A few years after the Berlin Wall was torn down, Helmut Kohl predicted that the European Union would one day have an army to call its own. At the time, this might have been the stuff of federalist fantasy. Nowadays, it appears only a matter of time before his vision becomes a reality.
Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier echoed Kohl's remarks last week by arguing that current efforts to improve military cooperation among EU states should lead to a single armed force. Not long ago, this was the kind of statement that would have sent pulses soaring among peace campaigners and those gung-ho types known as Atlanticists, albeit for very different reasons. Perhaps there is a community ensconced in some dark recess of the blogosphere that is busily heaping scorn on Steinmeier. Yet the generally muted response to his comments suggests the idea of a European army has almost become uncontroversial.
This is a shame. For while there might be a case for developing common European structures with an explicit mandate to address peacekeeping and conflict resolution challenges, there is scant justification for the increasingly hawkish note that senior EU politicians and their military advisers are sounding.
From a doctrinal point of view, EU governments made a hugely significant decision in 2006 when they endorsed the "long-term vision" drawn up by the European defence agency. Although this paper says that any attempt to forecast the future would be "self-deluding and dangerous", the agency insists that the EU "must take to heart" how it spends only a fraction of what the US devotes to weaponry if it is to confront enemies as yet unknown.
...The military command structure of NATO has traditionally been headed by an American General - this is true, and perfectly in agreement with the tradition among international alliances of giving command to a general from the country with the largest contingent. Given the tremendous success NATO has been at guaranteeing European security over the last 50 years, I don't see what you're complaining about, especially since non-Europeans have been subsidizing the cost significantly.
-----------------------------
Contracting out foreign military training
I am firmly opposed to contracting anything related to foreign military training on the basic belief that outsourcing prevents development of lasting military-to-military relations and inhibits military cultural exchange and personal relations. Democratic ideals, whether from Americans, French, Germans, or British, rely upon an underlying premise that the military is subservient to the elected government. Also, placing our own soldiers next to foreign militaries demonstrates a commitment that outsourcing does not.
Rather the crucial question that should asked at the onset of any potential outsourcing is simple: Should the task be done by a private company in the first place?
