Thread by @MarkHertling

A thread:

Earlier, I commented about a reporter in @PentagonPresSec briefing asking whether @82ndABNDiv would parachute into Poland.

Since then, lots (LOTs) of paratroopers commented on in-flight rigging, how it would send a message, how it's been done on exercises etc. 1/7

From a theater commander's perspective, here are the pros and cons:

Pros:
1. Yes, you can do in-flight rigging (but it's difficult and takes excessive space).
2. Yes, it would send a message (but not a good one, given we are not trying to be excessively provocative).
2/7

3. Yes, the 82d has parachuted into Poland (and Germany, and several other countries in Europe) before (but almost all were in the summer, as part of an exercise, and with other nations).
4. Yes, I'm a tanker & therefore a "leg" (but I know a bit about airborne ops in EU). 3/7

Now, the Cons of doing this.

1. It sends a message (see #2), but the wrong one
2. Airborne doctrine - which usually involves seizing an airfield, or a key terrain feature, for purposes of link-up operations is not required in Poland. 4/7

3. Airborne operations usually result in between 5-12% injury rate of troops, depending on drop zone environment, wind conditions, threat, etc. (lessons I learned at the NTC as the COG).
4. Winter is not summer in Poland (dense fog, snow, ground conditions, see #3, above) 5/7

5. The Army Commander in Theater makes the call on recommending Airborne Ops (as a former Army Commander, I would say "No" as there is no purpose for this kind of mission, this isn't an exercise, and this isn't the right message to send din a tense situation. 6/7

6. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the mission of the unit to get there on time, and settled.

Bottom line, thanks for all the folks on twitter suggesting another options, but I would guess the NATO Commander & CDR @USArmyEURAF would give it👎 7/7