You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
NATO Agrees to Start Training Iraq Forces
2004-07-31
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - NATO countries agreed Friday to begin training Iraqi security forces after sidestepping a dispute between the United States and France over command of the alliance operation.

Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said a 40-member advance team would leave for Iraq "as soon as possible" to begin the training and would report back in September about proposed relations with the U.S.-led multinational force. "It's a distinct NATO mission," de Hoop Scheffer told reporters. "The multinational force except France will give protection" and "there should be a relationship between the training mission and multinational force except France in Iraq." ... "All allies except France are determined to see a democratic Iraq succeed. They except France are united in their commitment to help Iraq provide its own peace and its own security," de Hoop Scheffer said.

The decision means the alliance except France can assume a role in Iraq - something eagerly sought by the U.S. administration - even though the differences between Paris and Washington remain unresolved. "NATO was quite disunited before and at the beginning stages of the Iraq war," U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns told reporters. "Today's decision for us represents the unification of NATO except France ... the NATO flag is definitely going to be in Baghdad."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the decision "is further evidence of allied support for the independence and sovereignty of Iraq and for freedom, democracy and stability for the Iraqi people."

De Hoop Scheffer said the mission's first task would be to set up a working headquarters to train Iraqi officers how to run and coordinate their own command and control system. The initial, 40-member mission is to be followed by a larger force. "It will certainly grow into the hundreds very rapidly in the early autumn," said Burns.

Agreement on the mission had been delayed by French objections. France, which strongly opposed the Iraq war, had abandoned its objections to a NATO presence inside the country but opposed putting the training mission under the command of U.S. Gen. George Casey, the senior U.S. officer in Iraq.

The United States had insisted that the commander of the NATO mission be linked to the U.S.-led coalition. Paris suggested postponing a decision on command until September to let the first phase of the mission begin by Aug. 6. Officials said NATO's supreme allied commander in Europe, U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, would come up with a recommendation to NATO ambassadors by Sept. 15 on a command system for the allied mission.
If we're lucky the French politicans will succumb to the upcoming August heat wave.
Washington argued that putting the mission under the U.S. command in Iraq is the best way to protect it and ensure its effectiveness. France feared the move would open the door to NATO involvement in battling the insurgency.
A Brit general would be okay -- oh, that's not what they meant either.
The U.S. proposal had the backing of a majority of the 26 NATO nations, but unanimity is needed for a decision. NATO leaders agreed to the mission at their summit a month ago but left details vague. NATO officials also put off until later another dispute, over whether the mission should be commonly funded by all allies, like the NATO peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, or only by those sending troops.

So far NATO's role in Iraq has been limited to providing logistical backup to a Polish-led division working with the American troops. Although 16 NATO members already have some troops there, they are not under the NATO flag.
They will be soon. 16 NATO nations, you say?
Posted by:Steve White

#10  Now at 52.0/52.8, up 3 from before the convention. Kerry only does well when he's not in the news. Looks like the next good week for him will be the Trunk convention. After that, the pits. Time to put a fork in this guy. He may not be done, but there's not much time left for basting.
Posted by: Mr. Davis   2004-07-31 7:35:09 AM  

#9  "Could it maybe be that the NATO guys heard Skerry's acceptance speech Thursday night, and concluded by Friday morning that they were going to have to live with Bush for the next four years?"

Well, that's what's happened on the betting at Intrade: shares on Bush's re-election jumped two points after Kerry's speech, after trending slowly downward for several months.
Posted by: Dave D.   2004-07-31 5:24:48 AM  

#8  Interesting thought, Wuzzalib. Could be...

Love it, Super Hose! They are stalking us! Or they're serving as a Trojan Horse for another Islamist enemy.
Whatever the case, this time they didn't miss a good opportunity to shut up!
(Wonder if ChIraq's on his way out?)
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-07-31 5:05:26 AM  

#7  Could it maybe be that the NATO guys heard Skerry's acceptance speech Thursday night, and concluded by Friday morning that they were going to have to live with Bush for the next four years?

Just a thought...

Posted by: Wuzzalib   2004-07-31 4:56:49 AM  

#6  GK, so Clinton destroyed NATO as well. We got to get out of these organizations with France. It's like they are stalking us. Can we get some kind of restraining order?
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-07-31 3:43:52 AM  

#5  SH, you just missed France's change of heart, sort of.. In December 1995, France announced that it would increase its participation in NATO's military wing, including the Military Committee (the French withdrew from NATO's military bodies in 1966 while remaining full participants in the alliance's political councils) See "International Stance" at this Military of France link.
Posted by: GK   2004-07-31 3:39:04 AM  

#4  Thank you, Rex. That was an excellent read.

GJ,I left the military in the mid 90's and France was decidedly not in the military portion of NATO. As I vaguely remember, during the run-up to the Iraq War there was and issue that France was trying to push towards resolution in the UNSC vice NATO because they didn't have a voice in NATO militarily.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-07-31 3:18:45 AM  

#3  To his credit, LBJ, who was President at the time, angrily asked DeGaulle if he'd like us to remove our war dead from France, too.

I believe France rejoined NATO militarily (sort of) in the 1990's--anyone know?
Thanks for the background history, rex!
Posted by: GreatestJeneration   2004-07-31 2:40:22 AM  

#2  Maybe this explains the France stuff, #1:
http://prague.tv/zine/article.php?name=brief-history-of-nato&part=1

With the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, the United States’ military alliance with Europe became a reality, but according to Gaddis, even at this point the U.S. had no intention of stationing troops in Europe – its intention was to provide a security guarantee. That changed when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950.

Opinions conflict as to whether the North Korean attack was instigated by the Soviets. The belief at the time was that the action in Korea was to serve as a distraction while the Soviet Union made its move into Western Europe.

Such a move never happened, but the United States acted quickly to demonstrate that it would tolerate no such Russian incursions. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the leader of the western Allied forces in World War II, was named Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) by the North Atlantic Council (NATO's governing body) in December 1950. He was followed by a succession of U.S. generals as supreme Allied commanders.

Which brings us, oddly enough, to France.

French President Charles de Gaulle was less than impressed with this tradition of U.S. generals as supreme allied commanders.

From about 1958 he began to complain about American hegemony in the organization, and in 1966, France officially withdrew from participation in the “integrated” military command structure of NATO, but claimed it would adhere to the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty in case of "unprovoked aggression."

De Gaulle demanded that NATO forces withdraw from France and that the alliance’s headquarters be moved from Paris, which is why today NATO is run from Brussels, Belgium.
Posted by: rex   2004-07-31 2:27:33 AM  

#1  I am continually confused by France's participation in NATO decisions regarding military forces. Didn't they withdraw from the military portion of NATO? In Wikipedia I see:

...in February 1966 France withdrew from the common NATO military command. De Gaulle, haunted by the memories of 1940, wanted to retain at all cost France military independence.

What dummy let them back in the military portion?
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-07-31 1:45:57 AM  

00:00