UN says: UAV strikes may break int'l law

[FlyinRock]

I actually worked for the UN, got the ID card to prove it. They are a bunch of people who are as interested in protecting their turf as much as being effective. I saw many people who were dedicated to makiing a difference and got hamstrung by bureaucracy (like I was) and eventually left in disgust.
It is a huge organization with many thousands of employees who are paid very well and will snivel at the slightest provocation. I could not believe how much money was being spent and under what I consider to be fivolous conditions or reasons. Its a giant cash cow with a lot of people sucking the money tit.
facta non verba
Rocky

 

[Brett327]

That begs another question: how do you separate the baby from the bath water? How do you stop the blatant corruption and criminal acts (such as rape) committed by the UN or under its purview?

Well, that's a bit of an extremist view of the UN as a whole - kind of like holding up Abu Ghraib and inferring that all US military members are like that. If you believe that this kind of behavior is widespread through the various UN agencies, then you need to do a little more research. I swear to God, if you post three or four links from Google as evidence, I will smite you mightily.

Brett

 

[mmx1]

My father in law (the retired UN cultural attache) handed me that New Yorker article yesterday. It's a decent article, but like most NY-er articles, it comes off as "we don't like this, here's why" without offering any alternative suggestions. (I have it scanned and can post it if there's interest. I think it could be covered under fair use that way.)

No one is seriously discussing ending the attacks - Mayer acknowledges that they're effective and probably our principal tool for disupting Al Qaeda. But there is a spirited debate about whether to pursue a resource-intensive COIN effort or withdraw to an offshore strategy focused solely on targeted killings. It's good to appreciate that this counterterrorism strategy is neither as sanitary or without side effect as its proponents would allow, especially on the margins were this program to be expanded.

 

[mmx1]

I actually worked for the UN, got the ID card to prove it. They are a bunch of people who are as interested in protecting their turf as much as being effective. I saw many people who were dedicated to makiing a difference and got hamstrung by bureaucracy (like I was) and eventually left in disgust.
It is a huge organization with many thousands of employees who are paid very well and will snivel at the slightest provocation. I could not believe how much money was being spent and under what I consider to be fivolous conditions or reasons. Its a giant cash cow with a lot of people sucking the money tit.
facta non verba
Rocky

You worked for the Air Force?:icon_wink

 

[SkywardET]

Well, that's a bit of an extremist view of the UN as a whole - kind of like holding up Abu Ghraib and inferring that all US military members are like that. If you believe that this kind of behavior is widespread through the various UN agencies, then you need to do a little more research. I swear to God, if you post three or four links from Google as evidence, I will smite you mightily.

Brett

Well rape is an extreme case, and likely the most rare. However, you bring up a good point. How do you stop things like Abu Ghraib or similar events from occurring as a result of the UN? It's not like scandals big and large, from Oil for Food to the Congo rapes, did not occur. So how, exactly, do you effectively combat corruption in entrenched beauracracy? I guess that's more of a philosophical question.

 

[squorch2]

How do you stop things like Abu Ghraib or similar events from occurring as a result of the UN?

I think I know what point you're trying to make... but are you really conflating the UN and Abu Ghraib?

 

[Brett327]

I think I know what point you're trying to make... but are you really conflating the UN and Abu Ghraib?

And that was the precise point I was trying to make. Every organization or nation screws things up once in a while. I think ET is suggesting that the UN is a fundamentally corrupt institution because it has had some scandals in the past. That's a seriously flawed (I believe, agenda driven) way of looking at things. If he's ready to condemn the UN as a whole because of "food for oil" or "Congo rapes," then he has to be prepared to condemn the US for Abu Ghraib and the Enron scandal. Of course, that's ridiculous - and that's my point.

ET, we don't have to figure out a way to separate the good from the bad because they're always going to coexist. That's human nature, so we accept the institution because it is, on balance, fundamentally good - in spite of the occasional flaw.

Brett

 

[lowflier03]

How about we pull our support from the UN and see how long they are able to do anything. It's a "bunch of holier than thou, but we need you because we can't be required to actually accomplish anything" group. Perhaps some of their humanitarian missions are worthwhile, but when was the last time the security council actually did anything constructive?

 

[Brett327]

How about we pull our support from the UN ... Perhaps some of their humanitarian missions are worthwhile...

Hey look - you answered your own question. If you want to play the "what have you done for me lately game," I refer you to UNSCR 678.

Brett

 

[scoolbubba]

And that was the precise point I was trying to make. Every organization or nation screws things up once in a while. I think ET is suggesting that the UN is a fundamentally corrupt institution because it has had some scandals in the past. That's a seriously flawed (I believe, agenda driven) way of looking at things. If he's ready to condemn the UN as a whole because of "food for oil" or "Congo rapes," then he has to be prepared to condemn the US for Abu Ghraib and the Enron scandal. Of course, that's ridiculous - and that's my point.

ET, we don't have to figure out a way to separate the good from the bad because they're always going to coexist. That's human nature, so we accept the institution because it is, on balance, fundamentally good - in spite of the occasional flaw.

Brett

I feel like while the UN does good things, without it there wouldn't suddenly be a vacuum of humanitarian assistance, international law, or peacekeeping. Something else would move in to fill the void. How many NGO's are out there without the help of the UN, going it alone and accomplishing good things simply because they don't have to deal with miles of red tape and CYA.

The UN is such a bloated, overstuffed bureaucracy that it seems like its moving inevitably toward a state of stasis, where its only purpose is to perpetuate its existence.

 

[Brett327]

The UN is such a bloated, overstuffed bureaucracy that it seems like its moving inevitably toward a state of stasis, where its only purpose is to perpetuate its existence.

You could say that about the US government as well.

Brett

 

[Flash]

I feel like while the UN does good things, without it there wouldn't suddenly be a vacuum of humanitarian assistance, international law, or peacekeeping. Something else would move in to fill the void. How many NGO's are out there without the help of the UN, going it alone and accomplishing good things simply because they don't have to deal with miles of red tape and CYA.

The UN is such a bloated, overstuffed bureaucracy that it seems like its moving inevitably toward a state of stasis, where its only purpose is to perpetuate its existence.

The UN as created because there was no one else doing those things, the Red Cross had already existed for well over half a century before the UN came along. It actually filled the void of the League of Nations, which was even more inept and inefficient than the UN. Read up on the Italian invasion of Ethiopia if you want a little history behind that failed organization. While I do agree that it is bloated and inefficient sometimes it is an invaluable venue/forum where the world can try and hash things out.

I would not look to the NGO world for much guidance either, many NGO's are no better than the UN, often ensuring their own needs are provided for before they get to the people that they are supposed to be helping. And even then the UN is sometimes the only ones willing or able to go to the worst places to help those in need. Just take a look at Somalia, where almost all NGO's have pulled out but the UN is still feeding people.

Like I said, there are a hell of a lot of things wrong with the UN, but it serves a valuable purpose and in it's own way has helped the major powers of the world keep a relative peace amongst themselves for many years.

 

[scoolbubba]

You could say that about the US government as well.

Brett

Funny, I often do say that about the US Government.

 

[Brett327]

Funny, I often do say that about the US Government.

The proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

Brett

 

[scoolbubba]

Peter Bergen wrote a decent article examining the real cost of drone attacks in terms of innocent bystanders as a percentage of drone attacks. He came up with a ratio of about 1 out of every 3 people killed is not related to the insurgency, the rest are legitimate targets.

When you figure that less than 1000 people total have been killed in these attacks, they seem pretty damn effective, and I'm in agreement with him that they are the "least bad" method of conducting a low intensity, long war in the Afghan/Pakistan border region.

All out invasion of the Waziristan region is not an option, and anything we can do to keep them buttoned up in their caves fearing the light of day is a win.

edit: Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/10/29/bergen.drone.war/index.html