We’ve had a few comments from people who agree that there is a certain irony in NATO’s name but pointing out that we’re actually confusing NATO with the various Partners for which it is a kind of umbrella organization. People have also observed that it’s unfair to criticize NATO for existing under a name which no longer seems to correspond to its true function – corporations, for example, often evolve far beyond their original business specialty. True. But corporations also sometimes evolve their names – if not to reflect what they do, at least not to contradict it. Others point out that ultimately, an organization should not be judged by its name, or by what it says it does, but by what it does.
Fair enough. In fact we urge you all to learn as much as you can about what NATO, or whatever you want to call it (a name containing, say, “Peace”, Dialogue,” or Cooperation”) has done and is doing. Read Rick Rozoff’s blog. Start with the post about the meeting being held in Brussels today, June 26, 2012. Read William Blum’s work – start with “We came, we saw, we destroyed, we forgot.” Read this post that appeared on AntiWar.com yesterday.
The business of America is business. Fine. But we all need to learn about, and think about, what that business really is.
NATO: What’s in a name?: http://99getsmart.com/?p=3770