Is the Creation of an EU Military a Good thing?

[Kutnupe14]

EU nations must step up their military co-operation as they cannot simply rely on the US to defend them, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker says.
"Our deference to Nato can no longer be used as a convenient alibi to argue against greater European efforts.
"We have no other choice than to defend our own interests in the Middle East, in climate change, in our trade agreements," he said in Prague.

Juncker: EU needs stronger defence arm - BBC News

I'm torn on this idea, as this would a quite capable force. One one hand it would relieve US obligations to Europe (which is good), but would possibly become a future competitor. The thought of the EU having a standing army, rather that the respective member states has the the potential to be either really good, or really, really bad (noting who the most powerful members would most likely be).

 

[raptrbreth]

I wonder if this does not create a new competition, i.e. The Cold War.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

My gut reaction is to lean towards thinking this is a good thing. My cynical side: I doubt their citizens will want to give up too much in the way of government goodies to go on a spending spree for aircraft carriers and multi billion dollar stealth bombers though...so in the long run, I don't expect much to change (other than organization and reporting structure).

 

[actaeon277]

Well, they already have individual armies.
And while some of them have some pretty capable units, they are often hamstrung by senior leadership, and politicians.

 

[KellyinAvon]

My gut reaction is to lean towards thinking this is a good thing. My cynical side: I doubt their citizens will want to give up too much in the way of government goodies to go on a spending spree for aircraft carriers and multi billion dollar stealth bombers though...so in the long run, I don't expect much to change (other than organization and reporting structure).

And that is YUGE!! From an organize, train and equip standpoint this will be a complete and total disaster. On top of that the EU is an economic coalition. There are a lot of Geneva Conventions issues with lawful combatants having a reporting chain to a State. NATO is a coalition. Tactical Control (TACON) will be with a component commander that may be in a different uniform but Administrative Control (ADCON) stays with the country's forces.

Ok, I've been retired 10 years, this stuff is getting harder to find in my head.

 

[Dddrees]

I guess this is but one of a number of potential consequences of a Trump Doctrine.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I guess this is but one of a number of potential consequences of a Trump Doctrine.

Please elaborate.

 

[Dddrees]

Please elaborate.

The Trump Doctrine to this point has been incoherent and extremely confusing depending on who has been speaking whether it's someone for the Administration or the President himself. After his visit oversees it was very apparent that our Allies determined they had better start preparing to no longer depend on the US. It was very apparent that a good number of people on this forum where in support of that idea. So if our Allies are under the belief they can no longer count on us they will certainly do those things on their own that is in their best interest.

So for those who believed it is in the US's best interest to distance ourselves from NATO don't be surprised when those countries in NATO make choices which maybe in their interest but have nothing to do with our interest.

 

[jamil]

If the EU were what it was originally advertised to be, having a combined military force would be good. Because of what the EU turned out to be, it would likely be used to further the whims of unelected leftist bureaucrats.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm sure Herr Juncker's endgame is for the individual nations to cease having standing military forces and for them to simply provide the manpower and other resources to the almighty EU. Then they would be under his, or some other like-minded leftist twit's, control. When he mentions climate change as justification for a standing EU military that should give pause to everyone.

 

[Brad69]

I still fail to understand why any American would want to pay for defending Europeans. The EU is one messed up organization it passes some of the dumbest laws ever.

bananas can not be "bendy"

water does not not prevent dehydration

We as Americans have created more in 250 years than the Europeans have in 1000 years. The EU Defense force would have so much red tape it would never be an effective force. The Europeans are accustomed to you paying for there defense. They can afford all the welfare programs due to not having to build aircraft carriers or contribute to requirements of the NATO agreement.

Why do Americans believe all Europeans are Your friends and have the same goal?

 

[KellyinAvon]

The Trump Doctrine to this point has been incoherent and extremely confusing depending on who has been speaking whether it's someone for the Administration or the President himself. After his visit oversees it was very apparent that our Allies determined they had better start preparing to no longer depend on the US. It was very apparent that a good number of people on this forum where in support of that idea. So if our Allies are under the belief they can no longer count on us they will certainly do those things on their own that is in their best interest.

So for those who believed it is in the US's best interest to distance ourselves from NATO don't be surprised when those countries in NATO make choices which maybe in their interest but have nothing to do with our interest.

Opposed to leading from behind and canceling defensive missile programs in NATO countries? NATO has stood for either "Nothing After Two O'clock" or "North America Takes Over" for a long time.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I want to see Poland and it's Eastern friends accept a Nazarmy.

 

[Spear Dane]

Not only is it not a good thing the entire EU is not and never has been in our best interests and sometimes I don't think it's in THEIR best interests either.

 

[BugI02]

I voted yes, because I think it would be good for us. I have no doubt that Germany would seek to be the dominant force in this area; as it seeks to dominate the EU economically and through that, politically.

I think that Frau Merkel will find her EU compatriots just as unwilling to foot the bill for Germany's military as we were. I believe the effort will fail spectacularly and either contribute to the dissolution of the EU or open its politicians eyes to reality the next time they sit across the table to discuss that 2% with the US

Free ride culture will end here and abroad one way or the other; it's just a matter of gripping the controls and trying for a dead-stick landing or clutching our pearls and waiting for the crash

 

[Dddrees]

Opposed to leading from behind and canceling defensive missile programs in NATO countries? NATO has stood for either "Nothing After Two O'clock" or "North America Takes Over" for a long time.

Whether you feel NATO serves our best interest or not wasn't my point. The fact that it appears our Allies believe they can no longer count on us is. Once it appears that our interest is greatly different than theirs they'll start doing what they believe works best for them. At times because we may no longer have such a great alliance they may make even bigger decisions which may even be more at odds with our interest, it's only when you have a closer alliance do you stand a better chance of influencing others without some show of force Sure sometimes you can even influence your worst enemy but generally speaking this requires more work and generally this is through some show of force or the fact you have some kind of upper hand of some sort.

 

[Twangbanger]

I punched "Undecided," because asking if it's good depends on the qualifier..."for whom?" (In deference to the anti-Trump sentiments of the OP, I elected not to follow the usual procedure of automatically assuming "good" should be determined based on US interests).

For the U.S., it's probably good in that it will provide an unassailable political rationale for us to stop supporting Europe militarily, and, as a minor consideration, since any procurement protocols will likely be of epic bureaucratic complexity, US defense firms will be well-positioned to make sales into such an organization. It gets us closer to what European Defense should have been to us for a long time: a customer we sell to, instead of a weak relative we support.

For Europe - probably bad, because it will further entrench the "not my responsibility" attitude of most European nations when it comes to actual defense. My cynical opinion is that the organization will need little more than transport boats, because it will spend most of its time scooping muslim refugees out of the Mediterranean and whisking them away to camps for disbursement to (and placement in) member countries. As such, it will become a device for the destruction of Europe more than the defense of it.

 

[Fargo]

Whether you feel NATO serves our best interest or not wasn't my point. The fact that it appears our Allies believe they can no longer count on us is. Once it appears that our interest is greatly different than theirs they'll start doing what they believe works best for them. At times because we may no longer have such a great alliance they may make even bigger decisions which may even be more at odds with our interest, it's only when you have a closer alliance do you stand a better chance of influencing others without some show of force Sure sometimes you can even influence your worst enemy but generally speaking this requires more work and generally this is through some show of force or the fact you have some kind of upper hand of some sort.

What have our European allies been counting on us for since the end of the Cold War? I see this as a pipe dream since most of the member states will just see this as another attempt at German domination of Europe.

 

[halfmileharry]

I have to say NO. Europe hasn't given many reasons to trust them. Lots of difference in the way some of them think compared to my reasoning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And that is YUGE!! From an organize, train and equip standpoint this will be a complete and total disaster. On top of that the EU is an economic coalition. There are a lot of Geneva Conventions issues with lawful combatants having a reporting chain to a State. NATO is a coalition. Tactical Control (TACON) will be with a component commander that may be in a different uniform but Administrative Control (ADCON) stays with the country's forces.

Ok, I've been retired 10 years, this stuff is getting harder to find in my head.

I'm not worried: