The Myth of the Pan-European Army

dublin | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Friday June 06, 2008 12:32

by Andy McNab

Fantasy versus reality

Opponents of the Lisbon Treaty claim that Ireland will become part of a Pan-European Army.
However their hysteria betrays a profound ignorance of our military weaknesses and indeed the military weakness of the European armies even the big three, German, France and the United Kingdom.
None of the European armies shows any likelihood of being able to overcome nationalistic rivalries, duplication of resources, linguistic difficulties and a plethora of different weapons systems that would make a Pan-European army exist anywhere except in the fantasies of Brussels bureacrats even if a common defence treaty is made official.

The US military has standardised its rank structure, uniforms and weapons.
The US Navy and US Air Force uses the F-18 Hornet.
The US Marines and US Army use the same types of helmet, rifle, squad machine gun, anti-tank weapons, armoured personnel carriers and tanks and ammunition.
Most importantly every member speaks English.
Members come from each of the 50 states and each identifies with the US above his home state.
Each is a volunteer.
There is no compulsory military service in the US.

Contrast that with the British, French and German armies who use the Challenger, Leclerc and Leopard series tanks respectively.
British soldiers use the SA-80 rifle, French troops use the FAMAS and German troops use the Heckler & Koch G36.
Former Eastern European Warsaw Pact nations such as Poland who continue to use Kalashnikov rifles and Russian manufactured T-72 tanks. Each army has a dinstive rank structure, proud nationalist tradition, customs and of course different field uniform.
The Irish Army uses the Steyr rifle and the Mowag Piranha armoured personnel carrier but it does not posses main battle tanks, attack helicopters or armoured mobile artillery.
The 27 nations in Europe use many languages, use a bewildering different range of incompatible weapons and each are fiercely nationalistic.
There is no likelihood that a Pan-European Army could be fielded in battle in the same way as the US, Chinese or Russian armies.
The logistical problems of supplying the right type of ammunition for their different weapons is a nightmare.
If a British armoured vehicle breaks down it cannot be stripped for spare parts to be used by a French vehicle or a Polish vehicle.
For a commander of a field army to constantly switch to French, Polish, Hungarian, Italian or Slovenian to communicate with his subordinate commanders would make a mockery of command and control.
The US military has discovered the their cost the ineffectiveness of various European commands in Iraq.
As public opinion changed in Italy, Spain and Poland those nations withdrew their troops.
If the highly centralised patriotic Russian or Chinese army with standardised weapons and a streamlined command structure ever fought with a disorganised internally divided Pan-European Army the battle would be decided before it even began.
The Irish government has only three Army Brigades at is disposal.
At anyone time we only have the resources to field a battalion of infantry on UN duty.
We simply do not have the resources to afford the arms expenditure of other EU states.
It is obvious that our military commitment to a Pan-European Army would be of little significance.
Our troops would likely be assigned to security rather than to front line duties.

save preference

Comments (7 of 7)

Riduculous straw man argument relating to nothing

by Anthony G - Anti-War Ireland (personal capacity)

Fri Jun 06, 2008 18:13

This is a pointless piece of writing that seems to be a response to a scenario that only exists in the author's own head.

No contributor to Indymedia - opponents of the Lisbon Treaty or not - claims that Europeans would fight right next to each other on the very same battle ground in the same unit. A pan-European army would be comprised of different divisions capable of separate and independent operations and only the commanders of the different divisions would have to co-ordinate their activities. The scenario posited above where soldiers speaking different languages and using very different equipment would be serving in the same units is just so preposterous that no political organisation has suggested it.

On the other hand, increased military co-operation between the military forces of European states and the formation of EU battlegroups under the direct control of the European Union has been a reality for the past three and a half years.

Mutual assistance and Solidarity

by Stuart

Fri Jun 06, 2008 20:35

Actually there is a lengthy submission in today's Irish Times on exactly this issue, and the distortions of the treaty that have been peddled by various groups. Go to the Referendum Commission's FAQ http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_terms.html for a short summary of the facts. See European Defence Agency, The Solidarity Clause and Mutual Assistance

The second of these begins If the Treaty of Lisbon were ratified then the "Solidarity Clause" would become part of EU law. It provides that the EU and Member States are obliged to assist any Member State if it is the object of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster. The EU would be obliged to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States...", but read the full text and not this one paragraph out of context.

Re: Anthony G

Sat Jun 07, 2008 08:27

You just proved my point:
"A pan-European army would be comprised of different divisions capable of separate and independent operations and only the commanders of the different divisions would have to co-ordinate their activities."

Like I said already the units within each of the American, Russian and Chinese armies are completely integrated with the same command structure, the same ethos and the same weapons platforms.

A Pan-European with divided commands, divided nationalities, duplication of roles, different weapons and different languages is not going to be as effective. A complete logistical nightmare.

A Pan-European army competing with the armies of the other superpowers is a complete fantasy in the minds of military imperialists or paranoid leftists.

McKnob, go back to playing with your tin soldiers

by Your_Joking_Right

Sun Jun 08, 2008 14:59

I'm sure your delusions make sense to them.

How can the EU Army you rave about 'compete' with the US, when practically every EU country, except maybe France, is occupied to a greater or lesser extent by the US military?

Would it not make more sense to boot out the Yankee occupier from all these countries before starting to talk about an EU constitution, army or sovreignty?

Battlegroups

by concerned

Sun Jun 08, 2008 15:20

Have the bosses EU not already gotten around the issue of different national and historical differences in their military throught the use of battlegroups that are to be expanded after (or despite) the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

Where there is a will there is a way.

You are definately joking

by paddy hater

Sun Jun 08, 2008 16:05

look up a history book.There are damn few places where The "yankee occupier" is or was in Europe.They were mostly in Germany,southern half.Now there are only somthing like 10% of the original strengthof what was thewre in Cold war times.Only other place was England and apart from the few USAF bases there like Mildenhall,they havent been there much either since 1945.
Get some facts before you show yourself up to be more ignorant by posting such shite!

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

The Myth of the Pan-European Army

Comments (7 of 7)