An essay, Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan takes on why America and Europe have divergent views on foreign policy. The basic argument is one of historical evolution:

World War II all but destroyed European nations as global powers, and their postwar inability to project sufficient force overseas to maintain colonial empires in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East forced them to retreat on a massive scale after more than five centuries of imperial dominance - perhaps the most significant retrenchment of global influence in human history. For a half-century after World War II, however, this weakness was masked by the unique geopolitical circumstances of the Cold War. Dwarfed by the two superpowers on its flanks, a weakened Europe nevertheless served as the central strategic theater of the worldwide struggle between communism and democratic capitalism. Its sole but vital strategic mission was to defend its own territory against any Soviet offensive, at least until the Americans arrived. Although shorn of most traditional measures of great-power status, Europe remained the geopolitical pivot, and this, along with lingering habits of world leadership, allowed Europeans to retain international influence well beyond what their sheer military capabilities might have afforded.

There's a lot to think about here. I think that this underscores the argument that Britain should join NAFTA, not the EU, since IMHO the UK is closer to the American perspective than the rest of Europe. Stephen Den Beste makes a compelling argument that NATO is useless, which makes me view the recent announcement of Russia's inclusion as a "junior member" as less than celebratory.