Hopefully this will make it easy for the US to stop paying for defense of the EU and spend that money at home.
Today, any excessive US presence in Europe is most likely a symptom of over-reaching US Foreign Policy rather than something the EU requires.
Of course the problem of pirates around Somalia is an actual problem, but not one requiring the ‘defence of the EU’ by the US. Similarly, while Russia might not be too fond of an expanding EU, a lot has to happen for Russian tanks to roll west and threaten the largest customers of their oil and gas.
And if all else fails, the ‘Grande Nation’ is still a nuclear power quite capable of defending itself and its close economical allies, even if the guys across the channel would rather become the 51st state of the US.
The US has aquirred it's bases for different historic reasons. Some, in the pacific, were leased off the UK for money. Others, like the bases in Japan and Germany, were forced on countries that lost a war with the US, and as few who fought in or supported that war are still alive, you can see why those countries might consider whether they benefit from them.
It is hard to separate beneficial activities that the US does, like the protection of shipping as it travels past East Africa, from it's pursuit of strategic objectives, such as rivalry for dominance in Africa with the Chinese, and middle eastern power blocks. And in addition, there is a legitimate counter terrorism aspect, which probably benefits the US more than other countries.
The thing is that the US had a great deal of control over Western Europe, imposed by force in the 1940s, and declining since then, and this was achieved as part of a struggle between the US and USSR, where European countries were really pawns. As the power declines (in part due to increasing strength and unity between EU countries), it's hard to imagine that the US will be able to maintain it's bases.
I think you should try to see it more dispassionately. There is a strategic game, where people lose and win, often in different ways at the same time. As American power declines from it's peak this century, it may be more comfortable to view it as a neccesary horror, rather than America's god appointed role, as a lot of Europeans view their own countries real politique.
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/26/u-s-military-bases-in-eu...
The fact of the matter is that the US has absolutely secured trade routes throughout the world for our own economic benefit. However, this action has, as a side effect, benefited other developed nations. Historically, US intervention in the Persian Gulf region (BEFORE the absurd 2003 invasion of Iraq on false pretenses) helped stabilize oil prices, benefiting the US hugely, and Europe to a lesser, but still large, degree. In financial terms, European citizens have paid nothing for these benefits, while American taxpayers pay out the nose for military. If American taxpayers weren't so brainwashed into financing such a large military, we would have either lower taxes or more spending on European style social programs (free university for qualified students, universal health care, etc)
Now we are in a situation where the American public is, without question, going to be against future foreign interventions. One can only hope that somebody, anybody, will take up some of the slack.
Any German who is old enough or studies history knows about the Berlin Airlift. One small detail that is easily forgotten in today's populist tide of "Amerrikka is evil" is that France and the UK gave up on holding Berlin. Their view was that it was inevitable that it would be taken over by the Soviets. The U.S., in an odd and, at the time, insane plan, decided to find any way to keep West Berlin supplied. While it would be naive to think the US didn't have any self-interest here, this was a case where a pushy, interventionist foreign policy was a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Atalanta
Presumably the US is there because US ships have been attacked as well?
Also, reducing military spending and enacting a saner foreign policy would have the nice side effect the US would stop making new enemies. The world would be a much safer place.
No. It won't happen.
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.