With 8,900 soldier abroads, the German Bundeswehr is being deployed more than ever before. To cope with current and future challenges, the Germans have been reviewing their defense policy and specifically the circumstances under which their military can be sent abroad. While they have taken part in a wide range of past operations and continue to participate in international operations around the world, Germany is doing things from day to day. Thus, it’s not only a welcome sign, but a very positive one that Berlin has realized it needs to redefine the role of its military and spell out when and where they can be sent.
Since WWII, Germany has been slow to accept the fact that its military, like that of other Western countries, plays a more important role abroad than at home. Yet, since reunification, Berlin has chalked up a rather remarkable string of deployments around the world, the most recent being that in Lebanon.
On October 24th of this year, Germany issued a new Weißbuch (link in German), or White Paper, laying out future German defense policy (German) and specifically the use of the German military. As readers know, Germany like Japan, has very strict rules for when its military can be deployed and strictly forbids wars of aggression. Those days are coming to an end. The last white paper for defense policy was 12 years ago. As the German Ministry of Defense’s website begins:
A successful response to these new challenges requires the application of a wide range of foreign, security, defence, and development policy instruments in order to identify, prevent, and resolve conflicts at an early stage. With its broad spectrum of capabilities, the Bundeswehr has been making significant contributions towards the achievement of this goal.
The paper goes on to outline Germany’s need to combat terrorism, proliferation and human rights violations around the world with NATO as the cornerstone of its policy. It calls for both strengthened ties to the United States and to the EU as well as subtly hinting at a need for increased funding which currently stands at a pathtic 1.2% of the GDP. It continues
The Bundeswehr is an instrument of a comprehensive and proactive security and defence policy. Its mission is: to guarantee the capacity for action in the field of foreign policy, to contribute towards European and global stability, to maintain national security and defence, to provide assistance in the defence of our allies, to foster multinational cooperation and integration.
But overall, the paper is very clear about the changing role of Germany’s military and the goals of its defense policy:
Today, Germany’s security policy no longer centres on national defence. At present, and in the foreseeable future, there is no apparent conventional threat to the German territory. The focus of German security interests has shifted to crises and conflicts all over the world instead.
The German Defense Ministry’s website has more information in both English and German. The latest white paper can be downloaded there as well. The Tagesschau has a number of articles outlining the new direction of the German military. Links are in German but here’s my quick translation:
On the Way to Being Deployed
Q. What should the Bundeswehr do?
A.Crisis response, stability operations, war against terror, WMD proliferationQ. Does the Bundeswehr have the necessary equipment.
A. Partially. New situations require new things. Don’t need big tank divisions and heavy arms.Q. What is the Bundeswehr really missing? (really need)
A. Transport and logistics for international deployments and operations.Q. What does the Bundeswehr’s new structure look like?
A. The Bundeswehr is being transformed, concentrationg on deployments abroad. However, troops will be divided between those for combat, stability operations and support. (This is for Barnett – Chirol)There will be around 35,000 combat troops, 70,000 for stabilization and 147,500 for support.
The article goes into more detail about force transformation and exactly what duties the various troops will have as well as whether the Bundeswehr currently has the capacity for further operations abroad.
One thing is clear, Germany is already adopting the Leviathan/SysAdmin system and planning on an active future abroad. Barnett would be pleased So, it would behoove one to remember all this when relations seem rocky between the US and Germany. Both Germany and America are preparing for the same future. As long as we work together closely with Germany and our allies, that future worth creating just might happen.
On a funny sidenote, the Aachen Peace Award group is suing both Chanellor Merkel and Defense Minister Jung (German) because of the White Paper claiming they are conspiring to start wars of aggression. The radical left just doesn’t stop nor get it.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Curzon right two years early
- » Reality Check
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
MikeS added these pithy words on 15 Nov 06 at 2:26 pm“There will be around 35,000 combat troops, 70,000 for stabilization and 147,500 for support.”
Only 35,000 combat troops? That is pathetic for a nation as populous and wealthy as Germany. How exactly would they ever win a real war against a real enemy that was threatening Germany?
The German deployment to Lebanon is a joke BTW. These guys sit in their base all day and then once a week or so they drive around the local villages to be seen. They are doing absolutely nothing to prevent Hizbollah from re-arming and starting another conflict.
I agree that the basic idea of reforming the Germany military is a good idea, but the first step would be to dramatically adjust those troop ratios to at least 50% combat troops. Stabilization and Support troops are expensive truck drives and chefs.
a517dogg added these pithy words on 15 Nov 06 at 7:50 pmMikeS, I think that if there ever was a situation in which Germany was threatened by a real country, they would probably increase their combat troops pretty quickly. Also the American security guarantee means that Germany has little incentive to have large numbers of combat troops, just so they can sit around and act as a deterrent when there is already a much larger deterrent in their country.
MikeS added these pithy words on 15 Nov 06 at 8:06 pmI realize that, but I thought the point of the reorg was to some degree to project German power abroad, to stabilize trade and to “protect human rights”. To protect human rights you have to engage in combat the enemies of those rights. Like the US did against Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. 35,000 troops seems like a small number to control Sudan with for example.
a517dogg added these pithy words on 15 Nov 06 at 8:17 pmIf German troops were in Darfur, they would presumably lead with the 35,000 combat troops, and then occupy with the 70,000 stabilization troops, supported by 100k+ more (and the 35k would go home). And they would also presumably be part of a coalition – imagine Germany, France, the UK and Italy all throwing 50-70,000 stabilization forces at a problem (and don’t forget Poland). Leads to a much better occupation force than our current occupation of Iraq, as they will actually be trained for the job.
I think Germany conceives of projecting German power abroad more as projecting stability, rather than projecting hard power.
MikeS added these pithy words on 15 Nov 06 at 8:59 pmI would be interested to see the composition of the stabilization units vs the combat units. If the difference is similar to the Marines vs the US Army then the breakdown looks more viable. But if the stabilization forces are engineers and not grunts then I think their force is too small. Just my opinion.
Smitten Eagle added these pithy words on 16 Nov 06 at 12:51 amWatch what happens when those 100k support troops start getting shot at. My guess would be the same thing as the 571 Maint Company—get killed or captured and wait for the fighters to come to the rescue.
I’m skeptical of the Leviathan/SysAdmin division because, to use some 3GW/4GW terminology, the support troops provide a surface to attack without the combat power to defend (they are the equivalent of a rear-area forces), and will therefore get killed. At the same time the Leviathan presents a surface with huge amounts of combat power, and consequently repels enemies. This places the two forces at odds with eachother, and ultimately leads to a disunity of command, which is fatal in COIN ops (look at the SysAdmin-esque and utterly incompetent CPA, or the UN during its brief time in Iraq before it was bombed).
And don’t tell me that the insurgency in Iraq could have been averted with more SysAdmin troops. The grievance of the Sunnis is entirely political, and nothing the SysAdmin types could dish out would have prevented the insurgency from arising. And Yes, I know that Dr. Barnett views the Army and Marines, especially the Light Infantrymen, as SysAdmin. Go and tell that to a TOW Missileman and see what he thinks. Bottom line, these guys are warfighters—they shoot, move, and communicate as their core mission. Yes, they can distribute MREs, convoy, provide security to HADRs, NEOs, TRAPs, etc. But that doesn’t make them SysAdmin. A successful SysAdmin capabiliy requires unity of command at the tactical level. That means small task forces under captains and colonels with infantry providing security and engineers, docs, civilians, and civil servants working together at the small unit level. And those same grunts may also be leviathans. This is the successful model of the PRTs in Afghanistan.
I wonder whether the German SysAdmin force will be anything other than hostages that need to be rescued when the goin gets tough.
IJ added these pithy words on 16 Nov 06 at 1:42 pmThe paper goes on to outline Germany’s need to combat terrorism, proliferation and human rights violations around the world with NATO as the cornerstone of its policy. It calls for both strengthened ties to the United States and to the EU as well as subtly hinting at a need for increased funding which currently stands at a pathtic 1.2% of the GDP.
Most of NATO’s countries have long spent less than 2 percent of GDP on the military (NATO’s target). Democratic pressures will doubtless reduce the public expenditure even further. In essence, funding is a key problem with the transformation proposal – which might be resolved if the United Nations is more closely involved in authorising military action.
IJ added these pithy words on 16 Nov 06 at 2:26 pmSee democratic pressures.
From EU Observer
“EU member states are likely to begin reducing troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina early next year, despite potential instability stemming from talks on the future status of nearby Kosovo. . . Germany and the UK last month announced they would like to reduce the number of soldiers in the region next year.”
Michael added these pithy words on 17 Nov 06 at 12:23 amSmitteneagle,
you’re right that the insurgency couldn’t have been prevented, but that doesn’t mean that slowing it down wouldn’t have been a good idea.If you aren’t already doing so, spend some time reading Dr Barnett’s blog. Aside from noticing what seems to work and what seems to fail tactically, he doesn’t really tell the military how to do their jobs so much as what those jobs need to be.
