USA Twists Arms for Mo' NATO Troops to AFG

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

U.S. pins Kosovo force on NATO's Afghan commitment
Kristin Roberts, Reuters, 21 Oct 07
Article link

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will consider shifting U.S. troops from Kosovo to Afghanistan next year if NATO allies do not fulfill their commitments, U.S. government officials said.

Gates, in Ukraine on Sunday to ask eastern European countries for help in the war, had first considered laying the threat before NATO defense ministers this week at a meeting in the Netherlands, senior U.S. officials said.

But upon the advice of senior military officers, the Pentagon chief has extended the U.S. commitment to Kosovo to summer 2008. If NATO allies have not sent more troops, trainers and equipment to Afghanistan by then, Washington will consider pulling its 1,600 troops out of NATO's Kosovo force KFOR.

"The secretary had wrestled with the idea of moving our forces in Kosovo to Afghanistan but decided late this week to extend our KFOR presence until next summer," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"But beyond that is very much up in the air. The secretary is disappointed in NATO's inability to live up to its commitments and if that doesn't change before then, he's prepared to go to the secretary of state and to the president to discuss yanking our troops out of Kosovo," Morrell said.

Gates has grown increasingly frustrated by the failure of NATO allies to fulfill promises they made more than a year ago to provide troops and equipment to the war in Afghanistan.

The secretary is particularly worried about a shortfall of more than 3,000 trainers for Afghan forces, but commanders also need more combat forces, helicopters and other equipment.

By pinning the U.S. commitment in Kosovo to Europe's commitment in Afghanistan, Gates wants to signal that Europe will be left alone to deal with a still unsteady situation in its own backyard if it does not help the United States in Afghanistan, said officials familiar with the discussions.

NATO took responsibility last year for operations throughout Afghanistan. The United States contributes the most troops in the coalition -- or about 15,000 of a NATO force totaling just under 40,000. Washington also added combat troops and a helicopter force last year after other allies did not respond to a call for help from commanders.

Despite six years of war in Afghanistan, a fight overshadowed in the United States by Iraq, violence has soared in 2007. Taliban suicide bombings are up 50 percent from a year ago and military officers say the group is trying to import the deadly roadside bomb technology that has been used in Iraq.

In Kiev, Gates will ask Ukraine and other members of the Southeast Europe Defense Ministerial to send troops to Afghanistan to help cover that shortfall in trainers, another U.S. defense official said.

The 11-member group sent a 100-troop brigade, called Southeast Europe Brigade or SEEBRIG, to the war zone in 2006.

"It's to have a discussion about SEEBRIG and how SEEBRIG can potentially help in Afghanistan again possibly by undertaking a training mission," the official said when asked about Gates's priorities in Kiev.

Ukraine, which received $11.7 million in U.S. military assistance this year, is considered a strong U.S. partner in Iraq and the Pentagon thinks Kiev might send troops to Afghanistan as well.

 

[tomahawk6]

I predict that the US will in fact stop supporting the Kosovo mission.Another issue will be the next COMISAF.I am assuming that early next year McNeil will be replaced. The US wont want to see another milqtoast like UK General Richards in command and it might be a great job for a Canadian General, otherwise the US might want to send another US General.

 

[Douke]

Is NATO slowly crawling toward a schism due to very different interests ? Seems like very large international organisations are on the set-back and might slowly revert to more interest related smaller defense pacts. Personally, I see (from middle-term to long-term) the world reverting back to : The USA and Commonwealth, Europe, Russia and China. Of course this is only major tendencies and willingly forget satellite countries for simplification error margin reduction. Some major powers or futur major powers could cause surprises, I am mainly thinking about India (will they keep their relativly isolationist orientation or ally up in fear of a conflict with Pakistan or neighbouring China?), Japan (Will they stay relativly absent of that militaro-politic stage or will they finally step in, should their region become less and less safe with potential conflicts involving nuclear powers around them) and Koreas (will a much awaited ease-up in the relations of the two Koreas free up some troops for international commitments ?).

Just a few ideas from a tired and bored mind, what do you think ?

-EDIT : just noticed this was steering slightly off topic, so I will ad this.

Mutual defense pacts are built on the premises of mutual help. When some members reserve their help to situations where their interests are directly involved and the risk is lower, that help is not mutual anymore. US are totally justified to remove their troops from Kosovo and relocate them. If the pact was still as effective as it once was, we would see the majority of NATO countries in Afghanistan, and a province rotation between members to share the risks. I am surprised that some big members who were hit by Al Qaeda, like Spain and Germany, are not contributing more willingfully.

Douke

 

[aesop081]

Mutual defense pacts are built on the premises of mutual help. When some members reserve their help to situations where their interests are directly involved and the risk is lower, that help is not mutual anymore.

I think you have a serious misconception there by assuming that NATO countries have ever agree to anything in spite of individual national interest. If you read any NATO Operational level publications, one of the first page is the one that lists what provisions member countries have chosen to exempt themselves from, sometimes because alliance interests conflict with the individual nation. My experience on NATO exercises is that individual nations will look after alliance interests only as long as they are in line with national interests. remember the controversy over deploying NATO E-3A aircraft to Turkey for the Iraq war ? The political situation within NATO over Afghanistan is hardly anything new, rather a symptom of basic flaws in the alliance's design from the onset.

 

[Douke]

You are right, I guess I am too idealistic in my views of a defensive pact... Maybe it is time to forge a new treaty on less nationalistic principles ? Faced with losing the military protection of the US some countries might be pressed to sign something that is more egalistic in nature ?

 

[aesop081]

further to my last, please do not think that Canada has not been guilty of "not carrying its weight" in favour of national interests.  We found it decidedly convenient to let our allies take a larger share of the burden so we could cut of defence budget and ballance the books ( amongst other things). I do very much beleive that our allies should do more, they can certainly afford it and i believe in the mission, but i hardly think we are in a position to use the "you arent doing your share" argument.

 

[Douke]

Well the discussion was concerning US military and not ours, but I do not agree that budget granted to military should be a factor. Countries have to right to decide on how their budgets are allowed imo, not all countries can spend as much as the US and not all cultures are similar. You cannot possibly ask of Holland to spend as much as the US, even proportionally, on their military. They have a very different culture and national demands. Much of the US military is used in maintaining their own influence and interests, as their exterior policy dictate it, not all countries have similar policies.

However, it is very realist to ask that countries fully participate up to their capacities in NATO led war efforts.

Just my opinion,

Douke

 

[Good2Golf]

The coalition brings folks to the dance, who you dance with and what you do is another issue.  "National caveats" are a reality that nations use as "notwithstanding clauses" when the overall coalition effort either heads in a direction a nation isn't comfortable with, or as it all to often the case, isn't heading in any direction in particular...

One of the most troubling issues for NATO is the dualism of many of the member nations (in particular regards to their perceived contributions to a US-independant EUROCORPS -- a force that is almost entirely "double-hatted" on standing NATO forces.)  I don't blame the U.S. at all for feeling frustrated.  I had thought that the U.S. had entirely left Kosovo as the Europeans were exercising more control in their own backyard -- clearly an incorrect belief.  I remember the Franco-German railing against in the U.S. in the early 2000's regarding Bosnia...so the U.S. serve notice that they'll then be withdrawing their 20,000+ troops from Bosnia..."oh, you can't do that, stranding us...blah, blah, blah..."  They can't win, damed if you do, damed if you don't.  At least ABCA is still running strong...

G2G

 

[aesop081]

Well the discussion was concerning US military and not ours,

I know that

Countries have to right to decide on how their budgets are allowed imo,

Thats right. There was a time where Canada decided to spend its money somewhere else and left the rest of our allies to pay the defence bill. Thats all i said.

not all countries can spend as much as the US

I would go as far as saying that no other country can.

and not all cultures are similar.

Shocking discovery.......

You cannot possibly ask of Holland to spend as much as the US, even proportionally, on their military.

Military spending as a percentage of the national GDP is often used as the basis for comparaison between nations.  We should reasonably expect our allies to spend the same - proportinaly- as the rest of the "non-USA" members...........oh no, wait, we cant because Canada doesn't.

However, it is very realist to ask that countries fully participate up to their capacities in NATO led war efforts.

Its equaly realistic to expect other countries to say "no" because it doesnt go with national policy at home. Canada was not shy to say no in the past.  Is it not rathe hypocritical for us to admonish other nations for doing exactly that ?

  "National caveats" are a reality that nations use as "notwithstanding clauses" when the overall coalition effort either heads in a direction a nation isn't comfortable with, or as it all to often the case, isn't heading in any direction in particular...

I was on one of those operations this summer and the "national caveats" were embarassing even though the mission was in the direct national interest.

**Edited because i realy should learn how to type with more that 2 fingers

 

[tomahawk6]

The Europeans with a few exceptions have relied on the US for their defense which has enabled them to enjoy a peace dividend. NATO's days are numbered if the goal is to use NATO beyond the confines of Europe. The Europeans for the most part are focused on self defense. Russia is no longer the "enemy" as far as they are concerned. If they could stop buying oil from the ME and get it from Russia instead they would and maybe thats their plan. The problem with relying on one supplier of energy is that you are at the mercy of that country.

The US Army is expanding to 540,000 troops which really isnt sufficient to combat future threats. The US defense strategy is to rely on allies in confronting a threat which to a number of strategic thinkers is a major weakness to any plan. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is an adjustment to that stratgey. In a crisis the US needs to be prepared to go it alone with or without allies.Allowing NATO to take over the Afghanistan mission is a big mistake and it may not last. What we saw with Richards is that non-US commanders tend to have their own agenda which may not be in accord with the overall strategy.

 

[newfin]

Bosnia/Kosovo/FRY should all have been European dominated missions from the very beginning.  The U.S. is right to want to withdraw it's troops.  Like G2G I was surprised to hear that it still had some there.  This is a conflict located in Europe and there is enough money and enlisted men in Europe to look after this problem.  If I was a European it would be a matter of pride to not have someone else come in and have to do the heavy lifting.

 

[aesop081]

The United States is not above sticking it to an ally in order to further its own interest so theres alot of finger pointing to go around, its not only the Euros......

 

[tomahawk6]

Except the US has always carried the water for the Europeans and the time we want some help we get excuses.

 

[newfin]

Except the US has always carried the water for the Europeans and the time we want some help we get excuses.

Couldn't agree more.  The Europeans have changed into a collection of countries that have lost their will to fight for anything short of direct invasion.  The Soviets were the last enemy that they truly felt threatened by and had they invaded then the Europeans would have fought like they had done for centuries.  But with that 40 year old threat removed they do not have it in them anymore.  Perhaps it was having to live with the daily thought that they cold be invaded from the East at any moment, for 4 decades.

I am sure that the pendulum will swing back around again - nothing stays the same forever, but currently the only three countries that will fire a shot in anger in the West are the U.S., Britain and Australia.  Our country currently finds itself temporarily in that club but that will change very quickly once the Liberals are returned to power.  And they will be.  We may not like it but Canadians as a whole see the Liberals as the natural governing party of Canada.

 

[Falange]

Well, I really disagree with this regarding Europe. To start with, Europe has been slowly trying to develop their own defence identity pretty much after the Amsterdam treaty back in the nineties, however this has not accomplished their finalite politique of having a uniform approach to security matters. Many EU countries still have their own approach to defence and security and probably it will stay like this for the next couple of years. Countries like Denmark, Poland at some point Spain and Italy did not wait to join the "coalition of the willing" in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, in my opinion the Danish security approach has tended to be more aligned with the US and the Antlanticists than with other Scandinavian or EU countries. Other countries such as France and its group of "Europeanist" colleagues have adopted a more rational-actor oriented approach. France and other EU countries may not have participated in Iraq, but they have done their deployments in order to secure their own interests in Africa ie Op Artemis. This has surprisingly influenced other countries to follow similar steps and get involved with the peripheral regions of the EU. In a research done by Dr. Michael Wallace from the LSE it has been noted that the Europeans have participated in more deployments and oversea missions in the last decade than ever before in their history. Hence when it comes to carrying the water it looks more like everyone is taking their jug in their own direction.

Regarding NATO... its main problem is that is what we can denominate an "anarchic institution" in the sense that the organization is not able to usurp any sovereignty or power from its member states. In other words a state that is participating with NATO can do as much as they want and absolutely no authority can force them to do other wise. Nevertheless, the Europeans throughout the nineties held very dearly this organization. I think what really threw the Europeans off was how the US and other countries decided to go ahead with Iraq when the job in Afghanistan was not done. And then again we know the opinion that half the European had about Iraq. Personally, I would like the Europeans to take more active roles in Afghanistan, but it is something quite unlikely to happen anytime soon. Hopefully that will change.

And finally, KFOR with no American troops is not that much of an arm twist for the Europeans if you ask me. The ESDP will just gain more approval within Europe as it solves problems inside the continent. That iperation right now is just like that other one in the Sinai, not to difficult at all. Thus those American troops placed there can be easily replaced with a European contingent. Maybe by sending more troops to Afghanistan the Americans can show the Europeans that Afghanistan is still relevant for all parties, and not something that the US sees as some kind of B mission in comparison to Iraq.