BGForums

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/10 ... pstoryview

Wonder how much this cost ?

?

I agree with Leafgreen, how is this a reflection on the UN, good or bad?

Sheesh

Lets review....
*Circa 17,000 troops in the "peacekeepers" deployed to the DRC.The largest U.N. peacekeeping mission in the world.

*Latest battles created by a force loyal to General Laurent Nkunda ,estimates at circa 4k.Drive lasts about a week.

*U.N. refuge camps,under the "protection" of the U.N. containing refuges have already been attacked, and are still being attacked right now.

*General Laurent Nkunda and his relatively small force, is reneging on a ceasefire treaty backed by the U.N. circa Jan 2008.

Soooooo, what we have here, is the U.N. using 17k soldiers from various nations,un-able to keep the peace by preventing circa 4k rebels from prosecuting their war,in a basically straight line drive no less.
Even unable to protect the very camps they set up, and arranged for the refuges to gather in.....

Yay U.N. !



The ongoing war, is now the second deadlist in world history, second only to WW2 by the way.

Oh, and before i forget.The U.N. is currently requesting more peacekeepers to be committed to sitting around with their thumb...... while people shot at them... and while the peace they put in place and are supposed to protect is broken and large scale murder of civilians takes place ,including in the very camps the U.N. set up........

Sheehs i am getting old...
I forgot to mention that the ongoing atatcks against the U.N. camps, are going on during a "new" "ceasefire"......

The United Nations estimates that during the 100 days of the genocide in Rwanda, the Hutu majority killed 800,000 Tutsis and and moderate Hutus.

Doesn't seem like the work of 4,000 people.

About 1 million people have been forced to flee because of fighting between rebel and government forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.N. refugee agency said Friday, adding that it was investigating reports of camps being looted and torched.

So they shouldn't ask for more troops for protecting the camps?

They're already protecting hospitals, food stores for these people, ammo dumps for the troops, patrolling needed roads to get from a port to the camps, large medical facilities and water purification, etc - not all the troops will be on the front line plus it doesn't sound like there is a front line which makes it a LOT harder, hence even more troops.

Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
George S. Patton

Here's a plan, instead of sitting around "protecting" everything and waiting to be attacked or by-passed, why not take some of your 17k modern troops and attack some backwards assed, "machine gun mounted on a pick up truck", rebels in their own bases?

The answer is because 1/2 the U.N. signatories want the Hutus in power and running a socialist (or is it fundamentalist Islamic republic? I forget which) slum they can sell arms to. The other 1/2 don't want to be there at all and are only involved to avoid being considered a complete joke. Running an armed force by committee is a joke under any circumstance, but when two halves of the committee are working towards different goals, it doesn't work at all.

This same "sit on your arse" strategy is what the United States was doing in Iraq until the surge. The U.N. needs to pull a "surge" in the Congo. More likely, they are waiting on the U.S. to get around to saving their bacon.

-Light

17k troops doesn't mean 17k line troops.

Are you saying they shouldn't try to protect the civilians?

I'm saying the U.N. is a worthless Mongolian cluster frag as an armed entity. They could have 100k troops there and still be screwing the pooch.

Are you saying that a battalion or two of U.N. troops with modern European AFVs and tanks and helicoptors and air cover could not slaughter 10k rebel troops? You can't scrape together a battalion or two for action out of 17k?

-Light

Yes... I'm sure the rebels are all in one spot, dressed differently from the other locals, waving flags that say 'I'm a rebel!', making sure to stay in one place as long as possible and making an easy centralized target with nothing around them for potential collateral damage.

I'm sure they'll also honor the ceasefire, not harm the people in the camps so you don't have to waste any troops to protect them, guarantee not to hinder medical and food supplies coming in from the coast so you don't have to protect the humanitarian and your own supply lines, promise not to buy cheap anti-tank rockets and handheld SAMs, swear not to make explosives of any kind, not to engage in any combat in urban areas and to not eat meat on fridays.

Right, because we all know if they had 17,001+ troops, then they might actually stand and fight and actually make an effort to USE those troops to protect the very camps they arranged for teh victims to gather in.....

The point your failing to get ,for some reason, IS they are failing to protect people and peace with 17k men , becuase they dont use the men to do so.

They (the U.N.) could have 400,000 "peackeepers"there, and theyed still have them sitting around trying to stay out of the line of fire with their thumbs stuck up their ........
An armed force that wont fight, is useless despite how large it may be compared to its foe....IF IT WONT FIGHT

As the U.N. ,no matter how large it will get,how much money it will piss away,will also always be useless til they learn they have to act as needed when needed.....

Leaf,

As Tkobo mentioned, you seem to be under the impression that U.N. troops actually want to fight, but that the tricky tricky tricky rebels are just too smart for them. Now maybe things have changed in the few months since I last read up on the situation, but my last info was that the rebels actually had areas that they "controlled". You know...the areas all those refugees ran away from. My suggestion would entail looking for the rebels there. Have the government forces, such as they are, scout out the area, then kill anyone attacking the government forces. I know all these "expert" military strategies are a bit much for soldiers handicapped by U.N. SOP to pull off, but they might work better than sitting inside bases hiding while the rebels choose when and where to attack.

As for collateral damage A.It is almost assuredly going to be less than what the rebels will do. B. as my favorite door gunner once said,

Anyone that runs, is a VC. Anyone that stands still, is a well-disciplined VC!

Leaf wrote:Are you saying they shouldn't try to protect the civilians?

I am saying that waiting for the rebels to build strength and choose the time and location to attack is a piss poor way to defend those civilians. I am saying that the U.N. has put those "peace keepers" in harm's way with handcuffs on. I am saying that U.N. peacekeeping forces could not fight their way out of a paper bag. Not because of any lack of courage or ability on the part of the actual troops, but because their dishonest and corrupt masters gave them specific orders not to offend or damage the paper bag.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that Europe's finest men and equipment could not handle the Congo rebels no matter what they tried to do. Run Away! Run Away!!! It's the Hutus!!! If it is really that hopeless to try and help the Tutsis with that force level, then either send in a real force with real military goals, or get the hell out. The U.N. has a long and illustrious history of doing just enough to say they did something, but not enough to solve the problem.

In any case, we can argue with each other until we are both blue in the face, but it will not change the situation.

-Light

Lightbringer wrote:In any case, we can argue with each other until we are both blue in the face, but it will not change the situation.

-Light

I disagree, one thing would change, you're face color. :-p

Actually i'm under the impression that I have not been there recently, that I do not live there, that I have not studied the history of the region closely, and know that the only information I have on there comes from recent media.

Therefore I'm not attacking or defending the U.N. or the rebels or know exactly what they must do or what their failings there are. But I rather doubt the solution is as simple as you make it sound.

But I rather doubt the solution is as simple as you make it sound.

Well, that much I will agree with you about. If you will read back over my statements, nowhere did I claim that offensive action would magically solve the problem. (At least, I do not recall doing such.) I may have been a bit strident, but my whole point was that, in my opinion, taking the fight to the rebels would improve the situation. As you said, I doubt very highly that the rebels would gather in one spot and hold up colored placards that, seen from overhead, formed a big target.

-Light