Independent States Allied Forces | ISAF Summit 2013 Onwards

[Jamie]

"Ideal. I will work on getting the applications available later today and we can see if anyone has any particular interest and we can work from there. The MAP and Investigators can then take the lead to determine compatibility. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss regarding enlargement?

I'd then like to go onto the next topic of Military Policy. This sort of ties in with the need for more training exercises but also operations and bases. The Military Committee will be working towards deciding operational requirements, but I think to enhance our forward presence, each member state should have a dedicated 'ISAF' air and navy base. This is still under national control but available for ISAF forces to use and have a permanent presence. Whether that just means advisers, or an infantry unit; that would be determined by country-to-country discussion. To summarize the proposed change:

- Each member state must have a readily-available Airbase and Naval Port that can be utilized by ISAF members.

- Each ISAF member must have a presence in one another countries (This can be as minimal as advisers, to air squadrons. This is decided between the host and the guest).

- More frequent but smaller exercises will take place, and build up to wargames. Each member should commit time and resources to both participate and host these.

- Members are advised to participate in supporting and utilizing other ISAF assets such as the ADI, get involved in the IAW and participate in ISAF-wide operations such as the Task Force designed to protect our trade routes.

- I'd also propose each Task Force and Exercise be assigned a 'commander', if approved, we would need to decide one to manage the ISAF Task Force protecting our trade routes.

This can also tie onto the topic of peacekeeping and other operations:

- ISAF should push more with regards to humanitarian support, peacekeeping and supporting the development of other countries. Not just to be seen as an alliance dedicated to war fighting."

 

[Dutchy]

"The Netherlands has been planning to bring forward the suggestion of creating ISAF bases in strategic areas within the territory of a member state. So the Secretary General has our full support, the Netherlands still has a large amount of funds it can retrieve from the ISAF accounts, but we would like to question whether these bases should be upgraded or built from scratch from a separate account?"

"In regards to the assigning of commanders, we'd suggest that the Allied Military Commander be given the authority to appoint the command staff for ISAF Task Forces, aiming for the most logical choice based on experience, deployment and location."

"Furthermore, we support tasking ISAF to manage humanitarian and peacekeeping missions."

 

[Jamie]

"I believe the decision regarding the base itself, and the deployments should be discussed between the 'guest' and 'host'. As long as each member has a presence, small or big, in one another country, then I'd consider it compliant. I'll also be pushing to make this a requirement in a treaty change but that can be voted and discussed on an external vote. The US already has a presence in the UK. The British MOD will be in touch with both the Dutch and US defence departments to discuss British deployments to cover that side of the mandate. Whether you want to use existing bases, shared bases or build new ones is at your own discretion.

I can also agree to the responsibility of the Allied Military Commander to appoint the ISAF Task Force leaderships. It will assist with keeping a structure for all our joint operations and involvement. This would extend to humanitarian and peacekeeping. These kind of missions can be discussed and called to the military committee at any time. Nations are not obligated to participate, nonetheless. This is likewise for the IAW and other task groups within the alliance. Applications have been opened, we already have Norway expressing interest. One thing to make sure we consider is the Membership Action Plan and what it entails. My personal thoughts are:

- We review expression of interests and make countries we feel are compliant into MAPs.
They can then attend meetings (participate but not vote, unless you think they should be able too as MAPs), participate in training exercises and even operations as international partners, we'd expect effort from all member states to open contact and work with them. Ultimately the goal is to make sure they're on the same level as us with the same commitments but all members must agree to them joining."

@Dutchy
@John

 

[John]

"We are willing to host any number of personnel from ISAF nations in the United States, as you know we a large country and have the accommodations for everything, be it ground troops, aircraft or vessels. We are also willing to provide "Joint Region Marianas" as a joint-ISAF base. This includes Naval Base Guam and Andersen Air Base. This will give us a foothold in Asia if need be, I know that we have Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, however it is far away from the Pacific Ocean.

We can also agree with the idea for MAPs, I feel like it should be used as a sort of 'trial period' for perspective members.

Now gentlemen, I would like to bring up a proposition that I believe will benefit ISAF greatly, and that is a joint ballistic missile defence system. Now, the current system we have available is solely for the US navy and that is the Aegis Defence system that utilises the AN/SPY-1 with the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 mid-course interceptor which we are hoping to upgrade to the IIA block so that it is capable of intercepting Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, this paired with the RIM-174 Standard ERAM which is a missile designed as a back-up, so that if the 161 fails to intercept, the 174 can intercept in the missiles final stage of re-entry. Now.. the system is currently designed to be ship-based but we were hoping that with ISAF funding and using ISAF research centers, we could integrate this system with the AN/FPS-126 Solid State Phased Array Radar - which has three faces - to provide a full 360 degree coverage, this particular radar has a detection range of around 3,000 kilometres and a detection altitude of around 700 miles."

@Dutchy
@Jamie

 

[Dutchy]

"I would like to see an increase in joint cooperation and I believe the deployment of a certain amount of armed forces personnel is a perfect way forward. The Ministry of Defence will review the options available and begin operational planning for future deployments to your nations."

"We appreciate the American offer and support the idea of increased investment in the development of our air defence platforms. I believe funds should be made available for the research and development the Americans are proposing."

---

@Jamie & @John​

---

 

[Jamie]

"Perfect, the British MOD will be in contact with both your own defence departments to discuss a British Presence in both the US and Netherlands. We would be able to define the finer details there. To summarise the cooperation and the enlagement. ISAF needs everyone to chip in, this isn't just 'follow', we're all of equal position. Everyone should begin hosting small scaled exercises, looking for potential members, opening more routes of cooperation with one another and even making proposals to vote on.

We would also like to see the idea of a Joint Ballistic Missile Defence System. This would add onto our existing insitutions:

IAW, Independent Airlift Wing
ADI, Air Defence Initative

Adding a group to focus on anti ballistic missiles would be a great concept to implment. I'd like to ask the US Representative to confirm how much funding would be required to achieve their plans for an ISAF-wide ballistic missile system? And whether they have a proposed name designation for it?"

@John
@Dutchy

 

[John]

"At the moment, the system is only in its planning stages and we have no price tag, but we are working on it. We were thinking something simple like "IABS" for the name, which stands for ISAF Anti Ballistic Missile System - or we have a different name that has been proposed, which is "Peacekeeper""

 

[Jamie]

"That's no problem, in that case.. I'd suggest you put it together as a project and provide funds required then we could go from there. Once you have the information available, you could open a resolution to include it. I believe that confirms the rest of the agenda's met with the one thing we need to return too.. Enlargement."

A copy of all applications was passed around the room for each member to review. "What are both your thoughts on the applicants?"

@John
@Dutchy

[ https://modernnations.com/forums/isaf-independent-states-allied-force.108/ ]

 

[Dutchy]

"I am pleased to see the amount of applications we have received, with many of those application being quite eligible for membership. However before we proceed I would like to suggest we hold a vote in regards to the position of Allied Military Commander, as I do not know how long the discussion of the applications will take. I would like to offer the AMC time to begin his work."

---

@Jamie & @John​

---

 

[Jamie]

"That's possible, we could do it informally from here. Would you both like to make your proposals for someone to take over as the Allied Military Commander? The British Government will not be putting anyone forward for the position of AMC; so it will be down to either an American or Dutch Commander."

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"The Netherlands would like to put forward a cadidate for the position of Allied Military Commander. General Michaël van der Aart is the current Commander of the Armed Forces and has both the necessary skills and experience to head the Military Committee and push forward ISAF's military policies."

@Jamie
@John

 

[John]

"The US has no one available to put forward for AMC, so we would support the appointment of General van der Aart."

 

[Jamie]

"In that case, we're happy to announce General Michaël van der Aart as the Allied Military Commander. I would propose we have the Allied Military Commander under the same Tier as Secretary General, with an election every three years? Again, with the possibility of been re-elected. If this is something you'd both be happy with?"
@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"I shall inform the General of the decision, we will make arrangements to ensure his arrival at 'the hub' as soon as possible. Secretary General, will you be able to arrange accommodations and office space, as for the rest I am certain he'll contact you to ensure a smooth transition?

"I have no objection with the election procedure you are suggesting. If both the British and Americans have no objections, shall we continue to discuss the recent applications?"

@Jamie
@John

 

[Jamie]

"Certainly, we will ensure the accommodation and office space is arranged at the Hub.
As for applications.. yes, of course. To summarise our applicants:

- Norway
- Spain
- France
- Sweden

Their full applications are available for you to read, perhaps we should set a limit for one additional member? perhaps two? Who will go onto becoming a Member Action Plan status. But as mentioned earlier, everyone will need to be involved and responsible for opening communications and training with our potential MAPs. What are both your thoughts on these applications and your feedback on your recommendations?"

@John
@Dutchy

 

[John]

"I think that quite a few of these will be a good fit into ISAF, but gentlemen I have something a little more pressing to mention. The United States is currently on a war footing for the invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban backed Al-Qaeda attack in New York, and I would like to ask for ISAF's support, whether this be political or military, we would be happy with any support offered"

@Jamie
@Dutchy

 

[Jamie]

"I would suggest raising the concerns regarding Afghanistan with the military committee to discuss any realms of support, it would be both more fitting and a good step forward in terms of delegating ISAF duties. Pouring into other topics here would delay any enlargement in the meeting which has probably gone well over its expected timeframe. If you go ahead and call the Military Committee, it'd be able to start somewhat immediately. Regarding the enlargement:

How many are we looking to add? And who would you prefer to enter MAP?"

@Dutchy
@John

 

[Dutchy]

"I believe that nearly all of the applicant nations are more than suitable to joining the organisation. It seems that the ISAF's core would be centered in Europe, strengthening our position and ability to keep defend the continent. The Netherlands maintains an almost perfect relationship with the Kingdom of Norway and would like to see them become an integral member of the organisation. While we have had only minor communications with the rest we have no objections to any of their applications."

@Jamie
@John

 

[Jamie]

"Agreed.
I'd suggest we look into making Norway a MAP, but I would also like to suggest France?
France is a questionable government stance, but with support and mentoring.. it could perhaps work? Of course, MAP is the process for membership and it'd be fascinating to work with the French closely due to their location, and Norway due to their continued investment in cooperation."

@Dutchy
@John

 

[John]

"I agree with Norway, they have proved themselves to be a sturdy government.. however with France, with regards to recent uprisings etcetera. I would like to suggest they are made MAPs on a trial basis"