Thursday, July 01, 2010

See How Rapidly they React ?

Carrying on about their fantasies of what the UN can do that they won’t, which is defending them from risk and danger, Europeans are trying to employ argument and ‘discussion’ on themselves for the 30th year running.

An editorial in Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter asks What's the point in a European army?

For the first time in 2011, Sweden will assume command of Nordic Battlegroup 2, one of the 18 battlegroups that make up the European Rapid Reaction Force. The battlegroups are supposed to maintain readiness for deployment within ten days and a four month tour of duty in conflict zones.
Sounds good. I’m sure people feel warm and safe knowing that the reaction is nominally called to be rapid, and all that.

I imagine it also depends on your definition of ‘rapid’, though.
Although Europe's battlegroups "are an ideal force for the protection of populations, or the halting of ethnic cleansing," their deployment is often blocked by a lack of political will, and member states' reluctance to provide troops. The daily concludes that the idea of a "rapid" reaction force will remain a misnomer because "the UN is too slow and ponderous, and the United States follows its own agenda."
Actually, they are ideal - to those prone to imagining the world as it’s hoped to be, but not as it really is. Should anything like the ethnic cleansing in the fashion of the former Yugoslavia take place again, don’t think for a moment that the delays, unmet commitments, and bickering seen then will be any different today.

The usual argument European national forces have been under has been that their budgets and numbers are too small to have a complete effective defense and expeditionary structure. THEREfore a combined and coordinated force structure was needed. As we know, argumentation doesn’t lead to any actual accomplishment in meatspace.

The point of the ‘European Army’ was to solve that problem. Of course the moment it becomes possible, the yackity-yak engine fires up again, leaving the rest of humanity to hold the bag when forces are needed anywhere.

The emotionalism is summed up in the first reader comment that appeared in response to the article:
Sweden should not contribute to the EU's Waffen SS, we have barely resources here at home since the defense was destroyed during the past governments. Rather, we should rebuild a credible capacity so we can defend ourselves.
It’s a perfect circle of jabbering, since they will neither rebuild nor will they integrate into anything credible.

And by arguing about it endlessly, I’m sure there are people thinking that something is ‘being done’ to solve that dilemma.

No comments: