I never really create my figures with any particular background in mind, and
thus came up with the idea of having a UN force for an
upcoming SG2 game-- I just throw all my figures together to make an
army composed of different nationalities.
My question, then, is "How does a UN force operate?" Do local forces conform
to any UN organization, or does the UN force organization revolve around the
local forces supplied? To what extent is the UN able to dictate what forces
are necessary (such as air war vs. ground war, or requiring more tanks,
etc...?), or do they pretty much take what is supplied and work with that? To
what extent will given orders
> On Tue, 20 March 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> My question, then, is "How does a UN force operate?"
All my books on UN peacekeeping forces are packed away.
My understanding is that the organizations maintain their structure and
composition based on the nation they are pulled from. So, Canadian
peacekeepers follow the standard Canadian TO&E. This makes a certain amount of
sense, as it's simpler to send whole units (at what level, I'm not sure, but I
think it's at the regimental level) to a war zone than to send bits and
pieces.
> To what extent is the UN
There must be a certain amount of negotiation, but typically for peacekeeping
it's almost entirely ground forces and logistic support for the ground forces.
There isn't a lot of air support, other than transport. I think it's up to the
forces involved as to what is sent.
I know when the US forces were in Somalia they had helicopter support, but I
think that was based on standard US Army organization. Canada has sent Special
Forces units into war zones, as has the US. A lot depends on the mission and
the area. Typically it's the army, though, that shoulders the burden.
> To what extent will given orders
Well, now that's a really good question. Typically units are deployed in their
own nationality groups, but upper echelons can belong to another nation. For
instance, in Rwanda a number of Belgian peacekeepers were slaughtered by local
forces. The commander in chief in Rwanda was a Canadian.
It would depend, I think, on the quality of the troops. Professional troops,
like the Canadians, would listen to whomever was in charge. US troops tend to
be the "big boy" in the area, and as such tend to be able to say, "Hey, I'm
here in Somalia. I'm in charge." In this case, it's not much of a problem.
Where you get problems are with less professional armies. I remember hearing
of an incident where peacekeepers of a nation I won't mention did not obey
orders from Canadians in charge. About the worst that could happen to them is
getting shipped out of the area, as punishment is meted out by nation that
supplied the forces. Again, Canadians have been pretty professional about it.
There was an incident in Somalia that was covered up, where by a local was
beaten to death after being found inside the compound of the Canadian airborne
regiment. When it finally came to light the entire regiment was disbanded and
the offenders were imprisoned.
So, you're pretty much able to do anything you want. Maybe you might want a
reaction test involved, somewhere, when one nationality in your UN force is
activated to represent whether or not they take orders from another
nationality.
Howdy,
> agoodall@canada.com wrote:
Yup. Nations tend to operate as discrete units, or, with prior arrangement, in
composite units with distinct subunits e.g. if
memory serves me right, there's a Dutch/Canadian battalion
currently doing Peacekeeping duty in the Horn of Africa. However, even then,
the Canadians form a company or two, the Dutch for a
company or two i.e. the sub-units stay intact.
With the current UN, the Security Council will dispatch a Peacekeeping force
of certain size. The UN Secretariat has to negotiate with countries that want
to participate in the mission as to what forces will be sent, what support
will be available, where they'll go, etc.
> > To what extent is the UN
ground
> > war, or requiring more tanks, etc...?), or do they pretty much take
[Allan makes good points]
It's also important to note the difference between peacekeeping and
peacemaking operations. Peacekeeping operations tend to be run under the
auspicies of Chapter VI, while missions such as Korea are run under Chapter
VII. Peacekeeping operations tend to be (as Allan pointed out)
short to long term low intensity/patrol situations, heavily dependent
on Army troops. While 'heavy units' (armour, aviation, etc) can get involved,
peacekeeping usually consists of what the US would call 'light' infantry,
patrolling a zone, trying to keep two sides from killing each other while aid
agencies try to get some meaningful work done.
If you're operating under Chapter VII, all bets are off. Korea and Kuwait are
the big two Chapter VII operations that stick in my mind. Essentially, under
Chapter VII, you're fighting a sanctioned war, the modern equivalent of a Holy
Crusade.
> > To what extent will given orders
[Allan makes good points as well]
Usually, however, most UN forces co-operate, or, at the very
least, they structure the operation to minimize friction e.g. each nationality
gets their own area to patrol, reporting to the
person in charge of the peacekeeping mission and his/her staff.
(I don't think there's ever been a female head of a mission, but that's only a
matter of time.) There have been incidents, but they're in the minority.
(There's always friction, but they usually get the job done. Of course, there
are always exceptions, when things get horribly messed up e.g. Somalia and
Rwanda.)
Thus, for SG2, if you want to simulate a UN peackeeping situation, your troops
will probably all be the same nationality, depending on
unit size and situation. (You could get around this though --
one nations troops could be sent in to retrieve another nation's troops in a
tight spot.) The big thing to make things interesting would
be the really tight ROEs (not allowed to shoot back until getting permission
from HQ, even when taking fire) and the weapon imbalances (peacekeeping forces
traditionally are very lightly armed, though the Yugoslavian missions are
changing that view.)
JGH
> --- agoodall@canada.com wrote:
> My understanding is that the organizations maintain
That's how it works in NATO operations like Kosovo. The different nations send
whatever their contribution
is (US--reinforced brigades, other nations vary) and
they have responsibility for different sectors. There's an overall joint
command structure. For instance, in Kosovo there's an Italian general in
charge of the whole KFOR. Then it's broken into 4
Multi-National Brigades. In MNB-South, there's a US
brigadier general in command. Under him are the various national contingents
(the US brigade, and the other nationalities working that sector). Each
national contingent (or part of a national contingent if it's a large one like
the US) has responsibility for a certain sector.
> I know when the US forces were in Somalia they had
In Kosovo, my commander was extremely fond of the Apaches. Someone wants to
get frisky? A pair of Apaches hovering settles people down quick.
I've heard rumours that the commanding officer in some hot spots has
refused to accept / assign duties to the units sent by some nations
because they were underequipped or lacked sufficient logistics. I was left
with the impression that some poor nations try sending under equipped