• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

07/29/2010

The mistakes were made intentionally and against every informed advice. In its coalition agreement, the new German government of the Christian Democratic Union, the Christian Social Union and the Free Democratic Party agreed to reduce the period of compulsory military service from nine months to six months until Jan. 1, 2011. The military leadership considered this approach to be the least effective and most expensive solution. Under these conditions, experts would have preferred to dispense with compulsory military service altogether.

The mistake has now become law, and the FDP has achieved its goal of beginning the phase-out of conscription. The federal government has cut compulsory military service to the point of senselessness, and thus destroyed it. The law is a serious intervention into the military's sensitive structure, which includes career soldiers, soldiers who have signed up for a fixed term, conscripts who have extended their military service, soldiers performing their basic military service and reservists.

By taking this step, Germany is depriving itself of the option of quickly expanding its armed forces in the future, in the event of a serious crisis. No one should foster any illusions: Compulsory military service, even if it is not actually removed from the Basic Law (editor's note: Germany's constitution), could not be reactivated. Such a step would be just as likely to escalate a crisis as the mobilization of forces. Suspension means abolition.

Based on Budgetary Considerations

Apparently these far-reaching consequences were not taken into account in the coalition agreement. The question of conscription was treated as an isolated issue and not from a strategic standpoint. The Finance Ministry is calling for a reduction in the size of the Bundeswehr by 40,000 career soldiers and soldiers signed up for a fixed period of service. This target is based solely on budgetary considerations and means nothing less than allowing the condition of our finances to influence our security. If the accountants at the Finance Ministry ended up dictating the reform of our armed forces, it would be a slap in the face for the Bundeswehr, which, after all, is a living organism. It is the army of our sons and daughters, who are fighting in Afghanistan.

With its radical reduction plans, Germany is merely reinforcing an unfortunate tendency to shift from one extreme to the next. After Germany's overwhelming military had terrified our neighbors in the last century, we then switched to being a freeloader within the framework of European security. A fundamental restructuring of the Bundeswehr is not something that Germany can pursue alone. We must remain capable of fulfilling our obligations as part of the NATO alliance and the European Union.

Germany, the most populous and prosperous country in Europe, must play an appropriate role in guaranteeing European security within NATO and the EU. It cannot assume that the French, British, Poles and Italians will make up for what Germany no longer wants to do. Why should European countries with less economic power than Germany do more for Europe's security in the long run than we do?

France will maintain modern armed forces with about 220,000 soldiers. Britain's capable navy and air force, as well as its highly specialized army, will remain at about 195,000 troops. Poland maintains 150,000 soldiers in its armed forces, border troops and military police forces. Italy is training 139,000 soldiers for future tasks and can also rely on 110,000 Carabinieri for domestic security. These countries are characterized in part by the fact that the transformation of their structures and equipment for new tasks has proceeded far more quickly than in Germany, partly because their defense budgets, as a percentage of the gross domestic product, are in some cases twice as high as ours.

The Dark Side of Globalization

It is the security situation and not financial concerns that should determine the structure of our armed forces. That's why a reform should not begin with the question: How much money do we have to save? Instead, it should begin with questions like: What are the challenges we face? How are the Bundeswehr's tasks changing? What kind of a military does Germany need within the European alliance?

The Middle East remains a threat to world peace and, therefore, to us. It cannot be ruled out that NATO will be called upon to intervene there in a peacekeeping capacity on behalf of the United Nations. Besides, we must ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the wrong hands. Fundamentalist terrorism and ethnic and religious wars, as well as global crime and piracy that threatens our maritime trade routes, shape our security policy to a much greater extent than in the past. This is the dark side of globalization, and both German security policy and the Bundeswehr will continue to be confronted with its consequences.

Germany, like its European allies, must have troops at its disposal that can be deployed quickly across great distances, prevail in battle against any enemy and at any level of intensity, and be superior within an alliance with others. The small, professionally equipped and trained intervention force being considered, which could be deployed in all parts of the world, is in keeping with neither the intent of the constitution nor the will of German citizens. Being capable of projecting power when the alliance as a whole faces challenges is a different matter altogether.

• 1
• | 2
• Next

• Part 1: The Path Forward for the German Army
• Part 2: A Division of Labor for Europe's Armies