PRESIDENT BUSH PLACES U.S. TROOPS UNDER A FOREIGN UN COMMANDER [GEORGIA]

Toogood Reports ^ | Oct. 30, 2002 | Cliff Kincaid

[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 .

[TomGuy]

Congressional document:

CRS Issue Brief for Congress...Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, Updated February 4, 2002

[madfly]

Here is what I just got in email from Kincaid.

___________________________________

Subject: Re: US troops UN uniforms UN commander article

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck102602.shtml

 

PRESIDENT BUSH PLACES U.S. TROOPS UNDER UNITED NATIONS COMMAND; BREAKS CAMPAIGN PROMISE

NEWS FLASH: AMERICA'S SURVIVAL, INC., THE LEADING U.N. WATCHDOG GROUP, HAS REVEALED THAT U.S. TROOPS HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER U.N. COMMAND BY PRESIDENT BUSH IN VIOLATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S OWN CAMPAIGN PROMISE. (for more information on the U.N. mission involved, please see below).

Copies of the following letter have been sent to top U.S. officials:

Cliff Kincaid
President, America's Survival, Inc.
www.USAsurvival.org

October 25, 2002

It has come to our attention that, in violation of his campaign promise and the 2000 Republican Party platform, U.S. troops have been put under United Nations command by President Bush. We request an explanation of why the president's solemn campaign promise has been broken.

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."

As you know, 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. His lawyers continue to argue in the courts that his order to wear a U.N. uniform was in violation of his sacred oath, U.S. law and the U.S. Constitution.

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. A Web site for candidate Bush declared that he "Would never place U.S. troops under U.N. command." The 2000 Republican Party Platform declared that "…American troops must never serve under United Nations command."

The current placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command has put U.S. service personnel who object to serving the U.N. and wearing a U.N. uniform in a very difficult position. They want to continue to serve their country but do not want to violate their oath, the law or the Constitution by serving the U.N. They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.

This situation could have been avoided if the president had remained true to his word.

Why has the president's promise to the American people -- and our service personnel -- been violated?

We urge your immediate attention to this matter before more U.S. troops are forced to choose between remaining true to the U.S. military and abandoning their oath by wearing a U.N. uniform and reporting to a foreign U.N. commander.

This is a matter of utmost urgency and critical to maintaining the morale, character and integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Sincerely Yours,

Cliff Kincaid

---

UNOMIG:



LOCATION
Georgia


HEADQUARTERS
Sukhumi


DURATION
August 1993 to date


SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL AND HEAD OF MISSION
Ms. Heidi Tagliavini (Switzerland) (S/2002/643), (S/2002/644)


CHIEF MILITARY OBSERVER
Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed (Bangladesh)

STRENGTH (30 September 2002)
107 military observers; UNOMIG also includes 90 international civilian personnel and 175 local civilian staff


CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Albania, Austria, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay

The United Nations: UN Observer Mission in Georgia Medal
(UNOMIG)

Ribbon: Central stripe of UN blue, flanked by white and green stripes, with dark blue edges. Instituted: February 1994. Mission began: 24 August 1993. Mission ongoing. Awarded: for 180 days' service to the Mission, supervising the cease-fire between Georgia and Abkhazia.

Sorry - no picture of reverse

<

[Spiff]

I thought long and hard about posting this, but decided the best way to find answers was to go ahead and let fellow freepers validate or debunk it. I have emailed the Kincaid for more details. We'll see.

You did the right thing by posting this. Instead off knee-jerk reactions, the proper FReeper response should be, "You're kidding. I'm going to find out more and will post what I find."

If this is true, I'm going to feel stupid for the 2 hours I spent last night carving an intricate George W. Bush jack-o-lantern (which turned out great, by the way.)

Posted wirelessly from my PocketPC.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Guys, Can this be verified?? Another Somalia in the making?? As the guy said, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Peace and love, George.

[hgro]

I've never seen or heard of this guy. Where do these so called experts come from. Calling yourself conservative doesn't make you one.

[xzins]

If we accepted that US troops were used, how do we know if they are "independently" collecting intelligence data for the US while in an "undercover" UN role? Such intel in Georgia of all places would be extremely valuable in tracking movement of "islamic" terrorists.

IMHO, war changes the equation and the President is ethically responsible for seeing that all possible sources of intel are used DESPITE any promise made before 9/11 and the War on Terror began.

I'm NOT special pleading for the president. I'm speaking as an American who wants all possible sources of intel utilized. That would include deploying entire units under UN "attachment" if some or many members of those units were secretly tasked to collect intelligence. They could be from SpecOps, MI, or CIA.

[madfly]

Thanks for your support.

Posted from my

secret FreeREpublic dial-up decoder ring :) . . . boo

[Constitution Day]

Bump for later...

[dixierat22]

I found a baragin place where I got my flame suit and tin-foil hat.

I believe the saying is "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." And you're correct about shrub!

[Constitution Day]

secret FreeREpublic dial-up decoder ring

Pssssst...
D-R-I-N-K M-O-R-E O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E

[xzins]

CIA Factbook on Georgia says:

Transnational Issues Georgia

Disputes - international:

Chechen and other insurgents transit Pankisi Gorge to infiltrate Akhmeti region; boundary with Russia has been largely delimited, but not demarcated; several small, strategic segments remain in dispute

Illicit drugs:

limited cultivation of cannabis and opium poppy, mostly for domestic consumption; used as transshipment point for opiates via Central Asia to Western Europe and

Also a country that borders Azerbaijan where US troops are found. Borders Black Sea and Turkey.

[xzins]

see #46 & #51

[Lloyd227]

"I will trust Rummy and W. to do the right thing"

and how many party loyalists would actually recognize 'the right thing' when they see it (or when they see something done that is NOT 'the right thing') ?

or is it the right thing by virtue of the fact that Bush and Rumfield chose that path?

Is it "right" for United States Military to serve under a U.N. Commander? Ever, under ANY circumstances?

I firmly believe the answer is an emphatic "NO, never" although I suspect many here would be persuaded if that's the path Bush were to choose.

[jgrubbs]

This is from http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unomig/unomigF.htm

LOCATION
Georgia

HEADQUARTERS
Sukhumi

DURATION
August 1993 to date

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
AND HEAD OF MISSION
Ms. Heidi Tagliavini (Switzerland) (S/2002/643), (S/2002/644)

CHIEF MILITARY OBSERVER
Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed (Bangladesh)

STRENGTH (30 September 2002)
107 military observers; UNOMIG also includes 90 international civilian personnel and 175 local civilian staff

CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Albania, Austria, Bangladesh, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay

FATALITIES
4 military personnel
2 military observers
1 international civilian staff
7 total

FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Method of financing
Assessments in respect of a Special Account
Appropriations
1 July 2002 - 30 June 2003: $33.1 million (gross)

[ravingnutter]

Well...I found this at the U.N. site...

DO AMERICAN TROOPS SERVE UNDER FOREIGN COMMANDERS?

The U.S. Commander-in-Chief never relinquishes his command authority over U.S. troops. American commanding officers retain authority over their own military forces serving in UN operations, including disciplinary and personnel matters, and troops can be withdrawn at the discretion of the U.S. The UN Force Commander has overall operational control of a mission, but is not permitted to change the mission agreed upon by the U.S. President, divide U.S. units, reallocate their supplies, administer discipline, or change a unit's organization. When a significant number of U.S. troops are involved, operational control remains in American hands or in the hands of a trusted military ally such as a NATO member.

DO AMERICAN TROOPS WEAR UNITED NATIONS UNIFORMS?

U.S. troops participating in UN peacekeeping missions wear their American military uniforms. To identify themselves as part of a UN peacekeeping force, they also wear blue berets or helmets with the UN insignia. U.S. soldiers on peacekeeping missions do not swear allegiance to the United Nations.

U.N. Peacekeeping FAQs

[TLBSHOW]

This better be a lie.

[elfman2]

True or not, there are plenty of things to worry about regarding the UN excluding this. The devil would be in the details, not the color of the beret.

[Prodigal Son]

Michael New would've been prosecuted regardless of who his Commander in Chief was. He refused to obey a direct and lawful order. Case closed. Your chain of command can order you to wear whatever they want. They could order you to wear a pink beret as far as that goes. I, for one, am pleased that the Army saw fit to court martial him. They would have done the same to me had I broken that same rule. If New is a patriot, what does that make all the other soldiers who followed the order? Traitors, I guess?

The mission itself- the UN part of it- was a waste of time and money. But it was also interesting and a good look at the way the UN operates. There are plenty of US officers that volunteer for these types of missions because of the pay.

[FreeReign]

I am suspect also, but I searched and found nothing to say it isn't true.

Well then if you can't prove a negative, then it must be true.

[iconoclast]

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.

Naturally.

Wake up conservatives .... it's impossible to be *part* Internationalist!