Oh, I'm sure you've read the report by now.
From that report, you've managed to prove that the Congo fell apart over three decades after the UN left, and that the UN doesn't have a military. As to the first point, I don't accept the idea that the UN is responsible for the state of an intervention three decades in the future. As to the second, you are correct. It doesn't have a military and relies upon the cooperation of it's members. Which still leaves over 10 other successful interventions since the 1950s, with only a few serious failures.
BUT STILL, it was a commendable effort at rationalizing your confirmation bias. If you want to actually prove your point, you'll have to do much better than that.
Don't worry about length. I like reading.