Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

4 March 2003

GENERAL JONES

• AFP reports Gen. Jones said in Brussels Tuesday there will be no “upheaval” in the Alliance, despite plans to shift U.S. resources eastward from Western Europe. Speaking after a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Solana, a day after confirming he is in talks about overhauling the U.S. military base strategy, Gen. Jones reportedly reiterated NATO’s commitment to traditional allies. “It is not something which is going to cause an upheaval in the Alliance,” he reportedly told the news agency, speaking in French, adding that the aim was “to maintain a presence with our allies in Europe, above all in Germany, Britain and Italy, with our traditional friends, and also to have a military relationship with our new allies to the East.” According to the dispatch, he denied that NATO plans a massive movement of U.S. forces from Germany into new eastern European members, noting: “Probably, the large majority of (U.S.) bases will remain exactly where they are now, perhaps on a slightly reduced scale, with more efficiency and less imposition on the Germans themselves.” Stressing that the question of redeploying U.S. troops to the East “has to be asked because it is real,” he reportedly added: “It will happen as we proceed with our studies. It is a question which will be resolved in parallel with NATO’s movement toward the East.” Gen. Jones is also quoted saying he is planning to travel to Berlin on March 17 to discuss the plans with the German government.

Media focus on remarks by Gen. Jones in Stuttgart Monday, where he unveiled overhaul plans for U.S. bases in Europe.
The top commander of NATO laid out his vision (Monday) for a radical overhaul of how U.S. forces are deployed in Europe, which would reduce the U.S. presence in Germany in favor of smaller, less costly bases in Eastern Europe writes the New York Times. Gen. Jones said the plans, which were still at an “embryonic stage,” would shift the weight of U.S. forces from Western Europe to Eastern countries, adds the newspaper, further quoting Gen. Jones saying: “With an Alliance that is moving to the East, it stands to me as eminently logical that we will have more contacts with the East…. We will be looking for ways to be more flexible, more agile.” The newspaper observes that Gen. Jones portrayed the process as part of a broader transformation of the Alliance’s war-fighting abilities and insisted that the plans had nothing to do with current trans-Atlantic tensions. Gen. Jones said he had discussed the plans with German military officials, but had not presented them formally. He said he did not detect any “trauma” on the part of the Germans, adds the daily. It continues: Gen. Jones championed the idea of compact bases scattered around the world from which soldiers can jump off into hot spots. He noted two bases that could be used as models for Europe. The Marine base at Okinawa, he said, typified his preferred approach to the deployment. The soldiers serve four-month hitches, without their families, and are rotated back to their home base, Camp Pendleton in California. Camp Bondsteel, which was built to house troops during the Kosovo conflict, typifies his preference for stripped-down facilities, with wooden barracks and makeshift helicopters hangars.
The Washington Post, carries related information under the title, “U.S. troops in Europe shift their focus,” based on an AP dispatch which stressed that Gen. Jones maintained that most U.S. Army units currently based in Germany are too heavy and too costly for today’s threats. The AP story also noted that while Russia has expressed concern that establishing bases in the former Warsaw Pact region violates agreements signed when NATO expanded to include those countries, Gen. Jones insisted that the plans would respect the accords. “We are communicating well with Russia that we will live up to the spirit of the agreement. This is not about building up Eastern Europe in the same way we built up Western Europe after World War II,” the dispatch quoted Gen. Jones saying.
The Stars and Stripes highlights that Gen. Jones is pressing forward with a plan that could radically alter the way U.S. troops are stationed across Europe. The plan would mean a general movement away from housing U.S. troops in Western European countries such as Germany and Britain, and to countries in Eastern Europe and even Africa, stresses the daily. It quotes Gen. Jones saying, however, that the changes “are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.” Gen. Jones predicted that the concept should be palatable to NATO countries. He said he expected to appear in March at four congressional hearings at which he expected “transformation” to be on the agenda, adds the article.
In Stuttgart Monday, Gen. Jones said he would expect the first “minor implementation” of a new stationing concept in Europe in one year at the earliest, writes Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The daily quotes Gen. Jones saying that in the future, there will be less permanent bases with a large infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and housing areas. Instead, the U.S. armed forces will build smaller bases, like outposts that can be enlarged or reduced in accordance with requirements. Personnel would rotate more often and for example be flown in directly from the United States. “Gen. Jones said the idea that complete bases in Germany will be closed and shifted to new countries in Eastern Europe was misleading and added that there were also a ‘significant’ number of bases in Germany that are of high value in terms of strategy, for example the Ramstein Air Base,” stresses the daily. It adds that the German Defense Ministry described the American planning as “a normal procedure.”
In a similar vein, Sueddeutsche Zeitung highlights that Gen. Jones made clear the U.S. military does not plan to close bases or deploy them to Eastern Europe. The article says: “(Gen. Jones) said he did not have a list of bases to be eliminated and there were no prior arrangements to close certain bases. On the contrary, many bases had ‘a lasting strategic significance.’ But he did not exclude future steps: ‘All U.S. facilities in Germany have to pass the test whether they are suited for the future.’ However, these examinations had ‘no connection whatsoever’ with the recent U.S. German tensions, he explained. They were part of a program ‘to make NATO capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century.’ Currently the program was in its planning phase, in its ‘embryonic state.’” Stuttgarter Zeitung explains that the objective of the plan is to create smaller, more flexible units and bases with less infrastructure.
Under the title, “U.S. troop redeployment under study,” La Libre Belgique writes that “Gen. Jones, confirmed Monday that he was conducting intense discussions with Alliance member nations concerning a reduction of the U.S. military presence in Western Europe and a redeployment toward Eastern Europe.” Gen. Jones is quoted saying: “We are studying a new, more modern basing concept in order to better respond to non-conventional challenges,” such as terrorism.
Le Soir notes that the evolution of the geostrategic situation in Europe, notably NATO’s enlargement to former Warsaw Pact countries, could lead to surprising developments in the coming years. Monday, Gen. Jones confirmed that the United States is envisioning a new, more modern basing concept, to better respond to non-conventional challenges, says the daily, adding: He explained that this will lead to a reduction of the massive U.S. military presence in Western Europe and the creation of a “network” of bases in which troops would be deployed for shorter periods in function of military needs.
AFP reports meanwhile that the State Department said Monday there were no formal proposals yet to move US. soldiers from bases in Western Europe. “There are no formal proposals under discussion at this time,” a State Department spokesman reportedly said in a written response to a question posed at the Department’s regular news briefing, adding: “Any change in existing arrangements for U.S. forces in Europe would have to be reviewed as part of a long-term process of evaluating the U.S. military presence in all regions of the world.” As has been the case in the past, he reportedly continued, any plans for changing the U.S. military presence in Europe would of course be discussed fully with our NATO allies.

The Force Generation Conference at SHAPE Monday generated prominent interest.
Under the title, “NATO fails to deliver defense deal for Turkey,” the Financial Times writes that “solidarity in the NATO Alliance suffered another blow Monday after member states failed to provide adequate military backup to defend Turkey against any possible attack from Iraq.” SHAPE, the Alliance’s planning headquarters, last week sent letters to all member states, setting out what was needed in addition to the three Patriot batteries and the AWACS. Monday’s response by NATO countries fell way short of the requisites, charges the newspaper.
A spokesman said nations have agreed to make certain contributions that will allow NATO to provide capabilities for the defense of Turkey. But the offers do not yet totally fulfill the requirements, writes Belgium’s De Standaard.
The force generation conference ended without results. Another meeting will soon be held, reported Budapest’s Kossuth Radio.
NATO countries Monday pledged troops and equipment to boost Turkey’s defenses in preparation for a possible war on Iraq, but less than requested, according to officials, writes AFP, adding: “Nations have agreed to make certain contributions of personnel and material,” said a spokesman, declining to give details of the contributions. But he said did they not amount to everything asked for by NATO’s commanders.”
Claiming that “German representatives showed up empty-handed at the force generation conference,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: The German representative at the conference could reportedly only refer to the 46 Patriot missiles provided by the Netherlands. It was agreed to make another attempt at a troop contributing meeting next week. By doing so, the problem was prevented from being shifted back to the political level, meaning the level of the NATO Council and the secretary general. In NATO, Secretary General Robertson is expected to keep open the decision whether he would once more transfer the decision up to the mentioned level. This is generally considered probable only if he saw a chance for receiving sufficient promises from the member states. This specifically refers to Germany, which is the only country apart from the United States that possesses enough NBC defense units and Patriot batteries. On principle, no details are released on offers made by the Alliance partners at the troops contribution meeting. However, it is known that particularly with regard to the Patriot air defense systems, the offer lies well below the minimum requirements, which were determined by SHAPE based on the last estimate of the situation. Gen. Jones had asked the member states to provide a total of nine Patriot batteries from what one hears.