[mpweiher]

It's a bit more complicated. The US presence has many reasons, not least of which is non-proliferation, with the deal being protection under the US nuclear umbrella in exchange for not going nuclear, which pretty much all of the european countries that haven't done so easily could.

The presence of US troops is partly to give credibility to the assurances of US retaliation if a country is attacked: if you get nuked, our troops get nuked, and yes, we will respond to that. Without the credibility, countries would probably see themselves forced to go nuclear (South Korea has recently made noises in this direction.)

Another reason is, as the first NATO secretary general put it: "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." (purpose of NATO). Germany nowadays is quite a pacifist country, and that's probably an achievement worth keeping. Having lived and worked in a couple of different countries, I am not sure I would want the ruthless German efficiency applied to matters military...again.

[pekk]

I am pretty sure the problem with the Nazis was not that they were exceptionally efficient at war. The problem was rooted in their goals and the means they considered appropriate.