[GreatBriton]

Britain is the only country in Europe with a decent and strong military.

France, Germany and the rest are falling behind the US and the UK militarily.


It's now becoming more and more obvious that "European Armies" are just the extension of their socialist agenda. Statistics show that most European nations, notably, France and Germany, spend more money on their personnel rather than vital military equipment. Thus the Army has just turned into another socialist employment scheme of people, who are otherwise unemployable. Neither France nor Germany or for that matter any European nation, except Great Britain, has the capacity to defend itself when attacked.

France and Germany should really stop pretending they are world powers. Neither of them can fight a division of French soldiers for their lives. Bruce Bartlett 2003.

capmag.com . . .

When it came down to it, two of America's closest Cold War allies -- France and Germany -- were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren't there when we -- and the world -- needed them. Instead, they carped, complained, delayed and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front. Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

American opinion is divided on whether France and Germany's failure of will is the result of cowardice or just fecklessness. I am inclined toward the latter. I think the truth is that neither country has the means any longer to wage a serious military campaign and were too proud to admit it. Rather than exhibit their weakness for the entire world to see, they pretended that their objection to military action in Iraq was based on some ill-defined principle. But I don't think they could have done much of anything militarily in Iraq even if they had stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder.

The sad truth is that France, which once conquered most of Europe under Napoleon, and Germany, whose military prowess in World War II was monumental, have become military weaklings. Neither could fight their way out of a paper bag today.

The reason is that the welfare state has severely weakened both France and Germany to the point where their armed forces are just extensions of it. Their armies, navies and air forces exist not to fight, but to provide jobs with lifetime security for the otherwise unemployable. Moreover, the welfare state -- and the high taxes that go with it -- have so weakened them economically and technologically that they couldn't afford a 21st century military even if it were a matter of national survival.

According to a recent report from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last year the United States spent 3.3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, while France spent 2.5 percent and Germany spent just 1.5 percent. At first glance, the difference may not seem that great, but the United States spends much more of its defense budget on weaponry and equipment, while France and Germany spend most of theirs on personnel. According to NATO, France and Germany spend over 60 percent of their defense budgets on pay and benefits, while the United States spends only 34.7 percent. The United States also spends 24.9 percent of its defense budget on equipment, while France and Germany spend just 19.6 percent and 12.2 percent, respectively.

Composition of Defense Outlays, 2002 (percent) How European nations lag behind US and UK

Country Personnel Equipment
Italy .......71.9.......... 13.3
Belgium .....70.7...... 8.1
Spain .....65.0 ..........13.7
France 60.3............. 19.6
Germany 60.2.......... 12.2
Canada 43.5............ 13.3
U.K. 39.3................ 24.2
U.S. 34.7................ 24.9

Source: NATO

According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. "Europe's military muscle has grown soft," it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe's technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.

According to a March 18 report in The New York Times, Germany's once powerful army has become a "basket case." It is "one of the worst military laggards" in NATO, it says. Germany's budget for equipment is so small that it had to lease old planes from Ukraine [!!!] just to send a few troops to Afghanistan to help out with peacekeeping last year. It spends $1 billion per year on maintaining its aging fleet of trucks, but spends just $40 million buying new ones.

The same is true throughout Europe. Indeed, a spokesman for Belgium's defense ministry even admitted that its armed forces are a joke. "I'm not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight," he said. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France's efforts to block military action in Iraq.

While Europe's military has grown soft and weak since the collapse of communism, the United States has continued to upgrade and modernize its forces. We have the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military on earth. Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening. I think that is a key reason why the Germans and French opposed us. They cannot compete, and they know it.

If France and Germany want to be fat and lazy welfare states, that is their choice. But if so, they should have the decency to resign from the world stage and not pretend to be major powers any longer.

About the Author: Bruce Bartlett is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

[BartSimpson]

On the subject of military preparedness I remember the following from my halcyon times at Camp Pendleton...

"Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

"The failure to prepare is the preparation to fail."

The time to prepare an adequate military is before you need it.

As the French can readily attest.

[Laconfir]

Judging from the vocabulary used in that article, you should really check for bias a little better.

[Tman1]

$1:

Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening.

Biased much?

[BartSimpson]

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening.

Biased much?

The US military is damned effective in war. The problem in Iraq is that the US is trying to build a nation.

We do have a very powerful military.

I forget who said that, "Any ass can destroy a cathedral in scant minutes, but it takes generations of skill and craftsmanship to build one.", but the same would apply to nations. And militaries are wholly unsuited to nation building.

Germany was occupied for six years (officially) by the West after their defeat and, truthfully, it is still occupied.

We've only been in Iraq for two years. It will take much more time to make a nation out of that mess.

[Tman1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tman1 Tman1:

$1:

Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening.

Biased much?

The US military is damned effective in war. The problem in Iraq is that the US is trying to build a nation.

We do have a very powerful military.

I forget who said that, "Any ass can destroy a cathedral in scant minutes, but it takes generations of skill and craftsmanship to build one.", but the same would apply to nations. And militaries are wholly unsuited to nation building.

Germany was occupied for six years (officially) by the West after their defeat and, truthfully, it is still occupied.

We've only been in Iraq for two years. It will take much more time to make a nation out of that mess.

$1:

The US military is damned effective in war.

Really? Which war? WWII? Sure, with the help of Allies Won't even bother mentioning WWI. Korea? Sure, it ended in a stalemate. I won't mention the unmentionable war Americans don't like to hear. Hmmmmm sorry nothing else rings a bell. Iraq? Beating up on a bunch of washed out ex-Iraqi military and militants make you effective in war?

$1:

The problem in Iraq is that the US is trying to build a nation.

Or control it, depends on where your spectrum of thought presides.

$1:

We do have a very powerful military.

Not disputing that but wow, so you have a powerful military, can't everyone in this world get along?

$1:

And militaries are wholly unsuited to nation building.

I fail to see your point. You said the U.S is there to trying to BUILD a nation. If militaries are unsuited to build nations...why is the U.S there?

Basically all this is is just another Britian rules all and the rest of Europe sucks my d*ck thread. All it is is a dick measuring contest.

U.S--My military is bigger, stronger, better than yours.
U.K--No MY military is bigger, stronger, better than YOURS.
U.S--No, MINE is
U.K-- NO MINE IS
No mine, no mine is, no mine is...mine mine mine.

[BartSimpson]

Tman1 Tman1:

I fail to see your point. You said the U.S is there to trying to BUILD a nation. If militaries are unsuited to build nations...why is the U.S there?

The US went in to win a war and, honestly, there was no plan on what to do after that.

Have you ever seen an old Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate"?

The movie is all about the US Senate political campaign of Redford's character.

At the end he wins the election and the last line of the movie is classic and is uttered by an aide:

"Now what do we do?"

I think that summarizes the US policy after we won the war.

[Tman1]

$1:

The US went in to win a war and, honestly, there was no plan on what to do after that.

Heh heh, Bingo. Win what war though? Iraq didn't formally declare war on the U.S so that would make the imposed war illegitimate. Like I said previously, if you think your so mighty when you defeat ex-Iraqi soldiers and an obviously inferiously equipped army and call that a crushing victory then by all means.

[ManifestDestiny]

Tman1 Tman1:

[

Really? Which war? WWII? Sure, with the help of Allies Won't even bother mentioning WWI. Korea? Sure, it ended in a stalemate. I won't mention the unmentionable war Americans don't like to hear. Hmmmmm sorry nothing else rings a bell. Iraq? Beating up on a bunch of washed out ex-Iraqi military and militants make you effective in war?

$1:

The problem in Iraq is that the US is trying to build a nation.

Or control it, depends on where your spectrum of thought presides.

$1:

We do have a very powerful military.

Not disputing that but wow, so you have a powerful military, can't everyone in this world get along?

[quote]

Ok here goes Tman saying the USA had nothing to do with winning WWII. Let me give you this senerio what if The USA joined Germany and Italy who do you think would have won ?

And did you not wanna mention Vietnam? I feel we won it all depends on your sepctrum of thought presides

"cant everyone just get along"? What are you Rodney King?

[xerxes]

$1:

cant everyone just get along"? What are you Rodney King?

Yes, because God forbid there should be peace on this earth.

[Tman1]

$1:

Ok here goes Tman saying the USA had nothing to do with winning WWII.

I never said the U.S had nothing to do with not winning WWII, I said the help with the Allies, get it? Allies, look it up in the dictionary. Besides, did you even read? We were talking about the effectivness of the U.S military in the Wars. Now I know your one of the 90% of the Americans that Think they single handedly won WWII

$1:

And did you not wanna mention Vietnam? I feel we won it all depends on your sepctrum of thought presides

You didn't win. Get over it.

[DerbyX]

Tman1,

O-nug believes all that "manifest destiny" crap. He thinks god rides on GWB's sholders. So did hitler!

[Tman1]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tman1,

O-nug believes all that "manifest destiny" crap. He thinks god rides on GWB's sholders. So did hitler!

At least Hitler had a plan, GWB just went in with no clothes on.

[BartSimpson]

GWB went in to get Hussein. That was the priority.

[DerbyX]

It wasn't his place to. Who gave him the right? Who gave him the right to drag a bunch of other countries into a war he started (by lying) because someone insulted his father? Your president is a murder as much as saddam is. Alot of people have died and will die as a result of the US occupation. It was needless. It has not made the US any safer and has made everyone else less safe.