I guess NATO isn't going to be doing very many extracurricular activities like Somalia and other basket case countries for quite a while, if ever...
You've got to remember that NATO only has the forces its member states want to allow it for a certain campaign, and its member states are already contributing forces for Afghanistan, Libya, and other operations, and many also did for Iraq, which didn't leave a good aftertaste in the mouthes of many of their publics or the politicians those publics elect... NATO was also pretty much put together for defending Western Europe back in the Cold War and whilst that's not so relevant now, you've got to remember a lot of it's new, more Easterly member states still joined for what it used to be, not necessarily to get involved in military expeditions on other continents. The ability to compel them to put up troops and resources for this may not be there (I'm a bit rusty on current NATO roles and the agreements in place).
The US and the UK in particular have enough on their plate with Afghan when you consider you generally need 3 times the number of troops you want to deploy, to deploy that number sustainably over a time period of years. Other small nations might not have as many troops in theatre but they have smaller armed forces with smaller budgets and in many cases more public opinion against the war. Everyone is in the middle of this economic sh1tstorm, Germany has significant constitutional limitations on how just how warlike it's forces can actually be, many in the US probably would object to becoming involved again given what happened in Somalia in 1993, any UK or French involvement would probably be accused of neocolonialism due to their histories in Africa, and I don't see much enthusiasm in anyone's population for getting involved in yet another war in yet another far off land.
Even if something did happen, we would have to be very sure of making it happen fast. We couldn't afford it to be another Iraq or Afghan going on now for an indefinite number of years, not with our other commitments right now. If we could guarantee it would all be done and dusted in a few months, maybe. But you can never guarantee that. Remember that Afghan, Iraq and Libya were all supposed to be done and dusted in short order, and the locals were supposed to be welcoming coalition troops with open arms for freeing them of the last bosses of those places. How did that work out for us?
If I could see any organisation taking some action it might be the UN. The EU, although it now has a military remit, hasn't exactly used it much, and the EU's forces are by and large the same national forces that NATO would have had to call on. Except without the help of, crucially, the US. Maybe the UN could pull something together given that they have a lot of different member states (I'm thinking Russia and China as the big boys) but I'm not sure the West really wants Chinese boots on the ground in Africa given the intense Chinese investment already in that continent, and I'm not sure that Russia, China and others would even be up for it. Why should they be? Operating under a UN mandate also drastically limits what those forces can and cannot do, think more peacekeeping, observe and report rather than warfighting against the warlords there. Remember Srebrenica?
Yes it sucks (understatement of the century I'll admit) and it needs to be sorted, but with everyone in the situation they are in, unfortunately I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I think the likely best we can hope for is a sort-of-Libya scenario there where the population of Somalia realises they do not want to live this way anymore and rise up against the warlords, hopefully with help from us in a few select areas, but given how Libya has dragged on and a lack of certainty about what sort of new direction the 'Arab Spring' countries will collectively take and what it means for the West, I wouldn't hold my breath even for this.
