| |
(© SHAPE) |
General James L. Jones is the
first Marine to be appointed Supreme Allied Commander,
Europe and Commander of
US Forces, Europe. He succeeded
General Joseph W. Ralston on 17 January this year and
is the 14th SACEUR.
As SACEUR, he is in overall command
of NATO's military
forces in Europe as well as of military
forces from more
than 30 countries participating in
the ongoing NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Kosovo.
A Vietnam veteran, he was raised in France
and is bilingual English and French.
You are the first Marine to be appointed SACEUR. You are also the first SACEUR brought up in France. What special experience will you bring to the post?
I come from a culture that operates from sea bases and is able to pack up and go with a moment's notice. Marines are by nature expeditionary and we have a light footprint wherever we go. To the extent that that is an asset to the Alliance, so much the better. Being raised in Europe gives me a perspective on European priorities and European ways of looking at things. I'm enormously grateful for the opportunity to be here. I'm very comfortable in Europe. I like living here and have been a big believer in NATO ever since my early days as a child in Europe. I appreciate what it achieved in the 20th century and feel fortunate to be able to help in whatever it is going to be in the 21st century.
What do you wish to achieve during your term as SACEUR and what difficulties do you anticipate?
I wish to help in the transformation of NATO from its 20th century construct to an organisation prepared to face 21st century realities. That is a very exciting challenge. Whether NATO chooses to be a regional or a global force will obviously depend on the level of investment that member nations are willing to make. My role is to give good military advice to the North Atlantic Council and to member nations about how best to proceed.
The difficulties I am likely to face are probably the same as I would face working in any large institution. NATO is made up of member nations. My work will require a lot of consensus-building, dialogue, and discussions to help convince people of the right way ahead. But this is the way in most democratic institutions. You have to understand the rules of any institution you come into, so that you can navigate within them to achieve your goals.
Before becoming SACEUR, you were involved in preparations for a possible Iraq campaign. What dangers must military planners be aware of in the event of war?
Military planners should always prepare
for the worst-case scenario. After all, there are lives
at stake. It's important always to ask what is the worst
thing that can happen and to prepare contingency plans
for that eventuality. The greatest difficulty we have
to prepare for in Iraq is the reason we may have to go
in in the first place, namely the threat posed by weapons
of mass destruction. The second greatest difficulty would
likely come in sizeable urban areas. My counsel was to
think these issues through before they become a real problem.
You can always hope for the best and hope that, if it
starts, the conflict would be resolved rapidly. But you
also have to have plan B in your pocket, in case events
don't work out the way you wanted them to.
The creation of the
NATO Response Force was one of the most ambitious initiatives
to come out of the Prague Summit. How do you envisage
it working?
The NATO Response Force
should have three parts to it. The first part, namely
a truly expeditionary capability, should be put together
quickly in response to the Prague decisions. Such a force
could be formed out of units that already exist in the
Alliance with niche capabilities. It should be an integrated
force with air, land and sea capabilities, all of which
already exist in the Alliance and are, in principle, already
bought and paid for. It should have a headquarters. It
should have a training centre and it should be credible,
capable and sustainable, if and when we decide to use
it. The good news is that it's not terribly difficult
to put together such a force. We are hoping to be able
to announce a framework under which that force will operate
by the June meeting of NATO defence ministers and to have
some operating capability by the fall of this year.
The
second part of the NATO Response Force is for use in case
the first part is not sufficient for a task. I characterise
this force as being more deployable than expeditionary,
a little more robust, a little slower to get in theatre,
perhaps, but once it has arrived, it has the capability
to take on a lot of tasks. The third part is for use in
case of a major regional conflict where you need the totality
of the force. The simple geometry of a triangular NATO
Response Force with an expeditionary force at the top,
a deployable force in the middle and a follow-on force
at the bottom seems logical both in terms of effective
use of resources and the readiness factors of each of
the tiers. We'll have to make sure, above all, that the
NATO Response Force is credible and that it is not just
something that appears impressive on paper.
The
NATO Command Structure is currently being reconfigured.
What kind of structure do you want to see?
I
would like to see structures that have military utility
and applicability that are streamlined to reflect how
military command structures should be in the 21st century
as opposed to the 20th century. Much has changed. You
no longer need huge military headquarters with hundreds
of people to be effective. Commanders in the 21st century
don't have to take everything with them because of the
tremendous technological reach that exists today. The
whole dynamic is shifting and our command and control
system has to shift with it to become more efficient,
more capable more deployable and add even greater capability
than we have had in the past.
What do you
understand by a Transformational Command?
The
Transformational Command is going to be tasked with making
sure that transformation takes place on both sides of
the Atlantic. Transformation is a bridge that goes in
two directions that all people can walk across. Europeans
can be involved in transformation. Americans can be involved
in transformation. There should be a common "school house"
for the vetting of ideas and the subsequent development
and procurement of the systems to help us in the transformation
process.
I believe that transformation
has four characteristics. The first is the one that most
people understand transformation to be, namely the harvesting
of new technologies. I would also draw a distinction between
transformation and modernisation. Transformation can be
only one of two things. On the one hand, it's being able
to do something that wasn't possible before by acquiring
a new capability, a new invention for example. On the
other hand, it's an existing capability that has been
transformed exponentially as a result of an innovation.
Take, for example, "smart" weapons. The ability to fly
a weapon through a window and achieve extremely precise
results is transformational and the use of the Global
Positioning System has transformed the way the military
does business from the most common rifle squad up to our
surveillance satellites.
The second
characteristic of transformation is the operational concept
on the battlefield. Network-centric warfare has clearly
arrived. Investing in network-centric capabilities and
developing as much awareness as possible allows you to
reduce the size of the field headquarters. Reality is
that you can send infantry companies out to do the work
that was beyond entire battalions just 20 years ago. Institutional
reform is a third aspect of transformation. Large ponderous
headquarters built on the traditional building-block system
are a thing of the past. There should be fewer headquarters
and they have to be lighter and more agile. Lastly, I
believe that people in positions of authority like me
need to be able to articulate a vision for our organisations,
whether it is NATO or SHAPE, and to tie that vision to
an efficient use of resources. We have to demonstrate
that we are able to use resources effectively because
we have to convince people to invest in change. This has
to be accompanied by a clearly thought-out plan of what
any vision is going to cost.
How might
the stationing of US troops in Europe change in the coming
years?
It's too early to tell. But
if you apply the transformational theme to all our forces,
not just the US forces, it's clear that some things can
be done differently and that economies of scale can be
achieved. This is particularly the case in infrastructure,
as some of the logistical footprint is transferred into
effective use at the pointed end of the spear. That is
the kind of change we are looking at. The world is certainly
much smaller in terms of being able to get places rapidly
and it is possible to do more with a reduced force structure.
That means that it is possible to change how and where
soldiers are based, all the while maintaining our traditionally
strong ties within the Alliance.
How do you envisage working together with
the European Union in practical situations such as the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia* and elsewhere?
It is important
that the forces that are used in EU missions are one and
the same as they are in NATO missions, that we maintain
the NATO standards the NATO terminology and the NATO training.
It would be extremely disruptive to try to duplicate these
capabilities. With regard to the upcoming mission in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,* I don't see any
military difficulty in what we are doing. The Deputy SACEUR,
Admiral Rainer Feist, and I are working hand in hand and
I expect this to be a successful undertaking.
At
the Prague Summit, seven countries were invited to join
NATO. What problems do you foresee in integrating these
countries into Alliance structures?
This
will be my first close look at this kind of integration.
But NATO has already learned many lessons from the experience
of the last round of enlargement and I don't think that
any problems are insurmountable. From the military-to-military
standpoint, we've already had close ties with these countries
for many years through the Partnership for Peace programme
and the Membership Action Plan, so we know what we are
dealing with.
The Prague Summit has prepared
the political groundwork for NATO to operate beyond the
Euro-Atlantic area. What kind of mission could the Alliance
be ready to take on and where?
The
ISAF 3 mission that just started up in Afghanistan under
German leadership with Holland and France participating
is a good example. It's not a classic NATO mission, but
the key countries involved are NATO members and they are
using NATO terminology, NATO procedures and NATO capabilities.
In the event of crises that are humanitarian in nature
or require peacekeeping, NATO has proven that it can deal
with them. If it wishes, NATO will have the capability
to operate within the full spectrum of military operations
anywhere.
What kind of internal reform
may be required for NATO to operate beyond the Euro-Atlantic
area and yet maintain its cohesion?
We
are in the process of restructuring the two Strategic
Commands to create one for operations and one for transformation.
It is the Transformational Command that will provide the
vehicle by which nations can join in the transformational
dialogue and adapt their militaries. Greater investment
in command and control and intelligence will be important
as will trying to keep common operating procedures as
common as possible, and making sure that the capabilities'
gap doesn't widen. It will be up to people like myself
and other leaders in NATO to articulate the importance
of this venture. Once again, this relates to a more efficient
use and understanding of how we get and spend our resources.
How has the military profession changed during your career
and what skills are required for a soldier in the 21st
century?
The changes have been dramatic.
In the United States, we went from a conscripted force
to an all-volunteer force 27 years ago. When we did that
we embarked on a grand adventure to arrive at today's
force which is easily the most educated, the brightest
and the most capable force that I have ever been a part
of. The young people coming in to the military today are
extraordinarily bright, know exactly what they are doing
and are joining for the right reasons. Their concept of
service would be inspirational to those heroes of the
20th century who gave us the world that we currently enjoy
living in. Having said that, the military is more complex
and technical today. We demand more of our young officers
at an earlier age than we ever did before. The education
of soldiers, officers and non-commissioned officers alike,
is proceeding at an amazing pace. It's not uncommon, for
example, to find individuals with college degrees in the
non-commissioned officer ranks today. And it's not uncommon
to find individuals with PhDs in the commissioned officer
ranks. Successful military officers today must know not
only their specific area of service, but also how to work
within a combined arena. They must also be conversant
in at least one foreign language. And they must have a
global perspective and appreciation of the world as it
is evolving to make a contribution commensurate with their
stations in life and the uniforms that they wear. As I
go around SHAPE headquarters, I see evidence of this on
the international scale every day. I am surrounded by
outstandingly smart and dedicated people who are making
tremendous contributions to an Alliance whose best days
are, in my opinion, still to come.
|
