A Semi-Valiant Effort
I've been meaning to post about this for the past week or so; it's a long one, so if you're not interested, better just skip it now.
In late October, France and Germany held bilateral talks to establish terms for the creation of joint Franco-German "battle groups", a so-called rapid reaction force drawn from an existing Franco-German Brigade.
In late November, the European Union got onboard. France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain agreed to form one battle group apiece; where Germany fits into the scheme of things isn't specified, but the article says that the rest of the EU nations pledged to provide troops to at least one battle group.
This sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me. "Capability improvement"? "Credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force packages"?
BBC News published an article the day after the AFP, and adds a few details.
The goal is to establish thirteen of these battle groups, each consisting of fifteen hundred troops, deployable within fifteen days. The "peace support and humanitarian tasks" part worries me; it doesn't sound like these so-called "battle groups" are preparing for much battle. In theory, it's a good idea for the European Union to establish an organizational plan. With every EU nation onboard, they must be more than ready to contribute their blood and treasure to the cause, right? Let's explore this a bit deeper.
So basically, nations like Estonia want all the perks and prestige that come with membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but they essentially admit to being unable to carry the weight of both commitments at once. The article goes on.
And what's the money shot? It's in the final paragraph of the article.
There you have it, folks. Critics can't be bothered with the commitments required by membership in these organizations; taxing everyone and giving it back as "free health care" is far more important than actually providing a defense for the citizens. I did some research using the CIA World Factbook.
NEW EU STATES - $403.37 billion ($8.694 billion defense, 2.1% average)
* Bulgaria - $57.13 billion ($1.48 billion defense, 2.6% 2003)
* Estonia - $17.35 billion ($347 million defense, 2% 2002)
* Latvia - $23.9 billion ($286 million defense, 1.2% 2001)
* Lithuania - $40.88 billion ($776 million defense, 1.9% 2001)
* Romania - $155 billion ($3.82 billion defense, 2.47% 2002)
* Slovakia - $72.29 billion ($1.36 billion defense, 1.89% 2002)
* Slovenia - $36.82 billion ($625 million defense, 1.7% 2000)
MAJOR POWERS (FOR COMPARISON)
* China - $6.449 trillion ($225 billion defense, 3.5% est. 2003)
* United States - $10.99 trillion ($362 billion defense, 3.3% 2003)
All of the new NATO nations listed above, save for Bulgaria and Romania, joined NATO in early April of 2004 and the European Union about a month later. Put them all together, and you barely have enough money to build two Nimitz class aircraft carriers, if you had the technology, let alone pay soldiers, do military research and development... The list goes on and on. The sad state of NATO is demonstrated by the following article.
I'm not terribly impressed that our distinguished NATO allies can't even ship a few helicopters to where they're needed. I see a whole lot of adopting new resolutions, and very little living up to commitments. I, of course, appreciate the support NATO has provided in Afghanistan, but I think NATO since the 1980's is far from the powerful organization it was intended to be. The Cold War may be over, but the threats to Western nations haven't disappeared.
And what's the state of the great powers behind this new battle group concept? Germany is trying to end conscription in favor of an entirely professional military by 2010. Translation: Germany will reduce its available military manpower by 2010. And what about France? Although France spends a greater proportion of its GDP than the United Kingdom on military expenditures, it doesn't seem to be getting them anywhere; if you don't believe me, just review their abysmal failure in "peacekeeping" (read: empire maintenance) in Cote D'Ivoire. Italy has already ended compulsory military service.
Here's a review of how the major battle group nations weigh in compared to the seven new NATO members and the two major powers I listed.
BATTLE GROUP LEADERS - $8.033 trillion ($157.319 billion defense, 1.92% average)
* France - $1.661 trillion ($43.186 billion defense, 2.6% 2003)
* Germany - $2.271 trillion ($34.077 billion defense, 1.5% 2003)
* Italy - $1.55 trillion ($29.45 billion defense, 1.9% 2003)
* Spain - $885.5 billion ($10.626 billion defense, 1.2% 2003)
* United Kingdom - $1.666 trillion ($39.98 billion defense, 2.4% 2003)
So basically, the five major nations of the EU and NATO expend less than half the resources on defence (as a percentage of gross domestic product) combined that the United States does. Now, in the midst of reduced manpower in Germany and the United Kingdom (which I'll post about later), they're going to establish thirteen "battle groups" of fifteen hundred men each (19,500 total) to rapidly deploy (within fifteen days; not exactly rapid in my book). This is in the name of "capability improvement" and constitute a "credible force package." These "battle groups" most likely won't be trained to do actual battle, but will perform "peace support and humanitarian tasks." From what I can see over at Global Security, the only nations with any appreciable amphibious (read: moving troops by sea) capability are the United Kingdom and Greece.
Let's compare this to the smallest individual service in the American Department of Defense, the U.S. Marine Corps. In addition to support personnel, the Marine Corps has seven Marine Expeditionary Units, or MEUs, of twenty-two hundred personnel each, Special Operations Capable and designed around a reinforced combat infantry battalion. That's 15,400 total; versatile enough to perform combat, humanitarian, and peacekeeping operations (often simultaneously). The Navy/Marine Corps team puts the European amphibious capacity to shame, and American amphibious assault vessels double as hospital ships. I could go on, but it's not really necessary.
This is not to say that every European nation should be able to keep up with the American military, or even that the European Union should try to equal American military capacity. I think it's appropriate for the European Union to establish a credible military force; I don't think this is it.
This strikes me as nothing but another attempt, led by our "allies" France and Germany, to distance themselves from the United States. By establishing it as a European Union program instead of a NATO program, they don't have to include the United States. It's a half-assed attempt to say "look, we can be big and tough too!" This doesn't even mention the many, many problems. Chain of command issues, marshalling, equipment incompatibilities. Communications alone would be an absolute nightmare; you'd need as many translators in the multinational groups as troops or technicians. American forces have enough trouble communicating with each other; how much trouble do you think French equipment will have communicating with Estonian equipment, or German equipment communicating with Italian stuff?
If this scheme gets off the ground in the first place, I'll be amazed. I think it's nothing more than a half-assed Franco-Deutsch attempt at military independence; if any of these nations are invaded or attacked, you can bet cash money that it'll be Americans who hit the beach, and sooner than fifteen days later, to save European butts.
In late October, France and Germany held bilateral talks to establish terms for the creation of joint Franco-German "battle groups", a so-called rapid reaction force drawn from an existing Franco-German Brigade.
In late November, the European Union got onboard. France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain agreed to form one battle group apiece; where Germany fits into the scheme of things isn't specified, but the article says that the rest of the EU nations pledged to provide troops to at least one battle group.
"The battle groups are at the forefront of capability improvement, providing the Union with credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force packages capable of stand-alone operations, for the initial phase of larger operations," said an EU statement.
This sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me. "Capability improvement"? "Credible, rapidly deployable, coherent force packages"?
BBC News published an article the day after the AFP, and adds a few details.
The development is part of an EU effort to develop an independent defence capacity that can be deployed outside of US-led Nato missions.
UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the battle groups were not a precursor to the EU developing a standing army.
"Battle groups will be capable of dealing with a range of peace support and humanitarian tasks," Mr Hoon said.
"They are particularly intended for situations where an early intervention with a highly capable battle group-size force could deal with an emerging crisis."
Rapid reaction forces could be deployed to fill a gap before UN peacekeepers can be deployed, as a French-led operation did in the Bunia region of eastern Congo earlier this year.
The goal is to establish thirteen of these battle groups, each consisting of fifteen hundred troops, deployable within fifteen days. The "peace support and humanitarian tasks" part worries me; it doesn't sound like these so-called "battle groups" are preparing for much battle. In theory, it's a good idea for the European Union to establish an organizational plan. With every EU nation onboard, they must be more than ready to contribute their blood and treasure to the cause, right? Let's explore this a bit deeper.
The European Union must take into account NATO capabilities in drawing up European defence policies to avoid duplicating their efforts, Estonian Foreign Minister Kristiina Ojuland said Tuesday.
"Ensuring security in Europe and the world, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and NATO must complement each other," Ojuland told a parliamentary hearing on foreign policy.
"Therefore, when planning the further development of the ESDP, appropriate NATO developments must be taken into consideration," she said.
Estonia, which joined both the EU and NATO earlier in this year, is concerned whether it can afford to be involved in the defence structures of both organisations.
So basically, nations like Estonia want all the perks and prestige that come with membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but they essentially admit to being unable to carry the weight of both commitments at once. The article goes on.
Estonia is participating in the EU's military operation in keeping peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and will take part in EU battle groups, which the EU agreed to establish last month.
"Estonia is also taking part in this endeavour, but the form and extent of our participation is still being defined," Ojuland said.
She said that as a NATO member, Estonia continued "to actively contribute to NATO operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan".
"We have to keep the promises made and the commitments we took upon ourselves during NATO accession, including the maintaining of defence expenditures at the level of two percent of GDP," Ojuland said.
"Only thus can we be reliable allies, and hope, that we will be heard in the foreign policy realm."
And what's the money shot? It's in the final paragraph of the article.
Critics have said the state budget should be used for more pressing issues, such as fighting HIV/AIDS and improving the medical system, rather than for defence spending.
There you have it, folks. Critics can't be bothered with the commitments required by membership in these organizations; taxing everyone and giving it back as "free health care" is far more important than actually providing a defense for the citizens. I did some research using the CIA World Factbook.
NEW EU STATES - $403.37 billion ($8.694 billion defense, 2.1% average)
* Bulgaria - $57.13 billion ($1.48 billion defense, 2.6% 2003)
* Estonia - $17.35 billion ($347 million defense, 2% 2002)
* Latvia - $23.9 billion ($286 million defense, 1.2% 2001)
* Lithuania - $40.88 billion ($776 million defense, 1.9% 2001)
* Romania - $155 billion ($3.82 billion defense, 2.47% 2002)
* Slovakia - $72.29 billion ($1.36 billion defense, 1.89% 2002)
* Slovenia - $36.82 billion ($625 million defense, 1.7% 2000)
MAJOR POWERS (FOR COMPARISON)
* China - $6.449 trillion ($225 billion defense, 3.5% est. 2003)
* United States - $10.99 trillion ($362 billion defense, 3.3% 2003)
All of the new NATO nations listed above, save for Bulgaria and Romania, joined NATO in early April of 2004 and the European Union about a month later. Put them all together, and you barely have enough money to build two Nimitz class aircraft carriers, if you had the technology, let alone pay soldiers, do military research and development... The list goes on and on. The sad state of NATO is demonstrated by the following article.
NATO members adopted a new resolution on Friday pledging to work together to combat terrorism, including a plan to provide security for the Athens Olympics in August. But a NATO official said efforts to send six Dutch Apache helicopters to Kabul had been stymied until Luxembourg came up with the funds, and the cost of shipping four Turkish transport helicopters is still under negotiation with Iceland.
"NATO membership ain't what it used to be," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is no longer a passport to a strategic vacation. It is now a passport to sharing a collective responsibility for all of the problems of the world. If nations don't wake up to that, the mismatch between expanding the political ambitions of the alliance and the actual capabilities to implement that ambition will grow."
I'm not terribly impressed that our distinguished NATO allies can't even ship a few helicopters to where they're needed. I see a whole lot of adopting new resolutions, and very little living up to commitments. I, of course, appreciate the support NATO has provided in Afghanistan, but I think NATO since the 1980's is far from the powerful organization it was intended to be. The Cold War may be over, but the threats to Western nations haven't disappeared.
And what's the state of the great powers behind this new battle group concept? Germany is trying to end conscription in favor of an entirely professional military by 2010. Translation: Germany will reduce its available military manpower by 2010. And what about France? Although France spends a greater proportion of its GDP than the United Kingdom on military expenditures, it doesn't seem to be getting them anywhere; if you don't believe me, just review their abysmal failure in "peacekeeping" (read: empire maintenance) in Cote D'Ivoire. Italy has already ended compulsory military service.
Here's a review of how the major battle group nations weigh in compared to the seven new NATO members and the two major powers I listed.
BATTLE GROUP LEADERS - $8.033 trillion ($157.319 billion defense, 1.92% average)
* France - $1.661 trillion ($43.186 billion defense, 2.6% 2003)
* Germany - $2.271 trillion ($34.077 billion defense, 1.5% 2003)
* Italy - $1.55 trillion ($29.45 billion defense, 1.9% 2003)
* Spain - $885.5 billion ($10.626 billion defense, 1.2% 2003)
* United Kingdom - $1.666 trillion ($39.98 billion defense, 2.4% 2003)
So basically, the five major nations of the EU and NATO expend less than half the resources on defence (as a percentage of gross domestic product) combined that the United States does. Now, in the midst of reduced manpower in Germany and the United Kingdom (which I'll post about later), they're going to establish thirteen "battle groups" of fifteen hundred men each (19,500 total) to rapidly deploy (within fifteen days; not exactly rapid in my book). This is in the name of "capability improvement" and constitute a "credible force package." These "battle groups" most likely won't be trained to do actual battle, but will perform "peace support and humanitarian tasks." From what I can see over at Global Security, the only nations with any appreciable amphibious (read: moving troops by sea) capability are the United Kingdom and Greece.
Let's compare this to the smallest individual service in the American Department of Defense, the U.S. Marine Corps. In addition to support personnel, the Marine Corps has seven Marine Expeditionary Units, or MEUs, of twenty-two hundred personnel each, Special Operations Capable and designed around a reinforced combat infantry battalion. That's 15,400 total; versatile enough to perform combat, humanitarian, and peacekeeping operations (often simultaneously). The Navy/Marine Corps team puts the European amphibious capacity to shame, and American amphibious assault vessels double as hospital ships. I could go on, but it's not really necessary.
This is not to say that every European nation should be able to keep up with the American military, or even that the European Union should try to equal American military capacity. I think it's appropriate for the European Union to establish a credible military force; I don't think this is it.
This strikes me as nothing but another attempt, led by our "allies" France and Germany, to distance themselves from the United States. By establishing it as a European Union program instead of a NATO program, they don't have to include the United States. It's a half-assed attempt to say "look, we can be big and tough too!" This doesn't even mention the many, many problems. Chain of command issues, marshalling, equipment incompatibilities. Communications alone would be an absolute nightmare; you'd need as many translators in the multinational groups as troops or technicians. American forces have enough trouble communicating with each other; how much trouble do you think French equipment will have communicating with Estonian equipment, or German equipment communicating with Italian stuff?
If this scheme gets off the ground in the first place, I'll be amazed. I think it's nothing more than a half-assed Franco-Deutsch attempt at military independence; if any of these nations are invaded or attacked, you can bet cash money that it'll be Americans who hit the beach, and sooner than fifteen days later, to save European butts.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home