United Nations forces are preparing to go on offensive in Congo:
UN troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo are taking up positions to support a planned offensive against Hutu rebels in the east after they ignored a deadline to surrender, a UN spokesman said.
Conveniently, that Congo is no longer called Zaire, so perhaps people forget that the DRC represents a continuation of that disaster.
Strategypage has not forgotten:
Since the Great Congo War erupted in the mid-1990s, every Congolese province has experienced anarchic violence. In impoverished, corrupt Congo, all too often anarchic violence quickly expands into a small but deadly war. When anarchic violence erupts, unprotected civilians are uprooted or robbed, sometimes raped, often killed. If the violence persists, relief agencies evacuate their personnel. In these terrible circumstances, Congolese civilians, aid groups and human rights organizations have legitimate cause to demand protection. In Congo --with the possible exception of the Kinshasha-based Presidential Guard-- the best available armed defense is provided by UN peacekeepers.
Millions have died there from the violence.
Yet the UN's reputation is unsullied among its fanboys (and girls)--even when the UN troops rape locals--and nobody tells them they are horrible people and should just get out to let the locals sort out their differences amongst themselves.
Oddly enough, Afghanistan isn't happy that we plan to let them sort out their own problems after 2016:
Afghanistan's president says that the US should "re-examine" its plans to withdraw its forces from his country, just days after the official end of combat operations there.
What? The sainted international community won't be enough?
I'm not saying that the UN mission in Congo isn't a thankless job. Or that they can do more than prevent the anarchy from expanding into war too often.
I'm just noting the differing expectations for the UN and the US military.
