{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02644836272040302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011335012594458438, 'mean_word_length': 4.719424460431655, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
NATO's Istanbul summit

By NATO’s own modest goals, its 28–29 June summit was not a failure. But nor did it surge with institutional confidence. NATO leaders may have given up arguing publicly over Iraq, but they hardly furnished the US with the kind of support it once hoped for. Meanwhile, although members reaffirmed their commitment to Afghanistan, pessimism abounds about saving that country from another descent into state failure. It is notable, to be sure, that the whole ‘out of area’ debate of the l990s – that is, whether NATO had a role beyond the physical territory of its member states – has been relegated to historical theology. Still, the abiding question is whether NATO as an institution will be important and effective in the critical strategic theatres of the 21st century.