Hi U 509--

One of my hobby horses is that we should never settle for a vague unity of effort IF real unity of command is available. In principle, I would generally argue for the American ambassador to be "in command" in an overseas environment - as is the normal peacetime case. (Even the military reports to the ambassador, with one exception - when there is a major military op ongoing.) In the exceptional case, I would argue that the President should designate his ambassador or his military commander as being in command of all US assets in country.

The Iraq case argues for the ambassador for 2 reasons: 1. the de jure status of Iraqi sovereignty and 2. the apparent strong positive and mutually supportive relationship between Petraeus and Crocker. In the end, who is designated "commander" may well depend on personalities.

Short summary: The principle of civilian control should generally be dominant but can be overridden in specific cases where personality is the powerful factor.

Cheers

JohnT