The US has about a 50% higher gdp, while having 30% less population. Not only this, but the EU can barely fund it's military obligations, let alone others. You frame it as the US failing, but I think it's more the US winning since they didn't really lose anything. I would argue they gained, since now the EU and it's competitors are having to spend money to solve things like this, and the EU and Asia are far closer to Ebola outbreaks and spreading due to population movements than the US is.
Why should the US fund some people in Africa who can't control the outbreak of a very easily contained disease, instead of it's own people.
> the EU can barely fund it's military obligations
The EU funds it's military just fine. You're upset because of the EU's obligations, which are non-binding and demanded by the US (who isn't in the EU).
> Why should the US fund some people in Africa
Because it's cheap, and the knock-on effects save American lives? It worked during the last Ebola outbreak, why do you think it would stop working now?
Why should the US fund some people in Africa who can't control the outbreak of a very easily contained disease, instead of it's own people.