Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

28 August 2003

NRF

• According to the Financial Times, Pentagon officials say “the U.S. has thrown down the gauntlet” to its European NATO allies by offering only minimum contributions to the NRF. The decision is reportedly aimed at breaking European dependence on some of Washington’s most crucial military assets such as heavy strategic airlift transport aircraft, logistics, and air-to-air refueling systems. “With the NRF, we don’t want to perpetuate the over-reliance on the U.S. by our NATO allies,” the official is quoted saying and adding: “We are in the process of assessing our contribution. We may contribute several hundred personnel and some distinctive U.S. technical capabilities.” Stressing that Pentagon officials regard the NRF as a test case for NATO’s ability to deal with new threats as well as the Europeans’ commitment to an Alliance undergoing a radical shakeup, the newspaper quotes another U.S. official saying: “This is about the Europeans making a decision to increase their defense expenditure and spend more efficiently. If they deliver the capabilities for the NRF, the Pentagon might review its contributions.”

ISAF

• Media center on Chancellor Schroeder’s announcement that he will seek parliamentary approval to send 250 German troops to Kunduz, 150 miles north of Kabul. The New York Times highlights that if the troops are sent, it will be a significant expansion not only of Germany’s role in Afghanistan but also of the operations of ISAF, which until now has been restricted to the area around Kabul. Against this background, the article reports that in comments Wednesday, Schroeder said Germany was talking to other NATO and EU members that might be interested in taking part in an expanded international force in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, De Standaard quotes Belgian Defense Minister Flahaut saying, in the wake of talks with Afghan leader Karzai: “I expect that NATO’s mandate in Afghanistan will be extended and expanded. We are currently discussing the creation of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These are restricted, mixed groups consisting of army and UN units and non-governmental organizations that would be deployed in provincial capitals and be responsible for reconstruction and the installation of a more stable administration.”

IRAQ

• The Washington Times quotes Deputy Secretary of State Armitage saying in remarks released Wednesday that the United States is considering a UN-mandated multinational force for Iraq provided an American general is in charge. “There are several ideas being looked at. One is a multinational force under UN leadership, but the American would be the UN commander,” he reportedly said. A related Washington Post article observes that the administration’s willingness to consider creation of a multinational peacekeeping force under a UN mandate could signal an important shift, as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and other senior officials have thus far been reluctant to cede any U.S. authority over reconstruction and stability operations. In a letter to the editor of the Washington Times, Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, stresses that the United States should promote a UN Security Council resolution that would give the UN the same kind of control in Iraq that it has had in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. But Washington should insist simultaneously that NATO run the military mission. He continues: “No alternative body is available for Iraq; only NATO is credibly up to the job…. That is good news for the United States, because NATO’s top officer is American Gen. James L. Jones. It is further likely that Gen. Jones could designate Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the head of U.S forces in Iraq today, as his field commander for the military mission. Gen. Sanchez might have to work with an Italian, Norwegian or Polish deputy, but we can live with that…. American troops would always be under the overall command of U.S. leaders with this approach…. NATO is a highly professional organization, and it works well even when NATO politicians squabble.”

BALKANS

• According to AFP, NATO-led peacekeepers described as “successful” Thursday their operation in Pale to surround buildings linked to top fugitive war crimes suspect Karadzic. “The operations … were successful in their aim … to impede the progress of people who could be working against Bosnia-Herzegovina, demonstrate our presence and gather information…. SFOR will conduct operations of this nature from time to time throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina, wherever and whenever it chooses,” the dispatch quotes an SFOR spokesman saying.

The following clippings are from today’s News Summary & Analysis

FINANCIAL TIMES

U.S. Holds Back to Commitment on NATO Force

By Judy Dempsey in Brussels

The US has thrown down the gauntlet to its European Nato allies by offering only minimum contributions to the alliance's new rapid reaction force, according to Pentagon officials.The decision is aimed at breaking European dependence on some of the US's most crucial military assets such as the heavy strategic airlift transport aircraft, logistics and air-to-air refueling system - which the allies lacked during the 1999 Nato-led bombing campaign against Serbia."With the NRF, we do not want to perpetuate the over-reliance on the US by [our European] Nato allies," said a Pentagon official. "We are in the process of assessing our contribution. We may contribute several hundred personnel and some distinctive US technical capabilities," he added.Expected to be fully operational by 2006, the NRF would have a 21,000-strong flexible and rapid reaction force capable of being deployed within a week and trained for missions ranging from low intensity to high combat ones.The combined force of land, air and sea units would be on asix-monthly rotational basis, freeing up countries if they want to become engaged in other non-Nato missions. An initial force comprising up to 5,000 troops is planned for next year.Pentagon officials regard the NRF as a test case for Nato's ability to deal with new threats as well as the Europeans' commitment to an alliance undergoing the most radical shake-up in its 54-year-old history."This is about the Europeans making a decision to increase their defence expenditure and spend more efficiently," said a US official. "If they deliver the capabilities for the NRF, the Pentagon might review its contributions," he added.The Pentagon's policy towards the NRF coincides with the US being involved in operations such as Afghanistan and Iraq that demand large numbers of troops supported by military assets it could no longer easily afford to lend out to its European allies. "We are gainfully employed in other places in the world," said a Pentagon official.Britain said it would provide deployable headquarters. "We will also provide ships, aircraft and army formations that will be balanced against contributions of other nations," said a Ministry of Defence official. Spain would contribute naval headquarters.Germany has pledged substantial forces including fighter aircraft, frigates, special anti-biological and chemical weapons tanks and up to 5,000 troops. Belgium's offer includes six F-16 aircraft, two C-130 heavy airlift, one infantry company and two helicopters.The Netherlands would contribute air and sea forces and a joint German-Dutch army unit. Norway would provide forces from all three services plus specialised units such as mine clearance equipment. Canada would make a naval commitment but said it would be hard pressed to provide troops given its heavy involvement in Afghanistan and Bosnia.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

U.N.-mandated force studied with an American in command

By Sharon Behn

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in remarks released yesterday that the United States is considering a U.N.-mandated multinational force for Iraq provided an American general is in charge.
"There are several ideas being looked at," he said. "One is a multinational force under U.N. leadership, but the American would be the U.N. commander."
His remarks come as U.S. troops are being attacked and killed on a daily basis in Iraq and anticoalition fighters are ratcheting up their threats against all who cooperate with the United States there.
Several countries, including India, have said they would send troops to bolster the 150,000 U.S. forces and 15,000 international troops in Iraq only under a U.N. mandate.
Mr. Armitage said officials were discussing the idea with L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, but that no decision had been made.
"We're still actively exploring it," he told members of U.S. news syndicates.
State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said yesterday the concept was "one of the many ideas that are out there, that have been enunciated by a variety of people, some of it talked about publicly, some of it privately.
"We just continue to have those discussions, and we'll see where it leads," the spokesman told reporters.
Two U.S. soldiers were killed yesterday in separate attacks in Iraq.
President Bush insisted the United States would not bow under the threat of guerrilla warfare or terrorism in Iraq.
But nonprofit aid organizations working in Baghdad have pulled their expatriate staff out of the country in the face of what they call increasingly unacceptable security risks.
"All aid agencies are looking at their staff and security procedures," said Nathaniel Raymond, a Boston-based spokesman for Oxfam, which has pulled its 15 expatriate staff out of Iraq.
"Security at this point is too risky, when aid workers themselves have clearly become targets and the security available cannot protect against that threat," he said.
In light of the truck bombing of U.N. offices in Baghdad last week that left 23 dead, Mr. Raymond said, it was clear that "no determination is being made between neutral and other targets."
Iraqi political leaders, who typically travel with a contingent of bodyguards, have beefed up their own security after a direct threat against the 15-member U.S.-approved Iraqi Governing Council by masked men in a tape broadcast Tuesday on the Dubai-based Al Arabiya satellite television network.
"Some measures and precautions have been taken to avoid these kinds of attack," Entifad Qanbar, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), said in a telephone interview from Baghdad.
Outraged by the broadcast death threats, the State Department has cabled its embassies in the region to complain to countries involved with the satellite channel.
"We find the Al Arabiya's decision to air the remarks of these masked terrorists to be irresponsible in the extreme," Mr. Reeker said yesterday.
A spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad said the CPA was aware of "recurring threats to Iraqis who are cooperating with the coalition efforts to bring change to the country," but he declined to specify what steps were being taken to increase security.
"If there are threats being rendered, we don't want to give the bad guys any indication of changes," he said.
At least one political group was looking for increased protection, particularly after last week's bombing in southern Iraq that injured a leading Shi'ite cleric and killed three others.
"I think these people are now considering the Governing Council as collaborators and I think we have a real concern that some members could be targeted," said Hamid al-Hayati, spokesman for the Shi'ite based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is part of the Iraqi Governing Council.
"I think more protection should be provided to the members of the council," Mr. al-Hayati said in a telephone interview from London.

THE WASHINGTON POST

U.N. Troops Considered For Iraq Duty
U.S. Would Retain Control Over Multinational Force

By Peter Slevin and Vernon Loeb

Searching for ways to expand international forces in Iraq, the Bush administration for the first time is exploring the creation of a multinational military force under United Nations leadership, but still subordinate to U.S. commanders, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said.

The solution would be designed to give the United Nations a greater role in the Iraqi occupation in return for increased support of the U.S.-dominated peacekeeping mission, administration officials said. Without a strong U.N. mandate, a number of countries have so far been reluctant to send troops.

U.S. officials emphasized yesterday that the concept is one of several under discussion as the administration seeks stronger military and financial backing for Iraqi reconstruction without surrendering American control. There is no agreement yet within the administration, and neither the Pentagon nor the White House has signed off.

The Bush administration is facing growing pressure to resolve Iraq's continuing instability at a time when thinly stretched U.S. forces are struggling to halt guerrilla assaults, violent crime and a recent spurt of deadly terrorist attacks. Armitage's remarks to regional reporters, released yesterday, reflect a difficult effort to share the burden more widely.

While some U.S. politicians, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), have urged the deployment of thousands more U.S. soldiers, others have sought ways to limit the exposure of American troops, who have been killed at the rate of one every two days since May 1.

The administration's willingness to consider creation of a multinational peacekeeping force under a U.N. mandate could signal an important shift, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior officials have thus far been reluctant to cede any U.S. authority over reconstruction and stability operations.

Informal discussions on a possible U.N. resolution are underway in New York and key capitals. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is leading this effort as he did last winter's unsuccessful bid for U.N. Security Council approval of the Iraq invasion, officials said yesterday. Draft language designed to attract more troops and money could be circulated next week, said diplomats who cautioned that a solution seems distant.

At the Security Council, key officials from France, Germany and Russia who opposed the war in Iraq remain deeply skeptical about authorizing a new multinational force that would operate under U.S. command. They believe the United States should yield greater political and economic control to the United Nations and other governments that contribute troops.

Some council diplomats also want the United States to cede a measure of political authority inside Iraq. They have called on the administration to set a firm timetable for the establishment of a representative government and a schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces who waged the war that toppled Saddam Hussein.

Rumsfeld favors an increase in foreign troops, but has long been opposed to a formal U.N. command. He declared as recently as Monday, "I think that's not going to happen." He offered no indication of how he might react to a hybrid arrangement in which the Pentagon's overall control of military operations would be preserved.

Armitage became the first administration official to suggest publicly that U.S. and U.N. officials are exploring the possibility of an adjustment to the force structure. He described the concept as "a multinational force under U.N. leadership, but the American would be the U.N. commander."

A number of military experts said the idea makes sense. They cited previous operations in Bosnia, Somalia and the Persian Gulf region.

"You need to internationalize this effort," said retired Army Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who served as a commander of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. "One, it lowers the U.S. profile and makes us less of a target and garners support from other nations. Plus, you open a lot more pocketbooks."

U.S. officials have searched intermittently in recent months for a U.N. resolution that would help such countries as India, Pakistan and Turkey win domestic support for an Iraq deployment. To win Security Council passage, however, any measure would also have to accommodate the wishes of France, which could demand more authority than Washington is prepared to yield.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published August 28, 2003

(Letter to the editor)

U.N.'s role in Iraq

As usual, Frank J. Gaffney Jr. makes a number of good points in his column, "Not the time to wobble" (Commentary, Tuesday), including the broad argument that the Iraq mission might go much worse if we internationalize it the wrong way.
That said, I believe there are ways to internationalize the mission without harming its prospects for success — and getting more help for U.S. troops in the process.
In particular, we should promote a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give the United Nations the same kind of control in Iraq that it has had in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor. However, we should insist simultaneously that NATO run the military mission. We should further insist that U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer be U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's first special representative in Iraq.
Chances are very high that the world body would accept this package proposal. First, everyone knows that U.N. peacekeepers or "blue helmets" cannot handle a military job as tough as Iraq. They floundered in difficult missions in places such as Bosnia and Somalia in the early 1990s; no one is interested in repeating those sagas. That is why NATO has taken on the missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. No alternative body is available for Iraq; only NATO is credibly up to the job, and this point is beyond serious debate in most of the international community.
That is good news for the United States, because NATO's top officer is American Gen. James L. Jones. It is further likely that Gen. Jones could designate Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq today, as his field commander for the military mission. Gen. Sanchez might have to work with an Italian, Norwegian or Polish deputy, but we can live with that. Other countries would recognize that it is only reasonable that given the preponderance of American forces in Iraq, an American be the top commander on the ground.
American troops would always be under the overall command of U.S. leaders with this approach. They might someday come under the tactical command of another NATO officer if we agreed to it in a specific situation or two. But NATO is a highly professional organization, and it works well even when NATO politicians squabble — witness what has been going on in the Balkans and Afghanistan over the past year. This is not a threat to American troops in any way.
Second, precedent also suggests that the party providing the most troops and funding, and with the greatest interests at stake, is accorded special civilian and administrative influence in any U.N. mission. Retired U.S. Adm. Jonathan Howe was Boutros Boutros Ghali's special representative in Somalia; Europeans from NATO countries usually have held the top administrative jobs in Bosnia and Kosovo.
At some point in the future, we might have to see Mr. Bremer replaced, given how these missions typically work. However, we can stipulate that his first successor, at least, must be British, in keeping with the United Kingdom's special contribution to the war and peacekeeping effort to date. Again, precedent is firmly on our side.

MICHAEL O'HANLON
Senior fellow
Brookings Institution
Washington

NEW YORK TIMES

Germany Offers to Expand Afghan Force if the U.N. Approves
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BERLIN, Aug. 27 — Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said today that Germany would expand its military presence in Afghanistan if the United Nations extended the mandate for the international force there.

Mr. Schröder, speaking after a meeting with his defense and foreign ministers, told reporters that he would seek parliamentary approval to send 250 German troops to Kunduz, a city about 150 miles north of Kabul, the Afghan capital.

If the troops are sent, it will be a significant expansion not only of Germany's role in Afghanistan but also of the operations of the International Security Assistance Force, which until now has been restricted to the area around Kabul.

Germany now contributes about 2,000 troops to the 5,000-member force, command of which was transferred from the United Nations to NATO this month. The force provides security to civilian teams led by the United States that work to train a local police force and to rebuild Afghanistan's ravaged infrastructure.

Germany's announcement was another signal that the United States, which had long opposed expanding peacekeeping operations beyond Kabul, was considering supporting the use of peacekeepers in other major cities. In recent days at least one senior American diplomat has said the United States is considering doing so.

If so, the German move seems likely to help warm relations with the United States after Germany's opposition to the American military action in Iraq.

During the often bitter debate over Iraq, German officials repeatedly affirmed their country's commitment to the campaign against terrorism and to cooperation with the United States, citing as proof the presence of German troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Philip T. Reeker, the State Department's deputy spokesman, said that in principle the Bush administration would welcome the expansion of the German presence, but that he would need to study the details before commenting further.

Mr. Schröder is to attend the United Nations General Assembly session late next month in New York, where he is expected to meet with President Bush.

Mr. Schröder said today that the German decision to expand its presence in Afghanistan had come after a fact-finding mission to Kunduz concluded that a German troop presence there would help President Hamid Karzai's government to consolidate its authority. The government is weak in the provinces, where warlords hold sway.

"It has become clear that an extension of operations is wise and necessary to help stabilize the Afghan government," Mr. Schröder said.

He said a formal proposal would be put before the German Parliament. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will talk to members of the United Nations Security Council, urging them to extend the mandate of the Afghan international force.

In his comments today, Mr. Schröder said Germany was talking to other NATO and European Union members that might be interested in taking part in an expanded international force in Afghanistan.

But his insistence that any new deployment would require United Nations approval seemed aimed at reassuring a German public that is powerfully opposed to unilateral military action and wants any German military operations abroad to take place under a United Nations umbrella.