@Jebus- don't be such a "naive jerk" to start a flame up on the board.
In response-
Ghoullove said:
The reason why started this topic was to get feedback and indeed I got a lot of good feedback especially from you European brothers. The reason why I asked the Europe army question is because as time goes by the U.S. is slowly withdrawing it's military presence from western Europe. I think in ten years time the U.S. will only have a couple of bases they will fly out of in Europe,not to mention the mass removal of ground troops as well.
The reason US is withdrawing from Western Europe is because it's moving to Eastern Europe. As for presence- how much presence does the US need to have in Western Europe?
The idea that Europe and the US would go to war in the next 20 years or so is just silly. The US and Europe share too many similar interests and are so interlocted in global trade that such a conflict would be too painful. If W's administration has taught us any valuable lessons, it is that the US and Europe are linked economically, politically and socially.
Remember, that the reason for NATO was primarily to work as a military alliance against Soviet attack. Under Article 5, and attack against one is an attack against all. This helps explain why NATO partners are in Afghanistan- itself a rather significant development in NATO history. Remember, throughout the Cold War, NATO never deployed outside of Europe. Afghanistan is a big change in its mandate.
But the other reason for NATO, though less publically declared, was to sit on Germany. Germany, as the most powerful economy and most populace country of Europe could cause security problems for its neighbors. Such problems reemerged at the end of the Cold War when France and England started looking at Germany as the future power center of Europe and Germany looked at its neighbors and thought, "Fuck, we are scaring our neighbors again." This is one of the reasons you see France and Germany working together with such projects as Eurocorps, etc.
But West Germany was the front-line. It isn't any longer. Now the frontline is further East.
Does Europe need a unified military? Well, as I pointed out in the links, there are already efforts in that direction.
Certainly there were will be operations that the Europeans could take abroad. Italian intervention in Albania back in the later 1990s, intervention to protect Kosovo. But then you have French deployments in Rwanda (to protect the murderous Hutus?) or even in other parts of Francophone Africa- to promp up it's clients?
Ok, sure the US does the same in its sphere of influence. But while France might have an interest in protecting its clients, is that also true for the other Europeans? Should Germans be killed in Congo to protect French interests? What if Britain and Germany want to intervene in Dafur to prevent the genocide and France refuses? Would Germany deploy troops to protect British interests in the Falkland Islands?
This is a problem with your unified military- does Europe have a unified foreign policy? For remember what Clauswitz says- War is poltics by other means. If you were to have a military- for whose interest would that military serve.
Consider the US adventure in Iraq- who does that operation serve- the AMerican people? The oil industry? US MNCs? Honestly, most folks are not quite sure. How would Europe respond to such questions?
How big an army would Europe need? What would its purpose be?
Consider again- the US army is basically a war-fighting operation. It was designed and orientated to fighting a conventional war with the Soviets or other modern, mechanized force. It's taken a few years for it to adjust to fighting an insurgency. It's not built for that purpose.
But within Europe there are forces that have been trained for peacekeeping operations or low-intensity conflicts. Canada, for instance is better orientated to peacekeeping than the US (or it has been historically).
But what if you are talking about a big foe- Assume Russia decides to invade Lithuania or Latvia? Or China decides to move on one of the Central Asian oil fields.
If such were the case, chances are it would require that the EU deploy a trip-wire force that triggers a nuclear deterrent.
France and Britian have a nuclear deterrent. Would France be willing to use the nuclear option if Russia invaded Poland? Lithuania? What if Britian was willing to use its nuclear deterrent but France was not?
There is an assumption here that such wars could remain conventional and contained. Perhaps. But since many weapon systems are actuall both tactical and strategic (think nuclear submarines or aircraft carriers- which carry nuclear weapons), than the divide between what is conventional and what is strategic becomes very hazy.
In Canada we are increasing the size of our army by 13,000 troops in the next 2 years due to our mission in Afghanistan as well as U.N. peace keeping operations. Expensive indeed.
Indeed. Remember, the problem with militaries is that they eat up a lot of money and don't contribute a heck of a lot. Sure you get some spin-off technologies. Missiles that can drop a warhead on a city on the other side of the world might be useful for putting satellites in orbit. Computers used for targetting can be used for other forms of guidance systems for satellite imagery. But could those externalities not have been discovered had the government provided more generous incentives to R&D to industries.
Militaries, if they are not used, are not very useful. And by investing in them, you have an incentive to use them.
Consider again energy policy. The US has in the past years been governed by an administration partial to the oil interests and willing to concede to continued support of those industries. Right now the oil companies are making billions in profits while oil prices shoot up the roof. The US deploys its army to conquer Iraq and might deploy to conquer Iran- getting us involved in very expensive wars atop of massive oil fields.
Meanwhile, Germany begins to invest its money in alternative technologies and has become so successful that it is beginning to export those technologies abroad. Regardless of what you think of the peak oil theory- it is inevitable that natural petroleum will eventually dry up, and alternatives need to be found. The US uses its military to further its political influence in the middle east and has found itself in a Vietnam like quagmire in Iraq, allowing oil companies to profit and, ideally, to secure the oil fields necessary for future consumption. Meanwhile, Germany has developed a new exportable and high tech industry, and avoided a messy war.
Which is the better choice?
) instead of being seperated by the entirety of the Pacific, how different would things have been for us?