How 'capable' are U.N. troops?

Question

They might be sent to Sudan and Dafur in cooperation with an African Army.

Answer 1

It depends on what countries front the troops. UN military actions are usually more a glorified peace keeping force and not a Coalition style military action. It is hard to make a military out of a lot of different countries that train and think differently and then get them to work jointly together. The UN wants troops in Sudan to help with the Darfur crisis, but Sudan doesn't necessarily want their help. Sudan has expressed their views of an all African solution, meaning more help from the defunct African Union. Now a UN force would be more reliable than the AU force, for sure. But whether anything would actually get solved once the UN comes and then leaves will be the question. In the end Sudan is going to do whatever it wants within its borders. They don't really seem to care about what the world thinks of them. Why should they economic sanctions would do nothing to them, and then there is always the Chinese right there buying their oil and pouring money into their country.

Answer 2

Look at the wonderful job they have done in Lebanon and Haiti.

BTW - remember Somalia? We had the place calmed down enough that President Bush Sr. pulled out all US combat troops. Then UN troops started shaking down locals for 'taxes' and got into some fight they could not handle. As a result Clinton foolishly sent the US troops back - and look what happened.

Answer 3

U.N troops are as effective as their training and leadership. American troops are part of the UN. British and Australian troops are too and are of very capable. Of course not all troops are of the same quality. The French also were forcing woman to give them sex for food in their last U.N. program.

Answer 4

We'll never know since they always either have orders not to fight or they just plain won't fight when they do have orders allowing them to use force.

The idea of the UN's "troops" as a military force has been and continues to be a pathetic joke. How can an organization dedicated to talk, talk, and more talk be expected to act in the most elemental way that humans are able to behave with one another (i.e., by killing each other)? Answer: They can't, so don't expect it of them.

Answer 5

Not very useful if you ask me they go in their with the worst ROE(rules of engagment) don't shoot unless shot at it's dumb and ther slow to mobilize by the time thier on the scene half of the US troops are injured and dead and the UN forces usually just pull our troops out and don't do anything most of the time the US is pulling all the weight with the UN just picking up the remains and supplying us with ammo and medical supplies if were lucky I think each army should jsut go in instead of useing UN peacekeepers

Answer 6

i guessit is better than nothing,if troops are allowed to do anything. you can't blame the UN for the actions of its members. it is an organization of many countries. i notice you have attracted a few troop bashers,i wonder why they hate Korean war vets

Answer 7

Not at all -- there are no UN troops.

Any troops under UN directives are on loan from other countries -- so they are as competent as the military in those countries.

Answer 8

Not very, because they have to operate under all sorts of rules of engagement. They can't do the job they're supposed to because one hand is tied behind their back.

Answer 9

Sudan will stop

Answer 10

the can screw in a lightbulb in high places