Europe is witnessing floods of refugees and colossal human suffering. The crisis threatens the Schengen passport-free zone and has corroded the EU’s decision-making to the point where its very survival is at stake.
The question is not whether intervention is needed, but who is going to do it. Someone has to spend money and take risks. Europe can no longer rely on the Americans. And it lacks the means and the will to use military force itself.
A good first step would be the creation of a European Foreign Legion. It would be attractive to Europeans from countries that no longer have a real military — such as Belgium. Recruits would get excitement, work and training; better than living on benefits. But the main attraction would be for non-Europeans, who could be rewarded with citizenship after, say, seven years of unblemished service. Applications from asylum-seekers and economic migrants would be welcome.
The criteria would be simple: any physically fit men and women of military age could join, so long as they were not wanted for arrest in the civilised world. As with the French Foreign Legion, those leaving the force would be able to do so under a nom de guerre — a new identity. This would be helpful for those fleeing ethnic or tribal conflicts and wanting to make a new life.
Life in the legion would be tough. Unlike most European armed forces, it would actually be used for fighting wars. Its main role would be in troublespots, for example securing the Libyan coastline, protecting Syrian refugee camps, or helping Mali to fight terrorists. Its main assets would be speed and bravery. It could be deployed quickly, and those who enlisted would know that they risked being shot at, killed or wounded.
Advertisement
The European Legion would also be cheap: its soldiers would not need the pampering that European countries have to offer to lure their citizens into uniform. Wages would be low and equipment basic. This would not be a high-tech army for fighting advanced countries. The main costs would be training, transport and subsistence.
One big question is command. Its officers — initially at least — could be drawn from European countries. I would put the French in charge. They know how to run a Foreign Legion already. But other countries would be welcome: it would, in short, be a coalition of the willing and able.
Who would decide where and how long the legion should be deployed? What would be its status in international law and on what basis could it use lethal force? What this boils down to is whether the force should be run by the EU or Nato. For now, I would keep the legion away from European institutions: their decision-making is too slow and timid. If, one day, the big European countries were willing to have a strong high representative for EU foreign policy, that could change. But for now the legion could be under the auspices of Nato, which would be pleased to have some soldiers who are actually willing and able to fight.
An objection is that the legion would drain resources away from Europe’s already flimsy armies. There would indeed be some costs but the new force would be a net benefit; Europe would not instantly need to call on the US when it wants combat-ready troops at short notice.
This would help to redress the biggest imbalances in the alliance. One is psychological. Most Europeans think war is old-fashioned and nasty. If shooting does start, it is probably the Americans’ fault, and it is certainly the Americans’ responsibility to deal with it. That smug pacificism annoys the Americans and cripples Europe. Even more annoying is that Europe still relies, when push comes to shove, on the US for defence. The numbers show how ridiculous this is. US (population 300 million, GDP $17 trillion) is borrowing money to defend Europe (population 500 million, GDP $20 trillion).
Advertisement
I have talked to three senior Americans about this idea. None of them thought it was inherently ridiculous or counter-productive. But they do worry about the practicalities. So do I. How big should the new force be? What will be the focus of loyalty? Might it become a magnet for criminals? Or even terrorists. What about veterans? Some would be skilled and employable. Others might be traumatised: a cohort of bitter, unemployable Muslim Rambos with combat skills.
Some will think those risks too big. I think they are solvable. The French Foreign Legion has for decades managed to take a wide range of recruits and create a formidable esprit de corps. The new legion will have to be vigilant for signs of radicalisation and disaffection. But this is not insurmountable.
In any case, the alternative is worse. The biggest pool of potential recruits is among the million-plus recent migrants. Letting bored, vigorous young men do nothing while the bureaucrats process their asylum applications is a recipe for disaster. And we cannot go on like this — failing to secure Europe’s periphery threatens its very survival. Anyone got a better idea?