Wretchard at the BelmontClub points out a number of interesting things about the proposed European Security Strategy as outlined by the Barcelona Report.
I’m afraid I don’t have time to comment on all of them right now, but I note two things. First, its purpose:
Over the last few years, the European Union has been developing a common security policy. In December 2003, the European Council agreed a European Security Strategy (ESS), which advocates preventive engagement and effective multilateralism. This report is about implementation of the ESS. It argues that Europe needs the capability to make a more active contribution to global security. It needs military forces but military forces need to be configured and used in new ways. The report focuses on regional conflicts and failed states, which are the source of new global threats including terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and organised crime.
Sounds good.
Second, implementation:
The report advocates 15,000 troops. That’s it. Just 15,000 troops. Oh, and coordination with Non-government Agencies. As if that doesn’t already happen.
Sheesh, why bother. Sadr could probably raise almost as many troops himself.
1. This isn’t about armies. The EU simply doesn’t have the power to create a large army. Can you really see the French giving someone else power over large numbers of troops? Or, the British, for that matter? There’s no way we’d do it. The EU has at most 60,000 troops available to it, from Europe’s 1.8 million under arms, under the Headline Goal agreed at Helsinki in December 2001.
2. The proposal is for a model for a force to be deployed in small-scale, specialist operations. The report specifically states the force is not for classic military use. Furthermore the report states that the force, if successful, could be increased in size.
3. The report is speculative. It is also contingent upon the ratification and approval of the European Constitution, which is in looking unlikely in the United Kingdom and also, my French cousins tell me, is very unpopular in France.
Let me put this question to you – from your posts, a strong anti-EU feeling comes across. I may be wrong, but that’s a very strong sense I get. Would you rather the EU had control over larger numbers of troops, or would you rather, as is the case at present, they do not, and that member states decide what numbers to send anywhere?
Mr Casey,
i agree with you. As the various reactions to the irak war showed, it seems difficult to imagine a real EU army rigth now. would the Eu have sent troops despite opposition from some of its members? On the opposite would britain have accepted the fact that some of their best troops (if the goal is to have a specialist EU troop) couldn’t be deployed in Irak as they were kept in the Eu army?
i think the current situation is imperfect (absence oif coordination or common equipment, still too many duplication of R&D efforts…) but at least some member states can react quickly if need be which wouldn’t be the case of the EU.
Sebastian: Did you read the report?
“The report specifically states the force is not for classic military use. Furthermore the report states that the force, if successful, could be increased in size.”
I’m not asking for classic military use. I’m asking for post-invasion or post-classic-military use. And 15,000 is still practically nothing on that scale. And I’m really trying not chuckle at the idea the phrasing of ‘it could be increased’. You don’t even say ‘significantly increased’, you don’t even say ‘likely increase’. Of course it ‘could’. Russia ‘could’ turn into the political equivalent of Holland in two years. Iran ‘could’ become a Jewish country if everyone converted. Wee aren’t talking about logical impossibility here, we are talking about political reality. The political reality is that Europe, both through the EU as a unit and as expressed through most of its member states, is unwilling to deal with world security threats beyond their borders except through chat-style diplomatic meetings. The European interest in post-invasion Afghanistan is demonstrative. Very small commitment of troops immediately after the invasion. Strenuous resistance against miniscule troop increases later. Pretending that the miniscule troop increase later is a major commitment even though it is for a very limited time (purely to secure elections). They aren’t generally useful during the initial military engagement (i.e. totally reliant on US air power, US transport, US logisitics) and claim to be specialists at ‘rebuilding’. But refuse to do that in Afghanistan–the allegedly clear case in the war on terrorism.
“Would you rather the EU had control over larger numbers of troops, or would you rather, as is the case at present, they do not, and that member states decide what numbers to send anywhere?”
I would rather, since the EU AND its member states do not want to contribute militarily, that they be far less obstructive when the US has to.
I’m not asking for the politically impossible–a real military contribution from Europe. I’m asking for them to treat us with the same diplomatic courtesy they give dictators on a regular basis.
Jadegold, yes I read the report. I intend to give a more complete run-down of it later. Did you have point?
Sebastian: I’m not certain you understood what was being proposed. As James Casey noted above, this proposal is not for a traditional military force.
I can tell you the Pentagon is kicking around the idea of a similar organization–not as a substitute or replacement for our traditional armed services–as part of ongoing RMA efforts. And the initial force size of various proposals vary from as few as 5000 to 25000.
If they have no plans for invading and occupying, … it sounds like Special Ops…”leaner and meaner on the cheap?” and all that.
Sebastian – basically, what Jadegold and Haven said, except for a couple of points:
I’m not asking for classic military use. I’m asking for post-invasion or post-classic-military use.
Well, you’re sort of implying it, at least inadvertently, by mentioning Sadr – how else were we meant to take that reference?
And I’m really trying not chuckle at the idea the phrasing of ‘it could be increased’. You don’t even say ‘significantly increased’, you don’t even say ‘likely increase’.
Sebastian, are you responding before reading the whole post? Because I went on to point out the report is speculative, and say when. Hence ‘could’.
I would rather, since the EU AND its member states do not want to contribute militarily, that they be far less obstructive when the US has to.
Well at least I have cleared up, so far as I can be sure, whether you’re anti-EU or anti-European.
I’m not asking for the politically impossible–a real military contribution from Europe. I’m asking for them to treat us with the same diplomatic courtesy they give dictators on a regular basis.
Let’s – and I cannot stress this strongly enough – let’s not even get into a comparison of which country supports which dictators, Sebastian, you know? Now, and in the past. Not only does it go heavily towards violating posting rules, as I understand them, I don’t think either your country or mine is on entirely firm ground. In the past or now.
Addendum/Erratum:
My 2nd para: By mentioning Sadr you are implying it, inadvertently at least, a usage for the proposed force that is at odds with the reasons for said proposed force’s proposal.
My 3rd para: Are you responding before reading the whole post? Because I went on to point out the report is speculative, and say why. Hence ‘could’.
3rd and 4th stand.
Now I need to add an erratum for that post. I could learn to preview, but why cramp a winning style, I figure?
Some things are speculative like “I could have Chinese food tomorrow”. Some things are speculative like, “I could win the lotto tomorrow”. On the continuum, speculation about useful increases of European troops is much closer to the latter.