<p>Faced with a diminished Soviet threat, the alliance tries to
slim down, improve its reflexes--and reduce U.S. dominance
</p>
<p>By GEORGE J. CHURCH--Reported by Frank Melville/ London, Jay
Peterzell/Washington and Frederick Ungeheuer/Paris
</p>
<p> What does St. George do if the dragon runs away?
Something like that question confronts the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. Since its founding 42 years ago, NATO has built
a mighty military machine to deter a massive Soviet-led invasion
of Western Europe. But the dragon that breathed genuine fire for
so many years is slinking back into its cave. As many as a
million troops that were once available--at least on paper--to mount a communist blitzkrieg are melting away. The
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact two months ago removed some
500,000 soldiers of Moscow's former allies in Eastern Europe
from even theoretical Kremlin control. Another 500,000 Soviet
troops are being pulled back within the borders of the U.S.S.R.
</p>
<p> In another reminder of how the great confrontation has
mellowed, Washington and Moscow announced last weekend that they
had finally settled their differences over an agreement to slash
conventional forces in Europe. That resolution cleared the way
for progress toward a treaty limiting nuclear arms and thereby
made a long-discussed Bush-Gorbachev summit in June more likely.
</p>
<p> Yet the principle of an integrated multinational military
force, and especially of one that binds the U.S. inextricably
to the defense of close allies, is far too valuable to be
allowed to erode. Moreover, if the heart of Europe seems secure
for the moment, there are still potential threats out on the
flanks--from a Yugoslav civil war next door to NATO member
Italy, for example.
</p>
<p> So NATO defense ministers, meeting last week in Brussels,
approved a drastic overhaul of the alliance's military
structure. They will deploy only about half as many troops as
the 1.5 million now stationed in Central Europe; the U.S.
specifically will be able to bring home at least half, and
possibly as many as two-thirds, of the 320,000 people it keeps
on guard on the Continent. Essentially, NATO is giving up its
old "forward defense" strategy of massing forces in Germany and
is reorganizing its central region into three main groups:
</p>
<p>-- A Rapid Reaction Corps capable of moving anyplace
within NATO's borders within seven days. (It would not include
an already existing mobile unit of 5,000 troops that can hustle
to a trouble spot within 72 hours.) The corps would comprise up
to 70,000 soldiers in four divisions, two British, two mixed
European. The U.S. might contribute some additional troops; in
any case, it would supply most of the planes, helicopters and
airlift capacity. The Rapid Reaction Corps will be commanded by
a British general and have headquarters in the U.K.
</p>
<p>-- A Main Defense Force of seven heavily armored corps
totaling 400,000 to 500,000 troops. Six of the corps would be
multinational and would be based in Western and Central Europe.
The seventh corps would be stationed in what used to be East
Germany and be composed exclusively of German soldiers.
</p>
<p>-- An auxiliary force of unspecified size that could
reinforce the main force during a prolonged crisis. It might be
exclusively American, made up of troops stationed outside
Europe, or it might include some Canadian and Spanish units and
some European reservists. The idea is that even if the Soviet
Union should turn aggressive again, preparations for an assault--which might have to begin with a reconquest of Eastern Europe--would take months. NATO should have ample time to call up
reserves and bring in forces from the U.S.
</p>
<p> Although an American general will continue to be NATO's
supreme commander, the overall effect of the redesign will be
to diminish U.S. domination of the alliance. While American
forces assigned to NATO will be reduced 50% or more, according
to British estimates the overall cut in NATO's total force of
2.8 million would be only about 22%. Thus a larger percentage
of the remaining forces would be European. That should please
congressional critics who have long complained that the allies
ought to shoulder more of the burden of defending themselves.
</p>
<p> There is, however, one huge hole in NATO's new plans: what
if the next menace arises outside NATO's borders--in the
form, say, of a new Middle East war that would threaten the
member nations' oil supplies but not their territory? The
structure of the Rapid Reaction Corps implies that it could be
sent to trouble spots anywhere. But under the NATO treaty the
corps could not be deployed "out of area." Had it existed during
the gulf war, it could have been rushed to member Turkey's
border with Iraq, but no farther.
</p>
<p> France, which is a NATO member but pulled out of the
alliance's military structure in 1966, made moves to fill this
gap in such a manner as to revive old suspicions that it was out
to diminish the U.S. role in Europe. Paris would have preferred
a strictly European rapid-reaction force that would not be part
of NATO and could be sent anywhere in the world. Washington
opposed the idea as a potential first stage in the creation of
a European force in which it would have no role. French
officials immediately began soft-pedaling their idea.
</p>
<p> The issue, however, is not going to go away until NATO
leaders decide on some legal mechanism that would permit
out-of-area deployment of its forces. That might happen at a
NATO summit next fall in Rome. The alliance will not complete
its adjustment to a new era until it prepares to engage not only
the Soviet dragon but also the pit bulls snarling around NATO's
