All over Europe, the resistance against the attack on Iraq was vast. Millions marched, and in subsequent elections the voters generally punished cooperating governments. On quintessential aspects of the use of military force, Europe and the US dramatically parted ways. This means that NATO is in a precarious position. Its original goal has been defunct for almost two decades, and its new goals are simply discredited. Obama's calls for military assistance are doomed, within NATO or without it. The fact that they are obviously pro forma is good - no point losing credibility and popularity in fruitless endeavours.

In addition, the debacle in Georgia showed that the US had no qualms about using NATO recklessly in a game of brinkmanship with Moskow. This brought it home to the Europeans that NATO could easily become a liability. No surprise then that NATO celebrations were muted. If it hadn't been for Obama's presence, they would have been a mere footnote to the news. It is true that Europe doesn't have any real alternative to NATO for its common defense. But it also doesn't have any credible scenario where it would actually need it.

Right now, there is extremely little that keeps European governments in NATO. In fact, NATO membership has become so meaningless that France has been willing to join it.