• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USA wants to take charge of all UN peacekeepers?

When a country is begging for peacekeepers its US troops they want to see. The country in need isnt very picky. Its the dictatorships of the world that get shakey when US troops are mentioned,probably the fear of regime change.
 
I say again that the proposal is to put an American civilian in charge of the UN peacekeeping department that reports to the Secretary General and controls operations authorized by the Security Council. Read the paragraph about the US being willing to give up its control of another important department. In my opinion, the headline and parts of the story are crafted to place the proposal to try to instill some competence into the peacekeeping process in the worst possible light.

For example, if the US was planning to do this in order to get out of Iraq by replacing its troops with UN forces, how does it get around the right of nations to decide if they are going to contribute troops to a mission or not, and to place caveats on their employment and rules of engagement? In the words of a certain Ottawa talk show host, it is time that we all gave our heads a shake. (Rant generator off)
 
Old Sweat, you bring up some good points.  <Gives my head a shake> 
 
milnewstbay said:
The American lobbying effort is set to prove hugely controversial. If successful, the change would amount to a radical remaking of the organisation, bringing it closer to its origin in the Second World War as a US-led alliance. 
How?

milnewstbay said:
An American-led UN peacekeeping department could eventually help Washington to replace the US-led coalition in Iraq with a UN-flagged force, diplomats and experts say.
Is this to imply a US general (in a beuroacratic post) could order UN forces into Iraq?  That is absurd.  Deployment of forces would still be a political thing (read Security Council & General Assembly).
 
MCG said:
How?

Is this to imply a US general (in a beuroacratic post) could order UN forces into Iraq?  That is absurd.  Deployment of forces would still be a political thing (read Security Council & General Assembly).

When did the facts ever get in the way of a good story, let alone a bad one.
 
Back
Top