The official web site of A.H. Lloyd

From time to time, I like to test conventional wisdom by coming up with wild alternative takes. I may end of way off base, but even if I’m wrong, it’s useful as an analytical exercise. Sometimes I’m correct.

In recent years, NATO countries have seen steep declines in their military and naval capabilities. In the case of Great Britain, they have the smallest Army since the 18th Century. Germany – home of the dreaded panzers – has a remarkably feeble armored corps. Denmark gave away all of its artillery to Ukraine. the list goes on.

The conventional explanation is that they would prefer to spend their money on social programs and let the Americans shoulder the burden. This has certainly been a factor, but given the growing friction between American and European leaders over global economics and security, Europe has even less autonomy than it did 20 years ago when France pushed the EU for a more independent foreign policy. Indeed, in that far-off time, Europe was going to be a counterweight to American global hegemony.

European leaders still talk the big game, but their force generation capability is almost nonexistent. Recent weeks saw the once-vaunted Royal Navy struggling to find a single battle-worthy warship.

How is one to make sense of this paradox. The easy way is to assume that the leaders are weak, or stupid, or that talk is cheap. All quite plausible. But what if there is another reason?

With the end of the Cold War, Western Europe abandoned conscription. Conscription is unpopular, and while it produces large armies, the troop quality is uneven. The senior officers and senior enlisted men are usually professional long-service troops, typically with a family history of military service. But the bulk of the rank and file and junior officers are there because they have to be.

One advantage of this is that the military represents a large cross-section of society and therefore reflects it. Draftees want to get on with their lives, whether officer or enlisted. Their politics mirror that of country as a whole.

However, the professional military men often diverge sharply from this, being more traditional, nationalistic and somewhat contemptuous of politicians. When conscription ended, the entire force became long-service professionals.

Unlike Americans, Europeans have not made much of an effort to “democratize” military service. It is very much a niche thing. Europeans do not thank people for being in the service. Initial enlistments are typically longer and convey no particular long-term benefits.

This is in stark contrast with the American idea that doing a term in the service gives you education benefits and good job/life skills. “Be all you can be” and such.

What this means is that if there is a crisis, the current political leaders may worry that their traditionalist militaries may not remain apolitical. A lot of women are being put into command billets since they will be completely unsympathetic to traditionalist causes.

There has been a long period quiet in terms of serious political violence in Europe, but that may be coming to an end. The last first-world nation to experience a coup attempt was post-Franco Spain and it was put down by King Juan Carlos. I wonder how many leaders are less worried about Russia than they are about the Defense Ministry.