|
16 August 2010 By Rick Rozoff A North Atlantic Treaty Organization website
recently posted an article by the commander of the
NATO Training Mission – Iraq, American Lieutenant
General Michael Barbero, entitled “NATO Training
Mission – Iraq: Tactical Size…Strategic Impact” which
reflected on the six-year-old but little known role of
the Western military bloc in the Middle Eastern
nation. Barbero, who is simultaneously Deputy Commanding
General for Advising and Training, United States
Forces – Iraq, stated that “NATO has made an important
commitment to Iraq….Government leaders readily
recognize the contribution of NATO Training
Mission-Iraq’s (NTM-I) to its security and they have
expressed a strong desire to continue this
relationship into the future. [C]onditions are set for
a long-term relationship between Iraq and the
Alliance.” [1] He reminded his readers that the NTM-I was
established by a decision made at the 2004 NATO summit
in Istanbul, Turkey, which also formalized the largest
expansion of the military bloc in its now 61-year
history, with seven Eastern European states –
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia – absorbed into the U.S.-led
alliance. Six of those nations had been in the Warsaw
Pact, three of those were former Soviet republics, and
the seventh country had been a republic of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The last
four mentioned were the first countries in either
category to join NATO. The 2004 summit also launched the eponymous
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative to qualitatively
advance NATO’s role in the Middle East and North
Africa through an upgrading of the Mediterranean
Dialogue military partnership with Algeria, Egypt,
Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia, and
an analogous relationship with the members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council, consisting of Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates. All but Oman and Saudi Arabia to date have
entered into bilateral partnerships with NATO and
hosted its officials and warships. The deployments in the Persian Gulf supplement U.S.
efforts to contain, challenge and confront Iran. The NATO Training Mission – Iraq was inaugurated
less than six months after the Istanbul summit, in
December of 2008, and its first commander was then
Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who subsequently
became head of U.S. Central Command and is now in
command of 150,000 American and NATO troops in
Afghanistan. He was already the commander of the
Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq when
he also took over the NATO role. At the time it was announced that “NATO is working
with the Iraqi government on a structured cooperation
framework to develop the Alliance’s long-term
relationship with Iraq.” [2] Only 20 days after the U.S. and Britain began the
so-called Operation Iraqi Freedom war against Iraq, an
article by Philip H. Gordon, then Senior Fellow at the
Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution and since
last May the Barack Obama administration’s Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
appeared on the Brookings website called “Give NATO a
Role in Post-war Iraq.” Adopting a tone of false familiarity and
insouciance, he queried: “Wouldn’t it be nice…if we
had at our disposal a multilateral organization to
which we could turn for help, a body more effective
and efficient than the UN but that would still confer
legitimacy on the operation and help spread some of
the costs? Imagine, in fact, a grouping composed of
over two dozen democracies, including our most
prosperous European allies, that had interoperable
military forces, experience with peacekeeping and
disarmament tasks, an available pool of troops, and
existing command arrangements.” The question was rhetorical, a leading one to set
up an already prepared response: “If such an
organization did not exist, we would certainly want to
invent it. “Fortunately, such an organization does exist. NATO
has all these attributes and there would be many
advantages to giving it a key role in post-war Iraq.
First, nowhere else is there a large group of
available and experienced peacekeepers who could
gradually replace the thousands of exhausted American
and British soldiers currently deployed in Iraq. “Fresh troops will have to come from somewhere, and
no organization is better placed to provide them than
NATO.” [3] Gordon, who in the interim has mainly distinguished
himself by abrasively taunting Russia on several
scores, was already – as American and British troops
were still pouring into Iraq – speaking on behalf of
the more strategically forward-thinking members of the
U.S. foreign policy elite planning to move on from
Iraq to other deployments and war fronts. He was also preparing the groundwork for the
transition to a post-George W. Bush administration,
one which has appointed him to a critically important
post, in regard to restoring, solidifying and
strengthening a unified Western – U.S., NATO and
European Union – alliance for global dominance. [4] Gordon, for example, advocated the following: “Involving NATO in post-war Iraq would also help to
legitimize the reconstruction process in the eyes of
many around the world — making a UN mandate more
likely and clearing the way for EU reconstruction
funds. “Giving a role to NATO — some of whose members have
recently proven their willingness to stand up to
Washington — would prove that Iraq was not a mere
American protectorate, while still giving us
confidence that security would be ensured. “Getting NATO involved in Iraq would not only help
share the burden of what could be a difficult and
costly occupation, but it could be a first step toward
repairing a vital transatlantic relationship currently
in tatters.” [5] In January of 2004, Senator Chuck Hagel, who though
a Republican was one of the first major U.S. officials
to sense the debacle that the Iraq war had become, had
an article posted on the website of the U.S. Mission
to NATO which stated: “The strategic focus of NATO’s efforts in the first
half of the 21st Century will be the Greater Middle
East, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Mediterranean, and the
Israeli-Palestinian issue. The shifting dynamics of
history in this new century have settled the ‘out of
area’ debate for NATO. NATO has recognized this
reality with its presence in Afghanistan….NATO will
need to play a significant role in helping bring
security and stability to Iraq. “Last year, NATO committed to providing force
generation, communication, logistics, and movement
support for Polish forces in Iraq. That’s a good
start. However, NATO should initiate discussions to
take over the duties of the Polish sector in central
Iraq, or possibly assume responsibility for a division
in northern Iraq. I am encouraged by German Chancellor
Schroeder telling the German parliament last week that
his government could support the deployment of NATO
troops to Iraq.” [6] Four months after retiring from the Senate last
year Hagel became chairman of the main American
organization promoting NATO expansion, the Atlantic
Council. [7] A think tank piece appeared in 2008 advocating the
same posture toward NATO’s role in Iraq. An
abbreviated version of a presentation delivered at the
(pause for breath) 2008 annual conference of the
International Security Studies Section of the
International Studies Association and the
International Security and Arms Control Section of the
American Political Science Association (ISAC-ISSS) by
David Capezza of the Center for a New American
Security appeared on the website of the Atlantic
Council. The original piece was titled “NATO Training
Mission – Iraq: The Broader Picture for NATO’s
Future,” and included these observations and
recommendations: “Today all twenty-six NATO members provide funding
for NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) and sixteen
countries are providing staffing for the mission.
Since its inception, this out-of-area mission has
challenged the conventional wisdom about the future
purpose of NATO, demonstrating that the alliance can
remain a relevant actor in the European and
international security environments. “NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) represents a
model for how NATO can help perform successful
European Security and Defense Policy missions;
modernize member state forces and work interoperably;
support the United States…and work in the absence of
member-state consensus….The mission in Iraq also
provides NATO with a framework for future missions.”
[8] In fact NATO’s involvement in Iraq is more
extensive and of longer duration than most people
suspect. Twenty years ago, on December 17, 1990, U.S.
Secretary of State James Baker met with fellow NATO
foreign ministers in Brussels and his colleagues
agreed “to support the use of force in the Persian
Gulf even if Saddam Hussein begins to pull his troops
out of Kuwait.” A joint communique obligated all 16 NATO member
states at the time “to the best of our ability…provide
further support” for the war which would begin a month
later. [9] Major NATO partners assisted Washington in its
first war against Iraq, Operation Desert Storm, in
1991. Britain supplied 43,000 troops, 69 warplanes and
2,500 armored vehicles. France provided 18,000 troops
and 42 warplanes and Canada deployed 24 and Italy 8
aircraft. Belgium, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal and Spain also volunteered military
forces. In all, three-quarters of the bloc’s members
of the time. Although NATO did not formally endorse the second
war against Iraq in 2003, in February and early March
the military bloc deployed Airborne Early Warning and
Command System aircraft (AWACS) from Germany and three
Patriot missile batteries from the Netherlands to
Turkey. Also, “Preparations were made to augment Turkey’s
air defence assets with additional aircraft from other
NATO countries.” [10] The U.S. and British “coalition of the willing”
that provided troops for the subsequent occupation of
Iraq was overwhelmingly composed of nations that had
recently joined NATO, the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Poland; those that would join the following year,
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia; ones that would be rewarded
with full membership in 2009, Albania and Croatia; and
candidates for the next round of expansion, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova and
Ukraine. With the fall of Baghdad, Iraq was carved up into
four zones, with at the time new NATO member Poland
put in charge of the South Central sector with control
over 65,000 square kilometers and five million Iraqis.
The Polish military ran the Multinational Division
Central-South with troops from Armenia, Bosnia,
Denmark, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania,
Mongolia, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine and the
U.S. under its command. In May of 2003 the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s
main governing body, authorized support for the Polish
operation “including force generation, communications,
logistics and movements.” [11] (From a NATO document,
repeated verbatim by Senator Chuck Hagel above.) Iraq was the war zone baptism of fire for new and
prospective NATO members from Eastern Europe, the
South Caucasus and Central Asia. Nine of the troop
contributing nations joined NATO in the interim. In December of 2008 most of the 16 above-mentioned
former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslav states began the
redeployment of their troops from Iraq to Afghanistan
where they remain. In September of 2009 the NATO Training Mission –
Iraq opened its new headquarters in Operating Base
Union III in the International Zone in the nation’s
capital, which is now called NATO Headquarters
Baghdad. Attending the ceremony marking the new site
and expanded role were U.S. Army Lieutenant General
Frank Helmick, commanding general for NATO Training
Mission-Iraq, his deputy commanding general, Italian
Major General Giuseppe Spinelli, and U.S. Admiral Mark
Fitzgerald, commander of NATO Allied Joint Force
Command in Naples. The pledge of six years ago to continue “the
Alliance’s long-term relationship with Iraq” was not a
vain one. In recent months NATO has not been idle in the
nation bordering Iran and Syria. This April the deputy commander of NATO Training
Mission – Iraq, Major General Giuseppe Spinelli, gave
an address at the Ar-Rustamiyah Joint Staff and
Command College in Baghdad at a ceremony for 16 Iraqi
officers graduating from Brigade Command and Battalion
Command courses conducted by NATO personnel. In the
same month the Italian ambassador to Iraq, Maurizio
Melani, gave a lecture at the NATO training mission at
the Iraqi National Defense College (NDC) – which NATO
launched in 2006 – and “inaugurated a cycle of
conferences that will be held by Ambassadors of NATO
nations, in the framework of the NTM-I initiative to
support the Iraqi NDC.” [12] In May NATO’s Military Committee held a meeting in
Brussels of 49 Chiefs of Defense from NATO and Partner
nations (over a quarter of the countries in the world)
which included the participation of NATO’s two top
military commanders, Supreme Allied Commander Europe
Admiral James Stavridis and Supreme Allied Commander
Transformation General Stephane Abrial. A NATO
statement on the meeting revealed: “Concerning NATO’s
Training Mission in Iraq (NTM-I), important
achievements have been made, particularly in the
establishment of the Iraqi Federal Police. “There is, however, a continuing need for
contributions from NATO nations in terms of resources
and expertise, in support of Iraq’s Security Forces,
which will contribute to regional stability.” [13] Last month Major General Claudio Angelelli, who
replaced his countryman Spinelli as NTM-I deputy
commander on June 10, “presented NATO Medals for
personnel leaving the NATO training mission during a
parade at Forward Operational Base in Ar Rustamyah,”
and discussed future military cooperation with Iraqi
General Salim Jasim Hussain, commander of the National
Defense College, and Brigadier General Sabeeh Bahool
Atti, commander of the Iraqi Military Academy Ar
Rustamyah. It was reported at the time that “the
Military Academy Ar Rustamyah is hosting the 101 Basic
Officer Cadets Course consisting of 319 cadets from
the Army and 265 from the Air Force of which 140 are
pilots.” [14] Also in July the NTM-I supervised the sixth Senior
Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Course held at the
Infantry NCO School in Taji, Iraq. “The course has
recently been revamped. NTM-I officers, together with
the Infantry NCO School’s leadership modernized the
previous programs creating a single standardized
curriculum for the IAF [Iraqi Armed Forces] troops.”
[15] On July 12 NATO Training Mission – Iraq sponsored a
week-long visit by a delegation from the U.S. Army War
College to the Iraqi War College. “The two military
colleges, which are considered gateways for officers
destined for senior positions, are seeking to build a
mutually supporting and enduring relationship that
will continue beyond 2011.” [16] NATO Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero
and Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qader Mohammad Jassim
Al-Mafrji “signed an agreement between the Government
of the Republic of Iraq and NATO regarding the
training of Iraqi Security Forces” on July 26. “The
agreement will provide the legal basis for NATO to
continue with its mission to assist the Government of
the Republic of Iraq in developing further the
capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces.” [17] A delegation from the NATO Defense College arrived
at the National Defense College in Baghdad on July 28
to conduct the first ever crisis management exercise
with senior Iraqi leaders. On August 2 leaders of NATO Training Mission – Iraq
and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense conducted the third
Committee for the Future Training meeting at Forward
Operating Base Union III, and NTM-I Deputy Commander
Major General Claudio Angelelli “offered three NATO
schools Iraqis could attend using NATO funds.”
Lieutenant General Hussain Jassim Salim Dohi, Iraqi
deputy chief of staff, said on the occasion that “We
appreciate NATO support and would like to continue our
collaboration on this important topic.” [18] The following day senior military leaders from NATO
Training Mission – Iraq and United States Forces –
Iraq met “to discuss Iraqi military doctrine at the
Iraqi Military Doctrine Conference in Baghdad,” which
would “enable the Iraqi Armed Forces to develop and
deliver a doctrine that will endure beyond 2011.”
Iraqi General Babakir Badir-Khan stated, “With [the]
significant support of our NATO partners, we have
provided the tools necessary for Iraq to defend itself
in the face [of] external aggression.” NTM-I commander Lieutenant General Barbero was even
more explicit, saying “As we approach 2011, and the
focus for the Armed Forces switches from internal
security to external defense, it is necessary to
review…conventional capabilities and determine how to
employ them in the event of external aggression.” [19] Iraq borders six nations: Iran, Jordan, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, Syria and NATO member Turkey. Barbero
was not alluding to Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
Turkey. In his article quoted from earlier, Barbero
repeatedly made the same point, stating: “The Mission [NTM-I] influences professional
institutions of the Iraqi Security Forces to build
enduring, sustainable capabilities, working directly
with partners in the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and
Interior to build capabilities that provide internal
security and build a foundation to defend against
external threats. [It conducts] training and education
which includes officer training activities,
professional development at the Non-Commissioned
Officer Academy, doctrine development as well as the
coordination of out-of-country training.” “It is important to note that regenerating capacity
to educate and train officers started on the ground
floor, completely rebuilding these institutions and
courses.” “NATO advisors and mentors are shaping the future
leadership of the Iraqi Army, at all levels, from the
Basic Officer Commissioning Course, to the Joint Staff
and Command College, the Iraqi War College, and the
Iraqi National Defence College.” “Complementing institutional education is the NTM-I
role in the development of Iraqi military doctrine.
The development of doctrine is essential as the Iraqi
Security Forces become a modern force capable of
defending Iraqi sovereignty. An equally important
program supporting this line of activity is NATO
Out-of-Country Training. In 2010 to date some 300
Iraqis have attended specialized training abroad in
NATO schools. An additional 300 in have attended
courses in counter-terrorism at NATO Centres of
Excellence in Turkey.” He also spoke of “Operations Centres in Baghdad
where embedded NTM-I advisors mentor personnel at the
Prime Minister’s Operation Centre, Ministry of Defense
Joint Operations Centre, and Ministry of Interior
National Operations Centre” and of NATO’s development
of Iraq’s internal security apparatus: The Western military bloc “directly supports
professionalism of the Iraqi Federal Police Forces.
Recognized as NATO’s flagship program, this
Carabinieri-led training has produced a dramatic
transformation in the Iraqi Federal Police, formerly
the National Police….The Carabinieri training is a
prime example of how NATO training activities
contribute to the professionalization of the Iraqi
Security Forces at multiple levels. “The proposed Spanish Guardia Civil training
program meets a critical Iraq requirement for border
security and planning is underway to improve training
for the Oil Police.” In a section titled “Post-2011 Iraq-NATO
Relationship – Supporting the New Strategic Concept,”
the general elaborated the role of Iraq in the
Alliance’s 21st century global ambitions: “NATO has successfully fulfilled it commitment, and
the contributions of NTM-I have opened new doors for
greater cooperation and regional stability. The
positive reputation enjoyed by NATO in Iraq, and the
region, presents a strategic opportunity. Senior
leaders in the Government of Iraq have indicated a
desire for a long-term relationship with NATO. This is
an opportunity the Alliance must seize. The Alliance
should start the dialogue now to extend the mandate of
current NTM-I charter beyond 2011 and also begin
discussions to frame a follow on long-term agreement
that links NATO with Iraq well into the future. “The continuing relationship between NATO and Iraq
through NTM-I, and its evolution into a Structured
Cooperation Framework, is a model of the potential for
NATO operations out-of-area under the New Strategic
Concept currently being developed by the
Alliance….Looking forward, NATO has a ‘once in a
lifetime’ Strategic Opportunity to build an enduring
relationship with a democratic state in a critical
region.” [20] NATO will remain in Iraq when – or if – the last
American soldier departs. NATO is assisting the Pentagon in building a new
army in the most populous Arab nation outside Africa.
The military structure of the country was dismantled –
hundreds of thousands of troops were abruptly
demobilized and the officer corps purged – and rebuilt
from the top down by the U.S. after the 2003 invasion,
with its commanders trained by the U.S. and NATO at
home and in Alliance nations. The first fully
American-created armed forces in the Middle East. As
during the Cold War, the U.S. controls the national
army by training its officers and equipping and
instructing its troops. The U.S.’s building of what will be one of the
major military powers in the Middle East,
concentrating less on domestic security – assuming the
fratricidal bloodbath triggered by the U.S. invasion
ever subsides – and more on regional geopolitics, is
part of a broader Pentagon strategy aimed in the first
instance against Iran. That strategy also includes a proposed $60 billion
arms sale to Saudi Arabia for 84 F-15 jet fighters,
warships, helicopters and interceptor missile systems.
A recent Wall Street Journal article on the weapons
package placed it in the following context: “The
administration has championed advanced weapons sales
to Gulf states as a way to check Iranian power. In
addition to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. has moved to sell
arms to the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf
states, as well as support on a smaller scale [for]
the Lebanese army and Palestinian security forces in
the West Bank.” [21] The figure of $60 billion is from a Bloomberg News
report of August 12, “according to a government
official familiar with the plan,” and is larger than
total Russian military spending last year, by way of
providing a sense of its magnitude. In late July Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Alexander Vershbow, “a main
adviser to Defence Secretary Robert Gates on US
security and defence policies in the Middle East,” was
in Lebanon where he “discussed US military aid to
Lebanon which in recent years totalled more than 500
million dollars.” [22] Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer
of 2006, the U.S. has provided the nation’s military
with far more than the half billion dollars mentioned
above. U.S. Congressman Eric Cantor, the number two
Republican in the House of Representatives, recently
stated that the Pentagon had provided the Lebanese
Armed Forces with $720 million in military aid since
2006 “to build up a Lebanese fighting force that would
serve as a check on the growing power of the radical
Islamist Hezbollah movement.” [23] If in the case of
Iraq the U.S. and NATO are building a national army
out of whole cloth, with Lebanon they have attempted
to purchase one. After the 2006 war, NATO states deployed over 8,000
troops to patrol Lebanon’s border with Syria, to
protect Israel along its border with southern Lebanon,
and to enforce a naval blockade of Lebanon’s
Mediterranean coast under an expanded United Nations
Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate, which also
includes a new Maritime Task Force with warships from
Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Greece and
Bulgaria. The Maritime Task Force is in truth an
extension of NATO’s nine-year-old Operation Active
Endeavor naval surveillance and interdiction
deployment throughout the Mediterranean Sea. It also represents “the first military deployment
by Germany in the Middle East since World War II” [24]
and “its biggest naval operation since World War II.”
[25] In addition to the $60 billion dollar weapons sale
to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. is arming another of Iran’s
Persian Gulf neighbors, Kuwait, to the teeth. It was announced this week that Washington plans to
transfer 209 advanced interceptor missiles – MIM-104E
Patriot Guidance Enhanced Missile-T Missiles – to
Kuwait in a $900 million deal that, according to the
U.S., would “contribute to the foreign policy and
national security of the United States by helping to
improve the security of a major non-NATO ally….” [26] A BBC News report added that “US officials say
Patriot batteries also have been stationed in Qatar,
the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.” [27] The encirclement, in fact the siege, of Iran
continues apace and Iraq, which shares with it a
1,458-kilometer border, is slated to play a major role
in plans to isolate, undermine and attack Iran,
replicating the model used with devastating effect
against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq itself. NATO is actively assisting the U.S. and Israel with
those war plans. 1) NATO Training Mission – Iraq http://www.nhqs.nato.int/ntmi/
articles/2010/article_33_10.html 2) North Atlantic Treaty Organization http://www.nato.int/cps/ en/natolive/topics_51978.htm 3) Brookings Institution, April 10, 2003 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/../
eu-nato-us-21st-century-alliance-for-global-domination 5) Brookings Institution, April 10, 2003 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/../
atlantic-council-securing-the-21st-century-for-nato 8) New Atlanticist/Atlantic Council October 28,
2008 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51977.htm 11) North Atlantic Treaty Organization http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-E4764647-
8CED4762/natolive/topics_51977.htm 12) NATO Training Mission – Iraq, April 15, 2010 http://www.nhqs.nato.int/ntmi/articles/2010/article_32_10.html 20) NATO Training Mission – Iraq http://www.nhqs.nato.int/ntmi/articles/2010/article_33_10.html 21) Wall Street Journal, August 9, 2010 |
Add Comments