Unity of Command and the implications of the Lisbon Treaty

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
On forums like this and sometimes in general it is often assumed that Europe acts as one unified force in issues of military significant. That makes sense if you consider that nearly all of Europe or at least significant portions of it are in NATO which is the most powerful military alliance to date and victor of the Cold War. Many nations in NATO and Europe are also members of the EU which has been struggling for years now to develop a constitution in one form or another. One of the founding principles of the EU however is that all decisions of significance must be unanimous among all member states. This was recently demonstrated again by the Lisbon Treaty.

This may have worked in the beginning when the EU was based primarily on economic issues involving only rich "Western European" states but clearly the EU has moved beyond that. Serious discussions of a common defense policy separate from the NATO alliance has been ongoing for at least a decade now. A lot of the individual member nations have very powerful and technologically advanced armed forces but individually they all lack the logistics necessary to do very much beyond their borders except in relatively small units of action. Collectively though there exist significant power and with dedicated effort it would not be inconceivable to see EU "pure" power projection in the not too distant future. IMV though, a serious issue would need to be dealt with.

Unity of Command. The idea behind the EU is respectable but it seems the individual members almost always place their own interest first. The idea that you can have over two dozen independent chains of command would seem to fly in the face of the principle of war called Unity of Command. Whoever was tasked with leading the EU in a military situation would face a significant challenge. That commander would be beholden to his own national interest and also have to consider the interest of any member states who contributed forces to any action.

I see this as a huge problem from a military point of view. For example, France may feel threatened by some action of the Algerians. Germany may not and have significant trade with that nation as well. The Germans may decide not to participate. Or Europe may decide it wants it's own missile defense system which if you pay attention to efforts in the USA is very very expensive. A cooperative effort of European states could certainly afford one. But suppose a FSU EU member state felt as if it was taking more risk due to proximity to Russia who are opposed to any missile defense because it weakens their position. These are just examples and not at all intended to be true scenarios but they are representative of issues that could come up.

Without complete agreement the EU would be very limited in it's ability to protect "EU" interest. This is opposed to the United States where a President can call on National Guardsmen from any state and assume federal control and use them as the DoD sees fit regardless of the states position.

How does Europe overcome this serious challenge? Or is the idea of a US/NATO independent "EU" or "European" military force of significance a fantasy?

-DA
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
To overcome this the EU would need to gain superiority over the individual state governments of the member nations, just like the U.S. Constitution (replacing the articles of confederation) gave authority to the Federal government over the states. Yet even then it took a Civil War to put the idea of states rights to rest (remember South Carolina? :) ). It doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon. Especially not with the difficulty they're having in getting any sort of Constitution passed even for the loose international bureaucracy that they have right now, never mind a proper central government.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
It depends on what the intent is.

If it is for the territorial defence of Europe then at the operational level we arent operating with individual commands, but with established structures - and de facto including France, though they are not formally part of that structure.

As for expeditionary ops - at the operational level it would work today with contingents at readiness and disposal for EU decisions. It is the political end that is lacking as DA describes it. One of the proposed and likely solutions is the "coalition of the willing" concept, where those who wish to participate fully in an op act alone and put those who do not outside the door. This in order to prevent situations like Afghanistan or the Kosovo Air Campaign.

In fact, those Irish who voted no to the Lisbon Treaty in fear of an EU military policy have actually helped this process. They will not be tying down the policies of more activist nations. This is for real: Denmark has had as an official policy to use EU to tie the larger EU members down by committing them and ourselves through EU, in order to prevent them from acting unilaterally (though we're an activist country now :D).
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
It depends on what the intent is.

If it is for the territorial defence of Europe then at the operational level we arent operating with individual commands, but with established structures - and de facto including France, though they are not formally part of that structure.

As for expeditionary ops - at the operational level it would work today with contingents at readiness and disposal for EU decisions. It is the political end that is lacking as DA describes it. One of the proposed and likely solutions is the "coalition of the willing" concept, where those who wish to participate fully in an op act alone and put those who do not outside the door. This in order to prevent situations like Afghanistan or the Kosovo Air Campaign.

In fact, those Irish who voted no to the Lisbon Treaty in fear of an EU military policy have actually helped this process. They will not be tying down the policies of more activist nations. This is for real: Denmark has had as an official policy to use EU to tie the larger EU members down by committing them and ourselves through EU, in order to prevent them from acting unilaterally (though we're an activist country now :D).
I don't too much worry about the defense of EU proper from some external grave threat. I have no doubt the "EU" would be able to deal with that. It's the lesser threats that don't sell so easily in the media but require military action. Especially the expeditionary actions which seem to be the growing trend when a nations interest extend beyond the home territory. Europe would fall into this category for sure IMV.

But I think you are right about the more activist nations having more flexibility outside such an entanglement. But the muscle?

-DA
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
I don't too much worry about the defense of EU proper from some external grave threat. I have no doubt the "EU" would be able to deal with that. It's the lesser threats that don't sell so easily in the media but require military action. Especially the expeditionary actions which seem to be the growing trend when a nations interest extend beyond the home territory. Europe would fall into this category for sure IMV.

But I think you are right about the more activist nations having more flexibility outside such an entanglement. But the muscle?

-DA
The activists at least include UK, Poland, Holland, Denmark and to great extent France (their agenda is more Franco-centric and they wish to fuse their agenda into EUs agenda, and not decide ad hoc on the issues - they consider theirs as the "true" European agenda). What's missing is primarily Germany, Italy, Spain - at the moment

If you look at the Kosovo Air Campaign, Germany, Norway (and France) was also fully committed plus others.

The issue with Afghanistan is, imv, that the feetdraggers really don't believe in the mission and to a lesser extent the public outcry.

Btw, a few smaller nations can match e.g. the expeditionary air power wings of say UK or France. As an example, the EEAW can deploy a full wing (and it is at high readiness).

Links provided to clue in on integration of doctrine, training, materiel in EEAW.

EEAW: EMBRYONIC COMPONENT OF FUTURE EUROPEAN AIR
COMBAT?


How it is done in practice
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
The activists at least include UK, Poland, Holland, Denmark and to great extent France (their agenda is more Franco-centric and they wish to fuse their agenda into EUs agenda, and not decide ad hoc on the issues - they consider theirs as the "true" European agenda). What's missing is primarily Germany, Italy, Spain - at the moment

If you look at the Kosovo Air Campaign, Germany, Norway (and France) was also fully committed plus others.

The issue with Afghanistan is, imv, that the feetdraggers really don't believe in the mission and to a lesser extent the public outcry.

Btw, a few smaller nations can match e.g. the expeditionary air power wings of say UK or France. As an example, the EEAW can deploy a full wing (and it is at high readiness).

Links provided to clue in on integration of doctrine, training, materiel in EEAW.

EEAW: EMBRYONIC COMPONENT OF FUTURE EUROPEAN AIR
COMBAT?


How it is done in practice
The air component looks to be fine a few logistical/ISR quibbles aside(taking, EW and xport). I can't imagine too many nations that could deal with a force that size assuming the "EU" can get access and keep it. Even at Sea the combined might of those nations would do well against most threats. But on the ground, I wonder. A ground combat element proportional to the EEAW I can see. Anything larger or requiring sustained lengthy operations and I wonder about the Unity of Command issues. I'm jaded after experiencing the Spanish change of heart. I'm going to look over the PDF a bit more today. I bring all this up because I see the rogue/failed states in places like Africa, ME and possibly Asia as demanding a lot of attention in coming years.

Does the EU have anything coming in the strategic airpower category? Or is it pretty much going to stick to tactical platforms?


-DA
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well Europe is getting some C-17's (pooling their money for it). Apparently they already requested two of them. That's strategic heavy air lift. Other then that...... are you thinking AWACS, bombers, tankers, or what?
 

stigmata

New Member
Europeans have fought longer then written history can confirm, they are done with it, unless its self-defence or peace-keeping. There is nothing that suggest Europe will persue aggressive foreign policy again.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Europeans have fought longer then written history can confirm, they are done with it, unless its self-defence or peace-keeping. There is nothing that suggest Europe will persue aggressive foreign policy again.
Personally i wouldn't be so quick to say that, at least in the case of the UK and France. Both still have overseas territories, and both have militaries stronger then any other in Europe bar possibly each other.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A ground combat element proportional to the EEAW I can see. Anything larger or requiring sustained lengthy operations and I wonder about the Unity of Command issues.
Permanent structure - Eurocorps. Around 60,000 men, standing units, in a variety of readiness levels. Not a NATO structure, but cooperating with it (since 2002).

I have doubts any army worldwide, short of the US Army, could throw up and deploy a command structure above that force level in current times.

Also, of course:
“The European Parliament proposes to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invites all Member States to contribute to it”
[...]
“The European Parliament asks the Member States concerned to investigate the possibilities and possible impact of bringing under permanent structured cooperation, as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, existing multinational forces such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the Spanish-Italian amphibious force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all relevant forces and structures for ESDP operations.”
Approved in parliament June 6th, 2008, votes 500:106:36.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Just wanted to clarify that common defence is not a feature of the treaty of Lisbon or the earlier treaty of the functioning of the EU.

clause 2 of the Article 3a specifies: In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each member state.
Nevertheless, EU defence was the 3rd largest reason given as to why the Irish voted no. :D However having an efficient structure for decisionmaking and a better defined responsibility of foreign policies is what is lacking the most and necessary to wield EU as a unified weapon. This is what the Lisbon Treaty deals with.

FUD is very effective.

(1st was removal of some protectionism (beef in particular, iirc) and 2nd was abortion; the latter also having nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.)
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Permanent structure - Eurocorps. Around 60,000 men, standing units, in a variety of readiness levels. Not a NATO structure, but cooperating with it (since 2002).

I have doubts any army worldwide, short of the US Army, could throw up and deploy a command structure above that force level in current times.

Also, of course:

Approved in parliament June 6th, 2008, votes 500:106:36.
Ummm I'm sure I could think of more than a few who could actually. Even some of the European states. It's not a question of getting the force, it's a smooth unity of command compatible with today's highly fluid battlefield. As it is now any EU force of any size composed of two or more member states is vulnerable at the C2 level to a host of imposed and self inflicted vulnerabilities.

For example, I don't doubt the French or the Dutch ability to deploy forces to secure their various interest. I do doubt the integrity of a French/Dutch joint operation however and see it as a critical node. This all depends on the difficulty of the task of course. If we are talking about delivering humanitarian relief thats one thing. A shooting war, completely different.

-DA
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Ummm I'm sure I could think of more than a few who could actually.
I was thinking of a more permanent operation, as in similar to e.g. Iraq. Most other similar deployments worldwide stop(ped) at a Corps-sized level (Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia) in the past few decades, for the most part simply due to a lack of need of course.

I do doubt the integrity of a French/Dutch joint operation however and see it as a critical node.
I would see good chances for e.g. a German/French effort though.

Simply due to the pre-existance of Joint C2, and in the German/French case, the existance of (and 10 years of experiences with) a joint combat unit at combined-arms level.

In most other cases, NATO experience comes to play at similar level for a lot of EU nations (except of course for France, Sweden and such). Joint C2 exists for such force structures within NATO, and is in a lot of cases transferable, see e.g. the 1st GE/NL Corps.
 

merocaine

New Member
Nevertheless, EU defence was the 3rd largest reason given as to why the Irish voted no. However having an efficient structure for decisionmaking and a better defined responsibility of foreign policies is what is lacking the most and necessary to wield EU as a unified weapon. This is what the Lisbon Treaty deals with.

FUD is very effective.

(1st was removal of some protectionism (beef in particular, iirc) and 2nd was abortion; the latter also having nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.)
The real reasons why my feckless countrymen voted No.

1/ The Irish economy has fallen off a cliff.

2/ Nobody, including the Primeminister and the rest of the Ministers read the treaty.

3/ The No campaign was so absurd as to be beyond rebutting. This was what made it so effective.

4/ The damn thing was boring (has anyone tried to read it!) that most people voted No just to be on the safe side.

Abortion and beef? I think a little national stereotyping has been going on in the european media.
Defence policy, trade liberalization, loss of a EU commissioner (and maybe a little bit of beef and abortion) were all excuses......

People voted No because at the end of the day there scared, we're in our first recession since 1983, house prices are dropping like a stone, and inflation is through the roof.
The Voters had no desire to adopt a new treaty when as far as they could see the old one had brought them so much prosperity.

Its an absolute tragedy IMHO. Its fair enough to vote No, but at least vote No for real reasons.

It would be interesting to see how national referendums would turn out in the rest of Europe.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The real reasons why my feckless countrymen voted No.

1/ The Irish economy has fallen off a cliff.

2/ Nobody, including the Primeminister and the rest of the Ministers read the treaty.

3/ The No campaign was so absurd as to be beyond rebutting. This was what made it so effective.

4/ The damn thing was boring (has anyone tried to read it!) that most people voted No just to be on the safe side.

Abortion and beef? I think a little national stereotyping has been going on in the european media.
Defence policy, trade liberalization, loss of a EU commissioner (and maybe a little bit of beef and abortion) were all excuses......

People voted No because at the end of the day there scared, we're in our first recession since 1983, house prices are dropping like a stone, and inflation is through the roof.
The Voters had no desire to adopt a new treaty when as far as they could see the old one had brought them so much prosperity.

Its an absolute tragedy IMHO. Its fair enough to vote No, but at least vote No for real reasons.

It would be interesting to see how national referendums would turn out in the rest of Europe.
Playing it safe and voting no has everything to do with FUD. And FUD doesn't have to deal with reality, see your # 3/. This make for lotsa small reasons as to vote no, i.e. uero defence was the 3rd largest reason but only accounts for 8% of the no votes. Lots of small reasons of the abortion & beef type. "It's the economy, stupid" count, but at a more unconscious level. No votes are about the minutae and conservatism. You'll have to have an issue to put your flag in.

For the same reason it is impossible to predict the outcomes of elections on euro issues anywhere: they never touch substance and the voters respond to other questions, e.g. should Turkey be a member, or exacting revenge upon the political etsablishment outside of the election cycle with seemingly little cost, as the sacrifice is a "subordinate" euro topic.
 
Top