Tweet
Foreign Policy: Security and conflict in the Caucasus region, not frozen
tert.am
09:50 - 21.08.12
By Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, US Army
Best Defense guest columnist
The Caucasus - that historical causeway of conflict between Europe and
the Middle East - remains a complicated tangle of security concerns.
Ethnic tensions still affect long standing territorial disputes,
internally displaced indigenous people align with or oppose powerful
diasporas, and an increasing nouveau riche -- an oil-fueled minority
upper class -- is growing in an area once known only for desperate
poverty.
While the Minsk Group spearheads the OSCE's efforts to find a
political solution to the conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh,
Armenia and Azerbaijan both remain frustrated with the lack of
political resolve; military leaders on both sides proudly and
unjustifiably claim they could "settle it" quickly. The recent
Georgian experience with Russia has left significant cross-border
scars that will likely not heal anytime soon, especially as Georgia
desperately seeks NATO membership and European acceptance. The
spider-web relations between Iran and Israel with many of those in
this region confuses even the experts; and the border between Turkey
and many of her allies - especially Armenia - are subject to political
resolution of multi-generational disputes between those two countries.
All of these factors exist in a crucible surrounded on three sides by
Turkey, Iran, and Russia. The potential for conflict is considered so
plausible and the issues related to the interaction so confusing that
a few years ago the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command
developed scenarios linked to the Caucasus to help prepare Majors for
military contingencies. The US Army's Command and General Staff
College at Fort Leavenworth uses the "GAAT"
(Georgia-Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey) exercise as a thread of continuity
throughout the course. Understandably there is no right or wrong
answers to any of the questions posed to young field grade officers in
the course, but the underlying conflict scenarios meet the requirement
to analyze and exercise an extremely complex Joint, Interagency,
Intergovernmental and Multinational resolution.
During a recent US Army Europe (USAREUR) command visit to Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan, my young aide de camp -- a recent graduate of
Leavenworth -- pronounced after accompanying me that she wished she
had visited these countries before participating in "the GAAT." After
observing the meetings with the regions' visionary political
leadership, and seeing the capabilities of the emerging non-conscript
militaries and the unique differences between the younger generation
of professional leaders and the older generation of Soviet-trained
generals, she proclaimed: "this is very different from what I learned
in the classrooms at Leavenworth, Kansas."
There were some tensions, to be sure. But there was also reason for optimism.
European Command's strategy of Theater Security Cooperation - and
USAREUR's contribution as part of that strategy in training and
exercising with the militaries and engaging with military and
political leaders -- is bearing significant results. The four nations
that make up "the GAAT" are integrating forces in NATO out of theater
and peacekeeping operations in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo, and
the potential for peaceful management of the region's substantial
security challenges is improving.
Georgia has participated in ISAF since 2005 and has provided a
caveat-free battalion under U.S. command since 2010. This contribution
is set to double in October of this year. The Georgian military
leadership is now requesting USAREUR's support to train a
brigade-sized command and control element for their increasingly
capable and dramatically more professional force. Armenia has recently
volunteered to send forces to the continuing Kosovo peacekeeping
operation under U.S. command, after their partnership deployment with
Greece ended due to the fiscal crisis in that country. Even while
engaged in the poorly-named "frozen conflict" of Nagorno-Karabakh
(N-K), both Armenia and Azerbaijan deploy company-sized elements to
Afghanistan, under German and Turkish commands, respectively. Indeed,
the fact that Azerbaijan and Armenia have both created brigade-sized
peacekeeping and NATO-compatible units is an extremely positive
development. Remarkably, both nations have developed these forces as a
distinct military branch for the express purpose of participating in
multinational operations. These units, which are specifically
non-aligned with operations in N-K conflict, are largely manned by
professional soldiers, not conscripts, and are led by
English-speaking, western-trained officers. At a glance during my
visit, they also appear better trained than line forces occupying
positions along the NK line-of-contact.
The infusion of values and the concept of a "profession of arms" are
taking hold in the younger elements of the Georgian, Armenian, and
Azerbaijani officer corps, who are often trained in the west through
the Individual Military Education and Training (IMET) program. The
differences between these younger leaders -- many of whom have already
taken command in key positions -- and the older Soviet-trained
generals are palpable. In Georgia, for example, the Chief of the Army
is exceedingly young, but in two years of engagement I have watched
him grow into a mature and dedicated leader of his relatively small
Army. The younger Battalion and Brigade Commanders in Armenia and
Azerbaijan -- many of whom received education at the Army's War
College at Carlisle or at Leavenworth -- also exhibit a professional
character found in more advanced security forces. Several of these
Armies are also focusing on growing a professional NCO corps; this is
one of the more significant signs of emerging and quantifiable
progress. The younger, visionary political leaders know these aspects
of a professional force are critical for further democratization and
inclusion in European and NATO organizations.
As the world's security focus shifts away from ISAF, and the National
Security Strategy of the U.S. "rebalances" toward the Pacific, USAREUR
continues to look at the Caucasus countries in the same way that we
view the others that make up the European Area of Responsibility; as
partners in future coalitions.
The forward presence of U.S. forces in various parts of the world is
critical to an expansion of security cooperation and partner capacity
building. Our forward presence in Europe eliminates the tyranny of
distance, and it significantly enables realistic training and
exercises with security forces of all different nations. But more than
that, our presence builds trust; something that rotational forces
cannot do to the same degree as those who share the continent. All
these factors are necessary elements in reassuring political and
military officials that there is a peaceful solution to regional
tensions, and that other security challenges are best met working
closely -- and daily -- with regional allies. Forward presence
reinforces the reality that the United States is a committed partner
in maintaining regional security.
Having seen the potential for conflict, and the continued methods of
resolving conflict, I am excited about the future of security and
conflict resolution in the Caucuses. That optimism is borne out by the
progress made by Georgian, Armenian and Azeri security forces. Each
country is, in different capacities, building a base of military
professionalism and reform, and is ensuring a more peaceful security
for their nations.
The Caucasus' position as a geographical, cultural, and political
epicenter means that movements -positive and negative - in Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan reverberate well beyond the local region. With
America's continued support, the Caucuses will remain a source of
stable, reliable, interoperable partners who are the foundation of
future regional and global security.
Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is the current Commanding General,
U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, where he is responsible for
training U.S. Army Soldiers and units for Contingency and Full
Spectrum Operations, enhancing Theater Security Cooperation, and
Building Partner Capacity with 51 allied nations that are part of the
European area of operation. Prior to this posting, he served as the
DCG for Initial Military Training at TRADOC and previous to that the
Commander of the 1st Armored Division, where the unit was deployed to
Northern Iraq as Task Force Iron.
From: A. Papazian
tert.am
09:50 - 21.08.12
By Lt. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, US Army
Best Defense guest columnist
The Caucasus - that historical causeway of conflict between Europe and
the Middle East - remains a complicated tangle of security concerns.
Ethnic tensions still affect long standing territorial disputes,
internally displaced indigenous people align with or oppose powerful
diasporas, and an increasing nouveau riche -- an oil-fueled minority
upper class -- is growing in an area once known only for desperate
poverty.
While the Minsk Group spearheads the OSCE's efforts to find a
political solution to the conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh,
Armenia and Azerbaijan both remain frustrated with the lack of
political resolve; military leaders on both sides proudly and
unjustifiably claim they could "settle it" quickly. The recent
Georgian experience with Russia has left significant cross-border
scars that will likely not heal anytime soon, especially as Georgia
desperately seeks NATO membership and European acceptance. The
spider-web relations between Iran and Israel with many of those in
this region confuses even the experts; and the border between Turkey
and many of her allies - especially Armenia - are subject to political
resolution of multi-generational disputes between those two countries.
All of these factors exist in a crucible surrounded on three sides by
Turkey, Iran, and Russia. The potential for conflict is considered so
plausible and the issues related to the interaction so confusing that
a few years ago the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command
developed scenarios linked to the Caucasus to help prepare Majors for
military contingencies. The US Army's Command and General Staff
College at Fort Leavenworth uses the "GAAT"
(Georgia-Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey) exercise as a thread of continuity
throughout the course. Understandably there is no right or wrong
answers to any of the questions posed to young field grade officers in
the course, but the underlying conflict scenarios meet the requirement
to analyze and exercise an extremely complex Joint, Interagency,
Intergovernmental and Multinational resolution.
During a recent US Army Europe (USAREUR) command visit to Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan, my young aide de camp -- a recent graduate of
Leavenworth -- pronounced after accompanying me that she wished she
had visited these countries before participating in "the GAAT." After
observing the meetings with the regions' visionary political
leadership, and seeing the capabilities of the emerging non-conscript
militaries and the unique differences between the younger generation
of professional leaders and the older generation of Soviet-trained
generals, she proclaimed: "this is very different from what I learned
in the classrooms at Leavenworth, Kansas."
There were some tensions, to be sure. But there was also reason for optimism.
European Command's strategy of Theater Security Cooperation - and
USAREUR's contribution as part of that strategy in training and
exercising with the militaries and engaging with military and
political leaders -- is bearing significant results. The four nations
that make up "the GAAT" are integrating forces in NATO out of theater
and peacekeeping operations in places like Afghanistan and Kosovo, and
the potential for peaceful management of the region's substantial
security challenges is improving.
Georgia has participated in ISAF since 2005 and has provided a
caveat-free battalion under U.S. command since 2010. This contribution
is set to double in October of this year. The Georgian military
leadership is now requesting USAREUR's support to train a
brigade-sized command and control element for their increasingly
capable and dramatically more professional force. Armenia has recently
volunteered to send forces to the continuing Kosovo peacekeeping
operation under U.S. command, after their partnership deployment with
Greece ended due to the fiscal crisis in that country. Even while
engaged in the poorly-named "frozen conflict" of Nagorno-Karabakh
(N-K), both Armenia and Azerbaijan deploy company-sized elements to
Afghanistan, under German and Turkish commands, respectively. Indeed,
the fact that Azerbaijan and Armenia have both created brigade-sized
peacekeeping and NATO-compatible units is an extremely positive
development. Remarkably, both nations have developed these forces as a
distinct military branch for the express purpose of participating in
multinational operations. These units, which are specifically
non-aligned with operations in N-K conflict, are largely manned by
professional soldiers, not conscripts, and are led by
English-speaking, western-trained officers. At a glance during my
visit, they also appear better trained than line forces occupying
positions along the NK line-of-contact.
The infusion of values and the concept of a "profession of arms" are
taking hold in the younger elements of the Georgian, Armenian, and
Azerbaijani officer corps, who are often trained in the west through
the Individual Military Education and Training (IMET) program. The
differences between these younger leaders -- many of whom have already
taken command in key positions -- and the older Soviet-trained
generals are palpable. In Georgia, for example, the Chief of the Army
is exceedingly young, but in two years of engagement I have watched
him grow into a mature and dedicated leader of his relatively small
Army. The younger Battalion and Brigade Commanders in Armenia and
Azerbaijan -- many of whom received education at the Army's War
College at Carlisle or at Leavenworth -- also exhibit a professional
character found in more advanced security forces. Several of these
Armies are also focusing on growing a professional NCO corps; this is
one of the more significant signs of emerging and quantifiable
progress. The younger, visionary political leaders know these aspects
of a professional force are critical for further democratization and
inclusion in European and NATO organizations.
As the world's security focus shifts away from ISAF, and the National
Security Strategy of the U.S. "rebalances" toward the Pacific, USAREUR
continues to look at the Caucasus countries in the same way that we
view the others that make up the European Area of Responsibility; as
partners in future coalitions.
The forward presence of U.S. forces in various parts of the world is
critical to an expansion of security cooperation and partner capacity
building. Our forward presence in Europe eliminates the tyranny of
distance, and it significantly enables realistic training and
exercises with security forces of all different nations. But more than
that, our presence builds trust; something that rotational forces
cannot do to the same degree as those who share the continent. All
these factors are necessary elements in reassuring political and
military officials that there is a peaceful solution to regional
tensions, and that other security challenges are best met working
closely -- and daily -- with regional allies. Forward presence
reinforces the reality that the United States is a committed partner
in maintaining regional security.
Having seen the potential for conflict, and the continued methods of
resolving conflict, I am excited about the future of security and
conflict resolution in the Caucuses. That optimism is borne out by the
progress made by Georgian, Armenian and Azeri security forces. Each
country is, in different capacities, building a base of military
professionalism and reform, and is ensuring a more peaceful security
for their nations.
The Caucasus' position as a geographical, cultural, and political
epicenter means that movements -positive and negative - in Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan reverberate well beyond the local region. With
America's continued support, the Caucuses will remain a source of
stable, reliable, interoperable partners who are the foundation of
future regional and global security.
Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is the current Commanding General,
U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, where he is responsible for
training U.S. Army Soldiers and units for Contingency and Full
Spectrum Operations, enhancing Theater Security Cooperation, and
Building Partner Capacity with 51 allied nations that are part of the
European area of operation. Prior to this posting, he served as the
DCG for Initial Military Training at TRADOC and previous to that the
Commander of the 1st Armored Division, where the unit was deployed to
Northern Iraq as Task Force Iron.
From: A. Papazian