First the book "Role Reversal" mentioned in the post, arguing "that America could suffer catastrophic disaster in which foreign help might be necessary or useful."

And now a workshop about this:
"In the wake of 9/11, the U.S. saw an outpouring of international support on its behalf. From the now-famous "We are all Americans" headline in Le Monde to the unprecedented Article V invocation by NATO to the unanimous condemnation of the attacks within the Security Council, the U.S. enjoyed rare universal support. In principle, that support extended to U.S. retaliation through the use of force, and indeed, key international states agreed that the U.S. had "the right of individual or collective self-defense." Yet in practice, the U.S. exercised its self-defense almost entirely individually, intervening in Afghanistan with minor participation from the UK but otherwise with its own financial and personnel resources. With overwhelming levels of international support, and numerous offers for operational assistance, why did the U.S. undertake the Afghanistan intervention almost entirely unilaterally?
What explains the willingness to engage the international community at later phases of the operation, and the degree to which it did so along the way? This workshop addresses those questions by focusing on security cooperation in Afghanistan; it concludes by discussing prospects for future cooperation, specifically between the U.S. and its European allies."
http://www.aicgs.org/eventlist/view.aspx?ID=193&top_parent=156

Organised by Ms. Sarah Kreps, who "was on active duty in the United States Air Force, serving as a foreign area officer for European and sub-Saharan African affairs as well as an acquisition specialist for the U.S., NATO, and UK E-3 airborne surveillance program. Her most recent military assignment was as a reserve captain in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs, where she served as a Western European desk officer. "
http://www.aicgs.org/about/scholars/kreps.aspx

You write: "were not prepared to support their oldest and best ally."

First of all NATO is now in Afghanistan.

Second the former member of the Air Force wrote: "unprecedented Article V invocation by NATO" and "numerous offers for operational assistance."
So why don't you tell her that she is all wrong?

Third, if NATO were rotten, why are there no calls by Americans to cancel membership? (Apart from a few bloggers with very little expertise)

@ Don

A reader emailed this positive assessment by United States Central Command. No date is given. Some numbers have changed (ISAF size has gone up).

"Germany provides a significant contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, including the Army, Air Force and Navy up to a total strength of 3900 soldiers.

Additionally, Germany is the main contributer to the INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE (ISAF). The total personnel in ISAF rounds up to 5500 soldiers, 2500 of which belong to the German Armed Forces.

Germany runs a field hospital for ISAF, open to civil patients as well, operates an air staging unit in TERMEZ/ Uzbekistan, and provides substancial support in operating Kabul International Airport.

Training of the Afghan Police:
Germany, supported by many nations, took over the lead for reestablishment and training of the AFG Police. Coordinated by the Ministry for Interior Affairs, a German Project Office was established in KABUL April 3, 2002 and 12 German police instructors started to work.

ISAF-CIMIC- Projects:
In close and successful coordination with other Coalition Nations, the German ISAF CIMIC Detachment conducts reconstruction in the KABUL area. Many projects are already finished, while others are either ongoing, or planned.

The German Liaison Team to HQ USCENTCOM was first established shortly after the cowardly attacks on 09/11/2001, to support the global war on terrorism.

It was established in order to be a point of contact for all matters/ issues related to the German contribution to OEF and ISAF, be a reliable source of information for other coalition partners and promulgate the exchange of information between HQ USCENTCOM and German Headquaters.

The German contribution to the “Coalition Village” at HQ USCENTCOM contains currently: 1 Brigadier General, 3 Staff Officers and 3 Non Comissioned Officers""


The US political and military leadership sees the need for allies and appreciates their contribution. If you disagree, I think you should write to your represenatives and ask them cancel America's membership to the UN and NATO and WTO etc.

"I haven't seen that good a straw man in ages. Every country needs allies the US most definately. What no country needs are allies who fail to help when they are attacked"

Isn't that a strawman?
Iraq did not attack you...

The US was attacked on 9/11 and your allies responded with the "unprecedented Article V invocation by NATO" and "numerous offers for operational assistance."

The US decided to go alone in Afghanistan and to trust some Afghan warlords rather than your NATO allies.

You did not catch Osama Bin Laden. If you had accepted NATO's offer to help, you could have blamed us Europeans (preferably the French as usual), if Bin Laden had escaped. This scapegoat option alone should have been reason enough for you to accept NATO help ;-) ;-)

Alliance does not mean: Member xyz says I'd like to bring democracy to the Middle East by military regime change in Iraq and all other members have to send troops.
"Allies are people or groups that have joined an alliance and are working together to achieve some common purpose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies
Most Europeans (and many Americans) did not think regime change in Iraq is common purpose.

@ Don
"the refusal of much of Europe to help in the Iraq war."

Do you know that "The United States awarded a medal to one of the two agents of the German Federal Intelligence for his support to combat operations in Iraq? He got hold of the Iraqi defense plan, according to the NYT.
Besides, German ships guarded the sea lanes near the Horn of Africa as part of Task Force 150, an effort to deter terrorist attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, for example. The patrols helped safeguard the waterways the United States used to build up its forces in the Persian Gulf for the invasion of Iraq.
German troops were also part of a "consequence management" team, at the United States military base at Camp Doha, Kuwait, which was charged with protecting Kuwaitis after a chemical attack. The measure was justified as defensive. German personnel also guarded American military bases in Germany, freeing United States soldiers to go to Iraq.
When NATO debated whether to send Awacs radar planes and Patriot missile batteries to Turkey, a move the United States was promoting to help persuade Ankara to open a northern front in Iraq, Germany initially was opposed. But it soon dropped its objections. Germany later provided the missiles for the Patriot batteries sent to Turkey."
I don't understand why we should have provided any more support. Most Americans would not have supported the war in hindsight. Thus, why was it wrong that we did not approve of the war?
"Asked, “If, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al-Qaeda,” a clear majority of 71 percent said that the US should not have gone to war, while just 27 percent said that the US should still have gone to war with Iraq for other reasons.” This is a bipartisan majority. Fifty-three percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats think that in this case, the US should not have gone to war."