Military

NATO

¨         NATO said Tuesday it would disband the headquarters of a Cold War-era rapid reaction force in Heidelberg, Germany, as part of a post-September 11 overhaul of its military structure, reports Reuters.  A NATO military official, who requested anonymity, is quoted saying the headquarters has become obsolete because the Alliance now needs to set up headquarters wherever and whenever required.  "We have a new situation. We might now be challenged from the north, the south, from the Mediterranean, and that is why we are undergoing dramatic change," the official reportedly said.  A related AP dispatch stresses that with the Soviet threat gone, the headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany, will be disbanded on Oct. 30, while its forces of a few thousands will become part of NATO's restructured network.

IRAQ

¨         Chancellor Schroeder expects speedy deliberations within NATO on possible military action against Iraq, reported Berlin's DDP, Aug. 12.  The report quoted Schroeder saying in Berlin Monday that he agrees with Defense Minister Struck that such an important issue would play a role at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Warsaw 24-25 September, immediately after the German election. 

In Die Welt, ret. Gen. Klaus Naumann, former Chief of Staff German Armed Forces and former Chairman NAMILCOM, argues that Chancellor Schroeder's opposition to a military strike against Iraq will isolate Germany and damage its ability to carry any weight with Washington.

Under the title, "Schroeder's German wrong track," Gen. Naumann writes:  "Beginning the final phase of the election campaign, the Federal Chancellor announced the German solution to the Iraq issue.  For some, it might have seemed as if he awakened the deceitful assurance that this solution would spare Germany any assistance in case of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.  I am afraid that this German solution will lead Germany first to international isolation, then to a crisis because of a lack of German influence and in the end, like in the Kosovo region and in Afghanistan, to the inevitable military participation. Schroeder isolates Germany because he ruins the chances of making Saddam Hussein giving in by creating a threatening background. By doing so, he helps this man to continue his resistance to UN resolutions, because with the German special solution, he prevents Europe's unity and stabs Germany's most significant ally, the United States, in the back." Arguing that the Federal Government has forgotten the lessons from the Yugoslav conflict, especially the crisis in Kosovo, or is unable to master the basics of crisis and conflict prevention, Gen. Naumann insists:  "The iron rule of the latter is to block all but one of the adversary's solutions, namely to accept all the conditions set, in this case to comply with the UN resolutions.  In order to achieve this in Saddam Hussein's case, a threatening background of military interventions is required, since only military interventions may achieve what a man like him really fears: the loss of his power.  This is what Saddam has in common with Milosevic on the eve of the Kosovo conflict.  He, too, wanted to maintain his power by all means. Europe's disunity made him believe that he could do with the people of Kosovo as he liked.  The public exclusion of military options provided him with the certainty that he would remain in power even after military intervention by NATO." 

In a commentary in Duesseldorf Handelsblatt, Aug. 12, Hans-Gert Poettering, chairman of the European People's Party group in the European Parliament denounces what he sees as "election tactics maneuver" by Chancellor Schroeder.

Facing an imminent election defeat, Schroeder has adopted a position on the Iraq issue  which isolates Germany from its friends in the EU and NATO in an unprecedented manner," Poettering stressed.  He added:  "Schroeder should . look for a consensus with our EU partners.  It must be the goal of the common European foreign policy to persuade Iraq by political means to fulfill the UN Security Council's resolutions and to let the UN weapons inspectors do their work without any restrictions..  This is the position that Schroeder should actively advocate in Brussels, Paris, and London, instead of reducing pressure on Saddam Hussein through election tactics maneuvers." 

In British media, experts and commentators appear to have gone on the offensive to explain that war against Iraq is justified.

John Chipman, director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, explains in the Financial Times that by breaching the terms of the 1991 UN ceasefire, Saddam Hussein has given the U.S. legitimacy under international law to attack. "The war ended not with a peace treaty but with a ceasefire.  UN Resolution 686 . demanded full compliance with all relevant resolutions as a condition of commencing the ceasefire.  Iraq accepted this and there followed UN Resolution 687 . that set out the full ceasefire terms and obligations to which Iraq had to adhere. That included a demand that Iraq unconditionally accept the destruction and elimination of all of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it unconditionally undertake not to use, develop or acquire any items relevant to Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Crucially, Resolution 687 was passed under UN Chapter 7 authority dealing with threats to the peace. It does not in any way terminate the authorization to use force in the earlier Resolution 678" (under which the 1991 Gulf War was fought),"  stresses Chipman.  He concludes:   "Iraq is in breach of many of these terms and its continued possession of elements of Weapons of Mass Destruction constitutes a particularly offensive breach that must be seen as a threat to international peace and security."  

"The U.S. has got it right this time:  this is a justified war," writes The Guardian, stressing:  War can only be justified if the hazards of inaction vastly outweigh the hazards of the battlefield.  In the case of Saddam Hussein, this is clearly the case.  If he were left to his own devices, in command of Iraq's oil wealth and relatively advanced manufacturing sector, it would only be a matter of time before he acquired terrible weapons and a means of delivering them.  The dangers of such a man possessing such weaponry are so great, so self-evident, that mere containment is not enough. A pre-emptive war is justified, and Article 54 of the UN charter would provide enough cover to such a venture.

AFGHANISTAN

¨         According to Corriere della  Sera, an "operational hypothesis" envisages doubling the number of elite Italian troops currently looking for Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.  Military officials have started planning the details of the mission.  If the hypothesis materializes, the Italian troops will replace 1,600 British Marines who recently returned home after several months in Afghanistan, says the daily.

ANTI-TERRORISM

¨         Proposals now being discussed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and senior military officers could ultimately lead special forces units to get more deeply involved in long-term covert operations in countries where the United States is not at war and, in some cases, where the local government is not informed of their presence, writes the New York Times.  The newspaper quotes Pentagon officials saying this expansion of the military's involvement in clandestine activities could be justified by defining it as "preparation of the battlefield" in a campaign against terrorism that knows no boundaries.  The newspaper stresses that no formal plans have yet been written for Rumsfeld, and the discussions remain far from any form that might be presented to President Bush for his approval.  But, adds the article, a classified directive issued recently by the Pentagon and the Special operations Command ordered it to formulate new operations for elite counter terrorism units to "disrupt and destroy enemy assets," according to three Pentagon and administration officials who have seen the document.  A related article in The Independent observes that the U.S. plan would break with tradition and raise major questions of U.S. compliance with international law.  The article also notes that the plan was the latest in a flurry of high-level leaks of classified information and suggested again that members of the Bush administration are deeply divided over the direction of the so-called "war on terrorism" and are using the media to sabotage efforts by planners and policy-makers to maintain secrecy. "The U.S. government is considering plans to send elite military units on missions to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders in countries around the world, without necessarily informing the government involved," writes The Guardian.