NATO: Corpse on a horse?

U.S. President George W Bush has called on other NATO members to step up their battle against Afghanistan's Taliban. He said that NATO had to hold true to its founding principle - "an attack on one is an attack on all."

This must have come as a real surprise to NATO members. Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked Article 5 of its Charter—the one that states “an attack on one is an attack on all,” and offered to fight shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. as it prepared for war in Afghanistan. A magnanimous gesture, that was immediately rejected by the U.S. The American side felt NATO was ill prepared to fight a real war and would be more of a hindrance than a help. After spending billions of dollars and an enormous amount of political capital to keep NATO going, the first time the organization wanted to march into war it was judged incompetent.

If this is the entity on which the future of Afghanistan now depends, I’d say the Afghanis ought to be really concerned about their future security! I can just see the Taliban shaking in their boots.

Does anyone out there disagree with me and still believes NATO can save Afghanistan?

More importantly: do we still need NATO?