Democratic Security Community? You mean NATO, right?

Today in class Professor Nexon brought up the possible formation of a democratic security community. I imagine this is somewhat similar to what presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has called for with his “League of Democracies.” Such a League, according to Senator McCain, would “act where the U.N. fails to act,” citing conflict in the Sudan and the ongoing AIDS epidemic in Africa. I’m going to take the realist perspective here and say that this is a rather pointless idea. First off, we already have a large security community composed of democracies – NATO. And NATO has failed to act just as often as the UN has failed to act. NATO has not been of much help to us in the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor has NATO acted to stop the genocide in Darfur. Being that the countries that compose NATO would most likely be the most influential in the new “League of Democracies,” I think it’s pretty naïve of Senator McCain to believe that this institution would accomplish much of anything. Secondly, if this body is formed, it is basically a recognition of failure for the United Nations and would do much to alienate those countries not invited to the “League of Democracies.” Much of the UN’s legitimacy would be gone, and perhaps countries would even start to withdraw from it. Could such a move cause the formation of a “League of Autocracies” (granted, it would probably have a different name, but I hope you get the picture.) Thirdly, this “League” would very likely just be a front for the United States to have its own way, being that it would be the league's sole superpower. This seems like an attempt to bypass established international conventions and laws and give legitimacy to our unjustified invasions into random countries. I mean, any war would seem just if the “League of Democracies” backed it.