- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Slim said:
You were obviously never part of a Scottish regiment....
The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
- Thread starter Boogilywoo
- Start date
- Status
You were obviously never part of a Scottish regiment....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 3,954
- Points
- 1,140
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
North Star said:
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...
PPCLI Guy said:
Don't forget Dairy Queen after the patrol sir
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
2 Cdo said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,897
- Points
- 1,360
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"
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"
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
gauci333 said:
Maybe if you were a bit clearer you might get better reception. I'm not too sure about some of your statements here.
I don't know what this means. What are "minimal but important circumstances"
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".
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?
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.
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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
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
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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
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
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
3rd Horseman said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
