If we take a look at the % of US forces stationed in Europe, and assume all of them are there only out of the goodness of the US' heart to protect Europeans, and subtract them from total US military costs, it isn't even a drop in the bucket. It's less money than the Pentagon doesn't know what happens to.
(This only covers the running costs; even an unfair assumption that the US would need less F-35s and troops if they weren't deployed in Europe, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the $916 billion yearly budget).
That’s not a sensible analysis, given how NATO works. It isn’t even difficult to see how misguided that thinking is because you could simply recall the mounting hundreds of billions we’ve lately been sending to two non-NATO nations.
> It isn’t even difficult to see how misguided that thinking is because you could simply recall the mounting hundreds of billions we’ve lately been sending to two non-NATO nations.
Which the US is doing only to protect European country and wouldn't have done it if it were anywhere else? Strongly doubt it. Also it's important to clarify, the US isn't sending "hundreds of billions" to e.g. Ukraine. It's sending material worth that much, which them it replaces (and sometimes it would have had to anyways, in the care of expiring ordinance or obsolete stuff) by paying American companies.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/307805...
(This only covers the running costs; even an unfair assumption that the US would need less F-35s and troops if they weren't deployed in Europe, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to the $916 billion yearly budget).