NATO - 60, The longest-lasting military alliance

Is NATO-2009 radically different from NATO-1949?
Keeping in mind that the conditions changed quite much, I guess NATO's contemporary role and status changed as well. Is NATO approaching retirement? (at 65, usually )

This post has been edited by MMM on April 06, 2009 02:12 pm

Hallo MMM,
Answering shortly yes, of course is different, it is changing -or it's trying since 1991 when the Big Enemy collapsed. Since Kosovo 1999 when despite he wasn't attacked his forces bomb Serbia and more clear since Afghanistan 2001 it is pretty different than before. And tying to find a reason to exist -could be Putin and his ambitions?

Not only "Putain" - isn't it funny how his name is pronounced in French? - but also many other countries, such as Iran, North Korea, China etc. - not to mention those anti-american "heroes" in South America. It is however odd that the first use of article 5 (the "musketeer" article, one for all and all for one) was made in 2001, after the bombings of 9.11; thus, at more than half a century from the beginning!
The 1999 episode I didn't understand neither then, nor now!

You might want to read "Kosovo, What everyone needs to Know"...great little book by veteran area reporter Tim Judah, (Oxford University Press, 2008)

http://balkaninsight.com/en/main/life_and_style/12971/

Topic usually an instant flashpoint of opinions, but here's something to think about, from the book, re NATO and Kosovo:

"The KLA has to rank as one of the most successful military organizations in history. Its success has nothing to do with its military prowess; it won no battles. It is, rather, thanks to the fact that emerging on to the scene at the right place, at the right time, it was able to have NATO win its war for it."

I could reply, off-topic, that NATO only gave a little (or rather huge) push-up, but the KLA and the Serbian military+paramilitary forces did the bloodbath!