As such, I am against an EU only military.
Which very much lessens the ability of any "central control". That is, answers the question: Who puts to use Military Force, where, when and why?
All these three questions must be asked/answered
before any force can be even contemplated.
Besides, it is a bit silly to think there is no EU Military Force. There is one, it's just the sum of the parts - and Europeans make less of it than Americans do of theirs. European Defense budgets are far, far less than that of the US. (See the Defense-spending Map
here.)
No force in Europe is under any single command, and as I intimated above, that is because contemporaneous with an EU Military Force one must have a process that determines its usage. Meaning, specifically, a European presidency (which presently does not exist) that can decide the answers to the three questions posed above, and answer them cogently to all country leaders to obtain a consensus.
That's the way Europe works (without a President for the moment), and it is the way any democracy should work with deliberation.
Europe will likely never resemble the US. Language barriers will probably keep politics contained at a national level. So, the use of a military-force will not at all be like that of the US. Where the PotUS decides, more or less, when and where to employ it.
American presidents seem to like getting into wars (often with no real reason). Reagan was like that, Dubya as well. Whilst there was perhaps a reason to get bin-Laden in Afghanistan there was none (except the oil) to go into Iraq. Anyway, for all the money spent, they finally got bin-Laden in his own bedroom.
(Count on The Dork to find some good reason to invade somewhere within the first six months of his administration.)
Dubya got Iraq all wrong, but, then, he was bent on recovering the two Colt 45s that his father had gifted Hussein. (And I'll bet, this day, that they are both hanging on a wall somewhere in his home.)
THAT is the problem of "Presidential Excess" that America has never really mastered. If we could not depend upon a Johnson to tell the truth about what happened in the Bay of Tonkin that he employed to justify widening the Vietnam War (or a Dubya for Iraq),
why should we accept that a PotUS decides when/where "Billy and Betty" go off to war and come home in body-bags where they are interred with honors.
It would have been far better had they never left, had kids, and a nice house out in the 'burbs - and I can repeat the same for any EU-country as well.
Nothing has changed. "Make love, not war"
unless really-'n-truly necessary ...