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?
Could I ask to to translate your German phrases? I don't speak German and have limited time to respond to you, let alone consult dictionaries.
The collective security threats are the same for Germany as they are for the US
Yes, but none of them are military. Our threats are danger of national default and even greater danger of losing the Christian identity. A danger of terrorist incidents exists, but is relatively small, comparable, for example, to the threat from natural disasters. So, quite possible you and I just don't see the world in the same way.
Did the Serbs attack Germany? It was Germany that was one of the political engines behind this war!
Yes, and the aggression against Serbia was foolish for Germans, and for everyone involved. The outcome of that was an islamic terrorist state next door to Italy and a loss of trust in NATO in the Orthodox world. But that was quite a while ago; isn't it time we all learned something?
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!
But Germany wasn't. I think, war in Afghanistan was justified, but it also was naturally a primarily American effort.
paying the economic, political and security costs of dealing with our “collective” security risks
Libya wasn't a security risk. In fact, it may end up greater risk now that Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda become in charge. Democracy has a funny way of turning about. We in America have a habit of lumping together every tension point int he globe and calling it a single big security risk an American business. Germany doesn't have that habit. In fact, no other country does. Global security is a job the American government uniquely wanted for itself, now it got it, and so the job is ours. We shouldn't assume that every time a two bit dictator in the sands of Africa shakes a fist int he air, everyone should spring to attention and forget that we have an economic crisis at home, and several wars we already have that we should wind up.
The problem the US faces is that it can't force others to really carry their fair share
Correct. We can't. In a democratically governed country wars are a national effort. If the German people do not feel like fighting a war, there is nothing we can do to make them want to fight it. The only way to spread the perceived shares around is to institute a world government. Otherwise, the best we can do is persuade others, and I don't think it can be done in the case of Libya. In some other cases you mention perhaps something can be done, maybe even with military means, but the adventure in Libya is at the most for the French and the Italians to sort out as they share the pond with them and seem to have the desire. I would not blame any other country for willing to stay out.