European Military Capability..... [Archive]

Pontius Navigator

6th Nov 2008, 16:53

Interesting thesis. What university?

Will it ever happen?

Probably, the equestion is when. I know we have the ARRC, STANFORLANT and STANFORMED etc but these are not quite the same thing you are getting at.

I suspect you are wondering if we would have unified forces such as those in the United States or former United Republic.

Would you be happy to serve as part of a European Army/Forces?

Probably again.

Look at the model of the British Army. It started as individual regiments with their own distinctive uniforms and formed into cohesive armies. Their disparate origins and resistance to change may be seen in the variety of cap badges that still exist.

Look at the armies of the United States. These were also individual militia and the national guard, in reality state units, and retain their individual identies although they are organised along the same lines as the national army and fight along side them.

Would you see similar distingusihed national regiments in Europe less keen on retaining their identities? The Foreign Legion for instance.

In my opinion the scale would be in decades if not centuries.

PS, to add that Air Forces are different. Many European countries formed squadrons in Britain during the second world war. Many of these retained the squadron numbers allocated by the Air Ministry and wear similar uniforms and rank badges to those of the RAF. Look at Danes, Dutch and Belgique for a start.

brickhistory

6th Nov 2008, 17:05

A question of sovereignty isn't it?

Does country A give up regiment XX and all control to this European Military?

What if country A doesn't agree with the decision of the EM on who/where/how to fight? Would they be free to withhold their forces?

Would tend to put a crimp in planning and execution of operations.

Data-Lynx

6th Nov 2008, 18:54

wannabe87. Try a google on "EU military piracy" as the EU Maritime Capability is already stirring.

EU ministers (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3685114,00.html)have committed to launch a Joint EU air and sea operation against pirates off Somalia. It is expected to last a year from its planned December launch (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS410627.htm)and will aim to coordinate its role with other international forces.
Germany would send one frigate, said Defence Minister Franz-Josef Jung.

French Defence Minister Herve Morin stated that Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Britain would be involved in the task force.

It will have its headquarters in Northwood in Britain and British Rear Admiral Philip Jones has been proposed as its commander.

There are footnotes:
Some European politicians have criticised the push by the French EU presidency to deploy the EU force, saying it would draw on the same ships as NATO and was politically motivated to press a French drive for a stronger EU military role.

Geoffrey Van Orden MEP, Conservative defence spokesman, who has consistently questioned the motives of the EU military mission, said:
The EU has no useful military role to play in this, their involvement will just add confusion and complicate matters. The EU is desperate to find military operations that it can stick its flag on in order to give credibility to its defence pretensions. All EU countries planning to contribute frigates and destroyers to the "EU military mission" are already members of NATO, and contributing ships for anti-piracy operations.

Founder

6th Nov 2008, 19:33

I think it would be very difficult to create one big army in Europe for a number of reasons:

1: Budget, the amount of money every country spends is extremely different, depending on what kind of defense or military the country operates and what the purpose of that military is.

2. Types of Weapons. In the US they all use basically the same types of weapons varying from handheld to automotive or aircraft mounted. In europe every country uses different types of weapons all depending upon the climate and usage for that specific country. We also have a huge amount of military hardware manufacturers, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Uk etc all build weapons adapted for a specific purpose...

3. Climate. Just think of the different climates that we have in europe, from almost desert like areas in the south to extreme winters in the north, these all call for different tactics, different weapons and knowledge. How is a general from spain to know how to fight a war in norway...

I think Europe will have a cooperation of military forces but never a "one single armed force".

Sentry Agitator

6th Nov 2008, 19:37

The RAF already commits the E-3 Sentry to NATO as part of the complete NAEW&C infrastructure, however, there is also the national hat should the need arise.

Funding will be the big issue with the main question being who will pay for what.

LI's from Kosovo identified a raft of things from the air side alone; such as a lack of AAR/Strat & Tact AT/SH & AH, minimal SEAD/DEAD & CAS capable platforms & a limited choice of smart weapons being available throughout the European nations. Almost 10 years on I would argue that Europe is in a worse state with even fewer numbers of platforms being available to conduct all of the various roles needed. Granted, technology is smarter and we can (have to) do more with less.

You then get in to the realm of getting all member nations, or should that be states?, agreeing where, when and on what all of that lovely money will be spent on.

If we were to go down a route then:

Which nations defence industry would benefit most?
Who would be best for Ship building?
Who would be best for small arms/artillery?
Who would be best for the aero industry?
Is there a 'smart' smart weapons specialist nation?
Where would the workshare go?A political nightmare from my humble opinion.

SA

Mr C Hinecap

6th Nov 2008, 20:21

Wannabe - where would this force fit? Would the governance be above the State? Given the State is the basic block of the international system, and NATO exists, as do the EU and the UN, how would the decisions be made?

wannabe87

6th Nov 2008, 22:15

Hinecap-yes it would be above state level ie that of a supranational one. Would almost be a branch off of the EU- so if a member state wants in then it would have to follow whatever the EU lays down in the interests of Europe not that of an individual state.
As is seen now the larger members today have the most voting seats when it comes to making decisions so ineffect they get what they anyway because they have the largest voting/vetoing power.. a Good or a bad thing?

hmmm to throw a spanner in the works im currently preparing a presentation for tomorrow on why Turkey should/should not become a member of the EU. Interesting to note that should Turkey be accepted it would then make it the 2nd (i think?) largest voting power- so a big potential decision maker, and from the reading ive done no one seems to be particularly keen on this given that it has many internal issues aswell as the fact that many argue it belongs with the Middle Eastern states. Although i came across that someone argued that on the plus side it had a large (ish) army to bring to the table as it were? not too sure on that one though! :ugh:

i dont know the concept of European Military Capability on first look seems like a good thing but there just seems to be so many problems and objectives that need to be overcome- and arguably is there any point? Plus how many member states are we on now-25? it just simply isnt practical to combine the interests/budgets/forces you name it into one European force....

TheInquisitor

7th Nov 2008, 04:38

Would you be happy to serve as part of a European Army/Forces?
Over my dead body.
European military capabilities
An oxymoron if ever I saw one. Having the men and equipment means nothing unless you are prepared to get stuck in and use them. Although I guess it could work...as long as French and German troops are never sent anywhere where actual fighting is likely to take place. I offer you Afghanistan as a prime example.
for Europe to potentially become a superpower
...is the worst scenario I could imagine. The entire EU project is simply the unilateral wet-dream of a select group of French and German imperialists who are slowly managing to do with the pen what their predecessors failed to do with the gun several times over the last few centuries. Witness if you will their willingness to force their policies on EU 'citizens' against their will. Even when they condescend to allow referenda, if the answer the people give is not to their liking, they simply repackage the lies and ask the question again and again, until they get the 'right' answer. It is, in fact, the ONLY way the European 'project' CAN succeed, since the peoples of Europe are so different in their cultures and desires - having something imposed upon them which satisfies nobody, save for those at the top of the gravy mountain who stand to gain.

In short, no - there will never be a European State Armed Forces, since there will never be a European State. Unless, of course, we continue to capitulate to unelected, unacountable tyrants - the kind that countless generations of Sailors, Soldiers and Airman have given their lives defending against.

Pontius Navigator

7th Nov 2008, 07:02

Wannbabe,

The CIA World Facts Book will give you military spending and also its military manpower potential. This is good for comparative analysis.

The other essential document to track down is The Military Balance Taylor & Francis Journals: Welcome (http://www.gbhap.com/journals/tmib) that you might find in the library.

The views so far would seem to suggest that state sovereignty is the issue and many would not wish to serve in a supranational, super state capacity.

Others that in some form it already exists.

What I was suggesting is that surrender of sovereignty, ie the US Civil War or of the United Kingdom or the creation of a Greater Russia or even a Greater Germany, were necessary for the creation of a single unified military force.

Would this happen in Europe?

The Norwegian view is that they have been a satellite of Sweden for centuries and only recently independent; they do not want to cede independence so soon. Look at Poland and other eastern European States. They are still savouring self-rule albeit within an EU structure.

Turkey is a modern country, less than 100 years old. The question of its accession is really a whole diferent subject. One question and I don't really know the answer, is why is Turkey in NATO?

Turkey was also a CENTO power. My guess is that it was to ensure that the Bosophorus, the Aegean and Black Seas all fell in one strategic treaty area. There may have been a sub-text but I will leave that to others to aduce.

Wensleydale

7th Nov 2008, 08:46

May I also throw a spanner into the works....

Even during coalition ops, different nations adhere to different Rules of Engagement. If a multi-national armed force is raised, which Nations' laws do they fight to? The argument that "I was only following orders" does not hold water these days, and therefore I suspect that ROEs would be very watered down to cover the legal requirements of all member states.

Just a thought.....

PPRuNeUser0139

7th Nov 2008, 10:41

Wannabe87:
This is indeed a politically loaded question that, for it to succeed, would require many further changes to the EU constitution before it could be considered. I'm sure that the prospect of controlling EU-flagged forces will prompt more than a few Europols to salivate; however, it would come at a heavy price.
Leaving aside the politics (as we can here), there is one example already operating out there of the sort of co-operative multi-national military ventures that you are interested in studying, namely, the NATO Airborne Early Warning & Control Force (NAEW&CF).
This is, in microcosm, a multi-national force that is funded by 15 participating nations. The NAEW&CF, through the E-3A Component, owns & operates its own E-3A aircraft from a NATO base (the base is declared as NATO territory) in Germany. It was set up in the late 70s and there were many, myself included, who raised a cynical eyebrow at the concept. How could a large aircraft be operated by multi-national crews? Many thought it was highly ambitious and a step too far.
Suffice to say it has been a NATO success story IMHO. The program is managed by the NATO AEW&C Program Management Agency (NAPMA) and participating nations share in procurement, development, acquisition & operating costs - and, in turn, receive industrial benefits. This example shows that multi-national forces can and do work.
As defence budgets feel the pinch around the EU & NATO, it could be that financial constraints will force a drive towards the establishment of other such multi-national forces. Developing credible EU forces (without US participation) though would not be a cheap option. Lest we forget, the largest contributor to the NAEW&CF is the US.
It would seem to me, however, that it would be more convenient to develop these forces under the NATO umbrella rather than an EU one, especially considering the member states in one vs the other. But, in the end, I suppose it depends how badly the Europols want their own train set.

Wader2

7th Nov 2008, 12:50

SV, remember though that the NATO NE3A did not take part in Desert Storm but operated on the NATO flank in Turkey. Even then its operation was modified by national ROE as the Germans denied permission for German personnel to partcipate. IIRC and usual caveats on memory etc.

ajl146

7th Nov 2008, 13:26

Also this pooling of resources will be expanded with some NATO nations plus Sweden and Finland gaining a strategic airlift force based in Hungary similar in structure to the AWACS force.

cazatou

7th Nov 2008, 13:51

PN

Re Turkey

Turkey had remained neutral in WW2 (unlike in WW1) but had supported the UN in Korea with an Infantry Brigade operating under American Command. The idea of being in command of the high ground on both sides of the Straits of Mamaris was the reason for the Gallipoli campaign in WW1 - it would have been equally attractive following the establishment of the Iron Curtain.

Pontius Navigator

7th Nov 2008, 14:33

Turkey had remained neutral in WW2 (unlike in WW1) but had supported the UN in Korea with an Infantry Brigade operating under American Command.

Quite true but remember.

There is an informative poster here:

http://www.nato.int/docu/posters/timeline-eng.pdf

The idea of being in command of the high ground on both sides of the Straits of Mamaris was the reason for the Gallipoli campaign in WW1 - it would have been equally attractive following the establishment of the Iron Curtain.

While this is true it could as well have served as the geographic boundary between NATO and CENTO. That of course could have presented a fault line in the US containment plan and was resolved with Turkey being a member of both organisations.

wannabe87

7th Nov 2008, 17:17

Some really interesting answers here and has given me a few ideas. Albeit though i cant expand on most of them in my dissertation as i have to base a lot of it on theoretical crap and the politics of it all rather than my preffered choice of looking at purely the military side of it- which has thoroughly peed me off! So much for writing what you want in your diss eh- oh the joys of being an undergrad :ugh::ugh::ugh:

But thanks for the ideas some of which i didnt know existed and will definitely look into :ok:

LeCrazyFrog

7th Nov 2008, 20:17

Wannabe,

Indeed a very complex issue. I think there are several facts to take into account:
1- Technical issues are not a problem, all ops nowadays are conducted under coalition forces, be it NATO, multinational, or "of the willing". We are used to train and exercise multinationally although we have different equipments, procedures, ROES,etc... We just adapt,improvise, overcome. So in my view it is not a real issue against a "european army" although obviously common equipement makes things easier and that is the direction were taking with the EDA (A400,etc...) and DTIDB.
2- Any "european defense" has to come from a general desire to have one and we can only admit that there are some different views on the matter: some are very happy to stay under the NATO umbrella, saves them to fund their own defense and they feel it will be more reliable than a EU one. Some others start to feel that EU worldwide political ambitions cannot be achieved with a proper defense, that is, credible and independant. Most striking example was the Bosnia war which has led the EU to define the Petersberg missions.

Facts:
- ESDP is already a reality, conducting peace keeping and peace enforcment missions in Europe, Georgia and Africa. And no, NATO is not able to conduct the anti-piracy ops in Somalia for the simple reason that it has not the legal background to arrest and prosecute the pirates which is why the 3 NATO frigates sent there have been withdrawn. It's no use stopping someone and then having to release him so he can do it again a couple days later...There is some ranting going on because peace keeping/enforcement are not "real ops". Surely they are less glamorous than OIF/OEF, however it is probably more sensible to start buiding the house from the basement rather than from teh roof...
- As said on this thread, one of the main issues is sovereignty. In 1954, EDC was binned because nobody wanted to lend any sovereignty at all. A generation later, people are ready to conduct ops under EU command...Change is slow and it takes a generation to change the perception of things. In a few (many) years time, after many more EU missions, people will be so used to them that they will admit it makes sense to have a robust EU defense policy...
Whatever will come out (because something will eventually), it won't be like the US miltary, build in 200 years around one nation. It will be something different and original, based on our 2000 years of history (of beating the c**p out of each other mainly...) and I would say that that will give us even more legitimacy: succeeding in conducting ops with so many different points of view...nobody will accuse us of being partisan or one sided...

Hope it helps...

Modern Elmo

8th Nov 2008, 02:41

BackfromIraq

8th Nov 2008, 08:48

Worth looking at issues raised by the war on the eastern front (Axis forces), and the Korean War (UN Forces), and how units of some countries had limited capablity, due to either poor equipment or training, or both.

Frequently in Russia the Germans provided the punch while the weaker Axis forces protected the (often dangerously exposed) flanks. Once the Russians worked this out and exploited it, it was devastating for the Axis forces.

In Korea (really the first truly multinational army), it was often the South Korean forces which folded very swiftly leaving the flanks of the much more capable forces exposed, leading to the retreat of the UN forces. Even the Battle of Imjin River, where the line was held very effectively to allow time for a controlled withdrawal, exposed problems with C2, with the British ability to understate the seriousness of the situation leading to the loss of the Glosters.

Pontius Navigator

8th Nov 2008, 09:22

We are used to train and exercise multinationally although we have different equipments, procedures, ROES,etc...

How about actual fighting? How much actual fighting are the French doing either multinationally or unilaterally?

train and exercise multinationally = empty show, make-believe warriors.

ME, you are trolling again.

Why don't you do a bit of research? In the first Gulf War, although the French were not told that Desert Storm was about to kick off they graciously allowed the RAF Tanker crews to use their photocopiers (:)) Seriously, that was your fault, not theirs.

Later they acquited themselves well and were possibly the first, and ahead of the RAF, to have HUD video released to the media.

I think you will find that the French are engaged multinationally right now.

LeCrazyFrog

8th Nov 2008, 11:06

ME,

I guess you are soon going to lecture us about the French being ready for action with all their white flags and all the bladibla... Good stuff for pub rants around a few beers.
However, as PN said, you should read what Gen. Schwartzkopf said about french Gazelle performance during Desert Storm. Then again you should read about some of the stuff is going on in Africa (Tchad, Ivory Coast, Congo...). Surely it is less glamorous to send small platoons in some desertic african countries nobody cares about to try to restore some kind of peace than going into Iraq, just because uncle Sam said so and get some sailors arrested by the Iranians... Done with the ranting.
Then you should check who has just spent a month on a US carrier with one of their sqns and carry out 150 cats and traps (50 of which at night) and tell me who can achieve this degree of interoperability...
But true that as long as people will keep talking about stuff they don't have a clue about rather than looking for common ground from where we can build something, european defense will only be a "wet-dream of a select group of French and German imperialists" as somebody put it before.

Modern Elmo

8th Nov 2008, 18:53

Surely it is less glamorous to send small platoons in some desertic african countries nobody cares about to try to restore some kind of peace than going into Iraq, just because uncle Sam said so and get some sailors arrested by the Iranians...

Those sailorpersons that got arrested -- ( wonder if use of "arrested" instead of "captured" is intentional ? ) -- they weren't 'Mercans. Uncle Sam MacBush Jr. didn't make 'em do that. It wuz Tony. ( One Anglo pretty much the same as the next one, eh? ).

My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.

Pontius Navigator

8th Nov 2008, 19:44

Those sailorpersons that got arrested -- ( wonder if use of "arrested" instead of "captured" is intentional ? ) -- they weren't 'Mercans. Uncle Sam MacBush Jr. didn't make 'em do that. It wuz Tony. ( One Anglo pretty much the same as the next one, eh? ).

My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.

ME, I think you are splitting hairs as Monsieur LeCrazyFrog is writing in a second language. Captured is, of course, quite correct and much of the media reports use the word captured. However CNN used the word aprehended. Iran used the word Arrest. In that context they are using it because they alleged an illegal act.

As for your second comment, what are you saying - 'not-very-RN'?

cazatou

8th Nov 2008, 20:06

ELMO

Surely you would be able to bring "Castor and Pollux" down upon their heads without any assistance from us mere mortals.

0497

11th Nov 2008, 06:01

to potentially become a superpower it needs a united military capability

Geography I suspect plays a big role.

Certain countries are predisposed towards a force favouring naval/air at the expense of land (eg. US and UK) whilst others are the opposite since they share a large and potentially dangerous land border (eg. historically France and Germany). An EU military I suspect will be trend towards the latter.

Regional (around the Med & E. Europe) warfighting capability at the expense of a global reach. Admittedly a small global capability in humanitarian missions but no where near the US' air and sealift ability to fight and sustain wars half a world away. Not even the USSR were able to do it.

Pontius Navigator

11th Nov 2008, 06:27

0497 a good analysis to which one could expand as a geopolitical one.

The US indeed tried to operate as a land orientated military system after the 1st World War and only after the Washington Treaty did they try and level the playing field with limitations on British sea power.

Europe, although largely regional in its composition, like the States in the US, does have an extensive littoral and plenty of natural harbours. As a USE if it needs to trade globally it may, like the USA, realise it needs a global power projection capability; the geo-political aspect.

Which country builds the components of that system, be it aircraft carriers, transport aircraft etc is part of the argument and is probably no different from the pork-barrel system in the US, just less mature. We certainly don't like ceding ship construction to other countries but we cannot escape the fact that Norway builds tankers, Italy cruise ships German, Netherlands etc, all build warships. Even if we could agreed a standard design of warship we could certainly build in several yards at once.

Political will, modified by geography, will drive the shape of a European Army.

brickhistory

11th Nov 2008, 11:40

Why does God need a starship, er, European military?

In other words, who would they fight and why?

wannabe87

11th Nov 2008, 11:59

''Why does God need a starship, er, European military?

In other words, who would they fight and why?''

My point exactly- do we even need one? As a realist point of view would argue, power= military capability but the EU takes more of a soft power, post modernist approach and is more interested in the economic/trading gains.

Theres the US, then 27 member states of the EU, bar Russia (debatable?) and other small potentially insignificant states that don't really pose a threat- who would we fight? terrorists?

*sits back and waits for the firing to begin.....!*

Rakshasa

11th Nov 2008, 13:02

Hmmm...

BRUSSELS, Belgium: EU governments agreed Monday to establish a joint military air squadron to improve their transport capabilities to far-flung operations such as Afghanistan, Africa or the Middle East.

The 27-nation bloc has had a long-standing shortfall in available military transport planes, and EU defense ministers meeting in Brussels hope to reduce this by pooling C-130s, the new Airbus A400 heavy lifter and other types of cargo aircraft.

Int. Herald Tribune link (http://http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/11/10/europe/EU-EU-Defense.php)

Wader2

11th Nov 2008, 13:47

Do we really need one

Is an argument that could be applied to the UK armed forces too. The main reason we have armed forces is to protect our overseas interests in a global economy. It also gives us, we think, a greater say at the top table in the UN.

However it also costs us a significant proportion of our GDP.

Other countries, with perhaps far smaller populations but higher per capita GDP, may have only token military capability. It is said that they are free-loading for security on the strength of the US Forces and to a lesser extent on British, French and Japanese Forces.

In an ideal world we would not need military power projection. We would have free trade and there would be no piracy or state sponsored conflict. A USE composite or unified military capability however would give Europe an equal voice amongst 4 super-powers.

Occasional Aviator

11th Nov 2008, 14:11

An interesting thread. There are many examples of European military cooperation, but it just isn't leading to the kind of European military force that Wannabe is referring to. In my opinion the greatest obstacle is state sovereignty.

Europe's total military budget is not dissimilar to that of the US, and we have around a million men under arms. Yet, even if everyone turned up and all our forign policy aims were aligned (or dictated to us by a supra-state body), we still wouldn't be generating anything like the US' military capacity.

Why? Well, instead of a single force, it is packaged into a whole set of national militaries, each with their own range of capabilities and support elements - and where spending is lowest, the money tends to go to the totemic, visible capabilities rather than the enablers - ie all European countries have fast jets, but how many have the Air C2, ISTAR, AAR etc to support their use in a large-scale conflict?

The reason for this is that having a nationally controlled military has always been, and remains, one of the things that defines a state. Think of all the African countries that don't really have state adversaries, but still have armies with tanks? It's because you've got to have an army to be a proper country. Similarly Ireland - no real threat, and avowedly neutral, yet when they became independent from GB, they formed armed forces with a fair capability.

Now some fanatic federalists may be so deluded as to believe that individual states will die out as the EU becomes more and more important, but if you listen carefully to spokespeople from European countries' foreign policy departments, even the French and German, there will always be, buried in there somewhere, a statement that they will reserve an element of stat sovereignty in how they use their power, including their military forces.

So no, I don't see a European armed force becoming a reality - although I could see ESDP becoming a useful framework for coalition ops where the US is not (or can't be) included, and possibly becoming more important than NATO to some European countries.

Hope that helps!

Modern Elmo

11th Nov 2008, 15:01

You get sent some place to do peace keeping, and there's violence. You have to defend your people. You follow the rules of engagement you were taught ...

And the World Court charges you with war crimes.

wiggy

11th Nov 2008, 15:36

ME ..How much are the French doing?....well this for starters,

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French troops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7569942.stm)

As for anything else, my kids have got classmates whose Dads are the "'Stan" at the moment (we have one of the RCPs garrisoned on the edge of town) ..... I don't think the kids think their papas are merely peackeeping.

An integrated European Defence Force, not in my lifetime...for starters you'd never get agreement on the contents of a "ration pack, Infantry, European, 24 hours, for the use of"........

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

11th Nov 2008, 18:26

However it also costs us a significant proportion of our GDP.

Significant? 2.5% is significant?

LeCrazyFrog

11th Nov 2008, 18:46

Wannabe,

As stupid as it sounds, military power, the use of it, are part of the human relations in this world. If you look at history, wars or its derivatives have been constantly around and have been used as a means of achieving goals that couldn't be achieved differently.
You could argue that in the 21st century we should be civilised enough to be able to settle our disagreements by other means. Well, look around...
Can we find reasons to have an EU defense? 80% of the imports of the EU arrive by sea. You have a very small example of why we need some kind of force to protect the lanes of communication that feed the continent with oil, products, etc... with what is happening in Somalia (and remember it's only a bunch of starving, barely armed pirates that are causing this mess).
If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power). The other option is to be like Iceland which is fine by me but you have to accept the consequences it carries along.

However, as Occasional put it, the main issue is sovereignty. Very hard to let go. We started 57 years ago by giving away our sovereignty on coal and steel... so this takes time. My bet is one generation.

Hope it helps and thanks for the thread

Pontius Navigator

11th Nov 2008, 19:04

Can we find reasons to have an EU defense? 80% of the imports of the EU arrive by sea. You have a very small example of why we need some kind of force to protect the lanes of communication that feed the continent with oil, products, etc... with what is happening in Somalia (and remember it's only a bunch of starving, barely armed pirates that are causing this mess).

If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power).

Le Frog, while I agree with what you say, we no longer have the ability, as the 'USE' to protect the SLOC. Armies and air forces may project power over land but you need ships to project power at sea, and at land too. Battleship diplomacy was no accident. (Cue WEBranch Fanatic).

Yes we do need strength but we need to decide on the direction of our political ambitions. You say one generation? You also say 57 years. Unless something happens to act as a catalyst I cannot see it happening in one generation.

LeCrazyFrog

11th Nov 2008, 20:06

PN,
I definitely agree with you and actually that was the point of my post. When 80% of the trade comes by sea, no prizes for guessing which service can protect it...Although there is also a balance to be struck between Power projection and Force projection (ie. at the end of the day you need boots on the ground to win a war).

As individual states, I tend to agree that we don't have the capability of defending our SLOCs, hence the point of having an EU defense. Look at the comparison: Nowadays: USN: 12 carriers (more 10 or 11 rather than 12 but nevermind), Europe: 1 (I'm talking real ones...). In 10 years time: US: definitely 10, Europe:3 (bloody froggies don't get it!!!). So I am not that pessimistic about capabilities. And as for timescales, look at the future eurpoean A400M transport unit that has just been voted (without the UK, bloody rosbeefs don't get it!!! ;)

Regards

brickhistory

11th Nov 2008, 20:25

And who will be attacking the SLOCs?

Wouldn't such a scenario engage NATO?

If so, where would an EU force come into play?

Will there be separate, dedicated forces for each? I highly doubt it, only an even more cumbersome chain of command/coordination

Is the fictional force to have an offensive mindset or to be a defensive force? Against whom? In whose best interest?

Will NATO go away in that case? Possibly, but to what benefit to either the European nations or the US?

LeCrazyFrog

11th Nov 2008, 20:42

Brick,
All the answers to your question are in the Gulf of Aden:

- A bunch of Somalians are causing a decent amount of disruption in our SLOC.
-NATO tried to intervene before withdrawing for different kind of reasons.
- The EU force comes into plays as EUNavco in Op Atalanta, a TG with a some frigates, a tanker and some MPA, whose mission is going to be to secure the navigation of all TM transiting in the area.
-Offensive/defensive? Depends on the mission. However, it is probably easier to build a common force with defensive missions. First learn to walk before learning to run... Hence why the EU Defense is focused on peace keeping/enforcment at present.
- Finally NATO need not to "go away" (although I do believe the organisation has a severe legitimacy issue at the moment but that is another subject). The EU Defense is considered as the european pillar of NATO, as such they complement each other (again look at Somalia), they don't oppose each other.

The Helpful Stacker

11th Nov 2008, 20:45

Will NATO go away in that case? Possibly, but to what benefit to either the European nations or the US?

Surely the concept of NATO only exists due to the will of the participating countries who are in it? If all the European nations decided to go their own way whether it was to the benefit of the US or not is of no consequence.

Without the European members NATO would cease to exist.

I can't see it happening myself though, there is far to much deep-routed mistrust between the various nations that make up the EU. All the happy thoughts and press releases in the world aren't going to bring around the average Joe, Jaques or Juan to the Federalists way of thinking and nor should it.

Pontius Navigator

11th Nov 2008, 20:49

There is a significant amount of piracy in the Malacca Straits and South China Seas.

There are also issues in other parts of the Indian Ocean besides Somalia.

Many years ago my father was subject to an attempted pirate attack. They were alert and noticed when they picked to a floating rope. A pair of junks were then swept alongside only to be met with high pressure steam hoses.

Game set and match.

brickhistory

11th Nov 2008, 21:36

stacker, your:

Surely the concept of NATO only exists due to the will of the participating countries who are in it? If all the European nations decided to go their own way whether it was to the benefit of the US or not is of no consequence.

Didn't address both sides of my question:

Will NATO go away in that case? Possibly, but to what benefit to either the European nations or the US? I also asked what benefit the Europeans would draw from a new organization over the existing NATO.

However, I agree with your summation.

lecrazyfrog: Do you think the EU (so the EU is to be the 'federal' government? All treated equally? I wish you luck with that, but that's not my place to critique further) force will act in a different manner? Have they? What if one member nation doesn't want to use force? Does it then withdraw its toys? Which brings it back to sovereignty, I think.

Regarding NATO, I don't disagree with you. Some of the ways the NATO agreement has been modified/stretched are staggering.

Pontius Navigator

11th Nov 2008, 21:56

What if one member nation doesn't want to use force? Does it then withdraw its toys? Which brings it back to sovereignty, I think.

I seem to remember that there was a precedent for this. Harry Coyle has written a novel with a modern setting along the same lines. Sobering in a way once you accept the initial premise.

LeCrazyFrog

12th Nov 2008, 16:38

lecrazyfrog: Do you think the EU (so the EU is to be the 'federal' government? All treated equally? I wish you luck with that, but that's not my place to critique further) force will act in a different manner? Have they? What if one member nation doesn't want to use force? Does it then withdraw its toys? Which brings it back to sovereignty, I think.

- I'm saying EU, not because I think it is the definitive way of governing the european countries. Just a shortcut.

- I don't think the EU defense will or should act in a different manner. Look at it this way: Bosnia 92, complete failure of the European countries to solve a crisis at our doorstep. US, which were not interested whatsoever, still had to get involved so it did not escalate. Now, a coherent EU defense would have intervened, because it was a matter of prime interest for european countries, and the US would have stayed away because they were, understandably, not interested. And actually, the EU defense has really kicked off from there.

- Now the difficult bit is the practical side of things and as you said, sovereignty is the key. EU countries, all of them, ned to be ready to give some of it away in order to go further, and that will be very little step by very little step...Nothing to be worried about tho, took us 2000 years to realise we could live together without fighting each other...:D

Pontius Navigator

12th Nov 2008, 17:41

[QUOTE=LeCrazyFrog;4526145 US, which were not interested whatsoever, still had to get involved so it did not escalate.[/QUOTE]

OTOH I seem to remember that Wesley Clark was all for starting WWIII with Gen Mike Jackson in the fore. He wanted MJ to kick the Russians off the airfield and he refused.

That was also an instance where unified command was effectively split by national sovereignty of forces and national ROE.

Only when we have a USE on the USA or USSR models with a central Federal Government with nation states relegated to internal affairs could we consider a proper unified European Force.

Pontius Navigator

12th Nov 2008, 17:44

Wannabbe87, while you have many useful leads and arguments here you will, never-the-less, have difficulty using these in a thesis.

Have you considered PM to contributors whose items you might wish to quote and asking for proper citation information?

ORAC

3rd Dec 2011, 12:01

EU May Use Brussels HQ for Horn of Africa Ops (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8451164&c=EUR&s=LAN)

BRUSSELS - EU foreign affairs ministers are considering using a civil-military headquarters in Brussels for small-scale operations off the Horn of Africa.

In conclusions to their meeting here Dec. 1, they say they have agreed "to accelerate planning for the activation of an EU Civil-Military Operations Centre for Horn of Africa operations, at the latest by the next Foreign Affairs Council." The next EU affairs meeting is scheduled for late January. Currently EU operations have their HQs in individual member states.

According to an EU ministers statement, "When the nature of the operation does not require a national HQ, the Council stands ready to activate on an ad-hoc basis the Operations Centre in accordance with its terms of reference for a specific Common and Security Defence Policy [CSDP] Operation."

The decision appears to signal a U-turn in the U.K.'s stance on the issue. Back in the summer, Catherine Ashton, the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy, proposed an EU HQ for planning and carrying out EU military and civil missions abroad. In July, U.K. Foreign Affairs Minister William Hague said, "the U.K. will block any such move now and in the future."

The EU is currently running two operations in the Horn of Africa - the Atalanta counterpiracy mission and the EU training mission in Somalia. The Brussels' operations center may be used for any new, small-scale contributions to the Horn of Africa, such as building regional maritime capacity, said an official from the EU's Military Staff.

Where the EU has an existing command structure, such as Atalanta at the Northwood HQ in the U.K., an official from the EU Military Staff said "there is no intention of changing a working system on conduct. "For Atalanta in particular, they are extremely well-placed in Northwood - allowing synergies with the NATO counterpiracy operation - and the scale of the command is far outside of the capacity of the Brussels' operations center," he added.

"We need to help regions [off the Horn of Africa] conduct counterpiracy themselves," Lt. Gen. Ton Van Osch, director-general of the European Union Military Staff, told Defense News in an interview. "A new line of EU action is to help countries develop their own coast guards and navies. Here, the EU military could do the training as part of a civilian mission if the political and security committee decided on a mission." In the interview, Van Osch gives his views on various issues, including pooling and sharing proposals relating to air-to-air refueling and smart munitions.

On pooling and sharing, ministers recalled "the need to develop cooperation on military capabilities on a longer term and more systematic basis," and stressed the need "to further examine the impact of reduced defense spending on capabilities, including its possible impact on key industrial and technological capacities to be maintained and developed in Europe." The ministers also encouraged further coordination between the European Defence Agency and the European Commission, "in particular in the field of Research and Technology, in particular regarding the new European Framework Programme for Research and Technology (Horizon 2020)."

They also recalled the commitment of the EU defense chiefs to establish or widen collaborative pooling and sharing projects by mid-2012, urged member states to take on the role of lead nation for concrete projects, and "will assess the progress made in April 2012." They also stressed "the need to further analyze and address the constraints related to the availability, usability and deployability of existing military capabilities in CSDP operations and missions."

In addition, they bemoaned the fact that, in the first semester of 2012, "only one [EU] battlegroup will be on stand-by" and called for "efforts in order to remedy such shortfalls in the future."

ORAC

24th Apr 2013, 09:50

EU politics: German defence minister gives game away (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83836)

An exclusive interview of German defence minister Thomas de Maizière, for the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/22/uk-military-eu-german-minister) highlights an apparent inconsistency, as the minister suggests that a UK outside the European Union would "jeopardise military standing".

Ostensibly, this is an absurd assertion, as the UK would continue to participate in joint military ventures through its membership of NATO, the activities of which are increasingly duplicating EU military initiatives.

Unwittingly, though, de Maizière is revealing a mindset now prevalent amongst European defence ministers, who are sharing the view offered by this article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2013/04/22/natos-lack-of-any-serious-purpose-means-it-should-retire/2/), effectively conceding that the days of NATO are numbered..............

Roland Pulfrew

24th Apr 2013, 10:03

ORAC

And then of course there is this article from today's Torygraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10013197/America-our-great-protector-is-looking-the-other-way.html)

membership of NATO, the activities of which are increasingly duplicating EU military initiatives.

Shouldn't that actually be the other way round. As NATO was here first, it is the EU that are replicating NATO military structures/initiatives etc.:confused:

ExGrunt

24th Apr 2013, 10:46

Wannabbe87,

If I can tear you away from all this 'knights of the air' and 'grey funnel line' stuff, you may wish to research the ground component:

Eurocorps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps)

The Eurocorp is a standing ground force which is the military equivalent of the Euro - ie far too federalist for the UK to play.

The issue is as a Danish politician said to me is that the purpose of the EU is to stop the French and Germans killing each other in Belgium. Once it starts getting delusions of grandeur it starts to become a potential threat. Will the soviets (sorry showing my age) Russians wear a large standing military capability on their western border given the previous form of the Europeans in Russia? (2x European superstate = march on Moscow)

Ultimately it is a question of body bags - will any nation state accept a large number of body bags coming home in a cause which is not in their direct national interest - I think not and that will sap away any political will.

HTH

EG