Look at the difference between these two "talking points":
> -- NATO frigates and destroyers also will deploy to the
> Mediterranean to assist in US force protection and patrols.
and
> -- NATO AWACS surveillance planes with European crews will circle
> US skies to free up US AWACS for missions elsewhere in the world.
The first one seems to fit the 'propaganda' model; in support of the 'Article 5' declaration, NATO deploys troops to help defend the US presence there. Ok. Fair enough. Rah-rah, go team. Bleah.
But the second one seems ominous: domestic AWACS and CAP efforts to secure the corporate skies of United and American Airlines should be seen by "The Most Powerful Nation On Earth" as just another cost of doing business. The US has always positioned itself as "king of the equals" in NATO; NATO is the mechanism for the US to protect it's European interests ... not the other way around.
Look at it this way: if the propaganda goals are to a) show how "the whole world" is in support of the US and b) the US is strong enough to overcome any adversary, wouldn't it be at cross purposes to bring in an external military force to help defend the domestic ("corporate") skies??
If it had been a long-term goal to get NATO forces into the US scene and this were being used as the way to do it without complaint, I could see your point. But it has never been the case that this was a US goal, and I can't see it happening anytime soon.
Doesn't make sense to me at all.
/jordan