How could the UN forces be more effective?

johncmcleod · August 22, 2003, 22:49

IMO, the UN is a great idea. The problem is whenever their forces are sent in, the operation is ineffective. So how can this be fixed?

Nubclear · August 22, 2003, 22:51

It can't. Sorry.

Would you like to switch to LEAGUEOFNATIONS.EXE?

Elok · August 22, 2003, 22:54

I suggest Death Lasers from Outer Space. There aren't many problems that can't be solved by one of those.

DinoDoc · August 22, 2003, 22:55

Allow them to shoot at people? Carry heavy weapons?

Edan · August 22, 2003, 22:58

Well, not ignoring pleas from UN observers asking to be evacuated because they're going to be slaughtered might be a start.

Ted Striker · August 22, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Allow them to shoot at people? Carry heavy weapons?

DinoDoc · August 22, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
Well, not ignoring pleas from UN observers asking to be evacuated, rather than waiting for them to be slaughtered, might be a start.

They were trying to feed a starving people.

Edan · August 22, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They were trying to feed a starving people.

I thought they were UN military observers. But that doesn't matter. Having the UN ignore it's own people's pleas to evacuate because their lives was at risk and they had no way to defend themselves was wrong.

DinoDoc · August 22, 2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan
I thought they were UN military observers.

Never mind it was a bad joke to begin with.

Edan · August 22, 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Never mind it was a bad joke to begin with.

Ahh, sorry. Next time, remember to include a smiley.

johncmcleod · August 22, 2003, 23:16

Well, when I suggest sending the UN to do an operation, people always say, "The UN fighting forces are ineffective." So this is their chance to say what should be changed about them.

JCG · August 22, 2003, 23:20

Rebuild the UN from the ground up.

Unfortunately, we're probably stuck with this well-intentioned but badly executed UN for a long time....you can't have effective UN forces with a crippled organization behind them.

SlowwHand · August 22, 2003, 23:31

They could start by becoming involved.

MichaeltheGreat · August 23, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
They could start by becoming involved.

You mean in cleaning up our mess when your favorite cowboy and mine said he was gonna ride in to ol' Saddam City and clean up, with the UN or without it?

Ted Striker · August 23, 2003, 01:32

How come the UN force that went to Korea had teeth but every force after that has sucked?

Spiffor · August 23, 2003, 01:38

The UN would need clear missions and clear mandates. Where it goes, it should also stop being an absolute "neutral party", but be a fighting party with precise objectives (that local groups will hopefully agree upon).

To date, UN interventions require everybody around to agree with their action... And what I don't understand: In these circumstances, how can you stop a slaughter when the slaughterers want to continue ?

The relative success of non-UN peacemaking missions (like the EU one happening in DRCOngo at the moment) comes from the fact that these armed groups will use force to reach their objectives if needed.
In a UN intervention, objectives are less important than the compliance of the local groups. It sure is useless in a fighting environment then. UN people are only allowed to use force to defend themselves AFAIK.

However, in peaful environments, UN interventions can be quite efficient (aid distribution, policing to avoid anarchy, monitoring of the power transition etc.). We just don't hear much about these, since they are much less glitzy than war scenes.

The Mad Monk · August 23, 2003, 01:38

Because Russia and China remembered to come to meetings?

Spiffor · August 23, 2003, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
How come the UN force that went to Korea had teeth but every force after that has sucked?

It was the US army in disguise. The Soviets haven't opposed the UN going to Korea because they boycotted the UN at that time IIRC.

The Mad Monk · August 23, 2003, 01:55

Here's an idea:

Throw out that officer who abandoned his men, and everyone like him.

The UN will look much smaller, but be much better.

Spiffor · August 23, 2003, 01:59

TMM : That would require to replace the whole staff with real military types. So far, they are only bureaucrats. And for a reason: bureaucracy is required in UN missions

Pekka · August 23, 2003, 02:51

Change the rules of engagement immidiately. Stop with the blue berreting circus act, and get on with the program. They should keep some UN values like reasoning. Let's talk first, and then blow the damn place up if no co-operation. Let's see if they want to co-operate in the next village.

STOP LETTING IN some of those very unsoldier like soldiers in international efforts, if you can't run 2 miles in 13 minutes, then you're out of here, get on a diet or change careers, or go to another field of soldiering. I'm sick of seeing grossly overweight guards wearing blue berrets anyway, smiling to all people when everyone is laughing at him/her. Time to change the attitude. It's STFU or get shot! with a smile. Why? Because it is the very attitude and lack of cojones that makes every single guerilla group, terrorist group etc laugh their butts off when they see blue berrets. They know they can't do crap. And they know most of them haven't even seen a real fight. So, we need to stop being such sissies in there, and it starts by the change of rules, and change of attitude!

I realize UN is not supposed to provide yet another army to the field to start things, but hey, where they are usually sent, it's not that kind of a party they equipped for.

And this was not aimed at UN soldiers. This was aimed at the crappy rules they have to play with.

Pekka · August 23, 2003, 03:03

Let me tell you more reasons why I think this way.

UN operations are easily exploited by local militias and fighting sides. What it does, is that it gives them more time to regroup and arm themselves once again. They are surely not deterrent

.. because of their rules!

I believe war should be as effective as possible. To limit casualties of all sides (own, civilians, enemies I don't mind). Now, we throw in another organisation known as the UN when fighting has calmed down. No one respects them though. Maybe some civies do, but other than that, fighting sides don't respect them and I don't see why they should. It's like sending missionaries to get on their knees before fighting starts and pray for all. Beautiful thought but it doesn't work.

So, to stop wars, I believe the solution is the same. Be effective. By getting in between and not being tough enough only results to wars that are burning slow, and those wars are the worst kind to everyone. So, that's why I believe that when we get in, have enough solid information, then we must close in and make the moves too. If someone is braking the what ever cease fire, then we shouldn't just point fingers and say 'bad puppy!'. We must be strong and hit back with everything we got and say next time someone brakes the rules there's going to be hell to pay.

It can sound little extreme, but I don't see the point of going there with flowers in hands and trying to reason with dudes that have been fighting forever and have grudges that just won't die by singing together around the campfire.

Rogan Josh · August 23, 2003, 05:35

All it would take to be effective would be to have the support of the US, or at leadt be free from US opposition.

Heresson · August 23, 2003, 06:03

I think that UN should be an organisation of democratic states only.

Pekka · August 23, 2003, 06:04

Heresson, hmm.. that's an interesting thought..

lightblue · August 23, 2003, 06:10

How about an UN army, paid for by the member states, independent from any member state? Irrealistic, but still.

Heresson · August 23, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Heresson, hmm.. that's an interesting thought..

Why not? Why should some bloody despote be represented as if He was a representation of his people? How can we condemn China or Russia for what they're, and other naughty states, are doing, if they're in?

I have some some doubts if USA should be in in fact

Proteus_MST · August 23, 2003, 06:55

The Problem is,
are there any democratic States in the World?
(aside from Switzerland of course

)

Proteus_MST · August 23, 2003, 07:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
The UN would need clear missions and clear mandates. Where it goes, it should also stop being an absolute "neutral party", but be a fighting party with precise objectives (that local groups will hopefully agree upon).

To date, UN interventions require everybody around to agree with their action... And what I don't understand: In these circumstances, how can you stop a slaughter when the slaughterers want to continue ?

The relative success of non-UN peacemaking missions (like the EU one happening in DRCOngo at the moment) comes from the fact that these armed groups will use force to reach their objectives if needed.
In a UN intervention, objectives are less important than the compliance of the local groups. It sure is useless in a fighting environment then. UN people are only allowed to use force to defend themselves AFAIK.

However, in peaful environments, UN interventions can be quite efficient (aid distribution, policing to avoid anarchy, monitoring of the power transition etc.). We just don't hear much about these, since they are much less glitzy than war scenes.

I agree with that.
Having clear mandates and the Permission to use Force and of couse being adequately armed had probably prevented Situations like in the Bosnian war, where dutch UN-Soldiers stood around and their Commander drank tea with the Serbian commander while his Serbian Soldiers dragged muslim Civilians to their Death.

Heresson · August 23, 2003, 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The Problem is,
are there any democratic States in the World?
(aside from Switzerland of course

)

Who said there were any?
he he he