Isnt This Special?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by Rocketeer, Sep 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. saw a new report that the US is transferring 12,000 troops in Afghanistan to NATO control under British overall Command, as part of its support of ' peacekeeping ' efforts in ' helping the country recover' and [ unstated, to help beat the sh*t out of the Taliban ]..

    This allowing US soldiers to be led by - gasp - some other military leadership - is being blabbed by the media as the 1st time the US has been under somewone else's authority since WWII or some such malarky...

    with the US input this brings to 32,000 the multinational force in Afghanistan
    available to chase the Taliban from the southern provinces..
  2. I thought this happened already.

    Even so, there were US troops under Polish command in Iraq with the MNDCS
  3. Rocketeer, there are sending a US 4* to oversee the combinde forces.

    As an aside, this move confuse the issue of the role and function of ISAF. Since the majority of use forces were technically hunting AQ rather than performing a wider role of ISAF of rebuilding the country.
  4. As I saw the report, NATO agreed to take command of peacekeeping across all insurgency-hit Afghanistan next month with the transfer of 12,000 US troops. Pentagon said the transfer will entail the biggest deployment of American forces under foreign command since WW2..ISAF currently has 20,000 troops from 137 countries operating in Kabul, north, west and south with Canada and Britain mounting the largest contingents.

    The overall command of this ' new/combined' force will be British...

    Seems the announcement was made from Slovenia by Sec-Gen Jaap de Hoop after a meeting.

    Awaiting the Taliban press conference to announce their own ' repositioning ' of forces, etc. etc..
  5. I had thought that the Yanks had a policy of not allowing their troops to fall under foreign command. I never read that, I just assumed it.

    That said, I suppose that this should be seen as a strong vote of confidence (and rightly deserved, IMHO) in the leadership of the UK forces command staff. I believe on another thread they were discussing the apocryphal quote of best combination of forces....American logistics, UK officers and German armour, or something along that lines. Two outta three ain't bad. Mind, we Canucks have sent our Leopards, so perhaps it is an armchair generals wet dream after all.
  6. Historically, it depends who it is. US forces have been under British command before and no one has really had a problem with that. I suspect you could get away with putting them under just about any Western nation (except France of course) with no serious outcry. It's when you try to put them under Croations or Guatamalans or the like that the problems begin..