Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100

Thread: French military (catch all)

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Ken White posted: Maybe they either know something
    ________________________________________
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fuchs
    ...I really don't know why European powers degrade their forces to expedition forces voluntarily.
    A collective defense based on assumptions and memories of a past time doesn't seem to be very solid.
    you don't -- or they could just have opinions that differ from yours. Either way, everyone from the Albanians to even the normally and nominally neutral Swedes and Swiss and to include your own country are doing just that.
    Fuchs, allow me to take a short stab at answering your question, for as Ken rightly notes, ‘everyone is doing it’. I have had the good fortune to lead a team of researchers that looked at seven European states with respect to ‘transformation’ (something else they are all ‘doing’) – specifically, the focus was on expeditionary warfare, EBAO, and Network-enabled operations (closest to the US Network Centric Warfare) -- and the answer to why depends on the state in question, and usually there are several reasons.

    A common reason across the seven states was the changing security environment – European military organizations recognize that the prospect of an armed invasion of Europe by a hostile state military a la the cold war is currently very remote and that what their governments had been tasking them to do, through the 1990s and into the 2000s to the present, is what are in essence expeditionary operations (ranging from war fighting through to humanitarian relief) which they were not very well configured to undertake. Thus there was a perceived need to develop the capabilities to be deployable and usable. In some cases there is evidence that some were at least in part driven to undertake the shift to being more expeditionary by the national military organization’s perception that they needed to be seen by their governments as being deployable and employable, or, to put it another way, politically usable/useful if you will. Worth noting that in some cases the mil orgs themselves took the lead and in other cases the political leadership at least pointed them towards expeditionary operations.

    This last points to a second driver, which is that if the mil orgs in question continued to focus on defending their or NATO’s borders absent a clear and present threat then, then they ran the real risk of their governments starting to cut funding even more than they have already. Very much related to this is that undertaking change to become more expeditionary confers ‘legitimacy’ on the organizations, confers the perception that they are a modern military like other military organizations (in other words, other mil orgs are doing it, so they need to do it) - for both internal and external purposes. So important to why they are making this change is budget share (or maybe just retaining budget share), which legitimacy helps with this internally but legitimacy as well helps externally in term of the perception of fellow and/or allied military organizations (professional respect - and yes, self respect plays here). And yes, as noted already, in part the external legitimacy issue is with respect to NATO (and the US).

    And third, and related to the first, for some states all current and recent operations are NATO ‘out of area’. In short, operational experience has forced them to identify a need to become more expeditionary capable (this is probably particularly true of states such as Poland, which only in the last year or two has started to undertake ‘transformation’).

    That noted, this does not mean that the various national militaries are all on the same path – some are farther along to becoming more expeditionary capable than others. Moreover, in some cases, while the 'narrative of change' is that they are becoming more expeditionary capable, in practice the changes (org, procurement) suggest otherwise – in other words, they more ‘talk the talk than walk the walk’ (so the narrative confers internal and external legitimacy). Finally, this also does not mean that the changes being undertaken are necessarily the most appropriate changes (whether this be doctrine/concepts, procurement, organizational structural change) - but this is another discussion.

    Oops, not so short……

  2. #42
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    From a historical point of view, the "remote" possibility isn't so awfully remote.

    Recall the situation of France in 1928, for example.
    Twelve years later they were weakened by a world economic crisis, overrun by a power that was marginal till 1935 and would probably have been overrun few years later by just another power (USSR) that was an equally "remote" threat in 1928.

    And then there's an ethical problem.
    How dare we to accept new NATO members if we aren't willing to think seriously about how to protect them?
    Instead, some are expecting them to provide expeditionary forces for some distant adventures that have no advantageous effect for their national security.
    Isn't that unethical?

    Disclaimer:
    I'm not all against small wars. I've got strict criteria, though. It would be much easier to convince me to intervene in Biafra, Rwanda & Darfur scenarios for a couple of months than to send a FFG for a pointless multi-year patrol off the Lebanese coast or some infantry with APCs to Afghanistan.

  3. #43
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Isn't that a contradiction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    ...I'm not all against small wars. I've got strict criteria, though. It would be much easier to convince me to intervene in Biafra, Rwanda & Darfur scenarios for a couple of months than to send a FFG for a pointless multi-year patrol off the Lebanese coast or some infantry with APCs to Afghanistan.
    Given your often stated rationale for the use of force best being applied only to issues of national survival?

    While those above named operations you would support would be of beneficial humanitarian impact their continuance poses no threat to Europe while the two you do not support can arguably have an adverse impact on Europe, probably not to an existential level but certainly to an increased terrorism and dissent level.

    Priorities...

  4. #44
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Given your often stated rationale for the use of force best being applied only to issues of national survival?

    While those above named operations you would support would be of beneficial humanitarian impact their continuance poses no threat to Europe while the two you do not support can arguably have an adverse impact on Europe, probably not to an existential level but certainly to an increased terrorism and dissent level.

    Priorities...
    I believe I discussed Afghanistan in detail somewhere in this forum. I see no useful contribution to national security in contributing to that civil war.


    Actually, I wrote a rule set for application of military power and alliances long ago and checked it against many historical cases - and was satisfied to have fixed my own compass for such affairs.
    It had/has two sufficient justifications for warfare;
    - a promising attempt to protect th own national security (possibly enlarged to collective defense of the sovereignty of all members of an alliance)
    - (non-obligatory) intervention against genocide (not violent ethnic cleansing) for ethical reasons

    That's just a personal rule set and nobody needs to agree with it - but I can guarantee that I am consistent in my stance towards the question "war or not war". It's just not a very obvious and simple rule set that could be understood by fragmentary observation of symptoms.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 07-30-2008 at 03:30 AM.

  5. #45
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Afghanistan and its internal strife -- it is not really a civil war

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    I believe I discussed Afghanistan in detail somewhere in this forum. I see no useful contribution to national security in contributing to that civil war.
    by any reasonable definition -- are a part of the effort to dissuade some Islamist fundamentalists from violence. If you believe Germany has no interest in deterring that for long term benefit, I'd suggest you may be in error. If, OTOH, you believe there's a better way to go about that dissuasion, that's a different matter but it appears that the folks in Berlin have opted for that approach -- even if many Germans disagree.
    Actually, I wrote a rule set for application of military power and alliances long ago and checked it against many historical cases - and was satisfied to have fixed my own compass for such affairs.
    It had/has two sufficient justifications for warfare;
    - a promising attempt to protect th own national security (possibly enlarged to collective defense of the sovereignty of all members of an alliance)
    - (non-obligatory) intervention against genocide (not violent ethnic cleansing) for ethical reasons

    That's just a personal rule set and nobody needs to agree with it - but I can guarantee that I am consistent in my stance towards the question "war or not war". It's just not a very obvious and simple rule set that could be understood by fragmentary observation of symptoms.
    All well and good. As long as you realize it is a personal rule set and allow others to disagree in good faith, no one should complain.

    I'd simply suggest that anyone disagreeing with you is not necessarily stupid or immoral; they might just have arrived at different and perfectly acceptable conclusions from the same or similar facts.

    You might consider that a change in circumstances you have not foreseen may cause you to add a reason or two -- and that economic, military or political reality may cause others to ignore your rules. You're entitled to your rules and others are just as entitled to theirs. All of us should be able to accept differing ideas without implying anyone who doesn't agree with our ideas is dangerously ignorant.

  6. #46
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Fuchs Posted: From a historical point of view, the "remote" possibility isn't so awfully remote.
    'Remote' is relative concept. I doubt anyone thinks an invasion or threat thereof is impossible. But, remember, in the late 1990s and early part of this decade the only plausible threat was Russia, and even today, ten years on, Russia while certainly making a lot of noise is not an enemy. Ten years from now, who knows.

    Fuchs posted: And then there's an ethical problem.
    How dare we to accept new NATO members if we aren't willing to think seriously about how to protect them?
    Instead, some are expecting them to provide expeditionary forces for some distant adventures that have no advantageous effect for their national security.
    Isn't that unethical?
    I agree that NATO, or rather most of NATO's member military orgs are not well suited to defending the Alliance's eastern borders unless they were to be forward deployed to these allies territories.

    But NATO currently is not willing to forward deploy forces on the scale and scope needed to posture a real defense them, in part as there is no obvious major threat of invasion and in part (and possibly in larger part) as NATO does not want to aggravate relations with Russia, which would see major NATO forces forward deployed into East and Central Europe as threatening.

    So, how is NATO to support them should some lesser contingency arise? - particularly if most NATO forces currently are not particularly deployable and employable at any reasonable distance in a reasonable time frame. In short, in the current environment developing expeditionary capable forces - deployable, sustainable, combat capable forces (or forces for lesser contingencies) - actually will provide NATOs member states with the means to support their eastern allies should the need ever arise (this applies particularly to ground forces, for air forces can be surged forward more readily).

    If Russia should start to emerge down the road as a serious renewed threat, NATO can revisit its decision not to forward deploy member military forces to its new allies' territories.

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default France to rejoin NATO military command

    France ends four-decade Nato rift

    BBC News
    17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced his country is to return to Nato's military command, reversing four decades of self-imposed exile.
    Mr Sarkozy confirmed the decision in a speech to defence experts at the Ecole Militaire staff college in Paris.

    President Charles de Gaulle pulled France out of Nato's integrated military command in 1966, saying it undermined France's sovereignty.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  8. #48
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Talking C'est it ain't so Nick!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    France ends four-decade Nato rift

    BBC News
    17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009
    DeGaulle is flipping like a pancake....

    Critics say France will now be no more than "a clone of Great Britain".

    But Mr Sarkozy said there was no sense in France - a founder member of Nato - having no say in the organisation's decisions on military strategy.
    La France a clone of dee Eeenglish?! Non! Non!

    Best
    Tom

  9. #49
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default For the futurists, ATO ?

    Zarkozy's Socialist opponent had this to say (from the OP link; bold added by JMM):

    "Nothing today justifies returning to Nato military command," said the leader of the opposition Socialists, Martine Aubry.

    "There's no hurry, no fundamental need, except for this Atlanticism that's becoming an ideology."
    "Atlanticism" is not a term used much here. Two older, background articles are here and here. Our old buddy, Dominique de Villepin, has also criticized Zarkozy's "Atlanticism".

    I have a hard time seeing a "North Atlantic Union" - from a US perspective; but the Atlantic Rim countries do have common interests. So, a NATO and a SATO (bringing in the southern countries along the lake) would be a possibility for the future - leading to an ATO ?

    Just a wild, futuristic thought on what is here a sunny day.

  10. #50
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,196

    Default Welcome back, now go away

    Now France is to return to the military structures so carefully created and managed since 1966, oh yes plus the new members - where will the French actually sit? An extra chair at the conference table, easy. Placing French officers back in command posts, IMHO is a lot more difficult. For example will Germany and the UK relinquish their spots? Dep. SACEUR for example.

    Can anyone recall which posts the French held before leaving?

    I welcome the French return for a host of reasons and it will IMHO slow down the EU becoming a super-state (a debate that lingers on in Europe).

    davidbfpo

  11. #51
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default Wagers?

    Will France returning to the NATO command structure fix problems or create problems? Or both, and in what ratios? Over what time frame; 1 year, 5 years, 10 years?

    Given France's historical behavior towards collaboration (with allies), the French conduct during SFOR, IFOR, and the Kosovo campaign, their relationship with Iraq between 1992 and 2002, and that I have personally heard French officers state that France is the logical counterweight to U.S. global power and influence, my assessment is that this will be immediately disruptive and in the long run detrimental to NATO.

    Within the U.S., there are vocal factions that think that France is incapable of error, so, of course, it could get some of the further Left folks reconsidering NATO or their attitudes about France. This is an interesting dynamic, and could be disruptive in PoliSci departments through American academia. So there is an upside.

    How will Russia view this? The Soviet Union and later Russia always viewed NATO as an explicit threat because of the claim that it was a defensive alliance*, and that NATO's purpose is attack was proven in the Balkans, when NATO attacked and occupied (from their perspective) Slavic territory. France coming back into the C2 structure will be viewed as an explicit threat.

    And the EU... Threatening Russia is bad juju for the EU, and putting 600 years of mostly ugly history back into NATO will also be disruptive. Thinking about it like this, I am getting less clear on what France's true objective is...

    I'm bringing popcorn, this should be a good show.

    *To Russian thinking, 'defense' is striking before you can be struck, and crushing your enemy's will to fight, not building a wall. Every time we said 'defensive', they heard something very different.

  12. #52
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    France ends four-decade Nato rift

    BBC News
    17:31 GMT, Wednesday, 11 March 2009
    A historic overview: As a 2nd and lst Lt. based out of Pakistan I made several R&R trips (my tour of duty was two years in then West Pakistan) landing at either Chatereau or Everoux, both then being US Air Bases in our then NATO ally nation of France. DeGaulle's blatant dislike of America (Johnson was then President) did not carry down to the ordinary French citizens, who went out of their way to be helpful to me, traveling alone on trains and walking the streets of Paris later on as a sightseer.

    Jump forward to today, our local Alabama Air National Guard until a year ago deployed for annual training to a French Air Base where unique operations benefitted from our refueling tankers. So, our military presence has been in France, again, for several recent years.

    President Sarcozy is clearly pro-American, I personally like him, and am happy at this development. There is always room around the table for another friend and ally, who I for one am glad to see rejoin NATO.

    On one other poster's comment that pan-Atlantic organization/economics seemed somewhat questionable, as far back as 1987 when I graduated from Air War College the paper I had to write to graduate suggested that in future economic interrelations and cooperation would be as important if not more important than just military cooperation in our ever shrinking world. I still feel this way, and of course, I support building the joint US-European future Air Force refueling tanker in Mobile, Alabama as well!

  13. #53
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Clarification, George .. I think you meant me

    from JMM
    I have a hard time seeing a "North Atlantic Union" - from a US perspective; but the Atlantic Rim countries do have common interests.
    I also suggested an ATO as a futuristic possibility, where ATO could be Atlantic Treaty Organization (military) or Atlantic Trade Organization (economic), or both. However, in considering this futurism, I suggest re-viewing the video "Cowboys herding cats" for a perspective on what would be involved.

    "Atlanticism" is supposedly Zarkozy's motive (see links in my prior post).

    Since we (US) have a "more perfect union", I see no need for a "North Atlantic Union" - especially when the EU has not advanced to the point we were at under the Articles of Confederation.[*]

    But, at all costs, avoid "Running with the Squirrels" - and never, never get into the cage with This Cat.

    ------------
    [*] As to successful confederations, I can think of only two large-scale examples: the US and Canada. The Swiss also come to mind on a smaller scale.

  14. #54
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Since we (US) have a "more perfect union", I see no need for a "North Atlantic Union" - especially when the EU has not advanced to the point we were at under the Articles of Confederation.
    The US foundered early on with our Articles of Confedertion which we did away with or our nation (US) would probably not exist as it does today, imperfect though it is and will always be...nothing we do will ever be perfect per se.

    Canada's experience with Confederation is to me, at least, different, one supposes in part due to Canada still having a Crown appointed Lt. Governor and much symbolism and pomp which in the main adds value to tourism there and appeals to the parliamentary style of democracy. Canada for now even seems to have smoothed over and better incorported the French speaking folks in Quebec and elsewhere and seems well fit to have of late Prime Minister's who are literate in both French and English, French for hundreds of years having been, past tense, the language of diplomacy...now superceded largely by English...after all.

    NATO has accomplished, correct me if I am wrong, essentially a standardization of weaponry, caliburs, interchangeability of parts for whatever. The area which I think (?) may still be weakest is communications standardization, which as a stand alone topic might be a good focus for a new thread of discussion on SWJ.

    NATO (my opinion) is serving us well in Afghanistan where a large physical area is unevenly populated by a large Pukhtun majority but where our main alliance strength remains in the largely non-Pukhtun northern part.

    The days of CENTO and SEATO are over and gone so only NATO has stood the test of time...and I think it was correct, after an apparently huge internal meeting squabble, for NATO to reopen it's Russian Liaison Arm.

    Rumor mongering and baitng to create unhelpful to current needs points of view alleging such useless and outmoded things as Russian bombers being based in Cuba in future is to me antidiluvian thinking and a waste of words and time.

  15. #55
    Council Member Blackjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    62

    Default Two French General Officer Appointments to NATO

    Thought this thread could use an update on the French rejoining NATO. France apointed to two General officers to NATO. The first is an Air Force Pick and the Second is a Marine.

    Deux généraux français vont être nommés très prochainement à la tête de grands commandements de l’Alliance atlantique.

    Le conseil des ministres a approuvé le 3 juin les candidatures suivantes.

    Le général d’armée aérienne Stéphane Abrial, actuel chef d’état-major de l’armée de l’air (CEMAA ) prend le commandement d’ ACT , le commandement allié Transformation, à Norfolk (Etats-Unis) à compter du 10 septembre 2009. Il succède à ce poste au général américain James N. Mattis (Corps des Marines des Etats-Unis). La mission du ACT est de diriger, au niveau stratégique, la transformation des structures, des forces, des capacités et des doctrines militaires de l’OTAN pour améliorer l’efficacité militaire de l’Alliance. ACT constitue avec le commandement allié pour les opérations (ACO ), l’échelon le plus élevé de la structure de commandement militaire de l’OTAN .

    Seconde nomination : le général de division Philippe Stoltz prend la tête du commandement des forces alliées basé à Lisbonne (Portugal) à compter du 20 Juillet 2009. Cette structure a autorité notamment sur la Force de réaction rapide de l’OTAN, la NRF (Nato Response Force). Le commandement de Lisbonne est un des 3 commandements qui dépendent de ACO.

    Les nominations font l’objet d’un décret signé par le Président de la République, Nicolas Sarkozy. Décret publié au Journal officiel du 8 juin 2009. Elles interviennent près de trois mois après le retour de la France au sein du commandement militaire intégré de l’OTAN, les 3-4 avril 2009, à Strasbourg lors du Sommet de l’Alliance atlantique . Ces candidatures sont proposées et entérinées par Alliés dans le cadre des procédures de l'OTAN.

    -Ministere De La Defence
    General Abrail's Biography

    General Stoltz Biography in English.
    See things through the eyes of your enemy and you can defeat him.

  16. #56
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default France declares war against al-Qaida

    WTF?

    http://apnews.myway.com//article/201...D9H7OGRG0.html
    Jul 27, 9:31 PM (ET)

    By ELAINE GANLEY


    PARIS (AP) - France has declared war on al-Qaida, and matched its fighting words with a first attack on a base camp of the terror network's North African branch, after the terror network killed a French aid worker it took hostage in April.
    You have to admit the headline is a little surprising. Something's up.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  17. #57
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I think the phrasing in that article was done poorly.

    An AQ North Africa offshoot kidnapped a French hostage. On the day before his ransom was due, the French attempted to raid, and failed. As a result, he was executed. Now, the terrorists won and the French were embarrassed.

    France's special forces have accomplished several hostage rescues within the past 3 years, so I'm not surprised that they made another attempt here.(these are observations from other incidents where French hostages are taken).

    France has been at war against AQ. They just haven't paid much attention to this AQ offshoot group (mainly a Western African group). This message shows that they are very upset, and will likely start "hunting."

  18. #58
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hey Lagrange, what say you ....

    since you have experience in the African rescue business ?

    Since the UN-NGO world is a small one, you may well have known the hostage. In any case, I extend my condolences and prayers.

    I do have a French law of armed conflict question. That is: what are the legal requirements for France to engage in an armed conflict so as to bring the Geneva Conventions into play ?

    For example here in US, a formal declaration of war is one way - not used since WWII. Another is pursuant to a UN chap 7 SC mandate (the only legal prop for the Korean War). Another (most common) is an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), as in the 2001 AUMF (OEF) and 2003 AUMF (OIF). Any of those results in the Laws of War (Laws of Armed Conflict) (International Humanitarian Law) being applicable to the conflict.

    And, can France legally engage a non-state actor (AQ) in a formal armed conflict ?

    I ask that question because, for the most part, the EU nations seem to approach AQ as terrorists subject to law enforcement (not law of war) standards. And, GWB's GWOT and the application of the Laws of War have been strongly criticized by a number of EU jurists.

    Of course, LE standards allow force to be used in hostage rescues. So, in this particular case, the two legal standards may not be that different

    Thus, does "guerre contre AQ" have any legal force under French law - or is it simply rhetoric ? RSVP.

    Regards

    Mike

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    since you have experience in the African rescue business ?
    I may have come off wrong. I don't have experience with any kind of the actions mentioned. I just follow some headlines and stash some mental notes in the back of my head (last year there were at least three French hostage rescues in Africa). I would not consider myself to be an expert.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    And, can France legally engage a non-state actor (AQ) in a formal armed conflict ?
    Is an attack on this AQ affiliate base considered an act of war? (that's what was done). I think France just wants to justify military action, but I may be wrong. They may really want to declare war as they said.

    France announced that it's going provide (military) aid to several African countries in the Sahel region. I imagine that it'll mirror the US presence in Yemen: special troops who advise and participate in HVT takedowns.

    It will be interesting to see if this is just rhetoric, or if France really commits some action.

  20. #60
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default huskerguy7,

    my post was addressed to "Lagrange" (of Barsoom, and various environs of other planets to remain unnamed), of UN & NGO fame, ancien TdM and the subject of at least one Legion rescue (IIRC) - this guy.

    Have no idea what the analysis is under French law, which is why I hailed Lagrange. France has lots of horses to do hostage rescues.

    Cheers

    Mike

Similar Threads

  1. Today's Wild Geese: Foreign Fighters in the GWOT
    By SWJED in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 02-09-2018, 02:06 PM
  2. Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror
    By davidbfpo in forum Law Enforcement
    Replies: 600
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
  3. Impacts on Finland/EU/NATO of renewed IW/COIN focus of US military
    By charlyjsp in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 05:43 PM
  4. MCOs and SSOs in the 2008 edition of FM 3-0 Operations
    By Norfolk in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 12:15 AM
  5. CNAS-Foreign Policy Magazine U.S. Military Index
    By SWJED in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 02:41 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •