Should the E.U. create a Military?

Scott

Photographer/Contributor
Verified Defense Pro
This is deteriorating into a political discussion. Can we get back on track about a consolidated EU Military.

Currently, US was greatly disliked by many nations around world for its policy which often seek its interest at the expense of others.
Which nations would you suggest are not seeking their own interest at the expense of others-no response requested.

The dislike i mentioned can be sort in to two types.
1. people like US as a country but dislike the government. For example, in China, most of the people will consider US as a friendly foe rather than an imperialist monster, but they will consider P. Bush as a clown or a comedy star. I believe most of the Eu countries can be sort into this category.
Again this is true of many, if not most nations. Take a wild guess at how Americans view China-again, no response requested.
 

Falstaff

New Member
The funding for an EU military would be an extra drain on all of the EU partners economy.
Au contraire, mon ami (sorry, just came back from Paris :france).
I think the main driver for a future EU army would be that each single country has to spend less on defence than it does now. Seeing western Europe as a whole combined forces as of now (see Sgt.Barnes post) would be way to big and I guess we'd see no more than 2 million troops in the end. Imagine how much money could be saved.
From my experience I can say that cooperation between the European (and other NATO as well) forces works very well, can't remember a single exercise after which we didn't end up in a bar singing English songs and trying to learn dutch. Interoparability already exists in many areas but certainly has to be worked on.
I think it really is a political question when and how. And so we won't see it in the near future. As someone mentioned before, it'll go step by step. E.g. there already are joint franco-german and dutch-german units. It works!

@Rich and Scott: I can understand you're fed up with this stuff but I don't think Mouse did mean to offend you.
 

Mouse

New Member
I do apologize for bring up the politics.:D

but Rich's claim made me have bring up the politics again, so excuse me:shudder

1, The entire world dislikes the US. "get a life"
Do I say entire? I say many. Certainly Arab world do not like US very much, So does African countries. That's a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-US_(sentiment)

2, They like the US but hate our Government. "You'd think the Chinese have enough of their own government to hate".
Chinese do not hate your government, they dislike P. Bush's policies, I thought I made my views clear.

3, Our elected President is a clown or comedy star. "As compared to your unelected Dictator and his band of muppets"?
1. That is a popular view, not my insult on P. Bush. or the US head of state.

2. P.Bush is not the only US president.

3. Chinese do not have a problem with P. Clinton or P. Kennedy or P. Nixon or P. Carter, They don't have a even problem with P. Bush, They seem so, just because they do not agree with his policies, and with a little propaganda, you know the results

4. The fact is our Dictator is not Dictator and he is elected. He do not have so much power over the state as you might think. Calling the China Upper ruling class dictators might be more appropriate. Please read more on issue before you accuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#State_structure

Most European countries agree. "Well your leaders suck"
Well give me some news links

5, People like to see every American hanged. "Well screw you to".
It's true. That's fact, either
Or how could 9/11 ever take place.
But do you really read my post, I was talking about extremist

6, We are NATOs dog, there to watch for possible intruders. And we can be trained to bit possible intruders.
I thought it's the US leading the NATO......

"And as a dog I certainly avoid Chinese restaurants".
What makes you think Chinese restaurants must have dogs on their menu?
Why don't you give out some facts before you talk?

1. Dogs are considered loyal and best friends by Chinese.

2. Some one eats dog is considered brutal and barbarian

3. Some Chinese do eat dogs just as warriors have to eat their own horse in the great famine in the Ancient time.

4. Eating dog do exist to this day, but will be condemned and regarded as one of the most inappropriate behavior of Mankind by Chinese.

5. Do not make "eat dog" accuse unless you are a vegetarian. I hope you were not making you claim and eating KFC at the same time. Considering the Chicken' feeling, that's just ridiculous.

.And were really tired of meat in the dishes that look , and taste, like dog.
Rich, you must have eaten dog to make that accuse, that makes me sick. Either tell me which restaurant it is, and I will go to have a protest, or you are making up a story.

Conclusion:
Excuse me if I have use the inappropriate words, but make accuse after you have some facts, at least finish my post.
Do not make up what others did not post!

To scott:

Thank you, you did make great points!

Which nations would you suggest are not seeking their own interest at the expense of others-no response requested.
Why US? because US hold ultimate value of "All man are made equal", it hold value of democracy and human rights. The US is different from all the other countries.
Sometimes US do accidentally drop bomb in other people's homes, with a little propaganda, people will soon disfavor US and consider US hypocrisy. Can't you guys see?

Again this is true of many, if not most nations. Take a wild guess at how Americans view China-again, no response requested.
Like to hear your comments on that

Now let's return to the EU-army!

I still do not see the necessity for an EU-army since EU do not face any continental threat. If they do, NATO will certainly to do the work. But who wants to invade EU? Russia? Unlikely. US? impossible!
But establish a joint command system might be a great idea another than an EU-army.
 

Scott

Photographer/Contributor
Verified Defense Pro
I think the main driver for a future EU army would be that each single country has to spend less on defence than it does now.
Excellent point that I hadn't considered. I might even have been foolish enough to bet money that there aren't any joint franco-german units. Seems like material for a comedy--I'll be pc and stop there.

I also thought a point of contention was how little some EU countries spent on defense. While some might be able to reduce spending, wouldn't others have to increase spending?

In structuring such a force would you maintain or avoid, units that had a predominant national identity? If situation like Kosovo were to occur in future (I know-not likely, but work with me; regional para-military forces might still evolve) would you avoid sending units and/or individuals that might have a loyalty to either side in the conflict.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Excellent point that I hadn't considered. I might even have been foolish enough to bet money that there aren't any joint franco-german units. Seems like material for a comedy--I'll be pc and stop there.
First there is the Eurocorps, which according to Wiki:

"Eurocorps is a force which consists of up to 60,000 soldiers drawn from the armies of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Spain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

It includes the Franco-German Brigade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_Brigade

The composition of the EU battlegroups - from wiki:

* Nordic Battle Group — Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Norway[2]
* France
* France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain
* France and Belgium
* United Kingdom
* United Kingdom and the Netherlands
* Germany, the Netherlands and Finland
* Germany, Czech Republic and Austria
* Czech Republic and Slovakia[3]
* Poland, Germany, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania
* Italy
* Spanish Italian Amphibious Battlegroup — Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal
* Italy, Hungary and Slovenia
* Spain
* Balkan Battlegroup — Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania[4]
 

Scott

Photographer/Contributor
Verified Defense Pro
Boy am I uninformed, I better get out more. Sounds like the foundation has been poured and it's just a matter of time before it evolves.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The problem is not if the armed forces of the different countries would work well together. They do since decades, first in NATO and UN and later in EU (With some new ones).

The political problem remains no matter what a fine fighting force for example the Franco-German Brigade is.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The problem is not if the armed forces of the different countries would work well together. They do since decades, first in NATO and UN and later in EU (With some new ones).

The political problem remains no matter what a fine fighting force for example the Franco-German Brigade is.
Precisely, on both counts.

I think the battlegroup concept may be an exception as they are signed up as rapid reaction forces and are more subject to EU decisions, or huh?

The teaming up is interesting - Club Med, Balkans, Central Europe and NW Europe (the Atlanticists) - seeking partners per region and per political lines.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
How long does it normally takes the EU to decide especially on such an important scenario... :rolleyes:
Not what "rapid" means for me.

Not to talk of the problems which occur if the deployment would be a critical one with a clear combat mission. Can you imagine...mmmh, lets take germany as an example ;) .... us to give a go for it?
Could become a big problem.
 

Scott

Photographer/Contributor
Verified Defense Pro
I think the battlegroup concept may be an exception as they are signed up as rapid reaction forces and are more subject to EU decisions, or huh?
From Wiki link you cited on Eurocorps:

It is deployed by a decision made by the five member states represented in the Common Committeeby each nation's Chief of Defence and Political Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This committee considers requests for support from multinational organisations such as the UN or EU. The Corps can also be deployed at the behest of the member nations.
So have they learned from the Security Council and operate by majority vote, or does each member have a veto?
 

martyn

New Member
Surely the answer to this question - an EU military - is primarily political. As others have said, the EU is a political concept. Given that we already have NATO, the only real compelling reason for creating an EU military is to forge the political union which the EU's core supporters really want.

Also, as others have said, an EU military would be seen as a sort of asset stripping cost saving measure. Far from creating a more effective military force, it would be bogged down in a glacial decision making process. We've all seen how EU decision making works. In addition EU states on the whole are committed to reducing defence spending. An EU military would be a dream come true for the social welfarists who dominate the EU apparatus and who really despise defence spending.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Funny how the right think EU is a socialist conspiracy, while the left think it is a capitalist conspiracy. :D

Anyhow, there is also the aspect of critical mass in RD&T, procurement, operations, that individual countries simply cannot attain on their own. Basically the benefits of scale.

Coordination of effort also have a great potential to free up funds, so that procurement percentages of budgets can be met.

I don't think it will be seen as a cost cutting exercise.
 

merocaine

New Member
Oh, the units are rapid and capable. The political decision process... Well, I guess we are the Ents of Planet Earth.
The EU started off as a trade agreement between its founding states, the political aspect was purposefully fudged, hence the most excellent trade and labour regulation, and the weak politcal and constutional arrangements.
Here's to resolving the EU's lack of a consitution first, we'll settle the founding of a EU military later!
Without a robust political and legal framework an EU military would be worse than useless, it would be dangerous.
 

Rich

Member
An EU military would be a dream come true for the social welfarists who dominate the EU apparatus and who really despise defence spending.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this. The "Lets join hands at the Rhine" crowd, if their dream comes true, will weaken whatever defense entity Europe wants to call it. Like it or not, military prowess is a machine that is fueled by nationalism. Once national pride is take out of the picture military decadency is sure to follow.

The "better dead then Red" crowd would jump on this Euro-army thing, peck away at it, immerse it in bureaucratic nonsense, and before you knew it Europe would be both militarily degraded and command-wise dysfunctional. There's enough paralyzing politics in an army already without making an additional 18 power blocs. Each one maneuvering for their own advantage.

Even more so such a move would alienate America and weaken NATO. Perhaps even destroying it. And how is that helping your defense posture?
 
Top