Skip to comments.A Euro-army is fantasy land. We need our American ally
Posted on 03/29/2008 6:17:18 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like pensions and insurance, defence is one of those subjects to which too many people only pay attention when things go wrong. You might think, in the light of the past decade, that this would have changed. But you would be sadly mistaken.
Even today, even after Iraq, few mainstream MPs without an immediate personal or constituency interest in the subject turn up in the Commons for defence debates. Many politicians who are thoughtful about a range of domestic issues still pass by on the other side when the conversation gravitates to the military. In this they reflect the British public's preference for a quiet life. But it means that debates on defence remain monopolised by the committed - those who have always championed the armed services uncritically on the one hand, and those who have always viewed them with reflexive distaste on the other. As a result, such debates rarely give any sort of sensible lead - and we are stuck with the worst-of-both-worlds policy that has been on display in Basra this week.
Nato, which has been at the heart of British defence policy for 59 years, is about to hold an extraordinarily difficult summit in Bucharest. Predictably, this fact has gone largely unnoticed except within these mutually dependent charmed circles. Nevertheless next week's meeting presents a succession of formidably divisive and important issues for the 26 Nato member states to grapple with. Thoughtful public opinion ought to grapple with them more seriously, too. Perhaps we would not have got to this difficult place if there had been more such grappling in the past - as well as better political leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
The gravest threat that the euros face lurks in the nearest mosque. NATO is helpless in the face of the kind of cowardice that smiles and calls itsself ‘tolerance.’
And those 75K troops stationed in Germany would be of better use in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Our entitlement systems are going belly up. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. And that doesn't include the current 17 cents of every federal dollar being spent on servicing the national debt. Defense is considered a "discretionary" expense.
Which is why Germany is being reduced to two US Brigades and why German stationed US Brigades have been rotating to Iraq just like the rest (EG 2SCR).
How does one apply for a job at NATO?
You had an excellent point...it just needed a little more pizazz ;-)
I think the days of us defending a Europe unwilling to defend it self should be ended. Just reading some of the responses at the end of this article tells me these bunch of mooching lemmings should be left to their own self imposed fate. Fifty years of sacrificing our wealth and lives of our sons have bought nothing but scorn and jealously. F%^k’em!!!!
Those 75,000 troops have been in Iraq and Afganistan. Many of them several times.
Hasn’t NATO outlived it’s usefulness? What purpose does it serve except to allow the European countries to cut their own defense spending and shift responsibility for their protection to us? The U.S. could easily withdraw from NATO without weakening our defense position in the slightest.
Agreed. Well said.
The Muslim situation in Europe brings to mind the early days of Hitler, in the sense that there must be some Europeans who are asking themselves if now would be a good time to take advantage of the high Euro and purchase that "vacation" place in the US; if only for their children (assuming they buck the trend and have children).
Any Freeper real estate agents notice activity from Europe?
I do believe you're onto something there... A lot of them go to Canada.
I for one, would like them to be brought home and "forward based" on the Mexican border.
The number of European socialists qua Marxists who have bought property in the San Francisco Bay Area would astound you.
Sad- my wife was born and later served in the Army on the Presidio of San Francisco. To see what has happened there is so very sad.
The problem is we would be throwing the baby out with teh dirty water.
NATO is not just France and Germany. Several countries in NATO that are pulling their weight would also be abandoned... (EG Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Poland,...)
No! The problem is we need to remove the baby from the basin and dispose of the filthy water and refill the basin with clean water. i.e. dump the moochers and let them fend for themselves and retain the true allies.
Did you all read the comments on the Guardian? I almost registered there (I came to my senses though) to tell them that the vast majority of Americans don’t care, or even notice, what they think about us. We just defend them out of some reflexive sentimentality. If they keep whining like geriatric relatives, they’ll get our attention and we’ll just say fine, take care of yourself, see ya. What they want more than anything is to be listened to, and we just don’t oblige them. :)
I think for Europe, and maybe America, there might be a return to the “good old days”, before the 19th and 20th Century phenomenon of the gigantic “industrial armies”.
That is, for 1500 years, more or less, the Europeans relied on mercenary armies for most of the “small stuff”. The advantages are that mercenary armies are much cheaper, aren’t as stressful to a nation, and can be used for uncomfortable missions where you would rather not use your regular army.
The last major mercenary army, the French Foreign Legion, still exists and is a reasonably good model if such armies were to be built today. But even they are far more professional a force than is needed in most cases.
They need to be “offshore”, to keep them out of domestic politics, and you want them commanded by people loyal to your nation, not “free lancers” for sale to the highest bidder.
In the case of Europe, or just Britain, or even America, mercenaries would for the most part, not “fight our fights”, which is one of the big objections to their use, but instead we could use them for things such as “peacekeeping” in unpleasant places like Bosnia and Darfur, for things like drug interdictions against narco gangs, and for humanitarian missions.
It is not really a dramatic move, if you think about companies like Blackwater. They already perform much of what we would want a mercenary force to do: act as bodyguards and as a security service, and generally perform jobs that would be wasteful of our soldiers’ time.
They carry light weapons, move by ground vehicle and helicopter, and if they need more logistical support, the regular military can give it to them.
Importantly, were the US, Britain or Europe to set up such an army, it could be garrisoned in the Caribbean, away from the anti-military leftists who hate, fear and would either try to outlaw, or misuse them. If they didn’t want to do a revolting task commanded by a Moonbat, they could not be compelled to.
It could be full of non-citizens, the best foreign soldiers from around the world, and the US would have no problem lending control to NATO officers or even the UN, wearing their silly light blue berets. Something US soldiers dislike intensely.
If the George W. Bush had such a force, he might have sent it to Darfur or Somalia, or even to Bosnia to relieve some of our forces there. Our fighting men do not deserve to be put in such miserable places, with less than clear missions and surrounded by hostile people. But sometimes it is morally right to send *someone* to do so.
And mercenaries cost just a fraction of what one of our regular army units costs. So not only can we do what is right, we don’t have to waste our blood and treasure to do it.
Europe may no longer have the political will to create a standing industrial army, so they may have no other choice, though their bureaucrats would fiercely object, thinking themselves armchair generals happy to lead conscripts in their morning exercises. But once cruel reality intrudes into their fantasies, mercenaries are at least inexpensive.
The US, however, would keep its military as it is, just augmenting its abilities with mercenaries we could send to places we would prefer not to go ourselves.
As a final note, mercenaries also figure into economics, as corporations often need trained security personnel to protect themselves and their assets in unstable nations. This would keep these mercenaries employed in the “off season”.
Farewell former friends (though I doubt you will).
I sure wish we hadn't spent so much blood and fortune for your freedom!
I noticed that too, and was outraged.
If you haven't ever read the blog, "Gates of Vienna", I would refer you to that to see that a civil war is brewing in Europe and is likely less than five years off.
What will be the US response to that, especially when it includes the deportment of Muslims, and street fighting between Muslims and the native Europeans who will be protrayed as neo-Nazis in our MSM ?
What are they talking about? There’s 54 million muslim residents of Europe. That’s one hell of an Army.
Of course we could. However, then we would lose the legal cover for being the 300lb military gorilla that dominates the world with the other NATO members whose military we control under NATO, being our allies but really client states that do our bidding.
Just like the Warsaw Pact during the cold war that had many nations as members but only the most naive didn't realize that it was the Soviet Union that was the top dog and the others were client states and did its bidding.
You dont turn your back on your grandparents- even when they grow old and senile.
Does America Need A Foreign Legion?
America, always the innovator, would probably want a complex arrangement.
That is, a Blackwater type corporate organization, for their type missions; and a uniformed Foreign Legion, that could either be directed by the US or put under the operational control of friendly foreign forces, such as NATO or the UN.
But then a third group that would be an entirely humanitarian aid and relief mission—organized with foreigners but with logistics and operational direction from the US. This would be to insure that aid and relief went *only* to those it was supposed to go to, and not be squandered or stolen by corrupt local officials, a major problem today.
A little known fact is that for decades now, there has been no, zero, situation of extended famine *in the world* that *wasn’t* caused by a local government trying to starve a hated minority. Every single case is caused by a hateful local government. And this is why we need a “backed by arms” humanitarian mission.
But one that doesn’t cost as frightfully much as using conventional US military forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.