The unfathomable lightness of UN-run peacekeeping

There is great despondency about--and outright opposition to--the NATO mission in Afghanistan repeatedly authorized by the UN Security Council. While, at the same time, the almost ten year-old UN-run military mission in the Congo (exit strategy?) continues to be singularly ineffective and many more people suffer and die (even if the estimate at the link is quite an exaggeration) than in Afghanistan.

So why, why, why do so many Canadians, not just hard-core "progressives" (more on one of them, defeated in the recent election, and his views on "peacekeeping" here and here), want us out--note the date--of Afghanistan and at the same time extol ineffectual UN-run peacekeeping? Ignorance? Attitude? Ideology? Willful unwillingness to face facts? A national hole in the head? Dead blacks far away without much TV coverage and no American involvement to excoriate?

Meanwhile, UN peacekeeping in Darfur continues to go nowhere (and here's a twist with chutzpah: "Sudan demands UN council action on Darfur rebels"). The reality is that Western countries are mostly unwilling and generally unable to fight without the US. And when the US does fight, well...

Mark C.

Posted by markc at October 28, 2008 04:50 PM