Time for a European army?

[kebabking]

Hmmm, the UK has such a good record of nation building abroad, doesn't it?
A little humility is required here, I think.

actually you'd be wrong on that. the important fcuk-ups in Iraq have been, in the main, political in nature, directly attributal to to the Cheney/Rumsfeld clique in Washington - who openly declare they have no interest in Nation Building, and directly contrary to both US and UK military doctrine.

unfortunately they happened to have more influence over the shaved chimp than others with a more nuanced view.

 

[likesfish]

for fucks sakes littlebabyjesus african military's are mostly a joke although I believe the Jordanian army hold the award for most useless peace keeping force ever having had its unit accused of sexually abusing a goat in east timour (ever 3 para mortar platoon has'nt tried that )

 

[littlebabyjesus]

actually you'd be wrong on that. the important fcuk-ups in Iraq have been, in the main, political in nature, directly attributal to to the Cheney/Rumsfeld clique in Washington - who openly declare they have no interest in Nation Building, and directly contrary to both US and UK military doctrine.

unfortunately they happened to have more influence over the shaved chimp than others with a more nuanced view.

I was thinking about the UK's role in establishing the country Iraq in the first place. The UK has an appalling record of creating countries and drawing borders with precious little regard for the ethnicities and loyalties of the people living there. Many millions of people have died as a result.

Mind you, you appear to be suggesting here that the fuck-up in Iraq isn't the fault of the British - all down to the Yanks. That won't wash with me when Blair is in the dock for war crimes (you never know, 20 years hence...).

 

[likesfish]

uk only had part control of a small part of iraq and so most of is the yanks fault
though there bit was screwed through penny pinching not nearly enough troops on the ground to provide basic secuirty

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This hand-wringing is extraordinary. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are in a complete mess, and somehow it's not the fault of one of the two main countries involoved?

Utter nonsense.

 

[kebabking]

This hand-wringing is extraordinary. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are in a complete mess, and somehow it's not the fault of one of the two main countries involoved?

Utter nonsense.

Afghanistan is only really in a mess because resources and attention were switched to Iraq.

Iraq's current troubles are directly attributable to the disbandment of the Iraqi state apparatus and Army. once that was done the situation was unrecoverable.

the UK had no say at all those decisions, its advice - and 'request' - were completely ignored. sadly thats part of the deal when you are a junior partner.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Afghanistan is only really in a mess because resources and attention were switched to Iraq.

Iraq's current troubles are directly attributable to the disbandment of the Iraqi state apparatus and Army. once that was done the situation was unrecoverable.

the UK had no say at all those decisions, its advice - and 'request' - were completely ignored. sadly thats part of the deal when you are a junior partner.

There is an alternative to being the junior partner of the US.

Be an equal partner in Europe. Or even (whisper it) step down from the world stage militarily altogether, admitting that history shows your efforts to be counterproductive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

.

Iraq's current troubles are directly attributable to the disbandment of the Iraqi state apparatus and Army. once that was done the situation was unrecoverable.

the UK had no say at all those decisions, its advice - and 'request' - were completely ignored. sadly thats part of the deal when you are a junior partner.

If they foresaw that this would be a disaster, why did they sign up to it in the first place? Is this not something you'd want agreed before you started an invasion? That they were not in charge in no way excuses them.

 

[kebabking]

If they foresaw that this would be a disaster, why did they sign up to it in the first place? Is this not something you'd want agreed before you started an invasion? That they were not in charge in no way excuses them.

if you can find the post where i describe Iraq as a good idea, either beforehand or afterwards, or where i say that Blair is not guilty of the most fundamental deriliction of duty - be that gross negligence or criminal recklessness - in not requiring a 'whats going to happen afterwards' plan handwritten in Cheney's blood before starting, or indeed not ordering a full withdrawl when that plan either didn't emerge or was completely ignored, then you go ahead and quote it.

those who foresaw this as a disaster were not listened to, indeed forced out of office, in the US, while in the UK they were noted, and then politely ignored while Blair prayed that Bush wouldn't listen to Cheney/Rumsfeld and would actually implement official US doctrine rather than go along with the product of the loony bin.

for that alone he should be castigated, as every UK source - diplomatic, military and intelligence - told him that Cheney/Rumsfeld were in charge and that official US doctriune wouldn't get a look in.

 

[gosub]

It was formed slightly earlier than I thought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force


however I'm not understanding the argument of British Armed Forces should merge with other nations due to the cited recent failures, which are ALL examples of British troops acting under a larger umbrella.

or the argument that creating armed forces to pursue policies not favoured by the US would save money, pretty much bancrupted USSR IIRC.


Didn't quite get whether thelittlebabyjesus wanted all humanitarian actions to be carried out by unarmed non combatants, but can assure you it is not feasible, New Orleans (whilst more an example of rumour mongering and dalliance showed that) That the dome was not the hotbed of rapists and murderers it was portrayed to be adds to the tragedy, but relief work is far more efficient in a secure environment. How secure is debatable - REME is progressing a lot projects in Afghanistan faster than the dam where a single RPG gets the civilian site foreman evac'd. The military is more than just "see the world and shoot at it" .

Bringing up ancient shortcoming's of the British Empire seems misplaced when advocating giving the EU super-nation a military dimenson (that it already has) . I start to grasp why ERRF was formed with scant regard for public debate, wrong though that was.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

who gets to decide what is a genuine threat - and what happens when this EU state makes an enormous fcuk-up of Iraq scale? do we go for some global authority, and when that fcuks-up we have some inter-stellar arrangement?

you are trying so hard to find a system that can't make a 'wrong' decision that you've missed the fact that a system so paralysed by inertia not only can't make a wrong decision, it can't make any decision.<snip>

I think you are making some assumptions there. I'm not convinced by the argument that the EU would be any better, as I'd hoped was obvious from my previous post.

It's not clear to me that the having the potential for some cases of 'intertia' would, in fact, be worse than the potential for getting involved in stupid shit like Iraq.

Is it clear to you?

If so, how?

 

[dylanredefined]

The idea at the moment is the most difficult job the army does is general war.So it trains and equips for that.Everything else is considred easier wether that be what ever iraq is,peacekeeping/humanatarian missions.
If europe used one brand of tank /truck /gun the savings would be phenonemal though how you get europe to agree is beyond me.

 

[Dhimmi]

Within living memory of my mum and dad, virtually the whole of Europe was at war with each other. This is now inconceivable.

Several years ago it was inconceivable too, then the former Yugoslavia kicked off. The EU did nothing.

 

[dylanredefined]

They sent some observers who were unarmed and did nothing .Should have picked a side anyside would be better than what they did.

 

[kebabking]

I think you are making some assumptions there. I'm not convinced by the argument that the EU would be any better, as I'd hoped was obvious from my previous post.

It's not clear to me that the having the potential for some cases of 'intertia' would, in fact, be worse than the potential for getting involved in stupid shit like Iraq.

Is it clear to you?

If so, how?

failure to act is just as likely to lead to disaster as acting precipitously, and indeed foolishly.

actually i would go further, the order to reverse from a stupid idea can be executed quickly - we could get all UK troops out of Iraq in a week or so if the PM wished it. the consequences might not be overly attractive, but it could be done. enormous political damage has been done - not to mention whats happened to Iraq - but the 'where we are position' can be reversed. however, becomming embroiled in some treacle of a military/political formation with some of the most reticent nations in the Northern Hemisphere would involve tying onself to their level of expenditure and political commitment. discovering after 20 years of a low spending/low priority military that a new, aggressive global power is rising who may wish to take advantage of Europes lack of modern defence capability cannot however be countered.

Typhoon has taken 20+ years to get to operational status, the Astute SSN subs almost as long, Type 45 destroyers are similar, the new fleet carriers could be started tommorrow and won't be in service till 2014 at the minimum.

tie yourself to Belgium and Ireland (as, effectively, the lowest common denominators in terms of military spending) and you'll never be able to respond to new threats or catch up with current ones.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well yes, I do pretty clearly get idea that you don't want any decision process involving any part of the international community (unless you count the US of course, which is what you get if you let the UK PM decide the question apparently). What I don't understand it why you're bugging me about it when my question is different.

Please try to forget for a moment the EU or whatever and ask yourself the question, 'What would have to be the case to avoid stupid shit like Iraq?'

If you've got some issues with 'loss of sovereignty', well I would have thought you'd also have them about losing it to the US. If you've some issues with 'inertia' then perhaps what we need is some more correct criterion.

For me the guiding principle has to be acting in the interests of the average punter in the UK, not some posh boys in the City and still less the US.

 

[kebabking]

Well yes, I do pretty clearly get idea that you don't want any decision process involving any part of the international community (unless you count the US of course, which is what you get if you let the UK PM decide the question apparently). What I don't understand it why you're bugging me about it when my question is different.

Please try to forget for a moment the EU or whatever and ask yourself the question, 'What would have to be the case to avoid stupid shit like Iraq?'

If you've got some issues with 'loss of sovereignty', well I would have thought you'd also have them about losing it to the US. If you've some issues with 'inertia' then perhaps what we need is some more correct criterion.

For me the guiding principle has to be acting in the interests of the average punter in the UK, not some posh boys in the City and still less the US.

the most blindingly obvious answer to 'how to avoid mistakes?' which is the central premise of your requirement is not to have decision making in the hands of Humans.

assuming you aren't looking for Skynet (how ironic?) to take over all UK foriegn policy and defence policy functions and therefore remove the 'human error' element you have two options: firstly have no capability to do anything whatsoever outside the 12 mile territorial limit - so it doesn't matter what fuck-ups you make because they don't affect anyone else, or you could just have a rather more rigorous democracy to ensure that when decisions to go to war - or indeed not go to war - are made more thought is required to back up the logic of the solution being put forward.

by that i mean parliamentary commitees regularly talking to the bowels of the defence, intelligence and diplomatic services, rather than just the politically appointed heads of those services giving the scripted versions as given by their masters.

the irony of Iraq is that uptil then Blair's foriegn policy - given that its a barrel of snakes out of which little good will ever come - had been remarkable successfull, a few 'good' wars and climate change and poverty reduction well on the international agenda.

the cause of this mess isn't our relationship with the US or Europe, or the structure and capability of our military, its one mans judgement of another man. that is the failing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Didn't quite get whether thelittlebabyjesus wanted all humanitarian actions to be carried out by unarmed non combatants, but can assure you it is not feasible, New Orleans (whilst more an example of rumour mongering and dalliance showed that) That the dome was not the hotbed of rapists and murderers it was portrayed to be adds to the tragedy, but relief work is far more efficient in a secure environment. How secure is debatable - REME is progressing a lot projects in Afghanistan faster than the dam where a single RPG gets the civilian site foreman evac'd. The military is more than just "see the world and shoot at it" .
s.

The conclusion of most observers in New Orleans was exactly the opposite of yours - that sending in the army was completely the wrong thing to do, and showed up the contempt for the poor that the US state holds. Would you be saying the same thing if the population of, say, Harrogate were forced to evacuate?

 

[Dubversion]

actually, he might have point about Harrogate

 

[littlebabyjesus]

or the argument that creating armed forces to pursue policies not favoured by the US would save money, pretty much bancrupted USSR IIRC.


.

You are stuck in the British mindset that WE MUST DO SOMETHING. We are important and must stick our oar in where-ever we can, for the good of the natives. The Euro force I have in mind would not be used in pursuit of any policies.

Your phrasing is telling, I think. You seem to see constant war as now being the normal state of affairs. Have you bought the idea of the war on terror then? Does it not occur to you that the correct response to 9/11 was to treat this as a crime and use international policing to react to it. Ditto New Orleans and similar disasters - the correct response is civil, not military.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Your phrasing is telling, I think. You seem to see constant war as now being the normal state of affairs.

It's always been the normal state of affairs. At least for the last three/four generations of UK subjects.

The civilian infrastructure does not have the ability to deal with large scale disasters. The stretch isn't there. You could scale up the budget for them to deal with them, but even doing so they aren't optimised for rapid deployement, operating in enviroments where the infrastructure is gone, the level of physical force needed. Hell, to change the emergency services to do that you'd have to make a new organisation just like the army but with less firearms.

Be interesting to see a feasability analysis and probably a force for good, but it'll never happen on a large scale when there are armies that can do the job just as well already funded.

 

[kebabking]

The Euro force I have in mind would not be used in pursuit of any policies.

what, literally, would be the point of it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

what, literally, would be the point of it?

This is a very good question. Should countries maintain standing armies in order to pursue policies overseas? Said policies, as Bernie Gunther has pointed out, are always designed to further the interests of the rich elite, so where does your interest lie if you are not a part of that elite?

There are many countries in the world which do not maintain standing armies in order to pursue policies abroad. As I have said before, I think the world as a whole would be a better place if the UK became one of them. In some ways, the proposal to merge armies with those of friends is a sop to those who feel safer standing behind a man with a machine gun. Me, I'd stand well away from him, and I'd strongly urge my family and friends to do the same.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, we had quite any interesting hypothetical discussion a while back on what a purely defensive force might look like. That is, one designed only to prevent other countries from invading or coercing the UK. There were a few serving and former members of the armed forces who managed to keep a lid on their natural revulsion for such a concept and took part, VP for one, also Bob I think and Bigdavalad, who was very helpful.

We actually ended up with a rough sketch of what the composition of such forces might look like. I did have a quick dig around for the thread but can't remember what it was called. Roughly, the implication was to lose the power projection bits and re-arrange the rest of it around serving the interests of the average punter rather than UK business interests overseas.

As far as I can recall it went like this. Refocus the Royal Navy on subs and fast missile boats, plus some fisheries protection type ships. Refocus the RAF on defending our airspace. Reform the Army with I think one armoured, one mech division and one light division in support of a greatly expanded TA with a dual role something like the Swiss/Japanese defence forces, with a lot of bunkers, tunnels, pre-laid artillery etc in case any unpleasant visitors came calling, but with a much more developed capability for dealing with various kinds of civil / natural emergencies.

The point of disagreement was over the necessity or otherwise of retaining an armed intervention capability overseas. Pretty much the same point as this discussion. Almost (but not entirely) invariably, the serving or former members of the armed forces seemed to think that this capability was mandatory, but relatively few (still some though) of the civilians in the discussion agreed. 'What about the Falklands?' came up a few times I think.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

'What about the Falklands?' came up a few times I think.

A prerequisite would be the shedding of overseas possessions, which imo is long overdue in any case.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> you have two options: firstly have no capability to do anything whatsoever outside the 12 mile territorial limit - so it doesn't matter what fuck-ups you make because they don't affect anyone else, or you could just have a rather more rigorous democracy to ensure that when decisions to go to war - or indeed not go to war - are made more thought is required to back up the logic of the solution being put forward.

by that i mean parliamentary commitees regularly talking to the bowels of the defence, intelligence and diplomatic services, rather than just the politically appointed heads of those services giving the scripted versions as given by their masters.

the irony of Iraq is that uptil then Blair's foriegn policy - given that its a barrel of snakes out of which little good will ever come - had been remarkable successfull, a few 'good' wars and climate change and poverty reduction well on the international agenda.

the cause of this mess isn't our relationship with the US or Europe, or the structure and capability of our military, its one mans judgement of another man. that is the failing.

Well, leaving aside for the moment the purely defensive option, if you want to retain the capability to intervene in other countries, the problem is one of governance. Your suggestion about the parliamentary committees is an interesting one, but I think the last line of your post is the most telling. I'm not sure I agree that Iraq was a 'lone madman' scenario. It appears that the JIC was also involved in telling us the lies necessary to get this war on, which was the basis of my remarks earlier about the 'special relationship' having subverted some of the less accountable bits of our civil service, as well as the Blair and his circle.

The 'lone madman' thing is interesting though, I call it that because this discussion slighly reminds me of the Dunblane/Hungerford/gun-control discussions. If you're going to have a powerful tool for inflicting violence on strangers, how do you keep it out of the control of someone who turns out to have had at best very poor judgement and at worse may be a nutcase? Do you simply decide that having the tool potentially available to a maniac is more trouble than the tool itself is worth? Or do you say 'it's just an isolated incident' and try to strengthen the safeguards?

 

[gosub]

Wouldn't disagree, Bernie, but would point out Iraq was the first deployment sanctioned by Commons vote, and for some strange reason this has stopped MP's getting bolshie about what was done in their name. They voted in good faith on the basis of "evidence", that they were mislead should harden their resolve if anything. That there has only been one commons debate since the decision to go to war is plain wrong and that Blair didn't dain to attend that, is downright disgusting. I cannot see how under the old system Blair would have got away with it.



Curious as to where abouts on the political spectrum people advocating an isolationist I am alright jack stance would consider themselves.

 

[likesfish]

problem with the falklands is the islanders are quite happy more or less governing themselves what they don't want to exchange is HM government for argentine government can't really see a compelling argument why they should

 

[kebabking]

what they don't want to exchange is HM government for argentine government can't really see a compelling argument why they should

bb..but littlebabyjesus says they should, because it would make his life/more pleasant/cheaper/more politically acceptable, and thats compelling enough for me.

/deep sarcasm and piss-take of lunatic who thinks he's got the right to tell other people what government they should have/ off.

maybe the same applies to the Channel Islands, or the Scilly Isles, or the Isle of Wight....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

bb..but littlebabyjesus says they should, because it would make his life/more pleasant/cheaper/more politically acceptable, and thats compelling enough for me.

/deep sarcasm and piss-take of lunatic who thinks he's got the right to tell other people what government they should have/ off.

maybe the same applies to the Channel Islands, or the Scilly Isles, or the Isle of Wight....

this kind of pragmatic decision is made all the time. If you read a little history, you'll see that the UK more or less stole the Falklands back in the first half of the 19th century. This kind of ancient history may not interest you, but it does interest Argentines. The forced emigration of a couple of thousand people would be a relatively small price to pay for putting right a historical and geographical anomaly. It would also be much better treatment than the people of, say, Diego Garcia received.