Originally Posted by 03USMC

African Union Troops have had good preliminary results in operations. Such as Liberia a couple of years ago, especially the Nigerian troops. Their problem seems to be logistics in terms of transport and provisioning. They have to rely on the UN.

As a peace keeping force the African Union Troops tend to have problems. Commanders black marketing rations and weapons and drug trafficing.

The other issue is that as many African countries are fairly artifical (ie the boundaries don't refelct the population's ethnicity and cultural boundaries) African Union troops can be plagued by the same tribal and ethnic hatreds that drive the conflicts originally.

still it does seem to be a big step foward to have africans keeping the peace in africa (see the situation the french got them selves into recently). i'm sure that with more/better training they could be the solution to alot of the civil war.

they seemed to be pretty on to it in darfor.

"try not to be a soldier for a MOMENT. I give up if u can not understand this."

I think the lack of understanding is on your part. You clearly can't distinquish a montrous terrorist act against _civilians_ from a military action.

I think it is also the way some of the mercenary units operate... World opinion would agree with a bunch of merc occupying a country... I'm not saying that I don't agree with it, but I think the rest of the world would be in an uproar.

might be a complete load of nonce from me, but what if the UN HIRED soldiers from member countries....therefore negating all the issues of chains of command etc

also it would leaves them free to hire ANY troops as they would all be mercenaries by definition?

bollox?

Really the UN does hire soliders from other countries. Or rent would be a better word. All countries providing troops to the UN are reimbursed a sum per solider, transport, rations etc.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Really the UN does hire soliders from other countries. Or rent would be a better word. All countries providing troops to the UN are reimbursed a sum per solider, transport, rations etc.

cheers...didn't know that

The African Union is a farce. The amount of corruption is absolutely rediculous. Wherever AU troops go, the Aids rate increases. The fact that the AU troops are completely biased in almost every situation they get into is also a problem. The tribal differences are very complex and it is almost a garuntee that one tribe will not like the next.
http://www.sudantribune.com/article....d_article=6183

My Uncle was in Rwanda in 94 with the UN. He has never told me what he saw there but it's a well known fact he dosen't hold the UN in high regard. His opinon is, the UN is good for distributing aid, in non-military situations, that's about all. I personally agree with him

The fact of the matter is that the UN tries to administer peace keeping in the same fashion it does aid. It cannot understand that the nature of peace keeping means that it requires fairly agressive ROEs and that on an organizational level must be able to rabidly change; this is not possible with the UN's beurocratic system.