Should U.S. soldiers be forced to wear the U.N. uniform?

There was a case a few years ago where a soldier was court martialed for refusing to be subject to the U.N. command structure. His position was that he joined the U.S. military, not the UN and could not be forced to wear the blue helmet. I do not know what the disposition of the case was, but I agree with him. He cannot be impressed into the UN army without his consent. Other opinions?

While joining the US Army I feel as though he undertook the responsibility of acting in accordance with protocol and therefore must obey whatever his superiors say. That being said, he needs to wear the blue helmet.

A US Soldier takes an oath to obey all lawful orders. Are you saying that it is never a lawful order to have a chain of command that includes allies above US officers?

As for the disposition of the case, he got a dishonorable discharge for disobeying a lawful order.

Does anyone know from whom the order came?

I thought the oath was to “protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

I suppose if the UN were acting in a way to subvert the US Constitution, the soldier was in the right.

Besides that, he joined the US Army, not the UN army. It’s one thing to have foreign commanders over you, its quite another thing to put on the uniform and blue helmet of an unaccountable organization like the UN.

There is no such thing as a UN uniform.

Specialist New refused to wear the prescribed headgear and thus was punished per regulations for such disobedience of lawful orders. The Chief of Staff of the US Army, IIRC, is the one who issues the Uniform Regulations for that branch of the service (AR 27-1?).

There is no such thing as the UN army.

There is no such thing as “the uniform and blue helmet” of the UN.

Blue helmet then. Oh, and they wanted him to wear a “UN” patch on his uniform.

Korea was a UN action, but the US soldiers in Korea never wore blue helmets or a UN patch or fought under a UN flag. They were American soldiers fighting in their countries uniform.

I suppose if he refused an order from a superior officer, then they were right to dishonorably discharge him.

So now I guess I question why the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army made the order he did.

Heres another thing to consider.

US servicemen take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic. Now, since the UN does not recognise many rights under the US Constitution, such as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a US serviceman would be fully justified in refusing to serve in a UN uniform.

A serviceman is only obligated to obey lawful, Constitutional orders.

He wasn’t in a U.N. uniform, of which there is no such thing. He was serving as an American soldier in an American unit under the command of American officers as part of a joint operation. He disobeyed an American-given order to wear what all the other American soldiers were wearing, and he was dishonerably discharged for that.

Any other interpretation is “black helicopters” territory.

Was he or was he not ordered to wear a blue UN helmet and UN patch?

He was ordered to wear what his superior officers, up to an including the president, ordered him to wear. That it bore the U.N. insignia is beside the point to everyone but a severly misguided ex-soldier. The purpose of that insignia was to identify him as part of a joint operation, and nothing else–specifically, it did not signify obedience to or membership in any body other than the USA.

Is it your opinion, Hermann, that all U.S. soldiers should refuse to serve in U.S. military operations under the auspices of the U.N., because that somehow constitutes joining “the U.N. army?”

Mmmm… thats strange. I remember when I was in, back in the 1980s, no one ever got dishonorably discharged for being out of uniform.

He wasn’t discharged for being out of uniform, he was discharged for disobeying a lawful order.

That is easily the stupidest argument I have read on the boards all day. Unless the UN was forcing the US to drop those Constitutional protections, than this makes no difference whatsofrickinever.

Yes. US service personnel are only obligated to protect and defend the US Constitution. When they join up and take their oath, their concern is protecting their country, not serving under the unelected, unacountable auspices of the UN.

And I do thank you for your direct question.

So you believe that, above and beyond peacekeeping duties, U.S. soldiers should have refused to serve in Korea?

I’ve come across UN peacekeepers on duty and they do wear just the blue helmets and a flash / insignia thing – well, they did ten years ago. Hell, I’ve got some photo’s of me wearing the blue helmet (with a big ‘UN’ painted on the front) somewhere not very far from Syria and Israel.

FWIW, many soldiers rather enjoy UN duty as it pays a lot better than working for the Govmint – obviously applies a lot more to developing world soldiers but even Europeans love the extra money.

I was looking at something earlier that said the US currently contributes a grand total of 44 peacekeepers to 15 or so UN deployments around the world – not, then, too many opportunities in the US military to boost the wages with a little peacekeeping.