Pull your weight, Europe

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/pull_your_weight_europe_ucMAOzT57PZOX1OK52bPFI

Pull your weight, Europe
By SALLY MCNAMARA

Last Updated: 4:11 AM, February 26, 2010

Posted: 12:51 AM, February 26, 2010

European leaders were shocked this week when Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a NATO audience that the alliance faces a "crisis" because the continent has largely demilitarized. Why the surprise -- have they been in a coma?

Europe's free defense ride -- thanks to the rock-solid US security guarantee within the NATO alliance -- has been a problem for decades. Taking the US protective umbrella for granted, the continent has raided defense budgets to cover its ever-growing welfare bills.

Just four of NATO's European members (Bulgaria, France, Greece and Britain) spend the alliance's recommended benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. Just 2.7 percent of Europe's 2 million military personnel were deployed overseas in 2007, reflecting badly on NATO's 1999 pledge to engage in important "out of area" operations.

And it's no recent trend. Back in 1999, for the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the US provided 100 percent of NATO's jamming capability, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air-refueling tankers. US fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions.

The divide's grown even worse since 9/11, as America has moved into a new political and security space. Now Gates seems to be saying, "Enough's enough." America finally appears unwilling to continue shouldering such a disproportionate amount of the regional and global security burden.

Why now? It's Afghanistan, stupid.

The inequitable sharing of risks and responsibilities playing out there has raised the stakes considerably: America and Britain account for nearly 60,000 of the 86,000 NATO troops. And many more US forces serve outside NATO: By July, we'll have almost 100,000 in-country; France, Germany, Italy and Spain combined have just 12,000.

But the true disparity is worse. Take one of the crudest indicators of a nation's commitment to the mission: troop losses. Nowhere do we see a starker picture of who's actually doing the fighting -- and who's not.

America has lost 1,006 servicemen and -women in Afghanistan. Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)

Through 2008, many assumed that continental Europe wasn't stepping up to the plate because its leaders didn't like George W. Bush. But nothing's changed with Obama in the White House: When he asks for more support for Afghanistan, the countries that step up are the same ones that responded to Bush.

When Obama threw his weight behind Gen. Stanley McChrystal's new strategy, he plainly expected Europe to commit at least 10,000 more troops plus equipment, trainers and money. Yet Europe is sending just over 7,000 more troops -- and at least 1,500 of them will come from non-NATO members, including 900 from war-torn Georgia.

And even those numbers overstate Europe's contribution -- because what most of these troops can do is strictly limited by their home governments. As Gates said in 2008, "Some allies are willing to fight and die to protect people's security, and others are not."

Although NATO closely guards the comprehensive list of "national caveats," NATO Supreme Commander Adm. James Stavridis said last June that there were 69. Here's some of the caveats we know about:

* German troops are restricted to conducting operations in northern Afghanistan before nighttime and never more than two hours away from a well-equipped hospital.

* Turkish troops are restricted to Kabul.

* Troops from most southern European nations are barred from fighting in snow.

* One country prohibits troops from other nations from flying in its aircraft.

Worse, caveats are sometimes unofficial, unwritten and not declared until an operation's underway, presenting military leaders with the risk that troops they're counting on can become unavailable after combat's begun.

Nor is Europe pulling its weight in training and development in Afghanistan. A key part of McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy is a rapid expansion of the Afghan Security Forces, requiring nearly 2,500 added NATO or EU trainers. The European Union has dispatched just 281 personnel, only some of them actually trainers. Most are restricted to Kabul, teaching Afghan policemen such pointless tasks as how to issue speeding tickets.

With a few honorable exceptions (such as Britain, Poland, Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands), NATO's European members (especially France, Germany, Italy and Spain) have stinted on resources for the UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan. That is, they've not only provided too few troops (with too many national caveats) but also too few helicopters.

Save for such warrior nations as Britain, Europe today fundamentally lacks both the military resources and (more important) the political will to fight long wars abroad.

But America doesn't have the luxury of choosing its wars. And if Europe still believes that the trans-Atlantic security alliance is in its best interests, then it's going to have to recalibrate its attitude toward war-fighting -- and it's going to have to start with Afghanistan.

Sally McNamara

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Pull out would be better

**reds8n**

Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)

Off the top of my head I'm reasonably certain several American political leaders have publicly come out and said positive things about the work of British troops.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Another British serviceman died today

**sebster**

I'm not a soldier, and haven't ever served so I'm a little hesitant to start insisting other nations should send more of their troops off to get killed for complex political reasons that don't directly effect the nations involved. But if that's the case then . What they shouldn't do is recognise Afghanistan as an imporant operation then send a trivial number of soldiers while expecting one country to do all the work, and I think that's largely what's happening.

The answer isn't greater budgets though* - everyone has more than enough capacity. The article acknowledges that of all servicemen in Europe only 2.7% are actually committed overseas so the issue certainly isn't needing more men. It's a political issue - being willing to risk your soldier's lives for the sake of Afghanistan.

Shame about the tone of that article, though. Warrior nation? Really?

*The US should be looking to spend something much closer to European levels, their military spending as a portion of GDP is ludicrous.

**Albatross**

sebster wrote:Warrior nation? Really?

Weeelll...The UK does seem to love a bit of a 'ding-dong' every now and then. But yeah, that made me cringe a bit.

That article is just another reason why Britain should leave the EU, for me. We owe Europe nothing.

**Ketara**

Hang around outside a pub after closing time sebster, be it in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales and you'll see plenty of 'fighting spirit' as they say.

Traditionally and historically it must be said, we do seem to get into more than our fair share of scraps when you compare us to other countries. Regardless of whether you'd call us a 'warrior nation' or not.

Anyone up for getting the Germans to increase military spending?

**Albatross**

Perhaps they could supervise the POW camps.

What could possibly go wrong?

**J.Black**

But America doesn't have the luxury of choosing its wars

Interesting notion.

**SilverMK2**

If America invaded the EU (minus the UK), it would solve a lot of problems regards armies just sitting about doing nothing all day

Plus we wouldn't have to learn French any more

**Orlanth**

Pull your weight, Europe
By SALLY MCNAMARA

And it's no recent trend. Back in 1999, for the NATO air campaign against Serbia, the US provided 100 percent of NATO's jamming capability, 90 percent of the air-to-ground surveillance and 80 percent of the air-refueling tankers. US fighters and bombers delivered 90 percent of the precision-guided munitions.

I will stick to this point for now. It shows a complete disregard for correct thinking for assymetric warfare. For a start it all highlights statistics of munitions as if they were what mattered.

We didn't want an air war, some muppet in the Pentagon wanted that. Serbia was sorted on the ground, its just that Yanks don't think that way. Bomb em to bits doesn't work, winning an assymetrical war and bodycount are not compatible. Have they forgetten Vietnam so readily? In fact the more the US spammed bombs the worse it got, thankfully we got the idiots in Washington to stop.

Yes bombing has its advantages, youn diont need to risk your own skins. But you dont need firepower to keep peace, you need balls.

You need troops from non trigger happy nations to establish and keep the peace. This is what they got from Europe, and this is what established the peace. The so called cheese eating surrender monkeys were damn good. The serb black guard did not piss about when French troops held the peaceline.

When the European armies first moved into Yugoslavia under the UN mandate only the officers carried ammo in their guns. This was too little and the later NATO mandate corrected that, but the UN only agree because they were expected to fail. So you get French and British soldiers who are unarmed facing hostile militants with loaded AK's. They still kept the peace, they walked up to them in many cases and took the guns from them. Can you imagine a US unit trying that, it would be all shock and awe then pick up the guns. Yes some officers bottled it facing armed opponents unarmed, others didn't. Those that didn't got respect. 'You wont like me when I am angry' is pretty much the watchphrase.

We didnt need percentage spending, or superior fire volume or air supremacy to keep the peace you need big hairy swingers and you got to put them on the line. This is the unlearned lesson which prevents Afghanistans or Iraq from ever getting sorted. The US has riddled so many innocents with holes in paniced fire the locals hate everyone. every insurgent you kill turns his family against you, every innocent you kill turns his family and friends and friends family against you. Basra was working when soldiers got out met the people and got friendly. But with so much full auto going on elsewhere we couldnt keep the hatteds at bay. Frankly the Yanks havent the first idea how to fight these types of conflicts, so when they say Europe isnt pulling its weight its an insult.

Just to give one example of the moronic attitude. Don't stop at a checkpoint and you will be shot, not warning, just a heavy machine gun. So the Yanks put up bill boards saying checkpoint ahead. Thery avoid keeping soldiers in LOS to avoid snipers so the drivers cannot see them. But there are billboasrds up right. er no. literacy in Iraq is 50% and most taxi drivers are illiterate. So you run a near invisible checkpoint because you cant read the signs and a machine gun opens up on the 'terrorists. The US army has killed about 2000 civilians in errors like that, not all this way. But the sheer unthinking moronity of some of the policies beggers belief.
Soldeirs cannot police from within APC's, or manning weapons in HMMV's they can only be invaders. You have to risk having soldiers with no face visors on the streets with the people not pointing your guns at the people. You have to be harder than the locals so that you can remain the boss without putting in their faces. This doesnt require muscles, it just requires discipline, training awareness and balls. You will have to accept you might lose some to snipers, but when you have a friendly local populace that don't see you as bullies you don't get many snipers. But if your allies elsewhere are considered to be slaughtering the populace in one feth up after another eventually you do get snipers and bombs.

The US army should be kept for invasions and counter-invasions, they are very good at that. But they should even try to help in other circumstances. Yes keep sending the supplies but stay out of the policing. Hypocritically I would have liked to have seen US troops in Belfast, or better yet Israelis, a month of that and the locals would have quickly realised our boys know their jobs and are not the rampaging slaughterers some like to imply.

Some US units are getting better, and new ones with different thinking have emerged like Grey Fox. But the vast majority cant get around the doctrine that every conflict is open battle and almost every weapon is in the active arsenal. Some wars can only be lost that way.

Iraq and Afghanistan are lost wars.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Iraq and Afghanistan are lost wars.

Absolutely.
It is simply a matter of logistics to send troops in.
The problem is with extracating, as now any withdrawal will be seen as a victory by the Taliban and extremists.

Which is why they should not have gone into Afghanistan in the first place.
The coalition forces are now tied into a protracted occupation that merely serves to

off the locals.

Any road, if we wished to read ill informed, anti-European, xenophobic claptrap we would buy the Daily Mail

The price of free speech is apparently huge piles of bovine do-do's

**Kilkrazy**

Karzai needs to be told to get with the western programme, or else he must be got rid of.

His latest jape of appointing all the election commissioners himself is the last straw.

Iraq seems to be in a better situation. I know there is still a lot of crap going on, however the government seems to be moderately popular and stable. It is not terribly corrupt, and the security situation is much improved over a couple of years ago.

**sebster**

I think the issue with Afghanistan is that there isn't a military solution. We have the technology and capability to largely control Taliban activity if we want to. But that isn't a solution, and no amount of Taliban bodies will actually resolve that.

What's needed to end the fighting is an Afghani government that the people actually want, but instead they've got Karzai. Exactly how you go about improving that is a tough question, and how you do it within the likely duration of Western forces is pretty difficult.

**Ketara**

Iraq and Afghanistan are lost wars.

Er.....We won in Iraq, remember? And to be honest, it seems to be doing vaguely alright now.

I would dispute Afghanistan being a war in the first place. To have a war, you need a nation to declare 'war' on. The taliban aren't this monolithic machine the media tries to push. Afghanistan is made of warring tribes. No Afghan government has ever successfully controlled all of Afghanistan. There's this mentality that because the lines are drawn on the map, all the people inside are Afghans, but they're not. Half of them don't even think of themselves as the collective known as Afghans. You can't force a government on people that have never known it, and don't want it.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Britain has lost 265 -- more than the rest of Europe combined. (It is past time for President Obama to recognize the sacrifice of British servicemen alongside the US military.)

Off the top of my head I'm reasonably certain several American political leaders have publicly come out and said positive things about the work of British troops.

Thats why I bolded that piece.

**Kilkrazy**

sebster wrote:I think the issue with Afghanistan is that there isn't a military solution. We have the technology and capability to largely control Taliban activity if we want to. But that isn't a solution, and no amount of Taliban bodies will actually resolve that.

What's needed to end the fighting is an Afghani government that the people actually want, but instead they've got Karzai. Exactly how you go about improving that is a tough question, and how you do it within the likely duration of Western forces is pretty difficult.

You do it by sacking Karzai.

It should have been done after the pig's ear they made of the election last year. Instead he was allowed to take office on a blizzard of promises that he really would be good now. Instead, he is blatantly flouting the election process. No-one that corrupt is going to pull together any kind of government we want to be involved with.

The western allies should take Karzai prisoner and put him in exile on some remote island. Get together some corruption charges and have him banged up legally. it woouldn;t be ahrd because there is heaps of evidence.

Let the guy who "lost" the election take office, and see if he can do a better job. There would be some moaning from the left-wing press, but let's face it, he cheated his way to power and the Afghanis themselves don't support him.

**Cane**

Yup, the USA and the other "warrior nations" have more than shouldered its load in various wars and natural disasters. NATO might be another cold war relic that needs to be rethought just like our previous strategies; several of those nations may simply be lacking politically and militarily when it comes to combating terrorists on a global level.

Allied forces are building infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan and have trained the locals to help defend, politicize, and police themselves. Progress is being made and with the help of other allies, top terrorist leaders are being captured and their strength seem to be decreasing for every allied troop thats reinforced. However we are likely years away from proper withdrawal efforts.

I'm not a fan of either war (mainly Iraq, thanks a lot Bush Jr, Cheney, and Co.

) but it'd be worse to leave now since those areas still need more infrastructure and time to truly warrant troop reductions and eventual withdrawal. Basically a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation - if we leave then the world will take a dump on us for leaving those nations in their current condition and giving terrorists motivation that they're "winning" and if we don't then we get bad press from all the unfortunate consequences of engaging in war.

Its horribly and disgustingly baffling that the past administration chose to basically ignore Gen. Colin Powell's requests; why would you not listen to your expert on an area of his expertise? This guy was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a National Security Adviser, and Bush's Secretary of State (that resigned btw):

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

Cue: "We didn't start the fire"

Gotta give a lot of respect to those serving today and all those recruits who are signing up as this message is posted. Says a lot that citizens across the globe are joining the service at the time they're needed most; to help reinforce Iraq and Afghanistan and put up a fight against global terror.

**Khornholio**

Ketara wrote:Hang around outside a pub after closing time sebster, be it in England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales and you'll see plenty of 'fighting spirit' as they say.

Traditionally and historically it must be said, we do seem to get into more than our fair share of scraps when you compare us to other countries. Regardless of whether you'd call us a 'warrior nation' or not.

Anyone up for getting the Germans to increase military spending?

I can second this. When I lived in the North East (Durham) the streets on Sunday morning looked like a war zone where the only weapons were bottles, vomit and chips.

**Kilkrazy**

BTW This book is a right riveting read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warrior-Race-History-British-Abacus/dp/0349114862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267197808&sr=8-1

**mattyrm**

Yeah, what the hell have we got in common with Europe anyway? I get on better with Americans than Frenchies.

I vote we get out of the EU and start looking after number 1!

And yes, we love a good ruck. I dont feel guilty about our past and our warry ways, unlike our handwringing liberal chums in the Labour party, im more than proud of our imperial past.

Id rather be famous for being too aggressive than for being a girly poofter!

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:You do it by sacking Karzai.

When James Carville went over and helped Abdullah Abdullah with his campaign it was pretty clear the US wanted a change at the top. Unfortnately Karzai clever figured out you didn't actually need people voting for you to win an election. Exactly where to go from there is a tough one, removing Karzai from power is a decent option, but would that just militarise his followers and benefactors? I don't know.

EDIT - Cargill?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Yeah, what the hell have we got in common with Europe anyway? I get on better with Americans than Frenchies.

I vote we get out of the EU and start looking after number 1!

And yes, we love a good ruck. I dont feel guilty about our past and our warry ways, unlike our handwringing liberal chums in the Labour party, im more than proud of our imperial past.

Id rather be famous for being too aggressive than for being a girly poofter!

You're an interesting bat, matty.

**Kilkrazy**

Karzai's followers are already militarised but not militant against us.

Afghani followers usually tend to follow the winners. A lot of Karzai's support would melt away once he was in prison of Diego Garcia.

The problem after that would be to stop the other guy becoming as corrupt as Karzai.

**Orlanth**

Karzai needs to go but we cannot do it.

Then you get very openly what you get in the Iraqi 'democracy' slightly more subtly:

You can choose any government you like
So long as we like who you choose.

Remove Karzai and you remove any right to be consuidered helping. as it is not our business to say who is in charge and Karzai knows this and is milking this.

Besides our government is known to be corrupt, the Bush government was known to be corrupt, we dont know enough about Obama, but I can say quite faithfully that most western leaders cannot accuse Karzai on corruption without a lot of hypocrasy.

Could you imagine New Labour or Berlusconi condemning corruption when they make South American juntas look honest.

No you can only do Karzai if he crosses the line regarding the UN declaration of rights, and then only if you adhere to those rules yourself.

"You cant torture dissidents Karzai, thats our job!"

Really we are stuck with him, until we pull out and let the Afghans get someone else in. Just hoping it wont be Taliban is as good an action plan as any.

**Mr. Burning**

Kilkrazy wrote:Karzai's followers are already militarised but not militant against us.

Afghani followers usually tend to follow the winners. A lot of Karzai's support would melt away once he was in prison of Diego Garcia.

The problem after that would be to stop the other guy becoming as corrupt as Karzai.

Karzai appears to be typical of the leaders the west and in particular the US like to prop up. Vote rigging, going back on his word.
he can do whatever he wants because we are so emeshed with him and the situation in Afghanistan.

I can understand hy Europe is reluctant to send soldiers of to Afghanistan. Why risk lives for something you are not totally behind?

Besides if you want to start, fight, and win a war you need to supply overwhelming force, crush you enemy, his infrastructure and subdue their people so their can be no possibility of retaliation and stay until that message gets through.

A major offensive would be a couple of hundred thousand troops, more really. what America, the UK an its allies are doing is half a job and since 9/11 we have actually created the enemies we were supposed to fear.

**Kilkrazy**

Orlanth wrote:Karzai needs to go but we cannot do it.

Then you get very openly what you get in the Iraqi 'democracy' slightly more subtly:

You can choose any government you like
So long as we like who you choose.

Remove Karzai and you remove any right to be consuidered helping. as it is not our business to say who is in charge and Karzai knows this and is milking this.

Besides our government is known to be corrupt, the Bush government was known to be corrupt, we dont know enough about Obama, but I can say quite faithfully that most western leaders cannot accuse Karzai on corruption without a lot of hypocrasy.

Could you imagine New Labour or Berlusconi condemning corruption when they make South American juntas look honest.

No you can only do Karzai if he crosses the line regarding the UN declaration of rights, and then only if you adhere to those rules yourself.

"You cant torture dissidents Karzai, thats our job!"

Really we are stuck with him, until we pull out and let the Afghans get someone else in. Just hoping it wont be Taliban is as good an action plan as any.

It doesn't matter about hypocrisy. What matters is an effective job of nailing corruption in Afghanistan. The ordinary people don't care if British MPs take tax money to build duck houses. They care if they can walk the streets safely, and vote safely and effectively in an election.

Karzai must go. He has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

**halonachos**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8143196.stm

The BBC had the best map of troop involvement in Afghanistan. As far as I know, CNN reported that the UK and US forces were in the regions facing the hardest fighting with the other nations playing as the police forces.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not lost wars, Iraq needs a new government as Democracy is not usually the first one a country tries(Articles of Confederation vs. Later U.S government).

Vietnam and Korea were winnable as I remember my history, the NK were pushed back to China and the U.S didn't want to engage in war with China ATM. The Tet Offensive was the worst military attack by the NV and Vietcong, unfortunately it was broadcasted and a lot of people back home saw soldiers dying and wanted to leave even though the U.S was pulling ahead.

The issue with "Lost Wars" is that they don't account for the lack of support from home. The American Revolutionary War was won because the English population didn't support it, not because the English army was lacking in training or lacking in a navy. Same with Russia and Afghanistan.

**Mr. Burning**

halonachos wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8143196.stm

The BBC had the best map of troop involvement in Afghanistan. As far as I know, CNN reported that the UK and US forces were in the regions facing the hardest fighting with the other nations playing as the police forces.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not lost wars, Iraq needs a new government as Democracy is not usually the first one a country tries(Articles of Confederation vs. Later U.S government).

Vietnam and Korea were winnable as I remember my history, the NK were pushed back to China and the U.S didn't want to engage in war with China ATM. The Tet Offensive was the worst military attack by the NV and Vietcong, unfortunately it was broadcasted and a lot of people back home saw soldiers dying and wanted to leave even though the U.S was pulling ahead.

The issue with "Lost Wars" is that they don't account for the lack of support from home. The American Revolutionary War was won because the English population didn't support it, not because the English army was lacking in training or lacking in a navy. Same with Russia and Afghanistan.

I agree with the Korean and Vietnam situation, In Vietnam bombing intensified so as to keep the communists at the negotiating table (thank god for B-52's) political pressure forced the US's hand. However Korea and Vietnam war both wars fought under a different political and social era even the south Vietnamese leadership were dispicable little runts and responsible for most of their own internal issues.
It is arguable if Iraq and Afgahnistan should ever have become warzones and as I posted earlier you need to bring overwhelming force to bear and crush your opponent and keep your foot on his neck if you are to win.

If I was a citizen of Afghanistan I would pay lip service to the current leadership and the western powers then make sure I kept my copy of the Koran on me and kept habibs handy for my wife and daughters.

**Necros**

I think we should all just blame Canada.

**Gornall**

Necros wrote:I think we should all just blame Canada.

Seconded.