Time for US forces to leave Europe, a Unified EU Military to take their place

[Jecito]

The European Union has a population of 500 million people compared to the US 300 million, it already is the world´s largest economy with 30% of the world´s economic output, it has it´s own government, labour market, laws and currency. It will soon have it´s own constitution. It has a high-tech military industrial complex second only to the US. With the "Synchronised Armed Forces Europe" program the EU has recently begun to synchronise its armed forces. The first step to a single EU army.

There is no region in the world better able to defend itself then the EU. If EU united it could possibly become even more powerful then the US. Yet they spend very little on their military, France and the UK spend 48% of the entire continent´s budget, while the other large members spend next to nothing on defence, Germany only spends 1.3% of its GDP, one of the lowest rates of GDP spending in the world. If defence spending in Europe is such a low priority then why does the US need 85,000 troops there?

It has been 20 years since the fall of East Germany, 15 years since the last remnants of the Soviet Army left Eastern Europe, yet US troops are still stationed in Europe, on standby for a Soviet Invasion that will never come. This largesse is at a great cost to the US taxpayer, is it time for the Europeans to look after themselves and bring the troops home, or redeploy them elsewhere. Surely a United Europe is more then a match for Russia. If not then the EU can easily afford to spend more on defence. NATO is a Cold War relic. How relevant is it when there is no Warsaw Pact or Communist Superpower that justified its existence? The Afghan war has nothing to do with NATO. Even then the US has to beg the EU to send more troops. The future strategic interests of the US will be in Asia, not in Old Europe. One day in the distant future Russia may even join the EU, European Prime Minister´s have even said as much, and it is historically as ´European´ as any other EU member. As well as withdrawing US troops from Iraq it is time to finally bring them back from Europe. The United States can ill afford to subsidise Europe any longer.

 

[riksavage]

As I mentioned in another post the problem with most European standing armies (with the possible exception of the UK) is just that, they are 'standing', trapped within a relatively limited geographical area by a severe lack of strategic lift and indigenous supply-chains capable of sustaining out of area operations. Europe may have 2-million men under arms now, but they largely irrelevant considering today's threats. I doubt 10% of that number could be deployed and sustained outside Europe's borders for extended periods without US support.

Today's clear and present danger is not the Soviet Union anymore, but that represented by asymmetrical warfare being fought on the plains of A-STAN and inside the ghettos of European cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam against a disaffected youth attracted by an extreme view of the world and hatred of the West. It really pisses me off that people are still obsessed with the Russian Bear, let's just remind ourselves when was the last time a Russian unit shot at a Western European one?

Europe needs to spend money transforming its military structure away from a defensive posture to that of offense. It must build a strategic capability. People need to stop counting guns, tanks and boots on the ground and start looking in more detail at what is proving critical to the success of modern operations - net-centric systems informed by real-time intelligence gathering assets backed by forces capable of a global reach. You take the US out of the equation and Europe becomes a blind man stumbling in the dark armed with a big stick.The fact that the UK is the only country in Europe with a credable facility similar to what the NSA offers, which is capable of real-time global intelligence assessment and monitoring (GCHQ) reflects just how weak Europe is in areas that matter in todays asymmetrical world.

History teaches us time and time again, that size doesn't matter, it's the bite that counts. Europe today reminds me of the Persians at The Battle of Thermopylae, a huge lumbering beast made up of different ethnic groups trained to different levels, equipped with nonstandard weapons, governed by varying doctrines and dictated by national interest doomed to defeat at the hands of smaller better trained and equipped foe (The Spartans).

As a Brit I dread the prospect of a 'European army' and would much rather see the UK take part in an English speaking alliance made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and India (before any one jumps done my throat all Indian Army officers speak English and yes we would have to tolerate the French speaking Canadian's from Quebec).:shudder

 

[kato]

yet US troops are still stationed in Europe, on standby for a Soviet Invasion that will never come

Err, the US isn't in Europe to defend it. There aren't even remotely anything like combat troops remaining in Europe. The US military there solely to use it as a forward base and logistics turntable for its wars in western Asia.

 

[TrangleC]

History teaches us time and time again, that size doesn't matter, it's the bite that counts. Europe today reminds me of the Persians at The Battle of Thermopylae, a huge lumbering beast made up of different ethnic groups trained to different levels, equipped with nonstandard weapons, governed by varying doctrines and dictated by national interest doomed to defeat at the hands of smaller better trained and equipped foe (The Spartans).

Actually, history rather teaches that size does matter. You think size didn't matter in WW2 when the Allies basically drowned the Axis and Japan in men and material? Or what about Korea and Vietnam?

And the Spartans lost against the Persians, don't forget that. Unlike the end of that comic book movie "300" portraits it, the Persians under Xerxes were not defeated by a united greek army on land in the end. After defeating the Spartans, the Persians successfully marched through all of Greek and burned down Athens. Only when they took to the sea again after the successful land campaign, they were defeated by the Greek fleet. Not to mention that only a short time after that, the heroic Spartans allied themselves with the Persians to controll the rest of the Greek city states.

And even in the youngest armed conflicts, we see that even with all the superiority of the US and allied forces over their enemy, their numbers still turned out to be too small to be successful. Only after the "surge" in Iraq the situation got at least a little bit better there, while still being far from good.

Even high ranking officers nowadays admit that the war in Afghanistan basically cannot be won. Why? Because the Taliban are so well trained and equipped? Certainly not, but we know that this region has such an "output" of young men that even if only a very small percentage of those young men become Taliban and join the fight against the western troops, they still could replace tens of thousands of fallen combatants each year without a problem.

History is full of examples of formidable and superior but too small forces being overrun by badly equipped but determined masses.

As a Brit I dread the prospect of a 'European army' and would much rather see the UK take part in an English speaking alliance made up of the US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and India (before any one jumps done my throat all Indian Army officers speak English and yes we would have to tolerate the French speaking Canadian's from Quebec).:shudder

I'd support that idea if you'd take the Polish with you too, even though they speak a different language.
hehe

Jokes aside, i don't think India has much interest in becoming a junior partner to the USA now, so short before becoming one of the big superpowers of the coming multipolar world order.

 

[Sea Toby]

Actually the US military did win the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the politician didn't win the peace. Its Vietnam all over again. Instead of attempting to bring democracy, we should have let the Saudis take over. They would have crushed any uprising and would have brought law and order quickly. Even now, I have doubts whether Iraq has a leader who can lead....

 

[TrangleC]

Actually the US military did win the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the politician didn't win the peace. Its Vietnam all over again. Instead of attempting to bring democracy, we should have let the Saudis take over. They would have crushed any uprising and would have brought law and order quickly. Even now, I have doubts whether Iraq has a leader who can lead....

The Saudis? Sorry, but that idea shows that you seem not to know much about the relationships between certain fractions within the muslim community.

The majority of the Iraqy population is shiite. The running insurgency is mainly conducted by the sunite minority. Foreign suni jihadists like Al Qaeida wouldn't have joined in on it otherwise.
The shiite majority holds still and cooperates with the western invaders so far because they know that if there are free and fair elections in Iraq, they will overtake the gouvernment without any problem. So now they are waiting to see whether the USA keeps it's promises of allowing fair elections. If it doesn't and if it looks as if the USA would try to install a new "strong (sunite) leader", you'll probably have a shiite uprising on your hands that will make the sunite insurgency of the last 6 years look like a picknick in comparison.

So the way it looks now, the USA only has the choice of giving the Iraqis free elections and getting a shiite satelite state of Iran as a result, or to try to find a new Saddam and trigger a new phase of the war that will make everything that came so far look like a joke.

I don't understand where you see a US victory in this.

(And there is another thing... What many people don't know is that all the areas with the major oil fields of Saudi Arabia are also populated by a supressed shiite majority that hates it's suni/wahabit Saudi oppressors. In both cases, if Iraq becomes a shiite state or if the shiites start their own war against the US forces, we are looking at the posibility of a shiite uprising in the "important parts" of Saudi Arabia too. If that happens, you better have a electric car by then.)

 

[Firn]

As I mentioned in another post the problem with most European standing armies (with the possible exception of the UK) is just that, they are 'standing', trapped within a relatively limited geographical area by a severe lack of strategic lift and indigenous supply-chains capable of sustaining out of area operations. Europe may have 2-million men under arms now, but they largely irrelevant considering today's threats. I doubt 10% of that number could be deployed and sustained outside Europe's borders for extended periods without US support.

I have a hard time to accept the assessment that Europe armies are "largely irrevelant considering today's threats". Do you believe that Europe is defended just by fighting in Afghanistan? Do you think the overmatching power of the "largely irrelevant" European armies is not a safeguard against the military aggression of foreign states?

Today's clear and present danger is not the Soviet Union anymore, but that represented by asymmetrical warfare being fought on the plains of A-STAN and inside the ghettos of European cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam against a disaffected youth attracted by an extreme view of the world and hatred of the West. It really pisses me off that people are still obsessed with the Russian Bear, let's just remind ourselves when was the last time a Russian unit shot at a Western European one?

The mission in Afghanistan is a political one who has to use military force as part of the broader strategy. Could some European powers invest more in the military part of it? Yes, even if to a good degree the limited combat effectivness of some (if not most) European nations there is mostly a consequence of the political will to greatly limit the scope of the military operations.

Today's clear and present danger is not the Soviet Union anymore, but that represented by asymmetrical warfare being fought on the plains of A-STAN and inside the ghettos of European cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam against a disaffected youth attracted by an extreme view of the world and hatred of the West. It really pisses me off that people are still obsessed with the Russian Bear, let's just remind ourselves when was the last time a Russian unit shot at a Western European one?

What troubles me most is your statement of an "assymetrical warfare inside the ghettos of European cities such as London, Paris and Amsterdam against a disaffected youth attracted by an extreme view of the world and hatred of the West". Could you please explain in which way we should transform our armed forces and deal with the "disaffected youths" in the "ghettos of (some) European cities"?

History teaches us time and time again, that size doesn't matter, it's the bite that counts. Europe today reminds me of the Persians at The Battle of Thermopylae, a huge lumbering beast made up of different ethnic groups trained to different levels, equipped with nonstandard weapons, governed by varying doctrines and dictated by national interest doomed to defeat at the hands of smaller better trained and equipped foe (The Spartans).

It is deeply ironic that you use an almost singular battle to demostrate that time and time again "size doesn't matter". It is superfluos to add that the Spartans - togheter with different greek allies trained to different levels, equipped with nonstandard weapons, governed by varying doctrine and dicated by their national (political - for their "polis") interest got surrounded and defeated.

 

[HKSDU]

Actually the US military did win the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the politician didn't win the peace. Its Vietnam all over again. Instead of attempting to bring democracy, we should have let the Saudis take over. They would have crushed any uprising and would have brought law and order quickly. Even now, I have doubts whether Iraq has a leader who can lead....

The situation in Iraq isnt the same as Vietnam. If you say US won Iraq war which means victory in Vietnam then your dead wrong. Vietnam war US loss buddy sorry to say it. And the war in Iraq US hasnt won it either its still going, and it seems that the situation in Iraq is a money hungry bottomless pit that will get nowhere. ITs wise move that Obama plans to move US out of Iraq in the near future. But still its US and NATO job to build up Iraq again, infrastructure, buildings, military etc... If we weren't talking politics Iraq infrastrure, buildings, living style was pretty good before the Iraq war started. But it was the government that was bad. Anyway US and NATO started the mess for Iraq civilians and should be responsible for cleaning it up. Not just packing up and going. But anyway off topic. Another thing pretty fantasy idea of the Saudi taking control of Iraq.

 

[swerve]

Actually the US military did win the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the politician didn't win the peace. Its Vietnam all over again. Instead of attempting to bring democracy, we should have let the Saudis take over. They would have crushed any uprising and would have brought law and order quickly. Even now, I have doubts whether Iraq has a leader who can lead....

The USA won a campaign, in 2003, not a war. Failure to appreciate the difference largely accounts for the subsequent mess.

Giving the Saudis control would be rather like giving the IRA control of Northern Ireland - except the IRA would probably have been much nicer to the Ulster Protestants than the Saudis would to the Iraqi Shi'a (heretics!) & Kurds.

 

[Feanor]

The USA won a campaign, in 2003, not a war. Failure to appreciate the difference largely accounts for the subsequent mess.

Giving the Saudis control would be rather like giving the IRA control of Northern Ireland - except the IRA would probably have been much nicer to the Ulster Protestants than the Saudis would to the Iraqi Shi'a (heretics!) & Kurds.

What's your goal? Being nice to people? Or stabilizing the region under a friendly regime, and keeping the oil flowing? It seems more like the latter.

 

[swerve]

What's your goal? Being nice to people? Or stabilizing the region under a friendly regime, and keeping the oil flowing? It seems more like the latter.

Putting Iraq under the Saudis would be a recipe for disaster. Do you really want that much oil under Saudi control? One successful coup, & you're in deep trouble. The Saudis are "friendly" only as long as they think they need you to prop them up, & as long as the right faction of the family is in control. If military officers from outside the family took over, or a different faction within it - whoooeeee! Hang on for a bumpy ride! And do you really think that making half of Saudi Arabias citizens Shi'a would be a recipe for stabilizing the region?

The Saudis would immediately gain a set of major internal & external problems, to add to a state which is already riven by stresses. Firstly, a huge Shia population, which the Saudis would see as a Trojan horse for Iran, & immediately alienate, thus turning them into exactly that. Secondly, a restive bunch of Kurds, skilled & experienced in guerilla warfare, & also prone to ask the Iranians for help if treated too roughly - which they would be, from force of habit. Thirdly, for the first time ever, Christian citizens, who the USA & other western countries would not like to see ill-treated, but which the Saudi police & judiciary would instinctively seek to persecute. In fact, unless Saudi law was changed, they'd be obliged to persecute. All those churches would have to close, for a start - illegal in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

Then we come on to the external dimension. Iran has already been mentioned. A long border, much of it rugged, most of it populated. Then Syria: an irreligious regime led largely by members (through descent, not necessarily belief) of what the Saudis consider a sect so heretical as to be apostate, with a close relationship with Iran, & no inhibitions about supporting terrorists if it thinks it can gain from it. Oops! Turkey: a Muslim but secular state, confident of its social, military, technical & economic (in every way except the possession of oil) superiority to the Saudis. Lots of new complications.

No, I don't see it as enhancing stability in the slightest. I would see a major risk of all-out civil war, with Iran & Syria hoping to pick up pieces from it.

Saudi Arabia exists as the vehicle for an extreme, intolerant, Sunni sect. It's raison d'etre is the perpetuation & spread of that sect, & the rule of the Saud family, & they're inextricably linked. It's the family cult: the sect founder & the Saudi sheikh who took him in, 260 years ago, married their children to each other. It's what they founded their state on. Wahhab gave them an ideology to unite behind, over & above loyalty to a sheikhly family. The Saudis can't forsake Wahhabism, or they forsake their claim to rule. And that automatically makes them unsafe rulers outside their homeland.

 

[kato]

There's a historical reason why Saudi-Arabia will not run Iraq. Nothing to do with Shia and Sunni, but simply because of the historical opposition between the Royal Houses al-Hussein and as-Saud. al-Hussein got Jordania and Iraq, As-Saud Saudi-Arabia. As-Saud going north of established borders would mean war, drawing in the entire Sunni Arab world.

 

[swerve]

Yes, it would mean war: but not because of the Hashemite/Saudi split. The Saudis crossed that border in 1926, when they took Hejaz, the original home of the Hashemites, & dispossessed the Sherif of Mecca.

Iraq ceased to be a Hashemite (or indeed, any) kingdom 50 years ago. Only old people remember it, & there was, in any case, little loyalty to the Hashemites, a Hejazi dynasty foisted on an unwilling populace by British fiat.

That only leaves Jordan, which could not fight Saudi Arabia. The Jordanian armed forces may be more skilled, but not enough to counteract Saudi domination of the air, ability to interdict their only port, & vastly greater financial resources & population. Jordans armed forces are dependent on aid - including from Saudi Arabia.

There would be war because everyone & his dog opposes Saudi expansion, including the current Saudi allies & clients, e.g. the Gulf emirates, Egypt, & Jordan, as well as those who are already in the openly anti-Saudi camp, such as Iran, & those who play it whichever way suits the moment, such as Syria.

 

[gvg]

Europe isn't one country like the USA. In my view that makes every comparison faulty. Because the USA is one country it has one foreign policy. The EU has 27 foreign policies, because its 27 members have different interests. Different from eachother and different from the USA.

That's not to say a single European Union army isn't something to strive for, but it's at least 50 years away, because it requires the EU to be a single state with one foreign policy and one MoD, not 27.

Because the European countries expected a fight in Europe with the Warsaw-pact, they lack strategic and tactical capacities, both in transport and in logistics. Except for the UK, which has always had the tactical capacities. But as an island they needed those even with a Warsaw-pact standoff in Europe.
Slowly these countries try to change.

But I don't understand how hard it can be for some simple cooperation. Take for example the Dutch in Afghanistan. They lack both strategic and tactical airlift (and the tactical maybe even more, since they have 3 (K)DC-10's and only 2 C-130's). Belgium has 11 C-130's, so let them do the tactical airlift for the Dutch.

In the beginning of this year I made these graphs with numbers from the European Defence Agency (released in December 2008) about the deployability troops from European countries. (yes, I know I spelled Romania wrong)

The above is about land-forces as a % of total military personnel

The above is only about land-forces

The above is only about land-forces

All forces

Total number of deployable land-forces: 444 700
Total number of sustainable land-forces: 110 500

NATO target deployable: 40%
NATO target sustainable: 8%

riksavage:
.....I doubt 10% of that number could be deployed and sustained outside Europe's borders for extended periods without US support. ...

That would be 5% without US support and I doubt they can double it with US support.

 

[kato]

There would be war because everyone & his dog opposes Saudi expansion

Indeed, but the Hashemites - and that Saudi-Arabia would "cross a line", unlike with Yemen in the 70s - would give them something to rally behind.

In the beginning of this year I made these graphs with numbers from the European Defence Agency

And the EDA still has Germany at zero reported (just checked).

"Not all data from participating Member States is releasable, therefore the aggregate figure will not always equal the totality of some of the data serials."

Yeah, right.

NATO target deployable: 40%
NATO target sustainable: 8%

NATO Target Deployable was raised from 40% to a ridiculous 50% in October 2008. Sustainability is at 8%, the US is pushing for it to be raised to at least 10%.
Note: the US itself only reaches such numbers by claiming all overseas troops (ie in permanent bases in Europe/Asia) as "deployed".

 

[gvg]

.......Note: the US itself only reaches such numbers by claiming all overseas troops (ie in permanent bases in Europe/Asia) as "deployed".

I think the Dutch also count personnel on their bases in the Netherlands Antilles as deployed in these numbers. And althought those are technically other countries, I find it debatable.

(The new Dutch MoD-site doesn't list the actual numbers deployed anymore, so I can't check it.)

 

[IPA35]

You cannot united Europe, europe is now in relative peace but the EU is a bureacratic monstousity that takes away a country's souvereignity and replace it with undemocratic rule by foreign chaps in Belgium, the people don't want that and resistance against the EU grows because of that.

It stared as a good economical alliance, but when they stared to standardise the laws (like CO2 and economy) they went the wrong way.
I am very afraid that the EU will become a federal state, but I know it will not last long as internal differences and old fued will spark civil war.

I'm sorry if this is too political but the reason why I'm against a truely united army is because of polticical reasons.

I'm dead seriouse, I prefer a revolt over EU annexation.

The souvereignity of the states HAS to be safeguarded and that's what national armies are for in the first place.

But that being said I have nothing against a united command structure for emergancy situations.

 

[IPA35]

Err, the US isn't in Europe to defend it. There aren't even remotely anything like combat troops remaining in Europe. The US military there solely to use it as a forward base and logistics turntable for its wars in western Asia.

Spangdahlem airbase?

I was shocked when I saw 2 A-10's flying by when I was on a holiday in Germany...

 

[kato]

Training. Besides, most of 52nd FW is deployed, 506th Air Expeditionary Squadron in Kirkuk Air Base in Iraq and Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

 

[IPA35]

Training, but why in Germany?!

It's a coldwar leftover isn't it?