German Army Development

[Falstaff]

I'm not a fan of conscription for quality and limited deployment opportunity reasons, but considering Germany has the strongest economy in Europe one would have thought they would invest more in defence and try and maintain a larger volunteer army than currently planned.

I think that's a good point you're making. From a wholistic perspective one would assume that the European powerhouse Germany would push for its interests in strategic terms similarily as it does for its economical interests, which IMO involves certain power projection capabilities.
However, we lack politicians with a strategical farsightedness and there is no better way to commit political suicide in Germany than starting a debate about power projection capabilities.

 

[Waylander]

I am not even daring to think of our politicians as if they were normal politicians from a normal country.

Sad to say but as you said it is political suicide to talk about normal thinks like national interests without commiting political suicide.

What is so sad about it is that I have the feelig that many people wouldn't have many problems with our foreign policy being a bit more robust. At least not the younger generations.

 

[kato]

You don't honestly think that a 2005 paper has anything to do with the current discussion within the FDP? Times have changed and the discussion is on.

The 2005 paper is still the official party line, and being published as the FDP stance on Bundeswehr politics. Westerwelle may say something different in a current discussion, but that would not be the sanctioned party line.

What is so sad about it is that I have the feelig that many people wouldn't have many problems with our foreign policy being a bit more robust. At least not the younger generations.

The younger generations are politically irrelevant though. 60% of all voters last year were over 45, and hence decide what's being done. And that quota's gonna increase every year. For some parties - CDU, CSU, SPD, Left - that's a good thing, for the others - FDP, Greens, various protest parties like the Pirates - not so much.

And i don't really see the younger generations - under 45 - favouring a "robust foreign policy" to any extent.

 

[Locarnus]

I'm not a fan of conscription for quality and limited deployment opportunity reasons, but considering Germany has the strongest economy in Europe one would have thought they would invest more in defence and try and maintain a larger volunteer army than currently planned.

For what purpose?

I think that's a good point you're making. From a wholistic perspective one would assume that the European powerhouse Germany would push for its interests in strategic terms similarily as it does for its economical interests, which IMO involves certain power projection capabilities.
However, we lack politicians with a strategical farsightedness and there is no better way to commit political suicide in Germany than starting a debate about power projection capabilities.

I am not even daring to think of our politicians as if they were normal politicians from a normal country.

Sad to say but as you said it is political suicide to talk about normal thinks like national interests without commiting political suicide.

What is so sad about it is that I have the feelig that many people wouldn't have many problems with our foreign policy being a bit more robust. At least not the younger generations.

And for which strategic/national interests of Germany would a "stronger" military be required/usefull?

The younger generations are politically irrelevant though. 60% of all voters last year were over 45, and hence decide what's being done. And that quota's gonna increase every year. For some parties - CDU, CSU, SPD, Left - that's a good thing, for the others - FDP, Greens, various protest parties like the Pirates - not so much.

And i don't really see the younger generations - under 45 - favouring a "robust foreign policy" to any extent.

I agree, the younger generations will become less relevant every year as it goes now. Imho their "average" opinion would be against a more "robust foreign policy", with the majority not caring much at all.
btw whats the difference between a protest party and a non protest party?

 

[riksavage]

For what purpose? - Collective security and pulling your weight in NATO.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that beyond Europe's immediate borders we will continue to witness increasing numbers of failed states, which will become breeding and training grounds for terrorist groups determined to strike at what they perceive as decadent Western targets for ideological reasons. Germany has a choice, does it follow a doctrine based around sitting inside the border fence fighting the terrorist threat in its own backyard or does it try and neutralize the threat before it arrives? The first option is the cheapest but a potential political minefield, the second requires huge investment in ISTAR and logistical reach and sustainability.

What happens If we witness another Balkan's scenario and the US say sorry chaps we are too busy elsewhere, you have to now sort out your own backyard - what is Germany going to do then wait until US resources are free, ask Turkey?

 

[kato]

what is Germany going to do then wait until US resources are free, ask Turkey?

Sure, why not? Turkey would actually jump at such a chance to get into the EU

Germany has a choice, does it follow a doctrine based around sitting inside the border fence fighting the terrorist threat in its own backyard or does it try and neutralize the threat before it arrives?

There is no such choice. No preemptive warfare under the German constitution and criminal law period.

 

[riksavage]

Sure, why not? Turkey would actually jump at such a chance to get into the EU

There is no such choice. No preemptive warfare under the German constitution and criminal law period.

Does the law in question refer to only state on state conflict, or does it include individuals or groups, which might fall under the terrorist descriptor. For example an attack is launched in Germany against multiple soft targets, the group responsible is based in Yemen and is not affiliated to the Government?

 

[Falstaff]

The 2005 paper is still the official party line, and being published as the FDP stance on Bundeswehr politics. Westerwelle may say something different in a current discussion, but that would not be the sanctioned party line.

The paper is 5 years old, which is ages in politics, and as you may remember the FDP suddenly happens to be a government party. Due to the surprisingly high results there are so many more people part of the parliamentary party and the commitees than expected- and many of them take interest in foreign and security politics.
The member od the Bundestag I referred to earlier also happens to be member of the defense commitee- he is also my disrtrict chairman (yes, I'm an FDP member). Partly because of his roots he takes serious interest in this things, and I will tell you again that he is a very sensible person. And I promise you the -as you call it- official line which is still official because nothing has been published sine then, doesn't mean much in this discussion.

The younger generations are politically irrelevant though. 60% of all voters last year were over 45, and hence decide what's being done. And that quota's gonna increase every year. For some parties - CDU, CSU, SPD, Left - that's a good thing, for the others - FDP, Greens, various protest parties like the Pirates - not so much.

Sad but true.

. Germany has a choice, does it follow a doctrine based around sitting inside the border fence fighting the terrorist threat in its own backyard or does it try and neutralize the threat before it arrives? The first option is the cheapest but a potential political minefield, the second requires huge investment in ISTAR and logistical reach and sustainability.

That's exactly where we have to get, but you're talking about a country that tends to see averyone as a victim- you're a terrorist and you'd like to kill all humans? Well you must have had a hell of a childhood in poverty. No? Oh, then it's the media. Or something else. It doesn't matter anyway, The German people won't let the real perpetrators -who are all that are rich, in power, or for some reasons not a victim- harm you. At least we'll paint some walls and sing songs for you. Welcome in Germany. The reunification didn't exactly help with that.

 

[kato]

Does the law in question refer to only state on state conflict, or does it include individuals or groups, which might fall under the terrorist descriptor. For example an attack is launched in Germany against multiple soft targets, the group responsible is based in Yemen and is not affiliated to the Government?

It refers to any military conflict. In the example given, it would probably have to be examined first whether the non-state threat could be removed by or with support of the host government, i.e. whether the host government of the non-state actor is acting hostile itself (see Taliban as host of Al Quaeda in 2001 - although that's already seen as a debatable point).

 

[Waylander]

Well, no Offensive war already got stretched over Kosovo...

And AFAIK it is also allowed under UN mandate. But we are never going to do anything without a huge coalition.

Sad to say Fallstaff is spot on with his description of how our society seems to think.

 

[Locarnus]

[...]
Germany has a choice, does it follow a doctrine based around sitting inside the border fence fighting the terrorist threat in its own backyard or does it try and neutralize the threat before it arrives?
[...]

So you ask whether Germany should do what Germany, France and Italy did until now,
mainly internal defence within the borders,
or what US, UK and Spain did, some forward, preemptive "defence" "out of area"?

Hm, lets compare the results with regard to successfull terrorist attacks in those countries:
0 vs well, more than zero
And then all those reports about the drastically "declining" terrorist/insurgent/taliban/whatever threat after the forward/preemptive "defence".

[IRONY] If a strategy not only does not work, but makes the problem worse, lets do more of it.
So that AT LEAST SOMETHING IS DONE! [/IRONY]
Great!
I would alternatively recommend the people to walk in a circle for 1min a day, cursing terrorists/whatever. They would do something about it, but at least they wouldnt make the problem worse.

What happens If we witness another Balkan's scenario and the US say sorry chaps we are too busy elsewhere, you have to now sort out your own backyard - what is Germany going to do then wait until US resources are free, ask Turkey?

As Waylander said, without coalition, no war involving Germany.

 

[Waylander]

I also think that hunting terrorists in every godforsaken shithole all around the globe is a waste of time and resources. If all the money would go to our internal security agencies a lot more will be achieved.

What I want the Bundeswehr to be able to do is act in a european context when something like the balkan wars happens again. The overreliance on the US is our big problem. And with us I mean europe as a whole.

Despite all the talk from the US I think our Atlantic partners are quite ok with that. They have alot more influence on us when we have to rely so much on their security umbrella.

 

[Locarnus]

What I want the Bundeswehr to be able to do is act in a european context when something like the balkan wars happens again. The overreliance on the US is our big problem. And with us I mean europe as a whole.

Despite all the talk from the US I think our Atlantic partners are quite ok with that. They have alot more influence on us when we have to rely so much on their security umbrella.

The current situation has to be somewhat beneficial to both sides, otherwise it would not be as it is.
Western Continental Europe has low military expenditures and the international blame for military actions goes mainly to the US, even when WCE is supportive.
US has a reason for high expenditures, not only self related reasons for bases everywhere (they also need the bases to protect the lazy europeans from whatever), and always a scapegoat for failure (not enough support from allies). (Additionally to the influence you mentioned.)

Works pretty well for both, why should it be changed?

 

[GermanHerman]

With most of Europe cutting back, this revised standing military looks pretty damned small to me. The UK will IMHO withdraw from Germany [...] the US will likely do the same and redeploy an increasing number of resources outside Europe to deal with a rising and more aggresive China.This means the German army will have to fill the void. 54,000 men is way too small to defend a largely land-locked country the size of Germany and contribute to NATO/UN overseas missions

With the Treaty of Lisbon the EU became also a defensive-partnership, meaning all 27 member states are committed to assist any other member beeing under attack.

The EU member states all together are in command of 1,8 mio soldiers ( actualy I don't know if this number is still true, pleas correct me if I'm wrong with anything!) and thanks to FR and UK also has nuclear detterence, air craft carriers etc. pp.

Also due to CSDP and EDA the EU already has installed some of the bureaucratic infrastructure needed for an european army.
When we take a look at the EDA we actualy gonna find that one of their tasks is to take care of the interoperability of european armys and take the role of an adviser when it comes to the armament of the different european armys.

I know we all like to think the EU is a slow and bureaucratic monster, but with a look at the current situation we can say that the EU is making quite some progress in defence questions lately and heading forward to a real CSDP.

In my opinion EUBG's aswell as EAG are already small steps in this direction, as the contributing members are gathering know how and experience in the field of multinational combat groups.

So if we take this in account, the fact that most european nations are cutting back could also mean that the different armys are making steps towards a better interoperability and cooperation on a EU level. May be I'm totaly wrong, but I realy think the EU-Army will, one day, come.

Because of that I strongly believe that germany dosn't need a bigger Bundeswehr.
Also I would welcome an all professional Bundeswehr.

 

[kato]

The EU member states all together are in command of 1,8 mio soldiers ( actualy I don't know if this number is still true, pleas correct me if I'm wrong with anything!)

Correct, currently about 1.85 million soldiers including Greek Cyprus. Plus 0.4 million gendarmerie with combatant status. Roughly.

In my opinion EUBG's aswell as EAG are already small steps in this direction, as the contributing members are gathering know how and experience in the field of multinational combat groups.

Don't forget Eurocorps (1 operational brigade, 8 earmarked from 5 countries) and Eurofor (1 operational brigade, 3 earmarked from 4 countries). And those two have 15 years of experience now, including deployment.

 

[swerve]

So you ask whether Germany should do what Germany, France and Italy did until now,
mainly internal defence within the borders,
or what US, UK and Spain did, some forward, preemptive "defence" "out of area"?.

France has not confined itself to sitting within its borders. It has been far more active abroad than Spain.

Look at French contributions to the Iraq war of 1991, to the Balkan wars, Afghanistan, Lebanon, & to operations in Africa. Also consider French actions against pirates.

 

[Locarnus]

France has not confined itself to sitting within its borders. It has been far more active abroad than Spain.

Look at French contributions to the Iraq war of 1991, to the Balkan wars, Afghanistan, Lebanon, & to operations in Africa. Also consider French actions against pirates.

Sure, but with regard to the "war" on terror, the difference to the german involvement is not as great.
After all Germany is/was also engaged in the theatres of AStan, Lebanon, Pirates and the Balkans. Granted France is considerably more involved in Africa.

So I m not arguing for total restrictions to actions within the borders. Just cant see a credible reason/justification for expanding the "forward" doctrine.

Although the now discussed, 170k army without "draft" is/will be designed to feature an increased "out of area" capacity. So essentially a trade off between the old, larger army for defensive purposes, against a smaller offensive force, under a slightly reduced overall budget.

 

[Chrisious]

Of course it wouldn't surprise me if a great deal of projected defence cuts are being done with regards European unification. Though if so then UK politicians have obviously been lying through their teeth to the British public. Either way depending on who you would want to believe in government or the press. The UK may be abandoning a good deal of it's conventional arms especially it's MBT's. So although Britain may stand in support of it's European neighbours perhaps you shouldn't expect that to mean in the literal sense of the word.

 

[kato]

Britain isn't really integrated into EU defense structures anyway. The only multinational unit Britain is active in is one of its own brigades (3rd Commando Brigade, integrating Dutch units). Other than that there'll be a multinational EU BG with British contribution in 2013, but that's about it.

 

[Chrisious]

No problem, of course it doesn't stop the UK from cooperating with Europe. Obviously more a point of principle, at least with what the British government may or may not be doing behind the electorates back.(Something to do with democracy I think).