Peacekeeping: Military Command and Control Issues (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (14 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Nov. 1, 2001 |
| Report Number |
RL31120 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Edward F. Bruner and Nina M. Serafino, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Coalition warfare and the leadership of foreign commanders has played a part in U.S. history
since
the War for Independence, when the commander of the troops of the predecessor colonies, George
Washington, entrusted a key mission and command of 2,000 Continental soldiers to a French Major
General, the Marquis de Lafayette. Since 1900, there have been at least seventeen military
operations in which the United States has placed U.S. troops under a foreign commander.
As of November 1, 2001, some 6,515 U.S. troops serve under a French general in the NATO
Kosovo Force (KFOR). Some 865 troops also serve in the Multinational Force in the Sinai (MFO),
an ad hoc coalition, under a Canadian commander. As of August 31, 2001, the United States had 43
U.S. troops serving under commanders from various nations in seven U.N. operations.
During the last decade, some Members of Congress have expressed concern about the
placement of U.S. troops under a foreign commander; in general, this concern has centered on such
placement in U.N. operations. Until the end of the Cold War, U.S. support for U.N. operations had
been generally limited to air lift, even though Congress in 1949 had granted the President the
authority to detail up to 1,000 personnel in a non-combatant capacity for U.N. peacekeeping
activities. But controversy arose in the early 1990s, when the United States began to place U.S.
troops under U.N. commanders. Since then, Members of Congress have made various legislative
attempts to restrict the placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command. The first, in 1995, was
included in the Contract for America legislation, which passed the House ( H.R. 7 ), but
not the Senate. The second was contained in the FY1996 DOD authorization bill vetoed by
President Clinton ( H.R. 1530 ), in part due to this provision. Congress deleted the
provision from the version that became law, and since then has not passed such a restriction.
Although troops from other nations have served under U.S. commanders, some Members of
Congress are troubled by several issues raised by ceding even some level of control over U.S. troops
to foreign commanders. These revolve around questions about whether placing U.S. soldiers under
a foreign commander in any way impinges on U.S. sovereignty, and whether U.S. troops face greater
danger under a foreign commander. Those who favor such placement put forth various procedures
and arrangements that are taken to avoid such problems, for instance, U.S. troops are placed under
a foreign commander only for a specified time and a specific mission. The foreign commander's
authority over U.S. troops is limited to the authority necessary to organize, coordinate, and direct the
mission-related tasks of those units provided to him, in order to accomplish the assigned mission.
In addition a variety of safeguards are recognized as needed to protect U.S. troops, many of which
were spelled out in former President William Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25
of May 1994. In particular, the United States participates actively in the policymaking bodies that
oversee the military operation, seeks the clear delineation of operational missions in governing
agreements, and limits the authority of foreign commanders.
