All Euro-NATO Reporting is Suspect Until Further Notice

...also, time for a "Flags to Post" seminar...

I’ve about reached my limit on lazy, high-emotion/low-reason, or performative reporting from Europe on the NATO/U.S. relationship. If the EuroLeft/EU-uber-alles crowd was really concerned about keeping the relationship between the U.S. and European NATO as good as possible, they would be making an effort to bridge and salve over some of the tough-love comments coming out of DC.

However, that is not what they are doing. No, they are seeing a gap, and are trying to pound a wedge into it. They see a spark, and look to throw a litre of petrol on it.

I guess what galls me the most is that their actions are, in operation, producing exactly the opposite condition they will tell you they are concerned about.

These are not dumb people. They, or the ones they work for, know what they are doing. At best, they are farming rage clicks. At worst, they are moving towards a desire the core of the EU nomenklatura has been driving for over decades—get the U.S. out of Europe.

They have found allies in part of the U.S. right-of-center coalition…and they will leverage that as well.

The below is just another example. A ham-fisted one, but one nonetheless.

Let’s dive in.

I don’t like to call out people by name…wait…yes I do.

Anyway, this isn’t personal; this is professional. No, wait. This reporting is so bad that, as a former proud NATO staff officer, I cannot let this stand. It is kind of personal. Plus this makes a larger point.

It isn’t petty either. As mentioned above, very serious people who are not our friends or our NATO allies’ friends—most of whom are citizens of NATO nations—are trying to seize the moment to push a multi-generational effort to wedge conflict between the U.S. and the Europeans in NATO.

Yes, there are some who are unknowingly doing their bidding, but make no mistake—bad reporting is allowed for a variety of reasons and should be called out when it happens.

First the larger point, then the details.

The reaction in Europe to the clear and direct peer counseling of our European allies by the U.S. over the last year has just demonstrated the fact that many of the people who put themselves forward as “experts” simply do not have either the knowledge or inclination to be anything of the sort.

For ideological, political, or standard issue look-at-me’ism, reporting about the state of the alliance and the American place in it drifts from farcical to the edge of a PSYOPS project by the usual suspects of the EuroLeft who have been trying to prove their anti-American bonafides since they first flirted with the cute socialist girl at the anti-NATO march in college.

This problem can hit even the best institutions. Well, institutions who put themselves forward as the best…like the UK’s The Times. In this particular case, Bruno Waterfield in his recent article, Britain loses naval HQ in Nato reshuffle but gains key US command.

Well, the title sure got my attention. I absolutely loved the opportunity to brief the staff at Northwood, with the dogs wandering in and out of offices. Simply a superb HQ, and I could not imagine it going anywhere.

Of course it isn’t…but you wouldn’t know it from the article. Misleading to the uninformed reader is an understatement.

Let’s pick apart the worst bits.

Britain will lose Nato’s central naval command in Northwood, on the outskirts of London, to an American admiral as part of a “flag to post” reshuffle to give European allies more responsibility while cementing US dominance.

In the name of all that is holy. Since the 2010 restructuring, why yes…Northwood has been led, by tradition, by a Royal Navy Admiral. So? NATO has been increasingly breaking the national hold on many of the NATO commands.

Also, it is “Flags to Post” with and “s”, not “flag to post.” It is “NATO” in all caps, not “Nato”.

Long-standing members of the Front Porch will recognize “Flags to Post”, as I have been writing about it for decades—especially in its utility as an incentives/disincentives for behavior modification.

It may be opaque to many readers, so let’s make sure everyone is familiar with the process.

In NATO’s 2020 Public Affairs Handbook, we have the official definition.

FLAGS TO POST. The recruiting process which solicits and selects national bids to each post on the CE at OF-5 level and above.

NB: NATO’s OF-5 is equivalent to a U.S. O6 (Colonel/navy Captain).

So, it is a bidding process. A rather silly and petty one behind closed doors sometimes, but no different than other military personnel exercises most of you are used to—just with more emotion, entitlement, and tender feelings.

From Joel R. Hillison’s 2019, Stepping Up: Burden Sharing by NATO’s Newest Members,

NATO has several informal mechanisms to reward states that support Alliance efforts after being granted membership. Research has shown that rewards can help states to overcome the incentives to free-ride. First, NATO uses a variety of prestige rewards that are not only beneficial for domestic political use, but are sought out by both diplomatic and military bureaucrats for their own benefit. These rewards range from hosting summits, conferences, or exercises to the assignment of commands and staff positions. One example of these types of rewards is called “flags to post.” A flags to post conference is convened to assign general officer billets to member states. These conferences often result in a contentious debate; these leadership positions not only yield influence in the Alliance but also prestige at home to the officers assigned to fill them.

During NATO missions, command positions are also allocated on the basis of relative troop contributions. Unless the forces are under a standing NATO Headquarters, such as the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, then command usually goes to the state with the largest number of troops in that sector or in the overall mission.

Have you seen the condition of the Royal Navy as of late? Even if Britain is the eastern end of the logistics train from North America, one could argue the U.S. Navy should be in the rotation.

In any event, right after panting that the Yanks were stealing the King’s HQ, Waterfield lets us know,

However, a British general will take over Nato’s joint force command (JFC) in Norfolk, Virginia, which is currently filled by a US admiral, according to alliance sources. The shift puts Britain in control of a key post as part of President Trump’s reshaping of the transatlantic alliance.

JFC Norfolk is the alliance’s only operational base on US territory. British defence sources stressed that its importance was growing because its operations were extended to the Arctic, including Greenland, three months ago to secure Nato’s longest land border with Russia.

This kind of stuff gives me a migraine. Just look at the senior leadership there today. It is a Star Wars cantina collection of NATO personnel.

Also, is he talking about Finland’s border with Russia? That is a land border. There’s no land border between Greenland. Yes, that is it, as Scandinavia was recently transferred to JFC Norfolk’s AOR.

Again, shifting JFC AORs is news…but there is nothing but logic at work here with Finland and Sweden now in NATO.

Is the U.S. stealing HQs, giving them away, or encouraging more allied participation? I can’t seem to figure out what the author is worried about.

“Allies have agreed on a new distribution of senior officer responsibility across the Nato command structure in which European allies will play a more prominent role in the alliance’s military leadership,” said a Nato official after leaks of the reshuffle in the French press.

I guess we need to review more writing about “Flags to Post” again.

From NATO’s 2010 SHAPE Staff Organisation,

Another change in the new PE for SHAPE is increased rotation of nations in the division and branch head positions, a change that was not favoured by SHAPE but nevertheless decided upon by the nations during the “Flags to Post” process of allocating nations to posts.

Yes, a decade and a half ago this more varied national rotation started and the tide finally reached Northwood. I know well that NATO staff processes go slow, but it got there.

I think the author is a little too enamored with their French source. Let’s see, the French sneering at Britain, and British sneering at France, has been a well-known thing for, what, going on 1,000 years +/-? And a large-to-super-majority of the French diplomatic corps are ride-or-die EU-ober-alles types, and that didn’t send up any red flags?

French diplomatic sources told La Lettre, a digital newspaper, that the decision was a demotion for Britain due to cuts, budget shortfalls and the decommissioning of navy vessels.

“This is a snub for London, whose navy, weakened after years of cutbacks, is no longer considered capable of leading the alliance’s defence at sea,” it wrote.

British sources dismissed what they described as “snark”.

I’m with the Brit here.

Again, as if the author can’t contradict himself further. Just after the above.

“Norfolk is a massive deal and covers the High North,” said a source, noting that the JFC’s area of responsibility was expanded to Finland, Sweden, Greenland and Denmark in December.

Yes, JFC Norfolk is the more important command compared to Northwood. There simply is not a story here worthy of the breathlessness.

Italy will take over JFC Naples, under the command of a US admiral, which is responsible for the alliance’s southern and Mediterranean flank. Germany and Poland will alternate command of JFC Brunssum in the Netherlands, held by a US army general, which has responsibility for Nato’s eastern flank.

The changes put European allies in charge of Nato high-level operational commands, integrating air, land, maritime and special forces, in the most important geographic areas to maintain security and deter threats from Russia.

While America has ceded the JFC commands, Washington has asserted its dominance and controls the three central commands of land, sea and air.

The US already controls Landcom in Izmir, Turkey, and Aircom in Ramstein, Germany, as well as Nato’s supreme Saceur Europe post, showing Washington’s continued intention to hold the alliance’s chain of command.

The. Acronyms. Are. Wrong. I’m too tired to correct him, but CAPS LOCK is an option.

…and yes, I will include this because, if I don’t, 438 people will mention it in comments.

This is simply overwrought. There is little here but a standard “Flags to Post” rotation…but let’s circle back to the rabbit hole it looked like I went down at the top of the post about the “usual suspects.” The author gives away the game in the final paragraph.

Speaking in Berlin on Monday, Matthew Whitaker, Trump’s ambassador to Nato, rejected claims that the president was hostile to the alliance. “We’re not trying to dismantle Nato,” he said. “We’re trying to make Nato stronger, not to withdraw or reject Nato but make it work like it was intended, as an alliance of 32 strong and capable allies.”

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China, much less what is otherwise an only slightly more interesting than usual “Flags to Post” rotation?

Lesson here for all. Be suspect of any reporting on NATO from Europeans, especially from Brussels. Then again, the reporting from standard U.S. news outlets from WaPo, NYT, AP, etc is not that much better.

I guess you’ll just have to read CDR Salamander every day.

NATO is fine. The alliance is fine. Know that people and institutions are looking to exploit any opportunity to promote division. Don’t be distracted because we argue like brothers and gossip like old women. We’re long-standing friends who get on each other’s nerves, but we stick together more often than not because the rest of the neighborhood is dangerous.