NA back to their old ways of raping, excecuting and pillaging

[Seneca]

Re: NA back to their old ways of raping, excecuting and pillaging

Were they trying out some new ways of raping, executing and pillaging, then?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
KH - the only trouble with that is the UN doesn't want to go (or stay) anyplace where there's real fighting. They like to kid themselves that if you take outdated equipment, paint it white with UN logos on it, ridding yourselves of heavy weapons, you can tell warring local groups what to do, and they'll do it out of sheer respect and admiration for the UN Charter.

I don't want to see a UN occupation force at all unless they've seriously rethought their abysmal approach to such missions.

On the humanitarian side of things, fine, but I think most of the military aspects should be worked out among the six plus two group, with additional participation by India (as the main regional power not in the six plus two) and Turkey (as a reliable US lackey Islamic source of occupation troops who will definitely be the baddest mother****ers in the valley*)


* from the grunt's version of the 23rd Psalm

The point of a peacekeeping force is not that they can impose their will on all sides through pure force; it's that they provide a nice "cushion" to maintain the balance of power. They're a moderator, not an arbitrator.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GP
The Turks are defintely bad ass soldiers. My old man worked with them in the Korean war and as an advisor in the early 60's...

When I was one or two, my Dad used to work in Turkey and in the region where there were a lot of Kurds. Soliders usually were everywhere. He worked with Petroleum. They also were very well equipped.

Now they are going to kick some Taliban ass in Afghanistan.

[Drake Tungsten]

I've talked with my aunt's dad (don't know what the proper term for that is) and he has some crazy stories about Korea and Turk soldiers. He was put in a mixed unit with the Turks after his unit was wiped out when the Chinese crossed the Yalu. All the Turks carried big ass machetes with them and this made him curious, so he asked one of the Turks if he could look at their machete. The Turk told him no; the machete could only come out if it was going to be used. To make a long story short, the Chinese attacked that night and he finally got to see the machetes in action. So, I second your description of the Turks as bad asses.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The point of a peacekeeping force is not that they can impose their will on all sides through pure force; it's that they provide a nice "cushion" to maintain the balance of power. They're a moderator, not an arbitrator.

Yeah...we've all heard that, Kitty. The point is, is that sufficient in this case? See examples from Bosnia for implications of inadequate UN forces.

Gen Clark's book is a good read...

[KrazyHorse]

There was no wish for anything but fighting it out there. Bosnia was for crap from the get-go. Peacekeeping obviously can't solve all the world's ills, but it can sure go a long way toward preventing a "Whoops! We started another war by mistake". See Canuck presence on Cyprus or between Egyptians&Israelis for details.

[TCO]

So is Afghanistan more like the Sainai or like Bosnia?

FYI: there were peace accords before the UN peacekeepers went in.

Would this end up with a bunch of captured Danish (Dutch? can't remember) peace-keepers and a big fiasco like Bosnia. Or just be a sit on the border and check little issues thing like the Sinai? I don't know. But obviously the UN is capable of both...

[Giancarlo]

Or a bigger fiasco like Somalia... that is what I am hoping that it won't become.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd say it's more like Cyprus than either of those. While there are ethnic tensions, they hopefully aren't of the "we want total control or death" variety. A decentralized government would be a fairly stable, IMHO. Keep central authority out of the villages and hand it over to regional leaders, then make sure you guard the pseudo-borders between ethnic regions fairly well.

[KrazyHorse]

The sad thing is that somalia was "winnable". There was a crazed over-reaction by the world community after the death of ~20 Pakistani peacekeepers, and the pop started to really get pissed off at the manhunt which ensued.

[Ted Striker]

I will also add to the stories of Turks being badasses.

A little known story of Turkish commandoes in WW2. Yes, I said that right, WW2.

Turks would sneak into occupying German barracks and strangle sleeping German soldiers with piano wire. But they would just kill one of the soldiers, and leave the rest alone, let them sleep through the night.

Well you can imagine the terror of those soldiers when they awoke the next morning. Sure as hell makes it hard to get a good night's rest.

Talk about pshychological warfare.

Puts shivers down my spine.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd say it's more like Cyprus than either of those. While there are ethnic tensions, they hopefully aren't of the "we want total control or death" variety. A decentralized government would be a fairly stable, IMHO. Keep central authority out of the villages and hand it over to regional leaders, then make sure you guard the pseudo-borders between ethnic regions fairly well.

Factional fighting within ethnic groups, as well as ethnic competition and unequal distribution of resources, are two major problems. Cypress also doesn't have a centuries long history of piracy and brigandage, whereas Afghani tribes thrived off of either protecting or "appropriating" the caravan trade. Blood feuds between families and clans are also traditional to many groups there.

There is a huge fundamental distrust of Pakistan by the non-Pashtun Afghans, due to the fact that most of what is now western Pakistan was once part of the Kingdom of Afghanistan, which then had seaport access. The Afghans have not only the unenviable situation of being resource poor, they are landlocked, with their only access to international trade being through less than ideal "partners" (Iran or Pakistan), or the old fashioned way of the old smuggler's routes.

There are weapons out the wazoo, grinding poverty, no real opportunities, etc. etc. - so many structural defects, that it's hard to even call it a real country anymore. The two money making commodities are opium (not likely to have external government support for allowing that biz) and gemstones, particularly lapis and opals. Both of those business lines are subject to the normal black marketing, brigandage, etc., that really don't do much for the notion of stability.

Decentralized government really gets back to the rule of village headmen and tribal elders, and that has had a long history of civil war. Central authority is precisely what is needed to keep the local badasses in check, and to oversee fundamental improvements in the standard of living and basic institutions.

Overall, putting Afghanistan into some semblance of order is several orders of magnitude beyond anything UN peacekeeping forces have managed even semi-successfully.