Ask yourself this why would any sovereign state allow any external organsiation to have political control of its military.. no other country does, except the feeble atempts that are being made to create the EU RDF:rapid delopyment force
the USA is the largest western Army.. meaning it has the largest technologically advanced military int he world. There are things the US can do that makes its forces superior to all others, through the use of technology, negating overwhelming numbers in other armies.
But rather than make this an Antoi American question askk your self this
why is it the the world let China annexe part of India, but far more shamefully annexe the whole of Tibet, it nearly annexed Korea after its surrogate North Korea was nearly wiped out after its invasion of South Korea
why did the west permit the Soviet Union to invade and occupy what became Eastern Europe, and subjugate those countries to become soviet satellites?
The US has invaded 3, arguably 4 countries since 1945.... Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq (and Greneda).
The Soviet Union sent troops into Afghanistan, its rump remains has sent military forces to stop Chechnya withdrawing from the CIS (Russia). Other actiosn have been police actions or where the US forces were requested to assist.. such as Korea. The first and I would arguably probably the only honourable thing the UN has ever done.
The US & Soviet Union were engaged in numerous proxy wars ever since the end of the second world war.. many of these were in Africa, but also lets not forget the Middle East. Some of the consequences of that are still rumbling on. Teh vast majority of middle eastern states were armed by the Soviet Union and followers on, many of the most repressive Black African dictators (sorry leaders) are Moscow trained.
The reality is that Europe (the EU, has a larger popuylation that the US, but spends less on defence, the defence spending is fragemented amongst many suppliers meaning that for most equipment purchases the EU countries donlt achieve the same economies of scale the US does. the net effect of reduced spending, poor spending and fragmentation is that EU forces are a joke compared to US.. there are some exceptions but broadly speaking US forces are more capable than EU forces.. so the EU can't do a lot, ands where it does get involved it often makes a right pigs ear.. witness Kosovo, the Balkans.
Ultimately its about politics, the EU is fragmented, made up of many different nations, all with differnet perspectives, different political opinions. mind you the EU nations (specifically Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, and the UK) have grubby histories throughout the rest of the world.. so they will not be welcome in too many places.
But the real culprit in my mind is the disaster that is the UN..... it was set up in the West;s eyes as a mechanism to stop future wars, in reality its a talking shop, too timid, unable to act decisively. few countries are willing to let their forces be controlled by other nations or under the aegis of the UN. The UN is about spineless compromise, not about right or wrong. the UN encourages and appeases dictators, it allows dictators to sit on its senior policy forums and dictate policy.
The defence of South Korea after the Chinese inspired, and Soviet supplied, invasion only happened becasue the Soviets were in a huff and not present in the security council, the Chiense were not part of the secuirty council at that time.
The reality is that decisions by the UN are often hedged in terms of how can my country advantage from the UN, how can my country be least affected. This means that countries like France acted its its own interests at the time Iraq invaded Kuwait. This means that the major arms suppliers to Iraq, not the US as many a smear suggests but the Socviet Union / CIS and France wanted to make sure there payments were protected on change of regime,
There comes a time when any country should take a moral stance and should act for moral reasons... the shame is that the EU isn't a moral authority, its a grubby little club. The US is, apart form China, and possibly the CIS/ Russia (again) the only nations that can act on their own accord.
incidentally you, seemingly, don't know your facts
Saddam came to power in a coup, he was fervently anti west, and anti British. The Americans were responsible along with the British for bringing the Shah to Iran when his father was deposed. Hussein was backed and supported by the US when he was attacking Iran as a proxy war.
Hussein was always his own man, it was always about Hussein controlling Iraq, if he got assistance from Russioa, or the US, or any of the European countries (and he did) he was happy to take that assistance.
The British, thanks to Slimy Tony and his fan club including Grasping Gordon were more than just there to monitor what was going on, they were actively involved int he ivasion, its planning and the debacle that occurred after the invasion with the South East of Iraq being virtually seceeded to Shia inspired militias largely trained and supplied by Iran
don't believe me then ask yourself why the vast majority of Iraqi armanents were Russian (AK47, RPG's etc), the planes Illusian, Tupolev and M.I.G. et al. not forgetting of course the valuable contribution from France with Dassault, plus aerospatiale missiles.
When it comes to grubby little deals to benefit one country and to hell with any moral or legal implications the world leaders are France. Witness their conduct in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.
And oddly enough I'm British, not American.