Int'l Security Organizations.

[RedSkunk]

- Specifically related to the role of NATO, the UN, and a possible EU military corp.

Many bemoan the fact that the US is a sort of world police. There are tons of reasons to be opposed to this - some see it as base imperialism, others believe the US shouldn't be wasting resources outside of its borders. It entirely complicates foreign policy - why is the US in such and such a country. Altruism or otherwise?

I imagine some might be content with America's position in the world - it seems to be the cornerstone of neo-conservative foreign policy. But all of this is beside the fact. In this thread, I would like to talk about the possibility of other international military actors. I'm just writing without doing any intensive research, and I would sort of like this thread to be more of a discussion than a flame war between two polar extremes.

To start things off, I would like to bring up three major actors - or potential actors - when discussing an international military power. Those three would be NATO, the UN, and the EU.

NATO is the current hegemonic int'l military power (IMP for short, eh?). Of course, we are all well aware that NATO is, for all intensive purposes, the US. I've already hit a few points above why this is problematic. Would it ever be possible to "reform" NATO, to increase democratization and representation within the organization? Doubtful in my mind. Countries join NATO to come under the protection of the US, on the premise that they will support US policy (evidence - eastern europe's support / participation in Gulf War II). This is a pretty advantageous position for the US, a position they are not likely to willingly give up.

The UN? This would be the logical organization to create an international military body. However it is also largely impossible - in today's political landscape, at least. Like a possible EU military, any UN military will be dependent on its' members for support, troops, infrastructure, and the ilk. The problem with this arises when differences of opinion occur between major powers. Again, I can cite the current War in Iraq. Since the UN includes practically every nation around the globe, there is very little chance of achieving a clear consensus. To work at all, one would have to resort to simple majority to decide on military affairs. And this would soon lead to schisms, falling outs, and a deadlock. As we've seen at every opportunity that presents itself.

Problems of this sort also crop up in a possible EU military corp. However, the problems are fewer. The nations of the EU have achieved monumental economic integration in the past fifty years. They have a working political organization that, despite its faults, is functioning. A so-called "Common Foreign & Security Policy" has been discussed and outlined in various treaties for the past two decades. Deadlines for a force 60,000 strong have been set. And although these deadlines will not be met, the fact that concrete goals have been set is indicative of the very real possibilities.

There are two main problems with a European common military. Firstly, actual ability. An example: the US has something like five dozen full ocean carriers - for transporting troops, planes, providing bases for launching missions, etcetera. France has two; Britain one (the rest of the EU? Nada). All military operations under NATO are reliant on US support. The basic support system for a military that can operate outside it's borders is pretty much only held by the US at this point in time. This is a major issue for any new international military body - that wants to be independent from total US domination, that is.

Secondly, the same problem with the UN - divergent national interests. However, in regards to the EU, I don't believe this is as large of a problem as one might think. Gulf War II again. There were maybe a dozen European countries in support initially. Prominently - England, Spain, and Poland. Poland, and the rest of the Central & Eastern European countries who were part of the "Coalition of the Willing", joined to curry favor with the US, and strengthen their positions in NATO. Take note of the Eastern European nations which most recently joined NATO, and then check on whether or not they supported the US-lead invasion of Iraq.

Britian is the exception to the rule, naturally. Blair is Bush's poodle, and England has always been more of a eurosceptic nation than the others. But for the rest of Europe, the main deciding factor was not altruistic beliefs of "freeing the people of Iraq" or fear of weapons of mass destruction. It was deciding on which side it was more important to support. The US / NATO, or the EU / a nonexistant CFSP. The choice was obvious for small countries who still fear Russia.

But as an EU military corp becomes a reality, this choice will become easier to make. If the EU had a functioning military body, it would stand to reason that nations within the EU would side with it, over NATO. Integration leads to further integration.

The problem of coming to a consensus is still an issue. But I believe that in the economic sphere, the EU has proven able. And when coming to basic defense and foreign policy, it should not prove that much harder to do. Because at the end of the day, most of your foreign policy is going to be the same - to protect and strengthen your own nation. The interests of each European nation are not that divergent.

There is another question also, and that is - do the European nations even want to become a global player, militarily? It means radically increasing expenditures on the military. It means increased numbers joining the military. This might be the hardest obstacle, if the answer proves to be no. However, they also do not seem to be comfortable with the current landscape. So the member-states of the EU need to decide.

Ultimately what am i talking about here? Base regionalism when it comes to global military actors. Competent actors in other parts of the world will take the stress off of the US military and NATO. It will allow us to focus on other more important issues. It will provide legitimacy to peacekeeping efforts internationally. Ultimately, it is foreseeable to see dominate transnational military powers in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The beginnings are already happening in each area - Brazil, the African Union, the Arab League. And I ran out of room.

Discuss?

[Gunter45]

I think an international military force should pretty much be a well-equipped and trained paramilitary group. After all, in the conflicts we've seen in the past, the most powerful weapon has been the light infantry. Of course you're going to need APCs and light tanks, but you don't need 'phibs to ship those, you can airlift them. You don't need an awful lot of logistical support, just send in a company or two of light infantry with some light armored support. Any body of countries could foot that.

As far as the politics goes, it's hard to get an ideal situation. NATO is dominated by the US and its policies. The UN is extremely inefficient and usually militarily impotent due to internal politics. The EU might be a pretty decent organization, however, as you mentioned, there's problems with the EU, as well. However, I don't see why NATO is so bad just because it's mostly an extention of US policy. The main shortcoming in the US being a police force on its own is because, like you said, it can be seen as a sort of imperialism and it's a waste of resources. With an organization like NATO, it doesn't mater if it's mostly the US calling the shots, because it's hard to be imperialistic with a international body, US dominated or not. NATO wasn't really designed to handle conflicts in other countries, it was designed to confront aggression by the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact. I think the ideal situation would be if a new organization was created with the purpose of "international policing" in mind.

[JoS]

At 10/18/05 05:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I think an international military force should pretty much be a well-equipped and trained paramilitary group. After all, in the conflicts we've seen in the past, the most powerful weapon has been the light infantry. Of course you're going to need APCs and light tanks, but you don't need 'phibs to ship those, you can airlift them. You don't need an awful lot of logistical support, just send in a company or two of light infantry with some light armored support. Any body of countries could foot that.

Actually even for a few companies and light armour you need a wide arrange of support. First off you need communication, followed by transport and re-suppling, you need medical, food and shelter as well as support staff like MI and liasons, translators, drivers etc.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 10/18/05 06:48 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 10/18/05 05:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

Actually even for a few companies and light armour you need a wide arrange of support. First off you need communication, followed by transport and re-suppling, you need medical, food and shelter as well as support staff like MI and liasons, translators, drivers etc.

And with all of that most un nations couldn' even suplly half of that. What were in is a conumdrum.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Honestly, are international security organizations really even necessary? The world really is no longer in a state conducive to military invasions that would require such organizations to protect its members.

Nearly all military action in the present is police or interventionist action. Even those cases where the military is used for direct defensive and offensive purposes, I think a loose coalition of militaries is much more desirable than a international force. It allows countries to have some say so over how their troops and resources are used, but at the same time, participating nations can collaborate and act in tandem with each other. While you could argue that this could cause communication problems, etc., those same problems occur in any large international force, as well.

[smith916]

look at the madrid and english bombings, look at 9/11 and other previous attacks on america.

Do some research on all the terrorist attacks in the last 50 years, and ask yourself once more. is it nessesary to have an international security agency.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/18/05 08:06 PM, smith916 wrote: look at the madrid and english bombings, look at 9/11 and other previous attacks on america.

Do some research on all the terrorist attacks in the last 50 years, and ask yourself once more. is it nessesary to have an international security agency.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please clarify.

[Gunter45]

At 10/18/05 06:48 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Actually even for a few companies and light armour you need a wide arrange of support. First off you need communication, followed by transport and re-suppling, you need medical, food and shelter as well as support staff like MI and liasons, translators, drivers etc.

I'm not saying you wouldn't need all that, I'm just saying you wouldn't need phibs to deploy everywhere.

[smith916]

There have been many many genocide attempts in human history, many.

We need a security force ment to uphold the majority of humans values to stop these kinds of attacks on humanity.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/18/05 08:13 PM, smith916 wrote: There have been many many genocide attempts in human history, many.

We need a security force ment to uphold the majority of humans values to stop these kinds of attacks on humanity.

We've had NATO and the UN security forces for the past 50 years. Looking at the genocides in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. etc., I don't really understand how having international security forces will prevent genocides and terrorism, etc. when they haven't been very effective in doing so in the past half century.

Besides, in what ways could an international security force prevent genocide that an informal coalition couldn't?

[smith916]

At 10/18/05 08:17 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 10/18/05 08:13 PM, smith916 wrote: There have been many many genocide attempts in human history, many.

We need a security force ment to uphold the majority of humans values to stop these kinds of attacks on humanity.

We've had NATO and the UN security forces for the past 50 years. Looking at the genocides in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. etc., I don't really understand how having international security forces will prevent genocides and terrorism, etc. when they haven't been very effective in doing so in the past half century.

Besides, in what ways could an international security force prevent genocide that an informal coalition couldn't?

You've answered your own question...

That's like saying... I've had this car for 50 years and it's not working, what's the point of having one,

It's not working because it's 50 years.

I never said the current angencies are good, i said that we need one. Maybe a new one would be better, it's always good to inproove and refine things for more 21'st century problems.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/18/05 08:23 PM, smith916 wrote: I never said the current angencies are good, i said that we need one. Maybe a new one would be better, it's always good to inproove and refine things for more 21'st century problems.

The reference to the last 50 years was just historical reference. What kind of improvements and refinements will make international organizations more effective against genocide? Moreover, you still haven't explained how an international organization such as the UN or NATO can prevent terrorism and genocide more effectively than a coalition of military forces.

[smith916]

I dont like the UN for your information. And i'm sad to say that i dont know much about Nato.

I do however think that a small military force should be created. But you have a few problems.

Give the power to control this protection group to everyone and you have a burocracy
Give the power to control this protection group to a few or one and you have an imperialisim.

Very difficult indeed.

My who previous statements were basically saying that the united states shouldn't be the only nation fighting the war on terror (or atleast the only nation taking major credit for it) , or atleast trying to crack down on terrorists if The terrorists have declared war on any non muslim community.

[Demosthenez]

At 10/18/05 05:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Of course you're going to need APCs and light tanks, but you don't need 'phibs to ship those, you can airlift them.

I think only a couple of Western nations have the capability to airlift the tonnage necessary to carry APC's, tanks, the ilk.

You could transport very light vehicles and infantry in planes not of the C-17 and C-5's stature, but not many countries are capable of airliftint the larger armored support.

[Gunter45]

At 10/18/05 08:43 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: You could transport very light vehicles and infantry in planes not of the C-17 and C-5's stature, but not many countries are capable of airliftint the larger armored support.

That's what the rail system is for. The reason why European countries don't have a whole lot of phib support is because any conflict that's going to be important to them is on the same landmass. Rail lines are efficient ways to move a lot of equipment. More so than phibs and airlifting.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 10/18/05 08:36 PM, smith916 wrote: My who previous statements were basically saying that the united states shouldn't be the only nation fighting the war on terror (or atleast the only nation taking major credit for it) , or atleast trying to crack down on terrorists if The terrorists have declared war on any non muslim community.

Why not? If other nations felt compelled that the threat terrorists posed, they'd seek out and participate in security and military actions to prevent acts of terrorism within their borders, if--and this is key--they felt that military action would prevent terrorism.

Some nations take an isolationist attitude and feel that participating in actions against terrorism would attract acts of terrorism to their nation.

Other nations defer participation to the US because they feel that if the US is participating and fighting terrorism, there isn't any need for them to contribute resources or troops.

In either case, having an international organization would not help--members would just abstain, like many nations such as Germany and France abstained from the current war in Iraq that other NATO members participated in.

[Demosthenez]

At 10/18/05 08:51 PM, Gunter45 wrote: That's what the rail system is for.

You still have to have the agreement to transport over every country you go over and all the rail gauges have to be the sams size or you are screwed. With international waters, you need no agreements.

I see your point, but the EU has no intrest in being influential militarily. The Navy is the power and the EU essentially has no comparable naval presence to the US.

[Gunter45]

At 10/18/05 08:58 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I see your point, but the EU has no intrest in being influential militarily. The Navy is the power and the EU essentially has no comparable naval presence to the US.

That's the clincher. Being able to project power globally requires a powerful navy. At the moment, a US carrier group is the deadliest conventional weapon ever created, and we have something like 17 with an 18th on the way. Nobody comes close to the US Navy, it's such a power gap that I'm extremely skeptical about everyone talking about how the US is going to fall from power anytime soon.

[IllustriousPotentate]

Here's an interesting proposition for you--it's actually in the best intrest of the EU that it doesn't develop a large military, at least, in the near future.

The US spends a significant percentage of its budget on defense. For the EU to develop a military similiar to that of the US, it would have to spend much more than the US to catch up, then continue to spend at the level of the US thereafter.

Since the EU is already allies of the US, they rely on the US for most of their defense.

Here's the solution. They continue to militarily ally with the US for their defense. The large chunk of money that would have been spend on advancing the military now can then be invested in growing the economy and inhancing technological innovation. Therefore, when the US economic growth begins to stagnate and military cutbacks occur, the EU's economy will have developed even further, which will make the cost of introducing an military superpower more affordable.

[Jimsween]

No current organization is fit to gaurantee the security of the world. We need something completely new if anything, everything else was made for other things and you can't try to make something

I think one of the main problems is that there would be too much disagreement, with each individual country being able to do things on thier own, there is still disagreement, but at least there is some progress, but if we all have to agree in order to get things done we will never get them done.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/18/05 05:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I think an international military force should pretty much be a well-equipped and trained paramilitary group. After all, in the conflicts we've seen in the past, the most powerful weapon has been the light infantry. Of course you're going to need APCs and light tanks, but you don't need 'phibs to ship those, you can airlift them. You don't need an awful lot of logistical support, just send in a company or two of light infantry with some light armored support. Any body of countries could foot that.

The European countries were unable to do anything in the Balkans in the early 90s, and this was at their front doorstep. You say later that they can use the rail system. Not really. They simply don't have the backing infrastructure.

With an organization like NATO, it doesn't mater if it's mostly the US calling the shots, because it's hard to be imperialistic with a international body, US dominated or not.

Wait, I don't know. When was the last time NATO collectively did something in opposition to the US? Anything?

At 10/18/05 07:56 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Honestly, are international security organizations really even necessary? The world really is no longer in a state conducive to military invasions that would require such organizations to protect its members.

Nearly all military action in the present is police or interventionist action. Even those cases where the military is used for direct defensive and offensive purposes, I think a loose coalition of militaries is much more desirable than a international force. It allows countries to have some say so over how their troops and resources are used, but at the same time, participating nations can collaborate and act in tandem with each other. While you could argue that this could cause communication problems, etc., those same problems occur in any large international force, as well.

I don't quite know why you're trying to draw a big distinction between a int'l security org, and a military alliance. Hell, in my original post, I drew no distinction between NATO and a potential EU force. And what is the use of int'l military bodies? You said it yourself - policing, peacekeeping. I never intended to talk about defense. I was talking about regional bodies that can police themselves. Exactly.

At 10/18/05 08:17 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: We've had NATO and the UN security forces for the past 50 years. Looking at the genocides in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Cambodia, etc. etc., I don't really understand how having international security forces will prevent genocides and terrorism, etc. when they haven't been very effective in doing so in the past half century.
Besides, in what ways could an international security force prevent genocide that an informal coalition couldn't?

The UN is hampered largely by the veto in the security council. The UN was doomed on the outset, by the leading nations unwilling to give up national sovereignty.

And NATO? It only acts when it is politically prudent for the US. Why don't you draw a clear distinction between your definitions of int'l security force, and informal coalition for us? In my mind, an informal coalition does not have international sanctioning - they lack legitimacy. An informal coalition like the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq right now?

At 10/18/05 09:11 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The US spends a significant percentage of its budget on defense. For the EU to develop a military similiar to that of the US, it would have to spend much more than the US to catch up, then continue to spend at the level of the US thereafter.
Since the EU is already allies of the US, they rely on the US for most of their defense.

Weren't you earlier talking about how defense measures are irrelevent when talking about these security organizations? Anyways, I fail to see why the EU would need to spend similar to that of the US. They would not be directly competing with the US, an EU military body would not be supplanting NATO. Explanation?

[punisher19848]

Let's get one thing strait regarding NATO: the U.S. contributes about 85% of NATO forces to the coalition. In fact, WE ARE NATO! The same goes for the U.N. "peacekeeper" units (I don't see why we keep supporting those fuckheads).

Beyond PR purposes, I really don't see the need for these international military coalitions because we already make up the vast majority of them. Besides, they tend to create more problems for their employers than they solve (particularly slow response time, confusion within the chain of command, and communication difficulties).