Establishment of a strong european military force

Unrealistic.
Protoimperialistic.
Useless.

[BTW, I'm not advocating Europe yielding to the US in NATO, either]

Surely some guidelines are in order.
We are unifying. We need some muscle.
Maybe, but it's cool.

I vaguely remember something about europe asking the US to help in an unstable region because they couldn't handle the problem themselves. Which is ridiculous if the region was in europe(near it, depending on what borders you respect). I'm afraid I have forgotten its name and doubt if eastblockcountries is the right translation of what region I'm referring too.

ReX, Don't build up too large a military, because the US will continue to "subsidize" the cost to protect your region from aggression. With the cost savings, work to improve your own social overhead capital. That's the smart way to approach this issue.

Hehe, true. But there is need for a unified militairy guideline and defense policy. This does however include the relinquishment of soeverinty of the participating countries of the EU.

The geopolitical changes following the collapse of communism and the outbreak of regional crises in the Balkans and beyond led EU members to redouble efforts to speak and act as one. A new framework is emerging.

The words: Rapid Reaction Force come to mind.
(Yes yes, it's not about a strong force, it's about a fast one. Fine scratch that if you will)

But that's exactly the reason why we need multinational cooperation to fight terrorism. It's not a localized problem; it's world-wide. That's where president Bush failed; he thought we were strong militarily, but didn't understand the first thing about international cooperation. On the same token, it would be a big mistake for the European countries to go it alone.

Why should Europe NOT be independent and America still be granted to intervene when they see fit without NATO on their side? If they were really the great heroes they dissimulate to be, why not lift their invulnerability against war crimes? Anyway, America is not the issue here. So I won't address that anymore(you can still reply of course ).

Back to the point:
'there will be no duplication of NATO's role and that NATO will remain as Europe's primary defence organization.'
'European Union countries have pledged the troops and equipment required to launch a new Rapid Reaction Force which will take on conflict resolution, peacekeeping and humanitarian duties where Nato chooses not to get involved.'
In other words, it's supplementary. It does not undermine any healthy position the NATO may or may not have. It adds to the solution of a problem.
'The Americans, the dominating contributors to NATO, have long called for that organization to shoulder a bigger proportion of the defence burden in Europe.'

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/11/20/europe.defence/index.html