NATO Supreme Command to Move to France?

Posted By: Nile Gardiner at Apr 22, 2009 at 07:44:48
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Allied Command Transformation, france, nato, Obama Administration


Diplomatic sources in Washington have indicated that talks may be underway regarding a major concession to France as part of a deal to reintegrate the French into NATO's command structures. If implemented, the concession - a possible relocation of a key NATO supreme command from the United States to France - would significantly undercut American and British power within the alliance, and is clearly against the national interests of both Great Britain and the United States.

It was first revealed in February that French officers would be placed in command of Allied Command Transformation (ACT), currently based in Norfolk, Virginia. ACT is one of two supreme NATO commands - the other, Allied Command Operations (ACO), is based in Mons, Belgium. France has also been given the lead of Joint Command Lisbon, one of NATO's three main operations headquarters, which controls the NATO Rapid Reaction Force.

The relocation of the ACT headquarters away from U.S. soil (possibly to Lille, the home of the French Rapid Reaction Corps) would represent a major transfer of power to Paris within the NATO alliance structure. It would place both of NATO's main supreme command centres physically in continental Europe and would additionally be a boost to French plans for the creation of a European Union defence identity.

A move to France for Allied Command Transformation would result in the sidelining of both American and British military planners, shifting the balance of power within the alliance away from Washington and London. It would also be a hugely costly exercise implemented for purely political reasons as a sop to the French.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/04/22/nato_supreme_command_to_move_to_france



it's obvious that the blogger doesn't like the idea. But this would be an historical strategic move from Obama, who would thus create a real European defense identity, which would be good for all partners, despite the British whining.

not giving any respect to the brits and americans.... how times they are a changin'

The U.S. should have left NATO after the cold war, maybe this is a start. I'm not an isolationist but i'm not a imperialist ether. We have no reason for all those bases in europe.

I appreciate that seems very "last century" to many people, but the US has made huge investments, in blood and treasure, in the security of western Europe. Should more international wars or civil wars break out there again, the US will be expected to make similarly huge contributions to their security.

I can understand the desire of American military planners to move cautiously and to not have all the command structures in Europe.

1) we left the integrated command, that's all, but stayed in the Alliance. France has always been the 3rd major contributor in Europe, somewhat under the British, Germany being number one.
2) the US has lost the capacity of huge investments (WWII type) to help defend others, unless there is a direct threat to US soil.
This scenario is very unlikely unless we think of a WWIV against Russia or China.
3) it's a better strategy to boost the European defense so it can be a reliable asset to rely on, in case the US is attacked, not the contrary, from a US point of view.

1. Do some googling. De Gaulle pushed NATO off French soil in 1966.

2. You have lost confidence in the US capacity to be the logistical backbone of NATO. That's misplaced. Think WWII, Marshall Plan, Cold War Europe. The US is still a country with tremendous capacity, it has been and probably always will be our European allies logistical ace-in-the-hole during conflict. Over the past hundred years, strife and recovery from strife in Europe depends on the US for food, equipment and personnel. Think about the not so long ago Yugoslav Wars, in the future that sort of US involvement is pretty predictable.

3. It seem common sense that NATO shouldn't have an organizational structure that concentrates in one country, or even on one side of the Atlantic.

1) De Gaulle 1966, without any googling, decided to leave the integrated command. Not NATO. Some obsolete bases were closed, yes, but the rest was business as usual. It didn't really matter to NATO, but the decision was politically wrong in my opinion. At the same time De Gaulle pledged unconditional support to the US everytime there was a serious crisis (Cuba, Berlin)

2) the US has still an enormous capacity yes, never said anything else, but this capacity is overrated : US material for warfare is often overused, ailing or inadapted, but the most worrying is the quality of its military leadership (men, strategies): the US hasn't won a war since 1946. Either they lost or the adversaries were ridiculously small. In the case of Gulf War it was a WWIII equipment fighting a WWII one. Nothing compared to WWII mighty evenly matched adversaries.

The description you give of the US aid is grossly exggerated and belongs to the American exceptionalistic mythology. During a certain period of time after WWII, the US gave Europe a big hand, yes, because it was mutually profitable. Besides regarding future wars, it's now very unlikely that something happens in Europe (the Yugoslav conflict was a corollary of the end of the cold war), except a clash with Russia. But then we are in a completely different scenario.

3) nobody says that it should be completely one sided. But a shift of balance could be profitable to both sides.