Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

10 February 2004

GENERAL JONES

• According to AP, Gen. Jones told reporters Monday the number of hardcore Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters still resisting U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan has dwindled to under 1,000, indicating the insurgency is “running out of energy.” Speaking as he flew back from a one-day visit to Afghanistan, Gen. Jones reportedly said: “The level of the threat … is quite a bit lower than I had thought…. The estimate about the number of actual fighters, the really hardcore fighters that remain involved in the conflict is quite a bit less than what I thought … under a thousand Taliban, Al Qaeda.” The dispatch notes that the “upbeat assessment” came despite a Taliban claim that two recent suicide attacks that killed one British and one Canadian soldier marked the start of a new campaign by the insurgents. It quotes Gen. Jones saying of the suicide attacks: “That’s always a worry, but it’s also a sign of desperation. What they try to do when they do that is to have these kind of attacks near simultaneously … which gives the appearance of more mass than there really is.” According to the dispatch, Gen. Jones added that commanders would have a clearer idea of the continued Al Qaeda and Taliban threat when the melting snows make it possible for more coalition operations against the insurgents’ mount hideaways. He reportedly stressed, however, that the threat was increasingly focused on areas in the southeast near the Pakistani border, enabling international efforts in the rest of the country to focus on reconstruction and supporting the efforts of the Karzai government to impose law and order. Gen. Jones is further quoted saying the optimistic picture he received from commanders on the ground would influence plans he is drafting for NATO to expand its peacekeeping mission beyond Kabul. “It certainly has to figure into the thinking on the security levels required for the PRTs. Those of us who are planning for the security of the PRTs can feel pretty good about … establishing these things in the right areas and accelerating the reconstruction of the country,” he reportedly indicated. The dispatch stresses that despite the improved security situation, Gen. Jones said the teams would need robust backup in case of trouble. “You want PRTs to be anchored around a security force that has some mobility, has good communications, has good intelligence architecture, (so they) are not so all alone that they can’t be rescued if they get into trouble,” he is quoted saying.

Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung, Feb. 7-8 devoted a full-page to a question-and-answer interview with Gen. Jones.
Under the title, “NATO has arrived in the 21st century,” Gen. Jones was quoted saying: “We have changed a great deal. We have completely restructured NATO’s command structure, … we have translated the planned NATO Response Force from a mere concept into reality in less than a year, we have … established the Allied Command Transformation (ACT) in Norfolk, and we have assigned control of all operations to NATO’s military headquarters here in Mons. Now we have two strategic commands, one for the operations and one for the transformation of the Alliance. We have increased the effectiveness of the Alliance. NATO is currently engaged in four missions. Above all, 2003 has brought about the historic commitment in Afghanistan…. This is the end of the NATO of the 20th century and possibly the beginning of a completely different NATO of the 21st century.” Asked to describe the findings of a seminar held in Suffolk, Virginia, on the NRF, Gen. Jones reportedly said: “Realistic scenarios were discussed, in which the NRF would be needed. It became clear how important the necessity of swift decisions would become in view of the new threats, and how much we will have to develop and refine our capabilities at the military level. We will have to set new standards for our operational readiness and continue to standardize NATO’s forces even more. Apart from other topics, discussions focused on the point I almost consider the most important one, namely the improvement of the logistic capabilities of the armed forces in future operations. Previously each NATO country has been responsible for the logistic support of the forces provided by that country. In swift, global deployments, this will no longer be feasible.” Asked how PFP, in which Switzerland participates, will look like after seven new members join NATO, Gen. Jones responded: “NATO’s enlargement to seven (new) … nations will change the (PFP) Program. But whether the main focus will shift further toward the East or whether, for example, there will be an enhanced cooperation with the countries of the Mediterranean Dialogue, is a political question. However, I would like to emphasize that the (PFP) program is one of the most successful initiatives undertaken by NATO. We, who are responsible for the military aspects of the Alliance, want to continue the program.” Regarding NATO’s relationship with the EU, SACEUR was quoted saying: “In the military field, things have been going quite well. The ‘Concordia’ operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was certainly a first step and we have learned a lot there. Now, I could imagine that in the course of this year, the same could happen in Bosnia Herzegovina, that NATO withdraws in the military field and hands over its task to the EU. The EU presence would rather have the character of a police force, and NATO would not have to withdraw completely. For example, NATO could continue the training of the Bosnian armed forces and the (NRF) could be some kind of strategic reserve for Bosnia. Since Bosnia is a more complex problem than the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the NATO presence could be a bit more comprehensive. This whole process, which was carefully managed and executed by my deputy, Adm. Feist, has already led to the establishment of an EU planning cell here at the NATO headquarters in Mons. For us, such a development is not difficult. Soldiers know how to handle this.” Asked to explain how NATO’s transformation was being implemented, Gen. Jones reportedly replied: “(ACT Commander) Adm. Giambastiani is responsible for the transformation. This refers to the reforms of the institutions such as the command structure. Anything that is not useful has to go. What is too inflated needs to become leaner. Then we have the development of new operational concepts…. We also need to deal with the application of the latest technologies so that these concepts may be implemented. And finally, we must be able to deploy our resources better and above all more swiftly…. ACT observes us constantly … and reviews whether we have learned our lessons. It also proposes further adaptations and improvements if it deems them necessary.” Discussing the lessons learned from the war in Iraq, Gen. Jones said: “On the military level, it is completely clear that we need to enhance our lethality and our responsiveness. Thus logistics will become more and more important. It has to be able to guarantee a quick deployment. Apart from that, reconnaissance and communications have to be improved…. And finally, the concept of an embedded reporting system is very interesting. How can we inform the public about a conflict? All this will be integrated in our planning under the motto of transformation.”

Media continue to examine the outcome of Munich security conference, generally suggesting that despite a display of harmony, transatlantic differences over Iraq remain.
“The conference made it possible to display a mending of the transatlantic partnership. However this reconciliation appeared fragile, with the differences of opinion over Iraq … remaining very much alive, even if they are now expressed more discreetly,” writes Le Monde. In a similar vein, the International Herald Tribune, Feb. 9, said: “All the willful moderation at the conference could not hide the mutual skepticism, or the degrees of mistrust and contempt, and plain disagreement running inches below the surface.”

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Feb. 9, commented: “The desire to repair all the trouble was omnipresent and the good intentions were noticeable…. But it has also become clear that good intentions alone are not sufficient to bridge the gap that had opened in the wake of the war in Iraq…. What unites the two sides is the effort not to tear open any old wounds. What divides them is the widely differing assessment of the situation.”

“The motto at this year’s security conference was harmony. The disagreement over the war in Iraq, which shook NATO to its foundations was to be forgotten…. The arguments persists, though. It is just no longer fought out in the open,” asserted Berliner Zeitung, Feb. 9.

Despite all the happy talk of the past month about how U.S.-European relations are on the mend, writes the Washington Post, the reality is that the Atlantic partnership today is more a matter of habit and history than of action. “Aggressive European help is now essential in creating a stable, independent Iraqi nation. The American occupation is scheduled to end in July; unless it is bolstered by the UN politically and by NATO militarily, Iraq will descend into chaos and civil war…. Iraq is slipping toward violent fragmentation, and a decisive European-American commitment is essential to fill the post-July political vacuum,” the daily insists