I don't disagree with you. Historically NATO has always been seen from Washington, as a US-led alliance, but European countries go along with that. And they could, as you say, easily define a European defense policy that has nothing to do wih the U.S.

I do make the point in the diary that that is what I think Europe should do.

I think you see it easier than it really is. There is no political unity in Europe, although we, and I mean really we here in this blog, are working on it.
Military is seen by many as a sign of national sovereignty. In eastern Europe, there are still scepticalness against Germany and as they have their sovereignty only since a short time they are reluctant to give more of it away (not to speak of UK), and they see a close relationship with the US as a counterbalance to the influence of major European countries. And despite all the talk of anti-americanism many people are very grateful to the US and don't want to disagree or disappoint them.
Finally the US can always switch the partner. GHWB promised Kohl leadership in partnership. Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi allied with GWB for the war in Iraq, and they all lost their office partially for that, but then Sarkozy in France offers an easy to go relationship with GWB. There are other reasons to vote for politicians then foreign policy, so this can't have always priority.

Kosovo is a very bad example. I think today it was false to use military. It would have been cheaper and with less cost of live and less international tensions, if one would have paid the neighbour countries of Serbia 100000 Euro per person, which they allow to immigrate from Kosovo. The problem would have been solved then. Now there are still serious problems.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers