View Full Version : UN Legion Force

07-25-2006, 03:46 PM
Not sure if this was posted but found this recently.
Have not had a chance to review.

Thought it was appropriate since the talk of putting a beefed up UN force or some other force providing security for a Safe Zone.

Any more current doctrine?


At the heart of the proposed UN standing force would be motorized and light mechanized
infantry battalions and light mechanized and light armored cavalry squadrons. A variety of other combat units, mostly of company size, would complement these.

Units of the Proposed UN Forces Command

Brigade headquarters
Motorized Infantry battalions
Light Mechanized Infantry battalions
Light Cavalry squadrons
Light Armored Cavalry squadrons
Self-propelled Mortar batteries
light 155-mm Artillery batteries (towed)
Light Mechanized Antitank companies
Combat Engineer companies
Air Defense batteries
Armed Scout Helicopter squadrons (18 aircraft each)
Troop Transport Helicopter squadron (24 aircraft)
Signal companies
Field Intelligence companies
Military Police companies
Reconnaissance and Surveillance platoons (3 RPVs each)
Field Security sections
multinational Field Communication and Liaison teams (400 personnel, aggregate)

DOWNLOAD (http://www.comw.org/pda/vforce.pdf)

08-09-2006, 09:32 PM
It is an interesting idea but I donít see member states contributing the men, materials, or money.

08-10-2006, 09:13 AM
What the UN lacks is will and cohesive purpose not force structure. If the UN could ever get the members of the security council to agree that force is the right option and then produce the will to use it they could probably get enough forces to use it. As it stand now the members of the secuity council tend to work at cross purposes and even when they agree still would rather talk and pass resolutions than actuallly do anything.


08-15-2006, 02:40 AM
The UN Legion? I like the sound of that. They should model it after the French Foreign Legion. Except I wouldn't recommend having only French officers leading the troops. "Not that there is anything wrong with that". I guess the first order of the day would be to cover up all that white and blue paint. Everyone should also be required to wear a beret when in garrison. That would include during periods of "pulling out". None of this taking off the berets and replacing them with black baseball caps. The list appears to be missing anything that would provide close air support. I guess they could always get that from....

Bill Moore
08-20-2006, 04:45 AM
This paper was published in 1995, and the world security picture has changed a lot since that time. While the concerns the paper addresses are valid, it is a typical UN discussion, which means little action will result from it. UN actions in Cote díIvoire and Sierra Leone have shown the effectiveness of a lead nation (ideally western, in these examples they were France and England). Countries are more confident in donating troops when they are going to be properly led. I think the distant hope of the UN actually be able to reach a consensus and rapidly employ a capable military force is an unrealistic dream. Every country has its national interests, thus every conflict benefits someone in some way.

Steve Blair
08-21-2006, 02:19 PM
I would tend to agree. There's also the question of finding capable military leaders for these operations, which again turns to a lead nation option. And the question of vested interests on the part of the nations involved is also a very good point. I worked for a time with students from Kenya and other parts of Africa, and they were always expressing suspicion any time France was involved in missions in Africa.

There is also the question of logistics support. Is the UN really capable of supporting a sizeable military effort? And, given the scandals that surround much of their contracting, would member nations trust the UN to run logistics?