Updated: Thursday, Jan. 7, 1999 at 15:11 CST

To what do our troops owe their loyalty?

Black Jack Pershing, where are you when we need you?

Probably turning in his grave.

John J. Pershing, bless his thoroughly red-white-and-blue heart and soul, was the American general who roundly refused to integrate American troops with foreign forces in France during World War I to serve under British and French command.

Pershing vowed that no American soldier would answer to a foreign commander.

If the general were around today to witness the escalating problem of American military personnel trying to serve two masters -- their country and the United Nations -- it would blow the collar brass right off his uniform.

The issue came into focus this week after the United States was accused of infiltrating CIA operatives into teams of U.N. Special Commission inspectors to gather intelligence about secret Iraqi weapons programs.

At the moment, everything is coming from unnamed officials, with strong denials from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler that the U.N. inspection teams were used as a tool of American intelligence. Despite reports to the contrary in `The Boston Globe' and `The Washington Post' and on ABC's nightly news, no one in the outside world is certain about what did or did not happen to information gathered in Iraq.

But the accusations raise a legitimate ancillary question. Some of the U.S. participants on those UNSCOM teams have been military personnel. Shouldn't their first loyalty always be to the security of the United States? If they come across information that might compromise the safety of America and Americans, is it not their duty to report that information to their military commanders?

Perhaps an even more fundamental question is: Should they even be taking orders from the United Nations?

Writer Charley Reese asked just that question last month in one of his columns for `The Orlando Sentinel.' Reese compared the oath of an American soldier to the oath that a U.N. officer must take. Read them, and it's clear that a person cannot be loyal to both.

An American soldier's oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

A U.N. officer's oath: "I solemnly affirm to exercise in all loyalty, discretion and conscience the functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations, to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interest of the United Nations only in view and not to seek or accept instructions in respect to the performance of my duties from any government or other authority external to the organization."

No U.S. military man or woman can possibly be expected to do both, as Reese concluded, yet we've got our service personnel doing the United Nations' bidding in scores of places around the globe.

It is a situation ripe for problems, at least for those individuals who believe in the independence and sovereignty of the United States.

Reese asked, "Do we want America to retain its sovereignty and independence for which our ancestors fought a war with Great Britain, or do we wish it to become a non-independent part of an international, sovereign government?"

The answer should be easy.

Jill "J.R." Labbe is senior editorial writer and columnist for the `Star-Telegram.' Her email address is jrlabbe@star-telegram.com, and her phone number is (817) 390-7599.