Tuesday, April 05, 2011

The US is vital to NATO...NATO is NOT vital to the US.

A disturbing story for my European readers from the Guardian...

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.
David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.
"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.
Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.
But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.
"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.
"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."
Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the French, who have been the two biggest military players until now, are retaining national control over substantial military forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to Nato authority.
The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are under the Nato command and control which was announced last Thursday.
Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike aircraft.
Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have pledged more.
"We're very happy that one country decided to bring in more assets," said Van Uhm.
When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that it had assumed "sole command and control" of all air operations.
However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, withdrawing "air assets" for national operations before returning them to alliance control.
"It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the lead," said Van Uhm. "There are assets under national control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what Nato does ... You could say nothing is happening without Nato knowing."
The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.
Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing campaign – France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway – with many others involved in policing an arms embargo and enforcing a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.
In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.
Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The previous day, they fired Paveway IV bombs and Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles south of Sirte.
On Saturday, they fired Paveway IV missiles at two tanks in Sirte and also hit "several small ground attack aircraft" on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.
Two of the 10 Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct ground attack operations.
 So much for NATO.

Stick a fork in it.  For all intents and purposes, this alliance is the 'walking dead'...Perhaps even more disturbing for Europe is the understanding that at present levels even a limited air war appears to be beyond its capability to wage independently.

18 comments :

  1. Sol, this was always a truth that NATO is more thanm 70% procent a US affair. Its not the lack of resources but the commitment to a cause that keep the European partners back and by this i'm referring to countries like France and Germany. The Brits, who are badly affected by cuts, hame sent planes and ships and used them because of their interest in the region. France however, is another matter. They're there because of Sarkozy's attempt to gain political capital in France. Yes, they are not fully committed because they where nevere in charge of the entire operation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i'm having trouble wrapping my head around it Alex.

    i agree with your points but i'm disturbed by a couple of things here. first it appears that the UN is actually directing our (and European) foreign policy on the back of humanitarian military action. we (the US) have been blamed for trying to be the world police and when we're finally ready to back out of the role, it seems that the UN and France dragged not only the US into the Libya mess but also the UK, the Netherlands and the rest of Europe ...

    my second issue is that why did we let a weak, politically motivated French President hood wink us all! its craziness! oh and now they're acting in the Ivory Coast. don't get me wrong, i'm against all acts of genocide but what are our vital interests in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  3. we arent in the ivory coast are we? the french are? i think the french have a collective inferiority complex. They use to be a great world power, now they are being relegated to a footnote in history as a has been and never will be again, and the US only gets stronger!

    ReplyDelete
  4. yeah the French are there. sorry if i wasn't clear. i'm not sure about us getting stronger right now, but if we can implement a little fiscal austerity we might be getting back on the right track.

    i'm just really amazed at how coalition warfare popularized in the first gulf war is so in vogue with the liberal population.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sol, i agree with you, i think we are getting stronger, i think we have had some financial rough patches in the past (great depression comes to mind), but we are still the greatest economy in the world, and we are like AIG, too big to fail! :)

    i am getting tired of the pols on the hill, i think the republicans and democrats are drawing lines in the sand, atleast when Gingrich and Clinton fought they had a compromise that lead us to a surplus, you may hate one or both of them but we were fiscally solvent! now we are so in the hole we cant see the light anymore!

    ReplyDelete
  6. oops, meant to say disagree on the getting stronger but i think we agree on the bigger picture :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. well don't get me wrong. while i don't think we're getting stronger, i don't in the least fear the rise of China or any other nation on the planet.

    to be honest, i think over the long run our ultimate rival will be India...not China.

    but back to the point....we're so intertwined economically now that we're headed toward a one world economy.

    so long story short, i don't believe the economic hard times are over and i think that even if we claw our way back, China or other nations will stumble and pull us back with them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The US is in a sensitive position right now. Yes, there's a problem with you being the police of the world because the world wants you to police it only when they approve. I don't know if i'm making myself clear on this, but you are the target of media. There is no war without dirty stuff, and when you go to war expect nasty things to happen.
    I think it is hypocrisy. The UN, like NATO, has no resources to enforce a measure like that taken with Lybia, only the US has so this is reason enough to blame the US for all the shit in the world.
    You are the most powerful military in the world, expect to be hated or envied even by your allies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are six more CF-18s waiting for the word to deploy. Looks like they will be needed.

    With 13 deployed (12 op, 1 spare), that is a significant portion of the CF-18 fleet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Apparently 4 Typhoons are being changed from air policing to ground attack too. They are equipped for some air to ground work now, but nowhere near as much as the Tornadoes or the T3 Typhoons will be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12983294

    There's a link for it if you want. This may spur the UK to actually fund full integration of our ground attack weapons onto Typhoon now. I think at the moment only Paveway can be used (II or IV not sure which).

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have to agree with Alex. It's not a lack of European attack aircraft, it's a lack of European aircraft attacking (and European countries sending aircraft).

    The European leaders lack spine and it's population do not want to fund armed forces, so it's the easiest way to cut government spending; doing it is not unpopular with 95% of the citizens.
    However, they all want Europe to have a say in international matters.

    It's time they put their money where their mouth is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Europe/NATO is addicted to U.S. support, but they resent us at every turn. If/when draconian cuts come to the U.S. military, we may get to see what pulling the plug on European bases and reducing our commitment to NATO would do to that dependency. Europe has the luxury of criticizing our outsized defense spending and our 'reckless/arrogant' approach to diplomacy - only because WE'RE the ones who are defending Europe. Their "defense forces" are almost exclusively means of "humanitarian" force projection, since their defense has heretofore been guaranteed by the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  15. why did we let a weak, politically motivated French President hood wink us all! its craziness!

    Hillary Clinton Sol. The wife is like the husband.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @A Gold and to some extent Sol,

    I resent the implications of some of the things you've said. The UK has repeatedly put its forces on the line in the last few years, having supported the US in Iraq and putting the second largest force into Afghanistan and now into Libya. For this we get lumped into "Europe" who are unwilling to fight and only good for humanitarian missions. Our forces may not be as strong as they were but 10 years of war have strained the budget along with the financial crisis. We are still however the most likely to deploy sizeable forces to assist the US and still one of the most capable despite the doom and gloom stories you see. The budgets may be cut, but numbers on a page do not compare to ability and willingness to deploy. That is where the rest of Europe largely falls down. I'd thank you to at least make a note of this in future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just to add to the NATO-bashing:

    Has anyone noticed that practically since THE DAY NATO took over Gaddafi forces have staged an impressive comback? Pundits and military officials blamed the weather, but I call bullshit on that one. We have sensors that can easily peer through things like clouds and sandstorms. When OIF was still in its conventional phase Iraqi armor tried to use sandstorms to cover their movements, and we were still able to obliterate them with airstrikes.

    I think the real reason Gaddafi forces have been able to regain ground is that as soon as NATO took over airstrike-approval became a highly political and bureaucratic affair, especially compared to the much more aggressive airstrikes conducted when participating countries were acting autonomously.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i totally agree. i don't see it as NATO bashing though, i think its just a matter of calling like ya see it.

    NATO is totally ineffective as an instrument of war (they're talking about a cease fire...which will mean a split country)...

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.