United Nations Peacekeeping (catch all)

[J Wolfsberger]

... But I guess my question off the top of my head would be "have things really changed that much since 1994?"

We're doing some "peacekeeping"-like work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But I would argue we're doing it as a necessary tactic, I suppose, for the accomplishment of the missions which began as definitely something other than civilian-protection.

Would western militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?

Matt

We got into A'stan and Iraq because of circumstances that were clearly in the province of National Interest: in A'stan because they harbored people who attacked us; in Iraq because we had intelligence (faulty, as it turned out) that they were pursuing WMDs which we believed would dramitically destabilize an already unstable region.

If I could rephrase your second question, "Would western governments and their militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?" To answer that, I'd say look at the Western/US response in Darfur, to the piracy off the coast of Somalia, to the list of crises in central Africa, etc. With those in mind, I'd have to conclude the answer is "No."

[davidbfpo]

MattC,

I am sure there have been some, but too late tonight to Google to get confirmation. So how about the UK in Sierra Leone in 1999 (partly to rescue a UN expedition), Australia & allies in East Timor in 1999, the French in 2002 then others in the Ivory Coast and mmmm.

On my limited knowledge each has threatened to be "hot" and each has used a level of that lovely military term 'force projection'.

Incidentally do read Tom Odom's book, I recommend it; grim in places.

davidbfpo