| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Nato faces rift over US plan to remove jets from Iceland |
| 2003-07-22 |
| EFL Nato is facing a new rift after a threat by Washington to withdraw US fighter jets from Iceland as part of a shake-up of American military forces in Europe. So concerned are the Icelanders about US intentions to remove four F-15s that they have asked the Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, to intervene in their support. Iceland has no army, but its territory was of enormous strategic significance during the Cold War, making it a much valued member of the transatlantic alliance. The rethink of US priorities after the 11 September terror attacks has called into question Washington’s willingness to keep the small number of jets, plus rescue helicopters and refuelling planes, which Iceland sees as a guarantee of its security and of US commitment. Exactly what is the threat to Iceland’s security? To make matters worse Reykjavik was informed of the politically sensitive decision in May on the eve of parliamentary elections in which the outgoing Prime Minister, David Oddsson, was returned with a sharply reduced majority. Mr Oddsson has hinted that, if the US does remove the jets, America will have to end its military presence in Iceland. Mr. Oddsson, you really don’t want to be making threats like that. Ask Puerto Rico. That would not be palatable to the Pentagon which has 1,200 naval staff in the country from which it operates four P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft as part of its reconnaissance of the North Atlantic, a task it still regards as a high priority. Tracking all shipping, as well as subs. Officials admit there is little military reason for stationing the jets in Iceland, and that the threat after the end of the Cold War no longer justifies it. But diplomats say the decision will have important political implications and could damage America’s relations with a country which has been a loyal supporter. "It is hard to argue on an operational basis that these jets are needed," one Nato source said. "But defence, in the round, is also about offering reassurance and about maintaining alliances and keeping friendships." "And jobs, don’t forget the jobs!" Lord Robertson made representations at a senior level in Washington to try to defuse the row, and succeeded in winning a postponement of any announcement. The source said: "His intervention was requested by the Icelandics. He’s not allowed to be judgemental in a situation like this: if a Nato member state requires the secretary general to intervene with another Nato member he’s dutybound to do so. The argument came down to one of, ’If you take away the fighter jets, what is there in it for Iceland’." Uh huh, like I thought, jobs. In 1994, the US withdrew eight fighters from Iceland but agreed to keep four permanently at the Keflavik naval air station, near Reykjavik. The deal was to be renegotiated in 2001 but talks were postponed as the US contemplated a broader review of its forces in the aftermath of 11 September. The idea of scaling down the presence in Iceland is only a small part of the wide US military reorganisation. The times, they are a changing. Get used to it. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #16 Carl in NH - pretty good...lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-7-22 8:03:20 PM |
| #15 Paul---1-800-Waah-Waah-Waah is not in service at this time (no shit!), so I guess that Iceland will have to adjust to the new reality. The number one mission of our military is the protection of this country and its allies. For too many years defense has been pork-barrel politics, especially in the States. For states and other nations, including PR, soft money brought in through the military has been viewed as an entitlement. The transition will be painful, but it will have to be done, and it is long overdue. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-7-22 3:19:42 PM |
| #14 Carl in NH >> (3 words) Nail on head. I think the entire world is sleeping while the "Green Menace" plots the world's demise. Here we go again. The whole world hates us, but they just loooovvvveee that US Worldwide Welfare System (ahhh...the American dollar). To view them as a victim is ridiculous. We provided protection and they provided strategic location. The threat is gone, so we have every right to move "our" assets. Navy is still there to protect the Icelandic snow cone industry from any agression from the Green Menace. So, here's a quarter and the number 1-800-Waah-Waah-Waah! |
| Posted by: Paul 2003-7-22 2:50:27 PM |
| #13 Iceland is not an EU member state, and would be foolish to upgrade its EEA status to become one, as that would entail handing over its fisheries to Europe. Britain sacrificed hers as a condition of membership and traditional UK stocks are now overwhelmingly harvested by other nations' vessels. European fishing policy is incompetently managed and sustainability is sacrificed at the altar of...you guessed it...national self-interest! Iceland, as a member of the EU, would wave goodbye to its fish. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-7-22 2:16:00 PM |
| #12 If memory serves Iceland is a member of the European Union. Perhaps a European member of Nato can replace the 4 jets. Otherwise perhaps Iceland would consider joining the US as a territory, there are some good tax breaks (ask Puerto Rico about that as well). |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-7-22 1:58:43 PM |
| #11 I'm no expert, but Iceland may well be of strategic importance in the not-so distant future. Do you remember the "Cod war" between the UK and Iceland? Fish are a diminishing and valuable resource, and some of the rich North Altantic's best (and best managed) stocks lie in Icelandic waters, between North American and European fleets... Also, I believe there may be unexploited fossil fuel reserves in Icelandic waters. There has certainly been prospecting there in recent years. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-7-22 1:57:01 PM |
| #10 LH - that's it? That's your considered response? It's a ludicrous idea and there ARE thousands of similar situations (Did I say states? No. How disingenuous of you.) worldwide, just as stated. You're just being arugumentative cuz you like the clackity-clack of your keyboard. Go here for help in constructing logical arguments. |
| Posted by: PD 2003-7-22 12:51:40 PM |
| #9 "the sum of thousands of these situations... and you're suggesting it's OK to use some $ for an Iceland social program" There arent a thousand sovereign states in the world, and very few are in situation of Iceland. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-22 12:33:32 PM |
| #8 LH - Because we are not the Icelandic Employment Bureau. If military needs dictate the jets aren't needed there, then so be it. With all the bitching about the size of the defense budget... the sum of thousands of these situations... and you're suggesting it's OK to use some $ for an Iceland social program? C'mon. Iceland can offer to participate in a joint effort for their defense - they aren't poor. I don't recall ever training any Icelandic military personnel in my time... lots of Israelis and even a few Saudis - no Icies. They have already been well compensated for sticking out of the water. The danger of being gobbled up as a strategic location by the Sovs has passed. Meanwhile Iceland has sucked the US military tit for decades and now cries - no make that threatens - cuz it doesn't want to be weaned. Life is hard. It's even harder if you're stupid. |
| Posted by: PD 2003-7-22 12:28:40 PM |
| #7 "Exactly what is the threat to Iceland’s security?" Greenland. They've been quiet recently, too quiet... |
| Posted by: Carl in NH 2003-7-22 11:50:35 AM |
| #6 Iceland is a pretty strategic location. And it seems to me that four F-15s are a damn small price to pay for it. On the other hand, the current relationship with Iceland is a bit weird. I don't think the country even has a military. How about we propose a cooperative force? Say an F-16 squadron composed of Americans and Icelanders. Both countries pick up part of the tab and we provide the neccesary training. |
| Posted by: Patrick Phillips 2003-7-22 11:03:57 AM |
| #5 iceland supported us on Iraq, including within NATO - why not give them a break? (BTW PD, IIUC the icies want the AF jets, and threatened to evict the Orions) Seems like more international tone deafness from this admin. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-7-22 11:02:01 AM |
| #4 This makes no sense - they have 1200 squids hangin' around, spending money like it's goin' out of style, and they're gettin' exercised about 4 f-15's and some 40-50 flyboys? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-7-22 10:56:09 AM |
| #3 Just curious ... we have to keep 4 fighters there so why not just dig out a 4 retired F-4's from Davis-Monthan? Is there anything that says the jets have to be flyable> |
| Posted by: Jim K 2003-7-22 10:22:52 AM |
| #2 Interesting - and Iceland's rather stupid to be threatening the US. What are they going to do - hold their collective breath? The Orions and their support will still be there - for the right reason. That's something for nothing. What, pray tell, does Iceland do other than stick out of the water? Everyone has to adjust to reality or, by definition, they live in fantasy. Pack 'em up and bring 'em home. This is a military question, not Icelandic employment, so do what's right based upon military needs - we pay the tab for the gear, the support, the people, everything. And, in case Iceland hasn't noticed, they are still free and independent because we succeeded in the last great struggle against Soviet adventurism and imperialism. In other words, the've been paid for their hospitality many many times over in every way. |
| Posted by: PD 2003-7-22 10:07:58 AM |
| #1 We'll keep them, if you pay for them. If Iceland picks up the entire costs of the Air Force operation in its nation, we'll stay. Sound like a deal? |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-7-22 9:53:28 AM |