Hey, I actually did start this post in November, but never finished it, now I finished it.
I was just reading an article at ForeignPolicy.com about the al-Shabab attack on the UN compound in Mogadishu. I was struck by one thing in regard to the June 19 attack; the Ugandan peacekeeper's response.
"Ugandan peacekeepers arrived on teh scene about 30 minutes after the attack began, but they declined a request to enter the compound to take on the remaining al-Shabab militants, saying that was the job of Somali security forces."
I considered the potential that there are caveats that are made by states when they send their forces into harm's way. Stephen Saideman has talked about caveats in Afghanistan and what they really mean for alliances. In fact, he and David Auerswald have a book where caveats are probably considered; caveats like certain NATO allies not being allowed to do patrols after dark. Now, the situation in Mogadishu is one in which there are UN personnel, but the security mission is African Union, and apparently there is a Ugandan contingent to that mission. I am at this moment unaware of any caveats (based on reading about this mission in several publications) but they might exist. For my two cents, however, I choose to put a different word in place of caveat--dereliction. Your job as peacekeepers is to protect the UN personnel, so protect them. Unless, of course, the caveat does exist and is just not really publicly acknowledged.
I was just reading an article at ForeignPolicy.com about the al-Shabab attack on the UN compound in Mogadishu. I was struck by one thing in regard to the June 19 attack; the Ugandan peacekeeper's response.
"Ugandan peacekeepers arrived on teh scene about 30 minutes after the attack began, but they declined a request to enter the compound to take on the remaining al-Shabab militants, saying that was the job of Somali security forces."
I considered the potential that there are caveats that are made by states when they send their forces into harm's way. Stephen Saideman has talked about caveats in Afghanistan and what they really mean for alliances. In fact, he and David Auerswald have a book where caveats are probably considered; caveats like certain NATO allies not being allowed to do patrols after dark. Now, the situation in Mogadishu is one in which there are UN personnel, but the security mission is African Union, and apparently there is a Ugandan contingent to that mission. I am at this moment unaware of any caveats (based on reading about this mission in several publications) but they might exist. For my two cents, however, I choose to put a different word in place of caveat--dereliction. Your job as peacekeepers is to protect the UN personnel, so protect them. Unless, of course, the caveat does exist and is just not really publicly acknowledged.
No comments:
Post a Comment