At The Week, Daniel Larison makes a case for the disbandment of NATO, saying that it is now being used as cover to expand American interests into the Middle East and Africa (emph. mine):

The Alliance is not only outdated for America’s European allies, who increasingly see no reason to participate in “out-of-area” missions, but also functions as a potential enabler of American involvement in parts of Asia and Africa where no vital American interests are at stake. By keeping NATO in existence, Washington leaves itself open to the temptation to meddle in far-flung parts of the globe, even as it provides the superficial “multilateral” cover to make U.S. military intervention overseas more politically palatable.

Seriously? So, if I’m understanding this correctly, Larison is suggesting that the only reason NATO is still around is so that America can expand its influence into the Middle East and Africa, under cover of multilateral engagement, so it doesn’t appear that we’re only in this for our own profit?

I guess it makes sense. I mean, it’s not like there’s a reason NATO went there in the first place. You know, all that business about Article 5 of its charter being enacted on September 12, 2001? The one that says that if a member country is attacked, it’s the same as if they were all attacked? Remember that rationale? No, there’s no reason for them to be there at all, except to provide cover for evil America to do…something. No word on what that is, though.

What a crock. The NATO mission is Afghanistan is perfectly in line with its charter. While they are also in Iraq, that’s a training and assistance mission, not a combat one, and always has been. NATO certainly wasn’t used to legitimize Iraq. President Bush had to assemble a coalition practically by begging for it. He couldn’t call on NATO to go in there because, by design, NATO doesn’t work that way.

Where else are they in the Middle East now? Nowhere, and that’s likely to remain the true throughout the rest of the current U.S. administration.  Larison’s argument is based on a speculative future U.S. mission. Yet, even if one happens, NATO’s role is likely to be minimal and non-combat (like in Iraq). A U.S. President seeking cover for military incursion into another country won’t be able to look to NATO for it. They’ll have to build a coalition by hand, again, like with Iraq.

In the future, perhaps Larison should remember to analyze how organizations like NATO actually work before writing up such conspiracy theories.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan, who’s drinking Larison’s Kool Aid)