An analysis of the meaning of the disputed term, integration, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the nature of France's objection to integration, and the actual extent of powers of the Supreme Commander (SACEUR). The real issue is whether each ally is entitled to veto any action by the others and by NATO agencies. While SACEUR is shown as even more important to the progress of coordination than usually thought, his influence is that of prestige and persuasion, not command. Arguments for and against various proposals, from separating the posts of U.S. and NATO commanders to dissolution of the alliance, are given. Perhaps the best arrangement is to retain NATO as a loose-jointed alliance in which like-minded nations are encouraged to join in common action; wartime powers need to be agreed upon explicitly by each nation. With its faults, NATO has made impressive contributions and has done much that would otherwise have required U.S. financing or gone undone.