prof. army

A month ago or so there was this discussion on prof. armies, "modern 
mercaneries"...I think the following piece is quiet "enlightening" about the 
myth of popular armies...as the RFE/RL report suggests they belong to another 
century.
 
Balkan
 
 

Iraq: War Illustrates Advantages Of Professional Army


By Valentinas Mite 

The United States and Britain swiftly won the war in Iraq. Baghdad's military 
equipment was no match for the advanced technologies used by the U.S.-led 
coalition. The conflict illustrated not only the superiority of modern 
technology but also the advantages of professional forces over conscript 
armies, RFE/RL reports. 

Prague, 18 April 2003 (RFE/RL) -- The U.S.-led coalition won a swift victory in 
Iraq, but not only because of better military hardware. More important than 
military equipment, analysts say, was the professionalism of U.S. and British 
troops. These analysts say the era of conscript troops is in the past. 

Marius Vahl, an analyst with the Brussels-based Center for European Policy 
Studies, told RFE/RL that modern weaponry can only be effectively used by 
professional soldiers, not conscript soldiers who may serve for one year or 
less. 

"The technology factor is very, very important -- why conscripts are not a good 
idea. Another thing, of course, is that armies are less and less about -- in 
Europe, at least -- the defense of home territory and are more for 
international operations," Vahl said. 

Ian Kemp, news editor of the British-based "Jane's Intelligence Weekly" told 
RFE/RL that because of this, many European armies are already professional. 
"France was probably the most surprising nation because, as you are aware, it 
has a very long history of conscription dating back to the Napoleonic era and 
that was considered to be central to French society. But France moved last year 
and completed the transition to all-volunteer forces. The Netherlands has moved 
to all-volunteer forces, as has Belgium. Spain has completed the move to 
all-volunteer forces. Italy is doing the same." 

However, Kemp said professional armies are costly and that, because of this, 
some West European countries have difficulty making the move. Kemp said Norway 
and Denmark have found it almost impossible to pay for a volunteer force of 
sufficient size and continue to rely on conscription. 

Another major exception in Western Europe is Germany. According to Vahl, 
Germany had historic reasons to have a conscript force. "In many of the 
countries that still have conscription, it plays a very important political 
role, perhaps particularly in Germany, where it is a symbol of civilian control 
over the military and avoiding a kind of detachment between the military and 
the rest of society," Vahl said. 

Since World War II, Germany has cultivated the image of its military as being 
"civilians in uniform." The goal was to do away with the image of the military 
and its senior officers as being the power behind the government. 

However, the government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is seeking to 
diminish the role of conscripts. The Defense Ministry is considering cutting 
the period of conscription to six months, but no decision has been made yet. 
Germany today has some 290,000 soldiers, with 83,000 of those being conscripts. 

Many Central and Eastern European countries are also moving toward professional 
troops. Kemp from "Jane's Intelligence Weekly" said it is a trend clearly 
observed in all of Central Europe. 

"The same is true of the seven new nations who've been invited to join. 
Romania, for instance, you know, is increasing the proportion of regular 
personnel that it has within its armed forces. So, generally speaking, that's a 
trend throughout NATO and those countries that have been invited to join NATO," 
Kemp said. 

The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are due to officially join 
the alliance in May 2004. 

Recently, the defense ministries of the Czech Republic and Slovakia announced 
plans to end compulsory military service by 2005. Czech Defense Minister 
Jaroslav Tvrdik has announced plans to recruit 2,500 professional soldiers in 
2005 and fully transform the army into a professional force. The Slovak Defense 
Ministry has announced plans to transform the country's army into a 
professional organization in 2006. 

Russia also has ambitions to go professional. 

Russian defense analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said Russia should radically reduce 
its forces and reform its officer corps. He said the main problem is not bad 
soldiers but bad officers. Officers are poorly paid, have no social guarantees, 
and have Soviet military training, he said. 

According to Felgenhauer, Russia already has contract soldiers -- professionals 
paid for service. However, without competent officers, he said, these soldiers 
only make things worse. 

"Everything [in the Russian army] has fallen apart. It makes no sense to 
introduce professional soldiers now. It will improve nothing. It can even make 
things worse because in the situation when there are no professional lower-rank 
officers, the contract soldiers will turn into a drunken mob. I am sorry, but 
it will not be a military force but an armed drunken gang. It has already 
happened several times in the past. Some units were staffed completely with 
contract soldiers in Chechnya. Now it is clear that such units are worse that 
those staffed with conscripts," he said. 

Felgenhauer also said that the war in Iraq illustrates how backward Russian 
armed forces are. "The main lesson [from the war in Iraq] is that our military 
forces are good for nothing. We must create something like the American and 
British forces. Even the Australians have managed to interact not badly with 
[the United States and Britain]. We have an army which belongs to the last 
century." 

In 1991, Felgenhauer said, Russia deployed nearly 120,000 troops in Chechnya. 
It took two months for them to travel 40 kilometers to the Chechen capital, 
Grozny, and another two months to take the city. 

It took about three weeks for U.S.-led troops to topple the regime of Saddam 
Hussein. 

(NCA correspondent Roland Eggleston contributed to this report.)