Article

2004-07-31 Iraq-Jordan

NATO Agrees to Start Training Iraq Forces

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-31 1:03:05 AM|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 1:45:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#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 Statesâ 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 â 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 âintegratedâ 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 allianceâs 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|| 2004-07-31 2:27:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-31 2:40:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 3:18:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 3:39:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 3:43:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 4:56:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-07-31 5:05:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 5:24:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-07-31 7:35:09 AM|| Front Page Top

13:17 Brutus
10:19 ex-lib
10:01 Raj
09:57 Ben
09:48 Mike Kozlowski
09:45 Mike Kozlowski
09:44 eLarson
09:36 Zhang Fei
09:29 Mike Kozlowski
08:49 Mr. Davis
08:43 ed
08:42 Anonymous5967
08:41 Douglas De Bono
08:35 ed
08:33 ed
07:50 GreatestJeneration
07:35 Mr. Davis
06:12 .com
06:09 98zulu
05:38 gromky
05:24 Dave D.
05:19 Dave D.
05:07 Howard UK
05:05 GreatestJeneration