Fatal Clashes in Somalia Put U.N. Peacekeeping Role in Doubt : Military: Attack on U.S. Rangers casts cloud over hopes of multinational forces cooperating to quell global conflicts.

By ART PINE

Oct. 9, 1993 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON —

Last weekend’s attack on a U.S. Ranger unit in Somalia has produced yet another casualty: hopes that the United Nations would be able to assume the job of quelling conflict in the post-Cold War world, using a multinational force for peacekeeping operations.

The notion had been gaining increasing support before Sunday’s debacle. Think tanks had begun spewing out proposals on the issue. The Clinton Administration even devised a long-term peacekeeping strategy that called for deploying U.S. peacekeeping troops under U.N. control.

The White House had been poised to send 25,000 troops to Bosnia-Herzegovina to enforce a peace settlement there, although the plan was put on hold after the Bosnian peace talks collapsed.

But the experience Sunday seriously wounded the entire concept. The U.N. troops called to help rescue the Americans, who were pinned down by militiamen loyal to Somali clan leader Mohammed Farah Aidid, took nine hours to get there, had no real plan when they arrived and did not have up-to-date armored vehicles.

Senior U.S. military leaders could hardly contain their rage early this week as details of the setback--compounded by flaws in the U.N. command structure--poured in. The White House has shelved its peacekeeping plan. And support for multinational military operations is slim.

President Clinton left no doubt in his speech Thursday night that the new batch of troops that he has ordered to Somalia will not be forced to depend on other countries for help. “These forces,” he said pointedly, “will be under American command.”

Now, neither the Administration nor Congress has much enthusiasm for sending U.S. troops to Bosnia. “I don’t think Clinton . . . has any chance now for winning a resolution supporting the deployment of troops in Bosnia,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday.

The issue is important because America’s apparent souring on the idea could prove a serious blow to the entire concept of trying to use multinational forces to keep peace around the world.

Despite the recent cutbacks in U.S. defense spending, both rich and poor nations agree that America is virtually the only nation with the wherewithal to provide the logistic support, intelligence-gathering ability and firepower that is needed for such missions.

As French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe conceded to reporters last month, any new peacekeeping effort in Bosnia just “will not work if American troops do not come in.” Even the current humanitarian aid effort would have to be abandoned, Juppe said.

There is little real doubt that having to work with U.N. forces has been a handicap for U.S. military leaders. The United Nations itself has no real general staff or even a full-time command headquarters. Its lone war room--equipped with a modest staff--serves only as a monitoring arm.

Partly because the United Nations involves individual nations, there is no single doctrine and no commander with supreme authority over the troops of participating nations. Commanders of each country’s forces may decide on their own whether to take part in any single ground action. Often, they must ask their governments for permission.

Frequently, there are major differences in approach among participating nations. In Mogadishu, for example, the French and Italians both grew increasingly uncomfortable about the Americans’ insistence that the U.N. forces retaliate harshly against militia attacks.

Eventually, both countries announced that they planned to pull their forces out by the end of the year.

Few foreign armies, apart from those of Britain, France and Germany, have quick-response forces that are able to move immediately to reinforce any U.S. troops that may get into trouble.

Finally, most of the forces contributed by U.N. members have never trained together or conducted joint operations and have had no opportunity to practice any sort of effective response. Add to that language and cultural differences, and the result is a military horror.

Small wonder, from the American viewpoint, that in the case of the Bosnian proposal the United States sought to circumvent the U.N. problem by insisting that the operation be under the tactical control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--effectively under U.S. command.

To be sure, military analysts point out, the defeat of the Ranger forces on Sunday was attributable to a round of mistakes by U.S. commanders as well. U.S. intelligence-gathering was faulty. The Americans had insufficient armor. And U.S. contingency plans were inadequate.

Maj. David Stockwell, the U.N. spokesman in Mogadishu, has disputed contentions by U.S. military officers that the U.N. response Sunday was a fiasco. “It all came together very quickly,” he told reporters.

And U.N. officials say the real problem in Somalia now stems from the United States’ refusal to heed U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s demand earlier this year that it disarm the Somali factions.

For all the past week’s round of recriminations, however, some analysts believe that Sunday’s incident ultimately may bolster prospects for increasing the use of multinational forces--by forcing top policy-makers on both sides to focus on the current deficiencies.

Paul Stares, a Brookings Institution military analyst, predicts that the episode in Somalia is likely to serve as “a wake-up call for the U.N. . . . to get its act together” and correct the existing problems.

And retired Army Col. Harry G. Summers Jr. says the debacle may help underscore the difference between routine peacekeeping--that is, policing in a country in which the once-warring factions have invited U.N. troops in--and peace enforcement, where the hostilities are continuing.

Using multinational troops for peacekeeping missions is a viable proposal, Summers says, but asking them to help make peace by defeating one or more factions militarily is a recipe for disaster--at least outside groups such as NATO.

Other analysts--such as retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor--believe that the United Nations will have to make some major changes in its handling of military operations before they can be reliable in peacekeeping missions.

First, Trainor says, is the issue of who is in command. “There has to be one person in charge--you can’t have people going back to national authorities every time an order is given,” he says.

Second, the United Nations must be able to recruit forces that actually “bring something to the table” rather than simply fill the quotas that their governments promised to fill. They needn’t be crack troops, he says, but they do have to be well trained.

Under current procedures, many Third World armies divert troops to U.N. peacekeeping missions primarily because they are given better-grade equipment and higher pay for serving in them. But they do not always send their best troops, which often are kept home for other duty.

Finally, Trainor argues, the Security Council must provide U.N. forces with a more precise definition of what they are to do and how much authority they will be given. If Aidid militiamen are arrested, where will they be tried? Such questions remain unanswered.

Foreign Troops in Somalia

President Clinton’s decision to send 5,300 more troops to Somalia, including 3,600 Marines based offshore, will bring foreign troop strength to about 34,000 from 28 nations. Here is a list of countries and their military contingents on the ground in Somalia, according to U.N. and Pentagon figures.

UNITED STATES: 4,647 (2,622 soldiers under U.N. command, a headquarters staff of 299, plus a separate Quick Reaction Force of 1,726). About 650 Rangers are on their way, and the 5,300 new troops announced this week will raise the U.S. total to about 10,500.

PAKISTAN: 5,003

INDIA: 3,606

ITALY: 2,663

GERMANY: 1,727

MOROCCO: 1,346

FRANCE: 1,118

BELGIUM: 952

BANGLADESH: 948

ZIMBABWE: 894

MALAYSIA: 871

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: 683

SAUDI ARABIA: 678