Australian General Gets Key US Army Post

ABC news ^ | FORT SHAFTER, Hawaii February 1, 2013

[Darksheare]

“Obama has had nothing to do with any of this, he’s too busy playing golf and place nice with Islamic extremists.”

In between firing Generals and telling troops to stand down while our diplomats die.

[JerseyanExile]

Third Corp in the Army has traditionally had a Canadian deputy commander for many years.

[Mr. Lucky]

I would give anything to be able to discuss this with Dad, but why is this thought to be “a US Army officer slot”? It looks an awful lot like a staff position in a unified command.

[Darksheare]

The article sure makes it sound like a US Officer slot, which WOULD change the entire thing outright if true.
If a regional joint command, that is something else.

But I would NOT put it past the admin to pull a fast one and stick foreign officers in US officer slots.
We are, in that respect, talking about an administration that said “Stand Down” and went to bed while our people died in Benghazi.

I admit, I’m not Pac command savvy as I am “US East Coast” National Guard.
So I don’t know if that IS a unified joint command or not.
We don’t deal with foreign officers except to see them in a trade swap training deal at military installations like Fort Sill or West Point.
And even then they aren’t in command of US troops.

[centurion316]

In between firing Generals and telling troops to stand down while our diplomats die.

And that would have what to do with an Australian General being assigned to USARPAC?

[Darksheare]

The same thing that the part of your post I quoted had.

[Darksheare]

I forgot to add to my post ‘waste time to fake skeet shooting images for PR stunts’.

[centurion316]

I admit, I’m not Pac command savvy as I am “US East Coast” National Guard.

That could be part of the problem. USARPAC is a U.S. Army Command, it's the Army Component Command of PACOM, the U.S. combatant command for the Pacific region. Our defense strategy is putting renewed emphasis on the Pacific and is working to establish closer ties with Australia among other countries. The Army just announced that LTG Vincent Brooks is being nominated for a 4th star and will be assigned to command USARPAC. This has traditionally been a 3-star billet but is being upgraded in line with the new policy.

We don’t deal with foreign officers except to see them in a trade swap training deal at military installations like Fort Sill or West Point. And even then they aren’t in command of US troops.

Not true, as I have previously pointed out in the case of the Deputy Commander of III Corps at Ft. Hood (not East Coast) who is a Canadian Brigadier General named Dean Milner. His picture can be seen on the III Corps Web Page under the Command Group.

[SgtHooper]

Of course, he is. He’s from down under!

[Darksheare]

Never been to Fort Hood Texas.
But I have ben to Fort Sill Oklahoma where the situation is as I have described.

Anyone know if the position of the article actually IS in a joint command or if the article writer just was sloppy and made it sound like a US officer slot instead?

[centurion316]

Anyone know if the position of the article actually IS in a joint command or if the article writer just was sloppy and made it sound like a US officer slot instead?

What I said in Post #48 to which you responded above:

USARPAC is a U.S. Army Command, it's the Army Component Command of PACOM, the U.S. combatant command for the Pacific region.

USARPAC = U.S. Army Pacific, the Headquarters for Army troops in the Pacific. MG Burr is assigned to a U.S. Army unit in a U.S. Officer slot. The article is accurate.

[Darksheare]

So the slot actually would be similar to the executive officer slot in an artillery battery as it being a US Officer slot.

Yes, there is a difference.

[chuckles]

I love the Aussie's, but the suggestion that they wouldn't send us into a meat grinder before sending their own is fool hearty. For a soldier to be expected to follow orders from a foreign officer is very risky. There is a tension that doesn't have to be spoken. Also, Aussie's are the best of the bunch. What if Americans are expected to follow a new found friend, like Iraqi officers? S. Korea, Japanese? All these cultures think differently than we do. Maybe S. Korea wouldn't want to be too brutal to fellow Asians. These are just thoughts, not for certain.

I'm just saying that foreign control would be a problem, IMO.

[naturalman1975]

As, you've said - this is nothing new. Joint commands are relatively common, and they have to work the way they do, or they are pretty pointless.

Imagine a joint command situation where 80% of troops are American and 20% are Australian. Obviously you would expect the overall commander in that case (say a Lieutenant General) is likely to be American. He may have four Major Generals - three American, and one Australian - reporting to him.

Imagine a situation where an emergency develops and the senior officers on the scene are that Australian Major General, and an American Colonel. Who do you think should be in command in that situation? Who is best equipped to be in command?

If the command is well designed, and is working it should be, this can all work smoothly. You have to be sure that is the case, but we've been doing this for a long time now - the first time Australian troops and American troops served together was the Battle of Hamel on the 4th of July, 1918 - when a single American company was integrated into Australian regiments under the command of an Australian - Lieutenant General (later General Sir) John Monash. Their company commander was not particularly senior in the chain of command. (Of note, one of the Americans in that company, Corporal Thomas Pope, was decorated by the British - appropriate because of the joint command - for an action that also lead to him being awarded the first Medal of Honor of the First World War.)

I've been under American command, and I've been in command of American troops. It worked smoothly and seamlessly because we had the procedures in place to make sure it would. It wouldn't have been done without those procedures.

Now, this case does seem a bit different from those I experienced as the Australian in question looks like he is being placed into an American command structure, rather than a joint command structure - what I would be interested in knowing is how many Australians (and other 'foreign' troops) are already in that command structure. During the Second World War (specifically from 1943 to 1945), a large part of the Royal Australian Navy was fully integrated into the US Seventh Fleet - and because of this US ships, at times, served as part of the ANZAC Squadron of that Fleet. You can wind up with a decent number of foreign troops within a national command, alliances being the way they are.

It works when those countries have shared values, shared understandings, and everybody knows they are dealing with genuine professionals on all sides, and where there are few communication problems. For Australia and the United States - and the United Kingdom, and Canada, and New Zealand - these are basically givens. So then the details just need to be worked out.

I've recently been reading about the Royal Australian Navy's Helicopter Flight Vietnam (RANHFV). The United States put out a request for more helicopter support in Vietnam and the Australian Army was already fully committed while the Navy's Fleet Air Arm had personnel and helicopters available - so RANHFV functioned more as an army style unit than as a naval one. They were combined with the US Army's 135th Assault Helicopter Company, in what became known as the Experimental Military Unit (EMU).

We're friends. Comrades. Brothers in Arms. Americans are right to ask questions about integration to make sure it's right for America - as are Australians to make sure it's right for Australia. But a lot of the time, when you ask the question, the answer is 'Yes.'

I think the question is "Does this get the bloody job done?"

[JerseyanExile]

Maybe S. Korea wouldn't want to be too brutal to fellow Asians.

Yes, because all Asians are alike. This is like saying that Poles wouldn't want to fight Russians because they're fellow Europeans.

In any case, US troops already serve under South Korean officers, and have for many years. The deputy commander of the Combined Forces Command in South Korea is South Korean. Honestly, I'm surprised by the fact that the Koreans have been willing to put up with having an American serve as as the top officer there - South Korean ground forces outnumber US troops by a literal order of magnitude.