Have Your Say: The Role of NATO in a post-Cold War world

In the post-Cold War world, NATO has faced an identity crises, while the alliance has grown as it has incorporated post-Warsaw Pact nations; it is unsure what its goals in this political climate should be. This has led many experts to call for a total restructuring of the organization to best suit today’s world. One of the most recent calls for reform has come from Boston University international relations professor Andrew J. Bacevich, whose piece “Let Europe Be Europe: Why the United States must withdraw from NATO” on Foreign Policy suggests that the current structure of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is intrinsically flawed, as it has evolved from a “defensive alliance into an instrument of power projection”. Mr. Bacevich argues that the post-Cold War NATO has been being held together by successive U.S. administrations who have "pushed, prodded, cajoled, and browbeaten European democracies to shoulder a heavier share of responsibility for maintaining world order and enforcing liberal norms"; a strategy that has not been effective in "reignit[ing] Europe's martial spirit". Mr. Bacevich argues that the future of NATO will be found in the Europe, where the alliance began, as threats to the alliance still exist from Russia. He also argues that the U.S. should consider stepping away from the alliance, as the utility of its membership has dwindled.

Mr. Bacevich makes many intriguing arguments in his article, but is his final conclusion, a U.S. withdraw from the alliance and a refocusing of the alliance on Europe, too drastic of a reform for the military organization? What might be some other ways in which the organization could be reorganized? Is reform even necessary?

Mr. Bacevich's article can be found here:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/let_europe_be_europe