Interesting that you mention the militarization of the EU. I have not seen that discussed (in the US) as a threat or a problem, though I think it should be. The issue has been discussed in Britain, because there it is understood as an eventual choice that has to be made between the EU and the USA. That choice was eventually made by the British people last summer... However the foreign policy establishment in the US appears to be unaware of the problem, or have I missed something?
And to add to your point, my idea about EU militarization comes from the British, specifically Nigel Farage. He's really been on the front line talking about this issue.
I think it's also been confirmed by former Greek finance minister Yaris Varoufakis when he describes what occuered as essentially the state capture of Greece by Germany.
But the real moment of truth came after the EU released its plans for a EU army after Brexit. The mask came off at that point. Prior to that, the notion of an EU army or a revanchist France and Germany was relegated to the imagination of techno-thriller writers.
But it's really a matter of timelines. If you accept the premise that the next geopolitical threat to the U.S. is China over the next 20-30 years you kinda understood what Obama was thinking when he said the U.S. was going to pivot to Asia.
With that in mind, if you're a EU lackey you said to yourself, "U.S. is done with Europe," and we can't depend on them and have to do our own thing. If you talk to Nigel Farage he'll tell you that Obama essentially chucked the UK into the EU sausage machine from a diplomatic and geopolitical point of view.
So the pivot to Asia is good from a long-term perspective, but Obama made a short to mid-term error. Europe is not done. And just like with the Iraq pullout and the rise of ISIS, we're paying for that miscalculation with Europe.