U.S. call for greater U.N. peacekeeping role.

EGOSHEA

Interesting article about what the future may hold for - and add to - U.N. peacekeeping missions.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/26/us-un-push-europe-to-make-strong-return-to-peacekeeping/

Manach

Any increase in UN peacekeeping missions is welcome. However, militarily the US might have a different aspect to armed operations: being more aggressive when it comes to winning a war and then perhaps rather inept in the actual peace-time operations. An interesting book on the subject "The Counter-Insurgency Consitution" mentions that the US had tried sort term solution which in Iraq and Afganistan which failed to take into account local sensibilites. This is something which smaller nations, like Holland as per the article, are more sensitive to.

riffmongous

Some interesting stats in that article

• This call from the United States, easily the biggest contributor to the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget at $2.5 billion
  
• The U.N., which has no standing army, now heavily relies on troops from South Asia and Africa, whose countries make up the top 10 contributors. Bangladesh led the way with 9,446 peacekeepers as of the end of February.
  
• The United States had 119, less than any other permanent member of the Security Council except Russia, which had 72.
  
• Two decades ago, European nations contributed more than 40 percent of U.N. peacekeepers, she said in a speech in Brussels. It's less than 7 percent now.
  
• Koops said smaller European states like Ireland, Sweden and Austria are actively showing interest.

Iraq-Afghanistan hangover from the european NATO countries? UN rules seen as too restrictive/vague - Belgian and Dutch peacekeepers were witness to two of the most recent genocides?

Fukuyama

Well, by participating in UN peacekeeping, nations can deploy troops and keep larger standing armies, buy new weapons, gain "overseas" experience and practice their training on the UN's (and by extension, America's) dime.

So basically, the US wants smaller nations in Europe to boost their military capabilities in the face of Russian aggression towards the ex-bloc states asl-of-late.

Well, that's my theory anyways! :pac:

Fukuyama

riffmongous wrote: »

Some interesting stats in that article


Iraq-Afghanistan hangover from the european NATO countries? UN rules seen as too restrictive/vague - Belgian and Dutch peacekeepers were witness to two of the most recent genocides?

Am reading General Sir David Richards book "Taking Command" right now. It's a good read.

Anyways, he mentions that Western peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were hesitant to do much against the RUF in 1999. He found that the main reason wasn't a lack of motivation or moral, rather commanders were too afraid of accidentally overstepping their UN brief. Their ROE was vague and their overall mission purpose even vaguer.

Couple this with the fact that wars nowadays have a massive geo-political aspect with politicians back home often breathing down the necks of mission commanders and how western 'boots on the ground' in some regions will only do more harm than good with the locals thanks to recent misadventures, an increase in EU peacekeeping could be an interesting move.

I think the UN mission style of sending over troops to stabilize and walk around needs to be scrapped. Rather, forces should be used for security and logistic purposes to support an even bigger contingent of economists, lawyers and experts to set up basic facilities and functions of government.

EGOSHEA

Dean0088 wrote: »

Am reading General Sir David Richards book "Taking Command" right now. It's a good read.

Anyways, he mentions that Western peacekeepers in Sierra Leone were hesitant to do much against the RUF in 1999. He found that the main reason wasn't a lack of motivation or moral, rather commanders were too afraid of accidentally overstepping their UN brief. Their ROE was vague and their overall mission purpose even vaguer.

Couple this with the fact that wars nowadays have a massive geo-political aspect with politicians back home often breathing down the necks of mission commanders and how western 'boots on the ground' in some regions will only do more harm than good with the locals thanks to recent misadventures, an increase in EU peacekeeping could be an interesting move.

I think the UN mission style of sending over troops to stabilize and walk around needs to be scrapped. Rather, forces should be used for security and logistic purposes to support an even bigger contingent of economists, lawyers and experts to set up basic facilities and functions of government.

Interesting closing thoughts there. I like the idea of military support being used more in conjunction with the sort of large-scale civilian efforts to reestablish the administrative, healthcare, educational, and infrastructural changes that may lessen the chance of endless, insurgency-type situations we've seen over the past decade or so. Groups like ISIS prey on the (somewhat understandable) anger of those left in stricken scenarios - make life better and create good governance; then their likes will have no/far lesser a place in those regions. Just my two cents.