United Nations Poll

[Kagemusha]

I don't think so. There will be in-fighting within the EU about how the force will be used. There was a similiar force designed during the 1980's around a NATO rapid-reaction force (If my memory serves me correctly) that could never get beyond the concept and training phase because of the politics of the NATO members.

And if its 5-15 days its behind what the United States is already capable of with the Airborne and light Brigades of the Army and MEF of the Marines.

ITs a good idea for Europe but I doubt if the EU force will ever be deployed outside of a purely European mission, and will never be a force to replace the "Blue Helments" of the United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

The concept of the troops when it was decided was that these European troops would be deployd.When the situation would be that the US for some reason wouldnt or couldnt get involved in that particular crisis.The main area for use of these troops would be ofcourse near EU.Im sure that you as an military person know that there are also Marines and Paratroopers and long range transporting capacity in European Arsenals asswell.
And about EU peacekeeping.There is purely EU peacekeeping operation on UN mandat going on at Sierra Leone as we speak.

[Redleg]

The concept of the troops when it was decided was that these European troops would be deployd.

Of course it was in concept - just like the NATO force was decided in concept. Reality will paint a different picture.

When the situation would be that the US for some reason wouldnt or couldnt get involved in that particular crisis.The main area for use of these troops would be ofcourse near EU.

One of the reasons the NATO multinational force failed was because of something very similiar to this.

Im sure that you as an military person know that there are also Marines and Paratroopers and long range transporting capacity in European Arsenals asswell.

Sure I do - but we are not talking about the national militaries of individual nations - but the EU rapid reactionary force. 5-15 days is slow for such a force. The ones - Airborne Units of many nations can be in country deployed and conducting combat operations in 24 hours or less, with follow on forces arriving within 3 days.

The MEF's are positioned for immediate support of Airborne Units.

And about EU peacekeeping.There is purely EU peacekeeping operation on UN mandat going on at Sierra Leone as we speak.

I know - and it proves my point of Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

[sharrukin]

The UN is all talk, and that is exactly what it should be, because talking can sometimes avoid fighting. It acts as a international opinion poll, and that is useful as well. Given that democracies that respect human rights are a minority in the world, do we really want the UN to have significant power, that could be turned to any purpose?

[Beirut]

Damn straight it's still useful.

They've got the best hookers there!

[Kagemusha]

Sure I do - but we are not talking about the national militaries of individual nations - but the EU rapid reactionary force. 5-15 days is slow for such a force. The ones - Airborne Units of many nations can be in country deployed and conducting combat operations in 24 hours or less, with follow on forces arriving within 3 days.
The MEF's are positioned for immediate support of Airborne Units.
I know - and it proves my point of Remember the "Blue Helments" come from member nations that want to support the United Nations Peacekeeping missions and is not a standing force with a standing chain of command. Which is its primary problem in responding to problems.

As the nature of EU compared to US is that these troops are part of their standing national armys,only under Operational use they are under EU military HQ which have existed for about 3 years now.About the 5-15 days it means a time where one of the thirteen 1500 men taskforce can be deployd.Its not very pompous,but dont you think its pretty much better then nothing.

[JAG]

Clearly a good idea and still the way forward for global discussions and action.

However I fear the haters have / will have a field day in this thread.

*goes off*

[Don Corleone]

The problem with the UN is that it's not representative, and therefore has no mandate of the governed. If you want a world government, form one. This aristocracy of appointed beauracrats, with no teeth mind you, has become rather "all bark, no bite".

[Red Harvest]

Don's point is valid. The breakdown in the UN is often that you have a bunch of one party dictatorships exerting too much control. Their main interest is preserving their party/family power, NOT their nation. While the multi-party, democratic/representative govts. are far from perfect, at least their govts. come much closer to representing their nation's interests in the UN.

It is the military alliances that have gotten things done, not the UN. The UN didn't win the Cold War, NATO did (and other alliances.) The UN didn't solve the various Balkan Crises, NATO muscle did. I could point to quite a few more. Perhaps it will change, but the Blue Helmets are never going to be able to go anyplace without near unanimous support. Look at how slow they have been to react to Dharfur.

[Auctoritas]

It seems unlikely to me that the UN will be an effective organization when it comes to applying military force any time soon. To be an effective military force, even in peacekeeping operations, there has to be a commitment to stay engaged.

This means staying engaged even when there are casualties, when civilians are hurt, and when the mission seems to be going south. The U.N. has not demonstrated that level of commitment since Korea and nothing that it has done recently seems to indicate a change in attitude.