Is NATO a military dinosaur?

[contedicavour]

The UN is a toothless tiger, perhaps if we looked towards the EU and NATO as combined force, they might be able to do something in the world without bickering and political corruptness. (case in point, Annan's son and links to food for oil scandal). With little in the way of force behind the UN besides a couple of fijians and a Swedish "neutral" Company, they rarely get involved because their members who vote on the deployment, always have some personal involvement. Instead of being involved in Africas numerous civil wars, they send the African Union because they want to distance themselves from any direct support. The AU may not be an economic power, but it at least gets it hands dirty when one of it own screws up, if the EU was willing to do the same, get involved military wise with Force, it could be a...dare i say a ..."superpower".
The EU would benefit from joining up with NATO to give a more powerful EU, which combined with economic support, would allow it to be more involved in world events. Its members have a massive military industry that allows it to be less dependant on the US, and gives it own economy jobs.
But, with all these euro nations militaries in one place, its sure to raise eyebrows in the CIA and pentagon as to whether theres a hidden motive, which would lead to a cold war.... History shows the best intentions can be misunderstood and taken the wrong way, and a strong EU would have this effect in the US. The Idea would be great, but the complexities don't help its case

The US need not worry... the EU is never able to express consensus when it comes to tough international situations. Over the current war in Lebanon, just to give an example, there is already a deep disagreement between the UK and Germany on one side (ceasefire yes, but not at whatever cost) and France (ceasefire now, whatever the cost).
When I think that a week ago everybody was ready to send over peacekeepers, if not even competing to gain the symbolic triumph of leading such as peacekeepers force
The EU is an excellent thing for trade and economic and cultural aspects. Militarily, it is a joke since each country keeps its national priorities in foreign policy.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

Bullseye!!!
All these ideas of EU Battle Groups, Quick Reaction Forces, etc. are just dreams which will never work like they are intended to do.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Bullseye!!!
All these ideas of EU Battle Groups, Quick Reaction Forces, etc. are just dreams which will never work like they are intended to do.

Given that these self same soldiers etc probably work just fine under NATO,and were trained under the NATO system, whats wrong with them? incompetent?

 

[Grand Danois]

Given that these self same soldiers etc probably work just fine under NATO,and were trained under the NATO system, whats wrong with them? incompetent?

The NATO NRF battlegroups are de facto similar to the EU battlegroups in their specifications. Structure, readiness level, workups, interoperability etc.

Sometimes EU battlegroups are allocated to NRF and vice versa. The current NRF-7 land component is, amongst others, built up around the EUROCORPS HQ and a Spanish marine battlegroup. Both are also EU battlegroups. Most of the EU planning, command and control etc. is buried in NATO. It is de facto capabilities and it is a matter of political context rather than unified command.

Sweden is not member of NATO, but is a member of EU. Hence the Nordic Battlegroup, whilst Denmark has an opt-out on the defence element in EU, so they contribute a mech battlegroup for NRF-10 instead.

It is also a question about political context of their use.

The work done wrt NRF and EU looks similar and parallel, to me at least.

So this is a serious capability.

 

[merocaine]

Sweden is not member of NATO, but is a member of EU. Hence the Nordic Battlegroup, whilst Denmark has an opt-out on the defence element in EU, so they contribute a mech battlegroup for NRF-10 instead.

It is also a question about political context of their use.

The work done wrt NRF and EU looks similar and parallel, to me at least.

So this is a serious capability.

bullseye

 

[Grand Danois]

bullseye

What do you mean?

 

[contedicavour]

The NATO NRF battlegroups are de facto similar to the EU battlegroups in their specifications. Structure, readiness level, workups, interoperability etc.

Sometimes EU battlegroups are allocated to NRF and vice versa. The current NRF-7 land component is, amongst others, built up around the EUROCORPS HQ and a Spanish marine battlegroup. Both are also EU battlegroups. Most of the EU planning, command and control etc. is buried in NATO. It is de facto capabilities and it is a matter of political context rather than unified command.

Sweden is not member of NATO, but is a member of EU. Hence the Nordic Battlegroup, whilst Denmark has an opt-out on the defence element in EU, so they contribute a mech battlegroup for NRF-10 instead.

It is also a question about political context of their use.

The work done wrt NRF and EU looks similar and parallel, to me at least.

So this is a serious capability.

Spot on, these troops are excellent and so is their leadership. The issue is the political context of their use. It's like a public company with the members of the board squabbling between them in front of the stockholders at the company's general assembly. Except that you can't chase those members of the board
That's why I don't feel confortable with this multiplication of EU and sub-EU battle groups. Let's just leave that to NATO coordination... plus eventually some extra battle groups with non-NATO countries such as Sweden, as has already been suggested in this thread.

cheers

 

[Waylander]

That's it.
The main problems are not the soldiers or their equipment.
It is a political one.
It is quite unlikely that all countrys which participate in these battlegroups decide the same things in the same time with the saem objectives as it is necessary for a force of this kind.

 

[Grand Danois]

But we agree, that once (if) a political decision is actually taken, the planning, tactical doctrine, training, equipment and logistiscs is in place?

 

[Waylander]

Most of it. But there are still problems because most member countrys don't fullfill the force level they promised.

 

[enigmaticuk]

Rapid Deployment Options

I would like to say that i see NATO not as a dinosaur but as highly progressive as a military force. They seem to be showing there ability in afgan and other places to deploy an international combined force which has the teeth to tackle problems on the ground. I am not well schooled on UN force deployments but they all appear (UN) to be ineffectual at combating agressors. However i feel that NATO to reamain progressive needs to focus on its ability to rapidly deploy forces at very short notice. Would this even be possible with its command structure? Who has to approve there actions? For example Israel called at first for NATO peacekeepers in S. Lebanon last week, could NATO ever have the capability to deploy say 10,000 troops in 48-72 hours, or would the politics just take too long? What are other opinions on this rapid deployment option for NATO force's?

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't think NATO is a dinosaur, but I do believe that it would be beneficial if it had some changes, starting with the name and purpose.

As anyone remotely familiar with geography will have observed, Afghanistan is a long way from the North Atlantic. Having said that, some of the most important work NATO is doing now is in Afghanistan.

I would change the purpose of the organization to one of mutual defence and cooperation, without naming anything specific to defend against. I would also have as part of the purpose the promotion of peace and freedom. Having done that I would then invite in developed nations that are stable, have little corruption and a belief in freedom and democratic principles. If possible I would like to see at least one member-nation from each continent/region of the world.

For Oceania
I can easily see Australia and New Zealand joining.

For Asia
Japan could join, but South Korea I don't think should join yet, as it might make North Korea nervous. Singapore is a possibility. Though I am uncertain about the development and political stability of Malaysia and Thailand these too are possibilities.

In the Mideast
I would definitately rule Israel out for the time being, for it would act as a lightening rod of East vs. West. Once/If the issues between Israel and the Arab nations are resolved, then perhaps. Jordan, though still developing and a monarchy, might be a possibility. Another would be Morocco, also a monarchy, but again with questions on development.

In Africa
South Africa is a possible member. Most of the rest of Africa I don't believe is either developed and/or stable enough to contribute.

South America
I'm not sure if any nation nation in South America is stable enough politically. However with some work, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela are all potential candidates.

If the organization could expand in this fashion, while including member-nations with similiar ideals, NATO (or whatever it would be called) would have truly global reach.

 

[Waylander]

I also agree that instead of just trying to expand into the east of europe the NATO should be include Australia, NZ, Japan and maybe Singapore (South Africa is too much involved in places like Angole, etc.).
I would also like to see South Korea joining, but as you said it could make Kim nervous.
NATO is still a very good defensive pact with nobody coould ever dream of competing with.
As an intervention force it is still too much divided in a political way and I don't see this changing in the near future.

 

[contedicavour]

I also agree that instead of just trying to expand into the east of europe the NATO should be include Australia, NZ, Japan and maybe Singapore (South Africa is too much involved in places like Angole, etc.).
I would also like to see South Korea joining, but as you said it could make Kim nervous.
NATO is still a very good defensive pact with nobody coould ever dream of competing with.
As an intervention force it is still too much divided in a political way and I don't see this changing in the near future.

Why not extending NATO to friendly Asian democracies. However I fear antagonizing Russia AND China. Both could then unite forces formally and recreate a sort of Warsaw Pact v2 ...
I also fear getting caught in local animosities over for example small islands between Korea and Japan, or more to the south, between Japan, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc.
It's a dangerous zone, and if a country felt formally supported by NATO, it could get even more aggressive.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Most of it. But there are still problems because most member countrys don't fullfill the force level they promised.

Yep especially as often the same elite units are committed to both NATO, EU, and binational agreements.
A lot of double counting which works only if no simultaneous and different needs arise (example : EU mission in the Balkans and NATO mission in Afghanistan)

cheers

 

[enigmaticuk]

My question is still would NATO ever be capable of deploying a 10,000 strong force within 72 hours to a week, if requested in a situation similar to lebanon right now?. If that capability existed now then you could argue that a ceasefire could already be in effect in lebanon.

 

[Grand Danois]

My question is still would NATO ever be capable of deploying a 10,000 strong force within 72 hours to a week, if requested in a situation similar to lebanon right now?. If that capability existed now then you could argue that a ceasefire could already be in effect in lebanon.

I would think NATO could do that.

http://www.nato.int/shape/issues/shape_nrf/nrf_rotation.ppt

It would then be France, Spain, Germany and Luxembourg that would make up the entry force.

It is a question if NATO would really like to deploy in this rapid manner and if NATO would be the organisation in question...

Ceasefire is the work of politicians. The political context of the deployment will decide what nations would contribute, if it happens.

 

[atilla]

why?

actually ı fırst dont understand why EU should need quıck response force or unıted army?? there ıs no clear danger ın next 50 years counter to EU so ı thınk no need about nato ı thınk nato ıs useless and a dınosor ınstead of nato all counrıes should gıve mor ımportance to UN ın all bases .and when ı look from my country nato ıs realy useless and old dınasour

 

[Grand Danois]

(Europe or NATO is not working towards a unified army.)

Well, no German troops for Lebanon.

German Defense Ministry Rules Out Troops for Middle East Force
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
Mon, 7 Aug 2006, 01:30

Germany’s defense ministry has ruled out contributing troops to a proposed international military force for south Lebanon, despite calls by the Israeli prime minister for German participation.

”I don’t see such a thing happening,” Christian Schmidt, secretary of state at the defense ministry, said in comments to be published in the Aug. 5 edition of the Stuttgarter Zeitung newspaper.

”Our political possibilities are outside the military field,” he said.
”I am impressed by the level of trust that the (Israeli) prime minister has shown us. But I don’t think that we will be able to build a strong mandate, both on a political level and regarding the capacity of the Bundeswehr (German army),” Schmidt explained.

In the Aug. 4 edition of Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert called for Germany to participate in an international military force, which is supposed to be deployed to help the Lebanese army gain effective control over southern Lebanon and prevent future Hezbollah attacks on Israel.

”I would like German soldiers to participate,” Olmert said. “I told Chancellor Angela Merkel that we have absolutely no problem with the presence of German troops in south Lebanon,” he was quoted as saying.

Germany is split over the use of its army to keep apart Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas, whose conflict has killed hundreds, mainly civilians, in the last three weeks.

Some politicians claim it would be impossible for German troops to fire on Israeli forces if necessary, given Germany’s persecution of Europe’s Jews during its Nazi past.

Last weekend, Merkel said it was unlikely that Germany would send troops to the Middle East as its army already participated in many operations around the world.

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/pub...ry_Rules_Out_Troops_for_Middle_East_Force.php

 

[Waylander]

The main problem of the Bundeswehr is that our politicians always like the idea of sending "peace troops" anywhere, anytime but if the situation becomes hot (bigger military actions, use of heavy ground weapons, etc) political back up is missed. So every action on other countrys is fullfilled with one hand tied on the back.