RSS

Thu, Feb 23rd 2012, 22:24

Oliver Hauss, -, Platinum Contributor (348)

The opposite is true. The operation in Lybia has revealed that no increase of the defense budgets whatsoever would help security the least bit. We cannot be left with a Europe incapable of defending its strategic interests outside its borders, because we have failed to define what these strategic interests are at all. We're confusing non-interests, ideas how things should NOT be, with having strategic interests. The focussing on military means and defense budgets in the context of strategic interests is precisely the though process that has reduced Afghanistan and Iraq into swamps of violence and threaten to do the same with Libya. What is needed is a clear concept as to what our strategic interests are and plans as to how to achieve them. Somewhere into these plans, military means will have to figure. But to identify the pursuit of strategic interests with defense budgets and military strength is a recipe for complete and unmitigated disaster and a propagation of things definitely not in our strategic interest, namely failed states across the planet.

The notion that strategic interests are within the military domain is a fallacy. They are political goals, to be achieved by the means of policy, one of which is military policy. Propagating concern for military budgets in this manner is running up and down a cronstruction side telling everyone, from the welder to the bricklayer "What are you doing? You should be using a hammer!" A hammer is a great tool - for its specific tasks. If I believe everything needs to be done with a hammer, however, I'm more likely breaking more than I'm fixing.

Sat, Feb 25th 2012, 00:57

Johannes Steger, Università di Bologna, Bronze Contributor (18)

The Suez crisis of 1956, at the latest, confirmed that even to project power over the Mediterranean Sea became a non-option, in case the superpowers would decline.
Henry Kissinger remarked in 1973 that “the United States has global interests and responsibilities. Our European allies have regional interests”. The Europeans had to acknowledge grudgingly: they have global interests too, but, as like as in economics effective demand triggers production, in international politics only interests backed by sufficient capabilities will have an impact (Aron, 1962).
Without political unity and common strategic interests, every ambitious defence project for Europe is doomed to fail. To add up national armies is not of much help, neither will be the pooling of capabilities. Libya has shown not only the deficiencies in European defence, but also their contrasting interests on foreign policy issues. To attack Libya was definitely not in Italy's interest and the Italians would never have agreed to a French led mission, if not under the NATO-framework. Germany refused to participate at all.
To introduce the Euro without a true economic government may be a way forward to deepen European integration. However, the effects of the financial crisis should warn us to try the same in military affairs. A “hammer” in schizophrenic hands might not be a good idea, as Oliver Hauss pointed out above.

Wed, Feb 29th 2012, 16:42

Gökhan Tekir, Bilkent University, Gold Contributor (101)

Until the latest financial crisis European Union achieved its economic strength by the security environment provided by NATO. The leading contributor to NATO has been the USA in terms of both militarily and financially. While the USA assumed the burden of security, Europe was able to devote its resources to welfare state projects. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Europe could extend its border to Eastern Europe and Baltic states. In a peaceful world in which the dominant power is determined by its economic power instead of military power, Europe could assert a leadership position.
The 9/11 events highlighted the importance of security for the states again. European Union was not prepared to deal with this concern effectively because it got used to handle issues in a gentle way by negotiation and compromise. However, 'war on terror' concept gave emphasis on preemptive war and unilateral use of force. Starting from Iraq War, European Union countries started to be divided in military issues. The old feud between continental Europe and Britain resurfaced. The financial crisis deepened the conflicts that existed before.
Libyan case proved that the states in European Union cared much about their relative gains over absolute gain. The differences of strategic priorities of nation-states became sharper. France is following a policy, which reinforces its position in the Mediterranean basin. Germany is approaching towards Russia for energy issues. Britain tries to maintain its special relationship with the USA. Other countries in Europe is merely trying to survive.
The notion that should be questioned is what common 'Europe' means. The countries see the cooperation in economici transportation, or human rights issues might be beneficial for Europe. But the defense policy is not an element of a supranational Europe body.

Fri, Apr 6th 2012, 01:53

Veronika Valdova, Independent researcher, (8)

This is sad but true. Yesterday I attended a discussion at the American Center in Prague on U.S. Defense strategy: http://www.americkecentrum.cz/node/897
The first thing which inevitably came out of this was the fact that EU should become a provider of security rather than net recipient; EU countries should increase their defense budgets; article 5 of the Washington Treaty is here to “save us all should something unexpected happen, even though we only have friends and there are no potential adversaries around”; and that Americans are reorienting towards Pacific and pay less attention to Europe.

The fact that during the conflict with Libya several EU countries effectively run out of ammunition was “seen as a positive as it demonstrated genuine effort to participate”. Then the discussion slipped into wondering how much more money have to be thrown on defense to keep up with real life and improve the EU : USA ratio from current 25%:75% like if money was the only thing that matters. Demographic development in EU causes effect popularly known as “too many Chiefs and not enough Indians”.

27 "bonsai armies" are a direct consequence of the fact that there is no common security strategy adopted within the EU and every member state has got their own. Like if invasion or direct military attack was the only security concern. Energy security, disastrous demographic development, and crumbling Euro zone are security concerns but are not discussed at EU level at all. There is much more into security than only the total strength of military assets of individual member states. This is something what I would would expect at EU level: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/dhs-strategic-plan-fy-2012-2016.pdf

Lack of internal cohesion of the EU resembles situation during the Vietnam war over which EU split politically and which eventually caused ”re-adjustment of NATO” following secession of France: Chapter XIV – NATO Readjustment http://history.defense.gov/resources/OSDSeries_Vol6.pdf

The fact that USA is withdrawing part of their forces from Germany will hopefully force EU to rely more on its own capabilities.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubI...