[Peptobismol]

I read somewhere that they can't even force cars to stop at check-points.

[Lt_Apple]

From the article 'Torn to Shreds' featured in Newsweek - July 31 2006

The U.N. soldiers who have been stationed in South Lebanon as monitoring under the name UNIFIL for more than 20 years are "worse than useless" says a top European diplomat, speaking frankly but privately.

worse than useless, imagine having that as a motto, I wonder if it sounds any better in Latin.

[Lillie_Steins]

nuke the un

[TorryJens]

No they're in my beloved Mahattan. Just revoke their diplomatic immunity and make them pay their parking tickets and they'll all leave.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

No they're in my beloved Mahattan. ...

We all have to make sacrifices, and there's always New Jersey.

[MannoFr]

From FirstPost.com

And the way to raise it is with former professional soldiers, argues Tim Collins.

The charity War on Want published a damning report on the world of private military and security companies (PMSCs) last week. It calculated there were now 48,000 "mercenaries" working in Iraq and painted a hair-raising picture of the "threat" they pose.

But War on Want and the PMSCs are, by and large, in the same business - trying rapidly to relieve the burden on the world's poor, and attempting to make the Third World a better place to live.

The report failed to mention that PMSCs were in Iraq with the full co-operation of the Iraqi government, that a large proportion of the 48,000 are Iraqis and Afghans, and that one of their duties is liaison with local communities, carried out in a manner the Iraqi and coalition militaries are unable to follow.

In short, the report was a rather predictable 'war is a bad scene, man' hand-wringing document that ignored the requirements of some of the world's poorest people. In the preface, Louise Richards, War on Want's chief executive, complimented her charity's partners in the conflict zones - "some of the world's bravest men and women in the frontline of the struggle for human rights" - without saying who those partners were.

The fact is, whether she likes it or not, and putting the commercial aspect aside, the companies she goes on to deal with in her report have more in common with her own outlook than she realises.

The manifestation of PMSCs in Iraq and Afghanistan is a result of the developed world's armed forces being required to take on far more than they are able to. The US has been way ahead of other nations in recognising that the investment in skills in their fighting men and women can be exploited after their retirement from the active list via private companies working economically and at short notice.

For example, experienced old soldiers can take on the routine guarding tasks where the likelihood is of little combat but the need is for the greatest restraint.

Had the UN spent more cash on such guards in Iraq, then perhaps it would not have had its headquarters in Iraq destroyed in August 2003 and lost its special representative, the Brazilian Sergio Vieira de Mello who was killed in the attack. Indeed, Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN, admits to having considered using PMSCs in Rwanda in 1997 in order to get something on the ground quickly to save lives. Sadly for many thousands of Rwandans, he did not.

Which brings me to my point. The armies of the world and the United Nations are too slow and too self-obsessed to move quickly. Worse, some governments in the Third World see service with the UN as no more than a money-making scam. In a few cases, they even use the UN as a tool to control poverty and, in turn, their populations. The UN Department of Peacekeeping spends a staggering $14bn annually in Africa alone on military operations, mostly on schemes with African governments. For that huge amount nothing gets any much worse but nothing gets better. (Now that's a scandal worthy of an investigation by War on Want.)

The time is ripe for reform of the UN - to include the establishment of a reaction taskforce that would be commercially raised, but regulated and accountable.

The poorest have lost faith in the UN - and the answer is: take governments out of the equation. Out of 140-plus nations in the UN, only 12 make a net contribution. Confidence could be restored by these 12 nations driving through a new regime whereby a majority Security Council vote could deploy the new taskforce to impose the UN's will in trouble spots at short notice. It would be appropriate for low- to medium-scale operations - including Darfur, for instance - while anything bigger would require the assistance of national contingents on a voluntary basis as now.

The UN would pay for this brigade-sized taskforce - about 5,000 in strength - acting under UN mandate and accountable to the International Court in The Hague (giving it the most rigorous military law in the world). It would consist of four battalion groups, one each raised from former military from the continents of Africa, Asia and Australasia, Europe and the Americas.

It would cost a fraction of the $14bn spent in Africa alone and would do the bidding of the people of the world. They would not stand by and wring their hands, they would confront evil head on - and win. The poorest of the world would have their very own army. And surely these would be "some of the world's bravest men and women in the frontline for the struggle for human rights" too?

From FirstPost.com