Ok, I found the thread again
Sorry for the delay lads. Didn't quite have time to get in to this at work yesterday, so here it is now:
Yes the United States, Canada, and Pakistan eventually withdrew from Somalia, however I wouldn't go as far to say they abandon them. In the early years of the Somalia conflict,
NO aid was reaching the people. Adids militia, as well as the other minor militas simply hijacked the shipments right at the ports. The U.N. in all its inability to function militarily was helpless in the face of militants that simply stole their shipments. Hence the U.S. sent in thousands of Marines to escort the shipments to the people. As soon as the Marines left, the militias began attacking peacekeepers in the region. Shortly thereafter the U.N. withdrew majority of its armed forces from Somalia and left it to the U.S. and the Pakistani's to return and attempt to restore order. In essence the U.N. couldn't act in a war zone and as such left the dirty work to others. Eventually Canada landed the Airborne at Belet Huen and the three nations attempted to help the nation. Sadly enough, at the time, Somalia was beyond help. We tried to help, but the people of Somalia just wouldn't work with us, it's a sad fact. So yes, we withdrew, but only after the situation become unfeasible from a military standpoint. Our mission to Somalia was never one of aid, it was one of ensuring that aid didn't need to be shipped in, and subsequently guarded against theft.
With regard to the U.N. remaining, yes aspects did, but they achieved little. With no military presence to guard shipments and ensure their distribution, much of the needed food fell in to milita hands. Therefore the Somalia conflict had come full circle.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not bashing the U.N., I just think it has a time and place, and that place is not in a war zone and as such the U.N. should not be passing judgement on warfare when they're not in that business. That's like me advising a brain surgeon.
It should be that once you send a U.N force to a certain area they should change their mission with the evolving situation on the ground.
The thing I think you're failing to realize, with regard to the U.N., is that it as a body does not decide the extent of their mission. That is decided by the waring factions. The U.N. cannot deploy without the expressed request of at least one of the factions. This is why the U.N. isn't effective. If a U.N. force deploys, they're given ROEs based on requests made by the host nation. For example, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Canada's most recent U.N. mission. We were asked to mediate the border between the two nations. Our role was to ensure that no military forces from either side crossed the border until a peace plan could be hammered out between the two nations. Our role in Ethiopia and Eritrea was monitoring. Now look at East Timor. Our role there was to ensure that the Timorese were able to set up their interm Government without outside interference. We patrolled East Timor with the Australians and ensured that the wishes of the Timorese were carried out. Our role there was peace support. every mission is different Jersay, and the ground work is laid not by us or the U.N. but by the very people that have requested our help.