On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), a policy directive outlining the administration's position on reforming multilateral peace operations. PDD-25 defined requirements that must be satisfied before the U.S. will participate in international peacekeeping operations. In one of PDD-25's provisions, the Clinton Administration clarified the position of the United States with regarding command and control of United States military personnel participating in a multilateral peacekeeping operations. The Directive defines "command" of United States armed forces and "operational control" of those forces, distinguishes between the two, and maintains that the President never relinquishes "command" over United States military personnel, even though he he may place United States military personnel under the "operational control" of a non-U.S. commander for limited and defined purposes. If the U.S. relinquished "command" over those forces then they wouldn't be able to recall them or replace them with other units. But that didn't happen.
Given those parameters then the U.S. frequently placed whole armies under foreign operational control during World War II, while maintaining overall command over those forces.
"Given those parameters then the U.S. frequently placed whole armies under foreign operational control during World War II, while maintaining overall command over those forces"
I am not asking this to be agrumentative, I merely wish to gain further understanding. Perhaps you can help.
I was born in 1948, too late to have witnessed these things first hand. My father served in the Pacific theater. He was a SeaBee. Other than reading and some historically based movies I have seen, my knowledge of the military operations comes from personal accounts I have gotten from Veterans of that era. The situation as I understand it was one in which US troops not only were NOT under foreign control, but that a friendly rivalry existed between the Allied Armies over who could dominate the field of battle more effectively.
Specifically, there was the well publicized competition between Patton and Montgomery, in which Patton chose to ignore directives from Allied command to claim specific victories for his army.
Did not the ultiumate command AND control of all Allied armies rest with Eisenhower? Has it not been a condition of our participation in NATO that the NATO commander is always an American General?
Again, I am not asking to be argumentative. If my information is wrong I would appreciate you correcting me!
PS: Regarding Clinton's Directive: Leave it to Bubba to parse words to appease both sides while doing the bidding of the UN! This sounds like something Kerry would have thought up. (Except he probably would have specifically put our boys under the French flag!)