re-inventing an old idea? Quick-strike Force

[John Nayduk]

U.S. proposes worldwide NATO strike force

Reuters News Agency

Tuesday, September 24 – Online Edition, Posted at 1:00 PM EST

Warsaw — The United States prescribed expensive medicine for aging NATO on Tuesday, pressing alliance defence ministers to build a high-tech strike force of 20,000 for the war on terrorism and other security challenges.

European allies welcomed the idea, but some expressed concern that it could compete with — or even undermine — the European Union‘s fledgling Rapid Reaction Force.

France took a tough stance, saying that NATO should not operate outside its own borders and that the new force should get a green light from the UN Security Council every time it acts, a position that U.S. officials called a "semantic problem."

U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he received an overwhelmingly positive response to his blunt warning that NATO could wither and die if it did not prepare for attacks like those in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"If NATO does not have a force that is quick and agile, which can deploy in days or weeks instead of months or years, then it will not have much to offer the world in the 21st century," Mr. Rumsfeld said at a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Poland‘s capital.

If the plan is endorsed by ministers and accepted by heads of state at a November summit in Prague, NATO could within two years begin building a land, sea and air force of European and U.S. troops ready to deploy in seven to 30 days.

The mixed units of troops from both Europe and America, including rotating brigades of about 5,000 members each, would have high-tech arms such as satellite-guided bombs and could protect themselves against chemical and biological attack.

"We believe in this alliance and want it to succeed," Mr. Rumsfeld said, cautioning that if NATO failed to modernize and improve its military capabilities "it would send a harmful signal to the world about our alliance."

Competition with EU?
NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson said the idea was warmly welcomed and seen as "not duplicating or replacing other national or multinational forces."

It would help the alliance‘s drive to reinforce and refocus its military capability and streamline its cumbersome Cold War-era command structure, Lord Robertson said.

"I think this is a very good idea," Italian Defence Minister Antonio Martino told Reuters as he arrived for the meeting. "It must be evaluated in the framework of all the other commitments we have with NATO and the European Union."

U.S. defence analyst Barry Posen, a visiting fellow at the Transatlantic Centre in Brussels, said Mr. Rumsfeld‘s proposal could divert crack troops committed to the EU‘s 60,000-strong Rapid Reaction Force, an as-yet untested project due to be fully operational next year.

"I suspect it‘s a cream-skimming operation in which NATO will cream off the best European capabilities," Mr. Posen told a seminar in Brussels. "It seems to me that this is a revolver pointed at the EU‘s Rapid Reaction Force."

He questioned whether the entire proposed NATO force would ever be used in action, since the Bush administration had a clear preference for engaging individual allies in action under its command rather than working under NATO auspices.

The United States insists that it is not trying to elbow aside the EU, and says it merely wants to give NATO — which has so far played a minor role in the U.S.-led war on terrorism — the means to respond quickly in far-flung trouble spots.

The EU force, on the other hand, could be dedicated to peacekeeping and conflict prevention in Europe‘s neighbourhood.

French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said Paris was not opposed to the idea, but she said the force must always have UN Security Council authorization to act and NATO should not take on missions beyond its own borders.

"We mustn‘t lose sight of what motivated the creation of NATO from the start," she said. "NATO must cling to its original geographical purpose."

 

[bossi]

(hmmm ... I coulda sworn we've seen various iterations of "rapid strike forces" before ... but maybe it's just me.  Also, I can't help but chuckle at the headline boldly proclaiming we "might send hundreds" ... as opposed to a "meaningful" contribution of a brigade group, like we used to have in Germany ... oh, well - guess I'd better get used to the new reality ... as painfully humiliating as it is - read on to see the stirring words - NOT - of the Defence Minister ... aka "The Great Pumpkin".)

Canada supports troops for NATO
Hundreds may join rapid strike force
Allan Thompson
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA â ” Canada will probably commit hundreds of troops to a new NATO combat force that will be on stand-by to fight terrorist or other threats around the globe, Defence Minister John McCallum says.

Canada will enthusiastically support a U.S. plan for a new 21,000-strong NATO strike force including elite land, sea and air units able to deploy quickly to international hot spots, he said.

McCallum spoke to reporters yesterday from Warsaw, Poland, where he is attending a meeting of NATO defence ministers.

He said the U.S. hasn't requested troops from any NATO countries to use in a campaign against Iraq.

"The ball is now in the United Nations, which is where the ball should be and we, Canada, working closely with the U.S. and others are trying to get a strong Security Council resolution," McCallum said. "We're a long way from the U.S. asking for troops, because we're still in the U.N."

McCallum said Canada is very much in favour of the new force.

"For decades, if not longer, Canada has consistently followed the route of a rules-based, multilateral world system," McCallum said by telephone. "So this is very positive because it provides a multilateral force in the post-Sept. 11 world that can respond to any number of threats or problems."

The troops, based in their home countries, would be on stand-by for deployment on short notice.

"They could respond to any kind of contingency. It could be a terrorist attack or civilians stranded in a place where war suddenly broke out," McCallum said. "It could be any situation of aggression. This is a combat force, it's not a peacekeeping force."

McCallum said Canada will likely make a "meaningful contribution," to the force, probably in the hundreds.

McCallum said a final decision on constituting the new NATO response force will be made in November by the leaders of NATO countries.

"We have to sort out the technical details," he said. "The U.S. proposal was a force of 21,000. I don't know if it should be 21,000 or 18,000 or 25,000. The exact time required for deployment â ” all of those technical details have to be sorted out."

Despite being stretched for resources, Canada's military would be able to meet the commitment to supply troops to the force, McCallum said, "depending on how much is asked and how many other requests there are at any one time."

++++

Canada ready to participate in new NATO force
Last Updated Thu, 26 Sep 2002 0:58:39 (CBC)
OTTAWA - Canada says it will contribute troops to a new NATO rapid response force to respond to acts of terrorism and other emergencies.

The U.S. wants to create an elite unit that would include up to 21,000 troops from various NATO countries.


Defence Minister John McCallum says Canada wants to take part, though he's not sure how many troops it can muster for the new unit.

NATO defence ministers talked about the new response force at their meeting this week in Warsaw. McCallum says the Canadian military will take part.

"We will obviously have some commitment to that force. We don't know yet exactly what that will consist of," he said.

McCallum says Canada could commit several hundred troops. He's confident the Canadian military can do this, despite already being stretched.

The opposition isn't so sure. "The reality is that if we commit hundreds of troops who are specifically dedicated to this (then) we're going to have to back off somewhere else. We're going to have to buy them new equipment, and we're going to have to buy strategic airlift," said Leon Benoit, defence critic for the Canadian Alliance.

The defence minister says allies such as Britain may help Canada with equipment and personnel. But Benoit says the Canadian military shouldn't have to go begging to other armies.

NATO leaders will make a final decision on the new force when they meet in November. If it's approved, the unit could be up and running in two years.

+++++

Canada gives support in principle for combat-ready rapid reaction force
 
STEPHEN THORNE  
Canadian Press
Wednesday, September 25, 2002

Defence Minister John McCallum expressed support in principle Wednesday for a combat-ready rapid reaction force under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but was vague about the extent of Canada's commitment.
 
OTTAWA (CP) - Defence Minister John McCallum expressed support in principle Wednesday for a combat-ready rapid reaction force under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but was vague about the extent of Canada's commitment. At a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Warsaw, McCallum discussed with his British counterpart possible co-operation in the 21,000-member force proposed Tuesday by U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"This is very positive because it provides a multilateral force in the post-Sept. 11 world that can respond to any number of threats or problems," McCallum said by telephone from the meeting.

"What's the alternative? If this increases the effectiveness of NATO and otherwise the alternative is likely to be U.S.-led coalition forces."

The multinational force would be prepared to strike quickly against threats from terrorists or renegade states, but McCallum said no details have been discussed.

"This is a combat force; it's not a peacekeeping force," he said. "We obviously will have some commitment to that force.

"We don't know yet exactly what that will consist of. One possibility would be to combine forces with the British or other countries."

Diplomats said an overwhelming majority of the 19 NATO defence ministers backed the plan, part of a military makeover to ensure the alliance set up 53 years ago to fight the Cold War remains relevant after last year's terrorist attacks.

"If NATO does not have a force that is quick and agile, which can deploy in days or weeks, instead of months or years, then it will not have much to offer the world in the 21st century," Rumsfeld said.

The force would be operational within two years, pending final approval at a November NATO summit in Prague.

It is expected to be comprised of elite air, land and sea forces from Europe, Canada and the United States, with core units ready to deploy within a week to tackle threats beyond NATO's home ground.

"We're talking about forces that would be aggressive fighting troops, self-sustaining and able to operate in a hostile climate," said a NATO official.

Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit said he supports the plan but Ottawa will have to come up with the money for it - at least $2 billion right away, much of it to develop strategic airlift capacity, high-tech equipment and increased training with NATO allies.

The Commons defence committee has recommended a 40 per cent increase in the defence budget - $5 billion to $6 billion a year - starting in three years to accommodate the needs of Canada's depleted military.

"When you're talking about a rapid reaction force like this, when you make the commitment, you'd better deliver," said Benoit.

Lt.-Col. Pat Stogran, the former commander of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, predicted the need for just such a rapid-reaction force in a paper he wrote for senior defence staff three years ago.

He predicted the rise of terrorist activity and transnational threats and cited the need for lightly armed, air-mobile troops with quick-reaction capability to threats at home and abroad.

Stogran, now in procurement at Defence headquarters in Ottawa, said Wednesday the kind of commitment McCallum is talking about will strain resources but can be done.

"Air mobility is where it's at," Stogran said. "The only way we can hope to get into crisis spots in the world, as we just witnessed in Afghanistan, is by air mobility."

Under Rumsfeld's proposal, allies would assign units to the standing force on rotation, using existing forces so as not to overtax defence budgets, officials said.

That's important to Canada, acknowledged McCallum, adding that Canadian Forces are stretched.

"We have sustainability problems," he said, and may have to make tough choices between peacekeeping and fighting forces.

The minister said he's asking for additional resources in the next federal budget, not expected until February, but there are no guarantees he'll get any.

+++++

Canada will commit troops to NATO strike force

By DANIEL LEBLANC
Thursday, September 26, 2002 â “ Print Edition, Page A6 (Globe and Mail)

OTTAWA -- The Canadian government vowed yesterday to contribute hundreds of troops to a planned 20,000-strong NATO strike force, even though this would further strain the country's overstretched armed forces.

Speaking from a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Poland, Defence Minister John McCallum said he agrees with the American move to modernize the 53-year-old military alliance.

But critics said Canada will have to pump billions into its military budget to live up to this most recent commitment and fulfill other military duties.

Admitting budget constraints, Mr. McCallum said that the best way to face new threats is still with multinational coalitions.

"This is very positive because it provides a multilateral force in the post-Sept. 11 world that can respond to any number of threats or problems," Mr. McCallum said.

"What's the alternative? This increases the effectiveness of NATO, and otherwise the alternative is likely to be U.S.-led coalition forces. We have nothing against those . . . but we also think multilateral forces are also important."

Mr. McCallum said the Canadian Forces are already struggling to meet the demands of keeping up with the current deployment of a few thousand troops abroad.

"We can make a commitment. The size of that commitment will depend on how many requests there are at any one time and our total resource situation."

Critics argue that the Canadian government is always quick to join international coalitions but does not spend enough on its military budget to keep up with other forces.

The Canadian Alliance said that Canada has to add $2-billion to the country's $12-billion military budget quickly to offer a meaningful contribution to the NATO force. If the force receives final approval at a full NATO summit in Prague in two months, it could be in operation within two years.

Alliance MP Leon Benoit said that in its current situation, the Canadian Forces would struggle to offer troops to NATO. The country needs new giant airplanes to transport troops and equipment abroad quickly, as well as more training to maintain the combat capabilities of the troops.

"The main concerns are if Canada is committing hundreds of troops, where will they come from, and how will we get them there on seven days' notice?" he said.

Expectations for the force are high. "If NATO does not have a force that is quick and agile, which can deploy in days or weeks, instead of months or years, then it will not have much to offer the world in the 21st century," U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said.

The NATO force is expected to be comprised of elite air, land and sea forces from Europe, Canada and the U.S., and be ready to deploy within a week on threats beyond NATO's home ground.

 

[Pikache]

Question: where the troops will come from again?

 

[Jungle]

Canada will enthusiastically support a U.S. plan for a new 21,000-strong NATO strike force including elite land, sea and air units able to deploy quickly to international hot spots

Strike Force, elite, deploy quickly... WOW, all these words in the same sentence and Canada supports it ??? Sounds too good to be true...

 

[Pikache]

Last time I‘ve heard, the next tour has only 800 men going, including the CRIC. Plus Canada relinquished 3rd of its previous op area to the Dutch. and it was in the Maple Leaf.

So what‘s next?

 

[Recce41]

Why should they mention us. We and the Germains are the only ones with Balls, to say F#*^you. We not going. The US has started S*&( and now wants everyone to join. Screw them.
They put Sadam in, they can pay the price.
Sgt J. Canadian Decoration, CDS. Com
BOLD and SWIFT, AIRBORNE!

 

[Linc]

Canada‘s "hundreds" will undoubtedly be made up of mostly sea and air crew supporting any NATO activity, don‘t expect to see a lot of CADPAT boots pounding the turf in some god-forsaken country. Also, count on Canada to try and cheat the system by counting the forces it already has with NATO Standing Forces Atlantc and the army Bn already on NATO standby (I think its 2 RCR right now) for this new strike force.