Skip to main content

View Diary: No, Putin isn't being smart. Obama is running rings around him (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The action is by the UN Security Council (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brit, quagmiremonkey, aliasalias

    The troops on the ground are from those various countries.

    For someone who claims to be an FDR Democrat, you need to find out a little more about one of FDR's and Eleanor's greatest accomplishments.  That is it still around after 68 years is something remarkable.  As remarkable as the fact that we are still around after the Cold War, a fact that the presence of the UN contributed to on several critical occasions.

    My idea was a multinational force from all of those countries, probably numbering 50,000-75,000.  Chapter VII was meant to be authorization for what is now called Blue Helmet forces who operate under the flag and authorization of the United Nations collectively.

    What the Russians and Assad definitely will not agree to is an arrangement that permits the US to decide unilaterally whether Syria is in compliance with a UN Security Council resolution.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:01:45 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I was trying to make sense of your proposal (0+ / 0-)

      You argue - correctly - there is no Chapter VII force without Security Council agreement.  Now, as I understand it, your proposal is that the Security Council deadlock can be secured through careful selection of the forces that make-up the peacekeepers.  

      That is putting the carriage before the horse.  Any agreement between the Security Council powers for a cease fire and diplomatic process is the main problem.  They are currently far apart.  The make-up of any UN force is a minor issue that can be dealt with in the wake of any agreement.  It is not a factor that will figure into the calculations for a settlement.  

      Bear in mind, the countries that would participate are not drafted or dragooned into it - they must volunteer and if they decide not to participate mid-stream for whatever reason, they leave.  They are not "a UN Army" but rather a collection of sovereign forces cobbled together for a very specific, usually time-limited, purpose.  And countries don't volunteer unless they feel it is something they can handle.  The big donors, e.g. the Security Council members, G-20, etc. are the ones who pay the bill.  Ultimately, in those rare instances where such a force is deployed and faces armed challenges beyond its means, one of the bigger powers steps in to knock some local heads together (the French have done this often in Africa).

      So what you describe is both unrealistic and impractical.

      Such proposals seem designed more to tie the hands of the USA.  Fair enough.  

      "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

      by FDRDemocrat on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 03:34:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the USA does not allow its hands (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quagmiremonkey, aliasalias

        ...to be tied in some way, there is not going to be an agreement and the US will assert unilateral right to attack.  Which to the rest of the world looks like the old Iraq War ruse and consequently is an unwise foreign policy for the US to pursue.

        What I describe is unrealistic only to the extent that (1) the US wants to label the Assad regime as a pariah without convincing (to the rest of the world) evidence and (2) the extent to which the US wants to be the force that administers sanctions on Syria.

        What the US wants to pursue is realistic and practical only to the extent the US is willing to scrap the United Nations entirely and freeze the absolute power that George W. Bush asserted in his Article 2 war powers to the exclusion of Congress.  The first destroys a major peace-keeping institution as surely as the League of Nations was destroyed. The second destroys the Constitutional separation of powers in making war.  Both might be realistic and practical, but like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they make the world more dangerous and the US government less democratic.

        I am old enough to remember when I wouldn't have to be arguing these points with Democrats.

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:23:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site