does the us need nato military alliance

Because their is no such thing as the soviet union or the warsaw pact do we need n.a.t.o..

Things change and evolve.  The original purpose of NATO is non sequitur, but there is still a benefit from having the alliance.

NATO is an organization of the Western military to fight against the growing power of the East and balance the power of the world... even if East's power includes terrorists and other militants and religious zealots...

Well, that's because it's popular politically to be very anti-American. Little do these short-sighted politicians realize that they owe their continued positions of power to the US, it's military, and it's willingness to use it. For the French, especially, this sentiment doesn't make much sense. We already saved their country twice, picked up their slack in Vietnam, and do a large part of their banking, as well as giving them countless millions of dollars in tourist revenue over the past few decades.
Even our old ally, Britain, is growing increasingly anti-US in it's sentiments, if not yet it's policies. However, the actions of these nations show that however much anti-US whining they do, they're still unwilling to cut and run (something they've been advising us to do in Iraq for years now) from their relationships with us because they know that if we fall, so do they. However, us not falling is also largely dependent upon their support. In short, you don't have to like your bed-fellows all the time, but if it's mutually profitable, sometimes you've just got to grin and bear it.
Cheers.

NATO seems to have utterly failed in the prime objective for it's creation, keeping Germany divided and now seems to be trying to conjure another one to justify all the expense.

Edited by Paul - 18-Feb-2007 at 14:04

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Brian J Checco NATO is doing a very good job in Afghanistan. Since the resurgence of the Taliban, fighting has been fierce there. The Warlords are also notoriously shifty, so more Allied boots on the ground is helping a lot over there.   Is it NATO doing a good job, or the United Kingdom, Canada and the USA taking thier own needed actions against the Taliban?    Other NATO countries have evidently refused to supply more troops and have refused to commit existing troops in Afghanistan into actual combat areas inthe Pathan south.  Instead these troops can only be used  to garisson Kabul, Mazir al Sharif and other areas already firmly under central Afgan government control.   Another terror state in Afghanistan is a threat to the entire west.  The French, Italian and German militaries are dedicated and are willing to do more.  They are being held back by their politicians.  Granted, Bush and Company did alot to alienate these countries, but Afghanistan is not Iraq and it is not the place to play political games.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 Ahh, but, Cryptic, Afghanistan is the sedes belli of "The Great Game."

Russia's on the rise again, as well. NATO may again have the oppurtunity to live up to the mission that it was created for. This Putin guy is really starting to ruffle some feathers. Supplying Iran with nuclear material may be a good way to re-establish Russia as a global power... but the US and it's allies certainly aren't going to like it.

Of course US needs NATO. How will it be possible to project force if there were no allies? Carriers are not everything.

If NATO members are reluctant in "implicating" themselves in Afg or Irq its just because there are some major flaws regarding the reason of those operations. Yes, it's politics, but US politics started the mess ...

Originally posted by vulkan02 I don't see NATO being around for long especially if on day the EU ratifies the Constitution. Such thing and the ever growing economic power of EU will make NATO obsolete. A major difference of opinion in another conflict in the future might make or break the NATO depending on how its going to affect the relationship of EU with US.