• Military Menu                       

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

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. JOINT FORCES COMMAND-NATO

• In a contribution to Zurich’s Neue Zuercher Zeitung, June 18, freelance German journalist and former undersecretary in the German Defense Ministry Lothar Ruehl opined that the pattern for the establishment of the U.S. Joint Forces Command fits neither the European model of transatlantic partnership, nor that of a European strategic autonomy in international security policy for the control of crises, as the EU partners want to realize inside and outside NATO. According to Ruehl, it will be important that a central transatlantic command structure with its own Euro-Atlantic area of responsibility and its own competencies for the use and the command of U.S. and allied armed forces remains in effect. The new demarcation of the armed forces’ regional command areas will change the bases of transatlantic military cooperation. It will give the United States even greater freedom of action in international operations in which the U.S. armed forces cooperate with partners outside NATO, Ruehl charged and added: The new division of the strategic areas of responsibility of the U.S. high command leaves in place the European Command (EUCOM) with a military geographic extension toward the south across Africa to the South Atlantic and toward the east across Turkey to the western edge of the Gulf regions. At the same time, however, the NATO command area of the present SACLANT, to whom the American naval forces in the Atlantic are subordinate, is being downgraded from a national and international high command to a regional command. In the future, it is supposed to be subordinated to SACEUR." Pondering what this means for the monitoring of the sea link between North America and Europe and for NATO policy and strategy, Ruehl continued: "After a time of transition, will the NATO command area Atlantic continue to exist at all or will its functions actually be renationalized in the scope of the U.S. Joint Forces Command? That is, will the NAC be relegated to the margin of the decision center? Without an independent SACLANT, which is also U.S. supreme commander for the Atlantic accountable in Brussels for his NATO responsibility, the participation of the European NATO partners in the transatlantic military link would be reduced. The example of the Gulf War teaches that it is not probable that the SACEUR could also participate equally in the control of U.S. operations from the Atlantic at the margin of Europe, for example in the Middle East."

• According to Reuters, Yugoslav Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pavkovic told state television Wednesday that the Yugoslav army is not shielding fugitive war crimes suspect Gen. Mladic and does not know where he is. "We do not protect Mladic and we don’t know where he is. For the last few months, we have not had any information about where he is, because the Yugoslav Army security services are not dealing with retired generals," Pavkovic reportedly said. The dispatch notes that the remark was made after a senior U.S. State Department official warned that the issue of Mladic would be "a benchmark’ for the U.S. Congress on judging whether Belgrade was cooperating on the handover of war crimes suspects to the ICTY. A related AFP dispatch reports that U.S. Ambassador at-large for war crimes issues Pierre-Richard Prosper delivered a warning to Yugoslav authorities at a meeting in Belgrade last week that unless they arrest more war crimes indictees, particularly Mladic, U.S. lawmakers will likely to tighten restrictions on aid to Yugoslavia. Zagreb’s Hina, June 19, reported meanwhile that at his first public lecture since taking up his duty as High Representative to Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown said Wednesday he was convinced of SFOR’s firm decisiveness to arrest Mladic as well as former Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic. It is no longer a question whether they will be arrested but when, Ashdown reportedly stressed.

AFGHANISTAN

• Electronic media report that at a ceremony in Kabul Thursday, Britain handed over the leadership of ISAF. The commander of the Turkish contingent of ISAF took over from his British counterpart, said the BBC World Service, quoting analysts saying the United States is keen to promote Turkey—which is predominantly Moslem—as a secular, democratic model for Afghanistan. Reuters highlights that Turkey is taking command of the 4,650-strong ISAF for six months, receiving backup on communications, airlifting of troops and finance from allies, and contributing 1,400 personnel.

The scaling down of Britain’s contribution to ISAF is prompting some British media to look at the British armed forces’ involvement worldwide, notably in the Balkans.

"The government would like today’s announcement of Britain’s deployment in Afghanistan coming to an end to be seen as a routine matter. The withdrawal from the Balkans, they will say, is still under consideration in the Force Strategic Review. But in reality, what we are seeing is a sea change in British military and political strategy, a latter-day equivalent of the retreat from ‘East of Suez,’ and a realization that the country cannot sustain a new Pax Britannica. The main reason behind it is the much overused word ‘overstretch.’" writes The Independent. Claiming that Prime Minister Blair has now accepted, after prolonged protests from defense chiefs, that the forces simply cannot carry on with this intensity of operations, the newspaper adds: "We have a NATO Force Strategy Review, which is expected to decide what to do with the Balkans in the near future. Britain, however, is expected to say forcefully that it has done its bits and the others must replace British forces, possibly in the form of a multinational one." In a contribution in the same newspaper, Christopher Bellamy, professor of military Science and Doctrine at Cranfield University and the UK’s Defense Academy, comments: British troops have been in the Balkans for a decade. The role of the military in post-conflict interventions is to create a secure environment to allow other experts to do their jobs. In any such intervention, the military’s role should ideally be limited to two to six months. Once a secure environment has been established, it is time to hand over to international police forces who will, in turn, develop professional, impartial police forces in the country being rebuilt. The best time for the military to be deployed is not after a conflict but before. The release of 6,000 troops (from Afghanistan) will allow Britain to deploy more troops for conflict prevention. In Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo, the British military did its part; it is now for others to build on that.

• The Washington Post asserts that the United States’ leading European allies, who have opposed U.S. efforts to limit the powers of the new international war crimes tribunal (ICC), have quietly obtained written assurances that their troops serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan would be immune from arrest or surrender to the court. The agreement was reached in "a great rush" and with no public debate, the newspaper quotes a UN-based European diplomat saying. It stresses that news of the agreement put the United States and its allies sharply at odds as the Bush administration formally introduced a draft Security Council resolution that would exclude personnel in all UN missions—military and civilian—from the reach of the ICC. Noting that European governments have announced they would try to block the U.S. proposal, the article adds a U.S. official cited the agreement as evidence of a double standard by the allies, arguing that the United States is seeking the same guarantees of immunity that other countries secured for their own forces. The newspaper recalls that Richard Williamson, U.S. representative to the UN for political affairs, has for the first time raised prospect of a withdrawal of nearly 8,000 American troops serving with NATO forces in UN-authorized missions in Kosovo and Bosnia if there is no adequate protection for U.S. peacekeepers. Reuters stresses that the first test comes this week when the Security Council has to renew its civilian mission in Bosnia, which includes 46 U.S. policemen.

FRANCE-FOREIGN POLICY

• A Wall Street Journal editorial calls on the incoming French government to adopt a new foreign policy. Stressing that France needs to identify clear interests it wants to push or protect in Europe, the newspaper adds: "Only then can France find its proper international role, as well…. France has tended to see the EU as a way to counterbalance the United States. A more confident France, with a credible military and a leadership role in EU, can be a better partner for the United States and a more influential ally in NATO, perhaps even rejoining the unified NATO military command after an absence of 36 years. In viewing itself as unique and peculiar in Europe, France managed to marginalize itself during the past 10 years…. Its nuclear weapons matter for little and its political influence is on the wane. President Chirac has a chance to reverse the decline in France’s international standing."

 FINAL ITEM