The Alliance is fracturing

In response to the situation in Nigeria, the Obama administration has sent 16 Special Forces troops (my guess?  Green Berets since they are there to "advise and train") plus they are going to use drones to help locate the missing school girls.  I fear its too little and too late.

"In recent days, the world has watched in horror as the Nigerian terror group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 250 schoolgirls and threatened to sell them into slavery. The U.S. military has discreetly sent aircraft over Nigeria, and dispatched 16 troops to the country, to try to find the girls."  Time

Hardly a response at all in Nigeria.  In the meantime, US/European solidarity in criticizing Russia's annexation of Crimea is beginning to show signs of fractures.

Exhibit A:  Two weeks ago, three Russian navy ships - the 6,900-tonne destroyer Vice Admiral Kulakov and tankers Duban and Sergey Osipov - docked at Ceuta, less than 50miles across the Mediterranean from Gibraltar.  Spain is a NATO member nation which implies a support against the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine.  However, Spain has had a beef with the UK using the straights of Gibraltar which the British have controlled since 1713.  Old rivalries die hard.  (Read more here)

Exhibit B:  France (which is not a NATO member) is proceeding with the sale of two military ships to Russia despite the US calling the sale "ill-advised". "To critics, the 1.2 billion euro, or more than $1.6 billion, deal that France struck with Russia has emerged as a classic instance in which a European nation has elevated its business dealings with Moscow over exhortations by the United States to take a firm line on Russian meddling in Ukraine."  N.Y. Times

Exhibit C:  The Spanish and French aren't the only ones who are letting money compromise their resiliency.  Apparently, the US (which is a big NATO member) is interested on only enforcing certain sanctions against Russia.  "The U.S. State Department has issued shipping licenses for two commercial telecommunications satellites preparing for launch this year aboard Russian Proton rockets from Russia’s Baikonur Cosmodrome, industry officials said." Space News

What happened to the great NATO alliance?

After Word War II, Europe was divided between west and east.  The West of course were the free European countries, the East were occupied by the Soviet Union.  To prevent further western advancement by the Soviet Union, NATO was created.  It could never really stop the Soviet Union, mainly delay it until the US could mobilize all of its forces.  When the Soviet Union fell, NATO's future began to get questioned.  NATO found a new role in the war on terror running things in Afghanistan as well as directing the air campaign over Libya during the Arab Spring.  However, these actions made it even more apparent that a self-proteciont alliance had probably outlived its usefulness.

Most of the NATO member nations are spending less and less on their militaries.  In the meantime, Russia has increased its spending and is now more on parity with NATO then it has been in years.

Europe is also facing a financial crisis that the European Union has exacerbated rather than solve.  The US is no longer seen as the financial superpower that can help Europe so more countries are turning to Russia and China.  Like the old European courts, today's governments may say one thing but are busy doing quite the opposite.  In this case, public support for economic sanctions against Russia while privately cutting deals to make money.  No wonder Putin looks so smug!

According to an article in the Moscow Times, "A number of European countries are heavily dependent on Russia for their energy needs, and others simply want to continue business-as-usual and not let the events in Ukraine get in the way of making profits." Moscow Times   Which is exactly why the call for crippling sanctions in the same article is not going to happen.

Firs Syria, then Crimea and now Nigeria.  Where happened?

Mark Thompson of Time wrote, "In recent weeks, Russian President Vladimir Putin has unilaterally redrawn Europe’s post-World War II borders by snatching Crimea from Ukraine. Since that deft move, he has acted as a Slavic Geppetto in eastern Ukraine, sowing enough discord in the former Soviet state to keep it off balance, unable to puncture Moscow’s sphere of influence. Beyond dispatching small, tripwire forces to nearby NATO nations, the U.S. military has remained at parade rest."  

Many say after 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are tired and don't want to get involved anymore.  I doubt that is the case since the American public was never asked to sacrifice anything during the war.  A more likely answer can be found in this quote from President Obama, “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?” (Time)  If he truly believes that, then why did he declare the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a "red line" and then proceeded to do nothing about it?  The President appears afraid to confront anyone, especially Putin, and tries to use rhetoric about budgets to disguise his fears.

Not to be outdone, General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted as saying, "As I look forward and think about the need to rebalance the use of military power, I think we will need less direct action because it is the most costly, disruptive and controversial use of American power,” (Time)  That might sound better if Russia didn't just place 40,000 troops into Crimea while the President sat and watched.  And not to diminish one iota the plight of the Nigerian school children but President Asad has massacred 150,000 people since he crossed Mr. Obama's "red line" and suffered not a scratch.

The United States is rapidly turning into an isolationist state once again.  The US did not want to get involved in either World War I or World War II.  The public want the US to stay out.  Both times, isolationist policies prevented the US from becoming involved until it was almost too late.  In neither case did the US suffer any casualties on the homeland (remember Hawaii was not part of the United States when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor).  The short term decision not to become involved in Syria or Crimea may be expedient to the current White House but what about long-term?  Will the next administration but forced into a conflict because we appear not to be willing to do so today?

The Russians are coming

The internal strife in the Ukraine is given to be a stubble between pro-EU factions and those who want to stay aligned with Moscow.  The violence has gotten so bad that it appeared Ukraine President Yanukovych was ousted.  He has taken to the media to claim he was not.  The violence in the Ukraine has had some interesting effects.

First we have this little gem;

A Russian spy ship has slipped into Havana for an unannounced visit, a day after the country's defence minister announced plans to expand Russia's worldwide military presence.--The Guardian

Some of the reports I have read said the Viktor Leoniv SSV-175 "appeared" in the harbor of Havana.  No surface vessel just "appears" but what has many concerned is that the Russian ship deployment to Cuba did not have any of the normal communications in the press.  A sign perhaps that Mr. Putin doesn't feel it necessary to ask Mr. Obama's permission or that Russia is interested in what reaction, if any, the US plans in response to the Ukraine.

Elsewhere, the Russian Black Sea Forces have been very busy;

Ukraine has accused Russia of carrying out an armed invasion by sending naval forces to occupy Sevastopol airport in the Crimea region.

Another Crimean airport, Simferopol, has also been occupied by armed men, thought to be pro-Russia militia.--BBC

Russia already has 150,000 troops on military exercises on the border of the Ukraine.

The exercises are "to check combat readiness of armed forces in western and central military districts as well as several branches of the armed forces," Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu was quoted as saying by state media.--CNN

Today we received this nugget of foreign policy acumen;

U.S. officials said Friday that President Barack Obama may scrap plans to attend an international summit in Russia this summer and could also halt discussions on deepening trade ties with Moscow, raising specific possible consequences if Russia should intervene in Ukraine. Obama himself bluntly warned of unspecified "costs" for Russia.

Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing," Obama declared. Such action by Russia would represent a "profound interference" in matters that must be decided by the Ukrainian people, he said. --Associated Press

Given the failure of the Obama administration in bringing about any change in Syria, I'm sure Mr. Putin must be quaking in his boots.  What Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry and Ms. Rice don't seem to understand is that Russia feels extremely threatened by having the Ukraine being lured by the EU.  A brief history lesson shows us why;

Here is a map of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

Czarist Russia say invasions by the Mongols, Ottomans, and French.  The Russians would invade the Prussians leading to Hitler's invasion of Russia during World War II.  The above map is a result of the fear of further invasion by Western Europe.  What it doesn't show is the vulnerability the Soviets felt over their northern bored from US nuclear missiles.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States and Western Europe retaliated (in Russia's eyes) by further democracy in the former Warsaw Pact.  Poland, Hungary, Romania and former Czechoslovakia were brought under the Partnership For Peace initiative.  It was to help prepare the former Communist countries to enter the EU and NATO.  Over 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union and the break-up of the former Warsaw Pact, here is what the map looks like now;

Is it any wonder why Moscow and Mr. Putin have taken a hardline against any further incursions into their borders by a break away Ukraine?  Russia sees the US and Western Europe as the aggressors and Putin is looking to halt this incursion.  Being a hardline former Soviet KGB agent, I don't see Mr. Putin taking things lightly and will not likely be deterred by the US announcement of huge cuts to its military.

Air Force and Navy flying thousands of missions over Libya as Obama says U.S. is only playing a limited role

First, a correction. I've been referring to the air operation over Libya as "Odyssey Dawn" but since NATO has taken over the correct title is "OPERATION Unified Protector". Odd how after weeks of reading about Libya this was the first article (at least that I've read) that made a point of using the correct name.

According to the Mail Online, 'Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.'

The Obama administration will take great pains to point out how few were actually strike sorties. What will get overlooked is the cost associated with maintaining that kind of OPSTEMPO (while still maintaining air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plus all of the air refueling missions to support aircraft transiting between the states and the AOR). The numbers also show that with the United States, NATO has some serious gaps in their ability to perform air suppression and ISR missions. Air suppression requires specialized aircraft and munitions so these relatively low numbers may in fact be much more expensive. The ISR or intelligence-surveillance-reconaissance missions are primarily flow by drones but the US has only a limited number of these aircraft. Most are deployed in Afghanistan. Being unmanned does not mean these are inexpensive to operate. The sensors and downlinks are quite expensive to operate and maintain. Having a drone auger into the ground is a very costly risk, especially for a non-US operation.

The taxpayer may never know the true cost of "Unified Protector" but as the old saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


Mail Online

NATO Admits Missile Hit a Civilian Home in Tripoli

NYTimes.com

Syrian forces 'storm town near Turkey border'

Syrian forces attacking a Turkish border town. Unlike other attacks during the "Arab Spring", this attack in upon a NATO ally. If Turkey and Syria declare war, NATO and the United States are placed at the brink. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton tries to appease the Taliban in hopes they will break from Al Qaeda.

Al Jazeera English

Gates Blasts NATO, Questions Future of Alliance

Gates' comments only reinforce what has been know for sometime. NATO is nothing without the US military. The sham of "NATO" commanding Odyssey Dawn is only as good as the US carriers and drones supporting the operation.

NATO is a self-protection pact formed after WWII to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. At that time, NATO consisted of 16 countries and relied heavily on US military bases for defense. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO's role was in question but despite an ambiguous future its membership climed to 28 including former Warsaw Pact nations.

NATO assumed a more expeditionary war during the global war on terror. Most of the Eurpean nations were against sending forces outside the continent. However, pressure from Washington and London resulted in NATO troops being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also shows how the US has come to depend on NATO to provide the illusion of broad support when in reality it is just another US military operation.

With the demise of the Soviet Union and advent of the European Union, does there still need to be a NATO instead of a European defense force?

FoxNews.com

NATO takes over no-fly zone

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was originally created to "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down", at least according to the first NATO Secretary General. NATO was more a political association than a military organization. The in-fighting between European members and the US caused the French to pull out in 1966 and create their own nuclear deterrent.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently the Soviet Union, the relevance of NATO began to wane. The Balklands war in the mid 90s led NATO to involve itself in matters beyond the member nations. Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics were allowed to join.

The Berlin Plus agreement is a comprehensive package of agreements made between NATO and the European Union on 16 December 2002. With this agreement the EU was given the possibility to use NATO assets in case it wanted to act independently in an international crisis, on the condition that NATO itself did not want to act—the so-called "right of first refusal"

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2003, NATO took command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. For the first time in its history, NATO would take over a mission outside the NATO area of responsibility.

In 2009, NATO deployed warships in support of Operation Ocean Shield battling Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean.

Given this history, it is no surprise the AFA Daily Digest had this report:

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced Sunday that, effective immediately, the alliance would assume the lead role from the United States for all UN-sanctioned air and sea military operations in and around Libya. "This is a very significant step, which proves NATO's capability to take decisive action," said Rasmussen. This means the alliance will be in charge not only of the no-fly zone over northern Libya and the arms embargo, but also the air strikes meant to protect Libyan civilians from attack by Muammar Qaddafi's regime. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that, within the next week, the United States "will begin to diminish [its] commitment of resources" to the Libyan mission. "[T]he idea was that, over time, the coalition would assume a larger and larger proportion of the burden," he said. He added, "Our air power has significantly degraded [Qaddafi's] armor capabilities, his ability to use his armor against cities like Benghazi." As of March 25, US aircraft had flown 529 sorties, coalition aircraft 346, since the air campaign began on March 19.

NATO involvement in the Balklands, Afghanistan, Libya, the Gulf of Aden, and Indian Ocean seems to eerily parallel European colonialism. Coalition campaigns make it easier to get approval for military operations but the implications for recovery become complicated at the least. For example, if Gaddafi steps down there is no obvious follow-on leader as the colonel has successfully suppressed any opposition for nearly 40 years. A NATO backed government in Libya could set-off an even bigger conflict in the Middle East.