>I misunderstood your previous post Dragan.

Two things caused it:
1) I wrote it
2) I used English language

ad (1), I probably wasn't thinking too much about possible other meanings of each word, which I usually must do when (2) applies. My bad.

>>>This has already been the case in UN functions around the world. At times the troops from many nations are under US command and control, and at other times another country takes leadership. Sometimes it rotates during the event as well.
>>>
>>>Here are 6 multinational operations that were lead by Australia:
>>>Lieutenant General Robert Nimmo was Chief Military Observer in Kashmir with the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, from 1950 to 1966
>>>Lieutenant General John Sanderson was Force Commander with the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia, 1992 to 1993
>>>Brigadier David Ferguson was Force Commander with the Multinational Force and Observers (in the Sinai) from 1994 to 1997
>>>Richard Butler led the UN Special Commission (in Iraq) from 1997 to 1999
>>>Major General Timothy Ford was Chief of Staff with the UN Truce Supervision Organisation from 1998 to 2000
>>>Major General Peter Cosgrove commanded the International Force for East Timor (Interfet) from 1999 to 2000.
>>
>>That's common. My country supplied soldiers to the UN at the demarcation line on Sinai after the 6-day war. But it was nowhere in the papers that these troops were "under Yugoslav command", i.e. these were UN troops, and wore blue berets. Likewise, the UN troops in former Yugoslav countries were at times under a command of a Russian, British, Dutch or any other officer - but they were not under Russian, British or Dutch command. They were under UN command.
>>
>>IOW, "US command" is different from "having an US officer in command". The upper end of the chain of command and responsibility is in Pentagon in the first case, or on East River in the latter.