America is shouldering the bulk of NATO's military. If the U.S. pulls back, what's the future of the alliance? Room for Debate - NYTimes.com, Jun 15, 2011

"The irony couldn’t be thicker. Here are 500 million inhabitants of the European Union with a gross domestic product that is the world’s largest. The French defense budget is 1.8 percent of G.D.P., the British is 2.2 percent -- a long way from the 3 percent to 4 percent in the cold war. Or from the 4 percent the U.S. is spending. But it is a lot more than the 1.2 percent of Germany, which is currently reducing its force to 185,000 from 250,000. One percent is the norm for most of Europe. So Europe doesn’t want to put its its money where its mouth is, and Germany hasn’t even opened it."

Europeans aren't starry eyed pacifists, they simply recognize that not everything can be solved by military means. What is better, spend nothing on military or spend couple of trillions on completely unnecessary wars and achieve nothing or even less as States did in Afghanistan and Iraq? Increase your military spending, you never know when US decides to spend another couple of trillions invading, say Indonesia, taking 10 years to realize they have no real business there and another couple of years admitting that. Of course all its allies should go along, that's what they are for, apparently. European countries should spend more on military all right but for completely different reasons. They should be able to act more independently if they think there's a need for action and US is dragging its foot.

The only problem with NATO seems to be the desire by some to redefine it as a global policeman.

Its purpose should remain a passive one -- to provide a security guarantee for European nations against one another (especially Germany). Although Germany or any other nation of Europe doesn't currently pose any sort of threat, the mere existence of the NATO alliance means the other nations don't have to constantly look nervously over their shoulder in fear that it might one day become a threat.

NATO is performing its role simply by providing a passive umbrella of permanent peace in Europe. It does not require a heavy militarisation of the continent to maintain but simply provides all countries with an insurance policy against any future potential risk.

The fact that Europeans are against wars - as substantiated by the polls the poster quoted - does not mean that their greatest fear is war. I am strongly opposed to the gravitation ceasing to exist, yet I don't fear it at all.

The responders have correctly elaborated that Europe can defend itself against the only plausible threat, Russia. As Germany - and whole Europe - leans closer to Russia, even that threat is minimal. So what would be the point of an over-bloated military? Europe is right to shrink its military-related spending, and would be right to leave NATO altogether. Ever since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been nothing but a liability, dragging European countries into unnecessary US wars, directly resulting in the London and Madrid attacks.
I've already posted my thoughts on the negative consequences the "US security umbrella" has on Europe at the appropriate entry. Putting any rhetoric aside, it is America's fault that the world is less safe for Europeans than it was 10 years ago.

It is only natural that Gates - and the "loyal opposition" - are insisting on the continued life-support of NATO, the only organization giving any kind of legitimacy to the American warmongering. Without NATO, the US would be even more isolated in its reckless adventures than it is now.

If any of these NATO countries doubled or even tripled their military spending they still realize that they remain a marginal player at the table visa vie the United States. They are also conscious of the reality that American perceptions will always prevail on any and all occasions.

Under these circumstances why would they expand their military spending? Does anyone think there is an urge on the part of the EU nations to ease the burden on the American taxpayer whom they believe are already under taxed relative to their own usually more heavily levied populations? The fact is these countries decisions about their level of defense spending are in a way much more rationally arrived at than our own choices.

Another more unspoken factor is a growing lack of confidence in the quality and credibility of American leadership. Beginning with Vietnam and continuing right through to Iraq and Afghanistan most of these countries to one extent or another have participated only to maintain the facade of a viable alliance and not because of their strong belief in the quality of American strategic direction. In fact most of these US led wars that they have participated in since the end of the Cold War have been largely very unpopular among their own populations.

Perhaps America’s priorities are the ones out of whack? Perhaps we should consider the affordability our militarized global posture as it is currently configured? Perhaps spending more than the next twenty military powers is irrational and we need a more cost effective strategy rather than rousting our allies to take the burden off the American taxpayer.

What is better, spend nothing on military or spend couple of trillions on completely unnecessary wars and achieve nothing or even less as States did in Afghanistan and Iraq? Increase your military spending, you never know when US decides sázkové kanceláre to spend another couple of trillions invading, say Indonesia, taking 10 years to realize they have no real business there and another couple of years admitting that. Of course all its allies should go along, that's what they are for, apparently.