Posted on 02/12/2013 7:38:22 AM PST by DeaconBenjamin
Thoughts?
Sorry...the two Aussies I referred to are “naturalman1975” and “dundee”.
It is uncommon if it is a US officer slot.
Even people we respect, such as the Aussie's, will they use us for the dirty jobs while giving easy duty for others? Putting Americans through meat grinders has happened before.
Having been a personnel specialist in a hospital unit who rose to the lofty rank of SP5 my understanding of the workings of top military command (and even mid-level command) is very,very limited.Add to that the fact that my stellar (LOL) military career ended almost 40 years ago and you've got someone who can't comment with any credibility on such issues.It may be uncommon but might it be,in this case at least,worthwhile?
That may well be the truth. The flag ranks have been undergoing a purge for 3 years or more (just as they did under Clinton and Carter) and experienced capable officers are being retired or denied promotions (nearly the same thing) in favor of more "reliable" mostly bureaucratic officers. Sequestration and defunding are not the worst of the situation for the military. The worst is the flushing out of talent and experience in favor of political reliability. Iraq took so long to turn around because of Clinton's purge. It had to wait for the talent to bubble up through the ranks. Had the "surge" been done two years earlier it would not have accomplished anything because the battle capable commanders were not yet in place. With no surge there would still have been improvement on the ground because the experienced and capable commanders had finally come to the fore.
edicted?
As long as it isn’t some commie scumbag and he respects the troops and our laws and our oaths of service, that’s one thing.
But if they start sticking foreign officers in US officer slots more and more often, and some of those officers come from third world hellholes there is a problem.
And I’m recalling Zero’s sweet tooth for a certain South American dictator whose oil production we are subsidizing currently.
Nothing wrong here.
Australia’s defense policy is straightforward - to be a loyal and participating ally of the United States.
They know that a nation the size of the USA with only 30 million people will need all the help it can get, especially with China and Indonesia over the horizon and huge resources being extracted from the adjacent waters.
Australia has been opening up its territory even more, with forwrd positioning of US troops in the Northern Territories and long-established listening posts around Alice Springs.
Remember, as few people do, that Australia has been with us in every war - every war - in the last 100 years. Even Vietnam, along with Korea, Iraq, Desert Storm, Afghanistan.
So, yes, Australia should have a role in the command structure of the Pacific alliances. They’ve earned it.
Yes,that's all true.Valid points to be sure,particularly with Osama Obama as Community Organizer-In-Chief.But that's not the issue at hand here.Having read much about Australia and her people...as well as having had contact with many Aussies...I seriously doubt that *they* would fit into any of your fears.
yup, and Australian forces were under US command (MacAuthor) during all of WW2. Personally I total confidence in Australian commanders.
I’m surprised it didn’t go to a Chinese general.
We’ll have to wait and see whether or not the administration starts using officers from countries with less commonly held mores.
It isn’t that I have something against Aussies on this, it’s that this administration is all about ‘precedent’ and now that they’ve set a ‘precedent’ they will start shoving it to the extreme.
My understanding of Australia's Armed Forces strongly suggest to me that over many,many decades they've never been afraid of doing their share...if not *more* than their share...of the "heavy lifting" in battle.
I was suprised the Zero admin didn’t stick a Venezuelan officer in there.
May be to strengthen ties more. We have Marines training in Darwin.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-marine-base-for-darwin-20111110-1n9lk.html
While the feud between Eisenhower and Montgomery is famous. Wilson in WWI promoted J.J.”Black Jack” Pershing to a six star general,I think the title is General of the Armies to be on equal with his French and English counter parts. He was the only only general till that time beside Washington to hold that distinction and I believe since then including WWII. So even Wilson was cognezant of having an American commanding American troops.
Fraternization may be slightly off topic but is also a result of being stationed on foreign friendly lands. Iceland and New Zealand both wanted US out because of fraternization. In fact it was a subject of a famous movie forgot the name,and there was another about airborne/commando training in the UK which brought it up.
Maj. Gen. Richard Burr is not a “two star general”
Ho hum. Let’s get some facts on the table and then let the discussion go where it will. This is quite common, it just hasn’t been done in the Pacific. In Europe, we’ve had integrated commands for years, sometimes in NATO billets, sometimes in U.S. billets. We were certainly going to be operating under NATO commanders if the balloon had ever gone up. We had Brits in U.S. billets in both Iraq and Afghanistan, usually as the Deputy Commander. NORAD has been an integrated command with the U.S. and Canada since jump street. The Deputy Commander of III Corps at Ft. Hood has usually been a Canadian general and this has been going on for years. U.S. Forces in Korea operate with a combined staff of U.S. and Korean officers, and a Korean general is always in the deputy position. 70 years ago today, General Eisenhower was promoted to fours stars and made commander in chief of all allied forces in Africa. His deputies for ground forces, naval forces, and air forces were all Brits and all U.S. forces in North Africa served under these Brit generals.
We’ve done it for years, and it’s quite routine. I think that a better question is why did it take us so long to get around to doing it in the Pacific. I think that the answer has nothing to do with the U.S. Post Vietnam, Australia was a little bit stand offish with the U.S. because of public opinion down under. New Zealand went off the deep end and declared themselves a nuclear free zone. Cooler heads have now prevailed and both countries realize that we all need to stand together against very real threats from China and Indonesia (Muslim country BTW). Obama has had nothing to do with any of this, he’s too busy playing golf and place nice with Islamic extremists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.