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
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