...will be all over this story.

Any day now.

[crickets chirping]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to see any scandal attached to a UN mission or peacekeeping force.

What are the chances this will get the MSM attention the Iraqi prison/Gitmo stuff does?

Slim and none actually, there is no mention of the US being involved, and the French are known good guys so this guy must be a aberation.

This is one more reason why the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Instead of being bogged down there, you could have had your troops in places where they are needed much more, like in Congo. US troops are a bit more disciplined, so there would be less of these problems. And when there would be the same problem, the media would be all over the place, which would insure a true investigation. And the Usa would hardly notice the difernce between Congo and Iraq: you have ethic tension, poverty, neighbouring coutries who meddle in the coutries affairs, a history with dictators and wars... But there would be one great advantage, the body count would be well below 1000 and 100 000 troops could actually make the country a lot more stable.

This is one more reason why the USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Instead of being bogged down there, you could have had your troops in places where they are needed much more, like in Congo.

--Problem

You'll have to explain it to me: How does invading the Congo achieve our strategic objectives in the Middle East?

(This should be good.)

Mike

Hey Mike, Don't forget to ask him why we shouldn't expect and demand the UN peacekeepers behave? One more reason to disolve the U.N. and start over.

Problem
"US troops are a bit more disciplined, so there would be less of these problems."

The former Marine inside of me wants to know why we can't ask the soldiery assigned to the mission to just fscking behave themselves.

Also note that a number of the poeple cited in the article aren't soldiers but civilian UN employees.

You'll have to explain it to me: How does invading the Congo achieve our strategic objectives in the Middle East?

(This should be good.)

--Mike
I'll probably disappoint you , but here we go:
It doesn't but it's rather unclear to me what the strategic objectives may be? Is it a safe neighboorhood for Israel, that all middle east countries become democracies or an assured supply of oil? I thought that the only reason for the invasion of Iraw that is left standing is that you needed to help the Iraqis to get rid of the cruel Saddam and help them establish a democracy.
And i think that the people in Congo would be a lot more grateful than the Iraqis for your noble help.

Hey Mike, Don't forget to ask him why we shouldn't expect and demand the UN peacekeepers behave? One more reason to disolve the U.N. and start over.

--Bill Maron

We should expect to behave but we also should expect these problems. I think there were few wars where this sort of thing wasn't a problem. And a lot of these soldiers are from other third world coutries who's armies aren't known for their discipline. But if the US or Europe don't want to deliver troops for this mission there isn't a lot of choice. And i didn't know that officials misbaving themselves wasn't a problem in the US. :)
And i would like to see your proposal for a new UN. The one we have for the moment is far from perfect, but i wouldn't know why a new one would be so much better.

Well, Problem, call Chirac and Schröder and tell them that we'd like them to assist us in putting together a truly multilateral force to bring order and justice to Congo. Let me know when they get back to you with a substantive reply.

You may need to know a good necromancer for that last.

Is it ME? OR is Problem asking the SUPER EVIL U.S Military to bail out Africa, because of French misbehaviour?

I thought we were the problem? No pun intended? How is it that we are the good guys in Kosovo and in Africa, but in Iraq and Afganistan we are the bad guys? Could it be that so long as we go where the LIBS want, or its the LIB mission du jour, we retain our Good Guy status?

Problem, you chose your handle well, you are and you probably don't even know it!!

Problem, for starters, 1. Supporting terrorism will keep you out. 2. Egregious human rights violations will keep you out. 3. A truly free press is required. 4. Exporting nuclear weapons technology will keep you out. Since at least half of the current membership falls into at least one of these categories, getting rid of them will make it easier to make them change by denying them the benefits of civilized society and put them on notice that if they don't the rest of us will make them. Hows that for a mission? That's what the U.N. should have been doing from the beginning.

Problem
"And i think that the people in Congo would be a lot more grateful than the Iraqis for your noble help."

I expect the same thing that happened in Iraq would happen in the Congo. Some would be grateful, some wouldn't care, and some would take up arms and shoot back. But since you're so gosh-darned happy to send in the troops - we'll issue you a rifle, a confusing ROE and let you be the first one to step off the plane. Have fun!

Well, Problem, call Chirac and Schröder and tell them that we'd like them to assist us in putting together a truly multilateral force to bring order and justice to Congo. Let me know when they get back to you with a substantive reply.

--John "Akatsukami" Braue
I think that if the US announces it's going to send peacekeepers to Congo then the French will be there before you. Africa is the last place were they have some influence, and to keep it that way i'm certain they will be there. And they allready have been to Congo with some mixed results:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3097829.stm I have to admit they seem to have gotten themselves into some serious problems in Ivory Coast, so that will make them think twice to help.
-
I expect the same thing that happened in Iraq would happen in the Congo. Some would be grateful, some wouldn't care, and some would take up arms and shoot back. But since you're so gosh-darned happy to send in the troops - we'll issue you a rifle, a confusing ROE and let you be the first one to step off the plane. Have fun!

--Brian

I'll have to decline your friendly offer. :)
But your right, you would have some of the same problems as in Iraq. But that's my point: you admit that Iraq isn't much different from Congo, so why has Iraq the privilege to be helped on the way to democracy with US troops and Congo doesn't? "The US went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people" sounds for this reason rather hypocrite.

Problem, for starters, 1. Supporting terrorism will keep you out. 2. Egregious human rights violations will keep you out. 3. A truly free press is required. 4. Exporting nuclear weapons technology will keep you out. Since at least half of the current membership falls into at least one of these categories, getting rid of them will make it easier to make them change by denying them the benefits of civilized society and put them on notice that if they don't the rest of us will make them. Hows that for a mission? That's what the U.N. should have been doing from the beginning.

Your proposal looks good on paper. But i think it's a little bit idealistic. Let's show this by examing if the US would get in. It begins with your first rule: what's terrorism? Is supporting guerilla movements terrorism? If yes, the US has supported terrorism in the eighties: the rightwing guerillas in central america, the mujaheddin in Afghanistan,... But the US seemes to have learned their lesson and the US will not be excluded for this reason.
2. What are severe human rights violations? For a lot of people and countries death penalty is a big human rights violation and than there's Guantanamo: every human rights organisation finds this a human rights violation. This rule could get the US kicked out of your UN.
3. Since this is a blog, i won't have to tell you that the US media isn't free: it's run by commies, leftists and libs. Again the US doens't get in. ;)
4. This rule will need some clarification or the US will certainly not get in: the US probably exports nuclear weapons technology every day: equipment for nuclear reactors, nuclear missiles for Britain,...
So it would be doubtfull if the US is admitted to your UN, an i doubt if a lot of countries would get in. Only the Scandnavian countries would get in. Sweden and Norway have an impressive army for their size but i doubt they could force the rest of the world to follow their example.

Problem
"I'll have to decline your friendly offer. :)
But your right, you would have some of the same problems as in Iraq. But that's my point: you admit that Iraq isn't much different from Congo, so why has Iraq the privilege to be helped on the way to democracy with US troops and Congo doesn't? "The US went into Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people" sounds for this reason rather hypocrite."

I never said Iraq was like the Congo. I never once have claimed that US went to Iraq to libertate the Iraqi people.

Given my druthers we would not _be_ there right now; I voted for a quick raid to topple the current regime, hang them all, and tell whomever comes to power "this is what happens when you plays games with us" and gone home again. And then take the treasure we've not spent on Iraq and come up with a rational replacement for our petrol economy. Something involving SPS and space elevators for choice.

I'm not claiming this is a utopia, and this would have it's own consequences and problems.

To get back to the point; Why should 'we' spend treasure 'helping' the Congo, when by and large it's not our problem? I hope I'm not unique in recognizing that force of arms can change a great deal but soldiers are not aid workers, nor can we bring democracy on bayonets to people who don't want it.

Or perhaps not; a majority of people in the US have never served, and won't be able to take that lesson to heart. Even fewer EU'pians will serve, and so might have even a weaker grasp on what you can, and can't do with arms.