Article

2003-12-22 Europe

Robertson: Europe Must Change Defense Plan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-12-22 12:22:14 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Surely he means someone else. Yeah, but he's targeting a Euro audience so he must ~~pretend to~~ sound multilateralist.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-22 12:43:32 AM|| 2003-12-22 12:43:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The whole question of what kind of military Europe(specifically Western Europe)should have is very open to debate and their answer may not please the US at all.The previous military structure was designed to fight the Big Red Machine on the German plains.There now seems little chance of Russia storming west.
For the first time in ages,European nations do not have to defend against a powerful,aggressive military force.(England doesn't have to worry about France,France does't worry about Germany,Germany doesn't worry about Russia.)The only nation with the ability to invade a European country is the US,and the odds of that happening are the same as me winning the lottery 10 times in a row.Until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor,the US,feeling protected by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,maintained a small peace-time military and an isolationist foreign policy.With Europe feeling safe from attack as the US once did,one can easily see Europe adopting the same policies-a small training cadre of an army,an elite mobile infantry force for enforcing trade agreements w/3rd world countries-specifically Africa(think US Marines in Central America in 1920/1930s)and a foreign policy of isolationism.After all,demanding that every problem be handled thru the UN means one's own country doesn't have to get involved.Advantages of this type of policy means you don't have to spend much on hi-tech military,leaving the treasury full to spend on social programs that will get you re-elected.
If however you want a military capable of intervening around the world(aka projecting power)it will get expensive fast.You need reliable transport that not only can get you there,but can also keep you there.You need to resupply food,ammo,water,fuel,all the gazillion replacement parts needed to fight and it would be nice if you could bring home your wounded.This require heavy-lift air transports as well as a Navy strong enough to escort your supply ships.You either need airbases around the world or several aircraft carriers.Then you need to regularly conduct expensive exercises to make sure everything works and you haven't forgotten anything.All of this is going to cost a fortune and the question is going to be asked,WHY?The people of your country are going to ask just who do you think we're going to have to invade?The French government tried to make the argument that such a force was needed to balance the US and was greeted with a thunderous yawn by the European populance and contempt from other national leaders.
I believe the near future of Western Europe military policy will be of small armies based on well-trained light infantry and modest Air Forces,split between prestige hi-performance fighters and a very small number of air transports.Stronger attempts will be made to buy Euro-common equipment-a Euro-tank,Euro-APC,etc.Foreign policy will be isolationist,masked
by wanting the UN to handle problems.
Off my rant but in regards to Robertson's complaints about transport,the UK had to lease several ships for Iraqi deployment and there were serious problems with many of those ships.

Posted by Stephen 2003-12-22 2:13:53 AM|| 2003-12-22 2:13:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 The more things change, the more they stay the same. I wouldn't rule out another war started by the Euros, with America having to clean up the mess, again.

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-22 2:20:24 AM|| 2003-12-22 2:20:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I wouldn't rule out another war started by the Euros

Personally, I think that's almost inevitable. The only saving grace is that france and germany are so dependent on welfare, they can't commit resources to military spending. The e.u. folding up like a lawnchair is only the beginning, those two turds still want to impose their will on the rest of europe (not to mention raid their treasuries). The seeds of future conflict, maybe? Hope not.

Posted by 4thInfVet 2003-12-22 2:40:22 AM|| 2003-12-22 2:40:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Images of Polish cavalry manuvering against German armour.

Who would EU want to pick a fight with anyways?

Posted by Lucky 2003-12-22 12:51:22 PM|| 2003-12-22 12:51:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think the Chocolate War is already commenced. Central Africa is burning. Won't be long before we get called in. They already tried to involve us in an open-ended project in Liberia.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-22 1:59:19 PM|| 2003-12-22 1:59:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Who would EU want to pick a fight with anyways?

Themselves. Don't kid yourself. There's almost as much hatred in Europe as there is in the arab jihadi world. I think The Economist did an article on this recently.

Posted by Rafael 2003-12-22 2:05:43 PM|| 2003-12-22 2:05:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Who would EU want to pick a fight with anyways?
1. France vs. Germany (been there done that.)
2. France vs. all comers (been there done that.)
3. Germany vs. all comers (been there done that.)
4. France & Germany vs. all comers (new idea.)
5. Consider the possibilities.

The French Revolution showed that after kings forged nation-states to carry on wars with each other, the nation-states were quite capable of carrying on wars even after getting rid of the kings. Don't blame Napoleon. He was the child, not the parent.

Also bear in mind France and Germany (maybe likewise Spain, Britain, too) may not yet be comfortable with the notion they only were once great world powers.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-22 2:51:17 PM|| 2003-12-22 2:51:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 It's always entertaining to read your assessments about our policies. Really. No kidding.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-12-22 3:00:26 PM|| 2003-12-22 3:00:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Glenn (NR), seriously - look at what you've written.

For our part, we've had the best part of a century to get used to the fact that we're not a world power anymore. The decline arguably started around the Boer war, was hugely accelerated by the First World War, we were completely spent by the end of the Second World War and have spent the last 50+ years divesting any semblence of Empire (except for the Commonwealth - don't ask me why we have that!).

However, there are some very nasty racial undertones in Europe, and that does worry me - but the 'great powers' arising again, nope.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2003-12-22 7:30:24 PM|| 2003-12-22 7:30:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Tony, I know your probably in ZZZ land now but please except my respect regarding the UK's mighty attempt to stay relative. I'm impressed.

TGA, maybe one last shot at Austria?

Posted by Lucky 2003-12-22 8:08:21 PM|| 2003-12-22 8:08:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I think it's unlikely we will see a war instigated by European nations any time in the forseeable future, but I do worry about instability within some European countries over the next 20 years.

We will probably see instability in a LOT of places. Global communications and transportation linking 1st & 3rd worlds, plus a population boom in some places and AIDs wiping out a generation of parents in other places may create massive immigration flows and significant economic challenges. And I'm not just talking about AIDS in Africa or the $ vs. the Euro. Russia has a major AIDS and drug problem among young adults, for instance, and the shock to wage levels from China's emergence into the global marketplace will be significant.

All challenging enough without Islamacists for whom the answer is to drag us all back to the 9th century ..... Sigh.

Posted by rkb 2003-12-22 8:28:42 PM|| 2003-12-22 8:28:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Define Great Power for me and tell me how that is different from what Tony Blair did with Libya. Too bad, the UK couldn't just take our seat at the table with Kim and just bring us the best offer. Bet Iran is calling the UK for advice.

Why would anyone look farther than the Balkans for trouble in Europe?

With respect to Germany and Canada the US is going to have to make a choice as to whether to build off our cooperation in Afghanistan or continue to accentuate the rift in Iraq. We probably have eight more years in the WOT.

With repsct to France and Belgium, if they can independent of us work with Nigeria and South Africa to iron out one or two of the messes in Africa that would be most appreciated. Castro flew to Venezuala for secret meetings with Chavez over the weekend. We will be busy in South America.

Australia seems to be troubleshooting their backyard.

I define a great power is anyone who gets off their ass and helps the cause.

Posted by Super Hose 2003-12-22 8:29:59 PM|| 2003-12-22 8:29:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Question, if Argentina took over the Falkland islands could/would the Europeans be able/willing to take them back? What about ten years from now?

Now consider the numerous dots throughout the Carribean, Indian Ocean and South Pacific that are French, British or Dutch territories. Will the Germans and Swedes really want to spend treasure on preserving the last relics of Imperialism? Perhaps the Europeans will want to consider such territories as European and worth defending, probably not when they see the price required to get a major military operation over to French Polynesia.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-22 8:43:27 PM|| 2003-12-22 8:43:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Tony: Note I said "maybe." Also note I put y'all at the end of the list, and you can't tell from there, but honest, that was the last word I (hesitantly) put into the comment. Besides, Britain was a great power. Just being multilateral. No vision of 'great powers' arising troubles me. It's the thought of once-'great powers' trying to leverage off OPM to rise again that's disturbing. That could light off another continental war, likely starting in the set of [2..4] but [1] can't be ruled out (Dunno if it might not p!$$ a Frenchman to remind him that 'France' is actually a German word and the name 'Clovis' is a Latinization of -- well, why the hell were there 19-odd French kings named 'Louis'?) Now having run off all that, I've had a pet theory: 9/11 set off a lot of nightmares here. I wonder if it woke Tony...

My God! Tony (UK) isn't really, you know, TONY, posting here on Rantburg???

Anyway, Tony woke up and said to himself, "Self, dammit, Britain should be important, and you're the head Brit. You need to do Something. The country doesn't have the military moxie to throw its weight around, but there's some. Get on the phone to George and see whether he wants a hand." And things progressed from there.

Now, as Steve Den Beste points out, there's yet more synergy as Blair/Bush can play "Good Cop/Bad Cop" to give more leverage to each.

Penultimately, the Brits still have a King, or would, 'cept she's a lady.

Finally, the Brits were the only colonizers who seriously put down complete societies in some of their colonies, and those places have been the most successful former colonies in the world, (Australia, and Canada, and what's that other one?) as opposed to the rest of the imperialist powers, who exported mostly just aristocrap, and their former colonies are mostly s#!t to match. World'd be better off if only there were enough Brits to go around. Think on it.

Now, I wrote this as much or more in earnest as I did #8. Does the context make you any less offended?

Q: Tony (UK) isn't someone else named Tony in the UK I do know personally?

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-22 8:45:19 PM|| 2003-12-22 8:45:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Glen (NR) - nope, not offended mate, just wanting some clarification (I very rarely get offended by things people say at Rantburg) and that now supplied in spades!, so I'll answer some points raised.

I'd like to read what TGA has to say about the likelihood of Germany becoming a 'problem' again (no offence intended).

Blair is an 'interesting' character; on the international stage he's a real statesman and generally, has been doing 'The Right Thing (tm)'. This was most obvious with the Iraq war. He was under *tremendous* pressure regarding it here, but here's a funny thing - more people turned out to welcome the English Rugby world champions, 750k, than turned out for the anti-war demos, 400k - and the organisation for the anti-war demos was a big operation (all I'm saying here is that more people got off their arses of their own accord to celebrate a national triumph, than were bussed in by swarms of leftist organizations to oppose the war).

Blair is a leftist and committed internationalist, so for him to go against the UN must have really hurt, but he did, again doing 'The Right Thing (tm)'.

At home, his government has been in power for 6 years, and doesn't really have a lot to show for it. By now y'all should realise that I ain't him and have very little in common with his political creed! :)

I do wonder what sort of commitment we would have made if a certain Iron Lady (or indeed, almost any conservative Prime Minister) was in place when 9/11 occurred - I think it would have been even more substantial ;)

I really like Den Bestes article (perhaps because his writing evokes such strong images of 1940's gangster movies!), and there's probably a lot more mileage left in the good-cop/bad-cop routine (well, it worked rather better than sanctions).

As for 'whats the other one?' - you're probably thinking of New Zealand - a truly beuatiful place, but currrently inhabited by some very leftist loons (a source of great sorrow to me).

So in summary, I'm not offended, would like to know from others what they think the chances are of former 'great powers' getting uppity again, think Blair is great internationally and poor locally, there is still a great deal of national pride in Britain (which is underreported or sneered at by leftists) and am not 'that Tony'.

Also, I think the US is the greatest force for good on the planet and am very proud that we almost share the same language.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2003-12-22 9:24:11 PM|| 2003-12-22 9:24:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 What was it Churchill is supposed to have said, "Two great nations, separated by a common language"?

Great Britain, France, Germany, and the rest of the colonial powers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century left a BUNCH of messes behind in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. Britain alone did something about preparing its former colonials for independence - the French instituted French-style government bureaucracies, which have all but destroyed their former colonies. The "Big Six" (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Netherlands) pretty much created the maps of Africa, the Middle East, and southeastern Asia among them. The boundaries drawn in the 18th and 19th centuries are causing some huge problems now. Africa is a mess, and it's a constant drain on the entire world - economically, socially, culturally, medically, and in numerous other ways. Europe, however, is more or less engaged in a sustained program of ignoring the problems as long as they can, then doing the minimum they can to seem to be helping.

"Old Europe" needs to play a far more significant role in helping Africa (and to a lesser extent, South Asia and the Pacific) enter the 21st century. That's going to require occasional military intervention - if for nothing else, to keep genocide from reaching the levels it did in Rwanda in the last decade, or to diffuse the multiple problems currently destroying the Congo. I think Lord Robertson knows this. I think he also envisions NATO as the ONLY organization that has any chance of being even remotely successful in dealing with these problems. That would require a NATO military quite a bit different than the current force structure, with different equipment, different training, and much different tactics and long-term strategic planning. It's also a NATO that would absolutely REQUIRE that Russia be a part.

The role of NATO in the War on Terrorism will also require some serious changes, not only within the organization's military, but in the organization, itself. I cannot see Europe doing what needs to be done, except within a NATO-type framework. Nothing else would work. There will also be a strong need to bring many of the currently-unaligned nations into the NATO organization, including Sweden, Finland, and Ireland.

It'll be interesting in seeing how things shape up in the next couple of years.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-12-22 11:15:45 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-12-22 11:15:45 PM|| Front Page Top

00:23 Old Patriot
00:16 Old Patriot
00:07 Old Patriot
23:58 Bomb-a-rama
23:55 Old Patriot
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:50 Old Patriot
23:37 4thInfVet
23:35 Old Patriot
23:23 Old Patriot
23:19 Old Patriot
23:17 .com
23:15 Old Patriot
23:12 .com
22:59 .com
22:56 badanov
22:55 .com
22:52 .com
22:48 .com
22:46 .com
22:38 Fred
22:19 Larry Everett
21:56 Ron
21:52 ed