The Future of NATO? Think of GM, apparently.

Two Op-Eds, Andrew Bacevich's in the LAT Roger Cohen's in the NYT, cover the issue of the US' future in NATO. Bacevich's title reveals his opinion: "How do We Save NATO? We Quit." Bacevich argues that NATO no longer holds a function for US security and Europe's defense needs are no longer wrapped up in Cold War binaries. He considers it outdated and compares it to GM.

Coincidentally, in "America Agonistes," Cohen also alludes to GM when discussing NATO's efficacy and purpose. He's less dismissive than Bacevich, but he questions NATO's role for the future in a world where bi-polarity vanishes and geographic spheres of interest shift. His penultimate paragraph sums up his stance: "My own view, based in the conviction that Pax Americana cannot endure another 60 years in its current form, is that a NATO now tacitly or explicitly working for the defense and expansion of the liberal democratic order — a task with no obvious geographical limit — must in time evolve into an alliance of democracies in which the likes of Japan, India and Australia would logically take their place."