NATO Not Ready For Prime Time

[tomahawk6]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20080823.aspx


NATO Not Ready For Prime Time

August 23, 2008: One reason many European nations are reluctant to let their troops engage the enemy in Iraq, or Afghanistan, is that they fear the outcome will not be up to the task. Over a decade of shrinking budgets has meant less money for realistic training. There are also equipment shortages. The net result is several layers of leadership that are really not well prepared for a shooting war. The leaders of these nations have also been warned about this by their own special operations troops, who have seen combat in Afghanistan. Most of these operations have been kept secret, as is normal for this sort of thing. But the commandos from these different nations had opportunities to exchange notes, and it was generally agreed that most post Cold War European nations had let most of their combat troops down. The special operations forces were hardly cut at all, as they were considered vital for counter-terrorism, or any kind of military emergency that might come up. The spec ops guys were dismayed at what was happening to the levels of training and equipment in the rest of the armed forces, and knew it could mean disaster if these guys were sent into combat.

Now that's starting to happen, and the results are not pretty. For example, several Czech helicopter pilots, when told they were going to Afghanistan, basically said no. Not unless they got more training, and helicopters that could handle that kind of tricky flying. The crew of an Italian helicopter gunship was recently sent home because they refused to fire in combat. No one will say exactly what happened there, but that sort of thing is usually the result of poor preparation, and leadership. And then there's the recent ambush of a French patrol, which resulted in ten French paratroopers killed. Most of the casualties occurred because the troops had not practiced dealing with ambushes, and the way the Taliban operate. Worse, the French troops were trapped under fire for many hours, long past the time when air cover or ground reinforcements should have arrived. Again, this has all the marks of bad leadership and poor training.

The well trained and equipped volunteer troops (particularly the American, British, Canadian, Australian and commandos of all nations) make it look easy. But it isn't. Lots of training, lots of practice, and decades developing combat leadership, is what it takes. Some nations are now faced with the need to repair some of the damage cause by that post Cold War euphoria and budget cutting.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a very important point.

While I do not, for a second, doubt the robust bravery of Albanian, Belgian, Czech, Danish and Estonian soldiers I really doubt that they are up to the task. It is a very costly and time consuming business to recruit, train, equip, lead and maintain a competent force able to fight and win on today’s complex battlefields. That’s why even small armies like Australia’s and Canada’s cost so much – tough, superbly disciplined, well trained, adequately equipped, properly organized and well led sailors and soldiers are expensive.

See the discussion in: this thread and in this Ruxted article.

My friend Infidel-6 said, “ As for quantity over quality -- I will go for quality every day. Amen to that; it was true in the ‘60s and ‘70s when we faced a real, serious Warsaw Pact and it is the case today.

We must never doubt the courage and toughness of, for example, the Russian soldiers; their grandfathers gave ample proof of that when they fought what was, arguably, the best fighting force of its day to a standstill and then, slowly but surely went on the offensive and crushed it. But: bravery, even bravery in great numbers, is only one tool; it (raw courage) works best when it is combined with discipline, training, sound planning, good leadership and lots of very good kit.

We, Canadians, and a few of our allies have made the investments and commitments to raising and maintaining ‘good’ armies – most of our allies have not. We will all pay the price for so many who want to go ’on the cheap’.

 

[KevinB]

NATO is cute, but IMHO Canada, American, Britain and Australian should cement ABCA is their only mil alliance - and while work with others - not rely on they for much more than window dressing at a parade.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps it is time that NATO got "serious" about how it ran its Leadership Schools. 

 

[midget-boyd91]

NATO is cute, but IMHO Canada, American, Britain and Australian should cement ABCA is their only mil alliance - and while work with others - not rely on they for much more than window dressing at a parade.

I wouldn't even want to begin to imagine what the folks on the left would say about that one.
Cripes, I can hear them beating their drums already. Unshaven men sporting ponytails and hemp everywheres. *shudders* It's terrifying.

Midget

 

[Edward Campbell]

NATO is cute, but IMHO Canada, American, Britain and Australian should cement ABCA is their only mil alliance - and while work with others - not rely on they for much more than window dressing at a parade.

My inclination, based on a belief that the best way to ’manage’ the American giant with whom we live is to ensnare him in as many alliances as possible, is to split NATO and add some new alliances when, soon, we have a much, much more multilateralist US administration. (McCain will be a very multilateral, Obama, being beholden to the Democratic Party’s isolationist Luddite wing, will be less so.)

I would subdivide NATO as follows:

1. The new NATO would be open to those nations with North Atlantic (including North Sea) seafront property: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain the UK and the USA;

2. There should be a new CETO – Central European Treaty Organization that would realize and legitimize Germany’s long held dream of Mitteleuropa. Canada would, most likely, not join, not if (as I would hope) that membership would involve a commitment of troops on the ground in Central Europe. France, the UK and the USA probably would join. Likely members, beyond Germany, France, the UK and the US, might include Austria (which would be new to NATO), Belgium, Czech Republic and so on. The Baltic States would belong here as would e.g. Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia and so on.

3. There should also be a new MTO - Mediterranean Treaty Organization. It would have similar ‘rules’ as the ‘new’ NATO. Members would include: UK (through Gibraltar) Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, (eventually in some cases) Greece, Turkey and the USA (despite not being a Mare nostrum nation).

The French have been lobbying long and hard for a new model ‘alliance’ which would incorporate North Africa. The plan might be a blessing if it was expanded to include: the new MTO plus Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Morocco. At a stroke it could end the Arab-Israeli ‘crisis.’ Syria and Israel would have to agree that Iran is a bigger problem than Israel and Syria are to one another. It (a real peace, ‘enforced, by a treaty structure, between Israel and its neighbours) would unleash an economic ‘miracle’ in the region.

We also need a Pacific Treaty: Canada, USA, Japan, South Korea, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and, through Pitcairn Island, the UK.

 

[KevinB]

I would rather see a looser federation for those other areas.

  I dont see a common sense of being with those other nations, some mutal goals in certain areas - but they are a lot different, and their militaries are like Klingons compared to ABCA interoprability.

Of course I live down south now - so my American bias popps up now and then... 

 

[aesop081]

We also need a Pacific Treaty: Canada, USA, Japan, South Korea, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and, through Pitcairn Island, the UK.

Countries who already work closely every 2 years in one of the world's largest exercise (RIMPAC). Wouldnt be much of a stretch to formalise that relationship into an alliance.

 

[Old Sweat]

And, Edward, your aim in this is to manage the United States, or to contain Russia, or to contain the other existing and developing threats or to maintain fora for discussion, or what? What does this do to the United Nations other than to make it even more disfunctional and irrelevant?

What you have suggested is a number of geographical alliances, although at other times you have argued in favour of functional (not quite the correct word, but I used it for a purpose) alliances such as the Anglosphere. Perhaps you envision a global community enveloped in a spider's web of lines of communications and loyalties that makes the CF command structure seem like a masterpiece of military precision.

 

[CougarKing]

NATO is cute, but IMHO Canada, American, Britain and Australian should cement ABCA is their only mil alliance - and while work with others - not rely on they for much more than window dressing at a parade.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of the Commonwealth as an official military alliance than the formal club of former British Empire territories and dominions that it is now, even though a number of its members' interests do conflict or diverge. Such as India and Pakistan who can never ever seem to get over Kashmir.

I'm surprised that you did not include New Zealand or South Africa in your ABCA alliance. Perhaps the Anglosphere would have been a better term.

And then SEATO is dead though formalizing RIMPAC would be a good way to replace it.

 

[KevinB]

Having worked with Kiwi's and South Africans -- I can say we are far a lot ahead without them, than with them.

South African is a mess - you dont want to touch them with a 20km pole

Kiwi's; well they are always up for a boilup -- but beyond that and drinking beer, I dont rate them one little bit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, Edward, your aim in this is to manage the United States, or to contain Russia, or to contain the other existing and developing threats or to maintain fora for discussion, or what? What does this do to the United Nations other than to make it even more disfunctional and irrelevant?

What you have suggested is a number of geographical alliances, although at other times you have argued in favour of functional (not quite the correct word, but I used it for a purpose) alliances such as the Anglosphere. Perhaps you envision a global community enveloped in a spider's web of lines of communications and loyalties that makes the CF command structure seem like a masterpiece of military precision.

Yes, indeed: all of the above. 

First, looking at the world with Canada's national interests at the fore, 'managing' the USA is first and always our primary goal. It's the 'must have' element.

Containing Russia and China and Iran and ... and ... and ... almost ad infinitum is a 'should have.'

The 'could have' is a global system that makes major wars more and more difficult because so many countries are enmeshed in the system, in Barnett's connected core.

I believe that the centre core of Barnett's 'connected core' is, indeed, the Anglosphere (plus). I believe that a small group with consistent political philosophies (rule of law, equality at law, democracy, etc - but not political liberalism) is most likely to be able to lead an extended web of (loosely) interlocking regional alliances.

The UN needs to survive; we would have to invent it if it wasn't already here. If nothing else, it is, for now and for the foreseeable future, the only source of political legitimacy for most military actions. But it needs a new (military) 'steering committee' disconnected from the Security Council. The 'Anglosphere (plus)' can provide that.

World government is not in cards, not in the lifetimes of my grandchildren, anyway. What we can do is try to minimize the risks. I doubt we can manage to "shrink the gap"* as Barnett would have us do but we can contain it.

--------------------

*By the way, my 'gap' is much like Barnett's but larger. Russia is very much in my 'gap,' while it is in Barnett's core. We both agree that China is in the 'connected core.'

 

[Old Sweat]

The UN needs to survive; we would have to invent it if it wasn't already here. If nothing else, it is, for now and for the foreseeable future, the only source of political legitimacy for most military actions. But it needs a new (military) 'steering committee' disconnected from the Security Council. The 'Anglosphere (plus)' can provide that.

I guess we would have to invent the UN if it did not already exist. The security council performs a useful function as do a number of specialized agencies such as ICAO and the WHO. It also is burdened with a horde of wasteful agencies of doubtful utility - I really don't need to look out my window at the South Branch of the Rideau River and reflect that is part of a world heritage site. Where it matters, the UN is failure prone, perhaps because of decisions/factors beyond its control. Look at Rwanda and the Sudan.

Your suggestion that a military steering committee, perhaps based on the Anglosphere, is interesting, and I submit impractical. I remember from NATO working groups how the non-Anglo nations were always suspicious that the ABCA nations had put their heads together and come up with a new way of doing things which would be forced onto the others. (They had good reason for their suspicions, 'cause we did.)

World government is not in cards, not in the lifetimes of my grandchildren, anyway.

Not only is it not in the cards; it is not desirable. Look at the mess the Eurocrats have made of setting up an European government and constitution. Imagine a world run by the IOC.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

USA Today article

The revision (by the Italian government) speeds up procedures for the government to respond to NATO requests to move the soldiers to dangerous areas. It must now make a decision within six hours, compared with the previous 72 hours.

However, the government has said it does not plan to reposition its troops permanently.

:boring:

This is a big help to planners....  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thanks, Mods, for reopening this ... maybe we can keep it civil, I hope.

Anyway, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Political Violence @ a Glance blog is a useful article by Prof Steve Saideman, of te University Ottawa:

http://politicalviolenceataglance.org/

NATO and Churchill Yet Again

May 7

By Steve Saideman

Almost since the alliance was created, there have been worries about the inefficiency and potential demise of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]. The alliance’s burden-sharing has always been uneven, raising resentments among those who over-pay. In Afghanistan, the burden-sharing problem has been far more problematic as it is measured in blood, rather than spending as percentage of GDP. The perceived lack of effectiveness in Afghanistan and NATO’s refusal to engage in Syria feed these fears about the alliance. So, it should be no surprise that in this time of austerity there is much concern about the future of NATO once again.

The reality is, as always, just a bit more complex. If we want to ask “is NATO worth it?” by looking at its past efforts, we need to keep in mind the goals of each operation. If we remember that in most cases NATO’s goals were somewhat limited, then the alliance has been rather successful. In Bosnia, NATO did not end organized crime or produce functional democracy, but it did provide a far more credible force than UNPROFOR, enforcing much of the Dayton Accords. In Kosovo, NATO ended the threat Serbia posed to Kosovo’s Albanian (and Muslim) majority. The effort took months, rather than days, and produced a peacekeeping mission that continues to this day. But in terms of preventing the conflict in Kosovo from spilling over to create regional tensions, the intervention worked. In its aftermath tensions rose in Macedonia, which, for once, NATO jumped on quickly, producing an agreement that required relatively minimal effort to enforce.

Afghanistan is far more complex than these other missions, and NATO certainly over-reached. Building a self-sustaining Afghan government turned out to be far harder than previous efforts. The stresses revealed the seams in the alliance far more than the previous or more recent missions. Even in this case, NATO did not utterly fail. Yes, there were problems with caveats, nationally imposed restrictions on what countries were willing to do, and other means of control that impacted NATO’s effectiveness, but more countries provided more real effort in Afghanistan, despite the costs and the uncertainties than the “willing” countries in the coalition of the willing in Iraq.

The Libyan mission is an interesting contradiction, as NATO had far more limited objectives here but these objectives were far more than what some of those who legitimated the mission (Russia, China, the Arab League) expected. The aim of civilian protection became regime change (because the former logically required the latter), although everyone will deny that. Still, NATO made no commitment to do anything after Qadhafi’s government fell, so the alliance achieved what it set out to do. Sure, the burden-sharing was visibly lop-sided with less than a third of the alliance willing to drop bombs, but NATO’s history of procuring and practicing inter-operability meant that planes were able to refuel in the air many, many times without significant incidents.

Much more quietly, NATO has played a key role in fighting piracy off the shores of Somalia. In the past year, pirate attacks have dropped to near zero. Non-events tend not to get much news, especially when they “occur” at sea. To be sure, this change is not just due to NATO’s efforts, but the coordination provided by the alliance has certainly made a difference.

Sure, NATO is in a crisis right now, as the budget cuts throughout the alliance will only make it harder for the alliance to deploy and will probably exaggerate the burden-sharing problems. Moreover, Europe is more than a bit worried about the American pivot to Asia. Yet the reality is that there is no substitute for NATO in European security. It is easy to dismiss suggestions that the European Union will supplant NATO. The EU has repeatedly failed when called up to act in a crisis, only deploying after NATO does all of the hard work. All efforts to develop a European Security and Defense Policy are stymied by disagreements among the members. Coalitions of the willing may develop when NATO cannot come to a consensus, but these coalitions have all of NATO’s problems (caveats, burden-sharing) and none of NATO’s advantages (legitimacy, practiced inter-operability, etc.)

It always comes down to this: NATO is the worst form of multilateral military cooperation… except for all of the other forms. NATO is generally better than unilateralism, far more functional than UN or EU security cooperation, and mostly superior to coalitions of the willing. Consequently, despite the anxieties, NATO will continue to stick around for a while longer. It may not intervene again in any place soon, but when leaders look around for some military cooperation, NATO will be there.

I'm on record as being very skeptical about NATO's capacity to conduct complex military operations - I think ISAF was/is mismanaged in large part because of NATO's involvement. But I am also on record as saying that we, Canada, anyway, need NATO if for no other reason than it provides a big table at which we have a charter member's seat.

I stand by both views and I do not think they are inconsistent.

I would, still, prefer to see more and more military alliances; I still like my idea of subdividing NATO and creating a top level coordinating role for ABCA+ (Australia, Britain, Canada and America) plus (in my vision) Denmark, India, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand and Singapore.

My goals remain, as I said a few years ago:

    1. To (try to) manage America's power;

    2. To contain other, non-Western, powers; and

    3. To keep the peace in the interests of free trade and commerce.

 

[KevinB]

ERC,

I would change your #1 comment. 
  Due to what we have done with our budget, I think NATO/ABCA and others will be scrambling to fill the void that is going to be left due to Military atrophy/reduction down here.
  USN fleet deployments getting delayed or cancelled, as well as USAF and US Conventional Ground Force decay/reductions, I believe that in the very short term that allies who bemoaned the US Giant, will be yet again yearning for those days, as other less benevolent forces try to fill the vacuum.

Denmark is broke, while willing, you cannot get blood from a stone.

Canada, Singapore and several of the other 'well to do' Nations are going to need to step into the breech in terms of power projection.