Peacekeeping?

This is coolbert:

This is one of those headlines that astounds me:

"UN deaths 'threaten peacekeeping'"

"The UN said it wanted to 'get to the bottom' of what happened.

The UN has warned the deaths of four of its personnel in southern Lebanon may deter countries from contributing to a future peacekeeping force in the area."

This from a BBC internet article dated today.

Of course the BBC is talking here about the incident where an outpost of UN observers in southern Lebanon was hit by Israeli fire. Four [??] UN observers were killed.

And the consensus opinion from "informed parties" in the UN is very negative.

"Mr Malloch-Brown told the BBC the UN 'continued to harbour serious concerns about what went on in the Israeli military forces that day'."

"He said the losses posed a 'very serious threat to the whole concept of neutral peacekeeping.'"

"'Peacekeeping is a dangerous business and we depend on the support of the international community,' he said."

[well, at least Malloch-Brown does understand some basics.]

"'When people die it is not a simple accident to be brushed away.'"

Yes the informed opinion is negative. But this is the type of fuzzy thinking that sometimes makes me wonder about "informed opinions".

As I have said many times before, being in the military period is a dangerous business, and cannot be thought of as being otherwise.

EVEN TROOPS IN A PEACEKEEPING MODE ARE AT DANGER! THIS CANNOT BE DENIED! WHEN YOU ARE IN THE MILITARY, AND IN THE PRESENCE OTHER HOSTILE, ANGRY, ARMED FOLKS, YOU RUN THE RISK OF HAVING SOMETHING BAD HAPPEN TO YOU!

IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS!!??

But to say that the entire role and concept of UN Peacekeepers is jeopardized because of one incident seems to be ludicrous. When people "donate" and "volunteer" forces to be Peacekeepers under UN auspices, what do they think may or very well occur??

coolbert.