|
| Thread: Is any type of peacekeeping force at an inherent disadvantage for public opinion? | |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted October 11, 2015 07:34 AM |
|
|
Is any type of peacekeeping force at an inherent disadvantage for public opinion?
I'm talking about UN troops in Nigeria, Somalia, etc.
The disadvantage in terms of public opinion is this:
1. There is always tangible evidence that can be used to say why a peacekeeping force is not working (i.e. there was X car bombs, X fighting-related causalities, X militants formed, etc.)
2. It is impossible to provide tangible evidence to show how the peacekeeping force has been a good thing. In other words: we can't project an alternate reality of Earth for what the country would be like if there were no peacekeeping troops at all. The violence could have been literally 10 or 100 times worse, but that's never something we'll be able to know in absolute terms; we can simply use reasonable speculation backed with sound arguments.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 11, 2015 08:00 AM |
|
|
I'm really quite sleepy right now, so I may not express my objection to this in a sniping accuracy in English, but I think that line of thinking is mystical way above your specific topic.
Quote:
1. There is always tangible evidence that can be used to say why a peacekeeping force is not working (i.e. there was X car bombs, X fighting-related causalities, X militants formed, etc.)
How is it contextually tangible if we do not provide a reasoning between the peace force not working and the X attacks, how would that be any different than saying there are still lightning strikes?
Quote:
2. It is impossible to provide tangible evidence to show how the peacekeeping force has been a good thing. In other words: we can't project an alternate reality of Earth for what the country would be like if there were no peacekeeping troops at all. The violence could have been literally 10 or 100 times worse, but that's never something we'll be able to know in absolute terms; we can simply use reasonable speculation backed with sound arguments.
Arbitrary speculation about any given argument is by default, infinite. If I point out to, say, something like "these UN troops stopped those school children from getting shot by standing in the way," how is it a logical objection to say "but we can't be sure those school children wouldn't have been struck by lightning anyway if they didn't get shot."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 11, 2015 02:39 PM |
|
|
Personally I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. First we need a measuring tool to compare the peacekeeper's success rate to, let's say local law enforcement. Hell, even our police are far from full efficiency in not only crime prevention, but also crime solving, so how can we hold the UN peacekeepers to a higher standard than that? Are we to expect them to foresee and prevent car bombings when the US can't even prevent school massacres? (by crimes I mainly refering to those violent in nature, as a military force is mainly dealing with such issues).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted October 11, 2015 04:53 PM |
|
|
No policeing can prevent all acts of violence. A police force can deter some crimes or attacks and can mitigate some such actions when they occur.
If more police patrols are added to a high crime area and more arrests are made and over time the crime rate drops one can conclude the peacekeeping actions have had a positive effect. But there will be some acts of crime in the area because some crimes simply can't be prevented.
Similarly if a UN peacekeeping force were added to major cities in Iraq, more terrorists were arrested, and the number of homicide bombings dropped over time then the peacekeepers have had an effect. But all acts of terror can't be prevented.
So people should be realistic in their expectations of what a peace-keeping force can do. And peace-keepers can be much more effective if the local populace cooperates with them. If the population unwilling to aid the peace-keepers either out of fear of the bad guys or sympathy for the bad guys the good guys will be much less effective.
It is the job of the community as a whole to keep the community safe. If crime or acts of terror in a community are growing then the community as a whole is failing, not just the police force.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
