Hi SASless,
Not having read the full thread on ARRSE, I don't know how they've decided to bring this to completion. I don't think some of the Brit participants here are doing a very good job of explaining the problem they have with this issue.
To the Brit forces, the 2 rank structures - Commission and Warrant - are completely different. In the same way as you can be human and EITHER male OR female, you can be in the military and be EITHER commissioned OR noncommissioned (eg Warrant). For another organisation to come along and say that one can be both is very like saying that a human can be male AND female. OK, so Eddie Izzard and Bloodaxe may blur the boundaries a bit, but that's the problem Brits have with this idea.
If the US want other forces to accept their strange idea - we're not talking some radical new technology (like tanks vs horses, rifles vs muskets) which will inevitably change the way armed forces do their business, just some paper-pushers way of getting around a perceived admin problem - why not try changing the terminology? Instead of using an expression which means something very specific to the people who invented the language, pick something different which conveys the unique yet allegedly-commissioned nature of these individuals. If you continue to use confusing, mutually-incompatible terms then you can expect others to carry on as normal - ie not saluting Warrants.
You might also want to get the terminology squared away with whoever runs things in Geneva before you ever get involved with people who might take members of your forces as POWs (or PWs, as I believe you call them). If you want them to be treated as commissioned officers, you'd better ensure their status is universally accepted. Otherwise it'll be ditch-digging and manual labour for your lads and lasses...
Chip on (both) shoulders? Nah - that'll be pips/crowns or thin, straight stripes...
Enjoyable reading, ta.