WSJ: Belgian Army = good dress, good food and feeling good !
Luc Van Braekel
How Europe's Armies Let Their Guard Down
Guaranteed Jobs Leave Little Room To Buy Equipment or Train for Battle
By PHILIP SHISHKIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
NEDER-OVER-HEMBEEK, Belgium -- Chief Cpl. Rudy Christians, an impeccably
coiffed military hairdresser, has been cutting soldiers' hair for 24
years, and he loves his work.
It's a full-time job, guaranteed until retirement, and until then, the
47-year-old has enough free time to pursue an amateur singing career
featuring Elvis and Tom Jones numbers. When the military does send him
on an occasional field exercise, he is amazed by the fellow soldiers
lumbering around him. "All the people are so old," he says.
Recruits like this help explain why Europe's military muscle has grown
soft, and why the U.S. can't count on substantial military help from
many of its European allies.
Even if every member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were to
back a U.S. strike against Iraq, the military impact might not be huge.
The 17 European countries in NATO have about 2.3 million active-duty
troops, about a million more than the U.S. does. But many of NATO's
forces are poorly equipped, in part because so much money is spent on
pay and benefits that there is less left for the technology, weapons and
other gear that modern forces need.
Washington has asked NATO for limited contributions to an Iraqi
campaign, for both political and military reasons. Its requests to NATO
have focused mainly on the defense of Turkey and a reconstruction of
Iraq if war occurs. France, Germany and Belgium say it's too early to
plan for war, and hope the Iraq crisis can be resolved peacefully.
While the U.S. spends 36% of its defense budget on pay and benefits,
most NATO members in Europe earmark an average of nearly 65%. The U.S.
military employs support staff, of course, and also faces rising costs
per soldier, especially because of health care. Still, overall, the
share of personnel spending in the U.S. defense budget has decreased by
six percentage points since the early 1980s. NATO statistics show that
such spending has grown by as much or more in Europe during the same
period.
NATO officials acknowledge Europe needs to upgrade its military
capabilities. "We could do with fewer troops, but better troops; better
trained, better equipped, more mobile," NATO Secretary General George
Robertson said last month at the World Economic Forum. "The problem in
Europe is that there are far too many people in uniform, and too few of
them able to go into action at the speeds that conflicts presently
demand."
Belgium, for example, employs hundreds of military barbers, musicians
and other personnel who aren't likely to be called into battle. Yet
Belgium doesn't have the money to replace aging helicopters or conduct
regular combat-training exercises. Germany drafts 120,000 people every
year but can't afford to buy all the vital transport planes it wants;
last year, budget crunches forced it to slash an order of planes to 60
from 73. German soldiers who went to Afghanistan as peacekeepers crowded
into an aging, leased Ukrainian carrier that had to stop to refuel.
In France, one of the few NATO countries to increase its defense budget
this year, military-procurement funding fell 14% between 1997 and 2002,
leaving its forces wanting in such key areas as refueling aircraft and
missiles. The French defense ministry says it will address procurement
shortfalls in the new budget. Europe has 11 troop-transport planes,
compared with 250 in the U.S., and most European members of NATO don't
have any modern precision-guided munitions at all.
U.S. Pressure
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. has stepped up calls for
Europe to put more emphasis on smart bombs, secure communications,
special-forces units and long-haul planes to take them to battle. U.S.
officials from President George W. Bush on down have pressed for more
investment to offset what U.S. Gen. Joseph Ralston, the former NATO
supreme allied commander for Europe, calls European militaries'
"outdated and redundant fat." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told
European defense ministers meeting in Warsaw last summer that unless
they start spending more on key defense capabilities, the U.S. won't
call on them for backing when it goes to war. "The phone just won't
ring," Mr. Rumsfeld said.
European leaders say they want to streamline and modernize their armed
forces, and some have started. Outfitting their militaries to be nimble
and high-tech is vital if Europeans want to influence the U.S. policies
with which Europe so frequently disagrees. The U.S. wants Europe to
modernize so it can depend on other countries to share the job -- and
cost -- of playing global cop.
But swift reform isn't possible in Europe because of labor laws,
influential unions and a widespread conviction that defense spending
shouldn't be a priority. Beyond that, Europe's economy is weak, and the
12 countries that use the euro are supposed to keep their deficits under
3% of gross domestic product. "It makes it difficult to create a real
defense capability, even with all the troops," says Florentino Portero,
military specialist for the think tank Grupo de Estudios Estrategicos in
Madrid.
One reason Europe has so many soldiers is its strong military labor
unions. Unheard of in the U.S. and Britain, these unions trace their
history to the end of the 19th century, when disgruntled Dutch soldiers,
unhappy about living conditions, banded together into a group called Ons
Belang (Our Interests). Similar groups soon sprang up around Western
Europe. In the 1970s, European military unions gained sweeping
collective-bargaining rights, though they stay out of war-planning and
deployment issues.
In Belgium, military unions are as powerful as anywhere on the
Continent. On King Albert's birthday last June, a holiday for the
Belgian military, unions deployed thousands of soldiers to Brussels to
demand a raise in vacation pay. Soldiers chanted, drank beer and banged
their aluminum mess bowls. "Show me the money," one officer shouted to a
passing police van. The protest grew so rowdy that police cooled
demonstrators off with a water cannon. But it was a success: An
emergency session of the Belgian cabinet agreed to give soldiers --
already eligible for six weeks' annual vacation -- a raise in holiday
benefits valued at about $500 each.
For Emmanuel Jacob, an artillery officer and a union leader who was on
the front lines of the protest, it was a bittersweet victory. "We must
be honest with ourselves," says Warrant Officer Jacob, secretary-general
of Centrale Generale du Personnel Militaire, which represents 6,000
active-duty and 2,500 retired personnel. "Either we have a smaller
number of people who are well-trained and equipped or we continue to
defend a bigger army and it won't work in the future."
The average age of a Belgian soldier is 40 -- compared with 28 in the
U.S. and 29 in the U.K. Most Belgian military personnel can retire at 56
with full pension benefits. The Defense Ministry acknowledges too many
of its soldiers are too old, and says it is trying to recruit younger
people. But Gerard Harveng, a spokesman for Defense Minister Andre
Flahaut, says, "I'm not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is
to fight." Instead, Belgium sees its military role mostly focused on
peacekeeping operations.
During the Cold War, Washington's message to Europe was different than
it is today. The U.S. encouraged heavy investments in troops to prepare
for a Soviet land invasion. People who were drafted or signed up in the
1970s and 1980s were guaranteed full employment until retirement. Though
it varies from country to country, some European governments, including
Belgium, still have that policy today.
"Once you enter the military, you are in for life," says Maj. Renaud
Theunens, 39, an intelligence officer who took a leave from the Belgian
armed forces to work at the International Criminal Tribunal for
Yugoslavia in the Hague. "It was quite unusual to ask to leave," he
says. In the U.S., by contrast, it is more unusual for a soldier to make
the military a career. Under its "up or out" policy, the Pentagon can
force officers to leave if they fail to move up the ranks within a
certain period of time. The U.S. government also has devised programs
encouraging people to take early retirement and get jobs outside the
military.
Belgium has cut its military payroll by half since the height of the
Cold War, to 44,000. But it still spends some 67% of its annual defense
budget of about $2.5 billion on pay and benefits and only about 5.4% on
equipment. The U.S., with an annual defense budget of $366 billion,
spends 22% on equipment, according to NATO.
Reduction Through Attrition
The Belgian Defense Ministry's goal is to trim its military work force
by 10% or so over the next decade, but the reductions can come only
through attrition. Early efforts to cut the payroll have already run
into opposition from military employees and labor unions. They rebelled
in the early '90s, for example, against a proposal to merge Belgium's
six military bands into one. "Each band has its own character and
repertoire," says Alain Crepin, director of the Air Force orchestra, as
his musicians pack up their instruments after daily practice on a
deserted base. The Air Force band's repertoire includes jazz and other
modern music, he notes, while the Army is heavy on the classics. Lumping
them together to save money would be "stupid," he says. The government
compromised, downsizing to three bands, with 260 members.
"We should have a major reform of personnel," says Stef Goris, a member
of the Belgian parliament's defense committee and a former
tank-battalion officer. The country has more than enough troops, he
says, but "it's very hard to send them to a place like the Balkans
because they aren't fit enough."
In the meantime, many soldiers are happy with military life. Chief Cpl.
Jerome Loos, for instance, is part of an eight-member crew that makes
lunch for about 100 people at an army base in Siysele. A typical meal:
chicken, french fries and vegetable stew. He says his brother, a
private-sector cook, works much harder. "I have lots of free time and
good job security," says Cpl. Loos, who was drafted in 1986. An avid
runner, he can go jogging between duties and be home by late afternoon
to spend time with his kids. He gets 30 days paid vacation and earns
about $20,000 a year after taxes. Once or twice a year, Cpl. Loos has to
go on shooting exercises, but says he feels more comfortable with a
knife in the kitchen.
There are cooks in the U.S. armed forces, though few are allowed to make
careers of the job. Most food service on U.S. military bases is handled
by private catering contractors. The Belgian military says it tried
outsourcing cooking on a limited basis in the early 1990s, but it proved
expensive.
For many, Belgium's lopsided spending ratio is frustrating. Belgians in
combat positions don't train as regularly as the top brass would like. A
lack of funds forced a cutback on training exercises. When they do
practice, troops often use outdated or inadequate equipment. On an army
base outside Brussels, Lt. Theo Blomme flies two transport choppers, a
10-year-old Augusta and a 30-year-old Allouette-2, both so small that
only two or three people in combat gear can squeeze in at once.
For a safe battlefield rescue, Lt. Blomme says he would need a much
bigger helicopter that could land, take in 20 soldiers and leave. With
his small helicopters, he would have to evacuate in groups of twos and
threes. "The enemy would hear you on the first approach and shoot you
down on the second," says Lt. Blomme, 38. He says he feels silly
training in an aircraft that will likely never see combat. "It's
embarrassing."
The Belgian military says it wants to update its transport-chopper
fleet, but the $500 million price tag is prohibitive right now. The
Defense Ministry also has its sights set on a troop-transport ship and a
fleet of infantry-transport vehicles. Hundreds of millions of dollars
will be freed up for such purchases when its work-force-reduction plan
is complete in 2013.
Over the next decade, Belgium will eliminate thousands of military jobs,
close bases and consolidate operations. Units will be shuttered at the
sprawling military hospital in Neder-Over-Hembeek, where many doctors
now work four-hour days for full-time pay, allowing some of them to set
up private practices. The hair salon where Cpl. Christians works will
probably survive, but full-time military hairdressers, jobs that don't
exist in the U.S., won't be replaced when they retire.
As a red-haired female officer sat down for a government-subsidized
trim, Cpl. Christians took a break to reflect on his career. He was
drafted at 19 following a brief stint as a civilian hairdresser. After a
few years doing office work for the military, he landed a job as a
barber. His military specialty is defending bases against aerial
bombardment, but he has never seen combat. He takes home about $18,000 a
year after taxes, and on Saturdays, he is free to work on his
pop-singing act, something he didn't have time for in the private
sector.
"Personally, I think it's important to have people like us in the
military," he said. Hairdressers provide part of what Cpl. Christians
sees as the three essentials of soldiers' happiness: "Good dress, good
food and feeling good."
Updated February 13, 2003
Pikachu
"Luc Van Braekel" <l...@flanders.info> schreef in bericht
news:GCV2a.49053$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>knip< ;-)
als ze dat leger gewoon eens afschaffen in europa en een europees leger
oprichten (het beste zou zijn een "wereld" leger, maar uncle sam bla bla).
Uiteindelijk zou je dus gewoon de VN moeten overhouden. weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
valentijn :-)
Hugo Maes
news:GCV2a.49053$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> PAGE ONE [...]
Interessant verhaal, dat een toestand diagnosticeert die we allemaal
*eigenlijk* kennen.
Even over het aspect 'personnel' t.o.v. 'equipment'.
Het pleidooi voor technologisch geavanceerd materiaal zoals de smart
bombs is vanwege de Amerikanen eigenlijk een commercieel pleidooi pro
domo, want welk Europees bedrijf maakt die dingen?
Het pleidooi voor airbourne troepentransport capaciteit idem ditto.
Dit is geen verwijt aan de VS, dat en passant zijn niet vies is van
zijn commerciële belangen te laten spreken. Want wie maakt bvb.
troepentransport-vliegtuigen? De C-130 Hercules
(http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/C_130_Hercules.html) wordt gemaakt
in de VS. Het bureaucratische gepalaber rond de Airbus A-400M )
(http://www.airbusmilitary.com/home.html) als Europees
troepentransportvliegtuig is symptomatisch voor de trage en logge
manier waarop Europa met zijn defensie omgaat. En dus verleid wordt om
Amerikaanse producten off-the-shelf te kopen.
["Following further discussions, OCCAR (Organisation Conjointe de
Coopération en Matière d'Armement), representing Belgium, France,
Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and United Kingdom
signed the A400M programme contract on December 18, 2001, committing
to a total of 196 aircraft. This number has subsequently been revised
downwards in the light of budgetary constraints and the programme is
expected to be launched in the spring of 2003 on the basis of 183
aircraft for eight European NATO nations."] Let dus wel, het
bureacratisch aspect heeft 6 jaar in beslag genomen (1997-nu).
Als algemene opmerking zou ik zeggen dat het prachtig is dat Europa
buiten de NATO zijn eigen geostrategische standpunten wil benadrukken.
De houding in het Irak-conflict van Frankrijk en België is
bewonderingswaardig. Maar waar is the meat? Waar is de militaire
backup voor dergelijke standpunten? Wat als de Amerikanen de
onderdelenkraan voor de grotendeels Amerikaanse miltaire uitrusting
dichtgedraaid wordt? Hoe gaan de troepen in het Franse "Mirage"-plan
ter plaatse worden gekregen?
Mijn besluit is dat Europa en België zich met lange tanden
militair-politiek moet blijven scharen onder de Amerikaanse paraplu en
in de NATO. Michel en zijn opvolgers zullen eerst moeten werken aan
een geloofwaardige Europese miltaire strategie en implementatie. En
dan hun bek opendoen.
mvg, HM
(dit is ook een antwoord op Tom De Moor en Moene)
Luc Van Braekel
news:pw23a.1062$LG2.1...@news.chello.be...
> Het pleidooi voor technologisch geavanceerd materiaal zoals de smart
> bombs is vanwege de Amerikanen eigenlijk een commercieel pleidooi pro
> domo, want welk Europees bedrijf maakt die dingen?
Momenteel geen, want er is geen markt voor. De kip en het ei ...
Er zijn wel Europese bedrijven die in staat zouden zijn om die dingen te
maken, als er kopers zouden zijn.
> Het pleidooi voor airbourne troepentransport capaciteit idem ditto.
Ah, met een Airbus kun je geen troepen vervoeren?
Luc
Hugo Maes
> Er zijn wel Europese bedrijven die in staat zouden zijn om die
dingen te
> maken, als er kopers zouden zijn.
Inderdaad de kip en het ei. Het initiatief ligt hier bij de Europese
strijdmachten, die een lastencohier zouden moeten uitschrijven voor
een bepaald militair systeem. Plus een commitment om die dingen dan
ook effectief aan te kopen als ze aan het lastencohier voldoen. Zo
gebeurt het toch in de VS.
> Ah, met een Airbus kun je geen troepen vervoeren?
Niet efficiënt met een commerciële versie, met de stoelen en de
overhead bins. Individuele bewapening en uitrusting past nu eenmaal
moeilijk in kastjes die bedoeld zijn voor paraplu's, fototoestellen en
laptops. Om nog maar over de voertuigen te zwijgen die een infanterie
zeker nodig heeft. Je hebt blijkbaar de URL gemist voor de
ontwikkeling van een Europees troepentransportvliegtuig door Airbus.
Als je door die site waadt wordt je overvallen door moedeloosheid.
Typisch Europees-bureacratisch, er wordt waarschijnlijk meer tijd
verspild aan PDF-documenten over de specs en de onderhandelingen om
alle "klanten" op één lijn te krijgen, dan aan het project zelf. En
als het project eindelijk wat snelheid krijgt haakt een aantal landen
af of reduceert het aantal opties op vliegtuigen, wat het voor Airbus
dan ook een hachelijke zaakt maakt. Terwijl wordt vergeten dat een
zuinig troepentransportvliegtuig met propellers ook goed in de markt
zou liggen bij andere landen, en het C-130 monopolie doorbreken.
Ik weiger dus te aanvaarden dat een Europees bedrijf geen even goede
of betere C-130 zou kunnen maken. Maar ik vrees dat de politieke wil,
durf en visie om zich daar achter te zetten fundamenteel ontbreekt.
mvg, HM
Bart.Van...@nowhere.irule.be
> Als je door die site waadt wordt je overvallen door moedeloosheid.
> Typisch Europees-bureacratisch, er wordt waarschijnlijk meer tijd
> verspild aan PDF-documenten over de specs en de onderhandelingen om
> alle "klanten" op één lijn te krijgen, dan aan het project zelf. En
Dat is met Boeiing toch niet anders zenne. Dat is daar ook een heel
palaver als die een fabriek ergens willen zetten met een politiek
getrouwtrek als geen ander.
Bovendien heb ik professioneel zeer zijdelings zowel Boeiing als
Airbus als Thales meegemaakt en het is overal van hetzelfde pak
een broek. Tot en met het uitvinden van hun eigen bestandenformaten
ipv te profiteren van andere standaarden met als gevolg dat ze een
hopeloos ingewikkelde zaak krijgen met custom specifications op alle
niveaus en bijbehorende kosten-explosie.
cu bart