The Guardian reports:

For years now, Nato nations have been committed to reach a minimum defence spending target of 2% of GDP. Yet 20 of them, including Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, have fallen far short. Among the six that have reached the target, the shares of four (including Britain and France) are in decline. Inevitably, that means the US carries ever more of the load and becomes ever more sceptical about taking Europe seriously....

The experience of Iraq, coupled with Europe's increased role in the Balkans, has tempted some Eurocentrics to say that Nato is outmoded and that an enhanced military role for the EU should replace it. This is fantasy land. If there is one thing that would be even worse for Europe than fighting a war with the Americans as allies, it is fighting a war without them. While it is true that Europe spends too little on defence because it knows it can rely on the Americans, it does not follow that European nations would be keen to spend more if Nato broke down.

The Bucharest Summit pings my interest on two fronts. First, I'm curious to see how Sarkozy--who seems to be taking his role as Chef des Armées of Europe's largest military seriously--will lay out his plans for French involvement in Afghanistan. He's hinted that the French army will be relieving the beleaguered Canadians, but there's been no firm announcement on proposed troop strength.

Second, I'd like to see if France's strong leadership role in the European Union inspires more NATO nations to follow their example. Big changes *could* be coming to an alliance near you, but the United States, Canada, France, and Great Britain can't make that happen on their own.

In the end, the Guardian is right. NATO can preach reforms until they're blue in the face, but unless European nations start shouldering the burdens of their own defense, the alliance's purpose and utility will continue to be called into question