The assumption, and FLG does mean assumption because its almost never explicitly articulated, that the alliance won the Cold War (therefore it was successful) and contains the world's most powerful militaries of democracies, so its continuing existence must be good. This piece from June is representative of the type sympathetic to NATO. FLG will jump right to the conclusion:
We must urgently redefine what NATO can do realistically, both militarily and politically, to ensure that NATO will be institutionally relevant in the future.The mental model people seem to use is that NATO is like an aircraft carrier. It can launch airstrikes, provide natural disaster assistance, and project power by its mere presence. FLG, however, views it more like a pair of pizza shears when we are all out of pizza. Good for the purpose it was designed, but not much else. To be clear, it's not a question of whether the constituent militaries lost their capabilities, but that without the existential threat of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact there's no political focus and never will be.
You see the borderline delusional thinking prevalent with NATO supporters in the piece that FLG quoted from earlier. At the beginning, we have this:
Hi, my name is NATO and I have a defense spending and political leadership problem.Okay, FLG is on-board. He thinks, however, let's put the damn alliance out of its misery. Supporters instead offer this:
Step Four: Despite the difficulties, stay positive. Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.Holy fuck! Maybe we could solve the alliance's problem by booking it on Oprah.
NATO Delenda Est.