Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld proposes world peacekeeping force (my title)
The Guardian ^ | June 28, 2003 | David Teather

Posted on 06/27/2003 8:06:28 PM PDT by ejdrapes

US proposes world peacekeeping force

Rumsfeld floats proposal to end Bush doctrine of unilateralism
David Teather in New York
Saturday June 28, 2003
The Guardian

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, is discussing the idea of an international peacekeeping force which could be dispatched to maintain order in the world's trouble spots. The idea is an apparent sharp reversal of the Bush administration's staunchly unilateralist stance. It also runs counter to the administration's strong opposition, on taking office, to tying up troops in peacekeeping roles.

But with American forces thinly spread across the globe and the US military facing insurgency and accusations of mishandling the situation in post-war Iraq, the White House is coming under increasing political pressure to find a different means of policing unstable nations.

Earlier this week, the UK's ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, urged the US to spearhead a peacekeeping force for Liberia, which is being torn apart by a civil war.

At a dinner in Washington last week, Mr Rumsfeld told defence industry leaders: "I am interested in the idea of our leading, or contributing to in some way, a cadre of people in the world who would like to participate in peacekeeping or peacemaking.

"I think it would be a good thing if our country was to provide some leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications [so] that they can work with each other."

The US military's effort to keep the peace in Iraq after the official end of the conflict looks increasingly unstable. A rash of attacks on US and British troops has pointed to growing disaffection among Iraqis, while looting and sabotage continue to damage efforts to get the nation back on its feet.

Twenty-one US soldiers, and six from Britain, have been killed in assaults since the war ended.

US military officials have complained that they have received little or no training for peacekeeping. Most US military police are reservists, given just one day of instruction on dealing with civilians. Nato has taken a lead role in peacekeeping in the Balkans, but has been reluctant to get involved in Iraq.

Firms looking to invest in Iraq are reportedly being warned of an "even" chance of its descending into open revolt.

More than half the US army's deployable troops are currently engaged in peacekeeping and stabilisation operations around the world, including in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The army is not only spread thinly, but the long-term absence of so many soldiers is causing political disquiet at home.

Mr Rumsfeld acknowledged in reply to a question at the dinner that it would have been good to have a peacekeeping force in place before the Iraqi war.

He told reporters yesterday during a brief press conference on a different matter that there had been "discussions about [a peacekeeping force] for a couple of years, but there have been no specific proposals put forward."

The Pentagon is said to have approached countries in Europe and Latin America about the idea of setting up a force, although the Ministry of Defence in London said yesterday it was unaware of the proposal.

It is unclear how many troops the US might be prepared to commit. A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed that discussions had been taking place "for some time" but declined to offer further details.

The US currently has 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A permanent US peacekeeping force was discussed during the Clinton administration.

President Bush, however, promised to pull troops out of the Balkans, where the US has 5,500 soldiers stationed, and said he would review the commitment of US troops in dozens of other countries.

The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, said of the army at the time: "It is not a civilian police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society."

But September 11 changed US foreign policy radically, and stabilising overseas countries is now viewed as a matter of national security.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrine; policeforce; rumsfeld
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 06/27/2003 8:06:28 PM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
This is outrageous. I have no doubt that's where we're heading, but what will the future peacekeeping forces be equipped with? Married gays? The French? And let's not go there with the cost. Beam me up.
2 posted on 06/27/2003 8:18:01 PM PDT by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes; squidly
US led, US directed, it would respond to US sensibilities on foreign policy issues. And it would be effective, especially compared to UN led actions, where Uruguayan troops are left to fend for themselves with no backup. And its activities could be separate and deniable, though parallel, to official US policy. Obvioiusly, where the objectives were not in harmony with US interests, the force would not deploy.

Consider it job security for "retired" Green Berets and "ex" intel analysts.

If, in the face of genocide, someone makes the decision to recolonize Africa, for example, this is the way to do it.
3 posted on 06/27/2003 8:28:52 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabrielle Reilly
ping.
4 posted on 06/27/2003 8:30:08 PM PDT by Gabrielle Reilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Looks like certain members of the Bush Administration are pushing for more UN control, a national police force, the NWO and TOTAL GUN CONTROL.
5 posted on 06/27/2003 8:34:27 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Everything we were afraid the Clinton's would do , is happening under a Republican administration.

6 posted on 06/27/2003 8:36:01 PM PDT by dinok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
It is unclear how many troops the US might be prepared to commit. A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed that discussions had been taking place "for some time" but declined to offer further details.

The US isn't going to commit any "troops". Rummy suggested a peacekeeping force not military troops. These would be people who are specifically trained for peacekeeping. He also said the US would provide leadership, communications, etc. to countries who were interested in providing the people. Sheesh, this poor excuse for a journalist has the attention span of a knat.

7 posted on 06/27/2003 8:51:56 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
I get it, a peacekeeping force would be composed of little old ladies in tennis shoes controlling traffic at intersections. There would be no military involved. Put the next load of manure on the cabbage patch. How do you restore order in a country that requires a peacekeeping force?
8 posted on 06/27/2003 9:20:14 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
sounds familiar
9 posted on 06/27/2003 9:30:29 PM PDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Debunking Darwin since the beginning of time... :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Try reading the article. It would be composed of peacekeepers contributed by "counties interesting in participating", and the US would train them and provide leadership and communications. That would be retired military as advisors etc.

I've long thought that the solution would be to have a specific peacekeeping corp. They receive different training then do regular military. You'd have to volunteer for that specifically and not just have a bunch of our military shoved over into peacekeeping. It's workable. The best people of this would be retired military who became active policemen, they would bring the best of both skills.

10 posted on 06/27/2003 10:18:51 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
There is no need for an international peacekeeping force. We just need a force capable of quickly squashing any country or group that screws with us.That's what I pay taxes for.

After how the rest of the world has responded post 9/11 to the United States, including our taking care of business in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the face of almost 60 years of our guaranteeing and paying for world peace for the rest of the ungrateful travellers on the globe we share, the rest of the "civilized world" showed their true colors, and they can go explore each other's anal cavities with gusto for all I care. The free ride is over in my book.

I don't want to hear about our involvement with an international police force for other places when I can't even have my own country's military on our southern border to stop the illegal invasion underway as we "speak", especially at a time when national security is in peril.
11 posted on 06/28/2003 12:13:52 AM PDT by exit82 (Constitution?--I got your Constitution right here!--T. Daschle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
I read the article. What in the hell do we need peacekeepers scattered all over the world for? It's time to get home and take care of some of our problems here. Such as making sure terrorists don't come across our borders.

Such as making sure our ports are safe from some freighter carrying a nuke. Sticking our noses into every meddlesome neighbors behind and choosing sides is making us the world's bully I love to hate. You international busybodies should look around you and solve some of the problems locally instead of searching the world for problems. There are plenty here.

12 posted on 06/28/2003 4:15:29 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dinok
"Everything we were afraid the Clinton's would do , is happening under a Republican administration. "

Ironic, isn't it? Clinton gave $500,000 towards a UN standing force and everyone had a cow. But whatever Bush and his administration do is wonderful, I guess.

Carolyn

13 posted on 06/28/2003 4:34:55 AM PDT by CDHart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

WHAT?

I love Rumsfeld.. but he needs to be fired for this.

The wheel has turned, and it's time for him to go.

14 posted on 06/28/2003 5:05:11 AM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinok; DoughtyOne

15 posted on 06/28/2003 5:06:09 AM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Hey you kids, get off my lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
I'd wait to see this in another (American) paper, like the Washington Times maybe, before I take this too seriously.
16 posted on 06/28/2003 5:07:09 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Problem is this article had actual quotes from Rumsfeld. Has Rumsfeld denied that he made these comments? If not, then it has to be taken seriously. Unless of course The Guardian and/or the Left Angeles Times just made them up, in which case you'd think Rummy would want to set the record straight.
17 posted on 06/28/2003 7:05:22 AM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
Maureen Dowd quoted Bush. I'm still reserving judgement.
18 posted on 06/28/2003 7:06:57 AM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: meenie
Uh, hate to tell you this, but checking the arriving freight is too late. We're already working with the countries who are shipping things to the US getting set up to inspect shipping containers BEFORE they get here.

As to why we need peacekeeping forces, it's easier, cheaper and more efficient than allowing things to get so out of hand they end up here. Or do you like having all the worlds refugees seeking asylum here? That's what happens when people can't live in their own countries, and we accept them. How about approaching problems in a more cost effective manner.

19 posted on 06/28/2003 7:11:34 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
When a Democrat proposes something wrong, at least the Republicans will object, if only to differentiate. But when Republicans propose what the Dems have wanted to do all along, who opposes? The Dems help put it into law damning the Republicans all the while as not doing enough.

The Republican party is the brain dead party.
20 posted on 06/28/2003 10:03:56 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Vote Dimpublican in 2004: Socialism's kinder gentler party: "We will leave no wallet behind!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson