EU army

[CBR]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

[Kagemusha]

kagemusha:

A EU army can only be possible if EU has the same foreign policy which would mean a stronger EU and I thought you were against that?

Right now EU countries are wasting lots of money when buying equipment so if it could be done in a centralised way that would be a good start.


CBR

I wasnt against stronger EU.I was against federal state of EU.
I wiew EU army like monetary Union.Our National armies doesnt anwer the purpose of novadays threads.I wouldnt object that if some country wouldnt like to be part of certain operation ,it coud deny their troops partipication in that operation.Like monetary union,our individual currencies were weak,the same thing could be sayd about our individual armies.The main benefit would be that it would both save both money and resources.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine

[Kagemusha]

You want to create a European Superstate? I hope it will fail, and it will fail. An EU army is a bad idea. You know why? Most of your armies suck already. Do you want to combine the suckage and bring the few good armies down (UK...er...that's all I can think of for the EU, Germany's is decent, but it's too small and weak. France's suck, they couldn't even beat the Ivory Coast. BeNeLux has an army?)?
The EU sucks. Just apply for American statehood, you'll be fine

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror.

[Marcellus]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

[Kagemusha]

I would not want all the armies of the EU contries merged together, due to the problems mentioned by others. I would, however, support creating a task force created from detatchments from each member's armies that could be used as part of an EU operation.

If we would create an European High command structure,we could do that.

[Al Khalifah]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

[Kagemusha]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

Then let them do so.How i see it the first priority of EU army would be to defend Europe.As i have stated before im not an federalist.I see EU army as an another opportunity to better work together.

[Ja'chyra]

Anyway, I'm sure that the EU isn't considered qualified to comment on military matters.

Kapo

If we could get a unified European superstate I would think it would be the premier superpower, but you were right the UK has the best military.

[Husar]

Additionally, the EU cannot agree on foreign policy. What would happen in the event of an issue like the Iraq war, where only some member nations want to commit troops?

A democratic vote of all member states? Do we like democracy now or don´t we?

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Capo.EU army has nothing to do Europe trying to create somekind of superstate from herself.It would be about Europe taking responsibility of its own self defence.It suprises me that American patrons doesnt like this idea.It would release more American resources to deploy to the Pacific theatre and for War against Terror.

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys.

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

[CBR]

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

We got the E but we're still looking for damn elusive U


CBR

[Redleg]

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys.

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Yes by all means let Europe defend itself - it will interesting to watch, and they might even get it right this time, after how many years of trying and failing in the accomplishment of defending themselves as a contientent?

[CBR]

I think this discussion is funny - especially given the lastest round of base closings that went around. The European Nations that have United States Military Bases were lobbying and playing politics as strong as any of the states that have military bases.

Well what are US troops doing in Europe anyway. I dont even see much use of them anymore now that the good old Cold War is history. I thought it would be easy for you guys to close the bases. Perhaps some airbases would be nice but that would be it?


CBR

[Redleg]

Well what are US troops doing in Europe anyway. I dont even see much use of them anymore now that the good old Cold War is history. I thought it would be easy for you guys to close the bases. Perhaps some airbases would be nice but that would be it?


CBR

It should be real easy to close them - but it isn't because of politics and international relations between the United States and host countries in Europe. Host country being the nation in which the base is.

http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/

While BRAC deals soley with closing and restructuring of bases in the United States and its terroritories (SP) - it decision making cycle is influnced by the
Global Force Posture Review.

An interesting speech that might give some insight into the politics of the situation.

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...ecdef1442.html

Good afternoon.

In 1961, President Kennedy took office and found a U.S. defense establishment that was still largely arranged to re-fight World War II. He ordered an extensive consolidation of bases to meet the challenges of the Cold War that was then flaring into a somewhat dangerous phase. Subsequent presidents have continued to refine U.S. military infrastructure as the threats to our country have evolved.

And today the Department of Defense again is in need of change and adjustment. Current arrangements pretty much designed for the Cold War must give way to the new demands of war against extremists and other evolving 21st century challenges.

At the direction of the president, and with the support of the Congress, this department has undertaken several initiatives to address our new circumstance, including, as you know, we've been:


Changing the U.S. Global Posture,
Forging new partnerships to fight extremism,
Transforming U.S. military to a more agile Joint Expeditionary Force,
And reforming the way the department does its business.
Tomorrow, at the direction of the Congress, the department will present another component of that strategy -- its recommendations to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission for changes to U.S. military installations. This is an important process. Consider the array of issues of concern to this department:

Making sure the troops have proper equipment,
Relieving stress on the force,
Improving the ability of the forces to cooperate jointly, and
Protecting forces stationed at vulnerable bases and locations across this country and around the world.
If one thinks about those priorities, it clearly makes sense to do all that one can to identify and remove whatever excess exists, to be able to better address those pressing needs, and by so doing, the American taxpayer benefits. This, in essence, is the logic -- and the imperative -- of BRAC.

Let me make a few comments about that process that has been undertaken over the past two and a half years:

First, as required by law, the primary factor in each BRAC recommendation has been an assessment of an installation's underlying military value. Indeed, military judgments have played the key role from the outset -- and properly so. In a time of war, whenever we can find ways to increase support for military needs -- to help the warfighters -- we should do no less.
Second, the previous four BRAC rounds, in 1998, (sic) [1988], 1991, 1993 and 1995 -- over time have eliminated some 21 percent of then- excess U.S. military infrastructure, and reallocated many billions of dollars to pressing military needs. This year's recommendation, if approved by the BRAC commission, approved by the president, and ultimately approved by the Congress of the United States, should result in some $5.5 billion in recurring annual savings -- a net savings of $48.8 billion over 20 years. When combined with the proposed changes to U.S. global posture, that projected 20-year net saving increases from $48.8 billion to $64.2 billion, or some $6.7 billion per year;
Third, for the first time, these deliberations took place with an emphasis on jointness. The military recognizes that operating jointly reduces overhead costs, improves efficiencies; and facilitates cooperative training, research and operations. Importantly, these consolidations also free up personnel and resources to reduce stress on the force and improve force protection. The department also considered potential contingency and surge requirements, and possible increases in active-duty troop levels.
The current BRAC effort began more than two years ago with the development of a 20-Year Force Structure Plan and an exhaustive top- to-bottom inventory of U.S. facilities worldwide. In fact, one might say that the process started even earlier -- with the global posture review that we began in 2001 -- now some four years ago. Indeed, the considerations related to global posture fed into the BRAC analysis -- allowing the department to anticipate and prepare for the return of tens of thousands of personnel and their families, and the knowledge gained by the two-year global posture review has informed the BRAC deliberations in important ways.

Through extensive consultation with the service secretaries, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, a panel of high-ranking military and civilian officials developed stringent criteria and conditions and matrices to assess the military business and support operations of the department, as well as every facility and military base in the country -- taking into account lessons learned from previous BRAC rounds.

The word "base" of course includes much more than one traditionally thinks of, of a military base. It includes ports, airfields, industrial and research facilities, lease space, and the like.

A word about the criteria used. In addition to assessments of military value, the department also examined other key factors, including:

The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations;
The extent and timing of potential costs and savings;
The ability of existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; and
The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to environmental restoration, compliance, and waste management.
I'm advised that during these deliberations:

Senior military and civilian leaders invested thousands of hours, and their staffs expended tens of thousands of hours to this important work;
They examined an estimated 25 million pieces of data; and
They considered some 1,000 different scenarios.
The analysis used certified data under a process monitored by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense's inspection and audit agencies.

The department is recommending fewer major base closures than had earlier been anticipated, due in part to the return of tens of thousands of troops through our global posture review, and also due to decisions to reduce lease space by moving activities from lease space into owned facilities.

Nonetheless, the changes that will occur will affect a number of communities -- communities that have warmly embraced nearby military installations for a good many years, indeed, in some cases decades. The department will take great care to work with these communities, with the respect that they have earned, and the government stands ready with economic assistance.

With the strong support of the president, the Department of Defense and other departments of government, are prepared to

Provide personnel transfer and job-training assistance, in collaboration with the Department of Labor;
Provide local economic adjustment assistance through the Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment;
Use our authorities to accelerate and support reuse needs; and
Work with the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to assist local economic recovery.
More information on economic assistance -- as well as other information relating to BRAC -- can be found on the department's website, which I believe is shown up there. http://www.defenselink.mil/brac

It's helpful to note that many local economies impacted by previous BRAC decisions successfully found ways to get positive results out of a situation that at first must have seemed dire -- which, of course, is a tribute to the ingenuity and resilience of the American people. For example, I've never been through a BRAC before, so this is my first time; that occurred after I had left the department many years ago. But I'm told that:

Within a decade of the base's closure, the community around Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire employed an aggressive economic development plan to generate more than a thousand percent increase in civilian jobs.
In Arizona, Williams Air Force Base became the Williams Gateway Airport -- and has attracted many civilian jobs, and its education center is bringing in thousands of students.
And many cities have turned shutdown Navy bases into new business centers with thousands of new jobs.
All affected communities will not be able to replicate such positive results, of course, but every effort will be made to assist.

With the submission tomorrow, the Defense Department will complete its statutory role in the BRAC process. All further decisions, deliberations and analysis will occur under the auspices of the statutory BRAC commission, and ultimately from the commission to the president of the United States, and then to the Congress of the United States.

Because the BRAC commission can assess more information and will have the opportunity to hold hearings and learn from potentially impacted communities, it's possible that the commission may make some changes to these recommendations, as have prior BRAC commissions. I'm told that prior BRACs have made some 10 to 15 percent changes in what was recommended.

I do want to thank the BRAC commissioners for agreeing to serve our country, and for undertaking this important assignment. It's a difficult one. And we appreciate it.

One final note. I want to thank the many civilian and military personnel in this department, including Chairman Dick Myers and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are here; Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who chaired the Infrastructure Executive Council; the service secretaries; Undersecretary Mike Wynne and his very able team, some of which are sitting over there, who have devoted countless hours to developing these recommendations. The department has relied heavily on their judgment, analysis and recommendations, and believes that the process put in place was fair and deliberative. I have full confidence that all of those who have participated are dedicated to the very best military interests of our nation and to the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform.



For a complete transcript, including questions and answers, please visit:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef2761.html

Nope having United States pull its bases out of Europe - is not as easy as one would image - both in realistic terms of moving the people and equipment, cleaning the facalities, or event the politics of the move. Moving the divisions out of Germany during the 1990's give proof to that. Now the economic costs to the host countries are often offset quickly by their own governments because they now have the use of already established infrastructure and buildings for other uses. For instance several closed bases in the United States were immediately convert to satellate college campus, and I beleive Germany converted one to help transition the East Germany collaspe into one nation.

[Meneldil]

Yes by all means let Europe defend itself - it will interesting to watch, and they might even get it right this time, after how many years of trying and failing in the accomplishment of defending themselves as a contientent?

When did we fail to protect ourselves as a continent ?

Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

[Redleg]

When did we fail to protect ourselves as a continent ?

The mongol invasion, The Collaspe of the Roman Empire, the treat of Napealon, the Cold War, - several little historical tidbits that can be used to back up my sacrastic comment

Every time Europe was threatened, Europeans achieved to surpass their internal fights and to protect the continent.

Again not completely true - Mongol invasion, the advance of Islam by the sword, and a couple of others that once again can be used to give creditablity to my caustic sarcastic comment about European defense. Your two notable ones from the last century were concluded because a nation not of Europe happened to interven in both. Now given WW1 was going to wind down by the time American came in - Canada and Austrilia were involved way before then. However Europe failed to protect itself during WW2 from its own internal threat.

But then again I was being overly sarcastic because of statements like these.

I'm afraid this is the only way to break of dependance from the warlike US.

Too bad, because an European army could probably achieve what the US can't : defeating a few desert savages.

I to can play the little caustic comment game.

[Kagemusha]

I think it's a terrific idea and pay no attention to Kaiser. He's young and shoots from the hip without thinking about his positions at times. Yes, please, by all means, create a common EU army to defend the continent and let us pull our troops out of Germany & Italy. They're needed elsewhere and this taxpayer is sick & tired of paying for Europe's defense. Have fun boys.

Just one quick question... don't you have to have an EU to defend first?

Thanks Don. About your question:We really dont have a deacent European UNION,but we have Europe.I first started this poll to see what you guys are thinking about this idea.Infact EU has had an central military comitea for few years now.I think many American patrons have somekind of superiority complex over Europe,and lots of European members have an minority complex tooAbout WWI US did tip the balance,but no means you did win the war.It was those hundreds of thousands british and French troopers that died and exhausted the Germans.I would also like to state that after WWII people are looking at WWI like that the Germans were somekind of similar like Nazis in WWII.They werent,the WWI was an escalation that needed to happen.About WWII many of our American patrons seems to believe that US won the war in Europe.How du you back that up?If you count the number of divisions in the Eastern front and compare that to the western front,you must be kidding.Russians did the work and you take the glory.And my country was in the wrong side in that war.But we didnt have a choice.My grandfather fought together with the germans in the Northern Finland ,and he sayd that Germans sayd that if they would be moved to the western front in France or the Italy.It would be like picknic compered to the Eastern front meatgrinder.I say it once again it would benefit us both that EU could do even something about cricis management.

[Redleg]

Thanks Don. About your question:We really dont have a deacent European UNION,but we have Europe.I first started this poll to see what you guys are thinking about this idea.

A good tread until a few Europeans took the opporunity to take cheap shots at the United States

Infact EU has had an central military comitea for few years now.

Yep and they still use NATO for their primary command and control.- at least the last time I checked into it did - but it might have changed in the last 2 years.

I think many American patrons have somekind of superiority complex over Europe,and lots of European members have an minority complex

No problem with Europe and its desires - until someone decides that its necessary to take a cheap shot - because of their own minority complex.

tooAbout WWI US did tip the balance,but no means you did win the war.

Did anyone in this tread say the United States won WW1. Try finding where I stated that.

It was those hundreds of thousands british and French troopers that died and exhausted the Germans.

And Canadian, Austrilian, Algerian, Africans, and other peoples. However it seems you want to only give two nations and its people credit for winning the war.

I would also like to state that after WWII people are looking at WWI like that the Germans were somekind of similar like Nazis in WWII.

What are you trying to say? And again where did anyone say that or even close to that in this thread?

They werent,the WWI was an escalation that needed to happen.

And you would be incorrect. WW1 escalated because of the politics of the time - not because it needed to happen.

About WWII many of our American patrons seems to believe that US won the war in Europe.How du you back that up?

Again who said that America won the war in Europe - what I have said that many peoples and many Nations won the war in Europe - not just Europeans.

If you count the number of divisions in the Eastern front and compare that to the western front,you must be kidding.Russians did the work and you take the glory

Again - you might want to check the makeup of the Russian Army - its not all European now is it. Again jumping to conclusion because you want to beleive someone said Americans won WW2. Again try actually reading the actual words that were written. It might just enlighten you.

several times in recent history - its been outside peoples that have rescued you poor Europeans from yourselves, the Canadians, the Austrialians, many of the nations of South America, India, Africa and other nations all outside of the European COntinent coming to save you warlike Europeans from yourselves.

Would you care to see the order of battle for the Allies - it includes more then France, England, and other European nations that fought for the Allies - about 60 other nations were also involved. It seems you Europeans fail to realize your own history.

.And my country was in the wrong side in that war.But we didnt have a choice.

Sure you did - you could of stayed neutral - after kicking the Russians ass - however you country didnt.

My grandfather fought together with the germans in the Northern Finland ,and he sayd that Germans sayd that if they would be moved to the western front in France or the Italy.It would be like picknic compered to the Eastern front meatgrinder.I say it once again it would benefit us both that EU could do even something about cricis management.

Again I would of been perfectly fine with the normal discussion about the benefits and the shortfalls of a European Union Army - however like I have already stated - several of you Europeans decided to take cheap shots at the United States - well two can play that game.

Any EU army is doomed to failure until the EU formalizes it constitution and its political makeup.