Occupation of Iraq -- Where Is Europe?

[DanS]

Even Tony Poodle won't.

Tony Blair doesn't need to. The UK consistently comes in at the 2.5% of economy figure anyway and spends its money well.

[muxec]

I told you before: Europe is in deep ass since 1920.

[HershOstropoler]

Ok, let me explain some basics to the clueless.

Could the EU have militarily stopped the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo? Of course. It would have just required mobilising the militaries as they were designed with a soviet invasion - about 5 million mobilisation strength, 12.000 tanks etc...

The impediments were political, as the armies were not and are not designed for low loss operations against third world opponents, and lacked the political and military command structures. An extra 200 billion $ won't change that. What we need to do can be done with the current 150-200 billion we spend.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
EU Armies: Build to defend Europe (against former 'Soviet Agression'
US Army: Mobile (to be sent to Europe )

Ahh Trolling is so easy once you get the Hang on it.

Since around 1992 Europeans have been talking about creating a more mobile offensive force with the transporting and heavy lifting capacity to allow them to project that force where ever it is needed. 11 years later it still hasn't materialized which is ok but it means by and large Europe will be unable to project force beyond it's borders effectively.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DanS
Even Tony Poodle won't.

Tony Blair doesn't need to. The UK consistently comes in at the 2.5% of economy figure anyway and spends its money well.

And France at 3 %. Germany, on the contrary, at 1.5 %. But spending levels are the last problem.

"Since around 1992 Europeans have been talking about creating a more mobile offensive force with the transporting and heavy lifting capacity to allow them to project that force where ever it is needed."

1992? More like 1997/8.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
as the armies were not and are not designed for low loss operations against third world opponents, and lacked the political and military command structures. An extra 200 billion $ won't change that. What we need to do can be done with the current 150-200 billion we spend.

Which show's Europe needs to invest more to transform it's armed forces to deal with todays threats and requirements. There's no Soviet Union to fight and the heavy armor is useless since you don't have the capacity to get it where it needs to go. That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on.

Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at. How many decades has the Eurofighter been being dickered over? Same with the Eurochopper. Both of these weapon systems will be obsolete before they even enter production because the EU can't get anything done because they can't seem to come up with the cash to fund the needed programs.

[HershOstropoler]

Oerdin:

"That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on."

Right.

"Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at."

Wrong.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Which show's Europe needs to invest more to transform it's armed forces to deal with todays threats and requirements. There's no Soviet Union to fight and the heavy armor is useless since you don't have the capacity to get it where it needs to go. That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on.

Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at. How many decades has the Eurofighter been being dickered over? Same with the Eurochopper. Both of these weapon systems will be obsolete before they even enter production because the EU can't get anything done because they can't seem to come up with the cash to fund the needed programs.

Neither heavy armour nor jet fighters are of utility in peacekeeping missions.

Annexation of the Middle East, of course they are. But here you are judging the needs of the Iraq occuptation with the needs of a full Congo annexation.

No political will in Europe for either.

[Pekka]

Where do you want it to be?

You can't talk about Europe as a whole to begin with. Or EU. There's no unity. You can only talk in nation level, which countries of Europe. And then you have to realize, that outside UK, France and Germany, sending troops to foreign countries is a bit difficult. Us, for example can't do that. It's about money for sure. And I'm sorry, but we can't come up with more money if there's a war between to foreign countries. That's the way it is, we have our cababilities and priorities. Militarily, our one and only priority is to secure our own borders. We don't have carriers because we don't need them, and it would block the sea . We don't have subs, because waters are too shallow. So, what do you want us to do for you?

Or what about other countries? It is so complex, that it is not that simple that you could just say 'they don't want to' and that's all there is to it.

We can talk all we want, but the fact remains it was still US vs. Iraq. Sure, most countries fell back to support the US, but they were still supporting, not initiating. There is a difference. And that contributes to facts that not many leaders are willing to suggest scraping the bottoms of the wallets, since most countries have other priorities. It could be little difficult for people to understand, I'm not sure, but we for example have other things coming first, and then if we have money and time, we can discuss about supporting, sending troops, that HAS to be in budget. Smaller countries can seriously damage themselves by getting themselves into something that consumes money, time and effort when there are no solid blueprints how things will play. Should they risk it? Why should they? US can handle it. Sure we should help as much as we can, but it doesn't mean we should skip the friday party because of it.

And I must add, even if it triggeres some people, that after this it's going to be a lot harder. Bush promised us too, not just the US citizens, but us too, the whole world, the UN, that there will be WMDs. This is important. Why should we keep sending money and troops, when we are not told what's going on? Honest mistake, maybe, but it doesn't really keep the hopes up, that the next time when Bush comes to ask for help and money, we'd be thrilled to know that there are WMDs etc in some country. So what if it was about other things too? Sure, but if there's lots of money involved, then it's not about that, it's about money.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help, not at all. I'm just trying to explain that it's not that simple. Blair, Chirac, Schroeder, none of this dudes speaks for whole Europe. They speak for their own countries.
I emphasize the point where I said, that we have other priorities too. In the US, it might seem that the most important thing is this and that, but every country has their own stuff. And even if it seems foolish that other countries think they have something more important to do and spend their money on, it's a fact. And as long as we are not truly unified, any military operation together, as Europe, is impossible.

Everyone here thinks they're the hot stars, egos are too big, everyone thinks they're the Europe, but it's not true. We are just bunch of countries that happens to be in same continent and that's pretty much about it. Militarily we are crippled to act as one as of now and long in to the future. But many of us can defend ourselves, and that's the most important and only military function we have.

Many of us thinks, that it was Americas own mess. But even so many of us at the same time thinks, that it was justified. So we show support, but why should we start pumping the goodies since we would like to have them also? Lowering the standard of living is out of the question, why should we get poorer for it?

I know, long post, maybe little provocating, but the point of this whole post was to suggest that there are other things that should be taken into consideration.

[Ecthy]

Where is Europe?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Oerdin:

"That means investment into smaller lighter forces and into heavy lift capacity is what Europe should be spending it's money on."

Right.

"Of course designing new equipment is an area where Europe is absolutely horrible at."

Wrong.

Please explain why nearly all the joint weapon systems the EU puts out takes a decade longer then just about everyone else. Since the EU is unable to come up and impliment competetive designs in a timely fashion will you at least conceed that this is a major deficiency?

[Pekka]

Ups, most of my points were about sending real combat troops. I still say that we don't have all the money in the world. Some countries has to use volunteers. In here, no one can be forced to do peacekeeping in the military. And still there are applicants many more times than spots. If you give us more money though, I bet we send more too. So how about those dollars?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Please explain why nearly all the joint weapon systems the EU puts out takes a decade longer then just about everyone else. Since the EU is unable to come up and impliment competetive designs in a timely fashion will you at least conceed that this is a major deficiency?

Well, one part of it is getting the design right in the first place, rather than rushing the order and then claiming lots more tax dollars to correct the "unforeseen problem".

Another part is that the in-service date is meant to co-incide with the retirement date of the equipment it replaces. This rarely goes to plan... but it's a bit smarter and MUCH MORE COST EFFECITVE than a never-ending arms race, keeping military equipment at the cutting edge of technology

NOT, I would hasten to add, that there isn't a lot of fat on the Euro-this and that projects....

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Neither heavy armour nor jet fighters are of utility in peacekeeping missions.

Annexation of the Middle East, of course they are. But here you are judging the needs of the Iraq occuptation with the needs of a full Congo annexation.

No political will in Europe for either.

Cruddy: You're missing my point. Europe has plenty of Armor and a fair amount of fighter planes but they don't have the ships and tranport planes needed to send large amounts of these forces rapidly to deal with emerging regional threats like Bosnia or Kosovo. It simply can't get enough of the right kinds of forces to where they need to be fast enough to be effective. To do this Europe will have to fund several new projects so it can build up it's capabilities and deal with these situations without always having to ask Washington for help everytime something comes up.

[DanS]

Ups, most of my points were about sending real combat troops.

Yeh, I was going to lump you in with GePap and Hershell. Bad company, for sure.

I still say that we don't have all the money in the world.

That's true. But realize that US policy makers have been jawboning Europe to increase military spending to 2.5% of their economies for the last couple of years. My conclusion from the facts laid out in the article is that they should save their breath and write-off Europe as military allies (besides the UK and at times France).

Further, the US should develop better capabilities to occupy/peacekeep. Europe isn't going to do it, contrary to what some policy makers here believe. We should get real, and not fall into the trap of trying to have others be the benign face of an occupation/peacekeeping force after we have done the asskicking.