Sea Skimmer wrote:
Because that's how much a worthwhile force which will be able to overmatch the opposition and not get bogged down with a huge causality count will cost.
Except what is needed is a light infantry force that can rapidly project security, not fight a war. While it is certainly true that the failure of UN operations is mainly due to the lack of security, the fact remains that the deteroiating security situation is mostly due to the lack of a stabilising force in the first place.
The force that deployed in East Timor for Interfaet is a perfect example. Follow up forces were mainly light infantry, engineers, medics and logistic forces meant to stabilise the situation for humanitarian work.The real fighting has already been accomplished by Australian forces. What was needed was a stabilising force that could stabilise the situation further, to project a presence so as to say as opposed to a confrontation against hostile miltias.
An expedition, organised around an infantry battalion, with attached signals, engineers, medical and an artillery company is ample to startup UN peacekeeping operations, while waiting for follow up troops from member nations.
Then you've got a useless and unnecessary force then that cannot enforce anything, the Blue hated peacekeeper units already handle watching boarders when both sides want to avoid fighting. And commiting a light UN force when one side is threating action would be irresponsible.
Except I'm not talking about committing UN forces to stop fighting. Understand that we're not talking about peace enforcing, I'm talking about peacekeeping. Both sides are already supposed to have stopped fighting. However, as East Timor demonstrate, "rogue" elements, as well as provactive actions by either side could steadily deteoriate the security situation further.
Furthermore, I honestly doubt that the slaughter in Rwanda could not have been stopped by a light infantry force. Afterall, an army armed with nothing more than WWII rifles and knives/axes/machetes drove out the genocide.
Your talking about something different then what was proposed, which was a force that could actually deal with conflicts. Your concept is a glorified version of the existing UN Blue capped peacekeepers.
1. I initially proposed this in the thread.
2. Glorified version or not, the fact remains that Blue capped peacekeepers are ineffective at their chosen role now and often arrive too late anyway. What is needed now, is blue capped peacekeepers who can arrive on site immediately, and is already trained and equipped to handle possible hostile situations before the situation deteoriates to require a 2nd Armoured Division in the field to calm things down.
Kosvo went to NATO because the UN wasn't doing anything, a UN force would have drawn on the member states, of which every NATO country is one so there's no difference in time, its the same guys under slightly different banners. However Kosvo is a horrible example since it was clear even at the time that the war was on very dubious grounds and no one should have intervened.
Wrong. Kosovo went to NATO because NATO was a military alliance and could draw upon NATO troops in Germany and other bases. Any UN peacekeeping force would had taken weeks, if not months to have been authorised and deployed. Interfaet followed up on Australia deployment for a reason. No other nation could contribute forces to assist Australia initial operation to stabilise Dili, much less execute Australia first objective, evacuate Westerners.
Hell, if even basic auditing and accounting procedures is used, funds for an infantry regiment should be easily raised.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
