Hi list.
I have a buddy that works at the Canadian Peace Support Training Center. This
kind of discussion of Mercenaries as perhaps better peacekeepers
(professionalism, lack of some of the uglier national agendas, etc) has been
around for a few years now. The UN also sees this in some way as a chance to
put forces into a situation where no main force powers wish to volunteer (but
they might be willing to send a check). Plus there are
cost-efficiency arguments.
It's an interesting idea. And those who stand against it like the windbags in
the article Glenn posted are just playing for public
attention and going with the obvious anti-war line. If putting a PMC
into a situation can stabilize a country for a time, prevent a pogrom or
ethnic cleansing, and do so more cost effectively than many of the UN forces
without the threat of the troops having personal agendas (since the UN
controls their pay, they have no divided loyalties), then I think it is time
we looked at that option. There are many places where the US (forex) sticking
its nose in would only inflame the situation, but where some of their money
could perhaps allow a private firm to do the job very effectively. Private
companies won't raise local hackles as easily as foreign national forces
might.
The keys here are supervision, clear rules of operation, clear chains of
command, clear terms of payment, clear standards and legal understandings
governing PMCs. Since many of us hate seeing genocides going on anywhere,
maybe this is one of the ways the world can help stabilize itself. And since
we know armies produce combat capable soldiers, would we rather have them as
bandits, freebooters, or
unregulated guns-for-hire or operating legitemately under particular
clear rules of conduct? Probably the latter, insofar as it can be achieved.
And yes, Jon probably just wanted to use Mercs in his game (a la David Drake),
but the idea has turned out to be fairly timely. (Now, by 2100, who knows? It
may be old news!). But for the time being, it just makes the recently awarded
title of St.Jon Illuminatus seem... more fitting.... in a Bavarian sort of
way.
Tomb.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:40:47 -0500, "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
wrote:
> And yes, Jon probably just wanted to use Mercs in his game (a la David
May I point out that mercenaries used as soldiers throughout history has been
a mixed bag, success wise? Dying for your country is one thing, dying for a
paycheque is something else. I'm far from convinced that mercenaries in UN pay
would work.
[quoted original message omitted]
That makes sense to me. I've long considered putting blue helmets on a couple
of divisions and writing their budget off against our UN obligations (or doing
that accounting for our past peacekeeping contributions, say Korea, at least
for the interest on our late payments). Add in the others on the security
council, even just an airmobile division each, and the UN would have an
effective striking force. Of course, they would be dependant on outside
logistics support.
> K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
> Lord Owen, former UN emissary, in his book "Balkan Odyssey" put forward
From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
> Still another point. Some of the debacles of UN mission have been
Right. How do you pressure the UN to act justly? You can't embargo it, you
can't bomb it, you can't deny it Most Favored Nation, you can't support
freedom fighters who want to overthrow it.
> Any state that is permanently or temporarily a member of the security
Doesn't that last sentence seem a little questionable?
BLUE HELMETS ON A COUPLE OF DIVISIONS AND MAKE THEM PERMENANT UNDER C
AND C PEACEKEEPERS-TO PAY OFF UN BILLS!
LOL-you better count the total number of US divisions available before
jus assigning a couple to fulltime UN duties!
LOL- i think that the vast majority of US voters, as well as US THE
SOLDIERS you are volunteering might needs be consulted here!
not too many soldiers i know are happy about going to UN sponsored crapholes
to be used as scarecrows and walking targets.
better yet, why not allow active duty and qualified reservists of the security
council membership armed forces to volunteer for tours of duty with the full
time UN PEACEKEEPING FORCES?
standardized enlistments, ranks, pay, privilages, housing, medical
/dental care retirement benefits, logistical support and UN chain of
command.
a small UN PEACEKEEPER FORCE (ground forces, airforces, and naval forces)
raised and payed for by the UN for duty as the military arm of the UN security
council would be fine with me.
UN PEACEKEEPING FORCES, due to size restraints would only be deployed where
they were very necessary, not just at the hotspot of the moment as defined by
politicians from various countries WHO NEVER PUT THEIR OWN ASSES ON THE LINE
at the crisis spot!
the only military folks serving under the UN banner would be volunteers (FROM
TOP TO BOTTOM OF THE FORCE), and not volunteers of some national armed forces
who enlisted to serve their own country and have no desire to serve the UN, or
under a UN chain of command.
I'd rather have PMCs do the job, rather than forcing our troops to wear
the blue beanie, or--far worse--giving the UN permanent military forces.
If the UN gets its own army, it *will* expand and it *will* find something to
do, even when it shouldn't.
However, we have those miniatures to account for. So how about let's assume
the UN does have its permanent forces but they are legally restricted in the
number of troops under arms. Then you'd have
ambitious bureaucrats illegally or semi-legally using mercs to carry out
their agenda, and UNBOSS using "intelligence operatives" who are really
grunts, possibnly even fighting between different UN factions (blue hats under
one minister's control on one side, another UN minister's private troops on
another, and UNBOSS squads against both).
Quoting "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>:
> Right. How do you pressure the UN to act justly? You can't embargo
Threaten to stop paying for the nice offices the beaurocrats have? God,
threaten to bomb it, that wouldn't do anything. Threaten the catered lunches
Maybe they don't need soldiers so much as police. And if the
RCMP/Bobbies/(insert favorite police force here) can't handle it maybe
it's something that needs a military as a 'stablizing' force on call
(Mercs).
FWIW and FTR, I don't like the idea of the UN having a military OR a police
force. But then I think the Cement Quarantine Method is the only long term
solution in some cases.
Gracias,
I seem to recall from an earlier study of the UN charter, (say about 20 years
ago I think:o) that the UN was specifically prohibited from having any
integral military forces. The member states had to provide any, and the UN was
basically stuck with what it got.
Randy
Good.
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:03:48 EST ShldWulf@aol.com writes:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
You know, the US Marines manage not to shoot up the US Army too often. They
even manage not to shoot up the US Navy, and the reverse is generally true
too. They even manage not to get shot by the CIA, amazingly.
Give the UN some credit for organization; at least as much as any other
nation's military, for crying out loud...
Sorry, I'm clearing out old emails and this irritated me again...
> laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Shoot! Make them a special unit for the UN. Have them work for The High
United Nations Defense Enforcement Reserves - T.H.U.N.D.E.R.
Or maybe U.N.C.L.E. - United Nation Concealed Law Enforcement.
> At 04:12 5/03/02 -0500, you wrote:
Or N.E.R.V ;)
Cheers
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> You know, the US Marines manage not to shoot up the
I do notice you don't mention the USAF in this list. Which has a record of
lighting up US Army, US Navy, USMC, British Army, and probably others.
> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, John Atkinson wrote:
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
<grin> It was an accidental ommission, but you've got a point!
Welcome back - have fun scaring rattlesnakes in the desert?
Britain lost more men to the USAF in the Gulf War than to the Iraquis! Joke
though, it says more about Iraq's army than the USAF. Beware of everyone
dumping on the poor old Yanks. My father's column was
shot up by Spitfires in Tunisia - the official British History blames
USAF fighters. John
> At 16:10 05/03/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> --- Brian Burger <yh728@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
Dr PJD Lambshead Head, Nematode Research Group Department of Zoology The
Natural History Museum London SW7 5BD, UK.
Tel +44 (0)20 7942 5032
Fax +44 (0)20 7942 5433
[quoted original message omitted]
In message <E83E983C3EC9DD45A40B24C4BA3A60756AE9F7@col1smx01.USE.AD.DLA.MIL>
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
I was expecting Beth to suggest that :-)
Why state the obvious?
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:10:47 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
Stealing Derek's email...
> *I* was expecting Beth to have something like United Nation
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Derek Fulton wrote:
> G'day,
Beth, this is really more information than we needed... and *far* more that
Derek would have let us know, I'm sure...:>
And then to add insult to surgery, you hijack his own email addy to tell us
all about it...
> At 03:46 9/03/02 -0800, Brian wrote:
That's nothing, the real kicker is what the doctor ordered to assist in the
success of the procedure after the fact. Basically he said to "go at it like
rabbits" to bring the sperm count down, there's a perfectly sound reason for
this but Beth's the biology expert so I let her explain (evil,
aren't I?).
Is this too much information?;)
Cheers