An Army for the UN?

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by smartascarrots, Jul 28, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC

    One of the biggest criticisms of the UN is its ineffectiveness. Given its inability to wield force except through member states, its own standing army would be a logical way to address this, in theory anyway.

    Merging of military cultures, chains of command through to the SC and standards of training at all levels would be the main issues that would need to be addressed first, to my mind.
  2. Impossible to manage and execute.

    A UN force would be subject to the will, or lack there of, of its collective member nations. It would be a force trained for one thing and one thing only which would mean that it would be useless at anything else thereby denying the flexibility that modenr operations demand.

    There are a million other reasons why it's a no starter, all of which come down to one thing: Politics.
  3. Totally agree; it will probably never happen anyway and if it did, it would'nt work.

    A non-starter.
  4. Foot soldiers for the West? Hope not.
  5. Once the UN managed to show that its expeditionary operations were / are corruption free and not before.

    I still remember the Malbat in Bosnia getting paid in Gold.

    When someone tried to investigate where said Gold had come from the Powers that be @UNHQ demanded and end to the investigation.

    Nah. The UN needs to clean house before it gets access to its own team of Violence Specialists.

  6. Militaries are the tools of their political masters and this would go as much for a UN army as any other. Improvements in the governments could be said to be desirable for most individual member of the UN, but how about the military side in isolation?

    I've seen examples of peacekeeping troops I wouldn't dignify by the word 'Army' and tyhink the quality desperately needs improvement. The top flight nations can't and shouldn't take over the entire burden of waving the big stick, so what should be done?
  7. An idea first put forward by Undersecretary General of the UN, Sir Brian Urquart about 40-50 years ago- the same bloke who, as an IntO for Boy Browning, predicted that there would be tears before bedtime at Arnhem. One of the brightest people I've ever had the privilege of meeting.

    Without putting too fine a point on it, Urquart also recognised that widespread UN reform was necessary before such an idea could be implemented. Of course, this will not happen unless we see a display of altruism from the P5 that would be utterly breathtaking. As such, it has less to do with corrupt UN officials and crappy third world countries as it does with the big boys. Despite all the p1ssing and moaning that goes on in the big, powerful countries; they like things just the way they are, thank-you very much.
  8. It would have to be the main job of the 5 security council members, who are insidently the 5 lardgest exporters of arms and all spend huge sums on defence. the opertunity to deploy troops as peacekeepers makes the major defence industrys the bulk of there money.

    It would be more of a question of getting the defence lobby on side, rather than political oposition.

    Theres still the EU rapid reaction force and the EU normaly has far more problems than the UN when it comes to memeber states working against them.