NATO In Iraq? Might Happen

[Annie]

This would cause a big bump for Bush:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0040624/wl_mideast_afp/nato_iraq_040624195437

BRUSSELS (AFP) - NATO (news - web sites) leaders could agree next week to help train Iraqi security forces in response to a request from the embattled country's interim leader, alliance chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.

He reiterated that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, due to hold a summit in Istanbul next Monday and Tuesday -- days before the handover of power in Iraq (news - web sites) -- could not "slam the door" in prime minister Iyad Allawi's face.

And he also did not rule out the possibility that NATO forces would be deployed inside the country to train Iraqi forces.

 

[NATO AIR]

This may sound out there, but why don't we offer Iraq and possibly Afghanistan membership in NATO? What harm could it do?

I have a nasty feeling that the Iraqi gov't is going to be fighting two kinds of insurgencies: one aimed at the government and its entities and the other aimed at provoking a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis.

Iraq will need all the help it can get for the next few years.

 

[NightTrain]

This may sound out there, but why don't we offer Iraq and possibly Afghanistan membership in NATO? What harm could it do?

I have a nasty feeling that the Iraqi gov't is going to be fighting two kinds of insurgencies: one aimed at the government and its entities and the other aimed at provoking a civil war between the Shia and Sunnis.

Iraq will need all the help it can get for the next few years.

First and foremost, both countries need stable governments. That will take a while. The last thing any of us need are unstable governments in something as crucial as NATO.

Iraq already has the best military in the world backing them, the last thing needed there is France or another irrelevant nation meddling there. Britain is also there, and they're no small shakes either.

IMHO.

 

[NATO AIR]

forgive me NATO membership just seemed to me an important gesture of long-term support, i.e. we will not abandon you. I think Germany is sorting its problems out quickly, the main problem being their leader Schroder, an opportunist politician if there ever was one. Their more liberal opposition leader (his name escapes me, he was on Time 100's most important people this year) is actually a vocal supporter of liberating Iraq, and has changed quite a few minds in Germany about what America is trying to do.

France will take a while, but this is the French people that have to do that soul-searching. America has serious image problems there, and that can be fixed, either by a much better diplomatic offensive from a re-tooled bush 2nd administration or a kerry one. Inevitably, the French military supports us and supports us well, especially in Djibouti and Afghanistan, despite their disagreements with us on Iraq.

but i disgress.... i apologize

 

[NightTrain]

Sorry, I should have welcomed you the first time, NATO. Welcome to USMB.

Not to be a smartass, but I think it's in French Military's best interests that they support us... lol

It's my opinion that it's going to take something catastrophic to shake both France and Germany from their stupor. I think it's amazing that either one haven't been hit yet with a major attack, but that will be a matter of time before that happens. The animals are on the ropes and they're striking where they can. Hamburg is a hotspot.

I hope it doesn't have to come to that before those idiots open their eyes and realize that the world isn't a perfect place and they have to defend their cherished freedom that we gave them.

...perhaps that's why they're so sluggish - they've had other nations protect them for so long, they've forgotten how to fend for themselves...

 

[NATO AIR]

This is the German leader I was telling you about... he's the German Foreign Minister (I heard him give an excellent speech on a CNN International special about the build up to the war on Iraq and the aftermath, his speech was essentially a sharp rebuke of what Schroder was saying and an appeal for Germans to realize the time for Iraqis to be free had arrived)

From the Time profile:

Despite his leftist past, Joschka Fischer did not echo Schroder's anti-American rhetoric during the 2002 elections: "He understands the importance of US leadership in the world and wants to channel it in the right directions" "Fischer understands Israel's security dillemas and the importance of a European commitment to Israeli security, unlike most Europeans" (phillip gordon, Brookings Institution)

It should also be noted Germany's Bundestag (Parliament/Congress) would never have authorized German use of force during Kosovo or Afghanistan without Fischer's support of these objectives and his eloquent leadership of the causes of both Bill Clinton and George Bush, as well as Tony Blair.

A shame this guy can't be Germany's leader right now.

 

[NightTrain]

I'm wondering if he's posturing.

He certainly can't get any more Left than the current idiot...

Pulling a Kerry and flipping for votes?

 

[NATO AIR]

well, according to two German friends of mine (a university student and a historian friend of my father's) he is very pragmatic. he took the green party in the 80's from a fallen power drowning in its own irrevelance to a powerhouse by making its goals realistic and putting emphasis on cooperation and coalition building. he personally put his credibility on the line during Bosnia and helped reorganize German thinking on the use of force, especially to halt ethnic cleansing, genocide and oppression. He strongly supported increases in anti-terrorism cooperation, training and force strength in Germany over the past 15 years. And also, consider this, at a time when many Germans were whipped into an anti-American fervor, he told them they were all wrong and America wasn't the enemy, the problem or even a concern. He also told the French where to stick it over the EU (france wanting to dominate the smaller countries in voting, decision making, resources, etc etc)

he's better than chirac and schroder by yards

no blair yet, but maybe one day.

 

[NightTrain]

I don't know anything about him, but damn near anyone's better than Schroeder.

I'll have to research this guy and see what he's about... then we'll pick up this conversation again.

Thanks for the heads up, I sure as hell hope Germany is about to pull their collective head out of Chirac's ass.

 

[NATO AIR]

here's a few profiles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1107628.stm

(he was a left wing militant (ouch) )

he's got a bad past

still better than the current batch of duds though

 

[NATO AIR]

Nightrain, I may stand corrected on this fellow... if he was this sort of person in the past, well, hmm, don't know what to make of him now. he seems to have abandoned his positions of the past and moved on, but is that enough? i do know one thing: i respect his position on america not being the problem (as chirac and others have mouthed) and to stand up against his base in support of stopping the serbs is fairly brave, he could've been ostracized and ruined. oh well. again i may stand corrected though. (slaps self)

 

[Annie]

More on the subject, looks like Bush pulled most of it off:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040626/ap_on_re_eu/bush&cid=518&ncid=716

U.S., EU Offer Strong NATO Aid for Iraq

22 minutes ago

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

NEWMARKET-ON-FERGUS, Ireland - The United States and the European Union (news - web sites) offered strong support for Iraq (news - web sites)'s urgent request for NATO (news - web sites) military help, in a joint statement Saturday that made a veiled criticism of abuse of prisoners by American soldiers.

"We stress the need for full respect of the Geneva Conventions," the statement said, referring to international accords setting out guidelines for the humane treatment of prisoners. The single sentence was an obvious reference to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But the U.S.-EU text was largely a victory for President Bush (news - web sites), attending the first of two summits over five days. It sent him on to the NATO summit beginning Sunday in Turkey with progress in hand: Most EU members are also NATO members, so the union's pledge of support could help sway NATO members at their gathering.

The joint statement encouraged other international organizations — such as the World Bank (news - web sites), International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) and others — to support Iraq's economic and political reconstruction, focusing on projects identified by the interim government.

The United States and 25-nation EU pledged to help reduce Iraq's estimated $120 billion foreign debt, support the training of Iraqi security forces as well as the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq. The 14-point statement said it also supported United Nations (news - web sites)' help in rebuilding Iraq and setting up elections no later than Jan. 31, 2005....

 

[dilloduck]

Does he get credit for reaching out to our allies for help this time or does he remain on the shit list . Doesn't much matter-the LMM will barely mention it and if they do it will go something like--Today the EU gave its support for NATO to assist Iraq HOWEVER__blah blah blah. wgt george !!!

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Does he get credit for reaching out to our allies for help this time or does he remain on the shit list . Doesn't much matter-the LMM will barely mention it and if they do it will go something like--Today the EU gave its support for NATO to assist Iraq HOWEVER__blah blah blah. wgt george !!!

Hit that nail on the head!

 

[NATO AIR]

its good he's getting some needed success.

frankly, we may have been a bit wrong, but the allies like France and Germany were way out of line.

here's a good article about the upcoming NATO talks from the weekly standard: good info on seemingly little stuff that gets ignored in the wake of iraq, although its very important to the US and to Europe.

The Forgotten Europe
The NATO summit in Istanbul is a golden opportunity to rekindle transatlantic relations.
by Bruce P. Jackson
06/23/2004 12:30:00 PM

LATER THIS WEEK, the leaders of the Western world will gather in Istanbul for the NATO summit. There at the classical gateway between Europe and Asia as many as 60 heads of state will wrestle with the great problems of our time: the persistence of war and terror and the hope for democratic change in the greater Middle East.

Most will come to the shores of the Bosporus with a specific national agenda. President Bush will make the case for the success of his first administration and for the legitimacy of American intentions in international politics. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan will use the occasion to showcase Turkey's greatly improved democratic credentials and to appeal for Turkey's acceptance as a candidate for membership in the European Union. And the Western Europeans will struggle to keep up appearances in the face of the constitutional confusion and voter apathy that cloud the future of the European Union.

There will be much discussion of NATO's new missions in Afghanistan and, potentially, Iraq. And, there will be the inevitable debate on whether an Israeli-Palestinian peace is the precondition or consequence of the flowering of democracy in the Middle East.

In these debates there is the risk that NATO's leaders may leave important work unfinished and fail to see the possibilities before Europe that stretch from the Balkans to the doors of Central Asia. There are issues of immediate concern that must not be forgotten.


NATO'S GREATEST SUCCESS since 1989 has been in the Balkans where the defeat of Milosevic
laid the foundation for new democratic states, three of which, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia, are now knocking at the door of NATO membership. Next year, we face critical decisions on the status of Kosovo and the future of the federal union between Serbia and Montenegro. It is in everyone's interests to anchor the success stories of the region in NATO and the European Union. NATO needs to be unambiguous about its intent to invite Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join NATO in 2006.

The failure of both Serbia and Montenegro and Bosnia Herzegovina to deliver indicted war criminals to the Hague Tribunal is a serious disappointment. While the NATO leaders cannot establish closer relations with governments that do not comply with war crimes statutes, neither can they be satisfied with the continued isolation of these nations from interaction with the rest of Europe. Today, Belarus has closer relations with NATO than Belgrade and Sarajevo. NATO must strike a better balance between realism and hope in the Balkans.

If NATO's mission will continue to include support for democracy, the alliance must comment on the persistence of instability and state-sponsored criminal activities on the borders of NATO member states. Belarus is universally acknowledged as the last dictatorship in Europe. NATO needs to state clearly why President Lukashenko will not be received at Istanbul. It should also condemn the international arms bazaar that flourishes in Transnistria under the protection of Moscow.

There is considerable confusion surrounding the general direction of NATO-Ukraine relations. This ambiguity is fueling suspicions in reform circles in Kiev that it is NATO, rather than the leadership of President Kuchma, that is responsible for the stagnation in NATO-Ukraine relations. The leaders of NATO need to send a message to the broader audience in Ukraine that free and fair elections in October are the precondition for closer ties between NATO and Ukraine.

The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the momentum for democratic change in the South Caucasus deserve a welcoming response from NATO leaders. The anticipated decision by the European Union to include Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in Europe's Neighborhood Policy suggests that the South Caucasus may be a region, like the Balkans, where the United States and Europe can form an effective partnership. NATO should propose to collaborate with the European Union in stabilizing the South Caucasus.


IF THE LEADERS at Istanbul begin to do the little things well, they will find it makes the big things easier. With a changing South Caucasus and a peaceful Balkans, we have the necessary components for a comprehensive approach to stability and security throughout the Black Sea region. With a firm stand on dictatorship and crime, we will have established a set of principles that will eventually lead to the decriminalization of the frozen conflicts which now mark the border of Europe. By making clear that we will not compromise on democracy or compliance with international obligations, we will have sent a message that Russia must stop its crackdown on political freedom and withdraw its forces from the Soviet bases which Moscow agreed to leave years ago. And, with the handover of the Bosnian peacekeeping mission to E.U. forces, we will have finally built an effective partnership between NATO and the European Union.

The summit in Istanbul offers the Euro-Atlantic alliance an opportunity to further unite a large and diverse community in the defense of democratic values.
Our leaders should be reminded that great men who met in Versailles in 1919 to conclude the peace after World War I are remembered today not for what they achieved but only for what they forgot.


Bruce P. Jackson is the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies and the U.S. Committee on NATO.

 

[Annie]

A discourse on why this is a non-starter issue. Really long, a bit in depth, but interesting:

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_06_27_oxblog_archive.html#108832179046371653

NATO AT 55: Over the next two days, the elected leaders of the twenty-six nations which comprise Nato will be assembling in Istanbul to decide together which directions they will take the 55-year old alliance. (More formally, and to use the quaint language peculiar to the venerable transatlantic alliance, Nato’s governing North Atlantic Council will be convening at the level of heads of state and government.)

What will happen in Istanbul? Here’s one set of predictions:

• Afghanistan: ... Nato’s limited capabilities at the moment make it unlikely the alliance will do much to expand ISAF’s reach from Kabul and Kunduz, which it controls at present. Look though for about five nationally-run Provincial Reconstruction Teams (provincially based nation-building units of 80-200 troops each scattered around the country) to be reflagged as part of ISAF.

• Iraq: The Bush administration would like to see Nato assume responsibility for the southern central sector of Iraq...Military planners at SHAPE dispute whether there are enough troops available to undertake both an expanded mission in Afghanistan and a new one in Iraq, and President Chirac famously told ... he did not see ‘in what conditions a Nato commitment in Iraq would be possible.’ On the other hand, the German government has indicated it could support a Nato mission, if the sovereign Iraqi government requests it. Iraqi Prime Minister Ilyad Allawi duly wrote to Nato’s Secretary General... Prediction: We've already seen an abstract commitment to agreeing to PM Allawi's request by Nato ambassadors in the run-up to the summit, though with no word about actual troop commitments. At the actual summit, it takes back seat to Afghanistan.

• Bosnia: Look for Nato to announce the successful completion of its decade-long SFOR mission in Bosnia. France will be happy to see the EU pick up Bosnia as an important new mission, and troop-strapped Nato leaders will be happy to see it go.

• Counterterror: Nothing will happen here, unfortunately... A cosmetic package of measures will be rolled out, though, and look for the U.S. to receive increased measures toward intelligence sharing, a Rumsfeld favorite, as a consolation prize.

• Middle East Initiative: ... little European support, apart from a surprisingly sympathetic Germany... Look for talk of ‘supporting indigenous reform’ and ‘joint understanding over security issues.’ (Further hint: don’t look too hard for talk of ‘democracy’ or ‘women's rights’.)

• Working with the EU: The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is France’s baby...European leaders still have to demonstrate, even under the ESDP, that they will be capable of getting more ‘bang for the Euro’.

So Nato will finally get out of Bosnia; the Middle East Initiative—which Germany, at least, supports—will go nowhere; the U.S. wants improved counterterror, but won’t get it. France wants EU-Nato relations worked out, and they will be, partially. Meaningful alliance participation in Afghanistan and Iraq will be hindered by the capabilities gap. And so on.
If this catalog of predictions leaves you feeling somewhat underwhelmed, it’s because of the basic problem of alliance—which is cash. While the US contributes 3.3% of its GDP to national defence, 12 of the 19 pre-2004 Nato allies contribute less than 2% of theirs. To look at it another way, the US picks up the tab for 64% of Nato military expenditures ($348.5 million, 2002), while all other allies together contribute only 36% ($196.0 million). For their part, European governments are facing budget shortfalls and budget pressure from ballooning pension costs.

What comes out of this is a capabilities gap. Of 1.4 million soldiers under Nato arms in October 2003, allies other than the US contributed all of 55,000. Nearly all allies lack forces which can be projected away from the European theatre. SACEUR General James Jones testified before Congress in March 2004 that only 3-4% of European forces were deployable for expeditions. Then there are the problems of interoperability: there is a recurring problem of coalition-wide secure communications which can be drawn on in operations. Allies other than the U.S. have next to no precision strike capabilities, although these are slowly improving. The US is generally the sole provider of electronic warfare (jamming and electronic intelligence) aircraft, as well as aircraft for surveillance and C3 (command, control, and communications). The US is also capable of much greater sortie rates than its allies.

The other problem is political will, which is most in evidence on the issue of terrorism. There's been progress (beginning with the 2002 Prague Summit) toward the creation of a Nato Response Force capable of sophisticated counterterror missions. There's also been progress toward the drafting (which has been done) and implementation (which hasn't) of a military concept for counterterrorism. But allies still strongly disagree about whether counterterrorism should even be one of Nato's primary missions - so the principal task of the US at the moment lies in the area of creating political will among allies to adopt counterterrorism as a Nato responsibility. That we have not done so is at least in part our fault - Allies felt rebuffed after they gave the US unprecedented political support through invoking Article 5, and then were not consulted in the prosecution of the war in Afghanistan....

The result of this impecunity and general want of resolve is, something like a Horatio Alger novel adapted by a rather perverse naturalist, a litany of unfulfilled promises...

And then there’s counterterrorism. The US had encouraged adoption of counterterror as a core alliance task since the Clinton administration, and particularly during the runup to the Washington Summit in April 1999. With some assistance from Germany and Belgium, France led opposition to its adoption even then, preferring to see the EU built up as a pillar of European security and Nato reduced in importance...

...In general, the task facing the US - and President Bush - at Istanbul is twofold: to try to build political will, while playing mostly against the French, to actually implement these paper counterterror programs; and to show domestic voters his administration can indeed play well with others, while bringing home tangible results for American national security from multilateral fora...

...For the Kerry campaign, their task will instead be to stay clear of the easy temptation to claim France would be an enthusiastic Nato ally today if it weren't for the Bush administration. It wouldn't, and claims it would (example: mantra-like invocations of Le Monde’s September 12th 'Nous sommes tous Américains'), are likely to come across as partisan...