J. David Galland's.... "Who needs a Euro-Force?"

A few months ago, the European countries announced that
they will form their own rapid reaction force. This force has
an end goal of sixty-thousand soldiers strong. It shall exist
autonomous from the traditional NATO alliance.

NATO has always been primarily bolstered with troops,
equipment, vehicles, technology, and money by the United
States. Its original purpose and mandate was to protect
Western Europe, and the world, from the fears of, and
possible domination by, the burgeoning Communist Bloc
nations.

Call it what you will, but this meant the Soviet Union. Known
to us as Russia, whom with its established satellite
protective states, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland,
Yugoslavia, and others, comprised the formidable threat that
fueled the Cold War from the East. The need for Western
preparedness and the level of this Warsaw Pact threat was
all the justification needed for readiness of the NATO forces.
This readiness was characterized by the implied solidarity
against the spread of Communist aggression.

Without the inclusion of the United States, its assets and
forces, Europe has determined that it must, finally, protect
itself. One ought ask, protect itself from what? Much like a
child, who has finally learned to walk, Europe seeks to
achieve solidarity on the military front, as well as its
struggling Euro-exclusive economic endeavours which may
well be the true reason for this "so-called" Euro Army. An
army veiled under the thin cover of humanitarian need and
intervention. Whilst never admitting, but always focusing
on, the material and monetary wellness of their own
interests as Europe eliminates autonomous currency for the
European wide accepted currency, the Euro.

Will this signal the eventual dissolution of NATO, as an
organization and concept, that is outdated and unnecessary?
Further, what is the perceived threat, and what
contingencies will this 60,000 - soldier force prepare for and
train to meet? In the view of the European Union's fifteen
member states the force will "deal with" regional conflicts
and humanitarian crises. Now, if you truly believe this to be
the genuine motivator for the formation of this force, then
you may believe that Lord George Robertson has cured AIDS
in his spare time, as well. Herewith I suggest you stop
reading this article and return to counting beans.

These two areas of focus must be bifurcated. Conflicts are
soldier business, however humanitarian crisis is best
addressed by philanthropic agencies designed for relief in
disasters in which a non-conflict related scenario prevails.
During the course of mission development and analysis, this
Euro Force must learn from the mistakes of the American
Military during the Clinton Administration. Soldiers are not
designed to powder and diaper the woe's of every country in
the world that sullies itself. However, the free world
apparently believes they are well justified with military
intervention, if the instability threatens international
investment, and economic tranquillity and gains of neighbor
countries.

Soldiers are not relief workers and they are not nation
builders! The mis-use of the American military, to address
the former American Presidential administration's response
to social injustice, has cut the force deeply and morale has
pummeled. The senior army leadership has proposed a
brilliant plan to restore pride by changing the kind of hat
that soldiers wear. Now,.. that is certainly closing the
Turkey Pen long after we have gorged ourselves at "old
Tom's expense on Thanksgiving day. Where, and how, will
the United States fit in to this Euro Force? Not at all,
according to the initial visionaries! It is designed and
advocated to be a "Euro-Exclusive" Force?

In Great Britain however, senior military leaders warn that
any conflict in Europe could rapidly escalate into a full-scale
war. If, in fact, the might of the United States, and its
military forces, are not an integral part of this force.
Deterrence was NATO's "watch-word" for years, and it
worked.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced that "his"
military forces are wholeheartedly in support of the EU Rapid
Reaction Force. It is my assertion that Blair has not engaged
in honest discourse with his military leaders, as my
conversations with senior British Officers have revealed to
me quite the opposite. If one thinks that a senior military
leader, who has invested his sinew, youth, and perhaps
thirty years of his life, to achieve his current position, would
tell Blair something he would not like to hear, then I suggest
that we ought find our ways home following crumb trails
through the dank dark forest, at the end of our enchanting
day.

This is one of the greatest problems which the American
Military faces. The lack of gumption, honesty, and intestinal
fortitude on the part of senior leaders, when issued an idiotic
order. They well know, that, spoken or expressed
resistance, will bring their upward mobility to a crashing
halt. Self preservation, at the expense of soldiers and
mission, is often the overriding factor at the top, from my
thirty years of observation.

Many British officers reveal that, Euro Force, is merely a
reinventing of the wheel. The new concept shall be a force
designed for operations, in which, the United States and
NATO, choose not to become involved. This, indeed, hints of
a heavy burden to be carried by the Brits. Of course
Germany will be included. However, every time a German, or
Bundeswehr, soldier engages in any overt military action,
particularly outside of Germany, some special interest group
"mouth" or liberal, lifts the issue of Germany's Nazi past off
the shelf, dusts it off, and squeals about similarities.

Suffice to say that Germany is quite sensitive to this
accusatory attitude and unjustified criticism, particularly
with its own liberal government. The German people,
economy, and numerous respectable businesses, have
carried the monetary burden of political and military
mistakes of the past, far too long!

It is important to note that Great Britain is the only European
Union country that has any amphibious capability to rapidly,
and forcefully, insert troops. The need for both amphibious
ships, and transportable troops and equipment, augmented
by heavy strategic lift, are necessary to sustain forces, even
for low intensity conflicts. This need escalates, without
question, to a much greater level in a humanitarian
intervention scenario. Great Britain perfected these forced
insertion tactics over years of training with U. S. forces and
employing U. S. doctrine.

Critical to also note, however, is that neither, Great Britain,
or any other of the European Union country, actually has the
capability of heavy strategic airlift. No European Country has
anywhere near the Strategic and Tactical Combat
Intelligence assets, either. These must include the electronic
capability to retrieve, transmit, store, deliver, and analyze.
Intelligence assets, of this highly technical nature, are vitally
necessary to paint a broad spectrum threat picture, should
one exist.

Senior British army officers welcome greater European
military cooperation, however only within the original
structure of NATO. The original design of the Euro Force may
be autonomous from NATO. However, senior leaders
assume, and have announced that they would expect, the
United States to be involved, quite quickly indeed, if a
conflict escalates into a war footing in Europe. History
speaks volumes for this assertion.

For a number of years the American military has been mired
in a domestic altercation in Europe, known as Yugoslavia. A
great deal of this maelstrom, in Yugoslavia, was caused by
the fact that U. S. soldiers were ill-trained and mis-used, for
these, "missions other than war". Why, one may ask, the
answer is simply...... "poor military leadership at the top".
In early 1999, this vacuum, that has cut deeply into U. S.
forces in Germany, escalated into a tactical and strategic, air
launched, shooting gallery exercise of minuscule tactical
success.

America would like the world to believe that this
seventy-nine day air campaign was defining action that
resulted in the capitulation of Slobodan Milosevic. However,
it was not!

One may say, that the Euro Force, like NATO, will spread
freedom and democracy. The truth is, they are jamming it
down many people's throats, who do not even know what
democracy means, by threatening to withhold financial aid if
they don't jump on the bandwagon.

Who is J. David Galland ?

J. David Galland is the Founder and President of "Bound & Overwatch - The
Military Observer", a 100% Non-Profit organization which serves as the advocate
for soldiers and their families, as well as for veterans. Bound & Overwatch - The
Military Observer concentrates on military corruption, and unsound defense
policies tainted from inception, which do not affect the national interests of the
United States and its National Security.

Mr. Galland is a veteran of The United States Army, with over thirty-two years
military service. Since 1969, Mr. Galland has been in Military Intelligence and is
a distinguished graduate of the U. S. Army Intelligence Center & School, Fort
Holabird, Maryland. He is a combat veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama
and of hazardous duty positions in Ulster, Northern Ireland, Zagreb, Sarajevo, in
the Former Yugoslavia, as well as various missions in Croatia and Bosnia. Mr.
Galland has spent most of his military career outside the normal command
channels in classified assignments as an Area Intelligence Technician, Case
Officer, and Desk Action Officer. He is a internationally respected Defense
Analyst, Author & Columnist, and Subject Matter Expert on Intelligence
Tradecraft in the HUMINT discipline.

As well, he is an authority of the former East German Staatssicherheitsdienst
(Stasi). Mr. Galland is a contributing columnist to "The Reagan Information
Exchange", Colonel David H. Hackworth's "Defending America", column and
website, as well as "PRAVDA" (English Version) The Voice of The West in Russia.
Also to his credit he is a contributing columnist to "The Center for Peace in The
Balkans" of Toronto, Canada, Antiwar.com, and most recently, throughout
major cities in the United States via "The Houston Independent Media Center".
He also serves on the Advisory Council, and as the Military Intelligence and
Strategic Issues Subject Matter Expert, for "Soldiers For The Truth"
http://www.sftt.org.

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)