Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

28 March 2003

NATO

• Under the title, “NATO’s new recruits sign memorandum; Americans interested in creating bases in ‘New Europe,’” Moscow’s Nezavisimaya Gazeta, March 27 observed that with their signing of a protocol on joining NATO, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are continuing their march into the Alliance. Stressing that there are signs that following NATO’s enlargement, the Pentagon intends to make amendments to the deployment of its armed forces in Europe with the emphasis on that part of Europe which it categorizes as “new,” the newspaper continued: Leaks on this score appeared back in early February. It is a case of the United States’ intention to cut the numerical strength of its armed forces and some bases in Germany, moving them to the East European countries. “Gen. Jones … announced in Stuttgart the new concept the Pentagon is developing for the deployment of armed forces abroad…. The general said that in accordance with 21st century requirements, strongholds should be ‘smaller, cheaper, and more flexible.’ These ‘bases of the future’ will be more like arms depots with a minimum number of servicemen whose numbers can, however, be rapidly increased in the event of a crisis. In ordinary times troop units will be deployed at ‘reduced’ bases by means of rotation for brief periods only.” Suggesting that “this scheme may have been hacked out specially for NATO’s East European ‘zone,’” the article continued: According to the well-known agreements with Russia, large NATO formations must not be stationed there on a permanent basis. The concept being developed makes it perfectly possible craftily to circumvent that condition by placing the “bases of the future” closer to Belarus and Ukraine and in the Baltic states. The “transfusion” of part of the U.S. armed forces from West to East Europe can hardly be explained exclusively by the challenges of the new century.

IRAQ

• According to AP, Prime Minister Berlusconi’s office rushed to reassure the country Thursday that the deployment to northern Iraq of 1,000 U.S. paratroopers who are stationed in Italy did not break the government’s pledge that Italian bases would not be used for direct attacks on Iraq. The dispatch notes that sending troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, stationed at a U.S. base in Vicenza into Kurdish-controlled territory in northern Iraq immediately stirred controversy in Italy, where anti-war sentiment is very strong. Italian newspapers reported that the paratroopers flew out of Aviano air base, 62 miles from their base in Vicenza.
  
  
• The Washington Post reports the U.S. Army’s senior ground commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Wallace, said Thursday that overextended supply lines and a combative adversary using unconventional tactics have stalled the U.S. drive toward Baghdad and increased the likelihood of a longer war than many strategists had anticipated. “The enemy we’re fighting is different from the one we’d war-gamed against,” Gen. Wallace reportedly said during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division headquarters in central Iraq. Asked whether combat developments in the past week increased the likelihood of a much longer war than some planners had forecast, he said, “It’s beginning to look that way.” The newspaper considers that Gen. Wallace, the commander of the V corps based in Germany, gave public voice to what senior officials in Iraq have been saying privately for several days. Gen. Wallace’s purported remarks are noted by major European media. “The top U.S. Infantry commander in Iraq has said his troops’ overstretched supply lines, coupled with unexpectedly stiff Iraqi resistance, had stalled the advance on Baghdad and increased the possibility of a long war, reports The Guardian. “The off-message remark brought to the surface growing unease among army officials that the 300-mile supply lines between the leading U.S. forces and logistics bases in Kuwait are too vulnerable to mount a decision assault on Baghdad,” adds the newspaper. It notes that earlier, “France’s normally mild-mannered Prime Minister Raffarin” delivered a stinging attack on the campaign. “We were expecting a technological war, a quick war, a 21st century war. And we have discovered a war that is among the most horrible, like those of the 20th century,” Raffarin reportedly said. The article adds that the Pentagon’s strategy of launching a lightning assault on Baghdad with only one heavy infantry division, with two relatively light Airborne and Marine divisions also available, also came under fire in Washington and London Thursday. Before the war, the CIA and DIA were reported to have warned Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that an invasion might be met with guerrilla resistance. Those warnings were said to have been ignored in favor of more optimistic assessments from Iraqi opposition exiles, adds the newspaper. It claims that serving and retired army officers have privately warned that the U.S. commander, Gen. Franks, did not have enough troops in reserve to protect his supply lines and deal with the guerrilla threat. Related reports were carried by the BBC World Service and France’s RTL radio.
  

OTHER NEWS

• According to Reuters, Richard Perle, a U.S. architect of the war on Iraq, resigned on Thursday as chairman of a Pentagon advisory panel after facing allegations of a conflict of interest over his work for the bankrupt telecommunications firm Global Crossing Ltd. Perle reportedly said he would remain a member of the Defense Police Board while stepping down as chairman, and quit his consulting job with Global Crossing. The dispatch notes that on Monday, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to probe Perle’s work as an advisor to Global Crossing and his guidance on investment opportunities resulting from the Iraq conflict. A related New York Times article claims that senior officials at the Pentagon were relieved about Perle’s decision. For months, the article adds, some senior Defense Department officials have expressed discomfort with Perle’s public statements on foreign policy and military affairs, especially Iraq, because they appeared to carry the implication they had Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s sanction when in fact they may not have. Perle’s statements were often more hawkish than the Bush administration’s public line, the newspaper observes.