Posted on 10/30/2002 3:59:17 AM PST by madfly
At a time when President Bush is pleading with the United Nations for permission to wage war on Iraq, he has assigned U.S. troops to wear U.N. uniforms and report to a foreign U.N. commander.
The pro-U.N. policy represents a violation of a Bush campaign promise and the 2000 Republican Party platform. It also represents a continuation of a policy that began under former President Clinton, who ordered the prosecution of a U.S. Army soldier who refused to join the U.N. Army.
The United States Military Observer Group in the Pentagon confirms that U.S. soldiers wear U.N. blue berets and U.N. shoulder patches as members of UNOMIG – the United Nations Observer Mission in the country of Georgia. Soldiers ordered assigned to this mission wear this U.N. uniform. What´s more, they receive a United Nations physical examination before deployment to the mission and the U.N. pays some expenses associated with it. The purpose is to supervise the cease-fire between Georgia and Abkhazia. The U.S. troops take orders in the mission from a foreign commander named Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed of Bangladesh. After their service, members of UNOMIG may receive a ribbon described as "Central stripe of UN blue, flanked by white and green stripes, with dark blue edges."
President Clinton´s order to U.S. troops to wear a U.N. uniform was extremely controversial, unpopular, and alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional. House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Delay sponsored a bill to prohibit the wearing of a U.N. uniform by U.S. service personnel. This bill was a reaction to the case of U.S. Army soldier Michael New, who had refused to wear a U.N. uniform and was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct by Clinton.
Such a bill was considered unnecessary under President Bush because he – and the Republican Party – had made it absolutely clear that he would never order U.S. troops to serve under U.N. command. "I will never place U.S. troops under UN command," candidate Bush said in his speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, November 19, 1999. The 2000 Republican Party Platform declared that "…American troops must never serve under United Nations command."
My 15 year-old son wrote a report on this matter. He said:
"What is a hero? What acts do they do? They do many things: championing a good cause, going beyond the call of duty, and acting wisely under pressure to name just a few of the good things that heroes do. My paper is on Michael New; a soldier who refused to comply with unconstitutional orders from a higher command and then was discharged from the army because of it.
"In July of 1995, Army specialist Mike New was informed that his infantry would be going to Macedonia as part of a ‘peacekeeping´ operation. In August, he was told that his unit would be required to wear a U.N. beret and patch. He was told the order to wear the U.N. uniform was lawful because ‘the president said so therefore it is.´ But nobody ever provided a legal rational for this. Eventually, a battalion briefing offered the justification that ‘We wear the U.N. uniform because it looks fabulous.´ He refused to wear the uniform. In his oath, he said he would fight for the U.S., not the U.N. or some other foreign power. But Bill Clinton had ordered this without even Congress´ approval and he knew it was unlawful. This, he knew, violated his oath as a soldier. He didn´t wear the uniform like everybody else was doing. Instead Michael New did what was right and what was just, and by not wearing that uniform, risked everything.
"In terms of going beyond the call of duty, I believe Michael New went far beyond the call of duty. Now only was he willing to fight, he was also willing to put everything on the line to do what was right. And if he had to do it all over again, he would.
"Michael New definitely risked his life, future, and reputation by saying no to this illegal order. He knew that he would be court-martialed for doing what was right. His case is still in the courts. He was discharged from the army for ‘Bad Conduct.´ He knew that he could have gone to jail and that he´d have that mark on his record. But those were sacrifices he was willing to make for the good of the country. Michael New faced scrutiny from military officers. Yet he still stands strong in his belief that when you sign up for the U.S. military, you aren´t fighting for the U.N. of for some foreign regime; you´re fighting for America.
"He serves as a calling to my higher self because he acts wisely under pressure. He also does the right thing even though he knows the consequences. Michael New is willing to stand up for what is right. I admire these traits a lot and how he, with a promising military career ahead of him, decided he´d do the right thing and end up having to give it up. "In conclusion, I believe that Michael New is a great person. He shows leadership, champions a good cause, and fights for what is right. He acts wisely under pressure and risked his future for the country."
My son recognized a basic truth that has been lost on President Bush. The President must reverse course, order our troops out of their U.N. uniforms, and reaffirm their commitment as U.S. soldiers dedicated to protecting the U.S. Constitution.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Cliff at antiun@earthlink.net .
That's the point where I have the largest problem...
Everything that I've heard has been about the underlying theme(s) of the Untied Nation's attempts of taking away our soverngnty...et al...
Other than that - I'm fine...
As much as I dislike the UN, New's orders were in compliance with the Constitution...see Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2.
I'm wichew.
If this were legit the lamestream press would have it on 24x7.
I will be waiting.
That is great. I hope he ain't lyin'.
He was/has been convicted for using drugs?
In Afganistan, many of our SOPS personnel were dressed as the Northern Alliance troops, with beards and all.
I would not doubt for a minute that we have US military in Georgia serving as observers and advisors, but I would also bet they are not wearing the baby blue beret nor the uniform of the UN.
Further, I have not heard nor read anywhere where the UN has been authorized to go into Georgia on any kind of peace mission or whatever....My guess is that Georgia has requested US advisors and observers be provided and that being the case our troops would be commanded by a US military commander who takes his direction from the Georgian Military commander.
In the case of Michael New, he was stationed in Germany under a NATO organization which felt that that particular operation called for a UN mandate and the wearing of UN peacekeeper uniforms. A peace keeping mission is not a military operation and they can only return fire if they are first fired upon.
GW Bush promised that US Servicemen would never be put under a foreign nation's command for military operations. Our troops have for decades served under a foreign commander, NATO, as the NATO commander is a General from any of the NATO countries at any given time, since the position is rotated from time to time. But when engaged in a military operation, our troops always serve under a US commander.
REMEMBER THAT PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS ARE NOT MILITARY OPERATIONS, THEY ARE POLICING AND OBSERVATION TYPE MISSIONS WHERE THE UNIFORMS NEED TO BE THE SAME....TO PREVENT ANY MISTAKEN IDENTITIES. Usually peacekeepers wear the white UN helmet.
Have you ever played and been King of the Hill?
Have you ever chaired a committee?
Have you ever been in a military unit and been in command?
Were you always King?
Were you always chairman?
Were you always the CO?
President Ford screwed up the CIA.
President Clinton screwed up NATO
President Bush is working the floor.
We should never be part of any international Peace operation with military forces. We are a target because for too many years we were always King and the chairman and the CO...and we are rich.
Some people think that we should try to be more cooperative with the United Nations. It is dumb but it isn't against the law...unless you think Congress can take away the President's CIC role...New was an ass.
Awww, go ahead an try. This should be fun. If I'm understanding you correctly it seems that it's in violation of his oath because you say it is. Really convenient.
As we should. The author's response to my post (on another thread), portraying it as if I was offering excuses for Bush, betrays his bias rather than mine, and calls to question the integrity of his research. (Sorry madfly, I just broke a fingertip and am having difficulty typing so I have been slow responding).
It is entirely possible in a military command structure consisting of millions of personnel and with many layers of management, for a newly-elected President of an opposing party who can't even get his appointments confirmed, to be unaware of a small, previously authorized, and possibly semi-clandestine operation in a remote country (the Georgian public might not all appreciate our being there after all). In my judgment, to make his lack of attention to this matter an issue of "leadership" is a bit over the top simply because of the scale of the operation. Were there perhaps 1,000 personnel or so involved, then it would be obvious enough to be more of an ethical issue insofar as his campaign promises are concerned.
That is the weakness in the article. It and the subsequent clarifications on this thread clearly substantiate that US troops are are in Georgia under UN command during Bush's presidency. That does not mean that Bush knowingly authorized the action to proceed under UN command in violation of his campaign promise. He may have approved the budget for it, but the information might have been buried in a 1,200 page budget memo for all I know (9/11 has certainly kept Bush preoccupied).
The test will be to see what Bush does now that it has been brought to light.
I too will be waiting to see what he does.
As we should. I give it a week for him to get it checked out and verified and another two weeks for orders to get the matter handled through diplomatic channels (budgets, authorizations, accounts, and all that). Give it a month after the date we are sure he personally knows about it, and we should know our answer. Our intrepid reporter should be more than willing to verify receipt of notification.
Nor would I doubt that either, as we are and have been involved in many different types of operations through many countries and organizations for many years. Although I do remember, reading something over the last few days saying that we have some troops in Georgia for several different reasons, none of the least to see if we can stem the flow of opium being ported through that part of the world.
What I get tired of seeing is these articles about how our troops are being placed directly under UN command, usually implying all of our troops, and of course the NWO is on the verge of taking over and the black helicopters will be swooping in followed by the tanks who can read the code on the back sides of road signs that tell them where to go. Those stories have been going around for years and years and are a load of crap.
Now can an argument be made that we have too close of an involvement with the UN or that we should not be involved with the UN in the first place? Absolutely and I would certainly be the first to support that position. Our military was not designed to be a meal on wheels program, it was designed to provide for the security and defense of our country.
However one of the things that I have found interesting in many of GWB's speeches recently, concerning the impending war with Iraq, is that he is directly calling into question the validity of the UN and basically asking if it really has a reason for it’s existence. In addition, I am not really seeing a lot of comment in the press about that, nor have I really seen much of a comment on FR concerning it. Could GWB be posturing us to have cause to get out of the UN? One could only hope. Of course, if we did withdraw from the UN it would shortly collapse, as we are the primary funding source of it.
This sounds like ratsht.
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.