View Full Version : flying under the radar
is what is going to happen to our troops in afghanistan. being under the command of another country's military leadership. I must have missed something somewhere, didn't the US have ultimate military command over nato? not only no, but ****no, american military forces should NEVER be subject to other military command authority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15085146/
Stuck In Texas
10-01-2006, 11:34 AM
is what is going to happen to our troops in afghanistan. being under the command of another country's military leadership. I must have missed something somewhere, didn't the US have ultimate military command over nato? not only no, but ****no, american military forces should NEVER be subject to other military command authority.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15085146/
It's not the first time it's happened. I believe U.S. troops were under U.N. command in Macedonia back in the 90s. I remember it caused a big stink where I was stationed overseas because one of the young army kids refused to wear the blue beret. If I remember correctly, he wasn't refusing to go and serve, he just wanted to wear his complete U.S. Army uniform and not the U.N. cap. He even found a regulation that backed him up.
They still court martialed him.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe that it is against NATO policy for U.S. troops to fall under the command of another NATO ally. I know that a U.S. general is always the Supreme Allied Commander, but I think our troops can work under other NATO partners.
Yeh, true, it also is in place in the sinai. Still, I vehemently disagree with having our military forces under the command of another country.
elsid13
10-01-2006, 11:52 AM
The top military commander at SHAPE is still an American- Marine Major General Pace, first Marine to ever hold that position.
But the theater command rotate, an American Army General has pulled tour next I believe. This make sense because you need single chain of command to coordinate actions,(to many cooks in the kitchen) and NATO has trained to work together for last 50+ year. There is nothing to get excited about, because American can't always have the lead on the operations and there are good military commander with our allies too.
The problem that exist is that our NATO allies are falling behind us technology wise and aren't as well equipment as our troops
spdirty
10-01-2006, 01:20 PM
It's not the first time it's happened. I believe U.S. troops were under U.N. command in Macedonia back in the 90s. I remember it caused a big stink where I was stationed overseas because one of the young army kids refused to wear the blue beret. If I remember correctly, he wasn't refusing to go and serve, he just wanted to wear his complete U.S. Army uniform and not the U.N. cap. He even found a regulation that backed him up.
They still court martialed him.
I may be wrong, but I don't believe that it is against NATO policy for U.S. troops to fall under the command of another NATO ally. I know that a U.S. general is always the Supreme Allied Commander, but I think our troops can work under other NATO partners.
I remember that story, floppy told me. The kid got either a general or dishonorable discharge and later sued the gov't and won, and got an E-9 retirement.
Spider
10-01-2006, 01:50 PM
I am not ok with our troops being under the command of NATO , not in this case , we have a vested intrest in Afghanistan even if Bush doesnt think so ............ I dont want some pússy assed euro country capturing Bin Laden and trying him .. I want Americans to try that bastard and hang him high .........We can handle Afghanistan , and make no mistake about it , we made short work of Iraq , it is the nation building we have trouble with ...........
Stuck In Texas
10-01-2006, 05:18 PM
I remember that story, floppy told me. The kid got either a general or dishonorable discharge and later sued the gov't and won, and got an E-9 retirement.
Oh, I hadn't heard the follow up! That's great!
I remember that story, floppy told me. The kid got either a general or dishonorable discharge and later sued the gov't and won, and got an E-9 retirement.
E9 retirement? I thought that they downgraded from a bcd to a general discharge.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
10-02-2006, 01:28 AM
I am not ok with our troops being under the command of NATO , not in this case , we have a vested intrest in Afghanistan even if Bush doesnt think so ............ I dont want some pússy assed euro country capturing Bin Laden and trying him .. I want Americans to try that bastard and hang him high .........We can handle Afghanistan , and make no mistake about it , we made short work of Iraq , it is the nation building we have trouble with ...........
Isn't it funny how the right-wingers and Bush supporters have no problem with Bush farming out the job of hunting Bin Laden to the Afghan Northern Alliance but they object to this kind of thing with NATO?