The U.S. are de facto in control of NATO and via their pets in the British government of European military policy. They are an empire, but one that is slowly losing it's grasp. I think you are spot on about China and, to be honest, I think the world would be a safer place with some kind of new cold war keeping the ambitions of both the US, China and maybe a re-born Russian at bay.
The UN suffer from the same realist weaknesses as the League of Nations, by the way. Not as badly, but it still does.
If you are interested in a quite brilliant look at the Kosovo campaign,
read this essay. The author is a pacifist (which I am not) but he makes some pretty strong points about Kosovo.
Regarding NATO being imperative in resolving the conflict, I think Libya shows that there are indications that an informal coalition can do peacekeeping (or whatever it was they did in Libya) as good as NATO can.
I'll have a look at that some day. The point about NATO is that it harnesses the combined strength of some of the strongest military powers in the world with the strength of smaller powers. While we're not likely to see 12 000 T-72s roll through the Fulda gap anymore, just wait and see what happens when the Russian fleet is back on track and able to project real power. A mouse does not pick a fight with a bear. But Norway, as an example, has been able to stand taller with regards to Russia (and the Soviet Union in its time) because of NATO. Sweden had to militarise their society to such an extent it's silly, I'm not kidding, Sweden, 8 million people in Northern Europe, had (for instance) the 4th or 5th largest bloody airforce in the early 60s. Every single aspect of Swedish society was somehow linked to mobilisation and military readiness. It went far enough that a ferry skipper was fired because his dad was a communist in the 30s. It was ruinously expensive, and even today, Sweden is one of the most prolific makers of military hardware.
What NATO does is make defence cheaper. It would be much more expensive for Norway to maintain a proper defense if we had to deter invasion alone. Even detering a Swedish invasion would be expensive. As it is, we know Sweden won't dare invade Norway, since it would lead to a war with not just Norway, but NATO.
Yes, they're all teoretical threaths, but most threaths are.
Anectodal at best. Welfare isn't a perfect sollution, but at times, it's the only sollution. Powerty in the industrialized world is not the same as powerty in the third world. Being poor in Kenya means you'll struggle to provide your kids with food and access to basic education. Powerty in the United Kingdom might be not being able to provide your kids with healthy food (as pre-fabricated crap full of transfats is usually cheap as hell), and struggling to even come near being able to help them with tuition fees for higher education. It's the old unfairness of any society. You can't choose your parents, who your parents are is not your fault, but your life is heavily influenced by it. It means that a kid from a poor family is less likely to get a place at a good university, even if he's smart as hell.
That makes society more stupid.
Also - basic living and existence isn't what I was talking about, and you know it. There are currently programs in the UK (I forget the name) which are run by the government with the express goal of raising the youth's (18-25) self-esteem with the object that the subject will go forth and sin no more as he now has high self-esteem. You can probably guess how well that works - something about minor unrest in the UK last year? Anyway, much like similar programs in the US (specifically California) it does not work and it makes the problems worse. So why continue to dump money into something that doesn't work?
You'll always find parts of a budget that could be diversed to different parts of the budget. It's true of any budget for any department of any government. But at least they're trying. We don't always know what'll work and what won't. Sometimes a program falls flat on its face even though pilot trials worked swell, and sometimes it does work. You've got a problem, look for sollutions. It's no different than programming a video switcher to let someone use an iPad for his presentation. You have to try until you find something that works. Many attempts do fail, but it doesn't matter all that much as long as you've solved the problem at the end of the day.
I have no problem with national defense. I do have a problem with an International military with a nebulous objective. NATO no longer has a reason to exist, no nation is going to roll a wave of tanks into Europe, so now NATO is looking for a reason to exist. That is not a comforting thought, I don't want them looking for a reason to kill people.
Here's a reason: Even after the cold war, you need to plan for teoretical threaths. And it's cheaper to deter a teoretical threath when you're united, much cheaper.
Told you governments could not do complicated - and this was not that complicated.
Governments can do a lot of complicated things. As you say yourself, this wasn't complicated. They just cocked it up.
The problem is democracy. I know it sounds bad, but it is. Look, for instance, at how increadibly ineffective the US house of representatives is. Two year terms means they're always campaigning, and never have breathing space to actually make things work the best way they can work. They have to please so many special interest groups and voter groups at every moment of the day to do anything substantive.
However, as I believe Winston Spencer Churchill once said, and I'm paraphrasing; "democracy is a poor system of government, but it's the best we have".