I understand the appeal of the “Star Wars” series and “Spider-Man.” Everyone needs a certain amount of fantasy in their life. The problem comes when our government likes to inhabit this special fantasy world, like they do with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO, perhaps our most beloved alliance, sealed a landmark agreement this week with Russia to help fight terrorism. Clearly, this is an agreement that benefits all of the countries of NATO, since member nations like Denmark, Luxembourg and Iceland are absolutely overrun with terrorist activities. More likely, the United States is covering its back with the monetary and military support of a group of patsies too afraid to tell us to go to hell.

At some point, it would have made sense for the alliance to join in such an agreement. In fact, at some point, the alliance itself made sense and had a good deal of meaning. Back in its early days, NATO existed as a collective security pact of European and North American countries pitted against the Warsaw Pact of the Soviet Union. NATO nations had a useful agreement that if the Soviets attacked any member nation, all the member nations would retaliate.

Apparently, the continued existence of NATO is necessary because the Soviet Union never fell, and communism is still thriving in Eastern Europe. That darned liberal media must have just been brainwashing us into feeling safe from Johnny Red and his insidious brand of sharing. Alas, even the editorial staff of the National Review probably won’t buy that.

It seems that defending ourselves against the Communist threat is significantly less pressing these days. NATO would probably do better if it shifted its focus to combating groups that are more dangerous than commies, which basically covers anything from pederast priests to System of a Down. Europe’s in more danger of being overrun by Shriners than Soviets.

Yet NATO continues to expand, with Eastern European nations eager to join each year. Why? More likely the question for nations like Estonia and Romania is “why not?” since membership would protect their current regimes from internal strife. NATO, for them, is a way to protect the status quo, because if the current regimes sign up with the Americans, it means we’re likely to back them.

The only price they pay is sovereignty and having to join us on our crusades against things that have no practical importance to most of the organization’s member nations. The only country we seem to reject from joining NATO is Russia, since keeping them out means that we can still claim some relation to the group’s original purpose.

Our government is unlikely to recognize the utter unimportance of NATO as long as nations keep knocking on the door to join. As long as we can use our organization to force other nations to work for us, we’re going to remain gung-ho in favor of its existence, much like the International Court of Justice. We were adamantly in favor of the International Court of Justice. Then we got sued, and all of a sudden, we realized what an amazing usurpation of our sovereignty it was and fled the ICJ. Talk about a fair-weather friend. If I were a country, I wouldn’t want to hang out with the U.S. either.

But because of our economic might and clout in the pathetic system of international government, other countries are willing to sign on for just about anything, as long as it puts them on our team. NATO has become a pathetic high-school relationship that exists solely because of inertia and cowardice. If we decide that Iraq’s government is unjust, Poland is willing to donate a plane or two to bomb Saddam to the Precambrian Era. Because if they don’t, all of a sudden they have to eat lunch alone at the other end of the cafeteria.

I love the United States, but then again, I’ve never been to any of the other member countries, except Canada (if the U.S. still considers that a separate country). I even like the ideals that NATO once upheld. However, I can’t be so arrogant as to say that Germany and Denmark should be responsible for our problems with terrorists. There’s a distinct difference between friendship and bullying. NATO has forgotten that difference.

NATO might serve a purpose in the future, but it’s about as likely as me being bitten by a radioactive spider or discovering that I can write columns by using the Force. It’s time to let it go, before it becomes its own Galactic Empire.

Tim Kearns is a senior in political science from Bellevue, Neb.