Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: A weak U.N. showing

Thursday, May 11, 2000 | 9:22 a.m.

How do 500 armed soldiers show up missing? When first hearing this story I laughed because it just didn't make sense. Nevertheless, 500 Nigerian-led United Nations peacekeepers are not only missing, they are being held hostage in the jungles of Sierra Leone.

How do you hold 500 armed soldiers hostage? You had better ask the U.N. and African soldiers for an answer to this question. Units as large or larger than battalions have been surrounded in wars, but it's impossible to recall that many soldiers being held hostage.

Attempt to hold 500 U.S. Marines or combat infantrymen hostage and you'll have one helluva fight on your hands. Surround them and somebody is going to die before the aggressors can let go of the American unit. Even if the enemy wins there is going to be one noisy and bloody battle before the parrots and monkeys in the jungle quit screaming.

It took some bitter lessons before the United States learned that peacekeeping has all of the elements of war that can explode in your face without notice. We can go all the way back to our losses in Beirut or the 18 deaths of American soldiers trying to keep the peace in Somalia. In reality, both places, like Sierra Leone, had no peace for our troops to keep. Very simply, combat troops must be ready to kill or be killed even if their assignment is called a peacekeeping mission.

If there is a peace to keep, it won't be kept by inexperienced soldiers with lackadaisical attitudes. An expedition against rebel forces using guerrilla tactics is not a walk in the park. It's deadly business and any sign of weakness will be exploited by the enemy who has the advantage of determining when and where he will make his move.

What is happening in Sierra Leone is a good example of why the United States shouldn't get involved in the tribal warfare of Africa. It also should remind us of several attempts to place American soldiers under the command of the U.N.

It was seven years ago that the proposition of allowing our military forces to be commanded by foreign U.N. commanders was debated. One administration official, putting forth the idea, said, "Oh, our combat troops will only serve under foreign commanders in peacekeeping missions and not regular combat." This show of ignorance denied the reality that only seconds and inches separate peacekeeping and bloody combat.

Since the inception of the U.N., about the only time its forces have been effective when challenged in ground combat was in Korea and the Gulf War. Both actions were fought and paid for with American blood and tax dollars. Other nations participated, but the world knows who carried the heavy loads and paid the highest prices.

Yesterday, the New York Times was told by J. Stephen Morrison, the director of Africa programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, that "robust peace enforcement is beyond the capacity of the United Nations." He goes on to say "the Security Council does not have the stomach for it, contributing countries don't want to put their troops under other commanders and then have to answer questions at home when their troops get killed." Morrison makes clear that peacekeeping operations can't be done "on the cheap."

Count me among the Americans who believe we should help feed the starving people in Ethiopia but not send one soldier into African jungles in an attempt to keep a peace that doesn't exist. Let's hope our leaders have learned another lesson about trying to force a peace upon people who don't want peace.

Again, the taking of 500 armed soldiers hostage makes me question the viability of the U.N. in making or keeping peace.

Mike O'Callaghan

is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.