Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nato plans army of 250,000 to fight 'anywhere'
Independent.co.uk ^ | 21 February 2002 | Kim Sengupta

Posted on 02/22/2002 8:27:36 PM PST by TaxPayer2000

Nato is organising three rapid-reaction corps in its effort to reinvent a role for itself after being sidelined by America in the Afghan war.

The alliance would like to be able to put more than 100,000 men into a campaign, and envisages a total force in excess of 250,000, capable of combat in three conflicts in any part of the world for up to two years.

The British-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) will form the spearhead of the "new type of conflict" after the end of the Cold War. Five other corps – led by the Italians, the Spanish, the Germans, the Dutch, Turkey and a Franco-German Eurocorps – are also being formed. They are expected to be amalgamated into two, to supplement the ARRC.

The various corps will be multinational, with ARRC, for which the UK will supply 60 per cent of the personnel, as their model. Nato's plans to present a united force for use in global conflict is the result of soul-searching in response to the US making clear it is capable of mounting military operations without help from its allies.

A crucial and imminent test for Europe, Britain and Nato is likely to be Iraq. Senior British and European commanders are convinced that the US is likely to take military action there, including sending in ground troops, by the summer. Although most European countries are certain to oppose a new war in Iraq, the British Government appears to be gearing up to back Washington.

The Nato initiative faces the added complication of a proposal for an EU rapid-reaction force that would be made up of 60,000 personnel with its own command structure and headquarters. Although countries that have signed up, including Britain and France, have tried to allay American fears by stressing that the "Euroarmy' will complement Nato, rather than try to replace it, alliance commanders are unsure about how the two rapid-reaction forces would work together.

One proposal is that the EU force will form part of Nato's deployment. But this is expected to lead to objections from the French, who want far more autonomy from the American-dominated alliance.

Although ARRC, which deployed during its evolution in Bosnia and Kosovo, has been recognised as providing highly effective command and control by the Nato governments, including Washington, doubts remain about Nato being able to operate without significant help from America.

The alliance forces still depend on the US for a vital services, including air power and communications. The European members of the alliance do not have anything like enough "airlift" to transport large numbers of troops and equipment into a conflict zone, or air-strike capacity for a sustained campaign. During the Kosovo conflict, the European nations made just 20 per cent of the air raids, the rest being done by the Americans.

There are other basic problems, concerning radio and other communication between the armies of the European members of Nato. Because of disparities in the communication systems, different European forces can often "talk" to each other only with the help of the Americans.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2002 8:27:36 PM PST by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
They were smart enough to supplement the French division with a few Germans who could keep the French from dropping their weapons and running when the going gets tough.
2 posted on 02/22/2002 8:44:08 PM PST by ipatent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
I think Briton and other NATO members might be thinking twice about a private "E.U. army". Now they want a "European army" under NATO. This will keep us Americans in line.
3 posted on 02/22/2002 8:44:29 PM PST by Alpenkatze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
"The alliance forces still depend on the US for a vital services, including air power and communications. The European members of the alliance do not have anything like enough "airlift" to transport large numbers of troops and equipment into a conflict zone, or air-strike capacity for a sustained campaign."

"Because of disparities in the communication systems, different European forces can often "talk" to each other only with the help of the Americans."

Telling statements...

4 posted on 02/22/2002 8:47:29 PM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
I guess they need a army to fight the proposed Euro-force! LOL!
5 posted on 02/22/2002 8:50:21 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Alpenkatze
I got ten bucks that says this is our idea!
7 posted on 02/22/2002 8:52:07 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
Nato plans army of 250,000 to fight 'anywhere'
Anywhere

That's the part that makes me go hmmmmn.

I figured NATO would only need to fight in the North Atlantic. Now they want to be able to fight anywhere.

Hmmmmn

8 posted on 02/22/2002 8:52:41 PM PST by the
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: TaxPayer2000
I knew we were in trouble last year when there were rumblings of NATO taking acition in the South Pacific. I forget exactly what the full story was. Even the prospect of NATO going outside Europe let me know there was going to be a new kid on the block. Mark my words. It won't be one decade before we have a serious problem with the EU army. If we came to Israel's defense, which side would the EU be on? They slober all over anything that Arafat or the Arab nations of the middle east offer up.

Yep, it's only a matter of time.

10 posted on 02/22/2002 8:58:36 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Do yah think??? It would be about time these guys start ponying up some RELUCTANT troops as cannon fodder.
11 posted on 02/22/2002 8:59:50 PM PST by Alpenkatze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
This is an incomplete headline. It should read Nato plans army of 250,000 to fight 'anywhere' . . . . in Paris. Anything outside the reach of the Paris subway system will be left to the US.
12 posted on 02/22/2002 9:00:53 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alpenkatze
I think it would mean more U.S. control over the new army. We can't have the French running around with guns and unsupervised.
13 posted on 02/22/2002 9:02:56 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
An European Army would be chewed up by a single US division, Army or USMC. Heck, US Special Forces and the USAF would do the same.
14 posted on 02/22/2002 9:03:17 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Mark my words. It won't be one decade before we have a serious problem with the EU army.

I give it less than 5 years.....

15 posted on 02/22/2002 9:05:57 PM PST by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000
Maybe they'll fight in Rome, Italia ....etc.?
16 posted on 02/22/2002 9:05:58 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alpenkatze
"I think Briton and other NATO members might be thinking twice about a private "E.U. army". Now they want a "European army" under NATO. This will keep us Americans in line"

Plus they get the Turks, who'll actually fight. I think the Brits realized that the Eurocrats under the EU would do anything to sabotage actual protection of interests - better to keep the forces national.

And really, would a Brit SAS member or a Dutch Conscript fight for the EU?

17 posted on 02/22/2002 9:43:38 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: LenS
"An European Army would be chewed up by a single US division, Army or USMC. Heck, US Special Forces and the USAF would do the same."

First they would have to get somewhere to be chewed up. Maybe if we airlifted them then would could then defeat them.

19 posted on 02/22/2002 9:51:32 PM PST by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LenS
Yes, if we were to go up against the EU we could probably mop up. Now, what if the EU decides to send troops to the middle-east to help out with the Arab Israeli peace process? When the Palestinians continue to blow things up in Israel, do you like to idea of the situation we'd have to face? I can think of number of places where unilateral action by a EU force would complicate things drasticly.

We're looking at a situation where they're going to want to exert their influence around the world. When they do, we're going to butt heads.

20 posted on 02/22/2002 10:08:55 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson