NEWS TRANSCRIPT from the United States Department of Defense<br /><br />DoD News Briefing<br />Senior Defense Official<br /> Thursday, June 12, 2003<br /><br />(Press backgrounder from NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. Also participating<br />was Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.)<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: Thank you. We ve had a very productive set of<br />meetings this morning. Obviously Secretary Rumsfeld has arrived here in Brussels.<br />Is that better? Okay good.<br /><br /><br /> Secretary Rumsfeld has arrived here in Brussels after trips to Lisbon,<br />Portugal, to Tirana, Albania, and to the Marshall Center in Garmisch-Partenkirchen<br />in Germany. And we ve had morning sessions of the Nuclear Planning Group, the<br />Defense Planning Committee and the first session of the North Atlantic Council,<br />Defense [Ministers Session].<br /><br /><br /> A wide range of topics were discussed today, but the focus really this morning<br />was on fulfillment of the Prague capability packages, which came out of the meeting<br />of the Heads of State. In particular, the NATO Response Force, the capabilities<br />commitments and the command structure.<br /><br /><br /> Let me start with the first and the third of those. The ministers approved<br />today a concept, essentially a concept of operations, for the NATO Response Force.<br />And there was really a strong sense of enthusiasm around the table not only for the<br />creation of this force but also for the acceleration of its development. We re<br />looking at an early capability by this fall, and then follow on with what would be<br />considered an initial operating capability in the next fall. The Chairman of the<br />Military Committee, General Kujat, and General Jones and others engaged in this<br />dialogue with ministers on setting up the NATO Response Force. And this has been<br />completely agreed and I think is a very, very positive step forward.<br /><br /><br /> In addition to the need for the NATO Response Force as a capability that the<br />Alliance can use to address the full spectrum of threats that it might have to deal<br />with, the other thing that ministers agreed on was that the NATO Response Force<br />would really be a focal point for developing new capabilities for the Alliance --<br />that the capabilities needed to create the NATO Response Force are the high priority<br />capabilities that nations need to invest in. And that those things which are not<br />needed will no longer be invested in.<br /><br /><br /> On the second point about the Prague Capabilities Commitment, there is a review<br />of this by ministers. I think the general view was that while some progress has<br />been made, there is still quite a bit more to be done. And that there needs to be<br />more concrete and more tangible commitments. Some of those commitments will come<br />later on this afternoon when, I believe there will be MOUs [memoranda of<br />understanding] signed on airlift and sealift projects. But I think the general<br />consensus -- and certainly one from the United States point of view -- is that<br />investment and more investment in the right kinds of capabilities by the Alliance as<br />a whole is still needed.<br /><br />Finally on the command structure, the ministers approved the new NATO command<br />structure, which will result in a major reduction and streamlining in the size of<br />the command structure, taking it down from roughly twenty elements down to eleven<br />elements. The number of combined air operations centers will go down from ten to<br />four, plus two deployable centers. And this streamlining really represents, I<br />think, an important potential resource saver for the Alliance. It also means now<br />that we re better organized, I think, to conduct joint combined operations.<br /><br /><br /> And I think maybe the most exciting element of this is that there are two new<br />strategic commands. The Allied Command Europe is no longer. It has now been<br />replaced by Allied Command Operations, which has operational responsibility for the<br />entire geographic responsibilities of the Alliance. And the second strategic<br />command, Allied Command Atlantic, is also no longer. And it has been replaced by a<br />functional command, Allied Command Transformation. And in his hat today as Joint<br />Force Commander, but within the next couple of weeks we hope, Admiral Edmund<br />Giambastiani will become the new Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, which is<br />really a direct link between the between the Joint Forces Command in the United<br />States, which is responsible for U.S. transformation, and the Alliance. He will<br />function in a dual-hatted role, as both the head of Joint Forces Command on the U.S.<br />side and also as the Supreme Allied Commander, Transformation, with a European<br />deputy.<br /><br /><br /> In addition to that, this new Allied Command Transformation will have a<br />significant European footprint. There will be a Joint Warfare Center established in<br />Stavanger in Norway. There will also be a joint training area established in Poland<br />for this Allied Command Transformation, and there s the prospects for other<br />countries to develop what we call Centers of Excellence in the area, in areas such<br />as maritime capabilities, CBW, defense capabilities and the like that would be<br />brought in underneath this Allied Command Transformation.<br /><br /><br /> So with that as a general backdrop, I d like to turn it over for some questions.<br /><br /><br /> Q: I have a very simple one just to start with. This is a really simple<br />question. So, what we ve been calling SACEUR is going to become SAC-OPs? Is that<br />correct?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: No.<br /><br /><br /> Q: It will still be SACEUR?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: The names SACEUR and SHAPE will continue, but SACEUR<br />will now be the head of Allied Command Operations.<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) General Jones, as he s double-hatted, is now responsible for<br />the whole of the world operations, not just Europe?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: The whole of what?<br /><br /><br /> Q: Geographic area, outside Europe.<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: Yes, correct. Well, when I say outside Europe (what<br />I mean is) the North Atlantic area. So his responsibilities as Supreme Allied<br />Commander Europe at the head of Allied Command Operations means he has operational<br />responsibilities for that entire geographic area. Whereas before, remember there<br />were two strategic commanders. One was responsible for the Atlantic and this was<br />established at a time when it was envisioned to be a major Atlantic battle that<br />would be going on -- surge of U.S. forces -- and that Atlantic battle, of course,<br />would be going on with the Soviet Union, Soviet submarines, Soviet surface ships,<br />aircraft and the like. This obviously is a thing of the past, and so it seemed to<br />make more sense for the Alliance to put its operations under one commander, and then<br />to provide for sort of the functional transformational aspects of the Alliance in<br />another commander.<br /><br /><br /> The real -- one of the real other advantages of Allied Command Transformation<br />is that it also establishes a major strategic command on U.S. territory in Norfolk,<br />Virginia, and establishes, therefore, a transatlantic link. There will be a lot of,<br />large number of allied officers staying in the Norfolk area, although the character<br />of the officers that will be sent there will be changing very dramatically over time<br />because it s very much a maritime focus now, and it will now become a joint focus.<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) Just a couple of Iraq-related questions. Could you first talk<br />a little bit about the significance of NATO agreeing to help the whole set-up there<br />in Iraq. Second of all, you talk a little bit about how the U.S. feels about NATO,<br />about what else NATO might be able to do in Iraq, and whether you were satisfied<br />thus far with the kinds of offers of assistance --<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: We are very enthusiastic about NATO s decision to<br />help the Poles. I think it s a big step for NATO. It s a strong commitment to a<br />new ally who is stepping up to very important responsibilities. And it will be<br />viewed as very helpful to the coalition in Iraq. So it s a winner all around as far<br />as we re concerned.<br /><br /><br /> And you know, we re at the nascent stages of this. NATO has just made the<br />decision. There is going to be a force generation conference going on, I believe,<br />over the next few weeks to try to figure out what particular areas will be able to<br />support the Poles. At the same time, I would add, NATO is also doing force<br />generation for ISAF IV in Afghanistan. So, there is really an amazing amount of<br />activity going on, all of it out of the European theater and all requiring the kinds<br />of capabilities that we re trying to build in this capabilities commitment and<br />through the NRF. So I think all of these pieces, the action, the sort of tangible<br />action that NATO is taking to improve its capabilities are also a reflection of the<br />new responsibilities that the members of the Alliance see that they need to step up<br />to.<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) The letter of intent to be signed on airlift any guarantee<br />that the C-17 will actually be used in the mix? Are the Europeans willing to pay?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: I don t think that -- my understanding of the letter<br />of intent is that it doesn t make those decisions. It doesn t get down to that<br />level of granularity. But as I understand it, there is a prospect for C-17 leasing,<br />as well as leasing of other types of heavy lift aircraft, Ukrainian aircraft. So I<br />think those are still open, but the letter of intent is just that, it s a letter of<br />intent. It s not, at this point, a commitment to specific projects or specific<br />leasing deals; that will be worked out in time.<br /><br /><br /> Can we go back to the back row here maybe?<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) -- with the Spanish decision to assist in Polish sector --<br />is it now a Polish sector? Or a Polish-Spanish sector --<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: I am -- I think we are -- well pleased with the fact<br />that Poland is attracting strong support for its commitment to stand up a divisional<br />headquarters and I think that the decision by Spain to join shows the confidence<br />that all parties have in Poland, and certainly including -- I would especially<br />include -- the United States in that. And I think that this is a coalition effort<br />that we are embarking on. There are Poles, there are Americans, there are British,<br />there are Spanish, there are Australians and there are many, many other countries<br />that will be involved. And I think that s the best way to characterize it.<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) -- what do you mean by early initial capabilities?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: I think the early capability is to begin, is first of<br />all to stand up, the training regiment; to get the NRF into a position where it<br />could be used. And it will also be smaller in size than the full capability that we<br />would propose to have committed eventually when the NRF reaches full operational<br />capability, which, as you may remember, was about a brigade-sized element plus its a<br />similar commitment no the air side and the maritime side. So, you won t see that<br />full brigade capability in this early capability. But a smaller capability built on<br />what we call third-tier special operations-type forces could be then built onto over<br />time to provide that full brigade-type capability. So smaller, a little bit<br />different in composition and with an emphasis early on, I think, in developing<br />operational concepts, standardization and the like. And the training regiment and<br />certification necessary to be able to make the force able to carry out its tasks.<br />And Allied Command Transformation actually will play a role in that, in helping to<br />certify the NATO Response Force.<br /><br /><br /> Clarke: Okay, we have about two more.<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: Okay, you pick them.<br /><br /><br /> Clarke: No, you pick them.<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: Okay, how about this gentleman here?<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) How do you see the division of responsibilities between the<br />NRF and the European rapid reaction force?<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: Well, as you know the NRF is designed to deal with a<br />broad spectrum of potential contingencies, all the way up to forced entry-type<br />situations, high intensity combat. The European Rapid Reaction Force, as I<br />understand it, is based on the so-called Petersburg principles. It s designed to<br />focus more on peacekeeping and peace-enforcement type operations. So I don t know<br />that there is a strict division of labor here.<br /><br /><br /> I think that one of the things that we in the Alliance and I think in the EU<br />are cognizant of is that there s one set of capabilities -- that the Alliance<br />members -- there s such a broad overlap. We don t have separate militaries for the<br />European Union and for NATO. We have a grouping of national militaries. And so<br />we re going to have to make judgments, I think, down the road in where the<br />particular emphases out to be. The EU has just sent a force into Macedonia. They<br />are, I think, contemplating sending a force into Africa. And NATO is helping by<br />supporting ISAF. So I think that these things will be worked out practically and I<br />don t know that there will be a strict division of labor but to the extent that<br />there s a difference, I think it s really based on the fact that the Petersburg<br />principles kind of outline the EU s set of objectives for that force, and the NRF,<br />on the other hand, is a full-spectrum force.<br /><br /><br /> Q: (Inaudible.) -- the Alliance moving beyond the divisions over the war in<br />Iraq -- (Inaudible.)<br /><br /><br /> Senior Defense Official: I think that there was obviously broad support in the<br />Alliance for our position on Iraq. It was maybe not unanimous. But what we have<br />today is an Alliance that has come together to say that NATO should play a role in<br />the reconstruction of Iraq; NATO should play a major role out of its traditional<br />geographic areas, including as far away as Afghanistan. And that we have been able<br />to work out concepts of operations for a NATO Response Force in a way that is, I<br />think, fully compatible with Berlin-Plus and the NATO-EU arrangements. We have a<br />new command structure that is going to be able to be supportive of those<br />activities. And every country around the table is more strongly supportive of<br />increased capabilities. So I think, yes, that the Alliance is in a much better<br />position today than it was in February when we had some serious divisions.<br /><br /><br /> But, as is usual, I think, of NATO, warnings of its death are always<br />premature. And we have a very strong and vibrant Alliance and nineteen come<br />twenty-six members who are really committed to seeing this Alliance maintain itself<br />as the most important security institution in the transatlantic area.<br /><br /><br /> Clarke: Great place to stop. Thank you.<br /><br />[Web Version: ]http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030612-0277.html]<br /><br />-- News Transcripts: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/briefings.html<br />-- DoD News: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html<br />-- Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/dodnews.html#e-mail<br />-- Today in DoD: http://www.defenselink.mil/today/