Prof. Mead is sure that policy would be bad. And perhaps it would. But he isn’t examining both sides of the coin. It’s not that he’s avoiding:
And it’s reasonable for people to ask why we should spend so much of our money to provide a security shield for countries who refuse to carry their fair share of the common burden.
It’s also reasonable to ask how much of Europe’s infantalized outlook and economy-destroying social programs is due to Uncle Sam underwriting security for three generations. The correct answer is, “A lot.”
All-in-all, I’m with John Q. Public and against the Professor. I’d happily stay if Europe paid a fair share. But otherwise, I’d say Prof. Meads’ concerns are outweighed by the benefits of Western Europe having to grow the hell up.
And if it’s too late, then NATO is a trap and America should escape sooner, not later. Or it might have to gnaw off its own foot.