Atlantic Council

From Mike Coffman, Office of Congressman Mike Coffman:  The place to begin is by making fundamental changes in the way we have based forces in Europe since the end of World War II.

I appreciate the challenges that the Department of Defense is facing, but I don’t believe they are being bold enough when considering what is necessary.  The current proposal to remove two brigades from Europe and being a rotational deployment schedule of one combat brigade is only a step in the right direction. We must reduce our European footprint further and retain only the headquarters and support infrastructure necessary to support our expeditionary. There is no longer a strategic reason to maintain the heavy permanent forces in Germany that are a relic of the Cold War.

The Congressional Budget Office calculated in May of 2004 that removing 95% of forces in Germany alone could save one billion dollars annually. In addition, many of the upfront costs associated with that plan are no longer as severe as we reduce the overall size of our Army, and there are more savings to be had by transferring the bulk of this capacity to the Guard and Reserve components.

Our European allies are facing a fiscal crisis of their own.  However, instead of being forced to find the same balance that the United States is trying to achieve, they are able to drastically reduce their national defense infrastructure because they can take for granted that the United States will continue to be the guarantor of their safety. Since 2008 the defense spending among European NATO countries fell 12%, from $314 billion to $275 billion. To continue this trend threatens to eliminate our allies’ capacity to contribute to the alliance.  While I value our strategic partnerships and NATO commitments I believe it is time to clearly signal to them that their current path is no longer sustainable.

Currently only 4 out of our 28 NATO allies are spending even 2% of their GDP on defense.  The new Strategic Guidance issued by the President and Secretary of Defense makes it clear that we will continue to “maintain NATO Article 5 commitments and ensure interoperability with allied forces by allocating a U.S.-based brigade to the NATO Response Force and by rotating U.S.-based units to Europe for training and exercises.” Nothing in this strategy demands that we maintain any standing force in Europe. . . .

We must continue to pressure our allies to become more sufficient for their national defense so that we can take on the more arduous task of power projection. Removing our standing European army and replacing it with an infrastructure to facilitate expeditionary operations is the first step.

Excerpts from letter by Congressman Mike Coffman (CO-6), member of the House Armed Services Committee, to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.  (via Morning Defense)

From Charles Hoskinson, Morning Defense:  Some lawmakers also have tied DOD’s request for a new BRAC round to the issue of forces in Europe, saying bases abroad should be closed before those at home.  (photo: americaspace.org)

From Ott Tammik, Estonian Public Broadcasting: NATO has decided to make permanent its Baltic air policing mission, in which larger member states patrol the region with their fighter jets on a rota basis.

Media reported earlier today that the air policing mission was extended to 2018, but upon inquiry, the Defense Ministry said the new agreement is “essentially permanent.”

Defense Minister Mart Laar called the development a major step that means that Estonia does not have to worry about having to acquire its own fighter aircraft - an expensive and complicated endeavor. "Instead we can concentrate on developing essential initial defense capabilities that are more suited for Estonia's capacity. For the people of Estonia, this is a clear sign that NATO exists,” said Laar.

From Ott Tammik, Estonian Public Broadcasting:  Ministry Dubs NATO's Baltic Fighter Mission Biggest Victory in Years

"I don't think it is an exaggeration to call this the biggest international victory [for Estonia] in recent years,” said the ministry's secretary general, Mikk Marran. . . .

"After several years of consultations the allies found that the existing solution is the most reasonable, and there is no point in coming together every four years and making the same decision," Marran told ETV. “The decision is the outcome of several years of intense work by Estonian politicians, officials, diplomats and military leaders."   (photo: ADC Eric Sarda/French Air Force)  (via @edwardlucas)

From NATO:  A NATO military delegation, lead by LtGen. Jürgen Bornemann, Director General of the International Military Staff, will visit the People’s Republic of China from 12-16 February 2012.

This is the first time a NATO military delegation is invited by the Chinese authorities to visit their country, and follows on to an earlier visit by a Chinese military delegation to NATO Headquarters in June 2010.  The team of NATO experts and military officers will exchange views with their Chinese counterparts on a variety of subjects with a view to enhancing mutual understanding and cooperation.

This visit is in keeping with NATO’s new Strategic Concept, agreed at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, which aims to further deepen and expand partnerships with countries and organizations who share common security concerns, in the face of emerging security challenges.   (photo: NATO)

From Tony Capaccio, Bloomberg:  The Pentagon proposes in its new budget to spend $1.2 billion for the first three NATO-version Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) Global Hawk drones and three additional U.S. Navy-version drones, according to an official.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization announced this month it planned to buy five of the unmanned aircraft, known as the Alliance Ground System, through 2017. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters Feb. 4 without elaboration that “we have protected funding for AGS in our new budget. . . .”

The budget request will help Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop Grumman after the Air Force announced it’s truncating purchases of its third-generation Block 30 drones. The aircraft have proven too expensive to operate and maintain, Air Force officials told reporters last month.

The Air Force has spent $3.4 billion developing and buying 18 Block 30 drones. It hasn’t disclosed whether it will put on contract an additional three drones for which Congress approved money, according to Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Cassidy.

The Air Force program had called for buying 31 Block 30 Global Hawks. The Air Force hasn’t formally announced that it will forgo purchase of the remaining 10.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz told reporters Jan. 27 that the service was reviewing whether to retire the initial 18 new aircraft rather than continue flying them.  (photo: Unmanned)

From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:  Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has sacked Defense Minister Mykhailo Yezhel, replacing him with Dmytro Salamatin.

No reason was given for the dismissal on February 8 of Yezhel, who had served as defense minister since Yanukovych was elected two years ago.

He has recently come under fire over the slow pace of army reform and has also been accused by the opposition of corruption.  (photo: RIA Novosti)

From Daniel Dombey, the Financial Times:  A power struggle within the Turkish government has been laid bare by a court summons for the country’s intelligence chief over government negotiations with alleged Kurdish terrorists.

In an unprecedented move, Hakan Fidan, the head of the country’s powerful MIT intelligence agency, was asked to give evidence on Thursday on government contacts with Kurdish militants – including negotiations with the Kurdistan Workers’ party, or PKK, which is classified as a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the US and the European Union.

Although initial reports suggested Mr Fidan would not appear in court – because his intelligence work was outside its jurisdiction – the summons was widely seen as a shot across the bows of any future attempt at talks with the PKK.

“No matter what what happens with this case, this gives a very clear message to the government and the bureaucracy not to continue with the peace opening,” said Yavuz Baydar, a Turkish columnist, who suggested that nationalist Turkish state officials were seeking to prevent any resumption of a now-stalled negotiation drive.

Other commentators suggested that other groups – such as the followers of Fethullah Gulen, an influential Muslim preacher – could be behind the move.

The court request followed an internet leak last year of a tape of secret negotiations in Oslo between a team led by Mr Fidan and PKK representatives, another move widely seen as making future such contacts more difficult.  (graphic: on5yirmi5)

From Nicholas Kulish and Alan Cowell, the New  York Times:  As tensions mount between Western nations and Syria, the German authorities said on Thursday they had ordered the expulsion of four Syrian diplomats after arresting two men accused separately of spying on opponents of President Bashar al-Assad.

The police here arrested the two men on Tuesday saying they were “strongly suspected of investigating Syrian opposition members in Germany for a Syrian intelligence service over a period of years.”

The men were identified, under standard German procedures, only as Mahmoud El A., 47, of Lebanese descent, and Akram O., 34, a Syrian.

State and federal police officers searched the homes of six other suspects “believed to be involved in espionage,” prosecutors said.

In a statement on Thursday, Guido Westerwelle, the foreign minister, said four diplomats — three men and a woman who were not identified by name — had been given three days to leave Germany. Mr. Westerwelle did not go into detail about the expulsions, but officials said the embassy personnel were suspected of carrying out activities incompatible with their diplomatic status, a formulation that usually refers to espionage. . . .

After Tuesday’s arrests, Mr. Westerwelle summoned the Syrian ambassador to tell him that intimidation of Syrian opposition figures in Germany would not be tolerated, officials said. According to German news reports, the two arrested men were not themselves diplomats, but worked closely with Syrian Embassy officials.

Their activities were said to have included infiltrating demonstrations to photograph Syrians opposed to President Assad and then transmitting the images to Damascus along with other information about the regime’s opponents. . . .

In October, a Syrian-American man was arrested in the United States and accused of secretly working with Syrian intelligence to gather information on overseas protesters against the government in Damascus. The Syrian Embassy in Washington has called the charges baseless. (photo: Getty)

From Dimitri Trenin, the International Herald Tribune:  The Russian government is openly conservative; it abhors revolutions. This, however, is more than a self-serving ideological stance. When the Kremlin — or [director of Foreign Intelligence Mikhail] Fradkov’s office — looks at the Arab Awakening, they see democratization leading directly to Islamicization.

If the West’s historical analogy is Europe’s 1848 or 1989, theirs is Russia’s 1917. They cite recent election results in Tunisia and especially Egypt. They point out that post-Qaddafi Libya is chaotic, with a lot of the former regime’s weaponry finding its way into unsavory hands. In their view, Syria’s uprising could have even worse consequences in terms of sectarian violence and the potential to affect the country’s neighbors, particularly Lebanon and Israel.

Revolutions are bad enough, in the Kremlin’s view, but attempts to interfere in other countries’ civil wars can only make things worse.

The Russians appreciate that the United States and other Western powers would only intervene militarily if they could sustain zero losses themselves, as in Libya. Syria, however, is a more difficult case. Arming the Free Syria Army and providing it with intelligence will not be enough to prevail over Assad’s forces. A prospect of a wider war with Arab and Turkish participation looms on the horizon.

Such a war could only make sense if it were the first act of a more serious drama. Russians suspect that the real reason for the West’s pressure on Damascus is to rob Tehran of its only ally in the region. Behind the activity of the Gulf States, particularly Qatar, in the Syrian issue Moscow sees the rising regional influence of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s bitter rival in the region. Turkey’s “neo-Ottoman” ambitions are also playing a role. What the Russians are most worried about, however, is that Israel may strike at Iran, dragging in the United States and thus precipitating a major war with Iran sometime this year.

Russian policy makers may have a point or two when they discuss other people’s policies. They need, however, to step back and look at their own.

Delivering arms into a country going through civil war is damaging, both politically and morally. Confronting both America and Europe, even if Western policies are misguided, is clearly at odds with Russia’s wider interests. Telling Qatar to shut up is not merely undiplomatic, but unwise. And openly quarreling with Turkey and Saudi Arabia has to be avoided.

To this, some would say that, having lost $4 billion in Libyan arms and other contracts and facing the prospect of losing an equal amount in potential Syrian trade, Moscow has no other choice but to take a hard line. It will be a pity if, at the end of the day, this argument prevails.

Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, is the author, most recently, of “Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story.”