29 April 2003
"Reallocating NATO Forces in Europe," by Senator George Allen
(Allen outlines strategic, political, cost benefits of force
reallocation) (860)
(This column by Senator George Allen, a Virginia Republican and
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on
European Affairs, was first published April 29 in The Washington
Times. The column is in the public domain. No republication
restrictions.)
(begin byliner)
Reallocating NATO forces in Europe
George Allen
Constanza is a port on Romania's Black Sea coast. No statues of Saddam
were toppled there. No shots were fired on those shores. However, it
is where an important contribution was made to winning the war against
Saddam.
The port city of Constanza is located almost halfway between Berlin
and Baghdad. There, on the friendly edge of Europe, Romania welcomed
more than 1000 U.S. troops deployed to disarm and liberate Iraq. In
solidarity with the coalition against Iraq, Romania opened its
airfields as an "air bridge" to the Gulf, and through Constanza were
moved many of the essential tools for victory. The men, women,
equipment and supplies of the coalition flowed into the Persian Gulf
region not just in massive numbers, but at precisely the right time,
in precisely the right order, with precisely the right mix of
resources to deliver victory. Constanza, and resources that Central
European states provided, truly facilitated our successful military
action.
The war was also won with the assistance of Bulgaria, where U.S.
forces utilized an airbase at Sarafovo on the Black Sea. It was won
with Slovakia, which sent a contingent of anti-chemical weapons
specialists to Kuwait, and with Poland, which sent special forces to
fight alongside U.S. troops. But, the deployment of U.S. forces in
Romania provides a window into the future regarding the way the U.S.
may reallocate permanent force structures in Europe.
Our strategic view of the world began to shift long before September
11, 2001. The Soviet Union dominated nations are now free and
independent. Now, we have learned that the passing of the Soviet
threat was not an end to all threats, that new dangers have arisen and
that they must be addressed where they present themselves. In that
context, the execution of the Iraq war invites an important question
as we plan for future conflicts that may arise: Do our bases in
long-time NATO countries by themselves provide the best possible
location of our forces. Certainly, we should retain forces in the
long-standing NATO nations. However, after Iraq, it is clear that we
must seriously consider new options that are available to us,
including in southeastern Europe.
For nearly 60 years, we have had bases on the territory of NATO
partners. Chief among these is Germany where we have more than 80,000
troops. Most of our troops wounded in Iraq were evacuated to U.S.
medical facilities in Germany, even though it is 2,200 miles from
Baghdad. We supported deployment to Iraq from long-established U.S.
and NATO bases in Europe. But, this time we set up temporary bases in
other parts of Europe, in countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary
and others. These nations are, or soon will be, the newest members of
NATO and each of them, with recent memories of life under repressive
regimes, was a stalwart and vocal member of our coalition to disarm
Saddam and liberate Iraq.
Basing options in Central southeastern Europe are abundant. They
include strategically located ports like Constanza and dozens of other
existing facilities that provide versatility in responding to threats
from the Middle East and Central Asia. Many were built in the Soviet
era, but have been modified to achieve interoperability with NATO, and
to conform with logistical NATO doctrine.
The advantages of those options are:
-- They are closer to current threats. Since even before September 11,
it has been clear that the newest threats are to the south and the
east and across the globe in the furtive wanderings of the terrorist
cell. The practical, operational advantages of Romania and Bulgaria
are clear on any map.
-- They want us there. In welcome contrast to recent sentiment in
Germany, as well as in France which has refused for decades to have
our troops on its soil, countries like Romania and Bulgaria have
invited us in, and opinion surveys show that their hospitality
reflects the will of their people.
-- They will be cost-effective. The newly free economies of Europe are
embracing economic freedom with zeal, but operations are simply less
expensive there. A garrison near Bucharest will cost less than a
garrison near Bonn.
Now is the time to re-evaluate our basing choices in Europe. We should
do this not to punish any ally who did not agree with us, nor even
simply to reward our newest (and supportive) European allies, but to
serve the strategic interests of the United States of America. The new
democracies of Europe offer the opportunity, strategic advantage and
shared values that will help us to win the next conflict, or deter it
altogether.
(Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, is chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs.)
(end byliner)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
