Apropos the homophobic ex-NATO general
Mar. 20th, 2010 03:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahSo, according to this moron, those effete Dutch allowed the Srebrenica massacre to happen in 1995 because they "socialised" their military after the cold war - OMG, Dutch soldiers have a union - and recruited those limp-wristed queers:
"They declared a peace dividend and made a conscious effort to socialise their military – that includes the unionisation of their militaries, it includes open homosexuality. That led to a force that was ill-equipped to go to war," he said.
Frankly, the Dutch armed forces have never been renowned for their extreme military skill. And it's also true that many of the world's armed forces, especially for countries who are not generally in the business of rattling their sabres as a means of diplomacy, or acting as bully-boys, have wound down their armed forces significantly.
Madeline Bunting wrote an article in the Guardian in 2002 that laid out exactly what the problem was. As well as the ill-equipped and ill-trained armed forces, the UN forces were effectively toothless. It was assumed their mere presence would stop anything erupting; their rules of engagement were not clear about what to do in the situation that arose. And funnily enough, some countries do actually care about the legalities before engaging in warfare. Also, those UN rules of engagement in a particular situation are often defined and curtailed by the more military-minded nations that control the UN Security Council.
I deplore the fact that there are any standing armies left in the world, but the reality is that some groups/nations/whatever still believe the best way to achieve their aims is through violence. And hell, it often is effective, for generations. For smaller countries, while maintaining a huge standing army is not going to be feasible - unless you're Israel, and your country is effectively one big army - allowing the forces that remain to be under-trained and under-equipped seems dangerous in the extreme.
I've always felt that NZ, for example, should get rid of a chunk of its army, and put more of a focus on search-and-rescue forces (with a separate command structure). For disasters, that's what you want, and they could also do logistics operations to supplement the Army forces in the event of a big engagement. Then re-org the Army to get rid of the more quaint regiments like the "mounted rifles" (they aren't actually riding horses any more), and make the whole lot more mixed British Marine-style units, which include artillery and armoured vehicles companies within a platoon. A couple of super-duper commando units (the SAS is well-regarded), and the bomb squad. Then there are the Territorial (reserve) units, organised along the same lines. Same with SAR forces.
However, if you're going to do that, they should be equipped with the latest and greatest, and be trained within an inch of their lives. Allowing your under-resourced forces to be put in to the position that the Dutch were in in Srebrenica would be horrible in the extreme (both for your soldiers and the people they are supposed to be protecting). And if it isn't frigging obvious, none of that has anything to do with queers in the military or allowing your soldiers basic civil rights, like being able to join unions.
Madeline Bunting wrote an article in the Guardian in 2002 that laid out exactly what the problem was. As well as the ill-equipped and ill-trained armed forces, the UN forces were effectively toothless. It was assumed their mere presence would stop anything erupting; their rules of engagement were not clear about what to do in the situation that arose. And funnily enough, some countries do actually care about the legalities before engaging in warfare. Also, those UN rules of engagement in a particular situation are often defined and curtailed by the more military-minded nations that control the UN Security Council.
I deplore the fact that there are any standing armies left in the world, but the reality is that some groups/nations/whatever still believe the best way to achieve their aims is through violence. And hell, it often is effective, for generations. For smaller countries, while maintaining a huge standing army is not going to be feasible - unless you're Israel, and your country is effectively one big army - allowing the forces that remain to be under-trained and under-equipped seems dangerous in the extreme.
I've always felt that NZ, for example, should get rid of a chunk of its army, and put more of a focus on search-and-rescue forces (with a separate command structure). For disasters, that's what you want, and they could also do logistics operations to supplement the Army forces in the event of a big engagement. Then re-org the Army to get rid of the more quaint regiments like the "mounted rifles" (they aren't actually riding horses any more), and make the whole lot more mixed British Marine-style units, which include artillery and armoured vehicles companies within a platoon. A couple of super-duper commando units (the SAS is well-regarded), and the bomb squad. Then there are the Territorial (reserve) units, organised along the same lines. Same with SAR forces.
However, if you're going to do that, they should be equipped with the latest and greatest, and be trained within an inch of their lives. Allowing your under-resourced forces to be put in to the position that the Dutch were in in Srebrenica would be horrible in the extreme (both for your soldiers and the people they are supposed to be protecting). And if it isn't frigging obvious, none of that has anything to do with queers in the military or allowing your soldiers basic civil rights, like being able to join unions.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-20 08:20 am (UTC)Rob
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-20 03:38 pm (UTC)If it isn't clear, I'm actually more in favour of bodies like the UN carrying out world policing, not self-appointed nations who act all shocked and surprised when their input is not welcomed.
(Disclaimer - my grandfather served with UN forces off and on for 15 years post WWII. What they did wasn't perfect, but it was better than the alternatives on offer at the time.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-20 10:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-21 06:07 am (UTC)