Leaner, nimbler and more skilled militaries are Europe's vision of forces for the future

By JAMES WALSH

aris in high summer is normally associated with love, leisure and, of course, legions of tourists. On Bastille Day, however, the City of Light still shakes off its reveries long enough to make room for the big, booming military parade. Last week, 209 years after the outbreak of the French Revolution, the spectacle featured all the standard displays of gloire, but the trained eye could not help noticing a revolution overtaking the military itself. Among the 5,800 or so troops on review were more full-time career soldiers, the result of a professionalization of the armed forces that began two years ago. Flypasts by warplanes also included some British Tornadoes, betokening a compromise of the Gaullist policy of complete self-reliance in defense. At the parade's center, moreover, was the 9th Marine Infantry Division, a versatile unit increasingly on call for duty in trouble spots abroad. Said the division's commander, General Bernard Thorette: "We displayed the concept of the interarmy projection force today."

"Projectability" stands as the new watchword of Europe's military posture, now undergoing one of the most thorough shakeouts in a couple of generations. Nearly a decade after the Berlin Wall came down, the major powers of Western Europe have had enough experience with the demands of the post-cold war era to know what they want and need: highly mobile, more technologically advanced forces capable of intervening quickly in crises far and near. Both Britain and France this month unveiled blueprints for long-term reforms that effectively close the book on the old strategy of large, static defenses as bulwarks against Soviet armaments rolling westward. Emergencies in the Gulf, Bosnia and other flashpoints this decade point toward a growing role as troubleshooters on behalf of national or international interests. The restructurings aim to streamline forces and, into the bargain, save some money--a better punch for the pound, more frappe for the franc.

Conscription is on the way out, professionalism is in. Even though Germany is still opting to maintain the draft for political reasons--Germans consider the citizen-soldier the best defense against militarism--the government knows which way the wind is blowing. When Britain's new defense study hit the embassy in Bonn, copies were snapped up at once by politicians arming themselves for the next time Defense Minister Volker Ruhe faces questions in the Bundestag. Bonn can only look on in envy at the example of Britain, whose considerably trimmed armed forces are still very reliable and effective. On a visit last month to headquarters of the defense contractor Diehl, Ruhe himself noted, "It's now all about a need for top quality, equipping soldiers in the best manner."

Bit by bit, Europe is also groping toward some kind of autonomous joint security framework that is less dependent on the United States, an objective especially close to French hearts. For Paris, which last year balked at rejoining NATO's integrated military command, catching up with America in the production of high-tech weaponry is important in terms of economic as well as military clout. In March, ministers from France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Sweden and Spain agreed to create a company incorporating assets of some of their major aerospace industries. Paralleling the consolidation of big defense contractors in the U.S., this project seeks to encourage efficiencies of scale and competitiveness--both buzzwords in their own right in the new military age. Two weeks ago, General Electric Co. of Britain and Italy's Finmeccanica decided to merge parts of their defense electronics arms to keep up with the likes of America's Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Whether such ventures are workable, or the goal of a "European pillar" of security is worthwhile, remains open to debate. Britain is still caught somewhere in the middle, staking options in closer industrial teamwork with its European Union partners but also seeing the U.S. alliance as Europe's bedrock of defense. The latest British strategic review, carried out by Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government, reflects that ambivalence.

On one hand, the report, which overall was applauded, calls for going ahead with the full order for 232 Eurofighters, aircraft to be produced by a European collaboration within about five years. On the other, a key part of reorganizing the military better for force projection is the planned procurement of two 40,000-ton, long-flightdeck aircraft carriers at $4.9 billion apiece. Replacing the U.K.'s three, aging jump-jet carriers, these titans are meant to provide platforms for air missions in parts of the world where the use of ground bases might prove politically dodgy--in the Gulf, for instance. By the time the carriers are ready, probably around 2012, Britain may decide to go with America's planned all-purpose Joint Strike Fighter, in which British industry also has a minority stake.

Which aircraft will be better? Colonel Terence Taylor, assistant director of London's International Institute of Strategic Studies, believes that 232 Eurofighters are far too many. The craft is not suited for carrier landings, he notes, and was designed in the mid-1980s for achieving air superiority rather than as a multiple-role plane. "It's not quite yesterday's aircraft but certainly today's aircraft, not tomorrow's," he says. The Joint Strike Fighter would give Britain access to leading-edge technology, Taylor reasons, and a larger British investment in it would make sense. "How many people are going to buy Eurofighters around the world? The answer is: hardly anyone. We must be careful not to hobble ourselves with European entanglements in the defense industry."

At the same time, Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, director of the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies, is enthusiastic about European collaboration. "The technology gap is widening between the U.S. and Europe because the Americans put around 10 times the amount of money in defense research as the whole of Europe put together," Cobbold says. If Britain remains a minority partner in U.S. projects, he argues, it will forfeit the know-how for designing future generations of hardware. French Defense Minister Alain Richard views a European military apparatus as a logical outcome: "It is hard to believe that what is happening at an economic and financial level in Europe will not happen at a military one."

The second stage of France's forces restructuring aims to cut personnel from 577,000 to 434,000 by the year 2002, with savings of $3 billion. The army is to lose 40 regiments and close five regional command centers. Six air bases are to close shop along with two bases for the navy, which will also mothball a dozen ships. Not only losses are in store, though: plans call for creating 68,600 posts, including civilians engaged primarily in administration but with an emphasis in the uniformed ranks on high-caliber specialists. The military is increasingly looking for people "with a good head on their shoulders," as one recruiter put it. The outlook places an accent on what Richard termed France's "global responsibility," to which end troops will undergo education in "travel and overseas mission culture."

The story for Britain is refinement rather than overhaul. The draft ended 38 years ago, and cost-cuttings and force reductions were done by previous, Tory regimes from the 1980s on--to such an extent, in fact, that military critics complained about crippling vital services like logistics and communications. What Defense Secretary George Robertson sought to achieve was a better orchestration of the services to "maximize their collective punch." The review calls for steadily growing cooperation among the land, sea and air forces and quick mobility. Strategic airlift capability, which only the U.S. has to any significant degree now, is to be boosted by the acquisition of four large C-17 transport planes, while sealift will make use of four roll-on, roll-off container ships. What savings are to be achieved will come mostly from the selloff of old equipment and military land: the headquarters of the Duke of York's Territorial Army in Chelsea, one of London's priciest neighborhoods, should fetch a princely sum.

Europe's cooperative mood of the moment is such that even Spain, which joined NATO reluctantly and piecemeal, now has a subregional command and is to join in Mediterranean exercises. Italy is also reducing its conscript levels. Whether defense industries can be rationalized on a regional basis is still conjectural, though. Taylor argues, "European NATO members, when they talk about a European defense pillar, outstrip their capability, and on the whole that capability is reducing."

Among all the slogans of projectability and professionalism, moreover, the big unknowns remain: Russia and the Middle East, where missiles could one day be aimed at European cities. That is one reason why the mobile punch of Britain and the frappe of France will retain a nuclear backup in case somebody thinks the unthinkable.

--Reported by Phil Couvrette /Paris, Helen Gibson /London And Nigel Tandy /Bonn