No, it implies a realistic view of the world. Until the EU can handle it's own self defense it's inherently an unbalanced power arrangement.
The claim that Europe needs the US is like an abusive relationship where the abuser keeps devaluing its victim to maintain dominance: "you need me, you're nothing without me, you can't look after yourself without me"...
More generally, be it with the EU, China, or even India, the US need to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer the 'capo di tutti capi' and should treat others as equals.
I realise that this is a position that is in China's interests but that is also in Europe's interests and, really in "anyone that is not the US"'s interests.
It's not in the interests of people who want to be free, and desire peace and prosperity.
The subtext of these arguments is that there is no difference between China and the US, their vision, their goals, etc. It's demonstrably untrue. You can see it in the number of allies China has, even in their own neighborhood - they all much prefer the US.
This might be unpopular, but I think you are right. The EU must not be too aligned with the US, lest it gets dragged in the next Iraq. And, to be fair, it is valuable for the US to have an external point of view they can still more or less trust, but that can still be critical. You need friends to tell you when you’re doing a stupid mistake. At the same time, the interests of the US and the EU converge very often and unfriendly relations would be counter-productive.
It’s also useful to be able to play good cop/bad cop, with one partner being more accommodating like during the negotiations of the Iran nuclear deal (which failed in the end for unrelated reasons, but I believe we would have avoided a lot of grief regarding drones in Ukraine if we’d have kept the Iranian government on board).
The goal is to protect and grow freedom and democracy, and prosperity. Those require the international rules-based order (essentially, the equivalent of rule of law internationally) or you end up with rule by force, including war and oppression. To support that, you need a power able to act effectively and in a timely manner. The US has been the only option for that role since WWII, and Europe has strongly supported it.
Right after WWII, Europe was much too poor and devestated to play that role. Now they have the resources but not the political ability to make decisions and act: The US needs one person, the president, to act (within the law and in concert with others to make it politicaly viable). The EU requires approval by the leader of every country. As Kissinger famously said (paraphrasing): 'If I want to call Europe, who do I call?'
The idea that the EU is to be 'allied' with the US against China is an US-centric view, and implies subservience to the US because the goal really is to protect the US' position in the world. The EU should do what serves its interests best and that is not as hard a stance on China as the US would like.