Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
It serves a pupose with humanitarian services and peacekeeping, but otherwise it is about as useful as the League... And from the American point of view, I can see why they dislike it - how would feel about funding a talking-shop so that a bunch of pipsqueeks can tell you are bad you are?  |
I don't even think that the concept of peace keeping even works anymore, and you could almost say that on a overall scale its become more of a failure then anything else.
Moving into this century, the UN has more often or not requested that NATO take on the more difficult tasks. The UN has neither the resolve, the experience, or the balls to effectively peacekeep, they do more to either put inadequetly trained troops into difficult situations, or they define flaccid rules of engagement that warring parties tear right through.
The new concept has to be peace enforcement, which is a far different beast, basically it means you have to use heavily armed troops with offensive punch to keep the two sides apart and protect civillians. Basically peace keeping needs the ability to intimidate both sides into not acting up, and shooting the crap out of either side if they break the conditions of the mandated peace. However the UN won't do this, because they are still stuck in the 60's where they believe that its enough to slap a blue Beret on some 20 year old kid and tell him to do nothing but to sit in the middle of a armed conflict while waiving his hands and telling both sides that they need to stand down or the UN will write them both a letter telling them how angry the UN is.