NATO is changing, and that may not be a bad thing. Despite public, high-level exchanges across the Atlantic that are occasionally impolite and bad-tempered, a quieter and more serious endeavor is underway between the US and European militaries.

Within a few years, the 32-nation alliance may be unrecognizable, with European generals and admirals taking on roles that have been reserved for US officers for decades. In outline, it will be one of the biggest organizational changes in decades. In detail, it poses some enormous problems for European militaries and the way they approach preparations for war and command in combat.

The first fruits of efforts to remake the alliance came on February 9, when the decision to transfer two major NATO commands — in Norfolk, Virginia and in Naples, southern Italy — was announced. A British admiral and an Italian will take over the posts from US counterparts.

This is not just window dressing — the responsibilities of Joint Forces Command (JFC) Norfolk alone are enormous. The new British commander will have to secure the North Atlantic, and its air and maritime corridors, for the reinforcement of Europe from North America, plus the regional defense of the Northwest Atlantic. He or she will oversee the area from Greenland to Finland, down to Denmark and all the Nordic states.

The changes will allay fears among some Europeans that the Trump administration might simply walk away from NATO, leaving them poorly defended and unprepared for whatever might come next. It suggested a more thoughtful process to change the way the alliance operates and who provides its commanders. Other recent (and positive) signals from the US suggest a feared significant withdrawal of American forces in Europe (currently numbering around 80,000) is unlikely.

So far, so good. But experts like CEPA Fellow, US Maj-Gen (rtd.) Skip Davis, a former NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General,  warned in an interview that the changes will still require a major refocus from European NATO, and a change in outlook.

Davis emphasized one profound difference between US and European militaries. “The leader experience for senior flag officers and general officers is such that you don’t get theater-level command experience in any country other than the US at the moment.”

That has been the case for much of the period since World War II as European power declined, while military budgets and commitments fell away.

“The big nations who had 20th century experience, World War I for the French and the UK and Germany, World War II for the UK, Germany, and the US, were the only ones who had experience of theater-level command,” he said.  “They’ve got a military culture of strategic doctrine, but they don’t have recent command experience at the theater level.”

Davis says the Europeans need to strengthen NATO’s Steadfast Pinnacle program, which prepares NATO three and four star officers for major commands. “They’ll have to develop and augment that. That will partly be a national responsibility, but NATO must also think hard about a senior leader or senior flag officer development program which has the right kinds of training and exercises, as well as perhaps more focused one-on-one mentorship for leader development.”

The command changes will not happen overnight, and Davis understands that a gradual transition will allow current commanders and deputy commanders to complete their normal tours first. He stressed that the US component commands “will still have significant operational responsibilities” even after European commanders take on an increased role.

There are other sensitive and difficult issues to address, not least access to top-level US intelligence. Countries rarely discuss such issues in public, but even a British admiral would not expect to have access to the same output as his US equivalent, despite the links between the Five Eyes intelligence network. Non Five Eyes members (and that’s all the other 29 European alliance members) might see even less.

“Having a US commander at Joint Force Command (JFC) Norfolk and US commander at JFC Naples, has meant they have had access to very robust security secure communications and C2 systems under their US hats and intelligence that the next commanders will not have access to.

“US intelligence is so unique and in-depth that only a portion is shared with NATO. Perhaps a larger portion with Five Eyes. The UK officer as the JFC Norfolk commander will probably have a good share, but still won’t enjoy the full suite of intelligence that a US commander would have.”

“The Italian or German or Polish commanders, the other countries, don’t have it and they won’t have it. JFC Naples would not therefore have the same level of US intelligence awareness or the same reach-back, meaning the ability of US commanders to call on the joint force in the US for targeting simulations, for exercise simulations, for planning.”

Davis detailed the sheer extent of US intelligence capabilities. “The US has such niche expertise in its various agencies, from the National Security Agency, the satellites of the and then cyber-based material and CIA products. I think it’s near impossible to replicate that,” he said.

In addition to access to US intelligence, the US assumption of responsibility for NATO Maritime Command (MARCOM) adds coherence to US support of NATO defense. All three US European Command component commanders will eventually be dual-hatted as NATO component commands. This alignment will significantly enhance the coherence and quality of both NATO and US commands and their respective defense plans at the higher-tactical level.

There will also be the issue of finding more European officers to staff the posts the US is leaving (some reports have suggested the numbers may be around 200 personnel currently in NATO roles). Filling these will have to become a “primary focus” of European officer corps, Davis said.

The Europeans can be expected to seize the opportunity of new leadership roles. Although there are suggestions that Canadians were uneasy about taking on bigger roles, given their lack of senior leader experience, the British and French are likely to embrace it. And others too.

“I bet that many of the European nations were excited about this. Sweden and Finland had no positions above senior field grade positions. Now they’re finally going to have a few key posts, I assume in JFC Norfolk and JFC Brunssum, where it makes sense. Then the other big countries, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey, will have wanted to make sure that they got their fair share with this new deck of cards. None of those are shy. They’re not wallflowers. They’re not shy about trying to seek their fair share of senior officer positions.

“They may not recognize the impacts of lack of theater command experience. But I hope someone does and comes up with an improved Steadfast Pinnacle-type leader-development capability for these senior joint force commanders and then at the national level, think through how do they develop the bench of officers that eventually take over in the future.”

As for the overall plan to Europeanize some of NATO’s most senior commands, Davis says the key will be aligning formal statements with what’s happening out of the public gaze.

“Everybody’s going to put a positive spin on it. Europeans going to put a positive spin on theirs and the US will put a positive spin on theirs. But there’s details underneath the surface that have to be addressed, and that’s my point.”

Maj Gen (Ret) Skip Davis is a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). He was NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment after retiring from the US Army after more than 37 years of service. Commissioned in the infantry he served the first half of his career in rapid deployment airborne and infantry units and spent over 20 years abroad including command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and multiple operations in Africa and the Balkans.

Nicole Monette is a CEPA Editorial Intern and a graduate of New York University with master’s degrees in journalism and European & Mediterranean Studies.

Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.

The post NATO’s Command Revolution — Europe Steps Forward appeared first on CEPA.