Gates: NATO Has Become Two-tiered Alliance

BRUSSELS, June 10, 2011 — NATO has turned into a two-tiered alliance of mem­bers who con­sume secu­ri­ty and those who pro­duce it, Defense Sec­re­tary Robert M. Gates said here today.
Gates spoke to NATO’s Secu­ri­ty and Defense Agen­da assem­bly the day after a meet­ing of the alliance’s defense min­is­ters con­clud­ed.

“In the past, I’ve wor­ried open­ly about NATO turn­ing into a two-tiered alliance between mem­bers who spe­cial­ize in ’soft’ human­i­tar­i­an, devel­op­ment, peace­keep­ing and talk­ing tasks and those con­duct­ing the ‘hard’ com­bat mis­sions — between those will­ing and able to pay the price and bear the bur­dens of alliance com­mit­ments, and those who enjoy the ben­e­fits of NATO mem­ber­ship, be they secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees or head­quar­ters bil­lets, but don’t want to share the risks and the costs,” the sec­re­tary said. 

“This is no longer a hypo­thet­i­cal wor­ry,” he added. “We are there today. And it is unacceptable.” 

To be sure, Gates said, NATO is heav­i­ly involved in Afghanistan, and the troops assigned to the NATO-led Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty Assis­tance Force are acquit­ting them­selves well. 

“Con­sid­er that when I became sec­re­tary of defense, there were about 20,000 non‑U.S. troops from NATO nations in Afghanistan,” Gates said. “Today, that fig­ure is approx­i­mate­ly 40,000. More than 850 troops from non‑U.S. NATO mem­bers have made the ulti­mate sac­ri­fice in Afghanistan. For many allied nations, these were the first mil­i­tary casu­al­ties they have tak­en since the Sec­ond World War.” 

NATO took over ISAF four years ago, Gates not­ed, adding that he nev­er would have expect­ed the alliance to sus­tain this oper­a­tion for this long, much less add sig­nif­i­cant­ly more forces in 2010. 

“It is a cred­it to the brave ISAF troops on the ground, as well as to the allied gov­ern­ments who have made the case for the Afghanistan mis­sion under dif­fi­cult polit­i­cal cir­cum­stances at home,” the sec­re­tary said. 

The coali­tion forces in Afghanistan now include 100,000 Amer­i­can ser­vice mem­bers who pro­vide need­ed resources for a war that had been chron­i­cal­ly under­fund­ed due to oper­a­tions in Iraq, Gates said. “These new resources – com­bined with a new strat­e­gy – have deci­sive­ly changed the mil­i­tary momen­tum on the ground, with the Tal­iban eject­ed from their for­mer strong­holds,” he added. 

But noth­ing remains sta­t­ic, he told the assem­bly, and as part of the plan to turn secu­ri­ty con­trol over to the Afghan gov­ern­ment by the end of 2014, Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma soon will announce the size and pac­ing of the U.S. troop draw­down begin­ning in July. No mat­ter what it is, Gates said, there will be no rush to the exits. 

“The vast major­i­ty of the surge forces that arrived over the past two years will remain through the sum­mer fight­ing sea­son,” he said. “We will also reas­sign many troops from areas trans­ferred to Afghan con­trol into less-secure provinces and districts.” 

The Tal­iban will attempt to coun­ter­at­tack, he said, but they will lose. And keep­ing the pres­sure on them will cre­ate a chance to bol­ster mil­i­tary suc­cess with gov­ern­men­tal and eco­nom­ic suc­cess, he added. 

“Giv­en what I have heard and seen – not just in my recent vis­it to Afghanistan, but over the past two years – I believe these gains can take root and be sus­tained over time with prop­er allied sup­port,” the sec­re­tary said. “Far too much has been accom­plished, at far too great a cost, to let the momen­tum slip away just as the ene­my is on his back foot.” 

NATO can­not afford some troop-con­tribut­ing nations to pull out their forces on their own time­line in a way that under­mines the mis­sion and increas­es risks to oth­er allies, Gates said. 

“The way ahead in Afghanistan is ‘in togeth­er, out togeth­er,’ ” he said. “Then our troops can come home to the hon­or and appre­ci­a­tion they so rich­ly deserve, and the transat­lantic alliance will have passed its first major test of the 21st century.” 

But NATO oper­a­tions in Afghanistan have exposed seri­ous alliance short­com­ings in mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties and in polit­i­cal will, Gates said. “Despite more than 2 mil­lion troops in uni­form – not count­ing the U.S. mil­i­tary – NATO has strug­gled, at times des­per­ate­ly, to sus­tain a deploy­ment of 25,000 to 45,000 troops — not just in boots on the ground, but in cru­cial sup­port assets such as heli­copters; trans­port air­craft; main­te­nance; intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance and recon­nais­sance; and much more,” he said. 

The NATO oper­a­tion over Libya shows an even greater lack of resources and will, Gates said. Oper­a­tion Uni­fied Pro­tec­tor, he not­ed, is a sea-air cam­paign essen­tial­ly in Europe’s back­yard. The mis­sion has wide­spread polit­i­cal sup­port, does­n’t require ground troops under fire and is vital to Europe’s nation­al inter­ests, he added. 

The mis­sion set out by the Unit­ed Nations has suc­ceed­ed, Gates said, ground­ing Moam­mar Gadhafi’s air force and degrad­ing his regime’s abil­i­ty to kill his own people. 

“While the oper­a­tion has exposed some short­com­ings caused by under­fund­ing,” the sec­re­tary said, “it has also showed the poten­tial of NATO, with an oper­a­tion where Euro­peans are tak­ing the lead with Amer­i­can support. 

“How­ev­er, while every alliance mem­ber vot­ed for the Libya mis­sion, less than half have par­tic­i­pat­ed, and few­er than a third have been will­ing to par­tic­i­pate in the strike mis­sion,” he con­tin­ued. “Frankly, many of those allies sit­ting on the side­lines do so not because they do not want to par­tic­i­pate, but sim­ply because they can’t. The mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties sim­ply aren’t there.” 

Allies do not have intel­li­gence, sur­veil­lance, and recon­nais­sance assets that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact, Gates said. To run the air cam­paign, the NATO air oper­a­tions cen­ter in Italy required a major aug­men­ta­tion of tar­get­ing spe­cial­ists, main­ly from the Unit­ed States, to do the job – a “just in time” infu­sion of per­son­nel that may not always be avail­able in future con­tin­gen­cies, the sec­re­tary said. 

“We have the spec­ta­cle of an air oper­a­tions cen­ter designed to han­dle more than 300 sor­ties a day strug­gling to launch about 150,” he said. “Fur­ther­more, the might­i­est mil­i­tary alliance in his­to­ry is only 11 weeks into an oper­a­tion against a poor­ly armed regime in a sparse­ly pop­u­lat­ed coun­try – yet many allies are begin­ning to run short of muni­tions, requir­ing the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.” 

Part of this predica­ment stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of aus­ter­i­ty, Gates said. For all but a hand­ful of allies, defense bud­gets – in absolute terms, as a share of eco­nom­ic out­put – have been chron­i­cal­ly starved for ade­quate fund­ing for a long time, with the short­falls com­pound­ing on them­selves each year, he added. 

Despite the demands of mis­sion in Afghanistan — NATO’s first “hot” ground war — total Euro­pean defense spend­ing has declined by near­ly 15 per­cent over the last 10 years, the sec­re­tary said. Fur­ther­more, he added, ris­ing per­son­nel costs, com­bined with the demands of train­ing and equip­ping for Afghan deploy­ments, has con­sumed an ever-grow­ing share of already mea­ger defense budgets. 

This means mod­ern­iza­tion and improv­ing capa­bil­i­ties are being squeezed out, as the world sees today over Libya, he said. 

“I am the lat­est in a string of U.S. defense sec­re­taries who have urged allies pri­vate­ly and pub­licly, often with exas­per­a­tion, to meet agreed-upon NATO bench­marks for defense spend­ing,” Gates said. “How­ev­er, fis­cal, polit­i­cal and demo­graph­ic real­i­ties make this unlike­ly to hap­pen any time soon, as even mil­i­tary stal­warts like the [Unit­ed King­dom] have been forced to ratch­et back with major cuts to force structure.” 

Today, just five of the 28 NATO allies – the Unit­ed States, the Unit­ed King­dom, France, Greece and Alba­nia – exceed the agreed-upon 2 per­cent of gross domes­tic prod­uct spend­ing on defense. And that prob­a­bly won’t change, Gates said. 

“The rel­e­vant chal­lenge for us today, there­fore, is no longer the total lev­el of defense spend­ing by allies, but how these lim­it­ed – and dwin­dling – resources are allo­cat­ed, and for what pri­or­i­ties,” he said. “For exam­ple, though some small­er NATO mem­bers have mod­est­ly sized and fund­ed mil­i­taries that do not meet the 2 per­cent thresh­old, sev­er­al of these allies have man­aged to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.” 

For exam­ple, he said, Nor­way and Den­mark have pro­vid­ed 12 per­cent of allied strike air­craft in the Libya oper­a­tion, yet have struck about one-third of the tar­gets, and Bel­gium and Cana­da also are mak­ing major con­tri­bu­tions to the strike mission. 

“These coun­tries have, with their con­strained resources, found ways to do the train­ing, buy the equip­ment and field the plat­forms nec­es­sary to make a cred­i­ble mil­i­tary con­tri­bu­tion,” Gates said. 

But they are the excep­tions, he added, as too many allies have been unwill­ing to fun­da­men­tal­ly change how they set pri­or­i­ties and allo­cate resources. 

“The non‑U.S. NATO mem­bers col­lec­tive­ly spend more than 300 bil­lion U.S. dol­lars on defense annu­al­ly, which, if allo­cat­ed wise­ly and strate­gi­cal­ly, could buy a sig­nif­i­cant amount of usable mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ty,” Gates said. “Instead, the results are sig­nif­i­cant­ly less than the sum of the parts.” 

This, he added, not only has short­changed cur­rent oper­a­tions, but also bodes ill for ensur­ing NATO has the key com­mon alliance capa­bil­i­ties of the future. Mem­ber states, he added, must look at new ways to boost com­bat capabilities. 

“While it is clear NATO mem­bers should do more to pool mil­i­tary assets, such ‘Smart Defense’ ini­tia­tives are not a panacea,” he said. “In the final analy­sis, there is no sub­sti­tute for nations pro­vid­ing the resources nec­es­sary to have the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ty the alliance needs when faced with a secu­ri­ty chal­lenge. Ulti­mate­ly, nations must be respon­si­ble for their fair share of the com­mon defense.” 

All this must be seen in the con­text of the polit­i­cal world in which NATO oper­ates, Gates said. 

“As you all know, America’s seri­ous fis­cal sit­u­a­tion is now putting pres­sure on our defense bud­get, and we are in a process of assess­ing where the U.S. can or can­not accept more risk as a result of reduc­ing the size of our mil­i­tary,” the sec­re­tary said. “Tough choic­es lie ahead affect­ing every part of our gov­ern­ment, and dur­ing such times, scruti­ny inevitably falls on the cost of over­seas com­mit­ments – from for­eign assis­tance to mil­i­tary bas­ing, sup­port and guarantees.” 

Gates said he and Oba­ma believe it would be a grave mis­take for the Unit­ed States to with­draw from its glob­al respon­si­bil­i­ties, not­ing that he dis­cussed expand­ing U.S. engage­ments in Asia last week at a region­al secu­ri­ty con­fer­ence in Singapore. 

“With respect to Europe, for the bet­ter part of six decades there has been rel­a­tive­ly lit­tle doubt or debate in the Unit­ed States about the val­ue and neces­si­ty of the transat­lantic alliance,” Gates said. “The ben­e­fits of a Europe [that is] whole, pros­per­ous and free after being twice dev­as­tat­ed by wars requir­ing Amer­i­can inter­ven­tion was self-evident.” 

For most of the Cold War, U.S. gov­ern­ments of both par­ties jus­ti­fied defense invest­ments and cost­ly for­ward bases that made up rough­ly 50 per­cent of all NATO mil­i­tary spend­ing, the sec­re­tary said. “But some two decades after the col­lapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spend­ing has risen to more than 75 per­cent – at a time when polit­i­cal­ly painful bud­get and ben­e­fit cuts are being con­sid­ered at home,” he said. 

“The blunt real­i­ty,” he con­tin­ued, “is that there will be dwin­dling appetite and patience in the U.S. Con­gress – and in the Amer­i­can body politic writ large – to expend increas­ing­ly pre­cious funds on behalf of nations that are appar­ent­ly unwill­ing to devote the nec­es­sary resources or make the nec­es­sary changes to be seri­ous and capa­ble part­ners in their own defense — nations appar­ent­ly will­ing and eager for Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers to assume the grow­ing secu­ri­ty bur­den left by reduc­tions in Euro­pean defense budgets.” 

But NATO can recov­er, Gates said. 

“The mem­bers of NATO – indi­vid­u­al­ly, and col­lec­tive­ly – have it well with­in their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead pro­duce a very dif­fer­ent future,” he told the assem­bly. Gov­ern­ments need to take seri­ous steps to pro­tect defense bud­gets from being fur­ther gut­ted in the next round of aus­ter­i­ty mea­sures, he said, and they need to allo­cate and coor­di­nate the resources they have and fol­low through on com­mit­ments to the alliance and one another. 

“It is not too late for Europe to get its defense insti­tu­tions and secu­ri­ty rela­tion­ships on track,” Gates said. “But it will take lead­er­ship from polit­i­cal lead­ers and pol­i­cy mak­ers on this con­ti­nent. It can­not be coaxed, demand­ed or imposed from across the Atlantic. 

“Over the life of the transat­lantic alliance, there has been no short­age of squab­bles and set­backs,” he con­tin­ued. “But through it all, we man­aged to get the big things right over time. We came togeth­er to make the tough deci­sions in the face of dis­sen­sion at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowl­edge that we can do so again.” 

The secretary’s speech was the last event on a trip that took him to Sin­ga­pore, Afghanistan and the NATO meet­ing — his last for­eign trip before his June 30 retirement. 

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs) 

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twitter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →