U.S. Official Confirms U.S. Troops Are Under U.N. "Control" By Cliff Kincaid U.S. Army soldier Michael New once said, "I signed up for the green team, not the blue team." President Bill Clinton had him court-martialed for refusing to wear a U.N. uniform and serve a foreign U.N. commander. History may repeat itself - under President Bush. As America remembers the sacrifices of our veterans, a military adviser to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations has confirmed that U.S. military personnel are continuing to serve the U.N., are wearing the U.N. blue beret, and are under its "administrative control." The admission came in a letter from Colonel James A. Bagley, who was given the job of explaining how the use of U.S. troops by the U.N. is consistent with President Bush's promise never to put them under U.N. command. (see attachment) It comes at the same time that Bush has apparently received U.N. permission for U.S. troops to attack Iraq. After eight weeks of negotiations, the U.N. Security Council has threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq doesn't disarm. Bagley claims U.S. troops serving on U.N. military missions are under U.N. "administrative control" but not under U.N. "command." He doesn't explain the difference. However, it is apparent that he is trying desperately to make it appear that Bush has not violated his campaign promise. The president may be extremely popular, but it is absolutely clear that he has violated a solemn campaign promise and has subverted the character and integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces. He has transformed some of them into U.N. soldiers. This action could hurt recruitment and morale. After all, Americans who volunteer for the U.S. military do not agree to take orders from one of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's flunkies. A U.N. official, in a letter to the Washington Times, confirmed that foreign U.N. commanders take an oath to serve the U.N. I have sent Col. Bagley and other U.S. officials the following letter: Thank you for the letter regarding U.S. troops serving in U.N. military missions. It is asserted that, in regard to the U.N. Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), that U.S. troops "are not under United Nations command" and are under "the direct command and control" of the U.S. Military Observer Group-Washington. At the same time, it says that the U.N. provides "administrative control" over them and that they wear the headgear (blue beret) associated with U.N. duty. This is an extraordinary admission. The problem with the letter, as revealing as it is, is that it contradicts information I have obtained from UNOMIG, the DoD, the U.N., and other sources. Colonel Daniel Pike of USMOG-W told me that the U.S. soldiers are under United Nations "operational command" -- he later called it "operational guidance." The phrase "administrative control" strikes me a euphemism for "command." If it is your position that U.S troops are under U.N. "administrative control" and not "command," what is the difference? Where is this difference explained in U.S. law or DoD regulations? Can you tell me where in current law or DoD regulations the concept of U.N. "control" is justified or defined? When has President Bush or Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld issued an order justifying the placement of U.S. troops under U.N. "control?" If the foreign commander of this mission issues an order to a U.S. soldier, does it have to be followed? When President Bush said he would never assign U.S. troops under U.N. command, do I understand this to mean that he intended to allow U.N. "control" of those troops? This is Clintonesque. This strikes me as similar to Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Do you really want to insist that "command" is not "control?" Do you sincerely believe he would rule out "command" only to allow "control." On the contrary, I believe he intended to prohibit U.N. command or control. I think this is what he intended. I think this is what millions of Americans believed. For the record, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, on November 19, 1999, Bush said: "Likewise, international organizations can serve the cause of peace. I will never place U.S. troops under U.N. command - but the U.N. can help in weapons inspections, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts." Is it your position that the president intended to permit, under this policy, U.S. military personnel to be put under U.N. "control?" I believe that the president should realize that people under his command have violated his pledge. A responsible leader should call them to task and discharge them for not carrying out his campaign promise. I ask you in good conscience to take action to make sure the president's campaign promise is not violated. Colonel Pike also said that U.S. troops wear the U.N. shoulder patch. Is this true? I also understand that they take a U.N. physical exam and that the U.N. pays expenses associated with their deployment or return. Is that true? And what about a U.N. I.D. card? Are U.S. troops required to carry them? The letter says the U.S. troops on these missions "are frequently volunteers." What policy of President Bush permits troops to "volunteer" to be under U.N. command or control? How many troops have received direct orders to report to these missions? Can you tell me how many troops on these missions are "volunteers?" I have since learned that dozens of U.S. troops are on these U.N. missions. U.N. figures as of September 2002 - more than a year and one-half into the Bush presidency - show that 32 American soldiers are serving as U.N. military observers or U.N. combat soldiers in these U.N. missions. Is this the correct figure? Of the Americans serving as U.N. police, how many of those are U.S. soldiers? How many are "volunteers?" How many were ordered to report to these missions? I am sure you are familiar with the terms "blue helmet" and "green helmet." Blue helmet refers to U.S. military personnel under U.N. "control." How many of them are under such control at the present time? And on what missions do they serve? Where in DoD regulations is the wearing of a U.N. blue beret, helmet or shoulder patch allowed? When did Congress authorize the wearing of the U.N. beret, helmet or shoulder patch? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cliff Kincaid              Printer-friendly version Click here to be added to our mailing list.