Since it's conception, NATO's goal was to contain the spread of Russian

expansionism. Once Russia ceased to be a threat, NATO's reason for

existing vanished, and many expected NATO to vanish along with it,
following in the steps of the Warsaw Pact. However, NATO did not vanish,
and instead reinvented itself, remerging with a new mission and changing
its membership. Under the new NATO, previous Warsaw Pact countries
were able to join the alliance, and in 2002 NATO underwent its biggest
expansion yet in it's half-a-century history, adding seven new states to the
nineteen already falling under NATO's protection. As the times changed,
NATO changed, and while it no longer serves the purpose the original
NATO did, it still has a viable purpose as a leading security IGO for Europe
and the United States.
I agree with the latter view--that is, that NATO's mission has mere shifted,
and that it continues to be an important alliance structure for the United
States and Western Europe. NATO's original purpose was important, but
once it was no longer necessary, rather than disbanding, it changed its
mission and continues to be an important part of the global stage. While,
true, its original intent is unnecessary in this day and age, the purpose it
serves now, I think, is more important and helpful than the one it served in
the past. In today's world, NATO has already flexed its muscle--following the
9/11 terrorist attack, NATO invoked it's mutual defense principle for the first
time, recognizing the attack on the United States as an attack on all of
NATO's members. In 2006, NATO took the lead on reconstruction and
security in Afghanistan, and many of its actions since 2001 have helped
relieve doubts about NATO's ongoing usefulness.
I see no reason why NATO should not be expanded. Due to its design and
the arrangement of European security organizations, it would be difficult for
NATO to attempt anything militant outside its sphere of influence (should it
wish to). And while its true the United States created tensions within NATO,
a greater collective might make even the United States' muscle moot if it
were to be arguing against a larger alliance of powers. More states might
also help further NATO's own abilities with handling frictions between

states, and give it the ability to rectify problems caused by one or two NATO
members going against the grain of the rest. Most alliances, in my opinion,
would not be harmed from getting larger; more states means more allies,
more resources, and yes, true, a wider variety of opinions and ideals, but
states are going to have disagreements on how to handle things whether
they are a part of a collective or not. Joined under one umbrella like NATO,
at least a large alliance would have the benefit of collective security from a
large group of international powers.
The Partnership for Peace is a limited military partnership, proposed by the
United States, between former Warsaw Pact members and NATO. The
Partnership for Peace members do not have all the benefits as the already
existing members--namely, they were not promised the same guarantee of
aid in the event of an attack. However, it was still and important step in the
process of enlarging NATO and creating a more peaceful, united Europe.
The addition of these states also served in helping to expand NATO's
sphere of influence, so that, including the original states, the Partnership for
Peace states, and the states added under the Euro-Atlantic Partnership
Council, NATO's territory extended from southeastern Europe's Black Sea
to the Baltic Sea along the west coast of Russia.
It is true that NATO's mission has changed, and it might also be true that
NATO is not even necessarily the same NATO it was as a result of its new,
reinvented mission. However, a changed mission and new membership
does not make NATO's influence any less important, nor do shifting goals
make NATO an unnecessary alliance for the United States and Europe.
How it continues to expand, and help the countries that fall under the
security umbrella it provides is difficult to say at this point, but it is not
difficult to foresee that NATO will continue to play and important role in the
future.