Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

10 February 2003

NATO

• Members of the U.S. delegation who took part in a security conference in Munich at the weekend said the United States is contemplating radically changing the nature of its military presence in Europe, moving from a “garrison” system of big, heavily staffed Cold War-era bases to a more expeditionary posture in which troops would be deployed to the continent on a rotational basis, writes the Washington Post. According to the newspaper, several members of the delegation spoke enthusiastically at the briefing they were given by Gen. Jones on his preliminary thoughts about possible ways to overhaul the U.S. military presence in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. They reportedly said they expect a permanent U.S. military presence to be cut from the current level of about 100,000 personnel, most of them Army. Rather, they said, Gen. Jones and other top Defense Department officials are contemplating something more akin to the U.S. troop presence in Kuwait, where tanks, trucks and other military gear are stored, with troops flying in to exercise or deploy with it. The article quotes Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of those briefed by Gen. Jones, saying Gen. Jones “envisions a transition to bases with pre-positioned equipment and skeleton crews.” A Senate staff member who attended the briefing is also quoted saying Gen. Jones raised the possibility of the U.S. securing access to a new base in Eastern Europe through which it would rotate troops on training missions. The newspaper stresses that if implemented, the change would be one of the biggest in the history of U.S. military bases in Europe. Even discussing the shift sends the signal in Europe that the United States is ready to match changes in the Alliance’s political structure with changes in its military structure, notes the article. The New York Times, Feb. 9, reported that Congressional officials who were briefed on the proposal said Gen. Jones is considering a plan to scale back the presence of U.S. troops in Germany in favor of lighter, more mobile units that could jump from country to country on a moment’s notice. The plan, which appears to be in the early phases of development, grows out of Gen. Jones’ experience as commandant of the Marine Corps, where he championed the idea of having bare-boned “lily pad” bases scattered around the world, rather than having U.S. forces tied down to a few sprawling bases, the article said. It expected, however, that the idea is sure to be contentious for two reasons: Any talk of pulling U.S. forces out of Germany, no matter how preliminary, is sure to heighten the impression that Germany and the United States are further pulling apart. Second, Gen. Jones’ idea would impose a major cultural change on the Army, effectively asking it to behave more like the Marine Corps. The newspaper insisted that while Gen. Jones’ proposal might appear to grow out of recent German-American tensions, Pentagon planners have been searching for ways to restructure American forces in Europe, and particularly Germany, since the Cold War ended. Based on the U.S. media reports, France’s AFP writes: “The United States is studying changing its military presence to become more mobile instead of relying on the large bases currently housed there. The idea, recently presented to U.S. lawmakers by the new commander of U.S. forces in Europe, Gen. Jones, would be designed to adapt the U.S. presence from its current Cold War structure.”
  
  
• Electronic media report the NAC will meet for a second time later Monday in the wake of a request by Turkey for emergency consultations under NATO’s mutual defense treaty after France, Germany and Belgium blocked the automatic start of military planning to protect Turkey against the threat of an Iraqi missile attack. AP highlights that it was believed to be the first time in the Alliance’s history that a member nation formally invoked Article 4 of the founding treaty. The dispatch quotes diplomats warning that France, Germany and Belgium would do serious harm to the credibility of NATO if they were to reject Turkey’s request for direct help.

Coverage of this weekend’s security conference in Munich was overshadowed by reports of deep U.S.-European divisions over Iraq.
Under the title, “War split puts NATO’s future in jeopardy,” The Times stresses that an “extraordinary schism” has opened up in the Alliance.
Pondering whether this is “the end of NATO,” an editorial in the Wall Street Journal suggests the question to contemplate now is whether the Alliance continues to serve the interests of the United States. “We realize that the end of NATO has been trumpeted prematurely before. It’s also true that the obstructionist countries hardly speak for all of NATO…. But the Cold War is over, and the main threat to the West now is global terrorism employing nuclear and biological weapons. If NATO cannot adapt to this reality by moving its resources to meet that threat, then as currently constructed it has outlived its usefulness,” stresses the article, adding: “What President Bush calls a ‘coalition of the willing’ will become America’s new security alliance.”
NATO is facing an unprecedented crisis, which comes at a crucial moment in NATO’s history, writes AFP and notes that “at the Prague summit, NATO trumpeted its collective will to back the UN over Iraq.”
The Federal government is now meeting also with harsh criticism from its own ranks regarding its Iraq policy, reports Berlin’s DDP. According to the report, SPD foreign policy expert Klose told Suedwestfunk Monday that with the commitment to a basic “no” to a military operation, Berlin has “badly strained, to put it cautiously” the relations with the United States and “driven” Germany “into isolation” within the EU. Klose, who is also deputy chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, reportedly did not rule out that NATO might fall apart over the Iraq issue.
Urging Berlin to authorize military planning to protect Turkey, Financial Times Deutschland, Feb. 9, commented that the argument that a decision in favor of support for the NATO partner would be a preliminary decision for a war seems to be conclusive only at first sight. “The damage for NATO is as serious as this misjudgment. After the end of the Cold War, the Alliance is anyway searching for its role. If its members no longer can rely on early support from the partners in a crisis, the question of purpose arises for the institution,” stressed the daily.

ISAF

• Afghan President Karzai said Monday he had no problem with the prospect of NATO taking command of ISAF, reports AFP. The dispatch adds that speaking after a ceremony to hand over leadership of the force from Turkey to Germany and the Netherlands, Defense Minister Struck insisted: “Karzai told me there is no problem with a NATO flag waving over Kabul.” Earlier, AFP reported that on Saturday Struck called for an expansion of NATO’s role in Afghanistan, including an eventual command role at the head of the multinational stabilization force there. “Because of the limited number of countries which could take charge, it makes sense for the Alliance to shoulder the burden jointly. I will therefore ask President Karzai whether he has any objections to the NATO flag flying in Kabul,” Struck was quoted saying on the sidelines of the Munich security conference.
  

ESDP-DSACEUR

• According to AFP, the EU confirmed Saturday that DSACEUR, Adm. Feist, is to head the EU’s first ever peacekeeping force, which will relieve NATO forces in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Council of Ministers reportedly said in a statement that Adm. Feist will be supported by French General Pierre Maral, who has been appointed commander of ground forces. The dispatch notes that SHAPE will be the headquarters of the operation.