I'm sure it look great on paper (in French and English, as well as the original German):
Germany's proposal, discussed by NATO defense ministers at a Brussels meeting, is that big NATO nations act as "framework nations" leading a cluster of smaller NATO allies.
These clusters of countries would jointly provide some military capabilities or develop new ones for the benefit of the whole alliance, with the lead nation coordinating their efforts.
The idea could be a way of plugging gaps in the armory of European NATO countries such as air-to-air refueling aircraft, a shortage of which was exposed during the NATO bombing campaign of Libya in 2011.
I should be flattered, really. This is a version of my tribal auxiliaries proposal which I floated a few years ago as European defense spending started closely resembling a joke:
So, how do we react? Could we convince our European allies to simply abandon their militaries above the brigade or squadron level and ask them to organize and equip ground battalions and brigades that plug into our brigades and divisions, with our higher level units taking care of logistics and command? Could the Europeans send squadrons to fight as part of our air wings, which we move and support logistically? And plug individual ships into our task forces that we supply on the move?
With our brigades operating as self-sustaining units under a division headquarters that commands them but does not provide logistics and firepower support as was done in the past, adding another brigade from an ally to our division HQs would be relatively easy, I'd think. And since we are used to adding our own battalions to beef up our brigades for combat, this could be done at the brigade level, too, although with more difficulty. I'd prefer to have self-contained allied brigades, but we have accepted battalions in Afghanistan to bolster our brigades, so even that is quite feasible.
I assume absorbing air components could be done, too, if they use the same planes, especially. Navies already sail together so this probably the most easy, depending on how integrated the ships have to be with our forces (highly integrated for fleet-on-fleet but loosely for pirate hunting and such).
My proposal could actually work with America as the "framework" nation. Just who will be a framework nation in NATO other than us? France? When their 4,000-strong intervention in Mali was their peak. Britain? Which anticipates only being able to send 6,000 troops overseas? Italy? Which seems to be an EU ward of the state because of their finances?
So that's problem one. Just who can be a framework nation in Europe?
The second problem is highlighted when you get to the obvious "framework nation" candidate. Is the largest economy in Europe--Germany--going to take the lead in one category of force generation? Germany could afford it. But they have no interest in building a military. And Germany doesn't want to fight anywhere.
Germany itself is a poster boy for why this can't work. NATO is an alliance where every member state gets to decide what its response will be to a threat to one of its members. There is nothing automatic about joining in the fight.
Or what of France. Let's say they take the lead on naval air power while Britain takes a break. Yeah, that would work just swell. Like France would refuse to send their aircraft carrier if Britain needs naval air power in a Falklands Islands crisis?
In the Cold War, with Russians sending in massed armor into NATO territory, we hoped that aspect wouldn't be that much of a problem. Fight or die. Well, other than the French. Who knew what they'd have done?
But remember the Libya War? Germany really didn't participate. And they weren't the only ones. And some who did participate preferred to restrict it to aircraft flying figure eights over the Mediterraneans somewhat near Libyan air space.
Germany also caveated their commitment to Afghanistan which NATO decided to support after 9/11 in a matter that meant they were more war tourists than combatants. Oh sure, they contributed to a useful role in a relatively safe area where we needed reliable troops. I do thank them for that. But it sure would have been nice to have had Germans in Regional Command East while 10th Mountain got a break further north for a bit. And let's not dress up this limited commitment as a major force contribution.
So the second problem is that if NATO divides up its military capabilities into packets that the various countries have to put together to create a whole NATO force, haven't we just given the must reluctant, fearful, extortionist-minded, or broke member of NATO a veto over NATO military action? If--God fobid--Belgium became a framework nation for mobile artillery, what would happen to the theoretical 10,000-man European NATO force if it found it was ready to go, except that Belgium wouldn't allow its troops to fight that silly war that (NATO) Brussels wants to fight?
Face it. We're the only framework nation that matters for work above Mali levels of degree of difficulty. And even I wouldn't trust the Europeans to do more than supplement our full spectrum capabilities.
So yeah, other than those little things, great plan.
