Does EU need Military Power?

[Drake Tungsten]

I find it hard to consider the United States a "hyperpower" when this little shindig in Iraq is soaking up a good deal of our current military capabilities.

We only seem like a "hyperpower" because everyone else is so weak...

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
We only seem like a "hyperpower" because everyone else is so weak...

[HershOstropoler]

Yes, the hyperpower has clearly demonstrated its hype against North Korea.

As for the EU, yes it needs military power, but not to stand up to the US. How and what for? Containment of the nuttier strains in US foreign policy has to rely on political means, military power plays a role in that but only in the background.

As for the current standing:

The Common Foreign Policy is not an exclusive Union competence. This simply means that if a common position is not agreed, member states make their own policy. The failure on Iraq is not a deathnail to it; there are loads of common positions and common actions going on.

But the way the thing operates at the moment, the logical way would have been to take the agreed "disarm Iraq with war as a last resort", but accept that the member states disagreed on how to achieve this and should hence take their own actions.

As for the military aspect:

The Common Reaction Force means that about 200k troops are in the EU military structure. The framework for this is based on the (informal) Council of Defense Ministers, the Political and Security Policy Committee (PSC) and the European Union Military Committee (EUMC).

The first test for this is Common Action 2003/92/CFSP, the EU taking over in Macedonia. I can further explain the technicalities if someone really, really, really wants to know.

The current strength of member states militaries is still something above 2 million. In the future we will see the two numbers (2 million/200k) approaching as troop nrs are reduced and the EU role expanded. Will take some time, and probably require some flexibility (we already have that with Denmark, for example).

[Seeker]

"The Common Reaction Force means that about 200k troops are in the 'EU military structure'.

The framework for this is based on the (informal) Council of Defense Ministers, the Political and Security Policy Committee (PSC) and the European Union Military Committee (EUMC)."

Does anyone else think the EU 'military structure' sounds so complex and unwieldy it's like the puchline to a joke?

I hope there is a plan for some kind of executive power with some teeth.

[HershOstropoler]

That's mostly the political structure, and that is not so different from nation states. The tasks for the Macedonia operation are quite clear.

Of course there's no simple commander-in-chief, but I'm not sure this makes so much difference in practice for limited conflicts.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I find it hard to consider the United States a "hyperpower" when this little shindig in Iraq is soaking up a good deal of our current military capabilities.

Its not exactly breaking a sweat though.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes, the EU needs its own military.

To defend it from the French.

[Spiffor]

pH43r the French military !

[BeBMan]

Yes, we need well equipped common military, and a common security/foreign policy, it is just that our leaders are too stupid to reach that...

[Sloth]

I tnink we need a common foreign policy....

[Proteus_MST]

I second Spiffors opinion that Europe needs a common Foreign Policy and a common european Army.

And yes, one of the reasons for me is also to have a counterpole to the USA. As your current Administration shows it is possible for America to have a President who doesn´t care about international treaties and UN-Resolutions but instead makes decisions which alienate most of his Allies.
I don´t like to think about what would happen if someday a President gets elected who is still a lot worse than George W. Bush.

I´d feel much safer if there would be a significant european Army so we don´t have to be too dependent on the US-Military or to protect Europe from the USA (if it really would be an Administration this worse)

[Dauphin]

Whilst I agree that a common European foreign policy and armed forces would be a good idea, I fail to see how it would prevent the US from acting unilaterally, as it has in Iraq.

Its not as if (even if all of Europe was united in opposition to future US actions) we would send our forces to oppose the US, or in anyway place miltary pressure on the US. As it stands its not as if we rely on the US for our protection either.

[General Ludd]

If a new superpower is created to counter the USA, it will be the one doing this in a few decades.

[CerberusIV]

What will probably change all this is the next jump in military technology. At present we are using developed versions of what has been around for the best part of a century - tanks, aircraft, submarines, even rifles. What we have now may be a lot better than 50 years ago but it isn't that different in principle.

Whatever the next technology is, particle weapons, orbital missile platforms, cybernetics or whatever doesn't really matter. What matters is that it will happen, it will be expensive and the EU countries will probably have to pool their resources to muster a credible force with a new technology and that means joint military control.

[Paul Hanson]

Exactly. Or, to be more precise, it needs to spend it's money more effectively. I once read somewhere that the EU collectively spends about 60% of what the US spends on it's military, but gets only 10% of the firepower.