Bob, I wish your world was the real one
as far as unity of command is concerned.Unfortunately, often the HN is not and cannot be in charge. Thus, HN in charge, becomes a goal to be achieved - preferably sooner rather than later. Equally unfortunately, the American Ambassador is not always in charge. The escape clause is the exception to the Ambassadorial appointment letter that notes that military forces do not come under the Ambassador when a major military operation is undertaken. But, then, neither do non-military elements of the USG come under the command of the military commander!
Do you happen to recall the "McCaffrey Wars" of the early 1990s? When GEN McCaffrey was USCINCSO he claimed authority over MILGP commanders in his AOR. It raised a firestorm. The US Ambassador to Colombia sent a blistering letter to everyone at State (and it leaked - no surprise). Ambassador Marilyn MacAffee in Guatemala canceled a military exercise that was already underway and ordered the US troops out of her country in 24 hours - it took 48! DEPSECSTATE Strobe Talbot tried to tell the Ambassadors that McCaffrey was right and they reminded him that they worked for the President not the SECSTATE (and certainly not a retread Time Magazine writer who just happened to hold the position of DEPSEC). In the end McCaffrey retired to become Pres Clinton's drug czar and Ambassador MacAffee continued to serve as an ambassador. Point is that the system while generally clear in normal times is very unclear when a major military operation is undertaken. Especially true in Iraq until the arrival of Petraeus and Crocker and still true in Afghanistan. And achieving unity of effort in iraq depended on the peronalities and will of the two men involved.
Cheers
JohnT
Bookmarks