AlsacDirect

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The battle over German Armed Forces Reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The battle over German Armed Forces Reform

    Gentlemen,
    I posted this for any thoughts you might have. Since 1990 the BW has undergone almost constant downsizing and it looks as though it is going to happen again. Makes it difficult for us to identify a uniform correctly badges to match the approximate date of wear according to the date of manufacture.

    Regards,

    Gordon


    From the Weekly Standard; published on line October 4, 2010
    The Battle Over German Armed Forces Reform
    BY Ulf Gartzke
    September 1, 2010 5:45 PM
    Just a few days ago, German defense minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg presented five different reform proposals to restructure the country’s armed forces. Declining defense budgets coupled with increasing expeditionary demands on Bundeswehr forces around the world underline the case for fundamental reform of an institution which, in the minister’s own words, is "still breathing the air of the Cold War." In essence, the proposed reforms center on two core issues: First, at the quantitative level, how many active soldiers should the Bundeswehr have in the future? And second, at the qualitative level, what should be the armed forces’ composition in terms of professional soldiers, volunteer personnel, as well as drafted conscripts?
    Today, the Bundeswehr has about 247,000 active duty soldiers – 187,000 are either professional soldiers or "temporary" volunteers (the former are life-long members of the armed forces while the latter serve only between two and 15 years); the remaining 60,000 troops are conscripts who usually serve nine months. Minister zu Guttenberg’s preferred reform proposal ("model 4") would cut the Bundeswehr’s overall strength to 165,000 soldiers, including 7,500 "volunteers" who would serve between 6 and 23 months. Importantly, zu Guttenberg would also like to suspend the draft, which was introduced in 1956 and later enshrined in Germany’s Basic Law, by mid-2011.
     
    The rationale behind this bold yet highly controversial push to suspend the draft is two-fold. First, the Bundeswehr needs far less conscripts than are theoretically required to serve in the armed forces, thus raising serious concerns about a lack of "Wehrgerechtigkeit" ("draft equity"). After all, how can the government justify drafting tens of thousands of young men for a nine-month military service while simply letting many of their friends off the hook? Second, the Bundeswehr’s conscription-based system is not only more expensive than a purely professional/volunteer force, but has also proven to be ill-equipped to deal with the growing demand for expeditionary military action in countries ranging from Afghanistan and Sudan to the coast of Lebanon.
    In its current shape, the Bundeswehr can only deploy a maximum of 7,000-8,000 soldiers for military operations abroad at any given time. For defense minister zu Guttenberg, that relatively low number is simply not good enough as Germany’s armed forces should be expected to do more in general and also in comparison to their NATO allies. With the proposed reforms, the minister argues, "We will have fewer soldiers than today, but they will be better and more effective."
    However, for zu Guttenberg – an eloquent 38-year-old shooting star from Bavaria’s conservative CSU party who ranks as Germany’s most popular politician – this strong push for fundamental Bundeswehr reforms is also fraught with risk and uncertainty. While the suspension of the draft is welcomed by the entire left-wing opposition as well as the ruling free-market FDP coalition partner, zu Guttenberg faces considerable opposition from within the governing center-right CDU/CSU camp. For more than five decades, the CDU/CSU parties have been Germany’s staunchest supporters of the draft, arguing over and over again that it fostered strong, organic links between the armed forces and society at large (based on the notion that Bundeswehr soldiers are "citizens in uniforms").
    Abandoning the Cold-War era draft in the face of a dramatically changed security and defense environment – i.e., the Bundeswehr is no longer called to defend the Fulda Gap against a massive Soviet conventional attack but is now engaged in various stability and combat operations around the world that require highly trained specialists rather than hundreds of thousands of conscripts and reservists – is therefore proving to be politically very difficult. A number of prominent conservative leaders, including the minister-presidents of Bavaria and Lower Saxony, Horst Seehofer (CSU), and David McAllister (CDU), have come out strongly in favor of the draft, not least because there is a lot of push-back from constituents at the local level who fear the economic fall-out resulting from troop reductions and base closures. Draft proponents within the CDU/CSU tend to favor the ministry of defense’s proposed "model 5," which foresees an overall Bundeswehr strength of 210,000, including 30,000 conscripts.
    Angela Merkel, for her part, has already welcomed zu Guttenberg’s "new thinking" on the Bundeswehr’s future size and composition. That being said, the chancellor is adopting her trademark wait-and-see approach to determine how the CDU/CSU parties will ultimately come down on this crucially important issue before two party convention votes planned for later this fall. The stakes in this battle over German armed forces reform are extremely high. If Defense Minister zu Guttenberg manages to gain enough political support to push through his far-reaching military reforms ("model 4"), it will mark the Bundeswehr’s successful transition from a heavy, Cold War-style army exclusively focused on territorial defense to a much more nimble and lighter force capable of quickly launching effective expeditionary operations (while of course maintaining the indispensable homeland protection component).
    The proposed Bundeswehr reforms (including a suspension of the draft) are not only better suited to deal with today’s complex security threats, ranging from terrorism and WMD/missile technology proliferation to global crime networks and piracy. They would also be welcome news for Berlin’s allies, who could, in principle, count on the support of a militarily more capable Germany, both within NATO and within the EU context (the required parliamentary approval for each Bundeswehr deployment abroad notwithstanding). In the wake of the recent economic crisis, huge fiscal deficits are putting severe pressures on defense budgets across Europe, especially France, Germany, and the UK (London might be forced to cut its annual defense spending by up to 20 percent). If Germany can lead the way in terms of adopting politically controversial yet ultimately indispensable military reforms – thus generating more bang for fewer bucks – there is indeed at least some hope that European/NATO members in general can create much-needed synergies in defense procurement and force restructuring based on the notion that not all allies require the full spectrum of defense (industrial) capabilities.

    #2
    This is not unexpected. The other nations of Europe have been reducing their military size and broad capability for years due to budget and political pressures. The BW also has the draft to contend with, which IIRC makes it unique within the EU. As the article states, it is an unfair practice since it is no longer "universal service". It is more like the US military's old draft system, which was also arguably very unfair.

    It is possible for the BW to reduce its size without reducing its capability. Having the ability to deploy roughly a reinforced Brigade abroad at one time, given the total size of the Heer, is extremely poor ratio of force projection to total force size. There's a lot of room to slim down AND increase the ability to go abroad.

    Steve

    Comment


      #3
      Hello Gentlemen,

      A bit off topic...

      I am a steadfast supporter of small, highly-professional volunteer armies. Vast 'consript forces', in my experience, lack the elite quality so clearly manifest in a purely 'professional force'.

      The Australian Army is small by comparison with many of the Western Nations, but no less effective when involved in contemporary military operations. The prospect of large-scale military operations, against sizeable opponents, is not as it was during the era of the Cold War. Today, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, what is needed is highly-mobile, multi-skilled personnel, capable of 'meeting and beating' terrorist insurgent forces.

      It is inevitable, in my opinion, that Germany would move away from it's largely ineffective conscript system and replace it with the more practical (and cost-effective) all-volunteer force. I agree with Steve, a reduced size does not equal a reduced capability. Currently, Australia has military personnel serving in no less than fifteen localities, in varying roles, which level of engagement can be maintained even in these 'cash-strapped' days.

      Don't fret too much, Gordon, as I'm sure that elite formations will still be identifiable. Besides which, a transition will release more material into the 'collecting market' and provide new stimulus to us (the collectors) in researching and identifying various types and models of uniform and equipment well into the future.

      My thoughts.

      Regards,

      Hugh

      Comment


        #4
        Hugh,

        Your thoughts are not off topic at all. I posted this to generate comments and your comments re things coming on the market echos my own thoughts. I am sure that many armed forces are thinking the same as the Germans. I know the Canadian forces are as they continue to shrink. One of the problems with armed forces, particularly a volunteer force, is that salaries have to be higher to attract the type of person that is needed. This takes a big bite out of the budget and something has to give some place. Usually, this means not buying new up to date equipment be it for the infantry, armour artillery etc. This really came home to bite the military in my country when they tried to do patrols in the Ilti. Hardly a vehicle up to withstanding the force of an IED. I think it will be interesting for us to follow what happens in Germany and keep up with what units are disbanded, combined etc.

        Regards,

        Gordon

        Comment


          #5
          In theory trimming down an overly large conscript force should offset the increased costs of salaries/incentives. Reducing the quantity of facilities and equipment should result in an offset to improving the quality of facilities and equipment for the remaining force. Think about the Bundeswehr's Heer...

          If the numbers in the report are true, the Germans can put about 3% of its total force into the field at one time. This is absolutely terrible! Even with the Model 4 proposal (assuming no increase in focus on field deployments) yields about 5% of its total force being able to go into the field at one time. Yet they'll reduce the overall size of the force by 82,000 soldiers to feed, clothe, house, equip, and find things to do. That's a huge savings which can be turned around to increase quality.

          Huge is correct that the Australians are a good model. So are the Dutch. The latter has a total active Army of 27,000 and they are able to keep about 1,700 in Afghanistan at any given time. That's over 6% of the total force in just Afghanistan. Like Australia, they have small contingents serving here and there. Most notably in both Bosnia and Kosovo. And yet they are upgrading their equipment for the first time in many years.

          Sure, budget cuts are always looming. When the downsizing starts to happen some try to cut even further by not upgrading. This is what happened with the Canadian experience. The upgrades were approved, but not funded. In one case, for a short time, someone had the bright idea to do away with tanks completely. But actual combat requirements trumped short sighted penny pinchers, so now the Canadians are getting upgrades. Iltis is out of service, G-Wagon is in service. And now the Nyala is even replacing some of the G-Wagons. Unfortunately it took war to get the funds shaken loose, but that's normal.

          Belgium, on the contrary, is a model of what not to do. Slimming down and decreasing capabilities. But that is probably more a reflection of the general problems within the Belgian government than it does anything directly related to the military.

          Personally, I think the BW needs to be trimmed down AND have its capacity to project force increased. It's been done elsewhere, often with growing pains (the US had a ton of them in the 1970s and 1980s), so I'm confident that eventually a stronger BW will emerge.

          Steve
          Last edited by Collectinsteve; 10-05-2010, 12:04 PM.

          Comment

          Users Viewing this Thread

          Collapse

          There is currently 1 user online. 0 members and 1 guests.

          Most users ever online was 10,032 at 08:13 PM on 09-28-2024.

          Working...
          X