* 12,000 G.I.s under NATO command
* Satcomm lowdown
* Bush buddy: WH war disarray
* Saudis plan Iraq fence
* Everyone wants high-tech soldier get-ups
* $10M more for giant spy blimp
* Space Command's "Cosmic" R&D
* 5 year plan for drones in national airspace
* "Rocketmen unite!"
* "Be careful what you ask for"
Good Morning Folks,
The article regarding 12K U.S. going under NATO command is of great interest. What ever happened to the U.S. policy of not putting American troops under foreugn command?
It would seem that putting American military personal under NATO Command is a regressive move, since NATO by all accounts has been inept in handling it's mission in Afghanistan in the first place. It is troops under NATO who have had operational control in S.E. Afghanistan, Kandahar where the Talbain has regained territory lost to U.S. forces in 2002.
It appears that this is just one more ill thought out part of the Afghanistan operation that has managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Posted by: Byron Skinner at September 30, 2006 12:55 PM