Say Anything Blog

Historically where militaries go rape occurs.  That’s true of the U.S. military as well (notice all the problems that the U.S. military has with rape in its own ranks). 

Furthermore, these 16 missions are primarily regulated by the national militaries that the U.N. is loaned.  The U.N. doesn’t have an Article 43 army after all, it has access to Article 42 military units as provided by the sovereign states that make up the U.N.

Geez, Gary, what kind of relativism is this?  Yes, you are correct on the surface, the difference is the accountability aspect.  The UN has either tried to ignore or, worse yet, cover-up these sins.  If the UN can’t or won’t hold members or their military units accountable, than they can’t possibly be trusted with any peace keeping mission.

BTW, I pray that you’re not claiming that the US military is no different than these thugs in the Congo.

JFH,

Its not relativism at all. 

Yes, you are correct on the surface, the difference is the accountability aspect.

I am correct in every way.  Become familiar with what sort of regulatory powers the UN has over an Article 42 force.  The primary body which regulates the activities of an Article 42 force is the nation from which that force comes from and not the UN. 

If the UN can’t or won’t hold members or their military units accountable, than they can’t possibly be trusted with any peace keeping mission.

Well, here you merely point out the fatal weakness of the U.N.  Its not a sovereign body; it has very little power to regulate the activities of its member states; it has no power that its member states don’t allow it; its not a body with either plenary power or even the sort of constitutionally limited power granted the US federal government. 

And these aren’t UN military units; they are an Article 42 force - meaning that they remain directly under the control of the nation which sends them there.  Only an Article 43 force would constitute a UN military force; and we’ve never, ever seen one of the latter in action.  You can find the UN Charter on line and you will see how the language between the two differs. 

BTW, I pray that you’re not claiming that the US military is no different than these thugs in the Congo.

I am curious.  When a woman is raped by the U.S. military (be it a fellow member of the military or not) how does that differ from the rape of a woman by say the Nigerian military in the Congo?  Are you suggesting that rape by Americans is more perferable than rape by Nigerians?  If you can explain the difference to me, do tell.

Come on Gary, don’t be an ass.  Again, we’re talking about the scale of the crimes, isolated incidents in the US military are ugly incidents and tried as the heinous crimes that they are.  The incidents in the UN peace keeping missions border on war crimes and atrocities.  If you can’t tell the difference, I feel sorry for you, as your bias has clearly clouded your mind.

Just a thought exercise, were you more upset about Abu Graib incidents or about the Congo incidents?  If you say the former, I think you’ve really lost your perspective.

Most importantly, we definitely agree on point #2, and I don’t know a solution for it.  How do you put corrupt countries in charge of peace keeping without some sort of accountability and rule of law as other countries’ militaries have?  Yet, at the same time, understandingly, no efirst/second world country wants to give up its military control to an unelected, potentially prejudiced, body such as the UN.

JFH,

We differ.  If that’s me being an ass, so be it. 

...isolated incidents in the US military are ugly incidents and tried as the heinous crimes that they are.

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the matter knows that rape in the U.S. isn’t “isolated.” Its a systemic problem that has received the spotlight of a number of “blue ribbon” commissions.  Unfortunately there is a heck of of a lot of resistance to change in the military and that’s likely due to the traditional culture that makes it up.  Things will change over time and hopefully - just like overt racism - commonplace incidents of rape will be expunged from the U.S. military. 

Just a thought exercise, were you more upset about Abu Graib incidents or about the Congo incidents? If you say the former, I think you’ve really lost your perspective.

Of course I was more upset by the former.  After all, those were actions perpetrated by people who represent me.  Heck, I know the Russian military can be butchers, and while I find their actions loathesome, at least they aren’ representing me or my country in the field.  American involvement in Abu Ghraib was entirely different though; there they disgraced the good name of my country.  If that distinction is difficult for you to fathom, well, so be it. 

How do you put corrupt countries in charge of peace keeping without some sort of accountability and rule of law as other countries’ militaries have?

Corrupt, military states don’t have a problem putting their soldiers in harms way.

Yet, at the same time, understandingly, no efirst/second world country wants to give up its military control to an unelected, potentially prejudiced, body such as the UN.

Article 43 of the UN Charter does provide a vehicle for this to happen:

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

You could clearly create a special agreement that wouldn’t hand over sovereignty to the U.N. but provide the U.N. with a semi-permanent military force.  The devices are in place; no one wants to use them that is all.  And since the U.N. can’t force a member state to create an Article 43 force, its toothless in any efforts to get one going.

Gary,

Great responses, sorry ‘bout the “ass” remark.  My only contention now is the word “systemic problem”.  I can see how you would draw that conclusion, based on recent evidence, but I wouldn’t go that far. (Maybe I’m just too biased toward the military viewpoint; although the incidents at USAFA and the academy’s response to this incidents DID make me more upset than the Congo episodes if it’s any consolation)

Of course, the incidents at Colorado Springs aren’t limited to just the Zoomies.  It’s a problem at all the academies.  AF just happened to have some cadets who weren’t going it let it go, coupled with a completely inept and criminal administration response.

Gary is correct, though; trying to keep a scorecard of whether some banana republic’s military is committing worse atrocities is a foolish and dishonest argument.  Our nation’s military ought to be held to a much higher standard.

And the problems seen in Iraq are systemic; there is no other rational explanation for the scope of problems that have come to light.

There you go again, JG, pretending to be an Academy grad… incidents at West Point and Annapolis are just that INCIDENTS not systemic problems, any potential for those problems were nipped in the bud at USNA years ago.

But more to the point what is your definition of a “systemic problem”?  I take it to mean a problem that occurs because of the system/culture/environment of the particular incidents, the stats don’t support this… Unless, of course, you’re in Rep. Sanchez’s world where “there is high probability that you may be raped and not raped just once, but several times.â€?  Which the evidence doesn’t support.