By definition, all of the international summits are a success and the next one in Strasburg-Kehl, where the allies will celebrate the 60th anniversary of NATO, will be no different. The final press release will most certainly reflect the collective satisfaction of the Alliance’s achievements in its first 60 years of existence and will offer best wishes for the members in the coming decades.

In a way they are right: Doesn’t everyone–even the French–want to be part of this western defensive organization? NATO as an institution is not in danger. Its effectiveness and centrality, however, are. The Alliance currently has three big problems that are going to determine the organization’s future. The first is an operational problem: Afghanistan. The allies went to that country because many believed that Afghanistan was the good war as opposed to the bad one in Iraq. Moreover, the large majority went there because they thought the American troops had already defeated the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists and, therefore, their mission was going to focus on reconstruction and not security. No matter what anyone says, that was the spirit that led NATO to take charge of ISAF in 2003. Precisely for that reason, only a few of the allies, and countries that are not members of NATO like Australia, have been prepared to take on combat missions. A couple of years ago, the joke on the ground was that the real meaning of ISAF was: “I See Americans Fight”. Today, the situation has not improved: Americans are the ones that are going to try to change the delicate balance of forces that exists today in Afghanistan and which threatens to become an embarrassment for NATO as a whole. The allies can only expect two things there: defeat or victory. To achieve the latter, they have to be willing to take on a responsibility that they have been eluding for the last few years. NATO cannot, and should not, be only the U.S. Marines.