Australian general gets key US Army post

This from ABC News,
abcnews.go.com...

The two-star general in the Australian Defense Force, Maj. Gen. Richard Burr, has been appointed by Mr Obama, as the U.S. Army Pacific's deputy commander for operations.

How can a Non-American citizen, Not appointed by Congress, Not taken an Oath to protect the Continuation, be appointed to this American military post on American soil!!

I would NOT obey this man’s order! Period. I would not expect soldiers in the Australian Military, to follow the orders of an American military officer while on Australian soil as well. Hell no, won’t happen! And that goes for any other Sovereignty as well. Be warned, the Blue hats are coming!

reply to post by Violater1

So it's ok to have us marines training in Aus. for possible contingencies in the Pacific.

But it's not ok to have an Aus. military strategist - with local knowledge - tempering the fire ?





Edit; I think Burrs' border being Hawaii is more to do with goodwill - than sovereignty. Look how far SE that small concession has gained.

Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by Violater1

 

So it's ok to have us marines training in Aus. for possible contingencies in the Pacific.

But it's not ok to have an Aus. military strategist - with local knowledge - tempering the fire ?

You didn't read my thread. Please re-read it.
Knee jerk responses only make you look like the last word in knee
jerk.
But if your reading challenged
, I'll roll ...it ....slowly....

No military soldier, should accept an order, from anther countries soldier, when on their own land.
That is why there are sovereign military officers that accompany the foreign military soldiers, during training.
Obviously, you have never been in the military, so stand down.

reply to post by Violater1

I would NOT obey this man’s order!

But he's responsible for directing their training and exercises as U.S. Army Pacific's deputy commander for operations.

The 49-year-old said these experiences mean Americans know him, and know he takes the responsibility of commanding U.S. troops seriously. This helps the U.S. feel comfortable placing him in such a critical position.

LOL - unless you were ordered to by your superior...........American officer.

Or you could just leave the military I suppose.......

Either way, he's got the post - balls in your court.

Good on the US Army for recognising regional talent and taking appropriate action to utilise same - good PR exercise too.

reply to post by Violater1
And so it begins...
They know that American soldiers will have trouble firing on their own so this is the beginning of implementing non Americans in the American military, soon they'll be inside the US, mark my words...
game over, it was over when Spain counted the votes and decided the 2012 election for us.

reply to post by Violater1


Check out Pine gap ( old hat I know), to whom does that soil belong?

Ever heard of reciprocation? ( maybe not an Officer?)

Maybe a little too " Team America" ?

Relax, It'll be O.K.

reply to post by Violater1


I understand what you are getting at. But I also think that with key strategic decisions, some U.S troops in an allied strategy, is going to be under an Australian general.

Basically
Australia has general who looks after a key strategic base or whatever,
Australia has troops
America has troops
The troops are being ordered by the top chief 2 star Australian General.

You cant have two generals issuing orders to each set of troops and expect things to go unhindered.
They might have issue with each others opinions of strategy and that will F**K up command. So American troops have been ordered by their commander and chief Mr President to take orders from an Allied general.

Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time, like NATO?

reply to post by Timely


Let me guess, you would be OK with Gen. Raymond T. Odierno ( currently Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army) to appointed by your government, it fill an Australian Military position. A position in which he would order Australian forces to perform specific tasks, without question.
Really?
A non Australian ordering your military personnel to carry out his/her orders?
Or if your a German military soldier, and are ordered by a foreign officer, how has NO allegiance to your country, to perform a task?? Nicht! Nine! Verboten!!
Not going to happen.
If want it that way, all I have to say to you is that it's to Bhaaaaa, bhaaaaad.
Sheeple

Originally posted by DaRAGE
reply to post by Violater1

 

I understand what you are getting at. But I also think that with key strategic decisions, some U.S troops in an allied strategy, is going to be under an Australian general.

Basically
Australia has general who looks after a key strategic base or whatever,
Australia has troops
America has troops
The troops are being ordered by the top chief 2 star Australian General.

You cant have two generals issuing orders to each set of troops and expect things to go unhindered.
They might have issue with each others opinions of strategy and that will F**K up command. So American troops have been ordered by their commander and chief Mr President to take orders from an Allied general.

Doesn't this sort of thing happen all the time, like NATO?

No.
Not on Australian soil.
Not on American soil.
Not on German, French, Italian,Polish, English.....soil.

reply to post by Violater1


We sucked it up with MacArthur ... What's your problem if it is to do with the greater good of our allegiance?

I concur regarding naming a non-US officer to a command position - I doubt it's "legal" by our own military codes.
I can see the benefit to joint exercises and joint (inter-services) commands even if that includes US troops reporting to a non-US commander for those limited engagements. Fortunately, this guy is just going to be over training and liason with other pan-pacific agencies, however, this really does NOT bode well for the US or any of our armed forces.

ganjoa

Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by Violater1

 

We sucked it up with MacArthur ... What's your problem if it is to do with the greater good of our allegiance?

You are both wrong and ignorant. Please attend a military college for training. However,
Australian Major General Gordon Bennett was in command of Australian forces, comprised the 8th Division during the Pacific Battle of WW2.

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by Violater1

 

We sucked it up with MacArthur ... What's your problem if it is to do with the greater good of our allegiance?

You are both wrong and ignorant. Please attend a military college for training. However,
Australian Major General Gordon Bennett was in command of Australian forces, comprised the 8th Division during the Pacific Battle of WW2.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Violater1 because: because he is both wrong and ignorant.

Is this then something else? Ignorance?

This

So an American admiral will take command in Australia to take his place then.Its a good idea right?

reply to post by Violater1


Why don't you shut up and listen ?

Allied Supreme Commanders ? Mac ? Ike ?

Can't Allied Supreme Commanders come from other countries too ?

And some of us HAVE served with our Allies and we're okay with them. PSSSSSAT !

Having read the article that is mentioned, there is a few things that can be stated:

The op fails to realize or understand that there are joint command military bases that the US is apart of. The first one that was set up, and still is a member of is Nato. In the past, and currently, those servicing as a part of a Nato command would and could be under the command of an officer from another country. While the head is from the US, the second in command is from another country.
Then there is NORAD, another base that is a joint command and in the middle of the USA, where it has happened that a Canadian officer is there in charge. This is not new or should be a surprise that such happens.

Part of the reason that an Australian general was given command is that it is also political, to allow for another military to take the brunt of the execution and decisions. It also means that if something were to go wrong, it would also make sense that while the US military is involved, the blame would not be put on the US, but also on the commanding general, in this case Australia would get the brunt of the blame for any and all blunders.

There is too much being read into this, as it is something that is common among countries that are either under treaty or as part of a military alliance. And with things that are heating up in the Pacific, it would make perfect sense to have someone or a country that is from the reason.

reply to post by Violater1


I spent 13 years in the Army and in that time I had been in charge of foreign soldiers and I had worked under foreign commanders at times. My soldiers and I fell under US regulations and lawful orders can be given and received regardless of nationality there is nothing wrong with this. He has been placed in the command structure. You recognize rank regardless of nationality I see this as a good thing I am sure there will be some friction but this is an opportunity to learn from each other.

He still reports to a US three star I don’t see a cause for alarm maybe you can explain your concern a little better.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Violater1

 

I spent 13 years in the Army and in that time I had been in charge of foreign soldiers and I had worked under foreign commanders at times. My soldiers and I fell under US regulations and lawful orders can be given and received regardless of nationality there is nothing wrong with this. He has been placed in the command structure. You recognize rank regardless of nationality I see this as a good thing I am sure there will be some friction but this is an opportunity to learn from each other.

He still reports to a US three star I don’t see a cause for alarm maybe you can explain your concern a little better.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: opps wrong spelling

Clarify your situation please. Were you on American soil, and were you an officer?

Originally posted by SIEGE
reply to post by Violater1

 

Why don't you shut up and listen ?

Allied Supreme Commanders ? Mac ? Ike ?

Can't Allied Supreme Commanders come from other countries too ?

And some of us HAVE served with our Allies and we're okay with them. PSSSSSAT !

Excuse me!
Your talking about a world war that was in progress, with countries being invaded that had minimal resources.
Last time I checked, there is NO war going on in Australia, America, or Europe.
Shut up and listen!
Really?

Originally posted by Violater1

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Violater1

 

I spent 13 years in the Army and in that time I had been in charge of foreign soldiers and I had worked under foreign commanders at times. My soldiers and I fell under US regulations and lawful orders can be given and received regardless of nationality there is nothing wrong with this. He has been placed in the command structure. You recognize rank regardless of nationality I see this as a good thing I am sure there will be some friction but this is an opportunity to learn from each other.

He still reports to a US three star I don’t see a cause for alarm maybe you can explain your concern a little better.

edit on 1-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: opps wrong spelling

Clarify your situation please. Were you on American soil, and were you an officer?

Why are you asking? I served for 13 years all over the globe in the Army so you need not try to tell me to stand down like you have to others here.

My question to you was could you express your concern a little better. You seem upset but you haven’t really provided a reason in your thread unless this is simply a turf thing to you.