There were roughly 50 countries in the coalition, but only about 20% were NATO members, and those only represented about half of the actual NATO members at the

There were roughly 50 countries in the coalition, but only about 20% were NATO members, and those only represented about half of the actual NATO members at the time. It was an ill-conceived conflict yes, but not an actual NATO conflict. In fact the lack of support from key NATO allies led to a very acrimonious relationship with founding NATO members that did not participate. To characterize Iraq military operations as a NATO operation in the face of these facts is simply ridiculous, especially when the actual contributions by NATO members that did join the coalition, with the possible exception of the UK, were very small. (Though their soldiers should still be honored for their willingness to serve and sacrifices made) It was not approved by NATO and if the US had officially sought Article 5 support for the conflict it very well may have been denied, a likely reason why they didn't invoke it to avoid embarrassment. After the country fell to US & coalition forces, only then did NATO send humanitarian assistance & resources to help rebuild, and they were strictly limited in scope. The Iraq invasion was no more a NATO operation than the Suez Crisis was, with both giving their countries black eyes on reputation and credibility. As for the other conflicts you mention, NATO's intervention with Yugoslavia was brutal & likely excessive, but it did stop a genocide in its tracks. It's rightfully criticized for its methods but it's difficult to fault their involvement itself. Libya on the other hand I agree was a complete mess. Regardless, none of that justifies Russia's own actions.