English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Indeed, according to the UN website -
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25084&Cr=afghan&Cr1=
At the end of 2007, humanitarian actors in Afghanistan are operating under much tighter security restrictions – the inevitable consequence of insecurity on the ground – Charlie Higgins of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said at a press briefing in Kabul today.

“These restrictions curtail our access to communities for humanitarian purposes, whether this is the delivery of relief, or efforts to protect civilians from direct harm during conflict,” stated Mr. Higgins, who heads UNAMA’s humanitarian unit.

Mr. Higgins stressed “an unacceptably high risk” to agencies that carry humanitarian deliveries along the main routes in southern and western Afghanistan, as evidenced by a recent attack on a UN World Food Programme (WFP) truck carrying 15 tons of biscuits. The vehicle was looted and then burned, and the driver killed" UNQUOTE
I won't dwell on recent news.

2007-12-26 07:14:04 · 4 answers · asked by Hello 3 in Politics & Government Military

The above account does not take into consideration the extra security provided by Service Personnel and their lives being endangered.. Lives we cannot afford to lose.

I have stated before many times, ONCE POLITICIANS HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO SEND TROOPS INTO BATTLE, THEY HAND OVER COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE THEATRE TO THE MILITARY… NOT United Nations Politicians… civilian construction workers… politicians… etc.

Outside agencies HAVE NO BUSINESS WITHIN THE THEATRE UNTIL THE MILITARY HAVE ACCEPTED A WHITE FLAG, AND THEY, AND ONLY THEY HAVE DEEMED IT SAFE FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES TO GO IN AND BEGIN Reconstruction and reparation etc.

2007-12-26 07:15:10 · update #1

Re jbarelli

I don't consider AFGHANISTAN or Iraq as "War" in that both sides are NOT wearing a military uniform - unlike say The Falklands War 1982.. or indeed as you say, WW2..

I consider AFGHANISTAN and Iraq to be Military conflicts.

2007-12-26 09:41:08 · update #2

4 answers

No.

No action is without risk. Those that take part in providing aid should be made aware of the risks before they take part in providing aid, and ideally, should be paid for the risk. Not only that, where appropriate they should be given protection, and more importantly, the rights to defend themselves.

While the UN has failed the people of Bosnia, Iraq and Rwanda but its inaction due to its obsession with diplomacy, it has done much good in the world in many many other places.

2007-12-26 19:12:59 · answer #1 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 0 0

Unfortunately, when politicians send troops into battle, they do not simply put matters into the hands of the military.

I cannot recall one conflict in which the United States government has ever simply given the military a goal, basic rules of combat (as defined by the various laws and treaties already in place) and said "make it happen".

Go back to the Revolutionary War, and you find the Continental Congress trying to micromanage George Washington.

Additionally, we don't actually fight wars anymore. The last declared war that the United States has participated in was World War II.

The rest have been police actions, military operations, peacekeeping missions and similar situations.

Beyond this, it should also be noted that even in declared wars, humanitarian agencies often went in right behind the troops. In WWII, it was the Red Cross and similar outfits. These organizations were welcomed by the military, as they provided humanitarian assistance to the non-combatant population, allowing the military to get back to the fight.

Saying that they should stay out until all military actions have ceased ignores the great and pressing needs of the noncombatant civilians, or puts an additional obligation onto the military to not only fight, but to provide humanitarian aid as well.

2007-12-26 09:34:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Problem is the Insurgents and Taliban are not waving any white flags, yet innocent civilians are in dire need of supplies, so the UN Humanitarian Assistance Agency's will go in supposedly with hired local guards to protect them, another problem is how to verify the locals credentials.

2007-12-26 09:44:27 · answer #3 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0 0

Pull out and let the buggers kill each other and rot !

2007-12-26 07:18:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers