Index Research will focus on a country or an issue which is of particular interest to me. Articles have appeared on and others.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006


by Sarah Meyer
Index Research

This article updated 18/06/07

In a word, we are at the beginning, not the end, of a profound crisis in the US’ relations with NATO.Gabriel Kolko.

1. The PNAC and NATO Coven
2. NATO and Europe
3. NATO Goes Global
4. NATO, Israel and Mediterranean Partners
5. NATO in Lebanon?
6. The Bathtub is Overflowing
7. The Bathtub is Draining Out
8. Overstretched NATO in ‘Asscrackistan’
9. NATO and Secret Armies
10. Updates

Please also see : Afghanistan: NATO is now US-ATO

One of the key Project of the New American Century (PNAC)1 documents is Building America’s Defenses. The thrust of the large section, Building Today’s Armed Services,2 is about the “bathtub of unreadiness.”3 The PNAC document expresses the need to build up all branches of the armed forces in order to obtain “long term political or regime change,4 global expansion and security, for which a huge extended budget is required as the “American security perimeter expands.” 5

This ‘bathtub of unreadiness’ includes NATO.

Further, improvements should be made to existing air bases in new and potential NATO countries to allow for rapid deployments, contingency exercises, and extended initial operations in times of crisis. … Some of the cost could be covered, it is suggested, by the host nation or NATO.”6

Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn.”7


NATO’s 'transformation', a favoured word in PNAC documents - and used frequently by Rumsfeld and his coven - was already taking place as early as 1996. The U.S. Committee on Nato was founded in that year by Bruce Jackson and Greg Craig. Originally, it was called ‘The U.S. Committee to Expand NATO’. After its disbandment in 2003, it became the ‘Project on Transitional Democracies’ – in the same office. In 2003-04, ‘The Project on Transitional Democracy’ received 6 grants 8 totalling £229,400.

Bruce Jackson is still in his office. His revolving door swings around the Defense Department, Lehman Brothers, various ‘think tanks,’ and ‘non-profit’ affiliations. From 1993 – 2002, he was the Vice President for Strategy and Planning at Lockheed Martin.

The lobbyist, Randy Scheunemann, another PNACer, was also still (2003) in this office. In 2001, he was a consultant on Iraq policy in Rumsfeld’s office, and has been on various congressional committees. He was, for a year, president of Mercury, who handled Lockheed Martin and various gun-related businesses / lobbies. Julie Finley was also a founding member who was still in this office in 2003. All three have been involved with the Committee for the Liberation (sic) of Iraq. “People in the White House said, ‘We need you to do for Iraq what you did for NATO'", Jackson said.

Connections with the U.S. Committee on NATO included PNACers Paul Wolfovitz, Richard Perle, Gary Schmitt and Robert Kagan. Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland. Nuland is an accomplished woman. At present, she is the US Ambassador to NATO. From 2000 - 2003, she was a foreign policy advisor to Cheney. Prior to this, she was internationally active.


The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO in 1999.

On the 29th of March 2004, seven countries became members of NATO: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Lithuanian Prime Minister said, “… we’ve been preparing for a decade.” NATO, with 2.8 million personnel, was thus adding 200,000 more ‘to fight terrorism.’ New NATO members were in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Romania, for example, had 800 troops in Iraq.

The US Senate was concerned about a provision which would allow America to launch an attack without Romania’s knowledge or permission. General Smith said that "in the future, all NATO bases can be used in case of a (military) conflict, based on an Alliance decision," but underlined that Romania will be able to express its position, ‘as a sovereign nation and NATO member with full rights.’ The U.S. uses four bases in Romania. Romania has been rumoured to be the recipient of ‘extraordinary rendition’ – Pentagon soft-porn for kidnapping / human trafficking.

In mid-February 2006, Slovenian military instructors left for Iraq to partake in a NATO mission, training Iraqi security officers. This government decision provoked controversy.

Also in February 2006, Macedonia, Albania and Croatia said they hoped to become part of NATO by 2008. Pennsylvania’s ex-US Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who supported the death penalty and duct tape in an emergency, has been named as a NATO consultant for the Albanian government.

In Bulgaria, the U.S. military will be able to use three Bulgarian bases, as well as another storage facility, for ten years. There is double-speak in the announcement said to be made by the Dutch Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. A Bulgarian newspaper reported (04.06) that nuclear weapons would not be deployed in Bulgaria, but the S.G of NATO said that NATO members would meet to discuss the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons on Bulgaria's territory in the case of a major crisis. (SM italics).

Montenegro, a country of 650,000 people, has asked for NATO ‘Partner for Peace’ (PFP) membership.

Polls indicate that Finland is strongly opposed to joining NATO.

Russia found the expansion ‘offensive.’ France has also objected.


Gabriel Kolko wrote in an important article, American Foreign Policy and the Future of Nato, that the US’ "ambitious agenda" was outlined by the US ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland. The interview appeared in the Financial Times (24.01.06). “The US wants a ‘globally deployable military force’ that will operate everywhere – from Africa to the Middle East and beyond. It will include Japan and Australia as well as the NATO nations. … ‘It’s a totally different animal,’ to quote her, ‘whose ultimate role will be subject to US desires and adventures.’ Ms. Nuland’s emphasis reiterates the NATO policy expressed in the Quadrennial Defense Review:
“Achieving the vision set out in this Report will only be possible by maintaining and adapting the United States’ enduring alliances. Alliances are clearly one of the nation’s greatest sources of strength. Over the past four years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and U.S. bilateral alliances with Australia, Japan, Korea and other nations have adapted to retain their vitality and relevance in the face of new threats to international security. These alliances make manifest the strategic solidarity of free democratic states, promote shared values and facilitate the sharing of military and security burdens around the world. The United States places great value on its unique relationships with the United Kingdom and Australia, whose forces stand with the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other operations. These close military relations are models for the breadth and depth of cooperation that the United States seeks to foster with other allies and partners around the world. Implementation of the QDR’s agenda will serve to reinforce these enduring links.”

With the US’s ex-enemies in Eastern Europe now under the US / NATO wing, members further afield are being courted. The task is “going from Europe to global.” Lord Robertson, for example, started leaning on Azerbaijan as early as 2001.

In 2005, Kazakhstan and NATO planned to sign an agreement. Bush does not appear to have problems dealing with government leaders from Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan (accused of pocketing $75m. in bribes) despite the corruption.

In February ’06, it was announced that Georgia would become a NATO member in 2008.

In August ’06, the President of Ukraine continued his country’s drive toward the EU and NATO. Ukrainians protested. Nevertheless, on the 29th of August, a US armed forces delegation arrived in Sebastopol to discuss the ‘NATO Active Endeavor’ anti-terrorist operation which will take place in the Mediterranean. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will participate alongside NATO member states. It was decided that NATO would double its financing.

And a NATO official saw “Hope for Ties with Uzbekistan.”

Whilst Moldova is not going to join NATO, it is going to introduce NATO standards during the restructuring of the armed forces . The country did not unanimously support this plan.

In Iraq, 140 officers, who had been supervised by 100 NATO trainers from ‘more than 10 countries,’ graduated and will join Iraq’s new army. Germany, the Netherlands and the US were the main contributors. The Czech government paid a $64,000 subsidy and gave five Czech military instructors to be part of that mission.

In early August ’06, Russia was still questioning NATO enlargement.


At a February NATO meeting in Sicily, AP reported that the United States and other NATO nations were “building ties with friendly nations in North Africa and the Middle East.” This meeting on counterterrorism was in cooperation with NATO's "Mediterranean partners"— Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan and Mauritania.

On the 3rd of March ’06, focus-fen reported: “US Congressmen Propose Israel to Be Accepted in NATO.” By June, Jordan had offered to host a Middle East NATO training centre for the Mediterranean partners.

The Sunday Times said that Maj. General Tuttleman was showing off an AWACS plane in Israel, suggesting that NATO may help US air strikes on Iran. Israel’s special forces, noted the Sunday Times, ‘are said to be operating inside Iran in an urgent attempt to locate the country’s secret uranium enrichment sites.’ “We found several suspected sites last year but there must be more,” an Israeli intelligence source said. ‘They are operating from a base in northern Iraq, guarded by Israeli soldiers with the approval of the Americans, according to Israeli sources.’ (17.05.06) announced NATO TO SET UP MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE. ‘Long-range missile interceptor and related transmitters will allow the United States to monitor a larger area and will help protect its allies and friends in Europe from threats emanating from Iran,” Lt. Gen. Obering said. … “Japan, Israel and the United Kingdom are the U.S.' principal partners in missile defense cooperation. … Japanese investment, including in joint projects with the United States, has exceeded $1 billion.”

Barzilai wrote: “the agreement for Israel’s participation in the NATO cataloguing system was signed in June, after a year of negotiations. Israel is currently an associate member in the system and will obtain full membership within three years.” Israel will thus have access to the uniform framework of inventory and equipment use in all NATO member states.

Concomitant with the NATO activity in Africa is the U.S. Central Command’s interest in filling up the bathtub in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and other African countries. “In 2005, the US Defense Department tabled a new plan to reorganize its military bases with initial ideas to add more than 10 frontier operation bases or establishments and prepare to transfer most of its servicemen stationed in Europe to Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and other African nations.”


Hossein Alai thought there were plots underway to deploy NATO troops there. The U.S. pushed for a NATO force in Lebanon. There were conflicting responses to the American initiative. News 24 reported that “NATO reacted cautiously to US/ Israeli calls, … while diplomats said the military alliance was already hugely stretched, notably in Afghanistan.” But General James Jones, the NATO military commander, said NATO “would be up to the job.” Ken Silverstein asked a potent question in an excellent Harper’s article, “Could U.S. Troops End Up In Lebanon?” Read here.

Jacques Chirac responded: "As far as France is concerned, it is not NATO's mission to put together such a force. Whether we like it or not, NATO is perceived as the armed wing of the West in these regions, and as a result, in terms of image, NATO is not intended for this."

Meanwhile, in Canada in July, NATO soldiers (Canada, UK, Belgium, Denmark, France & Germany) were learning about chemical and nuclear response tactics.

Not content with egregious errors in Lebanon, Israel has been looking towards Iran. On the 24th of August, ‘high ranking Israeli officials’ said that “Israel … may have to go it alone.” Is that ‘alone’ as in Lebanon, where Israel had financial support from as well as the use of illegal US weapons?

With reference to the disaster in Lebanon, Robert Fisk, with characteristic wryness, notes: "No wonder the UN can't find volunteers … The Iraq fiasco - and the growing débâcle in Afghanistan has drained the will of NATO nations to commit troops to peacekeeping operations, certainly for missions which may involve confrontations and violence with Muslims.”

Russia was even more offended, and conducted war games.


Who is benefiting from this NATO expansion?

James Petras wrote (1997): “The U.S. Congressional Budget Office predicts total cost of NATO enlargement at about $125 billion over 13 years with Washington paying only $19 billion. That means Eastern and Western Europe will have to pay 85 percent of the cost, or $106 billion. … The new members of NATO in East Europe will have to increase their military spending to be on the same footing with their Western partners. U.S. arms manufacturers are the biggest supporters of NATO expansion and will be the principle economic beneficiaries.” (SM emphasis)

NATO spent some US$676 billion on defence during the financial year 2005 - 2006. The amount that each country’s expenditure should be according to their GNP (2004) can be seen here.

What is the sting in the tail? Why are countries rushing to join this new global USATO? Aid. The USAID Administrator and Vice Administrator are appointed by the President. Randall Tobias is the current Administrator. After the army, he joined and became the CEO of AT & T, following which he was the CEO of Eli Lilly and Co. For the USAID budget, see here and then ‘google’ a country of your interest. Romania, for example, received $25m. through a ‘Public–Private Partnership’ - USAID, GMF and the Mott Foundation. Charles Stewart Mott, a GM Motors pioneer, founded the Mott F. in 1926, which now has assets of $2.5b. William S. White is the present CEO. The Romanian president attended a GMF (German Marshall Fund) dinner in July, saying that he was “committed to the transformation of NATO” whilst simultaneously “urging a boost in American investment in Romania.” The GMF was founded in 1972 and has six European offices. The lobbyist Marc Leland is one of the co-chairmen. He is also Director of the Noble Corporation in Texas, which deals in oil and gas drilling and exploration. Guido Goldman of Harvard University and CEO of the Park Avenue finance company First Spring, shares this post. David Ignatius, the spy-intrigue author and associate editor / columnist of The Washington Post, also sits on the GMF Board.

When high ranking Romanian officials asked what kind of military planes Romania should buy to "be of help" to NATO, ‘General Smith said the decision was to be made by the chief of staff and political leaders.’

“Phantom aid” is slowly being revealed. … Ann Jones wrote an excellent article for TomDispatch (27.08.06). Amongst many nuggets: “70 percent of U.S. aid is contingent upon the recipient spending it on American stuff, including especially American-made armaments. The upshot is that 86 cents of every dollar of U.S. aid is phantom aid. … In 2001, Andrew Natsios, then head of USAID, cited foreign aid as "a key foreign policy instrument" designed to help other countries "become better markets for U.S. exports." Read her article here.

“New members will spend a combined $4 billion a year to meet NATO standards,” boosting sales for companies - including Lockheed Martin Corp., the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor, and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., Europe's biggest aerospace company,” according to Bloomberg (29.03.04). A newly revised 2006 account would see a likely increase in this figure.

"This is the most exciting time in the defence and security market in more than 30 years,” said Tim Page, president of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries. Excellent research by Jorge Barrera for the Ottowa Times and published on Corpwatch (20.08.06), can be read here.

The two ‘behemoths’ that “anchor Ottowa’s defense and security sector” are:
• Lockheed Martin
• General Dynamics
“Canada's military is currently a slave to the whims and needs of the U.S. military; the Canadian military buys most of its supplies from the U.S.,” said P. Tonkin of Tonkin Aerospace.
• $5.4 million worth of ammunition from the U.S. through a non-competitive contract.
• $23.8 million worth of aircraft parts and $6.7 million in guided missiles.
Ottowa’s companies ‘in for the kill’ include:
• ACE Security Laminates
• DEW engineering
• Idokorro
Canada also recently purchased five Skylarks “and the army has an option to buy five more … The military refused to say how much each unit costs because details of the contract with the Canadian supplier for Elbit Systems Ltd. of Israel has yet to be finalized. Seven other NATO countries are already using the Skylark… (Canada) has yet to acquire any of the bigger American UAVs, such the Global Hawk or Predator, which can be armed with missiles.”

In August ’06, the Netherlands bought EUR 25M in Australian Bushmaster IMVs for Afghanistan.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts can be received freely on the internet. For a deluge of US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts see here.9 For contracts relating to NATO, see here. The UK charges over £200 for their contract information. Following is a spatter of information.

In the U.K, a £1.15bn contract was agreed for NATO redevelopment, noted the Watford Observer (04.08.06). The contract was awarded to Eastbury Park Ltd, a joint venture between Carillion Defence and HSBC Infrastructure Fund Management Limited.

The MoD bought two £30m US drones to fight the Taliban, said the Telegraph (28.08.06). These Predator drones (UAVs), made by General Atomics, carry four Hellfire missiles, made by Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin gets $105 from each U.S. Taxpayer and $228 from each U.S. household to support their weapons building endeavors.

Some other UK / NATO related contracts:

Raytheon Battlefield Target Identification Device (July ’06);
Atkins Defense Systems: NATO submarine rescue service.

The financial result was predictable. Profits in the weapons manufacturing department have soared whilst their costs have doubled since 9/11.

The Ledger revealed in February ’06 that there was a “A US Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies.” Now, The Institute for Policy Studies has recently released a report, Executive Excess, which highlights the profits made by oil and defense CEOs since 2001. $984m is the total made by 34 defense CEOs, for example, since 9/11. Gross obscenity of the Pop Chart is the $200m pocketed by George David of United Technologies, who make Pratt and Whitney jet engines and Sikorsky helicopters. In 2005, he earned $31.9m. Other elite defense contractors include: Boeing, Halliburton, Oshkosh Truck, Textron, Computer Sciences, URS, Health Net, Armour Holding and General Dynamics. In the oil world, last year’s chief executives earned $512m, with the top prize going to W. Greeley of Valero Energy Corp. Other oil companies mentioned are: Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobile, Marathon Oil, EOG Resources, XTO Energy, Conoco Phillips, Halliburton, Amerada Hess and Apache Corp.10

The war in Afghanistan is about corporate power, profit and control of energy resources, which are the ‘special interests’ of the U.S. government. U.S.-ruled NATO thus has a role to play in energy security.

Martin Walker of UPI wrote (13.10.05): NATO Means Business To Protect Pipelines. “NATO's top military commander is seeking an important new security role for private industry and business leaders as part of a new security strategy that will focus on the economic vulnerabilities of the 26-country alliance. Two immediate and priority projects for NATO officials to develop with private industry are to secure the pipelines bringing Russian oil and gas to Europe against terrorist attacks and to secure ports and merchant shipping, the alliance Supreme Commander, Gen. James Jones of the U.S. Marine Corps said Wednesday. … "the future is that the alliance will continue to grow, beyond the current 26 members …"

Oil and Gas in Afghanistan + map & CIA 01.03.Oil Map of Iraq.11


There are financial shortfalls. "Low European defense budgets are a brake on our transformation,” said Apathurai, NATO’s spokesperson.

In February ’06, the United States was pushing the NATO allies to increase their defense spending and to modernize their forces so they could “join the U.S. military in more security and counterterrorism missions beyond NATO borders.”

Money was limited. The new members' combined defense budget (2004) of “about $4 billion a year, including $1.4 billion for Romania, is about the same size as Poland's alone and less than 1 percent of total defense spending by current NATO members. Romania, the largest of the new NATO countries, has already upgraded 90 Soviet-made fighters to NATO standards under a $500 million contract with Israel's Elbit Industries. It is upgrading dozens of helicopters, and buying used carrier planes from the U.S. Navy and warships from the British navy.”

Are States Paying Too High a Price for Joining NATO?’ asked focus-fen in July.12 “Croatia was surprised to receive from the NATO Secretary General’s office a list of additional requirements it had to fulfill in order to join the Alliance together with Albania and Macedonia in 2008. NATO wanted Croatian armed forces to send 6,000 militaries in peacekeeping operations around the world. The document even mentioned a strategy according to which the new members of the Alliance should make up 40% of the structure of current peacekeeping missions and 8% of the total number of militaries which should immediately be sent to crisis regions.”

It has also been reported that NATO officials have asked the Czech air force to provide Russian-made Mi-17 Hip helicopters to help the 4,000 British troops in Helmand who are being seriously hampered by a lack of transport helicopters, such as Chinooks.

The U.S. and NATO (01.09.06) want more military aid from Norway, but Norway has staffing problems, and most people in the country are against military actions.

There are some interesting criticisms in the U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection (05.06):
“NATO should revisit its funding policy, which penalizes contributing nations by forcing them to pay for their participation. The use of trust funds is also a growing failure. NATO has committed the political capital of the Alliance and all 26 nations represented to train Iraqi officers. It is now prepared to squander that capital by failing to fund the commitment. …

NATO should revisit its funding policy, which penalizes contributing nations by forcing them to pay for their participation. The use of trust funds is also a growing failure. NATO has committed the political capital of the Alliance and all 26 nations represented to train Iraqi officers. It is now prepared to squander that capital by failing to fund the commitment.”


On the 19th of December 2005, the US Defense Department announced that there would be a US troop withdrawal of 2,500, in Afghanistan, “largely because of the increased role NATO is taking in providing security in the country.” Congress confirmed this in June, no questions asked.

In other words, the U.S. is using NATO not only as a further weapons windfall, but also as an extension of their armed forces.

But G. Witte of The Washington Post (03.01.06) swallowed the government spin without question. “The United States says that its shifting approach complements Afghanistan's evolution into a self-sustaining democracy.”

Vance Serchuk, of the American Enterprise Institute asked: “Why has the Bush administration embraced a military strategy for southern Afghanistan that is so dependant on fickle partners? The current mess is a predictable consequence of the Pentagon's determination to have NATO assume more responsibility in Afghanistan and as fast as possible. And it's a portent of even bigger problems to come.”

The NATO merry-go-round in Afghanistan, driven by America’s announced withdrawal of 2,500 - 4,000 (of 19,500) troops in the spring of 2006, went into overdrive. See Afghanistan: The NATO Quagmire, here. For resource material on NATO in Afghanistan, see Index on Afghanistan here

One February ’06 day, two google “Afghanistan / NATO headlines contradicted each other: ‘Afghan people want us here,' said Canada’s former Ambassador to Afghanistan. The following google headline was Suicide Attacks on NATO Escalating in Afghanistan. It seems obvious that the increasing violence is directly related to the increased number of foreign troops spreading out over Afghanistan.

In April, the Senlis Council published the Afghanistan Insurgency Report. The Foreign Office rejected this report, according to The Guardian (05.09.06). “Nato forces in southern Afghanistan are caught in a cycle of violence against the Taliban which is sparking poverty and starvation on a grand scale … Ongoing fighting is turning the average Afghan against British and US-led forces, leading some to claim their lives were better under Taliban rule … The country was 'falling back into the hands of the Taliban' with only 'limited or no central government control …' The report claimed that the international military strategy was wrong and the focus on 'flawed' poppy eradication policies was causing extreme deprivation … Senlis claimed the Taliban were carrying out a 'successful insurgency' and gaining a physical and psychological upper hand over the coalition.”

By May, matters had not improved. Ali Ahmad Jalali,14 wrote “The absence of joint mechanisms to plan and coordinate the actions of national and international forces in fighting security threats is a significant hurdle in bringing synergy to stability operations. There is little connection between operations separately planned by the US-led Coalition, ISAF, and the Afghan security forces. The situation weakens effectiveness and efficiency and leads to confusion and unintended collateral damage. The establishment of a joint Command and Control Center to plan, conduct, and coordinate joint operations is of prime importance.”

In June 06, the US government became overtly imperialistic. A headline announces: U.S. offers to command NATO in Afghanistan following the ‘British stint.’

In the US (July ’06), M. Sappenfield of the CS Monitor wrote of increasing ‘belt-tightening' at US bases. “An Army long strained by the manpower demands of Iraq and Afghanistan is increasingly facing a new obstacle at home: The service is fast running out of money.”

At the beginning of August, a group of prominent US defense and national security experts15 sounded an alarm.
“This degraded readiness condition stems from the heavy deployment of combat forces the Army has sustained these past four years. Predictably, this has resulted in accelerated wearout of large quantities of Army equipment, disruptions in training schedules, and strains on meeting recruitment and reenlistment goals.”
The letter referred to an earlier report, The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk, [PDF] “which was met with indifference.”

“The administration's willingness to put our nation at such strategic risk is deeply disturbing. And its failure to adequately support the soldiers who are risking their lives for this nation is unacceptable,” they said.

The “US army also seems to be weak and frail. In early August at a Pentagon press conference, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld “acknowledged that the US military had reported a shortage of equipment and a declining capacity of combat readiness.” NATO-led troops in Afghanistan sought more armour.

This was / is not the only problem. “The quality of the US soldiers has also slid because of lowered quality set for the recruitment. There is nothing new for the frequent occurrence of vicious cases in which US officers and soldiers are charged of committing rape and indiscriminate killing in addition to the deflated morale.”

J. Barnes reported in the LA Times (22.08.06): The Marine Corps said Tuesday that it would begin calling thousands of Marines back to active-duty service on an involuntary basis to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan - the latest sign that American armed forces are under strain and a potential signal of the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war among young veterans.” The recruitment drive failed to halt the exodus as the army suffered a shortfall of 1,500.

Meanwhile, in England, a leak revealed a crisis in its army. “The Unions warn that cash shortages will cost lives as a MoD memo orders freezes on manpower and kit.” A Guardian headline agonized: “Soldiers are paying with their lives for this incompetence.” Michael Moriarty, a former British army officer who has been working for a private security firm in Afghanistan, added “Escalating commitments, budget squeezes and big equipment programmes have left Britain's forces fatally overstretched. “

General Dannatt, the new head of the British Army, said to The Guardian (04.09.06): “Can we cope? I pause. I say ‘just.’ “

37 British soldiers have so far (04.09.06) been killed in Afghanistan.
22 of these deaths have been in the past month.

The Canadians are not happy either. With eight Canadian soldiers killed in August, this was their worst month. 33 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since 2002. Prime Minister Harper narrowly won, by 149 / 145, his May plan to extend Canada’s mission in Afghanistan to 2009. The leader of the opposition party, Jack Layton, representing the wish of Canada’s restive people, has now called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops by February 2007.

Further, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the Afghan opium cultivation soared by 59% in 2006. And there are complaints that Karzai is a weak leader, although Bush, in a press conference, wishfully portrayed him as a ‘strong’ leader..

Death: in Iraq, a new Quarterly Pentagon Report says that the overall attacks rose 24% to 792 each week and the daily Iraqi civilian casualties increased by 51% to nearly 120 over the past three months. In the week 24 – 31 September, more than 300 Iraqis were killed.

One only has to look at the increasing deaths in Afghanistan to query the quicksand in NATO operations. Over 1900 Afghanis have been killed to date (04.09.06). NATO has now set a 6 month deadline to beat the Taliban and “show the government is on the winning side.” Mainstream Media parrot press releases and refer to ‘Taliban’ or ‘insurgent’ deaths. A 05.09.06 war-fervor headline reads: NATO troops kill up to 60 ‘Taliban’ in Afghanistan. The AFP story says that some 260 ‘Taliban’ have been killed in the ‘Medusa’ operation. This is convenient, as these people are then not seen as ‘civilians.’


There is a NATO issue which has never been clarified. Dr. Daniele Ganser wrote a report16 based on excerpts from his December 2004 book, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe.

Dr. Ganser is a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich.

Preceding the reprint of an article by Dr. Ganser, William Bowles asked: “At a time when experts are debating whether NATO is suited to deal with the global “war on terror”, new research suggests that the alliance’s own secret history has links to terrorism.”

Dr. Ganser wrote about the secret ‘stay-behind’ army who, through terrorism, manipulated Italian politics. The ‘Gladio’ were hidden within the Defense Ministry as “a subsection of the military secret police.” …

“The terrorists, supplied by the secret army, carried out bomb attacks in public places, blamed them on the Italian left, and were thereafter protected from prosecution by the military secret service. “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game,” right-wing terrorist Vincezo Vinciguerra explained the so-called “strategy of tension” to Casson. “The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security.

“How strongly NATO and US intelligence backed and supported the use of terror in Italy in order to discredit the political left during the Cold War remains subject of ongoing research. …

“Ever since the discovery of the secret NATO armies in 1990, research into stay-behind armies has progressed only very slowly, due to very limited access to primary documents and the refusal of both NATO and the CIA to comment. …

“NATO’s Secret Armies” confirms for the first time that the secret networks spread across Western Europe, with great details on networks in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Greece, and Turkey, as well as the strategic planning of Britain and the US.

“In the context of the ongoing so-called war on terror, the Gladio data promotes the sobering insight that governments in the West have sacrificed the life of innocent citizens and covered up acts of terrorism in order to manipulate the population. Allegations that NATO, the Pentagon, MI6, the CIA, and European intelligence services were linked to terror, coups d’état, and torture in Europe are obviously of an extremely sensitive nature, and future research is needed in the field.”


Further secret acts of terror in Iraq can be read about in Max Fuller’s articles on the US role in Iraq’s death squads and in my own research of the UK’s MI5 in Basra.

One must also question the on-going secret Pentagon human trafficking of unnamed prisoners on flights that pass through British airports to secret torture locations in Europe and beyond.


The US government, supported by the UK, is responsible for the increasing violence and loss of democratic principles in their pursuit of this ‘War on Terror’ – a PR cover-up for the control of resources. Is the NATO / USATO involvement part of this disgrace? It would appear that their ‘bathtub of unreadiness’ needs a strong spotlight to reveal the corporate and terrorist grime.


NATO official site

Global Security. There is a full section on the 2006 fiscal year and 2007 NATO budgetary costs here.

A new Global Security section contains: Facts involving NATO: Deployments; Security; People; Places; Organizations; Money.

A new Global Security section contains: Facts involving (security); (people); (places); (organisations); (money);

VIDEO: War Corporatism: The New Fascism (2 minutes)


[1] For other PNAC / NATO documents see here.
[2] Rebuilding America's Defences PDF file. pp. 36 - 51
[3] Ibid. p. 60
[4] Ibid. p. 37
[5] Ibid. p. 46.
[6] Ibid. P. 32
[7] Ibid. p. 70
[8] Smith Richardson Foundation (3); Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation (2); William Donner Foundation (1).
[9] There has been an on-going stench about Halliburton overcharging. The Army then fired Halliburton from its Iraq contract.
[10] For Newsday chart, see here
[11] Attacks on Iraqi pipelines, oil installations, oil personnel & another map.
[12] This Focus fen story no longer available
[13] Afghanistan’s nickname by The Troops. ‘Asscrackistan.’
[14] Interior Minister of Afghanistan 2003 – 05; now a Professor at the Near South Asia Center for Strategic Studies of the National Defense University.
[15] William J. Perry Chair, National Security Advisory Group; Madeleine K. Albright, Graham T. Allison, Samuel R. Berger, Ashton B. Carter, Wesley K. Clark, Thomas E. Donilon, Michele A. Flournoy, John D. Podesta, Susan E. Rice, John M. Shalikashvili, Wendy R. Sherman, Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall, James B. Steinberg.
[16] The 30 – page summary of Dr. Ganser’s NATO book can be read here. [PDF file]




United States Outlines "Ambitious Agenda" for Riga NATO Summit
03.11.06. V. Crawley, US Heads of state plan to discuss Afghanistan, global missions, allied partnerships.
Speaking October 30 at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels, Belgium, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Victoria Nuland said the United States has “a very, very ambitious agenda. … We want the strongest possible NATO; we want the strongest possible EU [European Union]; and we want the strongest-possible NATO-EU relationship.”

France blocks Nato bid to create a global terror force
04.11.06. S. Castle, Independent. ‘Paris has always been suspicious of Nato because of America's domination of the organization.’

Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
R. Cummings, Playboy. ... "Still, there is another way to view Jackson's activities. As The New York Times put it in a 1997 article, "at night Bruce Jackson is president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world's biggest weapons maker. That's how D.C. works. Many of the people making decisions have been in and out of the same set of revolving doors connecting government, conservative think tanks, lobbying firms, law firms and the defense industry. So strong is the bond between lobbyists, defense contractors and the Pentagon that it is known in Washington as "the iron triangle." And this triangle inevitably gets what it wants. Why? Because in the revolving door system, a defense contractor executive can surface as an official in the Department of Defense, from which position he can give lucrative contracts to his former employer, and his prospects for an even better paying job in the private sector brighten. Former aides to members of congress become handsomely paid lobbyists for the companies they were able to help in their position on Capitol Hill. Such lobbyists can spread their corporate-funded largesse to the friendliest members and their aides on the Hill. And so on. These "blow-dried Republican lobbyists," as one Washington district court judge calls them, wield far more power than most of the elected officials in town. Forget dime-a-dozen congressmen." information about Stephen Hadley, Randy Scheunmann, Julie Finley, Rend Al Rahim Franke, and key Lockheed people. ...
When the United States gives military aid to its allies, the benefits accrue to Lockheed Martin, too. Israel, for example, spends much of the $1.8 billion a year it receives in military aid from the U.S. on planes and missile systems from Lockheed. ... Britain's involvement: Bush couldn't go into Iraq without a major ally and Lockheed knew it. To sweeten the pot for Blair, Lockheed dragged BAE Systems into the F-35 deal. ... To make things even better for Blair, Lockheed brought the British in on the new presidential helicopter deal,


Contract Award for NATO's Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Programme
09.06. Newsblaze. The contract that will be awarded to the SAIC consortium is focused on the development of a NATO architecture for protection of deployed NATO forces from ballistic missile threats, and the design and installation of an ALTBMD Integration Test Bed (ITB). The winning consortium, led by SAIC from McLean from Virginia, U.S.A., is comprised of the following companies: Raytheon (US), EADS Astrium (Europe), Thales (FR) Thales Raytheon System Company (FR/US); IABG (GE), TNO (NL), Qinetiq (UK), DATAMAT (IT); Diehl (GE). Source selection was conducted using NATO International Competitive Bidding (ICB) procedures by the Alliance's Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) and the ALTBMD Programme Office, under the leadership of the ALTBMD Programme Manager, Michel Billard. The contract is worth approximately Euro75 Million for work that will be conducted over a period of 6 years.

Raytheon units preferred bidder on 95 mln usd NATO missile defence contract
18.09.06. Hemscott. The defence contractor said most of the work will be performed in the Netherlands.

SAIC-Led Consortium Wins NATO Contract
19.08.06. chroncom. An international consortium led by U.S.-based Science Applications International Corp. has won a 75 million euros ($95 million) contract to help NATO develop a battlefield defense system against incoming missiles. The winning consortium, led by Virginia-based SAIC, includes Raytheon Co. from the U.S., French defense electronics company Thales SA, IABG and Diehl from Germany, Britain's Qinetiq Group PLC, Dutch company TNO, DATAMAT from Italy and the European satellite giant EADS Asterism.

Contract Award for NATO's Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence Programme
09.06.Newsblaze. The contract that will be awarded to the SAIC consortium is focused on the development of a NATO architecture for protection of deployed NATO forces from ballistic missile threats, and the design and installation of an ALTBMD Integration Test Bed (ITB). The winning consortium, led by SAIC from McLean from Virginia, U.S.A., is comprised of the following companies: Raytheon (US), EADS Astrium (Europe), Thales (FR) Thales Raytheon System Company (FR/US); IABG (GE), TNO (NL), Qinetiq (UK), DATAMAT (IT); Diehl (GE). Source selection was conducted using NATO International Competitive Bidding (ICB) procedures by the Alliance's Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) and the ALTBMD Programme Office, under the leadership of the ALTBMD Programme Manager, Michel Billard. The contract is worth approximately Euro75 Million for work that will be conducted over a period of 6 years.

SAIC-Led Consortium Wins NATO Contract
19.08.06. chroncom. An international consortium led by U.S.-based Science Applications International Corp. has won a 75 million euros ($95 million) contract to help NATO develop a battlefield defense system against incoming missiles. The winning consortium, led by Virginia-based SAIC, includes Raytheon Co. from the U.S., French defense electronics company Thales SA, IABG and Diehl from Germany, Britain's Qinetiq Group PLC, Dutch company TNO, DATAMAT from Italy and the European satellite giant EADS Asterism.

Raytheon units preferred bidder on 95 mln usd NATO missile defence contract
18.09.06. Hemscott. The defence contractor said most of the work will be performed in the Netherlands.

NATO Participation


Bulgaria’s Participation in NATO Missions to Increase Each Year
15.09.06. Sofia Echo.


Bush Supports Croatia Membership in NATO
17.10.06. SFGate. opinion polls showing 30 percent of the population against it. Some Croatians claim being a part of NATO would make it a terror target.


Georgia's accession to NATO affects Russian interests, ministry says
22.09.06. The State.


NATO Deputy Sec.-Gen. to land in Israel on Sunday
18.10.06. Jerusalem Post.

22.10.06. menewsline.

Israel to support NATO counter-terrorism patrols
16.10.06. Reuters.

NATO: Israel ties must remain strong
25.10.06. H. Rettig, Jerusalem Post. “Israel's move closer to the trans-Atlantic alliance is widely seen as a significant step in NATO's bid to redefine its post-9/11 role around the world and particularly in the Middle East. Israel is the first state to formalize an ICP agreement with NATO, putting it on what some hope will become a fast track toward close-knit security and political ties, and even membership.”


Macedonia wants to join NATO 2009, EU 2013, says premier By Leon Mangasarian
16.10.06. dpa / Raw Story.


Rumsfeld pledges U.S. support for Montenegro's NATO membership
27.09.06. English People.


Putin Fights Back
08.10.06. M. Whitney, ICH. “The growing distrust between Washington and Moscow goes beyond Bush’s plan to deploy NATO to the former Soviet republics. Washington is also unhappy with Putin’s nationalizing the oil industry (Gazprom) and ditching the dollar in the oil trade.”

Russia and NATO Hold Joint Anti-Missile Exercises in Moscow
16.10.06. Mos News.


Ukraine parl. speaker blasts NATO inability to maintain security

General Bantz J. Craddock, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) for NATO

The General's Report (25.06.07. Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, Truthout). 6 May meeting with Rumsfeld at Pentagon about Abu Ghraib torture. "The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with (Gen. Bantz J.) Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, "I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting."


Sarah Meyer is a researcher living in the UK.

NATO: Bathtub of Unreadiness was first published at

The url to NATO: The Bathtub of Unreadiness is:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Tags : , , , , ,,

Obama’s Iraq: NO ‘CHANGE’ (updated 23.07.09)

THE BATTLE FOR BASRA TIMELINE: Footsteps to U.S. War in Iran?

Haditha: Crime and Punishment (updated 20.03.09)

Iraq: New U.S. Base - Wasit(updated 17.08.08)


Iraq Oil Reality vs the NY Times

Iraq Oil: The Vultures are Waiting(Updated 11.11.09)

The Iraq Oil Crunch: Index Timeline (updated 03.01.08

IRAQ: Green Zone Blowback: Index Timeline(update 06.01.09)

Index on Iraq: a journey in hell

Iraq: The "Grateful" Dead

Haditha: The Mai Lai of Iraq

The Haditha Doctor and The Media Dissemblers

Front Page Slander

Camp Falcon : What Really happened?(Updated 28.02.07)

US/UK Bases in Iraq, Part II. The South (updated 06/06/08)

Iraq: The Assassination of Academics : The Jalili Report

Iraq: The Occupation is the disease

Iraq's US/UK Permanent Bases : Intentional Obfuscation

Iraq: Security Companies and Training Camps

US Bases in Iraq: Part I: Baghdad (updated 06/06/08)

Iraq: Victims of Violence (Updated 03/03/07)

Prisons and Torture in Iraq (Updated 12/12/06)

Basra Shadowlands

Iraq: Unseen Dead

Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]