Hundreds of years of animosity down the drain in one day

First, the Brits don't want their aircraft carriers. And this week we find out that the French can't get theirs to sea. These are dark days in the history of European hegemony.

I'm not going to add too much to the London summit on UK-French military cooperation (a good round up is here at SWJ). Both nations have proud histories of significant influence and this must be a tough reality to accept for both. Granted, without colonies their need for massive standing armies and navies isn't what it used to be. Couple that with fiscal realities and the events of the past couple of weeks is the result. As far as military cooperation goes, this move also seems to make sense since they have similar interests in the world and punch at roughly the same weight.

However, both countries still seem to have global ambitions. The NSS made that quite clear for the UK. I haven't read any similar documents from France (mainly due to my inability to read French - so if any of you have English translations that prove me wrong please send it along!), but they have deployed a large chunk of their forces to numerous places, mainly Afghanistan and North Africa. If both militaries are to be pooled, they'll have even less to use for their own purposes (a brigade contingent? - any support to that is a huge commitment for the UK these days).

So what does this mean? I don't know. I hope it doesn't mean an EU military organization. Such an organization would duplicate a lot of NATO's mandate, but would seemingly be more dysfunctional and factional. I think what it should mean is that these nations should begin lessening their strategic objectives. Their militaries should focus on security sector assistance, not large to medium sized direct-action interventions outside of coalition activities. While all nations have to weight risks and benefits, every battalion the French and Brits deploy significantly decreases their ability to respond to any new crisis that may arise.

And what does this mean for the US? Efficiencies are good for NATO. And we saw these cuts coming. I think what we should be taking of out of this to make sure when the time comes for us to have to make significant defense cuts (as I imagine it will come at some point), we're a little better prepared for it. You know, so we can get an aircraft carrier out of port at least. I'm going to qualify all of this above as initial thoughts (which usually has the accuracy of first reports) and continue to think about this. But I think we're witnessing some significant shifts in global power from what we've known.

Update: Maybe today's agreement is Applebyan diplomacy. Or the UK has dropped it's "divide and conquer" strategy...

The Inevitable Balkanization of the Already-Balkanized Balkans (Updated)

The current issue of Foreign Affairs sports a real gem of analysis buried amid all of the articles on economics and discussions of the resilience of Cold War institutions. Patrice McMahon and Jon Western discuss Bosnia 14 years after the signing of the Dayton accord. Having spent last week in the Balkans, I would have to say the issues they raise are poignant and present serious security risks to Europe.

To say that I'm not an expert on the Balkans would be a gross understatement, especially given how many true experts there are. Other than the occasional article in the newspaper, my previous exposure was predominately during my cadet days when I thought my career would culminate as a platoon leader somewhere in the region. Of course, Iraq and the Middle East myopia it induced in the U.S. military relegated the region to the purview of the National Guard as a mission all but complete.

But it is no where near complete. While the signing of the Dayton accord and the initiation of the Kosovo Air Campaign will remain relevant historical events in the Balkans, they were the beginning, not the end of any Euro-American efforts there. These two events separated the combatants, but time has not tempered ethnic tensions because the politics have not yet been solved. Especially as the politics were devised by the West to separate the ethnic groups in the hope that time would temper their relations. Talk about hopeful.

Bosnia is on the brink of collapse as Bosnian Serbs, Croats, and Muslims try to outmaneuver each other for political advantage. In Kosovo, the region of Mitrovica is rife with ethnic tensions as the Serb majority defy Albanian attempts at pulling the area under the control of Prishtina. Of course with the assistance of Serbia itself, still upset at Western vilification of their nation. While Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Montenegro seem to be doing fairly well (with EU ascendancy quite possible in some cases), history has shown that conflict in the Balkans knows no borders just as ethnic ties do not.

The current political situation has been compounded by a number of factors in addition to the ethno-political divisions cited above (some listed in the article, some of my own conjecture). First is the cacophony of aid to the region in the mid to late 1990s. Everyone wanted to help with donor assistance or military aid. But the aid surpassed the local capacity to handle it. Second is that this cacophony of aid was on occasion disguised for instituting donor influence to gain strategic advantage. Third is Russia's patronage of Serbia. With Russia's energy influence on Europe and the NATO/Russia tensions over both Georgia and the Ukraine, no one wants to incite global conflict over the Balkans. Again. Fourth, and possible most important, is the aforementioned myopia on the "War on Terror" or whatever we're calling it today.

The reality is that without true Western leadership, as called for in the article, the region could continue to fragment and fall into conflict again. It is not a problem that can be ignored any longer, nor be labeled as a success or mission complete. As true in any post-conflict environment, especially those past the attention of the intervening nations' public, McMahon and Western put it best: "It is impossible to create a functional state that can be sustained and governed by local actors merely by throwing money and resources at the problem. As the experience in Bosnia has proved, state building is not a problem to be solved but a process to be managed."

Update: Positroll makes note in the comments that Slovenia has been a member of the EU since 2004 and Croatia has been a candidate since 2004 and received NATO membership in 2009. Thanks for the correction and I'll spend a little more time on Wiki in the future.