Budget cuts in the Belgian army

[bub]

Because of the financial crisis, the national debt is increasing dangerously, and emergency plans have been made to spare some money. Fortunatley, they spared the education, but the army is gonna face drastic budget cuts.


From 45,000 soldiers, there will be only 37,500 soldiers left by 2010, and 30,000 by 2015!

32 barracks have been closed yesterday. My town has always been a "garrison town" with several barracks (the lancers, line infantry, ardennian rifles, forteress troops, combat engineers, and recently the para-commandos), now only the commandos remain!

We had 120 Leopard tanks and something like 300 light tanks (M113, Scorpions, Guepard...), only 2 brigades will remain, a medium one (with armored cars) and a light one (with para-commandos and light vehicles)

We had 144 F-16, we're gonna keep only 54 of them

We're gonna sell a minesweeper too, and keep only 6 minesweepers and 2 frigates


While I think it's sad to dismantle some very old units, it's also quite useless to keep so many units doing nothing. Only 1,500 or 2,000 of our soldiers are doing something useful (missions in Congo, Lebanon or Afghanistan). If I could make the reform myself, I'd make 3 "brigades": one of them abroad during 4 months, and the 2 others training here. 1/3 of our army would always be abroad.

 

[kaya'08]

Because of the financial crisis, the national debt is increasing dangerously, and emergency plans have been made to spare some money. Fortunatley, they spared the education, but the army is gonna face drastic budget cuts.


From 45,000 soldiers, there will be only 37,500 soldiers left by 2010, and 30,000 by 2015!

32 barracks have been closed yesterday. My town has always been a "garrison town" with several barracks (the lancers, line infantry, ardennian rifles, forteress troops, combat engineers, and recently the para-commandos), now only the commandos remain!

We had 120 Leopard tanks and something like 300 light tanks (M113, Scorpions, Guepard...), only 2 brigades will remain, a medium one (with armored cars) and a light one (with para-commandos and light vehicles)

We had 144 F-16, we're gonna keep only 54 of them

We're gonna sell a minesweeper too, and keep only 6 minesweepers and 2 frigates


While I think it's sad to dismantle some very old units, it's also quite useless to keep so many units doing nothing. Only 1,500 or 2,000 of our soldiers are doing something useful (missions in Congo, Lebanon or Afghanistan). If I could make the reform myself, I'd make 3 "brigades": one of them abroad during 4 months, and the 2 others training here. 1/3 of our army would always be abroad.

Thats Belgiums chances of protecting itself from future European conflict out of the window.

 

[bub]

Thats Belgiums chances of protecting itself from future European conflict out of the window.

Europe is the safest place to be, thanks to the European Union!

And anyways, even when we had an army of 600,000 men, we've been unable to stop Germany, so...

 

[Apocalypse]

Europe is the safest place to be, thanks to the European Union!

And anyways, even when we had an army of 600,000 men, we've been unable to stop Germany, so...

Europe is the safest place to be at thanks to Hitler and Hitler alone.

I don't see why would Belgium need an army anyway.

 

[bub]

Europe is the safest place to be at thanks to Hitler and Hitler alone.

I don't see why would Belgium need an army anyway.

We need to be present at the international level and fullfil our obligations vis à vis the NATO, the UN & the EU.

Our soldiers are de-mining Lebanon, they are in Kosovo, they're building roads and schools in Congo, they're guarding Kandahar airport in Afghanistan...all these things are useful things, we need to send more soldiers over there to do these things.


The budget cuts are not really a bad thing, we got rid of useless stuff like most of our planes (what's the point of having 144 F-16 if you use only 6 of them in Afghanistan?)

 

[kaya'08]

Europe is the safest place to be, thanks to the European Union!

And anyways, even when we had an army of 600,000 men, we've been unable to stop Germany, so...

No, that would be NATO and the UN.

 

[Apocalypse]

We need to be present at the international level and fullfil our obligations vis à vis the NATO, the UN & the EU.

Our soldiers are de-mining Lebanon, they are in Kosovo, they're building roads and schools in Congo, they're guarding Kandahar airport in Afghanistan...all these things are useful things, we need to send more soldiers over there to do these things.


The budget cuts are not really a bad thing, we got rid of useless stuff like most of our planes (what's the point of having 144 F-16 if you use only 6 of them in Afghanistan?)

I've meant that Belgium has no need for a defensive force.
It can contribute troops from its military to NATO, the UN or whatever other international body, but defensive force it has no need for.

 

[bub]

I've meant that Belgium has no need for a defensive force.
It can contribute troops from its military to NATO, the UN or whatever other international body, but defensive force it has no need for.

That's right, and that is thanks to the NATO and the European Union. I'd like to see the creation of an European Army, replacing the national armies.

 

[bub]

No, that would be NATO and the UN.

The EU has created great intercultural and economic ties between European countries. The EU parliament is also a place where EU countries can negociate, there are also many different forums that can be used to solve our problems peacefully. The EU definitely plays a great role in maintaining the peace over here, that's why countries in Africa are copying it.

 

[Apocalypse]

That's right, and that is thanks to the NATO and the European Union. I'd like to see the creation of an European Army, replacing the national armies.

An EU army would be a disaster for the European nations.

If the EU attacks a nation, who is to be responsible for this attack?
The entire member-states of the EU.
So if this nation strikes back it will pretty much strike any of the EU nations.
That means that decisions can be made to attack a specific nation, decisions that would obviously not be accepted by all of the EU nations, and the responsibility would be shared nevertheless by all of the EU member-states.

A dramatic harmful act to the sovereignty of the European nations.

 

[kaya'08]

I've meant that Belgium has no need for a defensive force.
It can contribute troops from its military to NATO, the UN or whatever other international body, but defensive force it has no need for.

Thats not an excuse not to have a strong military presence at home, of course. No politician can for tell the future landscape of geopolitics.

That's right, and that is thanks to the NATO and the European Union. I'd like to see the creation of an European Army, replacing the national armies.

Thats because you are a federalist who has no respect for national independance or your own country and the ancestors before you who died for your nations boarders, for apparently nothing. NATO has been the dominating factor behind European security, with the backing of the US. The EU is not a strong enough factor to stop non-European or European entities from declaring war, NATO is. The idea of a united Europe which has a large tendency for anti-semetism and nationalism, as historically proven, is quiet amusing. Hell, whats it like, up to 31 percents plus Europeans that blame the economic crises on Jews?

 

[jackalope]

We need to be present at the international level and fullfil our obligations vis à vis the NATO, the UN & the EU.

What is the penalty for not fulfilling those obligations. It seems that many NATO countries don't meet the obligations.

 

[Apocalypse]

Thats not an excuse not to have a strong military presence at home, of course. No politician can for tell the future landscape of geopolitics.

Alright, that's enough to convince me.

 

[PeteEU]

What is the penalty for not fulfilling those obligations. It seems that many NATO countries don't meet the obligations.

Oh? Says who?

 

[Apocalypse]

Oh? Says who?

Jackalope.

Look at the nickname next time damnit.





:2razz:

 

[PeteEU]

Jackalope.

Look at the nickname next time damnit.





:2razz:

So no one with actual knowledge of NATO.. I see

 

[kaya'08]

So no one with actual knowledge of NATO.. I see

I think he meant obligations as in man power being sent to Afghanistan. Alot of Europe isnt exactly meeting its full "obligation" in Afghanistan for NATO. At least thats what i think he means. Thats why NATO and Obama keep bitching about it that we send in more men.

 

[PeteEU]

I think he meant obligations as in man power being sent to Afghanistan. Alot of Europe isnt exactly meeting its full "obligation" in Afghanistan for NATO. At least thats what i think he means. Thats why NATO and Obama keep bitching about it that we send in more men.

What full obligation? The European countries are meeting, in fact exceeding, their commitment in Afghanistan as agreed when NATO agreed to go there. Not our fault the Bush Administration dropped the ball and did not finish off the Taliban before handing over area to the NATO nation building force. We were never sent there to fight a freaking war, but to assist in rebuilding and security. When the US gave southern Afghanistan over to NATO it was under the impression the Taliban were beaten and not a real threat.. boy they were wrong.

So the NATO members are meeting their obligations and then some. In fact my own country has had the largest loss of life percentage wise of all NATO countries, so I feel a bit insulted by the "not meeting our obligation" crap from some people.

 

[jackalope]

Jackalope.

Look at the nickname next time damnit.

:2razz:

LOL ...

I think he meant obligations as in man power being sent to Afghanistan. Alot of Europe isnt exactly meeting its full "obligation" in Afghanistan for NATO. At least thats what i think he means. Thats why NATO and Obama keep bitching about it that we send in more men.

Actually, I meant in percentage of GDP spent on defense (although, I guess I do agree with Kaya on the troops). This is from a 2007 report, I'll keep looking for a newer source:

Defense News notes that “[d]espite a decade of haranguing by NATO headquarters, the defense spending of most allied governments is still well below NATO’s recommended guideline of 2% of GDP. Only seven allies — Bulgaria, France, Greece, Romania, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States — spend this amount or more on defense.” 7

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS21659.pdf

Edit: Here's a couple of articles; I'm having a hard time finding a recent, non-opinion-article based source for levels of spending in NATO countries now. Links:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/guardian_eu_military_fantasy_l.asp

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/04/old_nato_turns_60.html

 

[American]

What full obligation? The European countries are meeting, in fact exceeding, their commitment in Afghanistan as agreed when NATO agreed to go there. Not our fault the Bush Administration dropped the ball and did not finish off the Taliban before handing over area to the NATO nation building force. We were never sent there to fight a freaking war, but to assist in rebuilding and security. When the US gave southern Afghanistan over to NATO it was under the impression the Taliban were beaten and not a real threat.. boy they were wrong.

So the NATO members are meeting their obligations and then some. In fact my own country has had the largest loss of life percentage wise of all NATO countries, so I feel a bit insulted by the "not meeting our obligation" crap from some people.

Taliban were finished, NATO let them rebuild with their anemic beer drinking Germans and other softies.

 

[PeteEU]

Taliban were finished, NATO let them rebuild with their anemic beer drinking Germans and other softies.

You do know that the German's were never near the south of the country, where the Taliban were right? That was US, UK, Canadian and smaller countries.

 

[jackalope]

So the NATO members are meeting their obligations and then some. In fact my own country has had the largest loss of life percentage wise of all NATO countries, so I feel a bit insulted by the "not meeting our obligation" crap from some people.

Which is your country? I think I knew, but I've forgotten.

 

[PeteEU]

Which is your country? I think I knew, but I've forgotten.

Denmark...

 

[jackalope]

Denmark...

Oh, right ... okay, thx. Edit again: ps, I didn't know that about the casualty rate



What do you think about the not meeting NATO obligations for defense spending? Denmark seems to be below the minimum in this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Defence#Expenditures

 

[kaya'08]

What full obligation? The European countries are meeting, in fact exceeding, their commitment in Afghanistan as agreed when NATO agreed to go there.

No. They are not commiting themselves as much as they should do (not all Euro states, but alot) like the British are, in Afghanistan. What the Europeans are doing is acceptable, but the bear minimum, and its only fair it should put more back into a war that is crucial for the future security of the west. The Americans are shouldering the main burden, not the Europeans.

So the NATO members are meeting their obligations and then some. In fact my own country has had the largest loss of life percentage wise of all NATO countries, so I feel a bit insulted by the "not meeting our obligation" crap from some people.

Did i specificly name Denmark? Germany and a handful of other European nations are doing well in the US efforts in Afghanistan. I didnt say every European isnt doing good enough, but a good few just arent doing as much as they should.

Taliban were finished, NATO let them rebuild with their anemic beer drinking Germans and other softies.

Americans let them rebuild with dollars in the 90's.