Terrorism is indeed very real, and is happening all the time. Hundreds of acts of terror have been committed in the years since 9/11, resulting in deaths of thousands of civilians, including hundreds of children. They those acts have pretty much 0 media coverage, and no one is doing anything to stop them. The US is free to keep on terrorizing civilian populations around the globe.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone...

They're terrorists too.

The fact is that the EU wants to apply even more crazy gov't surveillance tactics, and don't need the US pushing it. By saying this, you're giving them an "out" ('oh, big bad Uncle Sam basically forced us to play along!').

"It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

I don't imagine anyone cares to do the posthumous intelligence checks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

http://leksikon.org/images/iraq_lancet2.pdf

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before US attacked it:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/still-clueless-about-al-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/bush-acknowledges-a...

That's not exactly true in that not every non-U.S. citizen is an interest to the U.S. Government.

To your broader point though, the idea that a state's Security, Defense or Military arms are singularly focused on foreign "threats" or potential threats is a fundamental assumption of nearly every international relations theory. Why would you think it would be otherwise?

If we were talking about Georgia, or Israel, or Ukraine, or Japan, I would understand the fear. But the USA has no enemies, there are no threats. It's a tragic case of paranoia.

Unless, of course, you have a non-US company competing with a US company, then you are targeted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns

"In the early 1990s, the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted the communications between the European aerospace company Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. In 1994, Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA, acting as a whistleblower, reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[58] As a result, the American aerospace company McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) won the multi-billion dollar contract instead of Airbus."

"The American defense contractor Raytheon won a US$1.3 billion contract with the Government of Brazil to monitor the Amazon rainforest after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), acting as a whistleblower, reported that Raytheon's French competitor Thomson-Alcatel had been paying bribes to get the contract."

"In order to boost America's position in trade negotiations with the then Japanese Trade Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, in 1995 the CIA eavesdropped on the conversations between Japanese bureaucrats and executives of car manufacturers Toyota and Nissan."

And these are only the public cases of course. If you can eavesdrop on the conversations between your competitor and prospect, I don't have to tell you the huge advantage.

You guys are pissing off friendly nations (I'm European).

"According to a European Parliament report, published in 2001, America's National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi government in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to secure a lion's share for Airbus in modernising Saudi Arabian Airlines' fleet."

It would be interesting to see the European Parliament report, if anyone has a reference.

I m not saying what the NSA did was right, but that isn't really the issue i would have with their massive monitoring - it's that the information could be abused, or mis-used. The other part of the NSA problem is the National Security Letters (NSL), which is basically tyranny. I don't care that an american corporation managed to win more contracts this way, but that such powers could be abused.

I am interested in how you came to this conclusion.

The US has two borders. One with Canada, one with Mexico. Neither of these countries are likely to invade.

The US has the largest naval force in the world. I believe the Coastguard is also the 13th largest. Again, nothing to fear.

Of the countries that are "enemies", most would quite like to improve relations, for instance Cuba and Iran. Iran in particular has extended many an olive branch over the decades.

The US keeps these countries around as notional enemies, in part because of political incompetence, and in part because of a lack of incentive to fix things. Who wants to be the President who made friends with an "Islamic Republic"?

Either way, it's hard to see what particular danger the US is in.

Compare this to any of the countries I mentioned, which are much less defended, and have active disputes with neighbouring countries.

The US certainly has competitors for geopolitcal influence (~enemies), as does any other nation.

Economic competition has frequently been the underlying motivator for military action.

The ones that don't like to improve the relations generally get hung up on unstable countries developing atomic bombs.