Posted on Apr 6, 2025
A non-American as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO? That'd be 'problematic,' Cavoli says -...
2.7K
18
7
12
12
0
It would be “problematic” for the US to abandon its tradition of insisting an American serve as NATO’s commanding general, the officer currently in the position of Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR) warned lawmakers today.
“I think that would bring some challenges in terms of nuclear command and control,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who is dual-hatted as SACEUR and head of the US military’s European Command, said in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “It would put us in a position where, in an Article 5 [mutual defense] situation, we could have for the first time since the First World War, large numbers of American troops under non-US command. So I think those are things that would have to be considered carefully.”
“I think that would bring some challenges in terms of nuclear command and control,” Gen. Christopher Cavoli, who is dual-hatted as SACEUR and head of the US military’s European Command, said in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “It would put us in a position where, in an Article 5 [mutual defense] situation, we could have for the first time since the First World War, large numbers of American troops under non-US command. So I think those are things that would have to be considered carefully.”
A non-American as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO? That'd be 'problematic,' Cavoli says -...
Posted from breakingdefense.com
Command
Leadership
Posted 11 mo ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
Cavoli told lawmakers that his intention was to lay out the potential advantages or disadvantages of the change, noting it would be up to the Trump administration to make the final policy decision on whether to relinquish the SACEUR role. But, he said, “from a military perspective [it’s] problematic.”
(3)
(0)
SGM Jeff Mccloud
COL (Join to see) Well, "problematic" seems to be the the desired end state in the decision making process for this administration, so...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Cavoli is AWESOME. Everyone in EUCOM HQs knows that the only acceptable answer to any variation on "what is your job?" or "what did you do today?" is "execute the National Military Strategy." He's also CONSTANTLY trying to get it through thick heads in Washington that what our NATO allies can contribute on paper is usually a fantasy, that a Polish F-16 squadron isn't actually interchangeable with an American one, and that most of the heavy units/equipment that are pledged for collective self defense have OR rates well under 40%.
As for the SACEUR position, several NATO countries' best generals are on par with ours. I would have no qualms about a non-U.S. SACEUR, as long as we have veto power over the choice. Honestly, the important command positions are at the O5, O6, and O8 levels, not the O-9/10 level, when the fighting starts. SACEUR matters in peacetime, to prepare NATO for war.
As for the SACEUR position, several NATO countries' best generals are on par with ours. I would have no qualms about a non-U.S. SACEUR, as long as we have veto power over the choice. Honestly, the important command positions are at the O5, O6, and O8 levels, not the O-9/10 level, when the fighting starts. SACEUR matters in peacetime, to prepare NATO for war.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Isn't this what an officer is supposed to do? The president or Congress proposes a change and the Generals layout the BLUF?
(0)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
LTC Matthew Schlosser Weve had troops under foreign commanders before. They make it sound like its something that hasn't occurred recently.
(0)
(0)
LTC Matthew Schlosser
LTC Trent Klug - Agreed. And recency isn't even a consideration in the first place. As long as we have a veto right over the nomination as the senior partner, I'm totally cool with a non-U.S. SACEUR.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google