Air-Force.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Boogilywoo on April 22, 2005, 01:24:26

Title: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Boogilywoo on April 22, 2005, 01:24:26
Hey guys.

I have to write an essay for my history class at school. The topic is on Canada and Peacekeeping. Im supposed to argue the cons of the subject. I was wondering if the mighty brainmeats of the Army.ca forums could give me a hand. Do any of you have any knowledge, or any arguments as to why peacekeeping is bad for Canada?

Thanks in advance guys. Appreciate it.
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: Not a Sig Op on April 22, 2005, 01:28:15
Perhaps take the approach that it's indirectly bad as opposed to directly bad... the public seems to think that the only thing we do/should do is peacekeeping... which heavily detracts from our ability to train and make ready for war, and effectively employ our assets in such a manner.

 
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: George Wallace on April 22, 2005, 01:31:16
Why is too much Peacekeeping bad?  It takes away from our primary function.
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: TCBF on April 22, 2005, 01:37:29
"could give me a hand. Do any of you have any knowledge, or any arguments as to why peacekeeping is bad for Canada?"

We have actually done very little of it.   If you alot our resources by person years from the end of WW2 until the present day, the bulk of our resources were spent on North American security (NORAD/SOVOPS/Maritime Patrolling/SigInt) or NATO (Bde/Air div in   Europe, and other Bdes/assetts trg to deploy in support).

The fact is, When we had 88,000 people, few were in Cyprus/Golan/Whatever.   Yugo upped the ratio, but then later Yugo tours were not Blue Beret peacekeeping, nor was Kosovo, Kandahar, or Kabul.

The numbers don't lie.   It'a great sales pitch, but we all know it's a joke.
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: paracowboy on April 22, 2005, 01:39:07
this was originally a response I wrote to a 'journalist' who wrote an article/editorial on Peacekeeping. He was well-meaning, but somewhat naive (as most Liberal-types are). It was too long to be published. But I've decided it needs to see the light of day (mostly because the damn thing took so long to type out). The opinions expressed herein are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Army.ca or it's members. (Just the ones who agree with me. You know, the common-sense ones.  ;D 

Despite the Politically Correct spin that has continuously been put on the subject, Canada does not maintain her armed forces for â Å“peacekeeping operationsâ ?. The mission of the Canadian Forces is to engage in war fighting. Combat, full stop. Hopefully, always overseas. Canada needs her military to maintain it's offensive abilities in order to protect Canadians from war. In all likelihood, (and I fervently hope) not another World War, but it's certainly probable that conflicts in other countries will require Canada's military to respond yet again. Canada, with her deeply-held convictions about morality and it's obligations, will always want to do her part. And rightfully so. It's what makes me proud to be a Canadian, and to wear her uniform.

However, â Å“Peacekeepingâ ? as originally envisioned by Lester Pearson, was the last casualty of the Cold War. It was cremated in the ashes of Srebrenica. It was left to rot alongside the bodies of thousands of innocents in Rwanda. It was buried in the ruins of the World Trade Centre. Try as they may, those who wish otherwise cannot exhume and reanimate its corpse.

It has since been replaced by security operations, such as those in Afghanistan, and counter- (or, better yet, pre-emptive) strikes against terrorists, brigands, and rogue states. These are not peacekeeping missions. They are â Å“stability campaignsâ ? (or whatever the phrase du jour may be) and they require aggressive military operations (and aggressive military personnel), whether it be to remove tyrannical regimes or to disarm lawless and powerful warlords. Too, it must be mentioned that Canada has recently engaged in conventional combat operations - in Kosovo in 1999 and in Afghanistan in 2002 - operating under NATO in the former, and with a U.S.-led coalition in the latter. Neither of which, let me remind you, gentle reader, was a â Å“U.N. sanctionedâ ? Peacekeeping mission.

Peacekeeping was born of the Cold War: Joint task-forces replacing out-and-out combat forces, on the belief that belligerents could be separated, thereby allowing diplomats and lawyers to step in and resolve the conflict. That worked fine on paper. In practice, however, resolutions remained hard to pin down and peace was kept only so long as all parties accepted the continuing presence of a neutralizing authority. Witness the decades-long Peacekeeping presence in Cypress, and the continued presence of Peacekeepers in the Golan Heights.

This is not to say that â Å“Peacekeepingâ ? (or whatever term the High and Mighty wish to impose on such actions) are no longer necessary today. Quite the opposite. The cost of not imposing the Rule of Law in places like Rwanda, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc, cannot be underestimated. Complete cultures have been destroyed, young boys are shanghaied into child-armies, and women (both ancient and pre-pubescent) are being gang-raped by animals in human form forcibly spreading their ethnic seed in order to â Å“breed outâ ? other tribes. Entire nations today are living in a Post-Traumatic Stress induced nightmare. Add to this the ever-present shadow cast by Islamic terrorism, (whether sponsored by private individuals, organizations, or states,) and the world becomes a scary, scary place.

â ?Peacekeepingâ ? now, though, has become a catchall, touchy-feely phrase whose definition (or lack thereof, rather) means it can be applied to anything from peacekeeping, to peacemaking, to policing to war zones, and whatever other dirty little task is required. The bottom line remains the same, however. Peacekeeping today means imposing order on people. It means troops on the ground saying: â Å“Love thy neighbour, or I'll kill you.â ? And, all the time, they have to keep an eye out for those on both (or more) sides who intend to shoot them first. Or blow them up with a homemade belt of explosives.

I defy anyone to explain the difference between a modern â Å“peacekeepingâ ? mission and a D-Day style liberation invasion, to the man with his belly in the dirt dodging incoming rounds. To him, a bullet is a bullet, and whether it's fired by the child-soldier of an African army of brigands, or the highly trained commando of a â Å“civilisedâ ? enemy nation, makes no difference. To him, dead is dead. The only way he will survive is to aggressively close with and destroy his enemy, by any means available to him.

â ?Peacekeepersâ ? did not defeat the dictatorship in Iraq, did not overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, and will not defeat the racist, genocidal regime in Sudan. â Å“Peacekeepersâ ? will not defeat the narco-terrorists in Colombia, the LRA in Uganda, or the Janjaweed in Sudan. â Å“Peacekeepersâ ? did not free the British servicemen held in Sierra Leone. The threat of â Å“Peacekeepersâ ? will not persuade Iran, Syria or North Korea to abandon their weapon programs, and did not convince Libya to abandon theirs. â Å“Peacekeepersâ ? are not hunting Al Qaeda, the Abu Sayyaf Group, or the dozens of other terrorist groups spreading chaos and their perversions of Islam.

Yet, Canadians still have a pie-in-the-sky, ivory-tower notion about peacekeeping. When Canadians say they want Canada to have an â Å“armyâ ?, what they really mean is an â Å“armyâ ? of peacekeepers. Our political leaders (and here I use the term in it's loosest possible definition) and the media need to disabuse the Canadian public of this balderdash and poppycock (stuff and nonsense?). We need to replace the lily-white myth of â Å“peacekeepingâ ? with the mud slogging, grinding truth. A peacekeeper in Kabul today is the same thing a war-fighting soldier was in Nazi-occupied France 60 years ago: an infantryman. A tired soldier on the ground, with a pair of dirty boots, a clean rifle, and the will to use it. A man who is willing to fight for peace, and who doesn't worry about the philosophical conundrum such a statement makes. A man who does what he does, so that others will not have to.

Fostering the myth of peacekeeping is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole, or the Canadian Forces in particular. Peacekeeping (by any name) is important, true, but Canada must be capable of waging war, in order to protect (or impose) peace. We could once
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: Boogilywoo on April 22, 2005, 10:15:10
That was very good paracowboy. Thank you.

These are pretty good arguments that I can probably use.
Title: Re: Canada and Peacekeeping
Post by: spacelord on April 22, 2005, 12:37:55
I'd reccommend the Article Give War A Chance by Edward N. Luttwak. It can be found here.  Luttwak has some interesting stuff to say.

http://isuisse.ifrance.com/emmaf/base/give_war_a_chance.html
Title: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: jerrythunder on July 22, 2005, 20:52:43
Hi there, ive been watching the news latley and ive seen some comentaries done on whether the canadian forces should be used for peacekeeping only or have an expanded role. Obviously this comes in the wake of the operation going on in Afganistan where were sending our boys to hunt down those terrorist tangos. what are your thoughts on this? should we just stick to peacekeeping and defence? or should we play a more major offensive role?
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 22, 2005, 21:10:01
The mission to Afghanistan has more than one component:

"¢   It is classical peacekeeping plus - securing the place so that we, the big 'we' including Canadains, can help the Afghan people to rebuild their own society so that they can enjoy the blessings of their lands and fruits of their labours (as an old naval prayer defines peace); and

"¢   It is, in a broader sense, an entirely defensive operation.  Afghanistan was turned into a haven, a base (that (base) is what al Qaeda means, actually) where and from which certain movements which have declared war upon the liberal, democratic, secular West, were able to arm, organize train and launch attacks.  We need to prevent that from happening again.

I understand that many, many Canadians, probably a huge, overwhelming majority - which would include 99% of teachers and journalists and other 'experts' have no useful knowledge of what a military does or why nations should maintain military forces.  Peacekeeping, as the 99% understand it, never makes the cut: it is not the primary job of any armed force, including Canada's.

Listen to General Hillier.  He understands the business.

Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: KevinB on July 22, 2005, 21:12:56
I'd rather be wacking Tango's   ;)

 True Peacekeeping has never worked -- Look at what the UN is doign now in Africa - it seems to be learning...

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LEW054468.htm

Quote
More than 1,000 Guatemalan special forces soldiers, Pakistani commandos and Congolese government troops were airlifted to a hill-top rebel headquarters, which they searched for weapons and then torched to the ground on Wednesday.

The raid was launched days after some 1,000 rebels had fled into the nearby forests. There were no reports of casualties.

"The general strategy is to put them under a lot of pressure to take them away from the population and to isolate them," Gen. Ali Khan Shujaat, commander of the U.N. Pakistani forces in South Kivu, said as 100 huts were being torched in the rebel camp, 45 km (28 miles) west of the city of Bukavu.

Lot beter than sitting back and watchign the slaughter...
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 22, 2005, 21:15:50
Also, see paracowboy's comment here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27.msg242829.html#msg242829 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,27.msg242829.html#msg242829)

As he says, our forces in Afghanistan are defending Canada.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: SHELLDRAKE!! on July 22, 2005, 21:22:20
 The fact that you are even asking the question, just strengthens the common idea that we are a peacekeeping army by choice. The fact is that military cuts over the years have reduced our capeabilities to deploying a small number of our forces on peacekeeping missions in order to maintain the illusion we are still the army of WW2/Korea days.

 The common misconception is that Canada is moving towards a peacekeeping role because we make such good peacekeepers. In fact we make good soldiers no matter what our role is.

 How do you think a country requiring peacekeepers would see a military that had no real offensive capeabilities, comming in to referee two waring parties. What would stop them from overrunning us to achieve their means.

 IMHO as long as we can scrape together enough kit to get the mission done, we will always have the will and desire to show the world that we are willing to take a few losses to achieve the mission.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: x-grunt on July 22, 2005, 21:23:55
What they said.
Do a search for "peacekeeping" on this forum and I think you'll find the answer abundantly clear. The majority all of the people I have read who have posted on this topic say warfighting is our profession. Do the search and read up, it's been discussed ad nauseam.

Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: paracowboy on July 22, 2005, 22:31:21
Also, see paracowboy's comment here:
ooohh! I HATE that guy! So. Much.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Britney Spears on July 22, 2005, 22:46:32
The children who throw the "peacekeeping" thing around have no clue what "peacekeeping" actually is.



Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 22, 2005, 22:55:40
always seems to be other trades that call it peacekeeping , but the guys on the ground know its warfighting.....strange eh!  :salute:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Dare on July 23, 2005, 03:00:52
Hi there, ive been watching the news latley and ive seen some comentaries done on whether the canadian forces should be used for peacekeeping only or have an expanded role. Obviously this comes in the wake of the operation going on in Afganistan where were sending our boys to hunt down those terrorist tangos. what are your thoughts on this? should we just stick to peacekeeping and defence? or should we play a more major offensive role?
I think the usage of the term Peace Keeping has been a poor policy move for a long time. The focus of our nations defence forces should be on Peace *Making*. If that means we sit on two beligerants until they simmer down, fine. If that means we pick a side and move in, fine. If that means we decimate a known enemy when challenged, fine. Either way, the term is far more apt and broadly usable. I believe, that the slight change from Peacekeepers to Peacemakers would clarify to the public the C.F. role in society and send a message that "No, we're not neutral. Our national security is paramount, and our operations advance that." The C.F. is usually sent to places where there is litte peace (how can a person keep peace where there is none). Peace is not the absence of war. Peace must be *made*. The name Peacekeeper would be better suited towards to law enforcement in places where peace actually *does* exist.

As for your question. I think that we definitely need to take a more offensive posture to the offenders. In language, and in action. Regardless of what the national media want to paint it as (they can't quite feel their irrelevancy creep up on them yet.)
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 23, 2005, 06:06:57
I think the CDS nailed this one:

Quote
'Our job is to be able to kill people,' top soldier says
Stephen Thorne
The Canadian Press
(Printed: Edmonton Journal)
Saturday, July 16, 2005


OTTAWA -- If Canadians were shocked that the head of their military called his enemy "detestable murderers and scumbags," they better get used to it.

Gen. Rick Hillier has never minced words, nor is he likely to start any time soon.

His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister.

"General Hillier is not only a top soldier, he is a soldier who has served in Afghanistan," Paul Martin said Friday in Nova Scotia.  "The point he is simply making is we are at war with terrorism and we're not going to let them win."

Defence analysts and soldiers alike lauded Hillier's appointment as chief of defence staff earlier this year as a fundamental shift in the Canadian military.

Known as a soldier's soldier, Hillier is the most operationally experienced commander to take the top post in many years, breaking the bureaucratic mould that seemed to dictate many appointments since the Cold War.

One factor in Hillier's promotion was his fearlessness and penchant for calling things as he sees them.

The defence minister was looking for a new vision for the Canadian Forces and, in Hillier, he got it.

A defence policy statement released in April charted a whole new course for defence -- much of it adhering to Hillier's direction.

This week the general held an informal, on-the-record media luncheon. Reporters familiar with Hillier's style barely flinched when he said all elements of the Canadian Forces need to be revamped, including the part where "you go out and bayonet somebody.

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

The terrorist bombings in London underscore the need to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where they have room to thrive, said Hillier.

As a Western society that values rights and freedoms, Canada is already in conflict with "what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want.

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags," Hillier said. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."

The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think-tank based in Ottawa, said the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.

"His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples Friday.
For more clarification: follow the link in my sig line.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: SHELLDRAKE!! on July 23, 2005, 07:07:48
 What is it exactly that is so "alarming" about the CDS's statement?? Are they not referred to as terrorists for a reason or are there tree hugging activists in Canada that actually believe the taliban have a right to kill Canadian soldiers and still be free from verbal condemnation. This polaris institute should be doused in naptha, lit on fire with a lit match in a broken glass and then served up to the "possibly offended taliban" that they are so ready to defend.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: aesop081 on July 23, 2005, 08:28:53
always seems to be other trades that call it peacekeeping , but the guys on the ground know its warfighting.....strange eh!   :salute:

I beg your pardon !!!

I would not be so bold as to make that kind of generalization.  I highly doubt that what i do has anything to do with peacekeeping ( i hate that word).  I used to be one of those guys on the ground so i have seen both sides of the fence and beleive me when i say that we regard ourselves as warfighters just the same as you.

cheers
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 23, 2005, 15:02:00
Hey no disrespect! from my exp. in trades that support the army within the CMBG sometimes feel this way! but i must admit the hel ops units help out alot with our missions so i don't consider them as part of the peacekeeper ideal. Cheers
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Young KH on July 23, 2005, 16:36:34
Call it Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Policing, War or even a live firing exercise with live targets that shoot back.They are just words, Gobble DE Goop, Makes no never mind it is the same job and people get killed.

It's the job, whatever they decide to call it.
Political considerations will dictate what it is called in the end.

Statements made above are my own opinion are not to be taken as fact.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 23, 2005, 16:41:05
Call it Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Policing, War or even a live firing exercise with live targets that shoot back.They are just words, Gobble DE Goop, Makes no never mind it is the same job and people get killed.
It is more than just words.   If we, as a military, are content to give it the wrong name then our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.   They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Young KH on July 23, 2005, 16:43:17
It is more than just words.   If we, as a military, are content to give it the wrong name then our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.   They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.

Granted
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: c4th on July 23, 2005, 17:34:55
our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.

At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.  It is an oversimplification and in many ways the shirking of responsibility to blame the public or the politicians for failures in the nuts and bolts of our battalions, BG's or TF's who are deployed or preparing to do so. 

No one has disagreed that those outside of the military have the foggiest idea of the difference between peacekeeping, peacemaking, war fighting so I would argue that the differences in the terms are truly only semantic. Personally I know enough to know when I am on an operation or an exercise and don't particularly feel a need to substantiate my existence with what are little more than media terms. 

Quote
They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.

How many times in the last 100 years have we heard the favourite phrase of Generals that  'the troops will be home by Christmas?'  I challenge anyone to cite an example of a realistic opinion or threat given prior to an operation.  If there is one there will be a hundred examples of the opposite.  One could argue that the end states of peacekeeping and war fighting are identical.   



Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Young KH on July 23, 2005, 17:58:30
Yes the media and I guess for publicity sake many terms are not to my liking, such as

Friendly fire,
collateral damage,
smart bomb
and so on.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Dare on July 23, 2005, 18:00:27
At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.  It is an oversimplification and in many ways the shirking of responsibility to blame the public or the politicians for failures in the nuts and bolts of our battalions, BG's or TF's who are deployed or preparing to do so. 

No one has disagreed that those outside of the military have the foggiest idea of the difference between peacekeeping, peacemaking, war fighting so I would argue that the differences in the terms are truly only semantic. Personally I know enough to know when I am on an operation or an exercise and don't particularly feel a need to substantiate my existence with what are little more than media terms. 
The name isn't for boosting moral. It's to give a public face to C.F. operations. Yes, the C.F. is created to kill people but I don't think that the label Killer is very Public Friendly (if you will). The outcome of C.F. killing Bad Guys is designed to be peace. You might not feel the need to substantiate your existence to yourself, but you definitely should to your employer because without public support, the C.F. has little to nothing. Currently, they think the C.F. are Peace Keepers and they are funded as such (much like one would fund a large police force). Peace Maker implies force and could (positively) change the way the C.F. is perceived, so the public understands it does take effort and force to accomplish our goals (there are *a lot* of voters who don't get that simple concept, thus the media successfully playing up the "shocked" act).

Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 23, 2005, 18:47:09
At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.
Yes, we must bear responsibility for the equipment we choose and the training we conduct.   However, it is naive to assume an incorrect understanding of our roll/function by our political masters cannot have life threatening consequences.   Remember what happened the last time the public opinion went against the CF getting the "Cadillac" equipment?   The Sea King replacement was cancelled.   The politicians control the purse strings and approve money for projects.   Do you think they will approve an aggressive direct fire anti-tank system (or even a MBT) of non-warfighting peacekeepers?   Do you think they will determine that "peacekeepers" need to invest in an expeditionary capability like naval weapons systems capable of long range inland fires in sp of our ground forces?

No.   The government & the public must understand that we are warfighters that, because of our big stick, can enforce peace when required.

How many times in the last 100 years have we heard the favourite phrase of Generals that   "the troops will be home by Christmas?"   
This misses the point.   If the public thinks we "peacekeeping" in some fuzzy comfy place, they will be less supportive of major projects to ensure our combat effectiveness.   I'm still surprised by the number of voters that I encounter who are oblivious to the fact that our soldiers fought a major battle while "peacekeeping" in the FRY.   I've met people that state "but it's peacekeeping" and are shocked to hear that belligerents intentionally engaged our soldiers in Bosnia, they are more surprised that some of our soldiers have died this way.

The fact is, if we do not use honest language with civilians, then we should not expect them to support our real needs.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: jerrythunder on July 23, 2005, 19:34:35
I think the usage of the term Peace Keeping has been a poor policy move for a long time. The focus of our nations defence forces should be on Peace *Making*.
U're right, you have to make the peace before you can gard and keep it.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: jerrythunder on July 23, 2005, 19:42:53
OH MY GOD!! FINALLY! Ive been waiting for someone to finally it!!! :threat:  "our job is to be able to kill people" and " we are the canadian forces and our job is to be able to kill people" that in itself is the truth i believe. why else do our forces carry guns? to scare people? i dont think so! im very pleased that it has finally dawned on a top canadian forces officer that we need to be more aggresive force. because that is what an army is for basically, to kill another army.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 23, 2005, 19:46:23
i think thats right! We must be honest with the public and call it what it is! this tour to Afghanistan is warfighting, we will be going out in the Kandahar region and stopping bad guys from doing bad things point! yes there will be CIMIC and all that come with it. It puts the public into a false sense, so when the CDS says there could be soldiers coming home in boxes we can't and don't want people going " But we are peacekeepers how can they do that!" I just think our leaders sugar coat things , so we don't look like the americans and follow there poilices.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: jerrythunder on July 23, 2005, 20:27:06
true but this operation to Afganistan is one of the first offensive operations that canada has had in a while and it will be good for the military's morale when we show the world what our canadian warfighters are capable of! make us proud boys( and girls)!!! :salute: :cdn:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Chimo on July 23, 2005, 20:58:44
I think DND first started using the term "Peacekeeping" because it garnered a lot of public support, was nice and fluffy, and lots of pics of men and women in blue berets, holding babies in far away lands. Don't forget, where there is public support, there is money!

This was far from the reality of any peace support operation I was ever involved in. We need to adjust our thinking to the three block war. That is the reality of todays mission, not all combat and not all HA, a bit of this, some of that, and a whole bunch of some other stuff.

Whatever, the mission calls for from killing the enemy to handing out rations and blankets to the locals, I know our Soldiers will do us proud. :salute:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Mark C on July 23, 2005, 23:49:26
true but this operation to Afganistan is one of the first offensive operations that canada has had in a while...

Hmmm....tell that to the 800-odd members of 3 PPCLI Battlegroup who conducted no less than 4 deliberate offensive combat operations against Al Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan back in 2002.   Not to mention defensive combat operations around the Coalition bases at Kandahar Airfield and Khowst whenever not otherwise engaged in   carrying the fight to the enemy.  

No offence to you personally "JerryThunder".   Whether intentional or not, your comments are sadly indicative of the disturbingly short memory that the Canadian public holds for the deeds of its uniformed servants.   I can't count on both hands the number of media stories I have read over the past 2 weeks regarding the ongoing PRT deployment to Kandahar and the follow-on 1 CMBG mission in Feb 06.   Most of which take pains to note that this will be the (I directly quote) "first combat deployment since Korea".   Funny, they said the same thing about our crew when we deployed....

I have always empathized with those who served in the Medak Pocket crew and were not recognized in a timely nor substantive manner for their actions.   It was shameful.   At the same time, I would not for a second presume to infer that the same situation is ongoing now.   The members of 3 PPCLI BG were well recognized at the time for their efforts.   Having said that, some 3 years later it seems that an admittedly small but significant piece of Canadian Army history is all but forgotten - at least in the infamously attention-deficit minds of the Canadian media.  

What irks me in a rather silly (and admittedly petty) way is the fact that the Canadian media quite apparently have no institutional checks and balances when it comes to recounting history.   The deeds of yesterday may as well have never happened.   The media are hauling out the EXACT same cliched phrases that they used to describe our operations 3 years ago - to the further detriment of those who saw combat with 2 PPCLI in Medak, and now to the apparent disregard of those who served during Op APOLLO.   Which leads an aging  soldier to query whether or not anything we do truly ever sinks into the quasi-permanent public conscience, let alone that of the so-called keepers of public situational awareness (eg.   the media).   Sadly, I think not.  

I'm not unduly upset about the historical oversights and/or falsehoods perpetuated by the Canadian media.   Such oversights are sadly a fact of life in a navel-gazing nation such as ours.   I am merely disappointed and resigned to the regretfull reality of Canadian public awareness - more specifically the dreadful lack thereof.     

I wish those who are headed back to Kandahar Godspeed and every success.   It was with no surprise that I saw a bunch of the same faces from 2002 ponying up yet again.   Now THAT is a story deserving of print.   The guys and girls who have been there/done that, and are willingly putting it all on the line AGAIN.   In keeping with the above however, we will probably never hear their stories....

My hat is off to them, and to those who are headed over for the first time.   Godspeed, and come home safe.

Mark C
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on July 24, 2005, 01:00:21
     Peacekeeping is a politcal myth that has never had a basis in fact.  Peacekeeping is the net effect of positioning a warfighting force of sufficiently overwhelming force in postition to deter would be agressors.  It is possible only when the perception of a political will to comit those forces to the systematic destruction of beligerants exists.  In the 1950's we kept the peace, those who violated the peace had their butts kicked up between their ears, and our declaration that peace was declared was accepted; it was accepted because those who would break the peace feared our military force.  By the seventies and eighties, we did not keep the peace, we refereed the wars.  The political will to fight to stop someone else's war was gone.  Peacekeeping was a sick joke.  We guarded the villages until our political masters ordered us out, at which point the massaccer we were there to stop happened, was duely doccumented, and our troops moved somewhere else.  All sides in our peacekeeping missions laughed at us, for our ROE kept us from making a difference, and our greater military potential was irrelevant, as men with machetes and the will to use them will always trump men with APC, artillery, and jet fighters who have to get Ottowa and the Peace Corps rejects at the UN in New York to authourize the use of force.  Our troops can make peace in Afghanistan, as they have the mandate from our politicians to prosecute the war on terror and take whatever steps are necessary to MAKE PEACE.  No peacekeeper will ever get that mandate, so no peacekeeping mission will ever bring about peace, and soldiers by nature detest half measures.  General Hiller calls it like it is, he is probably never going to end up a senator, like some Generals we know, because he actually remembers what we are here for, to seek out and kill the enemies of our nation.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: bobthebui|der on July 24, 2005, 01:10:38
Mark C, the public cant remember something that they've never really known about...
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Gunnerlove on July 24, 2005, 01:34:10
Cyprus seemed to work.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: dutchie on July 24, 2005, 02:53:55
Well, maybe I'm over simplifying it, but to me Peacekeeping is little more than a task, albeit a complex task. The 'job' of an army (or Navy, or Air Force) is to wage war, and everything else is secondary. Peacekeeping is a task just as forest fire fighting, floods, humanitarian missions, etc are tasks. It just so happens that there is no other group out there that can DO this particular task, unlike fire fighting et al. I know people who feel that peacekeeping is 'enlightened soldiering'. I was baffled into silence when I heard that particular nugget of poop.

It's the media, and by extension the public, that get all wrapped around the axle with labelling operations. IMHO, the lads doing the job just worry about the job, and could give a rat's arse what it's called.

This fascination with 'Peacekeeping' has been a double-edged sword for Canada. On one hand it put a   :) on the CF, particularly in the last 10-15 years when our image was taking a beating. The cost of this 'kinder, gentler CF' image is that many Canadians actually believe we can exist strictly as a Peacekeeping force, which is of course ludicrous.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 24, 2005, 12:07:43
This is my favourite subject upon which to rant, so I couldn't resist.

The public has the image of the happy "peacekeeper" precisely because that's the image that many in DND, the CF and the government wished to project.  DND still uses the term to describe soldiers, although there appears to be a concerted effort to move away from the "peacekeeper" legend.  An example:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/decpr/teachers_friends_e.asp (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/decpr/teachers_friends_e.asp)

Using the term allows the government (and by extension DND) to:

1.  Put a uniquely Canadian "spin" on the use of military force.

2.  Distance our military from those of our major Allies (the US and UK , in this case).

3.  Display, to a nation that doesn't know better, our "commitment" to the UN and multi-lateralism.

4.  Justify an unwillingness to embark in major capital procurement programs.

5.  Indicate that the military is a "progressive" institution and put a kinder, gentler face on our operations.

I am completely convinced that the term came into vogue as we civilianized the military in the 1970s.  "Peacekeeping" put operations into terms civilians liked, and we raised an entire generation of soldiers to believe that being a "peacekeeper" was the norm for CF deployments.  This has created huge disconnects between the CF and the public and, even, within the CF itself. 

I used to take great pains when providing operations briefings to the press that Bosnia was not a peacekeeping mission.  Many reporters were shocked to discover that we had the authority and obligation to use force to ensure the Dayton Accord was followed and that our job there was not to come between two combatants, but to direct that fighting cease.  NDHQ, of course, had deliberately avoided saying so.

We (the military) have done this to ourselves.  Embracing the term "peacekeeper" has mollified the Canadian public, but has hidden what we really do for about three decades.  It has cost us institutional credibility - to the point were there are people who do not believe we can/should undertake any combat roles; it has cost us within the world of capital procurement - to the point where specific weapons system are questioned because they are"too aggressive" (dig up Sheila Copps' old comments on the Eryx ATGM for an example); it has cost us institutional pride as peacekeeping as degenerated into a failed and morally bankrupt policy; and finally, it has created a myth with which soldiers at all rank levels, including the CDS, have to struggle every day.

Frankly, I loathe the word.  While I can understand the pride of those who truly were "peacekeepers", it has cost us far too much as an institution.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 24, 2005, 15:15:23
Haha trust me my section/platoon/company do not consider ourselves PeaceKeepers! i have banned the word in my section! haha
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Chimo on July 24, 2005, 16:04:09
"The members of 3 PPCLI BG were well recognized at the time for their efforts.  Having said that, some 3 years later it seems that an admittedly small but significant piece of Canadian Army history is all but forgotten - at least in the infamously attention-deficit minds of the Canadian media. " MarkC

I believe that the PAOs have a duty and an obligation to correct the media, during the many interviews conducted before during and post missions. I have yet to see any PAO correct any media on any issue. In there press releases and briefings they have a duty to remind Canadians what the CF role is and that as MarkC pointed out earlier has conduct many successful combat operations in the not to distant past.

IMHO, I think PAOs are many times a hindrance in getting this message out.  :salute:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: see on July 24, 2005, 22:17:45
Is going to Afghanistan to hunt down the al-quadea not peacekeeping/making ??

People always seem to think that just because you use force and/or there are casualites that it is no longer a peacekeeping mission...
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Jaxson on July 24, 2005, 22:25:47
in my opinon, peace keeping means avoiding deaths as much as possible, not killing people  but peace Making does require you Kill whatever is in your way, to achieve your objective
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 24, 2005, 22:34:43
Is going to Afghanistan to hunt down the al-quadea not peacekeeping/making ??
No.   It is not peacekeeping.   It is war and there is an enemy.   "Peacekeeping" would imply that the theater contained two or more opposing beligerents and we were there to prevent thier continued use of force.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on July 25, 2005, 01:16:10
in my opinon, peace keeping means avoiding deaths as much as possible, not killing people   but peace Making does require you Kill whatever is in your way, to achieve your objective
    In many cases, killing is the only way to save lives.  To keep the peace in fact is to use force on those who would break the peace, to apply the weapons and training to eliminate the abiltiy of beligerants to make war.  In Rwanda, the UN avoided killing anyone.  Thousands died because the UN was sent in without the force, or the mandate to kill to keep the peace.  If the UN would have had the force and will to kill hundreds, thousands more would be alive today.  Whose deaths do you wish to avoid?  Do you wish to save the unarmed innocents, or the armed combatants?  To keep the peace in truth, you must be willing to kill those who wish to break the peace.  The UN has lost the will to fight to save lives, its peackeepers are too often prevented from using their weapons to prevent hostilities, and attrocities.  Peace at all cost is a childs dream, and cynical politicians lie.  Peace at the cost of genocide, at the cost of opression, banditry, and barbarism is not worth having.  To be a soldier is to know that sometimes the problem is not that peace must be kept, but that war must be fought and won.  It has been said that justice flows from the sword, or gun in todays world, that is not always true.  It is true that those who cherish justice, have been able to see it restored only after the triumph of their guns.  How many lands live under laws today, because we didn't keep a peace, but fought for something better?
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Jaxson on July 25, 2005, 01:48:04
even though your right.... for making me doubt myself and my opinion i do not like you anymore     jokes man,     but yes you do have a point  :D
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 26, 2005, 19:49:34
I think this answers the original question, and that blithering idiot Carolyn Parrish, too.

From today's Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2626f528-61b1-496d-a0f3-50782e2b5a3a
Quote
Casualties of war

Andrew Cohen
Citizen Special

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

The first of hundreds of Canadian soldiers are leaving for Afghan-istan, where they will become part of a "provincial reconstruction team" in the southern city of Kandahar. Although they are well-led, well-trained and well-equipped, they are going to a dangerous neighbourhood. Some will be hurt. Some will be killed. Our military is ready for this.

Are we?

That Canadians are reluctant to have their troops go into harm's way is reflected in the response to the artlessly frank comments of General Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff. He calls the terrorists "detestable murderers and scumbags" and warns that there will be deaths on both sides.

"They want to break our society -- I believe that," he says. "And I believe that therefore we are going to be a target in their sights."

It is an unusual declaration for the top soldier in Canada, where we no longer think of soldiers as professional killers. Over the last generation, we have come to see them less as warriors than as peacekeepers, when it was a "safe" international vocation.

So, when Gen. Hillier talks the truth in clear, compelling English, the tender, weak-kneed souls who find this language offensive call him belligerent, trigger-happy, aggressive, and -- the unkindest cut of all -- American.

For example, Maude Barlow, the chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, hoped that "Canada would play a thoughtful, moderating position in this." Stephen Staples of the Polaris Institute said he found the comments "rather alarming," fearing that Canada is becoming a legion in George Bush's army. In newspapers, critics decried Gen. Hillier "as a street punk looking for a fight on a Saturday night," a tribune in the American "simplistic war on terror" and a "self-serving military opportunist."

All of this reflects an enduring skepticism about the military in Canada. For years, skittish governments have played down the dangers of peacekeeping (as in 1993, when Canadian blue berets were in an intense fire-fight in the Medak Pocket in Croatia. Their courage would go unrecognized until Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson acknowledged them in a ceremony nine years later.)

This great delusion -- soldiers as boy scouts and do-gooders -- has taken root in the Canadian psyche. We have fallen in love with the idea of Canada as peacekeeper. It has become a cherished part of our iconography, celebrated on the $10 bill and in that imposing granite monument on Sussex Drive in Ottawa.

But peacekeeping was always just a part of our international military commitments. Although Canada supplied 10 per cent of troops to the United Nations, more than any other nation, our commitment to NATO in the Cold War was greater.

Yet, so important is peacekeeping to us -- in a 2002 survey, 73 per cent of Canadians said peacekeeping was one of those things that defined them as a people -- that many do not know that we have fought real wars. Or that 100,000 men and women died in Korea and the two world wars.

Now, it seems, we're just nice guys, congenitally incapable of pointing a gun or dropping a bomb. We are mediators and conciliators rather than gladiators or warriors. "No death, please," we say. "We're Canadian."

We have a military, yes, but we do not have a military culture. The military isn't part of the national consciousness as it is in Russia, Israel or Indonesia. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has made us naive about this unpleasant world and our responsibilities to it. We have become so wary of our soldiers dying, accidentally or otherwise, that when they do, it fosters a ritualistic outpouring of grief from politicians, who issue condolences, lower flags and rush to funerals. However sincere, it makes our soldiers wonder about the determination of their society in the face of sustained casualties in the field.

This kind of ignorance allows us to believe that we have no enemies, that we'd never be a target of terrorists at home and that peacekeeping is really no different today from what it was in the 1960s, when there was actually peace to keep in Cyprus and the Sinai.

That's why Gen. Hillier said what he said; he's warning a complacent people about what lies ahead. His choice of words bothered some of his colleagues, and yes, he might have put things more delicately. But do not mistake the urgency of his message.

Canada is in Kandahar to do the work of nation-building, helping a shattered society rebuild itself. It is honourable work, shared by the Norwegians, the Japanese, the Germans and other high-minded democracies. But there will be a cost. Gen. Hillier understands this. Canadians should too.

Andrew Cohen is a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University.

E-mail: andrew_cohen@carleton.ca  

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005

The great delusion, highlighted above, is a major Canadian blind-spot, it ranks right up there with free healthcare and our deeply ingrained thoughtless anti-Americanism.  Canadians who believe this drivel, and a majority do, are ill educated and incapable of making mature decisions about their country and its place in the world - that's probably why we elect so many, many quite third rate people to parliament and why we are, broadly, afraid of any politician who challenges the fat, dumb and happy national status quo.

Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 26, 2005, 21:17:44
What the hell is the Polaris Int.? don't they make snowmoblies there? We as Canadians and i mean people not in or have family in the military live a very sheltered and : that can't happen to us" lives!
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: KevinB on July 27, 2005, 02:49:02
Gee there are some pretty dumb Canadians out there...
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: beltfeedPaul (Banned) on July 27, 2005, 04:43:59
I think we have to bear in mind that the Canadian public, short of Sidane Arone and broken submarines, are quite content to go on with with life not caring a whit for the CF. It sucks, but we are not in the periscope of most(99%) Canadians. We get minor tips of the hat for ice storm rescues, or filling sand bags on the Red River, but lip service, from the public, and the federal government is a long sad tradition. The Pearsonian concept of peacekeeping(Cyprus, Iran Iraq 88, Golan Heights) was a cheap, no risk of loss method of inserting troops into areas that the opposing forces had already demarcated, giving Canadian politicians an opportunity to deploy forces they were loath to sustain, missions they could exploit for their own politcal ends, "punching above our weight", so to say. The illusion of putting on the line, without really doing so.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Rider Pride on July 27, 2005, 05:19:53
What people don't understand is we don't want to be weak, nor do we want to be overly aggressive.

So if you think of it terms of a school ground:

being the bespeckled brainiac, while noble, will get you beat up,

Being the bully, will get you no friends, and eventually gets you beat up,

But what we need to be is the tough guy everyone knows will kick their butt if they piss him off, but is still friendly enough to have many friends...

Occasionally the tough guy needs to get into scraps to reinforce to everyone he is not to be messed with.
 :cdn:

This is how we as a Canadian Armed Forces and as a country need to be thought as.  Not the gentle giant nobody respects we have become
:salute:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Hunter911 on July 27, 2005, 10:27:41
Alot of people i know are talking about how if we send troops over there its only a matter of time before we get hit over here... I will sit there, and listen to what they have to say respectfully, not saying what i am thinking... And at the end of the conversation all i have to say is that its alot harder for them to plan their attacks when theres a large group of Canadian Commandos knocking on their door :D
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 27, 2005, 11:22:38
Well, I read this with some dismay this morning (emphasis added):

Quote
Peacekeepers leave Canada for Kandahar: Team will join U.S. forces facing Taliban resistance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDMONTON - The main contingent of <Canadian> peacekeepers heading for Afghanistan left Edmonton yesterday for a region where U.S.-led attacks on Taliban warlords and al-Qaeda operatives are expected to intensify before September elections.

Canadian Defence Minister Bill Graham and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier watched the 110 soldiers from the 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade take-off at the Edmonton International Airport.

The total contingency of 250 troops will help form the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) travelling to Afghanistan's Kandahar province, where American-led troops have recently encountered a stepped-up Taliban resistance.

Across Afghanistan, coalition troops have killed hundreds of insurgents in recent weeks in an attempt to secure the country in the lead-up to the Sept. 18 parliamentary elections.

Mr. Graham says the role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan over the next six months will be to aid coalition forces and bring stability into the lives of Afghanis.

"They have to be combat-ready to do that, to provide stability," Mr. Graham said. "That's what Afghans want, that's what [Afghan] President Hamid Karzai wants, and that's what they need."

Upon arrival, the PRT will work with local police, the Afghan army, provincial politicians and bureaucrats to stabilize the nation's government and thwart a growing insurgency.

As recently as six months ago, Afghanistan was viewed as the prototypical result of President George W. Bush's nation-building policy.

But the progress Afghanistan had made on peace since holding democratic elections last October has deteriorated. Near-daily suicide bombings, ambushes and execution-style killings are threatening almost three years of progressive state-building as the deposed Taliban regime has intensified attacks against coalition troops in an attempt to regain their stronghold on the country.

Gen. Hillier expects Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists to continue attacking coalition forces, which could include <Canadian> troops, with land mines, vehicle-born explosives and rifle fire.

"Kandahar and southern Afghanistan is a risky and dangerous region. [The Taliban] has been much more active in the past month than it has in the past year," Gen. Hillier said.

Recent casualty numbers support Gen. Hillier's claim. With yesterday's killing of at least 40 Taliban militants by U.S. soldiers in Uruzgan province, the death toll resulting from political violence in the country in 2005 is more than 800, compared with 850 in all of 2004.

Gen. Hillier sparked controversy earlier this month when he told reporters that Canadian troops will go to Afghanistan to fight "detestable murderers and scumbags" and their role in the upcoming deployment is "to be able to kill people."

Yesterday, Gen. Hillier softened his comments by telling reporters he simply meant that Canadian troops will have to be combat-ready.

"[Our troops] are still peacekeepers. They're making lives better but they're also realizing that in order to move to that level, they have to make the place secure, and they'll do what they have to do to do that," Mr. Graham said in support of Gen. Hillier.  

The PRT also consists of soldiers from the Third Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and 1 Service Battalion.

The six-month mission will be bolstered by members of the Canadian International Development Agency, Foreign Affairs Canada, the RCMP and other aid organizations and Canadian diplomats.

Although this was the CP story this morning, which reads a lot better:

Quote
Tough-talking military chief defends blunt remarks: Brushes off criticism after saying soldiers' job is to be able to kill

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDMONTON - Canada's top military officials are brushing off criticism from Independent MP Carolyn Parrish over the blunt language of Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier.

The maverick MP, a former Liberal, has called Hillier "dangerous" and "testosterone-fuelled" for saying the job of Canadian soldiers is to be able to kill people.

Hillier was in Edmonton yesterday with Defence Minister Bill Graham to see off about 110 soldiers who are on their way to Afghanistan for a reconstruction mission. The plain-speaking general said he hadn't seen Parrish's comments but wasn't particularly concerned about them.

"I'm part of ensuring that Canadians understand and appreciate just what these fine men and women ... just what fine work they do on their behalf," Hillier told reporters at Edmonton International Airport. "I'm not offended at all. I have a job to do, and I'm concentrated on doing that job."

Parrish is rumoured to be negotiating to return to federal Liberal caucus after being banished for criticizing Martin and his team and stomped on a George W. Bush doll as part of a TV skit satirizing her opposition to the U.S. president's ballistic missile defence scheme.

Graham described her as "a person with strong opinions an strong views," but stopped short of censuring her over her latest remarks.

If Parrish could see the work the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan, he said, she could appreciate that the mission is dangerous and potentially deadly.

"To bring stability to a place like Afghanistan, they're risking their lives and they have to take measures," Graham said. "They have to be combat-ready to do that.

"They're still bringing Canadian values in making lives better, but they're also realizing that in order for them to move to that level, they have to make the place secure first. That's what Gen. Hillier has been saying, and I have to say I back him up 100 per cent."

The soldiers who left yesterday are part of a 250-member provincial reconstruction team that also includes representatives from the Canadian International Development Agency, Foreign Affairs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and various non-governmental organizations.

Most of the troops are from 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, mainly members of Edmonton Garrison's 1 Combat Engineer Regiment, 3 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and 1 Service Battalion. Another 50 from other Canadian bases will provide specialized skills such as satellite communications.

In Kandahar, the southern Afghan region that was once a stronghold of the Taliban, the reconstruction team will assist in defence, diplomacy and development. Members have been prepared for direct combat with Taliban fighters as insurgents promise more - and more sophisticated - attacks on foreign troops.

I wonder what the terminology will be when TF 01-06 goes in in Feb...?
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: RangerBoy on July 27, 2005, 11:39:08
Rick Hillier vs. Carolyn Parrish ... hmmm ... I'm guessing that's a matchup the government will be quite happy with.
The chief is fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Jaxson on July 28, 2005, 10:27:35
"Alot of people i know are talking about how if we send troops over there its only a matter of time before we get hit over here... I will sit there, and listen to what they have to say respectfully, not saying what i am thinking... And at the end of the conversation all i have to say is that its alot harder for them to plan their attacks when theres a large group of Canadian Commandos knocking on their door" -hunter911


as wrong as this will sound but it would almost be a good thing if a bomb went off in Canada from a terrorist, i believe the army would undoubtedly get an extremely enhanced Budget and the Canadian public would get a little slap in the face of a wake up call that would bring HUGE support to the Canadian forces (hopefully). although don't get me wrong i don't like to hear or see of innocent people dying.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: 48Highlander on July 28, 2005, 10:57:22
as wrong as this will sound but it would almost be a good thing if a bomb went off in Canada from a terrorist, i believe the army would undoubtedly get an extremely enhanced Budget and the Canadian public would get a little slap in the face of a wake up call that would bring HUGE support to the Canadian forces (hopefully). although don't get me wrong i don't like to hear or see of innocent people dying.

First of all, yes, it sounds horribly wrong, and you should probably think about re-phrasing it.

Secondly, I think the Canadian public would be more likely to stick it's collective head in the sand, and insist we pull out of Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 28, 2005, 12:33:03
"Alot of people i know are talking about how if we send troops over there its only a matter of time before we get hit over here... I will sit there, and listen to what they have to say respectfully, not saying what i am thinking... And at the end of the conversation all i have to say is that its alot harder for them to plan their attacks when theres a large group of Canadian Commandos knocking on their door" -hunter911


as wrong as this will sound but it would almost be a good thing if a bomb went off in Canada from a terrorist, i believe the army would undoubtedly get an extremely enhanced Budget and the Canadian public would get a little slap in the face of a wake up call that would bring HUGE support to the Canadian forces (hopefully). although don't get me wrong i don't like to hear or see of innocent people dying.

How quickly your hope for something like that would change if your friends or family were those that were hurt or killed. Grow up!
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Jaxson on July 28, 2005, 12:34:04
well i dont know how to rephrase it other wise id of never said it that way in the beggining so let me just say, im sorry to everyone it offends and in no way do i mean we should infact be bombed or anything such as that.. im just saying if people THOUGHT it was an actual threat to canada, the millitary would probably have more support... in my opinion.


dragoon, like i just re-said i dont mean we shoudl actually be bombed, perhaps i said the Very wrong thing, i meant, if people didnt think it could never happen to us...
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: on guard for thee on July 28, 2005, 12:46:20
Jaxson...........I'll try another approach and see if I'm getting your drift........

In a fist fight, a guy generally get's much more motivated after getting popped in the nose that first time...........

I think your point was, the Canadian public would become much more engaged if they did get that pop in the nose.....

Was this what you were getting at?
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Jaxson on July 28, 2005, 12:51:04
yes, but i didnt mean that i WANT it to happen, by far that is the complete opposite of what i meant to say or want to happen.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: on guard for thee on July 28, 2005, 12:55:22
Understood, and in full agreement.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 28, 2005, 13:02:13
Any form of attack on Canada would not have the effect you would hope for guys. What would end up happeneing is the vocal peacenik types would say its because we are involved in Afghanistan or something other. People would get in an uproar and things for the CF would go from bad to worse.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Mark C on July 28, 2005, 19:08:18
Jaxson,

Don't fret.  It may suprise you to know that there are many of us wearing the uniform who fully expect your "hypothetical situation" to come true sooner rather than later.  None of us want a terrorist strike on Canada - indeed, the opposite is true for anyone wearing the uniform or our nation.  We work every day and put our lives on the line in far-flung places precisely to prevent such an occurence.  But we are also realists and we therefore know (without question) that barring a fundamental change of world events, such an incident in Canada is all but inevitable. 

The problem is that even if ((name your diety here) forbid) such an event should occur, the Canadaian government and general populace would be so far behind the power-curve in terms of sorting ourselves out that our immediate response would be entirely inadequate and meaningless.  The thing about combatting terrorism is that you have to PRE-EMPT the terrorists - ideally through a combination of "good works" overseas and by killing those who presume to challenge our way of life.  That's it - that's all there is too it.  Unfortunately, those things are far easier said than done.

I'm with you - I think that Canada is primed for a big terrorist hit, and it is going to happen.  And then what?  A bunch of self-reflective hand-wringing combined with navel-gazing and self-serving "K'um Ba Ya" candlight vigils and a renewed pledge to be friends to the world?  Or will we finally "get it" as a mollycoddled citizenry and promptly sort ourselves out as a nation - recognizing an immediate threat to our well-being and that of our children?  Just as we have done in two world wars and several overseas combat actions during the earlier years of this century?

The fact is that Canada has grown too soft for its own good.  Our collective conscience has been overtaken by rampant and unwarranted political correctness, coupled with a misplaced utopian belief that we can "get by" without overtly offending anyone.  Unfortunately, that Canadian societal premise is fundamentally flawed, and has been from the outset.  We are already at war, and we chose our side/made our bed when we sent 3 PPCLI on combat operations against the Al Quaida and Taliban in Afghanistan 3 years ago.  There is no turning back, unless we collectively choose to turn belly-up and have our women don Burkhas.  Because that is the choice.  There is no middle ground to be negotiated with those who would purport to impose their radical religious beliefs upon us.  We fight, or we die.  Simple eh?  Sadly, most Canadians cannot yet comprehend the fundamental reality of the situation.  We are at WAR.  Full-stop.

Getting back to your point, we all know that you don't want a terrorist strike against Canada resulting in mass casualties in one of our urban centres.  None of us does.  Heck - I've been wearing the uniform for 25 years in an active personal attempt to prevent just that.  But the fact remains that if we don't get our collective societal crap together, that is precisely what is going to happen.  You know it, and I know it.  And I'm sorry to have to agree with you that such an event is likely the only thing that will awaken the navel-gazing, self-indulgent and falsely secure Canadian public from their collective slumber.  I sincerely rue the day, but I have zero doubt that it is coming.  And sooner rather than later.

All of the above to say that your concerns are fully warranted, and you are not off-base.  It is only a matter of time, and the "grown-ups" know it - even if they are not yet admitting it.

See you when the dust settles.

Cheers,



Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 28, 2005, 22:35:54
Quote
"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction,"
"I don't think anybody has consulted with the Canadian public."
Independent MP Carolyn Parrish

It is inexcusable that a Canadian MP could be so miss-informed as to believe that we are making a "drastic change in direction" and not recognize that we are just carrying on with the same job.  However, because we have used dishonest vernacular to soften our image, it is our fault a a military that some in the public will believe her. This goes back to my earlier observation of how shocked the average citizen is about the violence involved in "peacekeeping."  We should have dropped that term long ago.  "Enforcers" may have been better but, personally, I think we should have just stuck with "soldiers."

If the CF had always used the honest language of our current CDS, then the public would see Ms Parish's current act for its true stupidity.  Unfortunately, because we have sugar coated our work, some people will believe her.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: MCG on July 29, 2005, 00:40:56
Here is another example of the importance of pushing the correct language.  The following quotes of the same paragraph are taken from the article by Anne Dawson & appearing in newspapers today.  The first quote is from the Edmonton Journal and the second is from The Ottawa Citizen.

Quote
Parrish is furious that neither Canadians nor their politicians have been consulted about what she calls the "new" role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, which could include killing the enemy, a traditional role of soldiers.
The Edmonton Journal has used language that is honest about our roll.  Doesn't Ms. Parish come off a little goofy by being furious that Canadian soldiers are being asked to fill a traditional role of soldiers?

Quote
Ms. Parrish is furious that Canadians and their politicians have not been consulted about what she calls the new role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, a role that includes killing, which is not the traditional job of peacekeeping. She warns there will be outrage when Canadians in uniform return home "in body bags."
We know that it is incorrect to suggest that the use of lethal force is foreign to "peacekeepers."  However, to the uniformed civilian, Ms. Parish's ignorance based arguments may seem valid.

If we choose to use honest language & stick to that language, then eventually the news media will start to portray us in an accurate light.  In some papers, it is already happening.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: ShaneV on July 29, 2005, 01:01:05
i like that " peace maker" thats really good.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: pbi on July 29, 2005, 09:03:55

It is inexcusable that a Canadian MP could be so miss-informed as to believe that we are making a "drastic change in direction" and not recognize that we are just carrying on with the same job.   However, because we have used dishonest vernacular to soften our image, it is our fault a a military that some in the public will believe her. This goes back to my earlier observation of how shocked the average citizen is about the violence involved in "peacekeeping."   We should have dropped that term long ago.   "Enforcers" may have been better but, personally, I think we should have just stuck with "soldiers."

If the CF had always used the honest language of our current CDS, then the public would see Ms Parish's current act for its true stupidity.   Unfortunately, because we have sugar coated our work, some people will believe her.

Hear, hear! Well said and right on the money. We (the big "corporate" we...) tried for too long to to garner favour by selling a false  but supposedly more palatable version of ourselves to an abysmally ignorant public. Like most poorly conceived image programs, it carried a risk. This is it, right here: when we go to do what soldiers are supposed to be able to do (or why have us at all?...) people like Carolyn Parrish begin to squawk. This reminds me of the (apocryphal?) tale of the Federal MP who, during the Somalia situation, allegedly rose in the House to state how shocked and indignant he was that Canadian peacekeepers were actually carrying weapons on a mission. Where was Carolyn Parrish during Op APOLLO, or any of the other missions that we've embarked on in the last decade or so? She must have freaked when she saw the Army taking Leos to Kosovo.

Cheers
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: silentbutdeadly on July 31, 2005, 22:47:07
OK! question Ms Parrish: If Canada is such a Peaceful nation , then tell why do our police officers carry guns then?The reason they do is for protection, and the fact that one day something or someone might take there life! or better yet Ms Parrish lets have them not go into the Bad areas within our cities just incase they get killed hows that. So if our Police forse loses and friend in the line of duty, that must mean we have to take all the offiers off the street! So end my rant! haha
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: bobthebui|der on July 31, 2005, 23:19:41
Is anyone else totally lost for words nowadays, with this whole Parrish issue? I keep going to type something, only to find myself getting riled up and having to implement that backspace button for fear of my rant never coming to an end.

Politics in general, and specifically those concerning the Canadian Military is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth, that seems to just get worse and worse.

Bah, i need to go fishing!

 :salute:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: 48Highlander on August 01, 2005, 07:55:02
or better yet Ms Parrish lets have them not go into the Bad areas within our cities just incase they get killed hows that. So if our Police forse loses and friend in the line of duty, that must mean we have to take all the offiers off the street! So end my rant! haha

You've got the right idea now.  In fact, as any leftie can tell you, the propper way to fight inner-city crime is to pull out the cops and send in aid-workers to distribute food and clothing.  In addition to, ofcourse, petitioning the G8 to donate billions of dollars, and organizing rock concerts in Barrie to raise awareness of the problem.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: Hatchet Man on August 01, 2005, 09:21:40
You've got the right idea now.   In fact, as any leftie can tell you, the propper way to fight inner-city crime is to pull out the cops and send in aid-workers to distribute food and clothing.   In addition to, ofcourse, petitioning the G8 to donate billions of dollars, and organizing rock concerts in Barrie to raise awareness of the problem.

hahaha that is funny.

But seriously we do we even give her the all this attention. She is just saying all this nonsense cause it gives her a chance to extend her 15 minutes.  Before the "Bastards" comment she was just some no name backbencher from the 905, who has been riding the fortunes of the liberals since the 90s to a big fat pension.  Now all we need to do is convince the CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail, and maybe the Post to stop giving her a platform.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: mainerjohnthomas on August 01, 2005, 13:52:55

hahaha that is funny.

But seriously we do we even give her the all this attention. She is just saying all this nonsense cause it gives her a chance to extend her 15 minutes.   Before the "Bastards" comment she was just some no name backbencher from the 905, who has been riding the fortunes of the liberals since the 90s to a big fat pension.   Now all we need to do is convince the CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail, and maybe the Post to stop giving her a platform.
      The problem with that is the Canadian press would report those sentiments, from her, or anyone else they could find, as they represent the opinion they want to express.  The CBC and the leftist journalists want to embrace social justice, rather than the justice system, and far prefer beating our swords into plowshares than extolling the virtues of our own "swordsmen".  Our right wing publishers with to pursue a continued downsizing of government, slashing away at expensive capital costs like the purchase of new first rate military equipment, and shy from anything that might call for increased federal spending that might require  increased taxes.  Our limited military industry likewise doesn't want a credible threat against, or offensive opperations for our military as that might require hardware not made in Quebec or Ontario.  It is in not in the interests of the press, their owners, their favourite sources, or the bought dogs of the "think tanks" to point out the facts of life to the Canadian public, too many people are doing too well off our happy defenceless ignorance.
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: >>Paladin<< on August 05, 2005, 12:59:29
In the words of a thoroughly trained and wise PPCLI Capt. "I didn't know a peacekeeper who didn't train for war first." Cheers!  :cdn:
Title: Re: Peacekeeping or Fighting? or Both?
Post by: reccecrewman on September 02, 2005, 21:12:08
Well, I for one have been hearing a whole lotta chatter in the past couple years about the "Three Block War" which basically encompasses the entire spectrum of the Army's capabilities.  Seems the big guys up at the top have their plans for us, we just have to sit back and be prepared for whatever role they come up with for us on any given mission.  Be trained and prepared for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance or full fledged war fighting
Title: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: muskrat89 on October 10, 2005, 10:23:20
Anyone in the know care to comment on this?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051009/military_report_051009/20051009?hub=Canada

Quote
Report critical of Canada's peacekeeping mission

Canadian Press

OTTAWA â ” A highly critical report on a mission in Africa has raised questions about Canada's long-standing reputation as an effective peacekeeper.

Ottawa had little justification for sending military observers and others to a UN mission in Sierra Leone, says a Canadian Forces study on the seven-year operation.

And Canadian soldiers and reservists were so poorly matched to tasks that the British officers in command often had to find them low-level work.

"The problem is seen to be a lack of depth of experience or `operational maturity,' particularly in the case of reservists," says a lessons-learned report, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

"Often personnel without the necessary operational experience have been unobtrusively moved to less demanding positions more fitted to their real skills."

Training to prepare Canada's observers for the mission was so inadequate that they were given instructions on how to avoid landmine -- even though there was no landmine threat in Sierra Leone, says the study.

The problems have remained hidden because operations were in a remote area and involved only about 100 Canadian personnel in total over the years.

"The fact that these were small-scale missions likely discouraged detailed and searching analysis," wrote Lt.- Col. A.F. Robertson, author of the March 2005 report.

The UN first stepped into Sierra Leone in the 1990s to promote peace after an insurrection by the so-called Revolutionary United Front, which ultimately failed.

Canada became involved in 1999 when it agreed to send a commander and military observers to support a UN force made up of soldiers from at least nine countries.

Ottawa also sent soldiers to help train the Sierra Leone army. The Defence Department dubbed the contributions Operation Reptile, which ended in July, and Operation Sculpture, the training mission that continues.

In a recent publication, the Canadian Forces hailed Operation Reptile as a success, saying it made a positive impression on officials in other contributing military forces.

Robertson's report, however, questions whether Canada should even have participated, based on a checklist established in 1994 to determine whether Canadian troops should become involved in such peacekeeping missions.

The initial mandate in Sierra Leone was vague and unenforceable; there was no clear division of responsibilities between military and civilian authorities; the operational plan was "unworkable"; and at least one of the parties -- the Revolutionary United Front -- was opposed to the mission.

These were all contrary to Ottawa's checklist standards.

"The humanitarian disaster in Sierra Leone led Canada's commitment to two tasks, even though neither fully met published policy guidelines," the report concluded.

"In neither case is there any evidence that a review of the prospects of success, a risk-benefit analysis, an assessment of the national interest in the area, or an analysis of adherence to the . . . guidelines, was undertaken."

A peacekeeping school at Canadian Forces Base Kingston, Ont., briefed soldiers poorly for what awaited them in the tiny coastal state in West Africa.

"The cultural briefings were inadequate, and did not effectively prepare them for the social and security environment in Sierra Leone," says the study, based partly on interviews with returning soldiers.

Canada's international reputation as an effective peacekeeper dates from the 1956 Suez Crisis, when then-foreign affairs minister Lester B. Pearson helped broker a resolution.

Many governments have since tried to establish clear rules about which peacekeeping missions Canada should join, said Martin Rudd, a defence analyst with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

But governments too often ignore the criteria in an effort to help, or to be seen to be helping, when a crisis breaks out.

"The desire to do something often gets the better of them," Rudd said from Toronto.

"The tendency to want to take on so many missions can have serious implications" for military resources.

In addition to the Sierra Leone mission, Rudd cited the example of East Timor, where Canadian soldiers were sent in the fall of 1999 for six months when Australian forces were capable of doing the job themselves.

Canada often joins too many missions abroad, partly because peacekeeping has become part of the country's mythology, says a political science professor at the University of Calgary.

"We've bought into our own press clippings," said Rob Huebert, who is also associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

"We're doing it because we believe it's the Canadian way and peacekeeping is seen as an end rather than a means _ and that just creates all sorts of difficulties for our forces."
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: 2 Cdo on October 10, 2005, 10:44:40
It's only our "forte" when the government wants to make a feel good statement about the military. We haven't been the leader in peacekeeping for some years now, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Canadians hold up the UN as some almighty, know it all entity, when in fact it has been shown to be possibly one of the most corrupt organizations ever. :threat:

Well except for the Liberal Party of Canada! ;D
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: GO!!! on October 10, 2005, 11:05:49
What we really should be addressing is the death of peacekeeping in general - and why this is a good thing.

In the history of the UN, there has never, with the exception of the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, been a successful peacekeeping mission - by the UN's own definition. Peacekeepiong is expensive, dangerous and only nominally prodctive. In addition to this, the very goals of peacekeeping missions, a cessation of hostilities, are rarely satisfactory for the warring parties. The parties in question are fighting for a reason, and are usually mid - stride when the blue helmets show up and try to "freeze" front lines and borders.

All of the major conflicts of this century have ended in one of two ways - a victory for one side - leading to peace, or negotiated end to hostilities, leaving one or both sides convinced that they must carry on the fight at a later date. There must be victory for peace to follow.

Canada and Canadians, while taking great pride in calling ourselves peacekeepers, must really look objectively at the numbers. We have contributed only small fractions of the total peacekeeping forces in the Balkans, Africa and others. Our "participation" is often limited to a few middle management officers, and some logisitical staff to support them. We are also generous in dispenisng Commanders, with hazy goals and few resources. None of this is particularly admirable, and must be addressed and scrutinised in the harsh glare of the public eye, in order to spur improvement.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Michael Shannon on October 10, 2005, 11:41:26
Our "forte"  is obviously the construction of comfortable camps.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on October 10, 2005, 12:15:39
Our "forte"   is obviously the construction of comfortable camps.
  ::)   Not worthy of comment...

To the subject at hand.   I have some fairly strong opinions about this subject, which I will try to keep in context.

First, we do not have access to the full report, and the quotes are undoubtedly chosen to provide the most "interest".   What the full report says, with recommendations, we're left to guess at.

Second, and this is my opinion only.   UNMO and IMATT-type missions are not the highest on the tasking food chain.   While they are attractive tours for many reasons, most Regular units (and a lot of Reserve ones) are reluctant to let their officers (which is what we're largely talking about here) deploy on "one of" missions.   As a result, the tasks float around for a considerable time, looking for a "fill" and we end up sending a person who is available, rather than one who has been deemed qualified.   I've seen total floppers - Regular and Reserve - deploy on individual tasks because there's no one else available or wishing to go.   People that cannot command in Canada find themselves in positions of considerable responsibility (generally on "one of" isolated tasks) because of our lack of people.   No amount of PSTC training can address their professional and personal shortfalls.   Some of these guys have been loose cannons of the first order and should never have been sent overseas wearing a Canadian uniform.

Third, I'm not in a position to comment on PSTC UNMO training, as I've never done it.   However, my experience with them both on deployment and as a force generator has been much less than positive.   If there's an organization within the Army that needs to change their operational focus and to become more aware of the new operational environment, PSTC is it.

I cannot add much to the discussion specific to Sierra Leone - there are others here more qualified to do that by far.   However, I agree wholeheartedly with GO!!! - peacekeeping is dead and buried, despite Government efforts to keep the corpse alive (witness ISAF being described as a peacekeeping mission, as is - from time to time - our current combat mission in S. Afghanistan).
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: EW on October 10, 2005, 14:32:53
"Our "forte"   is obviously the construction of comfortable camps."

If by that, you mean a large and secure base of operations that is worthy of a G-8 nation, than I would hardly say that doing it once would make it our forte.   I seem to remember the Brits/Dutch having a much nicer base at Banja Luka than we did elsewhere in BiH.   I'm sure the US/UK would do the same in Afghan, if not for being stretched between Iraq and Afghan.  

It's not like Canada is supporting simultaneous major missions.   So long as the money was/is not diverted from buying appropriate equipment (biggest problem there seems to be the lengthy procurement process) than why not build a SECURE base.   I was there before Julien, and I saw the problems the Germans had with their site in southern Kabul.   Not exactly secure enough for what Canada wanted to do, not to mention too small for a Battalion Group.

Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Michael Shannon on October 10, 2005, 14:58:40
   Camp Mirage is nice as well and so is Garrison Edmonton. Just pointing out something we're really good at.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: RangerRay on October 10, 2005, 16:04:32
Another myth smashed.

I bet this will get minimal play in the national media though...
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: EW on October 10, 2005, 16:27:35
M.S.

My apologies, I had forgotten about C.M.   Don't know how that slipped my mind.  I'll blame it on age.  Yeah, that is a sweet place.  Airforce though, so I guess some comfort has to be expected. 

I would never belittle them for the airconditioning though, that place is unreal in the summer.

Cheers.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: geo on October 10, 2005, 18:13:10
MS... I see nothing wrong with providing our troops with the best facilities we can put on the ground for them.
If Camp Mirage, Julien & Warehouse have been comfortable & safe.... so what?
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: GO!!! on October 10, 2005, 18:19:35
Apparently certain members of this site believe we must be made to suffer on deployments, with no amenities or comforts - just so we can say "we're hard"....
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: geo on October 10, 2005, 18:32:42
Ugh.... does that mean we have to take the bullet too?
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: North Star on October 10, 2005, 19:06:54
At least we don't deploy Burger Kings. That's going a bit too far in trying to bring the comforts of home with us on tour...
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: aesop081 on October 10, 2005, 19:12:03
At least we don't deploy Burger Kings. That's going a bit too far in trying to bring the comforts of home with us on tour...


Hey why not...if you have the capability...

I used to drive to camp Bondsteel just for the BK and the PX
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: paracowboy on October 10, 2005, 19:41:01
At least we don't deploy Burger Kings. That's going a bit too far in trying to bring the comforts of home with us on tour...

if we had the capability of bringing Timmy's with us everywhere, why the hell not? So we can pretend we're harder than anybody else? A wise ol' EP once told me: "Any idiot can be uncomfortable in the field." If I could hump it, I'd bring a damn laz-e-boy into my hootch, or into my weatherhaven overseas.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: North Star on October 10, 2005, 19:44:42
I just found it to be an OPSEC problem (even more LEEs), and a bit opulent given the surroudings. I understand that in Afghanistan, a CO wisely decided to stop construction of a camp pool as the majority of the population around them didn't have drinking water.

As for a deployable Tim's if they gave us a donut fryer, tins of coffee, and a set of instruction I wouldn't mind. Just don't need the 17 year old in the brown shirt and funny hat...
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: George Wallace on October 10, 2005, 19:50:55
Ah!   Come on!   Most of them young girls are kinda cute.   Think of the morale of the boys.   A pretty young thing to hand them their Large Double Double at the Drive-thru as they start the morning heading out on patrol.....
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: North Star on October 10, 2005, 20:03:07
OK George, you got me there....
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: paracowboy on October 10, 2005, 20:09:10
I just found it to be an OPSEC problem (even more LEEs), and a bit opulent given the surroudings.
OPSEC concerns aren't a result of a comfortable camp, they're the result of morons. Morons who give the locals blueprints of a camp, let's say, to take into town for the night. Morons who use non-secure means to transmit orders. Morons who tell the interpreters everything about every patrol, or the laundry dude when he'll be back "Something really cool!" Morons who.....
But the comfort level of a camp has nothing to do with Operational Security.

And opulence is relative, dude. Since the locals live in their own filth, we should do likewise? If so, then we have to stop living in high security compounds, stop seperating ourselves from the populace, and start living in their homes and talking their language and taking a deep, personal, abiding interest in their welfare.

That ain't gonna happen. It would make too much sense. So, this is the best alternative I can think of.

All we gotta do is grab these loudmouthed morons who blow OPSEC and PERSEC by the forelock and throat-punch them into some semblance of a professional soldier.

Whadda you think?
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: geo on October 10, 2005, 21:18:10
Ah!   Come on!   Most of them young girls are kinda cute.   Think of the morale of the boys.   A pretty young thing to hand them their Large Double Double at the Drive-thru as they start the morning heading out on patrol.....

George,

the young ladies.... wearing Chador or Burkha?
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Slim on October 10, 2005, 21:38:47
Quote
All we gotta do is grab these loudmouthed morons who blow OPSEC and PERSEC by the forelock and throat-punch them into some semblance of a professional soldier.

A few well placed extras worked wonders with me when, as a young trooper, I kept forgetting to burn my codes!

I'm sure a similer solution could be implemented without too much worry...But its gotta come from the top down!
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Cloud Cover on October 10, 2005, 21:39:12
George,

the young ladies.... wearing Chador or Burkha?

Obviously, you haven't been in a Timmy's near Wal Mart in Ontario on a Saturday night, or the Timmy's in any of the southern Ontario universities. We're training them here for service overseas.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: 2 Cdo on October 10, 2005, 21:42:46
Quote
[OPSEC concerns aren't a result of a comfortable camp, they're the result of morons./quote]

Well said Paracowboy!

Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Gunner on October 10, 2005, 21:58:12
Quote
I understand that in Afghanistan, a CO wisely decided to stop construction of a camp pool as the majority of the population around them didn't have drinking water.

I suspect that is a military myth.  Mind you, the Golan Heights has a "firefighting holding facility" with a concrete deck and lawn chairs around it.    ::)
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: ArmyVern on October 10, 2005, 22:07:47
I suspect that is a military myth.   Mind you, the Golan Heights has a "firefighting holding facility" with a concrete deck and lawn chairs around it.      ::)

Ah yes, the old Golan watering hole. Spent some time refreshing along it's side myself (No tan however, being a red head and all) We did empty it out once though during Roto 67 while fighting numerous fires encircling our lovely haunt after some Syrian sheep decided to wander into the minefields neighbouring us.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Slim on October 10, 2005, 22:31:46
some Syrian sheep decided to wander into the minefields neighbouring us.

So sheep do have a use...
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 10, 2005, 22:38:05
So sheep do have a use...

You were obviously never part of a Scottish regiment.... ;)
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: geo on October 10, 2005, 22:53:51
sliding off topic........
does virgin wool come from ugly sheep?
:)
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: ArmyVern on October 10, 2005, 23:11:24
You were obviously never part of a Scottish regiment.... ;)

Famous Stones song about it though...

"Hey McLeod get offa my ewe!"
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Slim on October 10, 2005, 23:34:18
Groan
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: TheNomad on October 11, 2005, 07:31:06
Personally I was always of the opinion that "any idiot can be uncomfortable" and that a true soldier should have the ability to make himself comfortable no matter what the circumstances.

Maybe that is now old fashioned  :-\
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: TheNomad on October 11, 2005, 08:05:10
On a more serious note one should remember that peacekeeping is not an end in itself.  It is only supposed to provide a degree of security for both sides who must want peace in the first place.  The UN cannot be blamed for other entities who decide that they do not want to stop fighting.

I also note that the peacekeeping force can become part of the status quo as is the case in Cyprus.  This is a distortion of its aim, but it does achieve the overall objective of allowing both sides to stop fighting.  The reluctance of the parties to move beyond this stage is not the fault of the UN, but must be laid at the door of the parties themselves.

There is also a danger that an army that only trains for peacekeeping will loose its edge and aggressiveness.  This I think has become a problem for the Canadian forces.  The various governments have pushed peacekeeping as if it is the sole justification for having military forces.  This woolly thinking has allowed them to decimate the Canadian forces by refusing to equip it as if they are actually supposed to fight wars.  Peacekeeping has been used in Canada as part of a consistant campaign to deliberately underfund the forces.

This has in my opinion led to Canada's forces loosing its edge and aggressiveness.  The various threads on these forums show that the government's incessant use of the forces as part of touchy feelly social engineering means for some contributers war fighting has nothing to do with being in the army.  Secondly the aggressiveness required of a fighting force is being removed by cheep, unrealistic and "soft" training regimes in which buzz words such as "inclusiveness" are deemed more important than actually training to win.  Finally of course the refusal of the government to actually pay for the necessary equipment removes the ability of the army to be an effective force.  The lack of "real tanks" in Canada's inventory of course will only come into focus when facing an army who uses them against Canadian troops, who the government thinks do not need them.  I suspect when this happens it ill be a very expensive and bloody lesson.

Peacekeeping is a role for soldiers.  But it is only one role.  An effective army should be able to undertake operations at all levels, including general war, limited war, low intensity conflicts, and peacekeeping.  All these roles have value in themselves and operational experience and training in all of them are of great value.  However, if the army neglects its general and limited war fighting roles in favour of peacekeeping it runs a danger.

Bit of a long post I am afraid and no one should take any of these comments as a criticism of the soldiers themselves, for that is not my point.

Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: PPCLI Guy on October 11, 2005, 08:52:33
I may as well wade in on the comfort issue. 

I have just left CJ and am now on a base that has a Burger King and a Pizza Hut.  Comfort can be taken in the wrong direction, and lead to complacency.  When the schedule for the Pilate's class gets in the way of establishing a battle rhythm, you know you have gone in the wrong direction.  When the music from the nightly CANCAP party gets in the way of rack, you have gone in the wrong direction.  When you wake up to the sound of helos taking off for ops, go to Mr Greenbeans for a coffee, then go outside the wire, you are headed in the right direction.

Dave
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: COBRA-6 on October 12, 2005, 01:30:41
I understand that in Afghanistan, a CO wisely decided to stop construction of a camp pool as the majority of the population around them didn't have drinking water.

This may have been the case a few years ago, but now that there is enough water to fill the huge fountains in traffic circles and water plants along roadways, I don't think it would be unreasonable. The RUMINT has a pool going in at ISAF HQ in 2006, but I haven't seen any tangible proof. I wouldn't be surprised though, they have a pretty swanky setup there  ;D

One thing I never understood was the lack of AC at CJ, I guess it's a budget issue... 

When you wake up to the sound of helos taking off for ops, go to Mr Greenbeans for a coffee, then go outside the wire, you are headed in the right direction.

Don't forget Dairy Queen after the patrol sir  ;)
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: edadian on October 12, 2005, 15:09:48
It's only our "forte" when the government wants to make a feel good statement about the military. We haven't been the leader in peacekeeping for some years now, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Canadians hold up the UN as some almighty, know it all entity, when in fact it has been shown to be possibly one of the most corrupt organizations ever. :threat:

Well except for the Liberal Party of Canada! ;D

Hey the Liberals and UN have a lot to learn from the US Republican party. I have yet to hear Annan's and Martin's friends getting a billion dollar no bid contract for providing disaster relief after Katrina that ends up being done by others. Makes me wish I knew some on e in Bush's white I can do nothing and cash big cheques for it.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Gunner on October 12, 2005, 15:40:00
I don't think I am breaching any rules by attaching the original documents the newspaper article refers to.  They were produced by J7 Lessons Learned and I find the content of the report questionable.
Title: Re: I thought peacekeeping was "our forte"??
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on October 12, 2005, 19:22:41
Para,
My personal line from waaay back when I realized that the CP was a lot warmer than the OP was " Any fool can be uncormfortable, but I'm not just any fool, ....I'm a special fool"
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: gauci333 on December 21, 2005, 07:26:51
peacekeeping  can be bad for canada in minimal but important circumstances. it doesn't alllow us to do what sometimes we are trained to do and do our jobs. frankly i just got to fire a 8.4m in a combat role at fort pickett. which was a great experience but even so if  was  training peacekeeping it wouldn't be any really intense training involved. it doesn't allow our troops to see what they are capable of doing and show other coountries that we are probally the best trained troops in the world.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Slim on December 21, 2005, 07:55:47
peacekeeping   can be bad for canada in minimal but important circumstances. it doesn't alllow us to do what sometimes we are trained to do and do our jobs. frankly i just got to fire a 8.4m in a combat role at fort pickett. which was a great experience but even so if   was   training peacekeeping it wouldn't be any really intense training involved. it doesn't allow our troops to see what they are capable of doing and show other coountries that we are probally the best trained troops in the world.

You really don't have a clue, do you...?!

Sigh...Stay in your lane (this isn't it)

Slim
STAFF
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: pbi on December 21, 2005, 08:43:16
peacekeeping   can be bad for canada in minimal but important circumstances. it doesn't alllow us to do what sometimes we are trained to do and do our jobs. frankly i just got to fire a 8.4m in a combat role at fort pickett. which was a great experience but even so if   was   training peacekeeping it wouldn't be any really intense training involved. it doesn't allow our troops to see what they are capable of doing and show other coountries that we are probally the best trained troops in the world.

Maybe if you were a bit clearer you might get better reception. I'm not too sure about some of your statements here.

Quote
peacekeeping  can be bad for canada in minimal but important circumstances.

I don't know what this means. What are "minimal but important circumstances"

Quote
it doesn't alllow us to do what sometimes we are trained to do and do our jobs.

What is it that we are "sometimes trained to do"? Do you mean train for combat? I thought that was what most of our tactical training was about. As far as our "jobs" go, as soldiers our duties involve a huge range of activities, of which peace support operations form just one part, but still, a part. So I can't agree that just because we are on a PSO we are not "doing our jobs".

Quote
frankly i just got to fire a 8.4m in a combat role at fort pickett

Really. Who were you in combat against at Ft Pickett? OK-I'm being facetious, but you see what I mean: your style is screwing up your presentation.And, as far as I know, we call it the "84mm" or the "Karl Gustaf", not the "8.4m" A weapon with a calibre that big would be the largest anti-armour weapon ever built, wouldn't it?


Quote
which was a great experience but even so if  was  training peacekeeping it wouldn't be any really intense training involved.

Once again, very difficult to decipher what this sentence means. If you mean that we don't do intense training when we are going on a PSO, that is wring IMHO. I have done live fire company group attacks supoprted by USMC air dropping live HE when training for deployment to a PSO in Croatia: I am sure others here can relate similar stories.

Quote
it doesn't allow our troops to see what they are capable of doing and show other coountries that we are probally the best trained troops in the world.

Au contraire: Canadian troops have regularly shown just what they are capable of, and exactly how we stack up against other armies. Now, full-scale high intensity combat would do that more graphically and in a different way, but so far we haven't had too much of that.

I recommend you take another run at this post so we can understand what you mean.

Cheers


Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 21, 2005, 12:16:31
I never got confused by the term "Peacekeeping" for it just meant that I was under a UN command it never changed the way I trained my troops or executed my tasks I just wore a different colour beret and was answering to a UN commander. Comments have been made in this thread that make me feel that even soldiers are confused by the term. The example is Kosovo and Bosnia under SFOR well the difference between Bosnia during the war and SFOR or KFOR were the colour of the beret and the commander authority(other than the war). Same tasks same training same soldiers same places same reasons same results. It is also complicated by the 3 block war concepts we always did that just under a different name, hell the boys in WW2 developed it and we just absorbed it through training call it something new and get a paper written and you get a good PER that is all the 3 block war is just reinventing the wheel and calling it something different. Forget all the nice terms and buzz words what the CF does is train for war they go off and do NATO duty or UN duty or Special duty all the same, and they do very well!
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: cdnsignaller on December 21, 2005, 12:19:08
Hmmmm,

Why is answering to a secondary political organization with no clear path or plan (the UN),  That has shown is level of incompetance and corruption (food for oil program + its handling of bosnia in the 90's) is unprecedented a bad thing?

Wow

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on December 21, 2005, 12:37:56
Peacekeeping was an "Economy of Force" measure during WW III to prevent regional conflicts from expanding and pulling our attention and forces from the main effort: the containment and eventual defeat of the Soviet Union.

Until we enter another protracted "Cold War" type conflict like we did in the second half of the 20th Century, there is no more need to do "Peacekeeping", but plenty of reasons to move in with sufficient force to deter aggressors and create areas of stability.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 21, 2005, 13:37:15
You said -     "Until we enter another protracted "Cold War" type conflict like we did in the second half of the 20th Century, there is no more need to do "Peacekeeping", but plenty of reasons to move in with sufficient force to deter aggressors and create areas of stability."


That is what Peacekeeping is we are doing it now in the A stan all out war is Korea WW1 or 2 what we have done till today after those 3 Great wars is Peacekeep
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 48Highlander on December 21, 2005, 15:25:48
You said -     "Until we enter another protracted "Cold War" type conflict like we did in the second half of the 20th Century, there is no more need to do "Peacekeeping", but plenty of reasons to move in with sufficient force to deter aggressors and create areas of stability."


That is what Peacekeeping is we are doing it now in the A stan all out war is Korea WW1 or 2 what we have done till today after those 3 Great wars is Peacekeep

Hardly.  There was no conflict in Afghanistan before we showed up, so no, it's not peacekeeping.  It's not even peacemaking, although that term comes closer to describing it.  It's a stability op.

In a peacemaking or peacekeeping environment we're supposed to be impartial, helping the two sides come to an agreement.  In our current role in Afghanistan we are FAR from impartial.  We have an enemy, and we are there to kill them.  We have allies, and we are there to support them.  There's none of this "ok guys, play nice" bullshit, therefore it has nothing to do with peacekeeping or peacemaking.  We're there to prop up the Afghan government, help them rebuild their country, and keep them safe from those who wish to tear it apart again.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 21, 2005, 15:46:09
You see thats the confusion...most UN mission has an enemy usually it is two enemies not one. There is never any nice guy stuff that is and has been the bull crap that some bad leaders have created. I was never nice, never hesitated to fire my weapon and never confused the word "Peacekeeping" with war fighting...it is all the same just different flag and usually after the fighting was over became a support op rather than a stability op. Its all an OP and all about stopping a bad guy and helping a good guy and its all done with armies fighting or threatening to fight. I have never seen a peacekeeper in my life...Ive seen soldiers on UN missions that the politicians have called peacekeeping missions (nice word since war is illegal) but a peacekeeper no.

EDIT addition- the northern alliance was fighting before we got there, the US went in with the NA to help them push the Taliban out, the US went in full up and helped push them out and then we showed up to mop up after...now we are in the stability op.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bobbyoreo on December 21, 2005, 15:52:20
I've never ever trained for peacekeeping....dont recall anyone else doing the training either. I've always trained for war.

Sorry if Ive already said the samething as some others.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 21, 2005, 15:55:49
I apologize I just realized I have seen a peacekeeper ....he was an unarmed UN Observer. My mistake I was thinking too fast for my fingers.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Infanteer on December 21, 2005, 16:48:21
As for the altruism of peacekeeping:

I'd argue that Peacekeeping tours meet the Realpolitik demands that I mentioned above.  Why do you think Canada contributed 3 battalions to the Balkans at one point (CANBAT 1, CANBAT 2, CANLOGBAT) and yet in terms of real gestures ignored places like Rwanda, the Congo, and Cambodia.  "Peacekeeping" is just an easy "sell" to the Canadian public (for many of the reasons that PBI mentions) because it makes us think we have the moral highground.

"We're refuse to debase politics to a Machiavellian level, we're Canadians and we're better then that.  As such, our military force will be used to Peacekeep."

While it may sound awefully enlightening, I think this is a "feel-good" smokescreen.  Just look at the record of Peacekeeping and Interventions and come to your own conclusions.

- Korea (Ok, before the time of peacekeeping, but along the same mentality of intervention in other peoples conflicts.): Second challenge (After Greece and the Marshall Plan) to the policy of Containment that the US adopted.

- Suez (The original Peacekeeping Mission): Did we really care about who won in the Middle East inferno - or were we concerned because the Soviet Union threatened to turn Paris and London into parking lots over the issue.

- Golan Heights (yep, we're still there too): Did we really care about who won in the Middle East inferno - or were we concerned because the Soviet Union threatened to turn Haifa and Tel Aviv into parking lots if the IDF marched into Damascus and Cairo?

- Cyprus: As I said before, staving off a war between the two allies who made up NATO's "Southern Front".

- The Balkans: As I said before, a stable and secure Europe.

- Somalia: A little more difficult to define, I think this one was executed with in a manner of "chasing" a new outlook on security with the post-Cold War "peace dividend" on the mind.  We got away from the two principles I mentioned earlier; as a result, the mission was an unmitigated disaster (both for Canada and for the US/UN forces in general).

- East Timor: Were we really concerned for the Timorese?  Or were we concerned about the stability of a Muslim state of about 200,000,000 people that was right next door to our Allies in the Southern Pacific, Australia (yes, they have their own interests).

- Afghanistan (Op Athena): That's a no-brainer.

Of course, you're going to find outliers (Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia as mentioned above) which may not have so obvious of a purpose, but these missions are usually the ones that are launched to satisfy intense public outcry, and these are the missions that are folded up as soon as the media (and the public) loses interest and finds something else to watch.

Peacekeeping, then, is merely an "extention of politics by other means" (Didn't someone say that already?).  As such, the politics of Peacekeeping are informed not so much by idealism and notions of "the value of human life" and "a belief that civilization was worth it" - although elements will exist; look at Llyod Axworthy (and his failure).  Rather, these commitments are determined by self-serving, calculated decisions - and, for the sake of you and me - it's how they should be.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 48Highlander on December 21, 2005, 17:04:12
Umm...look up Ahmed Shah Masood.  That was before 9/11.  Hell, look up the battles of Bishqab, Mazar, Konduz, and Sayed Slim Kalay for post 9/11 examples of a conflict that existed before most Canadians knew where Afghanistan was.

Here (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=109) is some reading material since you have a tendency to pull history out of your ***.  As well, I suggest you pick up Steve Coll's Ghost Wars to get an idea of what's been going on in Afghanistan in the last half-century.

:D

Alright, wonderful, they had a few problems.  Point is, we didn't go there to settle their problems, and the conflict we're fighting now has little to do with any difficulties they may have had before we invaded.  By the time we got involved, the Taliban had become pretty succesfull at suppressing anyone who didn't agree with them.

"As for the altruism of peacekeeping", I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks it's entirely altruistic.  However, peacekeeping by definition is a NEUTRAL force, acting to prevent violence from re-emerging between two or more factions.  We didn't do that in Korea for one, there we clearly sided with the South.  The Balkans are an example of true peacekeeping - nobody there realy liked us, and we didn't much care for any of them.  We didn't pick sides, we just made sure (or tried to make sure) that they all stayed in their lanes.  We didn't care about helping one faction over another, we just wanted stability in the region.  In that respect, Afghanistan now is more like Korea than it is like the Balkans - we're not trying to make sure that everyone gets along, we're trying to make sure that the government survives and regains control of the country, and that anyone who doesn't like it ends up incarcerated, or 6' under.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 21, 2005, 19:36:15
Well I'm glad we have that all out of our system.

Lets get back to the focus peacekeeping myth......I don't agree with either of your views on why we are in A stan but we will hold that for another discussion.

I could not find "peacekeeper" in the Oxford, tells me it is not a word anyone got it in their dictionary?   I think that A stan is a perfect example of peacekeeping for lack of a better word. Bosnia did have sides we had a job to help end the war by applied force to ensure a BiH victory without an all out lose by the Serbs or Croats. Bosnia during the war had more ammo going down range then A stan from what I can see so how could Bosnia be a blue neutral peace op and A stan be a conflict more like Korea? As I said don't get caught up with the buzz words "blue" "UN" or "Peacekeeper". We prepare and train for war we go on operations they are either blue, green NATO or other not because they are different from the fighting perspective just the political view. Cant get a UN resolution to go in, do it anyway, and call it something else, point is its all the same for the fighting unit just different flag.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: old medic on December 21, 2005, 19:56:27
US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words:

Peacekeeping:
Quote
Military operations undertaken with the consent of all major parties to a dispute, designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement (ceasefire, truce, or other such agreement) and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement. See also peace building; peace enforcement; peacemaking; peace operations.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

It's an entry in the Cambridge.


<edit: added the link the cambridge dictionary>

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Infanteer on December 21, 2005, 20:20:19
I don't agree with either of your views on why we are in A stan but we will hold that for another discussion.

By all means, share.  It seems to be part of the discussion (since you imply that Afghanistan is peacekeeping).

Quote
I think that A stan is a perfect example of peacekeeping for lack of a better word. Bosnia did have sides we had a job to help end the war by applied force to ensure a BiH victory without an all out lose by the Serbs or Croats. Bosnia during the war had more ammo going down range then A stan from what I can see so how could Bosnia be a blue neutral peace op and A stan be a conflict more like Korea?

"Peacekeeping" status isn't defined by the amount of ammo sent down range.  Operation Enduring Freedom (of which Canada was and is again a part of) is not a peacekeeping operation.  Rather it is deliberate combat operation against Al Qa'ida and Taliban remnants in Southern Afghanistan.  Traditional "peacekeeping" implies neutrality.  We've chosen our side in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Tango2Bravo on December 21, 2005, 21:54:20
Afghanistan (APOLLO, ATHENA, ARCHER) is not, in my opinion, peacekeeping.  We have a side and a defined (if amorphous) enemy. 

To me, classic peacekeeping involves the consent of all parties (in line with the definition above).  The problem with the 90s was that the western powers (less the US) tried to apply peacekeeping methods, mandates and legitimacies to what should have been warfighting operations.

Peacekeeping could, perhaps, be applied to operations where there is no "side" per se, but various criminal gangs that interfere with legitmate authorities.

As an aside, I would argue that US SF teams and associated airpower were instrumental in the collapse of the conventional Taliban forces.  For a fascinating pre-9/11 look at Afghanistan look up the Spring 2001 edition of Parameters for an article by Ali Jalali. 

Cheers,

2B
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Britney Spears on December 22, 2005, 02:59:45
Quote
To me, classic peacekeeping involves the consent of all parties (in line with the definition above).  The problem with the 90s was that the western powers (less the US) tried to apply peacekeeping methods, mandates and legitimacies to what should have been warfighting operations.

Peacekeeping could, perhaps, be applied to operations where there is no "side" per se, but various criminal gangs that interfere with legitmate authorities.

Let me try and refine this a little. Pearsonian peacekeeping, the "buffer between 2 sides" deal, could ONLY work if both sides were organized conventional armies who were more or less evenly matched, a la Suez or Cyprus, because in order to get everyone to agree to a ceasefire and whatnot both sides have to have actual effective, recognizable leaders. If one side has a preponderance of force over the other (Israel/Palestine) then this model also does not apply. What would the Israelis gain by allowing the UN into the occupied territories which they already effectively control?

This model really started to break down in Bosnia, because it was difficult in practice to establish a "ceasefire" between the 3 sides who were often only nominally answered to their respective leaders, and further more there wasn't a clear, definable boundary between the various ethnic groups (well, back then anyway, they've since solved that problem).

This model actually doesn't work at all in the case of a complete absence of order, such as Somalia and Rwanda. Who were the warring sides? Did they have leaders? Were their motives territorial? Trying to establish a "buffer" between 20 gangs of armed teenagers gets you nowhere. This is where the "colonial" strong arm type of peacekeeping needs to start. I think in recent years even the UN is starting to clue in on this. Pakistani UN blue helmets in the Congo earlier this year racked up over 50 confirmed "militia" kills in a major OFFENSIVE op (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4310593.stm) supported by gunships; a little more exiting than the kind of UN operation we were doing in the early 90s, no doubt.  I think this trend is going to continue as people clue in on how to deal with(kill) third world militias

I am a new Canadian and I've never been taught anything in school about peacekeeping or LB Pearson(never been taught a word of French either), so all these are just my own impressions from readings and experience. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: pbi on December 22, 2005, 09:06:29
I never got confused by the term "Peacekeeping" for it just meant that I was under a UN command it never changed the way I trained my troops or executed my tasks I just wore a different colour beret and was answering to a UN commander. Comments have been made in this thread that make me feel that even soldiers are confused by the term. The example is Kosovo and Bosnia under SFOR well the difference between Bosnia during the war and SFOR or KFOR were the colour of the beret and the commander authority(other than the war). Same tasks same training same soldiers same places same reasons same results. It is also complicated by the 3 block war concepts we always did that just under a different name, hell the boys in WW2 developed it and we just absorbed it through training call it something new and get a paper written and you get a good PER that is all the 3 block war is just reinventing the wheel and calling it something different. Forget all the nice terms and buzz words what the CF does is train for war they go off and do NATO duty or UN duty or Special duty all the same, and they do very well!


I think most people here who have soldiered overseas in the last ten-twenty years would agree with your first few comments: we spent our time training for war, and we believed (at least in the Army, if not in the upper reaches of NDHQ) that what made us effective on these PSOs was our soldierly abilities. I still believe this today; in fact, it is truer than ever.

Where I disagree with you is in your apparent dismissal of the 3BW term. I am sure you know that the term was not invented by Gen Hillier: it comes from a former Comdt of the USMC who coined the term to try to explain to the Corps (and to the US political community at large, which includes the US public) the type of conflict that he thought would be prevalent in the near future, and that the Corps should be ready to handle. It is a "bumper sticker" term: a communications tool to get an idea across quickly. It is a pretty good image, I think (certainly a true one...). I will grant you that the problems represented by 3BW would probably be recognized by a Roman centurion in Palestine or a British Army officer in the Victorian Colonial period. That doesn't take away from its usefulness or its validity: in fact it reinforces both.

I think we might be  missing the point of Gen Hillier's use of the 3BW term, both when he was CLS and now, IMHO he was using it to change the thinking of the Canadian political community as much as the opinions of soldiers. We often complain on these pages that the political community (or political culture, I guess...) in Canada is abysmally ignorant of things military. I believe his emphasis on 3BW was an attempt to change that, in a 21st century "soundbite" way. However, I think there was also a military audience for this term: he was trying to change the Army (and is struggling to change the CF). The first and most important part of change is getting people to think differently. 3BW as an idea, or even as a "buzzword", was IMHO an attempt to do this.

Will this effort work? Or will 3BW just end up in that bottomless rubbish pit of "buzzwords of the moment" that the CF has been filling for years? Maybe it doesn't really matter, as long as we make the changes that are needed, and more importantly the political community in this country continues to demonstrate the support for the CF that (in general) it has in the last few years.

Cheers
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 3rd Horseman on December 22, 2005, 23:35:40
pbi,

    You make very good points, my condemnation of buzz words was not to take away from the 3BW concept just that it is old hat with a new name. The way you present it is a logical argument and in that light I agree, just that sometimes it appears that soldiers not the public or politicians start believing the propaganda. Such as my example of "Peacekeeper"

BSpears,

     It was the 90s peacekeeping actions that had the big body counts if you want to count them. Also it had the most combat deaths sadly. 50 enemy KIA is nice but not the first time on a UN mission and it was common place in the 90s. You must be confusing the rather peaceful cold war 80s. I don't think the model is flawed and it didn't break down in Bosnia...leadership broke down. The reality is that Bosnia/Croatia was our first and thus far big shooting war since Korea and the UN ended it their way...too long but eventually IMHO. I cant predict the future but I hope A stan does not get into the same fight.   

    Pearson peacekeeping concept was to place a standing army built of neutral nations under UN flag and await the call to intervene as an aggressor if needed but as a stabilizing force preferred. What ended up as UN missions have been sadly not his original desire and they have been wholly lacking in neutrality.

     

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: TCBF on December 27, 2005, 05:13:15
"Pearson peacekeeping concept was to place a standing army built of neutral nations under UN flag and await the call to intervene as an aggressor if needed but as a stabilizing force preferred. What ended up as UN missions have been sadly not his original desire and they have been wholly lacking in neutrality."


- Well, thank God that didn't work.  The last thing we need is for that collection of pimps and gangsters in the UN controlling some sort of global Army.

Tom
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: TCBF on December 27, 2005, 06:00:57
"I am a new Canadian and I've never been taught anything in school about peacekeeping or LB Pearson(never been taught a word of French either), so all these are just my own impressions from readings and experience."

- Well, I wish a lot of OLD Canadians would get off their lazy butts and form some intelligent impressions of their own, rather than merely delegating everything but their semi-autonomous nervous system to the DNSC (Democratic Nanny State of Canada).

Tom (in the back row of an old grainy photograph, standing just to the RIGHT of Atilla the Hun).
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ArmyRick on December 28, 2005, 10:40:41
here is my 2 cents (american currency equals .5 cent). This is my opinion so bear with.

Peacekeeping and certain previous governments that loved that image have done the CF more harm than good. Too many of the Canadian public beleive that is all we do and thats all we can do.

Even worse, they do not realize the different UN missions and their mandates. UNPROFOR and UNICYP had different mandates even though both were done wearing the white and blue.

I remember preparing for a UNPROFOR roto that didn't happen (Thank you Dayton Peace accord) for 2 VP in '95. I remember the rather wacky UN ROEs. On the topic of the UN, I beleive CF should never do another mission for the UN. Why? BECAUSE ITS A FLAWED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION. Too many rogue nations and dictators are allowed a say in security manners.

Also another myth to disect is that too many of our people do not know that a UNMO and armed troops involved in "peacekeeping" do different jobs.

I remember a relative of mind was shocked when she saw that CF UN troops going into Iraq/Iran in '88 or '89. She didn't realize that "Peacekeepers" were armed.

We as members of the CF have a responsibility to educate our friends and relatives on what the CF really does. I have gone a step farther and talked about the three block war.

On another note, I have met a CF personal who are a little naieve about our role as soldiers. I am thinlking of 3 years ago meeting a supply tech cpl (REG F) with close to 20 years in who beleived we should never go to war because as he put it "we are peacekeepers and its what I joined to do." I told him that was complete rubbish and he really didn't belong in the army. Whoa, he took it rather personally.

I once heard a canadian HAST and PER vet (WW2) say "freedom is not free, it has a price. That price is blood". Thecold reality is there are people out there who want to destroy us and our way of life. We must do what is neccessary to protect ourselves and I also beleive, innocent people of the world. Sometimes that means waging a bloody war that cost lives.

Some food for thought for all Canadians.
Title: Re: Hillier Arming Canada For War
Post by: Petamocto on December 31, 2005, 20:49:49
Calling a soldier a "peace keeper" is like calling a Fireman a car accident specialist.

Is the fire fighters primary job to use the jaws of life to open a car door?  No.  If there were a building on fire somwhere, would he be there instead?  Yes.  Does an ambulance or police car have any tools that could save those people?  No, but the fireman can quasi do the task.  Is it his job?  No, but he's got the best skill set and tools that can do the task (if there's no fire).

That is why soldiers get asked to peace keep when there are no wars going on (even though we manned front line combat units in Europe during the cold war).  Our role is to close with and destroy the enemy, but if there is no enemy at the time, we can be used elsewhere.  When politics and local police forces have proven ineffective in resolving a situation, what other large body of structured people are you going to use, that have organic logistical support and controlled firepower?  The military is the only group.

Gen Mackenzie said it very well, and I only remember it to paraphrase it, but basically:  If you take your war fighters and make them peace keep forever, one day the country WILL need them to fight a war, but they'll say "I'm sorry, we don't do that anymore".

We can move trees after ice storms and fill sand bags during a flood, too!
Title: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: GAP on November 05, 2006, 22:36:07
On the National at about 20 minutes past the hour the National has Lewis Mackenzie and others pointing out we are not doing peacekeeping anymore. Normal CBC slant, but at least it getting the word out.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: geo on November 05, 2006, 22:42:32
the Peacekeeping term only fits when parties on both side want peace
the moment you have a sit where both sides are beligerent towards each other, it becomes impossible to do "peacekeeping" and keep the peace.... viz.. Yugoslavia meltdown.

Try the peacemaking term to see if it fits.....
Get a legitimate gov't having problems establishing a safe society.  You make peace.... THEN you can keep the peace.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: MCG on November 05, 2006, 22:46:04
Try the peacemaking term . . .
For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

I think it is probably as often missused as "peacekeeping."  Both words seem to be something that is often thrown out there to make the nation feel good about a mission.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: geo on November 05, 2006, 22:52:07
Hmmm... good point... though I have had it served to me at many a presentation... I've felt it fits the bill well enough - most of the time.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on November 05, 2006, 22:57:12
The peacemaking term would probably apply best to the balkans during the early 90's.
 Afghanistan is more a "three block war" than it is peacemaking.

But we still do a fair amount of peacekeeping, just look at Haiti. We're not there anymore  now but it is inevitable that we will soon be involved with more missions like it.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: dglad on November 06, 2006, 00:02:27
For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

I think it is probably as often missused as "peacekeeping."  Both words seem to be something that is often thrown out there to make the nation feel good about a mission.

I think it just appeared without any specific doctrinal underpinning.  Frankly, "peacemaking" has Orwellian undertones to it...lots of things could be labelled "peacemaking" that involve not very peaceful people doing not very peaceful things.

I'd rather that "peacekeeping" just got accepted as another military task.  So, at any given time, we may have forces involved in "peacekeeping", while other forces are "warfighting/attacking/defending/whatever", others are doing "humanitarian assistance", and so on.  The unfortunate thing about "peacekeeping" is that it got conflated into the actual role of the CF in many public minds, rather than just something, among many things, the CF can do.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 06, 2006, 01:35:52
For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

If I was listening during my classes at the PPC the term "peacemaking came as part of the new package to describe future ops, this was occurring at the same time 3 block war was being discussed. The term was one of the three pillars to the "peace support ops" concept which has Peacemaking, Peacekeeping and Nation building as its three pillars. It is similar to the three block war. If memory serves me correctly.

  As a side note IMHO the three block war and Peace support ops is nothing new. We have been doing them for years it is just now that people are applying a name to what is occurring on the battlefield. It was made very obvious during the Balkan campaigns in the 90s.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: Nieghorn on November 06, 2006, 01:45:41
I thought this term came straight from Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but I couldn't see it having just quickly skimmed it.  I do remember it becoming vogue about the time mentioned, when critics argued we weren't really 'peacekeeping' during missions where the peace had not yet been established.  I imagine the term came out of those debates, as a step further than, but trying to keep in the same line of thinking, rather than labelling it 'war'.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: ArmyVern on November 06, 2006, 01:49:18
I thought this term came straight from Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but I couldn't see it having just quickly skimmed it.  I do remember it becoming vogue about the time mentioned, when critics argued we weren't really 'peacekeeping' during missions where the peace had not yet been established.  I imagine the term came out of those debates, as a step further than, but trying to keep in the same line of thinking, rather than labelling it 'war'.

Maybe this will help:

Straight from the United Nations (Department of Political Affairs):

Their "Peacemaking Section"

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/peace.html (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/peace.html)

And the United Nations "Peacemaker" Website:

http://peacemaker.unlb.org/index1.php (http://peacemaker.unlb.org/index1.php)
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: Nieghorn on November 06, 2006, 01:54:11
Thank you, The Librarian.  You more than live up to your moniker!  :)
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: ArmyVern on November 06, 2006, 02:07:52
Thank you, The Librarian.  You more than live up to your moniker!  :)

You're welcome. I try.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: dglad on November 06, 2006, 08:53:58
Thanks, Librarian.  So it's not just a buzzword.  However, we still don't have any specific doctrine attached to this term--that I'm aware of, anyway.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: Bobby Rico on November 06, 2006, 14:27:48
I think the best term to describe what Canada does now is or at least attempts to do is 'Stabilization'.  I think peacemaking is a bit of a misnomer, because there's no way there's going to be lasting peace in that country- you'd have to literally kill everyone.  The most we can hope for is to stablize it enough to allow the local government to take over all operations and deal with their people without need for large-scale international aid.  Just my thoughts though.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: recceguy on November 06, 2006, 17:11:04
I think the best term to describe what Canada does now is or at least attempts to do is 'Stabilization'.  I think peacemaking is a bit of a misnomer, because there's no way there's going to be lasting peace in that country- you'd have to literally kill everyone.  The most we can hope for is to stablize it enough to allow the local government to take over all operations and deal with their people without need for large-scale international aid.  Just my thoughts though.

Thanks for restating the obvious. At the risk of swinging this off topic, please read the following before posting anymore.

Army.ca Conduct Guidelines: MUST READ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.0.html

MSN and ICQ "short hand" -  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,33247.0.html

Regarding the use of "MSN speak" versus the employment of prose which is correct in grammar, spelling and punctuation, please see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,34015.msg260446.html#msg260446

Tone and Content on Army.ca: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,51970.0.html

FRIENDLY ADVICE TO NEW MEMBERS - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24937.msg259412.html#msg259412

Recruiting FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21101.0.html

    * Canadian Forces Aptitude Test - http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21101.msg103977.html#msg103977
    * Fitness requirements at enrolment, see page 12 of this brochure: http://64.254.158.112/pdf/physical_fitness_en.pdf


Infantry FAQ - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21131.0.html

Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

Google search of Army.ca - http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=+site%3Aarmy.ca+%22search+term%22&btnG=Search&meta= (follow the link then replace "search term" with what you are looking for)

Army.ca wiki pages - http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Main_Page


To summarize. Welcome to Army.ca, start reading.
Title: Re: Canada is NOT into Peacekeeping anymore - CBC
Post by: George Wallace on November 06, 2006, 17:16:55
Recceguy

As I have already posted those important links for him to aquaint himself with, I think it is time to introduce him to the WARNING SYSTEM.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on November 06, 2006, 23:50:18
Maybe this will help:

Straight from the United Nations (Department of Political Affairs):
When there is no supporting doctrine, I'm not certain this is anything more than making buzzwords official.

More here with: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/peacebuilding.html
Title: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: GAP on February 24, 2007, 09:56:40
Canadian forces want more than just to keep the peace
A military at war with peacekeeping
Feb 24, 2007 04:30 AM James Travers National Affairs Columnist
Article Link (http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/185216)

OTTAWA–Canadian soldiers are fighting something in Afghanistan beyond the Taliban, opium warlords and entrenched corruption: They are struggling with an image of themselves the military loathes and the country loves.

Led by Rick Hillier, arguably the most aggressive and political chief of the defence staff ever, the armed forces, particularly the army, are tearing down the dated poster of Canada as the world's peacekeeper. The clear signal flashing home from Kandahar is that Canadians in war zones are combat-ready troops who can also keep the peace, not do-gooders who in a pinch can be pressed into action.

No doubt public perception trails international realities. Once able to boast that this country invented peacekeeping and always formed its vanguard, Canada fell from its United Nations pedestal in the '90s after bad experiences in Bosnia, Zaire and, most of all, Somalia.

As former Liberal foreign and defence minister Bill Graham diplomatically puts it: "Our military, to some level, lost faith in the UN to command those missions."

That wasn't all that changed in the decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Many small conflicts and the big threat of Islamic fundamentalism emerged from the Cold War. So did a political and military consensus that it was time for Canada to reassert its international place.

Those factors contributed both to Hillier's swift promotion and to Canada's 2005 decision to dispatch a provincial reconstruction team south to Afghanistan's worst neighbourhood. In trumping rivals for the top job, Hillier sold to then-prime minister Paul Martin the vision of a tough, nimble military and that Afghanistan was the right place at the right time to demonstrate that new capacity to help stabilize failed and failing states.

If anything, the fit was too perfect. While Martin had reservations about Afghanistan and forced a commitment from Hillier to reserve enough strength to intervene elsewhere, the Kandahar mission was an opportunity to define changing priorities while repairing the diplomatic damage done by Canada's refusal to join the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But that last giant step away from traditional peacemaking and into post-modern conflict resolution and democracy-building was then – and continues to be – accident-prone. Put bluntly, Canada bit off more than it could chew.
More on link
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: FSTO on February 24, 2007, 10:52:06
Mr Travers disdain for the military in general and PM Harper and Gen Hillier in particular always clouds his ability to be an objective journalist. He should stick to his shilling for the Liberal party, he is a shinning star in that capability.
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 24, 2007, 11:58:20
Mr Travers disdain for the military in general and PM Harper and Gen Hillier in particular always clouds his ability to be an objective journalist. He should stick to his shilling for the Liberal party, he is a shinning star in that capability.

Personally, I find this article quite reasonable.

Bill Graham is quoted as saying, ” "Our military, to some level, lost faith in the UN to command those missions.".  Speaking for myself and, I think I’m on safe ground when I say for those around me (one or two up and one or two down) Mr. Graham should have said, ”Our military, at almost every level, saw its always limited faith in the UN to command our missions shattered by continued administrative and diplomatic ineptitude and institutional corruption.”

The idea that Hillier hoodwinked Martin is a canard spread by a former Liberal ministerial aide (Eugene Lang, Graham’s political chief-of-staff).  Jean Chrétien decided – against military advice – to commit to ISAF in Kabul.  He did so in order to avoid being asked/pressured to join the coalition of the willing in Iraq.  Martin wanted, indeed – for the same pressure resisting reasons – needed to stay in Afghanistan but he dithered, comme d’habitude, when asked to decide on Kabul vs. PRT and then which PRT.  Provincial Reconstruction Team sounded soooo much better to the spin doctors so there we went but, by the time Martin had been briefed and re-briefed and had argued all the implications and ramifications into the ground all the nice, easy PRTs were gone – taken by the French, Germans, Italians, etc.  That left Kandahar.  There is no doubt that suited Hillier’s view that we should be away from the ISAF Eurotrash – heavily armed tourists and that we should be developing a new generation of combat leaders in the early years of the 21st century.  But, and of this I am absolutely certain, there is no way that a CDS – no matter how charismatic – won any argument when the PM and the Clerk of the Privy Council (Alex Himmelfarb, then) were in the room.  If Paul Martin was persuaded it was because he heard what he wanted to hear.  Paul Martin was doing his own foreign policy review and he had his own ideas about a new, much more robust role for Canada.

The drive-by smear of “Canada’s new government” is, in my view spot on.  I have said before and I repeat: I do not believe Prime Minister Harper had any rationale at all for extending the Afghan mission except to embarrass the Liberals in parliament.  I think, he (Harper) does have a vision of Canada as a ‘leading middle power’ – à la Louis St Laurent but I doubt that he has or will give much serious attention to what kind of military we ought to have.  I think he, quite properly, sees our foreign and defence policies as enablers, not ends in themselves; that being the case he probably sees military organizations and operations as very subordinate issues, indeed – best left to bureaucrats and military men.  In short he knows little and cares less about the military; it is a tool which he will use when the problem requires it.

I think Travers is also correct to note that new peacekeeping is still an option for Canada.  When we are out of Afghanistan – and we will be out, someday, maybe in 2009, more likely somewhere around 2019 – there will still be plenty of demands for our military forces.  We are, as Ruxted has pointed out and as Travers repeats, one of the world’s few militarily capable nations.  Above that we are one of the few militarily capable nations which is not viewed around the world as a George Bush lapdog.  There will be situations where we will be the right choice to lead peacekeeping missions, Travers is right about that.  He is also right about the fact that they will not be Cyprus/UNEF II missions where commanders worry more about the new swimming pool than about patrol reports – these new missions will be “gritty” and “risky” and everything else.  It is possible, I hope, that Canada will not tolerate too much UN management – we must have learned something in a half-century of dealing with those clowns.  We will, as we should, demand a UN mandate but, hopefully, we will have enough smart people in the Privy Council Office and in our foreign affairs and defence bureaucracies to organize UN approved and sponsored coalitions in which we can play a leading role – if we cannot lead we should not volunteer.  We do this stuff in pursuit of our national interests – helping black folks, etc is a secondary aim.  If the mission does not promote our vital interests then we should let George do it, as an old saying goes.

I think this, his concluding paragraph, is 100% accurate: ”If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.”


 
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on February 24, 2007, 13:01:59
I agree with a lot of what ER says but I don't agree that Harper cares less about the military. I think he is very supportive and realises that we have a very important role to play in the life of this country. that role has been down played and degraded by the Liberals. Peacekeeping was a cheap way to have "military lite."  I think Harper realizes that in order to meet his Foreign policy aims he's got to spend some money to get us up to snuff and make us balanced and flexible enough to meet the new challenges.
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: ArmyRick on February 24, 2007, 13:23:28
Mr Travers is a circuis clown  ::)
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: Petard on February 24, 2007, 13:25:54
There is something undoubtedly Machiavellian about this article, it seems to me it is a sniff of Canadians acceptability towards what it is unmistakably a future Liberal policy.

Most telling to me why this article is far off the mark itself is the comment that the conservatives missed an opportunity to gain consecessions from Pakistan and the Karzi government (a rather hollow argument to me), and how history will measure what each government's missteps were.

What has that got to do with it? Mr Travers, and many others, forget too well the shock of what really heralded the significant change that precipitated our involvement in Afghanistan, and marked the true end of any mythological peacekeeping Canadains held so dear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCvOjFbeNzs&mode=related&search=
I think history will look back years from now on those who stood up after that event, went to where the source of such vile hostility existed, and stayed the course to do whatever was needed to until some measure of stability could be found, as being far stronger morally, whose intentions are far more admirable, than those who saw that they underestimated their political opportunities and risks.
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: career_radio-checker on February 24, 2007, 13:40:38
I think this, his concluding paragraph, is 100% accurate: ”If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.”

I think too many Canadians are in love with the title of the book "Peacekeeping" and don't bother to actually read it. This has been the theme of many of my book reports and essays of late and the point I like to argue is that Canadians love the idea of peacekeeping and eagerly attach it to our national culture, but if you asked Canadians "What is peacekeeping?" the best response you would get is a blank stare.

Had they (Canadian public) known that Pearson's original idea of peacekeeping did not really care about the Egyptians or Israelis, but rather to keep two nuclear powers from going at it, and to save British and French face. Had they known that peacekeeping's 3 guiding principles (Consent, impartiality and returning fire only in self defence) had been Peacekeeping's major downfall under 1990's Chapter VII missions. Had they known the relative unsuccesfulness of UN missions due to poorly organized logistics and nonexistent UN political will they might think twice about Peacekeeping. The UN did not give us the means to achieve the objectives, NATO does.
Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: Flip on February 24, 2007, 14:25:02
I'm not sure but I think I agree with all of you!

In short, to be a middle power Canada has to exercise some power.

The war on terror and our own sovereignty are both worthy causes.
But the Canadian public still have not come to terms with two things:

1. We now have a real live enemy. Yes we are at war - like or not.
The 9-11 was only a very small symptom of something far more dangerous.
Islamic fundamentalism, Pan-arab nationalism or whatever you want to call it,
is going to cause us some lumps.  I think we would all agree that we would rather
have people on the other side of the world sort out their own problems but.........
The western powers esp. the USA and Israel have been labeled(incorrectly)
the major obstacle to the ambitions of people like Osama. 

The rise of NAZIism and the rise of these movements have some interesting similarities.

2.We MUST have a robust military establishment.

If it were up to some liberals or perhaps NDP'ers I'm sure the military
would be reduced to armed security details for diplomats.
Sadly - diplomacy has failed to bring us out of the cold war into the peaceful
new world order.  We cannot "persuade people with the power of our ideas"
( Lloyd Axeworthy) when they have ideas of their own. 

We (western powers) have to step up and impose some moderation, control,
prosperity, law and order, democracy etc.













Title: Re: A military at war with peacekeeping
Post by: NL_engineer on February 24, 2007, 15:10:59
1+ flip, well said.

The UN IMHO has become an organization that will try to solve your problems as long as they fall between 9-5, mon-fri excluding almost (ALL) any holiday taken by any member country; and will respond within 10 or so years.

I think the author should get off his knees, and take a look at what we (not just the CF) are doing in Afghanistan and in other countries around the world; and have done in the past 100 years, and be a proud Canadian not make our wonderful country sound like a bunch of American want-to-bees (no offence of any kind meant towards out southern nabours). 

Title: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: GAP on February 28, 2007, 08:02:44

The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail MICHAEL VALPY
Article Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070228.wxpeacekeeping28/BNStory/Afghanistan/home)

Despite high-minded policy statements and public perception, Canada's role on the world stage has diminished, reports Michael Valpy

It's so hard to square mythology with reality. While 70 per cent of Canadians consider military peacekeeping a defining characteristic of their country, Canada has turned down so many United Nations' requests to join peacekeeping missions during the past decade that the UN has stopped asking.

In 1991, Canada contributed more than 10 per cent of all peacekeeping troops to the UN. Sixteen years later, its contribution is less than 0.1 per cent.

On this month's fifth anniversary of Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan and one year after assuming responsibility for the counterinsurgency campaign -- a war by any other name -- in Kandahar province, one of the country's biggest unanswered questions is: What is Canadian military policy? It's certainly not to be the global leader in peacekeeping the country once was.

Little more than a year ago, Colonel Michael Hanrahan, the Canadian Armed Forces' top expert on peacekeeping, was offered the job as chief of staff of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His Ottawa superiors nixed the idea. There is, in fact, not a single Canadian officer in the UN's peacekeeping headquarters.

The Department of National Defence website touts in glowing terms Canada's support and participation in SHIRBRIG -- the Danish-inspired multinational Standby High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations designed to provide rapid deployment of peacekeeping troops for up to six months. In reality, Canada's SHIRBRIG commitment is a will-o'-the-wisp.

Canada invented the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect that the UN accepted in 2005. Since then, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have stood by with their hands pretty much in their pockets while the doctrine glaringly failed its first test: The call for robust and, if necessary, uninvited UN military intervention to halt the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.
More on link
Title: Re: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: ArmyRick on February 28, 2007, 14:26:53
Its too bad but it is reality.

The UN failed miserably in the 90s and now has no reputation.

The great canadian idealogy of us as strictly peacekeepers is sickening IMO. We are soldiers, sailors and airman. Our job is first and foremost is to protect our nation and its interest with violence if neccessarry.

 In South Africa, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cyrpes in the 70s, FRY at some points (MEdak pocket) and now afghanistan, it was certainly VERY neccessarry to wage violent action.

I wonder if alot of these bozos who spew on and on about peacekeeping ever wonder why UN peacekeepers were armed?

Its a concept and a myth that has to be shattered amongst Canadian minds that all we do is peacekeeping.
Title: Re: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: career_radio-checker on February 28, 2007, 14:33:31
Its a concept and a myth that has to be shattered amongst Canadian minds that all we do is peacekeeping.

I'm trying, and it is actually quite rewarding to see people's reaction when you spell it out for them.
Title: Re: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: Breacher41 on February 28, 2007, 14:53:17
'We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.' - Gen Hillier, CDS Jul 2005.


I agree completely with the above quote. The soooner we move away from the 'peacekeeper' image and reestablish our selves as a military, and a military who fights foremost, we will be set in the Canadian populace minds. In no way am I saying those who have served on peacekeeping missions, that their contributions are unimportant, i am merely saying that WE know what we do, it's time to make THEM see that.

Title: Re: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: bruce7711 on February 28, 2007, 15:07:20
In many levels of Government and the media there is too much emphasis placed on WHY we are there and what we SHOULD be accomplishing. There seems to be very little understanding that we ARE there and we ARE doing things that ARE making a difference.  Comments such as this article should be dismissed as nothing more than unfounded guesses.  It is to easy for members of the media and many 'special analysts' to make blanket statements about Afghanistan.  It is far harder to put yourself in a situation where you see first hand what our troops are accomplishing.  Name one succesful UN peacekeeping mission that no longer requires a UN or peacemaking force.  Cyprus - UN still there.  Bosnia - UN still there.  Rwanda - failure by the UN, not the troops.  Somalia -same as Rwanda.  The UN is an out of date organisation that screams loudly at injustices around the world but takes few steps in solving the problem; ie, the Sudan.  Canadas reputation as a peacekkeping force, especially amongst Canadians, is the result of the capabilities of todays media bringing Yugo and Kosovo into the homes of people all over the country.  It portrays Canadian soldiers as top class peacekeepers (our secondary or even third line role) and takes away the image of the fighting man and woman.  That, coupled with the current 'lets not offend anyone' attitude, gives everyone a warm fuzzy.  Most notably, it is a politically friendly term.  I enlisted to be a soldier, not a peacekeeper.  But i can do that job.  If some of these journalists that spout this crap about the woes of the war in Afghanistan took the time to speak to soldiers who have fought there, or the families of those deployed, it would not change their view.  We, as soldiers, will still pick up our rifle every mornig and march towards the sound of gunfire.  If it is an attempt to undermine the mission or the Government, so be it.  It effects not the mind of the soldier.  they are just glad to be involved in the bigget battle the world has seen for many years, fighting for the Canadian public, and free people world wide.
Title: Future peacekeeping = combat
Post by: MCG on March 18, 2007, 02:33:44
I've been saying for a while that our goals in Afghanistan have the same moral integrity as peacekeeping.  It is nice to finally see it in the media.
Quote
Future peace keeping likely means more combat, experts says
John Ward, The Canadian Press
Published: Saturday, March 17, 2007

OTTAWA — The iconic peacekeeping missions of the past, with blue berets on a ceasefire line, so beloved by the Canadian public, are likely gone forever, lost in a harsher world.

Experts say missions of the future are likely to be more muscular — like Afghanistan — and will mesh a heavily armed military, humanitarian agencies, diplomats and politicians in an uneasy, but vital alliance. Combat may be a necessity, if only to provide security for relief workers and reconstruction efforts.

The handwriting has likely been on the wall for a decade, from the days that Canadian soldiers fought pitched battles in the former Yugoslavia, with little publicity at home among a public content with the peacekeeper image forged in quieter times.

The Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, founded in 1984 to be a sort of institutional memory for peacekeeping methods and lessons, brought university students, soldiers, bureaucrats and humanitarian experts together last week to run a role-playing exercise about a peacekeeping mission in the fictional country of Fontanalis.

This mission, like the operation in Afghanistan, suggested to the participants that times have changed since the early days of UN peacekeeping.

Flora MacDonald, former Tory politician and onetime foreign affairs minister, played the role of a senior UN bureaucrat in the exercise. She said in an interview that the old days are gone.

“Everything has changed,” she said. “Peacekeeping has changed. You can’t equate the 1970s or 1980s with today or the next few years. You have to recognize that nothing is static.”

Col. Pat Stogran, who led the 3rd battalion of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry into Afghanistan in 2002, is a serving officer seconded temporarily to the peacekeeping centre. He agrees that there’s a new world to be dealt with.

“We used to fight wars in three ranks and colourful clothing, then we went into trenches and then we went into mechanized warfare,” he said.

Now the world sees insurgents able to use the Internet and stage attacks unthinkable a few years earlier.

“The world has changed and the nature of the threat has changed. You can’t hope to go back to the old way of peacekeeping when conflict has changed so much.”

Lew MacKenzie, the retired major general who led Canadian soldiers to occupy the Sarajevo airport in the 1990s, said the players have changed, as well as the methods.

He noted that a senior UN official said recently that the world body simply is incapable of running a major mission where deadly force is required. The UN has always had problems with its member states when it comes to authorizing the use of any force beyond simple self-defence.

Where the UN once negotiated with countries, MacKenzie added, today’s peacekeepers must deal with far more shadowy groups.

“The change after the Cold War was that factions were involved,” he said.

“They don’t have a flag in front of the UN building. They don’t have a delegation. If you make a deal with them and they break the deal, where do you go to find them? They’ve disappeared.”

But whatever the methods, it will still be peacekeeping, said Mo Baril, a retired general, former military adviser to the UN secretary general and onetime chief of Canada’s defence staff.

“War has changed and we still call it war,” he said. “We haven’t invented a new word.

“It seems because peacekeeping has changed some would like to give it another name, some would like to call it war.

“Well, it’s not the same. You go to war to win a battle and win whatever aim you have.

In modern peacekeeping, he said, you may have to fight insurgents to a standstill, but that’s not fighting a war.

One challenge, these experts say, is getting the Canadian public, which is caught up in what MacKenzie calls the peacekeeping myth, to recognize today’s efforts are as important and praiseworthy as those of the past.

“Successive governments have perpetrated this peacekeeping myth, that it’s No. 1 in our priorities, for government self-interest because you can chop defence budgets if you think it’s just blue berets and pistols.”

Chief Superintendant Graham Muir of the RCMP, who has served with the UN mission in Haiti, agreed that Canadians have to learn about the new model.

“They still effectively are consumers of yesterday’s message.”

He pointed out that when it comes to UN peacekeeping missions — outside of Afghanistan, which is a United Nations-sanctioned mission under NATO — Canada has more policemen serving than soldiers.

In the early 1990s, thousands of Canadian troops were serving in UN missions. Today there are fewer than 100.

Some of the students taking part in the Pearson exercise said they learned a great deal about running a peace mission in an unstable country.

For one thing, anything that can go wrong, will. The scenario is littered with figurative booby traps that pop up just as things seem to be going well: aid trucks are hijacked; avian flu breaks out; convoys are attacked.

“Every time we start to address one problem, something else comes up that’s more pressing or seems more important,” said Carrie Dyson of Toronto, a student at Humber College.

What has shes learned?

“There has to be greater co-ordination between military and humanitarian NGOs. What we are learning is to combine both efforts as much as possible.”

Clayton Dennison from the University of Calgary said Canadians have to understand that peacekeeping may involve fighting.

“People think we’re peacekeepers, that’s been our tradition, but we have to understand that the world has changed and in a lot of regions of the world you’re not going to have the armed combatants agreeing to let peacekeepers in.

“But we still have to go in anyway.”

Stogran said he’s confident Canadians will understand the new world.

“Canadians throw themselves into things, the First World War, the Second World War, NATO and the watershed peacekeeping missions of the 1990s because they’re interested in keeping the peace, in  international stability, being a part of it.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=adb935db-a093-4275-91e6-93ab9c1ebe7b&k=64052 (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=adb935db-a093-4275-91e6-93ab9c1ebe7b&k=64052)

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on March 18, 2007, 14:30:21
It takes a while to re-educate the media and thus the public as well. The media like to rely on stereotypes and caricatures.... ::)
Title: Re: The myth of Canada as global peacekeeper
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on March 18, 2007, 17:02:17
The great canadian idealogy of us as strictly peacekeepers is sickening IMO. We are soldiers, sailors and airman. Our job is first and foremost is to protect our nation and its interest with violence if neccessarry.

 In South Africa, WWI, WWII, Korea, Cyrpes in the 70s, FRY at some points (MEdak pocket) and now afghanistan, it was certainly VERY neccessarry to wage violent action.

Agreed, this country was built on warfare, since long before Confederation, The Boer War, The Great War, the Second World War, Korea and so on.

And as Lew Mckenzie put it, Peacekeeping is a natural by product of warfare
Title: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: The Ruxted Group on July 29, 2007, 12:37:59
 Link to original article (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/76-The-Truth-About-Peacekeeping.html)

The Truth About Peacekeeping

The Globe and Mail cites a poll (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070719.wpollafghan19/BNStory/Front) which finds 65% of Canadians (nearly 70% in Ontario) “believe their role on the world stage is more suited to peacekeeping than as enforcers of peace.”  According to former Chrétien speech writer Peter Donolo, “Canadians may be pining for the days before 9/11 and are “nostalgic for the blue helmets” of the UN missions of the past.”

While acknowledging the basic facts and figures and Mr. Donolo's conclusions, Ruxted wonders how Canadians came to be so abysmally ignorant of our history to believe the lie that Pearsonian, baby-blue beret peacekeeping is Canada’s military ‘tradition’?

It is a Big Lie which for a generation has been preached by ill-educated teachers using curricula prepared by even less qualified educrats, and promulgated by lazy journalists who attach their by-lines to press releases prepared (by those with an obvious political agenda like Mr. Donolo) to propagate the myth that Canadians could do without a combat capable, combat ready, globally deployable, balanced military.

For more than a half century (1899 to 1969) Canada pushed its way onto the world's stage – in South Africa, Europe, and the Pacific, then following the last global war, securing and then keeping the peace in NATO on the North German Plain in the ‘50s and ‘60s.

Canada also led the way in preventative peacekeeping in the ‘50s.  As we have stated (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html), UN peacekeeping was a tool developed during the Cold War to reduce the risk of all out war being triggered by disputes amongst client states of NATO and Warsaw Pact members.  It was an adjunct to Canada’s war-like role in NATO.  Indeed, Canada was often called upon to participate in UN missions because it was a Western member of NATO and because we provided a counterbalance to Eastern Bloc or non-aligned countries.  Missions were carefully balanced to allow for global tensions and required the direct consent and participation of the countries where the peacekeeping force was to be deployed.

But UN peacekeeping changed after 1990 when the Cold war ended and the firm hands of superpowers were removed from most clients - a change Canadians have chosen to ignore.  The raison d’être for preventative peacekeeping disappeared and new problems appeared which are intractable to lightly armed troops enforcing a peace by providing a ‘thin blue line’ which cannot be violated without earning international reproach.  The UN  provides (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/37-Changing-the-Guard.html) a laundry list of prerequisites for UN-managed peacekeeping.  One is that “there must be a peace to keep”;  then “less capable” militaries, typically those from less developed countries, can do the job with some support from “more capable” militaries, such as the Canadian Forces.  When there is no peace to keep then the more capable militaries must first make the peace - just what Canadians and Europeans appear increasingly disinclined to do, but is the best and most efficient use of their highly professional, ethical, and capable armed services.

During the ‘90s Mr. Donolo pushed the Chrétien government’s line that Canada would use soft power to force the UN to adopt a doctrine of Responsibility to Protect.  It was cynical manipulation of public opinion by a public relations professional.  As Joseph Nye (http://ksgfaculty.harvard.edu/joseph_nye), the originator of the soft power theory has pointed out, soft power is available only to those who can “legitimize” it by having enough hard, military power.  Canada frittered away so much of its hard power that Mr. Donolo's masters could not practice the Responsibility to Protect they so fervently preached, instead resorting to slandering the US for proclaimed misguided use of hard power and unwillingness to use its considerable soft power.  That slander was sufficient for Canadian domestic politics where sophomoric, knee-jerk anti-Americanism wins votes.

Messers Chrétien and Donolo did not push Canada out of credibility all by themselves.  As early as 1960 the costs of defending Canada’s vital interests and sustaining a leadership position in global affairs were taking a severe toll in Canada.  Paul Hellyer’s controversial organizational experiments in the mid ‘60s were designed to save money, which he hoped (in vain) could then be used to equip and train combat forces.  (That they ‘accomplished’ other things is another argument.)  In 1970 Pierre Trudeau literally threw in the hard power towel, declaring that Canada could not be a leader of the middle powers and needed to turn its attention and resources inward.  The final nail in the coffin came in the early nineties when, knowing there was no political sympathy for defence issues, the Mulroney government cast aside its Defence White Paper and slashed and burned what minimal capability Canada had left - a process gleefully accelerated by Jean Chrétien throughout his tenure.

UN peacekeeping became Canada’s currency of choice for buying its place at the international table without paying a respectable share of the bill.  One of the world's richest and most favoured nations eschewed its international responsibilities and claimed a moral superpower status, lecturing and hectoring its friends and allies while refusing a full and fair share of the burden of bringing some level of security to the world.

Canadian ignorance of peacekeeping encompasses not only the political situation described above; Canadians do not understand the nature of the missions.  With the fall of the Soviet Union, the need for classical or preventative peacekeeping declined dramatically.  Absent any familiar military threat in sight, many in the West felt it was safe to stand down the military machine of the Cold War and cash in a "peace dividend", without looking at the effects of the disintegration of the Soviet Empire on the former clients and colonies.  The emergence of many small, distributed threats that followed the fall of the Soviet Union requires a response: not the same as facing down a nuclear armed adversary, but a response none the less.

To the benefit of all, Canadian soldiers are operating in the far corners of the earth in "peace support” missions and "security and stabilization” operations in an effort to restore rule of law and remove conditions which encourage threats against our security and prosperity. This is long term hard work, for not only soldiers to provide the security screen, but also government agencies and other organizations who work behind the screen to build and sustain new stability.  Canadians need to be aware of what needs to be done now to secure our safety and prosperity, and be willing to provide the tools and support needed for these decades-long missions.

As reported by the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, in March 2007 (http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,37650.msg544521.html#msg544521), the future of peacekeeping will involve more combat.  This trend started at least a decade ago.  Hard military power was essential in the former Yugoslavia.  Even the Canadian military in UN blue berets were required to fight for the peace.  Securing the peace and exercising a Responsibility to Protect requires capable states to impose their will upon those who inappropriately employ violence.  Many who believe that Canada should avoid combat operations also suggest that we should send peacekeepers to the Sudan.  These people we might call traditionalists should be warned that such a move would require an illegal or UN-sanctioned invasion, conventional war-fighting, and a perhaps even greater counterinsurgency campaign than they currently decry in Afghanistan.

The Ruxted Group acknowledges that peacekeeping was and remains a mission in which most Canadians found both pride and comfort.  But, it is time for Canadians, especially educators, journalists and politicians to tell themselves the truth about peacekeeping: it was, and always has been, an adjunct to Canada's overall defence policy and a secondary and minor role for the Canadian military.  Traditional peacekeeping, so beloved and idealized by Canadians is dead and has been dead since the mid-1990s.  Missions, like those depicted on Ottawa's Peacekeeping Memorial don't exist and, in today's security climate, cannot exist except in very specific circumstances.  Canadians need to get over it and move on.
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 29, 2007, 20:42:57
Because of our education systems, media and politicians (all stripes) most Canadians are unaware of the simple facts Ruxted points out.

To wit: Pearson's baby, UNEF, was kicked out of Sinai in 1967 by Egyptian President Nasser (as he was fully entitled to do), which led directly to the Six Day War. A great victory for "peacekeeping".

And what about UNPROFOR in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina? Such a great peacekeeping success that thousands were eventually massacred at Srbrenica in 1995; NATO had to bomb the Serbs heavily and Croatian forces very violently expel them from the Krajina before peace could be established. BY FORCE.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: career_radio-checker on July 29, 2007, 21:23:52
A good book to get your hands on is "Who's war is it?" by Jack Granastein (spelling?). The title of the book is just an eye grabber but Jack, as usual, is very articulate and precise about peacekeeping. He characterizes peacekeeping as simply a "cheap" foreign policy which frees' up cash to fund other "important" public programs. He's a realist and makes no bones about where he stands on defence and foreign policy. The real surprise is that he is a prof at York University -- the most leftist school in Canada. A very good and easy read, I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: ArmyVern on July 29, 2007, 21:50:06
Big Jack:

Granatstein

 ;)
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: ex-Sup on July 29, 2007, 23:26:05
I whole-heartedly concure! However...

Quote
preached by ill-educated teachers using curricula prepared by even less qualified educrats
Watch that we are not painted with the same brush! I (and I'm sure that there are other of my colleagues out there) am well aware of the facts put forth in the article. I know that I do my best to teach my students the historic role of peacekeeping, and also the realities of our post 911 world. It isn't always easy though; remember we are dealing with teenagers. The majority of them are in our classes because they have to be and half of those could give two s@#ts about Canadian history.

Just my $0.02  ;D
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: Chop on August 07, 2007, 18:31:59
Because of our education systems, media and politicians (all stripes) most Canadians are unaware of the simple facts Ruxted points out.

To wit: Pearson's baby, UNEF, was kicked out of Sinai in 1967 by Egyptian President Nasser (as he was fully entitled to do), which led directly to the Six Day War. A great victory for "peacekeeping".

And what about UNPROFOR in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina? Such a great peacekeeping success that thousands were eventually massacred at Srbrenica in 1995; NATO had to bomb the Serbs heavily and Croatian forces very violently expel them from the Krajina before peace could be established. BY FORCE.

Mark
Ottawa

The main reason the kicked out the Canadians, is because they had been under British rule in the area and did not want any British there no more, and we Canadians at the time still wore a British style uniform. Hence Pearson pushed to have the new flag with no Union Jack and to have Canadian uniforms on members of the forces.
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 07, 2007, 20:37:51
Chop:  All the points you mention are completely irrelevant to Nasser's 1967 decision.  If you have evidence otherwise please provide.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unef1backgr2.html

More:
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_09/iss_1/CAJ_vol9.1_02_e.pdf

Quote
By the time the mission ended, close to 9,000 Canadians had served alongside personnel from Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, India, Indonesia, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia. The mission was not without losses; the UNEF suffered 110 fatalities, of which 31 were Canadians.

I'm amazed the Canadian public and media were not howling to end the senseless (as in the end it was) loss of life and bring the troops home by our own decision.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: Greymatters on August 08, 2007, 10:04:16
+1, good article.
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: pbi on August 11, 2007, 10:17:42
While I generally agree with the Ruxted article, I would offer two thoughts:

-it may be unfair to blame educators and journalists for the misinformed public mythology about peacekeeping. IMHO, the political leadership of the country, as well as our own senior military leadership, were for decades only too happy to retail the idea that we were really all about blue ops, and were just nice folks who wore oversized puffy berets and handed out candy bars to local kids. On the politician's side, it was probably a way of dressing up otherwise unpalatable defence spending (historically, except for a few spikes here and there,  there has never been much support for peacetime defence spending in Canada). On the part of our own leadership, I think peacekeeping was a publicly acceptable "life preserver" at a time that it was becoming harder and harder to educate a public that either knew nothing about us at all, or saw us as lackeys of the US military (suspicion of Canadian military actions during the Cuban Missile  Crisis, the unpopularity of BOMARC, and the weird ability of some members of the Canadian public in the 70's to associate us with the US war in Vietnam, to give a few examples...). As an institution, I believe the CF contributed to the image dilemma that began with Medak and is still with us: who we have to be vs who we tell people we are;

 Second, while we are all justifiably proud of our combat role in Afghanistan, and this role has clearly won us renewed respect (at least in the Western military community if not the political community as well) I believe that peacekeeping operations taught the Army many useful things, and helped to instill some practices that have served us well in Afghanistan. For example, to name a few:

-the importance of solid combat training underlying operational effectiveness in peacekeeping;

-the ability (as limited as it was) to go halfway around the world to an unfamiliar place, set up and start doing business ion a short period of time, regardless of terrain or climate;

-the ability to transition back and forth from negotiation to show of force and actual use of lethal force as the situation requires;

-the ability to do what we now call "CIMIC", at sub-unit and unit level, with little or no help from outside agencies incl the GoC;

-the understanding that there are lots of NGOs/IOs in the operating environment (or battlespace, or AO, or whatever term you want to use;

-the importance of the well-trained professional NCO who can make decisions and act autonomously under all sorts of differing circumstances;

-the understanding of the importance of the public opinion of the locals in the AO, and ways to build trust and communication;

-the ability to work with troops of all different nationalities (and radically different levels of professionalism); and

-the ability to improvise with few resources.

Let's not write off the last 30 years of experience, or deny its contribution to the Army we are today, in an understandable rush to celebrate our return to being "red meat eaters" again. (as one US Army Col described the Canadian Army's current view of itself)

Cheers
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: Cardstonkid on August 11, 2007, 12:55:41
This is a good article. Canadians in general are asleep in their comfy hobbit houses under the illusion that their safety is bought and paid for by their peaceful nature. If only they knew.
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: MCG on August 11, 2007, 14:17:59
For those interested in this topic, there is also some relevant debate here: 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,29913.0.html or
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,29913.0.html

It starts well prior to the time of the deployment of the PRT through to political reaction following combat operations by TF ORION.  One thing, which I feel is drawn out well, is that military & political missuse of the term "peacekeeping" had come back to bite us.  (I think it still is biting) 
Title: Re: The Truth About Peacekeeping
Post by: Gronk on August 11, 2007, 19:52:13
Some very valid points pbi
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on February 04, 2008, 21:42:50
http://army.ca/quotes/?shownum=1553
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: geo on February 04, 2008, 21:50:53
Quote
You can't protect people just with blue berets and a sidearm. It requires -- and this is the difficult bit for Canada -- it requires military capability.
- Michael Ignatieff , Jan 2008
If Mr Ignatief & Mr Dion both understand this concept, why are we pissing about with this uncertainty of what we'll do after March 09?


You or someone else wages war
Someone asks you to intervene and bring peace to the area
If both parties are tired and want peace but don't trust the other.... then Blue Berets come on & Peacekeeping is possible BUT, if either party does not want to know anything about peace, then Helmets come on & Peace making is the only possible alternative.

If we don't have the stomach to contribute to peace making in support of the legitimate government of the country, they we should shut our yap & get out of the way.­..
Title: "Canadians fool themselves about modern peacekeeping"
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 14, 2009, 17:52:30
Liberal Eugene Lang
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,67585.0.html
points out realities that those such a Prof. Michael Byers
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/were-tired-of-byers.html
choose to ignore (reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act):

The 1950s ideal of non-violent missions for our soldiers flies in the face of current reality
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/570442

Quote
Canada's involvement in United Nations peacekeeping missions has mythical status in this country. Our rich history in peacekeeping – a concept invented in the 1950s by Canadian diplomats, notably Lester B. Pearson – should be the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy today, according to many Canadians.

Unfortunately, the allure of non-violent peacekeeping does not correspond to the realities of today's UN missions.

UN operations are routinely characterized as a reflection of Canada's values and consistent with our appropriate role in the world. They are portrayed as non-violent, and are contrasted favourably with combat-oriented operations, such as the NATO mission in Afghanistan, of which Canada is an integral part. The fact that Canada's participation in UN blue-helmeted missions is virtually non-existent today is often bemoaned.

Peacekeeping reminds us of an important post-war Canadian role in international affairs – symbolized by our innovative involvement in Suez in the 1950s, and in Cyprus in the 1960s and 1970s. Peacekeeping also helps with Canada's self-definition by setting us apart from the Americans. For many Canadians, a foreign policy anchored in peacekeeping equates with a defensive military, one that rarely if ever is engaged in violence, combat or war.

But today's peacekeeping operations do not resemble those of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Those earlier missions were comprised of forces interposed between previously warring states or groups that had achieved some measure of peace that could be kept. By contrast, today's UN missions are typically in the midst of regional or civil wars, insurgencies or genocide.

The largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world today is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The force has been expanded from an initial 5,000 troops to 17,000 today. It is a complex mission operating in a violent and unstable environment, involving a multitude of factions and states. Scores of UN peacekeepers have been killed since the operation began in 1999. Today the Congo is falling apart. This mission is anything but peaceful and non-violent.

We hear a lot in Canada about the joint African Union-United Nations peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Some 200,000 civilians have been killed in Darfur since 2003 at the hands of a Sudanese government allied militia known as the Janjaweed. The Bush administration called the Darfur crisis genocide. The atrocities have continued virtually unabated, notwithstanding the presence of a significant African Union force, which has now morphed into this much larger combined AU-UN operation. Darfur is a war zone – there is little peace to keep.

In 2005, then prime minister Paul Martin wanted to deploy the Canadian Forces to Darfur if the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing a mission [it didn't--and Sudan still will not let any significanct number of non-African--especially Western--forces be involved in the currrent mission]. Canada's military leadership assessed the situation on the ground at that time and advised the prime minister that it could be more dangerous for Canadian troops in Darfur than in Kandahar.

Those who argue for Canadian involvement in blue-helmeted missions on the grounds that they involve little violence and are basically exercises in military diplomacy also forget the experiences in the Balkans (where the Canadian Forces were deployed in significant numbers for nearly 15 years) and Rwanda during the 1990s.

The Dutch led a UN peacekeeping operation in Srebrenica in 1995 that witnessed the killing of 8,000 Bosnian men and boys by the army of the Republik of Srpska. Ask the Dutch if they think modern peacekeeping is non-violent.

Likewise the Belgians, who had 10 soldiers slaughtered in one day in 1994 in the ill-fated UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, which was led by Canadian general Roméo Dallaire. When all was said and done at least half a million Rwandan civilians were massacred in that conflict. Both of these UN missions took place in the middle of civil and regional wars where there was nothing resembling a peace to keep.

Today there is increasing talk, including from Condoleezza Rice, of sending UN peacekeepers to Somalia. The Canadian Forces know something of that country, having been deployed there as part of a UN effort in the early 1990s. That mission was withdrawn a few years later after the UN and the Americans suffered significant casualties at the hands of Somali militias. Today, according to the UN, Somalia is the world's worst humanitarian emergency – a country rife with factional violence, and in conflict with its neighbours. It is on the verge of total anarchy once again.

Canadians are rightfully proud of our peacekeeping history. In a world full of war, peacekeeping conveys an image of Canada using its military in ways other than fighting. It is an image that many Canadians cling to and even cherish. Canadians do not like the idea of our military killing people in wars. We do like the idea of Canada keeping the peace. Unfortunately, the allure of non-violent peacekeeping that is embedded in the collective Canadian consciousness is an illusion in the 21st century.

None of this is to say that Canada should rule out contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. But we should do so with our eyes wide open. Some suggest that if we stick to peacekeeping, we don't need to spend a lot of money equipping and training the Canadian Forces to fight – that we can have a military on the cheap because peacekeeping is not terribly onerous. The recent history of UN peacekeeping suggests nothing could be further from the truth.

Eugene Lang, former chief of staff to two ministers of national defence, is co-author (with Janice Gross Stein) of the bestselling and award-winning book The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar (Viking Canada, 2007).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: GAP on July 18, 2009, 23:51:49
‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
It wasn’t long ago that Michael Ignatieff had harsh words for Canada
 Article Link (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/07/17/%E2%80%98bogus%E2%80%99-peacekeeping/)

Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader, is lavish in his adoration for the country and the people he wishes to lead. His recently published book, True Patriot Love, which dovetailed with his ascension to the Liberal party leadership, is replete with fuzzy bromides about Canada and its “quietly but intensely patriotic” citizens.

Yet Michael Ignatieff, Harvard professor and public intellectual, was once slightly more harsh toward his native land. Following a 2005 lecture at the University of Dublin’s Trinity College, Ignatieff excoriated Canadians for trading on Canada’s “entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers” for 40 years and for favouring “hospitals and schools and roads” over international citizenship. “If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious,” Ignatieff said.

“It’s disgusting in my own country, and I love my country, Canada, but they would rather ***** about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay the note,” he said, in response to a question about peacekeeping. “To pay the bill to be an international citizen is not something that they want to do.”

Ignatieff gave the lecture while he was director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. The talk, which received brief mention in Canadian media at the time, reiterated Ignatieff’s belief that the U.S. is a force for good in the world. “Don’t forget that the speech given by a U.S. president that most committed the United States to the promotion of human rights and democracy in the Arab world was given by George W. Bush,” he said. He later told the Irish Times that he was taken aback by the “waves of anti-American and anti-Bush feeling in an Irish audience.” It was in the question-and-answer session which followed, and which has never been reported, that Ignatieff was most critical of Canada.

He was also seemingly at odds with the party he would come to lead four years later. Peacekeeping is the stuff of lore within the Liberal party, which bills itself as the founding father of Canada’s traditional role as a peaceful international referee to the world. As Liberal external affairs minister, Lester B. Pearson is credited with inventing the very concept when he championed the first armed United Nations peacekeeping force in 1956. “There tends to be a strong association with peacekeeping” within the Liberal party, says author and former Liberal strategist John Duffy. “Liberals are proud of their role in this tradition.”

Ignatieff, circa 2005, begged to differ. Introduced by Trinity College professor Ron Hill as “a challenging liberal thinker,” Ignatieff spoke favourably about America’s peacekeeping capabilities and the need to use “men with guns” when protecting the world’s vulnerable. Ignatieff had already backed away from his support of the Iraq war when he gave the speech, though he still praised George W. Bush’s foreign policy at a time when then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin was attacking Bush for what he said was the U.S. president’s lack of “global conscience.” Canada certainly didn’t fare well in Ignatieff’s speech; Ignatieff portrays the country as a somewhat frustrated, reflexively anti-American middling power that has become something of a pretender on the world stage.
More on link
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 18, 2009, 23:55:24
I'm not an Iggy fan, but he had it right in this speech.

I wonder how well it is playing in the Chretien wing of the Liberal Party right now....
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: GAP on July 19, 2009, 00:25:58
I didn't say he was wrong, but you can bet the CPC is going to have a hayday with this one on top of the other ads.....
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: MCG on July 19, 2009, 13:25:57
I didn't say he was wrong, but you can bet the CPC is going to have a hayday with this one on top of the other ads.....
It might be a little difficult to build attack adds hitting on policies where your target has voiced a position in line with your own.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: AmmoTech90 on July 19, 2009, 15:58:10
It might be a little difficult to build attack adds hitting on policies where your target has voiced a position in line with your own.

No, just spin and dramatize them so he is shown as a hypocrite and use it as proof that the PC's policies are in reality the honest beliefs of the opposition leader and then question why he is against them...
It's a gold mine for the PCs should they decide (and I would be surprised if they didn't) stoop to attack adds (again).
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Roy Harding on July 19, 2009, 16:20:05
I thought the contents of an email I sent to both Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff on 24 May of this year may be apropros:

Quote
Gentlemen:

After the proroguing of parliament late last year, I had hoped that both of you would find higher ground from which to conduct your business.  A hope, alas, which you have failed to fulfil.

Mr. Harper:  I don’t watch a lot of television, but I happened to catch your party’s smear of Mr. Ignatieff last night.  It is disgusting, uncalled for, and smacks of desperation.  Just for fun, Mr. Harper, consider that as a member of the Canadian Forces for 25 years I spent a CONSIDERABLE amount of time residing beyond our borders – am I less of a Canadian for it?

Mr. Ignatieff:  Your recent rejoinder to Mr. Harper (issued at the Gander gathering of Liberals) that "If you mess with me, I will mess with you until I'm done" smacks of a similar vein of disgusting, uncalled for, and perhaps desperate behaviour.  I had hoped that you might have the personal integrity, dignity, and self-confidence to rise above the baiting.  A hope you have dashed.

Both of you:  You are behaving like two boys in a schoolyard – and what you need is to have your heads smacked together.  The time you are spending hurling insults and challenges at each other is time NOT being spent on the very real problems of the day.  Shame on both of you.  Do something else to amuse your inner children and get down to business.

You both disgust me.  For pity’s sake – start behaving like the gentlemen and leaders you claim to be.
 

Roy Harding

Terrace, BC

Nothing either have done since has changed my opinion.


Yoy
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Old Sweat on July 19, 2009, 16:34:05
Well said, Roy, and welcome back to the net.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 19, 2009, 16:41:58
It might be a little difficult to build attack adds hitting on policies where your target has voiced a position in line with your own.


Agreed, this is not good ammo for the Conservatives, but there are three other groups who might find its useful:

1. The Bloc;

2. The NDP; and

3. Those Liberals (about half of 'em?) who do not approve of Ignatieff's style or substance.

My guess: it will be used, by all three groups.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ltmaverick25 on July 19, 2009, 16:52:54
This is exactly why I have a love/hate relationship with the idea of Ignatieff.  I beleive his original speech that he gave while in the US is dead on and needs some genuine debate here in Canada.  However, now that he has gotten into Canadian politics he is shying away from his previous viewpoints, which I think is a shame.  Also, extremely aggrevating is the fact that Harper and Ignatieff seem to have way more in common then they have differences, when both of them are being honest anyway.  Ignatieff joined the wrong party.  Now, instead of having two possibly great leaders working together, they are pulling themselves down working against each other.

I have always had great faith in Harper and I still do.  Similarly I have always had great faith in Ignatieff, and still do.  They need to stop worrying about being politically correct and talk about what they beleive in, instead of crapping on each other for essentially having similar views.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Dennis Ruhl on July 20, 2009, 14:29:14
[quore]“entirely bogus reputation as peacekeepers” for 40 years and for favouring “hospitals and schools and roads” over international citizenship. “If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious,” Ignatieff said.[/quote]

I lived through the National Energy Program and have little good to say about any Liberal but...

The effectiveness of peacekeeping missions could be questioned.  The peacekeepers themselves have been used for political and strategic games.  The peacekeepers in Croatia served as a buffer between Croats and Serbs only until Croatia built up sufficient forces to continue the tit-for-tat ethnic cleansing.  The Serbs killed thousands of Bosnian Muslims right under the noses of non-Canadian peacekeepers.  When Egypt was readying for war with Israel in 1973 they booted out the peacekeepers.  The Cyprus mission was generally effective but the two sides came to blows in 1974 and sorted things out for themselves.  Separation of warring parties does lead to reduction in tension on a day to day basis but the final political solution often seems to demand war.

In Rwanda, had the troops been poured in rather than pulled out they could have been effective but it was not a classic peacekeeping mission.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Cdn_Medic on July 20, 2009, 16:25:08
I don't like Ignatief and the liberals... but on this matter, he is bang on. Peacekeeping as we know it is useless and dangerous. Send 1000 soldiers in a war-torn country (when 10 000 is necessairy), with barely enough ammunition to defend themselves and tie their hands with rules of engagement so tight that even the ones who wrote them are not sure about them, is just non-sense.

Think about it, how many lifes could we have saved in Rwanda if we had had a forces equivalent to the one deployed in Afghanistan? How many of our soldiers would not have to withness genocide if we could have had the tools to act and stop it when it began?

The peacekeeping way as we know it is dead. Someone once said, if you want peace, prepare for war, it couldn't be more true.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ltmaverick25 on July 20, 2009, 18:04:25
As much as some of us agree with Ignatieff's original statements about peacekeeping before he entered politics, it is important to realize that now that he is involved in Canadian politics, he is backtracking on his previous statements.  Flip flopping if you will.  As I said before, I think Ignatieff's original statements are bang on, but if he becomes the Prime Minister, he will forget all about his previous stance and adopt a more politically correct Canadian stance.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Colin P on July 20, 2009, 19:38:05
The CPC can use it to attack Iggy with "faint praise" basically poisioning the well iggy wishes to draw from. It would have been refreshing for him to state the same stuff publicly and tell people that they been keeping alive a myth which can cause harm, but he seems to be showing a lack of spine to carry his convictions with. Harper is to busy in survival mode to become what he could be.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: SeaKingTacco on July 20, 2009, 21:40:33
Quote
Agreed, this is not good ammo for the Conservatives, but there are three other groups who might find its useful:

1. The Bloc;

2. The NDP; and

3. Those Liberals (about half of 'em?) who do not approve of Ignatieff's style or substance.

My guess: it will be used, by all three groups.

Edward,

Does this not then indirectly play in the favour of the Conservatives by having the left side of the Liberals bleed back to NDP?
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ModlrMike on July 20, 2009, 22:41:58
Edward,

Does this not then indirectly play in the favour of the Conservatives by having the left side of the Liberals bleed back to NDP?

Oh, the irony. This is exactly the position the PC, Reform and Alliance parties found themselves in prior to the uniting of the right. Certainly a divide and conquer situation in the making... if the Torries can take proper advantage.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Roy Harding on July 20, 2009, 23:52:45
Like others here - I actually (mostly) agree with Mr. Ignatieff's original statement.

I served under the UN on two deployments (UNIIMOG, 88-89 and UNPROFOR, 93-94).  I subsequently served under NATO command in SFOR (3 tours) and Op APOLLO (02).

From a soldier's perspective - NATO is better, for a lot of reasons not germane to this thread.

I have my own theories about how the whole UN Peacekeeping idea has deteriorated - but once again they are not germane to this thread.  Suffice to say that I think they were originally a great idea - but they became watered down over the years.

I, however, am a (retired) soldier - and necessarily have that point of view.  Mr. Ignatieff (as someone else has pointed out) is a politician - and needs to reconcile his past remarks with his current portfolio of Leader of the Loyal Opposition.

He's not in a position that I envy.

Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: zipperhead_cop on July 21, 2009, 00:11:39
Well, if nothing else, in 2011 when the battle group leaves and the PRT should be staying, hopefully whomever is in power will give it the green light and skip the political BS.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Roy Harding on July 21, 2009, 00:14:32
Well, if nothing else, in 2011 when the battle group leaves and the PRT should be staying, hopefully whomever is in power will give it the green light and skip the political BS.

(Emphasis added by Roy)

Jeezus - I've been away for a while. 

When did you get issued rose coloured glasses?

Roy
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: zipperhead_cop on July 21, 2009, 00:32:07
(Emphasis added by Roy)

Jeezus - I've been away for a while. 

When did you get issued rose coloured glasses?

Roy

They are called "vermillion" and they are in the system now.   ;D

I missed you too!  :-*
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ModlrMike on July 21, 2009, 00:34:27
Like Mr Harding, I too have served in many missions both under UN and NATO control. While I agree with some of Mr Ignatieff's comments, I found most of that speech dripping with hipocracy. I was most struck by his descriptions of Canadians as "they" rather than "we". This speech will come back to bite him on the a$$.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 23, 2009, 13:51:48
Lorne Gunter is, rightfully, incensed at he Liberals, not just Ignatieff, in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Liberal+myth+making/1818552/story.html
Quote
Liberal myth-making
 
By Lorne Gunter, The Edmonton Journal

July 23, 2009
 
According to Maclean's magazine's website, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told an Irish university audience in 2005 that Canada's peacekeeping reputation was "entirely bogus." What's next, Ignatieff labelling multiculturalism "a complete sham"? Universal health care "an unmitigated disaster"? Bilingualism "an utter farce"?

The notion that Canada is a nation of peacekeepers, not soldiers, is one of those national myths -- like health care, multiculturalism and linguistic duality -- that the Liberals spent 40 years trying to manufacture. The peaceniks and flower children around Pierre Trudeau calculated that if they could convince the rest of us that Canada was without a warrior tradition, they could decimate our military and go around to international conferences boasting about how their commitment to peace made them morally superior to the Americans.

They also talked themselves into believing that if we had no war-making capacity -- that if we were a "soft power" -- the belligerents in the world's worst conflicts would trust Canada as the "honest broker" for their settlements.

Everybody now, put your hands together and sing Give Peace a Chance.

One thing got in the way of the Liberals' plans, though -- the professional resolve of our military.

Even as the Grits under Trudeau and later Jean Chrétien cut our military budgets and our troop strength by half and more, and subjected the men and women wearing Canada's uniform to such ridiculous experiments as unification -- in which all three branches of the military were rolled into one -- Canada's soldiers, sailors and air force personnel slogged on.

For decades without adequate equipment, with little respect and with almost impossible orders, they somehow managed to maintain our nation's reputation for top-notch soldiering. No one doubted that Canada's armed forces could do more with less than any military in the world, while at the same time retaining the respect of allies and foes alike.

Peacekeeping may not always have been what our forces thought was the best solution to conflict, but given that that was all their civilian masters were permitting them to do, they made the best of it.

They knew the world had always been a dangerous place -- and would always be dangerous, despite the Kumbaya spirit that had infected Ottawa -- but if they had to confront that danger only through a peacekeeping filter, then so be it.

In Bosnia in the mid-1990s, for instance, the rules of engagement set for our peacekeepers permitted them to return fire only when rounds fired at them by the warring factions came within a metre.

I can't imagine having to turn the other cheek, as it were, in the face of an enemy shooting at me within arm's-length. Still, our peacekeepers bore that obligation with pride and dignity and did their best to protect innocent people caught in the midst of the fighting.

In all, at least 114 Canadians have been killed while on peacekeeping duty around the world in the past half-century. It takes a special kind of bravery and dedication to one's country to go knowingly into hostile territory with one hand tied behind your back by politicians who only care when you foul up, who respect you very little and who always promise new equipment and resources but seldom follow through.

Having said all that, then, you'd expect I would be furious with Ignatieff over his remarks four years ago at the University of Dublin's Trinity College, and I am, in a way.

It was not the Canadian legacy of peacekeeping that was "entirely bogus," it was the Liberal misuse of that legacy that was. What was "disgusting" was the way the Chrétien government and then the Paul Martin government hid behind peacekeeping's skirts to avoid having to take sides in the world's hot spots.

It was a Liberal tendency, not a Canadian one, to, as Ignatieff added, rather "***** about their rich neighbour to the south than actually pay" the price for a military that could intervene where needed to prevent humanitarian disasters.

Ignatieff's error in Ireland was to claim most Canadians were equally guilty of the irresponsibility and arrogance that were hallmarks of Liberal foreign policy for 40 years.

He should have blamed his own party -- not Canadians as a whole -- for the timidity whitewashed with moral boastfulness that was Canadian foreign policy from the late 1960s onward. And he should never, ever have said anything that could even remotely have been misconstrued as a slam on our peacekeepers.

The sole bright spot in Canadian foreign affairs during the Liberal era was the competence of our military despite the stresses the Liberals put them under.

Ignatieff also added, "If you are a human rights defender and you want something done to stop [a] massacre, you have to go to the Pentagon, because no one else is serious."

Iggy's unpardonable sin was in blaming our peacekeepers, indirectly, rather than placing blame where it belonged, with his own party.

Lorne Gunter writes for the Edmonton Journal.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


I think Gunter is 100% correct.

This is a tack the Conservatives can exploit if, big IF, the story has “legs.”

To address SeaKingTacco’s point: Yes, indeed, that Conservatives can try to exploit this to help the NDP attack the Liberal’s Trudeau/peacenik wing.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ltmaverick25 on July 23, 2009, 21:17:35
Unfortunately I dont think this story is going to get legs.  The vast majority of the media simply do not want Harper in office anymore.  Its become painfully obvious.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 31, 2009, 11:39:23
Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is an interesting take on Ignatieff:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=7331bcda-07d6-4055-a045-e2d418e4aabd
Quote
Ignatieff may be more frank than wise

John Ivison, National Post

Friday, July 31, 2009

Michael Ignatieff has a vision of a Canada that celebrates its 150th birthday in eight years, having undertaken a number of bold national initiatives under his leadership -- from opening the Northwest Passage in the Arctic to building high-speed rail links between major cities; from developing east-west energy corridors to developing a single economic space for labour and trade from ocean to ocean.

"The ambition of our ancestors should be inspiring us to equal them in daring today and tomorrow," the Liberal leader concluded in his recent book, True Patriot Love.

The problem, he believes, is that Canada is a country in which it is difficult to dream.

Mr. Ignatieff's frustration is specifically targeted at the Conservatives' decision to drain the federal coffers by cutting the GST, a move he believes (correctly) was aimed at hobbling the ambitions of any future Liberal leader.

Yet this hints at a wider vexation at the diffidence of many of his countrymen and women. In previous incarnations as a journalist and academic, Mr. Ignatieff has been more frank than was wise for anyone with ambitions in politics when it came to the perceived shortcomings of the country he now would like to lead. The latest in a growing list of less than flattering statements unearthed by the Conservatives includes the suggestion that many Canadians are reflexive anti-Americans; that we have been pretenders on the world stage; and, that we have a "bogus" reputation as peacekeepers.

The Conservative attack ads have found their mark. But Mr. Ignatieff's most immediate concern is coming up with an affordable platform in time for a general election to differentiate himself from Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Given that the Liberals have waved the Conservatives' economic plan through Parliament, their pitch appears to hinge on providing the national vision for our age that Mr. Ignatieff laments in his book is currently lacking.

For Mr. Harper, progress should come in small, incremental steps and sweeping visions have no place in practical politics. It is the Conservative Harper and not the Liberal Ignatieff who is the true heir to Canada's longest-serving prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who famously said: "It's what we prevent, rather than what we do, that counts in government."

Mr. Ignatieff sees himself in the mould of the great nation-builders --John A. Macdonald, Sandford Fleming and Donald Smith -- men who he argues understood the political ties that bind the nation run east and west and that those linkages need to be strengthened to offset the economic north-south drift. His resources may have been constrained by the GST cuts and the Conservatives' stimulus package but Mr. Ignatieff believes he can still offer up two or three mega-projects that will inspire true patriot love.

If his book gives any clues, signature proposals may include a beefed-up national highway system, high-speed rail links between cities such as Vancouver and Calgary and a national energy strategy that advocates processing more oil and gas, while creating a petroleum reserve to protect Canadians against fluctuations in supply from foreign countries.

You could drive a coach and horses through some of his proposals. For example, Mr. Ignatieff dismisses what he calls "the logic of money" -- that is, that the market dictates energy flows. "What exactly is being Canadian worth to us in dollars and cents? How much are we prepared to invest to keep our country in one piece?" he argues in his book.

Quite how unity would be enhanced by an idea that sounds suspiciously similar to the late and unlamented National Energy Program is unclear. But you get the picture -- and it is painted on a broad canvas.

It is subtitled: Michael Ignatieff is coming for your good. The worry is, he might be coming for all your goods.

jivison@nationalpost.com

It is “interesting,” in part, because Ivison agrees with me (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,58908.msg767990.html#msg767990) that Harper’s GST cuts “aimed at hobbling the ambitions of any future Liberal leader.”

Further, some of the commentariat are trying to give legs to the  “bogus peacekeeping” assertion.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 01, 2009, 11:30:03
This is exactly why I have a love/hate relationship with the idea of Ignatieff.  I beleive his original speech that he gave while in the US is dead on and needs some genuine debate here in Canada.  However, now that he has gotten into Canadian politics he is shying away from his previous viewpoints, which I think is a shame.  Also, extremely aggrevating is the fact that Harper and Ignatieff seem to have way more in common then they have differences, when both of them are being honest anyway.  Ignatieff joined the wrong party.  Now, instead of having two possibly great leaders working together, they are pulling themselves down working against each other.

Right you are; both Harper and Ignatieff have very similar views. To take two examples, both are very pro-US; and both supported the US invasion of Iraq (as did 60% English Canadians polled by-the-way). So how did the two men end-up on opposite sides of the floor?

My take is that when Ignatieff decided to enter Canadian politics, the party most in-line with his views (the Conservatives) was filled by Stephan Harper. It would have Ignatieff years to buildup an organization, recruit supporters, raise money, etc, to oust Harper, but he was in a hurry and couldn't wait. The Liberals party on the other hand, was ripe for plucking; the party was still suffering from the Adscam fallout, riven by infighting between Chretien and Martin factions, and led by an ineffective leader (Dion). And it worked! Ignatieff was crowned leader (more by default than anything else) and is now ready to take on the Harper and the Conservatives. Whether Ignatieff can lead the Liberals to victory in the next election (probably this fall) who knows? If he doesn't, expect the knives to come out and he'll be gone.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: ltmaverick25 on August 01, 2009, 16:39:45
If the liberals do lose and Ignatieff is replaced, that would be very bad.  The liberals would end up falling hard to the left again and that is never good.  I prefer Harper by far, but we need Ignatieff as liberal leader long enough for the party to return to the center.  As much as I like Harper, the conservatives wont hold on to power forever.  Eventually another liberal will get in, and I sure as hell hope its not a lefty like Rae.
Title: Re: ‘Bogus’ peacekeeping?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 01, 2009, 18:08:10
The modern Liberal Party of Canada has been, generally, a big spending, big government, conservative party. The only “leftie” they picked was Trudeau – we have no idea how Celine Stéphane Dion might have operated; he talked left, but so do most Liberals, including Ignatieff. Liberals, generally,campaign left (http://www.jameslaxer.com/2006/07/trouble-with-ignatieff_19.html) (see penultimate paragraph on the link) and then govern from the centre-right: as did King, St Laurent, Pearson and Chrétien. (Trudeau was a certifiable “leftie” and Turner doesn’t count.)

Oddly, the American leader closest to Liberal tradition was George W. Bush, a big government, big spending conservative.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 11, 2009, 16:21:03
Quote
We should retire “peacekeeping” from lexicon
The Ottawa Citizen
A. Sean Henry, Colonel (Ret'd) - Ottawa
11 Aug 09

Re: National peacekeepers day, Aug 10.

Misguided attention paid to peacekeeping continues to undermine Canadian support for the counter-insurgency combat mission in Afghanistan.

Those who are determined to prolong the myth of peacekeeping now seek to place operations in Afghanistan in that category.

This is nonsense. Peacekeeping was never effective at preventing conflict. Moreover, in recent times it has been associated with disasters in the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda. It was always a peripheral issue in Canadian defence policy, and in later years Canada absorbed strong criticism from allies for using it as an excuse to avoid contributions to conventional military operations.

It is time to retire peacekeeping from the Canadian lexicon and accept post-Cold War gritty reality.

This involves contributing military resources to combat operations in defence of Canada's national interests. The latter are at stake in Afghanistan as we seek to eliminate an important base for terrorism.

The government of Canada should demonstrate leadership by educating Canadians in these matters.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 11, 2009, 17:28:16
A letter of mine sent to the Toronto Star and not published:

Where are our peacekeepers?
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/678155

Quote
In their August 8 article Walter Dorn and Peter Langille lament that Canada has been "abandoning UN peacekeeping operations" and that the Canadian Forces' focus has been "shifted to NATO, where they are not doing peacekeeping but are conducting counter-insurgency operations" in Afghanistan.

That ignores one very important fact. The NATO mission in Afghanistan is itself a United Nations mission. The UN Security Council has repeatedly authorized that mission, including its combat role, most recently in September 2008. The mission is a much a UN one as any other.

What Messrs Dorn and Langille actually seem to lament is that Canada is not now participating significantly in "peacekeeping" operations run by the UN itself. They specifically cite the missions in Haiti, Lebanon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Darfur. But none of these operations seem to have done all that well in truly establishing peace; and, Darfur aside, they have been going on for many years with no end in sight (as is likely to happen in Darfur too).

It should also be remembered that the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Croatia--in which the Canadian Forces played a major role--was a crashing failure. Peace was only established after NATO intervened forcefully by bombing in 1995. NATO then replaced the UN in charge of running the international military force on the ground.

In the case of Afghanistan the cry is always raised, "What's the exit strategy"? I would like to know the exit strategy for participation in UN peacekeeping missions. After all the Canadian Forces took part in the UN operation in Cyprus--which still goes on--for 29 years before they were withdrawn in 1993.

I suspect what Messrs Dorn and Langille really object to is Canada's taking part in a combat mission--even under a UN mandate.

References:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9450.doc.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/deliberate_force.htm
http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/nr-sp/doc-eng.asp?id=2279
http://vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=history/canadianforces/factsheets/cyprus

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 12, 2009, 17:14:59
And a letter the Star did publish (give them credit):

Focus has been with NATO allies
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/679680

Quote
Re:Peacekeeping legacy a proud one,
http://www.thestar.com/article/678640

Letter, Aug. 10

Martin Meslin's letter is a prime example of the sort of cultural mythology that dogs Canada. Canada's last major peacekeeping operation was in the early days of the collapse of Yugoslavia in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That mission was then assumed by NATO with a more robust mandate when the UN failed to stop the violence there. While Canadian Forces members have participated in limited scale UN peacekeeping operations in Eritrea, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo, our main focus in recent years (long before Stephen Harper) has been supporting efforts with our NATO allies [in, e.g, Bosnia and Kosovo--including an airstrike role with CF-18s in 1999]. To suggest that Harper had any impact on the relative importance of peacekeeping in this country is factually utterly wrong.

Nick Butler, Oshawa

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 17, 2009, 16:34:05
This article touches on a lot of subject area.  I've posted some of it in the big Afghan debate thread, but I thought this bit was more fitting with our discussion here:
Quote
After Kandahar
Canada will pull its troops out of combat in Afghanistan in 2011, and we must decide what the new role will be for our military

Major-General (ret'd) Cam Ross
The Ottawa Citizen
17 Aug 09

Canada will reduce its commitment in Afghanistan in 2011. As Canadians consider their future role in the world they must not confuse reality with wishful thinking.

While the extent of Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan has yet to be determined, Ottawa has clearly signalled Canada will have a reduced combat footprint. The key words are "reduced" and "combat." We can initially expect 1,000 to 1,500 troops remaining to assist in training and development.

And there will no doubt be an element of combat capability that will be included to provide security for those trainers and civilians.

However, the bulk of the Canadian battle group will return home. The new NATO chief does not want that to happen. He wants Canada to stay the course; but that is not likely.



The burr will be replaced by familiarity, "traditional peacekeeping" -- regardless of the logic of staying the course in Afghanistan.

Many Canadians believe that UN peacekeeping is our traditional overseas military role. It is falsely perceived to be "safe," it exemplifies our desire to compromise, to be nice -- Jean Chrétien's "Boy Scouts." It is our "comfort zone," as the NDP and others would say.

But what is "traditional peacekeeping"? Too many UN veterans have vivid memories of being shot at and blown up whilst under the UN flag to believe that the calm portrayed on the back of our $10 bill, labelled Remembrance and Peacekeeping, is a realistic portrayal of their peacekeeping duties. Since 1948, traditional peacekeeping has cost us 114 lives; Canada has the third-highest toll on the UN's country casualty list behind India and Ghana.

Since the end of the Cold War, the demand for international intervention has grown almost exponentially. In June 2009, the UN had 93,216 military personnel deployed on 17 missions worldwide compared with only 12,084 personnel on 15 missions in 1999. The foreseeable future does not herald a rosier picture. The Haitis, Sudans and Congos of the world will not be solved easily or overnight.

The face of peacekeeping has changed. With the exceptions of Italy and France, 18 of the top 20 peacekeeping contributors are developing countries.

For a well-to-do country of 34 million, Canada's current contribution is abysmally small in numbers. Canada ranks No. 52 for UN peacekeeping with only 55 military personnel deployed on 10 UN missions.

Whether it's a combat role with NATO or a peacekeeping mission with the UN, we should be cognizant of our own limitations. Something is wrong if we can only deploy about 3,000 military at a given time. Our wishful thinking is that we are a middle power that can positively influence troubled lands. The fact is that we are punching well below our weight class in both security and development, not in quality but in quantity.

What is certain is that there will be increased interest in Canada returning to its perceived default position, more for political expediency than sound foreign policy. A return to the UN fold will resonate well with the voters. A re-commitment to Haiti will be especially attractive for Quebec voters. To say no to the UN on the grounds that we don't "do" peacekeeping any more would be unwise, especially at a time when Canada is aggressively seeking a January 2011 seat on the UN Security Council. And the response of "sorry, we have already given at the office" will no longer apply post-2011.

Do I personally advocate a return to the traditional role of peacekeeping? No. Peacekeeping reloaded? Probably. But, realistically, the peacekeeping of today is scarcely identifiable as the task defined in 1956 by Lester Pearson. We should change that $10 picture for one that depicts Canada's Armed Force as the capable warriors they are and stop deluding ourselves -- effective peacekeeping sometimes needs a big bat.

M-Gen (ret'd) Cam Ross, a former UN assistant secretary general and force commander of UNDOF on the Golan Heights, is a fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
I think, that if one wants to see effective "peacekeeping of today" they will see something that looks a lot like the mission we are departing in Afghanistan.
Title: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: FormerHorseGuard on September 21, 2009, 13:11:35
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090921/afghanistan_poll_090921/20090921?hub=Canada

I read the story  and wonder why  am I never called for one of these polls. I am not pro war or pro peace keeping missions. I do not see peacekeeping or a war mission any  differerent they  are still putting our troops in danger and putting them at risk. Some risks are worth the effort some are not worth the effort. Is the war worth the effort yes because the small changes we bring to the country  will bring small changes around the world and those small changes become huge changes and affect everyone.
 I think the media is partly  to blame for the negative feelings about the current mission, would we of redrawn from WW1 or WW2 because of a negative report on the body  count. I think the body counters are sick and demented. The first soldier to come home and the last soldier to come home will the two  that the reporters always remind us of everytime they  get a chance.These images are rerun very chance they  get. They  do not seem to rerun images of the caskets coming home from the various Peace Keeper missions. They  do not seem to remember the losses on various missions. They  do not recall the largest battle Canadian soldiers had in the former Yugo during a Peace Keeping mission. Guess it was a slow news day  and there was no dead Peacekeepers to report on  so it was over looked.

Soon as the media gets a hold of the facts and reports them in what  ever twisted context they  want to air the facts, they  can change public opinion on anything they  want.
I think if Canadians knew the full story and were able to make their own minds up the pol results would be differerent and they  would see PeaceKeeping just as risky  as any  war.
Just so everyone knows I have never been on any  sort mission in my  time of service.
This is just my  personal opinions.

Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: PuckChaser on September 21, 2009, 13:15:23
I'm just glad they wisely left comments disabled for that story. Its an uninformed powderkeg.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: gcclarke on September 21, 2009, 13:28:13
Hmmmm that's nice. Shame that it doesn't matter in the least because we don't have a tendency to take our orders from public opinion polls. If they feel that strongly about it, they can go ahead and contact their MPs. 
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 21, 2009, 13:35:53
I wonder how many people would stay in the Forces if we went to a strictly peace loving, blue beret wearing, hand holding military...peace force?

We could rename our infantry battalions to the 1st HuggieBears, 2nd ILoveYou and the 3rd PlayNiceOrIWIllStompMyFeet  ::)
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: gcclarke on September 21, 2009, 13:52:04
Can I get posted aboard HMCS Cocktail Party?
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 21, 2009, 13:55:23
A few points:

•   Despite what at least a large minority of Army.ca members appear to believe, polls are, broadly, well and “fairly” conducted. The major polling firms have no vested interests in the outcomes – they are not in the business of misleading their clients by providing situated data. Political polling firms are even more concerned to be “fair” and accurate. Their clients need to tune their message to public opinion; polling forms who provide inaccurate data go broke. Most of the big polling firms in Canada have been in business for a long time because they do their jobs properly. They do not ignore your opinion because you are pro-military; they do not hang up on you because they do not want your opinion; and they do not situate the appreciation. The poll, commissioned by DND for its own information, is probably exactly as accurate as the polling firm advertises and was, almost certainly, carried out fairly and honestly;

•   About 50% of Canadians are woefully ignorant about the world situation and the nature of keeping the peace. I am a wee bit surprised that the number is as low as it is;

•   There is no going back to traditional (baby-blue beret style) peacekeeping because the laws of supply and demand are immutable and they apply to absolutely everything (including religion) and there is no demand for the baby-blue beret wearing, baby feeding peacekeepers of the ‘70s and ‘80s;

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.unmultimedia.org%2Fphoto%2Fmedium%2F314%2F31429.jpg&hash=f693c07162053dcf9a7f9bfe8ca05d53)

•   That does not mean there is some shortage of or lessening in the supply of humanitarian disasters – many created by politicians and warlords; but

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.unmultimedia.org%2Fphoto%2Fmedium%2F190%2F190226.jpg&hash=2b92c11ba9dbf58e4c520399a760f485)

•   It does mean that the international community, in which Canada plays a modest leadership role, no longer wants to address the political root causes of these disasters with military force.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: milnews.ca on September 21, 2009, 14:04:08
•   Despite what at least a large minority of Army.ca members appear to believe, polls are, broadly, well and “fairly” conducted. The major polling firms have no vested interests in the outcomes – they are not in the business of misleading their clients by providing situated data. Political polling firms are even more concerned to be “fair” and accurate. Their clients need to tune their message to public opinion; polling forms who provide inaccurate data go broke. Most of the big polling firms in Canada have been in business for a long time because they do their jobs properly. They do not ignore your opinion because you are pro-military; they do not hang up on you because they do not want your opinion; and they do not situate the appreciation. The poll, commissioned by DND for its own information, is probably exactly as accurate as the polling firm advertises and was, almost certainly, carried out fairly and honestly;
Related to that, my usual mini-rant:  I'm still searching (it's not on the Ipsos-Reid site), but do the reporters/editors/publications RARELY include a link to their source?  Is that too much to ask?  Or can't readers be trusted with the raw information?
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: Mars79 on September 21, 2009, 14:27:41
The raw data would be intersting to see, just beacuse of the comments at the end of the article where it's stated that many participates would accept staying the course because of the ramifications it may have on the people of Afghanistan after a pull out.  Also important, and I know it has been noted on many different forums here is that fact that the general public still seems confused as to why we are in Afghanistan at all.  The mission has never been broken down and fed to the public in a way that they can understand the information.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: Larkvall on September 21, 2009, 14:44:51
The ALL the raw data would be interesting to see......

Here is an interesting clip from the old show Yes, Prime Minister


Opinion Polls: Getting the results you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: Technoviking on September 21, 2009, 15:00:56
Ah, yes, the myth of the Great Canadian Peacekeeper.  What a wonderful ploy.  Let us digest this, for only a few moments.
Let's look back to the first "great" Peacekeeping mission: UNEF.  It's mission was as follows:
Quote
enter Egyptian territory with the consent of the Egyptian Government, in order to help maintain quiet during and after the withdrawal of non-Egyptian forces and to secure compliance with the other terms established in the resolution ... to cover an area extending roughly from the Suez Canal to the Armistice Demarcation Lines established in the Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.
(Italics added by me.  In 1967, Egypt withdrew its consent, and UNEF withdrew.)
The background?  The UK, France and Israel "took offence" to Egypt nationalising the Suez Canal.  The US "took offence" to the action by the UK, France and Israel.  (Remember, Egypt was a "Soviet Friendly" state at the time).  So, the force offered the belligerents a way out.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the bulk of Canada's overseas forces stood waiting on the North German Plain, for the "invasion that never came".

Now let's look at Cyprus.  Two NATO allies almost going to full war over that island.  What way out?  The UN of course!  And all throughout that mission, the bulk of Canada's overseas forces remained in Germany, awaiting the Soviet Army.  (Except for the last two or three rotations).

Now let's look at the Balkans.  OK, let's not.  That UN mission was, in spite of Herculean efforts of the troops involved from many nations, a paper tiger.  NATO had to step in and actually kill people to make it work.


So, when were we an exclusively peacekeeping nation?  ???

 
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 21, 2009, 15:35:26
Peacekeeping is changing.

Nearly three years ago The Ruxted Group quoted the UN’s own Director of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/37-Changing-the-Guard.html) as saying “...several of the world's most capable militaries and strong economies are either heavily committed—mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan—or for other reasons, such as reduced defense spending, are choosing not to contribute troops to UN peacekeeping. Meanwhile, the UN's top 10 troop contributors to peacekeeping operations are developing countries and have limited resources.”

That is still the reality.

Where demand for peacekeepers is still high, which is where the supply of humanitarian crises with security issues attached is also high, that demand is, too often, met by those who are least able to do so – least able financially, logistically and professionally. It is to these missions that many, many Canadians wish to return. In wishing for that shift in focus they are, simply, asking their government to do more to meet our much vaunted Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

As I have said, many times, before, if R2P is to have any meaning, at all, anywhere, then it must apply to Afghanistan. If anyone ever needed protection and if we ever had a responsibility to anyone, then surely anyone = the poor, war ravaged, ill governed, insecure Afghans.

Our GDP (according to the World Bank) was $1.4 Trillion in 2008. That was about equal to the combined GDPs (same source) of the 112 poorest countries in the world. Some of the countries of that list of the “poor” contribute many soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions and a few contribute to the NATO/ISAF mission in Afghanistan. We are one of the richest, most sophisticated and, despite small numbers of people, most “militarily capable” nations in the world – in the whole history of the world – but, our government tells us, we “cannot” do more to help the least fortunate. Canadians, with some reason, say: “BS!” One of the reasons, I think, that we see 50% of Canadians wanting a return to traditional peacekeeping is that Canadians understand that we are rich, and sophisticated and capable and they also understand, intuitively, that more traditional peacekeeping – the kind being done in Africa, for example – can be done (with the same resources) than is being done in Afghanistan.

The government has promised, and promised, and promised again to recruit tens of thousands of “new” (additional) soldiers.

A smart defence staff – one that wanted to ease the pressure of public opinion on the government-of-the-day – might decide to propose that a few hundred of those tens of thousands, say 500, might be technical specialists recruited (as are some medical personnel today) as civilians who, after a brief period of training, are deployed to UN missions, perhaps with a local, temporary military status. Imagine the differences that a few hundred Canadian logisticians – several thousand of those tens of thousands of “new” people had better be assigned to the ranks of the overstretched, overstressed service support groups – and a few dozen (less than 100 at any given time) Canadian technical support experts might make to the capabilities of all those African Union soldiers.

Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: tango22a on September 21, 2009, 15:47:54

I don't feel we are exclusively a peacekeeping nation but apparently the general public do. They would rather see the lives lost stop and feel the money spent on Afghanistan could be better spent in Canada on various welfare projects.

It seems the CF needs a major PR campaign to change their minds. But no one in Government or the CF is willing to head up this campaign.

It also seems that being a peacekeeping nation gives the general public a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment rather than a feeling of "not another fatal casualty!....Bring our boys home!"  My own feeling is that the public believes what it wants to believe regardless of what is actually happening on the ground in Afghanistan.

tango22a
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 21, 2009, 16:28:12
More on UNEF: How many Canadians know that the great example of "Pearsonian peacekeeping" ended up a complete failure? Why is that not taught at school?

The peacekeeping force for which Pearson won the Nobel Prize, the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF),
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unefi.htmwas kicked out of Egypt in 1967
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/44c971ced20b476705256559005be4a5?OpenDocument
by Egyptian President Nasser (Egyptian reporting here):
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/848/sc2.htm
one of the key events precipitating the pre-emptive Israeli attack that began the Six Day War of 1967.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: Jammer on September 21, 2009, 16:35:35
The days of blue helmets are long past.
I would even suggest that the UN will absolve itself of being an organization for mounting "peacekeeping" missions.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: the 48th regulator on September 21, 2009, 16:36:02
http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=14745

Maybe the public will also have us wearing blue ascots too....

dileas

tesss
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 21, 2009, 17:14:44
I know I’m repeating myself, but ...

Lester B (Mike) Pearson did not invent peacekeeping – that, even the word, has been on the books for over 2,000 years. Nor did he invent United Nations peacekeeping – that was done in 1948 by two fellows: Ralph Bunche from the USA and Brian Urquart from the UK.

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fglobetrotter.berkeley.edu%2FUN%2FUrquhart%2Fimages%2FLeopoldville.jpg&hash=d8b25384500c1f185bf6d779026cf89e)
Ralph Bunche (right) and Brian Urquart (left) in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) Congo in 1960

What Mike Pearson did, and the very good reason he earned a Nobel prize, was to stick handle a very tricky resolution through the UN General Assembly to authorize a major UN peacekeeping mission – bigger than anything ever tried before – with the primary aim (for Pearson and Urquart) of pulling British Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden’s irons out of the fire. The Suez fiasco was approved if not engineered by Eden - but without consulting Eisenhower. Ike was furious because the Suez imbroglio upset his plans for the region. Urquart and Pearson devised the plan and Pearson, using Dean Acheson’s famous Uniting for Peace resolution, steered the plan through the UNGA, despite Russian opposition but with very strong American support.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: PuckChaser on September 21, 2009, 19:48:47
Traditional Peacekeeping is dead. If we ever deploy in a humanitarian context again, we need rules of engagement that allow us to make peace. That way, situations like Rwanda and Somali don't happen again. Sometimes you need a little teeth to convince both sides that they can get along. Look at what NATO did in Bosnia. UNPROFOR was largely ineffective, then SFOR came in with robust rules of engagement that forced peace, and now the country is on its way to recovery. Models like that could be tailored to current humanitarian hotspots.

What these "peacekeeping only" people don't understand is that we can't just send peacekeepers into a country. That's called invading a sovereign nation, and would probably ruffle some feathers. The Sudanese government does not want non-African peacekeepers, so until they want to let more than just Western money in, they'll continue the awful conditions there.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 22, 2009, 12:47:05
See here (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,89302.msg876749.html#msg876749), please, for another issue (W2I) that is loosely related to "peacekeeping" and to some force structure issues.
Title: Re: CTV News story "Go back to peacekeeping; Canadians tell DND "
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 22, 2009, 18:06:22
Traditional Peacekeeping is dead. If we ever deploy in a humanitarian context again, we need rules of engagement that allow us to make peace. That way, situations like Rwanda and Somali don't happen again. Sometimes you need a little teeth to convince both sides that they can get along. Look at what NATO did in Bosnia. UNPROFOR was largely ineffective, then SFOR came in with robust rules of engagement that forced peace, and now the country is on its way to recovery. Models like that could be tailored to current humanitarian hotspots.

What these "peacekeeping only" people don't understand is that we can't just send peacekeepers into a country. That's called invading a sovereign nation, and would probably ruffle some feathers. The Sudanese government does not want non-African peacekeepers, so until they want to let more than just Western money in, they'll continue the awful conditions there.

The thing that I find interesting thing about peacekeepers is that they have to be invited into a situation by both sides to help police the settlement process. This assumes, of course, that you have two sides who have basically beaten themselves near to death and are on the ropes.

To do more peacekeeping, therefore, what we need to do is make sure that we equally arm all those fractious 3rd world countries and give them a chance to have a good war first (with thousands of dead on both sides) before we safely deploy our 'Blue Troopers'.

Heaven forbid that we would intervene to prevent something like that in the first place. ::)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 22, 2009, 18:14:19
Canada is a country of peace keepers!
Not war fighters!

As your grand parents and they will tell you.
Title: Retired colonel on the myth of peace keeping
Post by: toyotatundra on July 07, 2011, 16:12:07
A retired colonel argues that our military history is being presented inaccurately.

Quote
Ask the average Canadian to identify the most successful endeavour of the Canadian military, and chances are he or she will answer: "peacekeeping." Popular symbols and institutions reinforce this perception every day: our $10 bill commemorates past military conflicts solely by peacekeeping, while the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa incorrectly classifies all Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War as peacekeeping.


http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Exploding%2Bmyth%2Bpeacekeeping/5062050/story.html
Title: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: M2A on June 08, 2012, 13:40:15
Sourced from The Globe and Mail, 8 Jun 2012, Link Here (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/blue-helmets-cast-aside-canada-keeps-the-peace-no-more/article4240950/?service=mobile)

Quote
Blue helmets cast aside, Canada keeps the peace no more
PAUL KORING
WASHINGTON — THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Last updated Friday, Jun. 08 2012, 10:04 AM EDT

Once pre-eminent among peacekeeping nations with thousands of “blue berets” deployed around the world, Canada now ranks 53 – between Paraguay and Slovakia – on the United Nations contributors’ list with less than a schoolbus-load of Canadian soldiers serving on UN missions overseas.

Since then 1990s, successive Canadian governments, both Conservative and Liberal, have shunned traditional UN-mandated peacekeeping for U.S.-led war-fighting missions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya. Those campaigns have eclipsed the UN as Ottawa’s favoured military expeditionary effort. From being the top contributor in the early 1990s, the Canadian commitment dropped precipitously from thousands, to hundreds a decade ago to only a few dozen in recent years.

By Ottawa’s count, there are only 42 Canadian military personnel currently serving in seven UN peacekeeping missions. The UN says the count is even lower. Its most recent monthly report, issued at the end of the April, registered only 33 Canadian military personnel in UN missions. Another 130 Canadian police – some from the RCMP, others from provincial and municipal forces – are also serving with the UN.

“The need is greater than ever but Canada’s contribution has never been lower,” said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa research and advocacy group. “The Harper government doesn’t regard peacekeeping as a route to enhancing Canada’s international stature.”

That attitude, according to Mr. Staples, was exemplified by the reaction to the death of a Canadian military observer, one of four UN peacekeepers bombed by Israeli warplanes in July, 2006.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper questioned why the UN post in southern Lebanon “remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war” – a statement that, to peacekeeping advocates, betrayed a failure to recognize the deterrent value of putting blue-helmeted troops in harm’s way.

Ottawa ducked again this spring when the call went out for UN military observers to help prevent the unrest in Syria from spiralling into a full-blown civil war. In previous eras, Canada rarely missed that sort of mission. In fact, prior to 1995 it had been a national boast for decades that Canada had never failed to contribute to a UN peacekeeping mission.

Some, both in and out of the military, defend the shift away from UN missions, claiming they are ill-suited to cope with the messy, mainly internal wars of the 21st century. But others regard turning away from the UN as short-sighted.

“I wasn’t surprised by the decision not to send observers to Syria,” said Carolyn McAskie, a Canadian and former UN assistant secretary-general for peacebuilding. “The Harper government has made it clear that it has little use for the UN.”

The dramatic decline in Canada’s commitment to UN peacekeeping predates the current Conservative government. After the debacle of Rwanda, the killing and torture of a defenceless Somali teenage prisoner by Canadian troops on a UN mission and the repeated peacekeeping failures in the Balkans, all in the 1990s, Canada cut back first under the Liberals.

The decline accelerated under the Tories and continues.

According to the Defence Department, Canada’s military personnel are spread over seven UN peacekeeping missions: five in Haiti, six in Darfur, 14 in South Sudan, nine in the Congo, one in Cyprus, three in the Golan Heights, and eight others with the UN’s Middle East truce supervision group.

Most are officers, serving on individual deployments, often filling staff jobs in UN mission headquarters. There isn’t a single unit of Canadian troops serving as peacekeepers in any of the UN’s current 16 missions.

Twenty years ago, more than one-third of Canada’s army was wearing the UN’s blue helmets (or blue berets, if the missions were less dangerous) with thousands of peacekeepers deployed in the Balkans, Somalia, the Golan Heights and Cyprus, as well as smaller missions.

Peacekeeping with the UN had become deeply ingrained in Canada’s post-war identity. Former prime minister Lester Pearson, widely regarded as the father of modern UN peacekeeping, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for organizing the United Nations Emergency Force after the Suez Crisis.

Recruiting for the Canadian Forces often stressed peacekeeping, including one poster featuring a terrified child clutching a teddy bear being rescued by a Canadian soldier. Ottawa created an international training centre for peacekeepers – named after Mr. Pearson – at a former Canadian Forces base in Nova Scotia in 1994. Since then, it has trained more than 18,000 peacekeepers from more than 150 countries, even as Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping has dropped to negligible levels.

Meanwhile, even as Canada opted out, UN peacekeeping has soared, with nearly 100,000 peacekeepers deployed worldwide on missions in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Canada’s handful of military and police personnel are dwarfed not only by top contributors like India, with more than 8,000 peacekeepers, but also Britain, France and Germany, which have also sent large contingents to war in Afghanistan.

Some regard Canada’s shift away from UN peacekeeping as a reflection of changing geopolitical realities, not just policy.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who famously commanded the Canadian contingent of UN peacekeepers that secured Sarajevo airport, opening a lifeline to the Europe’s largest besieged city since the Second World War, says Canadians are living a bygone dream.

“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,” he said in an interview. The era of Cold War peacekeeping, with UN forces interpositioned along ceasefire lines is over, he added, and the UN has shown it isn’t good at coping with messy sectarian wars.

As a result, he said, “Not just Canada, but a whole hockey sock of regular contributors, Scandinavian countries, Senegal, Fiji – a lot of them fell by the wayside because the [UN] can’t run these.”

After a decade of bloody, inconclusive war in Afghanistan, Canadians tell pollsters they want their military to return to UN peacekeeping as a priority.

In a 2010 Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail, barely one in five Canadians wanted more war-fighting missions like Afghanistan. Poll respondents ranked UN peacekeeping as the top priority for Canada’s military, ahead even of North American security and defending the Arctic.

Walter Dorn, a professor at the Canadian Forces Staff College, hopes for resurgence. “UN peace operations provide unparalleled legitimacy to international efforts,” he said in a statement issued by the Canadian chapter of the World Federalist Movement. “That’s why Canadians, as shown in many polls, continue to support peacekeeping, even when Canada is at an all-time low in contributions of personnel.”

Link to the mentioned 2010 Nanos poll Here (http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-W10-T443E.pdf)
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Journeyman on June 08, 2012, 13:47:45
Quote
Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie:
“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,” he said in an interview.

Shame it's buried near the end of the article, where the people who need to hear it are unlikely to ever see it.



Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: M2A on June 08, 2012, 13:55:23
The Nanos poll is also quite interesting.. looking through the variables - it seems at first glance that there is a generational effect were those respondants under 29 years of age, and over 60, responded more negatively to views on the war and if they would support another mission like Afghanistan.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: hagan_91 on June 08, 2012, 13:56:07
I think its been realized in past failures that in order to keep peace it has to be made first.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: medicineman on June 08, 2012, 20:07:18
Shame it's buried near the end of the article, where the people who need to hear it are unlikely to ever see it.

That never happens when there is an agenda...I say if this person is so hot and bothered, he should go serve on one of these missions to really feel what it's like between a veritable rock and a hard place.  His perscpective might change somewhat when he's got to stand around between a bunch of crazy people, with ROE given to him by crazier/stupider people, hoping he can effectively employ said ROE in a timely manner before becoming road pizza in the mad rush for one side to get at the other.  Conspicuous by its abscence is lack of mention of the UN's decidely low amounts of testicular fortitude in allowing it's contingents to actually enforce their mandates without micromanagement from some yahoo in NYC who'll never lay eyes or feet on the situation in person.

Rant off.

MM
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: HDE on June 08, 2012, 20:54:09
Hmm...

   Is a nation's score as a "peacekeeper" determined by anything other than the number of troops offered?   How does one capture the relative competencies/utility of the various offerings to the UN peacekeeping operations?  I picture a scenario where all sorts of badly trained, badly equiped and badly paid conscripts are offered.  At first glance their nation would be seen as a strong supporter of UN peacekeeping, far better than most western nations...

Sheer numbers is a pretty dodgy measure.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Colin P on June 11, 2012, 12:27:52
If we do anymore "peacekeeping" we need to set the mission goals and the equipment/troops needed. The UN has to agree to provide funding upfront for incurred costs and provide a 24hr 365 days of the year situation room where commanders on the ground can get support and decisions made on the spot.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: skyhigh10 on June 16, 2012, 20:58:00
If we do anymore "peacekeeping" we need to set the mission goals and the equipment/troops needed. The UN has to agree to provide funding upfront for incurred costs and provide a 24hr 365 days of the year situation room where commanders on the ground can get support and decisions made on the spot.

I agree with our previous CDS. Let's be frank, the UN is a bureaucratic nightmare and has arguably cost more people their lives over the years instead of doing what the organization was designed to do. The minute you invoke the "UN" card, I can assure you that you will receive no funding 24 hours a day - 365 days a year, and the commanders on the ground on the contrary will make few decisions with limited resources. 

Peacekeeping ...    such a terrible term. As if peace in half these places existed prior to us being there and so naturally we are keeping it.  We are arguably some of the worlds best peace enforcers !

 ???
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: cupper on June 17, 2012, 00:23:38
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the beginning of the end was with the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

Up until then, the typical peacekeeping mission came about as a result of a ceasefire agreement between the two opposing groups, with UN troops coming in to act as an enforcement agency to keep the lid on things long enough for the warring factions to settle their differences at the negotiating table.

With Yugo, there was no real peace or cease fire agreement. The UN and NATO had to go in and separate the factions. And things have never been the same since.

Also, in a way, the breakup of the Soviet Union could be considered the impetus, since they no longer were to reign in their client states.

Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Journeyman on June 17, 2012, 00:34:47
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the beginning of the end was with the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.
I'd suggest that the end was the collapse of the Berlin Wall, five years earlier.

When communism collapsed (everywhere except Canadian university Arts faculties), there was no further impetus for the two bloc leaders -- US and Soviet Union -- to *****-slap* their proxies into accepting peacekeepers because their sideshow activities were threatening to upset the applecart of 'strategic balance.'


* - *****-slap is an accepted International Relations term....honest.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: cupper on June 17, 2012, 00:48:01
I'd suggest that the end was the collapse of the Berlin Wall, five years earlier.

When communism collapsed (everywhere except Canadian university Arts faculties), there was no further impetus for the two bloc leaders -- US and Soviet Union -- to *****-slap* their proxies into accepting peacekeepers because their sideshow activities were threatening to upset the applecart of 'strategic balance.'


* - *****-slap is an accepted International Relations term....honest.

That's where I was going with that.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 12:51:57
Funny enough I just wrote something on this elsewhere yesterday, and my reply fits pretty well. If anyone knows a particular individual on Facebook and has seen this already, my apologies.

- - - - - -

I think the change, if any, is to be found in the increasingly internecine nature of 'civil' conflicts and border spats. Much of what we think of as 'traditional peacekeeping' was pre-1991, and so most parties had a patron on one side of the iron curtain or another- either the U.S. or Russia would have somewhat greater say in curbing excess via the simple expedient of cutting off availability of weapons, and the like. Yet at the same time, this patronage also provided a political umbrella. Conflicts prior to the fall of the Soviet Union seldom reached the intensity we see today, and if they did, they were probably in places so inconsequential that no party concerned itself with it.

Belligerents are more 'on their own' today. With the global bipolarity dynamic gone, the U.S. and Russia need not try to court proxies by showing a degree of tolerance or by providing weapons. Conversely, aggressors are more diplomatically isolated, and as a result probably less inclined to give a damn what everyone else thinks- they know they have nothing to gain but what they can forcefully take.

Traditional peacekeeping seems to have been more about keeping both (all?) sides honest, and within the bounds that the major powers were willing to accept. The thought that a belligerent just might not give a damn what we think is new to within two decades. Cajoling and chiding doesn't work anymore, and there are few carrots left to offer.

But the stick hasn't worked out too well either. So now what?
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2012, 15:53:47

But the stick hasn't worked out too well either. So now what?

More, bigger, swifter striking stick.

Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 16:06:53
More, bigger, swifter striking stick.

I wasn't aware that we had any significant deficiencies in our ability to pummel the ever-living f*** out of third world dictatorships. It would seem to me that western militaries that maintain the legacy of the intended to role to fight the soviets are probably suited for any conventionally forceful tasks we might imagine in a peacekeeping context.

For intervention to work - because when we start talking about use of force, intervention is what's really being spoken of, whether we call it peacekeeping or not - we need the means, the will (in turn informed by both moral and legal legitimacy) and the credibility. The means clearly isn't lacking for the *coercive* aspect. Moral legitimacy seldom is lacking, and legal framework is often provided by the mission mandates for traditional missions.

We can go after the enemy's *means* to commit belligerency - be it smashing Ghaddafi's or Assad's army - or their *will* to by making them no longer want to. We can make them no longer want to through incentive (we'll help you rebuild), or through disincentive (smashy smashy).

So I see two things lacking. First, credibility, as in, 'dick around and we'll destroy you'. This makes disincentive much harder, as we must be seen as willing to back our words with force. We're great as sitting back and watching atrocity and they know it. And I think we're still weak on the *non* coercive means; the stuff that shapes the *human* battlespace and acts more as the positive incentive to cease hostilities. Whether it's uniformed - IA capabilities, etc - or civic, in the guise of diplomacy, development, aid, etc.

We used to be much more willing to incentivize cooperation and disincentivize intransigence, but the disincentives that applied decades ago in the form of cutting off political support don't seem to play anymore. In Kosovo and Libya we've taken the first cautious steps I think into normalizing forceful disincentive.

But if we accept that legitimation of sufficient armed force to coerce a belligerent will be rare, then the alternatives have to be properly resourced, and the peacekeeping nations collectively will have to get their stuff together and take more unified approaches in convincing third world d-bags that it's in their tangible interest to cease atrocity.

And if we're going to continue down the Libya/Kosovo route, we'd better get more switched on about figuring out the end game post bellum.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2012, 16:21:41
I wasn't aware that we had any significant deficiencies in our ability to pummel the ever-living f*** out of third world dictatorships.

Afghanistan. Libya.

Those are going/went well, right ?

Quote
We can make them no longer want to through incentive (we'll help you rebuild),

Incentives have really worked keeping DPRK in line too........



Quote
Libya we've taken the first cautious steps I think into normalizing forceful disincentive.

Libya was step one in showing R2P, without serious commitment of forces might not be such a good idea.

Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 16:31:57
Afghanistan. Libya.

Those are going/went well, right ?

At what point in those conflicts have we been at all hindered by an inabilit yto kill people or break things that was not easily remedied by bringing in other kit that we just didn't have in theatre yet? You're clearly missing the point I'm trying to make here. When I speak of 'the means', I mean 'can we actually do it?' I would say resoundingly 'yes'. We've won every real *fight* we've gotten into, in the purest conventional tactical sense. The worst hit we took was Op Medusa, yet there was a damned nice road through Pashmul by the time I got there, and we had a FOB at either end of it.

Since I spoke of defeating state powers - the 'third world dictatorships' I mentioned - I have to point out that the government of Afghanistan has been on our side for some years now. And the rapid and violent dismantling of Libya's military speaks for itself.

Please try not to drag this too far off track into different discussions of counterinsurgency. While the sort of conflict in which one may peacekeep and the one in which one may wage COIN definitely overlap at the edges, that isn't really the part of the spectrum of conflict being talked about here.

Incentives have really worked keeping DPRK in line too........

This is a thread about peacekeeping, so this is a strawman on your part. Containment of rogue nuclear powers is a different discussion entirely.

Libya was step one in showing R2P, without serious commitment of forces might not be such a good idea.

Agreed. Which is the 'will' and 'credibility' I spoke to. Libya was an easy win(ish). The Libyan armed forces were easy to dominate militarily, and could not easily or effectively defend. The same approach would likely not work nearly so well in such a place as, say, Syria.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2012, 16:39:45
And the rapid and violent dismantling of Libya's military speaks for itself.

I was there. That it took NATO that long exemplifies our inability to "kill or break things" in an impressive manner. It hardly qualifies as "rapid". Libya was not a tough nut to crack and we still struggled.

It could have been over in a quarter of the time, had we had a bigger stick and the ability to use it faster.



Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 17:28:23
That it took NATO that long exemplifies our inability to "kill or break things" in an impressive manner. It hardly qualifies as "rapid". Libya was not a tough nut to crack and we still struggled.

It could have been over in a quarter of the time, had we had a bigger stick and the ability to use it faster.

Please tell me per contributing nation what percentage of that nation's tactical bombing capacity was deployed. We (the collective 'we') did have both the 'sticks' and the ability to use them- and chose not to. Most of them simply never left their hangars back home. I bet pretty much every nation that contributed aircraft could have, if we had chosen to, contributed five or ten times the number of combat aircraft than we actually did. Based on the numbers of aircraft publicly announced by participating nations there look to have been less than 150 bomb trucks, and that's without me having gone to the effort to whittle that number down by the nations whose aircraft didn't actually drop ordnance. If you're going to insist the west does not possess the ability to do what I've said we can, please tell me what assets are lacking completely, as opposed to simply sitting at home after nations chose not to deploy them?

I would in response suggest looking at the Gulf War, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq if you want an indicator as to how quickly and effectively the west can destroy an army if we choose to take the gloves off and actually send a considerable amount of force.

Also, make allowance for the fact that not going all out was a policy decision borne of the need to be seen to be exercising restraint and to avoid collateral damage. And for the fact that the only Western ground forces were unconventional ones, necessarily limited in numbers, and consequently limited in how much battlespace they could 'eyes-on' and FAC some birds in.

Quote
I was there.

And I was in Afghanistan. Doesn't mean I get to argue that conflict based merely on my presence, without the bothersome analysis of relevant factors.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2012, 17:47:12
If you're going to insist the west does not possess the ability to do what I've said we can, please tell me what assets are lacking completely,

Right at the most basic, there was of a shortage of bombs. OUP stretched many of our allies to unsustainable levels, even though it was essentially in their backyards, with a secure logistical tail. The RAF for example could not manage to deploy its Typhoons to OUP and maintain domestic QRA without shutting down the OTU and deploying the instructor pilots. The RAF narrowly avoided not being able to deploy required SIGINT aircraft by a matter of days. There was an acute shortage of dedicated ISR aircraft.

We were not lacking of anything completely. The was a shortage of everything.

Quote
I would in response suggest looking at the Gulf War, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq if you want an indicator as to how quickly and effectively the west can destroy an army if we choose to take the gloves off and actually send a considerable amount of force.

That capability existed in 1991. We're in 2012. Even our own military is considerably smaller. The UK's military is not getting larger either. Without US involvement, your entire scenario does not get off the ground.

Quote
Also, make allowance for the fact that not going all out was a policy decision borne of the need to be seen to be exercising restraint and to avoid collateral damage. 

That same constraint will continue to apply wherever we go.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2012, 17:52:11
But, i agree on one thing, this is quite the side track and will follow your request and not derail it further.
Title: Re: The end, or resumption, of peacekeeping?
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 17:59:12
Right at the most basic, there was of a shortage of bombs. OUP stretched many of our allies to unsustainable levels, even though it was essentially in their backyards, with a secure logistical tail. The RAF for example could not manage to deploy its Typhoons to OUP and maintain domestic QRA without shutting down the OTU and deploying the instructor pilots. The RAF narrowly avoided not being able to deploy required SIGINT aircraft by a matter of days. There was an acute shortage of dedicated ISR aircraft.

We were not lacking of anything completely. The was a shortage of everything.

That capability existed in 1991. We're in 2012. Even our own military is considerably smaller. The UK's military is not getting larger either. Without US involvement, your entire scenario does not get off the ground.

That same constraint will continue to apply wherever we go.

OK, fair enough- I didn't realize that actual physical ordnance had been in such short supply.; I'll absolutely buy that. Long term, that's a relatively easy one to solve if it's merely a matter of making and stockpiling more ordnance, and keeping it checked out.

I agree that US involvement is going to be pretty close to a sine qua non of getting much done when it becomes time to get coercive, and I have no trouble believing that Libya stretched the ability of the west minus (mostly) the U.S. to do these things.

Regarding the sustainability of larger forces- would it be fair to argue that a larger, more forceful surge early on, taking greatest advantage of still-concentrated enemy force, could have a greater return on investment in the short term, allowing for a fairly rapid reduction in forces down to more sustainable levels? Strategically, is there likely to be any threat that would emerge so quickyl and so seriously that a redeployment away from an intervention mission could not realistically be achieved quickly enough?

Again, I still maintain that we've drifted well away from what we'd consider to be peacekeeping in most traditional models. And in Libya we had the curious factor of being almost completely reliant on air power, rather than augmenting with mechanized ground forces that can recce, contain, fix, and strike enemy forces in their own right- the combined arms whole, I think, being more than just the sum of its parts. A 120mm HEAT will do an AFV just as well as a GBU, after all. I also would argue that, in the intervention context, a Western mechanized force would have the additional benefit of giving enemy forces someone to surrender to. That was also seen in Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

It's hard to argue some things based on Libya due to how nearly completely is was an air war from our end of things. If authorization of force under R2P is to continue in future, ground forces would seem to be a requisite if what we did in Libya was in fact as logistically challenging as you suggest.

Of course, I'm also a grunt, and tend to think of things in such terms- so take my bias into account.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Brihard on June 17, 2012, 17:59:47
We posted across each other there...

Maybe there's room for a split here to separate discussion on the viability of forceful intervention?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Brad Sallows on June 24, 2012, 12:03:04
"we"

I've noticed a tendency in international affairs to misspell "US".  ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on June 24, 2012, 12:06:24
"we"

I've noticed a tendency in international affairs to misspell "US".  ;D



I though we was French for us.  :-[
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 09, 2013, 11:00:50
A bump with the latest from the PM (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=3&featureId=6&pageId=49&id=5593) marking National Peacekeepers’ Day....
Quote
"For several decades, Canada has made important contributions to peacekeeping operations around the world.

"Tens of thousands of Canadian Armed Forces members, police officers and civilians have worked tirelessly to promote Canada's interests and international stability.  This has included placing themselves between hostile forces, supervising cease-fires and the withdrawal of opposing troops, providing valuable support to international security operations and stabilization efforts through capacity building, training and policy development, and participating in strategic deployments of equipment and uniformed personnel and civilian experts."

“On this day, let us pay tribute to the remarkable work accomplished by all Canadian and international peacekeepers and remember with deep respect the more than 275 citizens of our country who paid the ultimate price while on peacekeeping missions.

“Let us also remember those Canadians currently keeping up the proud tradition of peacekeeping in places such as Haiti, Israel, Cyprus and South Sudan, and wish them a safe return home.

“Today, I call on all Canadians to join me in saluting and thanking these heroic and selfless individuals who sacrifice so much to help make the world a better place.”
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on March 30, 2015, 23:10:15
The US is expressing a new I terest in UN peace operations, so Canadian proponents are taking the opportunity to champion the idea of the CAF as a peacekeeping force.

If we want to craft a force capable of undertaking the lead nation role on a peace operation, then we need to craft a force that is capable of undertaking the lead nation role on a combat operation.

Quote
Can Canada's army return to peacekeeping?
For the first time since 9/11 and with the world still aflame, the U.S. is urging allies to revive the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. But is it too late for Canada's combat-focused army, once the best in the blue helmet business, to be part of the new program?
Toronto Star
Mitch Potter
Mar 30 2015

When the most senior military brass from more than 100 countries gather for a historic summit you might expect Canada’s top soldier to join them.

Especially when the entire point of the gathering is to modernize and reinvigorate a Canadian idea for the age of threats like the Islamic State militant group, being there moves beyond expectation into the realm of mandatory.

Yet examine the images from UN headquarters in New York on Friday, where the planet’s military leaders gathered in unprecedented numbers in a major drive to rewire peacekeeping for the 21st century, and Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Tom Lawson, is not in the picture. He wasn’t there.

As everyone knows, the Canadian Forces are not in the blue helmet business anymore. From a peak of 3,300 Canadians deployed to honour Lester B. Pearson’s Nobel Prize-winning concept of UN peacekeeping, only a token 90 serve today — 30 soldiers and 60 police officers.

Our army, once a leader in protecting civilians trapped by conflict, now is wired pretty much exclusively for war.

But what you probably don’t know is that a UN peacekeeping renaissance is in the works. And the effort is depending on technologically advanced allies like Canada to step up big.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon laid down the opening marker Friday in his address to the Chiefs of Defence Conference, calling for the “unity and backing” of developed countries to smart-wire, train, equip and staff a bigger, faster, fleeter international army of blue helmets to meet evermore complex challenges.

UN peacekeeping has never been busier, despite Canada’s exit from the realm. A record 130,000 international, military, police and civilian staff today serve in 16 operations around the world. These are unprecedented numbers.

But those missions are more complex, difficult and dangerous than ever. And the UN chief, with the full backing of the United States, is calling for not only additional “boots on the ground” from developing nations, but also new tools and technology, including surveillance drones, strategic airlift, medical evacuation and modern intelligence capabilities to better protect civilians and blue helmets alike.

The world must oppose “this terrorizing campaign by ISIL/Da’esh,” said Ban, using other terms in use for the Islamic State. But military actions, he said, are far from “the only options or only ways” to defeat extremism. Part of the answer is a stronger international partnership aimed at root causes, including a new global consensus to rebuild the “unparalleled legitimacy” of UN peacekeeping.

Canada is hardly alone in its drift away from peacekeeping. Europe has also dialed down its contributions, with EU member nations now providing fewer than 7 per cent of the overall UN peacekeeping force from a high of more than 40 per cent. The top 10 contributors today comprise troops from South Asia and Africa.

But the White House, which provides $2.5 billion (U.S.) of the UN’s annual $8.5-billion peacekeeping budget, wants its allies back in the peacekeeping game. U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to get involved personally in September, when he will chair a meeting at the UN General Assembly to tally up new blue helmet pledges.

The U.S. pivot on peacekeeping marks a turning point, according to Jean-Marie Guehenno, a former UN peacekeeping chief and now president of the International Crisis Group. Since the attacks of 9/11, U.S. policy has focused on NATO and alliances to meet conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond.

“Now, when the U.S. says, ‘You’re our allies, and one of the best ways to show that friendship is to contribute to the UN,’ that’s quite a signal,” Guehenno told The Associated Press.

Should Canada answer the call? Could we, even? Some Canadian analysts argue our current combat-ready, NATO-aligned military orientation makes the notion of a significant, sustained return to peacekeeping almost a non-starter.

“It’s not impossible. But to take the Canadian Forces as they currently exist and to recraft them into a force capable to leading a peacekeeping mission in the absence of its allies is a pretty significant reconsideration,” said Philippe Lagassé, associate professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

“When Canada operates overseas, it does so in heavy dependence of allies, and particularly the United States, for things like transport and logistics. Looking to any approach that doesn’t fit with that vision would involve a major reassessment of Canada’s force structure.”

But Walter Dorn, one of the last Canadian defence scholars who still teaches advanced peacekeeping classes, says the issue warrants serious reconsideration, given the level of U.S. interest in a blue helmet revival.

“The U.S. effort is genuine. I’ve been to Washington three times in recent months to talk with the (U.S.) Department of Defense on helping bring United Nations peacekeeping technology into the 21st century,” said Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces College.

“And I think the key here is that the two approaches can coexist. It’s not one or the other and nothing in between. We can excel in combat and excel in peacekeeping. It comes down to questions of training and political will.”

In recent years the Canadian Forces have been “wired for war,” said Dorn. “But the skills we once had are not completely gone. Close to 30 per cent of Canadian officer command and staff having served as peacekeepers.”

Dorn has spent years arguing for a partial Canadian pivot back to peacekeeping. Among the potential dividends, he notes, are recouped costs. Canada pays every penny of its deployments alongside NATO — price tags like the $14 billion spent on war with Afghanistan. But the world pays for a significant part of UN peacekeeping, with contributor nations reimbursed about 25 per cent of soldiers’ salaries and close to 50 per cent on equipment costs.

“It’s the reputation dividend that is harder to quantify, and it’s not a simple equation,” said Dorn.

“It’s sheer naivety to think that peacekeeping alone makes all the difference. But at the same time, reputation does matter. And when you are seen as contributing to the cause for peace you are viewed as less of an aggressor,” he said.

“You look at Canada’s unique role in the genesis of peacekeeping, our absence of colonial baggage, our multilingual forces. You add to that the big change now, with the UN and the U.S. very serious about getting developed countries to return to peacekeeping.

“What it adds up to is a perfect moment to Canadians to reflect on where we are going, as a military and as a nation.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/03/29/can-canadas-army-return-to-peacekeeping.html
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 31, 2015, 00:07:25
I recall my tours in Cyprus. The contingents were all European and Canadians. Things were pretty stable.

Compare this with 1993. In our sector we had Argies, Nepalese and Jordanians. Things weren't so stable.

I know the political situation didn't help, but allowing poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly led and corrupt armies to participate in peacekeeping operations proved to be a huge mistake.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: TCBF on April 01, 2015, 22:34:22
- Not to mention their adventures in personal and unit hygiene.
 ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on April 01, 2015, 23:32:46
- Not to mention their adventures in personal and unit hygiene.
 ;D

Or lack thereof.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on April 02, 2015, 12:17:32
yes and guess what, you can't sue them when they introduce new and exotic diseases into your country.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/10/us-un-haiti-lawsuit-idUSKBN0KJ0PX20150110

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 03, 2015, 00:24:38
Yes lets send UN blue helmets to Iraq and Yemen.  There is just so much peace waiting to be kept these days.

 Yugo, Somalia, Rwanda.  They were all glowing UN mission successes.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on April 10, 2015, 12:18:11
Interesting statistics buried in an article on Canadian support for the Iraq & Syria mission.  It seems the peacekeeping myth is still alive, but it is fading.
Quote
Canadians support the war (for now)
Michael Adams
The Globe and Mail
09 Apr 2015

...

Historically, the public has taken great pride in Canadian peacekeeping efforts, and in Lester Pearson’s role in the development of modern peacekeeping. Even after Canada’s actual peacekeeping activity declined to almost nothing, a plurality of the public has continued to see peacekeeping as their country’s most positive contribution to the world. In 1993, 40 per cent of Canadians saw peacekeeping as their top contribution, the most popular answer by far. Foreign aid came in second at 19 per cent. By 2011, just 18 per cent of Canadians named peacekeeping as Canada’s best contribution to the world, a substantially smaller proportion but still the top answer. Foreign aid still came in second (13 per cent).

...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadians-support-the-war-for-now/article23854659/
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: SprCForr on April 10, 2015, 12:27:46
Or lack thereof.

I had (successfully) suppressed that memory. Until now.

Gah.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on April 10, 2015, 14:16:17
Maybe we should start by getting people to read these again:

http://www.ruxted.ca/archives/76-The-Truth-About-Peacekeeping.html
http://ruxted.ca/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html
http://ruxted.ca/archives/37-Changing-the-Guard.html

I'm sure there are plenty of other pieces that lay out the arguments
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on April 10, 2015, 15:26:40
I had (successfully) suppressed that memory. Until now.

Gah.

 :facepalm:

Yes, the French being but one. Czechs as bad if not worse.

Maybe we should start by getting people to read these again:

http://www.ruxted.ca/archives/76-The-Truth-About-Peacekeeping.html
http://ruxted.ca/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html
http://ruxted.ca/archives/37-Changing-the-Guard.html

I'm sure there are plenty of other pieces that lay out the arguments

I had to write a paper for an OPME. I'll dig out out one day and post it for you.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 10, 2015, 22:31:12
Quote
Can Canada's army return to peacekeeping?
For the first time since 9/11 and with the world still aflame, the U.S. is urging allies to revive the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. But is it too late for Canada's combat-focused army, once the best in the blue helmet business, to be part of the new program?
Toronto Star
Mitch Potter
Mar 30 2015

The reason our soldiers were so good at peacekeeping was because at the time we were training for total war with the Soviet Union and her minions. In fact, peacekeeping was only a very small portion of our training, and then usually just prior to units deploying on a peacekeeping mission.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: TCBF on April 10, 2015, 22:52:54
- At any given time up to the early seventies, we probably had more people engaged in the secure storage and training for the use/launch of nuclear weapons than we did peacekeeping.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on April 10, 2015, 23:14:07
Quote
Can Canada's army return to peacekeeping?


...... But is it too late for Canada's combat-focused army,


Mitch Potter
Mar 30 2015

That has to be one of the, if not THE, stupidest statements I have read in a long time.  Mitch Potter just showed the informed world his total ignorance of what it takes to make up a "Peacekeeping Force".  Lester Pearson knew that the best "Peacekeepers" would be highly trained, professional combat soldiers and set out with that in mind when he proposed "Peacekeeping".
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 11, 2015, 08:48:06
That has to be one of the, if not THE, stupidest statements I have read in a long time.  Mitch Potter just showed the informed world his total ignorance of what it takes to make up a "Peacekeeping Force".  Lester Pearson knew that the best "Peacekeepers" would be highly trained, professional combat soldiers and set out with that in mind when he proposed "Peacekeeping".


Except he, Mike Pearson, didn't 'propose peacekeeping,' it, including the notion of UN forces, was already there, since the 1940s. Pearson stick-handled a sneaky, tricky resolution through the UN's political system, foiling the USSR and, simultaneously, rescuing Britain, France and Israel from President Eisenhower's wrath. He earned his Nobel Peace Prize, just not for "inventing" peacekeeping.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on April 11, 2015, 09:39:11
Have a look:

The Peacekeeping Mythology That Will Not Die
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=1084

Canadian Suez Policy was not About the Middle East
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=105

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 15, 2016, 13:38:57
Michael de Adder strikes again.

Chronicle Herald Cartoon 15 Feb 2016 (http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2016-02-15-editorial-cartoon)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on April 25, 2016, 07:46:04
Had to see THIS coming (http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1359297-liberals-urged-to-reopen-new-version-of-pearson-peacekeeping-training-centre) ...
Quote
The Liberals are facing calls to reopen a new peacekeeping training centre three years after the demise of Canada's former school, The Canadian Press has learned.

The new centre would be located in Kingston, Ont., near the Canadian Forces base and military college, but would be a civilian-led operation, essentially a revitalization of the Pearson Centre, which was shuttered in 2013.

The proposal comes from the Canadian non-governmental organization Canadem (https://canadem.ca/), a contractor that has established a reputation for staffing United Nations missions with civilian experts in security reform, election monitoring and building democratic institutions.

One of the Liberal government's major foreign policy planks is to return the country to UN peacekeeping missions after Canada's contribution dwindled to an all-time low of a few dozen.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a UN audience recently that Canada would be recommitting itself to peacekeeping as part of its bid to win a temporary seat on the world body's Security Council in 2020.

But the capacity of Canada's military to conduct peacekeeping operations has largely disappeared after a decade of war-fighting in Afghanistan, a recent report suggests, amplifying the need for a new training centre.

"Many of the senior command recognize their need to re-invigorate their training for UN peace operations and recognize the advantages of drawing upon civilian trainers," said Paul LaRose-Edwards, Canadem's executive director.

LaRose-Edwards said his agency maintains a list of experts who can fill that void ...
More via link
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on April 25, 2016, 08:30:52
From the same article:
Had to see THIS coming (http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1359297-liberals-urged-to-reopen-new-version-of-pearson-peacekeeping-training-centre) ...More via link

"Many of the senior command recognize their need to re-invigorate their training for UN peace operations.... [Name two. OK, name one, but who isn't either: retiring in the next 6 months looking for post-CAF employment and/or isn't associated with PSTC (gee, already in Kingston; wouldn't have to move) ]

The Pearson Centre in Cornwallis, N.S., was closed in 2013, after its government funding dried up. Its demise came after the Canadian Forces refocused itself on the Afghan war in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Gee, only 12 years to realize that it was merely a cash-cow from some specific individuals

LaRose-Edwards said civilians have a lot to learn from the military, such as mine awareness and personal protection.< note, those are specific skills] Meanwhile, military personnel would benefit from training that civilians would receive on how UN operations actually work.].< note, that is generic waffling -- which is how UN operations actually  work  (unless you also want to use big words, like "sinecure" when referring to UN staffers) ]
  Yep, we couldn't do Ch 6 peacekeeping anymore (without the benefit of civilians with their hands' out) because many spent time in Afghanistan -- clearly a "lost generation."

Back to the trough, piggies.   ::)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on April 25, 2016, 09:00:38
Canadem has never seen a Government of Canada cheque it didn't like - they're positively Senatorial in their view of the public purse.

And the article quotes an academic from the Canadian Forces College in Toronto on Peacekeeping, without the context that his PhD is in Chemistry...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 25, 2016, 11:10:44
To be fair, Dataperson, Dr. Dorn has done a lot more than chemistry, particularly on the UN peace operations side of things, since getting his PhD. He is, however, one of the most vocal Blue-Beret-Peaceniks in Canada, but just happens to have found employment within DND (which is fine: top brass has to be exposed to different ideas to be able to learn to think these things through for themselves). However, using his name to support your view on the need to "train" in UN peace operations is akin to the CBC saying it's views on the environment are right because they are endorsed by their very own Dr. Suzuki.  :nod:
 
On the other hand, IMHO, all these years the Canadian Army just spent in Afghanistan has actually improved their readiness for any peace operation - not decreased it. They have better training, readiness and equipment for it now than they have had for along time before that.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on April 25, 2016, 11:22:41

On the other hand, IMHO, all these years the Canadian Army just spent in Afghanistan has actually improved their readiness for any peace operation - not decreased it. They have better training, readiness and equipment for it now than they have had for along time before that.

Did we not jettison most of that "specialized" equipment that we purchased for Afghanistan?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ArmyVern on April 25, 2016, 11:29:26
Did we not jettison most of that "specialized" equipment that we purchased for Afghanistan?

Sure; the Mission Closure Unit sold off a lot of buildings (to other ISAF nations), equipment, vehicles and other assets that were deemed by Ottawa to no longer be required.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 25, 2016, 11:39:30
I could be wrong here (and please, SME's chime in if need be), but I am pretty sure that we still have the G-Wagon's (remember, we had the Iltis at the beginning), AHSVS, Leopard 2A6M, RG-31 Nyala (at least until they are replaced by the TAPV), the Buffalo A2, M777 Howitzer, the engineers Arva protected backhoes and, the Chinook helicopters.

All these were acquired on an ongoing basis with AGH as the logic supporting acquisition - I would almost put the C-17's in there also.

And George, let's not forget one of the most important thing: Courage and discipline under fire. Few things stand you in better stead when doing modern "peacekeeping" operation than the discipline and courage required to calmly, methodically and intelligently dealing with situations while under fire. You can't get better training for that than the situations our soldiers faced in Afghanistan.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: 0tto Destruct on April 25, 2016, 11:54:36
I don't know Paul Larose-Edwards, but the article left out a lot of information. I worked for the Pearson Centre between 2007 and 2013 when they closed.

First off, the Centre hadn't been based in Cornwallis for a number of years. They originally opened there in 1994 roughly after CFB Cornwallis closed, but eventually the 'headquarters' moved to Ottawa around 2005-6. Cornwallis had some staff remaining in order to facilitate a number of UN Staff Officer courses, but we left there for good when those ended. There was also a small office in Halifax I’ll mention in a sec.

Fun Fact! The Centre had its government funding gutted for a number of years prior to closing. We initially used to do a lot of research into armed conflicts (we had a number of civilian academics on staff for this purpose) in addition to training. By the time I started there the Centre was only funded about 4 million/year, split between DFAIT and DND through contribution agreements, so a lot of the academic stuff dried up. Fearing further cuts (but also in an attempt to better advertise the fact that we were also trying to stay with the times) we removed the ‘peacekeeping’ from our name, rebranding as the “Pearson Centre”.

In terms of what we actually did for the GoC, they (or we) would identify projects (run an SGBV course, develop a training package on how to run a UN mission, etc) and we would do the work on their behalf. This only accounted for a small amount of our overall business however so we had to come up with a lot of our own money, mainly though our Exercises department. In time (I think around 2012) we lost all government funding. We made it about a year before we closed after that last bit of funding dried up, but that was our own doing.

The branch office in Halifax was dedicated to developing and delivering Exercises for NATO/EU operational HQs. This is where I worked, and we were entirely self-funded. Our clients were mainly NATO Rapid Response Corps Headquarters (we worked with 3-4 of them over the years) or the EU Battlegroups, but we also did other work with the African Union. In the case of NATO/EU, we had a very Afghanistan-like focus, at an operational level so the training was directed at the 3-star general and his staff (not Chapter 6-type peacekeeping stuff!). In addition to scenario development (think the Common Army Training Scenario, but on steroids), we would assist the G7 staff with developing and delivering the exercise, and source experts (diplomats and other civilian experts, police officers, and the like) to participate as role-players and advisors. As an example, we had someone who worked with the UN Office of Drugs and Crime in Kabul (and was a personal advisor for a couple of COMISAF as well) who played that part on our exercises. We had a lot of talented people support us. Due to some internal (personality) conflicts, the exercises department office in Halifax closed in 2010 or so, moving some key staff to Ottawa. I think it speaks volumes that a (number of) NATO HQs, enroute to taking over ISAF, chose to pay a contractor (us) to not only help them develop and deliver their centrepiece exercise, but chose to do this instead of just using the Joint Warfare Centre's resources (and NATO-standard scenario).

In addition to our exercises, we also developed and delivered a variety of UN courses: sex and gender-based violence training and basic UN police officer courses, up to training aimed at senior UN leadership on how to run missions. I remember we developed a training package for the Afghanistan National Police on elections security a number of years ago (we didn't deliver it however). We did do some of this training in Canada (in Cornwallis) but it was delivered mainly at UN peacekeeping training centres located throughout Africa and Latin America. While we had some support from the Directorate of Military Training and Cooperation (DMTC) in the form of secondments and military advisors, that eventually dried up (again, personality conflicts). Our training material was accredited by the UN, but we had very little to do with them.

Where I sit, we did some very worthwhile work for a pittance to the Canadian taxpayer. No exaggeration, but we trained (or developed course material used in training for) thousands of peacekeepers, at all levels. Although Canada has gotten away from peacekeeping, it still goes on in the world. The UN is terribly dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean peacekeeping isn't important, and it sure hadn't become any less dangerous for the troops and police officers who still do it. My colleagues provided a tremendous service teaching police officers, staff officers, and senior mission leadership about how to do the job as well as can be expected under the circumstances, using people who had extensive experience doing the job themselves. If Canada has any positive reputation within the police and militaries of troop contributing nations, the Pearson Centre had a lot to do with that. I think it speaks volumes about the Centre’s reputation that groups like CANADEM (and Calian, apparently…if they’re looking at Kingston) want to pick the three-year dead bones of the Pearson Centre. In many respects they were competitors for some of the activities we conducted, especially once we lost that umbrella of government funding and had to start singing for our supper, so to speak.

I will also say that, while I had a fantastic group of colleagues at the working level, we were not particularly well managed (one or two folks in particular stand out who really didn’t do us any favours, but it is what it is). Our demise was a drawn-out affairs and largely self-inflicted, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of really outstanding work happened quietly and without notice for many years that actually made a difference, both on UN missions and in more current theatres like Afghanistan. We supported both, but not in Canada.

Anyway, I hardly ever post here anymore, but I read some of the comments here and felt I had to speak up. I just want to dispel any characterization our organization was a cash cow for over-paid liberal supporters to teach mine awareness training. Yes we had a few of those types over the years. I don’t care who sat on our board, their ties to past governments, or their reputations…they were an unwelcome distraction to the people that actually had to do the work. I'm proud of what I did there.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on April 25, 2016, 11:56:29
Dorn is, charitably, not in the top tier of Canadian academe.  He co-authored a piece on the three-block war that missed the point of Krulak's essay entirely.  He wrote (emphasis in the original):

Quote
Personnel cannot and should not be expected to serve as humanitarian workers, peacekeepers, and warfighters all at the same time, and within a small area. Combat should be separated as much as possible from other functions, which should, preferably, be done by distinct organizations, including UN agencies, police, and peacekeepers.
Critiquing a model for daring to highlight the reality of friction caused by conflicting mandates does not contribute to useful analysis or discussion.  Talmudic "thou shalt nots" add little to the discussion.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 13, 2016, 21:08:15
Seems a decision is coming soon on where we're headed on the "Canada's Back Peacekeeping Tour 2016".

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/12/canada-un-peacekeeping_n_10954236.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/12/canada-un-peacekeeping_n_10954236.html)

Quote
Canada Preparing To Commit Troops To UN Peacekeeping Missions: Sources
Posted: 07/12/2016 10:34 pm EDT Updated: 07/12/2016 10:59 pm EDT
Althia Raj

OTTAWA — Canada may soon announce it will commit troops to new peacekeeping missions, The Huffington Post Canada has learned.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion told HuffPost Tuesday the Liberal government wants to “re-energize” Canadian leadership in key areas and in multilateral institutions.

“Canada will increase its support to UN peace operations, extending beyond peacekeeping to include the equally important civilian components of conflict prevention, mediation, and peacebuilding efforts,” said Chantal Gagnon.

Government sources said decisions would be made in the coming months.

The United Nations is organizing a meeting in London this September, when pledges will be made and future contributions discussed, a UN spokeswoman told HuffPost.

Over the weekend, the Liberals announced Canada would lead a NATO mission in Latvia to curb Russian aggression and deploy 450 troops, a frigate and up to six CF-18 fighter aircrafts. Dion told The Canadian Press, “It is terribly unfortunate that Canada has to deploy its forces in Latvia instead of having peacekeeping in Africa or in an area of the world where it is much more needed.”

The foreign affairs minister is on a rare vacation and was unavailable for an interview. But his office insisted the new NATO deployment will not prevent the Canadian Armed Forces from participating in new peace and security missions.

“Min. Dion has been clear that we will still implement our renewed peacekeeping strategy and that we've had lots of specific requests from other countries to consider, including in Africa (e.g. CAR [Central African Republic], Mali),” his chief of staff, Julian Ovens, wrote in an email.

Dion’s office would not specify what those requests are, but said they’re currently being evaluated in conjunction with the Department of National Defence.

    “... we will welcome additional support, particularly in the areas of training, capacity building, engineering, aviation and medical support. ”
    — UN spokeswoman Ismini Palla

The UN said it would welcome additional aid from Canada.

"Peacekeeping is increasingly in need of high-technology assets and specialized skills,” said spokeswoman Ismini Palla.

“While Canada is already contributing to UN Peacekeeping, we will welcome additional support, particularly in the areas of training, capacity building, engineering, aviation and medical support.

Some info on the 2 UN peacekeeping missions mentioned:

Mali - Known as MINUSMA http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/ (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/)

Quote
Strength - Current authorization

15,209 total uniformed personnel, including
13,289 military personnel
1,920 police (including formed units)
An appropriate civilian component

Central African Republic - Known as MINUSCA - http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusca/ (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusca/)

Quote
Current Authorization [resolution 2212 of 26 March 2015]

12,870 total uniformed personnel, including:
10,750 military personnel (including 240 military observers and 200 staff officers)
2,120 police (including 1,400 formed units personnel, 680 individual police officers and 40 corrections officers)
An appropriate significant civilian component

Current strength (31 March 2016)

11,846 total uniformed personnel
9,799 military personnel
1,896 police (including formed units)
151 military observers
518 international civilian personnel
242 local civilian staff
184 United Nations Volunteers

Who is contributing to those missions? http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_5.pdf (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_5.pdf)

Just a side note, if we add 1000 peacekeepers on a sustained basis, Canada still won't be "back". We'll move up to 26 on the list, from 88. Illustrious peacekeeping countries such as:

Quote
1. Bangladesh 9,432
2. Ethiopia 8,309
3. India 7,794
4. Pakistan 7,533
5. Rwanda 5,685
6. Nepal 5,346
7. Senegal 3,628
8. Ghana 3,242
9. China 3,079
10. Nigeria 2,968
11. Burkina Faso 2,908
12. Indonesia 2,727
13. United Republic of Tanzania 2,342
14. Morocco 2,320
15. South Africa 2,165
16. Egypt 2,090
17. Niger 2,040
18. Togo 1,777
19. Jordan 1,627
20. Benin 1,495
21. Uruguay 1,463
22. Cameroon 1,358
23. Brazil 1,299
24. Burundi 1,265
25. Chad 1,162

These guys will all still be ahead of us.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on July 13, 2016, 21:22:07
We'll be the lead Western force, then.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 13, 2016, 21:53:20
My bet would be on Colombia--blue beret trad, actual agreement to, er, police--not too many personnel and not much risk.  Plus, maybe, something for Mali: airlift, comms, int?

Quote
Netherlands and UN Peacekeeping (sort of) in Mali–Canada?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/mark-collins-netherlands-and-un-peacekeeping-sort-of-in-mali-canada/

US, New Government and Canadian Forces: UN Peacekeeping (Colombia, Africa)? NATO in E. Europe? Both?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/mark-collins-us-new-government-and-canadian-forces-un-peacekeeping-colombia-africa-nato-in-e-europe-both/

Latvia with NATO vs UN Peacekeeping: Where Government’s Heart Truly is
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/mark-collins-latvia-with-nato-vs-un-peacekeeping-where-governments-heart-truly-is/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 13, 2016, 21:58:45
Mali is full of risk. UN bases are under consistent IDF attacks. UN convoys have been ambushed with suicide bombers and SAF. This is the problem with the government policy. They incorrectly assume that Blue Berets (TM) mean people won't die, or get attacked. They'll find out pretty damn quick that is not the case. We'll also the one of the only major western contributors, marking a giant target on our nice blue berets/helmets (we'll need the helmets).

Oh well, I'll get 2 medals out of my 6 months, just hope I don't end up with head space and timing issues from the terrible ROE the UN is likely to impose.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on July 13, 2016, 22:01:28
Africa does not want white, western, armed troops there. We've known that for years and have avoided it, as much as possible, because of that.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: YZT580 on July 14, 2016, 00:29:18
The french deployed the legion there and they were not repeat were NOT wearing blue and they always kept one round chambered.  It is not a peace keeping mission it is peace making, involving APC's escorting civilian convoys to guard against ambush and land mines.  There will be casualties.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 14, 2016, 13:16:40
Africa does not want white, western, armed troops there. We've known that for years and have avoided it, as much as possible, because of that.

Then lets STFO of Africa.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on July 14, 2016, 13:24:35
I think the people being preyed upon would LOVE professional, white, well trained, well equipped, well paid military forces to be there to protect them.  Forces they can rely on to be unbiased, and they don't have to worry about raping them & beating them.

On that note, I think people WOULD like us to be there.

But in the end, sadly, I agree.  Africa is a lost cause when it comes to this kind of thing.  The problems are too deeply rooted & too pervasive for us to make any sort of permanent change.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on July 14, 2016, 13:37:31
This may sound like a total lack of humanity, but after several decades of the UN and others trying to bring "peace" to some of these nations/continents; the drastic step of withdrawing all aid and attempts to bring peace to those regions may be the best and most economical solution.  Peacekeeping is only a temporary cessation of hostilities; hostilities that reemerge as soon as the Peacekeepers are gone.  Let's instead, let them solve their own problems, even if it means one faction completely annihilating another, and then if the remaining faction is acceptable to our standards we accept them.  If they are unacceptable of our morals and ethics, then we blockade them and leave them to "die of their own devices".  We can not save those who refuse to be saved.  Why try and prolong their agony?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: YZT580 on July 14, 2016, 13:44:48
"I think the people being preyed upon would LOVE professional, white, well trained, well equipped, well paid military forces to be there to protect them.  Forces they can rely on to be unbiased, and they don't have to worry about raping them & beating them."  For the last    half century i.e. since the end of colonialism, the general population of most of these nations have been taught that white= oppression.  We would be about as welcome as an old-time southern sheriff at a "black lives matter" convention.  In other words, not at all.  Plus there is the problem of getting out afterwards.  We can probably stop most of the Boko Harem attacks through aerial surveillance and active pursuit but as soon as we leave, things will return to the way they are. We cannot re-build something that was never there in the first place. I fear that sending troops into Mali is nothing more than Trudeau providing human sacrifices on the altar of U.N. acceptability. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 14, 2016, 16:26:50
1,000 personnel available for peacekeeping?

Liberals consider peacekeeping mission to Africa
The Liberal government is weighing proposals to send a peacekeeping force, likely to Africa, as it reasserts Canada's presence on the world stage.

The Liberal government is considering proposals to deploy Canadian troops on a peacekeeping operation, likely to Africa, as part of its pledge that Canada is back on the world stage.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday that defence planners are looking at various possibilities but signaled that soldiers could be destined to Africa to help curb Islamic extremists.

“We will be moving ahead on this because it’s very important to send a message to our multilateral partners that Canada will play a responsible role in the world,” Sajjan told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.

“When we said we would be a responsible partner in the world, we meant it,” he said.

But just where and when the new deployment will occur is still being decided, he said.

“We’re at the very early stages of making our actual assessments of where we need to put the right resources,” Sajjan said. “We are looking at all the various requests in the different regions.”

Canada already has some 800 military personnel in northern Iraq and Kuwait involved in the mission to help combat Daesh extremists. Another 470 troops are involved in missions in eastern Europe...

Sajjan said the decision where to deploy could also be shaped by the need to curb the spread of Daesh extremism out of the Middle East.

“We need to look at the root causes of the problem, how certain radical groups will feed into other conflict zones,” Sajjan said.

“Certain parts of the world . . . haven’t gotten the right amount of attention and that’s why we are looking at Africa,” he said.

Any number of trouble spots beckon. Across Africa, potential deployments could include South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia and Congo.

But George Petrolekas, a retired senior military officer and defence analyst, says Mali, where Canada has assisted French forces in the past, is a logical choice.

“It’s no secret that the French have asked many times for more Canadian assistance,” Petrolekas said in an interview Wednesday. “Africa has been top of mind.”

Given existing deployments, he said the military could support a mission with up to 1,000 troops [emphasis added]...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/14/liberals-consider-peacekeeping-mission-to-africa.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on July 14, 2016, 17:40:27
Quote
  Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday that defence planners are looking at various possibilities but signaled that soldiers could be destined to Africa to help curb Islamic extremists

That's not peacekeeping or even peacemaking. It'll be just like Afghanistan only in Africa, with UN ROE'S, blue helmets and white vehicles. Unlikely that the TO&E will be as robust as we had in Afghanistan either.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 14, 2016, 17:49:43
That's not peacekeeping or even peacemaking. It'll be just like Afghanistan only in Africa, with UN ROE'S, blue helmets and white vehicles. Unlikely that the TO&E will be as robust as we had in Afghanistan either.
Zackly.
... We can probably stop most of the Boko Harem attacks through aerial surveillance and active pursuit but as soon as we leave, things will return to the way they are. We cannot re-build something that was never there in the first place ...
:nod:  And, as Iraq & Afghanistan have shown (fairly or unfairly), once things go back for a s**t after the worst shooting stops, those who tried to help will be soon flagellated about why things aren't better once they leave.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 14, 2016, 18:03:34
That's not peacekeeping or even peacemaking. It'll be just like Afghanistan only in Africa, with UN ROE'S, blue helmets and white vehicles. Unlikely that the TO&E will be as robust as we had in Afghanistan either.
Are the french wearing blue berets/helmets in Mali, where they currently have a 3000 troops stationed?

Nothing I've seen seems to suggest that.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 14, 2016, 18:06:02
1,000 personnel available for peacekeeping?

Liberals consider peacekeeping mission to Africa
The Liberal government is weighing proposals to send a peacekeeping force, likely to Africa, as it reasserts Canada's presence on the world stage. ...
And if the CDS is quoted correctly here (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-army-heading-for-africa-very-soon-top-general-1.2986971), MORE than just "considering" - highlights mine ...
Quote
Canada's army will soon be bound for Africa, Canada's top soldier said Thursday, fuelling speculation that it will be deployed on a peacekeeping operation to control the spread of terrorism on the continent.

"The army's been preparing for the future ... preparing for a wide range of future tasks," Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, told a rain-soaked change of command ceremony for the army on the lawn of Parliament Hill.

"Internationally, the army is at the forefront, managing conflicts around the world, contributing to operations in Iraq, building capacity with allies and partners in Poland, Ukraine, and very soon in Africa."

Vance did not elaborate in front of an audience of several hundred that included military officials, politicians and diplomats ...
More tea leaves  (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-african-terrorism-peacekeeping-1.3677946)...
Quote
Containing the spread of terrorism across Africa is a consideration for Canada as it mulls where best to contribute to a UN peacekeeping mission, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday.

The government has yet to make up its mind on where it will send its peacekeepers, in fulfillment of a major foreign policy priority, Sajjan said. But Canada wants to have an impact wherever it deploys troops, he added, and doesn't want to send a contingent to a specific country simply for the sake of doing so.

Sources say a mission to Mali, the West African country where more than a dozen peacekeepers have been killed this year, is a serious option for the government.

"Mali was definitely on the radar screen," said a well-placed source with knowledge of the process, who spoke on the condition they not be named because they weren't authorized to discuss the matter ...
More on Mali here ...
...

Mali - Known as MINUSMA http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/ (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/) ...
and here (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/crisiswatch-database.aspx?CountryIDs={00784553-1A92-4A05-8825-9235786CF9BC}#results) (International Crisis Group monthly summaries since June 2012)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on July 14, 2016, 18:09:47
Are the french wearing blue berets/helmets in Mali, where they currently have a 3000 troops stationed?

Nothing I've seen seems to suggest that.

Who cares what the French are doing.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on July 14, 2016, 18:25:50
Are the french wearing blue berets/helmets in Mali, where they currently have a 3000 troops stationed?

Nothing I've seen seems to suggest that.

Operation Barkhane (the successor to Op Serval in Mali) isn't a UN Peacekeeping mission - it's specifically a French anti-insurgency mission in the Sahel.  My WAG is that if we go into Africa again under a UN mandate, it won't look anything like what the French have there now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barkhane
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 14, 2016, 18:27:27
Even if the French are in with green and maroon berets, it's not to say the Canada won't try and become "top dog in UN Blue..." 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on July 14, 2016, 19:00:51
It's sad the myth has so much traction, because the reality is that virtually all the UN peacekeeping missions were or are failures. Even sunny Cyprus, when looked at in a larger context, was a total waste after the shooting stopped in 1974; the island was just as divided when I was back on decompression in 2007 as it was when I was there as a young peacekeeper in 1989, and there is no evidence that there is any movement towards a political settlement (if anything, it is probably going backwards, the rhetoric I heard in 2007 seemed much harder than 'way back in '89). And Canada had Blue Berets there since the 1960's...

But since the Liberals seem set on doing this, at least our own leadership should insist on a clearly defined mandate, "exit strategy" and robust ROE's so we don't descend into a Rwanda or Yugoslavia again (IFOR rather than UNPOFOR).
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: FSTO on July 14, 2016, 20:39:46
Damn right the "Peacekeeping Myth" is alive and well.
I was in a gas station today and the young lady behind the till asked me what my ribbons were all about. As I mentioned that one had to do with A-stan the gentleman who was her supervisor said "Canadians have always been peacekeepers before Afghanistan" I said no and mentioned the world wars and Korea. I also added that because we are a professional combat capable military we can carry out peacekeeping operations fairly seemlessley unlike if we were a peacekeeping force only. The man I was talking to was from South America because he finished by saying "Canadians are liked better in S America because unlike the americans they will keep their noses out of our business." I sort of chuckled at that but he ended with thanking me for my service
The girl said that she appreciated the information.
I think that was a pretty good interaction with the public.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 14, 2016, 22:15:58
You forgot the Cold War, FSTO.

I always use it as a good illustration to disillusion civilians of the myth.

I usually tell them that, at the height of our peacekeeping commitments, we had about 2300 people out on peacekeeping. But that at the same time, we had more than 7000 soldiers and airmen deployed in Germany to confront the Soviets, with about 25 000 more ready to go on short notice in Canada, that 10,000 more airmen were involved in keeping the Soviets in check as part of NATO or NORAD, while 10,000 seamen played games on a near daily basis against the Soviet submarines and surface forces.

Then I go for the jugular by concluding that, compared to our daily involvement in the Cold War, peacekeeping was just a side show ... and a side show at that which existed because of its supporting role in the politics of the Cold War.

At that point I usually get blank stares.  :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 15, 2016, 01:23:28
So on one hand we have the gov't talking up the return to UN peacekeeping, while on the other hand, CBC runs a story discrediting the UN peacekeepters in Haiti. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/united-nations-peacekeepers-absentee-fathers-1.3678464)  Just a little bi-polar, no?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 02:06:13
I'm just happy and grateful at the chance to go somewhere.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on July 15, 2016, 03:05:01
I'm just happy and grateful at the chance to go somewhere.
Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 04:20:15
Be careful what you wish for.
In terms of how I wish to spend my time in the army with options currently available or soon to be available.

Peacekeeping>Latvian maple resolve>responding to natural disasters >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>making puppies on base.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on July 15, 2016, 04:44:54
Seems like the boredom is coming to an end.  I know a lot of younger people who joined the CF will be thankful, as well as people who have stuck with it since Afghanistan winded down.

Whether your looking for a Latvian maple resolve, thankless 'peace support operations' in some hellhole, policing/support in a 2nd world country (Colombia), training anti-ISIL forces in Iraq, training Ukrainian military in Ukraine - looks like there are a LOT of cool opportunities coming down the pipeline!

This should help with recruiting, big time.  Now if DND could just figure out how to buy boots, radios, trucks (without it being a constant headache) etc - we will be rockin!
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on July 15, 2016, 06:19:24
... making puppies on base.

Planning a posting to a certain regiment in Shilo?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 07:09:21
Planning a posting to a certain regiment in Shilo?
Hopefully not, but what else is there to do in shilo?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 07:32:38
Planning a posting to a certain regiment in Shilo?
I'm surprised it took as long as it did for someone to ask ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 09:42:19
I'm just happy and grateful at the chance to go somewhere.
I'm pretty sure the guys with severe OSI from Rwanda and Somalia would love the chance to stay home and go to MAPLE RESOLVE instead. There's not a whole lot of confidence left in what ROE we could get from the UN that Trudeau will agree to.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on July 15, 2016, 09:53:37
I'm pretty sure the guys with severe OSI from Rwanda and Somalia would love the chance to stay home and go to MAPLE RESOLVE instead. There's not a whole lot of confidence left in what ROE we could get from the UN that Trudeau will agree to.

Not get picky, but those are only two UN missions, of many, that have had severe consequences on the the health and welfare of Canadian Service Members.   The numerous missions to the Former Yugoslav Republic and Kosovo have not been without exposure to atrocities, nor have the missions to Cambodia, Vietnam and other nations.  Many UN missions have exposed Canadian troops to atrocities against mankind that have left many with OSI and other problems.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 09:56:37
I didn't want to list them all, only the ones where I personally knew people who had suffered because the ROE didn't allow them to stop atrocities they witnessed live, and within reaction distance.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 15, 2016, 09:58:00
Who cares what the French are doing.

True but I bet their ROE isn't as restrictive as the UN ROE.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 15, 2016, 10:50:52
True but I bet their ROE isn't as restrictive as the UN ROE.

Let's share that bet!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LU1TSdARM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LU1TSdARM)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 10:54:05
Let's share that bet!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LU1TSdARM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0LU1TSdARM)
"Robust"
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 15, 2016, 11:20:44
Wasn't it an infamous African dictator who coined the phrase: "No man can outrun a bullet."  ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: FSTO on July 15, 2016, 11:42:04
You forgot the Cold War, FSTO.

I always use it as a good illustration to disillusion civilians of the myth.

I usually tell them that, at the height of our peacekeeping commitments, we had about 2300 people out on peacekeeping. But that at the same time, we had more than 7000 soldiers and airmen deployed in Germany to confront the Soviets, with about 25 000 more ready to go on short notice in Canada, that 10,000 more airmen were involved in keeping the Soviets in check as part of NATO or NORAD, while 10,000 seamen played games on a near daily basis against the Soviet submarines and surface forces.

Then I go for the jugular by concluding that, compared to our daily involvement in the Cold War, peacekeeping was just a side show ... and a side show at that which existed because of its supporting role in the politics of the Cold War.

At that point I usually get blank stares.  :nod:

Oh my! My addled brain. And here I thought I had done a good deed for the day! :salute:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Larry Strong on July 15, 2016, 12:11:43
Planning a posting to a certain regiment in Shilo?


You would have to go to Gagetown to have the correct Bn.....


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 15, 2016, 13:24:32
The argument seems to be that you can find another 1000 bodies for the UN from the High Readiness Force. My question: if you commit your High Readiness Force to a standing commitment don't you lose your High Readiness Force?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on July 15, 2016, 13:32:41

You would have to go to Gagetown to have the correct Bn.....

I am unaware of any Arty Battalions in Gagetown, or anywhere else in Canada.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 13:33:17
My question: if you commit your High Readiness Force to a standing commitment don't you lose your High Readiness Force?

Don't cloud the issue with facts. Because its CURRENT YEAR!
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on July 15, 2016, 13:45:32
The argument seems to be that you can find another 1000 bodies for the UN from the High Readiness Force. My question: if you commit your High Readiness Force to a standing commitment don't you lose your High Readiness Force?

I actually heard that very argument put forward as a reason for not committing the standby force back in 1972.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 15, 2016, 16:01:14
I can see sending in the Standby Force in a "get in, get out, no mucking about" deployment,  and even there it would be nice if there was a backup unit on deck.  But it strikes me that a continuing engagement, like a long term peace operation, needs to be sourced out of the non-High Readiness troops.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on July 15, 2016, 16:14:17
I can see sending in the Standby Force in a "get in, get out, no mucking about" deployment,  and even there it would be nice if there was a backup unit on deck.  But it strikes me that a continuing engagement, like a long term peace operation, needs to be sourced out of the non-High Readiness troops.

We did deploy the Standby Force to Cyprus in 1964 where it completed a normal six month tour tour, however it was replaced in the standby role.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 16:56:36
Some commentary/analysis (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-truck-attack-in-france-ups-the-ante-for-canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-mali) on recent events making things lean more toward Mali ...
Quote
Canada’s impending peacemaking mission to Africa took on a more urgent tone Thursday night when a Tunisian man drove a truck through crowds enjoying Bastille Day fireworks on Nice’s palm-lined waterfront.

French President Francois Hollande immediately announced that France’s already overstretched armed forces would mobilize 10,000 troops and every member of the army reserves to guard French streets, border crossings and airports.

France needs Canada’s help — and Canada will answer the call. The army and air force will be heavily involved in Africa and no unit more so than the French-speaking brigade built around the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos.

As Postmedia first reported on July 6, the Trudeau government intends to send troops to French West Africa. Mali is their most likely destination, but the Central African Republic and a couple of other nearby countries are in the mix, too.

Ottawa and Paris have been talking for some time about where Canadian soldiers would fit into one of France’s multiple troop deployments there. No date has been set for the mission. The Dutch and the Germans have already been helping France with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). That is because even before the murderous attack in Nice, the Hollande government was having difficulty sustaining the tempo of its African missions as well as operations against the Islamic State in the Middle East and against terrorists on French soil. It is why the RCAF has already spent a lot of time in Africa, using its C-17 Globemasters to provide essential logistical support for French forces.

Canada’s Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan, had intended to travel to French West Africa next month to help hammer out the details of Canada’s mission there. After France’s latest terror attack, and the call-up of forces to defend France, that trip may have to be moved up ...
:pop:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 17:02:33
Some commentary/analysis (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-truck-attack-in-france-ups-the-ante-for-canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-mali) on recent events making things lean more toward Mali ...:pop:
Who cares what the french are doing? Right? Right?  ::)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 17:04:36
So on one hand we have the gov't talking up the return to UN peacekeeping, while on the other hand, CBC runs a story discrediting the UN peacekeepters in Haiti. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/united-nations-peacekeepers-absentee-fathers-1.3678464)  Just a little bi-polar, no?
"Canada now wants to do more U.N. peacekeeping" and "some peacekeepers appear to have been a**holes" can still both be true.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 17:08:04
Who cares what the french are doing? Right? Right?  ::)
Ah, but the piece I shared talks about what Canada MAY be doing ...  ;)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 17:12:45
Ah, but the piece I shared talks about what Canada MAY be doing ...  ;)
If we are going to be working with the french I don't think we are going in with blue helmets and ROEs that require 50 percent casualties before responding.

Just my  :2c:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 15, 2016, 18:19:53
We did deploy the Standby Force to Cyprus in 1964 where it completed a normal six month tour tour, however it was replaced in the standby role.

And now a special report from the CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/van-doos-keeping-the-peace-in-cyprus
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: cavalryman on July 15, 2016, 18:50:14
And now a special report from the CBC.

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/van-doos-keeping-the-peace-in-cyprus
I'm going to watch that clip carefully.  My dad was on the first Snowgoose rotation in 64.  Maybe I'll see him  >:D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 18:54:51
If we are going to be working with the french I don't think we are going in with blue helmets and ROEs that require 50 percent casualties before responding.

Just my  :2c:
That's cute, you think the UN would allow armed response with 50% causalities. Guys were told they needed to find out what side the shooter was on if they took effective (in case you don't know, that means casualties) sniper fire before they could return fire after asking permission in Sniper Alley in UNPROFOR. The same snipers shot at buses full of kids going to school, and no one was allowed to stop it.

Also, big fan on how the Vandoos are the only ones allowed to deploy now because they speak French. First Haiti, now "peacekeeping". Maybe we'll start getting French language courses.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 15, 2016, 19:33:16
Also, big fan on how the Vandoos are the only ones allowed to deploy now because they speak French. First Haiti, now "peacekeeping". Maybe we'll start getting French language courses.
And if they didn't deploy because missions were in mostly-Anglophone areas, that would be better?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on July 15, 2016, 19:34:23
I actually heard that very argument put forward as a reason for not committing the standby force back in 1972.

Sounds suspiciously like some anecdotal sup techs: If it issue it to you, there won't be any left in stock, and what if someone needs some?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Pickle Rick on July 15, 2016, 19:40:33
That's cute, you think the UN would allow armed response with 50% causalities. Guys were told they needed to find out what side the shooter was on if they took effective (in case you don't know, that means casualties or could cause casualties if you don't take cover)


Edited to show the other half of what is effective enemy fire.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 19:42:08
That's cute, you think the UN would allow armed response with 50% causalities. Guys were told they needed to find out what side the shooter was on if they took effective (in case you don't know, that means casualties) sniper fire before they could return fire after asking permission in Sniper Alley in UNPROFOR. The same snipers shot at buses full of kids going to school, and no one was allowed to stop it.

Also, big fan on how the Vandoos are the only ones allowed to deploy now because they speak French. First Haiti, now "peacekeeping". Maybe we'll start getting French language courses.
Let's go in and help the french then. Problem solved.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 20:11:44

Edited to show the other half of what is effective enemy fire.
Thanks. If I'm taking effective fire, Bde main is overrun and we're screwed.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on July 15, 2016, 22:43:34
Let's go in and help the french then. Problem solved.

I don't think you understand the problem(s). You're listening to the government and following their flawed logic, instead of listening to all the people, here, that have deployed to UN shitholes and seen the way the UN really works and the way our government cedes control of our soldiers to New York.

Considering you just finished BMQ, it might be awhile before you get to go anywhere. By then, there's a good chance the mission will have morphed and we're doing ramp ceremonies again. It won't be anything like what you think it is presently.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 23:04:00
I don't think you understand the problem(s). You're listening to the government and following their flawed logic, instead of listening to all the people, here, that have deployed to UN shitholes and seen the way the UN really works and the way our government cedes control of our soldiers to New York.

Considering you just finished BMQ, it might be awhile before you get to go anywhere. By then, there's a good chance the mission will have morphed and we're doing ramp ceremonies again. It won't be anything like what you think it is presently.
I've been out of bmq for 6 years now, don't worry yourself, I'm good to go.

Like I said, lets not do the UN blue helmet stuff, let's go help out the french who are not playing by UN rules.

Problem solved
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 23:17:01
Like I said, lets not do the UN blue helmet stuff, let's go help out the french who are not playing by UN rules.

Which is not peacekeeping, which is what Trudeau wants us to do.

Most of us would be all aboard for laying a hurt on ISIL/Al-Qaeda, but that would require us to "Whip out our CF-18s and show everyone how big they are." The problem is, Trudeau will paint this as a return to "peacekeeping", with political interference in the day to day business of warfighting, which is what Mali would actually be.

To be honest, I see Trudeau picking Sudan, as a civil war is breaking out again there. Can play the heroes in blue helmets standing between belligerents. The French won't get the help they need.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 15, 2016, 23:24:30
Which is not peacekeeping, which is what Trudeau wants us to do.

Most of us would be all aboard for laying a hurt on ISIL/Al-Qaeda, but that would require us to "Whip out our CF-18s and show everyone how big they are." The problem is, Trudeau will paint this as a return to "peacekeeping", with political interference in the day to day business of warfighting, which is what Mali would actually be.

To be honest, I see Trudeau picking Sudan, as a civil war is breaking out again there. Can play the heroes in blue helmets standing between belligerents. The French won't get the help they need.
Then pray tell, why would ottawa and Paris have been in talks recently about Canadians troop deployments?

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-truck-attack-in-france-ups-the-ante-for-canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-mali

Quote
Ottawa and Paris have been talking for some time about where Canadian soldiers would fit into one of France’s multiple troop deployments there
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 15, 2016, 23:37:29
I'll believe it when I see the Op Order, and the ROE card. If we're going anywhere to do anything in combat, we need a Battle Group like Kandahar. That's 2400-2700 pers (depending on whether Chinooks go).

1000 military members heading to MINUSMA is 7% of the total military component there. That's not help, that's lip service. "We'd like to do more, but we're busy rolling back planned defense budget increases."
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on July 16, 2016, 01:02:26
That might be the case, if they'd actually rolled back planned increases.  In actually, they simply moved capital spending forward, as done by the Conservatives in 2012 and 2014 - mostly for the same reasons.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 16, 2016, 01:41:58
I'll believe it when I see the Op Order, and the ROE card. If we're going anywhere to do anything in combat, we need a Battle Group like Kandahar. That's 2400-2700 pers (depending on whether Chinooks go).

1000 military members heading to MINUSMA is 7% of the total military component there. That's not help, that's lip service. "We'd like to do more, but we're busy rolling back planned defense budget increases."
The French have 3000 there, a 1000 Canadians actually out fighting would be a significant contribution.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 16, 2016, 01:53:38
Let's go in and help the french then. Problem solved.

UNPROFOR Croatia 1993. We moved to Sector South to take over the sector from the French unit. They hadn't been outside the wire in months.....
The unit was a conscript battalion, no one wanted casualties, the Serbs were not welcoming and in fact threatened them. The French Log Battalion was a different story. They were ok.
Sector South also had a Kenyan battalion....who were worse than useless.

In Cyprus, the peacekeepers were European and Canadian, all effective and professional military.
In Croatia, not so much.

We best be sure who our peacekeeping partners are.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on July 16, 2016, 04:42:16
The French have 3000 there, a 1000 Canadians actually out fighting would be a significant contribution.

They do not.  They have 3000 French troops HQ'd in Chad, available to be sent to any of 5 countries for OP Barkhane, the successor to OP Serval.

Quote
Operation Barkhane is an ongoing anti-insurgent operation in Africa's Sahel region, which commenced 1 August 2014.[7] It consists of a 3,000-strong French force, which will be permanent and headquartered in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad.[3] The operation has been designed with five countries, and former French colonies, that span the Sahel: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.[3] These countries are collectively referred to as the "G5 Sahel."[8]

Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on July 16, 2016, 05:14:51
They do not.  They have 3000 French troops HQ'd in Chad, available to be sent to any of 5 countries for OP Barkhane, the successor to OP Serval.

Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.
Yeah, fine by me. As long as I get to go that is.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on July 16, 2016, 05:50:56
Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.

Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on July 16, 2016, 11:29:28
Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

:nod:

Polite understatement.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on July 16, 2016, 11:35:11
Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

I don't really think this is a fair statement.  When the CAF went in to Southern Afghan, they took the NSE used in Kabul and plopped it on to the BG in Kandahar.  The effect was the opposite of what you describe with the consensus being that we paid lip service to sustainment initially.  Luckily, we've got some switched on soldiers that made the square peg go in the round hole.  Definitely wasn't our finest hour though. 

I personally think the CAF does an excellent job at Strat level sustainment but we tend to lose the plot between the Op/Tactical level. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: GAP on July 16, 2016, 12:03:32
Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

The U.S. is 9 to 1....so typical......
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 16, 2016, 12:12:29

Quote
Canada’s impending peacemaking mission to Africa took on a more urgent tone Thursday night when a Tunisian man drove a truck through crowds enjoying Bastille Day fireworks on Nice’s palm-lined waterfront.

French President Francois Hollande immediately announced that France’s already overstretched armed forces would mobilize 10,000 troops and every member of the army reserves to guard French streets, border crossings and airports.

France needs Canada’s help — and Canada will answer the call. The army and air force will be heavily involved in Africa and no unit more so than the French-speaking brigade built around the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos.

As Postmedia first reported on July 6, the Trudeau government intends to send troops to French West Africa. Mali is their most likely destination, but the Central African Republic and a couple of other nearby countries are in the mix, too.

Ottawa and Paris have been talking for some time about where Canadian soldiers would fit into one of France’s multiple troop deployments there. No date has been set for the mission. The Dutch and the Germans have already been helping France with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). That is because even before the murderous attack in Nice, the Hollande government was having difficulty sustaining the tempo of its African missions as well as operations against the Islamic State in the Middle East and against terrorists on French soil. It is why the RCAF has already spent a lot of time in Africa, using its C-17 Globemasters to provide essential logistical support for French forces.

Canada’s Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan, had intended to travel to French West Africa next month to help hammer out the details of Canada’s mission there. After France’s latest terror attack, and the call-up of forces to defend France, that trip may have to be moved up ...


Some commentary/analysis (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-truck-attack-in-france-ups-the-ante-for-canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-mali) on recent events making things lean more toward Mali ...:pop:

And from Dimsum

Quote
Operation Barkhane is an ongoing anti-insurgent operation in Africa's Sahel region, which commenced 1 August 2014.[7] It consists of a 3,000-strong French force, which will be permanent and headquartered in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad.[3] The operation has been designed with five countries, and former French colonies, that span the Sahel: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.[3] These countries are collectively referred to as the "G5 Sahel."[8]

Anybody else thinking Chickens and Eggs?

Hollande, and France, are still trying, IMO, to maintain their old colonial status on a shoe-string budget.

At home they don't have the old conscript army to provide depth.  Abroad they don't have the Legion, the Forces de la Marines and the settlers that they used to have.  But they still want to keep North Africa tied to France - but they don't want the North Africans IN France.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on July 16, 2016, 12:15:29
I think the optics are that a lot of these deployments are about setting up large NCE's and NSE's to ensure cubicle dwellers get their chance to go somewhere.  I think of things like the 1CDHSR deployment to Rwanda in 1994, the attempt to deploy a sizeable HQ to the Rwanda/Zaire border in 1996 for the "Bungle in the Jungle", the sizeable HQ/NCE/NSE we had on OP HALO for a rifle company and a flight of Griffons as examples.  Made sense for us to have a decent HQ and WOG. oops, LOGBAT with our two battle groups in Croatia and Bosnia - it doesn't (to me) with these smaller forces unless they're going o be controlling more than our forces. 

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 16, 2016, 12:48:17
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,29913.msg1444826.html#msg1444826

Quote
1. Bangladesh 9,432
2. Ethiopia 8,309
3. India 7,794
4. Pakistan 7,533
5. Rwanda 5,685
6. Nepal 5,346
7. Senegal 3,628
8. Ghana 3,242
9. China 3,079
10. Nigeria 2,968
11. Burkina Faso 2,908
12. Indonesia 2,727
13. United Republic of Tanzania 2,342
14. Morocco 2,320
15. South Africa 2,165
16. Egypt 2,090
17. Niger 2,040
18. Togo 1,777
19. Jordan 1,627
20. Benin 1,495
21. Uruguay 1,463
22. Cameroon 1,358
23. Brazil 1,299
24. Burundi 1,265
25. Chad 1,162

By my count that adds up to a UN force of 85,054 - Or roughly a WWI Corps.

A pretty small force, especially when widely dispersed.  The effectiveness of such a force, even if all Canadians, or Brits, or French, of Yanks is always going to be debatable.

But the question I want to ask is who is paying the bill for these 85,000 mercenaries / indentured soldiers?

Quote
The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1]  PDF Document are:

United States (28.38%)
Japan (10.83%)
France (7.22%)
Germany (7.14%)
United Kingdom (6.68%)
China (6.64%)
Italy (4.45%)
Russian Federation (3.15%)
Canada (2.98%)
Spain (2.97%)

Quote
How are peacekeepers compensated?
The UN has no military forces of its own, and Member States provide, on a voluntary basis, the military and police personnel required for each peacekeeping operation.

Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.

Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets established for each operation.

The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel and support services to military or police contingents.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml

According to the Bangladesh Army web site (http://www.joinbangladesharmy.mil.bd/benefits/total-compensation) a Bangladeshi officer with 4 years service will be paid 15,000 Takas a month or 189 USD,  (400 USD with benefits).  That means that Bangladesh pockets between $900 and $1100 dollars a month for every Lieutenant it volunteers for UN service. 

At that rate the 85,000 "peacekeepers" would be generating a cash flow of $85,000,000 USD a month or about 1 BUSD per year.

I suggest that Bangladesh and Cameroon don't want more Canadian peacekeepers on the ground. They want Canada to pay for more Bangladesh and Cameroon peacekeepers.

On the other hand, what I believe the UN "needs" are more "West African Rifles", "Spahis", "Arab Legions" and "Ghurkas".

Edit: By the way, a Bangladeshi private, or Salnik, takes home  $57 of those $1332 supplied by the UN to his government.

http://www.joinbangladesharmy.mil.bd/benefits/money





Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on July 16, 2016, 20:47:25
More experienced members may chime in here, but for us in Canada, wasn't it the practice that the UN monthly payment for soldiers deployed on UN missions was actually paid in full to the deployed members serving on the UN deployment? Sort of  a UN service bonus thing.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 16, 2016, 22:44:00
More experienced members may chime in here, but for us in Canada, wasn't it the practice that the UN monthly payment for soldiers deployed on UN missions was actually paid in full to the deployed members serving on the UN deployment? Sort of  a UN service bonus thing.

To a degree. One is paid Foreign Service Premium, Risk Allowance, and Hardship Allowance, and any subsequent bonuses to the latter two. I'm not sure how the government treats the money it gets from the UN.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 16, 2016, 22:46:20
We still send people to UN missions, albeit its rare. Do we have anyone here who's been on a recent UN mission and got FSP, Hardship, Risk, and UN Pay together?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 16, 2016, 22:51:17
There's no such thing as "UN pay". OPS FSP, HA, HA bonus, RA.

CBI 10.3.03 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-10-foreign-service-instructions.page)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Tango2Bravo on July 17, 2016, 10:08:01
We still send people to UN missions, albeit its rare. Do we have anyone here who's been on a recent UN mission and got FSP, Hardship, Risk, and UN Pay together?

I recently spent a year on a UN operation as an unarmed military observer. My pay and normal allowances for deployment were paid by Canada as normal (base pay, Foreign Service Premium, Risk and Hardship). The UN paid me a monthly allowance for living expenses but there was no UN pay. This allowance was for my meals, lodgings etc as neither the UN nor Canada paid for my living expenses. I had to rent an apartment on the economy and buy all my meals. Arrangements for a formed contingent living on a base would be different. I would imagine that the soldiers in a Canadian task force on a UN operation would not notice any difference in their pay and allowances from being deployed on a NATO/US led mission with the same Risk and Hardship.

The higher-level financials for UN peacekeeping can get somewhat complicated, especially when you consider logistics for large contingents in isolated areas. While we touched on this in my training I did not deal with it on my deployment.  One thing I do remember from my training and can reinforce from experience is that discussing pay and benefits with peacekeepers from other countries is not a great idea! We all have different systems of compensation back home and it is very hard to make comparisons. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on July 17, 2016, 10:24:29
The higher-level financials for UN peacekeeping can get somewhat complicated, especially when you consider logistics for large contingents in isolated areas. While we touched on this in my training I did not deal with it on my deployment.  One thing I do remember from my training and can reinforce from experience is that discussing pay and benefits with peacekeepers from other countries is not a great idea! We all have different systems of compensation back home and it is very hard to make comparisons.

Remember:  This can also emphasis the fact that the majority of times one compares their pay to that of a person from another nation, not just the UN Tours or NATO deployments, their wages and costs of living in their home nations are much different than ours.  What it costs us to live here in Canada could allow us to live the life of millionaires in some of these other countries.  I have friends who have retired and moved to Columbia and other Pacific nations and have been able to stretch their pensions much further than I can here at home. 

We saw the "crap-storm" that was raised over the South African firefighters who came to Canada for the Fort McMurray fire.  Their pay reflected their "cost of living" in South Africa, not here in Canada.  People have to get that through their heads, before they start jumping on some sort of bandwagon. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on July 17, 2016, 15:08:27
Remember:  This can also emphasis the fact that the majority of times one compares their pay to that of a person from another nation, not just the UN Tours or NATO deployments, their wages and costs of living in their home nations are much different than ours.
True -- hence the whole Ghurka pension fracas (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/665663/gurka-heroes-hunger-strike-army-pension), too - although the UK doesn't use the "it's cheaper to live where they're from" arguement when doling out pensions to Brit service members living in different parts of the UK.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on July 17, 2016, 15:46:22
Good info, settles that question. Thanks, T2B.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 26, 2016, 15:29:32
This "killer peacekeeping" mission seems likely for CAF--what will the government contribute?

Quote
Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?

Further to these posts,

"Netherlands and UN Peacekeeping (sort of) in Mali–Canada?"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/18/mark-collins-netherlands-and-un-peacekeeping-sort-of-in-mali-canada/

"Canadian Government’s Peacekeeping Heart: With France in Africa it Seems"
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/mark-collins-canadian-governments-peacekeeping-heart-with-france-in-africa-it-seems/

there’s a gap coming with which our air force might be suited to help:

"Dutch helicopter withdrawal threatens to undermine UN Mali mission"
...
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on July 26, 2016, 15:55:42
This "killer peacekeeping" mission seems likely for CAF--what will the government contribute?

Mark
Ottawa

Van Doos!
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 01, 2016, 16:54:14
It seems the long weekend has gotten in the way of closing the defence policy consultations at least for a day.  If you have strong opinions, you can still offer up on:

What form should the CAF contribution to peace support operations take (or not)?  (http://www.defenceconsultations.ca/global-peace-security/forum_topics/what-form-should-the-caf-contribution-to-peace-support-operations-take-is-there-a-role-for-the-caf-in-helping-to-prevent-conflict-before-it-occurs1)

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 02, 2016, 00:24:46
I read some of the comments in there...I can be assured that what I have .to say won't be heard over the climate change tw@ts.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 02, 2016, 00:45:19
I read some of the comments in there...I can be assured that what I have .to say won't be heard over the climate change tw@ts.

MM
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on August 02, 2016, 08:09:54
Brian Stewart, a credible journalist on defence matters, addresses the search for a peacekeeping mission in terms that would not be out of place in this thread, in a piece on the CBC site. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Trudeau government taking a long look at precarious peacekeeping options: Brian Stewart
By Brian Stewart, for CBC News Posted: Aug 02, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Aug 02, 2016 5:30 AM ET

One of Justin Trudeau's campaign promises was a new focus on peacekeeping. He's still looking at possible missions.

Brian Stewart
Canada and abroad

One of this country's most experienced journalists and foreign correspondents, Brian Stewart is currently a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Munk School for Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. He also sits on the advisory board of Human Rights Watch Canada. In almost four decades of reporting, he has covered many of the world's conflicts and reported from 10 war zones, from El Salvador to Beirut and Afghanistan.

It's not surprising the Liberal government is having a difficult time deciding where and how best to fulfil its election pledge to lead Canada back into significant peacekeeping — there is simply no shortage of potentially life-or-death factors to consider.

This country has been a minor player in peacekeeping in recent years. But now the government intends to sign on to a major United Nations mission somewhere in this troubled world at a time when the global body is desperate for our help and dangers for peacekeepers have never been more deadly.

It's a good time to ask questions.


This is not to say the likelihood of suffering casualties should deter Canada from undertaking a risky mission for the UN, but we need to be very aware that peacekeeping today is nearing a high-stakes crisis of confidence. 

Many of the most crucial missions are battered by soaring casualties, inadequate resources and poor planning, according to UN reports.

The most strained missions, usually 10,000 to 14,000 strong, are guarding relief supplies and refugee camps in some of the most violent spots on earth, including African operations in Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, Mali and Central African Republic.

Peacekeeping vs. peacemaking

While the old term "peacekeeping" is still used in delicate preference to the more robust "peacemaking," many missions have morphed into counter-insurgency operations against Jihadist guerrillas and, in danger zones like Mali, anti-government militias and bandit gangs as well.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has clearly indicated Canada is considering sending a mission to help UN troops stop the advance of Islamist jihadists in Africa. Either Mali or Central African Republic are rumoured as likely destinations.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said Canada is considering sending forces to help UN efforts in Africa.

"Certain parts of the world ... haven't gotten the right amount of attention, and that's why we're looking at Africa," he told reporters.

UN and U.S. officials have been quietly lobbying the Trudeau government to consider missions in Africa to help prevent peacekeeping disasters like those in Somalia and Rwanda in the 1990s.

UN headquarters in New York receives urgent warnings from the field that peacekeeping casualties are soaring with no end in sight: 51 UN personnel killed in deliberate attacks last year, 230 in just the past four years. Many others die in accidents and from disease.

The UN says 230 of its personnel have been killed in deliberate attacks in the past four years. (Reuters)

UN reports show troops are frequently pinned down in local conflicts they can neither defeat nor control, by rebels using "improvised explosive devices, rocket, artillery and mortar fire, landmines, suicide attacks, targeted assassinations and armed ambushes."

The escalating risk has left many UN humanitarian workers feeling increasingly unprotected because many of the military units are staying hunkered down within sandbag-protected fortresses rather than taking on emergencies in the countryside.

It's a great mistake to view peacekeeping through rosy historical glasses, as Canadians are prone to do. The easy missions where peace agreements have lasted generations are oversubscribed with volunteers; it's the dangerous ones that desperately need help.

Consider that 15 years ago, 40,000 UN troops and police served in missions from the former Yugoslavia to East Timor.

Today, there are 125,000 UN forces deployed in more than a dozen missions around the world who are struggling to protect 125 million people at risk.

This makes combined UN missions the largest overseas troop deployment in the world.

Still, at the world summit on peacekeeping last fall, the urgent need for reinforcement led countries to pledge a combined 40,000 more personnel. Current missions are also short of helicopters, armoured vehicles, field hospitals and proper command centres.

It's not at all clear what form or strength any new Canadian mission would take because the military is still studying the options. But it's possible we'll put more emphasis on supplying headquarters staff, logistics and medical services rather than a great many boots on the ground.

Whatever shape the mission takes, retired colonel George Petrolekas, military analyst and veteran of both peacekeeping and the Afghanistan mission, feels our troops are far better prepared for the demands of peacekeeping than in the past — thanks to the Afghan experience and extensive training.

"Before any deployment, units undergo months of mission-specific training that includes cultural awareness, reinforcement of Geneva conventions, negotiating skills and incident simulations while practising time and again protection measures and controlled escalation," he wrote recently in the Globe and Mail.

'A cancer in our system'

The threat of attacks isn't the only difficulty a Canadian mission would face. UN morale has been badly rocked in recent years by allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation involving peacekeepers in several UN missions, including in Mali and Central African Republic.

The UN secretary general has called it "a cancer in our system" and major reforms are underway.

UN forces are also often limited by poor training and discipline. For years, wealthy countries avoided serving, leaving it to the poorest nations to rent out ill-equipped troops to the UN. Some served brilliantly and heroically; others, from repressive regimes, were human rights disasters.

There's growing agreement among wealthy nations that they need to do more, despite the risks. Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and others have joined Canada in pledging a new emphasis on peacekeeping.

Clearly defined mission

For many years, peacekeeping fell out of fashion in the West, but the obvious need to prevent more failed states from descending into unimaginably destructive internal wars has revived support for a more efficient and muscular UN.

A highly trained Canadian unit would be a useful addition, so long as any mission receives adequate equipment, clear rules of engagement to help protect civilians and, a must these days, a well-considered Plan B should things go horribly wrong.

Canadians don't need to hear that boosterish "can do" optimism so often paraded out at the start of missions.

Instead, they need to know what we're getting into, our objectives, the possibility of casualties and the likely duration of the challenge ahead.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 02, 2016, 10:32:13
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.
:nod:
This is the risk when folks write off consultation processes as "situated appreciations" -- even if the road ahead has been decided, swamped alternative opinions can't be ignored (even if they're just downloaded & shared as evidence of people being ignored).
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 02, 2016, 11:40:13
The nonsense in that particular question's discussion is all the more reason it needs a few common sense replies to balance things.

I've posted my thoughts - Sean K is my handle.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 02, 2016, 12:07:56
I provided my thoughts in person at a session organized by my MP and the Centre for International and Defence Policy.

There was no mention of climate change.  ;)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 02, 2016, 12:26:15
I trotted out my hoary, old line about the RCMP being raised as a peacekeeping force of 300, 143 years ago and now there are some 18,000 in uniform - still taking casualties.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 02, 2016, 14:25:42
I provided my thoughts in person at a session organized by my MP and the Centre for International and Defence Policy.

There was no mention of climate change.  ;)

What??!! even from the "Harard of the North" that Queen's claims to be?  ;D.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 02, 2016, 14:51:52
What??!! even from the "Harvard of the North" that Queen's claims to be?  ;D.
The Rebels Without a Clue were likely too busy playing Pokémon to participate.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 02, 2016, 21:13:47
A bit more reality (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-african-peacekeeping-plan-unlikely-to-offer-easy-wins) for Team Red to consider ...
Quote
Harjit Sajjan is heading to West Africa this month on a fact-finding mission impossible.

The defence minister will search for an elusive United Nations peacekeeping mission that will maximize Canada’s chances of winning a seat on the UN Security Council but minimize the potential cost in Canadian lives and resources.

“That’s hard to find in Africa,” warned a senior military source.

Justin Trudeau’s belief in the United Nations as an effective institution runs from the top of his perfectly coiffed head to the tips of his stripey socks, and he is apparently prepared to send Canadian Forces into action to test it.

At a time when people like former UN assistant secretary general Anthony Banbury are lamenting an organization he called a “black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again,” the Liberals are exploring a role in an African trouble-spot like Mali or the Central African Republic.

Trudeau and his team feel obliged to do something in the world. There was the small deployment to Latvia, as part of NATO’s mini-surge in eastern Europe, but these Liberals have a Chrétien-like aversion to being aligned too closely with U.S. foreign policy and they see the UN as much more sound ideologically than NATO.

A mission in Africa would bring about the happy coincidence of winning acclaim from the developing nations who will decide which country gets the “Western Europe and Others” seat on the UN Security Council in 2020 (Canada is in the running against Ireland and Norway).

Winning this prize would be all the sweeter given the Conservative government’s abject failure to do so in 2010.

“The UN thing looms much larger (for Trudeau’s team) than people credit,” said one senior source.

The military is gung-ho, not least because there are no other major deployments on the horizon — dangerous for morale (there has been a mass exodus of experienced soldiers since Afghanistan) and budgets (the view in National Defence Headquarters is that it would be a good idea to get the army out the door before the completion of the current defence review; “More missions mean more visibility,” said one NDHQ source).

None of this need necessarily be a bad thing. Dr. Walter Dorn, professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, has long argued that Canada should beef up the number of military personnel on UN deployment from its current level of less than 30.

Canada, he contends, has special capabilities that could be used in French-speaking West Africa, not least of which are language skills, and there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate.

In the government’s defence, it can be argued that a mission to bolster local African forces would be useful in denying haven to Islamist terror groups. But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.

Will we have an end-date or a plan to hand off responsibility to another country? Is there even a peace to keep?

Nobody in Sajjan’s office was prepared to answer these questions, presumably on the basis that the minister hasn’t yet found his facts.

Yet Jon Vance, chief of the defence staff, told a change-of-command ceremony on Parliament Hill last month that the army would be deploying to Africa “very soon.”

If we are going, and it seems we are, let’s hope it’s not to Mali (apparently Sajjan’s trip will not take him to Bamako, though this doesn’t necessarily mean Canadians won’t end up there) ...
More @ link
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 03, 2016, 02:29:05
A bit more reality (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-liberals-african-peacekeeping-plan-unlikely-to-offer-easy-wins) for Team Red to consider ...More @ link

We could play a peacekeeping role in the US to keep the various warring presidential campaigns apart, but we'd be hopelessly out gunned .... by the teenagers alone. :)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ArmyRick on August 03, 2016, 09:01:40
Disheartening to say the least. PM wants a UN mission so badly, does not matter where or what but so long as it doesn't cost any lives or few lives? NEVER EVER have I seen such senseless decision making.

PM, you fail on COA selection
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 03, 2016, 09:43:22
Disheartening to say the least. PM wants a UN mission so badly, does not matter where or what but so long as it doesn't cost any lives or few lives? NEVER EVER have I seen such senseless decision making.

PM, you fail on COA selection
You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 10:00:33
You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.
Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 03, 2016, 10:07:08
Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.
Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 10:14:41
You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.
It actually said ..... one NDHQ source.  If it's one  unnamed NDHQ source, it sounds like "cherry-picking."  Yes, you've made your view quite clear, repeatedly, that you're desperate to go anywhere;  that's perfectly commendable.  Just try to be honest with such broad-brush "opinions." 

Nonetheless.....

Walter Dorn... contends... there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate. 
???  I'm confused.  Is he suggesting that this mandate will somehow make Mali easier / more successful than Rwanda or Somalia?  This is one time that I wish they'd given him more than a sound-byte, so he could explain that one (he's a media "go to" talking head for UN cheerleading;  shallow-thinking Canadians' views may be influenced such unsubstantiated one-liners).

Quote
But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.
Absolutely!!  :nod:    Especially  if marketed as some new construct in PKO that will somehow make everything more lovely than Somalia and Rwanda!


Summary: To be clear, I'm not saying the military should not be deployed; it's part of what we do.  The recurring theme in the three paragraphs has been "truthfulness" -- it's one of those integrity things that has been increasingly supplanted by photo-ops and incongruous throw-away lines about what year it is.


ps:
Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?
For some of us, that isn't a particularly thoughtful basis for foreign and defence policy development, but again, it's perfectly clear where you're coming from.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 03, 2016, 10:17:15
Troops who have't been on a mission where restrictive ROE and lack of Gov't support to the in-theatre requirements put them, their colleagues and innocent civilians at risk, perhaps...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on August 03, 2016, 10:35:12
Altair, outside of the very real and serious objections that have been raised, you need to consider that virtually every UN mission has been a failure. Peacekeepers have never prevented a conflict if the parties decide to go at it (if they're nice like Nasser, they may order peacekeepers out, or if they are bloody minded like the Croats, the simply drive past the UN outposts on their way to war). Getting involved in other people's conflicts also means you are a participant, either as a hostage to deter someone else airstrike, or perhaps a convenient place to fire mortars and rockets from, so counter fire falls on the UN outposts.

Even Cyprus, the "poster" deployment, has been politically frozen in amber since the 1960's.

Surely your eagerness to be deployed should be tempered by a sense that your deployment actually accomplishes something besides pandering to Gerald Butts' vanity and political ambition? Doesn't Canadian blood and treasure (and trust me, a deployment to Africa will certainly involve both) count for more than that?

As they say, elections do have consequences, but getting killed to fulfill someone's political wish list shouldn't be one of the consequences for any of us.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 03, 2016, 10:42:41
Altair, outside of the very real and serious objections that have been raised, you need to consider that virtually every UN mission has been a failure. Peacekeepers have never prevented a conflict if the parties decide to go at it (if they're nice like Nasser, they may order peacekeepers out, or if they are bloody minded like the Croats, the simply drive past the UN outposts on their way to war). Getting involved in other people's conflicts also means you are a participant, either as a hostage to deter someone else airstrike, or perhaps a convenient place to fire mortars and rockets from, so counter fire falls on the UN outposts.

Even Cyprus, the "poster" deployment, has been politically frozen in amber since the 1960's.

Surely your eagerness to be deployed should be tempered by a sense that your deployment actually accomplishes something besides pandering to Gerald Butts' vanity and political ambition? Doesn't Canadian blood and treasure (and trust me, a deployment to Africa will certainly involve both) count for more than that?

As they say, elections do have consequences, but getting killed to fulfill someone's political wish list shouldn't be one of the consequences for any of us.

Excellently said and may I add; lets move the UN lock, stock, and barrel to Darfur so they don't have to pretend to like their biggest financial backers and their senior management's commute will be shorter and cheaper.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 03, 2016, 11:38:55
Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?

http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14 (http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14)

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners  ;)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on August 03, 2016, 11:44:44
http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14 (http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14)

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners  ;)

Unless you can whine en francais.   :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 03, 2016, 11:47:11
http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14 (http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14)

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners  ;)
The pay is horrible.

If I'm leaving the Canadian forces ( and the thought has crossed my mind many a time) it would be for police of firefighting. Still serving the public and actually getting to do my job.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 11:51:00
....though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners  ;)
I was about to post, "that must have been autocorrect;  I'm sure you meant to type 'often misunderstood'."..... but I guess you were right.   :facepalm:

/tangent  (yet another )
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 03, 2016, 12:52:09
The pay is horrible.


It might be, but you really don't get many places to spend it, so still a net win with all the savings you have when your stint is up ;D.  If you stick around long enough, you can even get a second passport as well.  When I joined up in the late 80's, our pay was relatively shyte too...and got no better in the 90's when many of us here were frozen at the same pay incentive level for I've forgotten how long.

Glass half full Dude...take the Negative Nelly in your mind out back and either beat the shyte out of her or drown her.

Back to our regularly scheduled documentary of "UN Bashers R Us".

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 03, 2016, 12:58:51
You just can't satisfy some people.  At least he would get allllll the deployments and combat he pines for.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 03, 2016, 14:14:33

I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-it-is-failing.html?_r=0

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 03, 2016, 14:39:24
It might be, but you really don't get many places to spend it, so still a net win with all the savings you have when your stint is up ;D.  If you stick around long enough, you can even get a second passport as well.  When I joined up in the late 80's, our pay was relatively shyte too...and got no better in the 90's when many of us here were frozen at the same pay incentive level for I've forgotten how long.

Glass half full Dude...take the Negative Nelly in your mind out back and either beat the shyte out of her or drown her.

Back to our regularly scheduled documentary of "UN Bashers R Us".

MM

It's funny, I've spoken with a number of gents who served in the Legion, pay was never actually an issue. 

As you stated, you can't spend the money on anything so it steadily builds in your bank account.  Also, accommodations and food are free in the Legion so you always have a roof over your head and food in your belly although it ain't the Ritz Carlton.  Lastly, what they don't tell you when you join up is that you get heavily compensated for overseas postings, operational deployments, airborne pay, etc... much like we would if deploying to Afghanistan, etc...

The ones I spoke to said they all had relatively large sums of money sitting in their bank accouns at the end of their five year commitment.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 03, 2016, 14:42:22
I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-it-is-failing.html?_r=0


Quote
...
Our most grievous blunder is in Mali. In early 2013, the United Nations decided to send 10,000 soldiers and police officers to Mali in response to a terrorist takeover of parts of the north. Inexplicably, we sent a force that was unprepared for counterterrorism and explicitly told not to engage in it. More than 80 percent of the force’s resources are spent on logistics and self-protection. Already 56 people in the United Nations contingent have been killed, and more are certain to die. The United Nations in Mali is day by day marching deeper into its first quagmire.
...

Ouch!  Not surprised though. 

Imagine if/when Canadian Peace "Keepers" head to Mali...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: sidemount on August 03, 2016, 14:59:28
I've been going through a lot of the documents from the UN about Mali. To be quite honest, and please if someone else sees it differently please say so, this mission looks more and more Afghanistanish the more I read. Like was mentioned, most of the issues seem to be coming from insurgents and insurgent tactics.

Have a look through the latest report of the Secretary General (yes its 22 pages but focus on part III) and to me it reads of the same issues we were dealing with in Afghanistan. I don't think this is the "peacekeeping mission" the GC thinks it is.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/reports.shtml
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on August 03, 2016, 15:25:08
Peacekeeping in Mali

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X2ETw6Wiw
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 16:03:53
I don't think this is the "peacekeeping mission" the GC thinks it is.
I disagree.... with only a modicum of cynicism this time.   ;)

The purpose of being "back" into peacekeeping is so that the current PM will have an international relations success as part of his re-election campaign -- namely, a seat at the UN Security Council (even more 'honourable' because the Conservatives did not secure that transitory seat when they attempted in 2010).

Our main competitors for that seat are Norway and Ireland, both of which have a lot more boots on the ground doing PKO.  To compete against that, Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you ******* retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

That being said, as I mentioned earlier,  I don't dismiss the deployment out of hand; it's one of the reasons we have a military.  Just don't do it with rose-coloured glasses.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on August 03, 2016, 16:27:33
...Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you ******* retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

This reads like someone talking about OP ATHENA.  I thought it took much longer for history to repeat itself...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 16:43:00
This reads like someone talking about OP ATHENA.  I thought it took much longer for history to repeat itself...
Nahhhh......ATHENA was folks 'having carnal relations with the puppy' until the more favourable AOs were taken, thinking only "anything  but Iraq; Afghanistan must be easier." 

This is a self-inflicted wound;  this is looking actively for the worst possible mission, and saying "put me er, them  in coach."   :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: sidemount on August 03, 2016, 16:51:22
I disagree.... with only a modicum of cynicism this time.   ;)

The purpose of being "back" into peacekeeping is so that the current PM will have an international relations success as part of his re-election campaign -- namely, a seat at the UN Security Council (even more 'honourable' because the Conservatives did not secure that transitory seat when they attempted in 2010).

Our main competitors for that seat are Norway and Ireland, both of which have a lot more boots on the ground doing PKO.  To compete against that, Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you ******* retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

That being said, as I mentioned earlier,  I don't dismiss the deployment out of hand; it's one of the reasons we have a military.  Just don't do it with rose-coloured glasses.
I suppose a better line would have been "This is not the peacekeeping mission the GC is going to sell to the population"

I agree 100% the GC is doing everything with the goal of gaining the security counsel seat.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 03, 2016, 17:39:48
Journeyman, I think dapaterson was thinking of ATHENA V2.0, after all that ATHENA 1.0 and ARCHER stuff... ;)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 03, 2016, 18:52:53
With our experiences in Afghanistan I think the government will be in for a headache if they try and enforce old school UN shitty ROEs on Canadian soldiers.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 19:13:49
Current CDS would likely be outspoken against it too, but at the end of the day; if it's legal, we get what we get. I just hope Altair's FSP points are worth any losses we take.

Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 03, 2016, 20:04:56
Journeyman, I think dapaterson was thinking of ATHENA V2.0, after all that ATHENA 1.0 and ARCHER stuff... ;)
I don't know what the hell he's trying to say half the time....    >:D

    ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 21:11:48
Current CDS would likely be outspoken against it too, but at the end of the day; if it's legal, we get what we get. I just hope Altair's FSP points are worth any losses we take.

Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past.

What gong show? We haven't been given a UN mission yet, let alone been given an objectives for said mission, let alone done any planning for it. I know you hate the LPC, but why dont you wait until the actual mission is provided to critique it?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 21:26:40
What gong show? We haven't been given a UN mission yet, let alone been given an objectives for said mission, let alone done any planning for it. I know you hate the LPC, but why dont you wait until the actual mission is provided to critique it?

"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."

That's why we're still waiting. The government does not want a single casualty coming back with a blue beret on a pillow. They can't find an African peacekeeping mission that is safe, so they're content with "studying" and "fact finding" something that's palatable to the electorate. They situated the estimate declaring a return to peacekeeping, without knowing if that was even a valid COA.

Maybe you're a fan of going somewhere with the Commander's Intent being "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat", but unfortunately there are far better reasons that could have outlined to really stir up support. We pulled CF-18s from the fight against the largest terror group in the world in order to commit ground forces against outliers of that terrorist group in a continent that's been killing each other for the last century or so.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 03, 2016, 21:33:52
Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.

No one cancelled the planned increases.  Someone moved the same money that was twice before moved - money for the CSC and JSS for the most part.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 21:41:59
"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."

That's why we're still waiting. The government does not want a single casualty coming back with a blue beret on a pillow. They can't find an African peacekeeping mission that is safe, so they're content with "studying" and "fact finding" something that's palatable to the electorate. They situated the estimate declaring a return to peacekeeping, without knowing if that was even a valid COA.

Maybe you're a fan of going somewhere with the Commander's Intent being "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat", but unfortunately there are far better reasons that could have outlined to really stir up support. We pulled CF-18s from the fight against the largest terror group in the world in order to commit ground forces against outliers of that terrorist group in a continent that's been killing each other for the last century or so.

Maybe I'm just a fan of reserving judgments on things until there are actual facts to either support or deny those judgments? Some points/thoughts...

- Africa is in fact a quagmire of failed colonial aspirations. That said, where would you prefer we deploy? To Syria by ourselves? Iraq with a Bde perhaps? Are the lives of people in Mali or elsewhere in Africa not as important as those in other places? Can we have a strategic effect against ISIS in Africa? Moreover, how can be base any judgment of the strategic relevance of a mission to Africa with literally zero knowledge on it? (Spoiler alert- you can't, rationally at least)

- If, in the meetings with the UN, they told the government they needed support in Africa than would it not follow that stating something akin to, "we're deploying to somewhere in Africa" be logical?

- We deployed with NATO from 2002-2011 in Afghanistan with results that were negligible at best. Does this mean that we no longer deploy with NATO? Using the "past UN missions were bad" logic, with no knowledge of what the intent or strategic impact of a deployment is is premature.

- So you're against fact finding and studying potential missions? Would you rather we just shoot from the hip then? With limited resources, particularly with a mission in Latvia, making educated (if debatable) decisions would seem to be prudent.

- "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat"? The Signals community needs to work on its SMESC......
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 21:48:13
The Signals community needs to work on its SMESC......

Get over the Sigs thing, its a red herring and really just detracts from any coherent thought you had. We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 21:58:06
Get over the Sigs thing, its a red herring and really just detracts from any coherent thought you had. We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.

Well, no ones perfect.  [;) Luckily the Royal Regiment offers a wide breadth of career streams and opportunities outside of the Air Defence!

Back to the UN, why not focus on the coherent thoughts then.... no one can rationally dismiss or criticize a mission that we have details on. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on August 03, 2016, 21:58:54
We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.

...or signallers without radios or a comprehensible occupational structure...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 22:06:28
Back to the UN, why not focus on the coherent thoughts then.... no one can rationally dismiss or criticize a mission that we have details on.

Pick a mission in Africa that we could have an appreciable effect on the ground with 2000 pers deployed, around 500-750 are your BG. There's missions with 15,000 troops deployed from all nations, and they're able to do very little to help.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 22:14:51
Pick a mission in Africa that we could have an appreciable effect on the ground with 2000 pers deployed, around 500-750 are your BG. There's missions with 15,000 troops deployed from all nations, and they're able to do very little to help.

And this may well be a relevant point, once we have any direction. If the 2000 pers deployed are given a reasonable AO, clear mission, reasonable ROE, and a defined mission and exit policy than there's no reason why we couldn't have a strategic effect. If we go with your rationale than we may as well not deploy anywhere. Why send a couple hundred guys to Latvia to deter Russia? Clearly they have no ability to actually stop a Russian thrust.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 03, 2016, 22:24:22
"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."


... and we're not scared!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gyI6ykDwds
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 03, 2016, 22:31:17
Why send a couple hundred guys to Latvia to deter Russia? Clearly they have no ability to actually stop a Russian thrust.

Cause someone in the new government found an old book about 4CMBG and thought it was a good idea again?  ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 03, 2016, 23:23:35

- We deployed with NATO from 2002-2011 in Afghanistan with results that were negligible at best. Does this mean that we no longer deploy with NATO? Using the "past UN missions were bad" logic, with no knowledge of what the intent or strategic impact of a deployment is is premature.


That's your takeaway about AFG?  Implying a broad brushing of NATO as just is ineffectual as the UN? 

I stay in touch with Afghans along whom I worked as an embed a decade ago and they consistently tell me that things are demonstrably better in their country than a decade and a half ago, so I'm not as ready to write of Canada's participation there as you seem to be.  UN missions on the other hand, have a long legacy of problematic ROEs and lack of meaningful support from the highest levels of the organization as well as many of the "supporting" nations.  I'm probably not the only one who will give NATO the benefit of the doubt over the UN....Dr. Walter Dorn's 'cheerleading' notwithstanding...

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 03, 2016, 23:52:10
That's your takeaway about AFG?  Implying a broad brushing of NATO as just is ineffectual as the UN? 

I stay in touch with Afghans along whom I worked as an embed a decade ago and they consistently tell me that things are demonstrably better in their country than a decade and a half ago, so I'm not as ready to write of Canada's participation there as you seem to be.  UN missions on the other hand, have a long legacy of problematic ROEs and lack of meaningful support from the highest levels of the organization as well as many of the "supporting" nations.  I'm probably not the only one who will give NATO the benefit of the doubt over the UN....Dr. Walter Dorn's 'cheerleading' notwithstanding...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I would ask that you re-read the statement. I never suggested that we don't deploy with NATO on future missions.... I was simply pointing out that Afghanistan was a NATO operation and wasn't a rousing success. The point was that while UN missions have been ineffectual in the past, we can't just write them off OUT OF HAND without at least KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. NATO, NORAD, and the UN are all tools available to the government to achieve a strategic effect.

I also served in Afghanistan and visited friends in Beechwood who gave their lives there, so don't discount my opinion out of hand is if I just fell off of a turnip truck.

Who knew that stating military personnel should wait to see what the mission is, what the intent of it is, and how it will be conducted and THEN have a professional debate about the merits of the mission would cause such strong emotions.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 00:29:17
I also served in Afghanistan and visited friends in Beechwood who gave their lives there, so don't discount my opinion out of hand is if I just fell off of a turnip truck.

Many of us do - sadly.  That still doesn't mean I have to agree with your assessment that our effect in AFG was, as you said, "negligible at best."  I think you under appreciate the contribution we (and NATO) made in AFG to make a point that the UN isn't as bad as many are making it out to be.  My assessment of your argument stands.  UN is notably less effectual than NATO.  I and many others are perhaps not as willing to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the government regarding how well the next UN mission will be.  I hope to be proven wrong, but I (sadly) doubt it.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 04, 2016, 00:47:53
I would ask that you re-read the statement. I never suggested that we don't deploy with NATO on future missions.... I was simply pointing out that Afghanistan was a NATO operation and wasn't a rousing success. The point was that while UN missions have been ineffectual in the past, we can't just write them off OUT OF HAND without at least KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. NATO, NORAD, and the UN are all tools available to the government to achieve a strategic effect.

I also served in Afghanistan and visited friends in Beechwood who gave their lives there, so don't discount my opinion out of hand is if I just fell off of a turnip truck.

Who knew that stating military personnel should wait to see what the mission is, what the intent of it is, and how it will be conducted and THEN have a professional debate about the merits of the mission would cause such strong emotions.

How do you gauge success?  Afghanistan was a total failed state before 2001 in the hands of a despotic islamist regime that was a safe haven for terrorists intent on killing Westerners!  It is no longer such a country. 

80% of the country is controlled by the Afghan government and while the war is still ongoing, the Taliban cannot militarily defeat the Afghan government and have openly admitted as much.  Is there still fighting?  Of course, but Afghanistan wasn't going to turn in to Dubai overnight. 

I consider Afghanistan to be an operation in a larger campaign against Islamic extremism.  As Canadians, our biggest problem is we are generally terrible at "looking Up and Out" and are far more comfortable looking "Down and In".  Prime example, our most celebrated battle "Vimy Ridge" was one part of the larger Battle of Arras; however, if you read Canadian History, you'd think we single handedly defeated the Huns that day.

In other words, Canadians as a rule have a poor understanding of grand strategy and generally mix up the different levels of warfare.  We tend to look at the tactical level and think it's the strategic.   



Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 00:59:56
Many of us do - sadly.  That still doesn't mean I have to agree with your assessment that our effect in AFG was, as you said, "negligible at best."  I think you under appreciate the contribution we (and NATO) made in AFG to make a point that the UN isn't as bad as many are making it out to be.  My assessment of your argument stands.  UN is notably less effectual than NATO.  I and many others are perhaps not as willing to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the government regarding how well the next UN mission will be.  I hope to be proven wrong, but I (sadly) doubt it.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I'll agree to disagree. I think Afghanistan wasn't a "success" but it wasn't a "failure" either. But that's like a different thread.

That said- I also wasn't advocating to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but rather waiting until we actually have some details other than "Africa" before making judgments. Once the mission is it than it's fair game- if it's a poorly defined mission than critique; I'll be in line to do so as well.

I just dont see the point in yelling at a wall for no reason.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 04, 2016, 01:06:21
I'll agree to disagree. I think Afghanistan wasn't a "success" but it wasn't a "failure" either. But that's like a different thread.

That said- I also wasn't advocating to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but rather waiting until we actually have some details other than "Africa" before making judgments. Once the mission is it than it's fair game- if it's a poorly defined mission than critique; I'll be in line to do so as well.

I just dont see the point in yelling at a wall for no reason.

Now this is an interesting discussion to have, certainly far more enlightening than the endless debate about buying 65 fighter jets, a rather insignificant number in the world of global military affairs. 

Why exactly wasn't Afghanistan a success? 

Remember this?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0ZV2L0EM08I/hqdefault.jpg)

What are infanteers supposed to do in a react to ambush?  especially if the ambush is near?

Return fire and assault through the objective, which is exactly what we did in Afghanistan. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 01:08:26
Medak Pocket, Somalia and Rwanda cause me not to be as generous in the wait as are you. 

Perhaps that's a shortcoming on my part, but I am prepared to be, once again, sorely disappointed with a troubled UN mission, and believe there to be only an outside chance for things to have somehow improved markedly within the entire UN peace'keeping' construct.

I will be pleasantly surprised should the mission unfold in such a manner that primacy is placed on helping the people of the troubled region, not just one step on the way to trying to get a seat on the UNSC.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 04, 2016, 01:23:56
Pick a mission in Africa that we could have an appreciable effect on the ground with 2000 pers deployed, around 500-750 are your BG. There's missions with 15,000 troops deployed from all nations, and they're able to do very little to help.

I'd love to see whole infantry regiments deploy at a time. Switch between Bn ops and autonomous fighting-companies. Well maybe if it's peace keeping then something peacenik like shield companies lol
Throw in some TOW & mortar teams in the mix.  FOO/FAC,  some engineer dets. Whatever works but really concentrate on mobility and combined arms. Tons of firepower and options at company level.

We can keep the peace by training local forces to go out and smash ISIS or whoever the jerks of the hour are. With local forces our companies could probably act as battalions. Bring tanks to act as a reserve force/hammer.  Pad our numbers even further with lots of reservists.

We could probably turn the MSVS's with their sweet A/C into some decent jingle truck looking uparmored monstrosities.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 04, 2016, 01:26:19
We could probably turn the MSVS's with their sweet A/C into some decent jingle truck looking uparmored monstrosities.
:rofl:   Oh man, you were doing so well........    ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 04, 2016, 01:33:35
Medak Pocket, Somalia and Rwanda cause me not to be as generous in the wait as are you. 

Perhaps that's a shortcoming on my part, but I am prepared to be, once again, sorely disappointed with a troubled UN mission, and believe there to be only an outside chance for things to have somehow improved markedly within the entire UN peace'keeping' construct.

I will be pleasantly surprised should the mission unfold in such a manner that primacy is placed on helping the people of the troubled region, not just one step on the way to trying to get a seat on the UNSC.

Regards
G2G

Meanwhile, in Steele Barracks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgqIY7xgtE
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 04, 2016, 01:33:59
Medak Pocket, Somalia and Rwanda cause me not to be as generous in the wait as are you. 

Perhaps that's a shortcoming on my part, but I am prepared to be, once again, sorely disappointed with a troubled UN mission, and believe there to be only an outside chance for things to have somehow improved markedly within the entire UN peace'keeping' construct.

I will be pleasantly surprised should the mission unfold in such a manner that primacy is placed on helping the people of the troubled region, not just one step on the way to trying to get a seat on the UNSC.

Regards
G2G

I'll open with the disclaimer that I'm a believer in the fight against Islamic Extremism.  It's why I joined the military, probably one of the only reasons as I don't really have any sort of attachment to the institution (no family connection or anything) and I'm not a particularly patriotic individual.  I saw the 9/11 attack as a direct assault on Western financial and military might.  The symbolism was very powerful.  Hit the two biggest symbols of Western Financial and Military Power:  WTC and the Pentagon.  Only target that was missed was Capitol Hill i.e. the Political Power.  It was a very good attempt at cutting off the heads of the snake of your enemy, that's Sun Tzu 101.

My problem is the GoC doesn't seem to understand the strategic relevance of any of their decisions.  Lets face it, in the world of military/global affairs, Canada is a PAWN.  Our military is very small and as others have said, we need to be pragmatic about where and when we use military force.  We've got an Army that's streamlined to fight constabulary type operations in far flung reaches of the globe which makes us perfectly suited for an operation in Africa, particularly the Sahel.  I believe we can make a valuable contribution there as part of a larger effort in the global war against Islamic extremism. 

The government is going to send us there for their own political reasons, which are more than likely designed to satisfy a short game.  Governments in the West are all about the short term and working towards the next election every four or five years, continuity rests in the Bureaucracy.  Our military leaders need to be that continuity, we need officers and senior NCO's that think about how our operational tempo ties in to a long term campaign plan, I'm talking like 30+ years or decades. 

I had the opportunity to sit down and listen to General Vance five years ago give a lecture on how the Canadian Military was involved in a new "Thirty Years War."  This was in 2011.  Last year, many academics began calling the wars in the Middle East a "New Thirty Years War".  My point is, General Vance is a military leader that gets it, he isn't thinking about a month from now or even a year from now, he's thinking in decades.  We need more political and military leaders like him.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 01:34:39
Now this is an interesting discussion to have, certainly far more enlightening than the endless debate about buying 65 fighter jets, a rather insignificant number in the world of global military affairs. 

Why exactly wasn't Afghanistan a success? 

Remember this?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0ZV2L0EM08I/hqdefault.jpg)

What are infanteers supposed to do in a react to ambush?  especially if the ambush is near?

Return fire and assault through the objective, which is exactly what we did in Afghanistan.

The lack of a clearly defined end state was what to me make it "not a success". If we define success as not being attacked in Canada than its a difficult argument based on the fact that we may never have been attacked in the first place. We can't assume what would have happened if we had chosen a different option.

I judge it as "not a failure" as Afghanistan in a lot of ways is better off than it was before we got there. The true test will be once NATO pulls out. If the government can stand by itself and not fall like the communist one did once the Soviets left than I would change my opinion.

From the strategic viewpoint, if the intent was to destroy Al Qaeda than success. However, it would be difficult to state today that the fight against terrorism has gotten appreciably better with current fights in Africa and the middle east.

So as we sit in 2016 I view the war as a strategic draw. However, as the war continues this can change. Perhaps a UN mission to Africa can continue to allow us to impact the overall strategic vision of the GWOT? We'll see.

I understand the call for action in the post 911 era. I remember a Time magazine article that came out right after 911 that a poll that simply stated, "Who should we attack". 30% of respondents said, "doesn't matter". For the ambush example- returning fire and attacking through the objective is valid as long as it isn't what the enemy intended you to do. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 04, 2016, 01:47:18
The lack of a clearly defined end state was what to me make it "not a success". If we define success as not being attacked in Canada than its a difficult argument based on the fact that we may never have been attacked in the first place. We can't assume what would have happened if we had chosen a different option.

I judge it as "not a failure" as Afghanistan in a lot of ways is better off than it was before we got there. The true test will be once NATO pulls out. If the government can stand by itself and not fall like the communist one did once the Soviets left than I would change my opinion.

From the strategic viewpoint, if the intent was to destroy Al Qaeda than success. However, it would be difficult to state today that the fight against terrorism has gotten appreciably better with current fights in Africa and the middle east.

So as we sit in 2016 I view the war as a strategic draw. However, as the war continues this can change. Perhaps a UN mission to Africa can continue to allow us to impact the overall strategic vision of the GWOT? We'll see.

I understand the call for action in the post 911 era. I remember a Time magazine article that came out right after 911 that a poll that simply stated, "Who should we attack". 30% of respondents said, "doesn't matter". For the ambush example- returning fire and attacking through the objective is valid as long as it isn't what the enemy intended you to do.

I agree, I think the opening salvos within Afghanistan were well done,  the US moved in and rapidly ousted the Taliban from power.  It's when they began to play the Nation Building game that things began to fall off the wagon.  I blame it on American Exceptionalism and also Colonial inexperience.  The Brits and the French are far better at this sort of thing because they've got centuries of experience doing it all over the world. 

A better strategy would have been to keep Western troop numbers in country small and not aim to hold ground.  Buy off whoever you need to buy off to keep control and prop up whoever you need to prop up.  Aim should be to always float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.  Sure the Taliban would keep coming but that's what uppercuts to the mouth (aka US Marines) are for.  Eventually, after enough Fallujahs, they would get the message. 

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on August 04, 2016, 10:07:46
I agree, I think the opening salvos within Afghanistan were well done,  the US moved in and rapidly ousted the Taliban from power.  It's when they began to play the Nation Building game that things began to fall off the wagon.  I blame it on American Exceptionalism and also Colonial inexperience.  The Brits and the French are far better at this sort of thing because they've got centuries of experience doing it all over the world. 

A better strategy would have been to keep Western troop numbers in country small and not aim to hold ground.  Buy off whoever you need to buy off to keep control and prop up whoever you need to prop up.  Aim should be to always float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.  Sure the Taliban would keep coming but that's what uppercuts to the mouth (aka US Marines) are for.  Eventually, after enough Fallujahs, they would get the message.

The issue here is 4GW warfare. So long as the enemy does not lose, they are winning, and so long as *we* are not building and supporting alternative structures and institutions to undermine the sort of structures and institutions *they* use to build and nurture support for their cause, then they have a distinct advantage. Playing "whack a mole" is a good short term solution, and expedient, but unless the hard work of nation building (or some acceptable substitute) is being done, then you simply need to go back and do it again.

Case in point is the US experience in the "Banana Wars" The US marines with a force of @ 3000 took the entire island of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) as part of their larger strategy to control the approaches to the Panama Canal. The Marines were there on and off until 1934, and during that time they built roads, hospitals, ran the post office and instituted a tax collection system to keep things funded. However, since they apparently believed that the local would adopt American practice by osmosis, they did little to train locals and indoctrinate them. The results were predictable; one the Americans left, everything that wasn't nailed down was stolen and everything else was left to deteriorate. Max Boot's book "The Savage Wars of Peace[ (https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/0465064930)" outlines much of this story.

You are correct that *we* in general have a very poor record of nation building and lack both the experience and patience to do so. Until we are willing to either go "all in", accept and tell the public this is a short term expedient or apply the Roman solution ("They create a wilderness and call it peace") then we may end up with a legacy of Afghanistans, where the job never seems to be finished and few people are satisfied with the results.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 04, 2016, 10:30:53
The lack of a clearly defined end state was what to me make it "not a success". If we define success as not being attacked in Canada than its a difficult argument based on the fact that we may never have been attacked in the first place. We can't assume what would have happened if we had chosen a different option.

I judge it as "not a failure" as Afghanistan in a lot of ways is better off than it was before we got there. The true test will be once NATO pulls out. If the government can stand by itself and not fall like the communist one did once the Soviets left than I would change my opinion.

From the strategic viewpoint, if the intent was to destroy Al Qaeda than success. However, it would be difficult to state today that the fight against terrorism has gotten appreciably better with current fights in Africa and the middle east.

So as we sit in 2016 I view the war as a strategic draw. However, as the war continues this can change. Perhaps a UN mission to Africa can continue to allow us to impact the overall strategic vision of the GWOT? We'll see.

I understand the call for action in the post 911 era. I remember a Time magazine article that came out right after 911 that a poll that simply stated, "Who should we attack". 30% of respondents said, "doesn't matter". For the ambush example- returning fire and attacking through the objective is valid as long as it isn't what the enemy intended you to do.

Success is over rated, the best you can expect in the ME is stalemate with a slight improvement.  By that measure Afghanistan is a success, it is better now than then.  Part of the problem was we got wrapped around making the world safe for Muslim women as a justification for our role there.  We raised our own expectations beyond what the situation could ever resolve. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2016, 12:16:53
Success in the Middle East (courtesy of Wiki)

Quote
Within hours of the coup, British Special Air Service (SAS) soldiers were flown into Oman to further bolster the counterinsurgency campaign. They identified four main strategies that would assist the fight against the PFLOAG:

Civil administration and a hearts and minds campaign;
Intelligence gathering and collation;
Veterinary assistance;
Medical assistance.
[18]


The military commanders on the ground (rather than the UK Ministry of Defence) suggested the implementation of a "hearts and minds" campaign, which would be put into operation primarily by a troop (25 men) from the SAS. The British government (then under Conservative leader Edward Heath) supported this unconventional approach to the counterinsurgency campaign. It approved the deployment of 20 personnel of the British Royal Engineers, who would aid in the construction of schools and health centres, and drilled wells for the population of Dhofar.[19] Royal Army Medical Corps Field Surgical Teams and some Royal Air Force medical teams would also operate out of Salalah hospital, in order to open a humanitarian front in the conflict. The operation was almost a carbon copy of a system that had proved successful in the Malayan Emergency some twenty years previously. The British government additionally provided monetary support for the creation of the Dhofar Development Programme, whose aim was to wrest support from the PFLOAG through the modernisation of Dhofar.

To assist in the civil development and coordinate it with the military operations, the command structure in Dhofar was reorganised, with the newly appointed Wāli or civilian governor (Braik bin Hamoud) being given equal status to the military commander of the Dhofar Brigade (Brigadier Jack Fletcher to 1972, Brigadier John Akehurst from that date).


Caption on British poster: "The Hand of God Destroys Communism"

A major effort was made to counter rebel propaganda and induce the Dhofari population to support the government. In particular, appeals were made to Islam and to traditional tribal values and customs, against the rebels' secular or materialistic teachings. A significant outlet for government propaganda was the many inexpensive Japanese transistor radios which were sold cheaply or distributed free to jibalis who visited Salalah and other government-held towns to sell firewood or vegetables. Although the PFLOAG could also broadcast propaganda by radio, the Government's propaganda was factual and low-key, while that of the rebels, broadcast by Radio Aden, was soon perceived to be exaggerated and stereotyped.[20]

Government counter-attacks[edit]

One step which had a major impact on the uprising was the announcement of an amnesty for surrendered fighters, and aid in defending their communities from rebels. A cash incentive was offered to rebels who changed sides, with a bonus if they brought their weapon. The rebels who defected to the Sultan formed Firqat irregular units, trained by British Army Training Teams, or BATTs, from the Special Air Service. Eighteen Firqat units, numbering from between 50 and 150 each, were eventually formed.[21] They usually gave themselves names with connections to Islam, such as the Firqat Salahadin. (Some of the PFLOAG units also gave themselves ideological names such as Ho Chi Minh or Che Guevara.)[22] These firqat irregular groups played a major part in denying local support to the rebels. Being jibalis themselves (and in many cases with family connections among the communities on the Jebel), they were better at local intelligence-gathering and "hearts and minds" activities than the northern Omani or Baluchi personnel of the regular SAF.[23] The first serious step in re-establishing the Sultan's authority on the Jebel took place in October 1971, when Operation Jaguar was mounted, involving five Firqat units and two squadrons of the SAS. After hard fighting, the SAS and Firqats secured an enclave on the eastern Jebel Samhan from which they could expand.[24]

Meanwhile, the regular units of the SAF were expanded and re-equipped. Extra officers and NCO instructors from the British Army and Royal Marines (and also the Pakistan Army)[25] were attached to all units (there were nominally twenty-two British or contracted personnel with each infantry battalion) while Omani personnel were educated and trained to become officers and senior NCOs. British specialist elements, including mortar locating radar troops and artillery observation officers, also rotated through Oman over several years.

12 years on the ground and continuing engagement to this day - 46 years later.

Net benefits - a stable launch point at the mouth of the Persian/Arabian Gulf from which to launch assaults into Iraq and Kuwait as well as to counter Iran (and Pakistan and Saudi).   All the more so when coupled with similarly engaged Kingdom of Jordan.  Efforts in the Emirates and Kuwait have been more problematic but also useful.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 14:05:32
The issue here is 4GW warfare. So long as the enemy does not lose, they are winning, and so long as *we* are not building and supporting alternative structures and institutions to undermine the sort of structures and institutions *they* use to build and nurture support for their cause, then they have a distinct advantage. Playing "whack a mole" is a good short term solution, and expedient, but unless the hard work of nation building (or some acceptable substitute) is being done, then you simply need to go back and do it again.

Case in point is the US experience in the "Banana Wars" The US marines with a force of @ 3000 took the entire island of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) as part of their larger strategy to control the approaches to the Panama Canal. The Marines were there on and off until 1934, and during that time they built roads, hospitals, ran the post office and instituted a tax collection system to keep things funded. However, since they apparently believed that the local would adopt American practice by osmosis, they did little to train locals and indoctrinate them. The results were predictable; one the Americans left, everything that wasn't nailed down was stolen and everything else was left to deteriorate. Max Boot's book "The Savage Wars of Peace[ (https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/0465064930)" outlines much of this story.

You are correct that *we* in general have a very poor record of nation building and lack both the experience and patience to do so. Until we are willing to either go "all in", accept and tell the public this is a short term expedient or apply the Roman solution ("They create a wilderness and call it peace") then we may end up with a legacy of Afghanistans, where the job never seems to be finished and few people are satisfied with the results.

That I believe that 4GW is just a new, western interpretation of styles of warfare that have existed throughout history notwithstanding, the difficulty in applying our, western, style of warfare is problematic for many reasons. First, western nations view warfare as being a set of events that take place within a set period of time with clearly delineated periods of war and peace. Culturally, our opponents in the GWOT don't see such distinctions, so are more inclined to take a long term approach to warfare and view it as a semi-permanent state of struggle rather than specific periods. As western nations view war as a distinct period it has led to a cultural desire to restore peace as quickly as possible leading to problem 2, being our style of warfare.

Western warfare, as indicated in US and western doctrine and the writings of Clausewitz and Jomini, emphasize the destruction of the enemy military as the pre-eminent intent of a military. In Clausewtiz's trinity, the destruction of the enemy military is critical as it allows the political element to establish the terms of peace. Where this is problematic is that our enemy views warfare more from a political than fighting standpoint, so the main point of western warfare, the decisive battle, is incongruent with them.

The problem with the GWOT is that we don't have clear political aims for the war. "destroying terrorists" is simplistic and does not speak to the nature of the war in which we are fighting, a key issue in the Clausewitzian trinity. Further, as we are culturally indoctrinated to our style of war with it's focus on the enemy and war being a specific period of time, we design militaries to engage in decisive battles to restore the political elements to create peace. In this way, we create a military that is akin to a "hammer". As such, when we evaluate military manners we lean towards the problem of, "when your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails". This leads us to try to solve all problems military by hoping we can engage and destroy the enemy, which isn't feasible in our current conflict. Finally, as society views war and peace as separate entities, and war as a condition to be avoided or dealt with quickly, we tend to shy away from prolonged conflicts.

These are the key factors to why A-Stan wasn't a "success" in the traditional sense. Over the long haul it could be but not now.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2016, 14:27:23
How does this sound?

War:  That period of time when one government's police are forced to coalesce to actively oppose the concentrated efforts of another government's police.

The period of peace that exists between periods of war allows the government to use its police to maintain order domestically.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 04, 2016, 14:39:09
Success is over rated, the best you can expect in the ME is stalemate with a slight improvement.  By that measure Afghanistan is a success, it is better now than then.  Part of the problem was we got wrapped around making the world safe for Muslim women as a justification for our role there.  We raised our own expectations beyond what the situation could ever resolve.

Half the time Muslim women don't even seem to want that. It's like they enjoy being treated like property.

Problem we gave ourselves in Afghanistan IMO is that we introduced them to western style welfare. We swooped in and started throwing money around which made people greedy. Maybe we could have accomplished more if we treated it like an advance to contact from one end to the other instead of trying to impress our culture over top theirs.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on August 04, 2016, 14:51:51
I will argue that the west’s focus on Kandahar/Kabual while ignoring the more stable parts of Afghanistan did not help. More development in the non-Pastun area’s would have strengthened them and given a firmer base to build economic vitality. As a number of these areas were in the Northwest, the west should have worked harder at improving western transportation linkages across Central Asia and extended the rail system down south. Building a railway would provide a lot of low tech jobs and make mines and such viable, eventually the rail could connect to Iran opening up non-Pakistan seaport access. This would reduce Pakistan’s deathgrip on the balls of US/ISAF/Afghanistan logistics. The above would draw the ire of the Pastun’s and given the west a bargaining chip to force the Pastun tribes to the table with less chips.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: captloadie on August 04, 2016, 15:25:36
We had a northern rail route. We were at the mercy of the neighbouring 'stans and Russia as to what, when and in what direction we could ship things. But I agree that a railroad would have been a worthy infrastructure project. Seems to have helped Canada, parts of Africa, etc. get a step up.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: GAP on August 04, 2016, 15:39:30
Quote
We had a northern rail route.

Until the massive subsidies stopped.....then it's polar bear express......
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on August 04, 2016, 15:42:36
Who knew that stating military personnel should wait to see what the mission is, what the intent of it is, and how it will be conducted and THEN have a professional debate about the merits of the mission would cause such strong emotions.

In the absence of clear direction from the PM, given the facts that he and his government have said about it, There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The military does this all the time. Don't you think the government hasn't drilled down on each possibility we have for deployment?

We do it because it's what we are taught. We have an interest in what we are paid to do. We have an interest in where we are going and what we are expected to do. We know how to use the Combat Estimate, that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies.

"So what?"

That's why we do it.

 :2c:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on August 04, 2016, 17:36:14
We had a northern rail route. We were at the mercy of the neighbouring 'stans and Russia as to what, when and in what direction we could ship things. But I agree that a railroad would have been a worthy infrastructure project. Seems to have helped Canada, parts of Africa, etc. get a step up.

The NW western route was not really exploited till later in the game, we should have started sooner (we as in the ROW) that would have reduced Pakistan grip earlier on and given us 34 options (North through Russia, Through the stans, Pakistan and air). The players in the stans could have been bought off with improvements to their rail lines and ports. It would have required special rolling stock that had exchangeable trucks to accommodate the different rail gauges on each side of the Caspian sea and improved ports.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 19:14:44
In the absence of clear direction from the PM, given the facts that he and his government have said about it, There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The military does this all the time. Don't you think the government hasn't drilled down on each possibility we have for deployment?

We do it because it's what we are taught. We have an interest in what we are paid to do. We have an interest in where we are going and what we are expected to do. We know how to use the Combat Estimate, that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies.

"So what?"

That's why we do it.

 :2c:

ok, ack on the need for contingency planning (which wouldn't be a combat estimate for a deployment of this scale, but I digress). However, there was no actual estimate completed, aside from a detailed assumptions para that could be summed up with "UN deployments suck and peacekeeping is stupid" and "Africa is a quagmire". Once there is information more detailed than "peacekeeping" and "Africa" than an actual, non-emotional discussion can be had as to merits and difficulties.

It is true that we, as military, have (or at least ought to have) an interest in what our missions are, where we are going, and how force is being applied. However, arbitrarily stating that peacekeeping will be bad because it was bad in the 1990's and before isn't constructive and without information on the actual mission isn't bound to be backed by any analysis or reason. Combat estimates, formal estimates, and the OPP cycle need to be based on more than just speculation. If not, than you're simply situating said estimate.

Finally, nowhere have I said I think that peacekeeping or NATO are more or less valid than the other. I simply stated that going on tirades about how the government is only using the CAF to score political points was premature since we literally have no idea what the mission is, or where it is. It makes the CAF look bad in my opinion. We're professionals and more capable of analysis and discussion than what was occurring.

 :2c: 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 20:23:08
Some folks night actually have been involved in the strategic estimate, are respecting GoC OPSEC and still think that the GoC is posturing for a UNSC seat and, as other nations often blame Canada for, excusing themselves from the table for a pee break when the costly bill comes...

:dunno:

So, are you volunteering to be the first to provide an Estimate, or are you content just to opine that others haven't?

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 20:44:04
Some folks night actually have been involved in the strategic estimate, are respecting GoC OPSEC and still think that the GoC is posturing for a UNSC seat and, as other nations often blame Canada for, excusing themselves from the table for a pee break when the costly bill comes...

:dunno:

So, are you volunteering to be the first to provide an Estimate, or are you content just to opine that others haven't?

Regards
G2G

Sure, maybe they have. Than they came here to say it was stupid.

The estimate idea came from elsewhere, not me so I wasn't opining about anything. Also, you can't do an estimate until you actually have some info, which (I would opine) few on here have aside from what's in the papers. If they do have details than great, but I would hope they could make better assessments than "peacekeeping is stupid", OPSEC or not.

For the third time, the mission may well be poorly thought out, may well be a waste of time, money, and lives, and may well achieve nothing but a UNSC seat. It may not be. I just don't see yelling at walls as a valid COA until there's something concrete.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 04, 2016, 20:57:23
Good article on the "fact finding" trip, with some tea leaves reading on his chosen destinations. Highlights are mine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-minister-to-visit-drc-on-mission-to-learn-about-peacekeeping/article31277571/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-minister-to-visit-drc-on-mission-to-learn-about-peacekeeping/article31277571/)

Quote
Defence Minister to visit DRC on mission to learn about peacekeeping

Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Thursday, Aug. 04, 2016 3:16PM EDT

Last updated Thursday, Aug. 04, 2016 5:46PM EDT

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will visit the Democratic Republic of Congo next week as part of a trip to Africa to collect information for a potential future Canadian peacekeeping mission on the continent.

Officials have warned against jumping to any conclusions that Canada is preparing to send hundreds of troops to the DRC, where the United Nations has a major peacekeeping operation.

“This is an opportunity for him to go into a country that does have an ongoing peacekeeping mission and see what that looks like,” said Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Jordan Owens. “It’s to see what an ongoing mission looks like.”

But Walter Dorn, a peacekeeping expert at the Canadian Forces College, says despite its challenges, the DRC would be a “great mission” for Canada.

“There is the possibility of a major role there,” he said. “And we could be looking at a force-commander position.”


Former UN high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour and retired general Romeo Dallaire, who commanded a peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, will accompany Sajjan as he visits the DRC as well as Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda during the week-long, fact-finding mission.

The Liberals promised during last year’s election campaign to return Canada to peacekeeping and Sajjan and defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance both said last month that could involve a mission to Africa.

Owens said the defence minister undertook a similar fact-finding trip to Iraq before the Liberal government revamped Canada’s military mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in February.

“It’s a good way for him to see exactly when the African Union says it has this support, what does that actually look like?” Owens said. “When the UN says ‘We’re doing this,’ what does that mean? So we’re gathering information.”

There had been speculation that the Liberal government was eyeing a role in the west African country of Mali, where a UN peacekeeping mission has been in place since April 2013. Hundreds of German and Dutch troops are among the roughly 13,000 blue helmets in the country.

But that mission, which is intended to assist a ceasefire between the government in the south and armed groups in the north, has been fraught with risk. Eighty-six peacekeepers have been killed as insurgents, some linked to terrorist groups, have launched ambushes and attacks.

While Owens insisted no decision on a new Canadian peacekeeping mission has been made, the fact Sajjan is heading to East and Central Africa suggests the government is considering a deployment to that part of the continent and not Mali.

Info on DRC mission - MONUSCO http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/index.shtml (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/index.shtml)

Deploying 2,000 troops there puts us 3rd behind India and Pakistan, ahead of Bangaldesh, Tanzania, Uruguay, South Africa, and Nepal as the only other contributions above 1,000 (there are 55 nations contributing including 8 Canadians already there).

The other countries listed as part of the fact finding do not have active UN peacekeeping missions.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 04, 2016, 21:00:06
Out of interest, who said "peacekeeping is stupid?"

I certainly believe that we will see a repeat of poorly written, overly-restrictive ROE and a weak National rear-party support to the peacekeeps in the field, and while I will be pleasantly surprised if things are much better, I will not be surprised if it's the same crap show as Yugo, Somalia or Rqanda (amazing at many).

Glad you see a glass 1/4 full.  Good on you.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 04, 2016, 22:38:33
Out of interest, who said "peacekeeping is stupid?"

I certainly believe that we will see a repeat of poorly written, overly-restrictive ROE and a weak National rear-party support to the peacekeeps in the field, and while I will be pleasantly surprised if things are much better, I will not be surprised if it's the same crap show as Yugo, Somalia or Rqanda (amazing at many).

Glad you see a glass 1/4 full.  Good on you.

"Disheartening to say the least. PM wants a UN mission so badly, does not matter where or what but so long as it doesn't cost any lives or few lives? NEVER EVER have I seen such senseless decision making."


"Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past."

The stupid is inferred in lieu of other more terse terms, but is a general theme. Heck, I dont even disagree. The UN has accomplished little in these missions outside of wasting money (and the occasional good go tour to Cyprus).

To be honest, I have little reason based on 14 years in the army, history studies, and general feeling to believe that the potential mission wont go the way of the dodo. However, until proven wrong I choose to at least give the government the smallest benefit of the doubt and maintain a glass 1/4 full approach. I'm also prepared to criticize the %^$& out of the mission if the worst suspicions are found to be the case. As a professional officer I think maintaining some positivity and faith in the government and the CoC (including General Vance who was a tremendous TF Commander in 2010) that chooses my fate is the least I can do. Hopefully they choose to risk mine, and everyone else here and in the CAFs, life with the same reciprocal trust. If I can't maintain that level than it's time to move on to other avenues.

 :salute:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 04, 2016, 22:51:52
I'm going to find my essay on peacekeeping. There might be some good things in it.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on August 04, 2016, 23:09:20
I would like to perhaps change the direction of this conversation, if I may.

I'd like to ask everybody - but especially those with relevant experience (whatever it may be) - what could we do differently to help ensure a noticeable & tangible change when deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission?

I've heard it stated by many that UN operations are a gong show.  Mismanaged.  Restrictive ROE, etc etc.

What could we do - both in general, and specifically - to ensure that by the time the Canadians leave, our area is better off & long term positive change can take hold?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on August 04, 2016, 23:23:46
I would like to perhaps change the direction of this conversation, if I may.

I'd like to ask everybody - but especially those with relevant experience (whatever it may be) - what could we do differently to help ensure a noticeable & tangible change when deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission?

I've heard it stated by many that UN operations are a gong show.  Mismanaged.  Restrictive ROE, etc etc.

What could we do - both in general, and specifically - to ensure that by the time the Canadians leave, our area is better off & long term positive change can take hold?

Being a cold warrior completely without peacekeeping experience, I ask what would lead us to think the aim is to improve the situation so positive change can take hold? That implies one side or the other must concede defeat or at least make major concessions which is not the way the world works or is it? Without the wherewithal including the resources and ROE to fix things, and that means taking sides, nothing can change.

Does JT want to go to war in Africa to earn a seat on the security council, or does he think the appearance of Canadian troops wearing blue berets trying to recreate Cyprus in a war zone will suffice?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Tcm621 on August 05, 2016, 00:02:42
My biggest problem with UN peacekeeping is the UN. The UN as an organization is not something that should be admired. They have some of the biggest human rights violators on the human right s council,  they sponsor was is essentially and antisemitic conference,  they are certainly corrupt and I don't buy into the idea that some African or middle eastern dictator's opinion is equal to a western democracy's.

I am all for peacekeeping (if such a thing truly exists) but the UN should be kept as far away from it as possible. I would rather do it with a coalition of like minded states. At least all the players would have complimentary aims compared to the UN's chaos.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 05, 2016, 01:03:43
My biggest problem with UN peacekeeping is the UN. The UN as an organization is not something that should be admired. They have some of the biggest human rights violators on the human right s council,  they sponsor was is essentially and antisemitic conference,  they are certainly corrupt and I don't buy into the idea that some African or middle eastern dictator's opinion is equal to a western democracy's.

I am all for peacekeeping (if such a thing truly exists) but the UN should be kept as far away from it as possible. I would rather do it with a coalition of like minded states. At least all the players would have complimentary aims compared to the UN's chaos.

The other foe is the overblown egos of some of our political and military leaders, who like to write cheques that our militaries can't cash, of course. :)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Tcm621 on August 06, 2016, 00:07:10
The other foe is the overblown egos of some of our political and military leaders, who like to write cheques that our militaries can't cash, of course. :)
I have been witnessing this on a small scale over the last week or two. I think we currently have 3 or 4 number 1 priorities and the manpower to accomplish 1 or 2 of them.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 08, 2016, 16:34:30
Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?):

Quote
Peacekeepers made major errors that contributed to South Sudan massacre, U.N. report finds

Six months after an attack on a United Nations camp left dozens dead in South Sudan, an internal U.N. investigation concluded that peacekeepers made major errors that contributed to, and exacerbated, the massacre.

On Feb. 17, fighting broke out within the U.N. Protection of Civilians Site in the city of Malakal, first between young men from rival ethnic groups who had managed to smuggle guns through holes in the fence. Then the violence escalated after heavily armed government forces entered the camp.

A summary of the United Nation’s “board of inquiry report,” released Friday [Aug. 5], said the organization and its peacekeepers failed through a “combination of inaction, abandonment of post and refusal to engage.”

[Special Report: South Sudanese civilians fear U.N. peacekeepers can't protect them from a massacre]

In other words, some peacekeepers, whose most prominent mandate is to protect civilians, simply ran away once they were tested, abandoning sentry posts. Other peacekeepers demanded written permission to use their weapons, even though their U.N. mandate clearly gives them that authority.

But the failure began before the attack itself, according to the report. Peacekeepers did not heed warnings that violence was brewing, it said. The perimeter fence was poorly patrolled and left with gaping holes that could be used by combatants.

“Weapons and ammunition can easily be smuggled in and hidden,” the report said.

The end result was tragic, “ensuring that civilians would be placed in serious risk in the very location to which they had come for protection.”

It was not the first time the United Nations had failed to protect civilians, or the first time it had pointedly addressed those failings in a board of inquiry report (a list of others is below)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/06/peacekeepers-made-major-errors-that-led-to-south-sudan-massacre-u-n-report-finds/?postshare=5091470683961795&tid=ss_tw

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 08, 2016, 17:05:33
As for Mali--Euro view:

The risks of deeper engagement in Mali
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_risks_of_deeper_engagement_in_mali_7089

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 08, 2016, 18:20:04
Quote from: MarkOttaw
Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?):

Mark
Ottawa
Quote
In other words, some peacekeepers, whose most prominent mandate is to protect civilians, simply ran away once they were tested, abandoning sentry posts. Other peacekeepers demanded written permission to use their weapons, even though their U.N. mandate clearly gives them that authority.

It's not PC but really there's two tiers of "peacekeepers".  As for the written permission, that's the UNs fault.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on August 08, 2016, 21:06:05
One of the things that saddens me & frightens me about modern day society is that people are afraid to do what is morally right, in fear that they are condemned for those actions legally.

What is morally right and what is legally right should never be at odds with each other.  (And sadly, having worked in the criminal justice system for a few years now, I've seen how backwards and misguided it has become at times.)

The UN mandate gave those personnel clear authorization to use their weapons in a situation such as this.  That being said, however, they didn't trust that they wouldn't be thrown under the bus anyhow - and asked for written permission, presumably for their own protection, because they don't trust the UN's leadership on the matter.

Civilians under attack?  Protect them.  Simple. 

A militia attacking a group of destitute people based on some ethnic BS?  Protect them.  Use lethal force if necessary. 

Terrorist militia (Boko Haram) attacking villages and towns, kidnapping schoolgirls & taking the children to turn into child-soldiers?  Hunt the mother f**kers down and kill them all.  It isn't a video game, these guys don't respawn after 30 seconds.  Shoot them.  Cleanse the area of them.  Simplifies solving the other problems. 

Peacekeeping, re:  It'll be a lot easier to keep the peace if the trouble makers aren't around to make trouble anymore.    :2c:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: QV on August 08, 2016, 21:37:27
....they didn't trust that they wouldn't be thrown under the bus anyhow - and asked for written permission, presumably for their own protection, because they don't trust the UN's leadership on the matter.

Sadly this is not limited to the UN... I do agree with your points however. 

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Coffee_psych on August 09, 2016, 13:57:06
Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?)

That is literally the best article to highlight the potential of peacekeeping missions, and also it's major issues that can be worked on.  By empowering those mission groups to be autonomous in their decisions would have probably saved these people...however that is also how certain military groups have gone too far. *cough cough CBH99*

Hunt the mother f**kers down and kill them all.  It isn't a video game, these guys don't respawn after 30 seconds.  Shoot them.  Cleanse the area of them.

Though I agree with much of what you said CBH99, this is the part of what you said that makes the UN necessary and why it has such strict codes of conduct.  It is this mentality from which the UN must protect itself, because guess what, some of those soldiers in Boko Haram, are also prisoners and aren't old enough to even get a proper hard-on.  Hunting them down and shooting them is careless. 

My stance is this: UN soldiers should have enough training in order to act in hostile situations, however a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over, which takes a much higher degree of mental restraint, it almost seems painful. This will allow other forces to track down and "cleanse the area of them"...if you will. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 09, 2016, 14:18:35
As for the written permission, that's the UNs fault.
Without knowing specifics, it might also be the troops don't trust their own military leadership to back them up, even if they did everything right according to the U.N.
... a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over ...
Unfortunately, not many UN missions are set up where both/all sides have agreed to stop fighting one another    :(
... some of those soldiers in Boko Haram, are also prisoners and aren't old enough to even get a proper hard-on.  Hunting them down and shooting them is careless ...
Lots more shades of grey there than one might think - depending on the ROE, if a child soldier is not threatening or shooting at someone, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe some discretion is possible, but if they're shooting at someone (like a civilian)?  Not so much.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 09, 2016, 14:30:00
Without knowing specifics, it might also be the troops don't trust their own military leadership to back them up, even if they did everything right according to the U.N.Unfortunately, not many UN missions are set up where both/all sides have agreed to stop fighting one another    :(Lots more shades of grey there than one might think - depending on the ROE, if a child soldier is not threatening or shooting at someone, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe some discretion is possible, but if they're shooting at someone (like a civilian)?  Not so much.

Get it in writing.....

Quote
'Ambulance chasing' law firm that hounded British troops over false claims of Iraq abuse banned from public funding
 
 Robert Mendick, chief reporter  Ben Farmer, defence correspondent

2 AUGUST 2016 • 6:50PM

A leading human rights law firm accused of hounding British troops over false Iraq abuse claims could be forced to pay back up to £3 million after being stripped of its legal aid funding.

Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) has been barred from receiving public money for ongoing cases after an 18-month investigation by the Legal Aid Agency.

The Government agency said it would now trawl through all historic allegations brought by the law firm to see if fees, understood to total £3 million paid out over the past decade, can be clawed back.

The decision by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to revoke its contract with PIL is a massive blow to the firm, which could now be forced to shut down. The law firm, based in Birmingham and London, has levelled more than 1,100 allegations of mistreatment, torture and murder by British troop of Iraqis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/ambulance-chasing-law-firm-that-hounded-british-troops-over-fals/

Quote
Bloody Sunday: Ex-soldier arrested over Londonderry shootings

10 November 2015

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-34775466
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 09, 2016, 16:47:22


Terrorist militia (Boko Haram) attacking villages and towns, kidnapping schoolgirls & taking the children to turn into child-soldiers?  Hunt the mother f**kers down and kill them all.  It isn't a video game, these guys don't respawn after 30 seconds.  Shoot them.  Cleanse the area of them.  Simplifies solving the other problems. 


100%
You can't negotiate or turn your back on scumbags like that.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on August 09, 2016, 18:22:34
That is literally the best article to highlight the potential of peacekeeping missions, and also it's major issues that can be worked on.  By empowering those mission groups to be autonomous in their decisions would have probably saved these people...however that is also how certain military groups have gone too far. *cough cough CBH99*

Though I agree with much of what you said CBH99, this is the part of what you said that makes the UN necessary and why it has such strict codes of conduct.  It is this mentality from which the UN must protect itself, because guess what, some of those soldiers in Boko Haram, are also prisoners and aren't old enough to even get a proper hard-on.  Hunting them down and shooting them is careless. 

My stance is this: UN soldiers should have enough training in order to act in hostile situations, however a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over, which takes a much higher degree of mental restraint, it almost seems painful. This will allow other forces to track down and "cleanse the area of them"...if you will.

Oh you mean like the end of WWII where the west ended up feeding and caring for the populations of Germany and Japan after the cessation of hostilities till they could look after themselves? The difference of course was that for the most part, both had functioning governments which the people for the most part obeyed the call to put down arms and work for peace. That is not going to happen in parts of Africa because the main loyalty is not to nation but to tribe and family. You really do need to identify and kill the bad guys before things will get better, things ill not improve without security and security will not improve until people in the region know that
1. You mean business and not shy on killing when required.
2. You intend to stay and deal with the bad guys for the long term.
3. You are out there all the time providing security.
4. You can with overwhelming force and mandate to get the job done. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 09, 2016, 21:34:46
It is this mentality from which the UN must protect itself, because guess what, some of those soldiers in Boko Haram, are also prisoners and aren't old enough to even get a proper hard-on.  Hunting them down and shooting them is careless. 

My stance is this: UN soldiers should have enough training in order to act in hostile situations, however a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over, which takes a much higher degree of mental restraint, it almost seems painful. This will allow other forces to track down and "cleanse the area of them"...if you will.

- hunting them down is age old, perfectly ruthless, and arguably necessary if there is clear expectation they will reappear as the murdering little shits that they were. Romeo Dallaire be damned, an AK in the hands of a 10 year old Boko Harem member makes them a legitimate and legal target, end of story unless they immediately lay face down on the ground with no weapon in reach;
- what "other forces" are you speaking of?? If the UN force is in place with a proper mandate, especially a first world western UN force, those "other forces" had better be there with a legal mission and legal ROE- almost certainly the same ROE as the UN force in place, unless you are suggesting that it's ok to endorse the idea that the laws of armed conflict ought not to apply to those "other forces", which makes them a liability and not a solution. 

A one hook private in the RCR is entitled to the same protection of her own life as that of a highly trained, super ninjette commando fashionably complete with brass knuckles.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 09, 2016, 21:36:03
Does JT want to go to war in Africa to earn a seat on the security council, or does he think the appearance of Canadian troops wearing blue berets trying to recreate Cyprus in a war zone will suffice?

Won't work with the 2 beer rule. Nothing to broker peace with.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Coffee_psych on August 10, 2016, 02:18:09
Oh you mean like the end of WWII where the west ended up feeding and caring for the populations of Germany and Japan after the cessation of hostilities till they could look after themselves? The difference of course was that for the most part, both had functioning governments which the people for the most part obeyed the call to put down arms and work for peace. That is not going to happen in parts of Africa because the main loyalty is not to nation but to tribe and family. You really do need to identify and kill the bad guys before things will get better, things ill not improve without security and security will not improve until people in the region know that
1. You mean business and not shy on killing when required.
2. You intend to stay and deal with the bad guys for the long term.
3. You are out there all the time providing security.
4. You can with overwhelming force and mandate to get the job done.
Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Coffee_psych on August 10, 2016, 02:21:52
- hunting them down is age old, perfectly ruthless, and arguably necessary if there is clear expectation they will reappear as the murdering little shits that they were. Romeo Dallaire be damned, an AK in the hands of a 10 year old Boko Harem member makes them a legitimate and legal target, end of story unless they immediately lay face down on the ground with no weapon in reach;
- what "other forces" are you speaking of?? If the UN force is in place with a proper mandate, especially a first world western UN force, those "other forces" had better be there with a legal mission and legal ROE- almost certainly the same ROE as the UN force in place, unless you are suggesting that it's ok to endorse the idea that the laws of armed conflict ought not to apply to those "other forces", which makes them a liability and not a solution. 

A one hook private in the RCR is entitled to the same protection of her own life as that of a highly trained, super ninjette commando fashionably complete with brass knuckles.
Your first point is mute, once you call small children "little shits" and it's okay to murder them
 As for your second point I agree, what I meant by other forces is exactly as you stated, so thank you for clarifying that, on my behalf and for others.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Ludoc on August 10, 2016, 07:10:54
Quote
1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.

If that were true we would not have a military. Let alone one equipped with assault rifles, tanks, fighter jets and the like.

Killing is unfortunate and something we should avoid when possible. However, if you truly believe killing is never required, may I suggest the CAF is not the place for you.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 10, 2016, 08:15:21
Quote from: Coffee_psych

 Your first point is mute

You mean moot,  right?

Quote

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.

In the context of the military you're quite wrong about killing.

Can you explain what you mean by some of us know killing someone can take a piece of us away?  It's a peculiar thing to say. Have you've been responsible for taking someone's life away?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 10, 2016, 08:40:06
Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.

1.  I, too, would like to understand your experience with killing, particularly since you claim to be an applicant, have you been freelancing with the Kurd's Womens battalion or are you going to quote me your case studies from university?  Killing is a matter of force protection and ROE, nothing more, no one in this army gets hard-ons from killing. 
2.  Valour is expressed in 100s of ways a day at home and aboard, Staying and helping are merely a matter of political decision and there is no valour in politics.  Once valour is required in staying and helping, the politicians usually order everyone to run away. 
3.  Yeah sure, try teaching a third world person who has generations of feudal dependence bred into him.
4.  He who comes early with the most and the will to use it is successful.  Yugo and Kosovo were more successful when Serbian bridges got blown up than when Serbia was a safe zone for aggressors, notwithstanding the issues with the other sides. 

Finally, you may want to study tribalism in Africa a little more closely.  It took me two minutes to find a dozen peer reviewed studies to say the opposite of your supposition.  Indeed, my last briefing on Africa in the army before retirement is completely opposite of your belief.  Simply stated there is no nation state loyalty in Africa except where the ruling tribe of the nation is concerned.  Even the Boers have no loyalty to South Africa, let alone the African tribes.  This article from the Economist sums up nicely:

http://www.economist.com/node/16796580
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 10, 2016, 08:42:15
Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
If you truly, truly believe the bit in yellow, you should seriously consider whether you want to join the military - or even a police force, for that matter. 

I'll agree with you on the bit in orange (similar to how a person leaving a war is not the same person that went in), but it's still the job of the soldier/cop to, if needed, use force (up to and including lethal if needed as a last resort) to do what the government we elected says needs doing.

Use your head in weilding the tools on behalf of Canadians, by all means, but if you can't use all the tools, you should seriously think about whether you want to put on the toolbelt in the first place.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on August 10, 2016, 11:15:33
Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.

No it's the perfect example of what the west can do better than the rest, is that we can switch off the killing once the task is complete. If you go into those places you better be prepared to kill and do it with overwhelming force. The biggest issue with the West, is that we have no intention of staying and we telegraph that, so people hunker down and wait us out. They take the long view and we take the short view. Protecting people down there, means killing the people who do bad things, till most of the leadership of the bad guys is eradicated and then the rest will decide it's better to go home and try to survive. Nationalism is not doing so well there, Tribalism still rules the day for the most part. Even the Kenya and Tanzania are struggling to hold it together and they were considered the shining stars for many years.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 10, 2016, 12:05:57
.... The biggest issue with the West, is that we have no intention of staying and we telegraph that, so people hunker down and wait us out. ...

That right there.

We fear being labelled imperialists.  The only debate there should be is over the nature of the empire and whose rules govern it.

Policing, like mowing the grass, is an unending and thankless but necessary task.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 10, 2016, 12:18:20
We fear being labelled imperialists. /quote]
I don't know if it's just that, or that our adversarial "nothing the other side does is ANY good" election cycles don't allow for long-term continuity.

Although that, too, is a lack of courage at one level ...
Policing, like mowing the grass, is an unending and thankless but necessary task.
True, no matter WHAT party's @ the helm ...  :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 10, 2016, 12:28:58
Agreed that our national politics are toxic.  But the "We" I refer to is broader than that.  Unfortunately I can't define "We" clearly because my "We" is probably different than your "We" although there is likely to be a degree of overlap.

And in that difference lies a world of conflict.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 10, 2016, 15:18:10
Killing is never, ever a requirement.

I beg to differ.  Current example?  ISIS.  Historical example?  Nazi Germany.

Killing is definitely a requirement in some areas of the world/conflicts.  It has, can and will be a requirement in our own Canadian society because people force the hands of people like our police officers to protect others.   

Quote
Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.

Sometimes, NOT killing can 'take a piece of us away'.  Think of the Canadian peacekeepers who were in Rwanda but couldn't stop the massacre.  Ever talk to one of them?  I have.  Not being able to defend helpless women and children took more than a piece away from him.

The nice, tidy lines peacekeeping/peacemaking/operations appear to have to people who've never deployed from the safety of Canada aren't necessarily so nice and tidy out there where the rubber meets the road.  Consider your audience here;  this isn't some theoretical debate in a learning environment.  Many of us have deployed and have seen the rubber meet the road first hand.   :2c:

There is a concern amongst some of us who serve and actually do the deployments that the ideas, theories and hopes these people have...

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.mtlblog.com%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F08%2Fstudents-during-the-lecture.jpg&hash=7d49644f174ba14e5e72f042890f5edd)   

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitaljournal.com%2Fimg%2F5%2F9%2F2%2F8%2F1%2F2%2Fi%2F1%2F4%2F1%2Fo%2Fcanada.JPG&hash=e32423219c2d190ddacb76bfa77a5dd9)

are different from the realities faced by these people when their boots are actually on the ground...

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.cbc.ca%2F1.1511040.1382501815%21%2FhttpImage%2Fimage.jpg_gen%2Fderivatives%2F16x9_620%2Fli-soldier-cp-w-5141713-620.jpg&hash=8d18778d825183de5a03a58f89587174)

When their ideas, theories and hopes don't unfold 'as per the plan', they then don't necessarily have the stomach (political, or otherwise) for things like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N1JO2YNg_0).

Or this (RIP  :cdn:).

(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.windsorsquare.ca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2FSD-2.jpg&hash=5a5a9c8a58cb402da9b9a8bb813dd2e7)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Coffee_psych on August 10, 2016, 18:11:59
So what I mean is very literal.  Killing is not ever necessary, you never HAVE to take someone's life.  However taking someone's life to save others and/or your own life is a different story.  So in many faiths it is 100% against that religion to ever kill someone, even if it means you must die.  So when it comes to weighing in the options of one life versus another, this becomes a very serious and ethical matter.

You're right, ISIS is an easy target (no pun literally intended), there is a set of ideologies within that group that makes the decision somewhat easy that killing them is to the benefit of pretty much all civil society.  However I myself am not the one shooting these men down (at this point in time), I am asking others to do it of me.  And even the worst of these men still have a sense of humanity in them, they are a son to somebody.  Asking someone to kill on my behalf is something many Canadian people take for granted or forget.  Killing is a big deal, and even if the choice is easy, the fighters who are protected us make a huge sacrifice.

So when I say killing isn't necessary, that is what I mean, that we are weighing 2 lives in the balance, the guy on our side versus the one on the other.  So we better be damn sure to sign on for that fight.

Feel me?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 25, 2016, 09:42:16
Another nudge toward the Colombia mission?  This from the Global Affairs Canada Info-machine (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1116579&tp=980):
Quote
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today made the following statement on the announcement that a Colombia peace agreement had been reached:

“Canada applauds the tireless work by parties over the past four years to reach the comprehensive peace agreement, signalling the end of more than 50 years of internal armed conflict. The agreement lays the foundation for future peace and prosperity for all Colombians. The success of these efforts shows that, through dialogue, peace is possible.

“Colombia will now have the opportunity to ratify what has been agreed by the parties. Building peace is not easy. It will require hard work to build an inclusive society and a path to sustainable peace, development and the rule of law, particularly in those regions that have been at the historic epicentre of the conflict. Building peace will also require effort and engagement across all of Colombian society.

“Canada welcomes the agreement and hopes the peace and security Colombians so richly deserve will be achieved.”
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 25, 2016, 10:01:27
A much better option than Africa.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on August 25, 2016, 11:41:24
Personally, I think a disarmament mission in Columbia would have a much greater return on investment from a diplomatic perspective. I think Canada needs to realize that by and large the African nations don't want white soldiers policing their countries. We have much to gain in helping central and south America; an area we have neglected for far too long.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ueo on August 25, 2016, 11:57:48
Didn't the UN try something in this area circa mid to late 80's? Seem to recall that the results were about what one might expect- rich contributors got nothing except grief on the paucity of their contributions. poor contributors got a whole lot of neat new things and of course $$$ (USD) and the folks who lived there just wanted us all gone so life could go on. Why do politicians and indeed the military here in Canada and probably elsewhere insist on reinventing the wheel. Read history (!!!!) and make an attempt to find something really helpful or at the very least useful in the world context. As for the UN, that's the subject of a whole 'nother rant.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 25, 2016, 12:01:18
Americas[edit]


Dates of operation

Name of Operation

Location

Conflict

Website

1965–1966 Mission of the Representative of the Secretary-General in the Dominican Republic (DOMREP) Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Operation Power Pack [22]
1989–1992 United Nations Observer Group in Central America (ONUCA) Costa Rica Central America1 Nicaraguan Civil War [23]
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
1991–1995 United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL) El Salvador El Salvador El Salvador Civil War [24]
1993–1996 United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) Haiti Haiti 1991 coup and military rule in Haiti [25]
1996–1997 United Nations Support Mission in Haiti (UNSMIH) Haiti Haiti Stabilizing Haiti's new democracy [26]
1997 United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) Guatemala Guatemala Guatemalan Civil War [27]
1997 United Nations Transition Mission in Haiti (UNTMIH) Haiti Haiti Training of the Haitian National Police [28]
1997–2000 United Nations Civilian Police Mission in Haiti (MIPONUH) Haiti Haiti Training of the Haitian National Police [29]
2000–2001 United Nations General Assembly International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH) Haiti Haiti Training of the Haitian National Police [30]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions#Americas_2
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 25, 2016, 12:19:04
Looks like announcement soon:

Quote
Liberal MPs to get peek at plans for climate change, peacekeeping
Two-day caucus strategy session will set scene for fall sitting of House of Commons

The broad strokes of Canada’s United Nations peacekeeping commitment are…likely up for discussion following Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s whirlwind five-country Africa tour this month.

Upon his return, Sajjan said he had a good idea how may troops would be deployed but was awaiting direction from cabinet.

The figure is expected to be in the hundreds, sources told CBC News.

The government is expected to make a formal public commitment at a UN peacekeeping conference in London in early September…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-caucus-cliamte-change-peacekeeping-1.3734886

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 25, 2016, 19:00:36
Personally, I think a disarmament mission in Columbia would have a much greater return on investment from a diplomatic perspective. I think Canada needs to realize that by and large the African nations don't want white soldiers policing their countries. We have much to gain in helping central and south America; an area we have neglected for far too long.

Whole heartedly agree. I'm not saying getting involved in a Colombian mission is not without its risk, but we have a lot more reasons to getting involved in Colombia, then Africa. For example;

- In 2011 we signed a free trade agreement with Colombia and in 2015 trade between both countries was 1.6 billion. Excluding Mexico, Colombia is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America;
- We have supplied them with military equipment, plus under DND's Military Training and Cooperation Program (MTCP) over 200 Colombian officers have participated. The RCMP and CBSA are involved with Colombian authorities to help combat drug and human trafficking;
- In 2013 over 40,000 Canadians went there for holidays. (not to many Canadians holidaying Mali/DRC); and,
- Involvement in Colombia could strengthen our ties with other Latin America countries.

 Link  (http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/colombia-colombie/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/index.aspx?lang=eng)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on August 25, 2016, 20:28:49
I agree that we do have more of a reason to participate in a mission in Colombia, rather than Africa.  More to gain, and more measurable means of success.  (No mass murders today isn't exactly a barometer of real change)

A quick little note though.  I do believe the citizenry of those African countries would like to see western troops in the UN ranks.  More professional.  More effective.  Better resources. 

If the UN is being to be around, I believe the people fearing for their very lives would rather the interference of white, western troops rather than troops from Bangladesh, etc.  I believe the fear of brutality, sexual assaults, robbery, etc. is less when people are dealing with professional western militaries, rather than troops from countries almost as poor as they are.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Spencer100 on August 25, 2016, 22:24:16
Yes but do the average person in those countries even know that western militaries act like that?  Some maybe but I think many do not.  They have been educated that many of the problems in Africa are the fault of the white man or colonial times etc.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2016, 08:37:19
Tick, tick, tick (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-peacekeeping-announcement-1.3736593) ...
Quote
Federal cabinet ministers will troop out to one of the country's principal fighter jet bases on Friday to outline the Trudeau government's rebooted commitment to international peacekeeping — a pledge that sources tell CBC News will eventually involve hundreds of soldiers and police officers over time.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, along with International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale are scheduled to make the announcement at the Bagotville air base north of Quebec City on Friday.

The announcement is coming two weeks ahead of a United Nations peacekeeping conference in London, a gathering Canada was almost excluded from because, according to a series of sources, it had not made — until recently — a firm commitment on the number of troops it could provide.

The initial list of countries prepared by conference organizers did not include Canada, said two UN sources with knowledge of the file. The officials could not speak publicly because of the diplomatic sensitivity ...
This (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1116979&tp=3), from the Info-machine ...
Quote
The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, will make an important announcement about Canada’s peace operations and hold a joint media availability.

Event: Announcement and media availability
Date: Friday, August 26, 2016
Time: 10 a.m. ET

Location: Officer’s mess, 3 Wing Bagotville, Canadian Forces Base, Bagotville, Quebec ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 26, 2016, 08:47:57
Judging by the location of the Dion/Sajin announcement, it sure looks like somewhere French is needed, like Africa.  God help them.   :(
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 26, 2016, 09:04:57
Yup, they included the LaFrancophonie Governess
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2016, 10:12:40
Judging by the location of the Dion/Sajin announcement, it sure looks like somewhere French is needed, like Africa.  God help them.   :(
Maybe -- or maybe because the DefMin's already there announcing new housing (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1116849&tp=3)?

 :pop:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 26, 2016, 11:55:41
Watched it on CTV. 

A whole of of  :blah: with a little bit of  :tempertantrum: from Dion when the 'where are the troops actually going?' question was asked the 2nd or 3rd time.  When he cut the reporter off, curtly I thought, and said 'next question', I thought "sunny ways folks!  this is the type of idiot you voted in".  I especially found it funny that, shortly after, he thru Goodale under the bus to try to redirect the focus.

Dion might need to be reminded that questions following an announcement are exactly that...questions.  If the same one gets asked over and over again, its probably because you didn't answer yet.   ::)

Bibeu should brush up on, or use, her English. 

CTV needs to get an interpreter who's main skill isn't stuttering, and, yes it is hard to make sense when both the speaker and interpreter are coming thru at the same volume.

 :2c:  Whole lot of hot air, and avoiding the hard questions about "where" and "casualties".
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 26, 2016, 11:58:50
Why should she had to brush up on her English?  We have had and do have uni lingual English ministers.

As for where they're going - the press knew that question wouldn't be answered today.  Asking something you knew you weren't going to get an answer for over and over is a waste of time.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on August 26, 2016, 12:05:37
Where ever the troops are sent, no matter who goes, I fervently hope they all come home safely, physically and mentally.

I have a feeling the Designated Assistants course will be needed....
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on August 26, 2016, 12:06:04
Quote
...will make an important announcement ...

I'm pretty sure "where and how many" is a reasonable question to ask in this instance.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on August 26, 2016, 12:07:01
I'm pretty sure "where and how many" is a reasonable question to ask in this instance.

It most certainly is.  Of course, they knew they weren't getting an answer to that particular question before they got there.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 26, 2016, 12:21:03
It most certainly is.  Of course, they knew they weren't getting an answer to that particular question before they got there.

On the flip side of that coin....why bother making an "announcement" without knowing the details?  Or...leaving out the messy detail like 'where', which would lead into more question of potential casualties, etc. 

Wait, maybe I answered my own question there...

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 26, 2016, 12:33:02
It most certainly is.  Of course, they knew they weren't getting an answer to that particular question before they got there.

Exactly, so best not to ask any questions then.  :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 26, 2016, 12:34:38
Exactly, so best not to ask any questions then.  :nod:

Quite, questions make democracy......so messy. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2016, 12:35:13
On the flip side of that coin....why bother making an "announcement" without knowing the details?  Or...leaving out the messy detail like 'where', which would lead into more question of potential casualties, etc. 
Either they don't know where, or they're ... managing the message ... over time  ;)

This (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1117209), from the Info-machine ...
Quote
The Government of Canada is taking concrete actions to prevent and respond to conflicts abroad and to support UN peace operations in building a more peaceful and prosperous world.

The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, today announced the launch of Global Affairs Canada’s new Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs) and the pledge of up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel to be available for possible deployment to UN peace operations.

Conflicts today are multifaceted, requiring political, security, development and humanitarian responses brought together under the broad umbrella of “peace operations”. The Government of Canada has already demonstrated its whole-of-government approach to the situation in Iraq and Syria. Today’s approach to peace operations is no different: they demand that we go beyond military roles and work closely with local authorities and a range of international and regional partners.

Canada is devoting an unprecedented $450 million to PSOPs. The new funding will help better protect civilians, including the most vulnerable groups, such as displaced persons, refugees, women and children.

Canada is uniquely placed to provide the very best expertise across the full spectrum of peace operations. Therefore, Canada’s PSOPs and future contributions will focus more on the areas of early warning, conflict prevention, dialogue, mediation and peacebuilding, and the empowerment of women in decision making for peace and security.

The Canadian Armed Forces are prepared to contribute personnel across a range of available capabilities, which could include ground troops, leadership for command and headquarters positions, air transport, engineering and medical expertise, military and police training, and capacity building, in order to make a meaningful contribution to peace operations.

Working with Canadian public and private sector partners, PSOPs will serve as an essential platform for tackling the causes and effects of conflict and preventing their escalation or return by increasing Canada’s support for UN peace operations.

Canada’s engagement in peace operations will be a whole-of-government effort, using the full range of Canada’s military and police as well as other capabilities in integrated responses. As conflicts have grown in intensity and complexity, the nature of peace operations has also changed.

Canada is back, and that includes its peace missions. Canada is committed to increasing its support for UN peace operations and supporting its mediation efforts, preventing conflicts and engaging in post-conflict reconstruction. This commitment reflects Canada’s deep desire to be a determined peacebuilder and to make a genuine and useful contribution to building a more peaceful and prosperous world.
Quotes

    “Now, more than ever, is the time for our country to choose engagement over isolation, a time to redouble our combined efforts to address the world’s toughest challenges, from complex emergencies to climate change and security.

    “Based on our unparalleled experience in building a peaceful and inclusive society, our bilingualism and our diversity, Canada will do what is needed to support the international community in bravely fighting for justice and security on the global stage; in promoting humanitarian assistance, development, training and capacity building; and in protecting gender equality and all human rights.”

    - Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs

    “The nature of global conflict has changed, so Canada requires an innovative approach as we move forward supporting international peace. We must get the ground truth, understand the root cause of conflict and learn from the experts who are working directly in the field. My recent trip to Africa provided an opportunity to learn first-hand about the security issues affecting the continent and hear recommendations from regional leaders, representatives of the United Nations, African Union and NGOs on how Canada can best make a tangible contribution to peace support operations.

    “Canada is committed to re-engaging in a full spectrum of multilateral peace operations. This is why we are making a significant pledge of military personnel and related capabilities for possible deployment to UN peace support operations.”

    - Harjit Singh Sajjan, Minister of National Defence

    “Evolving conflict abroad continues to affect the nature of security to Canada, Canadians and Canadian interests. Peacekeeping has been a long-standing tradition for Canada, and we are taking concrete steps to build a more secure world through police participation in international peace support and stabilization missions. The RCMP, in collaboration with officers from police forces across the country, will help strengthen local policing, improve security and build capacity in fragile and conflict-affected states.”

    - Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

    “I know that our women and our men who will be deployed in various peace missions will inspire their UN comrades with their courageous leadership. They will also help in implementing my development mandate as their exemplary actions will be a crucial determinant for the protection of women, girls and the most vulnerable.”

    - Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie

Quick facts

    Canada’s PSOPs will have three core responsibilities:
        1. lead Canada’s stabilization and fragile states policy;
        2. coordinate whole-of-government responses to conflicts and crises around the world; and
        3. support targeted stabilization programming in, and deployments to, fragile and/or conflict-affected states.

    Canada’s increased support to UN peace operations is a whole-of-government effort, combining diplomacy, deployment, training and capacity-building efforts, and includes conflict prevention, mediation, peace operations and peacebuilding efforts.
    Canada’s contributions to UN peace operations reflect a comprehensive approach, drawing from civilian, police and military resources, with protection of civilians as a core concern.
    The International Police Peacekeeping Program was renewed for a five-year period, with renewed funding of $46.9 million per year provided through Budget 2016 for the first three years to allow for the deployment of up to 150 police officers.
    The exact size and composition of any future CAF deployment to a UN mission will be based on discussions with the UN and Canada’s partner nations, as well as an assessment of where Canada can best make a meaningful impact ...
This from the Backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1117199):
Quote

The new Peace and Stabilization Operations Program (PSOPs) will have a budget of $450 million over three years, and it will be managed by Global Affairs Canada. It builds on the more than a decade of experience and achievements of its predecessor, the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, or START, as well as lessons learned by the international community on how best to promote peace, security and stability.

PSOPs will give Canada a stronger voice on the world stage by funding projects that help to promote peace and security, including deployments of police officers and civilian experts to areas where they are needed and can make a difference.

PSOPs will complement other related efforts, such as life-saving humanitarian assistance and longer-term development cooperation. PSOPs will support and enable Canadian diplomacy, particularly by helping address the drivers of conflict, and in so doing, help lay the groundwork for enduring stability in fragile and conflict-affected states. PSOPs will help to create space for dialogue and conflict resolution so that affected communities can begin to recover their livelihoods and a sense of normalcy. Ensuring the meaningful participation of women in peacebuilding will be a core part of this effort.

PSOPs will work in partnership with other government departments and agencies, such as the Department of National Defence, the Department of Justice, Public Safety Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. PSOPs will deliver on Canada’s commitment to a closer coordination between defence policy, foreign policy and national security, as outlined in the mandate letter of Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion.

PSOPs will also coordinate the government’s implementation of Canada’s Ac‎tion Plan on Women, Peace and Security and actively promote the role of women and youth in conflict resolution.

Overall, PSOPs will have three core responsibilities:

1. Leadership on stabilization and fragile states policy

The program will support Canadian efforts to influence and shape dialogue and collective action among allies and partners, particularly at the UN. Canada will aim to:

    provide a strong Canadian voice and sustain advocacy efforts in global policy forums and initiatives, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the 2011 New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States and UN reforms on sustaining peace;
    advocate for improved compliance with international humanitarian law; enhance the protection of civilians from armed conflict, particularly of women and girls from sexual and gender-based violence; and promote the role of women and youth in conflict resolution; and
    help prevent mass atrocities by working with allies and partners to improve early warning and conflict analysis.

2. Support coordinated responses by the Government of Canada to conflicts and crises abroad

PSOPs will coordinate whole-of-government responses to catastrophic natural disasters and complex political crises abroad.

For political crises in particular, PSOPs will serve as a focal point for information sharing, joint analysis and the coordination of diplomatic, military, security and development efforts to ensure that they are mutually reinforcing and are coherent with and supportive of broader, collective efforts of the international community.

3. Design and deliver catalytic stabilization initiatives

PSOPs will provide visible and concrete assistance in response to conflicts or crises abroad through quick and flexible funding of stabilization activities. PSOPs will also manage the deployment of Canadian police officers and civilian experts to areas in need, and support the deployment of police in conjunction with Public Safety Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police through the International Police Peacekeeping and Peace Operations program. The program will focus Canada’s efforts in the areas of:

    programming, through $118 million per year in grants and contributions to advance key peace and security priorities, such as strengthening Ukraine’s security sector, reducing tensions among communities hosting Syrian refugees in Lebanon, supporting the implementation of Colombia’s peace process, supporting anti-Daesh coalition efforts and stabilization operations in Iraq, among others; and
    expert deployments, for which $17 million per year has been allocated; they will include the deployment of Canadian police officers, managed in conjunction with Public Safety Canada and the RCMP through the International Police Peacekeeping and Peace Operations program, as well as the deployment of civilian experts for technical support to external organizations or for rapid response to crises and natural disasters.
"Catalytic stabilization initiatives"?  Interesting ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 26, 2016, 12:51:18
In chemistry, after aiding the chemical reaction, the catalyst itself does not undergo any permanent chemical modification.

Does that mean that none of the CAF members deployed as "catalyst" will suffer any permanent physical or mental injury?

Just asking. After all, with the questions they refused to answer, this whole press meet was nothing but a lot of self-congratulatory smoke void of any content whatsoever (save perhaps the fact that we have now discovered that this is to become a permanent "program" - not just an ad hoc deployment) .
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 26, 2016, 12:54:07
In chemistry, after aiding the chemical reaction, the catalyst itself does not undergo any permanent chemical modification.

Does that mean that none of the CAF members deployed as "catalyst" will suffer any permanent physical or mental injury?

Just asking. After all, with the questions they refused to answer, this whole press meet was nothing but a lot of self-congratulatory smoke void of any content whatsoever (save perhaps the fact that we have now discovered that this is to become a permanent "program" - not just an ad hoc deployment) .

So, just another "Sunny Ways" group announcement, in other words.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 26, 2016, 12:57:20
After all, with the questions they refused to answer, this whole press meet was nothing but a lot of self-congratulatory smoke void of any content whatsoever....
Well, they did announce that they're spending $450 million to rename the "Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force" to "Peace and Stabilization Operations Program."   There's new business cards, letterhead and other stationary, office signs.....

Canada is back!   :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 26, 2016, 13:00:42
Damn, I missed that most excellent use of my tax dollars.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 26, 2016, 13:03:00
Is Global Affairs Canada another ministry or conglomeration of ministries or a new Crown corporation in aid of Canadian government LCF?  Maybe we should just have a Minster/Ministry of LCF?

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ModlrMike on August 26, 2016, 13:12:28
Quote
Catalytic stabilization initiatives

[rant]Can people stop f%#*ing with the language and speak plain bloody English![/rant]
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on August 26, 2016, 13:13:12
Is Global Affairs Canada another ministry or conglomeration of ministries or a new Crown corporation in aid of Canadian government LCF?  Maybe we should just have a Minster/Ministry of LCF?

MM
GAC is what was DFATD which was DFAIT which was, long ago, External Affairs.

Clearly, the lobbyists from the Sign Painters union have been quite successful...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 26, 2016, 13:36:00
[rant]Can people stop f%#*ing with the language and speak plain bloody English![/rant]

Obviously, they have trouble with their exhaust systems on their cars there.  They must be wanting to set up some Mr. Muffler franchise opportunities in country.   :nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on August 26, 2016, 13:42:41
We collectively tuned out as soon as "root causes" were mentioned.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 26, 2016, 14:09:03
In chemistry, after aiding the chemical reaction, the catalyst itself does not undergo any permanent chemical modification.

Does that mean that none of the CAF members deployed as "catalyst" will suffer any permanent physical or mental injury?

Just asking. After all, with the questions they refused to answer, this whole press meet was nothing but a lot of self-congratulatory smoke void of any content whatsoever (save perhaps the fact that we have now discovered that this is to become a permanent "program" - not just an ad hoc deployment) .

In my processes catalysts are dropped in, forced into associations, subjected to heat and pressure, hauled out then recycled indefinitely until exhausted.......
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 26, 2016, 14:43:57
GAC is what was DFATD which was DFAIT which was, long ago, External Affairs.

Clearly, the lobbyists from the Sign Painters union have been quite successful...

For...the...Love...of...God...

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on August 26, 2016, 14:56:41
the Backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=1117199):"Catalytic stabilization initiatives"?  Interesting ...

Buzzword Generator (http://www.1728.org/buzzword.htm) (http://www.1728.org/buzzword.htm)

Would you believe the first click of the button graced me with this gem?   ;D

"Fundamentally globalized structure"
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on August 26, 2016, 14:58:42
Admit it. Secretly,  you always wanted to be a PAffO.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on August 26, 2016, 15:17:25
Admit it. Secretly,  you always wanted to be a PAffO.
Ouch.  What a crappy thing to say to anyone.  :(
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on August 26, 2016, 15:23:47
Admit it. Secretly,  you always wanted to be a PAffO.

I did once, then I hung out with one.  Strange fellow, like the guys who hand out the bullets and rifles in Enemy at Gates; "Man in front gets rifle, man in back gets bullets, when man in front dies, man in back picks up rifle......"
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: dapaterson on August 26, 2016, 15:37:09
Ouch.  What a crappy thing to say to anyone.  :(

Well, I could save said "Int O", but even I have some small degree of mercy when I insult people.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 26, 2016, 16:38:11
One wonders if the "air transport' announced will include armed helos:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

One hopes we do not end up with a hodge-podge of penny-packet missions, with none making a really major contribution but rather simply showing the UN flag for the sake of showing that flag.

And one wishes our media took the government’s hint and stopped reflexively referring to “peacekeeping”:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=dion+sajjan+peacekeeping&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKss6e4N_OAhWL1hQKHScvDxoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1138&bih=523

Prof. Thomas Juneau gets to the heart of the matter:

Quote

What is also disappointing is that the government did not clearly explain how all of this is in Canada’s interest. It seems to assume that “doing” UN peace operations is intrinsically good, which is at best simplistic. Peace operations are a means, not an end. Canada should definitely be more involved, but on a case-by-case basis and provided that individual commitments are in its interests. Friday’s announcement said little, in particular, on how the forthcoming decision regarding a mission in Africa will be made…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/new-peacekeeping-plan-a-missed-opportunity-for-canada/article31571998/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on August 26, 2016, 17:10:35

And one wishes our media took the government’s hint and stopped reflexively referring to “peacekeeping”:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=dion+sajjan+peacekeeping&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKss6e4N_OAhWL1hQKHScvDxoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1138&bih=523

Thing is, the term "peacekeeping", like "drone" for RPA/UAV, has become so entrenched in the media that regardless of what the MND or CAF call it instead, the MSM and others will call it by that name.

The only way I could see that changing is if:
a) We don't wear the UN blue berets/helmets, and/or (god forbid)
b) CAF members on that operation come home in body bags
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 26, 2016, 17:42:41
Thing is, the term "peacekeeping", like "drone" for RPA/UAV, has become so entrenched in the media that regardless of what the MND or CAF call it instead, the MSM and others will call it by that name.

The only way I could see that changing is if:
a) We don't wear the UN blue berets/helmets, and/or (god forbid)
b) CAF members on that operation come home in body bags

But even then, maybe not.  People are happy to live in their own ignorance.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/canadian-armed-forces/peace

More than 125,000 Canadian Armed Forces members have served in dozens of international peace missions to more than 35 countries over the past six decades. Approximately 130 Canadians have died in these efforts and many more have suffered physical and mental injury.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on August 26, 2016, 18:27:59
One wonders if the "air transport' announced will include armed helos:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

Really? UN "Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation" Mission? Aside from its already-known shortcomings, the UN has now adopted an internet buzzword generator for naming its missions? What's next? Multidimensional Integrated Corruption? Sharable Synchronous Incompetence? Effects-Based Synergistic Dysfunction?

The first photo is very dated - we've not had SAR hoists on green Griffons for many years.
One hopes we do not end up with a hodge-podge of penny-packet missions, with none making a really major contribution but rather simply showing the UN flag for the sake of showing that flag.

Ever the optimist...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 26, 2016, 18:36:24
One wonders if the "air transport' announced will include armed helos:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

One hopes we do not end up with a hodge-podge of penny-packet missions, with none making a really major contribution but rather simply showing the UN flag for the sake of showing that flag.

And one wishes our media took the government’s hint and stopped reflexively referring to “peacekeeping”:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=dion+sajjan+peacekeeping&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKss6e4N_OAhWL1hQKHScvDxoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1138&bih=523

Prof. Thomas Juneau gets to the heart of the matter:

Mark
Ottawa


My guess, and that's all it is, is that it will be penny packets spread over two or three or even more mission. Police, for sure; staff officers (and the gods all know they we have plenty of those in our bloated HQs), signallers and logisticians and, and, and ... I suspect the UN has already sent a pretty long list of support tasks that only a first world military can do ... our "price" is, probably, command, or s very senior appointment or two, on one hopeless mission or another.

I have a hunch that NDHQ and the PCO might want to avoid sending combat troops for either or both of two reasons:

     1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers; and

     2. There might be a need for combat forces in Eastern Europe if Putin decides that the opportunity is ripe for some low risk adventurism.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 26, 2016, 18:43:14
I did once, then I hung out with one.  Strange fellow, like the guys who hand out the bullets and rifles in Enemy at Gates; "Man in front gets rifle, man in back gets bullets, when man in front dies, man in back picks up rifle......"
"And remember, this is "sustainable logistics" ..."  >:D
I have a hunch that NDHQ and the PCO might want to avoid sending combat troops for either or both of two reasons:

     1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers; and

     2. There might be a need for combat forces in Eastern Europe if Putin decides that the opportunity is ripe for some low risk adventurism.
:nod:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 26, 2016, 18:50:08
Thing is, the term "peacekeeping", like "drone" for RPA/UAV, has become so entrenched in the media that regardless of what the MND or CAF call it instead, the MSM and others will call it by that name.

The only way I could see that changing is if:
a) We don't wear the UN blue berets/helmets, and/or (god forbid)
b) CAF members on that operation come home in body bags

I have to wonder if they'll do what happened in the 90's in Bosnia and Croatia with the casualties we took there and accidentally on purpose ignore that they occurred.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on August 26, 2016, 18:52:54
I have to wonder if they'll do what happened in the 90's in Bosnia and Croatia with the casualties we took there and accidentally on purpose ignore that they occurred.

MM

I'd say it'd be a little tougher in this day and age of social media, etc.  Maybe ignored, but it would be broadcast somehow.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 26, 2016, 21:55:55
I'd say it'd be a little tougher in this day and age of social media, etc.  Maybe ignored, but it would be broadcast somehow.

The cynic in me is not holding my breath...

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Eye In The Sky on August 27, 2016, 08:23:15
With the amount of My Little Pony people in our society and people who write articles like this (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/25/air-show-too-traumatic-for-newcomers-who-escaped-war.html), I am not even sure a large majority of them would care.  It would be 'peacekeeping', after all, not war-mongering, following the US into WAR FOR OIL!!!! and all that crap that is spewed.  The ding-dongs among us would likely have no time justifying the death of a few Canadian troops for PEACE vice WAR over their macca-frappa-cino in La-La Land.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on August 27, 2016, 09:47:09
Yes.  It is not helpful that people who write articles like this (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/25/air-show-too-traumatic-for-newcomers-who-escaped-war.html) are in positions to influence the less knowledgeable and easily influenced portions of our society.  Their naivete and/or personal agendas are very damaging to the image of the CF and hide the good work that the profession does.  That is the consequence of the CF performing its duties in preserving our freedoms and Democracy.  A definite point that the CF is successful in carrying out those duties, but one that goes totally unnoticed to the vast majority of Canadians who can't be bothered to see it.   
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 27, 2016, 09:57:04
Yes.  It is not helpful that people who write articles like this (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/25/air-show-too-traumatic-for-newcomers-who-escaped-war.html) are in positions to influence the less knowledgeable and easily influenced portions of our society.  Their naivete and/or personal agendas are very damaging to the image of the CF and hide the good work that the profession does.
While the immediate "triggering" is likely an issue with some folks, none of these writers I've seen ever raise the possibility of educating refugees that here, the military's not always trying to take power, work just for a single political party or ethnic group, or attack people here in Canada.  But that wouldn't go with the "all things military bad" message track, would it?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on August 27, 2016, 10:14:23
That 'writer' in particular did not factor in the FACT that the refugees he is claiming to be afraid of all things 'aircraft', traveled half way around the world by 'aircraft'.  I have the distinct feeling from reading that article, that his comments are his own, not those of the refugees he claims to be speaking for.  But it is The Star; so can we expect much different?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on August 27, 2016, 10:23:24
1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers;

I imagine BLM would / will? have a field day holding up those pictures in our cities.

Quote
Personally, I think a disarmament mission in Columbia would have a much greater return on investment from a diplomatic perspective.

Personally, from the perspective of a civilian   former visitor, 

COLOMBIA, TIERRA QUERIDA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSI_Rmi_IE


Re: "Air show too traumatic for newcomers who escaped war"

Depends on one's point of view, I suppose. Bombing is a solid lesson in the disadvantage of war to enemies, and potential enemies. Friends have nothing to worry about.

Germans and Japanese and Londoners who survived The Blitz, and others from bombed out cities across Europe came to Toronto after the war. They tolerated, perhaps even enjoyed, the CNE Air Show, "Over its six-decade-plus history."

RCAF war graves in French communes are treated as Liberators.



Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2016, 12:52:17
With the amount of My Little Pony people in our society and people who write articles like this (https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/25/air-show-too-traumatic-for-newcomers-who-escaped-war.html), I am not even sure a large majority of them would care.  It would be 'peacekeeping', after all, not war-mongering, following the US into WAR FOR OIL!!!! and all that crap that is spewed.  The ding-dongs among us would likely have no time justifying the death of a few Canadian troops for PEACE vice WAR over their macca-frappa-cino in La-La Land.

I seen that article and laughed. I just thought "of course".  But didn't someone try the same shtick last year or the year before about airshows or the snowbirds or something?  Maybe that bad boy article will propel him into his full PolySci PhD glory.

That 'writer' in particular did not factor in the FACT that the refugees he is claiming to be afraid of all things 'aircraft', traveled half way around the world by 'aircraft'.  I have the distinct feeling from reading that article, that his comments are his own, not those of the refugees he claims to be speaking for.  But it is The Star; so can we expect much different?

Maybe we should give them pensions for the PTSD we surely gave them by flying them here.
 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 27, 2016, 20:28:22
Lew MacKenzie, a guy who has been there and done that, seems to have a fairly confident view that the CAF will get the ROE it needs to execute this mission and protect our service personnel.
Quote
Retired General: Canada must play 'hardball' with UN on peace mission
CTV News
26 Aug 2016

Retired Maj.-Gen Lewis MacKenzie says Canada must play “hardball” with the United Nations, in order to keep Canadian troops safe during the peace operations announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday.

In an interview with CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson, MacKenzie said that when Canada participated in peacekeeping during the Cold War, the UN put dangerous restrictions on the amount of equipment, weapons and ammunition that Canada could bring.

“We will not adhere to those restrictions anymore,” he said. “If we are going to somewhere dangerous … we will insist that we take the proper equipment, have the proper rules and mandate and it won’t be developed by the United Nations, it will be developed by us,” he advised.

 MacKenzie said he’s “confident that the current leadership, the (defence) minister knows exactly what is required – he’s stated over and over that we will be properly equipped and properly mandated … that we will go properly prepared.”

However, MacKenzie doesn’t believe Canadians realize how dangerous so-called “peace operations” can be.

“In the Democratic Republic of Congo there are at least 11 factions fighting and at least some foreign armies fighting so you don’t even know who to deal with,” he said, referring to the African nation where the UN has authorized deployment of nearly 20,000 troops. “All you know is civilians are being threatened and you’re going to go in and help protect.”

In Mali, 105 UN peacekeepers have been killed since the mission began in April 2013.

Countries where Canada might contribute troops include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, according to the retired general.

He called it brilliant “from a strategic media point of view” that the Liberals did not say Friday where Canadian troops will be deployed.

“Because if they had have mentioned during the briefing where our troops were going… immediately the conversation and folks like you would focus in on that location and the problems and challenges.”

Canada will send up to 600 troops for UN peace operations and spend $450 million over three years on peace and stability programs, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday, alongside Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion and International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.

"We will now have important decisions to take around where and how those Canadian forces and resources are deployed," Trudeau said. "That will be in conversation and concert with the United Nations, but also with friends and allies around the world as we look at how Canada can best help and contribute."

The announcement comes weeks before Trudeau will address the UN General Assembly.

Canada is currently seeking a UN Security Council seat – which the Conservatives say is the real reason for Friday’s annoucment.

Asked about a link between peacekeeping and the seat, Dion said "the only link is that Canada is back.”

“We need to be in peace operations, as difficult as this may be,” Dion added. “We need to be back in the United Nations."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/retired-general-canada-must-play-hardball-with-un-on-peace-mission-1.3046734
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 27, 2016, 21:41:38
Lew MacKenzie, a guy who has been there and done that, seems to have a fairly confident view that the CAF will get the ROE it needs to execute this mission and protect our service personnel.http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/retired-general-canada-must-play-hardball-with-un-on-peace-mission-1.3046734
All signs so far point towards far more sensible ROEs.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on August 27, 2016, 22:27:12
Quote
“We need to be in peace operations, as difficult as this may be,” Dion added. “We need to be back in the United Nations."

And the one question the media refuses to ask is "why?"

Why do we as Canadians need validation from third world kleptocrats and thugs?

What vital interests dies this serve for Canada and Canadians?

In what way is the Un an effective organization for carrying out Canada's Grand Strategy or supporting the National Interest?

Given how the UN squandered its mortal authority from the 1990's on with failed "peace making" and "peace support" missions, turning a blind eye to genocide and corruption and sexual abuse in the actual forces (never mind the catalogue of failure of conventional Peacekeeping missions), I cannot imagine what Dion is actually thinking. Should a real journalist actually ask any of the questions above, I would want time to get popcorn to see how Dion (or anyone else) would actually answer.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2016, 22:34:58
Quote from: Thucydides
Should a real journalist actually ask any of the questions above, I would want time to get popcorn to see how Dion (or anyone else) would actually answer.

Easy.  Canada's back  ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2016, 22:45:57
All signs so far point towards far more sensible ROEs.

Like first asking someone committing an atrocity what pronoun they want to be addressed by,  the offer them rehabilitation  ;)

Mostly kidding,  I think you're right about the ROEs.  Liberals know how to manipulate the media,  they're too smart to risk backlash over shitty ROEs that put soldiers lives at risk.  Also since I presume there's going to be lots of photoshoots in Africa.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 27, 2016, 22:49:56
Mostly kidding,  I think you're right about the ROEs.  Liberals know how to manipulate the media,  they're too smart to risk backlash over shitty ROEs that put soldiers lives at risk.  Also since I presume there's going to be lots of photoshoots in Africa.

Easy to avoid the ROE question if you deploy forces like non-combat aircraft, officers, and police officer advisors that will highly likely never need to use those ROE. Win win. next to zero risk, publicly palatable ROE.

That whole like about "leadership over deployed troops" says HQ deployment for CJOC staff officers.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 27, 2016, 22:56:23
“We need to be back in the United Nations." 

Or

“We need to be back in the United Nations."

Are we back in the United Nations to see and be seen or are we backing the United Nations because we believe in the institution?

If we believe in the United Nations as an institution what do we hope it will accomplish and how do we expect to materially contribute to that effort?  Adding some soldiery may be part of the effort but surely it can't be the only, or even the main effort?

I am willing to hear arguments that will clarify how the United Nations will make this a better world but a bit of detail would be useful.


Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 27, 2016, 23:32:42
Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 27, 2016, 23:50:59
Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.
So we ignore that it was a election promise and that a large amount of Canadians support peacekeeping? ( as uninformed as they may be)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 28, 2016, 00:09:04
Does that same majority of Canadians know exactly what peacekeeping means in 2016, or are they stuck in the Pearsonian utopia of Cyprus and Golan Heights? There's opinion, and educated opinion.

Something being an election promise hasn't stopped 19 of 220 documented promises broken thus far, a year into office. Sometimes reality has a nasty habit of making those flowery election promises unobtainable. An actual leader stands up and outlines why things can no longer be done that way, and eats the media storm on the broken promise.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 28, 2016, 00:35:59
Does that same majority of Canadians know exactly what peacekeeping means in 2016, or are they stuck in the Pearsonian utopia of Cyprus and Golan Heights? There's opinion, and educated opinion.

Something being an election promise hasn't stopped 19 of 220 documented promises broken thus far, a year into office. Sometimes reality has a nasty habit of making those flowery election promises unobtainable. An actual leader stands up and outlines why things can no longer be done that way, and eats the media storm on the broken promise.
Canadians don't know squat about what we do and how we do it.

Their opinions still matter so politicians will listen to them. In this case the government is trying to make this promise a reality.

So far the ministers of defense has spoken frankly to the media about how things have changed on the ground since the last time Canadians were involved in UN peacekeeping and how we as a country need to approach it differently.

So far every indication points towards far better ROEs than the last time canada was involved.

Let's face facts, there is nothing the government can do to please you ( and many others here) who are so soured from the last time other than to back down and scrap the idea of peacekeeping altogether.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 28, 2016, 00:59:56
Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.

You're right about Afghanistan and Iraq... but Afghanistan was NATO and Iraq was the coalition of the willing (with some UN involvement... that's how we got to Afghanistan... as a UN mission).

I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.

As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers (from when Canada was rated the best country in the world 2 or 3 straight years). However, we must remember that those taxpayers are the same ones that elect our government and therein determine the place of the military in the overall hierarchy of needs vs wants which determines our budget. I also believe that Trudeau does, legitimately, believe that the UN holds the best chance of establishing a peaceful world order in the LONG TERM. As such, I think they take the long term view and want to put some of their cards into the UN basket (though we just deployed a similar number to Latvia for a continual 6 month long Ex MAPLE RESOLVE).

While most of us would prefer to be doing other tasks, however the political elements and people seem to want different tasks. I think Clausewitz would be happy to see that the 2/3 of his Holy Trinity (Passion, reason, chance or Government, people, and army) is holding up. The people want something, the government wants it- the military will do it.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MilEME09 on August 28, 2016, 01:01:53
You're right about Afghanistan and Iraq... but Afghanistan was NATO and Iraq was the coalition of the willing (with some UN involvement... that's how we got to Afghanistan... as a UN mission).

I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.

As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers (from when Canada was rated the best country in the world 2 or 3 straight years). However, we must remember that those taxpayers are the same ones that elect our government and therein determine the place of the military in the overall hierarchy of needs vs wants which determines our budget. I also believe that Trudeau does, legitimately, believe that the UN holds the best chance of establishing a peaceful world order in the LONG TERM. As such, I think they take the long term view and want to put some of their cards into the UN basket (though we just deployed a similar number to Latvia for a continual 6 month long Ex MAPLE RESOLVE).

While most of us would prefer to be doing other tasks, however the political elements and people seem to want different tasks. I think Clausewitz would be happy to see that the 2/3 of his Holy Trinity (Passion, reason, chance or Government, people, and army) is holding up. The people want something, the government wants it- the military will do it.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MARS on August 28, 2016, 01:09:26

So far every indication points towards far better ROEs than the last time canada was involved.


I haven't seen these indicators myself.  Can you elaborate?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on August 28, 2016, 01:09:46

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways
The MOD of the sunny ways party has said as much already.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on August 28, 2016, 01:45:49

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907

According to the UN ambassador, this will be a peace making operation, wonder how the government will spin this into sunny ways

I would suggest it's the public's opinion of the UN vs NATO that will be the determining factor. the public see the UN as a dispassionate moderator for the world who tries to seek out the best overall good in the long term. The public see's NATO as a largely outdated organization formed to stop the Soviet's from conquering Europe. As such, while the UN is for the collective good (stand up for the little guy sort of thing) NATO represents individual (read- US) interests and anyone who goes along with it is simple an American sheep. The Liberals dont need to do anything than say it's a UN mission. If (and lots hope its an if and not a when) Canadian soldiers start coming home in body bags than the Liberals will need to spin something.

Perhaps even sunny ways will have a few days of rain.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 28, 2016, 01:48:13
So we ignore that it was a election promise and that a large amount of Canadians support peacekeeping? ( as uninformed as they may be)
We both know election promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If they can fulfill one then great, if not HEY look over there a photo-op.  Or they kick the can down the road for a few years.

You're very transparent why you want to deploy and that's great, it would be greater still for the government to share that transparency and not some bullshit "Canada's back" line.  Worst still is telling us we're deploying but playing games with where exactly in the continent we're going. It reminds me of clickbait ads.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on August 28, 2016, 01:58:57
Quote from: Bird_Gunner45
I'm more willing that most on here to AT LEAST wait until we know the "who, what, where, when, how" of a UN mission before I make a judgment on it. Having a press conference that doesn't say when, where, who, or how doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy, but we shall see.

Agree 100%.  Really wasn't impressed (or surprised) by that press conference. Screamed UN peacekeeping check in the box.

Quote
As for returning to peacekeeping being an election promise and the Canadian electorate being uneducated about peacekeeping... most are right- the majority are stuck in the early 1990's TV ads showing us as being great peacekeepers

Agree again. The public perception of peacekeeping isn't accurate, especially so for the crap going on in Africa.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 28, 2016, 09:07:24
We both know election promises aren't worth the paper they're printed on. If they can fulfill one then great, if not HEY look over there a photo-op.  Or they kick the can down the road for a few years.

You're very transparent why you want to deploy and that's great, it would be greater still for the government to share that transparency and not some bullshit "Canada's back" line.  Worst still is telling us we're deploying but playing games with where exactly in the continent we're going. It reminds me of clickbait ads.


I think Prime Minister Trudeau is being advised, by a wily old pro, that a full "promises made/promises kept" page in the 2019 Liberal red book will both look good to voters and lull the media back into its normal, uncurious stupor. And I suspect that same cunning old political fox tells Justin Trudeau that promises about defence and the military ~ like "return to Pearsonian peacekeeping, à la the 1950s" and "we will not buy the F-35s" ~ are easy to make and keep. I think that matters because this government remains in full campaign mode and I believe that almost every decision is made with the 2019 campaign top of mind.

                         (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7a/11/e1/7a11e176a14d7f69ed2e7fee17014993.jpg)(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spyflight.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fjpgs%2Fwestland%2520sea%2520king%2Fseakhas6.jpg&hash=85f94f78a871004f187638d0646a2949)

Prime Minister Trudeau will have to break promises between now and 2019 ... big ones, I think. He wants (and some strategists say he needs) to keep some easy ones now. Sending soldiers to Africa is an easy one.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 28, 2016, 09:38:35
Prime Minister Trudeau will have to break promises between now and 2019 ... big ones, I think. He wants (and some strategists say he needs) to keep some easy ones now. Sending soldiers to Africa is an easy one.
And there's a case to be made that if something goes south, better to get 'er done while there's still a lot of political capital in the bank.

Then again, there's also a case to be made that you do what you consider the right, but tough things during the honeymoon period - and this government seems to be enjoying a longer honeymoon than many.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 28, 2016, 11:07:32
I am not convinced the Sunny Ways Party would run into trouble even if Canadian soldiers came back in body bags, unless the frequency  or numbers became too large or frequent to ignore. But one at a time, from time to time, won't do it.

We have lost soldiers on UN "peacekeeping" operations before and it has never been a big deal - or worth much of a mention in the Canadian main stream medias.

This changed with Afghanistan. But we have to remember that  Afgh. was an American response to 9/11 in which we participated - not a UN peace ops of any kind. Similarly, the fight against ISIS is an American/World operation. This means that the American medias are talking about it all the time, so the Canadian medias take notice and also report on it all the time.

The Americans are neither involved, nor care, about the places in Africa that are mentioned as potential places of employment for Canadian troops. Do you think Canadian MSM will care? No. They will dutifully report on the first few days that "Canada is back: We have Blue helmets in Africa to help the planet be a better place". Then they will go home, secure in the knowledge that we are "peacekeeping" and not leave journalist there to cover day by day. They won't go back unless something dramatic occurs - and the CAF members over there will fall into the same obscurity as all the other UN ops we have been involved in.
 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 28, 2016, 11:19:21
One of the things the Chretien government used as a selling point about Afghanistan was that we were there under a United Nations Security Council Resolution...number escapes me at this time.  That UNSCR sold the Afghan mission and gave the government the ability to drop the Iraq hot potato, as there wasn't one in place for that.  A lot of journalists and many politicians at the time (like my then NDP MP in Victoria) thought that this was like a blue hat mission, and indeed, sort of was when things were in Kabul...that all went to rat snot in Khandahar.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 28, 2016, 11:40:20
The UNSCR for Afghanistan never created a peacekeeping blue helmet force, and none of the other participants helping the US deployed under any UN mandate.

The resolution gave legal cover for the US to go in and get our bearded friend and his Al-Qaeda accomplices once the ruling Taliban denied them access to the country to do it with their authorization, and it secondly imposed on the US - in order to provide said legal cover - the obligation of "fixing" anything they broke, or in other words "You break the government in place (the Talibans), you fix it before you leave".

The UN did try to get involved in the "fixing" phase after the Americans (and its willing partners such as Canada) removed the Taliban, but quickly realized it was way over its head and turned the matter over to NATO.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on August 28, 2016, 12:16:12
I am not convinced the Sunny Ways Party would run into trouble even if Canadian soldiers came back in body bags, unless the frequency  or numbers became too large or frequent to ignore.

Do they take into consideration the potential number who may be affected by PTSD?



 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Rifleman62 on August 28, 2016, 12:24:24
No, wounded within.

Again the government is deploying the CF, while continuing a court action re its obligations to members, and not fixing VAC. You can open all the new VAC offices you want and get the sunny publicity but the inertia and culture of NO remains.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on August 28, 2016, 12:33:14
No, wounded within.

Thank-you for answering my question, Rifleman62.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2016, 14:21:59
Might just be my "Western" bias - but I am waiting to see when/if the bullet is bitten on the pipelines.   In my view that is a far more critical national issue than window dressing like the UN, Climate Change and marijuana.

As has been pointed out - the announcement was of an intention to support for the next three years (2016 +3 = 2019).  You don't see many news stories of CANSOF types coming and going, nor of people being posted to New York or even to the Golan and Cyprus.  Nice quiet deployments except for the CANSOF types - and we don't talk about them. 

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2016, 16:13:56
From Friday's Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/new-peacekeeping-plan-a-missed-opportunity-for-canada/article31571998/

Quote
THOMAS JUNEAU
New peacekeeping plan a missed opportunity for Canada

The Liberal government released on Friday its much anticipated policy on peace-support operations. On paper, this is good news. In practice, it is disappointing: Remove the hype, and the new policy mostly amounts to tinkering with what was already in place.

The policy is built on three pillars. Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion, first, announced the creation of a Peace and Stabilization Operations Program, with a budget of $150-million a year. It will co-ordinate whole-of-government responses to conflicts and crises around the world and will support targeted stabilization projects in fragile and conflict-affected countries. It will, in addition, include an early warning system to better detect conflicts, presumably a critical tool for Canada to more constructively engage in conflict prevention activities. Over all, the program has the very laudable goal of reinforcing Canada’s capacity to participate in peace operations.

Second, the Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, confirmed that the Canadian Armed Forces will, on top of existing commitments in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere, deploy up to 600 troops to an additional UN peace support operation. This new mission, to be announced in the fall, will likely be in Mali, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, or Democratic Republic of the Congo.

And third, Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety, announced the renewal of Canada’s existing program supporting the deployment of up to 150 police officers to various peace operations.

This is, on the surface, good news. Canada should commit to these three sets of activities, and there is a need to boost existing capabilities. If implemented in a coherent manner and in the pursuit of specific Canadian interests, there is much for Canada to gain. There is, moreover, a glaring need, in parts of Africa and other conflict areas, for countries like Canada to step in with such niche capabilities.

The problem, however, is that when one scratches beneath the surface, it becomes apparent that there is little new in this package of initiatives.

Most disappointingly, the new Peace and Stabilization Operations Program merely replaces Global Affairs Canada’s existing – and quite successful – Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START), while only slightly modifying its mandate. It does not even significantly increase its baseline funding. Canada, in other words, will unfortunately not be able to do much more in post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization.

Even the early warning system to detect conflicts, a favourite of Mr. Sajjan, is mostly smoke: various units in the intelligence community and in Global Affairs Canada already do this. It is also not clear how much impact this unit could have: most conflicts in recent decades have been a surprise to most observers, while a better informed Canada, as a mid-sized country, can still only follow the lead of its more powerful allies.

What is also disappointing is that the government did not clearly explain how all of this is in Canada’s interest. It seems to assume that “doing” UN peace operations is intrinsically good, which is at best simplistic. Peace operations are a means, not an end. Canada should definitely be more involved, but on a case-by-case basis and provided that individual commitments are in its interests. Friday’s announcement said little, in particular, on how the forthcoming decision regarding a mission in Africa will be made.

In sum, this is mostly old wine in a new bottle. The government’s intentions are good, but this new peace operations policy is a missed opportunity driven by a lack of imagination and ambition.

But we have new spokespeople...... all the difference in the world.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Ostrozac on August 28, 2016, 16:19:20
One of the things the Chretien government used as a selling point about Afghanistan was that we were there under a United Nations Security Council Resolution...number escapes me at this time.

UNSCR 1386. It was adopted unanimously by all 15 members of the Security Council. People were talking like ISAF was authorized by the UN because... it was.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1386%20(2001)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

Some highlights (shamelessly cherrypicked by me, you can read the whole text at the above link): 

Welcoming the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of 19 December 2001 (S/2001/1217), and taking note of the United Kingdom offer contained therein to take the lead in organizing and commanding an International Security Assistance Force,

Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the
establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other
resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security
Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on August 28, 2016, 17:53:02
So we deploy our troops to some hell hole in Africa, spend millions of dollars, and heaven forbid sustain casualties, and still don't get a seat on the UNSC!

What then??
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on August 28, 2016, 17:57:31
Blame Harper, it's worked for the first year in office.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2016, 18:46:00
Blame Harper, it's worked for the first year in office.

Bonokoski (http://www.torontosun.com/2016/08/27/media-drinking-the-kool-aid-and-buying-the-swampland)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2016, 19:04:03
Foreign Aid and Defence

Britain is one of the few/only countries to commit to 0.7% of GDP as Foreign Aid while also committing over 2% of GDP to defence

Thus this is interesting:

Quote
Foreign aid budget cash ‘to go on defence'

BRITAIN’S foreign aid budget could be diverted to promoting national security, it is claimed.

PUBLISHED: 21:36, Sun, Aug 28, 2016 | UPDATED: 21:48, Sun, Aug 28, 2016

New International Development Secretary Priti Patel is reportedly ready to redirect the spiralling billions.

An MP said yesterday: “From now on, the watchwords are national security and the national interest.

"If those bells don’t ring, the projects will be scrapped.”

The Government is looking at how the Dutch use foreign aid cash for peacekeeping and monitoring migration.

Amid speculation that Ms Patel would take on responsibility for funding and directing troops, a defence source has made clear the Ministry of Defence would not give up any budget to her.

Ms Patel is said to be reluctant to challenge ex-Prime Minister David Cameron’s commitment, which the Daily Express has criticised yet is now UK law, to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on aid, taking the budget from £12billion to £16billion by 2020.

Labour MP Kate Osamor said: “International aid should not be used to bail out defence.”

This comes after International Development Secretary has vowed to use Britain’s aid budget to help push for trade deals.

A rather broad definition of Foreign Aid.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 29, 2016, 13:44:33
Earlier on the peacekeeping myth:

Quote
Not Remembering Canada’s Real Post-WW II Military History
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/mark-collins-not-remembering-canadas-real-post-ww-ii-military-history/

The Great Canadian Traditional Peacekeeping Myth vs Nuclear Weapons
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-traditional-peacekeeping-myth-vs-nuclear-weapons/

But nobody knows no history no more, including the Crvena Zvezda:

Quote
Canada finally dusts off its blue helmet: Editorial
Canada is ready to assume its rightful role as a nation dedicated to UN peacekeeping following a welcome new commitment of troops and money.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2016/08/28/canada-finally-dusts-off-its-blue-helmet-editorial.html

The Globe and Mail however now gets it:

Quote
The end of peacekeeping, and what comes next for Canada’s soldiers
...
“Canada is back,” the government boasted on Friday [Aug. 26]. But peacekeeping isn’t. We are about to embark on an undertaking that may routinely put Canadian soldiers’ lives at risk in the most dangerous places in the world, and where Canada’s national interests may not even be at stake...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-end-of-peacekeeping-and-what-comes-next-for-canadas-soldiers/article31583016/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Teager on August 29, 2016, 23:51:18
Just a question. Was reading an article about the different possible missions to Africa and they mentioned the Zika virus. I checked the CDC website and only Cape Verde in Africa has active Zika currently.  But for a mission to Columbia for example would members be tested once returning?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on August 29, 2016, 23:58:06
But for a mission to Columbia for example would members be tested once returning?

Por favor, it's Colombia.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: ueo on August 30, 2016, 14:59:35
Take the maps etc on the CDC website with a smallish(!) grain of salt. Seems as tho' Haiti is rife with malaria and the DR has none. Other anomalies can be found.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on August 31, 2016, 15:35:53
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-peacekeepers

Michael den Tandt on the Star Editorial praising Canada's return.

Curious numbers

New commitment 600 soldiers/sailors/aviators, 150 police and $150,000,000 a year for three years.
Previous commitment $240,000,000 per year (#9 internationally) plus 80 to 100 "peacekeepers" of all types.

This wiki table (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers) is interesting

Needless to say - although den Tandt references it - these numbers do not include the UN sanctioned interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

First Western Country - at number 26 - Italy with 1114 personnel

Second Western Country - at 33 - France with 880

Third - 38 - South Korea - 627
Fourth - 39 - Spain - 614
Fifth - 45 - Germany - 434
Sixth - 46 - Netherlands - 415
Seventh - 48 - Ireland - 383
Eighth - 51 - Finland - 341
Ninth - 52 - United Kingdom - 336
Tenth - 54 - Sweden - 289

Australia is number 82 with 39
The Kiwis are at 99 with 10.

750 bodies should move us up to 37 on the list, just behind the Democratic Republic of the Congo and ahead of Fiji. And number three amongst westerners, just behind France.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 31, 2016, 18:58:21
Take the maps etc on the CDC website with a smallish(!) grain of salt. Seems as tho' Haiti is rife with malaria and the DR has none. Other anomalies can be found.

Not too surprising actually...Haiti has little to no infrastructure to clean up mosquito habitat on a good day, whereas the DR, though still ramshackle and still has malaria, has fewer cases than you'd expect because of high tourist revenues ensuring some areas get the bugs dealt with.  It doesn't mean it isn't there, just not as prevalent.  And from what I've heard, Haiti hasn't improved that much since I left there in 2004, so I'm willing to bet the malaria and dengue cases have gone up an awful lot.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on August 31, 2016, 19:42:08
I generally enjoy reading David Bercuson's work.  His recent letter in the Globe and Mail offers a nice transition for this thread.  Instead of a focused prediction of failure based on strawmen and clairvoyance,  he offers a prescription for what must happen to achieve some sort of success.

Mostly, I agree with his six points.  However, on point #4, I expect there may be no "NATO trained and equipped partners" to "provide the medical evacuation, logistics, communications and engineering" and so Canada must be capable of providing all of these essentials to our own troops and probably to some of the third world members of the mission as well.

Quote
Not your father’s peacekeeping
The government needs to be clear: Canadian troops will be joining wars in progress that are likely to produce casualties

By DAVID BERCUSON
The Globe and Mail , Letters to the Editor
30 Aug 2016

Last Friday, the Liberal government finally announced that Canada’s return to United Nations operations was imminent. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had promised in last year’s general election that the Liberals, if elected, would bring Canada back to its glory days as a UN “peacekeeping” contributor, in obvious contrast to the “war making” of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

Earlier this month, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan toured Africa to judge for himself the conflict situations in several countries in an effort to decide where a Canadian mission might be most valuable. The actual country where Canadian soldiers (some 600), aid workers and police will go has not yet been decided, although Mali is said to be favoured.

What was notable in the government’s official press release is that the word “peacekeeping” did not appear. The operative word is now “peace operations” because as both Mr. Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion have pointed out on several occasions, any mission to Africa isn’t the “peacekeeping” of old, but far more dangerous and even likely to produce Canadian casualties.

At heart, then, the government may claim that Canadian soldiers sent to, for example, Mali, are going under the rubric of “peace operations,” but in a country where a civil war is still raging (despite an ostensive ceasefire) and several groups of Islamic jihadis are operating, Canadians are joining a war in progress. In fact, at least 44 UN troops have been killed by rebels, jihadis or others in ambushes, bombings and IED strikes there over the past several years. With some 13,000 UN troops trying to keep a lid on the multifaceted war in Mali, it’s hard to see how Canada’s contribution of 600 will affect the conflict, although it will give the government here the ability to claim that another election promise has been fulfilled.

The Canadian government and military learned hard lessons from its deployment in the Balkan civil war of the 1990s and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2011.

Since the government insists on sending troops to join a war in progress, it should study those lessons, not repeat them.

First: Make sure Canadians don’t mistake this mission for the Lester Pearson style of “peacekeeping” that Canada practised during the Cold War, and start by telling its ministers – such as Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale – not to call this mission “peacekeeping” otherwise, Canadians will be greatly shocked when soldiers suffer casualties on this mission. In fact, many more Canadian soldiers have been killed on various UN operations since 1957 than in the Afghan war, but Canadian governments shamefully did their best to play down those casualties.

Second: Do not rely on the mercenaries in blue helmets of Third World countries – who participate in UN missions to earn hard cash for their governments – for Canadian force protection. They have proved in UN mission after UN mission to be essentially unreliable. There have been exceptions, but there is a world of difference between a British battalion and one from, say, Bangladesh.

Third: Ensure that heavy fire power is available when Canadian soldiers need back up. When recently asked what he needs most in Africa, a high official from the UN Peacekeeping Office in New York said “attack helicopters.” Point taken.

Fourth: Ensure that NATO trained and equipped partners provide the medical evacuation, logistics, communications and engineering if Canada cannot provide some or all of these essentials.

Fifth: Ensure that Canadians are equipped with the weapons they can use to defend themselves and are given rules of engagement that will allow them to use those weapons when necessary to fulfill their mandate.

Finally: Decide what Canada is supposed to accomplish and what metrics will be used to measure that accomplishment. Mali and places such the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and South Sudan are going to be fighting insurgencies and civil wars for decades to come. Do Canadians really want to keep a handful of troops in these dens of hell for a prolonged period of time?
   

Director of the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on August 31, 2016, 20:57:56
Rings similar to what a number of us wrote to the MoD on his open forum about how we thought our troops could be utilized in these peace support, making or whatever buzzword operations we plan on calling these things.  The only real thing I see missing is to ensure there is a national interest in us being there - Colombia makes sense, since it is relatively in our backyard/sphere of influence, and we've been on the receiving end of many of it's illegal exports.  I've also personally helped train some of their soldiers on UNMO courses and enjoyed working with them.  As for Mali/West Africa in general, if we're there to help the French deal with the spread AQ or their descendants, then I'm OK with that...if we're there to take sides in a civil war that has been mistaken for a fight between religious lines, we should probably be running for the hills and looking for something different. 

:2c:

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on August 31, 2016, 21:40:23
The comments following David Bercuson's column are of much better quality than usual as well, and not very many are cheerleading for the Liberals.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 05, 2016, 14:46:55
From the Globe and Mail - without comment

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-ottawa-can-ensure-canada-is-back-on-peacekeeping/article31695494/

Quote
TERRY LISTON
How Ottawa can ensure ‘Canada is back’ on peacekeeping
TERRY LISTON
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Sep. 05, 2016 8:00AM EDT
Last updated Monday, Sep. 05, 2016 8:00AM EDT

Major-General Terry Liston (ret.) is the former chief of operations, plans and development of the Canadian Armed Forces. He is currently a Fellow of the Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies at the University of Quebec in Montreal.

A generation of retired Canadian soldiers, burned by failed, mismanaged United Nations missions in the 1990s, remain outspoken critics of the UN and its peacekeeping. At the same time, nostalgic memories of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Lester B. Pearson drive others to promote a romantic, non-violent return to an era that has long disappeared. A dose of reality tells us that there is no multilateral option, other than the UN, to ensure a peaceful future, but it must adapt to the threats of the modern world.

At this year’s world peacekeeping summit, in London on Sept. 7-8, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will announce that “Canada is back,” with a force of up to 600 soldiers and 150 police. However, in advising Canadians of this plan last week, the location and composition of that force was not revealed. The UN itself is split on the type of force it requires.


The latest high-level UN panel on peacekeeping, called HIPPO, repeated the long-standing need for the UN to build “robust, fast-deploying first-responder capabilities for the future, drawing upon national and regionally based standing capabilities.” Such forces would be deployed under a Security Council mandate, but they could be either UN or non-UN forces. They must be highly trained soldiers who have the equipment, courage and skill to face the terrorists and armed gangs that decapitate, blow up, assault and kill innocent civilians.

Precedents for robust, third-party intervention include salvaging the mission of the UN force in Sierra Leone in 2000 by a rapidly deployed, non-UN, British battalion of 800 men. In Mali, France stations a non-UN battle group of 1,000 to deal with terrorist activity that the UN force cannot handle. In the Congo, the new, robust 3,000-man, African Intervention brigade took the lead in destroying the M23 militia that had overrun the Eastern Congo in the face of a paralyzed UN force.

As recently as Aug. 12, the Security Council approved the addition of a robust “Regional Protection Force” of 4,000 soldiers for the South Sudanese capital of Juba with a mandate to use lethal force if necessary to protect civilians and other UN personnel. For the Security Council, UN headquarters staff and force commanders, these intervention brigades are the type of reserve required for complex UN missions.

However, “robust” operations are shunned by many countries within the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), including the major troop contributing countries (TCC) such as Bangladesh and India. They remain fixated on the pre-1990s non-combatant “principles of peacekeeping.” Many TCCs do not want such robust units to even be part of the UN force for fear that their own “Blue Helmet” troops will also be seen as combatants and targets for rebel militias. As well, they fear that the UN could lose its image of impartiality, making their job more difficult. Their view is that forceful operations, if required to impose peace, should be conducted outside the UN peacekeeping framework by third-party forces. Thus the UN is establishing liaison procedures for working with third-party forces, while also demanding that “Blue Helmets” conduct robust operations, at the risk of being sent home if they refuse.

In London, Mr. Sajjan should offer to station in Africa a robust, immediately available Canadian battle group, designated as UN First Responders. It would be ready to deploy as a “bridging force” to stabilize a new mission area or intervene rapidly, as a reserve, in a crisis such as the current violence in the South Sudan. A force of 600 soldiers is obviously inadequate and should be increased to more than 1,000 by planning an immediate “flyover” of reinforcements in a crisis. This sort of solution would cause the world’s defence ministers to agree that “Canada is back.”

Anything less will draw a derisive smile.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on September 05, 2016, 15:11:34
Terry Liston's proposal probably is just what the Liberal brain trust does not want to hear, and it certainly flies in the face of what many or most Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be. Does it have a chance of being pursued? No, if we parse the various statements by ministers and others, but I suppose nothing is out of the question.

For those that don't recognize the name, Terry is a Vandoo who was awarded the MBE in the early sixties for rescuing a casualty from a minefield in the Congo when he was deployed on our UN mission there. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 05, 2016, 16:30:41
Terry Liston's proposal probably is just what the Liberal brain trust does not want to hear, and it certainly flies in the face of what many or most Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be. Does it have a chance of being pursued? No, if we parse the various statements by ministers and others, but I suppose nothing is out of the question.
Agreed - although there's lots of help needed, and such a plan would get a lot of "seat on the Security Council" brownie points, that's a whoooooooooooooooooole lot of commitment into a part of the world where results are far from guaranteed.

Also, as you said, in spite of the warnings (http://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/2016/08/13/harjit-sajjan-even-using-the-terminology-of-peacekeeping-is-not-valid-at-this-time/), this isn't what Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Old Sweat on September 05, 2016, 16:38:00
Also, as you said, in spite of the warnings (http://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/2016/08/13/harjit-sajjan-even-using-the-terminology-of-peacekeeping-is-not-valid-at-this-time/), this isn't what Canadians imagine peacekeeping to be.

I would change "imagine peacekeeping to be" to "want peacekeeping to be."
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on September 10, 2016, 21:36:33
BZ for David Bercuson. He is laying out the case for ISAF rather than UNPROFOR in a manner that is well thought out and easy to understand by the voting public. It would be nice if there was a strong case to make for how deploying a force into an ongoing war will support our National Interest as well (cough *Columbia* cough), but I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

Wether this sways Gerald Butts and the rest of the Liberal backroom is another issue altogether.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on September 10, 2016, 21:41:13
(cough *Columbia* cough),
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 11, 2016, 01:48:58
BZ for David Bercuson. He is laying out the case for ISAF rather than UNPROFOR in a manner that is well thought out and easy to understand by the voting public. It would be nice if there was a strong case to make for how deploying a force into an ongoing war will support our National Interest as well (cough *Columbia* cough), but I suppose half a loaf is better than none.

Wether this sways Gerald Butts and the rest of the Liberal backroom is another issue altogether.

Seriously, did Gerald Butts touch you as a child or something? Time to let this go
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: recceguy on September 11, 2016, 02:43:30
Seriously, did Gerald Butts touch you as a child or something? Time to let this go

His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Staff
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 11, 2016, 08:47:25
See what happens when you don't do what you wanted others to do, Team Red?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 11, 2016, 10:54:11
His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Staff

Fair, but throwing out Gerald Butts as a strawman is both lazy and lacks any sort of validity since I'm sure he doesn't personally know Mr. Butts nor has any real way to confirm what Mr. Butts intends or believes.

If people want to debate peacekeeping, politics, etc they should be able to form articulated arguments that are more than blog posts and name dropping. People who support the Liberals get criticized all the time for less.

My opinion.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 11, 2016, 10:58:09
See what happens when you don't do what you wanted others to do, Team Red?

It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 11, 2016, 11:02:27
No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

 :goodpost:

It is not only an appropriate moral move, but a tactically useful move because it allows the Government of the day to take note of the non-supporters for the next election...

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 11, 2016, 11:11:09


No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.

I quite agree. Its the foundation of democracy.
If I recall, in 1939 Parliament did debate entering WWII and held a vote.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 11, 2016, 11:52:19
For those worried about the potential dangers faced in some of these places, it's not only the insurgents/criminals or violence you will need to worry about.

I have a friend who deployed to Haiti a few years ago.  He has had stomach issues ever since which the military medical system chalked up to "malabsorption".  Well he was married this summer and two days after his wedding (which was held in Mexico) he was rushed to the hospital seriously ill. 

The doctors ran a battery of tests on him and found a parasite in his stomach, one they didn't have in that region of Mexico but is found in Haiti.  He had been walking around with a Parasite from his deployment for nearly three years that the military medical system had never found. 

He was given a concoction of drugs by the Mexican Doctors and is now doing much better.  He told me others he deployed with have also suffered with reoccurring stomach issues.  Probably best they all get checked.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 11, 2016, 12:35:21
It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.
:nod:
No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.
It is not only an appropriate moral move, but a tactically useful move because it allows the Government of the day to take note of the non-supporters for the next election...
Even if they don't have to, for transparency's sake, they should - no matter what party colour.
People who support the Liberals get criticized all the time for less.
Sometimes, it's all about the attached  ;)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 11, 2016, 14:54:43
His opinion. If you don't like it, don't read it.

As long as we're all on the same page that all opinions are pretty much meaningless.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Journeyman on September 11, 2016, 15:26:57
As long as we're all on the same page that all opinions are pretty much meaningless.
Not remotely.  :facepalm:

Some opinions are informed by experience and/or credible research (ie - competent sources that may agree or disagree, which are then weighed).  Other opinions, but certainly not all, are  pretty much meaningless.

The key takeaway, (since some people refuse to buy into the rationale of posting informed  opinions), is that all opinions are free to be ignored, if any reader so chooses.  That does not mean that they are all meaningless.



I honestly never thought this concept was so difficult to grasp.   :not-again:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 11, 2016, 17:31:19
Not remotely.  :facepalm:



I should have qualified that - all opinions without factual basis or merit, such as those that pretend to be able to see behind closed doors and into people's heads.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 11, 2016, 18:49:26
It's insanely hypocritical that the Liberals wont put their mission to a vote, especially since they have a majority and it's guaranteed to pass. It at least appears that they are looking to avoid debate on the matter or criticism.

No matter what stripe of the party, putting troops into conflict should always at least have a house vote and debate. Our soldiers deserve no less.


But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 11, 2016, 19:03:03

But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.
This is what they should do, and I believe they will come to this conclusion sooner or later.

The MOD backpedaling on the no vote stance already shows that they aren't liking the way this is being framed. Again, this has happened before on at least two separate occasions so I believe it will happen here too. No point burning political capital refusing to hold a vote on a vote you would easily pass.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on September 11, 2016, 22:11:49
Seriously, did Gerald Butts touch you as a child or something? Time to let this go

Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 11, 2016, 22:54:38
Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.

Mostly since I don't genuinely believe that you A) Know he's the person in charge and B) know he's making decisions.

For context, I also dont believe that Karl Rove called all the shots for Bush.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 12, 2016, 00:27:17
Why is it wrong to reference the person in charge of things? If we don't know or understand the reasoning behind these decisions then we are going into this blind.

This is where you need to provide evidence.  The normal assumption would be that the person making decisions is one Mr. Justin PJ Trudeau.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 12, 2016, 00:36:59

But is constitutionally problematical to put it to a vote. We, Anglo Saxons, have only had a bit more than a thousand years of constraining and containing the sovereign by limiting his or her financial capacity, as opposed to bashing one another with clubs and burning the peasants' crops as was the norm in France, Germany, Italy and Spain and so on and so forth.

The English Constitution, which applies to us just as much as our quite useless and redundant Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, says that it is the Queen in Council, in other words, the executive, the PM and cabinet, who must decide why, when and where to send ships and troops, but it is the sole and exclusive right of parliament (the Queen in Parliament) to vote or withhold the funds necessary to get them there, keep them there and buy bullets and beans.

It is a finely tuned system, that has worked since the time of the Saxon Witan and, more to the point, since Simon de Montfort, 750 years ago, and it is in every way superior to the clumsy, written "checks and balances" stuff our American friends use.

The proper thing to do is to "inform" Parliament, as Churchill did, regularly in World War II, by using a "take note" debate which allows everyone, the government and the opposition, to get their views "on the record" while not interfering with the legitimate policy prerogatives of the executive. The other proper thing to do is to bring defence estimates to parliament separately when troops are deployed overseas so that each mission may be approved, on an annual basis, or even more often if necessary.

Constitutionally, soldiers "deserve'" their pay, adequate equipment and supplies, and decent political leadership .. what they get is (constitutionally) unimportant. In the "fusion of powers" system we have the distinct roles and responsibilities and rights of the PM and cabinet, on one hand, and parliament, on the other, are vital and we must not mix them up because some of us have some misguided desire to import bits and pieces of the American system into Canada; that's just silly.

I would argue that, in spite of the system, political "leadership" would involve extensive debate and rational reasons for sending soldiers into harms way when there is no existential threat to the nation. There is no rush to deploy soldiers to a UN mission so the proper "leadership" from our political masters would be to debate and explain the 'why'. I would do this for any soldier under my command in such a case, and I think the CAF deserves the same.

As this is a peacekeeping thread and not a political systems one I wont get into my feelings on our lack of checks and balances. Great discussion for a different thread.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 12, 2016, 00:48:42
This is where you need to provide evidence.  The normal assumption would be that the person making decisions is one Mr. Justin PJ Trudeau.
truthiness requires no evidence.

Or feels over facts.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 12, 2016, 00:57:47
https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-africa-will-use-force-if-necessary-to-protect-civilians-defence-minister/amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca
Quote

OTTAWA — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says protecting civilians — by force if needed — will be central to any Canadian peacekeeping mission in Africa, and that Canada will expect troops from partner countries to operate on the same principle.

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Sajjan said he is concerned that despite having “robust” mandates and rules of engagement to act, peacekeepers from some countries have failed to intervene in cases where civilians have been attacked.

The willingness of prospective partners to act when required is one factor being considered as the Liberal government determines where to send upwards of 600 Canadian soldiers, he added.
“When Canada goes in, yes, we will be fulfilling that mandate of protection of civilians and proactively acting in that manner. And we expect other nations to do the same thing,” he said. “That’s one concern I do have and I will be looking at that all the way through.”

The comments follow several incidents in South Sudan, including one in July in which peacekeepers failed to respond for hours as local soldiers attacked and raped foreign aid workers at a nearby hotel.

Peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali have also been accused of not doing enough to protect civilians from attacks by local militias and insurgents. The mandate and rules of engagement for all three peacekeeping missions allow the use of deadly force to protect civilians if needed.

Complaints about peacekeepers standing aside while civilians are attacked are not new. The UN’s failure to stop mass atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s largely prompted western countries such as Canada to move away from peacekeeping.

The problems of 20 years ago related to weak mandates and limited rules of engagement from the UN Security Council, says Richard Gowan, a peacekeeping expert at the Center on International Cooperation in New York.

But the UN learned from those mistakes, he said. The protection of civilians is front and centre in both mission mandates and the rules of engagement allowing peacekeepers to use force. The problem now is with individual member states.

“Countries not only have formal caveats on their troop use,” he said, “they in some cases have secret caveats such as instructions to their troops to avoid taking action or phone back to the capital.”

Blame for not responding to the July attack in South Sudan has been largely directed at Chinese, Ethiopian and Nepali troops. The Ethiopian contingent had already been criticized along with those from India and Rwanda for not intervening when violence broke out at a UN camp in February, killing at least 30 people.

An investigation by the UN blamed “confusion with respect to command and control and the rules of engagement,” as well as a lack of co-ordination between various peacekeeping units at the time.

There have been some suggestions that Canadian troops should answer to Ottawa first and foremost as well, rather than the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York.

Speaking against the Liberals’ peacekeeping plan on Thursday, Conservative defence critic James Bezan asked a series of questions, including: “Will UN bureaucracy interfere with our chain of command?”

But Sajjan pushed back against the idea. Rather, he said, the government has been talking with other countries about making sure the UN force commanders on the ground have the flexibility to be able to make quick decisions and protect civilians without having to check with national capitals.

“I want to limit caveats, because by putting more caveats and decision-making processes, that doesn’t allow for the troops on the ground to be able to respond,” he said. “And having experienced that in many different cases, I can assure you how important that actually is to the commander on the ground.”

Sajjan’s comments are part of a push by western countries to eliminate caveats and make sure all peacekeeping countries are willing and able to do what’s necessary to protect civilians, said Gowan.

But no matter what, Canada will need some type of contingency plan to make sure the troops are supported in a dangerous situation, he said.

“Ottawa is going to have to not merely put troops on the ground, but actually do quite a lot of diplomatic work to calculate which countries it feels it is safe to operate alongside,” he said. “And do you want to have contingency planning and have capacity to get your guys out in a worst-case scenario? Yes.”

Seems like the ROEs will different from peacekeeping missions past.

And this is from the MOD, not some party fundraiser.

People happy yet?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 12, 2016, 07:20:28
I would argue that, in spite of the system, political "leadership" would involve extensive debate and rational reasons for sending soldiers into harms way when there is no existential threat to the nation. There is no rush to deploy soldiers to a UN mission so the proper "leadership" from our political masters would be to debate and explain the 'why'. I would do this for any soldier under my command in such a case, and I think the CAF deserves the same.

As this is a peacekeeping thread and not a political systems one I wont get into my feelings on our lack of checks and balances. Great discussion for a different thread.


Which is precisely why a "take note" debate is the proper answer. Churchill was right, the House of Commons has to be informed and it must be allowed to speak its mind, but the prerogative to deploy armed forces belongs to the Queen in Council, the executive, the PM and cabinet. Parliament constrains and contains the executive by controlling, absolutely, the public purse. That's the check and that's the balance ... or it would be if Pierre Trudeau had not changed Canada into a European style illiberal parliamentary democracy back circa 1969-71.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 12, 2016, 09:20:31
Quote
People happy yet?

No. 

Getting there, and the MND's words are certainly welcome.  I like Minister Sajjan and feel he is coming into his own as a Strat-Pol fellow well-informed by knowledgable, tactical service.  Good on him.

Now, two things need to happen:

1) The Government doesn't cut the MND off at the knees and dilute Canada's position; and

2) Canada doesn't ease off the UN and accept less than Ministet Sajjan is messaging.

Then, and only them will those of us who currently doubt, or at least are highly suspect, will be happy.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on September 12, 2016, 09:56:52

People happy yet?

No - there is no mission yet, and as such, no ROE to go with it.  As mentioned, what the Minister says vs what the Prime Minister says will always be trumped by the PM, who may well not give a flying, Ebola infected monkey's arse about the ROE if it interferes with getting celestial camouflaged hats on the ground.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 12, 2016, 10:30:09
No. 

Getting there, and the MND's words are certainly welcome.  I like Minister Sajjan and feel he is coming into his own as a Strat-Pol fellow well-informed by knowledgable, tactical service.  Good on him.

Now, two things need to happen:

1) The Government doesn't cut the MND off at the knees and dilute Canada's position; and

2) Canada doesn't ease off the UN and accept less than Ministet Sajjan is messaging.

Then, and only them will those of us who currently doubt, or at least are highly suspect, will be happy.

:2c:

Regards
G2G
Of course, we don't know the ROEs yet.

So I guess until they are in our hands we won't know for sure.

But it's hard to deny that all signs point towards much more robust ROEs than the peacekeeping missions that some people keep bringing up from two  decades ago.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 12, 2016, 10:52:40
But it's hard to deny that all signs point towards much more robust ROEs than the peacekeeping missions that some people keep bringing up from team decades ago.
Agree that "all signs point", but "all signs point" =/= done deal.  And Good2Golf is right about what ELSE can still happen between now and "done deal".
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on September 12, 2016, 11:16:08
I thought this might be a good reminder of UN missions past in Africa, good timing on it's release. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_JHsiQTTmg
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 12, 2016, 12:53:52
Lets see. A mission to Africa, in an area rife with conflicts of a resources/tribal/religious nature that has been raging for generations, with ROE's that let you shoot and a primary purpose of defending civilian population: What can possibly go wrong?

Can anyone say "Afghacyprus" (Yep! I just made that word up).
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MARS on September 12, 2016, 13:26:52
Quote
Seems like the ROEs will different from peacekeeping missions past.
Of course, we don't know the ROEs yet.




So which is it?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 12, 2016, 15:01:39


So which is it?
Seems like =/= definitely will be?

Are you done nitpicking now?

If you are we can discuss how every single person in connection with this has been mentioning more robust ROEs.

Or we can continue to talk about how certain phrases in the English language shouldn't be taken as absolutes.

Up to you.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Colin P on September 12, 2016, 15:14:25
Altair, your lack of skepticism for UN missions is disturbing (cue Darth Vader voice) 

The RN had Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, the UN has Cholera, Corruption and Child prostitution
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 12, 2016, 15:27:46
Altair, your lack of skepticism for UN missions is disturbing (cue Darth Vader voice) 

The RN had Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, the UN has Cholera, Corruption and Child prostitution

Wait until a person gets some TI with the UN.  Then and only then I fear they will develop a healthy case of skepticism.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 12, 2016, 18:20:40
Lets see. A mission to Africa, in an area rife with conflicts of a resources/tribal/religious nature that has been raging for generations, with ROE's that let you shoot and a primary purpose of defending civilian population: What can possibly go wrong?

Can anyone say "Afghacyprus" (Yep! I just made that word up).

I'm more concerned that the Liberals are warning Canadians that peacekeeping isn't like the old days anymore and war is changing when it's almost literally the same situation as Afghanistan. Did they not realize that before or were they purposely pandering? To be perfectly honest, I hope they were pandering, because with Andrew Leslie on board it would be depressing to think they didn't realize that the nature of war in Africa would be different than Cyprus.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on September 12, 2016, 18:48:46
It's almost like when they initially sent us to Afghanistan for 'peace support operations'....hmmmmmmm.... 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 12, 2016, 19:37:41
I'm more concerned that the Liberals are warning Canadians that peacekeeping isn't like the old days anymore and war is changing when it's almost literally the same situation as Afghanistan. Did they not realize that before or were they purposely pandering? To be perfectly honest, I hope they were pandering, because with Andrew Leslie on board it would be depressing to think they didn't realize that the nature of war in Africa would be different than Cyprus.
Just because they have some resources that know what they are talking about, NND, CDS and Leslie, doesn't mean they'll listen to them.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 12, 2016, 21:28:15
Very true.

But so far everyone is saying the right things and of what I'd being said actually turns out to be the reality of the situation then what's the problem?

Altair, your lack of skepticism for UN missions is disturbing (cue Darth Vader voice) 

The RN had Rum, Sodomy and the Lash, the UN has Cholera, Corruption and Child prostitution
Don't get me wrong, I don't like like the UN. I don't think you'll find anywhere on the site where I've given the UN praise.

I simply trust the CDS, the MND, leslie, and a image conscious LPC who probably don't want to see a repeat of 90s peacekeeping and murdered civilians with Canadian troops forced not to advance until the next day anymore than we do.

(Insert my selfish reasons here)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 12, 2016, 23:17:55
Wait until a person gets some TI with the UN.  Then and only then I fear they will develop a healthy case of skepticism.

This is correct. In Croatia 93 it was a goat rodeo.....
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: YZT580 on September 12, 2016, 23:35:16
Altair, I truly wish for your optimism to be justified.  If it is, you will be a part of history.  The entire expedition will be written up as the very first time ever that a peace keeping force did it right. I could then say "But" but lets leave it on a positive note
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 12, 2016, 23:36:28
Just because they have some resources that know what they are talking about, NND, CDS and Leslie, doesn't mean they'll listen to them.

Well, I assume that since the Liberal defence platform read like a plagiarized copy of Leslies Transformation Report and stated it would implement said report, I assume that he had/has some influence.... probably more than the MND.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on September 12, 2016, 23:48:00
Altair, I truly wish for your optimism to be justified.  If it is, you will be a part of history.  The entire expedition will be written up as the very first time ever that a peace keeping force did it right. I could then say "But" but lets leave it on a positive note

No doubt pre deployment trg would be lengthy
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: GAP on September 13, 2016, 00:13:04
No doubt pre deployment trg would be lengthy

Good Lord....it can't possibility be any longer than you guys did for Afghanistan....that was ridiculous.......
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 07:57:19
Well, I assume that since the Liberal defence platform read like a plagiarized copy of Leslies Transformation Report and stated it would implement said report, I assume that he had/has some influence.... probably more than the MND.

I'm not going to assume a goddamned thing.  Governments of all colours are famous for not listening to good advice and acting on stupid advice on many an occasion.  I am sure that this one in particular will be no different than all those who came before.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 13, 2016, 07:58:14
Good Lord....it can't possibility be any longer than you guys did for Afghanistan....that was ridiculous.......

9 Months holding down a picnic table in Meaford, Pet and California :)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Tango2Bravo on September 13, 2016, 10:03:34
Wait until a person gets some TI with the UN.  Then and only then I fear they will develop a healthy case of skepticism.

I recently served for a year on a UN mission. The first half was in the field and the second half was in the force HQ. There are always issues serving in a multinational environment and a UN mission can have some particular challenges, but this was also true for my two missions to Afghanistan. I would willingly serve under a blue baseball hat or blue helmet again.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 10:37:13
I recently served for a year on a UN mission. The first half was in the field and the second half was in the force HQ. There are always issues serving in a multinational environment and a UN mission can have some particular challenges, but this was also true for my two missions to Afghanistan. I would willingly serve under a blue baseball hat or blue helmet again.

Experiences differ, of course.  I know of others who share your views and others still that are more along the lines of the dissenters presented here. 

My point was more directed at the cheerleader who has no operational experiences to base his viewpoints upon the completion of any operational TI they might acquired one day.  Nothing like a taste of the real thing to give one some proper perspective on the reality of it all. 

After all, everyone has a pre-conceived conception of what sex is about and like.  I know for me personally, the real deal was not exactly what I was envisioning before I was well and truly ****ed.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 10:59:17
Experiences differ, of course.  I know of others who share your views and others still that are more along the lines of the dissenters presented here. 

My point was more directed at the cheerleader who has no operational experiences to base his viewpoints upon the completion of any operational TI they might acquired one day.  Nothing like a taste of the real thing to give one some proper perspective on the reality of it all. 

After all, everyone has a pre-conceived conception of what sex is about and like.  I know for me personally, the real deal was not exactly what I was envisioning before I was well and truly ****ed.
Ah yes.

My opinion counts for nothing until I have some operational experience but I get flak for wanting to go on a mission that would grant me said operational experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 11:11:58
Ah yes.

My opinion counts for nothing until I have some operational experience but I get flak for wanting to go on a mission that would grant me said operational experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

Your opinion is yours to do with as you wish. 

As with any opinion, the originator shouldn't expect blanket acceptance across the board, just because they have an opinion.  After all, opinions are a dime a dozen, everyone has them.  And some have more weight than others, especially those that have experience to back them up.  Take it as you will as that's my opinion.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 13, 2016, 11:16:58
Experiences differ, of course.  I know of others who share your views and others still that are more along the lines of the dissenters presented here. 

My point was more directed at the cheerleader who has no operational experiences to base his viewpoints upon the completion of any operational TI they might acquired one day.  Nothing like a taste of the real thing to give one some proper perspective on the reality of it all. 

After all, everyone has a pre-conceived conception of what sex is about and like.  I know for me personally, the real deal was not exactly what I was envisioning before I was well and truly ****ed.

That said, perhaps there's validity in the following quote, which is featured on this site:

“Frederick the Great’s horse was on seven separate campaigns with him. In the end he was still a dumb horse.”
– Unknown (on experience in military decision-making)

Experience is great, but experiences from 20-ish years ago may not be applicable today just as they weren't for the French and British in 1940. The UN had a rough go in the 1990s especially, but some/much of that can be viewed as an inability to adapt to the changing situation on the ground after the fall of the USSR. Part of this failure was the deployment of armies designed to fight the Soviets into complex civil wars with roots going back thousands of years and a maintenance of the "split the two sides" mentality in a non-permissive environment.

That's why I choose to remain cautiously optimistic about a mission. The recent actions of the Liberals in parliament and their seeming to not have known that Pearsonian peacekeeping was over (if it ever really began) certainly don't give me warm and fuzzies, but I'm not going to trash a mission before there are any details based on experiences from the early to mid 1990's. It's akin to the French building the Maginot Line because of their experiences in WW1 only to find out that the situation had changed.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 11:17:35
If I expected blanket acceptance of my opinions I would have stopped posting here years ago out of frustration.

People disagreeing with me because they think I'm wrong or have evidence contrary to what I said, fine.

It's statements like

My point was more directed at the cheerleader who has no operational experiences to base his viewpoints upon the completion of any operational TI they might acquired one day. 
that get to me.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 11:21:00
That said, perhaps there's validity in the following quote, which is featured on this site:

“Frederick the Great’s horse was on seven separate campaigns with him. In the end he was still a dumb horse.”
– Unknown (on experience in military decision-making)

Experience is great, but experiences from 20-ish years ago may not be applicable today just as they weren't for the French and British in 1940. The UN had a rough go in the 1990s especially, but some/much of that can be viewed as an inability to adapt to the changing situation on the ground after the fall of the USSR. Part of this failure was the deployment of armies designed to fight the Soviets into complex civil wars with roots going back thousands of years and a maintenance of the "split the two sides" mentality in a non-permissive environment.

That's why I choose to remain cautiously optimistic about a mission. The recent actions of the Liberals in parliament and their seeming to not have known that Pearsonian peacekeeping was over (if it ever really began) certainly don't give me warm and fuzzies, but I'm not going to trash a mission before there are any details based on experiences from the early to mid 1990's. It's akin to the French building the Maginot Line because of their experiences in WW1 only to find out that the situation had changed.
:goodpost:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 12:19:57
If I expected blanket acceptance of my opinions I would have stopped posting here years ago out of frustration.

People disagreeing with me because they think I'm wrong or have evidence contrary to what I said, fine.

It's statements like that get to me.

As you've self identified, fine.  I stand by my statement that you won't be able to fully develop an opinion until after you have some experience to base it on, which would be the same for anyone in a similar position.  You don't need to accept my opinion and that is your right.  It's still my opinion.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: the 48th regulator on September 13, 2016, 12:22:17
As you've self identified, fine.  I stand by my statement that you won't be able to fully develop an opinion until after you have some experience to base it on, which would be the same for anyone in a similar position.  You don't need to accept my opinion and that is your right.  It's still my opinion.

That post made my head hurt.

 :)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 12:34:49
As you've self identified, fine.  I stand by my statement that you won't be able to fully develop an opinion until after you have some experience to base it on, which would be the same for anyone in a similar position.  You don't need to accept my opinion and that is your right.  It's still my opinion.
Well, I'll cheerlead for going on a UN mission so I can have some experience to base UN missions on.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 12:51:22
Well, I'll cheerlead for going on a UN mission so I can have some experience to base UN missions on.

There you go.  I do hope you get what you wish and that there's no buyers regret once you do.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on September 13, 2016, 12:51:47

Experience is great, but experiences from 20-ish years ago may not be applicable today just as they weren't for the French and British in 1940. The UN had a rough go in the 1990s especially, but some/much of that can be viewed as an inability to adapt to the changing situation on the ground after the fall of the USSR. Part of this failure was the deployment of armies designed to fight the Soviets into complex civil wars with roots going back thousands of years and a maintenance of the "split the two sides" mentality in a non-permissive environment.


Just because we have not actually partaken in any UN deployments, on a large scale, for the past "20-ish years" does not mean that we have been far removed from UN activities.  We still have UN Peacekeepers deployed around the globe.  We are quite capable of observing how other UN operations, that we are not involved in, are performing.  So, I would say that your comment is a bit of a red herring.  We can observe how little the UN's handling of these "Peacekeeping deployments" have changed.  There is no requirement to allude to our attitude as being that of the French and the Maginot Line or any other comparison.  We have not been BLIND to UN operations for the past two or three decades.  We know quite well how they have been performing.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 12:58:00
Just because we have not actually partaken in any UN deployments, on a large scale, for the past "20-ish years" does not mean that we have been far removed from UN activities.  We still have UN Peacekeepers deployed around the globe.  We are quite capable of observing how other UN operations, that we are not involved in, are performing.  So, I would say that your comment is a bit of a red herring.  We can observe how little the UN's handling of these "Peacekeeping deployments" have changed.  There is no requirement to allude to our attitude as being that of the French and the Maginot Line or any other comparison.  We have not been BLIND to UN operations for the past two or three decades.  We know quite well how they have been performing.
I recently served for a year on a UN mission. The first half was in the field and the second half was in the force HQ. There are always issues serving in a multinational environment and a UN mission can have some particular challenges, but this was also true for my two missions to Afghanistan. I would willingly serve under a blue baseball hat or blue helmet again.
From a guy who's been there because I clearly have not.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 13, 2016, 12:58:24
Well, I'll cheerlead for going on a UN mission so I can have some experience to base UN missions on.

Until you're pulled off tour and replaced because of a gender policy highlighting the need for more females to be seen as peacekeepers.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 13, 2016, 12:59:51
Until you're pulled off tour and replaced because of a gender policy highlighting the need for more females to be seen as peacekeepers.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 13:00:15
Until you're pulled off tour and replaced because of a gender policy highlighting the need for more females to be seen as peacekeepers.
They need minorities there so I'll probably be alright.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on September 13, 2016, 13:02:45
From a guy who's been there because I clearly have not.

???

Clearly you missed the essence of the post.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY IGNORANT OF HOW THE UN OPERATES ITS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS OVER THE PASS TWO OR THREE DECADES IN WHICH WE HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED LARGE CONTINGENTS.  WE ARE VERY COGNIZANT OF HOW THE UN OPERATES.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 13:07:21
???

Clearly you missed the essence of the post.  WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOTALLY IGNORANT OF HOW THE UN OPERATES ITS PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS OVER THE PASS TWO OR THREE DECADES IN WHICH WE HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED LARGE CONTINGENTS.  WE ARE VERY COGNIZANT OF HOW THE UN OPERATES.
Thank you, the cap lock helped me to understand.

I get you now.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 13, 2016, 13:12:33
They need minorities there so I'll probably be alright.

I think it's more of a want than a need but yea that might keep you in the running! Hope so.  If you dodge the gender bullet I'll hook you up with some sweet kit.


also..
Quote
the word “minority” is offensive and degrading to the people it represents, regardless of race because the word is originally a math term meaning “the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.”
;)
Just kidding (well not really, it's apparently a thing)
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 13:18:21
I think it's more of a want than a need but yea that might keep you in the running! Hope so.  If you dodge the gender bullet I'll hook you up with some sweet kit.


also.. ;)
Just kidding (well not really, it's apparently a thing)
I hope you're kidding and not getting all PC and soft on us here.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 13, 2016, 13:19:24
Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml)

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:

2016 - 'on verra'

2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.


One would hope that Trudeau will be truly more supportive of the UN than his own party's predecessors were...

G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 13:23:33
Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

One would hope that Trudeau will be truly more supportive of the UN than his own party's predecessors were...

G2G
J. Trudeau>Chrétien and Martin?

Ya sure, I'll buy that.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 13, 2016, 14:40:05
G2G:

Just looking at your list.  Are Pakistan and Bangladesh notably peaceful countries?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 13, 2016, 14:50:21
Are Pakistan and Bangladesh notably peaceful countries?
Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 13, 2016, 14:53:44
Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?

If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 13, 2016, 15:07:25
Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?


....this....and...

If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.


...that...

:nod:

G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Dimsum on September 13, 2016, 15:21:24
Well, I'll cheerlead for going on a UN mission so I can have some experience to base UN missions on.

You know you can ask for a UN tour, right? 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 13, 2016, 15:22:43
If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.
Perish the thought, indeed ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 13, 2016, 15:35:15
You know you can ask for a UN tour, right?
I will be doing that, thank you.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on September 13, 2016, 17:15:11
Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

G2G

Of course we have all heard the story of lies, damed lies and statistics. The huge spike in numbers in the early 1990s represents UNPROFOR, which although consuming a large amount of resources, accomplished virtually zero. I have some pretty sad memories of my friends returning and telling the story of hastily throwing their Kevlar gear to soldiers getting off the plane while they were double timing it to the plane, because the government of the day had minimal interest in actually providing the sort of kit needed to operate in that environment. This is related to point one, since even if meaningful ROE's would have been established under UNPROFOR, there was little way to actually enforce them. Many people who came back from UNPROFOR were pretty messed up by being forced to stand aside and watch atrocities or discovering the aftermath.

Change over to SFOR, and while the UN numbers abruptly drop, a similar number of soldiers under NATO command are now there doing the job with proper ROE's and a mandate to actively intervene to a much greater extent than UNPROFOR. Historians might note that the escalation of force, including a bombing campaign, finally resulted in the Dayton Accords.

So the moral of the story is it really does not matter how many troops you send on a mission. What matters is there is a clear mandate, a clear plan to carry out that mandate and the tools to do the job.

As a personal observation, since through a series of circumstances I am actually High Readiness and working across two organizations I could be deployed immediately on ROTO 0 or ROTO 1. This means that there is a potential that I will be sent into a dangerous environment and come home in a box. So I want to be able to let my wife and children to know the Memorial cross was for a significant purpose. If I were to deploy to Ukraine, I could possibly be in equal danger (Ukrainian CIMIC teams are high value targets for Russian SPETSNAZ units and Ukrainian separatists), but at least I can explain how working to secure Ukraine against Russian aggression is in Canada's national interest, and the Memorial cross would be well earned. Explaining how deploying to Mali or other African locations supports the National Interest is more problematic ("Because 2016" or "Canada's Back" are non answers designed to close off discussion or debate). Since government spokes people now no longer refer to the potential mission as Peacekeeping, at least some reality is seeping into the thought processes. Lets hope for more of this sort of thinking before we actually get sent anywhere.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on September 13, 2016, 18:17:38
The UN had a rough go in the 1990s especially

Indications of UN improvement since then are...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on September 13, 2016, 18:42:54
(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpierrebayle.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341cd00753ef0168ea6922fe970c-pi&hash=0b84a0061ebd7fb35527109cab9ea2bd)?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: cavalryman on September 13, 2016, 19:01:12
(https://Air-Force.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpierrebayle.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341cd00753ef0168ea6922fe970c-pi&hash=0b84a0061ebd7fb35527109cab9ea2bd)?
What does the main gun fire?  Stern warnings?  Teddy bears?  Cholera doses?  >:D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on September 13, 2016, 19:19:51
That's a nice picture, but organizationally? Can it really run and support complex missions now?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on September 13, 2016, 19:39:07
That's a nice picture, but organizationally? Can it really run and support complex missions now?
I think we need to be ready to run and support the mission.  That is what we bring to the table as a first world armed forces.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 13, 2016, 22:49:33
Indications of UN improvement since then are...

INTERFET, which led into UNMISET (East Timor) is an example of an effective UN mission. Australian led, INTERFET was able to secure clear goals under a UN mandate, followed by an effective peacekeeping force. Cyprus, the Golan, and some of the various other UNMO could be considered reasonably successful based on the limited aims of the missions. The track record of NATO and the "coalitions of the willing" aren't that hot either, unless you consider Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan successes
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 14, 2016, 03:35:07
Eeben Barlow, the prominent South African Mercenary let his feelings concerning the United Nations be known recently, I've pasted the post from his blog below:

Quote
SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2016

THE DISGRACEFUL UN ‘PEACEKEEPING’ FORCE

I felt I ought not to write something when I am filled with anger, but to say I am absolutely and totally disgusted would be an understatement.

The uncontrolled actions by South Sudanese troops on 11 July 2016, within close proximity of the increasingly useless and ever-incompetent United Nations Peacekeeping Force, resulted in multiple rapes of foreign aid workers, along with a looting spree and murder. One shudders to think how they treated the local population…

After winning a battle in Juba, the South Sudanese troops celebrated their victory with an uncontrolled four-hour rampage through a popular residential compound preferred by foreigners. One aid worker was allegedly raped 15 times…looting and stealing was the order of the day along with the murder of a journalist.

These despicable actions are indicative of an undisciplined rabble posing as soldiers who have no understanding or knowledge of what the mission of the armed forces is.

Not surprisingly, when the UN peacekeeping force stationed approximately a kilometre away were begged for help, they refused to even respond. Several embassies were also called on for help, but they too did not even bother to react.  Perhaps they did not want to infringe on the ‘human rights’ of the out-of-control soldiers?

I consider the lack of action by both embassies and the UN to be a display of spineless cowardice of the highest order, and nothing else. If the UN ‘peacekeepers’ are unable to protect non-participants, then what on earth are they doing in Southern Sudan let alone in Africa?

This is also merely another example of the folly of forcing the balkanisation of a country and then allowing it to implode.  I am sure Pres Bashir—he of now simply ‘Sudan’—is smiling at the incompetence and lack of control that has now become the norm in another state that was set up for failure.

I wish the day will come when African governments realise that the UN’s so-called ‘Peacekeeping Department’ has NO desire to keep peace. Their inability to perform their function has been proven time and again across Africa. Instead, it is a United Nations sanctioned ‘occupying force’ that continually turns a blind eye to atrocities committed against the vulnerable.

Instead of acting as their name implies and assisting the innocent, they cower behind their barricades like spineless creatures and watch rape, looting and murder take place.

Yet, despite a seriously blighted track record littered with failure after failure, the UN still continues to convince African governments that it is needed, and that it is a ‘successful’ organisation. To reinforce this bluff, they are probably going to increase their force levels and of course, their budget. This will imply that governments must ‘pay more for less’—a corrupt business model if ever there was one.

One only has to look at the gross failure ‘peacekeeping’ has become in DRC. If peace was measured by the amount of peacekeepers and the size of the budget, DRC ought to be a very stable and peaceful country. Sadly, that is not the case.

But if our governments wish to turn a blind eye to this grossly disgraceful incompetent organisation of incompetents, then they will have to suffer the consequences. Equally sad is that the ‘world’ watches and says very little to nothing. But watching these atrocities happen and saying nothing is silent complicity in this gross violation of all that is supposedly humanity.

One also has to wonder who trained these scumbags. It is obvious that they are lacking in any type of training befitting a peacekeeping force as they have yet to yield a positive result anywhere in Africa. Where does the UN find its particularly cowardly dirtbags who make up the misnamed ‘peacekeeping’ forces?

In the not too distant past, commanders who watched atrocities being committed and did nothing to stop them or intervene were considered to be complicit in the atrocities. They were charged with war crimes…

Not so the UN.

They will probably claim they were unable to stop the rampage, call for a ‘special UN investigation’, and insist on an increase in ‘peacekeepers’ along with a massive increase in their budget. And when they finally run out of Southern Sudan, they will hail it another great success story.

The so-called UN ‘peacekeepers’ are nothing other than an international disgrace and the perpetrators of these atrocities should, by all rights, face trial for war crimes. 

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html (http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html)

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: CBH99 on September 14, 2016, 05:01:01
That's quite the interesting blog, and that fellow sure as heck knows what he is talking about.  Great post, Mr. Bogart - couldn't have been a more relevant read.  *thumbs up*
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 14, 2016, 07:46:51
Eeben Barlow, the prominent South African Mercenary let his feelings concerning the United Nations be known recently, I've pasted the post from his blog below:

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html (http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html)

From his profile paragraph, couldn't agree more.  We have no business whatsoever sticking our nose into the continent.

Quote
I believe that only Africans (Black and White) can truly solve Africa’s problems.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 14, 2016, 08:39:41
Two points about Eeben Barlow's blog comments and the followup comments:

The problem to which Mr Barlow alludes, the the UN Peacekeeping Department (Directorate?) provides UN sanctioned "occupying forces" rather than "keeping the peace," is only partially valid. The prblem is structural in the UN. The UN is divided (since the 1940s with the last major adjustment having been made in the the 1990s) into five regional groups:
Regional Group   Number of members   Population (approx., rounded WP numbers)    % of UN members population

GROUP    MEMBERS   POPULATION
  Africa              54              1.14 billion   
Asia-Pacific      53              4.24 billion
   EEG                23                 340 million   (Caribbean and Latin America)
 GRULAC          33                 621 million   
   WEOG            29                 904 million   
   None              1                   124,000   (Kiribati, a little, tiny Pacific Island nation)
   Total               193           7.24 billion   

The seats are allocated in the General Assembly and Security Council thusly:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/United_National_General_Assembly.svg/360px-United_National_General_Assembly.svg.png) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/United_Nations_Security_Council_regional_groups.svg/410px-United_Nations_Security_Council_regional_groups.svg.png)
           
                                                                    The African Group
                                                                    The Asia-Pacific Group
                                                                    The Eastern European Group
                                                                    The Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC)
                                                                    The Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
                                                                    UN member not in any voting group

This is a holdover from 1948 and the beginnings of the Cold War and all that, it is, remarkably, fair in representation, but it is used, in an iron rice bowl (quota) sort of way in staffing and human resources. Thus, Groupe Afrique, as it styles itself, or did in the late 1990s, gets 16% of every damned job at every (non-elected) level in the UN and that means that one in every six staff members in the DPKO are African political appointees whose "job" is to serve their countries' needs in the UN not to serve the interests of the the world or even of Africa. It doesn't matter one iota how noble Justin Trudeau's motives might be, the business of peacekeeping in Africa is to meet the perceived political needs of which ever African states have their hands, for now, on the levers of power and influence. That extends down to missions, too, by the way. It is not because there are bad people in the UN, it is because the UN C2 superstructure is totally, completely, irredeemably FUBAR.

However, that is not a reason to ignore Africa.

Africa matters now and it will matter, more and more, to the all of us, in the future.

Simple human decency says that a country like Canada should have dropped a light brigade into South Sudan and destroyed the South Sudanese Army in a short, brutal campaign of exemplary speed and violence ... should have if we could have, but, of course, the Canadian Army is a fat, overstaffed, poorly managed corporal's guard, that cannot deploy any brigade anywhere because we don't have any nearly fully staffed brigades and even if we did they don't have enough logistical "lift," so they are useless once they have marched more than 15 km out of the camp gate ... unless a country with a real army (you know, one with trucks and people to drive them) decides to support and sustain us.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 14, 2016, 09:02:09
Simple human decency says that a country like Canada should have dropped a light brigade into South Sudan and destroyed the South Sudanese Army in a short, brutal campaign of exemplary speed and violence ... should have if we could have, but, of course, the Canadian Army is a fat, overstaffed, poorly managed corporal's guard, that cannot deploy any brigade anywhere because we don't have any nearly fully staffed brigades and even if we did they don't have enough logistical "lift," so they are useless once they have marched more than 15 km out of the camp gate ... unless a country with a real army (you know, one with trucks and people to drive them) decides to support and sustain us.
You should come out of your shell, ERC, and not sugar coat it - tell us what you mean  ;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: captloadie on September 14, 2016, 09:51:55
Two of the things that my UN tour taught me are:
1) They pay too well;
2) They have a ruthless staffing process. Screw up and you don't get your contract renewed.

I didn't see as many issues with the contingents on tour, but the many UN Staff Officers, police, and civilians (who run the missions) were all too scared ruffle feathers, because it meant not getting their contracts renewed for another year. As much as the argument that you need Africans to fix Africa makes sense, it doesn't apply in a UN context. I believe UN missions need to be led (on the civilian and military sides) by nations who don't need the UN handout, that will make the tough decisions, despite what NY HQ dictates, and are willing to walk away if need be.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 14, 2016, 10:21:24
Quote
After winning a battle in Juba, the South Sudanese troops celebrated their victory with an uncontrolled four-hour rampage through a popular residential compound preferred by foreigners. One aid worker was allegedly raped 15 times…looting and stealing was the order of the day along with the murder of a journalist.

So what would have Canadian soldiers stationed 1 km away done in this situation?  Move in and start shooting South Sudanese troops? 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 14, 2016, 11:36:41
So what would have Canadian soldiers stationed 1 km away done in this situation?  Move in and start shooting South Sudanese troops?

Probably not.  But they should have.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 14, 2016, 12:50:53
Two points about Eeben Barlow's blog comments and the followup comments:

The problem to which Mr Barlow alludes, the the UN Peacekeeping Department (Directorate?) provides UN sanctioned "occupying forces" rather than "keeping the peace," is only partially valid. The prblem is structural in the UN. The UN is divided (since the 1940s with the last major adjustment having been made in the the 1990s) into five regional groups:
Regional Group   Number of members   Population (approx., rounded WP numbers)    % of UN members population

GROUP    MEMBERS   POPULATION
  Africa              54              1.14 billion   
Asia-Pacific      53              4.24 billion
   EEG                23                 340 million   (Caribbean and Latin America)
 GRULAC          33                 621 million   
   WEOG            29                 904 million   
   None              1                   124,000   (Kiribati, a little, tiny Pacific Island nation)
   Total               193           7.24 billion   

The seats are allocated in the General Assembly and Security Council thusly:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/United_National_General_Assembly.svg/360px-United_National_General_Assembly.svg.png) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/United_Nations_Security_Council_regional_groups.svg/410px-United_Nations_Security_Council_regional_groups.svg.png)
           
                                                                    The African Group
                                                                    The Asia-Pacific Group
                                                                    The Eastern European Group
                                                                    The Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC)
                                                                    The Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
                                                                    UN member not in any voting group

This is a holdover from 1948 and the beginnings of the Cold War and all that, it is, remarkably, fair in representation, but it is used, in an iron rice bowl (quota) sort of way in staffing and human resources. Thus, Groupe Afrique, as it styles itself, or did in the late 1990s, gets 16% of every damned job at every (non-elected) level in the UN and that means that one in every six staff members in the DPKO are African political appointees whose "job" is to serve their countries' needs in the UN not to serve the interests of the the world or even of Africa. It doesn't matter one iota how noble Justin Trudeau's motives might be, the business of peacekeeping in Africa is to meet the perceived political needs of which ever African states have their hands, for now, on the levers of power and influence. That extends down to missions, too, by the way. It is not because there are bad people in the UN, it is because the UN C2 superstructure is totally, completely, irredeemably FUBAR.

You're absolutely right and lets also not pretend that Mr. Barlow doesn't also have his own agenda.  I've followed his blog for the past five years or so, the man knows his stuff; however, he is no fan of the United Nations or most African governments, particularly South Africa, where he has been vilified by the ANC. 

He is a businessman though and part of his rant against the UN has as much to do with trying to generate business for his security companies as it does with any sort of hatred for the UN.  He does have a point though as the track record of his companies on operations is good while the UN's and other Western Governments is notoriously bad.

Here is an earlier post of his (key takeaways highlighted):

Quote
Wednesday, December 2, 2015

AFRICA MUST STOP DEMILITARISING ITS MILITARIES

Having sat through numerous debates and discussions on ‘peacekeeping’, I have always been surprised and disappointed that this costly and failed approach to security and stability is, for some very (not so) strange reason, still being advocated and encouraged. 

The truth is that without sustainable peace, Africa will never see real development and prosperity. Economic development and stability is ensured by good governance, law and order, and the application of sound policies. But if the policies and approaches are wrong, no amount of strategy and tactics can provide peace and stability.

Ending a conflict or war can only be assured when the state has the political will and the military might—and will—to engage the enemy. This must result in the enemy or threat being decisively beaten, and begging and pleading for mercy to save it from complete annihilation. This requires a strong and capable deterrent force with strong military policies in place.

If a government cannot negotiate from a position of total strength, it is merely giving the adversary time to rebuild and rearm its forces and continue the conflict.  Besides, the terms of negotiation must be dictated by the government and not by the enemy or threat. Indeed, it must be an unconditional surrender or nothing at all. During negotiations, the enemy or threat must be subjected to intense intelligence scrutiny to ensure that the call to negotiate was not a deception measure aimed at reducing pressure on the crumbling threat forces.

A well-trained, well-equipped, well-led and disciplined armed force, correctly postured and able to rapidly project decisive force, is a significant deterrent to an armed adversary. So why have some African governments decided to demilitarise their armed forces and instead turn them into ‘peacekeepers’?

The mere thought of ‘peacekeeping’ when and where a conflict or war is raging is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal. But in order to remain politically correct, and in the good books of the UN and those governments driving the (failed) peacekeeping approach, this new form of ‘un-warfare’ has taken hold in some African governments whilst emasculating their armed forces.

Simultaneously, it has expanded the current and future market for ‘peacekeepers’ and other ‘partnership forces’ to enter fragile and troubled countries—the results of which, to date, have been catastrophic, disgraceful, and disastrous to say the least. The numerous scandals created by these forces have simply added to the already tarnished image of the ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘partnership’ approaches.

Besides, if peacekeeping was such a valuable tool in the arsenal for halting the spread of conflict and war, why aren’t these forces standing between the warring parties in Nigeria, Libya, Cameroon, Niger, Burundi, and so forth? And if they are there, such as in Mali, South Sudan, Somalia—why aren’t they keeping the peace?

Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces. Soldiers have now become ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘nation builders’ and time and money is spent on irrelevant ‘free’ training programmes supposedly aimed at keeping the peace and building nations—especially where there is no peace and governments have become fragile or failed. Soldiers have become quasi-policemen as opposed to fighting men who can and will fight to annihilate armed opposition or enemy forces.

The demilitarising of African armed forces has had serious knock-on effects such as a lack of intelligence gathering capacity—especially HUMINT, an inability to fight to decisively end conflicts and wars, a neglect of doctrine development and training, the neglect of essential combat equipment along with the procurement of unsuitable equipment, a watering-down of essential combat skills, the acceptance of bad advice, and so forth.

This, however, suits those powers who have encouraged a mission diversion to ‘peacekeeping’ as they are guaranteed that African governments and their armies will be required to call for foreign help when the wheels fall off. And fall off they will—and are.

Anyone who dares criticise the farce of ‘peacekeeping’ is shouted down and viewed as a warmonger. It is, after all, not politically correct to criticise a failed approach that gives violent and murderous threat forces—viewed by many in the West as ‘moderate terrorists’, ‘pro-democracy fighters’ and ‘freedom fighters’—the advantage. Also, ‘human rights’ have overridden common sense as national armies are expected to show tolerance and understanding to the very people trying to kill them, murder and terrorise the populace, destroy infrastructure, and collapse the government.

The ‘peacekeeping’ mantra has become a dangerous cancer that is eating away at the combat effectiveness of African armies—and it is subsequently endangering the populace, destroying societies, and eroding the stability of states.

For Africa to survive in an ever-increasing turbulent environment, be independent, and ensure the safety and security for its people, the concept of ‘peacekeeping’ needs to be given a very serious rethink. 

Perhaps the time has come for African governments to stop demilitarizing their armed forces and instead redefine their missions—away from peacekeeping and towards enemy and threat identification, deterrence, targeting, and annihilation.

After all, that is what the armed forces are supposed to do—isn’t it?



Quote
However, that is not a reason to ignore Africa.

Africa matters now and it will matter, more and more, to the all of us, in the future.

Simple human decency says that a country like Canada should have dropped a light brigade into South Sudan and destroyed the South Sudanese Army in a short, brutal campaign of exemplary speed and violence ... should have if we could have, but, of course, the Canadian Army is a fat, overstaffed, poorly managed corporal's guard, that cannot deploy any brigade anywhere because we don't have any nearly fully staffed brigades and even if we did they don't have enough logistical "lift," so they are useless once they have marched more than 15 km out of the camp gate ... unless a country with a real army (you know, one with trucks and people to drive them) decides to support and sustain us.

Pretty much, our units are all undermanned and even worse it's by design.  A Canadian Infantry Battalion is supposed to have how many soldiers in it exactly?  I know on paper it's roughly 800+; however, the Army only has allocated 550ish to each Battalion.  Even the paper trail is vague and weak, if you read the latest and greatest from Army Doctrine, B-GL-309-001/FT-001"THE INFANTRY BATTALION IN BATTLE".  The most you'll get is an Org Chart, actual numbers though?  Not a chance because that would mean actually being held to a certain standard, no numbers means no need to justify anything and an Infantry Battalion can be whatever we feel like it being.

I've heard this many times "We know your establishment is only 550ish but if you deploy those positions will be topped up, by Reservists and augmentees".  How exactly is a unit considered "high-readiness" when it's only at 65% effective strength?  Call it what you want but we've got a ragtag Army with a hodgepodge collection of equipment?  Worst of all, whenever, this is brought up your labelled as some sort of "negative nancy". 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 14, 2016, 12:58:23
So what would have Canadian soldiers stationed 1 km away done in this situation?  Move in and start shooting South Sudanese troops?
Medak 2.0?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 14:25:45
So what would have Canadian soldiers stationed 1 km away done in this situation?  Move in and start shooting South Sudanese troops?
If need be why not?

Responsibility to protect civilians>raping looting soldiers from a undisciplined force.

Unless that's being too simple but I don't see how even the UN could blame Canadians acting under those conditions.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: YZT580 on September 14, 2016, 14:59:15
If need be why not?

Responsibility to protect civilians>raping looting soldiers from a undisciplined force.

Unless that's being too simple but I don't see how even the UN could blame Canadians acting under those conditions.
Think about Tripoli.  Your duty officer receives a call from down the road requesting assistance.  He immediately boots it up to hdq NY who put him on hold for at least 30 minutes and then deny request.  Dissatisfied, he contacts his own hq who, since they are not involved directly (they are in OW) refuse the request because of political repercussions.  People die, so sorry.  It is a very brave commander or one who plans early retirement who will act on his own and dispatch a suitable force to contain the situation: particularly when it involves so-called allies. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on September 14, 2016, 15:13:24
Think about Tripoli.  Your duty officer receives a call from down the road requesting assistance.  He immediately boots it up to hdq NY who put him on hold for at least 30 minutes and then deny request.  Dissatisfied, he contacts his own hq who, since they are not involved directly (they are in OW) refuse the request because of political repercussions.  People die, so sorry.  It is a very brave commander or one who plans early retirement who will act on his own and dispatch a suitable force to contain the situation: particularly when it involves so-called allies. 
That is how it would have played out 15 to 20 years ago.  However, the Canadian government has indicated that the Canadian mission will have a mandate to protect civilians, and the UN has indicated that it gives such a mandate but troop contributing nations apply national caveats against such active intervention.  That tells me that the TF Comd will have the prerogative to launch a response force.  The only job of the duty officer in all this is to tell New York and Ottawa that the Canadian contingent is already wheels turning.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 14, 2016, 16:14:29
Responsibility to protect civilians>raping looting soldiers from a undisciplined force.

Unless that's being too simple but I don't see how even the UN could blame Canadians acting under those conditions.
Thing is, though, that the host country may not be too happy with U.N. troops shooting up their own folks, massacre/ethnic cleansing/suppressing rebels (pick one) or not.  And unless the U.N. has changed recently, if the "willing" host country is unhappy, U.N. NY HQ is unhappy.
... the Canadian government has indicated that the Canadian mission will have a mandate to protect civilians, and the UN has indicated that it gives such a mandate but troop contributing nations apply national caveats against such active intervention.  That tells me that the TF Comd will have the prerogative to launch a response force.  The only job of the duty officer in all this is to tell New York and Ottawa that the Canadian contingent is already wheels turning.
Fingers crossed that'll be the case ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 16:27:25
Thing is, though, that the host country may not be too happy with U.N. troops shooting up their own folks, massacre/ethnic cleansing/suppressing rebels (pick one) or not.  And unless the U.N. has changed recently, if the "willing" host country is unhappy, U.N. NY HQ is unhappy.Fingers crossed that'll be the case ...
Host country is sad that their troops got killed while they were raping innocent aid workers? Boo hoo?

Give them some hurt feeling reports and let the UN try to smooth things over.

Not our problem.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: George Wallace on September 14, 2016, 16:33:40
Host country is sad that their troops got killed while they were raping innocent aid workers? Boo hoo?

Give them some hurt feeling reports and let the UN try to smooth things over.

Not our problem.

You really don't get it, do you?  Although we a Peacekeepers may have those personal feelings, we, as professionals, are hamstrung by the orders that bureaucrats and politicians in the UN have given us, and the "molasses in January" speed by which they operate.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 14, 2016, 16:43:48
Host country is sad that their troops got killed while they were raping innocent aid workers? Boo hoo?

Give them some hurt feeling reports and let the UN try to smooth things over.

Not our problem.

No host nation = No UN mission, since the UN must be invited at the beheadst of the host nation. Even Afghanistan was the case for this.

For Bogart's article, I 100% agree that African/Arab/Asian problems must be solved by Africans/Arabs/Asians and that the western intervention should either be seen as a short term means of allowing Africans or whoever to come to an agreement or start working towards an agreement to end the bigger issues. If there is a largescale genocide ongoing in South Sudan than the optimal case is a NATO/Armed UN intervention to stop the genocide, followed by a humanitarian/political/military "whole of government" system to stabilize and allow the Africans to sort out the problems. Somalia is a reasonable case in point- we took losses, pulled out, and Somalia is still without a functioning government.

We, the west, cannot implement a LONG TERM solution to any non-western problem. We can, however, at least set the conditions for those people to come to their own solutions. The key problem is when to go in with force, when to use diplomacy, and making sure there's an exit strategy. The problem with our mission to Africa is seemingly that there's no exit strategy since how can we reasonably know when the conditions for some of the more airy fairy ideas (prosperity, for example) have been met. Even something such as "protect the population" is complex for an exit strategy since many of these tribal rivalries have been ongoing for centuries and there's no clear cut end state.

Clausewitz stated that one must never enter into conflict without having a clear understanding of the nature of the conflict and without having a clearly defined aim. In conventional warfare this is easy... once the Germans surrendered, WW1/WW2 was over. The modern (not really modern, 4GW isn't a thing) operating environment is less clear cut. Without a clear cut "victory criteria" its difficult to measure effectiveness. I suspect the metrics of success will be hospitals and schools built, etc vice anything lasting on the ground.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 14, 2016, 16:54:43
.....  That tells me that the TF Comd will have the prerogative to launch a response force.  ....

Will it be a prerogative or a requirement?

I think, that unless it is made a requirement, that the weak will take the line of least resistance - just like they do in New York.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 16:56:06
You really don't get it, do you?  Although we a Peacekeepers may have those personal feelings, we, as professionals, are hamstrung by the orders that bureaucrats and politicians in the UN have given us, and the "molasses in January" speed by which they operate.
The UN allowed the use of force, individual nations and individual commanders made the choice not to intervene.

So if the UN gives the go to why no go to?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 14, 2016, 16:58:59
We, the west, cannot implement a LONG TERM solution to any non-western problem. We can, however, at least set the conditions for those people to come to their own solutions. The key problem is when to go in with force, when to use diplomacy, and making sure there's an exit strategy. The problem with our mission to Africa is seemingly that there's no exit strategy since how can we reasonably know when the conditions for some of the more airy fairy ideas (prosperity, for example) have been met. Even something such as "protect the population" is complex for an exit strategy since many of these tribal rivalries have been ongoing for centuries and there's no clear cut end state.

Are you kidding me! We can't even implement a long term solution to western problems.

The UN went into Cyprus in 1964 to separate two western(ish for Turkey) powers: namely Greece and Turkey, from going to war over the Cypriot territory. Today - fifty-two years later - the UN is still there separating two parties who have felt absolutely no inkling whatsoever to try and resolve their differences peacefully and arrive at a political solution - which is the actual aim of the UN in peacekeeping (achieving a political solution).

How the hell are we going to manage with African problems that are orders of magnitude more complex to our understanding of issues?

P.S.: Personaly, I think its high time that the UN tells Greece, Turkey and Cyprus: "Sorry Old Chaps, but we are out of here in five years, wether you resolve your issues or not, and we ain't coming back if you screw it up."
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 14, 2016, 17:00:41
Will it be a prerogative or a requirement?

I think, that unless it is made a requirement, that the weak will take the line of least resistance - just like they do in New York.

If we send a Canadian TF Comd who is too mentally or morally weak to do what is right than that's a failure of the Canadian army and not the UN. Every leader (including Dallaire) has a choice and has to live with their own decisions. If this is the case, I hope that court martials and dishonourable discharges follow.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 14, 2016, 17:06:09
Are you kidding me! We can't even implement a long term solution to western problems.

The UN went into Cyprus in 1964 to separate two western(ish for Turkey) powers: namely Greece and Turkey, from going to war over the Cypriot territory. Today - fifty-two years later - the UN is still there separating two parties who have felt absolutely no inkling whatsoever to try and resolve their differences peacefully and arrive at a political solution - which is the actual aim of the UN in peacekeeping (achieving a political solution).

How the hell are we going to manage with African problems that are orders of magnitude more complex to our understanding of issues?

P.S.: Personaly, I think its high time that the UN tells Greece, Turkey and Cyprus: "Sorry Old Chaps, but we are out of here in five years, wether you resolve your issues or not, and we ain't coming back if you screw it up."

I agree, but wasn't discussing the west, only Africa/Asia etc. The fact that I felt safer walking around in KAF than in parts of Winnipeg is telling.

As for the other points- NATO has been in Afghanistan for 14 years without the government and Taliban being any closer to any sort of final decision on the future of Afghanistan. As I stated, the key element is knowing what the conditions we want to achieve are (end state) and how to achieve them.

For East Timor, there was a military intervention, followed by UN presence which brought long term stability. Politics aside, had the UN/NATO driven Turkey from Cyprus, established a UN presence to stabilize the situation, then brought the political sides to the table than perhaps there would have been a long term solution? The point of warfare of any variety isn't to kill the bad guy... it's to achieve a suitable political solution to a political problem. The UN can be a tool to achieve this. Not the only tool. We as military persons tend to view our only tool as being a hammer... the effect is that we view all problems as nails when they may be screws or nails and screws.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 14, 2016, 17:30:25
Host country is sad that their troops got killed while they were raping innocent aid workers? Boo hoo?

Give them some hurt feeling reports and let the UN try to smooth things over.

Not our problem.
It is if said unhappy troops and other host security forces are between you & the airport ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: MCG on September 14, 2016, 17:31:09
Will it be a prerogative or a requirement?

I think, that unless it is made a requirement, that the weak will take the line of least resistance - just like they do in New York.
Canadian commanders did not shy away from doing the right thing in Afghanistan.  I would not expect that we would put lesser individuals in the job when it happens to be in another theatre.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 17:53:42
 :arid rifleman: :fifty:  :UNAPC: :cdnsalute:
It is if said unhappy troops and other host security forces are between you & the airport ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on September 14, 2016, 18:36:51
Really...

Presuming that numbers are in your favour.

Presuming that you have enough transport, with adequate protection, for everyone.

Presuming that roads/trails are not laced with IEDs.

Presuming that you have enough ammunition to fight through.

Presuming that the airport is safe and secure in friendly hands when you get there.

Presuming that there are enough transport aircraft for everyone to leave at the same time (but the expensive kit will be left behind), and none get holes punched in/through them.

Some virgins are so desperate to get laid that they do not care what STDs they may contract in the process, or how incurable they may be.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 18:48:40
If a bunch of emoticons battling it out wasn't tongue in cheek enough for you then I honestly don't know what else to do.


Oh wait.

 :arid rifleman: :fifty: :UNAPC: :cdnsalute:



 :sarcasm:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 14, 2016, 18:56:32
Now you're learning. 

:sarcasm:


;D
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 14, 2016, 18:59:07
Now you're learning. 

:sarcasm:


;D
:slapfight:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on September 14, 2016, 19:14:41
If a bunch of emoticons battling it out wasn't tongue in cheek enough for you then I honestly don't know what else to do.

Given your observed posting pattern, "tongue in cheek" would never enter my mind, and emoticons can be interpreted in ways other than intended.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Thucydides on September 14, 2016, 23:28:16
We are falling into the ROE and the mission analysis problems here.

Would *we* have an ROE that allowed commanders to take the initiative and intervene in a situation like the one above? McG said commanders could in Afghanistan, but that was a NATO mission and essentially a war in all but name, so the commander had the ROEs and more importantly, effective tools to do the job: a 1500 man mechanized battlegroup with artillery, tanks, reasonably effective logistical support and access to massive amounts of airpower and whatever other support our close allies could bring. (When the Government of the day called for the Manley report asking what we needed to continue and the conditions were extra NATO troops and helicopters, Poland stepped up and said they would provide them).

The 650 man force will likely be based on a single (undermanned) Infantry Battalion with a multitude of staff and enablers, so having the means to engage in a shootout against undisciplined troops or Boko Haram/ISIS insurgents will be somewhat limited.

As for the point about us not being able to deal with non western problems, I will politely  say that is PC BS. We did a pretty comprehensive job sorting out Imperial Japan, for example. The issue isn't that it isn't possible, it is that no one is willing to put the time and resources in to do so. Having "them" make the social, cultural and political changes and build their own institution is ideal, but that also requires investing a great deal of time and resources (the British took centuries to lay down the institutions that define the modern Anglosphere, and nurturing and protecting home grown institutions is also a generational proposition).

So once again, we need to answer the ultimate question of what, exactly, *we* intend to accomplish with this mission, and what resources we need to use to accomplish that (situating the estimate by allocating 650 soldiers prior to determining the mission, mission parameters etc. is problematic).
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 00:29:07
Really...

Presuming that numbers are in your favour.

Presuming that you have enough transport, with adequate protection, for everyone.

Presuming that roads/trails are not laced with IEDs.

Presuming that you have enough ammunition to fight through.

Presuming that the airport is safe and secure in friendly hands when you get there.

Presuming that there are enough transport aircraft for everyone to leave at the same time (but the expensive kit will be left behind), and none get holes punched in/through them.

Some virgins are so desperate to get laid that they do not care what STDs they may contract in the process, or how incurable they may be.

So let's just not do anything anywhere then.... how is this any different than putting a BG to act as a speed bump in Latvia? Or putting troops in Kandahar? Or for those crying we should go to Syria/Iraq?

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 15, 2016, 01:12:18
So let's just not do anything anywhere then.... how is this any different than putting a BG to act as a speed bump in Latvia? Or putting troops in Kandahar? Or for those crying we should go to Syria/Iraq?

'We' already are in Syria/ Iraq.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 01:21:59
'We' already are in Syria/ Iraq.

Correct. It was more for those suggesting we, the west, should go in in force.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 15, 2016, 01:49:51
Correct. It was more for those suggesting we, the west, should go in in more force than 200+ special operators and mini-gun equipped helicopters.

Editorial suggestion...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Loachman on September 15, 2016, 02:53:14
So let's just not do anything anywhere then....

Did I say that? Anywhere?

how is this any different than putting a BG to act as a speed bump in Latvia?

There is a much more clear mission and purpose, and we are in a much more stable host country. Our potential opponent has a fair amount to lose by inflicting casualties upon troops from the various nations participating and provoking a NATO response. I see no difference between this and my presence in 4 CMBG during the peak of the Cold War.

Or for those crying we should go to Syria/Iraq?

I am not one of those, and would be similarly leery if any such proposal were as sketchy as this one is.

This government did not show any interest in assisting refugees in general early in its mandate. A photograph of a dead Syrian boy on a beach went viral, so it fixated on Syrians to the exclusion of all others in order to exploit voter sympathy, won an election, brought in a rectally-extracted number of them (many of whom were already in the privately-sponsored mill, as were my current neighbours), posed for its photo ops, and went completely silent on refugees. Why no Yazidis, or Middle-Eastern Christians, or Burundians, or any other persecuted groups? There's no shortage of others. Why no sustained programme? This gives me no indication that this government cares about people rather than votes.

I have no objection to Syrians, by the way. My neighbours are great people. I'd not object to more like them, just not at the exclusion of all others because a photograph makes them the cause du jour.

Why Africa? Why not Colombia, where we are more likely to make a difference? I honestly do not see that this government cares about Africans as people, only about international prestige and that Security Council seat.

My previous Burundian neighbours were good people, too, and there is no shortage of misery in Burundi that could use some cleaning up, but the Burundian government would not be a willing host. They're too busy killing each other and do not want anybody getting in the way of their vicious power struggles and revenge-taking. I suspect that the majority of African countries are very similar.

We did more good in Afghanistan than we are likely to do in Africa, yet that does not seem to count for much in Liberal eyes, because it was not UN-run. We would have achieved/be achieving more by remaining there rather than leaving while it was still in a vulnerable and fragile state - I was astounded at the improvements made between my two tours (actually 1.5, as the last one got cut short).

I want to see a clear, logical, practical, achievable, and justifiable mission, a reasonably-sized and reasonably-structured force that has all of the equipment that it needs, decent ROEs (and regardless of what some are promising, the UN and host nation may well impose unwelcome limitations) and adequate support from Canada, other UN forces in the area, the UN itself, and the host nation.

I want Altair to learn some valuable lessons while he's there - just not at too high a cost should this not be done right.

And I've yet to see or hear anything that gives me the tiniest shred of confidence that it will be done right.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 10:46:52
Did I say that? Anywhere?

There is a much more clear mission and purpose, and we are in a much more stable host country. Our potential opponent has a fair amount to lose by inflicting casualties upon troops from the various nations participating and provoking a NATO response. I see no difference between this and my presence in 4 CMBG during the peak of the Cold War.

I am not one of those, and would be similarly leery if any such proposal were as sketchy as this one is.

This government did not show any interest in assisting refugees in general early in its mandate. A photograph of a dead Syrian boy on a beach went viral, so it fixated on Syrians to the exclusion of all others in order to exploit voter sympathy, won an election, brought in a rectally-extracted number of them (many of whom were already in the privately-sponsored mill, as were my current neighbours), posed for its photo ops, and went completely silent on refugees. Why no Yazidis, or Middle-Eastern Christians, or Burundians, or any other persecuted groups? There's no shortage of others. Why no sustained programme? This gives me no indication that this government cares about people rather than votes.

I have no objection to Syrians, by the way. My neighbours are great people. I'd not object to more like them, just not at the exclusion of all others because a photograph makes them the cause du jour.

Why Africa? Why not Colombia, where we are more likely to make a difference? I honestly do not see that this government cares about Africans as people, only about international prestige and that Security Council seat.

My previous Burundian neighbours were good people, too, and there is no shortage of misery in Burundi that could use some cleaning up, but the Burundian government would not be a willing host. They're too busy killing each other and do not want anybody getting in the way of their vicious power struggles and revenge-taking. I suspect that the majority of African countries are very similar.

We did more good in Afghanistan than we are likely to do in Africa, yet that does not seem to count for much in Liberal eyes, because it was not UN-run. We would have achieved/be achieving more by remaining there rather than leaving while it was still in a vulnerable and fragile state - I was astounded at the improvements made between my two tours (actually 1.5, as the last one got cut short).

I want to see a clear, logical, practical, achievable, and justifiable mission, a reasonably-sized and reasonably-structured force that has all of the equipment that it needs, decent ROEs (and regardless of what some are promising, the UN and host nation may well impose unwelcome limitations) and adequate support from Canada, other UN forces in the area, the UN itself, and the host nation.

I want Altair to learn some valuable lessons while he's there - just not at too high a cost should this not be done right.

And I've yet to see or hear anything that gives me the tiniest shred of confidence that it will be done right.

Alright, from the beginning:

- I never said you said that. Your list of "what ifs" was exhaustive and could happen in any NATO or UN mission, so it's something of a strawman. I lost my "virginity" for such things years ago, so don't go into anything with closed eyes. My point was that if we "so what" something to death than we wont do anything. The initial point that that point was to was that if CAF leadership has the ROE to defend civilians and coalition forces (such as in A-Stan) there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Any leader who would allow people to die because of their moral or personal weakness should be removed from command, full stop.

- Agree about Syrian refugee's, but don't know why it was brought up. The Liberals played off of the publics sympathy and obsession with living in a 15 minute news cycle. The same for the picture of the Syrian child with blood coming out of his head after an airstrike. Why not Afghans? or as you say, Burundians or any other group? Syrians were the flavour of the day (add in that most don't understand the difference between Syrian refugees and the migrant crisis in Europe which includes far more than Syrians). People are generally ignorant to facts and reality (Liberals AND conservatives) and generally choose to live in ignorant bliss. Which is why I don't agree with a "anti-Canadian values" checklist any more than I agree with fast tracking a group of people because of a photo.

- To be honest I think Latvia is a waste of time and resources, aside from giving Canadian soldiers a good training opportunity to work with NATO partners (which is great). Russia is no threat to NATO as they cannot hope to win a war against NATO. The difference between your presence in the Cold War and now is that Russia is a decaying former super power unable to project power. So, I suppose they'll meet their mission of shielding against a Russian attack that was never going to happen. I think the Latvia mission was more of a bi-product of Obama and Trudeau's "bro-mance" than anything else and likely allowed us to "meet obligations" and avoid obligations somewhere else (whatever that may have been). I don't believe the Liberals have any strong desire to be returning to Cold War postures.

- The good we did in Afghanistan vs Africa is impossible to measure since we can't know what, if any, lasting effect we had in Afghanistan for some time in the future. If, in 15 years, Afghanistan is continuing to progress and able to combat insurgency (or perhaps even wiped it out) by itself than it is certain that we did a lot of good. If in 15 years in Taliban controlled and hasn't progressed, than we can't really say we did any, aside from short term, good. Same for Africa.

- I also want to see a clear cut UN mission with attainable and logical goals and a well defined end state (none of which we had in Afghanistan, IMHO). My position on that has been stated several times. I'm not cheerleading for this mission, but I'm also reserving judgment until we have some idea of what the intent, end state, etc are. I also don't get a lot of warm and fuzzies about what I've heard, but will wait. On the day the announce it, if it turns out to be poorly thought out and without clear goals, than I will be the first to criticize.

- Why not Columbia? Who knows. Maybe there's an intent to develop soft power within the African continent to counter Chinese influence. Maybe not. Maybe they want to bring in more African refugees and think a mission in Africa will assist? who knows. We should just do a peacekeeping mission to Chicago or Detroit where we could be of some real value to a key ally  [:)

A final point for Good2Golf- I don't consider 200 SOF, helicopters and LCMR dets (since they're there too) to be us being there "in force".
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 15, 2016, 12:07:47
And - who says we're not going to Colombia?  It appears, given Trudeau's lack of committal words, that the Ukraine deployment is not open ended.  That, combined with the fact that most people were expecting a military contribution of about 1000 people to an African mission, and we only gave 650, gives us some room to send a small mission to South America if we so choose.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 12:27:26
And - who says we're not going to Colombia?  It appears, given Trudeau's lack of committal words, that the Ukraine deployment is not open ended.  That, combined with the fact that most people were expecting a military contribution of about 1000 people to an African mission, and we only gave 650, gives us some room to send a small mission to South America if we so choose.

Unless the Liberals intent is to break the Logistics system, three missions to three continents (South America, Africa, and Europe) is not feasible. That would officially be the worst idea the new government could come up with, unless they want to buy a bunch of new aircraft and train logisticians.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 15, 2016, 12:31:03
Unless the Liberals intent is to break the Logistics system, three missions to three continents (South America, Africa, and Europe) is not feasible. That would officially be the worst idea the new government could come up with, unless they want to buy a bunch of new aircraft and train logisticians.

I'm not thinking of anything large - I'm actually thinking it would be more along the lines of 100 - 200 trainers, perhaps coinciding with the end of the Ukraine mission.  There's also the possibility of it just being some police trainers.  Such a mission could be done without much in the way of military logistics aircraft.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 12:42:38
And - who says we're not going to Colombia?  It appears, given Trudeau's lack of committal words, that the Ukraine deployment is not open ended.  That, combined with the fact that most people were expecting a military contribution of about 1000 people to an African mission, and we only gave 650, gives us some room to send a small mission to South America if we so choose.
people were expecting a 1000 soldiers committed to a peacekeeping mission.

Then that pesky NATO mission popped up. 450 Canadians in Latvia. Then surprise surprise 600 peacekeepers in Africa.

There is your 950.

Actually won 100 bucks off a guy who did some peacekeeping in Cyprus who said they were going to deploy a 1000. I said no more that 650 because without a bigger nation helping out with logistics there was no way we can support that many troops overseas.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 15, 2016, 12:45:31
people were expecting a 1000 soldiers committed to a peacekeeping mission.

Then that pesky NATO mission popped up. 450 Canadians in Latvia. Then surprise surprise 600 peacekeepers in Africa.

There is your 950.

They were expecting 1000 people after the Latvia announcement, if I remember my timeline correctly.  Perhaps there are simply too many vacancies to make that happen?

Thinking further, I can see the mission to Colombia, if it happens, being limited to police trainers.  Since we're funding it already, I can see it happening.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 13:09:29
They were expecting 1000 people after the Latvia announcement, if I remember my timeline correctly.  Perhaps there are simply too many vacancies to make that happen?

Thinking further, I can see the mission to Colombia, if it happens, being limited to police trainers.  Since we're funding it already, I can see it happening.
The way I remember it going down was LPC starts mumbling about peacekeeping. Numbers around 1000.

Then NATO starts mumbling about troops in eastern NATO countries. Canada's name is brought up. Obama shows up talking about world needing more canada and for Canada to step up. Canada announces that 450 troops heading to Latvia.

I'm just going off memory so if anyone has a more accurate timeline feel free to correct me.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on September 15, 2016, 13:12:11


A final point for Good2Golf- I don't consider 200 SOF, helicopters and LCMR dets (since they're there too) to be us being there "in force".

200 SOF pers is a significant commitment and significant combat power. Just because they don't bring a HQ of 150 pers, don't count out the force multiplication.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 13:15:27

200 SOF pers is a significant commitment and significant combat power. Just because they don't bring a HQ of 150 pers, don't count out the force multiplication.
Training power?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 15, 2016, 13:31:18
If need be why not?

Responsibility to protect civilians>raping looting soldiers from a undisciplined force.

Unless that's being too simple but I don't see how even the UN could blame Canadians acting under those conditions.

Because Canadian soldiers shooting Africans wouldn't fit well with the peacekeeper image the liberals are trying to cultivate despite the caveat about us using force to protect lives and dignity.

I doubt many on this forum would hesitate to obey fire control orders and engage a bunch if scumbags raping and murdering unarmed locals but what happens when the image of a smooshed baby hits the news with the caption that a Canadian soldier did that?  Regardless if it's a lie or not we know people don't bother reading past headlines.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 13:33:08

200 SOF pers is a significant commitment and significant combat power. Just because they don't bring a HQ of 150 pers, don't count out the force multiplication.

 ::)

Alright, I'll spell this out.

When I say "in force" I meant a BG-Bde level force with artillery, armour, etc ad nauseum to conduct linear contiguous operations.

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 13:37:50
Because Canadian soldiers shooting Africans wouldn't fit well with the peacekeeper image the liberals are trying to cultivate despite the caveat about us using force to protect lives and dignity.

I doubt many on this forum would hesitate to obey fire control orders and engage a bunch if scumbags raping and murdering unarmed locals but what happens when the image of a smooshed baby hits the news with the caption that a Canadian soldier did that?  Regardless if it's a lie or not we know people don't bother reading past headlines.
Sounds like a political problem.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: jmt18325 on September 15, 2016, 13:53:52
The way I remember it going down was LPC starts mumbling about peacekeeping. Numbers around 1000.

Then NATO starts mumbling about troops in eastern NATO countries. Canada's name is brought up. Obama shows up talking about world needing more canada and for Canada to step up. Canada announces that 450 troops heading to Latvia.

I'm just going off memory so if anyone has a more accurate timeline feel free to correct me.

From the Toronto Star:

Retired military officer and defence analyst George Petrolekas has told the Star that the military could sustain a new deployment of between 600 and 1,000 soldiers, in addition to the commitments it’s fulfilling now.

Vance said additional details would be coming soon about the just-announced deployment to Latvia, where Canada has pledged to supply 450 soldiers to assist with a NATO mission to bolster its presence in Eastern Europe.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/14/canadian-troops-headed-to-africa-top-general-says.html
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 15, 2016, 15:40:48
...A final point for Good2Golf- I don't consider 200 SOF, helicopters and LCMR dets (since they're there too) to be us being there "in force".

Ah, I see --you're a "quantity" guy, not a "quality" guy. :salute:

G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on September 15, 2016, 16:13:52
Sounds like a political problem.

Might well become a personal problem if someone figured out YOU MAY have been a person responsible for shooting some black folks, baddies or not, and then stuck your mugshot up on the "Black Lives Matter" homepage.

How's your home alarm system?

MM

Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 16:16:28
From the Toronto Star:

Retired military officer and defence analyst George Petrolekas has told the Star that the military could sustain a new deployment of between 600 and 1,000 soldiers, in addition to the commitments it’s fulfilling now.

Vance said additional details would be coming soon about the just-announced deployment to Latvia, where Canada has pledged to supply 450 soldiers to assist with a NATO mission to bolster its presence in Eastern Europe.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/14/canadian-troops-headed-to-africa-top-general-says.html
I should have made a bet with him as well. 200 bucks.

He covered his bases well. 600-1000. Pretty big buffer.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 16:19:20
Might well become a personal problem if someone figured out YOU MAY have been a person responsible for shooting some black folks, baddies or not, and then stuck your mugshot up on the "Black Lives Matter" homepage.

How's your home alarm system?

MM
Would be odd to go after a black guy on a black Lives matter homepage but sure.  [lol:

If it's the fear of some whiny protest group back home that stops a commander from saving a bunch of aid works from gang rape then that person should not be in command.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 16:31:07
Ah, I see --you're a "quantity" guy, not a "quality" guy. :salute:

G2G

I'm neither/nor. There's a difference in fighting a linear contiguous op and doing training/assymetric. It's terminology. 
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 15, 2016, 17:38:39
If it's the fear of some whiny protest group back home that stops a commander from saving a bunch of aid works from gang rape then that person should not be in command.
It may not be quite that simple in the age of international social media -- and it's not just a commander's problem.  Google "Strategic Corporal" for further insights ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: medicineman on September 15, 2016, 17:55:55
Would be odd to go after a black guy on a black Lives matter homepage but sure.  [lol:

If it's the fear of some whiny protest group back home that stops a commander from saving a bunch of aid works from gang rape then that person should not be in command.

Seen weirder things in my life.  It all about optics and how some creature from AQ or BH or the local Mob can make it look to the rest of the world...and many of them do a lot better job at making us look bad to the locals and the world than we do of making them look bad.  They leak someone's name or face out these days, to paraphrase REM, it's the end of the world as you know it, guilty or not.

MM
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 15, 2016, 18:33:38
Quote
I'm neither/nor. There's a difference in fighting a linear contiguous op and doing training/assymetric. It's terminology.

You hadn't defined "in force" yet.  So are you going by "linear, contiguous" as characteristics of being "in force?"  So Force-in-Place? Our troops on one side of the FEBA?  Something more "effective" than FID/embedded-training/ISR/STA?

So how many of these conventional linear/contiguous CAF members do we need to be "in force?" ???

G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 15, 2016, 18:52:56
Sounds like a political problem.

Only our ROEs are decided by politics including last minute changes so you could find yourself being ordered to sit down, watch the murders taking place and start taking notes for your upcoming VA claim.

Would be odd to go after a black guy on a black Lives matter homepage but sure.  [lol:
They would probably call you an Oreo or something. Black on the outside white on the inside. The same way FN call FN CF members apples. There's some pretty brutal stories about how minorities in the CF had "their people" turn on them and how vicious they can get. Just look at the abuse black americans get when they make the mistake of suggesting #AllLivesMatter.


Quote
If it's the fear of some whiny protest group back home that stops a commander from saving a bunch of aid works from gang rape then that person should not be in command.
That's what you're not understanding. If the politicians who give the CF their orders make the call then the commander legally has to obey. If the Liberals decide last minute they don't want videos of Canadians blasting South Africans then the soldiers on the ground may very well get orders to "go check a village 5KMs away" or something.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 19:20:02
You hadn't defined "in force" yet.  So are you going by "linear, contiguous" as characteristics of being "in force?"  So Force-in-Place? Our troops on one side of the FEBA?  Something more "effective" than FID/embedded-training/ISR/STA?

So how many of these conventional linear/contiguous CAF members do we need to be "in force?" ???

G2G

Not that it matters at all to this conversation, but yes, I defined "in force" for that particular example as being a linear, contiguous force. You're reading too much into a basic statement that our force in Syria/Iraq isn't numerically large. If you want to have a conversation about force packaging than fine, but you should probably start a different thread. Than we can discuss LOO's, force packages, and how ISIS in a level three insurgency vice level two insurgency requires different capabilities.

Aside from that, take it as a basic statement.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on September 15, 2016, 20:01:42
::)

Alright, I'll spell this out.

When I say "in force" I meant a BG-Bde level force with artillery, armour, etc ad nauseum to conduct linear contiguous operations.
Sorry I didn't read your mind.

We're not going to a PSO with that either. There's no way 600 pers is going to be a robust BG. We needed 2000 people to support that, another 700 for tac aviation support. 600 is a regular Army Coy at most.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on September 15, 2016, 20:12:35
Just look at the abuse black americans get when they make the mistake of suggesting #AllLivesMatter.

Even closer to home. Couple of days ago at DVP and Lawrence calling a Toronto Police Officer an "Uncle Tom" for writing him a parking ticket.

But he suggests the officer used his vehicle to block him from getting into his car and leaving because he “thought I was just a regular n-----.”

The man also repeatedly refers to the officer, who apparently is black, as an “Uncle Tom,” a derogatory term for “a black person who is eager to win the approval of white people and willing to co-operate with them,” according to Merriam-Webster.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/14/city-investigating-workers-video-of-dust-up-over-disabled-parking-spot.html



Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Altair on September 15, 2016, 20:30:06
Even closer to home. Couple of days ago at DVP and Lawrence calling a Toronto Police Officer an "Uncle Tom" for writing him a parking ticket.

But he suggests the officer used his vehicle to block him from getting into his car and leaving because he “thought I was just a regular n-----.”

The man also repeatedly refers to the officer, who apparently is black, as an “Uncle Tom,” a derogatory term for “a black person who is eager to win the approval of white people and willing to co-operate with them,” according to Merriam-Webster.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/14/city-investigating-workers-video-of-dust-up-over-disabled-parking-spot.html
I see irrational people with no BLM involvement. Regardless.

 :highjack:
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: mariomike on September 15, 2016, 20:59:27
I see irrational people with no BLM involvement. Regardless.

 :highjack:

Would be odd to go after a black guy on a black Lives matter homepage but sure. 

Just that black on black disrespect is nothing new.

Good luck on your tour.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 15, 2016, 22:01:06
I see irrational people with no BLM involvement. Regardless.

 :highjack:
To link it back to what medicineman said, you make one mistake, or what you consider the "right thing" to do, and it's not impossible "irrational people" will be happy to hang you, guilty or not -- on an international scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion).*

* - Not saying this dude's in the right, just showing how quickly the hate can spread and how far.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on September 15, 2016, 22:58:29
Sorry I didn't read your mind.

We're not going to a PSO with that either. There's no way 600 pers is going to be a robust BG. We needed 2000 people to support that, another 700 for tac aviation support. 600 is a regular Army Coy at most.

Im not entirely sure how this is relevant, but ok. Like your last post, you're trying to go somewhere the original post wasn't intended. If you guys want to discuss force packaging options for a joint symmetric or asymmetric operation than start a new thread and leave this one to peacekeeping.

By Doctrine a battle group is any grouping of armoured and infantry forces. All other forces are attached to the battle group. So, even doctrinally speaking, a battle group of an infantry battalion and armoured squadron (the smallest combination) would be larger than 600 with no more multipliers attached. Tomorrow I'll get my TO&E and give you the precise numbers if you want.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: PuckChaser on September 15, 2016, 23:55:21
You argued that 200 SOF is not a significant contribution. I argue that 600 troops in a joint context with a stated focus on CSS and leadership will do very little operationally. It'd be a Christmas miracle if we sent combat arms troops to this mission to do anything other than training, camp force pro, or convoy escort.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2016, 07:49:41
Latest on voting on any future mission, from Question Period in the House of Commons yesterday (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1#Int-9028832):
Quote
... Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the decision to send Canadian men and women in our armed forces into harm's way is one of the most serious decisions that parliamentarians will ever undertake. That is why the Conservative government always believed in taking it to debate in the House of Commons.  Given that the Minister of National Defence formerly served for our country*, and it seems like he will not allow this to come to a vote, can he explain both to our men and women in uniform and to Canadians why the Liberals will not put this to a vote in the House of Commons?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, we can be proud of our men and women who have served all over the world in previous missions, and even now. However, a lot of work needs to be done for peace operations. We are going to be going in with eyes wide open, making sure that we have all the necessary information to allow the military to do its work, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development. We will make sure that we have all the right information. We need to be able to get a full analysis.  Once we have better information, we will be presenting this to Canadians, as we have done, moving forward. A lot of work needs to be done, and I look forward to the healthy debate once we have all the necessary information.

* - Is this a bit of a dig?  From someone who never served at all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rempel)?
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on September 20, 2016, 09:14:52
Latest on voting on any future mission, from Question Period in the House of Commons yesterday (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1#Int-9028832):
* - Is this a bit of a dig?  From someone who never served at all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rempel)?

I think it is a fair question from the official opposition in a democratic nation.  Whatever you think of cons, they held the debate and voted on the missions keeping the information in the minds of Canadians.  I do not think is particularly useful to limit someone's opportunity to debate simply because of service.  The current ministers former service was done in the full light of political debate and that is a valid political point.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 20, 2016, 09:37:04
I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Good2Golf on September 20, 2016, 10:26:33
The MND may also be a statistical 'outlier' in Caucus and in fact be personally in favour of a Parliamentary session on the issue, but when the Head of Caucus and Chair of Privy Council says thus (no vote), thus it is...until of course he comes up with the innovative concept that Canadians, through their elected members, are informed of the factors influencing what Government's specific implementation of it's renewed focus on peace support operations is.  I would say give credit where credit is due, and that Minister Sajjan (and likely Andrew Leslie) has(have) been instrumental in the change in verbiage surrounding future CAF employment such that I don't think any reasonable person is expecting to see CAF personnel with no protective equipment but a light blue cotton ball cap and an unloaded/unreadied C7 slung over their back handing out candies to an African nation's 8-year old future leaders.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2016, 10:46:13
I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.
Presuming, of course, that being an MP doesn't constitute "serving" ...
... I do not think is particularly useful to limit someone's opportunity to debate simply because of service.  The current ministers former service was done in the full light of political debate and that is a valid political point.
Question was fair, and not saying debate should be limited, but the bit in yellow just sounded more like a bit of a "nick" than a dig.
The MND may also be a statistical 'outlier' in Caucus and in fact be personally in favour of a Parliamentary session on the issue, but when the Head of Caucus and Chair of Privy Council says thus (no vote), thus it is...until of course he comes up with the innovative concept that Canadians, through their elected members, are informed of the factors influencing what Government's specific implementation of it's renewed focus on peace support operations is.
True ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Teager on September 20, 2016, 12:27:57
I think this fits well.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Jarnhamar on September 20, 2016, 13:43:32
I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.

In agreement with you. When the MND was announced there was a lot of fan fare that he was (or is at the time) a service member. I'm sure the optics of his pedigree (if I'm using the term properly) isn't lost on many here.  The military service thing goes both ways IMO.

When he replied that they are going into it with eyes wide open I know the context he meant but when I think of eyes wide open I picture bewilderment and shock.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2016, 13:44:55
When he replied that they are going into it with eyes wide open I know the context he meant but when I think of eyes wide open I picture bewilderment and shock.
Good one ...
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: Lightguns on September 20, 2016, 13:46:17
Good one ...

Sometimes I think they just play to our prejudices of them.  It's easier and they really don't care what anyone thinks of them as long as the domestic audience is happy.
Title: Re: The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 20, 2016, 13:58:03
Sometimes I think they just play to our prejudices of them.  It's easier and they really don't care what anyone thinks of them as long as the domestic audience is happy.