Ally is not what I call them. Unless we could use their help against the Islamic threat inside the U.S. I don’t like it at all, but I don’t know all the threats against us. What’s that saying? Keep your frens close, but your enemies closer?
The concern that this legislation surrenders control of the US military to a foreign power is a misunderstanding of how joint defense frameworks and statutory command structures actually work.
While critics worry about deep entanglement, regional security experts, defense analysts, and legal scholars point out several structural realities that prevent any loss of American sovereignty.
1. Statutory Command Control Remains Absolute
Chain of Command: The US President remains the Commander-in-Chief of all US armed forces under Article II of the Constitution.
No Shared Authority: No act of Congress can legally delegate or transfer command authority of US troops to a foreign government or foreign generals.
Veto Power: The US military retains full, independent veto power over any joint operation, deployment, or shared intelligence asset.
2. "Integration" Means Compatibility, Not Co-Management
Technical Standards: In military terms, "integration" means interoperability, such as ensuring communication systems, radar, and missile defense data (like Iron Dome and Patriot systems) can talk to each other.
The NATO Precedent: The US has maintained deep, automated technical and intelligence integration with NATO allies and "Five Eyes" intelligence partners for decades without relinquishing its independent decision-making.
Supply Chain Security: The provisions focus heavily on defense-industrial cooperation—ensuring a steady supply of chips, technology, and parts—rather than a merger of strategic command.
3. Intelligence Sharing is a Two-Way, Screened Street
Strict Firewalls: Automated data sharing in defense treaties does not mean an ally gets unrestricted access to the entire US defense network.
Sanitized Data: Information is heavily filtered through automated security protocols that restrict access to specific, pre-approved regional threats.
American Oversight: US intelligence agencies retain absolute control over their own source code, raw data pipelines, and domestic surveillance apparatus.
4. Legislation Mandates Cooperation, Not Action
No Automatic War Trigger: The legislation does not create a "mutual defense treaty" that would automatically force the US into a war.
Political Off-Ramps: Congress and the executive branch retain the power to defund, alter, or halt any joint program through subsequent annual appropriations.
That makes sense. But when you have the likes of Kucinich (and others) sounding the alarm about this bill, someone from the government ought to weigh in with their explanation along these same lines.
By no stretch of the imagination are these people “Our Greatest Ally” ™️
Everything is inverse.
Ally is not what I call them. Unless we could use their help against the Islamic threat inside the U.S. I don’t like it at all, but I don’t know all the threats against us. What’s that saying? Keep your frens close, but your enemies closer?
*handler
The concern that this legislation surrenders control of the US military to a foreign power is a misunderstanding of how joint defense frameworks and statutory command structures actually work.
While critics worry about deep entanglement, regional security experts, defense analysts, and legal scholars point out several structural realities that prevent any loss of American sovereignty.
1. Statutory Command Control Remains Absolute
2. "Integration" Means Compatibility, Not Co-Management
3. Intelligence Sharing is a Two-Way, Screened Street
4. Legislation Mandates Cooperation, Not Action
https://www.anewpolicy.org/the-legislative-tracker/section-224-ndaa
Thank you
That makes sense. But when you have the likes of Kucinich (and others) sounding the alarm about this bill, someone from the government ought to weigh in with their explanation along these same lines.