All Western hands on deck

The provision of additional military units by Western countries to assist the US-led war in Afghanistan is indicative of foreign policy concerns as well as the interoperability of NATO members, writes Robert Lowry
While the US-led Operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan has depended on airpower, aerial surveillance and special forces operations, political expediency may compel the coalition partners to focus more on supporting aid missions. Television images of a humanitarian disaster being beamed around the world would be exceedingly damaging for the coalition. Yet, as winter approaches the situation will deteriorate unless greater logistical provision is made for humanitarian operations. Moreover, concerns remain that ethnic tensions could erupt as the Northern Alliance advances into Pashtun territory, and it is this prospect that may prompt international calls for the provision of peace-keepers.
However, even in a post-Taliban Kabul, members of the extremist movement would likely target such a force, and the unwillingness to become embroiled could oblige reluctant members of the US-led coalition to undertake peace enforcement operations.
The Netherlands announced on 9 November that it had placed up to 1,400 troops on standby to assist in humanitarian operations in Afghanistan. The forces on offer include three frigates, two mine-sweepers, a submarine, six F-16 fighters with surveillance equipment, two transport planes and four maritime patrol aircraft. However, Dutch Prime Minister Wim Kok stressed that the force would not take part in any attacks on Afghanistan.
Germany has pledged 3,900 military personnel for the coalition, including specialists for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats, medical support, transport aircraft, maritime and special forces. The issue is proving highly contentious within Germany where there are concerns that a German role would infringe the constitution.
Italy this week pledged to mobilise 2,700 troops to assist in the
operations. Rome had earlier indicated it was willing to provide up to eight multi-role Tornado aircraft for tactical reconnaissance missions, one tanker aircraft and one transport aircraft. A maritime force, including an aircraft carrier, was also offered.
Canada has also promised military support -- notably in enhancing logistical and communications capabilities.
Moreover, these, and other NATO countries have offered to step up their peace-keeping roles in the Balkans so as to free up US assets for the war against the Taliban and Al-Qa'eda.
While US land-based, maritime and air forces will continue undertaking the bulk of military operations, Britain has provided special forces and reconnaissance aircraft as well as tanker aircraft for refuelling US warplanes. British submarines have also fired several cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan. France, which has alluded to having special forces on the ground, has offered to contribute satellite imagery to coalition efforts, and in late October, it emerged that French reconnaissance aircraft had begun operations over Afghanistan.
Turkey's offer of some 90 special forces has particular political
significance, particularly as Turkey is NATO's only Muslim country. The US- led coalition certainly includes several Muslim states as far as cooperation on intelligence-sharing, overflight permission and providing logistical bases are concerned, but Ankara's offer of combat forces is unique and contentious, not to say unpopular amongst most Turkish people.
Ankara's participation has been encouraged by several factors, not least its serious financial problems which come at a time of concern over being sidelined from the NATO element of the European Security and Defence Policy. Moreover, Ankara is a little aggrieved that NATO has invoked its Article 5 of its charter, in response to 11 September, which calls for collective defence by member states in the face of an external attack, but will not threaten to do so to support Turkish operations against what Ankara perceives as foreign-backed Kurdish guerrillas.
The invocation of Article 5 in early October enabled five NATO Airborne Warning and Control Systems aircraft (AWACS) to deploy to the US to help monitor air space there, and so free up US AWACS for a more direct involvement in the war effort. General Joseph Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, then described this as an "historic decision" in that it was the first time NATO assets had been used in direct support of the continental US.
The implementation of Article 5 also prompted the deployment of NATO's Standing Naval Force to the Eastern Mediterranean to help curb any regional flare-up of tension. The composition of the force currently comprises warships from Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Turkey and the US.
The military component of "Enduring Freedom" is, however, not a NATO operation per se, especially regarding intelligence cooperation and basing rights. Moreover, non-NATO Australia and New Zealand, who have both maintained a degree of interoperability with NATO forces, have offered special forces units to the coalition. Meanwhile, three Japanese warships are headed for the Indian Ocean to provide non-combat logistical support. As in Germany, there were domestic political concerns that this force would violate the constitution. However, in October the Japanese parliament passed new laws to enable the deployment of military forces in non- combat roles.
It is NATO's joint training and existing compatible communications systems that facilitate coalition operations. Indeed, the requirement for a rapid response capability to aerial reconnaissance could make other multilateral operations problematic.
However, although Iran and Russia are no friends of the Taliban, they are concerned by the presence of NATO assets in the Afghan theatre, especially if this becomes a long-term prospect at a time when oil reserves in the Caspian basin are being developed.
Recommend this page
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor