CompuServe Messages

=>you have to have some chance of success Hmmm.. Interesting. So what you are trying to tell me is that you will not play the game unless you can win. There is no situation where peacekeepers have had to be called in where there was a sure fire chance of winning. When the UN, in a peacekeeping role, has stepped in, it was usually due to the next step being all out war. Take a look at Cyprus. The UN has been in there since the Sixties and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. For that matter, if the UN forces in Cyprus pulled out any time soon, the war there would erupt again in full force the minute the last plane left the tarmac. The idea behind peacekeeping was to interpose troops between two warring parties. The premise was that the opponents in a war would actually think twice before starting hostilities because they could not ensure that no UN forces would become causalties in an attack. This would initiate an escalation in the conflict by introducing another opponent – namely the UN country which suffered the causalties (governments tend to take a dim view when it's soldiers get shot). While this seems fairly ruthless on the part of the member nation's government, it has worked fairly well for the last 30+ years. This idea all hinges on the belief that retaliation _will_ occur. When the US stepped into the peacekeeping arena, it was under the provision that it's troops would be commanded _only_ by it's own chain of command. This made it responsible to it's political structure (just like normal) who in turn were responsible to public pressure. As soon as causalties occured, the political body, responding to public outcry, pulled those troops out. Where was the retaliation? There ends the cornerstone of the idea. Was there a chance that any good could have come out of the action? Of course not, because the policy was never given a chance to work.As soon as the opposition got the idea that no retaliation was forthcoming, no matter what they did, they were given a free hand. A friend of mine who was posted in Somalia made a comment that sticks in my mind, "When the going got tough, the Marines were on thier boats heading back home." The idea of a 'lost cause' is also fairly lame. War is bad. Not only from a humane perspective, but also from a business outlook. War disrupts everything. It takes away productivity and resources that could better be utilized for growth. Peace and prosperity go hand in hand, and considering how small the world is becoming, what happens in one part of the world will eventually affect the rest of the globe. It is therefore _not_ a lost cause to help foster peace on a global scale. It just makes good business sense. Trent 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'