Posted on 07/30/2006 6:33:03 PM PDT by blam
British general takes command of US troops
By Ahmed Rashid in Lahore
(Filed: 31/07/2006)
A British general will command American troops for the first time since the Second World War when Nato takes charge of the mission to pacify southern Afghanistan today.
Lt Gen David Richards
Lt Gen David Richards, Britain's most experienced officer in developing world arenas, assumes control of a merged Nato and US force that will grow from 9,000 to 18,000.
It is one of the largest and toughest missions the alliance has faced, covering six southern provinces and extending its authority to almost all of the country. At a press conference in Kabul on Saturday, Gen Richards promised that Nato will bring a new strategy to the fight.
Instead of chasing down the Taliban, Nato forces will garrison key towns and villages. It wants to bolster the weak government of President Hamid Karzai and win the support of local people by promoting much-needed development.
The general said he hoped there will be "secure zones" in the volatile south in three to six months.
The direct approach pursued under American command, particularly by British troops, has claimed the lives of some 700 Afghan fighters - more than a third of them Taliban - and 19 western troops including six British soldiers.
US-led coalition forces and Afghan police killed 20 suspected Taliban on Saturday following an attempted ambush in the Shahidi Hassas district of Uruzgan province.
Since the Americans launched Operation Thrust two months ago, Allied forces have been surprised by the ferocity of the Taliban counter-offensive, while there is growing evidence that more Afghan tribesmen, disillusioned with the lack of jobs and reconstruction and a corrupt government, are supporting the rebels.
Gen Richards emphasised that the opium trade was to blame for a major part of Afghanistan's violence. "That very evil trade is being threatened by the Nato expansion in the south," he said.
"This is a very noble cause we're engaged in and we have to liberate the people from the scourge of those warlords." It is unclear to what degree leading drug runners will be targeted.
Nato will control security in 75 per cent of the country - in the west, north and south - while the US-led coalition still leads the fight in the eastern provinces along the border with Pakistan.
In the south, the force will comprise mainly British - there are already 4,300 UK soldiers - Dutch and Canadians.
Nato will also command 13 Provincial Reconstruction Teams and take on more responsibility from the Americans for training the Afghan National Army and police.
Francesc Vendrell, the European Union representative in Kabul, told The Daily Telegraph: "The European countries will need to face the fact that sending forces to the south is going to be dangerous and I am convinced they are ready to take losses, although we want to minimize them."
Tom Koenigs, the head of the UN mission, told the UN Security Council last week that 2,000 Afghans had been killed this year and there were 54 suicide bombings carried out by extremists.
These were unknown in the country until January, when they were introduced after Taliban and al-Qa'eda received training in Iraq.
"The violence is four times what it was in 2005. . . at no time since the fall of the Taliban have the prospects for security been more bleak," said Mr Koenigs.
Nato also has to deal with the sensitive issue of Pakistan's support for the Taliban. Mr Koenigs told the UN that "the cross-border character of this insurgency is no longer a matter of debate".
There is also the danger that just as the Iraq war distracted the West from giving more money and troops to Afghanistan after the defeat of the Taliban in 2001, the crisis in Lebanon will have the same effect.
I understand what you are saying. I am not saying that troops from any one state should ever be under the command or an officer from another nation. In the case of Britain, I don't know what their laws are in such a circumstance so I can't comment on that. However, as far as the US is concerned there is a legal way to do this. For US troops to be placed under the command of foreign officers Congress must approve of it. American lawmakers, Congress, must come out and say that they authorize the President, the Commander-in-Chief, to place US troops under foreign command. This has not happened with good reason. I would imagine that very few members of Congress would go on the record as voting to allow American soldiers to be placed under non-American officers. If such a move were truely necessary to protect our national security, the President would bring the issue to Congress who would then decide if they wish to grant the President that power. Like I said, this hasn't happened for quite some time, going back for decades.
Yeah - most countries feel that way about aliens commanding their troops. That's why forces like NATO which harness allies and so forth are tricky to get right...why should the Brits etc surrender their forces to US control if the favour is never returned?
Might as well resurrect Cornwallis and other British colonial generals to oversee our troops too.
By the same token any foreign government should quite rightly refuse to allow their troops to be under U.S. command?
It is the story of Michael New, a US soldier who was arrested and dishonorably discharged from the Army for having the audacity to believe that the Constitution and the oath of enlistment actually mean something, and that foreign officers have no legal authority over his status as a US soldier. His situation had to do with the UN, not NATO, but the principle is still very much the same.
New was a boob who thought that he knew more than the officers and NCOs placed over him. Turns out he was wrong.
Like I said, other countries have the right to follow whatever laws they have in these situations. And I never said that we should refuse to allow our troops to ever be put under the command of an officer from an allied nation, only that it should be done legally. Meaning that Congress comes out and authorizes US troops to be placed under foreign command. Why is this so hard for some people here to understand?
New was a boob who thought that he knew more than the officers and NCOs placed over him. Turns out he was wrong.
Wrong. New was someone who realized that he was a US soldier sworn to protect US interests under the authority of the Constitution. Not a United Nations soldier under the command of UN appointed officers. According to the Constitution (remember that little document?) New was absoultely right. Had he been wrong he would have been prosecuted; yet he never was and never will be because it would mean that Congress would have to publicly say that it is allowable for American soldiers to be placed under foreign command and the American public would not stand for that.
Perhaps it's because I'm not aware of any Constitutional clause requiring Congressional approval. The President is commander in chief, not Congress. The Joint Chiefs anre the military commanders. Congress has no direct control over the day-to-day operations of the military.
New was someone who realized that he was a US soldier sworn to protect US interests under the authority of the Constitution.
And I'd ask again, exactly what clause was being violated by having U.S. troops in UN service. New took an oath to obey the orders of the officers placed over him. He violated that oath. He was punished for it. He got what he deserved.
Had he been wrong he would have been prosecuted; yet he never was and never will be...
I don't know where you've been but New was court martialed and convicted and given a bad conduct discharge in February 1996.
Read this and tell me that New was wrong:
105th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 158
Condemning the deployment of United States military personnel in the service of the United Nations in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 25, 1997
Mrs. CHENOWETH (for herself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. HALL of Texas) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
OK, New was wrong. I say he was wrong. A court martial said he was wrong. The miltiary appeals court said he was wrong. And the Supreme Court concured with the earlier decisions when it refused to hear the case. And I'm sorry but I don't see how a non-binding House resolution introduced a year after New was dishonrably discharged and which was sent to committee, never to see the light of day again changes anything.
Here's a news flash. The military does not make law. Normally missing a deployment would be thrown in a military prison. New was only given a bad conduct discharge because the Army knew that they had no legal ground to stand on were they to try for a conviction.
New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.
I suggest you check up on the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 if you think that Congress has no say in whether or not American soldiers are given up to foreign command.
What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?
Perhaps there is someone more expert than I am on constitutional issues, but I think that ratified treaties have quasi-constitutional status. The NATO treaty may have provisions for the assignment of military units to NATO missions. In addition, the CINC of NATO forces is an American General, U.S. Marine General Jones, if I recollect correctly. I don't know the the NATO CINC has to be an American General, but I don't think there ever has been a NATO CINC who was not American. We have had many Royal Marine officers on exchange tours with the United States Marines who have served as company commanders of United States Marine. The only limitation has been that the disciplinary functions under the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice are exercised by the Company Executive Officer under such a circumstance, rather than by the Company Commander.
The court martial discharged him for disobeying an order. That is not being disputed. The crux of the matter is that the order was an unlawful one. Any civilian court that agreed to hear the case would have to examine the legality of the order itself, which is probably exactly why no court has taken the case; it would open up quite a can of worms, don't you think.
New didn't miss deployment since his infraction had occured before the unit deployed. He was, I believe, charged with a failure to obey an order. Which, if I recall correctly, is a violation of Article 92 of the UCMJ, one of the punative articles. Punishment is as a court martial may direct. In this case the court martial directed that New be booted out of the Army with a dishonorable discharge.
Again, the fact that he disobeyed an order is not being disputed. The court martial only determined that he disobeyed the order and did not take in to consideration that the order was illegal to begin with. Once again, had the military done otherwise it would have opened up a huge can of worms.
What part of the UN Participation Act specifically are you referring to?
SEC. 6. The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution providing for the numbers and types of armed forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of facilities and assistance, including rights of passage, to be made available to the Security Council on its call for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with article 43 of said Charter.
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/un_participation_act.asp
Several military and federal courts have ruled that it was a lawful order.
Any civilian court that agreed to hear the case would have to examine the legality of the order itself, which is probably exactly why no court has taken the case; it would open up quite a can of worms, don't you think.
No, I believe that no civilian court has taken up the case because they have no jurisdiction or they have found there is no basis for appeal.
Again, the fact that he disobeyed an order is not being disputed. The court martial only determined that he disobeyed the order and did not take in to consideration that the order was illegal to begin with. Once again, had the military done otherwise it would have opened up a huge can of worms.
Actually they did take that into consideration, and found that New was wrong and that it was a legal order.
SEC. 6....
Read on. "The President shall not be deemed to require the authorization of the Congress to make available to the Security Council on its call in order to take action under article 42 of said Charter and pursuant to such special agreement or agreements the armed forces, facilities, or assistance provided for therein: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as an authorization to tile President by the Congress to make available to the Security Council for such purpose armed forces, facilities, or assistance in addition to the forces, facilities, and assistance provided for in such special agreement or agreements."
Perhaps it is you who should read on.
UN Charter Chapter VII
Article 42 - Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43 - 1) All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2) Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3) The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
Now, the UN Participation Act states that any agreements "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution." Once the approval has been given by Congress, the President, as Commander in Chief, may then send the troops if he wishes. Congressional approval is needed for the special agreement, not for the subsequent implementation of that agreement.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/courses/forrel/reserve/fisher.htm
Congressional approval was never given. New was absolutely right. Since Congress never gave approval to the agreement for US troops to be a part of this UN mission, the order was illegal.
Congressional approval wasn't needed. New was wrong, and by refusing to hear his case the Courts agreed that he was wrong.
I would have expected something like this to happen if Clinton were President. We're just all ONE big happy group of states now. Very sad day.
Yeah, ok. I just showed you written law that specifically says that Congressional approval is necessary and your response is 'no it isn't' and 'New was wrong'. Great argument there.
It cannot get any clearer than the law I just showed you. I don't know if you're choosing not to see it, or if you really can't make the distinction between serving under US law and serving under UN law. Regardless of how you think US soldiers should be allowed to be dispatched, the law says what it says. New was absolutely right.
No, what you showed me was one section of a piece of legislation that you claim showed that it required congressional approval. What I said was that the courts obviously disagree with your interpretation and have declined to intervene in the case. You can make any interpretation you want, I'll go along with all the courts that have examined the matter and determined that New's case doesn't hold water, and that the verdict he received was fair and proper.
This will be my last post on this matter since talking to you is like talking to a wall. I "claim" that it requires Congressional approval because it says "shall be subject to the approval of the Congress". It´s not as if I'm pulling this "claim" out of thin air; it´s right there in black and white, in plain English. There isn´t much to interpret here.
I also find it interesting that you keep bringing up the courts decision, or rather nondecision, in this matter. Are you telling me that courts in this country always hold true to the laws of this country? Are they not notorious for ignoring laws they don't like and basing their decisions on laws that don't even exist? I would think that anyone who has spent any amount of time here on FR would know better than that. Your arguement is extremely weak if you're basing the premise that New is wrong on the court's inaction. When the Constitution says that it is legal for the courts to ignore the law, and make up their own laws, I will go along with your arguement; but right now I'll just stick to listening to legal, Constitutionally supported, legislation.
No, what I am saying is that I trust the court's opinion on this matter over your's. I had thought I made that clear.
I admit that I haven't been following New and his abuse of the legal system lately so I'll confess that I'm a bit out of touch. Maybe you would know, since you're such a supporter of his. Did New ever get any prison time for that second drug arrest?
Not sure on date, but it is for ease of identification of senior officers within NATO structure.
Actually it happened in WWI as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.