Unprecedented: German General Appointed Chief of Staff of US Army Europe

a reply to: oblvion

This IS nothing. It's been going on for decades, and it will keep going on for more. Our officers get put into foreign military positions, and theirs do the same.

Unlike most I'm not arrogant enough to think we don't need allies, or that it's not a good thing to do exchange programs to learn more about those allies.

a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.

originally posted by: BABYBULL24
Yup...what's next the goose stepping & fire up the ovens?

I find your comment not only offensive, but downright stupid...two attributes that just seen to go hand-in-hand with some folks.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.

Simple, the chief of staff makes policy. Policy is the doctrine from which all orders are issued.

A non American is now writing policy for American troops.

Simple enough to understand?

You have still not named 1 single reason another nation needs to command our troops.

Germany has a military, why isnt he commanding it? Because he is either incompetent and they dont want him, but he is politically connected so he gets the job, or there is not one single good rational reason on this earth for it, and they did it to make the Germans feel good.

I couldnt care how the Germans feel as long as their next genocide stays in Europe like the last 2 attempts.

Lets be clear here. Germany has overtaken Britain as the EU's biggest player.

What happened the last 2 times they were on top?

A clear history points clearly to what to expect.

Why are they making policy over our troops?

Chief's of staff make and implement policy. That is the sole reason for the job.

This is like appointing a former KGB guy as the head of the CIA.

Why would you give anyone else any type of control over your assets?

Stupidity or intentional mischief, these are the only 2 rational reasons I can actually see playing out in the real world.

In other news, Kim Jung Un was appointed the the department of Justice, not like he is in charge or anything, it is a clearly unimportant job position( then why does it exist if it doesnt matter?).

It does matter. This guy from another country clearly has the power of setting policy my countries soldiers will follow.

Sorry if you dont understand this, but I barely trust the Americans in charge, anyone else.......good luck, I trust every other country as far as I can change mine...........less than not at all....if that is even possible.

a reply to: oblvion

And you act like he's working in a total vacuum doing whatever the hell he wants to, which is utter crap. He reports to American commanders and falls under American orders.

So our troops are going to operate in a total vacuum in the event of a major conflict? Only working with other US units? Apparently you seem to think we can do it all on our own. In the event of Europe blowing up, US forces are going to operate under NATO. Which means occasionally operating under German units. It's a good idea to know what they can do and for them to know what we can do.

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

Where does it say they are subject to orders by anyone but the Pentagon?

Jesus this is getting blown out of proportion. This is a German officer serving in the US chain of command. That's all. It's been happening for decades already.

Why would the most powerful most advanced most lethal military on earth by far need this guy in a position of authority over its troops?

A fair proportion of this " Most Advanced " technology is British owned. Or do you not know that?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.

Simple, the chief of staff makes policy. Policy is the doctrine from which all orders are issued.

A non American is now writing policy for American troops.

Simple enough to understand?

You have still not named 1 single reason another nation needs to command our troops.

Germany has a military, why isnt he commanding it? Because he is either incompetent and they dont want him, but he is politically connected so he gets the job, or there is not one single good rational reason on this earth for it, and they did it to make the Germans feel good.

I couldnt care how the Germans feel as long as their next genocide stays in Europe like the last 2 attempts.

Lets be clear here. Germany has overtaken Britain as the EU's biggest player.

What happened the last 2 times they were on top?

A clear history points clearly to what to expect.

Why are they making policy over our troops?

Chief's of staff make and implement policy. That is the sole reason for the job.

This is like appointing a former KGB guy as the head of the CIA.

Why would you give anyone else any type of control over your assets?

Stupidity or intentional mischief, these are the only 2 rational reasons I can actually see playing out in the real world.

In other news, Kim Jung Un was appointed the the department of Justice, not like he is in charge or anything, it is a clearly unimportant job position( then why does it exist if it doesnt matter?).

It does matter. This guy from another country clearly has the power of setting policy my countries soldiers will follow.

Sorry if you dont understand this, but I barely trust the Americans in charge, anyone else.......good luck, I trust every other country as far as I can change mine...........less than not at all....if that is even possible.

The Chief of Staff of a place like USAREUR does not make policy. They have a Plans, Strategy & Policy branch for that although even they do not truly make policy as USAREUR is a subordinate command to EUCOM. The Chief of Staff at a place like USAREUR mostly just pushes paper and hand admistrative issues in the CINCs office. He does not have authority to sign for the CINC or do anything on his own. When I was at CENTCOM most people considered the Chief of Staff as a glorified secretary. It carried some prestige simply because you would be in constant contact with CINC and DCINC.

originally posted by: oblvion


2)experience, lesser militaries need experienced leadership to show them how it is done, this is well known, the French did it for us in the revolutionary war. The US military needs no direction from anyone in any country, we are quite great at warfare thank you.

Guess that why you won Vietnam and have had such great success against insergants in Iraq and Afganistan......o wait no.....

Arrogance and thinking you know it all gets you DEAD.

Sometimes its better to humble yourself and accept that experience comes from all different sources and background.

If the USA had listened and took tips off of Australia then Vietnam would likely have been a great US military victory.

double post

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Unlike most I'm not arrogant enough to think we don't need allies, or that it's not a good thing to do exchange programs to learn more about those allies.

Exactly everyone gains. At the very least you get to find out were each others strengths and weakness lay and then work on them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.

Anyone would think they made the German officer commander in chief

a reply to: oblvion

What you don't get is the buck doesn't stop with the German officer. If the pentagon gets even a whiff that he is negligent or putting German interests first at the expense of the USA they will just remove those units from under his control, same if a American officer prove inept under German command. USA had the power to kick him out the job and back to commanding only German troops.

If it had been china or Russia I would see your concern but Germany one of the USA key allies.

And when it comes to Australia/Canada/New Zealand and UK there not really even any military secrets expect nuclear launch codes.

a reply to: crazyewok

Hell RAF pilots have flown the B-2 since the 90s, including combat missions.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: marg6043

And what position is that? Oh right, serving under a US commander in the US chain of command. Remind me again how that puts or troops under foreign orders.

Simple, the chief of staff makes policy. Policy is the doctrine from which all orders are issued.

A non American is now writing policy for American troops.

Simple enough to understand?

You have still not named 1 single reason another nation needs to command our troops.

Germany has a military, why isnt he commanding it? Because he is either incompetent and they dont want him, but he is politically connected so he gets the job, or there is not one single good rational reason on this earth for it, and they did it to make the Germans feel good.

I couldnt care how the Germans feel as long as their next genocide stays in Europe like the last 2 attempts.

Lets be clear here. Germany has overtaken Britain as the EU's biggest player.

What happened the last 2 times they were on top?

A clear history points clearly to what to expect.

Why are they making policy over our troops?

Chief's of staff make and implement policy. That is the sole reason for the job.

This is like appointing a former KGB guy as the head of the CIA.

Why would you give anyone else any type of control over your assets?

Stupidity or intentional mischief, these are the only 2 rational reasons I can actually see playing out in the real world.

In other news, Kim Jung Un was appointed the the department of Justice, not like he is in charge or anything, it is a clearly unimportant job position( then why does it exist if it doesnt matter?).

It does matter. This guy from another country clearly has the power of setting policy my countries soldiers will follow.

Sorry if you dont understand this, but I barely trust the Americans in charge, anyone else.......good luck, I trust every other country as far as I can change mine...........less than not at all....if that is even possible.

The Chief of Staff of a place like USAREUR does not make policy. They have a Plans, Strategy & Policy branch for that although even they do not truly make policy as USAREUR is a subordinate command to EUCOM. The Chief of Staff at a place like USAREUR mostly just pushes paper and hand admistrative issues in the CINCs office. He does not have authority to sign for the CINC or do anything on his own. When I was at CENTCOM most people considered the Chief of Staff as a glorified secretary. It carried some prestige simply because you would be in constant contact with CINC and DCINC.

You suck so bad, I put together a really good argument, and you once again just pwned me like a noob.

Stop being so fricking smart and accurate all the damned time, it isnt fun to try and argue with a dictionary.

I do agree with everything you said, but you missed one of my biggest points, WTF is the point other than giving another politically hooked up douche a fat salary?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Hell RAF pilots have flown the B-2 since the 90s, including combat missions.

And SAS/SBS do joint training and active missions with US special forces which from what I hear you guys learn quite abit off.
So the relationship seems to work two ways.

As for the B-2 exchange it is curious what the UK gets out of it as it doesn't have strategic bombers, let alone stealth bombers. Makes me wonder if the MOD have something planned if a major war seems to be building up. I know we nearly brought F-117 a while back, make me wonder if keeping some RAF pilots with B-2 Experience may a contingency plan.

Also makes me wonder if the RAF had any advanced replacements for the Vulcan it it abandoned when the USSR fell as our aerospace sector was pretty advanced until we just gave up after the cold war. Hell the USA is still using our Harriers. Such a shame we scaled our aerospace industry back as we put out some dam good stuff.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: oblvion


2)experience, lesser militaries need experienced leadership to show them how it is done, this is well known, the French did it for us in the revolutionary war. The US military needs no direction from anyone in any country, we are quite great at warfare thank you.

Guess that why you won Vietnam and have had such great success against insergants in Iraq and Afganistan......o wait no.....

Arrogance and thinking you know it all gets you DEAD.

Sometimes its better to humble yourself and accept that experience comes from all different sources and background.

If the USA had listened and took tips off of Australia then Vietnam would likely have been a great US military victory.

Um our rules of engagement made vietnam impossible to win.

"Hey guys, we are going to invade this country and they will use actual "total WAR" against us, but you guys all have to have both hands tied behind your backs and still try to win".

That in a nut shell was vietnam.

If we used even a portion of our actual abilities it would have been like Isreal vs gaza.

Dont mistake politicians running a BS police action, to an actual WAR, they are not the same. In WAR America is great at killing, in police actions........i got beer to drink and Xbox to play call me when your being serious.

a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.

a reply to: crazyewok

Most likey some kind of tech transfer deal. You provide a few pilots, and get access to our RAM coatings, or a couple other things that could be used in future UAV programs.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: oblvion

But Australia made USA look like amateurs at jungle warfare. There is a quote from one of the top viet cong commanders who even said that if the Americans had adopted the Australian tactics they would have won.

Dont make excuse for failures like "o but it was politics" that's just pathetic.

USA could have won Vietnam. But it didn't.

What do you do from failures? Cry? Make it excuses?

No you learn from those mistakes.

I agree 100% on both points.

Though it is a historic fact, America did not wage "total WAR" in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan.

Our military at the time was designed for "total WAR" not nancy games. They forced it onto them in all three of the above conflicts.

You can call it excuses all you want, it is a historical fact though. We did not wage "total WAR" in a single one of your examples, we played politics in all 3 of them.

America has not waged actual war since WW2, not once, well Korea was a close call it could go either way in that one.

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: MrSpad

The Chief of Staff of a place like USAREUR does not make policy.

When I was at CENTCOM most people considered the Chief of Staff as a glorified secretary

It carried some prestige simply because you would be in constant contact with CINC and DCINC.

or in my comparison the 'glorified Secretary' would be the Adjutant... whose sole purpose was to do the hand written 'signature' that is Required to Pass documents to the next level.... (the real commander didn't have time for that sort-of nonsense but it was protocol to have a Commander sign for 'things' ...
so that things like security clearances could be processed

Full Definition of ADJUTANT


1: a staff officer in the army, air force, or marine corps who assists the commanding officer and is responsible especially for correspondence