#liberal as ever
8 messages in this thread
=>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'
Trent, take another look. What I said, AND WHAT YOU QUOTED, is "you have to
have some chance of success." Now, how you managed to interpret that as
meaning that I think we need "a sure fire chance of winning" before we can do
anything completely mystifies me. If you really don't see any difference, I
suggest you stay as far away from Las Vegas as possible. <G>
In any event, if you look at UN peace-keeping forces, you will find they
generally are troops from Pakistan, Fiji, and similar minor powers. I doubt
that hostile powers ANYWHERE are very intimidated by the thought of
"introducing another opponent."
-Karl
Karl,
What do you mean 'minor powers'? I suggest that you look at the makeup of
UNPROFOR in Bosnia. The three main participants since UNPROFOR were originally
inserted have been Canada, Britain and France. You will also find that these
three nations provide a little better than 75% of the UN forces for those
missions that are ongoing worldwide. Do not know about you, but Britain and
France are _definitely not_ 'minor powers' (will keep Canada out of this for
the moment as I am biased <g>). UNPROFOR has also had troops from Ukraine,
Russia and Poland as well as troops from some of those nations that you
mentioned (Fiji though only contributes on average 5 personell per year, and
all for administration). While the former Warsaw Bloc contribution to UN
missions is new, the troops that they provided were definitely _not_ second
line (and considering that the US has spent the last 30+ years building up it's
forces to defend against the Warsaw Bloc), I find your comment confusing.
Sorry about the misquote. As every mission has a chance to succeed, however
small, I just read your comment to mean that the chance to succeed had to be
paramount in the decision to commit troops. Will try to read better in the
future <g>.
Trent
'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'
UNPROFOR is a special case. In every other case where US troops are involved
(the only cases I'm usually interested in) I have NEVER seen UN troops from any
larger power than Italy, and them only once.
Definition of a minor power: One that needs to yell for help to get OUT of
situations that they got into by themselves.
P.S. Any of the Warsaw Pact powers, by itself, is a minor power. (Except for
one, of course <G>)
-Karl
You need to look around a little more then. The three countries who
contribute the most have been France, Britain and Canada. The US have
contributed some forces over the years, but soon pulled out due to public
pressure (the latest being Somalia – Lebanon was a little rough tho).
With your definition tho, the US becomes a minor power. There have been very
limited cases where the US has not went the distance. The successes that they
can point to (Panama, Grenada, etc) were no match. For Iraq, a coalition was
needed. This is not to take away from US successes, it just shows that the US
has become cautious in the application of thier forces.
Trent
'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'
That may well be, but to MY knowledge they haven't been in the same places, at
the same time as we have. However, the examples you cite are flawed. Somalia
was not, originally, a UN "peace-keeping" operation, but a unilateral US
humanitarian one. AFTER we got there, the UN got involved, once they thought
it was safe to stick us with the responsibility (and cost). The expulsion of
Iraq from Kuwait was likewise not a UN operation, although for political
reasons a UN mandate was obtained for the action. A coalition was not "needed"
for military reasons, but for political ones. (Not to take anything at all away
from the help we received from our allies, especially the British, but they
weren't "needed".) That's not to say that we could do it easily by ourselves
NOW, but we certainly could THEN.
Frankly, I think the definitive statement on who's a minor power or not was
given in Bosnia. A minor power is one who's Peace-Keeping forces can be taken
hostage by one of the warring powers without fear of retaliation. Which was
exactly my point.
-Karl
>> The idea behind peacekeeping was to interpose troops between two warring
parties…
Not at all. The idea was to interpose troops between two parties not at war.
Neither in Cyprus nor the Gaza strip was there an active war at the time that
UN peacekeeping forces were put in place. And in the case of Gaza, the
peacekeeping forces moved out when one of the parties said, "We're gonna have a
real war now; move out of the way".
The UN's involvement in Korea was NOT a peacekeeping action.
Relatively contemporary events such as Croatia and Somalia have some
participants wanting to redefine "peacekeeping" in such a way that it includes
active combat. But I doubt that the term will in fact change; journalists are
avoiding the word in describing current actions.
–Jim
The two parties involved on Cyprus were indeed at war. In fact, the Turks had
made significant gains just prior to the first UN mission coming ashore.This
was at the request of the two combatants (tho the Turks had to be convinced
rather forcefully). Indeed there were troops that were posted on the Gaza
Strip and that they were also pulled out just prior to the conflicts there, but
the troops posted on the Golan Heights were not (Jim, I'm sure you remember
Trudeau's speech about this). The actions in Korea were indeed not a
peacekeeping action. They could not be as the concept of UN peacekeeping had
not been born yet. It was not till the late 60's that member nations other
than the US went in under the UN banner.
Trent
'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'