The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is abysmal. Here is a reflection of how collective international organizations may serve to do more harm than good. Recent bombings by NATO forces on Pakistani soldiers for two hours (follow link with title) is a clear reflection of this boundless and boundary-less force. At the discretion of a majority, NATO was capable of taking up arms and violating sovereign space as they please...killing innocent citizens in the meantime. Neglect of these boundaries is comparable to property right violations and should be denounced by the US and other free nations. Further, the US should lead the way toward the disenfranchisement of this increasingly dangerous organization.
The problem with large multinational political organizations like NATO is the inability to achieve absolute collective goals. When the issue at hand is taking lives, the issue is ALWAYS absolute. With many variables existing at the individual to individual level, how is this expected to work when a collective group of countries must all come together and work toward the same goal? If collectivism is difficult to handle at the basal level, then handling it at a larger level would become extremely difficult. What additional benefit does NATO offer that each country cannot handle on its own? Perhaps its the small voice, calling out for collective retaliation if they are invaded. In this case, are the more powerful countries like the US not likely to respond to unjustified invasion? The ultimate decision then would come down to self-interest and national security on a country by country basis. If countries acted out according to their own country's interest then they are less likely to be drawn into a conflict under a nationless organization that is supposedly serving everybody's interest and their resources can be used for more viable causes.
Posts
