Financial Times predicts that NATO can survive Afghanistan. True or False?

To start with - this question is wrong. It pretends that NATO ship-shape forces have just stormed into the far-flung land and now face crucial encounter on which depends the Alliance's future.
First of all NATO is practically comatose. From a defense organization against a potential Soviet (Warsaw Pact) attack on the so clled Western Democracy the US led, supported and commanded Alliance is in disarray. There is no Warsaw Pact any more: who is NATO potential attacker? None of the NATO member-countries borders such. (Do not sping-jump here - this statement is a trap!)
The Supreme commander cannot get a response from any of the founding-member countries to his plea for one thousand more soldiers in Afghanistan.
NATO is now described as "expeditionary force". This attribute is not a lapsus lingue. it to fake being "a global police-force" without global (United Nations) consent?
Since when Europe needs an expeditionary force? Why send armies out to other continents to impose Anglo-American interests?
The first military intervention by NATO - being idle for decades - was to bomb a legal president out of office, the center of Belgrade, hit civilian installations, a TV station and the Chinese Embassy. Serbia or Rump Yugoslavia were not a threat to the western world. It is so sad that literally ALL military operations in the 58-year long history of NATO were led against rump Yugoslavia. NATO and the US have more heavily armed troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo NOW than anywhere else excluding Iraq. Full 16 years after the Yugoslav wars NATO-US Army keep military guard over poor Serbia!
Now Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (of all thinking people) has to re-invent NATO! My people retort to such an proposition: "C'mon grandma, conceive and deliver a baby-boy". The guy is the third Dutchman on the watch in NATO: full 20 out of 60 years of the Alliance its General Secretary is a Dutchman. This Dutchbat that ran away abandoning 6.000 men and boys be butchered by Mladic's forces - is now expected to eradicate the Afghani fierce warriors! That assumption is comic. Two dozen Macedonian soldiers help them do it although all of the Macedonian army could not subdue what former secretary-general of NATO, Lord Robertson, said were "thugs and murderers" in the hills around Skopje!
I mean, NATO is a cover-up for the US military engagement around the world.
One may expect that NATO troops be sent to topple Juan Evo Morales Ayma in landlocked Bolivia, by the Pacific, if a city-mayor of Santa Cruz there asks the Alliance for help to proclaim independence from La Paz. The Alliance might negotiate a corridor through Peru to the ocean.
This hypothesis may sound ridiculous but it is not.
NATO needs votes, not soldiers and arms. half of the EU countries do not produce bullets, least of all sophisticated arms. There is no credible enemy around the Solar system to invent for justification of NATO existence as military force to be engaged in defending its members from an armed military attack. Even worse - there is not a "potential" threat to pointed to.
If the world, the planet needs anything - that is a UN police force to disarm those nations that produce, carry, tinker and trade with specific weapons of mass destruction. But then - we talk of a UN Police Force or UN Peace Keeping Force, we talk of something totally different from NATO. Such a notion is unnerving: When a UN secretary-general Butros-Butros Gali dared mention such a necessity - he was banished from the world and the US vetoed his re-election. Butros Butros Gali coined the term “micro-disarmament” to refer to efforts to remove arms from civil conflicts, to disarm rebels and insurgents. But imposing this would have meant that the US could not stage the "Albanian rebellion" in Macedonia and US Army military instructors, allegedly secret agents, would have been exposed when they were all rounded in Arachinovo near the capital Skopje.
That is why the Financial Times is wrong when it says that NATO will survive Afghanistan. NATO is useless.
To alter this plain fact somebody has to either create even a theoretical danger to European security, dismantle the EU own military force or change the statute and revamp the reason for NATO further existence. The suggestion that NATO is an "expeditionary force" is therefore the first sign that the US may have succeeded in transforming NATO into its auxiliary armed muscle which it flexes at will at the expense of other taxpayers.
NATO's expansion policy is seen by Russian Federation as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia. In February 2003 France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.
But the Alliance did achieve the dissolution of the socialist-communist world. Not it has to make sure it remains so for ever. The 26 heads of the member-countries concluded (in Washington D.C.) that The Alliance has an indispensable role to play in consolidating and preserving the positive changes of the recent past, and in meeting current and future security challenges.
I think that China, Russia and India on the East and Latin America in the West will be those challenges (not military but economic, which is worse because NATO was always about economy, capitalism and supremacy not actual military conflict) for the Alliance. It can have ten times more member-countries like Slovenia, Slovakia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg but it will matter nothing. NATO, obviously, is an absolute ZERO without the USA fighting machine. NATO cannot exist one day without effective US presence, coordination and command.
The world will be much better off if the US transformed the NATO into a French Foreign Legion type of lean, mean fighting machine payed for by the member countries, commanded from the Pentagon and stationed wherever necessary. The national armies would be for display and honorary shows only. Screw the military establishment - see Malta, Iceland, Luxembourg, Slovenia. Too costly and obviously useless...
If the world situation arrives at the doorsteps of a real military conflict - then NATO will be dismantled by the event self. That is why it, the Alliance, as it is - NATO is as virtual as this blog. Can disappear without anybody but the big fat cats in uniforms and their pussies in Brussels noticing...