Posted on 05/10/2003 11:25:35 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Published: May 8 2003 22:46 | Last Updated: The foreign ministers of Bulgaria and Romania said they would welcome bases for US troops once they became full members of Nato. The two countries were among seven from eastern Europe unanimously approved for membership of the Atlantic alliance by the US Senate on Thursday.
Gen James Jones, the new head of American troops in Europe, is in the process of re-evaluating the US's "footprint" in the region, and is expected to recommend that many of the 80,000 troops based in Germany be moved eastwards. Pentagon insiders have said that Bulgaria and Romania, with their ports on the Black Sea that were used during the Iraq war, are leading contenders.
Mircea Geoana, Romania's foreign minister, said he thinks the shift east will help US and Nato forces become more flexible to respond to "new threats coming from the greater Middle East", and noted that Pentagon engineers had been evaluating Romanian military infrastructure since 1997. The Romanian airfield and port at Costaza is seen as a probable location.
"It's only normal for Romania and Bulgaria, together with Turkey, to start playing a far more significant role," Mr Geoana told the FT. "I think we have proven to the American and British forces that have been transitted through Romania during the Iraqi war that our locations are attractive, and with additional investment they could be proven as possible operational footprints for the future Nato missions."
All seven foreign ministers were in Washington on Thursday to witness a unanimous vote by the US Senate approving their membership in the alliance. The US became the third Nato member, behind Canada and Norway, to approve the enlargement. The new applicants - which also include the three Baltic states, Slovenia and Slovakia - will become official members once all 19 current members approve.
In consenting to the enlargement, the US Senate also asked President George W. Bush to begin discussions with Nato allies about whether a new governance structure is needed for the alliance when it reaches 26 members. Three additional countries - Croatia, Albania and Macedonia - have begun discussions to join the alliance, and several senators expressed concern that Nato, which operates only with a consensus of all members, may become too unwieldy.
In an interview with the Financial Times this week, Lord Robertson, the Nato secretary-general, dismissed such concerns, saying recent reforms in streamlining the alliance's decision-making process have made it easier for the enlarged group to come to consensus.
"They said that after every enlargement of Nato," Lord Robertson said of the senators' concerns.
Senior Bush administration officials also oppose any changes to Nato's consensus structure.
On another note, how is the employment situation in Romania for embedded software guys with 30 years experience?
There is far more substance to this development than punishing Germany for its opposition to the war against Iraq. We are in the early stages of a sea change, as the battleground shifts from Western Europe versus the Soviet Bloc to the emerging battles between Western Civilization and radical Islam. At stake is a civilization built upon the last five hundred years of history, which radical Islamists now seek to reverse. Whether we desire it or not, the war has started and we will not wish it away.
In order to face this new enemy, Europe's political and military focus must shift to its frontier with Islam and beyond to the vital Southwest Asian oilfields. This repositioning will require NATO to shore up the forgotten nations of Eastern Europe, and to establish lines of communications and supply with forward bases and Black Sea ports. The first phase of this transition has been the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe.
Next, NATO must abandon the fixed positions and set-piece strategies of its Cold War past, and become an expeditionary force capable of projecting power beyond its borders. Such a radical change in focus, strategy and composition requires new leadership. Today's Army generals cut their teeth and dedicated their careers planning to fight the Soviets on the plains of Central Europe, and they are naturally resistant to radical change. NATO's expeditionary future explains why James Jones -- a Marine Corps general -- is Europe's new Supreme Allied Commander.
We are becoming more expeditionary because we are going to embark on more expeditions. A new foundation is being laid for a very different world...
Is this still true? Certainly most of them have received their battle experience in SE Asia, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East, which would bode well for the change in perspective which you suggest.
I believe that the focus of many Army officers has certainly shifted since Gulf War I, but the institutional transformation has not yet occurred. Throughout the 1990s, the Army still had to dedicate too much of its energy and resources to an outdated mission in Germany. But even after the head has changed, the body must also adapt to a new reality.
GWI was highly successful, but the campaign involved a ponderously slow transport and buildup of a massive force which was built for a pitched slugout with the Soviets. The long and unopposed buildup at Al Jubayl's custom-built port was a luxury that we may never enjoy again. GWII was an improvement, but only because Rumsfeld selected those units which could be most flexibly deployed.
What will change next is the structure of our forces to support this new expeditionary strategy. The Air Force has already transformed itself into an expeditionary force, and the Marine Corps has always been a flexible blend of expeditionary air-ground task forces. The new Army will become a more nimble combination of heavy and mobile forces which can deploy more rapidly and respond more flexibly.
Change is necessary but hard, and Rumsfeld will have to overcome strong opposition from entrenched Army leadership. Round one just ended; the new Army Secretary is the old Secretary of the Air Force and a Navy veteran. Next will be General Shinseki's replacement as the new Army Chief of Staff. Let's wish the Army well in its transition...
Ironic isn't it? Maybe, just maybe we actually were there to protect them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.