# U.S.:  Helloooooo Cdn Peacekeeping Force?  Where Are You?



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2021)

The Canadian Press via CBC.ca


> The United States is pressing Canada to commit medical units and drones to United Nations' missions at a peacekeeping summit in South Korea next week, and to come up with the 200-strong force first promised four years ago.
> 
> The request came in a letter to Global Affairs Canada from the U.S. on the eve of the high-level meeting in Seoul, where U.S. President Joe Biden's administration is expected to press allies to renew their commitment to peacekeeping.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2021)

Don’t they appreciate that “Canada’s back!”

I mean, we’ve been back since….2015.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t they appreciate that “Canada’s back!”
> 
> I mean, we’ve been back since….2015.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2021)

We are backing away slowly in hopes no one notices our lack of real commitment.


----------



## FJAG (30 Nov 2021)

It's hard to understand why we don't. Sending 200"peacekeepers" is a inexpensive commitment and easily within our SSE mandates. The Current Ops website indicates we have 2,000 folks deployed on 20 operations. They are nicely graphed but it would be nicer if the numbers were displayed on that or an easy to read table.

We really do not communicate well, do we?

🍻


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> We really do not communicate well, do we?
> 
> 🍻


What makes you think that's accidental?


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t they appreciate that “Canada’s back!”
> 
> I mean, we’ve been back since….2015.


Point well made! Trudeau is a lot of talk and not much action


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2021)

ArmyRick said:


> Point well made! Trudeau is a lot of talk and not much action


This is true on everything he says/does, but what is the holdup/aversion with the peacekeeping ops?


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> This is true on everything he says/does, but what is the holdup/aversion with the peacekeeping ops?


He’s still sulking about losing the UNSC seat…


----------



## dimsum (30 Nov 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> This is true on everything he says/does, but what is the holdup/aversion with the peacekeeping ops?


Maybe the growing realization that it isn't folks with blue berets shaking hands with grateful populations.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> He’s still sulking about losing the UNSC seat…


Might have a better chance at the UNSC seat if he actually backed his talk up


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Might have a better chance at the UNSC seat if he actually backed his talk up


I think he can’t see that HE is the problem.  Nations aren’t fools.  Other nations that vomit platitudes and hollow smiles yet don’t walk the walk are quickly culled from the club….as we have seen.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I think he can’t see that HE is the problem.  Nations aren’t fools.  Other nations that vomit platitudes and hollow smiles yet don’t walk the walk are quickly culled from the club….as we have seen.


He's like the Taylor Swift of international relations, can't figure out that maybe he's the problem.


----------



## Dale Denton (30 Nov 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> Might have a better chance at the UNSC seat if he actually backed his talk up



Yup, it also tells everyone that we _only _do things if we get a net benefit for it. 

"No UNSC seat? Then why bother??"


----------



## CBH99 (30 Nov 2021)

On the one hand, a 200 member force deployed on the right UN peacekeeping op could be beneficial in many ways.

It helps retain junior members, gives the media some CAF material to report on that isn’t inherently negative, shows the world that we _can_ back up our announcements, etc.  

On the other hand, if the wrong cards come together, it could be a PR disaster.  Especially if members of whatever UN force are engaged in less than good behaviour, and our members are forced to operate with them.  

Some of these UN missions are pretty big, with 15,000 members deployed on one of them.  Is 200 people really going to make a huge difference?  😕🤷🏼‍♂️



I wish the media had reported a lot more on the hoops our crews had to jump through in Mali just to do their jobs, despite being there at the request of the UN.  Huge PR opportunity missed.  

It may also help hint at why we’ve been so slow to get our hands in elsewhere…. FJAG nailed it, we aren’t great communicators 😅


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> He's like the Taylor Swift of international relations, can't figure out that maybe he's the problem.


At least Taylor Swift is somewhat easier on the eyes and ears than our Dear Leader.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Dec 2021)

Yeah but take a look at most UN ops, especially on Africa, look more like combat missions. Think our government would really send us there?


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Yeah but take a look at most UN ops, especially on Africa, look more like combat missions. Think our government would really send us there again?


Like Mali?  
OP CROCODILE in DRC (where CAF FB has been publicizing the Tactical Airlift Detachment out of Goma via OP PRESENCE)?  
OP SOPRANO in South Sudan?

We don't have large numbers of people there (except Mali before it ended), but our govt has continuously been sending people to Africa.  

Whether they'd send a large force again is debatable - there are lots of other UN nations that can provide the people, but we can provide specialized skillsets/equipment that most of them don't have.  I think that should be our focus during PSOs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2021)

CBH99 said:


> ... Some of these UN missions are pretty big, with 15,000 members deployed on one of them.  Is 200 people really going to make a huge difference?  😕🤷🏼‍♂️ ...


Depends on the 200 sent & what they can do that the other 15K may not be able to do as well.

Some of it is political messaging, too.  After all, we didn't send too many fighters for the fight for Op IMPACT, but the flag was shown.  Then again, this is obviously a flag current management _doesn't_ want flown ....


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Dec 2021)

We can do even better than sending troops and instead send trainer's who will teach developing nations how to reimagine thenselves into a more inclusive force. We can also inpart why women in the military are so important and use our treatment of women as the gold standard.


----------



## lenaitch (1 Dec 2021)

Too many citizens have a nostalgic view of Pearsonian peacekeeping; a blue beret force between two belligerent states who at least begrudgingly agree to the presence.  Where does that exist now?  Peacemaking is messier and the government isn't up for it.

Not only is the government, and possibly military leadership, bad at communications, they actively suppress it.  How much coverage was given to Bosnia when things got messy?


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> The Canadian Press via CBC.ca  The Liberal government has been criticized for failing to match past promises and rhetoric...


Slow news day.  🥱


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

Peacekeeping or Peacemaking in Africa is always loose loose.
   Blackside SOF missions work fine as long as they stay black, but any overt force by a Western Nation - even for the best of intentions goes sideways quickly.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (1 Dec 2021)

Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.

Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help. 

Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere)  and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.
> 
> Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help.


Yup


rmc_wannabe said:


> Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere)  and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.


Result --> a well trained criminal element involved in the conflict...

Targeted Killings are needed as well on leaders of criminal enterprises and brutal warlords.
  Make it so if you run child soldiers, you disappear in the night.

Then in combination with selective removals - you can train forces that won't be just better thugs


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Peacekeeping or Peacemaking in Africa is always loose loose.
> Blackside SOF missions work fine as long as they stay black, but any overt force by a Western Nation - even for the best of intentions goes sideways quickly.



"Out of Africa always something new." 

Scipio Africanus


----------



## dimsum (1 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> We can do even better than sending troops and instead send trainer's who will teach developing nations how to reimagine thenselves into a more inclusive force. We can also inpart why women in the military are so important and use our treatment of women as the gold standard.


Bingo.

But then some will complain that "women are getting deployments because they're women." 

The Reddit thread on Mali devolved pretty quickly into a bunch of folks getting pissed off that they weren't getting deployments, but women did (because the UN mandated X% of the force to be women).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Dec 2021)

No thanks, keep us as far away as possible.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2021)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.
> 
> Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help.
> 
> Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere)  and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.


Stay. Out. Of. Africa.

Period. Let them sort themselves out.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Dec 2021)

Regardless of whatever UN mission they may potentially end up on, I personally don’t think it’s worth the hassle in the end.  

The UN needs to streamline it’s operations, and have an end goal in mind.  It can’t just drag itself along, while wrapping more and more layers of tape around itself.  (The hoops our crews had to jump through in Mali is a good example.)


I agree with the posters who suggested using those 200 members as trainers, since that seems to be our thing right now anyway.  With Iraq and Ukraine well underway with several roto’s each this far, a small 200 person mission doing something similar wouldn’t be hard to do.  


It could help with retaining personnel, it’s another overseas adventure for people to go on, had huge PR potential, etc - if done correctly.


----------



## brihard (1 Dec 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Regardless of whatever UN mission they may potentially end up on, I personally don’t think it’s worth the hassle in the end.
> 
> The UN needs to streamline it’s operations, and have an end goal in mind.  It can’t just drag itself along, while wrapping more and more layers of tape around itself.  (The hoops our crews had to jump through in Mali is a good example.)
> 
> ...


Food for thought- missions that are primarily training are disproportionately heavy in their demand on NCOs that don’t suck. I’m out now, but the impression I get is that the field force is already thin on leadership, and there’s a significant training deficit to make up for post-pandemic. Caution is called for, lest too many training missions exacerbate the vicious deployments/schools cycle that pulls people away from family constantly and burns them out to the point of releasing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2021)

brihard said:


> Food for thought- missions that are primarily training are disproportionately heavy in their demand on NCOs that don’t suck. I’m out now, but the impression I get is that the field force is already thin on leadership, and there’s a significant training deficit to make up for post-pandemic. Caution is called for, lest too many training missions exacerbate the vicious deployments/schools cycle that pulls people away from family constantly and burns them out to the point of releasing.



Part of the issue might be that we are trying to train third world troops to first world standards.

_Perfect _might indeed be the enemy of _good enough_.


----------



## FJAG (2 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Part of the issue might be that we are trying to train third world troops to first world standards.
> 
> _Perfect _might indeed be the enemy of _good enough_.


I think that's the key point. Standards should vary depending on the audience. The Americans were having more success training the Afghan militias when the SF were initially doing foreign internal defence training then TF Phoenix had afterwards when they were trying to turn illiterate boys from small villages into a national army. I think the SF knew their audience and what they were capable of.

I'm not sure if I came across this article through a link from this website or in my own wanderings but I think it is particulalry apt in this debate and what our role in the future should be:



> Nixon's Thumbprint » Wavell Room
> 
> 
> The roots of the West's defeat start with President Nixon and his strategy in Vietnam. It's time to consider Nixon'x thumbprint.
> ...



🍻


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2021)

FJAG said:


> I think that's the key point. Standards should vary depending on the audience. The Americans were having more success training the Afghan militias when the SF were initially doing foreign internal defence training then TF Phoenix had afterwards when they were trying to turn illiterate boys from small villages into a national army. I think the SF knew their audience and what they were capable of.
> 
> I'm not sure if I came across this article through a link from this website or in my own wanderings but I think it is particulalry apt in this debate and what our role in the future should be:
> 
> ...


I think that in some ways conventional forces can do a decent job at teaching indigenous forces.
   The main issue that always come up - is that it can start well - but always seems to get mission creep - when it branches out from training small unit work - that the Army wants to make them a larger cohesive western force - despite the logic of that being foolish.

My theory is if you want to build an effective force you leave it to SOF -- if you want to make a force that your Army can come back and smash - then let the Army train them


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> I think that in some ways conventional forces can do a decent job at teaching indigenous forces.
> The main issue that always come up - is that it can start well - but always seems to get mission creep - when it branches out from training small unit work - that the Army wants to make them a larger cohesive western force - despite the logic of that being foolish.
> 
> My theory is if you want to build an effective force you leave it to SOF -- if you want to make a force that your Army can come back and smash - then let the Army train them



Didn't SOF help 'build the Taliban' back in the days of Soviet occupation?


----------



## Kilted (2 Dec 2021)

Kat Stevens said:


> He's like the Taylor Swift of international relations, can't figure out that maybe he's the problem.


Taylor Swift is not the problem.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (2 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Didn't SOF help 'build the Taliban' back in the days of Soviet occupation?



Not SOF,  Intelligence Agencies. CIA, IS, et al made a few grievous errors that came back to bite us in the ass.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> We can do even better than sending troops and instead send trainer's who will teach developing nations how to reimagine thenselves into a more inclusive force. We can also inpart *why women in the military are so important and use our treatment of women as the gold standard.*




The new MND may have some input on that.


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Didn't SOF help 'build the Taliban' back in the days of Soviet occupation?





rmc_wannabe said:


> Not SOF,  Intelligence Agencies. CIA, IS, et al made a few grievous errors that came back to bite us in the ass.



There was some SOF assisting SAD GB folks - but by and large "our guys" where not the problem, as it was predominately the Norther Alliance that was assisted by the West, and it was in the South the Pakistani ISI that created the Taliban - but we did fund and give stuff to the ISI.


While sometimes they guys you want to fight an enemy, aren't folks you want around when the enemy is gone, the biggest issue was that the West did an about face when the Russians left - and the ISI didn't.


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Dec 2021)

Host South Korea expects 'ambitious' peacekeeping pledges from Canada at upcoming summit
					

The Liberal government has been criticized for failing to match past peacekeeping promises and rhetoric supporting the UN with commitment and action




					nationalpost.com
				




The South Koreans apparently know something


----------



## childs56 (6 Dec 2021)

We do not have the equipment to support the various size of our commitments around the world we are currently involved. 
If Trudeau wants Canada to get back on the Peacekeeping mission he better put a few more dollars in the wallet of the Military. We need more Airlift, more helicopters, more armour,  more Soldiers, Sailors and Airpersons. 
I think we might be able to pressure the guy to cough up a few bucks to put him into his dream job at the UN.  
Then we can tow the line for year or two while the equipment gets ordered and people hired. 
Its a win win, the Military gets more equipment, he gets out of Canada.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2021)

He’d rather hand over to Chrystia, than pump the military.  Family blood runs deep.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> He’d rather hand over to Chrystia, than pump the military.  Family blood runs deep.


So you were probably around when Trudeau the First was the PM. I do not recall those days fondly.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> So you were probably around when Trudeau the First was the PM. I do not recall those days fondly.


Within months, but not directly. Definitely felt the impact of the ‘Adminitrization’ of the CF over his tenure…


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2021)

childs56 said:


> We do not have the equipment to support the various size of our commitments around the world we are currently involved.
> If Trudeau wants Canada to get back on the Peacekeeping mission he better put a few more dollars in the wallet of the Military. We need more Airlift, more helicopters, more armour,  more Soldiers, Sailors and Airpersons.
> I think we might be able to pressure the guy to cough up a few bucks to put him into his dream job at the UN.
> Then we can tow the line for year or two while the equipment gets ordered and people hired.
> Its a win win, the Military gets more equipment, he gets out of Canada.


Trudeau doesn't want to do anything for the Military -- he knows full well that the brass will snap to attention, pop a suite and march off to order the CAF without anymore equipment anyway...

I suspect he doesn't want to send the CAF anywhere for fear of issues popping up that may put egg on his face.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Dec 2021)

KevinB said:


> Trudeau doesn't want to do anything for the Military -- he knows full well that the brass will snap to attention, pop a suite and march off to order the CAF without anymore equipment anyway...
> 
> I suspect he doesn't want to send the CAF anywhere for fear of issues popping up that may put egg on his face.


Body bags start questions, and the public doesn't care about defense. That won't change unless something massively changes


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Dec 2021)

Canada’s 200-soldier promise to UN peacekeeping ‘under discussion’: Minister - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Defence Minister Anita Anand says while the Liberal government's promise to provide a 200-soldier force to United Nations peacekeeping is being considered.




					globalnews.ca
				




Promised in 2017, this is some very long discussions they must be having


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Canada’s 200-soldier promise to UN peacekeeping ‘under discussion’: Minister - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Defence Minister Anita Anand says while the Liberal government's promise to provide a 200-soldier force to United Nations peacekeeping is being considered.
> ...



I bet poor old Anita is playing several years of catch up, on many files, after the 'Class A (for Architect) MP' vacated his comfy chair 

P.S. The ironic phrase of the day for the win, from this article: "The Liberal government previously said it had given itself five years to produce the quick reaction force."


----------



## RangerRay (16 Dec 2021)

This is one promise, along with ending FPTP, I wouldn’t be upset to see chucked. We should stay away from modern UN peacekeeping operations unless it is in our national interest with clear ROE.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Dec 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Body bags start questions, and the public doesn't care about defense. That won't change unless something massively changes


We used 158 body bags in the last conflict. NOTHING has changed.


----------

