17 thoughts on “New model army”

  1. I predict that all will be sweetness and light, the various systems will integrate flawlessly, everything will work as planned. There will be no allegations of massive fraud relating to procurement that for some reason fail to get properly investigated and all the soldiers of various nationalities will get on really well…..

    Or was that a bit obviously over the top

  2. Hmm. It’s not central procurement, it’s just a case of buying compatible systems – there’s no reason why MoD procurement should be any more corrupt than it currently is…

  3. Yes John, all EU institutions, (which is what the army is due to become if the above is true), are models of efficiency, clear thinking and are corruption free.

  4. I think a real problem with this sort of institution is that there are only two possibilities for it:

    1) Either, it will be coopted into future American-led wars and will simply be another way of spreading the various costs and burdens, like Nato.

    2) Or, it will become part of an EU bloc that will compete with America and form a ‘counterbalance’ as some lefties hope.

    In the former case, I don’t suppose I need to stipulate my objections. Just look at Haiti and Afghanistan if you need a clue.

    In the latter, I can’t see the benefit of a new arms race and the entrenchment of serious geopolitical tensions between advanced military and economic powers. This will enhance militarism in both blocs, not reduce it. Frankly, rather than replacing one big military superstate with two, I’d rather replace it with zero.

  5. Frankly, rather than replacing one big military superstate with two, I’d rather replace it with zero.

    Zero? Well, we are going to have sort China, North Korea and Iran out first then Lenin. Better get cracking Lenin fighting for democracy there, so we can all mutally disarm.

  6. Al – no, the plan suggested in the link isn’t to create a common army, it’s to create an army with common interoperability (as we currently have to a significant degree with the US). Funding and procurement would still take place at a national level.

  7. Well, Eric, me old son, if you want to found an International Brigade to fight alongside Chinese, Iranian and North Korean socialists, I’ll volunteer.

    Failing that, you could consider the possibility of more limited action – perhaps pressuring our government to unilateral disarm and abolish trident, thus partially reducing the pressure on small Third World states to acquire nukes. We could also, together, pressure our government to cease arming countries which are at war, or which have appalling human rights records. Then, on top of that, we could try to get our government to cease committing crimes in Iraq, Guantanamo, Bagram etc. We could get them to stop supporting death squads in Colombia and tyrannies in the Middle East. We could get them to stop assisting in the murder of Palestinians.

    That would contribute significantly to the fight to reduce imperialism to nought.

    Or you could continue to dribble on your keyboard while eating Snacky Smores and churning out inept polemics for the entertainment of the intellectual and social inadequates who actually hang out at your blogs.

  8. All military procurement systems tend to be somewhat corrupt. This is in part due to the vast amounts of money involved, and in larger part due to the necessarily secret nature of much of the procurement. The American military procurement system is also corrupt for these reasons. This is just the way these things are.

    The issue is indeed interoperability. However, it should be noted that, AIUI at least, the British have a problem getting kit to interoperate fully with the Americans due to the expense and the reluctance of America to share sensitive information with European states. It would be, from this point of view, easier and cheaper to attain interoperability with the European forces.

    NATO has demonstrated successfully that multinational militaries can indeed operate together under a unified command quite easily. The major factor in success was a common military purpose and a common language – all NATO commissioned officers had to have an adequate command of English, for example. This contrasts with the Warsaw Pact where there was no official common language. Indeed, even within the Soviet army it was not unknown for Russian speaking officers to be unable to communicate directly with their men, although this was not as common as some would suggest. Trying to draw close parallels between the EU and the USSR, or between the proposed ERRF/Euro-army and the Warsaw Pact, is pointless, stupid and plain wrong, by the way.

    On the more general point, I think people need to understand that Britain is NOT any more a great power capable of independent operation on a large scale, and really needs to make a choice between a European or an American future. Whilst Britain has much in common with the US (core legal system, language, basic culture), it is also historically a European power and its interests are more profoundly influenced by European events than by American ones. My gut feeling is that the European future is the best option.

    Finally, on nuclear weapons – although I would be quite happy for Britain to dispose of a strategic nuclear element (i.e. Trident), I don’t think there is military justification for complete nuclear disarmament. There is no evidence that I’m aware of that the possession of nuclear weapons by the advanced powers is the reason, or even a contributory factor, in the striving of other nations to get them, and therefore complete disarmament would leave Britain without the ability to threaten equivalent response and at the same time would not achieve anything. Nations want nukes because (a) the technology exists and is proven, (b) it’s a big toy for macho dictators to flaunt their virility with, (c) it’s a lot cheaper than large conventional forces and (d) if they don’t get them their enemies will because of (a) through (c). Such is human nature, sadly.

  9. You’ve forgotten to flag up the comments, which are on a par with Biased BBC.

    "watch out for hundreds of little log cabins appearing around scotland and the lakes as the germans expand their summer cottage empire from south from Sweden and Denmark. We’re being turned in to a summer destination."

  12. The problem is that it’s all part of the Guardianista-BBC-Gramscian-Francophile plot in conjunction with the global jihadist conspiracy to take over the world, destroy America and dilute our vital bodily fluids. This can only be resisted by reverting to a pre-Victorian view of the world and wearing a tinfoil hat & rose-tinted retrospectacles.

    Obviously.

    I mean, you can’t see this? *wipes foam from lips*

  16. "and really needs to make a choice between a European or an American future"

    No it needs to make a choice for a British future, Britain has always managed to punch well above it’s weight on the world stage by being very flexible about who it play with in which sandpit. Everyone seems to thinkl we should be led by the nose by someone else and that’s just stupid…

  17. Britain punches above its weight basically because America is standing in its corner. The phrase "has always managed" should really be replaced with "since bankruptcy in 1940 has managed by dint of American cash".

    If Britain did choose a "British future" it would have substantially less influence than it does now and would no longer be able to punch above its weight. The idea of a Britain strong, free, unencumbered and with significant influence is an illusion. In reality, Britain is a third rate power of moderate wealth, and that’s it. There’s nothing WRONG with that, it just needs to be recognised.

Comments are closed.