European Military Capability.....
 

Just read the thread on the Congo- some very good points and debatable ones at that! So heres something i hope you'l get your teeth into

I am currently writing and researching my dissertation on European military capabilities. Its not entirely that simple but the jist of it is this... many academics argue that in order for Europe to potentially become a superpower it needs a united military capability

Just wondered as to your thoughts to this:
will it ever happen? Would you be happy to serve as part of a European Army/Forces? As servicemen/ex-serviceman your take may be entirely different to that of mine- would be interesting to hear what other peoples opinions and thoughts were and might give my dissertation a slightly different slant!

Thanks
Kirsty :ok:

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.

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.

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.

EU Defence Ministers Agree on Anti-Piracy Mission off Somalia
 

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

EU ministers 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 and will aim to coordinate its role with other international forces.
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:

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".

Already wearing two hats
 

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:

1. Which nations defence industry would benefit most?
2. Who would be best for Ship building?
3. Who would be best for small arms/artillery?
4. Who would be best for the aero industry?
5. Is there a 'smart' smart weapons specialist nation?
6. Where would the workshare go?

A political nightmare from my humble opinion.

SA

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?

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....

Over my dead body.
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.
...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.

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 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.

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.....

EU forces
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quite true but remember.

There is an informative poster here:

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

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.

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:

Some day...
 

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...

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.

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.

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.

Same old story again and again...
 

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.

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.

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'?

ELMO

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

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.

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.

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



In other words, who would they fight and why?

''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.....!*

Hmmm...

Int. Herald Tribune link

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.

Sovereignty
 

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!

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.

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

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French troops

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"........

Significant? 2.5% is significant?

Why do we need...
 

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

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.

Homme libre toujours tu chériras la mer...
 

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

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?

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.