You have a point regarding past German behavior, especially during the Cold War. But then again, it was their nation torn in two, not ours, and the likely theater of a hot war would have been their land.
On Libya, I think, frankly, it is us who are hyperactive. Surely, if we wish to sort out other nation’s civil wars, it should be our own initiative, — or France’s, or whoever is in the mood to fight wars, not NATO’s, which is a defensive alliance, and not Germany’s, which probably finds these days that the best defense is national solvency and strong economy.
The collective security threats are the same for Germany as they are for the US. Only Germany chooses to do nothing, can't be forced to take action, and her politicians and Volk think they are in fact better than thou for being “schmarotzer.”
Let me ask you this, Did the Serbs attack Germany? It was Germany that was one of the political engines behind this war! And guess to whom they ran for help? NATO!
The war in Afghanistan, the incident in the Republic of Georgia and the attacks on South Korea highlight a much greater issue and NATO is center stage in this show. You have the US, she CANNOT break her agreements, she CANNOT shrink in the face of this adversity, even may it be Clinton or an Obama that are in charge. Funny how GITMO is still open and Obama has now allowed military tribunals (lol), how we still have 70,000 troops in Iraq........... The US is a not only a member, but the greatest contributor in money, forces, C2 and the congealing force that binds allies together as part of these missions may that be Somalia, Iraq etc........ We bring to the table the means to deal with the high threat scenario's and even though our own allies often want to minimize our contribution, we do the door kicking, take the most dangerous area's and if things get bad, we are the ones that box others out. If the US fails to rise to her commitment, it would be a break in confidence and a probable death of the alliance system all together, believe it or not. The problem is that within these alliances NATO and ANZUS the other parties and “pick and choose” when they want to behave like allies. They can choose not to contribute at all, when, with how much, what sort of assistance etc they want to come to the show with if it fits into their small narrow minded picture, i.e. Germany in Lebanon or Afghanistan. As mentioned before, even if the US is attacked, if 3,000 civilians are murdered and the Germans admit themselves that the bad guys are in Afghanistan etc., they still didn't really rise up and beared their fair share of the load. The US had to coerce, had to negotiate and ask for help, that shouldn't be. I assure you, if Germany were directly attacked and 3,000 people perished, if we sent a few troops and tried to do little to nothing, they would be screaming bloody murder!
Not only the Cold War.... Hell, after 911, within three MONTH the Germans made an about face and did all they could to get their forces into safe areas, avoid being part of Enduring Freedom and combat ops, and placed such high ROE on their forces that they became essentially worthless. This was the alleged campaign where their chancellor spoke of “Uneingeschraenkte Solidaritaet.” Really, had the Germans left in 2006, nothing would have really changed in Afghanistan at the macro level and long term. Their commitment was more a token effort than any real contribution. The same goes for UNIFIL where as in Afghanistan the German's jockeyed for a role where their troops are not exposed to any threat by having them in ships off the shore while the fighters and weapons come across the Syrian boarder on land. What a joke!
It cannot be that the US is left flapping out in the wind, paying the economic, political and security costs of dealing with our “collective” security risks and concerns while some allies even play games with these issues in cheap internal opposition political efforts as Schroeder did in 2002 to get reelected! As was the case when Germany chose to shoot their mouth off about missile defense, all awhile they joined in on MEADS, bought 300 Patriot PAC3 missiles, are part of SM3 and said they would support NATO in the stationing of Interceptor in Poland as long as Germany is under the umbrella as well. In the meantime their politicians are running around screaming their typical “saberrateling, cowboy, destabilization, new arms race” BS. The status quo is unacceptable! Believe me when I say that everyone, 100% of those that call themselves members of NATO and ANZUS, have an “expectation” that we would intervene if there were an issue that hit them personally, but only few will step up to the plate reliably as allies dealing with the real threats we all face when they personally aren't directly affected. Most are fair weather allies and contribute the minimal they can get by with, knowing others will be de facto forced to deal with the issue even if they choose inaction all awhile "they" personally benefit from these actions. You don't think germany is affected by an Islamic terrorist threat? You don't think Germany sees Iran as a threat? You don't think Germany sees Libya as a threat?............ They benefit, others pay. It is a literal moocher type of relationship and those doing the mooching or freeloading in this case have a vote in if and how the status quo should be changed. The biggest resistors to NATO reform historically where the biggest freeloaders. Germany is one of them.
Any action the US takes to “force” allies to assist her ultimately have the following dangers:
1. A return to a near colonial era. If the US cuts nonsupporting allies out of the picture in those campaigns where their is no support given, you would see literally a new era of colonialism emerge. Those that own the real estate control and own what's in it. One of the key differences between today and say the colonial era is that you have free access to markets and resources that are traded to which all have access. Go back in time and essentially what was mined in those areas under the Spaniards control belonged to the crown.
2. The Alliance systems would collapse. If the US tries to force allies through threats of nonsupport or holding back if the “schmarotzer” is affected, they would scream and while they themselves are “do nothings” would declare NATO or ANZUS dead, with some insiders seeing this as an opportunity to grow in influence and actually helping this death along, i.e. France. Ironically, the “do nothing Schmarotzer” that would declare these organizations as dead is the same person that likes to talk about “multilateralism” when convenient to them.
3. The US, while paying disproportionately and playing a disproportionate role cannot really force NATO or ANZUS to reform. While the US created NATO and it has really served Europe more that the US, the US has no omnipotence in this organization. Those that are in the freeloader position more or less have to agree and themselves vote to change the status quo, and of course they don't. They like it just the way it is. When they need/want something they think everyone is “required” to help them, but when they are called upon, it's a matter of sovereignty and stupid arguments of some heuchelei (false intellectualism and morality) and an attack on the legitimacy are used to rationalize ones inaction. "Schadenfreude" is then used to make oneself feel superior and justified in having done nothing, once again.
The US is essentially forced to take whatever others wish to give in whatever amount they choose unless she wants to jeopardize these international security organizations and yes, believe it or not the entire modern day world order on which our economies are built. The US only has a hand full of solid allies helping her deal with the real threats out there (Global Warming isn't one of them, lol), MOST are freeloaders to a varying degree. They ALL of course want to be members of these security organizations though!
(Examples)
Nations that are carrying their weight and are more dependable: UK, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Australia.
Nations that contribute little and aren't really reliable: France, Germany, Denmark, Japan, Italy, Spain
Nations that are complete worthless freeloaders: Hungary, New Zealand, Check Republic, Austria, Greece
The larger nations like Germany really can't completely avoid involvement because of their influential role and the degree of involvement as well as personal benefits they have. For example, when UNIFIL was stood up, could Germany as Europe's largest economy, the worlds largest trading nation with major imports and exports to the Middle East and North Africa and most populous nation in the EU really do nothing? Even their own European partners would have torn into them had they done absolutely nothing while France and Italy commit substantial troops to the ground etc. The Germans to lesser degree like the US are forced to act in at least some cases and can't completely avoid contributing entirely as is the case with some of the smaller Euro nations that are completly worthless while sucking on the teet of this modern world order. Think Austria, direct benficiary from the Balkan campaign, does little to nothing anywhere but benefits from: Free open air and water ways (trade). Protection of intelectual property. Regional stability. Needs access to strategic resouces to keep her transportation, information, high tech and industrial economy alive, i.e. cesium, Platnum, gold, silver, oil, etc. Requests assistence when their own citizens are in peril, i.e. non combatant ecacuation operations, kidnappings, etc abroad. Yet what do they do? And I prmise you! The average layperson has this idea of a near superiority because of their "do nothingness." They feel powerful and sovereign because they tell those Americans "Nein" to the use of their air space or something like that but what do they do when people are assasignated in their own country at the hands of a foreign government?