While in the military, I was assigned to EUCOM (US European Command), working in a NATO bunker in the former West Germany, weeks after Reunification. When I arrived, my CO asked me if I knew the three reasons for the existence of NATO: To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. These reasons—told to me in jest—were in fact based on a 1949 blueprint which clearly needed revision. The Soviet Union had collapsed and the Russians where leaving the former East Germany and Poland as fast as they could fall back. Germany had been successfully ‘kept down’ militarily, but had risen, once more, to the dominant European economy. Finally, the US had assisted in deterring a third major European war of the 20th century, and even the George H. W. Bush administration was looking for a ‘peace dividend.’

Following Desert Storm (the first Gulf War), many of the troops that had deployed from EUCOM never returned, and instead headed home. While in Germany, we watched the Soviet divisions head east, as ceremonies returning American base after base to German control took place. NATO was looking for a new reason to justify its existence, and it didn’t take too long for things to get pretty hot, right in their own backyard. But the Balkans were not why NATO was created, nor are the myriad activities to which you refer. I’m proud to have served as a deterrent, and gratified that NATO played a role in preventing World War III, but I find myself persuaded by your argument.

Incidentally, my CO, who had quite a sense of humor, also asked me if, as a member of NATO, I knew the difference between heaven and hell. “Heaven” he said, “is where the Germans are the auto mechanics, the British bobbies [who at that time remained armed only with nightsticks] are the police, and the Italians are the cooks.” “Hell,” he continued, “is where the Italians are the auto mechanics, the Germans are the police, and the British are the cooks!”