NATO after Libya

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/opinion/nato-after-libya.html

This article is about how NATO - in particular the European nations - failed to have any impact on the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, which is beginning to wear thin on the Americans. With European NATO members failing to live up to their end of the bargain, the Pentagon is beginning to rethink its relation with their partners across the Atlantic. These failures, coupled with a rise in aggression from nations like Russia and China have made the United States a little tense. If the European NATO members were able to carry their part of the burden, then the United States would not see them as much as a liability as they do now.

The problem with NATO's failures on the Libyan front show that NATO is not as strong as many believe it to be. The United States is strong enough to call in the proper airstrikes and naval strikes to help the rebels, but by leaving it in he hands of European NATO members, they run out of ammunition too quickly and rely on dated technology. With the escalation of tensions in areas like Iran and North Korea, as well as enigmas in China and Russia, a weak NATO is exactly what the United States cannot afford in this tug of war between nations, and may lead to devastating should the United States engage in a region like Syria, or even declare war on Iran.