• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Commentators see the disparity between U.S. and European military capabilities, as well as alleged differences between Europeans and Americans regarding NATO’s role in the fight against terrorism, as issues which could eventually seriously undermine the Alliance.

"The Cold War is over, the dark threat the Alliance faced gone. Meanwhile, a massive and widening disparity in military capability between the U.S., on the one hand, and the other members on the other, has cast doubts on its cohesion," stresses the Financial Times. It notes that during his trip to Europe, President Bush has seemed eager to distance himself from NATO-skepticism. Yet, it adds, it is not clear whether the debate within the Bush administration on this subject is over. There is enough doubt in the U.S. both about the political cohesion of the Alliance and its military effectiveness to keep the issue simmering. Arguing that there are still significant doubts over the political viability of NATO as the agent for fighting the war on terrorism, the newspaper asks: "The U.S. has identified Iraq as the next target in that war. It has also singled out Iran and North Korea as threats. But Europeans are at best divided over action against Iraq and deeply critical of the ‘axis of evil’ rhetoric. Is it plausible that NATO can have, as its principal role, the global fight against terrorism if it exempts itself from the first three battles the U.S. wants to fight?"

Can NATO fight terrorism now that the Cold War is won?, asks the Christian Science Monitor and continues: "As NATO finally digests its former arch enemy, a specter stalks the feast. Does the Alliance still have a military job to do now that the Cold war is over? Can it muster the political will (and cash) to join the U.S. in the ‘war on terrorism’—against Iraq or others that may threaten to use weapons of mass destruction? With its old work done, what is NATO for? Some European observers wonder whether NATO is the right vehicle for the fight against terrorism, which they see as a police problem more than a military one." The article speculates that ahead of the Prague summit, NATO’s transformation to adopt new missions to match the new situation in the wake of Sept. 11 is likely to be at the heart of the transatlantic debate. Stressing, however, that "getting European governments to spend on defense is a tough sell," the newspaper recalls that Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman told a Senate committee earlier this month that "the growing capabilities gap between the United States and Europe is the most serious long-term problem facing NATO and must be addressed." Unless the disparity is substantially narrowed, NATO will be increasingly less able to play its part in countering the threats that now face us, he reportedly stressed. The newspaper warns that "that could be the end of the Alliance." CNN considered that NATO’s future challenge will be to keep the U.S. on board. "What of a NATO is it that decided to embrace Russia and share discussions on a range of key issues? Has the United States OK’d that new deal simply because it does not much rate NATO any more? And does the same go for NATO’s plan to take in another seven or eight new members from the ex-communist world? NATO Secretary General Robertson says the organization must modernize or be marginalized. But modernization costs money. And to the anger of the United States, other NATO leaders are not putting their hands in their pockets, which raises a big question. For the moment a United States which these days fights its wars with coalitions of the willing still welcomes NATO’s pool of experience and training to help put those coalitions together. But if European governments do not come up with hard cash soon to hike their defense spending, some defense experts wonder how long it will be before the United States loses patience with the Alliance altogether," said the broadcast. In another development, Sofia’s Beta, reports meanwhile that NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly President, Rafael Estrella, told an assembly session in Sofia Tuesday that Sept. 11 showed the need for a comprehensive review of NATO’s approach to security. "NATO and the entire civilized world must prepare to combat organized crime and the new forms of terrorism. We must proceed from the consensus achieved in the actions against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security is indivisible and global," Estrella reportedly said, adding: "The operation in Afghanistan and NATO’s campaign in Kosovo in 1999, showed the huge gap between the capabilities of the U.S. and Europe. The European allies must assume a greater responsibility for European security, they must harmonize their defense policies, increase their defense spending, and build a decision-making mechanism. These challenges will be discussed at the NATO summit in Prague. It will be decisive for the adaptation, reform and enlargement of the Alliance."

• According to AFP, Russian media blew cool on the joint Russia-NATO Council, believing that the West’s proclaimed friendship was only "virtual" and that a true partnership was still a long way off. "Russia and NATO enter a virtual friendship," the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta reportedly said, noting that "Moscow still has considerable differences with NATO," in particularly regarding the Alliance’s enlargement, which is likely to take it up to Russia’s borders. According to the dispatch, the financial daily Vedomosti opined that "this friendship is extremely dangerous (because) President Bush’s cordiality is creating pointless illusions in Russia." Washington plans to consolidate its position as the world’s master and wants to deprive Moscow of its particular status," that of an influential "former major power," the paper said. The business daily Kommersant reportedly charged that "Russia will now have equal rights with the NATO countries, but only where it suits them."

NATO-ACCESSION

• According to AFP, NATO’s parliamentary Assembly, meeting in Sofia Tuesday, hailed "successful" reforms in seven candidate countries increasingly tipped to be invited to join the Alliance later this year. In a declaration proposed by Italy and Germany, the Assembly meeting reportedly listed the seven as frontrunners for a membership invitation at the Prague summit in November. "Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have proved their progress toward membership through successful programs of reform at home and their contribution to NATO operations in the Balkans," the declaration, adopted by 65 votes in favor and 29 abstentions, reportedly said. The dispatch notes that the two formal candidates missing from the declaration’s list were Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The dispatch further reports that Bulgarian Foreign Minister Passi called for NATO candidate states to be told of the enlargement decision "several weeks" before the Prague summit, in order to prepare public opinion.

UNITED STATES-DEFENSE

• Reporting on the U.S. exercise "Hungarian Response" which took place earlier in the month at the Hungarian base in Keckemet, the Washington Post observes that Hungary granted the Americans unrestricted use of its air corridors and permitted live-fire exercises for the practice. "It’s the kind of access denied to the Americans at their bases back in Italy and Germany, where environmental and social restrictions increasingly fetter the U.S. military’s ability to train realistically," stresses the article, noting that Hungarian officers were so eager to work with the United States that they even blasted a huge crater in the tarmac of the base so U.S. army combat engineers could practice patching it with earth-moving equipment dropped from a C-141. "As U.S. military relations with old-line NATO allies grow more distant and attenuated, the Pentagon is benefiting" from closer ties with Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as NATO aspirants in Eastern Europe, says the newspaper, adding: The United States has stationed troops in western Europe since World War II and maintains numerous bases in Germany, Italy and other NATO countries. But over the past decade or so, the Pentagon has felt increasingly hamstrung by training restrictions placed on the U.S. forces by their European hosts.

 FINAL ITEM