Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

3 December 2003

ISAF

• “NATO wants to significantly expand its operation in Afghanistan. Although ISAF, whose operation has so far been limited to Kabul, still does not have enough troops and helicopters, the Alliance wants to set up PRTs in 15 to 17 provincial cities next year. This was decided by the NATO defense ministers in Brussels Monday,” reported Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Dec. 2. The newspaper claimed that military experts roughly estimate that the Alliance would have to send at least another 3,000 troops to the country in order to achieve this aim. Another 2,000 troops that the operation in Kabul is short of even now would have to be added to this number. It continued: In the past weeks, NATO Secretary General Robertson has asked in vain for more troops and military equipment. He warned that NATO’s credibility was at stake in Afghanistan. Before the operation could be expanded, the ISAF forces stationed in Kabul so far would have to be completely equipped first, he said. In Brussels, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld raised the prospect of transferring a major part of the responsibility in Afghanistan to NATO in the long run. So far, the U.S. has conducted its anti-terrorism operation Enduring Freedom with up to 11,000 troops separated from ISAF. NATO officials confirmed that a “fusion” of both missions was “imaginable in the long run.” The current planned expansion of ISAF would be a transitional step. However, the concrete planning so far only comprises one PRT under ISAF command: the Bundeswehr deployment in Kunduz. Four further PRTs are currently provided by the U.S., New Zealand and Britain. Those would be placed under NATO command in the future. In order to guarantee the security of these small units, NATO would also have to station special combat forces in Kabul that would assist in case of possible attacks by the Taliban. So far, the U.S. has guaranteed the security of the PRTs. The German government too has negotiated a respective agreement with Washington to provide such security for its troops in Kunduz.
  
  
• According to AP, a Defense Ministry spokesman told reporters in Kabul Wednesday that Afghan Defense Minister Fahim, one of the country’s most powerful warlords, is ready to hand over the heavy weapons held by his private militia to the country’s new national army. The spokesman reportedly said Fahim made the pledge to officials from the Afghan government and the U.S.-led military coalition as well as to NATO officials and Canadian Defense Minister McCallum, who met with Fahim in Kabul last month. He added that Fahim wanted to hand over weapons from Panjshir as well as those brought into Kabul, although it was unclear when this might begin. An ISAF spokesman is quoted saying the collection of weapons from Kabul would likely start in January. Impounding weapons also from the Panjshir “is under discussion, but there are no concrete plans yet,” the spokesman reportedly added. The dispatch stresses that disarming the warlords who dominated many of Afghanistan’s 32 provinces is seen as vital to the creation of a credible, U.S.-trained national army, and to improving security ahead of a Presidential election next June.

NATO

• Based on an Anadolu Agency report, Turkishpress.com quotes Turkish Defense Minister Gonul saying Monday that the NATO summit in Istanbul will be a response to the threat of terrorism. Discussing NATO’s transformation, Gonul, reportedly further said: “It is our main target to make NATO’s force structure a structure to fight against possible crises which may threaten our interests and security, in a timely and efficient way. Therefore, the target is to make 40 percent of national forces of NATO members deployable. The figure should not be perceived as the rate of soldiers wanted to be deployed outside the lands of the countries. What is foreseen is that every country should extend a support to operations of the Alliance by eight percent of their land forces and maintain this support. In this case, it is thought that 40 percent of the forces should be deployable when rotation, training and preparation of the units and their use in other duties are taken into consideration.” According to the report, Gonul noted that the NRF was operational and its first exercise staged in Turkey was very successful. Those exercises showed the importance that Turkey attributes to NATO’s transformation, he insisted.
  
  
• “NATO is involved in a radical readjustment to future warfare. This is necessary because of international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and other post-Cold War threats. But NATO leaders’ talk indicates that one very importance incentive is the fear of falling behind U.S. developments in military technology and ideology,” wrote Copenhagen’s Politiken, Dec. 2. Against this background, the article stressed: “Last summer, a readjustment command became a reality in Norfolk…. Responsibility for future wars is no longer found in NATO headquarters in Brussels, but in Norfolk, USA…. Virtual wars are fought from computers in Norfolk, to which all NATO command systems are being linked.… The NATO crisis over Iraq seems to have been replaced by European attempts to adjust their forces, in order to catch up with U.S. technical advances, without much discussion of what this progress is actually supposed to be good for. There must be an effort to ensure that the growing Americanization of NATO does not end in Europeans adopting … the U.S. belief that “they can bomb their way out of anything and buy their way out of the rest.”

In the wake of Monday’s NATO ministerial meeting, media continue to monitor U.S. reactions to EU plans for the establishment of an EU planning cell.
With even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld sounding conciliatory, Washington is softening its criticism of Europeans opposed to its actions in Iraq and Europe’s subsequent move toward closer defense cooperation, writes the Wall Street Journal. In an interview with a small group of journalists Tuesday, Rumsfeld studiously avoided reiterating his earlier harsh comments about the EU’s plan to create its own military planning arm separate from NATO. Instead, he heaped praise on NATO’s European members for developing militaries more capable of rapid deployment and avoided criticizing France and Germany for declining to send troops to stabilize Iraq, the newspaper stresses.

A NATO ministerial meeting Monday was marked by the moderate tone adopted by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, says Le Monde, commenting: His conciliatory tone convinced several of his European counterparts that the United States is now showing more consideration for the Europeans and NATO. The U.S. administration’s positive attitude also seems to apply to Afghanistan and Iraq. Rumsfeld launched the idea that NATO, which leads ISAF, could expand to take over all military operations in Afghanistan, including the U.S.-led operation Enduring Freedom. The political signal that Washington is trying to send seems clear: The United States wants to be less “visible” in Afghanistan and wants an increased internationalization of the peacekeeping operations. The same reasoning apparently also prevails regarding Iraq. Some diplomats see in this evolution the beginning of a change of attitude on the part of Washington. “It looks as if the Americans … are rediscovering the notion of ‘allies,’ and the help these can give,” the article quotes one diplomat saying.

The Washington Post writes meanwhile that ending two days of meetings in Brussels with NATO defense ministers, Rumsfeld said the issue of the planning group would likely need to be addressed by President Bush and European leaders.

In an interview with Paris’ Les Echos, Dec. 2, Foreign Minister de Villepin viewed the EU’s plan, noting: “What remains to be formalized is the possible planning units. The first task is to improve coordination between NATO and the EU by means of a European unit within the framework of SHAPE. Then the next task is to establish a permanent unit within the framework of a European headquarters in Brussels, which would then be able to plan autonomous operations, like those we have just been organizing over the past few months in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and which could if necessary be provided with operational command facilities. At no time must theses operations either compete with those of NATO, or weaken the resources of the Atlantic Alliance. What is involved is complementary functions. This gives no grounds for anxiety on the part of the Americans. In a dangerous and unstable world, Europe must be able to meet its responsibilities, and acquire the means to enable it to act in theaters of operation where security is jeopardized. This is in the interest of everyone.”