Replies

There is a big difference between being "attached to" and "under the command of". Like you,I don't get excited about some selected US troops wearing a UN beret or patch if that is what their mission calls for. What I don't approve of are masses of regular troops being assigned under UN command as a part of the normal process. As I'm sure you are well aware,there is a huge difference between the judgement of a SF SFC and a 19 year old regular army PFC. The SF NCO will appear to follow orders as long as they don't conflict with his prime mission. When they do start to do this,he has no problem stepping up to the plate and refusing to obey them.

I'm trying to remember the different ways in which units can connect for a joint mission.

There's attachment, operational control (opcon), assignment, etc. These have varying meanings in terms of what the American commander's discretion allows.

Nato forces were, until recently, under a Spanish general. Now I think it's British. During WWII we had significant numbers of forces under Monty's operational control. Layfayette and Von Steuben also had command over American forces.

The issue for me is an oath of allegiance to another power. That shouldn't be.....except for purposes of spying and intelligence gathering.