I must admit that I hadn't heard about this dispute earlier. The article really is badly written, because it never gets around to explaining what happened. I'm glad that the replies make it a bit clearer.
It sounds as if you could slice this two ways. The Colonel would have been perfectly justified in treating one of his own British subordinates this way, but it was probably not very diplomatic to treat an American officer in this fashion, regardless of how stupid or unprofessional the man may have been.
One of an officer's duties is to straighten out the men under his command. But a word to the major's American commanders might have been more prudent. It's not the job of the British army to straighten out the American army.
Just to add what you picked up from the thread, in the article I read about this, when Colonel Collins told the American major to stop giving out the sweets to the kids, the major told the Colonel something to the effect of "yeah, I'll get around it to it."
The American, Re Biastre, was was placed under Collins' command by his own American commanders.
Collins evidently thought he could get away with being insubordinate, which turned out not to be true.
Collins apparently has the liberal-disease of thinking that anything he does, no matter how outrageous, is compassionate and moral, and anyone who disagrees with him is evil. He also sounds like a vindictive prick.
Now as to the latter part of this 'conservative' Telegraph article....they just couldn't pass up the opportunity to sneer at the American troops, could they? The Telegraph is a bunch of pricks, too.
If the Telegraph is anything to go by, Collins probably did hear a lot of nasty anti-Americanism from the Brits. That, however, is NO justification for ANY of his behavior.
I hope Collins ends up in the pokey for insubordination and filing false charges.