Should the UN/Nato msn in Afg become a "Blue Beret" mission?

[geo]

Ayup.

 

[George Wallace]

It is funny how many of the current 'Generation' have the misconception that UN Forces always wear the Blue Beret/Helmet.  The UN Actions in Korea in 1953 did not have any combatants wearing Blue Helmets.  This is where our education system and the Loonie Left have brought us today.  A population totally ignorant of what Canada's Military History, past and present, is.

 

[ArmyRick]

Blue berets? NO, no, hell NO!!!

 

[Exarecr]

Is this not a NATO mission sanctioned by the UN? However,in keeping with the "blue theme", we will be blue in the face until we see help from our slightly less than honourable French and German allies who because of National caveats sit in dent free vehicles and look worriedly for ghosts in the shadows. Our Dutch and British allies along with the Americans of course fight the necessary fight while the others look combat pretty. Under a UN banner would change nothing as far as the real fighters are concerned. However, I have to wonder. Whats up with the Germans? You would have thought with the roar of diesels in the air, the wind whipping over their turrets,.....

 

[vehtech129]

Which ever country that participates in the conflict you need to Make the Peace before you can Keep the Peace.  Exactly what were are doing in Afghanistan.

 

[vehtech129]

In my experience, that would be the least of our problems if we went there in UN colours !!!!!

Its bad enough that were getting shot at while were wearing desert Camouflage, we don’t need to give them a better target. At the same time, while wearing the UN colors we also fall under the different Articles in the UN charters.

 

[aesop081]

Its bad enough that were getting shot at while were wearing desert Camouflage, we don’t need to give them a better target. At the same time, while wearing the UN colors we also fall under the different Articles in the UN charters.

:

The colour issue is minor......i wore blue on tour, i taught CCD, i spent 11 years in the combat arms, i dont need a lecture from you.

What i am refering to is the politics of being UN while in the field, the restrictions placed on you as far as courses of action, the less that robust ROEs, the lack of will to accomplish the mission, etc, etc, etc.....

 

[Good2Golf]

ROEs and even more restricted National Caveats are big ones in my mind.

G2G

 

[youravatar]

Sorry I didn't relize my post was causing some confusion ARMYRICK. My section commander was in Bosnia as a peace keeper and the Serbs, I think, would shoot at them if they weren't wearing the blue berret, flying the UN flag ect. ect.

 

[McG]

NATO is in Afghanistan under a UN mandate at the request of the UN AND the gov't of Afghanistan.  We are a UN mission.... just like we were on a UN mission in Korea back in 1950.

The Korean War was a UN mission.  Afghanistan is not.

In Korea, UN forces fought under the United Nations Command (Korea) and (in accordance with UNSCR 84) under the UN Flag.  In Afghanistan, the international forces are under NATO and no authority has been granted for international forces to fight under the UN flag.

 

[geo]

MCG - I think not..............

NATO took command and co-ordination of the ISAF in August 2003. ISAF is NATO's first mission outside the Euro-Atlantic area. ISAF operates in Afghanistan under a UN mandate and will continue to operate according to current and future UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. ISAF’s mission was initially limited to Kabul. Resolution 1510 passed by the UNSC on 13 October 2003 opened the way to a wider role for ISAF to support the Government of Afghanistan beyond Kabul.


http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

 

[McG]

MCG - I think not..............

about what?  That the UN called for a unified force to fight under the UN flag in Korea, or that the UN did not call for an international force to operate under the UN flag in Afghanistan?

Following the collapse of the Taliban regime, Afghan groups met in Bonn Germany, under the mediation of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, to develop a framework for governance in Afghanistan.  After negotiations between Afghan military commanders, representatives of Afghanistan's different ethnic groups, expatriate Afghans, and representatives of the exiled monarch the Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan Pending the Re-Establishment of Permanent Government Institutionswas signed on December 5, 2001.  The resulting Bonn Agreement called for the installation of an Interim Administration, the holding of an emergency Loya Jirga (council of community leaders) in 2002, the appointment of a Transitional Authority and adoption of a national constitution prior to the holding of national elections.

The creation of ISAF was requested by Afghan leaders through the Bonn Agreement.  The security council "Authorize[d], as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas"  The eventual expansion outside of Kabul was also described in the Bonn Agreement. 

If we are going to describe every mission approved by the UN as a UN mission then PALLADIUM, OEF and OIF are/were UN missions.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions related to ISAF: UNSCR 1386, UNSCR1413, UNSCR 1444, UNSCR 1510, UNSCR 1563, UNSCR 1623, UNSCR 1659 and UNSCR 1707.

 

[vehtech129]

MCG..
That’s a good point. As far as i know all NATO Mission follow all the sanctions brought forward by the United Nations. It is just the different articles that the troops fall under that makes it different.

 

[geo]

Xcept OEF & OIF, conducted by the US refuses, who have steadfastly refused to put their troops under UN command.

 

[McG]

Xcept OEF & OIF, conducted by the US refuses, who have steadfastly refused to put their troops under UN command.

just like PALLADIUM was not under UN command and just like ISAF is not under UN command. 

 

[vehtech129]

MCG....you are right on that, they are not under UN command, but they do follow the diiferent santions and articles from the UN.

 

[Boxkicker]

I personally believe that it would not matter if we ( a collective we) wore blue hats there or not. The looney left would still be upset as we could not say it was a PEACEKEEPING mission. Gulf war one when the UN authorised coalition freed Kuwait, the LIBS and NDP were aghast at the thought of us dropping bombs. In the words of Chreitien "how can we participate in the peacekeeping mission afterwords".

So it does not matter who wasin charge of a combat mission, aslong as the perception is that we are peacekeeping. Just remember according to a former PM we are Canada's boy scouts, of course he also said he would send the marines to East Timor.