# What do you guys think of the talk of this new ' peacekeeping force'?



## CallOfDuty (24 Aug 2004)

Hey there everyone     Just hearing the news about this 5000 troops for peacekeeping.  What do you think that would be like?  Would it be the same group of people getting rotated in and out of peacekeeping missions and leave the other units to stay home and train?  I just cant picture exactly what they are talking about.


----------



## Bartok5 (24 Aug 2004)

If it is recruited and trained as a "Peace Support Only" organization?  The answer is blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever served a day in uniform - it would be an unmitigated disaster.  May just as well pre-order the body-bags....

Only complete and utter political idiots with zero grounding in international reality dream up such abject tripe. The media simply perpetuates it.  Yet the folks in uniform end up having to pay the piper - for better or for worse.  I for one, want nothing to do with a "Peacekeeping Brigade" - whatever the hell that means.  One must assume that it is a "typical" brigade, but trained "on the cheap", without the warfighting aspect to its pre-deployment curriculum.  If so, then stand by for the funeral processions.....  

"Peacekeeping Brigade"?  Yeah, sure.  Might as well join a "Suicide Battalion".  Those of us in uniform have the distinct misfortune of being governed by abject morons who do not have a clue what it is that they want the Canadian military to do on behalf of our nation.  Hence the half-baked "feel-good" plans with absolutely no forethought, understanding, nor funding.  In other words, "situation no change".  Buffoons in action, yet again....

The Few, the Proud, the Few.....


----------



## Danjanou (24 Aug 2004)

Well said Mark,and welcome back to these parts.


----------



## 30 for 30 (24 Aug 2004)

In reality, there is no written proposal to form a "peace" brigade, "peacekeeping" brigade, or a brigade restricted to peacekeeping. Pure media speculation and wild interpretation. The original Liberal election policy proposal states that "A Liberal government will...increase the CF by 5,000 personnel, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada's capacity for peace support." That is all that is written on this subject. Nowhere is it stated that this will be anything other than a traditional army brigade. The peace reference quoted above was obviously a selling point to the common masses, and people need to read the fine print instead of taking every National Post cover story as pure truth. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong in the future, but more than likely, if this sees fruition, it will take the form of a small, light brigade formation trained in warfighting like any other. Even if special emphasis is put on expertise in peace-support ops, it is extremely unlikely the brigade's soldiers would just skip combat arms training and qualification.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2004)

What anyone who sees this proposal as feasible seems to forget is that even in the most boring, dull and mundane of peacekeeping operations on the far end of the spectrum of conflict, the neccesity of having trained combat troops in theatre is due to the fact that the need for force may be required at any time.

To send in a lightly armed, untrained "Peacekeeping" Brigade into a conflict situation is tantamount to murder, and I hope anyone who plans this process knows that they will have blood on their hands when the local Warlord decides he wants his turf back from the international community.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Aug 2004)

I hope you're right RNW.  We all know stranger things have happened...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What anyone who sees this proposal as feasible seems to forget is that even in the most boring, dull and mundane of peacekeeping operation on the far end of the spectrum of conflict, the neccesity of having trained combat troops in theatre is do to the fact that the need for force may be required at any time.
> 
> To send in a lightly armed, untrained "Peacekeeping" Brigade into a conflict situation is tantamount to murder, and I hope anyone who plans this process knows that they will have blood on their hands when the local Warlord decides he wants his turf back from the international community.



Exactly what Lester B. Pearson had in mind when he originated the idea of Peacekeeping.  Well trained, well disciplined Combat troops.

Would one expect a Volunteer Firefighting crew from ButtFuch Saskatchewan to be able to fight a highrise fire in Toronto effectively?  No.  They wouldn't have the equipment, not the training to do so.  

GW


----------



## Lance Wiebe (24 Aug 2004)

Actually, here is the quote, as is written on liberal.ca



> A Liberal government plans to make Canada a positive force internationally with a Peace and Nation Building Initiative. The platform calls for a 5,000-member peace brigade, an increase in military personnel to 18,500 from 15,000. Prime Minister Paul Martin also promises to create the Canada Corps as a vehicle to help developing nations build institutions, and vows to reduce or forgive foreign debts owed by poor or deserving countries.



It what in tarnatation a "peace brigade" is.   

Something like I posted here?   http://army.ca/forums/threads/17280.15.html



> It seems to me that we now have positive proof of the way ahead for Canada.   We, as Canadians, will no longer rely on our own resources to do anything.   We are subjugating ourselves, as a nation, to the United Nations.   We will not intervene militarily anywhere, unless the UN asks us too.   We will become a nation governed by that most illustrious body, the UN.   Why, the UN can solve all of the world's problems, why is there a need for us to have an Armed Force?
> 
> The way of the future?   Our army will be modelled on what our government percieves as the needs of the United Nations.   We obviously do not need fighter aircraft and destroyers for peacekeeping.   Tanks?   M109's?   General Warfighting capabilities?   Objects of derision, to be done away with, relegated to the history books.
> 
> ...


----------



## 30 for 30 (24 Aug 2004)

My quote is from the actual "platform" that is referenced in your quote from liberal.ca The only quote I could find on liberal.ca is the one I used, though I don't doubt you came across your snippet. 

I have the full platform in front of me ("Moving Canada Forward"). The liberal.ca quote you cite seems like some Liberal staffer's short summary interpretation of what the platform says over two full pages. It's easy to say "Peace Brigade", but, again, the official platform does not say this or imply this. 

I guess we can only wait and see if the government is going to prove me wrong and further pacify our Army into an institution incapable of true warfighting. Fingers crossed.

If 5000 troops somehow do get added, wouldn't it be more sensible to use these numbers to strengthen our current brigades? I'm thinking fourth rifle coys in the mech bns, complete light bns etc.


----------



## Pieman (24 Aug 2004)

Not sure if this was posted before, but on the same note of the 'Peacekeeping Force' somebody appears to be ticked off:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/08/24/pf-599258.html

Mad about leak of military info

General denies slashes to navy and air force 
By BILL RODGERS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA -- Canada's top general is mad as hell, calling anonymous officers in his organization "unprofessional" for leaking what he termed "inaccurate" information about the expansion of the Armed Forces. Gen. Ray Henault summoned reporters to Defence headquarters yesterday to deny reports the military would have to slash navy and air force operations to pay for a Liberal election promise to add a "peacekeeping brigade" of 5,000 troops. 

While the general is "disturbed" by those who have been feeding the reports, he said he has no plans to launch an internal investigation to discipline those responsible for the DND leaks. 

But he rebuked the unnamed officers who spoke to Jane's Defence Weekly and others about an option that would mothball three navy destroyers and a quarter of the air force's CF-18 fighter jets to pay for an increase in ground forces. 

"This is, of course, not the standard of professionalism, discipline and ethics that we expect in this organization," he said. 

Saying he wanted to "set the facts straight," the general emphasized the Defence Department would not be robbing Peter to pay Paul. To the contrary, he said the expansion will "translate into a regular-force size of 65,000" from the current manpower cap of 60,000. 

He said all military planning efforts for the expansion are based on the assumption the Martin government will make new investments in defence, adding his confidence is based on discussions he had with new Defence Minister Bill Graham. 

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly has estimated the increase in troop strength will cost more than $2 billion, based on new equipment and infrastructure costs, and an additional $400 million a year to maintain the additional soldiers. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Lance Wiebe (24 Aug 2004)

My fault.  I should have posted the exact page, instead of just saying liberal.ca

Here's the exact location.

http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&news=866


----------



## meni0n (24 Aug 2004)

I did not sign up to be a peacekeeper. I signed up to be a soldier.


----------



## Fruss (24 Aug 2004)

I believe that some tasks of a soldier is to be a peacekeeper!!!  And in Canada, you know you will probably serve as a peacekeeper...  If you joined the Army just to fire on someone, maybe it was not the right reason and the right army to do so..

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## meni0n (24 Aug 2004)

Frank, soldiers do get called on to do peacekeeping but they are still soldiers. Being enrolled into a "peacekeeping brigade" and called a "peacekeeper" instead of what you really are is just ludicrous. You're still a soldier whatever job you do. Once you get at least BMQ qualified you'll know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Pieman (24 Aug 2004)

> I did not sign up to be a peacekeeper. I signed up to be a soldier.



This comment relates to a   point I have been wondering about for a little while now. To the large majority of the public the term 'Soldier' and 'Peacekeeper' are in their minds the same thing. Most of the Canadian public (I believe) feels that the main role of the Canadian Military is as a Peacekeeping force. 

My take is that this word was driven into the public minds by the government because Canadians simply like the idea of a peace force as opposed to an 'Army' or 'Defence Force', using the 'peace' platform allows the gov to issue Defence policies with little resistance from the public. There is no difference in reality, but let me give an example of what I mean:

1) MP addresses Canadian public and say 'We need more soldiers, we need to spend X dollars to supply 5000 additional troops. These new soldiers will help with Defence and Overseas operations' 
The response from the public would be something like: "Why are we spending all this money on defence! what about health care?!!' and will resist the idea.

2) MP addresses Canadian pubic and says 'We need to expand our peacekeeping force, we need 5000 more happy troops to spread joy and make people in troubled lands smile again' 
The responce from the public is would be 'Wow! Peace, we like spreading peace because we are a peaceful nation. 5000? make it 10,000 Those people better be happy after that!'

A similar tactic was used by NASA back in the early nineties during a slump in the American economy. Large portions of the public started to complain saying: 'Why are we spending all these Billions of dollars on a space station! We got medicare problems, job problems, let's ditch this program!'

Nasa very tactfully responded, 'Well all this research is important for healthcare, the studies we have in zero gravity help research in bone disease and can be used to help develop medicine to help sick people' 

This of course was true, but not really.   As the research they were talking about was for long term effects of people in space, mainly doing studies for the hopeful manned mission to mars. Any medical application were only a side effect and very, very far from being a main purpose for the study. But, the public hears 'Medicine' 'help sick people' and they suddenly feel it is worth it and the public pressure against NASA funding diminished.

So what I am trying to suggest to the soldiers on this forum that are concerned about the lack of public support, is that if this 'peacekeeping' card is played to the public in the right way, then I believe you will have all the support you want. Perhaps the PR people there should considering pushing the image on the public further, and say: 'Not only do we need 5000 troops, we need planes, we need etc. Canada's peace keeping force is a must for Canada! We need this equipment....etc'   

I have no idea if it is a realistic or not, but i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on it.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2004)

Frank in Van

Peacekeeping is not what a Cdn Soldier signs up to do.   It is not our role.   It is a thing we do.   We are an instrument of the Federal Gov't.   We do as we are told.

No where does it say that Canada's Military's role is to PeaceKeep.   We are a MILITARY to defend Canada's Sovereignty.   Peacekeeping is a sideline.

Lester B. Peason realized, when he came up with the idea, that well trained, well armed, well disciplined SOLDIERS were the best tool for Peacekeeping.   They train for WAR, the worse case scenario, and defend the Peace.   If they are not prepared for the worse case scenario, they will die.

Some Lefty NDP politician was on the Television, back in the days when we still had Troops in Cyprus, and he wondered on camera why we had to spend money on Defence and send Canadian Troops to Cyprus, when we could easily take the CF Boeing and land it in Toronto and fill it with Homeless and Unemployed and give them employment as Peacekeepers in 'peaceful' Cyprus.   I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.   What would those people have done had they been faced with Invasion Troops from Turkey and Greece as the Canadian Airborne Regiment was in 1974?   They would have all died and there would be a major war going on to this very day.

Cdn Soldiers are Soldiers first and foremost.....not peacekeepers.

GW


----------



## Green Lid (25 Aug 2004)

I agree with your comments George. If you are going to have such a thing as peacekeepers then who better to do the job than well trained professional soldiers. But you are absolutely right when you say that peacekeeping is not a soldiers primary job.


----------



## dutchie (25 Aug 2004)

I think it was the first UN Commander of the peacekeeping force in Egypt way back when that said, "Peacekeeping is no job for a soldier, but a job only a soldier can do." 

I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2004)

Soldiers can certainly enforce peace, and probably so could a paramilitary constabulary, but the latter can't be sent to war with any prospect of success or survival.


----------



## rdschultz (25 Aug 2004)

I certainly hope that calling it a peacekeeping brigade is simply a way to sell it to the public, but only time will tell.

That said, the idea that it is just a euphemism also worries me.  If the general public, the people paying for the peacekeeping brigade, believe this is just a peacekeeping force, then where does that leave us?  It just perpetuates the all-to-common idea that the Canadian Forces is a solely/largely a peacekeeping force, and that should be the major focus of the training.   

We need a country that actually knows what the Canadian Forces is all about, and has respect for their primary role (which _isn't_ peacekeeping).  We don't need to further the idea that the blue hat is a normal part of the uniform.  The more we let Canada think the CF is completely peacekeepers, the more they'll expect them to be solely peacekeepers.  Why can't we call a spade a spade?


----------



## Armymedic (25 Aug 2004)

I am thinking of this on the CSS side...

Our job doesn't really change regardless of which combat arms they support. So training pers for peacekeeper brigede on the CSS side of the house would not / should not change the training standard of those MOCs....A supply tech is a supply tech regardless if he supports JTF or 3rd Tinkerbell Sqn. 

If we were to make this work...cause after all our job is to make impossible govt demands work....I don't believe the standards of MOC training would drop(any more then they already have), but it would be a rotation of capable pers from other units for a total in unit time of 3-5 yrs.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2004)

My thinking is that instead of standing up some "peacekeeping" Brigade, we should reorganize our CS/CSS into packet units that can be modularized for different mission requirments such as disaster relief/homeland defence, humanitarian/Peacekeeping Ops, support in low intensity operations, or conflict entry in high intensity operations.   My understanding is that alot of the CS/CSS trades are really overstretched due to the smaller numbers of them and a universal requirement (Cook is coming to mind right now).   Perhaps, instead of a new Brigade, we need to better fill out current requirements for force support assets?


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Aug 2004)

Peace support operations require more in the way of Cbt Sp, CSS, & engineering than do war operations.  Our current brigades are manned for war fighting.  This is why we are short of those pers.


----------



## ghazise (26 Aug 2004)

General Krulak (USMC) promoted the idea of a 3 Block War and to be effective on today's battlefield the soldier/Marine needs to ready to encounter on any city block

1.  Humanitarian Assistance,  whether facilitating aid organizations or the distribution of food and water to local population
the next block
2.  Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement Stability Operations,  to be able to communicate in the Native language to settle dispute and to enforce the terms of a cease fire
and the final block the same soldier/Marine needs to
3. be able to engage the enemy in combat operations,

From my experience from students at the U of M and my co-workers, friends in Winnipeg, Canadians do not see a need for a military, and the only time they believe our military should be used is when it is approved by the United Nations.

So maybe that is why the Liberals are labelling it as a Peacekeeping Brigade???  But if the Army can get another Brigade, it seems like good news, but I really believe that before we add more troops, we really need to man the battalions and ships that we have already have and properly fund equipment maintenance,,,


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2004)

If something were to happen and the government decided to send in a battle group, how long would it take for us to deploy.
Do we even have the lift capability to send a battle group somewhere?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Aug 2004)

I think I read somewhere that it will take about ten years to reach the increase in 5000 troops because there will be a major surge of retirements in the near future.


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Aug 2004)

We need resigning bonuses to keep experience in.  Why should we only offer free money to new recruits comming in the botom while we allow ourselves to bleed from the top & middle.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2004)

I hope you mean re-sign.  We already did the resigning bonus thing, didn't we (FRP)?


----------

