Avatar feed
Responses: 9
SSgt Clare May
8
8
0
... One world order? What could possibly go wrong? Key word tho..."Deputy"...Not the Chief... a second in command issue. HOWEVER... I am old school. No foreign power should hold the only candle lit in charge of American troops. We have a chain of command within our ranks...and no outside military officer should be inside that chain of command. As an adviser...ok... but not as a direct link.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SP5 Nuclear Weapons Specialist
SP5 (Join to see)
3 y
Exactly.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Infantryman
SGT (Join to see)
3 y
Nope. They are "deputies," just like the US officers we send to sit in over in their countries as 2IC, and assistants on G-staff, we are all learning the capabilities, traditions, and protocols of each other so that those future leaders will have greater understanding for more effective integration on future NATO/Joint OPS.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
COL David Turk
6
6
0
My take (guess) is that this is a training opportunity for the Polish Officer (shadow a US Commander). Should the US Commander not be able to perform his duties for anything more than a very brief period, a new US Commander would be put in place.
(6)
Comment
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
LTC Joe Anderson
3 y
COL David Turk - I agree its a great training opportunity for ANY foreign officer (Not just the Polish Officer). I disagree with ANY foreign officer/soldiers being inserted into US formations Chains of Command. Just my opinion. However, having said that, I've served under foreign commanders twice, and they were still the/my boss (Good People too). I followed their orders to the letter and made sure I understood their intent. Just as I would ANY US Officer. I realize this has been happening since before WW II. But it's a practice I disagree with. I understand the logic behind it. But feel there are better ways to accomplish training, synergy, improve Military Ops between countries, improve diplomatic relations... Doesn't make me right or wrong. It's just a policy and practice I disagree with. I feel we should retain Command and Control of ALL our troops. Particular in battle.
(2)
Reply
(0)
COL David Turk
COL David Turk
3 y
LTC Joe Anderson - I’m pretty much in the same boat. Back in the 70’s, if hostilities broke out, our combat engineer battalion was OPON to a German Division with ties back to our Engineer BDE. That would have been an interest scenario, even though we trained on it.
(2)
Reply
(0)
LTC Joe Anderson
LTC Joe Anderson
3 y
COL David Turk - My apologies it seems we think alike on this and I misunderstood your initial post. I don't agree with Foreign Officers in our chain. I may not be correct in my views on this. But even after having worked for Foreign Officers I disagree with the practice. Glad you never had to fight the gap in the 70's and see how that scenario would have panned out. I join at the tail end of that. As an infantry grunt that scenario was our primary training storyline. I think all we ever practiced was fighting the Fulda Gap. You have a good week.
(1)
Reply
(0)
COL David Turk
COL David Turk
3 y
LTC Joe Anderson - my first post was an interpretation of the article; not necessarily an endorsement. Our unit had the southern gap, hence the OPCON to the Germans who had the southern sector. We had quarterly recons to update our GDP folders (including photos of preplanned obstacles and German PSP points), and conducting training mostly around Hof and slightly north. We often interfaced with the ACR (11th?) who were on the border 24/7 with loaded everything, including tanks. Their drills were very impressive.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Trent Klug
5
5
0
This is a great way to thank the Poles for being a rock solid ally and member of NATO. I have no issue with this and it also sends a not so subtle message to Russia.
(5)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
3 y
'Perzactly!
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close