With the Soviet Union out of existence for more than a decade, many foreign policy experts wonder whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is still relevant in world affairs. The question has been debated especially strongly in the last three years, as disagreements over the war in Iraq have led to strained relations between the United States and key European allies, particularly France and Germany. But if national leaders are serious about the security of their peoples, the conclusion they will reach is that NATO is just as important today as it was during the Cold War—perhaps even more so.

Communists loved life more than they hated liberal democracy

The Soviet Union and its satellites were always containable because, as The New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has so aptly put it, the communists loved life more than they hated liberal democracy and the free market. The fact that East and West never really wanted to wage war on each other meant that the ultimate showdown, namely nuclear war, was always avoidable. That is not the case with violent Islamic fundamentalists. Those who wage war against the West today would rather die that live in a world dominated by Western, liberal ideals. The tragic consequences of this mentality have been seen time and again, in New York, Madrid, London and elsewhere, over the past four years. Containment is simply not an option when faced with an enemy that relishes the thought of dying in the act of killing infidels. The only way the West can defend itself against this maniacal ideology is to wage an all-out war, both on the battlefield and in the hearts and minds of those who are vulnerable to being persuaded to join the jihad.

So where does NATO fit into this war against Islamic extremism? Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, has suggested that the United States press the Atlantic alliance to make anti-terrorism its number one priority. NATO has already taken steps in this direction in recent years: since 2001, alliance members have participated alongside the United States in Operation Enduring Freedom, and in 2003 the alliance agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, whose mission is key to preventing that country from becoming a terrorist haven once again. Furthermore, the successful campaign to end Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing of Kosovo stands as evidence of NATO’s willingness to take forceful, preventive action against potential threats to European stability.

There remains much transformative work to be done.

But there remains much transformative work to be done. First of all, the Europeans must wean themselves off their dependence on the United States for military security. The Pentagon should pull one of its two active-duty Army divisions out of Germany and encourage European nations to increase defense spending, preferably on light, mobile units that can be quickly deployed around the world. If this means downsizing some of Europe’s bloated welfare states, so be it. Before the Europeans can be convinced that the fight against fundamentalism is their fight too, it is necessary for them to have the resources to make a significant contribution to the war effort.

Second, the wording of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty does not specify clearly enough the circumstances under which the alliance can use military force in response to an attack against one of its members. The article states that if “an armed attack” occurs against one or more member states, all members will “assist the Party or Parties attacked” by taking action “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

NATO must be consistent in its response

The article leaves ambiguous the definition of “an armed attack.” For example, it offers no explanation of why the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were sufficient to invoke Article V while those in Madrid and London were not. The logical reason is that the first two attacks were carried out by persons who had the backing of a nation-state, while the other two were carried out by individuals acting without state support. But regardless of the source of terrorist support, NATO must be consistent in its response to their actions if it wishes to be relevant in today’s security climate.

Accordingly, the alliance should amend the Treaty to create a policy for responding to terrorist attacks. Such a policy should specifically authorize the use of military force against individuals and organizations, rather than just countries as envisioned in 1949. If, for example, Iran was found to be harboring conspirators in the London bombings of July 2005, and if Tehran refused to turn them over, NATO should be able to authorize a military strike on Iranian territory to capture or kill the wanted individuals.

Finally, NATO should explore the possibility of bringing Middle Eastern countries into the alliance. Friedman, in an October 2003 column, suggested Egypt, Iraq and Israel as candidates for membership—Egypt because its military manpower could compensate for any European reluctance to increase troop numbers, Iraq because having a strong alliance behind it would make the country an effective counterweight to Iran, and Israel in order to give its government a sense of security in any further peace talks with the Palestinians. Furthermore, he reasons, since one of the main justifications for letting former members of the Soviet bloc into NATO was to stabilize developing democracies, why not do the same in a region where stability and democratization would improve the security not just of the West, but of the entire world? The question deserves to be pondered by foreign policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The alliance saved the West once, and may yet again.

NATO’s mission in the 21st century, should it choose to accept it, is to reinvent itself to tackle the gravest threat to its members’ security, Islamist terrorism. If it declines the offer, not only will it become irrelevant, but it will most likely wither away, a victim of its members inability to change with the times. Surely the transatlantic rift is not so wide as to prevent the rebirth of the alliance that saved the West once, and may yet again.