| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Europe | ||
| US, German generals: European leaders 'lack political will' to improve military capabilities | ||
| 2005-10-12 | ||
| Two of Nato's most respected retired generals will on Wednesday issue a stinging indictment of European military capabilities, arguing that unless the continent pools its defence resources it may be unable to meet mounting security risks such as international terrorism. Gen Joseph Ralston, the retired US officer who headed Nato until 2003, and retired General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former chief of defence and head of Nato's military committee, argue that European leaders have âlacked the political willâ to improve military capabilities. âFailure to meaningfully improve Europe's collective defence capabilities in the coming years would have profoundly negative impacts on the ability of European countries to protect their interests, the viability of Nato as an alliance, and the ability of European countries to partner in any meaningful way with the US,â according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times.
The 97-page study, due to be presented on Wednesday to European Union and Nato leaders in Brussels, was a year in the making, involving consultation with former defence chiefs of almost all European powers, including the UK and France. The generals will brief European defence officials during the next two weeks and present their findings in Washington next month, in an effort to provoke action by Europe's politicians who have not delivered on past promises to Nato. The call for greater integration in European military research and procurement is likely to be controversial since France and Britain, in particular, have been at odds over the extent to which a pan-European defence agency should have a say over national budget priorities. Britain has resisted French calls for a more centralised procurement process. But the report argues that without a more co-ordinated approach, flat or declining defence spending by most European countries will make it impossible for militaries to execute stated security strategies, which include combating terrorism and the proliferation of unconventional weapons, and dealing with failing states.
âSome question whether further defence integration can occur among European nations which value their sovereignty and see the world from diverse perspectives,â the report finds. âAlthough this will be no small challenge, there really is no viable alternative. Staying the course is not an option indeed, it is a recipe for disaster.â The report calls on European powers to re-allocate defence spending so that 25 per cent of budgets are spent on research and acquiring new weapons, while no more than 40 per cent is spent on personnel. For smaller militaries unable to provide a wide-range of capabilities, it calls for increased specialisation that can make âhigh-value contributions to collective securityâ. The report says such shifts in budget and specialisation should be done in close co-ordination with Nato and the EU's new defence agency so that critical shortfalls which include a scarcity of transport aircraft, sophisticated command and control systems and special operations forces are met and duplication is limited. | ||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #16 HHHHhmmmmmmmmmmm, can FRANCE, whose Lefties and Radicals were historically the most pro-USSR/Soviet of all the Euros, be counted on to save democratic Europe from the Commies-for Fascism-for-Commmunism!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-10-13 00:01 |
| #15 Shouldn't this entry have the "Master of the Obvious" graphic appended to it? |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-12 21:46 |
#14 US, German generals: European leaders 'lack political will' to improve military capabilitiesHere, ltop, let me correct that for you: US, German generals: European leaders 'lack political will' Accuracy in reporting is so important. :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-10-12 18:56 |
| #13 Humphyle I am not referring to America invading French North Africa but at what happenned later, the "Darlan" episode could be understood (Darlan could do a lot more to help the Allies than teh Free French. (BTW Darlan, who was once deemed an arch-traitor was rehabilitated in the 60s by none other than De Gaulle) but well after his murder the Roosevelt administration kept trying to push in the front scene everyone who was hostile to De Gaulle even people as burned like George (who was the second in command during the 1940 campaign) or compromised with old regime. Patton could have been displeased about having behind him units commanded by those former collaborationists so loved by Roosevelt's people. Another hypothesis I didn't mention: the copy (in French) from the Blumenson book I had in hands was tampered by the translator |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-10-12 17:32 |
| #12 Most of the American senior command was Francophile before the war and, if not also before, became Anglophobic after working closely with the Brits in WWII. Amazing how the French have built on that base of goodwill. |
| Posted by: Ometh Hupaick9169 2005-10-12 16:55 |
| #11 JFM - Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Roosevelt invaded neutral French territories in North Africa. We were not in a declared war with France. In fact, diplomatic relations were open with Vichy till the 'surprise' attack occurred. |
| Posted by: Hupitle Omagum6244 2005-10-12 16:42 |
| #10 "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me," Patton. Probably apocryphal. In his book about Patton, Martin Blumenson who BTW, was in Patton's staff and was one of the main writers in the US Military official story about WWII, tells that Patton was quite a francophile, was unhappy the task of liberating Paris not being assigned to him and of his good relations with De Gaulle and Leclerc (who unlike other French generals was totally untainted of Vychism: he was wounded during the 1940 campaign, escaped from the german hospital where he was captive and went straight to England) Of course it is possible that Patton was talking about the Vichy French who opened fire on the disembarking Americans and that the Roosevelt administration kept on cajoling and trying to keep in power for nearly a year after Torch. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-10-12 16:22 |
| #9 Put a bullet in NATO's head and be done with it. It's a dirty little secret that most European countries still have a draft. If the USA even came close to anything like that, there'd be riots. But in Europe, being conscripted is evidently A-OK. |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-10-12 15:12 |
| #8 Now, what was the number of EU batallions in "Category 1"? |
| Posted by: Curt Simon 2005-10-12 13:36 |
| #7 That would be the final nail in the coffin for most EU socialist countries. I don't see any of those economies being able to support any kind of legitimate military. |
| Posted by: macofromoc 2005-10-12 13:00 |
| #6 You know, since old Europe could be conquered right now with a butter knife and a scowl, why is Turkey asking to be a member of the EU? Because Turkey's in even worse shape. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-10-12 12:48 |
| #5 What would they do with it after they got it? They'd have all those civilians asking for their pension payments. |
| Posted by: Pharong Angavinter5304 2005-10-12 12:33 |
| #4 You know, since old Europe could be conquered right now with a butter knife and a scowl, why is Turkey asking to be a member of the EU? Maybe they should just conquer it and move the European Parliament to Istanbul. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-10-12 12:26 |
| #3 "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me," Patton. NATO is, for the most part, a dead alliance. Cut most of Europe off and let them find their own path. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-10-12 11:48 |
| #2 Thank G*d for small favors. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-10-12 11:05 |
| #1 It's not just militray capabilities that "European leaders" lack the will to deal with. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-10-12 10:55 |