During World Wars One and Two, the United States resisted putting United States soldiers' under foreign military commanders. Should this policy remain or should it be changed? Explain your position.Complete by Monday 3-23 for full credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
This policy should remain the same. No other military commander is better informed on the U.S. army's strengths and weaknesses than the U.S. commander himself/herself. Intimate knowledge of the soldiers is needed in order to fully know what they are best suited for. A commander with the ability to strategize and plan well is not the only thing that makes a good commander. Knowing your troops can be key in a battle. Trust is also essential. Troops will not trust a foreign commander and a foreign commander may not fully trust his/her foreign troops. Keeping the troops to those who know them best is the best plan of action.
Chelsea Y.
Class 8
While I still believe that war is an unnecessary part of our fear-based society, I feel that the policy should be changed. We should be working to unite ourselves with foreign countries, and that can only happen if we show them signs of trust.
Taegan Estores
Period 2
I believe that the United States should be the only ones in control of our own soldiers. While other nations have comparable military forces, the US is still the largest, best funded, and most accomplished military in the past 100 years. The duty of command should be bestowed upon the officers. They have had some of the best training in the world (west point etc.) and we should capitalize on their abilities, rather then trust in the abilities of someone else.
This policy should remain the same and should never be changed. The United States has developed into a country that has one of the best militaries around the world. If something were to ever happen to soldiers under a foreign officer, people in the United States would be appalled and very angry at the United States government. Also, the United States trains each soldier and if they were given over to foreign powers, they would not know their tactics of fighting. If a situation came up that a country needed our help in war, it would be better for the United States to just get involved and send troops under U.S. commanders.
I believe that this policy should not always be carried out. I believe the advantages of having a foreign commander would be having a leader who knows the terrain better than our commander would and would be able to manuver better around the land. The drawbacks are that the foreign commander could easily betray the U.S. and lead our soldiers into a trap.
I think that this policy is necessary. I think that by always having United States soldiers controlled solely by our commanders it keeps a standard. As a nation it's important to be liable for soldiers'. United States soldier fatalities having had under foreign command in a way would lead us to blame. The same situation whereas a solder were to die under oun own command, we only are responsible and that is solely justifiable. Not that it's right but having another nation command enables us to find faults and point fingers when something goes wrong; it's kind-of human nature.
This policy should definitely remain the same, because as Americans, we want our soldiers to remain as safe as possible. If they are put under foreign commanders, it is a definite possibility that they could be asked to do more dangerous things than the soldiers of that foreign commander's nation. While we hope this would not be true, it would always be a possibility, and we want to look out for our own soldiers' safety first and foremost.
Jon Smolen Period 8
I believe this policy should remain because then the soldiers will be only fulfilling the orders that they were sent there to accomplish. It would be wrong to have another country simply use soldiers as sacrifices or something. Plus, foreign countries will have different agendas than what the United States has and they won't always be in accord so we should just keep American soldiers under American command so that they do only what the United States wants them to do not some other mission that isn't what they were sent there to do.
Calvin - Class 8
Jeff Keating
Period: 8
I think that we should still let some of soldiers be under the rule of foreign commanders. Granted we will not give them our entire army and that we will make sure that they are not used as a "disposable army", it is important for relations with foreign countries. By giving them these soldiers we prove to the other countries that we can rely on them and that we trust them with our lives. Other wise we would never endanger a man or woman with such a task. As to whether the policy should still remain or not, I believe i still should. At this point in American history we need all the support from foreign nations as we possibly can get. With the Bush administration out of power, we need to send a new signal to the world that we are changing and changing for the better. At this point trust is key to a successful relationship.
I dont think U.S. troops should serve under foreign military commanders because U.S. troops are trained using American tactics. If you put them under foreign commanders that have different tactics and strategies there will be miscommunication they wont agree with battle plans. Also because when Americans sign up for the army they want to fight for thier country not for a different one.
This policy should be changed since at times it may be more strategic to put United States soldiers under the command of a foreign military officer. Sometimes, a foreign military officer will have the best judgment. Idle troops may be at better use under her or her command. Likely, US troops under the command of a foreign military officer will encounter foreign troops more often and build a sense of comradeship between US soldiers and other foreign soldiers. This bond will help them perform better in battle since they will be greater trust between them. This will also eliminate negative prejudices or preconceptions between the US and allied troops as they will be working side by side. The only reason for keeping US soldiers under US officers would be to preserve American pride and purpose, but in reality American pride and purpose would be more intensely felt among other troops as US soldiers must represent their country. They will be constantly reminded they are part of a team. Ultimately, this would only prove beneficial in ending the war as quickly as possible.
Alyssa Rodriguez
Honors Class 2
I believe that Americans should only be led by Americans. I think the main reason for this would be cultural/language barriers. This could cause some problems and could prevent American soldiers from understanding what to do. This also occurs the other way, Americans should not led other military units. If they do there should be a commander under the American officer that is from that country.
Dana Hansen Per. 2
This policy should remain. If the United States trains men for war, the commander should be from the United States. Changing this policy would be like going to a basketball game and having the teams switch coaches. Having foreign commanders would make the US troops less effective since they didn't face the same training. Changing this policy could also cause a lot more corruption because a foreign leader would have control over some US troops.
Cameron Gehrman Class 2
I do not have a lot of knowledge about our Military. But I think that this policy should remain because we never fully understand foreign countries intentions. Our soldiers are United States soldiers and they should obey commands from the US only. This way we know what our soldiers are doing at all times. If we let them undergo foreign commands our soldiers are all on different pages, it is safer and wiser to keep this policy the same.
Americas forces should be led into combat: by American commanders. A larger percent of men and woman who join the armed forces have hopes to protect our country. While it is important to have trust in other nations, I think America is ultimately responsible for its own troops, always.
I believe we sshould continue with this policy. In order for other commanders to command us soldiers they will need to know all about the US soldiers. We need to keep some secrets from the rest of the world, and the workings of our military should be one of them. Also although many other foreign commanders are just as educated and able as US commanders, many US soldiers will feel safer and more trusting of a US officer. They may feel untrusting of other commanders and therefore may not work as well with them as they should.
Something that we should do is to make our troops and commanders more flexible. If several countries adopt a program for those countries to have the same or similar training programs, troops would be able to seamlessly work for various commanders. This flexibility would be very beneficial whenever multinational conflicts are involved.
Jay Lee
Class 8
I think that this policy should remain the same. Soldiers are apart of the United States and they shouldnt be involved with other foreign commanders but their own here in the United States. Under foreign commanders they may be asked to do different things then of what they were taught to do here. Foreign commanders wouldnt really know these soldiers because they would live so far away and who knows what they would put them through.
I believe United States soldiers should remain under US control because under foregin military command you really don't know what's going to happen to your soldiers. Our allied countries could ask for help and give us advice on war criteria, but they shouldn't be able to control our soldiers.
The Policy should be changed, although, giving troops to other nations is a risky act. It allows us to build trust with allied nations and in times of desperation, it may inspire them to do the same for us. Plus it could help us avoid a head on war entirely. For an example, Japan is one of the U.S.'s greatest allies, however, they are not allowed an armyof more than a couple thousand. If they were invaded, they probably couldn't save themselves. By giving them control over a reasonable number of our troops, we could possibly avoid a war with their attackers and protect Japan at the same time. This is because, the troops we gave them could technically be called Japanese, not American. This is not to mention the fact that the Japanese commanders would have an in depth insight on the battlefeild layout and common strategy in that area. Also, they could protect points of intrest without worry of Americans "backing out".
Taylor Carnes
Class 8
The policy should change. To only trust U.S. commanders seems incredibly xenophobic. If we are unifying ourselves with other nations we should trust those nations otherwise it shows an extreme lack of faith. Considering America is considered a "melting pot" of different cultures why not accept those cultures once there?
margot isaacs
period 2
Even without the information thats been given about WWI, i still feel war is unnecessary for our society. The policy should definitely be changed because we should be striving for peace and friendships with other countries. The only way we will achieve the peace our government and society speaks about is if we show other countries trust and respect. We need to show them that we are serious about uniting together.
Although it could be argued that putting United States soldiers' under foreign military commanders could form better alliances with other countries, I feel that this policy should remain the same. Changing the policy would simply cause conflict, and weaken our troops considering the fact that our troops would be trained differently. Additionally, there is always the possibility of the foreign commander turning on the United States, creating more chaos, and putting our nation in danger.
Olivia De Vivo
Hon US period 2
Obviously this policy should remain the same. There is no way any American in their right minds would ever allow our soldiers to serve for a foreign commander to cntrol them. It is a huge mistake and show of lack of leadership that could never be allowed. Obviously though, everyone knows that. Obviously...
I really do not see the problem of having US soldiers under foreign commanders. What this means is not that anytime we have a war we bring in a leader from some random country to fight somewhere we could handle ourselves. What this means is when we send troops to help in other wars, for example if we were helping France out somewhere, I see no problem in putting the troops under that country's orders. If we are offering our help it is arrogant to feel that no other country is fit to lead. When we fight our own wars that might be a different story, but if we take over countries all the time and put them under our command we should then in turn learn to be cooperative.
I think that this policy should remain the same because each country has their own culture and different ways of training their military. Even though there are similarities between the way they run the military if the U.S. military were run by a foreign commander they would need to be re-trained. This would be a lot of unnecessary work for the U.S. military. Also, the U.S. commanders know how their military works and what they are best at so policy should remain the same because it would benefit the U.S. military the most.
Laetitia de Brantes
Period 2
I feel that this policy should deffinetly remain the same. Who knows the US better then its own citizens? By placing someone of another nationality in such a high position in our military, how much garuntiy to we have that what they are doing, is best for our nation? If we can place someone of different nationality into that kind of position, then we certainly should be able to fill the spot with an American.
I do not think that the policy should remain in place. Although US commanders do know their soldiers prior training, it is important that we work together with our allies against our cause. If we resist putting our soldiers in their hands, I think it sends the message that we do not fully trust our allies. We need to trust, and show that we trust those we fight with.
I believe that the policy should stay the same. US soldiers should be directed by US military commanders. Involving foreign commanders would be difficult. If we allowed them to to take charge and something happened I believe people would start blaming the foreign officers. It also would be difficult to know if they are making decisions that are best for the US or for their own country.
THis policy should remain the same. It is the same idea or principal of the law that no person can be president who was born outside the states. There's always the treat of distrust between the commander and soldiers. Keeping troops in the best spirits is the best possible way to ensure that the war is fought with the most amount of nationalism and passion as possible.
I believe that by changing this policy it could be beneficial to the military because with less controversey, it makes everything much easier. For example, by letting foreign commanders command our troops, it can show trust between allies and eventually show that each country trusts eachother.Also,, by changing this policy its the next step towards peace and a healthy relationship instead of encouraging argument between the United States and Foreign countries. Finally, this policy is something that divides the two sides instead of brining them together. What i mean is, by changing this one policy it could make a difference with the intensity of the soldiers and the way the react in war.
I definitely feel that this policy should remain the same. The reasoning behind my position is that it is the matter of how much trust we have in the countries that we are allowing our soldiers to fight with. For example, if they have an un-loyal background then we as the US one of the greatest military forces in the world should not trust them by endangering our soldiers’ lives. If something did happen to our soldiers it would result in public upheaval and disappointment in the US government. It is better for us to be safe than sorry so if any one of our allies needed help then the government should send over troops, but just have then under a US commander.
Stephanie Jarvis
Period 2
I feel this policy should stay the same. I find it important for the United States to stay unified and having a commander from overseas will corrupt the image of being a strong nation. It will also effect the soldiers mind when they see a commander they have never had order them before. The soldiers can lose that sense of pride they have in their nation. Also, other countries can see us being weak that we need help from other generals to control our armies.
Stephanie Suhoza
period 2
i believe that the policy should remain the same. while im not implying that if we allow a foreign commander into our military he will conspire with his home country in a plot to take over the United states, i do believe that in an American army, the soldiers should have an American leader to look up to.
This policy should remain the same. Putting Us soldiers under foregin commanders will only lead to future problems. Plus different foreign commanders have different views/strategies for war and there could be big conflicts. So this policy should remain the same.
Katie Dunlap
Class 2
I beleive that this policy should remain seeing as how US commandors are the only people that should be in charge of US soldiers. It is for that exact reason; they are US soldiers and not soldiers of other countries. In todays world, i think it is hard to determine who is liable to help out our military. Someone that we trust could easily turn around and not be on our side.
This policy should remain the same because the United States should have control over all of their troops. No one knows the United States troops better than its own commanders, and foreign commanders might not keep the United States' best interest at heart. If foreign commanders had control of the United States army, then they might have them do something that they're not trained in, because every military is different in some ways. I believe this policy should not be changed, because the people who know the United States army the best is the United States army.
Jacey Mattegat
Class 2
I believe that this policy should stay the same. The United States commanders are the best informed about our country. America has built its military up into one of the most powerful in the world. We shouldn't make a drastic change when everything has been working out fine as it is
I think that United States soldiers should only be under the command of American military commanders. Foreign military commanders will not care about our troops as much as our military commanders and may use them in suicide missions. Foreign military commanders will be more likely to use our troops in missions where probablility of victory is low, and that is just not right.
Jason Howell
class 8
Chris Teri
I belive the policy should remain the same. This is becasue not only do we have some of the best Generals and Comanders we also have chemistry. Our troops crontrled by other countries could casue our troop to not be used to their full potential. and becasue we know our strenghs and weaknesses the best, only we should lead our troops.
I think that this policy should remain. It is illogical for United States' soldiers to be put under foreign military commanders. It does not make any sense to me for soldiers of our country to be placed under foreign military commanders. This is why I believe that the policy should not be changed, it should remain the same. Our soldiers should be under our own country's commanders, no one else's.
Karen Narayanan
Class 8
I believe this policy should remain the same because these men and women in our military are fighting for our country, not the other countries. ALthough we may be fighting together, we should be able to make our own decisions and the soldier fighting for our country should be commanded by our country and supported by our country as the top priority.
Annie Fletcher
Class 2
I believe that this policy should stay the same because it has worked in the past and it doesn't make sense to put U.S. soldiers under the control of a non U.S. leader. People generally join the military because they want to protect their country and the best leaders for that are American ones.
Annika Garrett
This policy should remain the same. I don’t understand why American troops would ever travel without an American leader. It sounds irresponsible to send a man into battle without a commander who knows the commands and equipment the troops use. I don’t know what war is like or if other countries’ commanders are trustworthy or not, so I don’t feel like I can answer this question with any solid fact to back my answer up. However I do not believe American troops to be so naïve to be betrayed by one foreign leader, but I think our troops would be better off to see the terrain they are fighting on first hand, to avoid confusion. How do you describe every detail of a battle field? I believe we have the equipment needed to gather the necessary information, if our leaders are patient and don’t jump to conclusions.
I strongly believe the policy should remain. American troops ultimately operate best with American military commanders. They understand eachother's cultures and tactics. American officers also aleviate the risk of leaked or manipulated information from other countries. The troops need to rely on their officers for survival; this is easier when they can relate to one another and develop a trusting relationship. I still feel that countries should work together in battle but American troops should continue to be led by American officers.
Molly Nostrand
I feel if we are in a wartime situation, united states generals and commanders should be controlling the troops not foreign commanders. I feel that if we are to go into battle we should have commanders who have the absolute best intentions for our troops and country.
Dan O'Connor
Class 2
ps. i was in california over the weekend in a hotel with no internet access unexpectedly, so i wasn't able to do the blog, until tonight
they should not be allowed to because obviously you cant have foreign commanders in our domestic army. this is one of the most rediculous things ever and it should not be changed whatso ever. biggie duets
Post a Comment