Should the E.U. create a Military?

[Musashi_kenshin]

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.

These are actually rules that have been set down by the German government. Of course it's political, but that doesn't mean the caveats are acceptable. If Germany doesn't want to be there, it shouldn't stay. But if it does stay it (along with the other countries) should help out as and when they are needed. The sort of halfway house we see at the moment is just unfair on countries that do send their forces to the south.

As I said, should we impose those sort of rules on our forces next time you want our help somewhere?

 

[TrangleC]

We had this discussion before:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5337

German soldiers went to Afghanistan to help rebuilding the infrastructure, to train police forces and to help organizing elections. Nation building probably would have been more successful if the more "heroic" allies wouldn't have kicked in so many doors and done everything to piss off the natives to drive them back into the arms of the taliban.
Its once again a good example for the old principle that the more you try to eradicate a guerilla force, the stonger it becomes because they gain support with the population.

There is less trouble in the north because there the people to some extend still believe the foreigners are there to help them and not just to hunt down anybody.
If not repeating the mistakes that were and are made in the south is cowardly, then so be it.

This whole thing is not a matter of heroism and cowardice, its a matter of doing the right thing or doing the wrong thing. If the westerners are there to fight a guerilla war against the Taliban, then they can just aswell pack their things right now and get the fuck out of that dusty shithole. Because they won't win such a war. If they are there to rebuild the country and to win the hearts of the natives so they won't support the Taliban or Osama's bunch anymore, then everybody should be glad that there are at least some foreigners left who enjoy a rest of credibility and trust with the natives to do the real job while the "heros" are playing hide and seek with the Taliban.

 

[Waylander]

I would say that there is a truth in both of what you two say.

On the one hand it is not right that we and others stay out of the trouble in the south. This is not how alliances work. And if the problems in the south cannot be solved we all are in deep shit. That's something our politicans tend to forget.

On the other hand there is a reason for the americans being so hated there. They sometimes tend to behave like the elephant in the porcelain shop (To use a german phrase).

So a way in the middle would be excellent.

As to us going into the south or just leaving the country.
If this is really your opinion than I say good look and have fund to substitute the 3500 soldiers which control over 40% of the population.
It is not as everybody cried for a mission out of Kabul once the idea of PRTs came up. We were the first ones to go.
If the north is so nice and shiny than why didn't the brits or others were eager to go there?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If the north is so nice and shiny than why didn't the brits or others were eager to go there?

Because troops were required in the south and, GOOD GRIEF, we decided to put our boys in the firing line. Or would you have prefered us to say no and refuse and have no one in south Afghanistan?

It doesn't matter why people went where at the beginning. What is needed is everyone being flexible. That means when the ISAF leadership says "we need reinforcements in province X", the troops that could contibue don't say, "yeah, but is this really an emergency or just a difficult situation? because we think it's the latter, so we'll stay here where it's much safter, thanks". Otherwise, and I'll say this again, when it is French or German troops (whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere) that need help the response from us, the Canadians or Dutch may well be "sorrry, but we just don't think this is an emergency of the sort we agreed to help you out over".

TrangleC, so you're saying we should withdraw from the south and leave it to the Taleban? That's moronic - it would give them a safe harbour to reorganise to the point where they could take on the Afghani government. Then you would have an even bigger fight on your hands when they came steamrolling into the central and northern areas - or would Germany pull out as soon as that happened?

 

[Sgt.Banes]

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.

Pay more to their defense? They already pay for their defense through their own individual Military Department or Ministry. I'm merely stating that since most E.U. nations are NATO members, and most NATO nations have been involved in NATO Coalition missions and U.N. Coalitions in Europe and elsewhere. That the E.U. member states draft a resolution to the effect of creating a E.U. or European Military. That also could serve as a predecessor to NATO or any post Cold War organization that was created for a peacetime/wartime military alliance.

 

[Sgt.Banes]

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.

Regardless of Personal or Political issues with the member states, If all of Europe as far as the Military goes is united under one flag. The whole issue of whether or not to deploy troops to global hot spots is irrelevant to the degree that is you have a more "in depth" Council vote if you will. Then the council will simply vote on whether or not E.U. troops or other military assets should be deployed to engage whatever enemy or situation that they are needed in.

 

[TrangleC]

@ Musashi_kenshin:
No, now that the mess is made, there would be no point.
That doesn't mean that it would be wise to get tangled into it for those who aren't already.
I'm not sure whether there still can be any form of success or whether its already too late. I think it is too late, but a step into the right direction would be to separate the terrorist hunters and the nation builders again as it was in the beginning. The only way to win this war would be to win the hearts and minds of the natives. They started to hate the "enduring freedom forces" and the more the other troops there are associated with them, the more they hate them too.

Like i said, i think its too late. Now that the Taliban are back and have more support by the civilian population than ever, we of course cannot ignore them and try to go on with the nation building process. But fighting them is no use either. You simply cannot win such a war. Its like the mythical Hydra. For every head you chop off, two new grow. There are about half a million young men growing into a combat-able age every year over there. The more of them or their fathers and older brothers you kill, the more will join the resistance. We are in pretty much the same position now as the Sovjets were in the 80s. We got a friendly but powerless pupet regime that is dispised by it's population and doesn't even rule the capital city undisputed, hundreds of warlords, a ever growing drug traffic that cannot be engaged without driving the population even further into the arms of the Taliban, an endless supply of new guerilla fighters and foreign powers which finance and support them. If they even need help with all the drug money they are making.

Honestly, i have no idea what to do to acomplish the initial mission now. It might have worked before the population became pissed off with the NATO forces, but now...
What i know is that the useless fights and "victories" of killing a few hundred Taliban is definitely not making up for the negative effects this battles and the collateral damage they cause have on the population. Kill a Taliban and his two younger brothers will take his place. Kill a innocent bystander and dozens of young men will join the insurgents. And at some point you will reach a point at which even women, old people and children will start throwing stones every time they see a foreign soldier.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The only way to win this war would be to win the hearts and minds of the natives.

That won't happen by hiding in the north of the country - reconstruction won't happen without security.

Now that the Taliban are back and have more support by the civilian population than ever

According to whom?

But fighting them is no use either.

So how is reconstruction going to happen, then? Ask them to not attack the engineers?

We are in pretty much the same position now as the Sovjets were in the 80s.

The only exception being that the Afghanis can actually elect their own government this time.

We got a friendly but powerless pupet regime that is dispised by it's population

Where do you get your information from? Al-qaeda.com? Seriously, what evidence do you have a majority of Afghanis hate the government they elected?

Honestly, i have no idea what to do to acomplish the initial mission now.

Well for one thing the other coalition members could try geting their hands dirty.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

TC, the hearts and minds of the local population are indeed a huge factor. However this is different from iraq. We dont have a huge tangled mess that we do there. And alot of taliban support is comming from across the border in Pakistan.

Having said this i have to agree with Musashi. The caveats put on germans and especialy french troops are completely unnaceptable and could spell the end of NATO. How is a campaign supose to be conducted in this way? Sure rebuilding is vital for overall sucsess in afghanistan, however so is enguageing the taliban and providing security in the south. When you are part of a joint security alliance like NATO, keeping your troops out of harms way while other members do the dieing fataly weakens the premace that the alliance is built on, primarily if YOU fight WE fight. How the campaign was conducted in the initial phases is irrelevant to this point. Simply saying that its somebody elses mess down there and there is no point us getting our hands dirty is no way to be part of a multi national alliance and is allmost an immature answer to an uncomfortable and accurate accusation. The mood of the german population is irrelevant to this point aswell, it has no effect on the consequences for NATO or its other members, who ARE allowing troops to go into combat. This situation is unacceptable for the campaign in Afghanistan, and unnaceptable for the future of the NATO alliance. Are those caveats really worth it?

 

[TrangleC]

That won't happen by hiding in the north of the country - reconstruction won't happen without security.

But that is just the point. In the north there still is enough security for reconstruction because the people there don't support the Taliban like they do in the south.

According to whom?

How many interviews with afghan natives have you seen or read? And even without hearing them say so, you could come to this conclusion simply by dedurctive logic. Do you think the Taliban would be such a problem again without support by the civil population? Just a few guys with AK-47s coming over the border and running around searching for a opportunity to make trouble without heavy support and being harboured by the civil population? Would they be such a big problem?

So how is reconstruction going to happen, then? Ask them to not attack the engineers?

Like i said, it's a dilemma now and i don't see how to resolve it.

The only exception being that the Afghanis can actually elect their own government this time.

The communist puppet regime in the 70s and 80s was elected too. Clan leaders were bribed and told their people whom to vote for and it pretty much was the same now, because in this society the clan makes the decisions. Why do you think all those "former" warlords like this dispicable Dostum guy are members/ministers of the "democratic gouvernemt" now?

Where do you get your information from? Al-qaeda.com? Seriously, what evidence do you have a majority of Afghanis hate the government they elected?

Documentaries and TV reports. BBC among others. And i talked to an engineer who was working in Afghanistan.
Ask a Afghan what his people think about the gouvernment. I guess there are a lot of them living in GB.

Well for one thing the other coalition members could try geting their hands dirty.

Dirty is just the right word in that context, from the afghan point of view. Whether its justified or not, but the Afghans today consider the western forces in he south to be occupants and not liberators anymore. Too many doors have been kicked in and there has been too much collateral damage. You have to consider the way news spread in such a society. Most people there have no TV or read newspapers. News rech them from mouth to ear and as you know news that are transmited that way tend to get blurred and most of all exaggerated. If a US soldier accidently kills a innocent bystander in a fire fight, the news that reach people 500 km away will be something like "The Amercians are commiting mass executions!". You know what i mean?

The only way to win the hearts of the people under such unfavourable conditions would have been to have all the forces participate strongly into the reconstruction.
What haunts us all now is the initial mistake of bringing in the US forces to hunt Taliban while the Europeans were brought in for the reconstruction work. This created a kind of "good cop, bad cop"-situation. And now that the "good cops" one by one started helping the "bad cop", the natives don't like them anymore either.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

But that is just the point. In the north there still is enough security for reconstruction because the people there don't support the Taliban like they do in the south.

The reason the North is peaceful is not because of the ISAF troops there - some of them could be moved to the South quite easily. And it is the South that is the priority - If the battle there is lost, reconstruction in the North won't make a difference in the long-run.

How many interviews with afghan natives have you seen or read? And even without hearing them say so, you could come to this conclusion simply by dedurctive logic. Do you think the Taliban would be such a problem again without support by the civil population?

OMG, interviews? What the hell? Of course some people will hate the government. But that doesn't mean the general population hates the government. Unless you have opinion polls to back up your claim, it's meaningless.

The communist puppet regime in the 70s and 80s was elected too.

Communists do not allow opponents to be elected! You're voting for a Communist, a Communist or a Communist. In Afghanistan today there have been a wide range of candidates.

Whether its justified or not, but the Afghans today consider the western forces in he south to be occupants and not liberators anymore.

Some do, but others welcome them. Don't talk in such ridiculous absolutes.

The only way to win the hearts of the people under such unfavourable conditions would have been to have all the forces participate strongly into the reconstruction.

FORCES CAN'T CONDUCT RECONSTRUCTION. THEY ARE THERE TO PROVIDE SECURITY TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. THAT CANNOT HAPPEN IF THE TALEBAN ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM AT WILL - WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE LOGIC?????

And now that the "good cops" one by one started helping the "bad cop", the natives don't like them anymore either.

That just sounds like an excuse to hide in the North because the South is too hot.

 

[Vestalon]

First everyone hated the Germans for being too militaristic, and now they're hated for not being militaristic enough. Strange times we live in.

Communists do not allow opponents to be elected! You're voting for a Communist, a Communist or a Communist. In Afghanistan today there have been a wide range of candidates.

So you think the Taleban could be voted back to lead the country?
I have a feeling that would not be allowed by the western countries (and rightly so). So I guess the system is not really as democratic as you might think.

Don't talk in such ridiculous absolutes.

Ooops...maybe you should re-read some of your own posts.

WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE LOGIC?????

No reason to to be rude.
I'm not a moderator but maybe we all should calm down a bit and go back to the real topic ("Should the EU create a military" that is in case someone wonders).

O.K. Europe does not have a common view on foreign and security policy but
maybe the EU countries could build a common defence force - just for the defence of the Union. I mean...fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. would still be a national thing for every country to decide. But purely defending the air, land and sea borders of the EU could be done by some kind of European Defence Force.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

First everyone hated the Germans for being too militaristic, and now they're hated for not being militaristic enough. Strange times we live in.

The Germans were hated for starting WWII, invading and raping various countries and massacring millions of people. 60 years on we're not concerned with German troops participating in peacekeeping operations.

So you think the Taleban could be voted back to lead the country?

If they put their guns down and agreed to participate in the democratic process (recognising the rightful winner whether it was them or someone else), in theory they could. But not with what they are doing now.

 

[Vestalon]

The Germans were hated for starting WWII, invading and raping various countries and massacring millions of people. 60 years on we're not concerned with German troops participating in peacekeeping operations.

I know. My comment wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. Sorry, should have marked it with smilies or something.

If they put their guns down and agreed to participate in the democratic process (recognising the rightful winner whether it was them or someone else), in theory they could. But not with what they are doing now.

I'm not that convinced. I just don't see the world accepting Mullah Omar to become leader of Afghanistan again and bring back the Taleban regime. Even if they would put down their guns, their ideology is so unacceptable for the west or any country that has paid a price to get rid of them.

Oh...regarding our "real" topic:
German Chancellor Merkel today said she favours the creation of a European armed forces.

 

[Waylander]

And this by a chancellor of country which would be the natural brake for every european army operation.

As if she learned nothing out of this circus about sending some Recce Tornados to A-stan (Not to talk of the ongoing dispute about groundtroops).

Sometimes I think our politicians are that far away from reality that nothing is going to get them back to the real world...

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Sometimes I think our politicians are that far away from reality that nothing is going to get them back to the real world...

Unfortunately politicians are too frequently scared of how the public will react. Sometimes they need to do what's good for the country (or indeed their allies), rather than worry about tomorrow's headlines. But they will default to the latter far too often.

 

[Waylander]

The sad thing is that I think that our politicians overestimate the reaction of their own population.
There would defenitely be protest but much less than somebody might expect.
The key is backing up their decision and our soldiers.

But as long as there are people out there crying for us having palms on our vehicles I don't see a solution to these problems.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The sad thing is that I think that our politicians overestimate the reaction of their own population. There would defenitely be protest but much less than somebody might expect.

I would whole-heartedly agree with that statement, though maybe the German media could take a more confident line and say she needs to make that tough choice to free the troops to where they're needed.

 

[Waylander]

Our medias?

The headlines for the Kongo mission last year where like "A new Afrika Korps!" with a smilie behind it.
Some month later they bitch out about some troopers panting a palm onto their vehicle with an iron cross in it (Yeah the same iron cross which is the official sign of our army) and cried about these troopers being nazi lovers due to the similarities with the crest of the WWII Afrika Korps.

But there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
From my subjective way of looking at the situation I feel like the media is also more on the train that our government behaves childish in regard to the problems in A-stan and that the requests of our allies are reasonable and understandable.

By saying all this I still think that some countries (notable the US) should think about their behaviour towards the Afghani population. If you look at the reports from our northern areas you see that the population there is actually more pleased with our behaviour than with the one of the US soldiers who were there before.
Lets take the middle.
A big security campaign in the south with enough boots on the ground that ISAF and OEF don't need to retake the same area again and again due to not enough soldiers to stay constantly there.
Under this protection shield launch a big (And I mean much bigger than anything we do in the north or south today) reconstruction and hearts and minds campaign.

 

[Jambo_100]

Eu

the EU itself was a bad idea, well for us brits anyway. the EU already take £20 billion from us a year! making a military would just spark an arms race with russia and china. maybe USA would become "jealous" of the EU having such a powerful military? maybe see it as a threat? the EU already have a security council, i dont think it should go further than that.