidding. Good news is not news for MSM under this admin.
As far as "Nation Building", well its earlier, Clintonian iteration was a feel-good op for international support that, IMHO, received the minimum amount of commitment required in order to be able to "say" we were doing the "right thing", whether any "thing" got done or not. What we're doing today is unfortunately also called "Nation Building" though I think our motivation and commitment are vastly different, as are the results.
I can't change the dirtbag states through the UN -- that's for damned sure. Why does that wisdom elude so many folks?
JP