PDD25 excerpts:putting troops under foreign command

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread

Another one of the deleted posts.

This is PDD25 which essentially relinquishess US military to the UN. It is an amazing document when read in totality. Of course, Bill Clinton is the originator. I have just included pertinent snippets because the thing is monstrously long......

Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations. The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revoluntary War, including in Operation Desert Storm. The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less likely it will be that the U.S. will agree to have a UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be conducted under U.S. command and operational control or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.

Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve U.S. combat units and those that are likely to involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component. The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to embassies and our UN Mission in New York.

While the President never relinquishes command of U.S. forces, the participation of U.S. military personnel in UN operations can, in particular circumstances, serve U.S. interests. First, U.S. military participation may, at times, be necessary to persuade others to participate in operations that serve U.S. interests. Second, U.S. participation may be one way to exercise U.S. influence over an important UN mission, without unilaterally bearing the burden. Third, the U.S. may be called upon and choose to provide unique capabilities to important operations that other countries cannot.....

### This negates the US forces adherence to the Constitution as the premier law.###

When regional organizations or groupings seek to conduct peacekeeping with UNSC endorsement, U.S. support will be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and meeting established UNSC criteria, including neutrality, consent of the conflicting parties, formal UNSC oversight and finite, renewal mandates.

With respect to the question of peacekeeping in the territory of the former Soviet Union, requests for "traditional" UN blue-helmeted operations will be considered on the same basis as other requests, using the factors previously outlined (e.g., a threat to international peace and security, clear objectives, etc.). U.S. support for these operations will, as with other such requests, be conditioned on adherence to the principles of the UN Charter and established UNSC criteria.

Section 5 There is nothing new about this Administration's policy regarding the command and control of U.S. forces. U.S. military personnel have participated in UN peace operations since 1948. American forces have served under the operational control of foreign commanders since the Revolutionary War, including in World War I, World War II, Operation Desert Storm and in NATO since its inception. We have done so and will continue to do so when the President determines it serves U.S. national interests.

C. Definition of Operational Control: It is sometimes prudent or advantageous (for reasons such as maximizing military effectiveness and ensuring unity of command) to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander to achieve specified military objectives. In making this determination, factors such as the mission, the size of the proposed U.S. force, the risks involved, anticipated duration, and rules of engagement will be carefully considered.

Operational control is a subset of command. It is given for a specific time frame or mission and includes the authority to assign tasks to U.S. forces already deployed by the President, and assign tasks to U.S. units led by U.S. officers. Within the limits of operational control, a foreign UN commander cannot: change the mission or deploy U.S. forces outside the area of responsibility agreed to by the President, separate units, divide their supplies, administer discipline, promote anyone, or change their internal organization.

D. Fundamental Elements of U.S. Command Always Apply: If it is to our advantage to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a UN commander, the fundamental elements of U.S. command still apply. U.S. commanders will maintain the capability to report separately to higher U.S. military authorities, as well as the UN commander. Commanders of U.S. military units participating in UN operations will refer to higher U.S. authorities orders that are illegal under U.S. or international law, or are outside the mandate of the mission to which the U.S. agreed with the UN, if they are unable to resolve the matter with the UN commander. The U.S. reserves the right to terminate participation at any time and to take whatever actions it deems necessary to protect U.S. forces if they are endangered.

Moreover, the Administration is actively involved in negotiating a draft international convention at the United Nations to provide a special international convention at the United Nations to provide a special international status for individuals serving in peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations under a UN mandate. Finally, the Administration will take appropriate steps to ensure that any U.S. military personnel captured while serving as part of a multinational peacekeeping force or peace enforcement effort are immediately released to UN authorities.

-- Dreen (bisquit@here.com), April 09, 2001


Doreen -

A couple points... First of all, this does absolutely nothing to undermine our troops sworn responsibility of upholding our Constitution. In word or in character. Re read section D. Also, the second paragraph 2 under section C. We aren't talking - about a whole war here, just certain missions therein. This is a common and worldwide practice - always has been.

I wouldn't be so worried about that as I would the pending agreements between China and Russia - especially if the current leaders of this country are persuaded to vote for China's admission to the EU. Further, with the latest developments of the EU, and their suggestion that they should begin covering criminal affairs as well, it will be quite interesting to see what develops after July or August when the China/Russia treaty is supposed to be signed.

The next 18 or so months are going to be interesting indeed!!

Secondly, this is no different than laws and regulations which have been on the books in this AND other countries for the past 4 - 5 decades, and accords on record prior to that. Simply put... Clinton put MORE restriction on some of those laws - expressly with this document as it is printed here. I would like to read the entire thing - please post the addy!!!!

President Bush said the same things when our troops were over in Iraq. The major difference there was that we were the major force in the area and Britain, Australia, France and others were subjected to OUR commanders. Kennedy went farther than that, eliminating our entire Congress from Viet Nam, for all intents and purposes.

The last paragraph is almost laughable - I have to admit. Events which have taken place since the document was drafted prove that it is ineffectual in it reach at best anyway. Ask GW.

I agree that there are a lot of things that Clinton should answer for. I also agree that it may be some time before we find out just what all he did. I would disagree, however, that this is anything new. There has never been anyone who has inhabited the White House who hasn't done these things. There isn't one single administration our country has seen that should not have been taken to task for their actions... I am waiting to see if our current administration might just be the first in history, but I really doubt it.

Clinton didn't put anything (only taken from the current post, as I have not read ANY reliable documents from his last 2 months in office) in writing that has not been in practice for quite some time. Don't blame just one man for the mistakes of several dozens.

To be devil's advocate to my own answer.... Where the HELL was the UN during this latest 'crisis????"

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), April 12, 2001.

Had to come back and appologize after reading a post below.

I haven't changed the position that it is nothing new and that it is nothing that isn't already in print.

BUT.... and its a MAJOR but.... Seeing it in the light of that other post - is it just another 'symptom????"

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), April 12, 2001.

Thanks, Sue. Both for the critique, which is valid, and the apology;). See Clinton isn't the only one who ever did anything that is questionable, nor do I mean to make that assertion. It all goes hand in hand and you have dig through a whole ton of stuff and then view it all in sequential order. I personally think that FDR did more to destroy the Constitutional form of government here than Clinton, and Abe Lincoln might be in the running there as well. It is interesting, no?

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), April 12, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ