Military

UNITED STATES-NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

¨         All media report that President Bush served notice on Friday that the United States will shift its military strategy away from deterrence and toward preemptive action against terrorists seeking weapons of mass destruction.   In a speech posted on the White House Internet site, Bush explained Washington's comprehensive strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction.   Among other things, Bush said:  "We must defend against the threat before it is unleashed...  The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past.  The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first."  Regarding NATO, Bush stressed:  "The attacks of September 11 were also an attack on NATO, as NATO itself recognized when it invoked its Article V self-defense clause for the first time. NATO's core mission . remains, but NATO must develop new structures and capabilities to carry out that mission under new circumstances. NATO must build a capability to field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces whenever they are needed to respond to a threat against any member of the Alliance.  The Alliance must be able to act wherever our interests are threatened, creating coalitions under NATO's own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions."

President Bush's speech generated prominent interest, with some European newspapers highlighting what they see as  possible repercussions on NATO.

Under the title, "NATO challenged to make radical shift in principles and decisions," the Financial Times, Sept. 21, suggested that Bush had thrown down the gauntlet to NATO by warning the Alliance that its role as a partner with the U.S. could be jeopardized unless it radically changes its structures and doctrine. The newspaper quoted diplomats saying the short paragraphs devoted to NATO in Bush's National Security Strategy signaled a fundamental shift in how the Administration wants to use the Alliance. "For the first time, we have Bush saying NATO should operate anytime and anywhere 'outside area,'" the newspaper quoted a NATO diplomat saying. It noted that Bush had also called for the creation inside NATO of "highly mobile, especially trained forces" to be sent "whenever they are needed and wherever our interests are threatened."  In practice, added the newspaper, that means the Alliance would operate beyond its present geographical confines, an idea supported by some NATO members such as Britain but deeply opposed by France and Belgium. They do not want Washington to use the Alliance for its military ventures anywhere in the world.  The article stressed, however, that the debate on "out of area" is minor compared with the issue of pre-emptive strikes.  "For NATO, pre-emptive strikes would end the Alliance's doctrine of collective self-defense, which is based on the premise that there would be no first strike," added the newspaper.

Another article in the Financial Times quotes diplomats saying Defense Secretary  Rumsfeld will have difficulty persuading the 19 Alliance members of the new U.S. doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Some allies think pre-emptive strikes too dangerous or contrary to international law, says the newspaper, claiming that this became clear eight months ago when NATO was forced to break off a confidential crisis management exercise because of disagreements over how to respond to a mock chemical attack. "The U.S., Turkey and the Czech Republic supported pre-emptive strikes. Germany questioned their legal basis. Britain played for time.  And in an unexpected scenario, France said NATO had to seek endorsement from the UN Security Council," the newspaper asserts.  It quotes one unidentified diplomat saying the exercise was broken off because of fears it might be used as a precedent by Washington when NATO, in the real world, would have to respond to Washington's requests for launching any pre-emptive strike.

Copenhagen's Politiken, Sept. 21, wrote that the new security doctrine spelled out by Bush represents a break with what has hitherto been American thinking.  "It represents a major shift, both in terms of realpolitik and military policy.  The USA's traditional friends in NATO are told first and foremost that if the Alliance is to mean anything to the United States in the future, it must develop military forces that are able to operate everywhere in the world," noted the newspaper.

NATO

¨         Media continue to focus on reports that at an informal meeting of NATO defense ministers in Warsaw Sept. 24-25, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will call on NATO to create a rapid response force.  Under the title, "Can the Rumsfeld plan save NATO?", Welt am Sonntag, Sept. 22, wrote that in European NATO circles Rumsfeld's plan is viewed as a kite that the United States is flying in the direction of the Old World:  they want to test how serious the Europeans are in reality when it comes to Alliance solidarity.  "Washington is quite obviously losing patience with its European allies," charged the article, adding:  "The truth is that U.S. resort to 'Coalitions of the Willing,' has been to NATO's detriment. Even high-ranking NATO military do not doubt this. The Alliance has to change its course radically if it does not want to risk a bureaucratic petrifaction.  NATO officials expect the United States to put the screws on the Europeans in Warsaw and to set a concrete timeframe  for the required enhancement of key military capabilities.  In Brussels, it is said that the Europeans would be committed to complete their armament by 2004."  A related article in Die Welt considers that we are only at the beginning of a broadening debate. "Europe, with its own ideas, must attempt to strategically complement the United States toward making its defense doctrine more flexible lest NATO and the EU totally erode as security policy partners," says the article.  AFP quotes a senior U.S. official saying in Washington Friday that the new force envisaged by Rumsfeld would be a standing capability that NATO could develop over the next couple of years that would give it the capability to deploy a certain level of force,  on a very short notice basis-seven to 30 days.  The official reportedly said the size and makeup of the force must be worked out with the allies.  According to the dispatch, he acknowledged "it may be a tough sell" because it will require a substantial refocusing of defense investments.  The dispatch further quotes the official saying the Pentagon views its proposal as complementary to a European effort to create a 60,000-strong rapid reaction force, not in competition with it.  One difference is that the force the Pentagon is proposing would be capable of acting in situations that involve "high intensity" warfare as well as the full range of less demanding contingencies, he reportedly said.  He added that if the allies buy into the proposal, they will get "a responsive force that can deal very quickly across the full spectrum of conflict."

Based on remarks attributed, among others, to Defense Minister Struck, several media expect that NATO defense ministers meeting in Warsaw will also discuss lending NATO support to ISAF in Afghanistan.

It becomes increasingly likely that in December, the Germans will take over the role of lead nation in ISAF.  However, they will not do so alone but together with at least one EU partner, writes Duesseldorf's Handelsblatt.  Recalling that Struck first mentioned the German-Dutch Corps for this purpose, the article claims that another possibility is now being discussed: Struck says that in principle the Eurocorps would also be able to fill this role.  "The matter is to be settled at the informal meeting of NATO defense ministers in Warsaw," adds the article.

The Washington Post, Sept. 21, highlighted that Germany's takeover of the leading nation role in ISAF  would help mend the rift with the United States over Iraq policy.   The article stressed, however, that according to U.S. and European officials, the move might also involve NATO in the Afghan recovery effort.  "With Turkey's six-month commitment to head the force due to expire in December, Germany's willingness to fill the gap would have particular significance as a step toward mending the deep rift in U.S.-German relations that has opened since Chancellor Schroeder made opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq a central factor in his campaign for reelection.  As another possibility, U.S. officials have looked at creating some kind of joint leadership arrangement for ISAF, teaming several smaller NATO countries, such as the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. But the preference is for a single, larger European state to run the force," said the newspaper. It added that U.S. officials expect that a large role for Germany in Afghanistan would be conditioned on the active involvement of NATO's military structure, both to assist in military planning to generate additional forces from NATO member and partnership countries. According to the newspaper,  NATO support is viewed as particularly important in ensuring a longer-term commitment by the next head of ISAF.  Rumsfeld and other administration officials have reportedly made clear their interest in seeing what has been a six-month commitment extended to 12 or 18 months to provide greater stability.  The article noted, however, that NATO has avoided a formal political commitment to involvement in Afghanistan, reflecting both an initial U.S. desire to strike on its own against the Taliban and Al Qaeda and a NATO reluctance to get involved in operations out of its traditional area of European focus.