- Reaction score
Another casualty, incoming army commander now under investigation
Not entirely accurate.Commanders of US Unified Combatant Commands, on the other hand, have a unified headquarters but have no troops assigned to them. They have command and control only over those forces from the separate services assigned to the Component Commands affiliated with the specific UCC. For example ARCENT, NAVCENT, AFCENT etc with CENTCOM. The services remain separate and independent under the US military and departmental structure. The nearest equivalent we would have to a UCC would be CJOC but without the component command element.
Do we know that? The investigation did not find enough evidence that a criminal or CSD conviction was deemed likely, but that is not the same as exoneration. Unfortunately we don’t have a true professional disciplinary system to look at the circumstances and render a public decision on balance of probabilities. The CSD is modelled to be a criminal code lite, while remedial measures are basically a civilian HR approach.the investigation exonerated [Adm McDonald]
Are you talking about summary trials or remedial measures (IC, RW, C&P)?Remedial measures are handy if they are applied correctly and with the intent of salvaging someone before they are completely fubarred. I seem to recall routine orders regularly published the names and punishments that were the results of orders parades. The ROs also published those that were released including those who were cashiered.
Personally I’d love to see the stocks and pillories returned.
Summary trials. Remedial measures weren’t in vogue in the 70s other than C&P at least not that I was aware.Are you talking about summary trials or remedial measures (IC, RW, C&P)?
All true and correct. My comments were simply to disagree with the comparison of the unified structure of the CF to UCCs for the clear reason that you point out that each of the Army, Navy and Air Force retain service responsibilities for the tasked elements.Not entirely accurate.
Combatant Commanders have forces assigned to them, and US Doctrine actually has a command relationship for this: combatant command (COCOM). This USAF link is helpful - note the United States does not use the myriad of NATO command relationships that we use in Canada. They've simplified it to three. COCOM, OPCON, TACON.
Forces are assigned COCOM to combatant commands through the Global Force Management Implementation Guidance (GFMIG) which assigns, allocates, or apportions (these are three distinct relationships) formations from Services to the Combatant Commanders. For example, 2 Cavalry Regiment is a US Army unit, but is assigned COCOM to Cdr EUCOM. The Chief of Staff of the Army still retains Title 10 responsibilities to man, train, and equip the unit, but operational tasks belong to the Combat Commander.
Also, as I have stated before, there is no equivalency between a UCC and CJOC. A Combatant Commander answers directly to SECDEF/POTUS (national command authority) and is thus directly charged with strategic decision making. Comd CJOC has no such access, and conducts operational tasks and management based on strategic directives from the CDS, through the Strategic Joint Staff. The Canadian equivalent to a UCC is the CDS, served by the SJS.
No, Diplomatic privileges can be waived by the Home Nation for personnel in the Host Nation.
I doubt it, based on Canada waiving his diplo immunity, which is within the right of Canada to do.
It is definitely an odd one -I am kind of surprised the Supremes even agreed to hear this. There must be an interesting point of law in there someplace.
Which was waived by the Chief of Mission based on the transcripts.I think it is the "diplomatic immunity" connotation....
It definitely should be interesting to see this play out.
Probably should have thrown him out a panel van to the VA State Troopers on the Beltway -- he'd still be cooling his heels in a Pen down here.