Future Of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization AUTHOR Cmdr. Jose H. Elkfury, Brazil CSC 1991 SUBJECT AREA - National Security EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: FUTURE OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION Introduction: The world starting a new era with the end of the so called Cold War and the revolutions in Europe. It seems that the instrument created to counter the communist expansionism in Europe - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - and its strategies are no longer necessary, and that the strong European Community is ready to excuse the protection of the United States. Part one: The origin of the East-West confrontation and the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The importance of the United States in the Alliance. Part two: The strategies employed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter the Soviet Union expansionism in Europe. The problems of the flexible response strategy. Part three: The end of the Cold War does not mean the end of the East-West confrontation. Part four: The North Atlantic Treaty Organizations role in a new Europe and the role the United States. Conclusion: Despite the announced end of the Cold War, NATO must continue to exist, the United States must remain in NATO, and flexible response is still a good strategy. FUTURE OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION By CF(FN) Jose H. S. Elkfury In 1983, on March 23rd, when President Ronald Reagan announced a comprehensive research program to eliminate the threat of Soviet Union strategic nuclear weapons - the Strategic Defense Initiative - the world was starting a new age. The Soviet Union understood that it could no longer compete with the United States in the armsrace. To continue competing with the United States, more and more resources would go to the defense budget, but the Soviet Union people were tired. They wanted cars instead of tanks, shoes instead of boots, clothes instead of uniforms. The people in Eastern Europe were unhappy as well. They wanted the freedom to decide their own destiny. There was no way out for the Soviet Union. The only to prevent defeat in the Cold War was finish the war. Glasnost and perestroika were the solution. Outside of the Soviet Union, glasnost and perestroika are represented by the unification of Germany, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The threat to the North Atlantic Treaty no longer exists. So, why not promote the dissolution of the Treaty? As the communist world changes, a process of integration was developed in Europe. The European Community is a new political, economic and military power. So, does Europe still need United States protection? Furthermore, is flexible response a viable strategy? Despite the announced end of the Cold War, NATO must continue to exist, the United States must remain in NATO and flexible response is still a good strategy. To understand such statements, it is necessary to understand why the North Atlantic Treaty was created, the role of the United States, and the strategies that have been adopted to combat communist expansionism. After that, one more question must be answered to understand my statement - is the communist threat actually disappearing? The Cold War has been seen as the last and decisive chapter of the most important fight of this century - the East-West confrontation. Bipolarity is being replaced by multipolarity. The two superpowers are no longer the uncontested leaders of the world's two blocs - the East and the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has had an important role in this confrontation. To understand its role, one must understand how the confrontation started, what were its roots, and who started it. Historians would find the reasons for the confrontation on the ancient Russian expansionism, started as early as the time of aristocratic czars like Peter the Great, and continued with the new Marxist czars like Lenin and Stalin. Geopoliticians would say that Russians first, and Soviets later, have always tried to secure warm water ports. Economic reasons can also be found. But, the main reason for the Soviet expansionism is the export the communist revolution. The Marxist ideas, according to the communists, are the solution for workers all around the world, so such ideas should be brought to workers of other countries. Non-communist countries could not agree with such ideas. They supported the counterrevolutionary White Army during the Russian civil war. The war ended with a communist victory, and the Soviet leaders would not forget non-communist support for the White Russians. So, a series of actions and reactions started between communist and nor communist countries. Economic embargoes and the COMINTERN are some examples, but the best opportunity to expand the communist border took place during the Second World War, employing a powerful instrument - the Red army. At the end of the Second World War, while moving towards Berlin, the Soviet army occupied the Eastern European countries. In those countries, the communists conducted three-phased operations to take control of the local government. The United States, reacting against those operations, employed the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, in 1947. The communist reaction was the establishment of COMINFORM, an organization for ideological unity of the Soviet bloc. In 1948, two new communist actions - a coup d'Etat in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin blockade. These two actions were major and called for an suitable reaction. On April 4th 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington by representatives from Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those actions and reactions at the end of Second World War were the beginning of the Cold War period of the East-West confrontation. Such a confrontation did not take place only in Europe. The Soviet Union conducted actions to expand communism all over the world. The communists succeeded in others continents. China, Vietnam and other smaller countries in Asia, Cuba in Latin America, and some African countries are some examples. But in Europe, since the birth of the North Atlantic Treaty until today, the communists failed to export their revolution. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under the umbrella of the United States, was effective in countering the Red Army and, after 1955, the Warsaw Pact forces. So, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born within the context of the East-West confrontation. It is an instrument that the non-communist bloc adopted to counter the communist advance in Europe. Created within the framework of the United Nation Charter, the Treaty consist of a Preamble and 14 articles. Article 5 is the core of the Treaty. According to this Article, member countries agree to treat an armed attack on any one member as an attack against all of them. The Treaty does not specify the enemy nor its duration. Article 6 specifies the area in which the Treaty can be employed. However, it does not imply that events occurring out the area cannot be subject of consultation within the Alliance, because events elsewhere in the world can affect the security in the North Atlantic area. Furthermore, the Treaty can be amended to include any area of interest. Although each member country has the same status in terms of rights and obligations, it is obvious that the Unites States has a major role in the alliance. The United States role was a consequence of the Marshall Plan and the fact that the United States was the only member country with nuclear capabilities. Because of its economic help to build up Europe in the post war period, and his ability to establish a nuclear umbrella over Europe, to protect Western European countries against the communist threat, it is easy to understand its position as a leader among the member countries. Europe had fear of Soviet aggression and was sure that it did not have the capability to deter an attack. Furthermore, for the United States, a free Europe was a vital interest. Therefore, the North Atlantic Treaty matched United States and European security interests. As a consequence of being the natural leader of the non communist bloc, the United States determined the strategy to deny the communist bloc expansionism. The relative importance of the national elements of power -- diplomatic, politic, economic and military - have changed according to changing threats, but the military component has not changed. It has always been prepared for immediate employment. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has followed the United States strategy. The military strategy has changed from 1949, because the changes in the nuclear capabilities of the two blocs and because the changes in the concept of employment of this capabilities. As the strategy changes, different words have been used - containment, massive retaliation, deterrence, flexible response. Although, in my opinion, only two concepts characterize those strategies: massive retaliation and flexible response. The first strategy, massive retaliation, meant the massive employment of nuclear weapons against any aggression. Such strategy was effective in Europe, but it did not succeed in other continents. The force to be employed was so terrific that it did not have credibility. The aggression would have to be major to justify the employment of nuclear weapons. Only a threat to national survival would justify a nuclear response. An attack against Europe maybe would justify such reaction, but the Soviet Union never tried. Instead, the communist bloc attacked out of Europe, where they were sure that the nuclear retaliation would not be employed. Korea is an example. Massive retaliation succeeded in Europe only as a defensive strategy. The United States failed to liberate some European countries from the communist oppression. Workers and students of Poland and East Germany received incentive to conduct liberation movements, but, at the decisive moment, the support collapsed. There was no way to support these countries against the Soviet Union tanks other than employing nuclear weapons, but the threat was not dangerous enough to justify nuclear strikes. When the Soviet Union also got the capability to project nuclear power, a new chapter of the East-West confrontation started. Both bloc could employ massive retaliation, but for both blocs such strategy was still so terrific that did not have credibility. During this period of the confrontation, each bloc tried to achieve a better weapon to be in advantage against the other. It was the nuclear race. Both sides had a huge capability, however both sides knew that a nuclear engagement could produce no winners. On "the day after", only losers would survive. Two important lessons were learned from the Cuba crisis of 1962. The Soviet Union felt the cost of not having an oceanic navy. The United States felt they should have another way to solve crisis, because the threat of massive retaliation was not effective. They should have a more flexible strategy. A strategy with different levels of answer to different levels of threat. The flexible response strategy was the solution. Once again the North Atlantic Treaty Organization adopted a United States strategy. Instead of the threat of massive nuclear retaliation, there were several options: direct defense, threat of escalation and threat of retaliation. Such strategy allowed NATO to react according to the level of aggression. Any invasion of Europe would be answered by the commitment of conventional forces and, if necessary, the threat and possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. The employment of tactical nuclear weapons by Soviet Union would be answered with the same kind of weapons plus nuclear attack against specific strategic targets. So, the massive retaliation would be only the last step, the last option of the whole spectrum of reactions. Is the flexible response an effective solution? Yes, it has been, because it has accomplished its purpose - to deny the Soviet Union expansion in Europe. But, this is not a complete answer. It should be said that the Western strategy as a whole - diplomatic, political, economic and military.- has succeeded, not only the military strategy. The flexible response is better than the massive retaliation strategy, but still has some problems. There are two main problems, one within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and one external. The first problem is the divergence between the United States and the European countries about how to employ the flexible response strategy. According to the United States, the answer to a Soviet Union attack against Western Europe should be a phased campaign. The United States conception is to delay the enemy with forward deployed forces thereby giving the alliance enough time to introduce the rapid deployment forces and heavy forces to conduct a conventional counter offensive. If such reaction does not stop the Soviets, the next step would be to employ tactical nuclear weapons. The European countries, mainly Germany, do not agree with that campaign because the first two phases - delay and conventional counter offensive - would take place on their territory, in large urban and industrial areas. Until a favorable decision can be achieved, European countries will devastate their territory. So, they prefer an earlier nuclear answer against a communist attack. In such case, the response would not be too flexible. The external problem is the Soviet Union military doctrine. According to their way of war, quick and massive actions are essential to a decisive victory. To try to deny a Soviet Union offensive, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces should also act decisively. But the Western bloc does not have enough conventional forces. So, the Soviet Union probably will not give the West any chance to employ tactical nuclear weapons. The communist forces will target those weapons and/or will employ tactical - or maybe strategic - nuclear weapons first. In such a scenario, the West would have to employ strategic weapons earlier than planned. Once again, the response would not be too much flexible. A post cold war strategy was presented in the so called "London Declaration". It is oriented to crisis management, with small military forces, working for stabilization. The strategy would try to reestablish peace, but if war came, a capable force that can fight three-dimensional and high technology battle will be employed. It is the same flexible response strategy with a new name, and the same two problems cited before are present. When trying to solve those problems, mainly the first, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries will have, in the next years, a different relationship than that of the first forty years of the alliance. There is no longer one powerful country protecting the other member countries and determining what to do and how to do it. Now there is the European Community, a powerful organization that includes a unified Germany. The European Community has enough power to ask for more participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization decisions about military strategy. There is a growing chorus among European countries calling for a strictly European security counterpart to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Such European organization would deal with situations considered critical to European security interests but over which the United States - and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - would not be willing to support military intervention. Even with other organizations being created to manage specific European security interests, the North Atlantic Organization Treaty will still be necessary. There are two main reasons for this. First, can we be sure about the end of the East-West confrontation? Second, with the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would not Europe revert to the pre First World War conditions with instable alliances spreading all around? We can not be sure about the end of the East-West confrontation because glasnost and perestroika may be only new words for an old kind of solution employed by Russians and Soviets to solve their problems. Peter the Great, Catherine the Great and Lenin approached the West to obtain technologic advancement and economic help. All Western help used to strengthen their military capability. Is Mikhail Gorbachev doing the same thing now? Mikhail Gorbachev is also providing a non democratic government with semblance of democracy, improving the Soviet Union image in the West, building domestic opinion to his own advantage. So, is the Soviet Union changing her historical behavior now? The other reason to not be sure about the end of the confrontation is Gorbachev's capability to conduct his country to a democratic kind of life if such democracy will lead to dissolution of the Soviet Union. Will the hard line Soviet communists see the end of the Soviet empire and do nothing? Will the people be patient and quiet while facing difficult problems such as unemployment, recession, high cost of basic products? The Soviet Union can not attack the West today. Her economy, today, is not strong enough to support a high level of welfare for the people and, at the same time, support a high intensity war. Her internal politic situation is not stable. However, her diplomacy is still working, and working very well. So, as in the l92Os, would not Mikhail Gorbachev be employing the principle of one step back for two steps ahead? Does the end of communism mean the end of the Soviet Union - or the Russian - expansionism? Military studies teaches that we have to plan according to the enemy's capability and not according to his intention. Europe without the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is Europe without the United States decisively involved in European affairs. Despite the integration process being developed, there are some European affairs that can unbalance the European Community. The most important is the unified, powerful Germany being again a great power, with a prominent role in the European Community and creating insecurities in its neighbors. Germany in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a transparent Germany, but if the alliance is dissolved or if Germany gets out of the alliance, she will not be transparent anymore. So, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the way to maintain the balance of power in Europe, with the United States a unified Germany. After the European revolutions in the 1980s, mainly the Warsaw Pact collapse and the integration process of the European Community, the fear of aggression by Soviet Union has been greatly abated, and the incapacity to Europe face an aggression has been almost annulled. Therefore, despite the North Atlantic Treaty Organization being barely needed to achieve her central purpose - keeping the Soviet Union away - she is still necessary as an important instrument to maintain the balance of power in Europe. If the role of the United States in the alliance is no longer to protect Europe, it is to deny a European powerful state - as Germany - to create unbalance of power on the continent. Explaining the second reason to not dissolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also explains why the United States can not end its involvement in Europe and its presence in the alliance. Of course, the relationship of the United States and the other member countries will be different. The predominant role of the United States in the decision making process will be replaced by a new situation - the United States and the European Community as equal partners. About the strategy to be employed, there is no doubt that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be able to react against any threat, responding with the necessary force according to the level of the threat - a flexible response strategy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Calvocoressi, Peter. "World Power 1920-1990." International Affairs, October 1990, 667-674. National Security Strategy of the United States. Washington D.C.: The White House, March 1990. NATO Handbook, Brussels, 1989. Nuechterlein, Donald E. American Overcommitted. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985. Rivermam, Robert H. "The Challenges of Glasnost for Western Intelligence." Parameters, XX (No 4, December 1990), 85-94. Roos, John G. "Nato Shifts Toward Crisis Management; Europeans Consider Regional Alliance." Armed Forces Journal, April 1991, 34-35. Stoessinger, John G. The Might of Nations. 8th ed. New York: Random House 1986. CONCEPT OF COMMAND By CF(FN) J. H S. Elkfury During the time I have been in the Brazilian Marine Corps, I have had the opportunity to learn about leadership by either attending classes -or working in different of jobs - special operation platoon, infantry and tank company, battallon staff and Antarctic stations. I am still learning, because leadership is a subject related to human behavior and, therefore, it is subject to changes. In this paper, I will address what I learned about leadership. I see three different ideas related to concept of command - the concept of leadership, the techniques of leadership, and the leader. Leadership is the art of conducting a group to achieve an objective. It can be our family, a group of school kids, a youth gang or a Marine platoon. There are three main ways to conduct a group, also called techniques of leadership: autocratic, democratic and liberal. It is evident that in very few situations will only one of these techniques be employed. It is more common for all three techniques be employed at once; however, one of them will be dominant. When employing the autocratic technique, the group has no chance to determine its objective or its strategy to achieve the- objectives. The group chief or the higher level of authority makes the decisions. The democratic technique is characterized by group participation in the decision process to establish the objectives and determine the strategy. When employing a liberal leadership, each member decides about his own strategy and his objectives while performing the group activity. Of course, each member's objectives and strategy can not contradict the general purpose of the group. An example of a liberal procedure can be the physical training of the Command and Staff College students. Everybody knows the fitness levels that are expected of a Marine, the time available to practice and the techniques to improve his or her fitness. However, everyone can decide for themselves what level he or she wants to achieve and how conduct the individual practices. A platoon leader planning a sports day for his platoon will probably talk to everybody, to be sure that all the platoon will enjoy the sport day. Each platoon member will have the chance to participate in the decision process about the platoon activities In this case, the platoon leader uses a democratic leadership technique However, sometimes the platoon leader will employ an autocratic technique. During a combat situation, for example. When attacked by a an enemy ambush, the platoon leader will dictate orders. No one will have a chance to participate in the decision process. There is not be enough time. Furthermore, nobody will have the choice to do what he wants, because doing it can be dangerous for him and/or for the platoon. So, the platoon leader has opportunity to employ the three leadership techniques. The activity itself will determine which one has to be employed or has to be preponderant. Special groups can also be an important factor when deciding what technique to employ. In prison, for example, autocratic: leadership is the most effective technique to use against dangerous convicts. A leader has to prevent excessive use of each technique. An excessively autocratic leadership, for example, will probably became an authoritarian one. A leader that calls for group participation too often, for any kind of subject, can lose the confidence of his group. An excessively liberal leader will surely lose control over his group, resulting in anarchy. Deciding about which technique to employ is a very important choice for a successful leader. The capability to decide the correct technique to use is an important characteristic of a good leader. But it is not the only one. Beyond good character, good moral , honesty and other virtues, there are some behaviors, attitudes and postures that a good leader has to have. It can be a long list, but I see four prominent things example, professionalism, loyalty and moral courage. The leader-must be a model for his group. When performing any activity, he must be first. He must do the worst job. He must be the first to wake up and the last to sleep. The actual leader must say "follow me" instead of "go" when tasking his group. Professlonalism is linked to the idea of leading by example because it is difficult to be a good example without knowing how to perform the tasks. It is almost impossible to be an effective platoon leader without knowing how to employ the platoon. The same thing can be said of a brigade commander or of a fire team leader. Professional knowledge is critical to making good decisions. The leader must be loyal to his group and to his superiors. By speaking the truth, leaders gain confidence and become loyal. To defend the group interests despite any adversity is loyality to the group. Convincing the group to carry out an unpopular order of a superior commander is difficult. By showing the reasons to carry out the order instead of criticizing the superior, a leader shows his loyality to the superior commander. In both cases, the leader must have moral courage. He also has moral courage when he assumes the responsibility for mistakes done by the group rather than charging a group member. Therefore, to conduct a group to achieve and objective, and effective leader must know very well his profession to be a model to his group, he must have courage to say "no" when necessary, he must have loyalty both to his group and to his higher echelon, and must have the sensibility to chose the best leadership technique according the situation.
