In the comments to James' latest post, someone accused the Bush administration of, among other things, coming close to destroying NATO. It got me to thinking about alliances in the modern world.

To my mind, there are two major types of alliances: in keeping with my love of reality television, let's call them "Survivor" alliances and "Amazing Race" alliances.

Parties in a Survivor alliance pledge eternal allegiance to each other. They'll do whatever it takes to help each other, whether it's in their own best interests at that moment or not. These are defensive alliances. They are formed to protect each other from a shared threat (whether it's Nazis, Commies or the tribe on the other island). When people talk about Bush "ruining" alliances, these are the kind of alliances they're talking about.

Conversely, Amazing Race alliances are transitory. These offensive alliances are based on a temporary mutual need. They are formed to get things done and when the task is complete, the parties are free to go their separate ways. These alliances are pragmatic in nature and do not require, nor inspire, loyalty. The "coalition of the willing" in Iraq or the international groups that coordinated tsunami relief are great modern examples of Amazing Race alliances.

Both types of alliances have their place in the world. Some countries are bound together for the long haul. For example, whether they like us or not, Canada will have to rely on the United States for protection. But, right now we're seeing the major problem with Survivor alliances. These alliances naturally fall apart when the external threat is eliminated. On the TV show, a group can vow to make it to the Final Four together, but once the threat of being booted is gone, they tear each other apart. Self-interest trumps all. Likewise, once the evil empire of the Soviet Union was toppled, the NATO states were free to scramble and fight in their own self-interests. And that's what they did.

The United States has attempted to build a new Survivor alliance against the threat of Islamofascist terrorism. But, since most of our allies have yet to be touched by this threat, they're unwilling to pledge allegiance to this new alliance. We're going to be forced to fight the War on Terror with a succession of Amazing Race alliances. The role of "New Europe" is a great example of an Amazing Race alliance. These countries joined us in Iraq not because they've pledged eternal allegiance to the United States of America, but because it was in their best interests to do so at that moment. Yes, the Poles are a gallant people who are willing to fight for freedom, but, at the same time, Poland knew that they had much to gain economically by helping the United States.

At the end of Survivor, the two finalists are judged by their former allies. The person who wins is usually the one who is perceived as being most loyal to that old alliance. In the Amazing Race, the team that wins is the one that crosses the finish line first. Alliances are a means to an end, not an end onto themselves. While Survivor alliances are best suited to a reality TV show that's essentially a popularity contest, I contend that Amazing Race alliances are what's best suited to the real world. And, as much as we might sometimes wish otherwise, we do live in the harsh real world.