Draft for German security policy: discussion parts (13) to (16)
.
Comments and discussion on:
(13) Intervention without an alliance obligation
(14) Geographical orientation of the Bundeswehr
(15) Focus on potential for quick force expansion
(16) Protection of maritime trade .
@ 13: The answer is NO. I can think of no justification for, or benefits worth an active combat deployment to defend friendy non-allies. There are a lot of other options to support such friends, like sending arms, or covert intelligence and strategic ISR suport. That I would do, but starting much earlier, as an active foreign policy.
Genocide is a very special topic of course, but from the German point of view "solved" 65 years ago. Die Volksdeutsche Frage besteht nicht mehr. And a solo intervention in favor of other ethnicities - please no. There is no morale in politics. Besides that it is very unlikely that Germany would be the only country feeling the need for an intervention. That would happen in an ad-hoc alliance or on a European level.
I'd delete that whole paragraph.
@ 14: If you ask me, NATO is a dead horse. Degenerated into a internationalistic U.S. figleaf, a campaign-oriented ad-hoc task force, and a tool of U.S. dominance over Europe. That why: With NATO no Europe.
But talking about the Bundeswehr: Territorial and coastal/EEZ defence should be a given. Should because the German defence setup cannot defend the Germany. No deterrence against NBC attacks, no defence against ballistic missile attacks, against cyberwar, &c. Some Swiss cheeses in a fromagerie are better defended. But I say Germany cannot be defended by Germany in any case - that's why a European Wehrmacht is necessary.
And the other interest is mainly a maritime policing task I think. Showing presence, securing the trade routes. A handful of long range frigates. Germany as a nation state cannot secure its vital resource areas in the mid-east and central Africa. Only a European force can do that, domiante its theatre and go head-to-head with (near)-peer competitors (U.S., China, India, (Russia)).
The Bundeswehr's ability to do anything meaningful besides territorial defence is very limited. Only a massive militarization of the country would change that. OR a move towards an European force.
@ 15: Ja, that's a critical topic. (Though more suitable for a Forces' doctrine whitebook).
I value highly a voluntary militia structure. For one because it keeps a certain percentage of the population connected to "all things military", and then also because a militia is the pool for the CIMIC part of the regular, standing forces.
I case of a real war (a la totaler Krieg, when the aliens land) a general mobilization would have to take place. Another part of the task of a militia would be to function as the backbone of that mass army.
But that's a huge topic and goes deep into societal questions.
Conscription is questionable on the modern battlefield. And the economic side effects of conscription are huge. Careful! I would subscribe to conscription only in case of total war. And the resulting force wouldn't be much more than an almost irregular light infantry. But it's an interesting topic and one can learn a lot by looking at the Middle East, the Stans, and by reading Ho Chi Minh and Mao.
@ 16: Goes back to pt14. And I think we had that question already earlier - Blut für Öl and such. Basically YES. But on a national scale that isn't effective any more. Germany cannot compete with the big bullies on the block. Only a unified Europe can do that. Btw, economic interests are a very good and honest reason to go to war. Way better than some do-gooder B.S.
@ 13:
ReplyDeleteThe answer is NO. I can think of no justification for, or benefits worth an active combat deployment to defend friendy non-allies. There are a lot of other options to support such friends, like sending arms, or covert intelligence and strategic ISR suport. That I would do, but starting much earlier, as an active foreign policy.
Genocide is a very special topic of course, but from the German point of view "solved" 65 years ago. Die Volksdeutsche Frage besteht nicht mehr. And a solo intervention in favor of other ethnicities - please no. There is no morale in politics. Besides that it is very unlikely that Germany would be the only country feeling the need for an intervention. That would happen in an ad-hoc alliance or on a European level.
I'd delete that whole paragraph.
@ 14:
If you ask me, NATO is a dead horse. Degenerated into a internationalistic U.S. figleaf, a campaign-oriented ad-hoc task force, and a tool of U.S. dominance over Europe. That why: With NATO no Europe.
But talking about the Bundeswehr: Territorial and coastal/EEZ defence should be a given. Should because the German defence setup cannot defend the Germany. No deterrence against NBC attacks, no defence against ballistic missile attacks, against cyberwar, &c. Some Swiss cheeses in a fromagerie are better defended. But I say Germany cannot be defended by Germany in any case - that's why a European Wehrmacht is necessary.
And the other interest is mainly a maritime policing task I think. Showing presence, securing the trade routes. A handful of long range frigates. Germany as a nation state cannot secure its vital resource areas in the mid-east and central Africa. Only a European force can do that, domiante its theatre and go head-to-head with (near)-peer competitors (U.S., China, India, (Russia)).
The Bundeswehr's ability to do anything meaningful besides territorial defence is very limited. Only a massive militarization of the country would change that. OR a move towards an European force.
@ 15:
Ja, that's a critical topic. (Though more suitable for a Forces' doctrine whitebook).
I value highly a voluntary militia structure. For one because it keeps a certain percentage of the population connected to "all things military", and then also because a militia is the pool for the CIMIC part of the regular, standing forces.
I case of a real war (a la totaler Krieg, when the aliens land) a general mobilization would have to take place. Another part of the task of a militia would be to function as the backbone of that mass army.
But that's a huge topic and goes deep into societal questions.
Conscription is questionable on the modern battlefield. And the economic side effects of conscription are huge. Careful! I would subscribe to conscription only in case of total war. And the resulting force wouldn't be much more than an almost irregular light infantry. But it's an interesting topic and one can learn a lot by looking at the Middle East, the Stans, and by reading Ho Chi Minh and Mao.
@ 16:
Goes back to pt14. And I think we had that question already earlier - Blut für Öl and such. Basically YES. But on a national scale that isn't effective any more. Germany cannot compete with the big bullies on the block. Only a unified Europe can do that. Btw, economic interests are a very good and honest reason to go to war. Way better than some do-gooder B.S.