While I understand the sentiment, and even agree with it to an extent, there are some ideas in the world that are in natural opposition to each other such that "having it both ways" is impossible.

After having to intervene in two successive "European squabbles," and with the prospect of a third one involving the Soviet Union readily to hand, the US helped with the formation of both the UN and NATO to try to either prevent future such conflicts, or be allied and aligned to fight them if they happened. Like it or not, the world is an interconnected place, and while we have historically always loved our isolationism, we can't stay removed from this connectedness all the time forever.

That said, we pretty much insisted that we had to lead NATO. We did not want our military employments dictated by foreign generals. So, we have set ourselves up as the leader. So, yes...when a crisis happens, NATO looks at their leader and goes "Okay boss. What's the plan?"

With the Cold War gone, this is now "damned inconvenient." We've really lost interest, and want to go back to our isolationism. But, we still also want to retain leadership of NATO.

Gotta pick one. It doesn't work any other way. Let the Europeans step up and run NATO, and either withdraw completely, or recede into the background more. While I think they will then do a competent job, we do risk having to yet again play a more increased role if it doesn't work out that way. Or else we don't want that gamble, and we'll just keep our position in rememberance of how we got to it in the first place. In which case then, yes..."ask us what we intend to do about it." (Since we insist on being the leader.)

Did you ever have to make up your mind? Take a chance on one thing, let the other one ride. It's not often easy. It's not often kind. Did you ever have to make up your mind?