12-09-2002 19:53									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

No, under no possible circumstance could I foresee a reasonable justification for granting the UN control over its own armed forces.

	12-09-2002 20:52									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

...Why not?

We already (supposedly) trust the UN to determine where "right" and "wrong" lie in many situations (UN resolutions). Why is it such a big step to have a UN general commanding a standing army?

I would certainly trust a UN general (who can't have any territorial ambitions due to the UN not being able to conquer territory) more than I'd trust a general of the armed forces of any nation. And, with the UN being a multinational organization wide open to inspection and infiltration by all nations, it's unlikely that they would get involved in secret deals with unsavory characters: no incentive, and no way to keep secrets anyhow.

The alternative to not having UN commanders is to have national commanders, inevitably leading to accusations that the UN is just being used as a front for national (usually US) imperialism.

	12-09-2002 20:56									#33
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council

the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

	12-09-2002 20:58									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless ...Why not?

"Why should we?" is the more important question that has yet answered concretely by anyone in this thread.

	12-09-2002 20:58									#35
	Put an end to popups!

So you would basically be trusting a politician, or at least a politically reliable soldier who reports to dozens of politicians, to command an army rather than a professional soldier?

And remember who would end up commanding such a UN army - most likely, some "general" from some Third World nation, just because there are more Third World nations in the UN. I mean, look at the current secretary general - some dipstick from *GHANA* leading the General Assembly of the UN?

Or even worse, it might be a French general

	12-09-2002 21:12									#36
	Remove this text

DinoDoc:

quote: "Why should we?" is the more important question that has yet answered concretely by anyone in this thread.

I think "Rwanda" is a sufficient answer. Also, the UN might be treated with more respect if it's less likely to be perceived as the lackey of whoever's providing the troops.

Of course, for BIG operations (like Desert Storm), the UN standing army wouldn't be big enough anyhow. I'm not saying that the standing army would replace the current "flag of convenience" setup.

David Floyd:

quote: So you would basically be trusting a politician, or at least a politically reliable soldier who reports to dozens of politicians, to command an army rather than a professional soldier?

I'm suggesting a professional soldier. Yes, he'd report to politicians, but they do at present anyhow: what would change?

If anything, the command structure might be simpler. Under the current setup, everything a UN commander does has to be OK with both the UN and his own government. This would remove one set of politicians.

	12-09-2002 21:18									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: I'm suggesting a professional soldier.

But for the officer to have any degree of competence, he would necessarily have to be Russian, from one of the NATO nations, Australian/New Zealander, Israeli, and POSSIBLY Chinese. Unfortunately, these nations do not make up the majority of the UN, and there's a very good chance the general who gets selected would be some guy who promoted himself during the revolution and is buddies with the tinpot dictator that runs the country. There are lots of tinpot dictators who are represented in the UN, remember.

	12-09-2002 21:29									#38
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by C0ckney i can see tingkai's idea being rejected by at least 5 permanent members of the security council

Yes, that is a fairly major difficulty...

quote: the other major problem is not so much finding troops, but the fact that the officers and commanders could only come from a handful of countries, plus the equipment would also have to come from those few countries, sounds like a complete non starter to me.

Even the commanders wouldn't have to "come from" any nation, except in the purely geographical sense: there will be some volunteers with military experience, and the force will initially be fairly small. And experienced mercenaries could be employed. No government would need to donate its own serving military personnel. In fact, it would be counterproductive if they did: it wouldn't be a truly independent international force anymore.

Equipment might be a problem, but NATO already has experience with standardization: the UN force could adopt NATO standards for compatibility.

	12-09-2002 21:31									#39
	Put an end to popups!

I think you're underestimated the political aspect of selecting someone to command. Lot's of UN nations wouldn't accept an American commander, and certainly not an Israeli one, even though those two nations probably have the best officer classes in the world.

	12-09-2002 21:40									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Unfortunately, I think politics will dictate a need for a selection of available commanders for each operation.

An American or Israeli would have been OK in Rwanda. If you have a good African commander (or Chinese etc), use him in the Middle East.

	12-09-2002 21:49									#41
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Yes, that is a fairly major difficulty...

and that's the problem. no country, or at least no country that counts, would support this. the fact is that any UN force would be paid for, equiped by and be made up of people from western nations, who would benefit least from such a force.

	12-09-2002 22:02									#42
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless I think "Rwanda" is a sufficient answer.

And I think Srebrenica is a more than sufficent counter.

	12-09-2002 22:06									#43
	Put an end to popups!

In principle, a UN army is a good idea, but I can't see it working in practice. One of the biggest problems I see lies in the determination of when and how to react to any given situation. Do you make it based on a general vote in the GA (and then, simple majority, two-thirds...)? Do you still leave it up to the SC? The problem with the latter is that there is almost always a clash of opinions among the permanent members, unless the flashpoint is totally neutral for all parties (which, I guess, could be said about Rwanda). Overall, it boils down to the need for a RAPID reaction force, when decision making in the UN tends to be anything but rapid. The only way I can conceive to overcome this obstacle is to have a pre-established set of guidelines for when the force is deployed and, if the conditions are met, the force is activated automatically. However, can you imagine the nightmare (or impossibility, really) of having member nations draft such a set of guidelines? Further, can you imagine the number of instances where you'd get arguements of "yeah, but this situation is a little different"?

	13-09-2002 00:42									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Kontiki, Your post nearly parallels my own. The major problem is not the availability of forces, but the politics of the UN. Thus, if the current use of national forces would work if the UN gave its commander's some discretion to responde to aggression and the ability to call in additional troops earmarked for this purpose. We do not need a dedicated UN force.

The ONLY example that I know where a Peacekeeper commander began defensive military operations without prior authorization of the UN is Douglas MacArthur. However, this gentleman was strongly criticized earlier in this thread for acting, I presume, without such prior consultation. We do know that Truman later fired him for publically disagreeing on strategy. But public defiance is not the issue on the table. MacArthur acted when action was needed. I think all peacekeeper commanders should be given MacArthur as a prime example of what they should do under similar circumstances.

	13-09-2002 00:47									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ned, I think it was common knowledge that Douglas MacArthur was a rather dangerous man to world stability. A proponent of first-use , offensive nuclear weapons?

	13-09-2002 00:56									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

It was MacArthur racing through North Korea(without authorization) that brought the Chinese in to that war.

	13-09-2002 01:43									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

MacArthur was also wilfully blind to the capabilities of his enemy, and a grossly overrated tactician who managed to get credit for the successes of subordinates and shift blame to anyone convenient.

His mismanagement in SWPOA during WWII (wrt Fertig in particular, but also his reticence in coordination and communication with Pac fleet and Nimitz) should have seen him retired. Ethically, his trying to shaft Wainwright for failures in the Philippines defense when Wainwright was both a subordinate and a POW should have been a careeer-ender, but Mac was the darling boy of the far right, and too politically volatile to be touched.

Ned Almond's sole qualification for being an independent commander in Korea was being one of MacArthur's "boys" - between Almond and MacArther, they almost gave away the 1st Marines entirely, with orders which were utterly insane. The only thing which kept the 1st Marines from being overrun piecmeal was the division commander's (Maj. Gen. Oliver P. Smith) silent disobedience of marching orders that would have fatally split his division into separate elements too far apart to ever rejoin or support each other.

MacArthur didn't act without consultation because he had to act, he did it because he considered that consultation with political types was meddling in his command.

That type of prima-donna professional officer is not tolerated in most modern militaries, so his case is an anomoly, but there has to be a strict balance between giving commanders scope for independent action and maintaining overall political control of the mission. That's what the UN needs to work out on a standardized basis, because otherwise, it doesn't matter who has the troops.

Rwanda was a failure of UN bureacracy, not an argument for a UN military force.

	13-09-2002 02:15									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

My dad served under MacArthur and had nothing but great praise for his leadership. My dad was there from Guadalcanal to Bataan. He said that what distinguished MacArthur from other commanders was two things: First he planned his campaign to achieve his objectives with minimal lose of human life (something we take as a given in modern warfare, but not then); second, he personally conducted reconnaissance which gave him a much better feel for the situation on the ground than other rear-guard generals.

I don't know much about Almond's and MacArthur's orders concerning the Marines in Korea. This is highly uncharacteristic of the man if he ordered them to do something which was insane. (Maybe Almond interferred with MacArthur's call by misrepresenting the battlefied situation.)

As to "racing through North Korea" without orders, did anyone tell him to simply stop at the 38th Parallel or stop at the 39th even?

Last edited by Ned on 13-09-2002 at 02:46

	13-09-2002 02:24									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

As to "racing through North Korea" without orders, did anyone tell him to simply stop at the 38th Parallel or stop at the 39th even?

Yes. Didn't stop him.

	13-09-2002 02:28									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: But for the officer to have any degree of competence, he would necessarily have to be Russian

Us russians have a lot of endearing qualities, but competance definately isn't one of them

	13-09-2002 02:29									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: My dad served under MacArthur and had nothing but great praise for his leadership. My dad was there from Guadalcanal to Bataan.

Actually, Guadalcanal was not under MacArthur's command at all. It was under first Robert Ghormley's and then William Halsey's.

Although MacArthur did graciously allow a couple of "his" aircraft to operate in defense of the US Marines and Army troops once.

	13-09-2002 02:39									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned I don't know much about Almond's and MacArthur's orders concerning the Marines in Korea. This is highly uncharacteristic of the man if he ordered them to do something which was insane. (Maybe Almond interferred with MacArthur's call by misrepresenting the battlefied situation.)

MacArthur's plan assumed that there would be no opposition, and had each of the Marine regiments attacking along a different axis, along single narrow roads in mountain passes. Since the plan was a nominal encirclement, MacArthur planned to "complete" the "encirclement" by having one regiment detached completely and move to the west to link up with where 8th Army was supposed to show up - without any means of communication, and no possibility of support, and with no supply lines at all. The other two Marine regiments were also to advance on different axes which would take them out of mutual support and communications range.

These orders were repeated several times, despite both 1st MarDiv and 31/7 ID (USA) reports of contact with at elements of at least 5 PLA divisions. General Smith couldn't overtly disobey these orders, but he could and he was extremely slow and plodding in carrying them out, so that when the **** hit the fan, he was in position to turn his regiments around and fight their way back to each other.

Forensic teams are still recovering the bodies of fallen Marines who were buried in field graves and left behind.

	13-09-2002 04:30									#53
	Support Apolyton

MTG, et al., I just did a quick search and found that MacArthur was given permission to attack into NK on October 6. The Chinese entered the war drove the UN force back from the Yalu, but in doing so, disguised their strength. MacArthur was unaware of their true strength when he ordered the attack North on Nov. 23.

So a lot of what was said here about MacArthur seems to be at variance with the facts, at least those I could discover on the Web.

I also found it curious, since this is the first time I studied the matter, that the idea of not attacking Chinese bases in Manchuria was Atlee's, not Truman's. Perhaps I should relent a bit on my dislike for Harry.

	13-09-2002 05:17									#54
	Got spare money?

No they have too damm much influence as it is. This is as stupid an idea as that court they have.

	13-09-2002 05:24									#55
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Actually MacArthur is the perfect example of who NOT to have on a peace-keeping mission. Because of him, and him almost alone, the war dragged on for another two years, gaining neither side anything and resulting in millions more casualties and the desolation of the Korean peninsular, as well as destroying any possibility of freindly relations between the US and the PRC.

...



...

ok, see, maybe you're fine with the idea that if all of korea became stalinist under kim il sung, but i'm not.

without macarthur, all of korea would be a starving hellhole, part of bush's stupid "axis of evil". without him, all of korea would be bankrupt, its economy frozen. without him, i'd be stuck in a third-rate pos country.

no, i like macarthur and his style of "peacekeeping". if anything, i'm peeved that truman didn't regain his balls after nuking japan-- he should have let macarthur do the same to the legions of mao troops in china.

	13-09-2002 05:42									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Q Cubed, I think Truman was undermined by Atlee who was conducting separate negotiations with the Chinese and convinced Truman to suspend bombing inside Manchuria.

MacArthur got caught up in this and got fired. But I agree with you, without his rapid action at the beginning (before receiving orders), and his brilliant leadership thereafter, Korea would have been lost.

MacArthur appears to be the perfect example of the Peacekeeper commander who reacts to a situation in an appropriate manner without having to get SC approval. Regardless, the UN later endorsed his actions.

	13-09-2002 05:45									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

yeah, macarthur didn't exactly know how to tactfully back down. ah, well.

as for the UN endorsing his actions... Korea happened to be the first--and only--time that the UN has fought in any war as a banner.

	13-09-2002 05:48									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: MacArthur appears to be the perfect example of the Peacekeeper commander who reacts to a situation in an appropriate manner without having to get SC approval. Regardless, the UN later endorsed his actions

MacArthur wanted to bomb selected cities and stategic routes in the PR of ****ing China with nuclear weapons (a total of about 2 dozen). Truman, luckily, was not as mindbogglingly insane or megalomaniacal as good old Dugout Doug, and nixed the idea. Such men should be kept as far away from power as possible, not rewarded for their oh-so-dashing style without substance.

	13-09-2002 06:14									#59
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Frogger quote: MacArthur appears to be the perfect example of the Peacekeeper commander who reacts to a situation in an appropriate manner without having to get SC approval. Regardless, the UN later endorsed his actions MacArthur wanted to bomb selected cities and stategic routes in the PR of ****ing China with nuclear weapons (a total of about 2 dozen). Truman, luckily, was not as mindbogglingly insane or megalomaniacal as good old Dugout Doug, and nixed the idea. Such men should be kept as far away from power as possible, not rewarded for their oh-so-dashing style without substance.

I don't recall his being fired over the use of nuclear weapons.

However, the point I am making concerns his actions at the very beginning of he conflict when the NK overran ROK troops. If MacArthur had waited for UN authorization before acting, all probably would have been lost. But this is the very point that Tingkai was arguing was necessary in the Rwanda situation. The commander must have flexibility to respond to aggression and to call in reinforcements.

Had the UN commanders at Rawanda or Sebrenicia had MacArthurs balls and access to reinforcements, literally millions of deaths could have been prevented.

	13-09-2002 06:20									#60
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Because of him, and him almost alone, the war dragged on for another two years

Not exactly. MacArthur wanted to take the war farther than it needed to be taken, sure, but he certainly didn't act alone. It was not OUR war we were fighting, after all, it was South Koreas. Ultimately, they were the ones calling the shots, and THEY wanted to continue the war as well. MacArthur didn't argue with them, but his presence (well, the US forces presence) allowed the war to be continued for as long as it was.