So, the only time article 5 was triggered was to drag other nations into a messy war. I'm not seeing the downside to getting rid of NATO. The US is the biggest bully even as it pays the most for everyone's defense - I want both aspects of that to stop.
Attempts to guarantee other nations' security were what dragged the whole of Europe into WW I - which led to further catastrophes whose effects are still being felt. Now there's a risk that they will drag us into a war with Russia, while other alliances may drag us into a war with China.
Blame George W. Bush for triggering article 5, blame every US president for the size of the military budget, not NATO.
Nations will always seek alliances in the international system, with smaller nations gravitating towards larger nations who are able to a) provide security and b) financial stability and growth. (Unless, of course, they're being forcefully integrated into an alliance like all of Eastern Europe after WWII.) The West is, first and foremost, attractive to nations because of its economic might and economic stability, so much so that the West is able, through NATO, the EU and other institutional frameworks, to coerce nations to observe democracy and humans rights if it wants to gain/retain access. How attractive do you think Russia is in contrast? Not very, I can tell you.
Furthermore, NATO, by design, is not an offensive but a defensive military alliance. If Russia or China decide to attack a NATO member, knowing full well that this will trigger article 5, then it's not the NATO member 'dragging you into a war' but the nation that decided to attack a NATO member.
Attempts to be the world's policeman, the spreader of democracy, and the benevolent empire - all while occasionally overthrowing foreign governments for the benefit of corporations - is a fool's errand.
All of which has more to do with US foreign policy in general than NATO specifically.
