If the people in Europe are not willing to defend themselves from the Muslim hordes then we can't do it for them. As much as they would apparently like us to. They have to step up to the plate and contribute to their own security. They apparently don't want to. Instead people expect us to do it in their stead. That isn't in our best interests.
I totally agree with you. They sowed it, they need to reap it. We can't protect them from that. Not willing? I bet they will be very soon, when they find out there ain't no US Cavalry coming over the hill this time. We're a little busy over here, right now.
As an aside, I'd like to point out this thread is one of the best and most thoughtful I've seen here in a while...and it's a "vanity."
I agree that we can’t save them from the Muslims with our military. That they must do themselves.
However, we must understand how and why we are there. Communism was a large and growing threat after WWII. General George Patton said that we would have to fight them sooner or later so we might as well fight them while we are there and still mobilized for battle. Truman disagreed and Patton died after a strange accident in Europe.
We allowed Russia to stay in Eastern Europe after they agreed to leave after 3 months. They reneged and we formed NATO with Western Europe.
Most of the Eastern Hemisphere was wasted after WWII and we were the biggest kid on the block. We could have taken over the world were we so inclined. We weren’t but we did maintain a large enough military to protect ourselves against the expansionism of the USSR. We did that in Korea and South Vietnam. We have been protecting everybody else ever since and they have grown to expect it. Personally, I think it is cheaper for us to protect them than to allow them to be taken over by the USSR and then have to fight them after that. However, we may still have to do that after the Muslims take over.