The editors of the New York Times insist on a renewed round of euro bashing. They say about the debt crisis:

The constructive way out would be to restructure excessive debt, recapitalize affected banks and relax austerity enough to let debtor countries — Greece, Ireland and Portugal are most at risk — grow their way back to solvency.

But if that is the way forward, something I could even agree to, why isn't the U.S. applying these methods. It's banks are in no better shape than the European ones and its debt position isn't a happy one either.

Then there is this nonsensical claim about NATO:

Americans are weary of war — and fear of weakening NATO no longer deters politicians, as the fight over the Libya campaign has made clear. We don’t know how much longer voters here will support an alliance in which the United States shoulders 75 percent of the military spending and a much higher percentage of the fighting.

The 75 percent number is false. Gates used that recently to bash European NATO members. But it is simply wrong and repeating it doesn't make it right. According to the well regarded SIPRI Military Expenditure Database NATO countries other than the United States in 2010 spent $318 billion on military issues while the U.S. spent $698 billion. That is 68% of the total not 75%.

And that of course leaves out the little fact that NATO is not a global association but has a limited area of responsibility while the U.S. spending is for a global network of bases and influence. The North Atlantic Treaty article 6 limits the collective selfdefense to:

the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer …

These limits of the NATO area were inserted into the treaty on behalf of the United States which wanted to avoid to fight for attacks on European colonies outside of the defined area. Falklands anyone?

If one has to compare the spending for NATO's purpose by the U.S. versus other NATO countries one will have to subtract some big numbers from the U.S. budget. The permanent U.S. aircraft carrier group in Japan has nothing to do with NATO spending. Nor do the U.S. bases in South Korea, around the Middle East, Africa or South America. Nothing the U.S. spends in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean, South Atlantic or Arabian Sea is relevant for NATO.

Subtracting the cost for those from the actual U.S. defense spending one will end up with a much smaller relevant U.S. share of total NATO spending. It is likely to come in around some 30+% of the total.

As for the share of fighting – where please is the U.S. fighting for European interests?