German Army Development

[Locarnus]

An independent and capable european defence structure is mainly a political subject.
So as long as it is not politically beneficial, it wont be done.

And there is no credible military need/threat in sight to give it a political push.
On the other hand, it provides great political risks for its creators in the current western continental european environment/sentiment.

 

[riksavage]

An independent and capable european defence structure is mainly a political subject.
So as long as it is not politically beneficial, it wont be done.

And there is no credible military need/threat in sight to give it a political push.
On the other hand, it provides great political risks for its creators in the current western continental european environment/sentiment.

The UK's command and control structure represents the only nation (including France and Germany) with the ability to more enmasse and run an operation overseas, they represent the single largest leadership and back of house contributor to ARRC.

The problem with the 1.8 million standing army in Europe is just that, it's 'standing' . Any asymmetrical foe is going to attack a countries weak points, which in Europe's case will be sovereign assets outside continental Europe.

If the US adopts an ever increasing isolationist posture and decides it's had enough of bailing out Europe coupled with a sudden spike in attacks against European overseas assets (Embassy's, expatriate communities, commercial shipping etc), then the current 1.8 million 'standing solders' bring absolutely nothing to the table. The European Union military decision making is on a par with the UN, by the time the liberal elite have stopped crying into their coffee the war is either over or one side has been eliminated in a premeditated act of genocide (Rwanda for example). The European nations do what they always do, gather in a huddle, wring their hands before finally looking across the Atlantic for help. Name a single major contingency where the Europeans have collectively got off their arses, bit the bullet and done something militarily decisive since WWII (I'm not talking about individual nations like the UK in 82 and Sierra Leone or the French raids in West Africa)?

The current European collective military set-up is a paper tiger, there to defend against an unlikely threat (Russian invasion), whilst ignoring the clear and present dangers in Pakistan, Yemen and all and other looming failed States. Sooner or later igonoring the uncomfortable truth is going to bite the continent hard in the backside.

 

[Locarnus]

[...]
Name a single major contingency where the Europeans have collectively got off their arses, bit the bullet and done something militarily decisive since WWII (I'm not talking about individual nations like the UK in 82 and Sierra Leone or the French raids in West Africa)?

The current European collective military set-up is a paper tiger, there to defend against an unlikely threat (Russian invasion), whilst ignoring the clear and present dangers in Pakistan, Yemen and all and other looming failed States. Sooner or later igonoring the uncomfortable truth is going to bite the continent hard in the backside.

Thats the whole point. Give me a reason why they should do something like that?
And by the way, even if there is some form of "danger" from Pakistan and Yemen aso (to WCE), trying to counter embers with oil is an "interesting" strategy, especially with propane cylinders all over the place...

The uncomfortable truth is, that WCE is in a very different situation than eg the US, in a lot of ways. And the other part of the uncomfortable truth is, that the US strategy/actions increases the "dangers" they are facing, instead of diminishing them, for whatever reasons.

 

[GermanHerman]

If the US adopts an ever increasing isolationist posture and decides it's had enough of bailing out Europe .

I'm SO tired of this phrasis... come on guys, thanks to the US for saving at least the half of germany from communism and now please realise the cold war is over.

From my point of view the USA have done way more damage than good with their political course towards the middel east.

 

[kato]

Name a single major contingency where the Europeans have collectively got off their arses, bit the bullet and done something militarily decisive since WWII

Egypt '56.
Iraq '91.
Kosovo since '99.
Lebanon since '06.

it's had enough of bailing out Europe

Name a single instance where the USA have "bailed out Europe". And i interpret "bailing out" more tightly as removing a threat to European territory or political regime.

The current European collective military set-up is a paper tiger, there to defend against an unlikely threat (Russian invasion), whilst ignoring the clear and present dangers in Pakistan, Yemen and all and other looming failed States.

What "clear and present dangers"? As long as these "dangers" don't act on a military level, it's not a job for the military, but the police. Simple as that. Hell, the German constitution even proscribes that an insurgent force (in Germany!) may be engaged by military forces only if they resemble a military force themselves.

 

[riksavage]

Name a single instance where the USA have "bailed out Europe". And i interpret "bailing out" more tightly as removing a threat to European territory or political regime.[/I]

What do you think would have happened if the US hadn't taken the lead following the disintegration of Yugoslavia? Should we European's have sat there and hid behind a fixed foreign policy of defending our own borders and watched ethnic cleansing go unchecked?

Europe still imports most of its minerals, gas, oil and other critical commodities to enable its industrial complex to function - in Germany's case continue to export on a global scale second only to the PRC - no iron ore, no BMW's Merc's and machine tools. These supply lines need protecting, and based on the current down-sizing of European surface fleets that role is being increasingly transferred to the USN at their expense. Take the latters fleets away east of Suez and what's left - 2 -3 European frigates at the very most?

The German defense minister is talking about reducing the entire armed forces to 160,000, based on a population of 80 million you might as well go down the Swiss route and declare neutrality. The military is not there just to defend territory but protect oversees interests, provide humanitarian assistance and fly the national flag. Tread carefully and carry a big stick has time and time proved a better option than unilateral disarmament.

 

[kato]

What do you think would have happened if the US hadn't taken the lead following the disintegration of Yugoslavia?

What lead? Operation Deliberate Force in 1995, in which half of NATO participated? Operation Deny Flight in 1993, in which the pseudo-Ustashe supplied earlier by the USA were also considered a hostile force?

Plus, there's always that thing with Zimmerman and Izetbegovic back in 1992 through which the USA might have been the party at fault for the whole thing...

Take the latters fleets away east of Suez and what's left - 2 -3 European frigates at the very most?

And what do we want East of Suez (other than France)? Our main partner is Europe including Russia and what lays beyond the Atlantic. We're not the USA who is dependent on trade with China. German exports to Asia only amount to 14% of total volume, German imports from Asia only amount to 18% (in 2009).

you might as well go down the Swiss route and declare neutrality

That wouldn't be the Swiss route. The Swiss route is Armed Neutrality, and would require a Bundeswehr of 1.4 million men with a wartime strength of over 2 million.

 

[Locarnus]

These supply lines need protecting, and based on the current down-sizing of European surface fleets that role is being increasingly transferred to the USN at their expense. Take the latters fleets away east of Suez and what's left - 2 -3 European frigates at the very most?

The German defense minister is talking about reducing the entire armed forces to 160,000, based on a population of 80 million you might as well go down the Swiss route and declare neutrality. The military is not there just to defend territory but protect oversees interests, provide humanitarian assistance and fly the national flag. Tread carefully and carry a big stick has time and time proved a better option than unilateral disarmament.

Need protection? The primary source of "protection" is, that every possible "aggressor" has a self interest in not attacking, eg because of fear of smaller access to the world market for himself (especially to the financial markets). This is not the 19th century or cold war.

As kato said, that would be the opposite of the swiss route. Switzerland has one of the largest troops per capita ratios in the world.
And the German military is there to protect what Germany has, not "protect" what Germany wants to have against the current lawful owners. The former German president resigned in May 2010 after stating that German military missions served to secure its trade interests.

 

[riksavage]

Need protection? The primary source of "protection" is, that every possible "aggressor" has a self interest in not attacking, eg because of fear of smaller access to the world market for himself (especially to the financial markets). This is not the 19th century or cold war.

As kato said, that would be the opposite of the swiss route. Switzerland has one of the largest troops per capita ratios in the world.
And the German military is there to protect what Germany has, not "protect" what Germany wants to have against the current lawful owners. The former German president resigned in May 2010 after stating that German military missions served to secure its trade interests.

I think we can all agree that the likelihood of a major European conflag is pretty limited, therefore we Europeans have to adapt to scenario's outside our immediate backyard, which means we have to step-up and take a more pro-active and preventionist view in a world dominated by asymmetrical threats.

Looking at the Balkan's, 90% of ISTAR, and almost an equal amount of strategic lift was provided by the US. As a result of which has Europe looked to improve those capabilities, name me a single intelligence gathering asset in Europe with global reach and intercept capabilities outside of GCHQ (UK) and the NSA (USA)? We can sit around banging on about APC's and MRAPS, but the real war in an age of real time media is being won through accurate intelligence, dissemination and supression through surgical strikes. Most European armies represent a giant parade ground spit and polish outing with zip in-depth abilities to deploy, process and react to the current asymmetrical threats beyond localised police raids against radical imams.

The European collective reminds me of Darius's invasion of the Greek states in Spring 491 BC. A huge standing army of paper tigers, with different risk tolerance levels, different levels of competence, disjointed leadership, different languages, different kit, all designed to look the part and impress the annual strut in front of the defacto head of state, but with absolute zero centralized command and control abilities (once the US are taken out of the equation) to defeat a coordinated, well disciplined enemy with a half decent leadership tied to single mission focus.

 

[kato]

absolute zero centralized command and control abilities

I suggest you look up the WEU, how its military structures continue to exist today within the EU - on a wider basis even - and how it is a much closer alliance than NATO could ever hope to be.
Could be followed by an analysis on how US components in NATO staff level units in Europe are barely relevant despite the US demanding leadership position in most of them...

 

[swerve]

Strategic lift? To the Balkans? From the USA, maybe, but Europeans could & did get stuff there using trains, roads, & ships. Italians operated from their own bases, French & Germans loaded gear onto trains & sent it down through Italy, some stuff drove or was sent by train to Hungary . . .

When you're operating next door, 'strategic lift' has an . . . ah . . . interesting meaning. It's like saying that the USA provided 100% of the strategic lift in a joint exercise with the British army on Salisbury Plain. Well, yes, they would, wouldn't they?

 

[kato]

French & Germans loaded gear onto trains & sent it down through Italy, some stuff drove or was sent by train to Hungary . . .

Just for perspective, during the peacekeeping deployment in Bosnia the deployed company of my battalion could request a replacement for a damaged vehicle and get it within 3-4 days. By having two guys from the battalion hop into the replacement and drive it down there with the next convoy or on the next train.

Wasn't all that easy with Kosovo btw, they had to get the trains and convoys down to Bari etc first, and load them onto ferries instead.

 

[Locarnus]

I think we can all agree that the likelihood of a major European conflag is pretty limited, therefore we Europeans have to adapt to scenario's outside our immediate backyard, which means we have to step-up and take a more pro-active and preventionist view in a world dominated by asymmetrical threats.

I still fail to see the need to go "outside". I mean, just because no one wants to fight a war in europe does not mean that europe has to go somewhere else to fight a war. Unless you want to fight a war yourself.
It is "almost" as if you are searching for someone to fight.
If no one comes to us, then we must come to them...

Please give me a credible threat for WCE, which would be diminished and not increased by military action.

 

[GermanHerman]

Any one following the budget debate going on right now?

Interessting that Rainer Arnold brought up the european army and made clear that the planed transformation of the Bundeswehr has to match the european guidelines...

sounds like something is going on behind closed doors in brussel.