American involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO – has been a particularly decisive issue in this year’s presidential election. Some candidates and voters believe that NATO has outlived its usefulness, effectively becoming an “obsolete” organization.
Contrary to what one larger-than-life presidential candidate and his supporters may believe, NATO is anything but “obsolete.” The organization is going through a particularly difficult transitional phase, but it is far from useless.

NATO is a military alliance between a number of North American and European nations, including the United States, Britain, Germany and many others.
This alliance was formed to create a united front against the Soviet Union, which at the time was seen as a legitimate military threat to the rest of Europe.
Though NATO was never mobilized to directly fight the Soviet Union, the organization has achieved a number of military and diplomatic victories since its formation in 1949. NATO forces have played a decisive role in the defense of weaker nations or oppressed ethnic groups.

The Persian Gulf War was waged primarily by NATO countries against Iraq, which was acting as a belligerent and destabilizing force in the region. NATO victory against Iraq ensured the safety of neighboring Kuwait, and the stability of the global oil market.
The alliance’s intervention in Serbia in the late 90s halted an ethnic cleansing campaign in the region, a major humanitarian victory.
That said, NATO’s more recent operations lend credence to the belief that the organization is obsolete.

NATO involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has consistently failed to create stable, peaceful resolutions to the conflicts in these regions. In the case of Libya, Foreign Affairs magazine argues that Western intervention in Libya made matters worse for the country.
These claims are not unsubstantiated. Since Libyan rebels killed dictator Muammar Gaddafi with the support of NATO airstrikes and weapons, the country has failed to create a stable government.

Though NATO succeeded in securing a military victory, it has failed in facilitating a stable political transition. This failure has had significant consequences.
The Islamic State and other extremist groups have exploited instability in the country to recruit militants and launch attacks into neighboring countries, further destabilizing and increasing tensions in the region.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO involvement has upheld the governments of both countries, but has failed to achieve much else. Afghanistan is still coping with attacks from Al-Qaeda, and Iraq has been locked in a battle against the Islamic State since 2014.

While these failures in the Middle East are troubling, they do not indicate NATO’s obsolescence. If anything, they indicate NATO’s capability to change and adapt to a changing international stage.

Libya was a disastrous case of idealism holding more influence than pragmatism. While Gaddafi was a reprehensible, brutal dictator, he was the primary force keeping Libya together and somewhat stable.

Encouraging and facilitating a violent revolt against him while having no concrete plans for a successive government was a fatal lapse in judgement that has deeply hurt the Libyan people as well as further destabilizing the entire region. It appears NATO has learned from this experience.
Though Afghanistan and Iraq are both in difficult positions, their existing governments have fairly strong footholds in the critical regions of both countries. In Iraq’s case, government forces have actually managed to gain ground against the Islamic State.

CBS reports that Iraqi forces have been steadily advancing towards Mosul, the second largest city in the country and an important ISIS stronghold.
Afghanistan has also scored a number of victories against extremists. Most recently, the BBC reports that Afghan military forces managed to recapture the city of Kabul after it was lost to an Al-Qaeda attack. That said, progress appears to be much slower than Iraq.

While the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are different, they both reflect a change in NATO’s strategy in both countries. Instead of being the main military force operating in the region, NATO has opted to put most of the power in the hands of the militaries of both countries.
NATO may have a large role in the training and arming of government forces, but it largely is not involved in direct combat against ISIS or Al Qaeda, save for airstrikes and a number of Western special forces operating in both countries.

The primary advantage to this strategy is that it empowers the governments involved in the fight against the Islamic State and other extremist groups.
While progress may be slower, it is a far more politically stable solution, and may ensure the long-term security of nations trained by NATO forces.
That said, the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries in the Middle East are incredibly complicated. NATO’s new strategy in the region appears to be having a positive effect, but it is far too early to determine if this strategy will work out in the long term.

Regardless, progress is being made in the Middle East. Though the Islamic State continues to conduct terrorist attacks across the world, it is losing ground in the Middle East.

NATO is not the only military force fighting against the Islamic State, but current events indicate that the organization is far from obsolete, contrary to the trumped-up claims made by some in American politics. If anything, the organization is changing to become even more effective in light of recent events.