MEDIA MISINTERPRET BELGIUM'S AIR CHIEF ON NEW

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 001308 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/24/2018 TAGS: PREL MOPS AF NATO BE SUBJECT: MEDIA MISINTERPRET BELGIUM'S AIR CHIEF ON NEW GROUND TROOPS FOR ISAF, CAUSING A WEEKEND TEACUP STORM Classified By: CDA Wayne Bush for reasons 4 b/d. ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: A (possibly innocent) misinterpretation of Belgian Air Force Chief's comments about the F16 forthcoming deployment to Kandahar by a big Belgian paper has been corrected firmly by DefMin De Crem, but not without cost, the cost being future GoB maneuverability on maybe someday having JTAC or other ground troops in the south. END SUMMARY ¶2. (SBU) First: the media misreporting: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sat-Sun Aug 23-24 Le Soir (Belgium's widely-read left of center francophone paper) devoted half its front page and two full inside pages to a story headlined: "Belgians Under Fire On the Ground in Afghanistan," and quoting Belgium's top Air Force general, Lt. Gen. Gerard Van Caelenberge, as telling Le Soir that "NATO has formulated a request for Belgium to engage on the ground in Southern Afghanistan." The paper then went on to claim that the Army was considering its response to this request for what it described on page ten as a reference to "joint terminal (sic) attack controllers (JTAC)." ¶3. (SBU) Second: the MinDef's correction: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monday morning Aug 25, many Belgian papers carried a formal denial of this report by Minister of Defense De Crem, who said that no such formal request had been made by NATO to the Ministry of Defense and, if it had been made, "the answer would have been in the negative." Le Soir on Monday Aug 25 issued a prominent box in which (after also citing De Crem's explicit denial of the existence of a NATO formal request for more ground troops in the south) it quoted Gen Van Caelenberge as having told Belgian radio and television reporters that there is a general permanent request, renewed every January from NATO to all its member states, and not specifically to Belgium, and that JTAC is on that list, but that it had not been studied in detail. (Comment: A fuzzy apology but better than none. End Comment) ¶4. (C) Third: the unintended consequences: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - COMMENT: Our sources at USNATO and elsewhere are agreed that this alleged formal request from NATO to the Belgian government never happened. But the dustup this misreporting caused makes it more unlikely than ever that the Belgians will agree -- when/if they are asked -- to having a JTAC in the south. Although it would be helpful to Belgian F16 operations to have their own men on the ground designating targets, etc., in the Belgian political parlance such men, being outside the Kandahar wires and engaged in targeting, would be categorized not as part of the F16 package but as new ground troops in the south, which the Minister of Defense is now on record as placing outside the realm of possibility. END COMMENT. BUSH .