Should the UN have its own military?

[Tingkai]

An interesting question came up on another thread, and I think it deserves it own thread.

The commander of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda, Major General Romeo Dallaire, in 1994 says the genocide could have been prevented if he had 5,000 troops.

An international panel of senior military leaders looked at the situation in 1997 and concluded:
"The panel members generally agreed that General Dallaire was right--a force of 5,000 peacekeepers could have interrupted the violence."
"This force, however, would have required significantly different and enhanced capabilities than Dallaire's original peace-keeping contingent--one with more firepower and mobility. "

http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/isd/files/rwanda.htm

The UN doesn't have this type of military force.

So should the UN have a standing military force that can respond quickly to emergency, a military organization that is capable of using force to stop genocides and wars?

EDIT: by the way, the other thread discussion got out of hand and Ming stepped in. I'll try to keep this thread civilized and I hope others will.

[GeneralTacticus]

Possibly. You would have to solve the problems of who would command it, who would choose who commanded it, when it would be used, and where it would be based.

[MichaeltheGreat]

No.

The problem is not that the UN member nations don't have the necessary forces available - look at Somalia and UNISOM I, UNITAF and UNISOM II for instance.

The problem is that if you tell UN bureaucrats you want MC-130 Combat Talon and AC-130 Spectre gunships, a battery of four-deuce mortar carriers, a squadron of AH-64 Apache gunships, and a fully mechanized brigade with attached armor to support your light infantry peacekeepers, the UN bureacrats will **** their pants and turn you down flat.

The forces are available from the member nations, but the chicken chokers who authorize the number and composition of forces won't allow the kind of heavy support that is necessary, and they won't allow Rules of Engagement that give their field commanders discretion to react to events in their best judgment consistent with the stated goals of the operation.

[Kaak]

plus, who would fight for the UN? people who fight in the military fight for their country. The UN is a little abstract for that

[Ned]

I say no. The size of the UN force would have to vary with the size of the conflict, and conflicts have a way of escalating. To be truly effective, the UN force would have to be as capable as the US military. This is clearly not possible on a “standing� basis.

I think the UN has a very bad practice of not having contingency plans in its peacekeeping operations. When shooting starts and force is needed, the Peacekeeper has to go back to the SC and get both troops and authorization, etc. He may get neither because the guys with the firepower, the permanent members, may not want to get involved in a shooting war for one reason or another.

I was just reading a little about the Korean War. It appears that General MacArthur was acting without orders on a continuous basis early on because of the emergency. He resupplied the Koreans, used airpower and bombed NK airfields North of the 38th parallel – all prior to receiving authorization from Washington. Because he acted, the situation was saved, but barely.

We need guys like MacArthur to command peacekeeping missions. Such a commander would have only a small portion of his force in the peacekeeping operation. However, he would have forces available and the authority to use them should the need arise.

[Heresson]

Should the UN have its own military?

Yes! And it should crush Israel with it!

[GeneralTacticus]

I was just reading a little about the Korean War. It appears that General MacArthur was acting without orders on a continuous basis early on because of the emergency. He resupplied the Koreans, used airpower and bombed NK airfields North of the 38th parallel – all prior to receiving authorization from Washington. Because he acted, the situation was saved, but barely.

We need guys like MacArthur to command peacekeeping missions. Such a commander would have only a small portion of his force in the peacekeeping operation. However, he would have forces available and the authority to use them should the need arise.

Actually MacArthur is the perfect example of who NOT to have on a peace-keeping mission. Because of him, and him almost alone, the war dragged on for another two years, gaining neither side anything and resulting in millions more casualties and the desolation of the Korean peninsular, as well as destroying any possibility of freindly relations between the US and the PRC.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Kaak
plus, who would fight for the UN?

I would...

[Kaak]

leave it to the norwegian

[Eli]

Re: Should the UN have its own military?

Originally posted by Heresson
Yes! And it should crush Israel with it!

I never thought you're that eager to finish the job your grandparents started.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Kaak
plus, who would fight for the UN? people who fight in the military fight for their country. The UN is a little abstract for that

Nonsense. Members of the US military may fight for their country, but that's not what many of them signed up to do; they signed up because the military offered them a variety of advantages, like a paycheck, job training, and money for higher education. (Hell, during the Gulf War American soldiers were actually heard to complain that, "this is not what I joined the army for"!) There's no reason (except the obvious financial one) the UN couldn't set up a volunteer military that worked the same way an the US's. As for running it, I think making its top brass responsible to the security council, rather than the UN as a whole, would go a long way toward clearing bureaucratic clutter.

[KrazyHorse]

If it could accomplish the sort of thing that was possible in Rwanda, I would be as likely or more to join it than my own country's military.

[David Floyd]

I'm not gonna risk my life just to prevent some massacre in Bum**** Africa, and I won't ask anyone else to, either.

[KrazyHorse]

That's because you're an *******.

I guess you wouldn't risk your life to save a drowning man either, now would you.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not gonna risk my life just to prevent some massacre in Bum**** Africa, and I won't ask anyone else to, either.

why don't you buy a hut in alaska miles from anybody and then nobody can inpinge on your rights