[OT]UN operations

[quoted original message omitted]

> Not as far as I'm informed. The Osprey Elite on 'UN Forces 1948-1994

""UN", I assume

> operations in that period, including the Korean War and the Gulf War.

> The only ones where the UN (at the urging of over-wary member

Unquestionably the US has screwed up some missions. And 180 years is
time enough for a lot of changes--I doubt people would argue that the
US Army in 1944 changed a lot from that of 1969, and again by 1991, not just
in terms of equipment but also in morale and leadership. Hopefully the UN will
improve, although I suspect it will take a major disaster to cause that to
happen.

And of course, with the current set up, you could get some really top
notch troops, or you could get something worthless--something for
everyone.

Per Carlos Laurenco, 3/21/01:

"Not that I want to really get into this but having spent extensive time (up
to six months at a clip) working with and for the UN I've seen time and again
that the majority or UN forces (and administration) are absolutely WORTHLESS
in just about any type of confrontation or sticky situation or any situation
that requires firm response or backbone. Outside of a few isolated pockets you
are looking at reliable partners in such situations from my experience being:

Canadian forces (particularly the RCMP..they get a red chit) Other western
European UN forces A smattering of odd little countries

Notably horrid, unreliable, or otherwise "we'll leave you in the lurch at the
first sign of trouble" countries: (give all these guys a green "3" chit):

Anyone units from or near the Indian subcontinent, Middle East or African
Nations

I have no experience working with the Aussies or Kiwis but I've no doubt they
are in the first column from what other colleagues of mine have told me. Also
there have been notable exceptions of occasional individuals good or bad from
all sides.

I know one thing for sure, whenever there was any threat of violence and
danger in any UN operations I worked in, everyone always came to us. Hopefully
this doesn't offend anyone, it's not meant too though I can see

Laserlight schrieb:
> >

Oops, sorry, yes.
> > The only ones where the UN (at the urging of over-wary

Note, though, that this is not just typical of the UN, you can have
that in any multi-national operation, for example the recent US
(et.al.) Special Forces and the Northern Alliance warriors. Or look at a lot
of WWII actions.

> Per Carlos Laurenco, 3/21/01:
...
> Outside of a few isolated pockets you are looking at reliable

Absolutely no problem with those statements. Pretty much what I gather from
the media.

Still, they are in a different class from John L's generalized "they are not
allowed to have ammo, as they might offend the locals who have genocides to
complete."

Greetings

> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> Still, they are in a different class from John L's

> Still, they are in a different class from John L's generalized "they

<grin> Not going to get into a "merits of the UN" discussion.

**In My Universe**....
the UN is Big Brother from 1984, but even though they're evil, they're not
necessarily incompetent. IMU, what you've got is: UNBOSS (UN Bureau of Secret
Services) uses subversion, assassination,
disinformation--about the same as the KGB's reputation during the Cold
War, with all the latest high tech gear. Rumored to use cloned, gengineered,
and/or cyborg agents.  Having them on your trail is unhealthy.
UN Solar Navy is usually technically skilled but divided by politics. UN Armed
Forces include Marines and Army. Marines are skilled professionals based on
the Legion Etrangere but have no chance of advancement into political power.
The Army has better career prospects but quality of the troops is quite
erratic; the officers are sometimes bribed (or ordered by the political
leadership) to ignore what the locals are doing; and weapons and ammo tend
unaccountably to end up in the hands of the locals. Why set it up this way?
More room for conflict. The Marines can wipe the floor with most opponents,
but there aren't enough of them. If the
Army were first rate, they could clamp down on any fighting--since
that would make for some dull operations, they can't be competent. Having an
UNBOSS enhanced agent slug it out with an Alarishi IBIS special ops cyborg
gives an opportunity for all the Matrix special effects.   Etc etc.
Again, IMU, and YMMV.

Hmm, that sounds liek UNATCO from Deus Ex...

All you need now is a disenfranchised, nano-augmented hero and you have
yourselves a computer game :-D

> **In My Universe**....

> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> Still, they are in a different class from John L's

From: ~ On Behalf Of John Leary
Sent: 23 July 2002 18:19
Subject: Re: [OT]UN operations

> I think that it was bosnia where a UN force (don't

At Srebrenica the Dutch peacekeepers garrisoning the enclave gave up their
position to Bosnian Serbs who subsequently massacred the male population of
what had become the last muslim refuge in eastern Bosnia.

This isn't necessarily a poor reflection on the Dutch soldiers; the Bosnians
had been gradually encroaching on the position, cutting supplies and refusing
to allow replacements in. Even at the end, massive air support was
(theoretically) available and would have crushed the Serbian advance. What was
lacking was the political will to accept casualties (one Dutch peacekeeper had
already been killed by irate muslim defenders after the Serbs had taken a UN
OP) defending the "safe haven".

- from Sunday (London) Times, several weeks ago.

> I believe it was Belgans who were withdrawn

Whatever went wrong in Rwanda is a little murkier; the Belgians were the local
colonial power and
should know that the entire Tutsi / Hutu feud
blows up every few generations. As far as I can tell, it was overdue this
time. At the start of the unrest, ten Belgian soldiers from the UN "Assistance
Mission" guarding the Prime Minister
were killed; in response the rest of the 2500-
strong mission were pulled out, giving the Interhamwe a clear field.

> It is the command structure of the UN forces

Very true, though the problem includes contributor governments who decline to
accept unforseen risks and expenses. In both cases, locals had flocked to UN
positions for protection it couldn't provide.

Now to place this in an [FH] context, imagine a United Nations that has its
own sovereign territories in the Inner Colonies, can build ships to equal
anything else in human space and has a "native" population in excess of the
Terrestrial UN member nations (I'm excluding all of the other canon powers
here). This would be a very different entity.

-- ===============================================