Kimstu, my point is that the EU can surely create something they call a “European Military Force,” but IMHO they will not succeed in creating a modern, effective one.
Thanks for your cite. It’s a good addition to the thread. However, I’m unconvinced by RAND’s projections.
I’ve had a fair amount of experience with consultants, and my wife was a consultant for RAND’s competitor, Stanford Research Institute. It’s common for a consultant to tell the clients what they want to hear. In fact, very fees are often earned by validating a POV that the client wants to promote.
In this case, the Summary page xiv admits that RAND’s projection of growth of European military spending “departs from the consensus view… that real military spending will remain constant…or will decline.” It’s easy enough to make economic assumptions leading to a desired conclusion. I’d give more credance to the consensus view.
december:I’m unconvinced by RAND’s projections. […] It’s common for a consultant to tell the clients what they want to hear.
According to the report’s Foreword, the clients in this case were the US DoD’s Office of Net Assessment and the (American) Smith Richardson Foundation. What do you suggest that they “wanted to hear” from this report, and why?
However, the issue the OP is addressing is, Will it work? After alll, success requires more than good intentions.[ol][li] Will the European military force become a modern, effective efficient military?[]Will it never moderinize, and remain mostly of symbolic importance?[]Will its formation weaken NATO and result in Europe having weaker defence?Will the costs connected with this force and other EU adventures eventually produce severe economic problems in Europe?[/ol] **[/li][/QUOTE]
Any answer to these questions would be conjecturing…Time will tell…
Actually, the most serious issue IMO is “will the EU be able to build an actual common foreign policy?”. If it is not, then an european military will sit on its ass essentially all the time, except if facing an unexpected and extremely strong threat (similar to the threat the soviet union used to be, for instance), or if the interests of the US and the EU drift so far away from each other that the EU nations feel there’s a permanent need to be able to counterbalance the US military capacities (I’m not thinking to a US/EU war, but merely a situation where there would be a need for a balance of power)
However, in the long run (say 30 years) the world will certainly change a lot. There’s no obvious reason to assume that the current international situation will stay the same. The US won’t stay forever an overwhelming dominating power. Other nations (of course, China comes to mind…but many other southern nations will become much less irrelevant on the international scene when they’ll become more wealthy, regional power with modern armies will appear, Russia will sooner or later become again a significant power, etc…) will gain influence, alliances will shift, etc… (actually, I think the world is likely to become multipolar on the medium-long term). So, it’s probably a safe bet to have some integrated european force on hand, even if it doesn’t do much good in the short term.
Actually, the US favors an European reaction force, the increase of european military expenses, but would want this force to stay under the umbrella of the NATO, using its infrastructures, and placed under the authority of the NATO integrated command, rather than being organized independantly and being able to operate alone. For obvious reasons.
I agree with what sailor said here… and I also submit that the “insecurity problem” he mentions lies at the heart of the OP. Specifically, I detect a distinct reactionary tone of fear in words like this, from the OP…
The only reason that the OP seems to think that the idea of an EU military force is “ludicrous” or “nutty” seems to be that the OP doesn’t like the idea.
“Mission Impossible” indeed. Thank you, Mr. Phelps. :rolleyes:
I doubt it. From the posting history of ** december **, I would suspect that he’s more motivated by a deep despise of anything european rather than by fear or a feeling of insecurity.
I don’t know enough about what is being proposed to comment on a European Army in whatever form, although on a personal level I must admit to being slightly wary of it. However, in reference to the above quote, while ‘hate’ may be too strong a word to say that there are not elements in the EU who dislike it is at best misleading.
In the 1960s Japan was known as a manufacturer of cheap imitations so some Americans laughed when Japan started exporting cars to the USA. American car manufacturers laughed too. How could the Japanese be so bold as to even dream that they could possibly build and sell a car which could compete with real cars made in America? Hah! (They didn’t laugh long though.)
When Europe decided to go into aerospace industry and build the Airbus, some Americans also laughed. Come on! Who would really believe people from different countries, who spoke different languages, could possibly build airplanes. Everybody knew only America could build airplanes! The experiment would surely end in a cataclismic failure where Europeans would get a grip on reality. And yet, Airbuses do fly.
The same Americans who feel threatened by any success outside of their borders feel the need to preach to the world the obvious impossibility that the EU will ever succeed at anything. The introduction of the Euro was presented as doomed to failure and imposed in spite of the opposition of the majority of the European people. E pur si muove. The EU, ignorant of the impossibility that it can ever succeed marches on and seems to be succeeding where the doomsayers predicted catastrophe. The doomsayers won’t give up: “The EU is full of corruption!” “They’re legislating the sizes of bras! How ridiculous!”
And yet, there is reality which just won’t go away. Like when the tanker broke up near the NW coast of Spain and produced a huge oil spill, in no time many ships from different countries were sent to help collect the oil from the water and in just a few days the EU passed a resolution sharply restricting the movement of oil tankers which did not meet certain safety requirements.
The idea that Europeans cannot do anything together because they despise each other is a good one too. Like the whole of the US has a high opinion of the people from Alabama or Arkansas. Gimme a break. Maybe the Germans don’t like the French too much but nobody has as low opinion of the French as some people in the US have about their own South. At least the French know to avoid incest.
december, I’m going to ask you again. You seem to claim that the military forces of Europe (quite a big brush) are not modern. The impression I get is that you view them as something like The Yeoman Warders guarding the Tower of London. Do you have any factual basis for this? Can you then provide it?
>> I don’t know enough about what is being proposed to comment on a European Army in whatever form, although on a personal level I must admit to being slightly wary of it.
Wary? What exactly are you afraid of? That America would be in less of a position to unilaterally push other countries around? I can see that as nothing but a good thing.
>> However, in reference to the above quote, while ‘hate’ may be too strong a word to say that there are not elements in the EU who dislike it is at best misleading.
>> to say that there are not elements in the EU who dislike it is at best misleading.
>> to say that there are not elements in the EU who dislike it
>> not elements in the EU who dislike it
Hmmm. . . no, I cannot find where I said that.
Are you telling me everybody in the US likes the system there? Everybody in the US likes everything about the US? Otherwise it would be a failure?
Can you tell me who or what is liked by everybody? Not even ice cream. Not even Claudia Schiffer.
>> IMHO the whole idea of the EU having its own military seems ludicrous.
Europe already has its own military under each country’s command. What is being proposed is integrating it under a unified command and progressively unified structure. How this seems ludicrous to you I cannot understand. . . . Oh, wait, you’re december. Now I understand.
>> Europe long since made the decision not to spend the money on a modern military. Given their social spending obligations, they hardly have the political will now to tolerate the economic and/or political upheaval that would result from huge defence spending.
Europe, like everything else in this world, is not frozen in time and has never stopped changing. For the last twenty years economic competition has increased, markets have opened up, huge sectors owned by the states have been privatised and welfare spending has been reduced significantly. In other words, all the things that people like you said could not be done have already been largely done and the trend continues.
The proposal is to unify forces in order to be more efficient and carry more weight and act with one single aim. This can be done without increasing spending. But so they say they will also increase spending. Why is this so impossible. Deeper changes have been made in the last 20 years.
>> So, they aren’t going to do it – not on their own, not as a part of NATO and not as a part of the EU.
Maybe, maybe not. We shall see.
>> This nutty idea simply illustrates that the oligarchs who run the EU are out of touch with reality.
Oh yeah. I’m sure you qualify as better in touch with reality than the leaders of the EU. The leaders of the EU are much more in touch with the reality of the European people than you are. By far. Last time I disagreed with you not one single poster agreed with your conception of “reality”. I dare say your conception of reality feels more like surreality to most of the posters of this board and to the people of the US and of Europe. Let me ask you this: If we had a poll here asking “who do you think is more out of touch with reality, the leaders of the EU or december?” what do you think the results would be?
Not quite ancient, but not quite up to US standards. Its not like Germany is trying to spin the props on an Bf110, but Europe has not embraced the recent revolutions in logistics and communications that has made the US military machine so succuessfull.
Frankly, I’d like to see a ‘Eurocorps’ or whatever. It would be nice to have a true partner when it comes to dropping the hammer around the globe.
It figures that since Europe, collectively, cannot do much more then send a few light forces here and there, they put a lot of stock in senseless negotiation and appeasment-syle diplomacy. They have no other option!
If you want to know my motivation, I like Europe and Europeans. I hope the EU structure works for them. However, I’m concerned that the EU appears to be on the wrong track in a number of ways.
The Gaspode – Here’s a cite on European military weakness from RAND.
>> However, I’m concerned that the EU appears to be on the wrong track in a number of ways.
I get the impression most Europeans around here would rather you were less concerned with Europe.
>> NATO Secretary General Robertson said on Thursday that Europe’s armed forces must modernize quickly to operate alongside the United States in meeting the security challenges of the future.
>> “We must modernize our military and we must do it quickly,”
And so when Europeans set out to do exactly this you say “This nutty idea simply illustrates that the oligarchs who run the EU are out of touch with reality.”
So what is it? Should they or shouldn’t they do it?
RTB:It figures that since Europe, collectively, cannot do much more [than] send a few light forces here and there, they put a lot of stock in senseless negotiation and appeasment-syle diplomacy. They have no other option!
I hope you’re wrong. If I thought that having an independent military force would make the EU feel that it didn’t need to bother with negotiation and diplomacy any longer instead of just “dropping the hammer” at will, I’d be pretty damn wary of it too.