Fact check: The Americans didn't even invoke Article 5; the NATO Council did, proving that even without being asked, the then NATO members went to the US's aid.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies a more complex sequence of events. While it's true that NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history following 9/11 ^{[1] [2]}, the process involved more collaboration with the US than suggested. On the evening of September 11, NATO's Secretary General actually discussed the possibility with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, who indicated the US would look favorably on such a declaration ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial details are missing from the original statement:

• The invocation was initially conditional - NATO agreed on September 12 that Article 5 would apply only if the attacks were determined to be directed from abroad ^[4]
• The final confirmation came on October 2, after US officials briefed NATO members ^[1]
• The US actually showed skepticism about NATO's involvement and effectively dismissed NATO's support in subsequent military operations ^[3]
• This was a historically significant moment - the first and only time Article 5 had been invoked in NATO's 52-year history ^[5]
• NATO took concrete actions beyond the declaration, launching operations like "Eagle Assist" to support the United States ^[5]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement presents a potentially misleading narrative about NATO's independent action versus US involvement:

• It oversimplifies the diplomatic process by suggesting it was entirely NATO's independent initiative, when in fact there was prior consultation with US officials ^[3]
• The statement overlooks that the invocation was strategically important for NATO itself - it helped establish the alliance's relevance in the post-Cold War era ^[1]
• The implication of unwavering NATO support ignores that there was actually hesitation from some member states ^[3]
• The US's actual response - being skeptical and not fully utilizing NATO's support - contradicts the implied narrative of grateful acceptance ^[3]

This narrative benefits those who want to emphasize NATO's solidarity and independence, but it doesn't fully reflect the complex diplomatic interactions that occurred during this critical historical moment.