Foreign Policy Discussion Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Chas. who wrote (7192)	1/12/2006 10:34:28 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 15987

personally I think this guy was right... Right or wrong, it certainly raises a question... There is a precedent for US troops being under the command of foreign leaders. A prime example of this was during the Battle of the Bulge, when the splitting up of US lines of communication on that front led to US forces in the north being placed under the command of British Field Marshal, Bernard Montgomery. Also, NATO forces often find themselves under each other's command during exercises. I think the true source of contention is that the UN has no authority to raise military forces under its authority. Each individual member state voluntarily offers the use of its forces to uphold UN binding resolutions (which are militarily enforceable). But since no UNSC resolution has ever explicitly authorized use of military force, it's hard to make the argument that the UN is an authorized "chain of command" to which US forces should be subordinate. Rather, a UNSC binding resolution lifts prohibitions contained in the UN charter against the use of military force to resolve differences between states. The language that it uses is normally "all necessary means" to accomplish whatever goal of that specific resolution. Thus, each state is free to choose what "necessary means" it believes are required to achieve the goal.. Maybe what is required is for the UN and various treaty organizations to have a formal relationship.. Thus, the UN could as NATO, or SEATO to assist in carrying out a specific action, and forces deployed under that agreement would be under NATO or SEATO (or whatever treaty organization) control. That would resolve some of these issues, in my opinion. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next