Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

31 July 2003

GENERAL JONES

• In an op-ed carried by the Wall Street Journal, based on an interview yesterday with Gen. Jones, Matthew Kaminski outlines the general’s view on the status of the Alliance, the present challenges, and prospects for the future. The journalist firstly observes that although the Alliance was bruised badly in the fight over Iraq and suffers from recent cross-oceanic tangles, the military headquarters in Mons, Belgium, has rarely looked busier. In two weeks, he explains, NATO will set up a permanent peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan and might have a bigger future in Iraq, as well as elsewhere in the Middle East, and perhaps Africa. Secretary of State Rumsfeld, remarks Mr Kaminski, chose a favorite Marine general to implement a modernization agenda agreed at the November summit. The old NATO was “largely reactive in nature, very defensive-oriented,” Gen. Jones reportedly said. It must move “from a massive, monolithic organization that is based on the reactive principle,” to be able to deploy lighter forces quickly anywhere. NATO is “getting into the very real problems just of what it means to be proactive because that is a fundamental departure,” he is quoted saying, affecting future decisions on use of force. The hard part for Europe will be to spend more wisely on defense, writes the journalist. Gen. Jones reportedly said that in the military here, there are “too many employees, too much old equipment and too many plants that you need to close.” But the U.S. commander, argues the author of the article, can push change in other directions. A new NATO Rapid Response Force of 20,000 troops is forcing countries to modernize in specific areas. “If the (Rapid Response Force) existed on September 12th, after the attacks on the World Trade Center, the United States would not have had a difficult time trying to respond to the Article 5 vote that NATO took,” Gen. Jones was reported saying. The other big change will be in realigning America’s own military posture here, continues the article. The U.S. doesn’t need 100,000 in Germany anymore since the action in the wider Europe long ago shifted to the east and south. Gen. Jones, who also heads up the U.S. command in Europe and Africa, recalls the paper, reportedly said his proposal to the Pentagon would close several of the remaining large bases, while keeping a few, such as the Air Force base at Ramstein. According to the writer, he adds that two other kinds of installations would replace the “small-town Americas” built across Germany during the Cold War: forward-operating bases, modeled on Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo or Tuzla in Bosnia and forward-operating locations, rudimentary facilities that can be kept up with a few staff and put in use only when needed. Asked about a possible mission in Liberia, Gen. Jones is quoted answering it can be done with no impact on military operations in Iraq, but he suggested to wait till next month to examine the possibility to extend the NATO mandate in Afghanistan beyond Kabul. Stating that while Berlin sounds NATO-enthusiastic again, France seems still to dream of a stronger EU, Mr. Kaminski concludes saying that the outstanding question is, then: can the Pentagon come to embrace a robust NATO, if one comes to life? A clue is in Gen. Jones’ statement that Europeans mustn’t forget something about America: “We’re fundamentally European also.”

IRAQ

• An AP dispatch, carried by The Guardian, writes that UN Secretary General Annan said Wednesday many nations want a broader UN mandate in Iraq before they commit troops and he would support a new UN resolution to get the world to pull together and help stabilize the country. He reportedly stressed that “the imprimatur of the United Nations – the legitimacy the United Nations offers – is important.” The fact that U.S. officials are even thinking about giving the UN a military role in Iraq represents a major turnaround in American attitudes toward the world body, speculates the paper. Stressing the importance of ensuring that Iraq moves toward stability and peace, the UN Secretary General allegedly said: “If it does take a second resolution to get everyone to pull together to get it done, let us do it.” He is finally quoted saying: “Most of the governments are saying that they would want to see the effort internationalized – but not only with regard to political and economic reconstruction and institution building. They would also be prepared to consider expansion in the security area.”

LIBERIA

• According to the Washington Times, the U.S. introduced yesterday a UN resolution authorizing the deployment of a multinational force to Liberia and setting the stage for tough negotiations over language granting those forces immunity from the International Criminal Court. The resolution “would grant authority for peacekeepers to support a ceasefire and to provide a secure environment for humanitarian deliveries,” State Department spokesman Boucher reportedly said. The document, says the daily, does not specify which countries will take part in the effort and President Bush said he has yet to make a decision on sending U.S. troops.