Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > Strategic Compression

Strategic Compression The compression of roles and effects. The Strategic Corporal meets the "turn left" National Security Advisor.

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-25-2006   #1
Council Member
sgmgrumpy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft Leavenworth Kansas
Posts: 168
Default UN Legion Force

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)


Last edited by sgmgrumpy; 07-25-2006 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Any more current doctrine?
sgmgrumpy is offline  
Old 08-09-2006   #2
Council Member
Stu-6's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Occupied Virginia
Posts: 243

It is an interesting idea but I donít see member states contributing the men, materials, or money.
Stu-6 is offline  
Old 08-10-2006   #3
Council Member
Uboat509's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 681

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.

Uboat509 is offline  
Old 08-15-2006   #4
Council Member
Culpeper's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Roswell, USA
Posts: 540

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....
Culpeper is offline  
Old 08-20-2006   #5
Bill Moore
Council Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,008
Default What does it really say?

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.
Bill Moore is offline  
Old 08-21-2006   #6
Steve Blair
Steve Blair's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 3,195

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?
Steve Blair is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation