UN troops unable to return fire

[Formaldehyde]

It sounds as though it were an accident, at best.

I wouldn't call it an accident.

Mistake due to extreme incompetence? Perhaps.

Intentional? Perhaps. Israel had been complaining vociferiously about their presence in Lebanon.

It also defies logic that they had apparently been shelled repeatedly and had not contacted the Israelis about it.

 

[MobBoss]

The first thing that comes to mind is UN peacekeepers being fired upon in Lebanon by Israeli warplanes.

Then they should stop letting the hezzies use their bunkers and ambulances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ONKb9J2YeU

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/07/26/hezbollah-and-the-un/

is a picture of a U.N. outpost on that border. The U.N. flag and the Hezbollah flag fly side by side. Observers told me the U.N. and Hezbollah personnel share water and telephones, and that the U.N. presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.”

Or at least it did for a small amount of time.....hehe.


I mean really, Cheesy....was this what this was all about? Seriously?





@Form. Of course it wasnt an accident. If you share positions with the enemy, guess what....you might have some fire coming your way. Duh.

 

[7ronin]

U.N. peacekeeping has largely become a business for assorted third world countries. Their training is often iffy and they certainly don't match the professionalism of peace keepers from the well developed countries.

You can't stay in business if your "product" goes off and gets itself killed. Some peacekeeper nations are perfectly happy with restrictive rules of engagment. Some even insist on it.

 

[Verbose]

It's fairly common knowledge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x150042

That incident involved UN observers. Observer missions, well, observe, and neither maintain or enforce peace, and thus tend to be unarmed.

But a big bobo to the guys reporting this not knowing the difference.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

What's the point of sending an international force to maintain peace that can't return fire when fired upon and isn't allowed to use their weapons ( and sometimes even to carry them)? What are they expected to accomplish?

They are symbolic of the impotence of the UN.

 

[Verbose]

What's the point of sending an international force to maintain peace that can't return fire when fired upon and isn't allowed to use their weapons ( and sometimes even to carry them)? What are they expected to accomplish?

On occasion the problems seems partly semantical, as reporters and the public struggle mightily to differentiate UN observers, peacekeeping and peace enforcing mandates.

On occasion some mandates have of course for political reasons been vague to the point of being useless. That tends to happen when some major party involved for political reasons doesn't want anything too specific. Then it tends to be a matter of weighing up the options of doing nothing or doing something on a crap mandate, because someone with enough clout will stop it otherwise. That's politics, the art of the possible. A half-assed UN mission today might often be preferable to a perfect UN mission tomorrow, or none at all, to paraphrase an old military saying.

Even then of course it's up to the nations putting up the troops to decide whether to go along or withhold them until they get a mandate that looks reasonable. To an extent it really is a matter of the various countries putting up the troops to make a number of political and military calls — to the extent that they are capable of doing so themselves. Several of the more spectacular failures have tended to be about contributing nations not having the foresight to equip and prepare properly, or not being willing to pay the price in blood when the chips were down, not having realized when going in how hairy things might get.

 

[caketastydelish]

Nothing, they're expected to boost UN political prestige and to silence people who say that UN is too passive. Oh, and the money paid to the countries providing the peacekeepers are a form of foreign aid - have you ever wondered why most peacekeeping troops come from countries like Pakistan or Nigeria?

Which is why I think that UN should resign on its peacekeeping role - it is almost never capable of giving its troops a robust enough mandate. One look at the totally different experience with UNPROFOR and SFOR explains why robust mandate is necessary to actually accomlish something.

and by "countries like Pakistan or Nigeria" I'm guessing you really mean "any non-western country". It really pisses me off when Islamic countries try to make "the west" and "The U.N." interchangable terms. If almost all the actions of the U.N. are enforced by western countries we'd only be proving them right. Its only a true international community if ALL countries in it actively participate, not just the western ones.

The only problem I have with the U.N. though, is how they fail to get anything done, such as not returning fire.

 

[Kerozine]

The only problem I have with the U.N. though, is how they fail to get anything done, such as not returning fire.

You can't really blame them..

[Some comment about the UN being the sum of its parts, and how certain parts are not contributing to the overall success of sanctioned resolutions]

 

[Verbose]

The only problem I have with the U.N. though, is how they fail to get anything done, such as not returning fire.

You are aware that there are negotiations? A number of nations won't commit troops unless there is a decent mandate. Others are less picky. Some specifically don't want to run the risk of their troops ending up in firefights. Others won't commit unless they can do so with enough gear and firepower to win a fight.

The blanket statement that UN troops can't return fire is daft anyway. It only ensures the impossibility of discussing it. The OP poster needs to get specific about exactly what he's referring to so we can discuss what happened.

 

[REDY]

The main problem with UN is that people hate neutrals.

 

[Verbose]

The main problem with UN is that people hate neutrals.

To me it seems they hate politics and diplomacy.

 

[Dragonlord]

Hardly worth discussing ....

Send troops with a robust mandate, allowed to intervene to defend civilians where necessary, or don't send them at all!
Sending forces without a robust mandate only makes the UN a laughingstock, like in Yugoslavia.

 

[Arwon]

The UN has had a few failures in calibrating the amount of force needed in its authorisations of force in peacekeeping in the past, but remember that every situation is different and they've only really been doing Chapter VII peacekeeping with any frequency for a decade and a half (since the end of the Cold War and redefinition of its role).

Rwanda was obviously the worst example of inadequately strong rules of engagement where A couldn't shoot B to protect C... only to protect themselves.

Don't forget though, that Somalia saw UN forces using too much force, essentially taking sides with one warlord against another when their mission was famine relief. This was partially a consequence of over-reaction to the Rwanda debacle. It's interesting to note that the UN deployment led by France in Lebanon has comparatively robust rules of engagement for protecting third parties, which shows that they're learning to think this stuff through better. Institutions take time to change and learn, especially complicated international ones which depend on the will of constituent states to function.

 

[RedRalph]

I'll say this for them: they must be very well disicplined if they are able to sit there and get shot because there's a piece of paper somewhere that says they cant defend themselves

 

[Flying Pig]

Paper? Ah yes, sir, there was something now you mention it sir, I gave it to Sergeant-Major Wilkins... what, he's on leave sir? Oh, in that case nobody would have heard it - what a shame eh sir?

 

[Kerozine]

From the rifle, I'd say that was one of ours as well...

You did military service [for the UN] in Africa?

 

[Flying Pig]

Not in Africa, but that's an L85, which is the standard British IW. The only other people using it are Jamaica and Nepal. I work with a very similar rifle, called the L98

 

[Patroklos]

In many situations their presence would be enough to discourage combat. When it's not, then yes they should be allowed to shoot back.

In order for you to discourage via presence, the other side has to know with certainty that if they screw with you they will get the tar beat out of them. The good thing about this is you only have to do it once. Once people know what you are capable of they won't require furhter proof for quite a while.

The French do this when not attached to UN units, which is why French units in Africa rarely get screwed with.

 

[Gooblah]

In order for you to discourage via presence, the other side has to know with certainty that if they screw with you they will get the tar beat out of them. The good thing about this is you only have to do it once. Once people know what you are capable of they won't require furhter proof for quite a while.

The French do this when not attached to UN units, which is why French units in Africa rarely get screwed with.

The French-led UN effort in Lebanon has been relatively effective IMO.

 

[Flying Pig]

The French are pretty good, I like them. They understand my sort of leadership (I learned a lot of it when I was young from an English officer of the Legion Etrangere, for that matter)