KFOR in Kosovo (was UN)

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: UN

- --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:

>  US troops tend to be the "big boy" in the area, and
> as such tend to be able
> to say, "Hey, I'm here in Somalia. I'm in charge."
> 
> ==> More particularly, "We won't serve under a non
> US commander" (well, we
> might think about taking something akin to direction
> from a Brit or a
> Canuck, but that's about it...) 

Unless it's NATO--the KFOR commander is an Italian, or
at least was most of the time I was there.
===================
Hmmm. I spoke with my friend who trains at the CF Peace
Support Training Centre - he teaches peackeepers and MOs to
go on NATO and UN missions (including people from other countries
like Albania, USSR, Poland, etc. etc.). 

He said when US forces are involved, there tend to be two command
structures. The "force" command and "their" command. They tend to
escalate orders from foreign nationals they don't agree with to
be addressed by their command structure. This might be good sense
or it might be just reticence to be under non-US command. Probably
a little from column A and a little from column B. 

I also asked him about the unity of UN forces and their ability
to select units/gear. He laughed. They get what countries send, though
they can ask for stuff. As for command, each operates under its own
internal restrictions (plus cultural biases plus individual ambitions
or fears). Also he brought up the huge logistical issues of running
large joint operations with different troops trained differently using
different kit and vehicles and operating in different languages. 

Sectorization is probably the only sane way to run things. And there 
have been plenty of internal cooperation problems between nation's
forces
on UN or NATO missions - way more than make the news. He says any
returning
peacekeeper can tell you stories (and they do at the PSTC) about the
problems
that such joint-nationality missions entail. They work, but only after a

fashion.