Don't know anything about the first two, like who are the people who make it up, who funds them, etc. because that's relevant and what you would be pointing out if I was throwing Russian sources out here. As for Wikipedia - LOL. But all that aside, plopping down some links and saying "you can easily search for that information" is pretty lame; you don't seem able to articulate your argument in your own words, your previous talking points notwithstanding. So I gotta tell ya, I'm having a difficult time taking you at all seriously.

One of my primary sources for military analysis is Col. Douglas Macgregor, retired US Army and a military historian. Part 3 of his 3-part discussion with Michael Vlahos, who has taught at the Military War College since the 80s, has been summarized here and includes links to summaries to Part 1 and Part 2. These discussions are from a year or so ago so they don't address Macron's proposal, but they do address what Gen. Petreus was talking up at the time. What follows is a small taste of what's at the link:

Obviously, we're not thinking intelligently about it or we would not even consider something as utterly crazy as the "coalition of the willing" - unless the coalition is close to a million men and consists of a very different composition from the forces we have today.

In Part 2 they discuss the strategic failures of NATO. This part is especially relevant to the current discussion:

Americans need to understand that there is no command structure with all the assets (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance or C4ISR), that is European, it's all American. Anything that happens militarily in Europe is of necessity American, because if you take that backbone away, no one can replace it. US dominance was so great that European militaries began to slough off the things that made them credible as militaries.

He gives what many, including me, consider a clear-eyed assessment of current US military power and it's not a pretty picture. The danger is that those who want to use our military all over the world have this unrealistic vision locked into our military strength in the mid-20th century which has no bearing to today's reality. I can think of few things stupider than underestimating your enemy while overestimating yourself, but that seems to be what we're doing, with our European and other allies tagging along behind like the compliant vassals they are.