I don't think a decision to dissolve NATO needs to be an immediate decision. Certainly it can be decided in advance to give Europe time to prepare and increase current levels.
You think Bush II wouldn't have gotten support to go after Al Qaeda after 9/11. I disagree. For afghanistan even that idiot would have gotten support. No one doubted that Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. Remember ... most of the world didn't know what an idiot he was when 9/11 happened. That became clear later.
If the countries of Europe want to have a mutual defense treaty, that's up to them. If they don't have the military to support it then maybe they need to allocate more resources to that. We are already overmilitarised compared with realistic need, or at least sufficiently armored. You speak of the countries of Europe. Thereby my comment distinguishes between different EU countries. Never occured to you, that there are drastic differences between the interests of different countries in Europe. I think it will be to Europe'a advantage, when NATO is dissolved, but it is the US which has to announce it, for reasons given in my comment.
Seriously, have you read my comment before hitting the reply button? Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
You said:
There is no reason to believe that at current levels of armorisation, even French and German military would be enough to defend Europe against Russia, not to speak of the rest of the 3 times such big EU.
But now you say:
We are already overmilitarised compared with realistic need, or at least sufficiently armored.
I suggest you pick one story and stick with it.
Yes I know that different countries have different interests. I'm tired of that being an excuse for why the United States needs to be involved. Figure it out among yourselves. Stop waiting for the US to take the lead in everything - including the future of NATO.
