Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Army Under French Generals Command In Afghanistan; First time since WW1
Topic Started: Oct 29 2004, 02:54 PM (676 Views)
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
Troops is more than one troop...

From the article,

“Army under NATO command in Afghanistan”

By Nathan Hodge, as reported by the Cox News Service


But McKeon’s force doesn’t answer to the U.S. chain of command in Afghanistan. Instead it is part of the ISAF, a NATO lead peacekeeping mission that is responsible for patrolling the Afghan capital of Kabul and a few northern provinces.

It marks the first time a U.S. ground unit has served in a peacekeeping mission under non -U.S. command. And it is probably the first time since the Allied Expeditionary Force in WW1 that U.S. troops have served under a French General.

Further down article.

McKeon’s platoon, part of A Company,1-4th infantry, an Army unit based in Hohenfels, Germany, was deployed in early September, at the same time the NATO alliance temporarily added two battalions to provide added security during presidential elections.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Joel "To me, if a consensus has to be reached with a bunch of foreign civilian leaders or foreign military leaders before our troops can take a specific action, then they are for practical purposes under foreign command."

Isn't that the case in Iraq now? From what I here US forces have gather outside Fallujah and are poised to "whack them" according to one officer. But they must await approval of the Iraqi government.

If it's a war, don't care which, that's the wrong way to fight it.


Off to read articles, thanks. Andrea, Buddy's right, just say no, you won't need the language install to read it.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2004/Jul/01-257789.html

Fact sheet about NATO and its role.

"There are 61 U.S. troops assigned to ISAF. In close coordination with our NATO Allies, we hope to work gradually toward placing OEF and ISAF under a single NATO chain of command in order to maximize the efficiency of our overall stabilization efforts in the country."

What you are implying just is not the case.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jackd
Member Avatar
Member
OK Buddy: , troops is more than one troop. Agreed.

Other U.S troopS have been under the command of foreign command in the past.

Operation Harpoon, carried out in conjunction with Operation Anaconda, consisted of 500 Canadian and 100 US troops, under command of Lt.-Col. Pat Stogran, who leads Canadian Forces in Afghanistan in the biggest ground offensive since the Korean War.
JackD
Walk in front of me, you lead me,
Walk behind me, I lead you
Walk beside me, you are a friend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Seems so, Jack. Facts, what a pain. Yet even un :stretch: ed it is true. I can think of a few people chocking on the thought. hehe
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member

Jack

Bush accused Kerry of not taking action with out approval from world authorities.

But Bush has taken American troops and put them under direct command of a Old Europe Nation..

And one that O'Reilly has enforced a boycott on now for over a year..

What did Limbaugh say about France? What will he say when confronted with this information

This is a huge back step for Bush. It is a indication that he understands the mess his bullheadedness has gotten Americas Troops into.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
Just because O'Reilley and Limbaugh distort facts, is that any justification for you to do likewise?

Sylvia

President Bush or the Pentagon, has assigned a small number of troops to work with NATO forces--nothing more, nothing less. Spin away!!!

If there is any possibility of an International Police Force to maintain peace in Afghaistan, NATO is being asked to contribute a large number of troops to make up that force.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Would NATO contribute troops if they believed they would be under the control of US commanders?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
I did not distort one fact. I only posted the truth...


Bush accused Kerry of not taking action with out approval from world authorities.

But Bush has taken American troops and put them under direct command of a Old Europe Nation..

And one that O'Reilly has enforced a boycott on now for over a year..

What did Limbaugh say about France? What will he say when confronted with this information

This is a huge back step for Bush. It is a indication that he understands the mess his bullheadedness has gotten Americas Troops into.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
That's a leap in logic I'm not prepared to take.

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jackd
Member Avatar
Member
I still can't see what's the big deal in having 60 out of 20,000 soldiers under the temporary command of a foreign general in a peace keeping mission......unless I miss something major.
JackD
Walk in front of me, you lead me,
Walk behind me, I lead you
Walk beside me, you are a friend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jrf
Member Avatar
Member
Chris,

Yes exactly my thoughts.

A commander has to be in control. Of course the president or upper chain of command can overrule, but a line has to be drawn.

A commander can't be overruled and still be in command. Others may not have authority to commit our troops to action, but if they can commit our troops to inaction command is corrupted.

I imagine Patton and Shwartzkof had some hurdles to jump through with domestic folk, but I think they were in command.

I felt this coming with the establishment of the temporary Iraqi gov't. Our attitude towards Iraq when first stepping in sounded good but as things went on and the flaws appeared, there should have been an adjustment in certain regions and, to me, real war, not politics, should be the order of the day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuddyIAm
Member Avatar
Member
One of the Bush regimes major difference with the U.N. both in this Iraq war and the 1st. Was a question of who was to be in control.. America or the U.N…. America got control in the 1st war. The U.N. insisted on some control in the 2nd. Bush and Rummy were unwilling to accept those conditions.

Just allowing a Frenchmen into the office to use a phone is a major concession.. This is a major embarrassment for the Bush regime.
"The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity."
"Facts are stupid things." - Ronald Regan
"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?" --Josef Stalin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jrf
Member Avatar
Member
A flexible plan would help. The cooperation comes in the development of the plan. That's before boots hit the ground.

We don't have any business being in charge of other nations' troops either.

Cooperative ventures, "student exchange programs", etc can be OK but I believe that at all times, when one or one million troops are committed to battle, then we have an obligation to support that American force with our full military machine despite anyone else. There must be a direct link to coordinate that support.

No Srebinika. No "can we have permission to fly over Spain" and no loading the 4th Armor back on ships and sending them in the long way. War means war and our pussy footing around cost American boys' lives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Yes, Jack, let the politicians screw (pardon my French) with policy but let the military fight the battles.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sylley2000
Member Avatar
Sylvia, Grand Bend ON
If you're going to insist that American troops be under US command, then that leaves you no option but to continue to do it yourself.

That leads to the present situation. Other nations will walk away and leave you to your own devices. Can't say that I blame them.

Why is everything made into some kind of contest where there can only be one victor? I just don't get it?

Sylvia
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply