The inevitable rearmament of the European Union

Fine with me. Let the Euros take over peacekeeping duties in the Balkans, it's sure as hell not our fight.

 

Again, it's all about what one percieves as one's own back yard.
I'd have thought the US would have thought a healthy Europe would have been a good thing.

And besides, Euros have been doing their fair share thanks a lot.
UK troops have been involved from day one, yet do we consider that our own back yard? If we're being strict about things, surely we should only bother about problems around the British Isles. So the Balkans isn't our fight either.

Those of a starboard persuasion in the US need to stop seeing things so much as an 'us versus them' situation - with regards to many many international situations.

 

I'm all in favor of an independant Europe in a military sense.

 

A healthy Europe is a good thing, that doesn't mean American troops should die in Bosnia for no reason other than to prevent fanatics who have hated each other for thousands of years from killing each other, especially when they will resume killing each other the minute American troops leave the Balkans for good.

You should know by now that I don't consider you guys part of the Eurotrash rabble. Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem if you guys wanted to pull out of the Balkans either. Let the Frogs and Germans take care of it.

I'm not seeing it as "us vs them", I'm seeing it as "there's no reason American troops should die for something that has absolutely no national interest for the US".

 

I would guess that european re-armament would be just a symptom of a growing "awakening" of europe as something more independant of America.

Face it, for a long long time, western europe was basically the little brother of the US, as the USA faced off against the USSR. Even post-then, europe was still the little brother.

Since the wall came down, europe stayed close to the US, mostly because an US ex-president was so good at strengthening common bonds and playing buddy/buddy. During this time, the EU was pretty worthless and only focused on trying to get the euro running.

But now, one unintended consequence of Rummy's "you wanna piece of me?" diplomacy, as well as the entire administration's focus on America-first (America-only?), Europe has decided that America no longer speaks for them. They refuse to be led from Washington because Washington does not listen to them or address even the simplest of their concerns.

So now Europe is banding together, and trying to get their act together to unify as an organization who looks to their own best interests, and is no longer satisfied being a junior partner to America. The stage is being set for competition between the two, economic, political, etc. Where it leads nobody can accurately predict.

While we may have kicked some butt in Iraq, for every action there is a reaction. So we alienate much of Europe, goading them into opposing us diplomatically/financially, essentially creating a world power that establishes themselves to the rest of the world as a new "friendly" body opposed to US global dominace. Is that worth the overthrow of a 2-bit dictator?

 

I'm just curious... I see the same Middle East being described in the same exact way, with a little "cycle of violence" "circle of life" "to be or not to be*" "Hakuna Matata" and other lovely phrases added in.

I can only conclude that when we kill people, it can be excused based on inexperience. Or is it when two peoples that we don't care about fight, neither could possibly have a good reason. Which is it?

*actually, this one makes a little sense

 

The prediction business is pretty hazardous, but if I were a gambling man (I am occasionally), I think this war will actually lead the EU to finally, once and for all, giving up on trying to compete as a military power with the USA.

For the reasons why, see Gregg Easterbrook's article in yesterda's NYT Week in Review:

"American Power Moves Beyond the Mere Super."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/weekinreview/27EAST.html

Some highlights:

"For years to come, no other nation is likely even to try to rival American might.

Which means: the global arms race is over, with the United States the undisputed heavyweight champion. Other nations are not even trying to match American armed force, because they are so far behind they have no chance of catching up.

...This huge military lead is partly because of money. Last year American military spending exceeded that of all other NATO states, Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined, according to the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan research group that studies global security. This is another area where all other nations must concede to the United States, for no other government can afford to try to catch up.

The runaway advantage has been called by some excessive, yet it yields a positive benefit. Annual global military spending, stated in current dollars, peaked in 1985, at $1.3 trillion, and has been declining since, to $840 billion in 2002. That's a drop of almost half a trillion dollars in the amount the world spent each year on arms. Other nations accept that the arms race is over."

Easterbrook rightly points out some paradoxes in these developments: some nations may be even MORE desperate to acquire nuclear arms since they have "no hope" of resisting America's conventional power.

If I were the EU, I would spend very little money on the military.

 

What europe needs to do is to go forward with the process of integration.
The immediate goals I can see are:
1- a single voice in foreign affairs. (hard to do and that's where neocons are trying to hit in order to prevent it - France bashing but curiously not Germany bashing, old and new europe etc.)
2- a single army (meaning every member gives a good part of their military to create a stable european army and a single european budget avoiding useless duplicates)

ps i found it really funny to see ppl wondering if one of the most influential historical european country (politics, culture and so on) is europe.
No, UK is oceania while Iceland is europe.

 

Re: Re: The inevitable rearmament of the European Union

Or, buy our stuff.

 

You mean like freeing a nation of an oppressive ruler?

 

Damned neocons again! Sardinia, is it ok if Europe's voice isn't your voice? How about Berlusconi's voice. I can live with that.

The tension with France is more institutional. Germany can be an election away from being our best buddies again.

You find it funny that people are wondering if Britons are European? Then do you find it funny when Brits wonder the same thing? You speak of the UK's cultural influence being one of the most significant in Europe, but in reality it dwarfs all of (continental) Europe, he says in a language that defnitely ain't Italian.

 

Wow, Dave, where could you POSSIBLY be going with this one??

The job of the US military is to protect the national interests of the United States. The job of the US military is not to free people from oppressive rulers. When we can do both at the same time, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's wonderful. But the US military is not designed for humanitarian missions.

 

Re: Re: The inevitable rearmament of the European Union

I hate it when I have to agree with Karl.

The (as far as I'm concerned sole) benefit of having spent all those trillions over the last couple of decades is a technological advantage that it would take 10 years just to steal and reverse-engineer, to say nothing of re-creating from existing research. So yay, we've got the biggest swingin' dicks in the world and can kick the crap out of the next five biggest armies combined.

So, why don't I feel all snuggly and safe?

 

Re: Re: Re: The inevitable rearmament of the European Union

Well, thanks for the prop and let me agree with you on one item:

Your SHOULDN'T feel snuggly and safe.

But I think there's more to this than meets the eye.

One of the real military advantages we have is Special Ops. We have close to an entire DIVISION of special forces guys -- some 9000. That means we can not only hammer you into pieces with JDAMS, M1s, A10 Warthogs, and Apaches, but we can also come in quietly -- VERY quietly -- and knick your carotid with an ice pick.

There were many in the Arab world who thought, "Oooh, the US is going to get creamed in Afghansitan just the Russians and the British." Well, it's not over yet, but the days of Vietnam quagmire are over. Special Ops is the reason why.

Meanwhile, if you're Iran, Syria, and North Korea, you have to really start doing some cost benefit analysis.

Some inside those governments will say "the only way we can possible deter the US is to have a nuke." With luck, someone will utter the counterargument, "Why risk experiencing the wrath of the United States? Let's get rid or our nukes."

Of course, then there's the possibility that the nukes they have can be given, or sold, to terrorists who would have ZERO compunction about using them.

So, yeah, don't feel safe. This all has yet to play out.

 

If cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz etc weren't where they are I surely wouldn't care about neocons.

I don't think that berluska would ever win an european election, neither that he could ever be chosen as EU president by EU state members.
But if it will happen i will accept the result, still being against him and his policies.

Well, schroeder won the elections exactly out of an anti-US (meaning anti this admin) campaign.

Of course, I find it funny, don't you?

I want UK in EU and with Euro, it's their place.
But if they won't I will survive, also EU and euro will. Last time I checked UK was a member of EU.

If they fear the process of integration they can exit and rejoin us when they want.

 

Schroeder barely won.

I'm happy the UK is in the EU and hope they'll adopt the Euro as soon as possible. Ultimately, there is no alternative. I support European unity for some of the reasons you probably do, though I question the need for a European military.

Actually, I'd like the USA in the EU. Seriously. We'll call it the USE.

 

The european military is necessary for many reasons.

An european military will be "heavier" than the simple sum of each members military.
You can actually intervene in situations such as ex Yugoslavia
It helps integration.

Let's say we listened to your complaints about being the world policemen.
You are right, europe must be defended by europeans.
We must take our responsabilities.

next step will be the reconsideration of Nato, transforming it basically in a EU - USA alliance.
(this could be the key to create the union EU-USA you talk about in a not too distant future)

Then we can free most of your soldiers from serving in european bases.

We could even open some european military bases in USA.

So you see there's nothing bad with an european military.

 

No, there isn't, but EU countries should not see their military as some counterweight to the USA, and try to improve or enhance their military capabilility with that as an objective.

That is a waste of energy and money.

 

Ok, Sardinia, good one.

 

I think we should have a strong combined military arm, with 150.000 troops or so. This is no counterweight to the US at all and it shouldn´t be. We should use it for dealing with our own business.
But I doubt the effectiveness: Who is in charge of it? Who sents these troops?

domingo

 

Now you're on the right track. Let's just annex all of Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the Western Hemisphere and create a Greater United States of America.
Pat Buchanan wrote a great column on this about 10-15 years ago.
AVE BUSH DUX MUNDI

 

I agree that a healthy, robust European military is a good thing, global security-wise. This will probably come to pass in a gradual way. In fact it already is. European military professionals have been rather deeply embarrassed since the Kosovo war over their lack of capability in the smart-munitions and all-weather air department, for example, and are taking rapid steps to make up those deficits. Similarly with regard to battlefield managment technology.

All that said, a larger, higher-tech "European" military (WTF is a European Military anyway? Eurocorps? Is that even a going concern?) is about as useless as tits on a boar without...

a common military and defense policy.

The last ten years or so have shown that, even when it comes to patent genocide in their own backyard the EU cannot come up with a consensus on using force.

As far as I can tell the only time you will ever see a unified EU military decision to use force in our lifetimes are:

1. Attack upon EU member by another state. A scenario consigned exclusively to Larry Bond-style war porn.
2. Landing by agressive aliens bent on human enslavement. See Footfall and seemingly endless Harry Turtledove series'.
   [/list=1]
   
   Most Europeans with any sense at all, especially the French and others who see an important role for the EU as a balance or even check on rampant US power, know that this is a big problem. Efforts are afoot at the Brussells talking-shop, see the European Council's Common Foreign and Security Policy efforts led by Javier Solana (one of those war-mongering Spaniards):
   http://ue.eu.int/pesc/default.asp?lang=en
   
   However, the fact remains that EU spending on defense will continue to be a pittance compared to ours. Secondly, faced with a US with a very activist foreign and military policy the EU qua EU will continue to be a non-factor in global security. Instead European muscle will continued to be flexed by Britain and France. Each will continue to pursue foreign and military policies that protect their own interests and reflect their own concerns, not those of the EU as a whole.

 

Again, as someone else said - it's not a nice feeling to have to agree with Karl on well...pretty much anything.

But he's right here.
It is pointless.
To me, the amount of money the US spends on it's defence budget is unbelievably silly. To get on a vague par with that would require so much money as to be non-sensical.
A US-EU military stand-off doesn't make sense on so many levels.

IF, we all manage to get along over here and create a proper EU (common currency, common policies (within reason)), the strength exerted by the Union would not (need to) be military, but would be far more successful as an economic force(as has been proved).
The need for a whacking great military is (IMO)directly proportional to your wish to use it. Aside from having a bona fide defence force (not the offensive defence advocated by the US), the EU wouldn't need to spend over the odds on maintaining the ability to fight wars half way round the world. And can continue to concentrate more on the social aspects of government (welfare state etc) than the military aspect - as indeed is the case already.

An arms race has never made sense in the long run.
The EU's strength is it's collective economy - if in the fullness of time the EU feels the need to try and exert some influence over the US - using a patchwork military would be a truly awful idea.

Lastly, and I think someone has already mentioned this option - the EU can just sit back and let the US ride rough-shod over everyone and let the US do the EU's work for them. Letting everyone see how 'nice' the EU is and how utterly awful the US is.

Well those are most likely, but the bottom line is that the EU definitely won't do the whole arms race thing with the US.
It doesn't make sense, and even the politicians in Europe will accept that.

 

Agree.

I want simply a joined military, with the same exact amount of money spent by single members in a given project you'll have best result.

Building a new rifle.
Uk 2 for the new UK rifle
It 1.2 for the new italian rifle
Fr 1.8 ...
Ge 1.5 ...
Sp 1.3 ...
and so on.
-----
The EU joined military project could spend for the new european rifle let's say 20.

If it is even too much, the rest can be used for another project or welfare.

I'm happy with a european military that can intervene in kosovo alone and with the own capability in defense and retaliation.

Have you read the good news?
Germany, France, belgium and Luxembourg are already setting it.
You'll see that the others members will join.