What trouble could a more unified Europe cause the U.S.? A more unified Europe seem like a net positive for the world to me.

Comments are roughly by paragraph.

That’s right. I forgot that everyone is the world goes to a school like Harvard.

You were trying to get them to see it as a serious option then they would have looked at it as a serious option, and not with the following factors that you list.

I'd attribute this result to several rather obvious factors:

People felt the same way about slavery. I’m sure Russia is comfortable with its dissolution. I’m sure most of Europe is comfortable with its dissolution, along with China, Japan, and, wait, the rest of the world?

The U.S spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. The only point of having NATO is if it has power, or funding.

Isn’t there reason to believe that NATO is causing a deteriorating security situation in Europe as Russia really doesn’t like the fact that NATO is still expanding eastward? If the situation did deteriorate without NATO, could a more democratic force be put in place? A force that includes Europe and Russia? Shouldn’t Europeans be responsible for their own affairs and not the United States? This brings us to the issue of political influence. What type of “political influence” are we talking about? “If you don’t do this we’re going to bomb you” political influence? Yeah, I suppose continuing with NATO allows the US to act like the mob boss of the world. Whether or not this is even good for the US in the long-term (undoubtedly bad for the rest of the world in the short-term) is a contestable matter (Cuban Missile Crisis Anyone?). Russia, China, and the Middle East not only feel threatened but are threatened by NATO. What does “renewed security competition within Europe mean?” Does it mean that the Europeans are in charge of Europeans? Isn’t that Democratic? But we wouldn’t want them to actually work together. They might oppose US decisions, which I forgot were always right. Now that you mention it, is there any evidence of NATO contributing something productive to the world, ever? I think what Walt is really trying to say is that NATO makes it easier for us to do whatever the hell we want.

Its relevance is obvious: forced relevance. And no, that’s not the real question to ask. I now see what you mean about “not shilling for NATO; the contrary.”

Again, when has NATO ever been productive for the world as a whole? I seem to remember it being integral in almost destroying the world, but history never repeats itself.

What does he mean by “seen?” Does he mean, “if we rewrite the history books to show Afghanistan as “blundering efforts to do good,” much like Vietnam? Whose support will be reaffirmed? The support of elitist Harvard people and the “masters of mankind,” or the rest of the world that probably doesn’t like a dictatorial mob boss?

You’re really not leading the discussion anywhere are you?

What evidence do you have for this? Are you just making this stuff up?

I’m sure that if they knew the facts they would think differently, mainly the fact that NATO exists solely as a tool for US imperial dominance and that it’s destructive to the security of the world.

I’m not surprised that Walt and his students hold these views. They have been indoctrinated with the idea that the US can do whatever it wants because it owns the world and shouldn’t care what anyone else thinks. This ideology is extremely dangerous and it is telling that it is propagated at the most “elite” institutions. The word “elite” obviously has a double meaning. As Adam Smith put it, "the masters of mankind."

...would make a good used car salesman!

...the neocon's wet dreamt "League of (so-called) Democracies"? That's the way it looks to me.

It does disappoint that a group of future leaders all show such a consensus about anything.

NATO as NATO rather than some individual states will almost certainly never again get involved in something as ambitious as Afghanistan and Stephen is right the idea of them becoming involved in any future conflict over Taiwan or Korea is simply not on the table.

As a purely defensive alliance against a possible changed Russia then status quo might as well stay in place but as a possible world policeman the europeans are both not interested and not willing to spend the money.

Should we admit that Central Asia and Afghanistan contains strategic and natural resource value? Shouldn’t we admit that NATO, the U.S. and the West in general have not been effective in enhancing or protecting our interests.

If we are realistic, we can see that to enhance the West’s interests, we need a significant change in approach. For example, China does not have one overseas base, but they have tremendous influence in Central Asia as well as Pakistan and a growing influence in Afghanistan.

It is little wonder that Karzai is promoting peace talks. The interconnected linkages of political factions and the drug trade along with other alliance webs provides a fait-accompli that factional leaders in various parts and pieces of the Taliban and the government have already reached a deal that excludes the West.

Organized crime dominates so much of Russian business and Central Asian business that gaining more influence in Central Asia is a natural procession. China thrives in that environment. For example, unofficial intelligence reports indicate that crime groups control as much as 80 percent of all private business and up to 40 percent of the Federation’s wealth.

NATO has a dilemma. It can try to participate in that environment; NATO can isolate itself and concede the region to China and Russia; or NATO can try to contain the regions effects upon the West.

NATO is primarily a military organization, but national security now requires a far broader scope of knowledge, understanding and activity. We need to learn things like how to recruit power and business networks into our sources of wealth and business development. We even need to learn how to reduce the influence of their drug trade through our domestic isolated, segregated and alienated communities. These issues directly affect our national security, but we have yet to learn how to deal with them domestically much less internationally.

Bob Spencer

"And if it's not performing some sort of global policing duties, then what is it for?"

I think you've been a disservice to your students. NATO historically exists to defend Europe from Russia. (I would assert that NATO raised enmity between Russia and Europe. Second, the Georgia fiasco shows that NATO isn't very resolved to support it's core mission. Further, this mission creep has undermined NATO.

So, what I can't understand is how in the world NATO gets involved in an attack in the South China Sea? How does an attack on Taiwan equal an attack on the North Atlantic?

I'd assert that the US needs to end NATO to test if NATO is needed. It's not like ending NATO would mean severing all ties. What ending NATO might do is to help the US commoditize it's security services--which is the only way I can support US bases abroad, namely at the expense and invitation of the host country.

What worries me about continuing NATO is that is antagonizes Russia. This antagonism helps to justify NATO but arguably only serves to give false comfort to Europe. NATO expansion is problematic, and violates a promise we made to Russia years ago. Finally, re-constituting a NATO on an ad-hoc basis wouldn't be tough. There is vast cooperation, sharing of equipment and technology that would continue with or without NATO.