For the first time since World War II, U.S. combat troops may find themselves serving under foreign commanders on a regular basis if a United Nations role being considered by President Clinton is adopted. While that immediately raises objections in the minds of some Americans, the idea is not necessarily a bad one.
Congress is telling the White House to "slow down" on the plan, but most of the congressional complaint seems to revolve around indignation that senators and representatives were not consulted in advance.In both world wars, U.S. solders served under foreign commanders, but since then, only Americans have had authority over American troops. This was true even during the Korean War, which was fought under a unified U.N. command.
Yet the world has changed. With the end of the Cold War, the United States is the world's only superpower. But it doesn't want to find itself in the role of the world's policeman. When military action is needed in regional conflicts, Washington prefers to act in concert with allies, as it did during the Persian Gulf war.
The United Nations increasingly is being asked to fulfill peacekeeping roles around the world and needs soldiers to do the job. The U.N. secretary general would like every country to provide 1,000 soldiers to serve as a standing U.N. army that could be called upon as needed.
That would be going too far, but the U.N. still needs more American help. The United States currently will provide support and supply units if others are not available, but Washington avoids using combat troops.
The Clinton proposal now under study would allow infantry and other combat units to serve under U.N. command as needed. Individual American units would still be led by American officers. But, once in the field, they could be ordered by U.N.-assigned officers to carry out specific tasks.
The idea has the backing of the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Security Council. It seems only fair that U.S. combat troops do their share in world peacekeeping assignments instead of leaving it up to soldiers of other countries to do the dirty work.
Foes of the idea are not opposed to the U.S. participating in U.N. operations as much as they are against the idea of foreign commanders sending American troops into dangerous and difficult situations. What if the orders don't make sense militarily or are seen as unnecessarily dangerous and ineffective? How much authority would American officers have to reject such orders?
Italian troops came under considerable criticism recently when their officers refused to carry out a U.N. assignment in the field in Somalia.
Answers to such issues will have to be spelled out in detail before American troops are subjected to orders from foreign commanders.
But in the long run, U.S. soldiers have a responsibility and a role to play in U.N. operations. The United States cannot vote for U.N. peacekeeping operations and then stand on the sidelines while others take the risks.