U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that America's military alliance with Europe faces a "dim, if not dismal" future, Here is the real issue at last. Gates is partially correct in his statements regarding NATO. Created to deter the Cold War from ultimately ending the world, NATO's effectiveness has indeed stumbled since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Belgium, chosen for the location of its headquarters due to the location's proximity to the front line of the Cold War, has become one of the world’s most peaceful spots. However, that was far from the case at the time of NATO's inception.
The problem is that since the end of the Cold War, Belgium is no longer the "front line" of a conflict with global ramifications. We have a new one. It is Israel. With the Arab Spring erupting in locations radiating from this small nation, it would indeed seem time for a move for NATO. Imagine for a moment, an Israel with a NATO occupied perimeter. Now imagine an autonomous Palestinian State on the other side of that NATO zone. No nation could attack Israel without going against the entire world. Likewise, Israel would not be able to attack anyone without doing the same. At some point after such a move, US forces could retreat from the Middle East, greatly reducing Arab hatred and contempt for "westerners.”
Such a move would create a lasting peace for the Jewish people. Wasn't that a major contributing factor to WWII? Wasn't it the factors involved in the ending of WWII that caused us to need NATO? Wasn't NATO formed to protect the world from dangerous nations? You may freely insert terrorists in place of nations. We now have an Arab Spring that threatens an already volatile region of the world. NATO must move to a "front line" position in relation to where the biggest global threat lies.