Wednesday, March 25, 2015

When leading from behind is a good thing

Fiscal pressures mandate a defense strategy that accounts for the requisite resources to execute it. Accordingly, it is a propitious time to revisit our NATO commitments. Recently, European President Jean-Claude Juncker called for the formation of a 'European Army' in response to the amplified Russian threat to member states.  Others have called for a consolidated EU Air Force because of the evident benefits of pooling large investments in procurement, operation, and sustainment. Operation Atalanta comprised of EU naval forces which deter acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast has been an undeniable success, but making this European naval force even more remarkable is the juxtaposition with NATO maritime forces
conducting related Operation Ocean Shield counter-piracy operations. Furthermore, both NATO and EU maritime forces operate with Combined Task Force 151 which is the US led multinational counter piracy naval task force. Participating countries are compelled to calibrate their level of commitment to these maritime forces notwithstanding national tasking. It is worth noting that nontraditional partners like Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and even China have joined the counter piracy operations.  Cynics might argue that the rush to join in counter piracy is because piracy is an easy target with an adversary that poses no realistic threat to coalition forces.  By any measure, a sophisticated multi-million dollar ship chasing an outboard powered skiff does not make a lot of sense. The point is that the EU maritime forces are extremely capable and are effectively interchangeable with their counterpart maritime forces.  From the standpoint of command and control, NATO and EU maritime forces enjoy a close relationship to the point where their respective operations centers are collocated.  It would seem to be a no brainer to advance this proof of concept to the next level, and have the EU maritime forces supplant NATO’s.   There are at least three unquestionable benefits: (1) unity of effort, (2) fiscal efficiencies and (3) consistency with US strategy. 
(1) Because the same forces and capabilities form the basis of both EU and NATO defense efforts ("separable, but not separate”), current doctrine  espouses no duplication of what was done effectively under NATO, no decoupling from the US and NATO, and no discrimination against non-EU members such as Turkey. While for the most part, this approach has been successful, there is no doubt that there is duplication of effort (e.g. counter piracy) resulting in separate chains of command that may or may not be aligned.  Consolidating these operations would be of obvious benefit to the unity of effort.  

(2) The drumbeat to rebalance our contribution to NATO was initially sounded by Secretary Gates who famously warned that the alliance risked “a collective military irrelevance” if it continued to rely on the generosity of the US taxpayer which according to NATO’s 2013 annual report was about  73 percent of the alliance’s defense expenditures. Worse is while the US contribution has been increasing our European partners are shrinking their investment.  Secretary Hegel has warned that if the Europeans do not invest in their security, the US will rebalance to partners that share the burden more equitably.  Shifting the cost of mutual security from NATO to the EU, would make the EU responsible for enforcing compliance with contribution guidelines (at least 2% of GDP). The raison d'ĂȘtre for EU defense forces is independence from US control. Now is an opportune occasion for the EU to pick up the slack. Obviously, this transition will need to be a phased approach, maybe taking as long as ten years.  
(3)  US naval strategy has for some time been shifting to an emphasis on promoting and supporting global maritime partnerships. Recently the commander of US naval forces in the Pacific signaled a willingness to support a combined ASEAN maritime patrol in the South China Sea should ASEAN members take the lead. With the stark recognition that the US cannot do it alone, the US must increase its reliance on maritime partnerships. Consistent with these realities, our strategy should include charting a course for consolidating EU and NATO efforts. 

2 comments:

Edgar Bates said...

Interesting article in today's WaPo underscores the need to reevaluate the US contribution to NATO.
According to a recent Pew survey fewer than half of Western European citizens support using military force to defend NATO allies from Russia. To no one's surprise the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan called International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was often known as I Saw America Fight, but now it appears the rest of NATO is inclined to let the US shoulder the responsibility for European security. The US needs to start winding down our NATO participation.

Edgar Bates said...

Here is a link to the Pew survey mentioned in the previous comment. http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/nato-publics-blame-russia-for-ukrainian-crisis-but-reluctant-to-provide-military-aid/

Also, as reported in today's Washington Examiner, "Before us is emerging one of the premiere strategic challenges of the post-Cold War period," said retired Marine Gen. James Jones, a former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe who also served as White House national security adviser from 2009-2010. "I think it's possibly the beginning of the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I think it's that serious. We just can't sit back and let this happen."