Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept in a EU(WEU)-NATO framework - Page 2




 
--
 
February 4th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigliara2
Very significant for the Swedes to step out of strict neutrality in the first EU peace-keeping mission with a 'robust UN mandate' in Bunya: 'Operation Artémis'...
Oh so it was a EU mission and not a UN? hehe! My bad, both only have two letters so its hard to remember which one it was
February 4th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 

Topic: Re: Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept in a EU(WEU)-NATO frame


Quote:
Originally Posted by zigliara2
Hello,
I'm a newcomer to this forum and I'd like to draw your attention and interest to my URL:
http://paginas.pavconhecimento.mct.p.../Mario_Zanatti
and the ensuing forum discussion for any interested party at the following:
http://cervens.net/legionbbs//showth...hp?t=34&page=1
Regards,
Zigliara
I'm not the biggest fan of multi-national armies at the regiment level. I think it's fine at the divisional and above level, in fact I'd prefer it at Army level and above myself. I'm not sure a Euro Regiment would be as effective as an entirely French, British or German regiment would be for reasons of tradition and even language. Good armies require amongst other things trust and a spirit of teamwork at the lowest levels and having different nationalities all in the same regiments doesn't foster this IMO. But hey, maybe I'm just a cynic.

With regards to the German bashing I think it's silly that anyone can bash a country with as rich a military tradition as Germany, politics put aside. And conscription army or not, the Bundeswehr in the 1980's were deemed as having the best regular troops at NATO's disposal during the Cold War. It was West German and not US or British divisions that were entrusted to meet the initial expected thrust of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army. Some nations just seem to have a talent for battle and making war and Germany ranks foremost amongst those nations.
February 4th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigliara2

Let's say selection of legionnaires with verifiable personality-type Bs than personality type-As. This would be followed by conditioned awareness of legionnaires on the precise role of the regiment.

Do you really want to put nothin but type B personalities in a combat enviroment? Seems like a good way to fill body bags too me.
--
February 4th, 2005  
Lil Hulk 1988
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigliara2

Let's say selection of legionnaires with verifiable personality-type Bs than personality type-As. This would be followed by conditioned awareness of legionnaires on the precise role of the regiment.

Do you really want to put nothin but type B personalities in a combat enviroment? Seems like a good way to fill body bags too me.
If you want an effective combat unit. type "B"'s do not work well in competitive environments. The role of anyone in combat is to win and usually at all costs. This maybe sad, but is a true fact of combat situations. The personalities that need to be within the unit and commanding the unit need to be able to look at what it takes to finish the job quickly and efficiently, not whose feelings it will hurt since being undecisive in a fire fight usually ends up with what 03 said, a bunch of full body bags...
February 4th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 

Topic: Re: hey


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anya1982
There is a reason why the French Foriegn Legion don't actually get out alot.

They are dead strict and very aggressive. They kill and leave the bodies to be cleared up by any1 who is not them.

They are uncontrolable, so to this effect would this be a good idea for the rest of Europe to copy?
Is that an opinion or a statement of fact? The FFL has quite a proud history. They get "out" quite a bit. Who do you think France uses as an expeditionary force?

The FFL Regiments have a reputation of being professional and highly motivated, disciplined and capable soliders. They have served side by side with US and UK forces on many occasions and recieved nothing but praise.

You won't generally find me taking up for the French, but come on that was uncalled for.
February 5th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think lately though, the French have been using their units more often than the Foreign Legion.
February 5th, 2005  
Anonymous
 
Thanks for your comments and opinions across the board regarding the Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept and its Single European Regiment (SER).

Firstly, the bottom line is belonging to the Euro single currency to limit the perceptions or verifiable conflict or confusion of economic and political interests. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be naive to think that such conflict would be altogether precluded after joining the Euro zone. Hence, ratification of the EU constitution would not necessarily be the bottom line. Political powers-that-be obviously decide definitive benchmarks.

Secondly, regarding personality-types and your comments, I think the criteria of verifiable self-restraint and self-discipline in the selection process could be better criteria in the selection process than a blanket personality type-B in the selection process.

Thirdly, the companies of this multinational regiment (SER) would deploy together with national battalions of EU and NATO Member-States represented in the officer ranks of the SIngle European Regiment in small high-readiness battle-groups. Each EU Member-State would have the complete freedom to retain or withdraw officers prior to the deployment of the SER; and their replacement would be by officers from Member-States participating in its deployment

Fourthly, I'm posting the essential parts of the last comment by me in the other forum:

The purpose of this concept is not to set the U.S. and Europe on a collision course: it attempts to show additional options for both sides to consider as Allies in NATO and in the United Nations framework.

The background of the concept, that is, its reflection, conception, publication, presentation and awareness-building including this board is the massacre of Srebrenica: it was a verifiable failure and political 'reality check' for the European Union.

Also, read English-language footnote 34 of the French text available through my URL. Read Dr. Phyllis Bennis: she contends how far international law has been violated for geo-strategic and oil reasons and not WMDs. 'Might is Right' by Otto von Bismarck has been adapted in Iraq in her contention. However, the recent liberation/invasion of Iraq assumes huge potential risks at least for the U.S. of radiological retaliation that cannot be understated.

The Eurocorps-Foreign Legion concept attempts to spread the risks between genuine democracies, that is, with verifiable 'free 'n fair' elections and turnover in political leaders if not reelected, in any part of the world. Such countries from every part of the world, and all from the UN Permanent Security Council irrespective of the 'democratic standard', would be invited by a EU(WEU)-NATO framework at the UN to participate in the concept through its UN dimension, that is, imbedded UN CIVPOL police officers: their accountable role to a U.N. Ombudsman would be to prevent the repetition of situations of verifiable abuse, humiliation, torture and murder of prisoners. This is how the much-invoked 'greater-burden sharing' in NATO could take shape, and in keeping with the stated EU political intention of its current 25 Member-States to assume scenarios in the Petersberg and 'Berlin Plus' declarations.

Also, the concept advocates the punctual, periodic or permanent presence of French-speaking American and Canadian NATO liaison officers in order to limit suspicion and manipulation of perceptions by individuals in any national hierarchy. Obviously there need to be counterpart provisions, for example, in the counterpart U.S. and Canadian units, for example, USMC, Ranger and Canadian green beret units, as participating NATO Member-States in the deployment of the Single European Regiment. The permanent presence of French-speaking officers in the Single European Regiment would represent a sure transatlantic policy acceptable to both sides in the United Nations at the disposal of the UN Secretary-general: it would be a provision adopted after sustained agreement between successive U.S. and Canadian administrations in the respective political spectrum. The bottom line for EU candidates is to be part of the Eurozone as a starting benchmark for being 'European'.

However, the use of the military in History has always been linked to geo-strategy and the national self-interest since the rise of the Nation-State. This concept safeguards the prerogative of 'national sovereignty' and proposes additional options where/when the national self-interest cannot be easily identified but where troops are called in the collective sense, that is, in the EU and NATO frameworks and by extension in the United Nations.

The concept seems easy enough to conceive but the correct instruction needs to be given for this type of conception. Nevertheless, the concept also exposes a verifiable lack of political will to undertake such a concept in earnest even after the above necessary and preliminary stages and individual and collective thresholds have been addressed in the written press and the pertinent forum outside of the national demarcation.

Furthermore, I fear that such challenging concepts are only looked at after a REAL and DEEP crisis when everything seems to be stable. 9/11 was a REAL crisis for the US: it responded. Srebrenica was a real crisis for the European Union in its international projection: it responded with its NATO allies including an estimated 80% U.S. participation in the 'Operation Allied Strike' in Kosovo. A conceptual response is called for to avoid the repetition of the Srebrenica scenario.

Lastly, the link to the presentation of the concept at the European parliament in June 2003 has been updated inside my URL.

Comments and edits are always welcome from either side of the pond among others.
February 7th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigliara2
Secondly, regarding personality-types and your comments, I think the criteria of verifiable self-restraint and self-discipline in the selection process could be better criteria in the selection process than a blanket personality type-B in the selection process.

You are equating A personalities as overly aggressive and undisciplined. The Majority of Troops in Special Units are A types. They have self discipline. A vast majority of Infantry Troops are A types.

Without A types you have a unit of followers with no leaders. not a good mix in a hot zone.
February 7th, 2005  
CABAL
 
 
Quote:
Thirdly, the companies of this multinational regiment (SER) would deploy together with national battalions of EU and NATO Member-States represented in the officer ranks of the SIngle European Regiment in small high-readiness battle-groups. Each EU Member-State would have the complete freedom to retain or withdraw officers prior to the deployment of the SER; and their replacement would be by officers from Member-States participating in its deployment
Although the concept of swaping officers around and fitting in replacements may seems simple, but it can be very complicated along the process and tremendous amounts of time can be wasted. I don't think it's a very excellent idea.
February 7th, 2005  
Anonymous
 
USMC03,

Points taken for a balance between type-A and type-B personalities in a platoon. So how would you go about such selection ?
I refer to my experience in Beirut between May and September 1983. I know that it was a long time ago but there were a number of very serious internal incidents (I won't describe them except that there was an emergency Casevac to France for surgery in the platoon I was in) and several incidents with locals: it was just as well there was no rule of law and a court and judicial system in Beirut at the time for some soldiers could have been arrested and charged. Instead, there was a total breakdown of law and order between the Green line and the fiefdoms of warlords in Beirut which was just as well. ..

Beirut 1983 is my operational reference in the selection process of legionnaires for this type of unit. Follow your comments, some personality type-As with verifiable stable behaviour patterns (follow orders) could be selected rather than some in the same category who interpret liberally some orders. This is to avoid a measure of embarassment before public opinion when isolated incidents condemn the collective identity and effort of the vast majority of legionnaires.

[/quote]Although the concept of swaping officers around and fitting in replacements may seems simple, but it can be very complicated along the process and tremendous amounts of time can be wasted. I don't think it's a very excellent idea.[/quote]

The replacement would be by officers with the most recent former appointments and with favourable notation in the pertinent platoon or company. Among the options of replacement is a FFL officer and permanent 2IC appointment in each SER company would take command of either the platoon or the company after withdrawal of officer by the national authority. There would be obvious prior provision for this replacement.