LibriumArcana.Games

By PHILIP SHISHKIN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


NEDER-OVER-HEMBEEK, Belgium -- Chief Cpl. Rudy Christians, an impeccably coiffed military hairdresser, has been cutting soldiers' hair for 24 years, and he loves his work.

It's a full-time job, guaranteed until retirement, and until then, the 47-year-old has enough free time to pursue an amateur singing career featuring Elvis and Tom Jones numbers. When the military does send him on an occasional field exercise, he is amazed by the fellow soldiers lumbering around him. "All the people are so old," he says.

Recruits like this help explain why Europe's military muscle has grown soft, and why the U.S. can't count on substantial military help from many of its European allies.

Even if every member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization were to back a U.S. strike against Iraq, the military impact might not be huge. The 17 European countries in NATO have about 2.3 million active-duty troops, about a million more than the U.S. does. But many of NATO's forces are poorly equipped, in part because so much money is spent on pay and benefits that there is less left for the technology, weapons and other gear that modern forces need.

Washington has asked NATO for limited contributions to an Iraqi campaign, for both political and military reasons. Its requests to NATO have focused mainly on the defense of Turkey and a reconstruction of Iraq if war occurs. France, Germany and Belgium say it's too early to plan for war, and hope the Iraq crisis can be resolved peacefully.

While the U.S. spends 36% of its defense budget on pay and benefits, most NATO members in Europe earmark an average of nearly 65%. The U.S. military employs support staff, of course, and also faces rising costs per soldier, especially because of health care. Still, overall, the share of personnel spending in the U.S. defense budget has decreased by six percentage points since the early 1980s. NATO statistics show that such spending has grown by as much or more in Europe during the same period.

NATO officials acknowledge Europe needs to upgrade its military capabilities. "We could do with fewer troops, but better troops; better trained, better equipped, more mobile," NATO Secretary General George Robertson said last month at the World Economic Forum. "The problem in Europe is that there are far too many people in uniform, and too few of them able to go into action at the speeds that conflicts presently demand."

Belgium, for example, employs hundreds of military barbers, musicians and other personnel who aren't likely to be called into battle. Yet Belgium doesn't have the money to replace aging helicopters or conduct regular combat-training exercises. Germany drafts 120,000 people every year but can't afford to buy all the vital transport planes it wants; last year, budget crunches forced it to slash an order of planes to 60 from 73. German soldiers who went to Afghanistan as peacekeepers crowded into an aging, leased Ukrainian carrier that had to stop to refuel.

In France, one of the few NATO countries to increase its defense budget this year, military-procurement funding fell 14% between 1997 and 2002, leaving its forces wanting in such key areas as refueling aircraft and missiles. The French defense ministry says it will address procurement shortfalls in the new budget. Europe has 11 troop-transport planes, compared with 250 in the U.S., and most European members of NATO don't have any modern precision-guided munitions at all.

U.S. Pressure

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. has stepped up calls for Europe to put more emphasis on smart bombs, secure communications, special-forces units and long-haul planes to take them to battle. U.S. officials from President George W. Bush on down have pressed for more investment to offset what U.S. Gen. Joseph Ralston, the former NATO supreme allied commander for Europe, calls European militaries' "outdated and redundant fat." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told European defense ministers meeting in Warsaw last summer that unless they start spending more on key defense capabilities, the U.S. won't call on them for backing when it goes to war. "The phone just won't ring," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

European leaders say they want to streamline and modernize their armed forces, and some have started. Outfitting their militaries to be nimble and high-tech is vital if Europeans want to influence the U.S. policies with which Europe so frequently disagrees. The U.S. wants Europe to modernize so it can depend on other countries to share the job -- and cost -- of playing global cop.
SPECIAL PAGE


For continuing coverage, see War With Iraq.



But swift reform isn't possible in Europe because of labor laws, influential unions and a widespread conviction that defense spending shouldn't be a priority. Beyond that, Europe's economy is weak, and the 12 countries that use the euro are supposed to keep their deficits under 3% of gross domestic product. "It makes it difficult to create a real defense capability, even with all the troops," says Florentino Portero, military specialist for the think tank Grupo de Estudios Estrategicos in Madrid.

One reason Europe has so many soldiers is its strong military labor unions. Unheard of in the U.S. and Britain, these unions trace their history to the end of the 19th century, when disgruntled Dutch soldiers, unhappy about living conditions, banded together into a group called Ons Belang (Our Interests). Similar groups soon sprang up around Western Europe. In the 1970s, European military unions gained sweeping collective-bargaining rights, though they stay out of war-planning and deployment issues.

In Belgium, military unions are as powerful as anywhere on the Continent. On King Albert's birthday last June, a holiday for the Belgian military, unions deployed thousands of soldiers to Brussels to demand a raise in vacation pay. Soldiers chanted, drank beer and banged their aluminum mess bowls. "Show me the money," one officer shouted to a passing police van. The protest grew so rowdy that police cooled demonstrators off with a water cannon. But it was a success: An emergency session of the Belgian cabinet agreed to give soldiers -- already eligible for six weeks' annual vacation -- a raise in holiday benefits valued at about $500 each.

For Emmanuel Jacob, an artillery officer and a union leader who was on the front lines of the protest, it was a bittersweet victory. "We must be honest with ourselves," says Warrant Officer Jacob, secretary-general of Centrale Generale du Personnel Militaire, which represents 6,000 active-duty and 2,500 retired personnel. "Either we have a smaller number of people who are well-trained and equipped or we continue to defend a bigger army and it won't work in the future."

The average age of a Belgian soldier is 40 -- compared with 28 in the U.S. and 29 in the U.K. Most Belgian military personnel can retire at 56 with full pension benefits. The Defense Ministry acknowledges too many of its soldiers are too old, and says it is trying to recruit younger people. But Gerard Harveng, a spokesman for Defense Minister Andre Flahaut, says, "I'm not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight." Instead, Belgium sees its military role mostly focused on peacekeeping operations.

During the Cold War, Washington's message to Europe was different than it is today. The U.S. encouraged heavy investments in troops to prepare for a Soviet land invasion. People who were drafted or signed up in the 1970s and 1980s were guaranteed full employment until retirement. Though it varies from country to country, some European governments, including Belgium, still have that policy today.

"Once you enter the military, you are in for life," says Maj. Renaud Theunens, 39, an intelligence officer who took a leave from the Belgian armed forces to work at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in the Hague. "It was quite unusual to ask to leave," he says. In the U.S., by contrast, it is more unusual for a soldier to make the military a career. Under its "up or out" policy, the Pentagon can force officers to leave if they fail to move up the ranks within a certain period of time. The U.S. government also has devised programs encouraging people to take early retirement and get jobs outside the military.

Belgium has cut its military payroll by half since the height of the Cold War, to 44,000. But it still spends some 67% of its annual defense budget of about $2.5 billion on pay and benefits and only about 5.4% on equipment. The U.S., with an annual defense budget of $366 billion, spends 22% on equipment, according to NATO.

Reduction Through Attrition

The Belgian Defense Ministry's goal is to trim its military work force by 10% or so over the next decade, but the reductions can come only through attrition. Early efforts to cut the payroll have already run into opposition from military employees and labor unions. They rebelled in the early '90s, for example, against a proposal to merge Belgium's six military bands into one. "Each band has its own character and repertoire," says Alain Crepin, director of the Air Force orchestra, as his musicians pack up their instruments after daily practice on a deserted base. The Air Force band's repertoire includes jazz and other modern music, he notes, while the Army is heavy on the classics. Lumping them together to save money would be "stupid," he says. The government compromised, downsizing to three bands, with 260 members.

"We should have a major reform of personnel," says Stef Goris, a member of the Belgian parliament's defense committee and a former tank-battalion officer. The country has more than enough troops, he says, but "it's very hard to send them to a place like the Balkans because they aren't fit enough."

In the meantime, many soldiers are happy with military life. Chief Cpl. Jerome Loos, for instance, is part of an eight-member crew that makes lunch for about 100 people at an army base in Siysele. A typical meal: chicken, french fries and vegetable stew. He says his brother, a private-sector cook, works much harder. "I have lots of free time and good job security," says Cpl. Loos, who was drafted in 1986. An avid runner, he can go jogging between duties and be home by late afternoon to spend time with his kids. He gets 30 days paid vacation and earns about $20,000 a year after taxes. Once or twice a year, Cpl. Loos has to go on shooting exercises, but says he feels more comfortable with a knife in the kitchen.

There are cooks in the U.S. armed forces, though few are allowed to make careers of the job. Most food service on U.S. military bases is handled by private catering contractors. The Belgian military says it tried outsourcing cooking on a limited basis in the early 1990s, but it proved expensive.

For many, Belgium's lopsided spending ratio is frustrating. Belgians in combat positions don't train as regularly as the top brass would like. A lack of funds forced a cutback on training exercises. When they do practice, troops often use outdated or inadequate equipment. On an army base outside Brussels, Lt. Theo Blomme flies two transport choppers, a 10-year-old Augusta and a 30-year-old Allouette-2, both so small that only two or three people in combat gear can squeeze in at once.

For a safe battlefield rescue, Lt. Blomme says he would need a much bigger helicopter that could land, take in 20 soldiers and leave. With his small helicopters, he would have to evacuate in groups of twos and threes. "The enemy would hear you on the first approach and shoot you down on the second," says Lt. Blomme, 38. He says he feels silly training in an aircraft that will likely never see combat. "It's embarrassing."

The Belgian military says it wants to update its transport-chopper fleet, but the $500 million price tag is prohibitive right now. The Defense Ministry also has its sights set on a troop-transport ship and a fleet of infantry-transport vehicles. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be freed up for such purchases when its work-force-reduction plan is complete in 2013.

Over the next decade, Belgium will eliminate thousands of military jobs, close bases and consolidate operations. Units will be shuttered at the sprawling military hospital in Neder-Over-Hembeek, where many doctors now work four-hour days for full-time pay, allowing some of them to set up private practices. The hair salon where Cpl. Christians works will probably survive, but full-time military hairdressers, jobs that don't exist in the U.S., won't be replaced when they retire.

As a red-haired female officer sat down for a government-subsidized trim, Cpl. Christians took a break to reflect on his career. He was drafted at 19 following a brief stint as a civilian hairdresser. After a few years doing office work for the military, he landed a job as a barber. His military specialty is defending bases against aerial bombardment, but he has never seen combat. He takes home about $18,000 a year after taxes, and on Saturdays, he is free to work on his pop-singing act, something he didn't have time for in the private sector.

"Personally, I think it's important to have people like us in the military," he said. Hairdressers provide part of what Cpl. Christians sees as the three essentials of soldiers' happiness: "Good dress, good food and feeling good."

An Insult to My Country and Its Military

I have read The Wall Street Journal's recent article concerning the armies of Europe, and in particular the Belgian armed forces ("Growing Soft: How the Armies Of Europe Let Their Guard Down -- Guaranteed Jobs for Soldiers Leave Little Room to Buy Equipment or Even Train -- Battle of the Belgian Bands," page one, Feb. 13). Beyond the fact that the article's assertions insult my country and the men and women with a military and humanitarian vocation, I am surprised that a newspaper of this quality is prostituting itself to this level.

Your unfair treatment of a long-term ally of the United States is sufficient to suffocate the most fervent defender of the freedom of the press. Deriding the concept of objectivity with such violence must alarm any citizen (American, European and Belgian ).

The ease and vulgarity of your assertions suggest the intention to harm and bear witness to a lack of professionalism. Even if I can understand that the present political context makes you lose the sense for analysis and fair criticism, the deviations you give way to are inexcusable. Is it reasonable, for example, to consider that the prototype of a Belgian soldier is a 24-year-old corporal who is a hairdresser by profession? [Editor's Note: The hairdresser in question is identified in the article as 47 years old, with 24 years of service in the Belgian Army.] I respect any person and profession, as I do respect all the employees, civil and military, of the department I am responsible for. Let me tell you this:

Yes, we guarantee employment to these persons. To my knowledge the same is not true in the United States.

Yes, our personnel may call in their union, because this is part of our commitment to democratic principles of active listening and well-being for our employees.

Yes, the primary mission of our armed forces is to maintain the peace and to help the civilian population (Belgian or foreign), without being belligerent or being convinced of having been elected by a higher authority to keep watch over the world order.

Yes, our soldiers marched, because unlike some others, we accept that people express their thoughts and their desires, even if we prefer deliberation.

Yes, we spend a reasonable budget that corresponds to our bilateral and international obligations, but we refuse to squander our public funds for the sole purpose of national glory, since we prefer to spend them on social affairs, health care and pensions for our fellow citizens. In none of these fields do we have lessons to receive from anyone else, to whatever extent this may annoy them.

I do not wish to lose any more time relating my feelings about what I consider to be an awful caricature, unworthy of a journalist, unworthy of the Americans we like and respect. But every people has its exceptions, every profession has its misfits.

For the quality of information of your fellow citizens, for the honor of American journalism, for the respect toward the men and women of my department, I sincerely hope you will cease to believe yourselves the keeper of universal wisdom.

Repeating my sympathy for the entire American people, which, I am convinced, is able to distinguish between truth and lies, I hereby transmit you a series of objective facts you have denied to take into account with such blindness. Or could it be stupidity, for which I'll grant you credit.

1. Your article says that the Belgian Armed Forces have hundreds of hairdressers, musicians and other non-combatant personnel at their disposal. Musicians, however, cannot be fairly categorized as non-combatant soldiers because bands have especially been maintained for their important value in terms of public relations of the Armed Forces.

2. Your article claims that Belgium would not have the budgets for its troops' combat training. Our budget plans 17,820 flying hours for the F-16, 100 navigation days for the frigates and an average of 40 exercise days (intensive duty) for the units of the land component. In 2003 the Ministry of Defense will spend €259 million ($279 million) to make the components combat ready, exclusive of personnel expenses.

3. Belgium has enough tactical transport aircraft in the armed forces. But we have lacked transport capability for nonstandard equipment. The A400 European program (which the Americans do not like very much because they do not have anything similar) is going to remedy this problem. The 180 aircraft that have been planned -- among them not less than seven for Belgium -- are going to endow Europe with an important capability.

4. The average age of Belgian servicemen is indeed relatively high (38.5 years old). Contrary to what the article is trying to suggest, not all Belgian servicemen have a "lifetime job." Part of the volunteers are short-term servicemen.They are on duty for a maximum period of five years, something your journalist did not mention. On the other hand, any serviceman who does not comply with minimum physical and medical standards will be discharged.

It is also important to note that the number of servicemen leaving the armed forces during their career is currently higher than the number of retirements: in 2002 there were 171 retirements and 312 resignations; in 2001 these figures were 194 and 387 respectively. It is therefore not correct to say that all Belgian servicemen stay until retirement age.

5. Belgium does not have an "up or out" policy for its officers but retirement age is different for each rank. Somebody who will not be promoted to a rank higher than captain first class is retired at the age of 51 and even at the age of 45, if he is a pilot.

6. Belgium has developed measures making it possible for the servicemen to leave the army before retirement age (long-term leave, which 1,622 persons have used, temporary discharge and resignation upon request). These measures are successful and make it possible to rejuvenate the armed forces.

7. The article's assertion that 67% of the Belgian defense budget is spent on personnel and 5.4% on equipment is not correct. Correct figures are as follows for 2003:

a. personnel 62%

b. working 24%

c. equipment investment 11%

d. infrastructure investment 2%

e. international investment 1%

8. Americans may spend 22% on equipment, but they have a global strategy and must support a large nuclear strategic posture (that is oversized for the defense of their territory but undersized to control the entire planet) which has repercussions on working and investment expenses and consequently reduces proportionally the part of personnel expenses.

9. The Belgian serviceman under the rank of officer normally works 38 hours a week and is entitled to 30 days off per year. If the very same serviceman works overtime, there is compensation in time. His employment regulations are consequently not better than those of the average Belgian citizen.

10. The 2000-2015 investment plan is ambitious and will be funded in part by the reduction in personnel expenditures and overall force size. Is the high percentage of the personnel budget not precisely what the journalist is criticizing? The reduction in strength is a solution to this problem (smaller armed forces but better equipped). What argument can be used to be against the fact that somebody is relaxing at the weekend (Corporal Christiaens has a "pop singing act")? Compare this with the thousands of American soldiers who are confined in the gigantic barracks "in the middle of nowhere" for months (for instance: Fort Hood, Texas, more than 30,000 people).

Finally, both volunteers referred to in the article earn €17,500 ($18,800), and €17,300 per year respectively.

Andre Flahaut
Minister of Defense, Belgium
Brussels

ditorial Page Response, Feb. 26, 2003


Belgian Blitzkrieg

The Belgians may not want to fight Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't mean they can't still go to battle. As evidence, we'd point to Belgian Defense Minister Andre Flahaut's lengthy letter responding to Philip Shishkin's February 13 story on the decrepit shape of the Belgian war machine, if that's what it can still be called.

Normally, we'd let the story and Mr. Flahaut's reply speak for themselves. But the vehemence and substance of the minister's response are revealing enough that the letter deserves greater attention.

Mr. Shishkin's news story was, we understand, the product of nearly a year of investigative reporting. He received little cooperation from the Belgian Ministry of Defense, which declined to make Mr. Flahaut available for an interview for the story he now derides. Mr. Shishkin is a reporter who works separately from the writers of these columns, but we'd point out that the paper is standing by his facts.

Interestingly enough, the Shishkin article also provoked responses from Belgian citizens and military personnel. One Army captain, who understandably declined to be identified by name, said of Mr. Shishkin's description of the state of the Belgian military: "It's not nearly as bad in the Belgian Army as you describe. It's far worse!"

The point here is broader than the Belgians. As NATO Secretary-General George Robertson is fond of pointing out, the alliance's European members as a group spend only two-thirds as much as the U.S. on defense, and for their money get only 10% of America's military capability. The discrepancy arises largely from Europe's under-investment in the equipment and technology that make today's modern armies effective.

These columns have long urged European countries to upgrade their defense capabilities and close that gap. So we were hardly surprised to see Mr. Shishkin's story report that the Belgian Army spends more than 60% of its budget on personnel. Personnel are crucial to any fighting force, naturally. But an ill-equipped army isn't much more than a glorified civil service. The high percentage of European budgets that goes toward personnel is a reflection of how little is spent on equipment and materiel.

Mr. Flahaut's furious reply highlights how uncomfortable this truth is for Belgium's power elite. It also reinforces our argument -- and Lord Robertson's -- that European militaries are not organized to field an effective fighting force. Instead they are seen by governments as jobs programs, props for ceremonial occasions and -- when absolutely necessary -- a source of "peacekeepers" after the fighting has stopped. No wonder the Belgians want nothing to do with Saddam.