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.

endorendil:

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.

The EU does have a provision for mutual support should one member state be attacked. But even setting that aside, I don't think that Europe actually needs a common defence policy. The Soviet menace is long gone, and even though Russia is throwing her weight about at the moment, the chances of her sending tanks trundling over her borders into Poland or Latvia are miniscule, and frankly the notion rather paranoid. It seems to me that American commentators like Applebaum are far more concerned over perceived threats from Russia, Iran and so forth than most European nations are. This might have something to do with the fact that some conservative Americans wish to use NATO as a proxy in US/Russian relations, and find that racheting up the the volatile bear rhetoric and associated acts of fear mongering, cements NATO's position in eastern Europe, and more importantly, ensures that those former Soviet satellites not part of the alliance wish to join. Under Bush, NATO became not so much an alliance of mutual defence, but a vehicle for undermining Russian influence in her "near abroad", whilst simultaneously serving American interests there. Now, I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se, and think any nation that wants to join NATO should have that option, but I just wish that when American pundits bang on about Russian ambitions, and the military enfranchisement of Georgia and Ukraine through NATO, that'd they'd at least have the honesty to admit what their underlying motives are.

Yes, it's exactly because the US is more interested in using NATO as stick against Russia that Europe must be backing away from the alliance. Under US control, NATO is more likely to cause a war in Europe than prevent it.