"A Story that deserves to be known" Topic

It is fashionable on take the mickey out of UN peacekeepers and their effectiveness.

This is a report from the Rwandan genocide and the efforts one single unarmed Senegalese officer went to to save hundreds of lives.

link

I guess it shows the best and worst of the situation – bungling officialdom (and Great Power indifference) and brave men doing their best in an impossible situation.

But a salutory reminder that courage is not the sole preserve of Western armies and that around the world the much derided blue helmets – often from poor, third world armies – are doing sterling work for precious little reward or thanks.

Thanks for posting that.

His story and deeds are worthy of far more than a "certificate"!

The UN takes a lot of flak, but I proudly field a small unit of 15mm Blue Helmets that see action in my AK-47 games.

Thanks for posting that.

It is a thankless job. I have never heard anyone deride the bravery of the actual individuals. The most oft cited problems are associated with the rules of engagement.

The most egregious example being the Dutch contingent at Srebrenica.

I heard part of this story on the radio but missed all the details until seeing your link. The word "hero" is overused these days, but this man is the real deal.

A sad loss to us all, the shame is that it has taken twenty years to publicise his heroic actions……..

How brave. How sad.

As with all things to do with the UN – its lowest common denominator diplomacy

If a Great Power has an interest, nothing gets done.

If no-one actually cares, then you get robust rules of engagement (as in the DRC) but not enough troops…

Only when one of the Big 5 cares, and that opinion is shared by others, does much get done – like Iraq 1990.

And if the UN are ignored, things get really done like 2003.

And if the UN are ignored, things get really *bleeped* up like 2003.

Fixed that for you, Milites.

Knowing people who have worked for the UN, both in NY and in the field, makes me less than sanguine about the efficacy of the organisation. It's ability to waste money is legendary amongst its employees, as it's corruption and unintentional destabilising of the countries it is meant to be helping.

Jpattern, I take it you'd have liked Saddam back, then he and the Iranians could have really sparked a regional race to acquire nuclear weapons.

Rules of engagement is not the only problem, all to often the forces sent by member nations are understrenght and outgunned by the unfriendly locals. Dutchbat in Sebrenica is a good example, 450 men on paper is a rather small battalion and they had limted armour and weaponry. Air Support was suposed to make up the diffrence but hard to call in without FACs and hamstrung by a complicated ROE and strike authorisation process.

By comparison the contemporary Nordbat was a envisioned as a 1300 man mechanized battlegroup with 3 Swedish mechanized rifle companies, a Danish tank squadron and a Norwegian SP howitzer battery. In the end the howitzer were rejected and replaced with a field hospital complete with medevac helos but Nordbat still had a potential punch a lot of other UN units in Bosnia lacked.
It is much easier to take a though stance against the local unfriendlys if you have the right tools for the job.

If you have a good CO you can tweak the rules of engagement as well. Since the use of smoke was not restricted by the ROE in Bosnia the Swedish mech companies got quite creative with the smoke rounds for the Carl Gustav, at least when the supply situation allowed for it. A bit of it got caught by a visiting TV crew youtu.be/O8Wq_tOAvEQ

Jpattern, I take it you'd have liked Saddam back

I'd like 4,500 US KIAs back, not to mention the 30,000 US wounded and countless others suffering from less obvious problems.

then he and the Iranians could have really sparked a regional race to acquire nuclear weapons.

You make a good point, the region is *much* more stable now. Oh, wait . . .

I like the notion that the ROE stated that UK troops could could shoot a man who was about to throw a grenade, but when the grenade had been thrown, were not allowed to target him, as the 'threat' had become the grenade itself!

So jpattern, the answer is yes, you'd want him back. After all, he was one of the regions greatest statesmen, a moderating force who prefered diplomatic solutions to the regions problems. Oh, wait…

Milites – in being able to waste lots of money, how is the UN different from anyone else?

Strange defence, the UN just as wasteful as everyone else, but yes, the UN just like any non-accountable organisation, wastes vast amounts of ,predominantly Western, money by being spectacularly incompetent. There is though horrendous corruption, with people known to be unsuitable placed in charge of projects who just line their pockets to the tune of millions. Any criticism is met by a barrage of denunciations of racism and colonial attitudes.

Then we have the destabilisation as they hire all the competent administrators, native to the country, and pay salaries far in excess of the local rate. The net result making those countries even less likely to survive by themselves as these staff often move to another lucrative post in other countries. The UN, it must be said is not alone in this, most Western charities fall foul of this.

Then there is the make up of the Security Council, the ludicrous system of chairing committee's, with genocidal countries like Sudan running the Commission for Human Rights. It might have been useful in the Cold war to act as some sort of impartial arbiter, but it's now a self-licking lollipop of gargantuan size. There are many brave and highly dedicated staff, but most of their efforts are undermined by a grotesque incompetence at the top. One example, at the height of the Kosovo conflict, how many personnel were tasked with manning the UN desk…one! No wonder one of the most popular game, played by the frustrated peace keepers, was Castle Wolfenstein!

Givenr ecent events, I think you'll be pushed to say the UN is any worse than the alternatives.

And of course, the UN missions that go well don't make the news.

Very true, news only reports the negatives. And The 5 member security council rarely all agree on anything regardless. However, the UN does support, fund and send a lot of Humanitarian Aid … so that is a plus … As far as a stable Middle East and the surrounding regions. With or without Saddam and others, the area would still be in some sort of turmoil. It's almost to the point of being cronic …

It has lasted longer than its predecessor………..