h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Rather than enter the debate about the US and UN and begin yet another "Americans suck" discussion, I thought I'd take a quote from apparition to begin another conversation:

"Take away veto and untie the hands of the UN. Lest we have to wait for the EU reaction force to be built because we know the has to be some balance to the US self-interest force."

My question is this... the Euro is already in play, there's talk of a unified military, and the bearacracy of the European Union is getting silly. Should they honestly consider the creation of a USE? And what would that look like?

As I think I mentioned before, I think a United Confederation of Europe would work but that a Federal Europe would not. At the end of the day I can't see the British, the French and many other nations submitting to a Federal Government that takes presidence over their national one. Any European "government" would have to be loose and flexible.

I'm strongly in favour of a European Rapid Reaction Force, because I think the combined armies of the major European powers could be a formidable force for good in the world (and could also provide a counterpoint to the USA and balance the NATO alliance out a bit, thus strengthening it (especially given French suspicion of the USA)), but again I think a European Federal Army is pie in the sky. Can anyone really see British troops taking order from a German general or German troops submitting to Italian command?

The EU's bureauracy is partly due to the necessities of implementing a single free market but also because the European Commission (which makes EU laws) is unelected and therefore cannot be brought to heel. I think there should be a political movement in the EU to abolish the Commission and replace it either with a body chosen by the European Parliament (which is elected) or by direct election by the citizens of the member states.

As for the Euro, I am still undecided. However, I think the idea that EU member states who do not adopt the single currency (such as Denmark and (probably) the UK) are somehow not "full players" in the European Project is a lie.

I'm very much in favour of an EU reaction force for two reasons. Firstly, it'll got a little way towards balancing US military power, and secondly, it means that we won't have to rely on the US. Why, an American might ask, were US troops needed in Bosnia when it's our backyard? Fair question. We shouldn't need to rely on the US under such circumstances.

I can't see it happening, though. Part of the US neo-con strategy in "The American Century" or whatever that document is called is to stop such a thing from happening, and I can't see Britain getting involved in the face of American opposition, and I can't see an EU rapid reaction force without British involvement.

Oh well.....

Otto

"I can't see it happening, though. Part of the US neo-con strategy in "The American Century" or whatever that document is called is to stop such a thing from happening, and I can't see Britain getting involved in the face of American opposition, and I can't see an EU rapid reaction force without British involvement."

Well, first off, if Europe wants a Rapid Reaction Force then America cannot stop it happening. Simple as that. I don't think the British are so subservient, we often have feeble leaders but we will look after our own interests in the end. And I think we have a strong part to play in any ERRF, certainly more so than in the current NATO set-up.

The so-called "Neocon" idea about a new American Century is a bit ridiculous. American interests would be best served by a safe, prosperous world that the US can trade with rather than the US intervening all over the place (which would be hugely costly in money and lives, beyond all else) in order to ensure that short-term interests are met. It would cause instability, resentment and, ulitmately, an utter shambles.

Oh, and this thread is about the EU and what that would mean for the nations of Europe, not America. Let's try and keep on-topic

If the thread is about the EU why is it titled USE? I assume USE stands for United States of Europe. USE seems to be constructed on analogy with USA and United States of Europe seems to be constructed on analogy with United States of America. I can't help but conclude that the question implied in the original post and its title was something along the lines of "should Europe work itself into a political system modeled on the USA." Such a question necessarily requires touching upon the system which is put forward as the model to imitate.

This is a con-o-worms thread possibly an acme product in the waiting. I'll first touch on a common missconception which is usually touted by paranoid *right-wing* americans and Zagreb. (observation, not personal attack)

"Can anyone really see British troops taking order from a German general or German troops submitting to Italian command?" - UN forces have and continue to operate on this model.

A co-operative military force acts within it's own command structure. To use a possible EU structure britt, german and italian forces would not be following the orders of a frenchman. They would be following the orders of an EU commander.

*and now I've lost my train of though as my wife was trying to get me to come home early on the sunny friday afternoon*

Who is in command of ISAF? Let me see. . . hmm. A German. And he has command of soldiers from "about twenty" countries. http://www.nato.int/shape/news/2003/07/i030704a.htm

An awful lot of the world can not only imagine having its soldiers working under the command of officers native to other nations, we do it all the time and have been doing it for more than a century. And, for goodness sake, take a look at NORAD: right now the second in command is a Canadian, appointed by the Canadian Minister of Defense, working out of Colorado Springs (USA) and giving orders to Americans. Interoperability is something that a great many militaries are working toward, not least to reduce the number of blue on blue incidents.

Zagreb:

I don't think I've ever yikesed anyone before but, on looking back at your rhetorical question about Germans commanding British troops or Italians commanding German troops I confess I'm on the verge. But first I'll ask for clarification.

Since such command structures are common in both NATO operations and in UN peacekeeping operations (as well as , most obviously, in American operations in Iraq [members of the Canadian Forces were on the ground as infantry under the command of American officers during the invasion of Iraq]) such a rhetorical question must be either the result of a genuine ignorance of what soldiers out here in the world do, or else the question was just a way to work some ethnic slurs into the thread.

"such a rhetorical question must be either the result of a genuine ignorance of what soldiers out here in the world do, or else the question was just a way to work some ethnic slurs into the thread."

Where were the ethnic slurs, exactly? I am in favour of a ERRF precisely because any command structure would be non-permanent (like a UN operation) and thus there would not be the political problems of one nation being "commanded" by generals of another not as part of a short-term shared agreement but constiutionally.

Are there any Scottish or Welsh soldiers serving in the British military under English officers?

Zagreb:

It struck me as an odd comment to make (the bit about foriegn commanders) because, as I mentioned, soldiers are serving under foriegn commanders all the time. As far as doing so for the long term, perhaps I'm more aware of the possibility of such service because for decades Canadian soldiers served and died under British command and it worked. I can quite easily imagine both the diferentiated command structure that some have suggested and an integrated command structure such as there is in NORAD. I guess I just expected that everybody knew about the historical and contemporary precedents for exactly the type of thing you were suggesting was unimaginable.