I am curious if posters here (both European and non-European) think the ESDP can be a viable alternative to NATO. Would it be desirable to Europeans to forge a different security structure away from NATO, or should the ESDP just deal with securtiy issues NATO won't deal with (Operation Artemis, etc.)? If the ESDP is stregnthed will NATO be weakened as a result, and should it (be weakened)?
I am in two minds.
1) It would weaken NATO, simply because of the "Well maybe NATO wouldn't work, but ESDP will" line of thought.
2) It will strengthen NATO because ESDP would have to start thinking about defense without being under the protection of the USA... could (should?) lead to a whole defense review and some big money investment.
Interesting, thanks for the answer. What is the view among European defense professionals (if anyone knows); would they prefer a collective seucrity arangement without the US? The French, at least, seem to pay lip service to NATO, and would maybe prefer the ESDP, since they have taken the lead in some of the ESDP's operations. What about the Brits--are they happy with NATO (truly) or would they prefer a European-centric defense policy without the US?
This Brit says keep in NATO, but don't keep expanding it for the sake of expansion. I'm sure some of the bureaucracy can be trimmed and staffs generally reduced. It needs shaking up!
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.
I find it surprising that Canada is the 4th largest force contributor and the 3rd largest combat force in Afghanistan despite the fact that we're nowhere near the top 5 militaries in NATO... and Canada is NOT in Europe.
That alone should tell you about Europe.
Chimo
Sir I do not think it should be a big cause for surprise. Europeans are extremely hesitant to become part of what they see as "America's War". There is a LOT of political bickering preventing effective acts. The LARGEST and BIGGEST thing that came out of the EU is EU's political-bureaucratic complex.
the best answer is to have several options, and to use the most appropriate option for each situation as and when it develops.Originally Posted by Herodotus
NATO, regardless of whether a NATO op has direct US 'on the ground' - or indeed 'in the air' - involvement, is seen, and will be seen for some time, as the organisation most capable of producing very large quantities of very hard force, on the other hand because of both its military dependence on US logistics and the political involvement of the US and UK it might in certain situations be the innappropriate choice.
the EU force, both the EUBG's and the fabled EU RRF are seen as less politically contentious, not just because they don't have US involvement and have much less UK involvement - but precicely because they are seen to generate less force than NATO.
the current EUBG deployment to Chad could only take place under an EU banner, a NATO force would be politically unacceptable and therefore wouldn't get the job done.
select the right tool for each job, if a hammer is all you've got then not only will all your problems begin to look like nails, but you'll make a right fcuking mess of those bolts.
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
I agree that certain ops NATO (with US involvement) just will not do; mostly anything that deals with Africa. The French seem happy with that arrangement, and so do the Americans. But as glyn says there needs to be some shaking up. The alliance could become too large with more expansion, and then you could have even more divergent missions--like in the case of Iraq. Some NATO allies saw the need to remove Saddam, others did not, etc.
At the same time though we are "shaking up" NATO if the EU does develop a more comprehensive collective defense arrangement under the auspices of the ESDP, would not their natural inclination be to move away from NATO and the US? As of now the two seem to co-exist okay since they are dealing with different operational areas, but in the future if the ESDP continues to do well what would really stop the EU from formulating its own security appartus apart from NATO? Or is it inconceivable to think that Europe could exist and defend itself without help from the US?
"Or is it inconceivable to think that Europe could exist and defend itself without help from the US?"
What part of a two-thousand plus year European history prior to 1945 assures you that Europe can defend itself from itself? What element of our commitment to sustaining Europe's peace (and the economic system built upon that peace) since 1945 hasn't worked such that you'd recommend the separation of Europe's security framework from America?
I think that you miss the central point of America's role in Europe after a two-thousand plus year history of unabashedly knocking the smithereens out of each other and screwing with the rest of mankind in the process. I offer World Wars I & II as the most recent evidence of this unfortunate condition.
It's far less to do with defending Europe from external threats as those that seem to persistantly reside within. I won't argue that Europe's security remain umbilically attached to America but if they wish us to leave and we have to come back a THIRD time...
Well, waste them all and salt the earth.)
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Question is will you boys turn up late a third time?I won't argue that Europe's security remain umbilically attached to America but if they wish us to leave and we have to come back a THIRD time...
Well, waste them all and salt the earth.
Punctuality is the politeness of kings.
"Question is will you boys turn up late a third time?"
No. That's not the question. We've no obligation to show up at all if and until your unfortunate predilection for mass mutual slaughter becomes our problem. The QUESTION is do you wish to send us away such that those conditions can arise yet again as they seemingly have done for perpetuity?
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it's in Europe's best interest to maintain close ties with America. Punctuality or otherwise, when we weighed in, the tide turned irrevocably in favor of one against the other. Since doing so the last time we've remained and fashioned a security framework that's visibly altered and lifted Europe into a totally new era of prosperity. Had we climbed on our boats and departed never to return, you'd STILL be digging yourselves out from underneath the rubbleheap.
"Punctuality is the politeness of kings."
Perhaps. I've also heard that pre-emption is the prerogative of kings.
Last edited by S2; 13 Mar 08, at 17:33.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
IMO its inevitable the day is coming where Europe will strengthen and we will rely less on the US, NATO is just not cutting it anymore, to much bureaucracy, GB and the US will always have strong ties, but we have to whatever our thoughts about the EU, we have to strengthen Europe so we are not beholden anymore to the US. GB will always be the voice of reason with the rest of Europe regarding the US, our ties are to great to break totally.
FEAR NAUGHT
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
Always thought you were above being sucked in by such small minded comments,.............and your response will not promote rational discusion on such an important topic.................. yes I know I have a shorter fuze than you
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
Sergeant-Major,
My vehemence underscores that Canadians, South Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans, Kiwis, and Aussies all have had to make the trip twice to Europe in the last ninety years. Oh, and Morroccans, Senegalese, Vietnamese, Algerians, etc. My grandfather fought at Meuse-Argonne. Three uncles fought in W.W.II. My father served three tours between 1945-1965 in Europe in the Cav. This besides an asian diversion of his talents in 1950. He knew Fulda VERY well. I served as an artillery officer who's unit's primary mission was REFORGER and have stared at maps of the German countryside until my eyes were crossed.
Bluntly, I'm not wrong. Half the damn world has fought in Europe during the last century. Most had no choice in the matter. A clear demarcation exists at 1945. In spite of the threat of the Soviet Union and despite 2000 years of unremitting slaughter prior to that date, peace has held in Europe. Maybe it's SHEER COINCIDENCE, Sergeant-Major, that in that same period America has been heavily invested in Europe's defense and re-construction. I realize that the trend-line is not long but that's not our fault. It is, however, unequivocably different and better with us than without.
Sergeant-Major, I'm passionately committed to defending Europe against herself. Nothing else secures world peace as clearly as our presence in Europe.
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Your passion does you credit S-2. I am afraid this site is not big enough for me to do a roll call of my family members who have served in all the places you mentioned alongside and against at times all the people you mentioned going back a long time before the USA even came into existence, I to served all through the cold war(amongst many other things) and full well know all about REFORGER etc etc, the point I am trying to make is, no one is denying, well I am not, the contribution the USA has made to the stability of world peace, but lets not forget they did not do it entirley alone, yes the biggest cog in the wheel maybe, but you know being from a country that was an Empire, and knowing that nothing lasts forever. Never forget the world is in constant change even now, and maybe its time the US started to admit, that it is struggling a bit like the rest to maintain the momentum, and all the while others are re grouping and restructuring, nothing is guarenteed especially "being top dog"...........There will come a time when you will have to ask for some friendly help not demand it................It can be quite humbling.
Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 13 Mar 08, at 20:13. Reason: Addition.
Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: