Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

[MarkOttawa]

The seemingly endless dither--by Col. (ret'd) George Petrolekas (note budget aspect--what about personnel availability too?):

Canada's peacekeeping conundrum: Will we ever make a choice?

by George Petrolekas

The Globe and Mail
April 2, 2017

Many have questioned what happened to the government’s promise to dispatch up to 600 Canadians on a peacekeeping mission, a major pillar of the Liberal campaign platform and part of its “Canada is back” mantra.

With a major peacekeeping conference scheduled this fall, the government has to choose one of two things: Abandon the promise to enter into peacekeeping operations or restart the process to find the location which will be most suitable for Canada.

The decisions the government considers will be influenced by Canada’s fiscal condition – especially as concerns the defence budget. Also, the Trump administration’s review of UN funding and the utility of UN missions recently announced at the UN by U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley will be in contradiction to the government’s desire to reinforce the “Canada is back” idea, and equally affect the presumptive search for a Security Council seat.

Throughout the fall of 2016, the defence minister and government officials visited nations in Africa as possible deployment locations meeting the government’s aspirations of having a measurable impact while garnering support from African nations in the quest of a Security Council seat.

Informed observers expected a Christmas announcement of Mali as the preferred location, a place where we would be combatting radical Islamists, avoiding missions where UN forces had tainted reputations, by aligning with NATO allies such as France, the Netherlands and Germany.

The expected announcement never materialized.

The current defence budget, which has shifted spending to years in the future and already the cause of belt-tightening within the services, may not accommodate another overseas mission on top of current engagements in Iraq, the Ukraine and the upcoming mission to Latvia without financially stressing the Armed Forces. A cash-strapped forces will have to tell the government what it can and can no longer do [emphasis added--will the CAF leadership do so?].

Though Canada is one of a handful of nations that pays its own way, the current Trump administration review of UN financing threatens missions where some nations are reliant on UN funding to participate.

Therefore, certain missions may simply be closed or reduced because of lack of financing. The result will be fewer missions, no matter the conditions on the ground, and with fewer missions, there will be fewer choices for Canada on where to have an impact. Canada is also waiting for an indication of where the U.S. administration will focus its international efforts.

Canada’s conundrum does not stop there.

In the concentrated effort to find the correct role and location for Canada, UN authorities offered Canada specific roles, leadership positions, non-military roles and staff positions in areas in which Canada had indicated an interest. With Canada delaying a commitment, the UN has had to look elsewhere to fill gaps that were presumed to be filled by Canadians.

What may have been clear plans or understandings during the fall no longer exist as the UN has had to make alternative plans without Canada. That is why the government finds itself back at the starting gate again. Africa had been pre-eminent in the government’s planning, in part because there has been a large cohort within Foreign Affairs and Cabinet that felt the most pressing humanitarian, state-building or conflict-prevention roles rested in a myriad of African nations, names familiar in the long list of despairs: the Congo, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Niger and Mali, among others. In the government’s calculations it could do good, and also garner support for a Security Council seat, particularly amongst nations of the Francophonie.

However, without a mission – especially “a mission that will have an impact,” in the words of the government – it is difficult to see a pathway where the very large African voting bloc in the General Assembly of the UN would support a Canadian candidacy for a Security Council seat.

As a consequence, there have already been trial policy balloons floated by allied states suggesting alternative locations not limited to Africa.

With a peacekeeping conference scheduled for the fall, the government has to simply decide: Does it want to do good, and leverage its actions for a Security Council seat, or does it want to appease key allies and be willing to pay for its decisions? It cannot do all at the same time, and therefore has to make a choice – and time is not on its side.

George Petrolekas is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He served with the military in Bosnia and Afghanistan and was an adviser to senior NATO commanders.
http://www.cgai.ca/opedapril22017

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

It's not a place (UN missions to Africa) we should be sticking our nose into as far as I'm concerned.

Amen brother.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Amen brother.

History proves that European wars have killed more people than every other war put together.

That should be our main peacekeeping focus.... through providing a credible deterrent to Russian aggression.

 

[GR66]

History proves that European wars have killed more people than every other war put together.

That should be our main peacekeeping focus.... through providing a credible deterrent to Russian aggression.

Reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Added:  That being said, I agree that while tragic and of general humanitarian concern, the conflicts in Africa have little impact on Canada's national interest and have relatively small chance of expanding to conflicts which pose serious risks to global/Canadian security.  I seriously doubt that any intervention by Canada in these conflicts can have anything more than a symbolic impact and agree that our limited capabilities should be much more effectively focused elsewhere.

 

[Rifleman62]

Latest attack of several. Still want that Security Council seat Mr. Trudeau?

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/05/03/520493/Mali-UN-Peacekeeper-Rocket-Attack

1 killed, 9 wounded in attack on UN Mali camp - Wed May 3, 2017 6:28PM


Shelling and rocket fire on a UN camp in the troubled Malian city of Timbuktu killed one person and wounded nine peacekeepers, the United Nations mission in the country said Wednesday.

"A mortar and rocket attack was launched against the MINUSMA camp in Timbuktu," a UN statement said, using the UN mission's acronym.

"The provisional toll is nine wounded among the peacekeepers, four seriously who are being evacuated to Bamako. The attack also killed one person, they are still being identified," it added.

The UN mission said it had reinforced the camp's defenses and deployed air cover to identify where the enemy fire had originated, describing it as a "terrorist" attack.

Sweden's armed forces also confirmed one of its soldiers was wounded, though not severely. "A Swedish soldier was lightly injured and is now being cared for by the Swedish medical unit," it said in a statement

The UN mission in Mali is considered its most dangerous active peacekeeping deployment.

Unknown gunmen have attacked a United Nations police base in the Malian city of Timbuktu, the UN said, while security sources said a Malian army checkpoint in the city had also come under fire.

Olivier Salgado, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA), told Al Jazeera the assailants launched the attack after they detonated a car bomb at the base at 6:30am on Friday.

He said one policeman was slightly wounded in the assault, and the attackers remained holed up inside the base.

 

[Altair]

Latest attack of several. Still want that Security Council seat Mr. Trudeau?

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/05/03/520493/Mali-UN-Peacekeeper-Rocket-Attack

1 killed, 9 wounded in attack on UN Mali camp - Wed May 3, 2017 6:28PM


Shelling and rocket fire on a UN camp in the troubled Malian city of Timbuktu killed one person and wounded nine peacekeepers, the United Nations mission in the country said Wednesday.

"A mortar and rocket attack was launched against the MINUSMA camp in Timbuktu," a UN statement said, using the UN mission's acronym.

"The provisional toll is nine wounded among the peacekeepers, four seriously who are being evacuated to Bamako. The attack also killed one person, they are still being identified," it added.

The UN mission said it had reinforced the camp's defenses and deployed air cover to identify where the enemy fire had originated, describing it as a "terrorist" attack.

Sweden's armed forces also confirmed one of its soldiers was wounded, though not severely. "A Swedish soldier was lightly injured and is now being cared for by the Swedish medical unit," it said in a statement

The UN mission in Mali is considered its most dangerous active peacekeeping deployment.

Unknown gunmen have attacked a United Nations police base in the Malian city of Timbuktu, the UN said, while security sources said a Malian army checkpoint in the city had also come under fire.

Olivier Salgado, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA), told Al Jazeera the assailants launched the attack after they detonated a car bomb at the base at 6:30am on Friday.

He said one policeman was slightly wounded in the assault, and the attackers remained holed up inside the base.

If he did,

1. Soldiers would be deployed already.

2. They would be there in a combat role

3. They would be going to the more dangerous missions.

I think we can all safely say he doesn't care about a security Council seat.

 

[McG]

It would appear some people would like to see us go to South Sudan, and they are currently getting air time through news media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-south-sudan-famine-1.4096529

 

[daftandbarmy]

If he did,

1. Soldiers would be deployed already.

2. They would be there in a combat role

3. They would be going to the more dangerous missions.

I think we can all safely say he doesn't care about a security Council seat.

You forgot about the three main reasons why Prince Justin wants to be a world leader, just like Daddy:

1. Ego

2. Ego

3. Ego

Watch and shoot....

 

[Altair]

You forgot about the three main reasons why Prime Minister Trudeau  wants to be a world leader, just like his father:

1. Ego

2. Ego

3. Ego

Watch and shoot....

If he wants a security Council seat to fill his ego and be a world leader, he's going about it in the worst possible fashion.

There's little chance of Canada getting it now, not after all this delaying and lack of a mission after all this time. Even if the CF does deploy, our contributions is likely to be in a safe country instead of where the UN could actually use help in fighting, and not combat oriented when the UN needs help in combat situations.

In my opinion, that SCC possibility was off the table by December,when word was our allies were starting to ask questions about the Canadian commitment and got radio silence as a response.

Also, you're a grown adult, can you not even attempt to have a  civil conversation?

 

[Edward Campbell]

You forgot about the three main reasons why Prince Justin wants to be a world leader, just like Daddy:

1. Ego

2. Ego

3. Ego

Watch and shoot....

Actually, I think that it ~ the promise to go on UN peacekeeping missions rather than combat missions against real enemies ~ was very good campaign tactics. I suspect that some, maybe even a few hundred thousand of 1.33 million more votes that the Liberals got over the CPC came from young, first time voters who really want a different foreign policy from the one Stephen Harper offered

That the CF is not, already, in Africa, doing something useless, is illustrative of the enormous gap between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governing.

I also suspect that the young first time voters will, likely, stay home next time ... or vote Green or NDP.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Actually, I think that it ~ the promise to go on UN peacekeeping missions rather than combat missions against real enemies ~ was very good campaign tactics. I suspect that some, maybe even a few hundred thousand of 1.33 million more votes that the Liberals got over the CPC came from young, first time voters who really want a different foreign policy from the one Stephen Harper offered

That the CF is not, already, in Africa, doing something useless, is illustrative of the enormous gap between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governing.

I also suspect that the young first time voters will, likely, stay home next time ... or vote Green or NDP.

And they are certainly getting a different twist on foreign policy, just not in the way they imagined.  I would be very happy if we stayed away from Peacekeeping Operations, particularly ones where we have no actual national interests.  Now if we were going to North Africa to kill some Islamic Extremists, I would feel differently but the French seem to be quite capable of handling that job on their own. 

The only place where I think we would have a vested interest in making security investments is Haiti and that is set to become a Policing Action, hardly a role for the CAF to play there.

If he wants a security Council seat to fill his ego and be a world leader, he's going about it in the worst possible fashion.

There's little chance of Canada getting it now, not after all this delaying and lack of a mission after all this time. Even if the CF does deploy, our contributions is likely to be in a safe country instead of where the UN could actually use help in fighting, and not combat oriented when the UN needs help in combat situations.

In my opinion, that SCC possibility was off the table by December,when word was our allies were starting to ask questions about the Canadian commitment and got radio silence as a response.

Also, you're a grown adult, can you not even attempt to have a  civil conversation?

Easy brother, I know you are raring to go but there are plenty of military misadventures to go around for everyone  8). 

 

[Journeyman]

The only place where I think we would have a vested interest in making security investments is Haiti.....

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any national interests in Haiti....other than perhaps  Haitian immigrants starting to behave like other diaspora fighting for the homeland. 

If there was such a risk, based on my admittedly slim base of Haitian acquaintances, I'm not too concerned about a Caribbean version of the Tamil Tigers or an Air India 182 bombing happening any time soon.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Sorry, but I'm not seeing any national interests in Haiti....other than perhaps  Haitian immigrants starting to behave like other diaspora fighting for the homeland. 

If there was such a risk, based on my admittedly slim base of Haitian acquaintances, I'm not too concerned about a Caribbean version of the Tamil Tigers or an Air India 182 bombing happening any time soon.

The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine.  Economically speaking, you're right that there is nothing there for us.

 

[medicineman]

The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine.  Economically speaking, you're right that there is nothing there for us.

I seem to remember that is one of the reasons we ended up staying in PaP in 04 instead of filling the Hercs with citizens and leaving.  The Americans also pointed out that there could be spill over from the narco trash running place - refugees, drug/gun running, etc, and that this was essentially in our collective back yards.  The soon to be named GG was from there and there were/are large numbers of ex-pats in political ridings that had clout in Ottawa - some of those MP's came out to visit us (Jack Layton didn't though, especially after believing a constituent that we were "terrorists" and blabbing as much at a rally in Toronto - he must have thought we'd have had him in an orange jump suit on You Tube or something).  Economically, not a lot there as HB pointed out - unless you want to try and set up a resort built on a foundation of trash somewhere...or you want to set up your own import business for dope, guns and/or people.

MM

 

[Journeyman]

The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine. 

Let's see.....

- No economic or national security  interests in Haiti;
- 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians (third largest grouping, after Ukraine and Russia) vs 140 thousand Haitians (97% residing in Quebec);
- narco trash running place.


If there is a CAF task, it's for the Engineers -- requiring explosives and bulldozers.  Stop throwing good money after bad.

 

[Altair]

Easy brother, I know you are raring to go but there are plenty of military misadventures to go around for everyone  8).

I honestly don't care anymore. I don't plan to be around long enough for whenever whatever government in power makes up their mind.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Let's see.....

- No economic or national security  interests in Haiti;
- 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians (third largest grouping, after Ukraine and Russia) vs 140 thousand Haitians (97% residing in Quebec);
- narco trash running place.


If there is a CAF task, it's for the Engineers -- requiring explosives and bulldozers.  Stop throwing good money after bad.

We need to bring the Sherman firefly back in to service  >

I seem to remember that is one of the reasons we ended up staying in PaP in 04 instead of filling the Hercs with citizens and leaving.  The Americans also pointed out that there could be spill over from the narco trash running place - refugees, drug/gun running, etc, and that this was essentially in our collective back yards.  The soon to be named GG was from there and there were/are large numbers of ex-pats in political ridings that had clout in Ottawa - some of those MP's came out to visit us (Jack Layton didn't though, especially after believing a constituent that we were "terrorists" and blabbing as much at a rally in Toronto - he must have thought we'd have had him in an orange jump suit on You Tube or something).  Economically, not a lot there as HB pointed out - unless you want to try and set up a resort built on a foundation of trash somewhere...or you want to set up your own import business for dope, guns and/or people.

MM

Hence my point about it being a perfect police mission.  Economically, you could also make the argument that Canadian banks (they own the Caribbean) want to keep Haitian problems out of their CARICOM countries. 

I think of my six months in Jamaica where the JDF and JCF deal with huge gun problems.  The legal process of legally obtaining a firearm is quite long in Jamaica yet the Yardies have no problem because they smuggle them from Haiti. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect Canada could support the French Force in Mali with our C-17 and Jercs and some specialist assistance, not just SF, but engineering, comms, etc. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Off Topic

We need to bring the Sherman firefly back in to service
>

If your context was to burn the trash, then it would be the Sherman Zippo used by the USMC in the Pacific, or the Churchill (tank) Crocodile. The Firefly had a high velocity 17 pounder (76.2) cannon vice the normal 75mm. There are tank experts here, not me.

Great book read years ago: Flame Thrower Hardcover – 1956 - by Andrew Wilson https://www.amazon.ca/Flame-Thrower-Andrew-Wilson/dp/0718305221

The author retells his days as an officer serving in the Royal Armoured Corps during 1943 to 1945 in Europe. He was one of those assigned to the specialized tanks, in particular the Crocodile. The Crocodile class of tanks were fitted out to be used as flame throwers. The author found it easiest to tell the stories in third person (what Wilson did, rather than what he did). A number of the actions were in support of Canadian troops. The book was first published in 1956,

with a 1984 edition update.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Off Topic

If your context was to burn the trash, then it would be the Sherman Zippo used by the USMC in the Pacific, or the Churchill (tank) Crocodile. The Firefly had a high velocity 17 pounder (76.2) cannon vice the normal 75mm. There are tank experts here, not me.

Great book read years ago: Flame Thrower Hardcover – 1956 - by Andrew Wilson https://www.amazon.ca/Flame-Thrower-Andrew-Wilson/dp/0718305221
with a 1984 edition update.

Mea Culpa!  Thanks for the correction Rifleman, I meant the Crocodile when I said the Firefly (it being he upgunned Sherman)!  Think of the possibilities, an efficient garbage disposal service for the Island, we wouldn't have to worry about Forest Fire as they barely have any trees left (caveat being we don't stray too close to Dominican Republic of course).  The environmentalists might not like it!

Also, I accidentally hit modify on your post when I tried to quote it, sorry about that and I have fixed it to what it was (blame it on the noob moderator problems).