| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| East/Subsaharan Africa | ||
| Congolese beg UN for protection | ||
| 2003-05-26 | ||
Desperate Congolese civilians have pleaded with a top United Nations peacekeeper for more protection from eastern Congo's warring tribal militias. Drugged up militia fighters, some suspected of cannibalism, have killed hundreds of people with machetes, guns and bows and arrows but the small UN force in Bunia has neither the mandate nor the firepower to intervene. The UN wants an international force sent to the Ituri region and the under secretary general for peacekeeping, Jean-Marie Guehenno, flew into Bunia on Sunday to survey the situation. "I hope this deployment will happen as soon as possible and that the international community learns from this lesson," he told Reuters. "A multinational force sends a message that enough is enough."
| ||
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #5 If the National Security interest of the United States of America is not on the line, why do we send our troops off to die? The 101st and the 82nd aren't the 911 Emergency Line for the world, they are for our national defense. As sad as the situation is, it does not benefit us in the global calculations to allow our defense policy to be guided by humanitarian concerns. Sending in the airborne forces is a risk to the lives of our servicemen, and it's unjustifiable. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-05-26 20:05:10 |
| #4 Well..let's roll the instant replay, shall we... 12 May...1st news reports of Bunia massacres appear...killing has been going on since the 10th 14 May...Kofi Annan sez "somebody do something" 16 May...UN Security Council sez "Hey you guys, stop that!" 21 May...UN decides to investigate 24 May...UN is planning to investigating 26 May...Un is now preparing to investigate...a beaureacrat is airlifted in So...16 days have passed, bodies are rotting in the streets, the on-scene Uruguayan "peacekeepers" (with a French commander) are hunkered down doing nothing because they don't have a "mandate" and as far as we can tell, the slaughter continues. The killers better watch out, they better not cry, they better not pout, I'm telling you why...the UN is investigating. Isn't international diplomacy a wunnerfull thing? |
| Posted by: Watcher 2003-05-26 19:28:15 |
| #3 Steve-- really good point as to how the left would react. Maybe as a compromise we can fly in a couple of planeloads of human shields. |
| Posted by: Matt 2003-05-26 14:48:12 |
| #2 Let's explore the two options: US deployment -- within 72 hr, a battalion of the 101st or 82nd airborne would have secured the closest airport. This would have required the Air Force and Army to get things together to do this, hence the 72 hr. Within 72 hr after that, we'd have another battalion (at least) at the airport, along with basic support units and some light fighting vehicles. Add a week: at least a regiment and support in, with tracked vehicles and secure comm and logistics. Some units would have already started securing the nearest towns, setting up safe havens, and setting up some medical assistance for the locals. The local commander would have met with all parties and informed them of his rules for engagement (e.g., "screw with me and you die"). Plus one more week: two regiments in, major towns/cities secured or almost so, NGO's starting to filter back in, food coming in via that airport, better logistics, gear, support and shelter for our guys, and a large field hospital setup for the locals. That's about three weeks. UN deployment: paperwork, back to New York, paperwork, a preliminary caucus of the Security Council, paperwork, a statement, paperwork, a special observor, paperwork, a strongly worded statement, paperwork, followed by removal of UN peacekeepers because, after all, it isn't safe there anymore. Question: which option would the world condemn first? Take your time ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-05-26 13:56:41 |
| #1 Send in the clowns!!!! |
| Posted by: debbie 2003-05-26 12:52:44 |