NATO Reform idea

[Farnan]

Here is a plan that should give more power to Europe, increase cooperation in the Alliance, and reflect current realities.

Right now NATO is divided into two commands:

Allied Command Operations led by Admiral James G. Stavridis (USN) and Allied Command Transformation led by Général d'Armée Aérienne Stéphane Abrial (FAF).

What I propose is dividing it into three commands:

Allied Command, Europe which will control all operations in geographic Europe and Turkey, along with the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Mediterranean. It will be commanded by a European General/Admiral with a US General/Admiral and Turkish General/Admiral as deputies. Immediately upon taking command it will take over KFOR and NATO Operations in the Mediterranean.

Allied Command, Americas which will control all operations in the Americas and Atlantic Ocean. The Falklands and British, Dutch and French holdings in the Caribbean and South America will be official under NATO's umbrella. It will be commanded by a US General/Admiral with a Canadian General/Admiral and European (from Britain, the Netherlands or France) General/Admiral as deputies.

Allied Command, Expeditionary will control all operations outside the control of the other two commands. It will be led by a commander chosen by the North Atlantic Council without any requirement towards nationality. He will have three deputies, two must be either US, European or Turkish (the two from which the commander doesn't come from), and the third is a civilian whose job is to lead NATO's outreach program. ISAF and NATO anti-piracy operations in the Horn of Africa will be immediately put under this command when it is activated.

[PointOfViewGun]

So you think NATO will be more efficient if it's divided intp three commands instead of two? Or did I not get it.

[Farnan]

So you think NATO will be more efficient if it's divided intp three commands instead of two? Or did I not get it.

Yes.

It seems counter logical, but dividing it into three commands allows more focus for each of the staffs. Rather than one staff worrying about operations throughout the world, while also coordinating training operations between the nations. That is difficult to do to say the least. So instead we have one command focused on Europe, and another focused on the Americas. They can focus on operations in their region and training operations there. While the third can focus completely on the expeditionary operations and coordinating them.

And the work of Allied Command Transformation can be done by a small bureau of NATO.

[hellheaven1987]

I kindly agree that idea, but why don't just add an overall command of those three you mention?

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes.
It seems counter logical, but dividing it into three commands allows more focus for each of the staffs. Rather than one staff worrying about operations throughout the world, while also coordinating training operations between the nations. That is difficult to do to say the least. So instead we have one command focused on Europe, and another focused on the Americas. They can focus on operations in their region and training operations there. While the third can focus completely on the expeditionary operations and coordinating them.
And the work of Allied Command Transformation can be done by a small bureau of NATO.

Well, I just don't see how it would make it more efficient. What I think NATO needs is the opposite.

Have one command which governs over all aspects. Each army would be required to commit a certain percantage of their active army. One commander would represent each state in a board and the commanders in this board would choose the leader. Each nation would again contribute a number of staff members to based on their army percentages to operate NATO administration.

[Farnan]

Well, I just don't see how it would make it more efficient. What I think NATO needs is the opposite.

Have one command which governs over all aspects. Each army would be required to commit a certain percantage of their active army. One commander would represent each state in a board and the commanders in this board would choose the leader. Each nation would again contribute a number of staff members to based on their army percentages to operate NATO administration.

The only problem is who leads this will become a matter of politics. If its an American it keeps the NATO image right now of being an American alliance where Europe is the junior partner (Which is stupid but already happens). While in Europe it will be a fight between the French, Germans and British. If the French or Germans take charge Americans may complain that they are in charge of all of NATO but take smaller roles in the operations (which is stupid but something I can see happening). And if its Turkish it can upset the French.

Anyways there doesn't need to be a head. There is no military head of the US Military (the Chairman of Joint Chiefs is an adviser to the president but has no command). However there can be a board in which one commander represents each state with a rotating head whose only power is to set agenda. And this board can act as the primary military advisers to the North Atlantic Council. For those who don't know the North Atlantic Council is the governing body of NATO.

Along with this reform would be the creation of a formal Rapid Response Force under the command of Allied Command, Expeditionary which will be charged with rapid response as required by the North Atlantic Council. This force will be made up of three multinational battle groups( made up of an infantry battalion, recon company, artillery battery, helicopter lift company, attack helicopter company and a support battalion), two disaster relief groups (engineer battalion (vertical, horizontal and water purification units), generator repair platoon, MP Company, medical battalion, helicopter lift battalion, civil-military operations team, and a support battalion), a crisis intervention unit (just an airborne battle group), and enough airlift capabilities to deploy one of those units at any time. The idea is to give a flexible option in case there is a crisis that needs immediate action.

[PointOfViewGun]

The only problem is who leads this will become a matter of politics. If its an American it keeps the NATO image right now of being an American alliance where Europe is the junior partner (Which is stupid but already happens). While in Europe it will be a fight between the French, Germans and British. If the French or Germans take charge Americans may complain that they are in charge of all of NATO but take smaller roles in the operations (which is stupid but something I can see happening). And if its Turkish it can upset the French.

Anyways there doesn't need to be a head. There is no military head of the US Military (the Chairman of Joint Chiefs is an adviser to the president but has no command). However there can be a board in which one commander represents each state with a rotating head whose only power is to set agenda. And this board can act as the primary military advisers to the North Atlantic Council. For those who don't know the North Atlantic Council is the governing body of NATO.

You got it wrong. The elected leader will only act as a gathering leader that will act to cooperate between respective leaders of the nations armies. It won't have that power to do a lot of things but the board will have that power.

What I talked about is similar to what US Military has. You're forgetting the existence of the President and I'm putting the Presidents role as the head commander without all that power. A head commander that will act as the leader of NATO is needed as you need the President for USA.

[Pickle_mole]

Well, I just don't see how it would make it more efficient. What I think NATO needs is the opposite.

Have one command which governs over all aspects. Each army would be required to commit a certain percantage of their active army. One commander would represent each state in a board and the commanders in this board would choose the leader. Each nation would again contribute a number of staff members to based on their army percentages to operate NATO administration.

this would be better imo except for one thing.

I think the percentage of money contributed (money also in the form of soldiers, equipment, supplies etc.) Should be represtented in a weighted vote. If every nation got an "equal" although not proportionate vote you could see a coalition of small states becoming a major voting bloc.

[Banana Jelly]

...Or

Why not 4?

1. America
2. Europe and Turkey
3. Expeditionary
4. Head Chief (controls every single thing, and overlooks all the 3)

[PointOfViewGun]

...Or

Why not 4?

1. America
2. Europe and Turkey
3. Expeditionary
4. Head Chief (controls every single thing, and overlooks all the 3)

I think it's too much of a great leap between the first 3 divisions and the last 4th. It should go with a lesser slope. If we had a smaller slope then we could have less effect of politics in NATO rendering it useless.

[Exarch]

NATO reform sounds intriguing
howsabout this
take into account that the EU may develop an independant military sooner rather than later, then renegotiate a new alliance, NATO II.

[Treize]

If it can stop the EU's ambitions for a federal military, than yes I support this.

[Azog 150]

A very interesting idea. It would certainly put a bit of life back into NATO and take away from the idea that it is an alliance purely aimed at countering the USSR and is hence defunct

However, I am not sure you would be able to get most NATO members to agree to put overseas possessions under the NATO umbrella.

Also, how would the Rapid Response Force work? Woudln't language barriers and differences in equipment and tactics be a problem?

[Farnan]

A very interesting idea. It would certainly put a bit of life back into NATO and take away from the idea that it is an alliance purely aimed at countering the USSR and is hence defunct

My main goal.

However, I am not sure you would be able to get most NATO members to agree to put overseas possessions under the NATO umbrella.

They will remain under the current owners, just NATO will confirm an attack on them is an attack on all of NATO

Also, how would the Rapid Response Force work? Woudln't language barriers and differences in equipment and tactics be a problem?

Soldiers will serve one year rotations in the unit which should standardize tactics, and they will be given standardized equipment. Its all small arms and light vehicles (and light artillery) so shouldn't be too expensive.

About language they will all be English speaking forces, except one battle group will be French speaking.

[Azog 150]

They will remain under the current owners, just NATO will confirm an attack on them is an attack on all of NATO

That's what I mean. Would the likes of Latvia, Turkey or Poland be willing to go to war over a British or French possession thousands of miles away? If you could get them to agree then I would be all in favour of putting overseas possessions under the NATO umbrella (In fact, the Lisbon Treaty now means that EU nations are now obliged to help each other out in the event that an overseas territory is attacked- so maybe it wouldn't be that hard to expand it to NATO)

Soldiers will serve one year rotations in the unit which should standardize tactics, and they will be given standardized equipment. Its all small arms and light vehicles (and light artillery) so shouldn't be too expensive.

About language they will all be English speaking forces, except one battle group will be French speaking.

That makes sense. And what would the rules of deployment be for such a force? What if, for example, German soldiers were on rotation in one of the battle groups and that battle group was called to deploy in an action that goes contrary to the very strict German constituion?

[Farnan]

That's what I mean. Would the likes of Latvia, Turkey or Poland be willing to go to war over a British or French possession thousands of miles away? If you could get them to agree then I would be all in favour of putting overseas possessions under the NATO umbrella (In fact, the Lisbon Treaty now means that EU nations are now obliged to help each other out in the event that an overseas territory is attacked- so maybe it wouldn't be that hard to expand it to NATO)

The Lisbon treaty, and remind them that putting those territories under NATO umbrella means they won't be attacked.

That makes sense. And what would the rules of deployment be for such a force? What if, for example, German soldiers were on rotation in one of the battle groups and that battle group was called to deploy in an action that goes contrary to the very strict German constituion?

Control of their deployment and which units that will be deployed is decided by the North Atlantic Council with the advise of the head of the NATO Military Board and Supreme Allied Commander, Expeditionary. Thus the German delegate to the North Atlantic Constitution can block use of a battle group that would violate the German Constitution.

[Babur]

it definitely needs reform, there isn't any need to keep the Germans down anymore but I guess there is still a reason to keep the Americans in and the Russians out .Farnan do you hope to head one of these commands at one point?

[Poach]

This seems like a sensible restructuring plan to me. Perhaps you should write an essay on it and pass it up the chain of command, Farnan.

[Tiberios]

Intersting idea. I think NATO could use a reform like that.

[Jaketh]

whats the point, Europe doesn't do squat anyway so there isn't a point in giving them more power