******************************************************************************* U.S. ARMY BEING PREPARED TO MERGE INTO U.N. "NEW WORLD ARMY" ******************************************************************************* 12/15/1993 The Washington Times --------------------------------------------- Army Manual says GIs will follow U.N. orders By Bill Gertz --------------------------------------------- U.S. forces will serve under United Nations command in peace- keeping operations by the world body, a U.S. Army field manual now under preparation says. Except for allied command in World War II and the NATO alliance, U.S. combat forces have never been placed under foreign command. This may raise constitutional questions, since the Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of all U.S. military forces. The Army manual on peace operations, now in its fifth draft, says that commanders of U.N. military operations will report to a special U.N. representative in the country, or to the secretary-general of the United Nations. "The force commander will normally exercise operational control over all assigned units, including U.S. units," the manual says. "The commander has full command authority over operational and logistics matters with the exception of purely national administrative matters." A primary author of the manual, Col. Jack Clarke of the U.S Army's Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Va., said the manual recognizes the prospect thatt commanders of U.N. "peacekeeping operations" may not be U.S. military officers. "This is a reality we must deal with," he said in a telephone inter- view. "Our doctrine is not making policy statement. We have done this kind of thing in the past, we may do it in the future, and we're obligated to tell commanders how the U.N. functions." As examples of the different types of peace operations, the manual lists military support for diplomacy in Cambodia, preventive deploy- ments in Macedonia, protection for humanitarian aid in Somalia and enforcing sanctions in Iraq. In Somalia, U.N. control of the operation prompted a change of mission from humanitarian support to taking sides in a civil war when U.S. forces were assigned to hunt Somali warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid. President Clinton, in dispatching additional troops to Somalia after the Oct. 3 battle in which 18 U.S. soldiers were killed, criticized the U.N. command and said the additional U.S. combat forces would be led by U.S. commanders. Knowledge of the contents of the manual is raising criticism in Congress from those opposed to giving operational command of U.S. combat forces to the world body. Sen. Don Nickles, Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, said yesterday the manual is evidence the Clinton Administration intends to press forward with its disputed policy of expanding U.S. military participation in U.N. operations. "That's scary," Mr. Nickles said. He said that the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and that his authority over U.S. forces cannot be delegated to the world organization. Mr. Nickle led a Senate effort in October to amend the defense appro- priations bill to require congressional approval before U.S. combat troops are placed under U.N. command. Under intense lobbying by the administration, the amendment failed, but a nonbinding resolution approved in its place said the president should consult Congress before placing U.S. troops under foreign commanders other than NATO leaders. The resolution said the United Nations "is not now capable of adequately managing" U.S. combat forces. Army Gen, John M. Shlikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday that U.S. forces will take part in foreign-led U.N. millitary activities when "robust" command is guaranteed and rules of engagement for U.S. forces are sound. "Certainly for operations under United Nations, there should be some very strict conditions in addition to those we would for operations" led by U.S. or NATO officers, Gen, Shalikashvili told reporters. Joining U.N. operations will be done on a case-by-case basis. Under certain conditions, U.S. forces will participate, but in other cases "I would, obviuosly, have to say no." Mr. Nickles said the Clinton administration's draft policy on U.S. participation in peace operations, contained in a document known as PRD-13, calls for expanding the U.S. commitment to the world organization and is "fraught with dangers." "It looks to me that with this Army manual they are preparing to go ahead with that," he said. The 244-page manual, labeled FM 100-23 "Peace Operations," outlines military doctrine for U.S. forces engaged in "operations short of war." It should be completed by February, according to military officials. In U.N. operations, the chain of command runs from the unit commander to the force commander "to the head of mission, if not the force com- mander, [and] to the secretary general, who will report to the Security Council," the manual says. The manual says that peace operations include a spectrum of activities ranging from "peace enforcement, described as a "form of combat," to "peacekeeping," or non-combat military operations aimed at settling disputes. Besides participating in U.N. operations, U.S. forces could take part in operations with the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. ************************************************************************** FOR A LISTING OF ANTI-NWO FILES, DOWNLOAD NWOFILES.TXT [or .ZIP] FROM THIS BBS, OR FROM CRS ONLINE, TORONTO; TOGETHER WITH NWO_NO!.ZIP, NWARMY.ZIP, STATDOCS.ZIP, PATBRD.ZIP, RESOURC1.ZIP AND RESOURC2.ZIP IF YOU ARE UNSUCCESSFUL IN LOCATING FILES WITH A .TXT EXTENSION, TRY THE SAME FILE-NAME WITH A .ZIP EXTENSION. PLEASE RE-POST THIS FILE TO OTHER BBS SYSTEMS! ***************************************************************************