ied, creating the raw dilemma it is fumbling with now(Rosenfeld 2). Instead of using the soft power that was successful during the cold war, NATO decided to flex its military muscle and began strikes on the Milosovic led Serbians. This brought on more resentment and more killing of civilians by the Serbian forces instead of forcing them to bargain like NATO intended. This short-term failure ended though when after months of bombing destroyed the Yugoslav infrastructure, finally made Yugoslavia to give in to most of NATOs demands. Although there is still a lot of ethnic tension and even acts of violence, NATO is considered responsible for ending the war in Serbia. The role ofNATO peacekeepers in places like Sekirac is helping to stabilize Kosovo and give its residents, Kosovo Serb and Albanian alike, a chance to begin to live in peace(Shattuck 2).The future of NATO is being guided by the global views of the United States. After the Kosovo involvement, NATO began to be more involved in other European and world affairs. The Untied States has been pushing for more involvement in globalization and even the addition of more member states. Many European nations are more concerned with only European problems and controversies and they are opposed to the American idea of globalization. Apart from Germany, no European ally [shows] any strong enthusiasm for expanding the alliance(The Economist 3). There are many supporting and critical ideas to the expansion of NATO. Some feel that the incentive to join the Western led alliance will help bring reform and prosperity to struggling eastern European countries. Others believe that Russia will see NATOs inclusion of former Warsaw pact countries as a direct affront and would stop its peaceful negotiations with the west (Goldgeier 2). So depending on what the expansion of the alliance entails, it is hard to tell what exactly NATO will accomplish in the future. ...
