European Armed Forces

[Vlerchan]

(Reuters) - The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc's foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/us-eu-defence-juncker-idUSKBN0M40KL20150308

There's been talk about a joint-European Armed Forces for years. The CSDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy) has existed for a while and produced a number of operations. SAFE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronised_Armed_Forces_Europe) is an opt-in model running as a precursor to a true joint-European Armed Forces.

What do people think about this. I'm in particular hoping for input from Europeans. Do you think that the EU should have a joined-European Armed Forces? Or that the EU should continue with the opt-in model featured in the SAFE programme? Or that the EU should roll-back integration altogether and leave foreign policy to national governments? I'll include a poll alongside this.

[Exocet]

No chance of creating a EU-only force as long as European countries are in NATO. You can't be a slave of the US and be sovereign and free at the same time. First throw off the US chains, then Europe can have its own force.

[Miserabilia]

As much as I personaly like more union between european countries I think there's too much history for joined armed forces. Obviously the past is the past but certain countries and regions tend to get involved in certain conflicts while others tend to stay neutral. I also somewhat aggree with what Exocet said.
Even if having seperate forces only allows for seperate wars instead of more union, there's a danger in an allegion like totally united armed forces which is that some countries have to get involved with a conflict they may have nothing to do with which is pretty much an invitation to much larger scale conflicts like it was in BOTH world wars.
I'm still curious to see arguments for the other side though.

[thatcountrykid]

No chance of creating a EU-only force as long as European countries are in NATO. You can't be a slave of the US and be sovereign and free at the same time. First throw off the US chains, then Europe can have its own force.

You really hate America don't you? I'm curious as to why considering we helped save France's ass twice.

[Hyper]

No chance of creating a EU-only force as long as European countries are in NATO. You can't be a slave of the US and be sovereign and free at the same time. First throw off the US chains, then Europe can have its own force.

Yeah and being a slave to Germany cough I mean EU is any better.

@ Vlerchan

I think we should roll back on integration all together the EU was supposed to be an economic union not a United States of Europe, which is blatantly obviously some political powers dream as they constantly keep moving in that direction.

Universal currency? Check
Joint military? Check???
Joint constitution? Check

Next step EU becomes an official federation and I say to that fuuuuuuuuuuuuck no.

The only thing the EU needs to do is have a unified economic policy and that's it. Though that will never happen since all this bullshit about ''equal voting power'' between member states is absolute bullshit. The EU is ran by Germany, France & UK in about that order.

And as far as Russia goes Germany is so tethered to the gas teet that Germany's policies regarding Russia will never be what they should be. The smaller countries, the former Soviet Union states (which is where I'm from) should not trust these assholes to protect us or to care for our best interests...

A sensible solution in my mind would be to support the member states bordering Russia through economic means, military equipment & training. Also do something about Russia's massive propaganda & sabotage operations & organisations in Europe.

When someone says they are a nazi in Europe, the whole world goes bat shit crazy. When someone says they are a communist and that Stalin was a swell fellow and the CCCP should return barely anybody gives a crap.

[Vlerchan]

Obviously the past is the past but certain countries and regions tend to get involved in certain conflicts while others tend to stay neutral.
The EU would run a joint-Foreign Policy. It's engagements would be based on European interests as opposed to individual national interests. It does something like this in the form of the CSDP but countries are still allowed to run their own foreign policies alongside this.

I'm also curious what regional conflicts you might be referring to.

No chance of creating a EU-only force as long as European countries are in NATO.
I would imagine NATO would disintegrate with the development.

---

I think we should roll back on integration all together the EU was supposed to be an economic union not a United States of Europe, which is blatantly obviously some political powers dream as they constantly keep moving in that direction.
The treaties which give scope to this are ratified by all the member states each time because it can't come into effect otherwise. As far as I'm aware Ireland is the one state to reject a proposal and it ratified it second time around:

It's more than just a few states driving this and it has been quite an explicit goal since the 90s.

Next step EU becomes an official federation and I say to that fuuuuuuuuuuuuck no.
Is there a reason for this?

I have problems with the EU in its current form but I have no problem with the idea of European Integration in theory.

And as far as Russia goes Germany is so tethered to the gas teet that Germany's policies regarding Russia will never be what they should be.
There's been a massive turnaround to the position on Iran to get around just this:

It seems like we're planning to jump suppliers.

A sensible solution in my mind would be to support the member states bordering Russia through economic means, military equipment & training.
I'm not sure Russia's border states would stand a chance with just that. International relations isn't a good point for me but it would seem the thing stopping Russia from invading would be first NATO membership and then links to the EU and not the forces the border states can muster themselves.

In that context I'm not sure bumping the EU up to the prime deterrent is such a bad idea.

---

I also thought you were Canadian for some reason. No idea why.

[Human]

I don't think we should join forces, we don't need to be dragged into wars other countries created

[Exocet]

You really hate America don't you? I'm curious as to why considering we helped save France's ass twice.

We helped you against the British,so what ?
I don't really hate the US,just its policies,and the criminals that are in the white house,that's all.

[SethfromMI]

No chance of creating a EU-only force as long as European countries are in NATO. You can't be a slave of the US and be sovereign and free at the same time. First throw off the US chains, then Europe can have its own force.

next time France gets invaded, I pray America doesn't help

[phuckphace]

just posting to say I hope the EU loses

the enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, but I will drink a beer with 'em. Belgian of course, for the irony.

[Exocet]

next time France gets invaded, I pray America doesn't help

Who will dare to attack France,that is a nuclear power ?
Nobody is too stupid to do a bad move.
Actually,i'm more worried about the US than Russia,this country wants to drag us in a large scale conflict with Russia.
To have free policies,we should remove all US bases in Europe,say to them to gtfo of Europe,then increase our ties with Russia,there will be no problems by then.

[SethfromMI]

Who will dare to attack France,that is a nuclear power ?
Nobody is too stupid to do a bad move.
Actually,i'm more worried about the US than Russia,this country wants to drag us in a large scale conflict with Russia.
To have free policies,we should remove all US bases in Europe,say to them to gtfo of Europe,then increase our ties with Russia,there will be no problems by then.

seriously? the country who just threw up their hands and say "We surrender! We surrender!"

France is the last country I would ever be worried about. If Germany were to invade, I would hope the US would side with them this time

[Exocet]

seriously? the country who just threw up their hands and say "We surrender! We surrender!"

France is the last country I would ever be worried about. If Germany were to invade, I would hope the US would side with them this time

You think that stereotype opinion about us worths something ? We totally don't give a damn about "stereotype guys" like you.
(the dogs bark but the caravan goes on)
The "French are good at surrendering" propaganda was intensified by the US/UK after France refused to follow them(for good reasons) in the Iraqi fiasco,More than 4.400 of your soldiers died there for nothing. :)

Also,you should read that ------------>

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/07/09/working-with-the-french-army/


German will never invade us,since it won't dare to attack a nuclear power,since they are our friends,since we let the past in the past,we were ennemies some years ago,and now is one of our greatest partner.
Stay in your dreams.

[Vlerchan]

I don't think we should join forces, we don't need to be dragged into wars other countries created[.]
It's ironic because the UK has been by-far the most active on this front.

However as I mentioned above there would be foreign policy so this wouldn't be likely.

---

seriously? the country who just threw up their hands and say "We surrender! We surrender!"
Have you studied history outside of WWII?

---

Actually,i'm more worried about the US than Russia,this country wants to drag us in a large scale conflict with Russia.
This. If US tensions with Russia go from cold to hot where do people think the battleground will be?

[SethfromMI]

You think that stereotype opinion about us worths something ? We totally don't give a damn about "stereotype guys" like you.
(the dogs bark but the caravan goes on)
The "French are good at surrendering" propaganda was intensified by the US/UK after France refused to follow them(for good reasons) in the Iraqi fiasco,More than 4.400 of your soldiers died there for nothing. :)

Also,you should read that ------------>

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013/07/09/working-with-the-french-army/


German will never invade us,since it won't dare to attack a nuclear power,since they are our friends,since we let the past in the past,we were ennemies some years ago,and now is one of our greatest partner.

but yet you have all of these hostilities towards America? Personally, I have no problem with the French as I have a lot of French in me, but you know damn well if a country did try attacking France, you know damn well they would turn to the USA looking for support.

[phuckphace]

you could always run your country in such a way that people aren't lining up to attack you all the time. you'll be saying, "Why didn't I think of this before?!"

[Exocet]

but yet you have all of these hostilities towards America? Personally, I have no problem with the French as I have a lot of French in me, but you know damn well if a country did try attacking France, you know damn well they would turn to the USA looking for support.

We do not have a lot of ennemies as the US has,we have good relations with almost all countries in the world,no chance of war.
Read my comment below,i said that i didn't hate America,just its policies and the criminals that are in the white house.

[SethfromMI]

We do not have a lot of ennemies as the US has,we have good relations with almost all countries in the world,no chance of war.
Read my comment below,i said that i didn't hate America,just its policies and the criminals that are in the white house.

well hey I hate the criminals in the white house too. we have found some common ground then :)

[thatcountrykid]

We do not have a lot of ennemies as the US has,we have good relations with almost all countries in the world,no chance of war.
Read my comment below,i said that i didn't hate America,just its policies and the criminals that are in the white house.

That's why you guys had your recent terror attacks.

The French aren't a clean country and definitely has fucked up

[Exocet]

That's why you guys had your recent terror attacks.

The French aren't a clean country and definitely has fucked up

What should i say about your country ?

[thatcountrykid]

What should i say about your country ?

I never said we don't have enemy's. At least I didn't claim we were innocent

[Exocet]

I never said we don't have enemy's. At least I didn't claim we were innocent

Did i say we were innocents ? We aren't.
Sure we have ennemies,not in the same scale as the US you see. :D (But not countries,mostly fanatics.)

[Hyper]

The treaties which give scope to this are ratified by all the member states each time because it can't come into effect otherwise. As far as I'm aware Ireland is the one state to reject a proposal and it ratified it second time around:

It's more than just a few states driving this and it has been quite an explicit goal since the 90s.

Just because a parliament ratifies a treaty doesn't mean that, that's what the majority of the people want. Ireland was the only country to put the Lissabon treaty on a public referendum failed once followed by a massive media campaign in support of it and pass...


Is there a reason for this?

The reason is national identity. Big countries, big nationalities have little to fear in the form of their cultural identity disintegrating along with their language.

Massive immigration might bring in new culture and beliefs in the populance but that doesn't necessitate a cause and effect destruction of old systems.

And also if it does become a federation how is it governed? Who will be making the decisions? How will they be made? What guarantee is there that the nations that hold the biggest economic & military power wouldn't just be calling the shots for everyone else, I think denying that possibility is extremely naive to say the least.

History has shown time and time again how smaller/weaker nations are thrown away or torn apart by bigger nations as the need arises. I don't want my country or it's people to be a bargaining chip for someone in the EU to put on the table with Russia or anyone else.


There's been a massive turnaround to the position on Iran to get around just this:

It seems like we're planning to jump suppliers.

There's been talk of ''independent energy policy'' for awhile but fact is even if they genuinely want it to happen it wont happen overnight.


I'm not sure Russia's border states would stand a chance with just that. International relations isn't a good point for me but it would seem the thing stopping Russia from invading would be first NATO membership and then links to the EU and not the forces the border states can muster themselves.

In that context I'm not sure bumping the EU up to the prime deterrent is such a bad idea.

An EU army is not as direct of a deterrent as a member states own army. Unless it starts sitting on the border with Russia creating a new cold war of sorts - I really have no faith that the army would be positioned to mainly be based in member states bordering Russia.

Russia doesn't succeed in doing this crap because of their ''military might'' most of Russias army is still a pile of crap considering modern standards, though they are modernizing at an alarming rate.

They succeed at what they do through intelligence type operations, spreading dissent, revolt, dissidents, internal upheaval in general - remember Russia hasn't really directly put its military to use anywhere except Georgia. Everything so far has been proxy warfare even if they send their own troops to foreign soil.

Combat that element effectively and it becomes purely a question of military conflict... Most of the bordering nations would stand no chance in delaying Russia for a significant amount of time as it stands now but with the right equipment, training & plans a much smaller army could last & delay a land invasion for months and I mean a full scale direct military attack...

The only point of which is to hope and pray NATO actually upholds its agreements and comes to aid but I sincerely doubt it and have doubted it ever since it became a realistic threat - why would any other nuclear power go to war with another nuclear power?

The security issue is more to do with economic & energetic independence and effectively combating Russian FSB operations in EU member states.

Another issue that springs to mind is the funding of this joint army seeing as no country in the EU except 1 has managed to uphold the 2% GDP spending rate for its defense forces.



---

I also thought you were Canadian for some reason. No idea why.

No idea either, I'm surprised you thought anything about where I might be from :P

[Vlerchan]

Just because a parliament ratifies a treaty doesn't mean that, that's what the majority of the people want.
I never claimed that was the case.

I said that European political powers - and you used the qualifier political power in the original text I quoted from - were all on-board with the direction the EU was heading. I don't see a political power as needing to be a reflection of the will of the people which might be where our misunderstanding is arising from.

Ireland was the only country to put the Lissabon treaty on a public referendum failed once followed by a massive media campaign in support of it and pass...
Most of the more contentious passages in the Lisbon treaty were also repealed:

Like the dilution of state's representation in the commission.

The reason is national identity. Big countries, big nationalities have little to fear in the form of their cultural identity disintegrating along with their language.
I have no issue with languages disintegrating if I'm honest.

I have more or a problem with cultures disintegrating. I'm not sure to what extent this might occur. I've never studied cultural anthropology or the likes. But I can't imagine it would be to the extent that might sanction the word 'disintegration'. Europeans are homogenous enough - sharing more-or-less the same foundational values - and there's no need for an aggressive assimilation programme. I think judging from the fact that cultures which differ at the core happen to be able to implant themselves and exist in Canada's policy environment lends hope to the idea that a culturally diverse Europe could still exists.

Massive immigration might bring in new culture and beliefs in the populance but that doesn't necessitate a cause and effect destruction of old systems.
I'm not quite sure I understand what is being said here.

And also if it does become a federation how is it governed? Who will be making the decisions? How will they be made? What guarantee is there that the nations that hold the biggest economic & military power wouldn't just be calling the shots for everyone else, I think denying that possibility is extremely naive to say the least.
I can't answer these questions for sure.

I think the best way to ensure a against domination of weaker states - and I come from one too - by stronger states is to adopt the old anti-Federalist conception of how the United States should govern. Member states will be quite autonomous with a federal gvt. having a few powers specified in the constitution. The federal gvt. will contain a veto-player similar to the US Sentate. That is each state will get equal representation in this Senate and since small states outnumber big states there's quite a barrier against domination.

An EU army is not as direct of a deterrent as a member states own army. Unless it starts sitting on the border with Russia creating a new cold war of sorts - I really have no faith that the army would be positioned to mainly be based in member states bordering Russia.
Perhaps. I'm not sure I know enough to comment.

However what seems a likely plan of action is that the EU points French and British nukes at Russia.

I more-or-less agree with the rest of what is said in that section.

Another issue that springs to mind is the funding of this joint army seeing as no country in the EU except 1 has managed to uphold the 2% GDP spending rate for its defense forces.
This will without a doubt be problematic.

I would imagine this whole idea won't be realised until we manage beyond the sovereign debt crisis. Perhaps it might happen in tandem with managing to remove ourselves from Russian gas. Because I'm not so sure it makes too much sense to antagonise Russia like this would otherwise. In that case I would agree with your assessment about energy independence and an armed forces too would be a fair bit down the line.

---

No idea either, I'm surprised you thought anything about where I might be from
Glacier. It leads itself to a lot of presumptions.

[Stronk Serb]

What should i say about your country ?

I generally like France, except, your immigration policy is a bit lax, you need to tighten that up a tiny bit. Your army, as far as I know is organised for defence. I think all of Europe should form up one large confederation where little member-states would be treated equally as the large member-states. Also we should ditch NATO. Americans at home, the cossacks in the steppes... Europe to itself.

[Exocet]

I generally like France, except, your immigration policy is a bit lax, you need to tighten that up a tiny bit. Your army, as far as I know is organised for defence. I think all of Europe should form up one large confederation where little member-states would be treated equally as the large member-states. Also we should ditch NATO. Americans at home, the cossacks in the steppes... Europe to itself.


The immigration policy needs to be rewieved,but it (for sure) won't happen under the current socialist government.
We are for a controlled immigration,and a constructive immigration,those who come in our country to live on welfare and don't work ( make troubles) don't have their place in our country.
The French armed forces aren't really organised for defence.. (Just like the JSDF (japanese self defense forces) for exemple. ) but also organised for offensive operations and has projection capabilities.

[TheBigUnit]

First off, a joint Euro Army sounds interesting, but won't it just be another NATO? Like probably more organized, but I can't imagine the US not being involved, we have a lot of the same agendas


We do not have a lot of ennemies as the US has,we have good relations with almost all countries in the world,no chance of war.
Read my comment below,i said that i didn't hate America,just its policies and the criminals that are in the white house.

That is almost a complete lie. France really isnt that liked throughout the world. African states for example have a general dislike towards the French

[Exocet]

First off, a joint Euro Army sounds interesting, but won't it just be another NATO? Like probably more organized, but I can't imagine the US not being involved, we have a lot of the same agendas




That is almost a complete lie. France really isnt that liked throughout the world. African states for example have a general dislike towards the French

They dislike us so much that they ask us to save their @sses against terrorists.

[Vlerchan]

Nonetheless France’s ratings are still largely positive. Among the countries polled (excluding France), 28 have a positive view of its influence with 13 majorities and 15 pluralities. Especially positive are South Korea (74%), Spain (67%), China (64%), and Brazil (60%), and several African countries: Senegal (72%), Nigeria (62%) Democratic Republic of the Congo (57%) and Tanzania (57%).

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/#france

Lol at the Poles loving the US in that same poll. You hate Russia too?!

They are so disliking us that they ask us to save their @sses against terrorists.
You can want something from someone without needing to like them.

Libya though.

[Exocet]

Nonetheless France’s ratings are still largely positive. Among the countries polled (excluding France), 28 have a positive view of its influence with 13 majorities and 15 pluralities. Especially positive are South Korea (74%), Spain (67%), China (64%), and Brazil (60%), and several African countries: Senegal (72%), Nigeria (62%) Democratic Republic of the Congo (57%) and Tanzania (57%).

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc06-3/#france

Lol at the Poles loving the US in that same poll. You hate Russia too?!


You can want something from someone without needing to like them.

Libya though.

Can you still call Libya a country ?
They should say thank you to Sarkozy and BHL.

[Vlerchan]

Can you still call Libya a country ?
Not after what France did to it, no.

[Exocet]

Not after what France did to it, no.

We (France,NATO) destroyed Libya i admit it,so what ?

[Vlerchan]

We (France,NATO) destroyed Libya i admit it,so what ?
I posted a link that stated that lots of African countries liked France.

I mentioned Libya in an effort to point out that it's registering far from the opinions of all African countries.

[Stronk Serb]

First off, a joint Euro Army sounds interesting, but won't it just be another NATO? Like probably more organized, but I can't imagine the US not being involved, we have a lot of the same agendas




That is almost a complete lie. France really isnt that liked throughout the world. African states for example have a general dislike towards the French

Forming of a joint EU army will either collapse NATO or render it's influence beyond irrelevance but I guess the newly formed alliance would cooperate with the USA or the NATO remnants to keep Russia in check. I think a unified Europe is enough to stand against Russia though, two nuclear powers, the Fourth Reich and many other countries opressed by Russia.

[Miserabilia]

The EU would run a joint-Foreign Policy. It's engagements would be based on European interests as opposed to individual national interests. It does something like this in the form of the CSDP but countries are still allowed to run their own foreign policies alongside this.


Oohh ok. Would there still also be individual armed forces and military decisions though? Otherwise "european interests" could be up to debate :P

And what I said, I was being extremely general, I basicly just mean there's so much history and not everything is as settled. Just look at any random EU country, there's bound to be a history of war with other european countries.

[Vlerchan]

Oohh ok. Would there still also be individual armed forces and military decisions though?
Nope. The point is to eliminate that.

Otherwise "european interests" could be up to debate.
I don't think this is a bad thing. Such a large number of veto players makes it difficult to jump into wars.

For reference joint-EU operations so far are listed on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union).

And what I said, I was being extremely general, I basicly just mean there's so much history and not everything is as settled.
Well that could be an argument against European Integration altogether.

The original point of integration though was the create a combined present and future which would offset future violence.

[TheBigUnit]

Forming of a joint EU army will either collapse NATO or render it's influence beyond irrelevance but I guess the newly formed alliance would cooperate with the USA or the NATO remnants to keep Russia in check. I think a unified Europe is enough to stand against Russia though, two nuclear powers, the Fourth Reich and many other countries opressed by Russia.

Today's Germany is the Fourth Reich? haha never heard that before

[Living For Love]

I don't think an European-only armed forces would be as successful as an organisation involving European countries and USA as well, like NATO. Europe still has a lot of trouble sorting out its own problems, there are still way too many rivalries between different EU members.

It's engagements would be based on European interests as opposed to individual national interests.
I wonder who would dictate those "European interests" and under what conditions.

[Vlerchan]

I don't think an European-only armed forces would be as successful as an organisation involving European countries and USA as well, like NATO.
I would imagine a joint-European armed forces would work in tandem with the US.

The major difference would be that it would be Europeans - and not the US - directing proceedings.

I wonder who would dictate those "European interests" and under what conditions.
I would imagine it would be dictated in a format similar as within the CSDP which seems consensus-based.

It's probably outlined in detail in some document somewhere so if I come across it I'll link it for you.

[Stronk Serb]

Today's Germany is the Fourth Reich? haha never heard that before

By definition it is.
The German Empire- the First Reich
Weimar Republic- the Second Reich
Nazi Germany- the Third Reich
Germany after the unification of E. and W. Germanies- the Fourth Reich. If a joint EU army was made I guess it would be the job of the German military-industrial complex to arm the majority of it. Also the UK and France could cover some parts of eqquiping it.

[Exocet]

By definition it is.
The German Empire- the First Reich
Weimar Republic- the Second Reich
Nazi Germany- the Third Reich
Germany after the unification of E. and W. Germanies- the Fourth Reich. If a joint EU army was made I guess it would be the job of the German military-industrial complex to arm the majority of it. Also the UK and France could cover some parts of eqquiping it.

It won't happen considering the big differences on equipment of each European army,each army has different needs.

[Atom]

Thread is tl;dr.

On the one hand:
I support EU having its own army because right now the only thing that protects it from giants like Russia and US is a couple of papers. I don't believe that any of "the giants" will violate these "papers," but having an army may actually give a lot more weight to what EU has to say.

On the other hand:
The EU is a "figure" of peace. Like Canada, I can't imagine somebody attacking them. Also having a huge army would make EU look bad, just like US and Russia. But like in WW2, there is nothing to protect EU and anyone can just go and "take" them...

Overall, I'm pro-army in EU, but... There is another thing. They would need a lot of money to maintain it. I can't imaging EU having draft like Russia, and they don't (from what I know) have funds to hire contract soldiers, like US. EU puts a lot of money in education, environment etc., which made EU as we know it.

[TheBigUnit]

By definition it is.
The German Empire- the First Reich
Weimar Republic- the Second Reich
Nazi Germany- the Third Reich
Germany after the unification of E. and W. Germanies- the Fourth Reich. If a joint EU army was made I guess it would be the job of the German military-industrial complex to arm the majority of it. Also the UK and France could cover some parts of eqquiping it.

so that defeats the whole purpose of the eu military, shouldnt every nation devote all their arms? or would this eu army be like a nato

[Stronk Serb]

so that defeats the whole purpose of the eu military, shouldnt every nation devote all their arms? or would this eu army be like a nato

The nations would devote manpower and would be supplied with the best equipment the EU has to offer. Also doctrines would be adapted for such a large, mostly defensive army. Of course armies will serve in their native countries but in case of a war armies could be redeployed from other fronts or the interior nations to defend the front.

It won't happen considering the big differences on equipment of each European army,each army has different needs.

It should be unified with a single, defensive doctrine with different strategies applied to different regions.

Double post merged. Please use the edit/multi-quote function. -HN

[Small town girl]

The EU is suppossed to be a peace preserving organisation, there is NATO for the countries that take the "guns dont kill, people do" to a national level with "armies dont kill, people do".