Should the E.U. create a Military?

[Sgt.Banes]

Should the E.U. make some legislation to create a Military like the African Union?

I've done some calculations and if the E.U. were to combine all of the armed forces or at least the main powerful European Nations. That the European Union's Military would be 3,962,602 which would pose a formidable challenge to most foreign enemies neighboring Europe, which would more or less be the Russian Federation or maybe the People's Republic of China. But then again this is merely a little pondering I wanted to share.

 

[JoeLiTo]

Not necesarily a good Idea.

From what little I can understand about the EU, I believe the EU is an economical union and not a nation state in the traditional sense. So each of the Nation members retains it's own sovereignty while staying united to protect their common interest.

By know they could probably work on standardizing their armament so they can maintain proper collaboration in case of an incoming threat arises. (If they haven't done so already)

 

[Sgt.Banes]

Not necesarily a good Idea.

From what little I can understand about the EU, I believe the EU is an economical union and not a nation state in the traditional sense. So each of the Nation members retains it's own sovereignty while staying united to protect their common interest.

By know they could probably work on standardizing their armament so they can maintain proper collaboration in case of an incoming threat arises. (If they haven't done so already)

I know its strictly a economic and some what political union, but I mentioned that if they were to make some sort of change or addition to their Constitution or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps even a loophole in the event of threat arising that poses a danger to the economic stability of the Union.

 

[Grand Danois]

The Headline Goal

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I know its strictly a economic and some what political union, but I mentioned that if they were to make some sort of change or addition to their Constitution or whatever you want to call it. Perhaps even a loophole in the event of threat arising that poses a danger to the economic stability of the Union.

There isn't a Constitution yet. More importantly no one would agree to signing over even a portion of their armed forces without a veto on how they're used. That would make anything impossible.

Besides, look at Afghanistan. Just a relative few states and already you can see people not willing to play ball and demanding they keep their guys out of trouble.

No, the idea of an EU Army is a waste of time. What we could do with is everyone spending a minimum of 2.5% of GDP on defence and signing agreements that they won't restrict how their forces are used in time of war. That would be far more useful and realistic (when compared to the EU Army, anyway).

 

[Sgt.Banes]

There isn't a Constitution yet. More importantly no one would agree to signing over even a portion of their armed forces without a veto on how they're used. That would make anything impossible.

Besides, look at Afghanistan. Just a relative few states and already you can see people not willing to play ball and demanding they keep their guys out of trouble.

No, the idea of an EU Army is a waste of time. What we could do with is everyone spending a minimum of 2.5% of GDP on defence and signing agreements that they won't restrict how their forces are used in time of war. That would be far more useful and realistic (when compared to the EU Army, anyway).

Could you elaborate more on this GDP plan?

 

[Vestalon]

Should the E.U. make some legislation to create a Military like the African Union?

It all looks nice on paper, but to have a common military you need a common foreign and security policy. The EU does not have one yet and will not have one in the near future. The EU-expansion to the east made it even more difficult, because now you have 27 countries with their own views and historical relations, etc...
I think we all saw how easy it was for the Americans to split the EU before the Iraq war. That's because the EU does not only have no common foreign and security policy but also no common view on how and when to use the military. Musashi_kenshin already mentioned it. There are two extreme positions on that. The "yeah, we can solve every problem with war" side and the "we want the military to just build bridges, schools, etc. and be the nice smiling social worker (armed purely for self defense)" side. Not to mention all the ties and responsibilities some countries have towards their former colonies. I really don't see how you might bring all that under one hat, especially with veto power for every country.

Spending more money on the military sounds good but does little to change the view on how and when to use it.

Just my opinion on it.

 

[merocaine]

The Headline Goal

Hmmm I was unaware things had moved so quickly, do you have any info on the progress catalogue 2007 (the list of shortfalls).

Saying that a EU military, or more correctly a European Military is a waste of time turns on two things, the continued existance of NATO, and the lack of any external threats that cant be handled alone by member states.
Arguements about the consitution are tactical, almost every EU member state achknolages the need for one, it is the shape that is the question, not wheater we need one or not.
NATO in afganistan is an alliance, not an integrated military unit, in an alliance there are always more committed members, it is probobly not a good example to use as to how a future EU battle group woulds act.

 

[petrac]

NATO vs. EU

of course most of the EU countries are part of NATO or at least the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. Furthermore there is an initiative of EUFOR, which is a rapid reaction force of EU countries outside the NATO structure. It is on a voluntary basis, as indeed the EU is an econimic structure. A political or even a military structure is decades away from realisation.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Could you elaborate more on this GDP plan?

How can I elaborate? The point is they all pay more towards defence in their own countries and remove restrictions on how their troops can be used.

 

[merocaine]

remove restrictions on how their troops can be used

used by who? NATO? why would a soverigen nation give up control on how there troops are deployed and used? Logically since the US dominates the NATO Allience you woud be asking NATO members to allow the US to use their troops as they see fit. The Allience would fall apart. The populations of the member states would not tolorate such a situation.

 

[Waylander]

I also don't see real restrictions which should fall.

Apart from our restriction that our armed forces must not be used for a war of agression (And this is something I don't want to erase).

The rest is political will and will of the population.
Changing the laws won't change anything in the behaviour of the different countries.

I totally agree with merocaine. No country is going to loose its control over its own armed forces.

But I also agree that NATO members should be forced to pay more for their armed forces.

 

[swerve]

.... What we could do with is everyone spending a minimum of 2.5% of GDP on defence ...

Getting the Germans, Italians, Spanish, Belgians, Dutch etc. to match their NATO undertaking to spend at least 2% of GDP would be a start.

BTW, the Canadians also fall well short of it. The only NATO countries to consistently meet or exceed it are the USA, UK, France, Greece & Turkey. Some of the smaller new members, e.g. Bulgaria, seem to be keeping up to or close to it, but that's less significant overall. Germany & Spain are well below.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I also don't see real restrictions which should fall.

Then what's the point of countries like Germany taking part in missions to countries like Afghanistan if they're going to stay away from the front-lines - to make Angela Merkel look like a "big player" whilst not having to worry about adverse public reaction from increased casualties?

The cowardice of countries like Germany and France is really pissing off people in places like the UK. Next time you want our help we might decide to be as "co-operative" as you guys have been. You can take on the bulk of the fighting, while we defend the swanky restaurants and clubs.

I find it amusing that the greatest proponents of an EU-wide force are the countries that are often the least willing to put their troops in any real danger. Can you imagine them being the only contributors to such a group?

French soldier: "Ok, you go in first, Hans."
German soldier: "No, after you, Claude."
French soldier: "No, I insist."
German solider: "No, I'll secure the rear."
French soldier: "No, no, no, no - I called the rear before we got here."
German soldier: "No you didn't - I did."
French soldier: "Well I've got delicate skin - I can't go at the front or I'll get a rash."
German soldier: "But I've got a letter from my mum. She says I'm not allowed to go near any fighting."
French soldier: "I've got a letter from my dad and my doctor - I'm allergic to danger."
German solider: "So what do we do then?"
French soldier: "Maybe we should just both agree to secure the rear and make someone else do it."

 

[merocaine]

The cowardice of countries like Germany and France is really pissing off people in places like the UK

Strong words dude....as far as I know 18 German troops have died defending the swanky clubs and restuants.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Strong words dude....as far as I know 18 German troops have died defending the swanky clubs and restuants.

7 of those 18 died in a helicopter crash, 4 in accidental explosions and another from a vehicle accident. So that's 12 from 18 through accidents - a mere 6 from combat.

But it isn't mainly about casualty rates, it's about how the troops are being used. The restrictions placed on troops from countries like Germany, France and Italy are damaging to the campaign. It's not good enough to say they can be deployed there in "exceptional emergencies" - it might be too late then.

If the ISAF commander says that he needs these countries to be more flexible, it's good enough for me. You don't seriously thinking he's just being awkward, do you?

 

[Waylander]

Just recently the final report about the accidental explosions has been released.
It was a trap for the EOD guys and not a normal mistake/bad luck.

And as long as I know every country in A-stan also counts helicopter crashes.

And yeah this behaviour has nothing to do with our laws but purely with our political and public environment and no change of law is going to change it.
The majority of the politicians don't want it and the majority of the population also don't want it.

And thats my point when I stated this:

I also don't see real restrictions which should fall.

Apart from our restriction that our armed forces must not be used for a war of agression (And this is something I don't want to erase).

The rest is political will and will of the population.
Changing the laws won't change anything in the behaviour of the different countries.

Nothing more and nothing less. So no need for getting hot headed here.

And wasn't it a Brit who said: "The main mission for NATO is to keep the US in, the Germans down and the Russians out."

 

[McZosch]

Then what's the point of countries like Germany taking part in missions to countries like Afghanistan if they're going to stay away from the front-lines - to make Angela Merkel look like a "big player" whilst not having to worry about adverse public reaction from increased casualties?

The cowardice of countries like Germany and France is really pissing off people in places like the UK. Next time you want our help we might decide to be as "co-operative" as you guys have been. You can take on the bulk of the fighting, while we defend the swanky restaurants and clubs.

I find it amusing that the greatest proponents of an EU-wide force are the countries that are often the least willing to put their troops in any real danger. Can you imagine them being the only contributors to such a group?

French soldier: "Ok, you go in first, Hans."
German soldier: "No, after you, Claude."
French soldier: "No, I insist."
German solider: "No, I'll secure the rear."
French soldier: "No, no, no, no - I called the rear before we got here."
German soldier: "No you didn't - I did."
French soldier: "Well I've got delicate skin - I can't go at the front or I'll get a rash."
German soldier: "But I've got a letter from my mum. She says I'm not allowed to go near any fighting."
French soldier: "I've got a letter from my dad and my doctor - I'm allergic to danger."
German solider: "So what do we do then?"
French soldier: "Maybe we should just both agree to secure the rear and make someone else do it."

Indeed we germans have some casualties, around 60 or so. But within Germany, all people are ignoring this. I would not even call this an pacifist mood, it's rather simply non-interest in anything like security policy or military.

As member of a german party, we have tried to get people into those affairs. Few were interested. Most people - of all colours - where saying, money is better spent elsewhere etc.! That's common sense.

As well as there is no common sense, where the most important partners are. France - certainly. USA? - in West germany more likely than in the East. UK? Not one mention (which I strongly disagree). Russia - yes (we need Gazprom ).

To make things worse, we have very neurotic and exceptionally bad-informed politicians, maybe that's the cause of 65% of all legislature about taxes is written in german.

Same goes - in my opinion - for the french, with rather different causes. France has a high proportion of immigrants, especially from North Africa. Chirac must act as the peace-saver, not to get Paris boiled by muslim extremists.

Both countries (or it's residents) are strongly believers of their own weakness. Which is very much a Chamberlain-behaviour. Not an good starting point for common EU-forces.

But straight-forward has never been the EU-way, and it was never a fast accomplishment. Maybe Belgium and the netherlands are combining forces first, than Spain and Portugal, than Scandinavia, than UK with the first pair and the latter group. Maybe it will have other roots, first an common air-transport-command, than a common navy command a.s.o. ...

I would say, it will take 20 years till this starts, but within the next 50 years, we will have no other choice.

 

[Waylander]

Were do you get the 60 casualties from?

 

[McZosch]

Were do you get the 60 casualties from?

I can't remeber exactly, but I think it was the Spiegel. I think they count all casualties in UN-actions combined.

German Wikipedia says 65.