PDA

View Full Version : United Nations Peacekeeping Forces - Effective, or not?



Jebus
30th September 2004, 08:41 AM
This is something I've been interested in, and don't know much about. Are UN sanctioned peacekeeping forces effective for their assigned task?

I know that in Kosovo, a force of some 100 thousand total troops was stationed to protect the peace, and stop the ethnic violence - I believe the UN force was called KFOR (Kosovo Force) and the native militia was KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) - correct? So, you have KFOR running around, trying to cap the wellspring of violence. Then you have the KLA, with their black market weapons, constantly harrassing the KFOR - namely the Russian Brigade, I believe.

I don't know the figures of losses taken by us, and loss of innocent lives, or anything like that. With enough research I could find this out, but I'm a bit short on time, so I'll do that next time I'm on, unless someone else gets there first. But I really want to know - do you think they're effective?

I don't honestly know. I think the idea is great, but piling more guns and troops into a country doesn't automatically make peace - it makes more guns in an already hostile environment.

Anyone got an opinion on this?

Perad
30th September 2004, 09:32 AM
I think they, as a fighting force, are not greatly effective. But saying that i don't know too much about there capabilitys.

I have always believed though that they were meant to be a deterant(sp) not a fighting force. The whole point of them was to make fighting near impossible. If Russia wanted to attack Kosovo it couldn't. This is simply because they wouldn't be fighting Kosovo they would by fighting UN troops. Non aggressive peace keepers.

That is always the way i have seen them. Lets face it, no sane country would attack the UN peace keepers as they are not there enemy adn the reprocusions would be too big to deal with

Jebus
30th September 2004, 12:33 PM
I think they, as a fighting force, are not greatly effective. But saying that i don't know too much about there capabilitys.

They were never meant to take the place of a standing army. They're main purpose is simply to stop all violence in a hostile area.


I have always believed though that they were meant to be a deterant(sp) not a fighting force. The whole point of them was to make fighting near impossible. If Russia wanted to attack Kosovo it couldn't. This is simply because they wouldn't be fighting Kosovo they would by fighting UN troops. Non aggressive peace keepers.

You're right, they are primarily a deterrent. But the point isn't if Russia wanted to attack. They're there to deter anyone from attacking, yes, but it's generally not supposed to be against an invasion force. At least KFOR is supposed to stop partisan forces from enacting violent hatecrimes.


That is always the way i have seen them. Lets face it, no sane country would attack the UN peace keepers as they are not there enemy adn the reprocusions would be too big to deal with

I believe that the KLA was involved in numerous attacks against the Russian peacekeepers. A lot of them were merely meant to harrass them, but they still killed some people.

Advent
30th September 2004, 12:56 PM
Well, the United States pretty much dismantled any kind of authority the United Nations had. That's one of the things that have changed the past few years.. Also, we need to understand that the United Nations forces consist primarily of foreign country troops that are given to fight a particular agenda.

And no, I don't think they're effective. While, legally, these troops are deployed with support of the world majority, they still aren't large enough. And it all depends on the willingness of a country. If there's a threat to the entire world, more countries will send troops, meaning that the forces are more effective. However, if this is some very local dispute, the forces generally aren't that effective.

And, someone mentioned that UN Peacekeepers are never attacked. Bullshit -- In Iraq, someone blew up the UN Headquarters about half a year ago. Furtheremore, it all depends on whether you agree with the Peacekeepers or not.

For example, a group might feel compelled to get their message across by blowing up a UN armored convoy, if they disagree with the UN ruling.

Stephen
30th September 2004, 01:07 PM
And no, I don't think they're effective. While, legally, these troops are deployed with support of the world majority, they still aren't large enough. And it all depends on the willingness of a country. If there's a threat to the entire world, more countries will send troops, meaning that the forces are more effective. However, if this is some very local dispute, the forces generally aren't that effective.The peacekeeping troops in Kosovo were incredibly successful So many more lives would have been lost if the international community hadn't intervened. But don't just look at that example - look at Korea. 628,833 U.N. lives were lost - compared to a mere 54,246 American ones. There the international community really got involved, and up a fight. You can't say that they didn't have power in that situation.

And the U.N. doesn't get involved in "local disputes"

I'd also like to clarify that U.N. Peacekeepers are only allowed to engage in combat that has been initiated by hostile forces. They cannot seek out the enemy.
That would be the role of U.N. sanctioned multi-lateral military action. Peacekeepers are a whole different breed.

Advent
30th September 2004, 01:14 PM
The peacekeeping troops in Kosovo were incredibly successful So many more lives would have been lost if the international community hadn't intervened. But don't just look at that example - look at Korea. 628,833 U.N. lives were lost - compared to a mere 54,246 American ones. There the international community really got involved, and up a fight. You can't say that they didn't have power in that situation.

I agree with that. Deploying them saves lives, but can you really count success in deaths? Yeah, the international community got involved, but does that add to the success of the UN peacekeeping forces? Are we talking about military success, or unifying the world?


And the U.N. doesn't get involved in "local disputes"

Depends on what you call a "local dispute". To me, a local dispute is a dispute that has a low chance of spilling into an all out world war.


I'd also like to clarify that U.N. Peacekeepers are only allowed to engage in combat that has been initiated by hostile forces. They cannot seek out the enemy.
That would be the role of U.N. sanctioned multi-lateral military action. Peacekeepers are a whole different breed.

Yes, but still, individuals do not always agree with what the UN is saying. Even hostile forces can attack the UN peacekeepers. They aren't omnipotent and spared of all hate.