Nicolas Sarkozy

Most French favor U.N. military action in Syria: poll

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:29:53 -0600

From John Irish, Reuters: A narrow majority of French people would back a U.N.-authorized military intervention in Syria, a poll showed on Friday, a higher percentage than those who had supported the NATO mission that helped oust Libya's Muammar Gaddafi. . . .

In a survey of 1,200 French people carried out by pollster IFOP for right-leaning information website Atlantico, 51 percent said they would support U.N.-backed military action in Syria.

Fifty-nine percent of opposition Socialist sympathizers would back the initiative, while 56 percent of supporters of President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP ruling were in favor.

"One of the reasons is the extent of the clashes and the number of victims which continues to climb in Syria and which as a result is pushing (the country) into a civil war," said IFOP's deputy director for opinion polls Jerome Fouquet. (photo: Getty)

Divisions within Obama administration growing over how to end Afghan war

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:11:51 -0600

From Karen DeYoung, the Washington Post: With war fatigue growing and an election looming, the Obama administration has bumpily embarked on its endgame in Afghanistan.

In recent weeks, closed-door strategizing over Taliban peace talks, the pace of NATO’s combat handover and withdrawal, and the future of U.S. relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan have suddenly become part of the public and political debate.

But revelations about plans already in motion have emerged sooner than the administration has been prepared to explain them, complicating efforts to turn them into a coherent whole and build support.

“There are people at every piece of this — the Taliban, Islamabad, Kabul and Washington” — who object to or are trying to influence elements of the emerging strategy, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to talk more candidly. “They use leaking as a tool.”

Last week, days after French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed transitioning combat responsibilities to Afghan forces a full year ahead of NATO’s schedule, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told reporters that the administration anticipated doing just that.

U.S. and Afghan military forces on the battlefield responded with open concern that they weren’t ready for an early turnover. At the White House, aides grumbled that only President Obama could announce a new timetable and that he wouldn’t be addressing the issue until a NATO summit in May.

Panetta’s comments also poured fuel on an ongoing debate within the administration’s national security team over the right balance between talking to the Taliban and fighting them, even as the troop-heavy counterinsurgency argument that won Obama’s approval two years ago has shifted in favor of those who advocated a sleeker counterterrorism force.

Some senior officials privately echoed Republican critics, who argue that an earlier end to the combat mission — or even public discussion of one — would weaken the administration’s hand as State Department and National Security Council officials prepare for another meeting with Taliban representatives this month in Qatar, and as the military girds for this summer’s fighting season. . . .

The administration says no military decisions will be made before the NATO summit. On the negotiating front, it interprets the myriad moving parts as progress. “A year ago,” the first senior official said, “nobody was talking about a peace process. You have to say that today, lots of people are talking about an Afghan peace process. No one knows how all this will turn out.” (graphic: Jeff Parker/Florida Today)

Britain and France had to insist US allow their warships to join Iran flotilla

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:17:43 -0600

From James Kirkup, the Telegraph: Defence sources have revealed that the Americans only relented and allowed a Royal Navy frigate to join the mission following an intervention from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.

The revelation that US defence chiefs saw little military value in UK participation will raise new questions about Britain’s international clout after Coalition defence cuts.

Amid rising tensions in the region, the Royal Navy last month deployed HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate, to the Gulf.

The ship accompanied a US carrier strike group made up of an aircraft carrier with a full complement of fighters, a heavy cruiser and several destroyers.

A French frigate, the La Motte-Picquet, was also part of the flotilla which sailed through the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has staged wargames in the area and threatened to block the straits, a vital supply route for oil exports. . . .

British ministers initially signalled they would accept the Washington’s conclusion that did not need allies to take part.

But the British position changed after Mr Sazkozy insisted to the US that a French warship must be present in the flotilla.

Sources said that Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, concluded that if the French were sending a ship, Britain must do so too. His decision to was then endorsed by David Cameron, the Prime Minister. (photo: Reuters)

2013 ambiguity turns meeting of NATO defense ministers into 'day of confusion'

Jorge Benitez — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:37:51 -0600

From Elisabeth Bumiller, the New York Times: The top NATO official said Thursday that NATO forces in Afghanistan would move gradually from a combat to support role by 2014, but that combat would continue during that period and that NATO remained committed to the principle of “in together, out together.”

The statement by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, capped a day of confusion at the headquarters here of the military alliance. The disarray began after the American defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, surprised at least some NATO officials when he said Wednesday that the United States wanted to step back from a combat role in Afghanistan by as early as mid-2013, more than a year before most American and NATO forces are set to go home.

Defense officials said Thursday that Mr. Panetta was speaking of stepping back from a “lead” combat role, although they did not define that.

Mr. Panetta’s comments appeared to reflect the White House’s desire to extract itself as quickly as possible from an unpopular war, but on Thursday Mr. Panetta’s advisers and some NATO officials appeared concerned that other countries might hasten their exit from Afghanistan. Defense officials said throughout the day that the United States would continue in combat operations as needed through 2014 and that a residual international force would remain in 2015. . . .

[Panetta] and his team also played down last week’s announcement by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France that his country would break with its NATO allies and accelerate the withdrawal of its forces in Afghanistan by pulling back its troops a year early, by the end of 2013. Pentagon officials said Mr. Sarkozy and the United States might be more in tune than it appeared, although they acknowledged confusion about the French president’s statement and said their goal was to sort it out at the NATO meeting.

“A lot of policy officials in Paris were scrambling” after Mr. Sarkozy’s announcement, a senior American defense official said. “So getting exactly to what the French bottom line is hasn’t been easy for them, much less for us.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing the internal deliberations of another country. (photo: Getty)

Panetta faces tough NATO meeting after budget shift

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:12:34 -0600

From David Alexander, Reuters: The NATO meeting in Brussels on Thursday and Friday comes a week after [Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta previewed a defense budget that calls for slashing American force numbers in Europe, part of a new U.S. military strategy that puts Asia and the Middle East as top priorities with Europe a lowly third. . . .

Ian Brzezinski, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington, said the European allies would be looking for Panetta to explain what the new U.S. force posture means for the trans-Atlantic alliance.

"That had better be the first top-line objective for the administration because that gets to the essence of the trans-Atlantic bargain and the solidarity of NATO," said Brzezinski, who was deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO Policy during President George W. Bush's administration.

"What are the withdrawal of these forces - two BCTs (brigade combat teams) and this air wing - going to mean about America's commitment to NATO and Article 5," which requires members of the alliance to come to each others' defense, he said.

Brzezinski noted that heads of the U.S. European Command, including the commander, Admiral James Stavridis, have told Congress the U.S. military might not be able to fulfill its treaty obligations with fewer than four Army combat brigades.

Stavridis told the armed services committees of Congress in 2010 that maintaining four brigades was "critical" to the U.S. mission.

"Without the four brigade combat teams and one tactical intermediate headquarters capability, European Command assumes risk in its capability to conduct steady-state cooperation, shaping and contingency missions," Stavridis said in his testimony. "Deterrence and reassurance are at increased risk. . . ."

Beyond reassuring NATO allies over the implications of the U.S. defense budget, Panetta will have to work to avert any appearance of a rush for the exits in Afghanistan after Sarkozy, facing his own re-election challenges, announced the early French withdrawal from Afghanistan at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week.

"For Sarkozy to do this by himself in front of the media ... surprising even his own government was just shocking and it's going to have an impact beyond Washington," said Barry Pavel, director of the international security program at the Atlantic Council.

Pavel said he expected U.S. and NATO leaders to try to avoid having a series of countries drop out of the coalition in Afghanistan over the next few weeks.

"If it's France and then country 'y' and then country 'z' over the next three to four weeks, that's going to look really bad," Pavel said. "And it raises questions about the U.S. commitment in the midst of everybody else getting out."

"So I would imagine the White House would put on a pretty firm push to ... put a security fence around this and firm up the rest of the coalition. Otherwise they're hanging on by a thread and that looks bad in an election year." (photo: Reuters)

France upends NATO's exit strategy in Afghanistan

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:55:45 -0600

From Dan de Luce, AFP: France's decision to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan a year earlier than planned deals a blow to the US-led war effort and threatens to trigger a "rush to the exits" by other NATO members, experts said Monday.

President Nicolas Sarkozy's surprise announcement to pull out his country's forces in 2013 "upends a well-planned, well laid-out NATO strategy of transition in Afghanistan going through 2014," said Damon Wilson, executive vice president of the Atlantic Council and former White House official.

At a meeting of defense ministers this week in Brussels, an anxious United States will be engaging in a round of "damage control" to shore up the alliance's agreed upon timeline, Wilson told reporters.

"You're going to look for the US trying to have as many defense ministers to their press conferences, restating their commitment to the NATO strategy" for a 2014 withdrawal, he told an event organized by the Atlantic Council think tank.

Days after the killing of four French troops by a renegade Afghan soldier, Sarkozy said France's combat forces would leave in 2013 and called on other NATO states to shift to an earlier timetable.

Sarkozy's abrupt change in course last week represents a "stunning" unilateral move that poses "a real challenge to NATO leadership and (President Barack) Obama's leadership," said Ian Brzezinski, a former Pentagon official under George W. Bush's presidency. . . .

"One of Sarkozy's most prominent achievements has been to rehabilitate France's reputation in London and in Washington, that France can be a trusted ally, that it's taking its place within NATO," said Jeffrey Lightfoot, deputy director of Atlantic Council's International Security Program.

For the Taliban insurgency, France's early exit is "a smashing propaganda victory" that encourages targeting European troops to damage a "fragile political consensus" within the coalition, Lightfoot said. (photo: Getty)

Flournoy on Afghanistan Strategy and Military Capabilities Gap in NATO

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:50:30 -0600

From Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service: I think we’ve turned around the strategy in Afghanistan,” she [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy] continued. “I think there has been a lot of progress there. For the first time in five years, violence is down in Afghanistan.” For the first time in years, the United States has “a shot” at achieving its goals, she added.

The NATO operation to protect civilians in Libya from Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is a good model for the future, Flournoy noted. The U.S. military played a limited role focused on the unique capabilities that the American military possesses, such as air-to-air refueling; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets; and command–and-control infrastructure.

The United States had important interests, but they were not vital in the country. Other nations had far more at stake. “I actually think this is an interesting model for the future, particularly as we have greater success in building partner and allied capacity and others are capable of stepping in to take a leadership role,” she said.

The actions over Libya and in Afghanistan prove that NATO is an active and vibrant alliance, Flournoy noted. “The question for NATO is as these economic pressures increase on our European allies, how are they going to manage their own defense enterprise? How are they going to keep investing in defense capabilities that enable them to keep contributing to the future?”

NATO needs to take stock of the assets within the alliance and find a smarter and cheaper way to provide capabilities. “How do we leverage each others’ strengths?” she asked. “How do we mitigate the shortfalls that we experience? We need to put our minds together to ensure the sum of the contributions is greater than the ‘eaches.’”

From Viola Gienger, Bloomberg News: Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, who is stepping down from the No. 3 Pentagon post this week, urged that allies fighting in Afghanistan coordinate their withdrawal of troops and commit the money needed to fill the gaps they leave behind.

Flournoy stressed the need for an orderly transition days before French President Nicolas Sarkozy last week accelerated the pace of his country’s withdrawal.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Chicago summit in May should lead to a detailed plan for troop levels leading to the anticipated handover of security control to the Afghans by the end of 2014, Flournoy told reporters at the Pentagon on Jan. 23 as she prepared to leave office this week.

“Some countries may be wanting to put their own plans on the table at that point,” Flournoy said. “What we’re emphasizing is the importance of us all coordinating.”

Sarkozy preempted such planning with his Jan. 27 announcement after a Paris meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, saying France will withdraw its combat troops by the end of 2013, a year ahead of schedule. The French president shortened the timetable after Afghan soldiers killed five French troops in two incidents in the past month. . . .

The timing and scale of the U.S. exit haven’t been decided beyond the reduction of 33,000 American troops by September, Flournoy said.

Taliban militants may be split over whether to wait for the U.S. and its foreign partners to leave or to proceed with negotiations to end the conflict, Flournoy said. (photo: Richard Perry/New York Times)

France may be the first in a stampede for the exits in Afghanistan

Jorge Benitez — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:37:52 -0600

From the Editors of the Wall Street Journal: French troops have proved their mettle against every adversary. Too bad their civilian masters don't always share the soldierly courage.

That's the story again as Nicolas Sarkozy announces that he'll speed France's withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2013, a year earlier than planned. The French President doubled France's troop presence in 2008, and he has called the Afghan war "the central issue for relations between Islam and the West." But now he has had a change of heart. . . .

As a military matter, the accelerated departure of 4,000 French troops makes little difference to the overall effort against the Taliban. But Mr. Sarkozy says he will use next month's NATO summit to convince the rest of the coalition to follow his lead. The Obama Administration set the tone for the Afghan slink-out last summer, when it announced that 33,000 U.S. surge troops will leave by this September. Washington is now quietly considering an even earlier withdrawal. (photo: Getty)