Article

2009-08-17 International-UN-NGOs

A New Kind of Force Could Provide Security

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2009-08-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 Will they wear brown shirts?

Posted by tipover 2009-08-17 01:07|| 2009-08-17 01:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Too funny. It could to called the Birkenstocks to Boots program. Volunteer you damn dirty hippies and show us your war face.

Posted by ed 2009-08-17 01:16|| 2009-08-17 01:16|| Front Page Top

#3 Ha, yeah right like that'll happen. Lefties never do anything unless it fellates their narcissism.

Posted by gromky 2009-08-17 02:00|| 2009-08-17 02:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Wow, O'Hanlon has really outdone himself here. Too many jaw-droppers to even begin. Perhaps the other 6 billion people on the planet could "lead by example" in this case - just for a change - by actually doing something. We've been leading by example for decades. With a few small exceptions, nobody's been following.

Posted by Verlaine">Verlaine 2009-08-17 02:37|| 2009-08-17 02:37|| Front Page Top

#5 But they are manageable and tolerable risks, especially since most such deployments would be legitimated by the United Nations, carried out with partners such as key allies, and backstopped by the U.S. armed forces in worst-case scenarios.

What's the point of providing forces if you are not willing to defend anything such as Iraq?

This guy seems to think "6 months of military training and we'll have a military force for peace operations"

Where will they get NCOs and will the focus of the NCOs be their charges, or will the focus of NCOs be a non-military agenda? Because liberals believe in sacrificing for your goals as long as you can get others to do the sacrificing.

If liberals want a peace division, hows about increasing the number of high readiness real military divisions.

Better yet and a better value, how about increasing funding for a missile shield against any south Asian or African mobocracy that want to launch a missile attack against the US and its allies?

Posted by badanov 2009-08-17 07:20|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2009-08-17 07:20|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, yeah, it could work under the auspices of the UN!

After all, no one's ever taken potshots at the guys in blue helmets, or threatened to eat them if they capture them after their ammo runs out, or hack at them with machetes if given the chance....so I'm sure if we sent out some cannon fodder, er, peace warriors, it would all work out well as long as the locals understand they are not under the command of the icky Pentagon, right?

They'll get the locals joining hands, singing kumbaya and driving hybrids in no time flat!

Posted by Cornsilk Blondie 2009-08-17 07:33|| 2009-08-17 07:33|| Front Page Top

#7 The dangers of deploying such units to missions such as the one in Congo, would be real,

One might accurately call that the understatement of the year.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-08-17 07:53|| 2009-08-17 07:53|| Front Page Top

#8 Clinton has taken the first step by calling attention to this region and its terrible problems...since the MSM cast a blind eye to Bush's efforts for most of his Presidency in order to further their own preconceived personal animosity and hatred.

Fixed it for you, sycophant.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-08-17 08:57|| 2009-08-17 08:57|| Front Page Top

#9 You know, the headline "A New Kind of Force Could Provide Security" prompts me to ask, "You mean the Dark Side?"

If you look at this, it seems they want to reinvent the wheel, only they'll be both cheaper and more successful (and have less collateral casualties) than a regular military force because... well, they don't seem to get around to that.

People who listened to every bit of propaganda and believed most of it about the traditional 'square' military believe they could reinvent it and not have all the problems the regular military does, because they're better people, gosh darn it!

I'd give their division two weeks in theater before they're busy covering up their first My Lai massacre.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-08-17 09:44|| 2009-08-17 09:44|| Front Page Top

#10 I'd give their division two weeks in theater before they're busy

...looking for kidnapped team members and discovering cooking pots and body parts.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-08-17 09:57|| 2009-08-17 09:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Come on, you know what they really want and will never admit. Mercenaries. That's what they're really after, but after the way they go after Blackwater and other contractors, it's not going to happen.

At least, not with quality people. If all you want is gun toting bodies, I'm sure you can hire that quick enough.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2009-08-17 10:08|| 2009-08-17 10:08|| Front Page Top

#12 First step to going back to the bad old days of conscripts.

Posted by mojo 2009-08-17 10:31|| 2009-08-17 10:31|| Front Page Top

#13 O'Hanlon also is ignoring the real and effective missions our 'battle-hardened' troops are doing among the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, going house to house in the villages, drinking tea and handing out school supplies, and enlisting tribal help in flushing out extremists.

Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-08-17 10:38|| 2009-08-17 10:38|| Front Page Top

#14 So there's not enough infighting among the current branches of the service? We need another one to really confuse things?

Posted by Matt 2009-08-17 11:24|| 2009-08-17 11:24|| Front Page Top

#15 The Farce is with us.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2009-08-17 12:03|| 2009-08-17 12:03|| Front Page Top

#16 I'm thinking that anything that thins the 'Birkenstock' herd can't be a bad thing.

Rough outline:
overseas training and deployment only, no base in US;
Keep them together (segregated from regulars);
must undergo psyche tests to ensure they have the 'proper' caring mindset;
prior military service is an absolute bar to entry;
let them do their own training and establish their own training doctrines (can't you just feel the love?);
arm them with non-lethal weapons only; no arty or area weapons, maybe Tasers and their ilk
ensure that they are direct-funded only by MoveOn, DU, and maybe the Kossacks (so they aren't 'tainted', of course; keep 'em pure and sweet) and must not add to tax burden or divert funds from existing services;

add your own ideas

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-08-17 14:20|| 2009-08-17 14:20|| Front Page Top

#17 and self-defense training by Robert Fisk

Posted by Frank G on the road">Frank G on the road 2009-08-17 14:30|| 2009-08-17 14:30|| Front Page Top

#18 "backed up by regular troops" "call for help".
From whom?
If the Big Boys are available for help, they're not someplace else. This does nothing to help spread our forces, but only to tie down more.
What a maroon.

Posted by Richard Aubrey">Richard Aubrey 2009-08-17 15:16|| 2009-08-17 15:16|| Front Page Top

#19 What's the recruiting poster? "Uncle Sam wants YOU to become a hostage in some third world hellhole!"

Posted by Matt 2009-08-17 16:17|| 2009-08-17 16:17|| Front Page Top

#20 This is objectively psychotic.
The Iraqi *regular* military had more training than this clown is talking about. How did that work out?
Moving up a level, the afghan mujahideen could best soviet regular forces and at least keep spetsnaz on its toes...

Posted by Free Radical">Free Radical 2009-08-17 19:45|| 2009-08-17 19:45|| Front Page Top

#21 I see Social Security savings in the near future ...

Posted by Adriane 2009-08-17 22:44|| 2009-08-17 22:44|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:44 ed
23:40 trailing wife
22:59 Cornsilk Blondie
22:56 Pappy
22:51 Pappy
22:50 Redneck Jim
22:46 Glenmore
22:44 Adriane
22:42 Pappy
22:40 Pappy
22:39 Redneck Jim
22:39 Pappy
22:37 DMFD
22:26 Redneck Jim
22:15 Bright Pebbles
22:14 Redneck Jim
21:54 Keystone
21:48 badanov
21:26 Dale
21:15 Broadhead6
21:06 Procopius2k