Who Needs a "Euro - Army" ? By: J. David Galland 3 September 2001 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 Will this signal the eventual dissolution of NATO, as an organization and concept, that is outdated and unnecessary?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.