# The Congo (merged)



## GAP (21 Apr 2010)

DR.Congo army retake control of airport after UN deaths
Article Link
Mon Apr 5, 8:13 am ET

KINSHASA (AFP) – The Congolese army has retaken control of the airport in a major city in northwest Democratic Republic of Congo, a day after two UN personnel died in clashes, officials said Monday.

The DR Congo military retook control of the airport in Mbandaka, the main town in Equateur province, where fighting took place Sunday afternoon, an advisor to the provincial governor Guy Inenge said.

On Sunday government forces had exchanged fire with several dozen tribal insurgents in Mbandaka and a UN soldier from Ghana was killed in the clash.

Communications Minister Lambert Mende, who is also government spokesman, said that a local civilian member of the UN mission in the DR Congo, MONUC, "died of a heart attack" during the violence.

The gun battle erupted after security personnel found the rebels in a boat from the capital Kinshasa, and insurgents attacked the airport.

The fighting pitted the DR Congolese army (FARDC) against about 100 members of the Enyele tribe, according to Inenge.

"I think there were more casualties on their side, apart from the MONUC soldier who died at the airport and the Congolese employee of MONUC who died of a heart attack," Mende said.

"The situation is under control (of the FARDC)," he added. "The governor is reassuring people that they can return home safely."

A member of a local rights group, who asked not to be named, said that "the situation calmed down during the night. The FARDC have regained the airport and soldiers are circulating everywhere in the town."

No source contacted by AFP was able to give a casualty toll from the past 24 hours.

Tens of thousands of people left Equateur province after tribal fighting broke out in October and the UN and Congolese army sent reinforcements to the densely forested area, eventually restoring state control in December.

The tribal violence mainly pitted the Enyele, led by a witch doctor, against the Munzaya people, and erupted as a dispute over fishing rights in ponds at a village called Dondo.

According to officials, the fighting spread to several other villages and claimed at least 270 lives, mostly those of villagers. The clashes induced about 187,000 people to flee, including 109,000 in the neighbouring Republic of Congo and 18,000 in the Central African Republic.
More on link


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2010)

UN asksCanada for help in the Congo
UN official uses GG's visit to issue direct appeal to Ottawa
Article Link
Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau

GOMA, CONGO—The United Nations issued a direct, public appeal to Canada Tuesday, asking for the country's help with the international peacekeeping operation in the troubled Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The challenge to Canada to step up was echoed repeatedly by residents in Goma on a day when Governor-General Michaëlle Jean arrived amid tight security as violence rose in regions of the country.

A possible UN pullout at this critical stage has soldiers, civilians, and men and women of Goma fearing a wholesale withdrawal will leave people at the mercy of vicious armed groups hiding in the jungle.

Christian Manahl, the UN deputy administrator overseeing operations in the eastern Congo, was blunt with Canadian reporters after meeting Jean at the UN compound here on the shores of Lake Kivu.

He outlined progress on the ground, but quickly added there was an important role for Canada.

“Definitely logistics, mobility, and intelligence are the key issues where we felt more would be needed,” Manahl said.

He also said the UN mission in Congo needs more money to boost its peace-building efforts. He said another $5 million to add to the $4 million available.

Some of that support may well be on the way.

It is widely expected here Canadian Gen. Andrew Leslie will get the nod from Ottawa and members of the Security Council to take over command of the UN mission in Congo, and will bring with him up to 100 top-level officers to support the mission.
More on link


----------



## MP 811 (22 Apr 2010)

I was just in the Congo on tasking.  Quite the place.  Amongst some of the things that happened;

- Police tried to extort money out of me twice.
- had an assault rifle cocked and pointed at us.
- witnessed a female beaten and presumeably raped afterwards.

If we end up there in any capacity, its going to be a difficult go.  The UN troops there have no respect from the locals, and in fact, Kabila wants all UN forces out by 2011.  I do believe Canadians have a good reputation amongst the local populace.  I was in a street market and once they found out we were Canadian, they're whole demeanor changed with comments like "Canada and Congo, brothers"...stuff like that.  Of course, thats when the first attempt to extort money out of me by the police happened.


----------



## GAP (22 Apr 2010)

If Canada’s military is itching for a fight, it won’t be in the Congo 
Article Link
 Campbell Clark

Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Apr. 22, 2010 3:00AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Apr. 22, 2010 7:38AM EDT

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is not Canada’s next big military mission.

The UN has asked for a Canadian commander, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, to lead its peacekeeping mission in the African nation. But the debate inside Ottawa is about whether a Canadian general would go with a handful of troops, or a few handfuls, perhaps 50. If he goes.

Ottawa has not yet given Gen. Leslie the go-ahead because of concerns about costs and the potential for Canadian responsibility for a large and difficult mission to eventually creep into something bigger.

Even with small numbers, however, it is part of a major decision: Canada will have to decide what its post-Afghanistan military will do. Accepting command in the DRC would mean returning to UN-led peacekeeping operations, which Canada has largely left behind since the mid-1990s.

There are calls in some quarters for Canada to do just that: the Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan is ending, and they argue that the UN has improved the oversight of peacekeeping. But while many Canadians see UN-led peacekeeping operations as part of their identity, many Canadian soldiers view them as a past they’d rather not revisit.

This week’s visit to Kinshasa by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean fuelled speculation that large numbers of Canadian troops will soon be deployed to the DRC under Gen. Leslie’s command. But the debate in Ottawa over smaller numbers probably says more about the wary attitude toward such missions. 
More on link


----------



## pbi (27 Apr 2010)

Given the way these things can go in Africa, I'd bet that any Canadian government, regardless of party affiliation, would have big scary nightmares about a repeat of Rwanda, this time with another Canadian general in charge.  Still, if it can be managed properly, it might be a way to quiet some of the UN parrots such as the reporter, who keep playing the same broken record that Canada has "abandoned" UN peace support ops.

Cheers


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (27 Apr 2010)

Its also an opportunity to demonstrate the utility of the renewed Joint Deployable HQ being established in Kingston.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Apr 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> DR.Congo army retake control of airport after UN deaths
> Article Link
> Mon Apr 5, 8:13 am ET



The article goes on to state





> .....[retired MGen Lewis Mackenzie] “The UN has extreme difficulty commanding and controlling those types of operations.”
> 
> “My only recommendation would be, ‘don’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.’ ”


 ...which I agree with whole-heartedly.

It also states





> But some argue that’s out of date. A recent paper published by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute argues the UN’s peacekeeping-mission control has improved, and Canada should consider a return to peacekeeping


 Although the article doesn't specify the CDFAI paper, I commented on it in this earlier thread. Suffice to say, I disagree with the author's views on the UN's magnificence.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Apr 2010)

MP 811 said:
			
		

> I was just in the Congo on tasking.  Quite the place.  Amongst some of the things that happened;
> 
> - Police tried to extort money out of me twice.
> - had an assault rifle cocked and pointed at us.
> ...



My wife spends 6 months out of every year living in Kinshasa and flying all around the DRC (working for the UN as a pilot).  She does go out of the UN compound (even in night clubs!) and never got into trouble whatsoever.  Yes, she has seen things we do not see in the Western World but understand it is not a Western Country.  She has nothing but positive things to say about the Congo.

If you speak French, you will get around much more easily.  The "police" that was trying to get money out of you was probably not a police officer but someone pretending to be one.  People there are starving.  They will do everything they can to get money including lying.  The rent in Kinshasa is normally about 80% of what someone makes, leaving little for other essentials.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2010)

Reprinted under the usual caveats. A write-up by General (ret'd) Roméo A. Dallaire and Paul Dewar on why we (Canada and the CF in particular) should be getting involoved in the Congo.

 Article Link 



> Canada must intervene
> 
> We have too long ceded our position of leadership in fighting crimes against humanity; Canada has a responsibility to act in Congo
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2010)

_Globe & Mail_ - Uh, no thanks:


> Canada has turned down the command of a major UN peacekeeping mission in Congo, giving the general touted for the post another job at home.
> 
> The United Nations had asked Canada to send Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie as the commander of the 20,500-strong peacekeeping force in Democratic Republic of the Congo. But on Friday, the Defence Department announced Gen. Leslie will take on the job of helping redesign the post-Afghanistan Canadian Forces.
> 
> ...



CBC.ca says 


> .... sources tell CBC News the Canadian military will not deploy a large force to the Democratic Republic of Congo after its mission in Afghanistan ends next year ....



A bit of history - same thing two years ago:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76957.0.html


> .... "Finding a lieutenant-general at this time can be a challenge, especially with Afghanistan going on," said Maj. Denys Guay, deputy military attaché at Canada's permanent mission to the UN in New York ....



.... and rumblings 7 years ago:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2710.0.html


> .... The foreign affairs department has pushed hard for Canada to make some kind of significant contribution in Congo, where more than 2.5 million people have died of fighting or famine blamed on a five-year civil war.
> 
> But the cash-strapped defence department has resisted, citing the strain caused by Canada's pledge to send 1,800 troops to Afghanistan this summer to join the international stabilization force there and its roles in the war against terrorism and in Bosnia-Herzegovina ....


----------



## GAP (29 May 2010)

DiManno: Congo is beggared and corrupt as ever
Published On Sat May 29 2010
Article Link

KINSHASA, CONGO—Twinkling lights strung along Boulevard du 30 Juin merrily remind that this country will celebrate its golden anniversary of independence next month — 5-0 writ large in red, blue and green mini-bulbs, in lieu of neon.

Equally large and exclamatory letters spell out the name of the man who has set aside millions for the upcoming festivities: President Joseph Kabila.

P’tit Joe as he’s still known to most Congolese — L’ll Joe — has turned into Big Joe, and he’s flexing his muscles.

Many African nations have historically fallen under thrall, or tyranny, of “Big Man Syndrome,” a father complex with larger-than-life leaders who loom over their realms as corpulent manifestations of grand vows, grander ambitions, grandest visions, until they’re knocked out of power by force, sent packing with their looted billions or, as in the case of Kabila’s papa and immediate predecessor, Laurent-Desiré Kabila, assassinated. They seize, squeeze and then get toppled.

Or, their lands become a kind of suzerainty of the United Nations, which was invited in as a blue beret peacekeeping force in 1999, amidst brutal back-to-back Congo wars, and is now very much wanted out.

Kabila — who is not obese and eschews the tribal frou-frou and leopard skins vainly adopted by long-time (overthrown) dictator-kleptocrat Mobutu Sese Seke — was globally lauded as the newest Congo saviour when he took over the reins of a transitional government following his father’s slaying and then actually held free elections as promised.

Only in his late 20s, he was solemnly civilized and Western-ish — though educated in Tanzania and militarily trained in China — and army chief-of-staff under his dad when Kabila père led the Rwanda/Uganda-backed assault that ousted Mobutu. Kabila dedicated himself, first off, to salvaging the Congo’s deranged economy, embraced by Washington, the World Bank and a legion of salivating capitalist exploiters.
More on link


----------



## sean m (29 May 2010)

It just seems to be the same old same old scenario with Africa. a totally corrupt and inept government, more than one militia seeking power, all the players just using death and destruction as a way to achieve power. You have all these other African nations who are attempting to get their countries interests  sorted out ex, Chad, Angola, Sudan etc. You just have so many militias who are fighting; Mai- Mai( who are just trying to stop the Ugandan backed rebels), then you have DFLR which is a Rwandan Hutu proxy group and etc etc. There is no way this conflict would end until all parties unanimously agree to stop fighting, who knows if that will ever happen


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 May 2010)

Tribal warfare in Africa has gone on since the first man picked up a stick and drove the second man away from the leftover protopig killed by protolions.  There is no reason to believe it will end any time soon.


----------



## sean m (29 May 2010)

The thing is that people there must have some realization of what it is like outside and how developed it is. yet they persist in continuing this unnecessary violence. Of course it is not the entire population, and it really has to do with poverty and other problems which plague these nations, corrupt leaders etc etc. This continent has so many resources and capabilities, it is too bad how nothing is achieved there. At least in South Africa there does not seem to be any inter tribal related engagements ye there still is alot to be completed there.





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Tribal warfare in Africa has gone on since the first man picked up a stick and drove the second man away from the leftover protopig killed by protolions.  There is no reason to believe it will end any time soon.


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2010)

sean m said:
			
		

> ............... At least in South Africa there does not seem to be any inter tribal related engagements ye there still is alot to be completed there.




OK!

Time for you to step away from your computer.  You obviously have delusional problems, as the above statement indicates that you have not done enough RESEARCH to be commenting on many of the topics that you have so far attempted to enter on this site.

Please do us all a favour and finish High School, do some more reading, and then come back to this site better informed.


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2010)

DiManno: Parallels between Congo and Afghanistan
Article Link
There was a time when Canadian peacekeepers in this country were pistol-whipped, kicked, robbed and force-marched in their bare feet.

On each occasion of abuse, it was, allegedly, a case of mistaken identity. The Congolese tormentors thought those clearly designated blue beret Canadians were despised Belgians, remnants of an occupying colonial power whose paratroopers had descended anew only weeks after the Congo won its independence, their swift return purportedly necessary to protect white Europeans caught up in the violence provoked by a no-time-wasted army coup.

Such was the shock and disgust of Canadians back home at the mistreatment of “our boys” that Prime Minister John Diefenbaker was inundated with furious letters of protest, many of them overwhelmingly racist in content.

One read: “I used to feel sorry for these poor natives, for there is no doubt they have been abused, but it is no doubt now they are more animal than man. From now on I shall only think of them as smelly dirty n---ers . . . Tell them to shoot and not to wait until they ‘see the whites of their eyes.’ ”

That was all back in 1960 when the United Nations first stepped into the Congo mess to prevent civil war. Canada contributed more than a thousand (in rotation) non-combat troops, primarily the 57th Signal Unit (radio, communications) and despite a public souring on the mission, hung in till the end in 1964, among the last nations to pull out.

Diefenbaker did, however, repeatedly decline a UN request to leave a unit behind that would train the Congolese army and gendarmeries.

There is an echo of that ‘nuff done posture in the apparent unwillingness of the current Canadian government to continue training national security forces in Afghanistan when that nine-year mission ends next year. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to touch the subject of what next or where next for the country’s battle-hardened soldiers.

But not here — that much is evident, even if French-speaking UN troops are as desperately required now as they were 50 years.

History has taught Canada to stay out of the Congo. While there are no suicide bombers and no IEDs here, the violence is relentless — old-style, even panga-style — with the UN Mission (The Sequel), now in its 11th year, equally reviled and praised as keepers of the intermittent,regional peace.

MONUC takes the rather paternalistic view that the Congo would be doomed if they departed prematurely — a repeat of the ’60s exercise when, two years after the mission accomplished UN forces left, the country was thrust into war.
More on link


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jun 2010)

Great article that touches on one of the fundamental conundrums of current times - how does one conduct Expeditionary COIN - and the attendant all to frequently unasked question: *should* we conduct expeditionary COIN.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2010)

A friend of mine in the SF says you cannot do that - "expeditionary COIN" is Foreign Internal Defence.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A friend of mine in the SF says you cannot do that - "expeditionary COIN" is Foreign Internal Defence.



Agreed - but surely this is, in many ways, exactly what we have been doing in AStan?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2010)

COIN or FID?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Jun 2010)

Expeditionary COIN - which apparently equals FID....


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Aug 2010)

Do you think anyone will notice this?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100823/world/af_congo_rapes


----------



## medicineman (23 Aug 2010)

Someone with a bleeding heart will I'm sure...question is will it be the NDP and will they scream like little girls for us to take over the mission?  Of course, the Congolese government doesn't want us there anyway...hey, didn't we have a problem with that place back in the 60's?  And didn't they have a bit of a problem with us?  Maybe I'm just getting my history screwed up.

MM


----------



## Journeyman (23 Aug 2010)

Hey, there's big changes happening. 

Why just last month, the UN Security Council voted _unanimously_ to change the mission's title from United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) to United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO).

If that doesn't sort out the rebels and the Congolese Army, I don't know what will   :nod:


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Aug 2010)

Victory declared, peace in our time.  now back to headquarters for debriefing and cocktails.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Aug 2010)

I would not be at all surprised if we found ourselves in the Congo over the next few years


----------



## SeanNewman (23 Aug 2010)

While I certainly make no effort to speak for the CF or for anyone else, I strongly get the feeling that if Canada ever sends us on a blue beret mission like they did in the 90s (or earlier), they are going to get very different mission results.

Even with oppressive ROE, I just don't know of anyone I serve with that would allow that sort of thing to happen nearby without making all efforts to stop it.

I'm not saying that peacekeepers in the 1990s didn't do a great job, just that most of today's soldiers went through training and went through their first tour in a full-combat environment.  Those factors, plus listening to lessons learned like those from Gen Dallaire himself, and you end up with (I believe) a force on the ground that won't be content with "Please stop what you're doing or I'll write it down".


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> While I certainly make no effort to speak for the CF or for anyone else, I strongly get the feeling that if Canada ever sends us on a blue beret mission like they did in the 90s (or earlier), they are going to get very different mission results.
> 
> Even with oppressive ROE, I just don't know of anyone I serve with that would allow that sort of thing to happen nearby without making all efforts to stop it.
> 
> I'm not saying that peacekeepers in the 1990s didn't do a great job, just that most of today's soldiers went through training and went through their first tour in a full-combat environment.  Those factors, plus listening to lessons learned like those from Gen Dallaire himself, and you end up with (I believe) a force on the ground that won't be content with "Please stop what you're doing or I'll write it down".




If, more likely when we get involved in the _slow motion explosion_ (one little fire after another, at ever increasing frequencies until, for all intents and purposes, the whole place has _exploded_) in Africa it is likely that, despite the blue berets, the ROE will be pretty robust. I do not detect any political or bureaucratic stomach for even the slightest risk of another Rwanda. That being said, people are fickle and governments tend to react to public opinion, not lead or form it. The _spark_ that ignites public outrage, and consequential demands to "do something, now (even if it's wrong and even if we'll hate it tomorrow)" could be just something like this incident - inconsequential, in and of itself (I apologize to those who find that cruel, but ...) but able to inflame uninformed, unthinking public opinion and, subsequently, to force governments to react. Further, bad leadership, a hallmark of UN missions - even when they are led by Canadians, can also have the effect of making even good troops, with good, robust ROE look bad.

I have a hunch that the situations tend to dictate their own outcomes - much more so, anyway, than do the troops on the ground.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2010)

Peacekeeping in Africa can be just as messy as it is in Afghanistan. I'm all for logisitcal support but putting first line troops in a peacekeeping role is a waste of resources. The Indians and others want to do this type of work and its cheaper to pay them to do it.



> UN peacekeepers hacked to death in Congo
> By Africa correspondent Andrew Geoghegan
> 
> Updated Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:20am AEST
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Aug 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Indians and others want to do this type of work and its cheaper to pay them to do it.



Ah yes - the old send in the Colonial troops 'cus it looks messy.  That worked out real well for the British and Roman Empires...


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Aug 2010)

What can be done with a battalion task force ? The Indians have plenty of manpower which is their strength. The US is not going to deploy a division in the Congo and keep it there for an extended period of time. The Indians dont have global commitments that we have. So its not "send in the colonials",rather its an acknowledgement that the ABCA countries dont have large standing armies like we used to. The Indians and Chinese do. Of the two I would rather see large numbers of Indians doing the business.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2010)

If anyone is going into Africa in any useful strength then I am pretty sure they will be working alongside a larger Chinese contingent. China has more interests in Africa than just resources ~ any _solutions_ to Africa's manifold problems will have a Chinese component to them.


----------



## MGB (24 Aug 2010)

Pardon this dated article:  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/30/canadian-military-congo-deployment.html

While I do not have the breadth of knowledge to tackle this subject, I do want to say that I don't think we're heading to the Congo as it seems far too politically messy. And while there have been strong commitments to by our government to pull out of Afghanistan next year, the opposition has said they would continue our combat role. A fall election could change many things... and I don't think that means we're heading to Africa.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2010)

MGB is correct: Congo, all of Africa in fact, is _politically messy_ and there is no discernible will in Ottawa, discernible to me anyway, to jump from one mess to another. I doubt that the Liberal 'world view' is or will be much different from that of the Tories; the NDP will continue to demand that we offer "all aid short of help." But I reiterate my point that events (and ill-informed public opinion about the relative _importance_ of those events) tend to drive policy, not _vice versa_.


----------



## Marlowe (24 Aug 2010)

The Congo mission was floated a few months back and the decision was made that it was a frikkin' mess and we need to step back. However, that was based on a desire to get a command. By the time we are out of Afghanistan and the UN comes calling again, someone might be stupid enough to commit resources.

Unfortunately, due to Canada's interests in Sudan, it is likely that we'll get pressured into beefing up either UNAMID or--more likely--UNMIS. Neither is a good idea. I think UNAMID might be the best bet. Freedom of Movement restrictions, inability to make a difference, hated by all sides, sure, but UNMIS has all of the above, plus a front row seat to a country falling into anarchy, no matter how much aid money we pump in there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... bad leadership, a hallmark of UN missions - even when they are led by Canadians, can also have the effect of making even good troops, with good, robust ROE look bad.
> 
> I have a hunch that the situations tend to dictate their own outcomes - much more so, anyway, than do the troops on the ground.





Further to my comment, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, illustrates why the UN is ill suited to _keep the peace_ unless and until there is a real, stable, _peace_ to be kept:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/un-peacekeepers-unaware-of-congo-mass-rape-for-two-weeks/article1685840/


> UN peacekeepers unaware of Congo mass rape for two weeks
> *Despite being in the area of rebel-occupied Luvungi town, ‘horrific’ rapes of at least 154 women and children escaped detection*
> 
> Edith M. Lederer
> ...




If the UN really wants to “protect civilians” it is going to have to insert a large, *militarily capable* _peacemaking_ force. Those two attributes require that e.g. the African Union is out, but who is to be ‘in?’ Britain, France, Canada and Australia, for example, do not have enough forces for large scale _peacemaking_ in a huge country like Congo (2,345,409 km2 – twice the size of Ontario which has an area of 1,076,395 km2). Maybe we do have to call on China and India. We certainly should call on someone because the current UN force is inept - that is we should call on someone if we actually give a damn.



Edit: typo


----------



## SeanNewman (27 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... Those two attributes require that e.g. the African Union is out, but who is to be ‘in?’...



Too many African countries to keep track of, but in Sudan I know the big thing was that the UN wasn't even invited* and their government stated that any intervention had to be African-only troops.

At least the Congo seems like it's more open to having larger external forces there.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2010)

What is lacking is a clear definition of what our national interest is in spending blood and treasure in the Congo (or Haiti or Afghanistan or the Sudan or....)

Even though it seems pretty clear to me why we should be in Afghanistan (promote stability in a region literally ringed with nuclear armed nations, and prevent the use of the territory to shelter terrorist groups), this was never clearly and forcefully communicated to the public, which means we are now backed into a corner of leaving by an arbitrary date rather than according to some clearly defined metric. (If I were _Generalissimo_, we would not leave until at least 2015, when the first batch of the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 graduated and there was now a critical mass of educated people to actually run things in Afghanistan. You may choose your own measure of success). I cannot even imagine what sort of achievable metric we could use in the Congo given our tiny resource base; even providing logistical and C3I support to a vastly larger Indian contingent still begs the question: What are we supposed to achieve there?

I suppose we *could* decide that being totally ruthless is in order; we choose one warlord and train and equip his army to defeat all opposition so then we at least know who we are dealing with, but optics aside, what is to stop other nations from training and equipping their favorite warlords and fighting us by proxy?

In the end, going into Africa will be like jumping into a pool of quicksand. These so called humanitarians want us to go in there with no plan, no end state, minimal resources and expect us to achieve a miricle. They will also be the very first to scream in outrage as we take casualties or engage hostile militias, terrorists and local warlords in the Congo; a loose/loose situation all around.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If the UN really wants to “protect civilians” it is going to have to insert a large, *militarily capable* _peacemaking_ force. Those two attributes require that e.g. the African Union is out, but who is to be ‘in?’ Britain, France, Canada and Australia, for example, do not have enough forces for large scale _peacemaking_ in a huge country like Congo (2,345,409 km2 – twice the size of Ontario which has an area of 1,076,395 km2). Maybe we do have to call on China and India. We certainly should call on someone because the current UN force is inept - that is we should call on someone if we actually give a damn.



The whole of the Congo may be twice the size of Ontario, but most of the action is in the eastern/central half of the country.  That being said, it is still a massive area to cover.  The attached map gives some indication of the current UN troop deployment.  Again making a comparison with Ontario, imagine the forces needed to control Northern Ontario (which has a better road system and probably easier terrain) if half (or somewhat less) of a population of 52 million was spread out over that region.  Though there are some large population centres, it is still a very rural and remote area.  I readily agree that the current UN force is inept, however, I can also understand some of the challenges they face.  For instance, mobility off the main roads can be exceedingly difficult.  Being able to provide a reasonable presence to protect civilians is (IMO) impossible with the current troop levels, even if those troops were “ept”.  There has been as much "mandate creep" as there is usually "mission creep".  Originally, the main focus of the force's mandate was to be similar to:





> In the area of stabilization and peace consolidation in the DRC, MONUC would, among other things, assist the Government, along with international and bilateral partners, in strengthening its military capacity, including military justice and military police; support the reform of the police; develop and implement a multi-year joint United Nations justice support programme in order to develop the criminal justice chain, the police, the judiciary and prisons in conflict-affected areas and a strategic programmatic support at the central level in Kinshasa; support the Congolese Government in consolidating State authority in the territory freed from armed groups.


Protecting the population has now became the primary mandate of the mission.  Expecting the DRC military (probably as incompetent as they are corruptible) to join them as protectors of the population would be a pipe dream.

India is currently the largest contributor of troops to the mission (over 20%) including the present force commander. 
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/facts.shtml


> *Current strength*
> These figures reflect the strength of MONUC, the preceeding UN Mission in the DRC, as of 30 June 2010
> 
> 20,586 total uniformed personnel
> ...





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Too many African countries to keep track of, but in Sudan I know the big thing was that the UN wasn't even invited* and their government stated that any intervention had to be African-only troops.
> 
> At least the Congo seems like it's more open to having larger external forces there.



There is a significant difference between the two situations.  Khartoum probably doesn’t want robust foreign military forces acting as a buffer between warring parties on its territory because of their involvement in Darfur, even if peripherally.  The UN force in the Congo, however, is there to support the government, not stand between it and other actors.  The Kabilas (father and son) probably had enough of the military forces of other African nations being on their turf.  It was fine when Uganda and Rwanda supported them in their successful rebellion against Mobutu, but they didn’t want to leave when the older Kabila (before his assassination) told them to go home.  The ensuing “Second Congo War” was mainly to get them to leave.  When that conflict ended (well at least when the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed) there were also forces from Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad (as well as Sudan and Libya on the edges) inside the country.  The Kinshasa government may suspect that a stabilization force exclusively from AU nations may not be able (or want) to support it against the other anti-government armed bodies remaining (or want to leave when the mandate is fulfilled, like most of the other African nations which have helped them in the past).



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suppose we *could* decide that being totally ruthless is in order; we choose one warlord and train and equip his army to defeat all opposition so then we at least know who we are dealing with, but optics aside, what is to stop other nations from training and equipping their favorite warlords and fighting us by proxy?



Whether good or bad, we (in the form of the UN) have already chosen; surprisingly, the winner is the “legitimate” government of the Democratic Republic of Congo.  How it got to be the legitimate government and has been for several years is as convoluted and bloody as any political process in Africa.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What is lacking is a clear definition of what our national interest is in spending blood and treasure in the Congo (or Haiti or Afghanistan or the Sudan or....)



What do you consider to be our vital national interests?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> What do you consider to be our vital national interests?



The million dollar question.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2010)

For an interesting view on the topic of interests and values, see Michael Ignatieff's 2004 Skelton Lecture here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/ignatieff.aspx?lang=eng

The rest of the lectures are available here:

http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/lectures-conferences.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=8&menu=R


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> For an interesting view on the topic of interests and values, see Michael Ignatieff's 2004 Skelton Lecture here:
> 
> http://www.international.gc.ca/odskelton/ignatieff.aspx?lang=eng
> 
> ...







			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Ignatieff came to the (Canadian political) fore after a barn-burner of a speech at the 2005 Liberal convention. He can be engaged and passionate, as he (evidently) was in Toronto in 2005. Perhaps his problem, in the intervening five years, is that he really doesn’t believe in what he’s selling. The Liberal brain trust is looking for another Trudeau. I do not think _Iggy Iffy Icarus_ is that – not in his heart and mind, anyway. He is, I guess, a classical liberal pragmatist, in the mould of St Laurent and Pearson, not an ideologue like Trudeau or Harper, nor a retail politician like Mulroney or Chrétien. But I doubt the core of the Liberal Party of Canada Toronto has room for any classical *liberal* pragmatists.
> 
> Big L Liberal and _liberal_ have been at odds since 1967.



And see here.

It is interesting to try to tie the current Michael Ignatieff, _Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition_, with the Ignatieff of 2004/05 who could say …

_”Our … task as Canadians is to preserve our national independence. We face a geopolitical reality unlike any other country: The greatest challenge to our sovereignty comes not from our enemies, but from our best friend. Canadian-American relations are the central issue of Canadian politics in the next generation. Liberals have always said no to anti-Americanism … We are reliable neighbours, good friends, but firm defenders of our sovereignty … But we cannot defend our sovereignty with sermons. We must have our own military, intelligence-gathering capacity, immigration and border controls, control of our air space. Our independence depends on our being a credible partner in the struggle to keep North America safe from terrorist attack. Like it or not, we are next door to the primary target of global terrorism. We must invest to ensure we are never a terrorist transit point or a terrorist haven … In the world's failed and failing states, the most urgent human need is security. People at the mercy of tyrants and gunmen need protection first of all. To protect them, we have to have the capacity to fire back. We do not want to repeat Rwanda … We owe this to our men and women in uniform. And to the world.”_ (Speech to the March 2005 Liberal national convention)

and

_”Defence of our independence should dictate the terms of our co-operation with the Americans on immigration, border security and continental defence. Our independence cannot be defended by anyone else: so we have to pay for it, with a national defence capability that can secure our borders and protect our people, in alliance with others, but in fundamental independence of their capabilities and capacities. We should not sell our co-operation cheaply, but we can only strike the right bargain if we have adequate capabilities. I line up squarely with those -- like Jack Granatstein-- who have been saying for years that we do not spend enough on intelligence, border security and national defence, and we do not know what to spend it on. We need to spend with a vital interest in mind: maintaining, securing and defending the territorial integrity of Canada and the safety of Canadians at home and overseas. Peacekeeping in Haiti and Afghanistan is worthwhile, but peacekeeping alone cannot provide the sole content of our defence posture. We need to keep our own borders secure; we need special forces capability for rescue and counter-terrorist activity. We need to substantially bolster our intelligence-gathering and evaluation capabilities. However we reconfigure our armed forces, and I am no defender of the separate identities or procurement budgets of our forces, we need to maintain combat-capable land forces and we still need to have boats to secure our coast lines and planes to patrols our skies. Independence has to guide our defence decisions. We do not want to arrive at a situation where Canadian lives are in danger, at home or abroad, and we have to be dependent on someone else's capabilities, whether diplomatic, intelligence or military, to get us out of trouble. A helping hand from a friend is one thing, dependency is another. A helping hand to a friend is one thing -- and so we should provide security co-operation, border monitoring in a close and co-operative manner -- but subservience is another. Negatively, we must not be dependent, and we must not be subservient. Positively, we must stand on our own two feet.”_ (2004 Skelton lecture)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And see here.
> 
> It is interesting to try to tie the current Michael Ignatieff, _Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition_, with the Ignatieff of 2004/05 who could say …



And that guy is the one that I believe the country needs right now - just wish I could find him!


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And that guy is the one that I believe the country needs right now - just wish I could find him!




Too true ... because we aren't allowed to say +1 any more.


----------



## GAP (28 Aug 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Too true ... because we aren't allowed to say +1 any more.



Uhhh.....ERC....it was you who complained about the (unmentionable number with the plus sign).... ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Oct 2010)

Post  at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

The _Globe and Mail’s_ stinking agenda, Congo section
http://unambig.com/the-globe-and-mails-stinking-agenda-congo-section/



> In a story he clearly worked hard to create, ace agenda-ist Geoffrey York in Johannesburg singles out Canada for not helping the UN peacekeeping force with helicopters.  What about the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden etc., etc., etc.? Then there’s Portugal, eh?  None of them seems to want to anwer the call either...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## goalie_66@hotmail.com (21 Oct 2010)

Over the last 15 years with the problems in the Democratic Republic of Congo going out of control and the UN mission moving from only a couple thousand to over 20,000 soldiers(from 50 + countries) Why is it the CF only sees fit to put in four officers. Considering that one of the goals in Afghanistan is equality of women. Anybody who spends five min looking at any credible sources coming out of the DRC knows that it is the world focal point for committing violence against women. On top of that it is geographically located in the middle of Africa which allows for the region as a whole to be destabilized. Don’t get me wrong I understand there is a large commitment in materials and men in Afghanistan and I am not suggesting we send a battle group but perhaps with the recent loss of the security council seat Canada may want to step it up to show a committee for world security beyond the middle east if it ever hopes of getting back on the security council.


----------



## medicineman (21 Oct 2010)

goalie_66@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> Why is it the CF only sees fit to put in four officers?



That's what the government told us to send. 

MM


----------



## Journeyman (21 Oct 2010)

Two for two.   :

You've joined this site and immediately started two threads, where the topic is already being discussed.

The thread on The Congo even discusses things like "national interest."


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2010)

Looking a bit up post, I am somewhat surprised that Edward did not bring out St. Laurent's 1947 Grey Lectures as a starting point to define our "national interests".

To date I haven't seen anything to compare, and thinking about this I can see the influence in some of the measures we have taken since (memberships in various multilateral organizations like the OAS, WTO etc., the FTA and NAFTA in the economic sphere and our increasing engagement in military missions since the 1990's).

Maybe if Mr Ignatieff could find a phone booth and emerge as the 2005 version, or some deep thinker out there could start the debate for real, then we would be able to choose which missions to participate in in the knowledge that they are important to Canada, and that we have the will and resources to see things through.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Oct 2010)

Why the _Globe and Mail_ is not a newspaper, Part 2 (Congo section)
http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

What will be the cost in human terms? OSIs, physical wounds, broken relationships, suicide, susbtance abuse...


----------



## GAP (11 Dec 2010)

This seem to be the appropriate thread to put this in without starting a new thread.

 The Blog is about treating the rape victims in the Congo on a first person basis..........very powerful story.

the king effect
an account of living and working around Butembo, North Kivu, in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Article Link

Notes From a Young American in Congo: Treating Rape Victims, for Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Dec 2010)

Deja vu all over again - _Globe & Mail_ again picks on Canada doing nothing about Congo:


> It has become a grim Christmas ritual: hundreds of innocent civilians massacred in remote corners of Africa by the Lord’s Resistance Army, one of the world’s cruellest and bloodiest guerrilla forces.
> 
> Now, fearing a Christmas attack for the third consecutive year, the United Nations is mobilizing 900 peacekeepers to protect villages in Congo, and the United States has promised its own action against the LRA.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jan 2011)

Some very wise words from Louis Delvoie in the current issue (p. 28) of _On Track_, the magazine of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute:

What Next for the Canadian Forces? Not the Congo
http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/uploads/cdai/ontrack15n4.pdf



> With the end of Canada’s involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan now in sight, the media have begun to publish articles speculating on where the Canadian Forces might next be deployed. Without saying so explicitly, these articles seem to suggest that because Canada now has a well-trained, well equipped and battle hardened army, that army should be sent abroad somewhere once it has finished its Afghan mission. This is rather curious reasoning. It tends to ignore the fact that the Canadian Forces exist to protect and promote the security and interests of Canada and Canadians. In the absence of any threat to that security or those interests, the Canadian Forces should remain in their barracks against the day when such a threat may emerge. To deploy them abroad simply because of their capabilities is sheer nonsense.
> 
> This line of argument is, of course, totally lost on proponents of the so-called human security agenda who advocate using the Canadian Forces to defend civilian populations at risk in civil war situations around the world, even in the absence of any discernible Canadian interest. The main focus of these proponents at the moment seems to be the Democratic Republic of the Congo [with the _Globe and Mail_ in the lead],
> http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2011)

To have any impact on the situation, we would need to send a full division to the Congo. In order to do that, we would need a minimum of three divisions of troops and equipment in the Army, and air and naval elements to support such a force (in addition to doing their own jobs of surveillance and protection of Canadian air and sea space).

I wonder if the writers at the Globe thought of that, calculated the costs or are in any way advocating for tripling or quadrupling the size of the CF and providing the attendant equipment, infrastructure and training funds to match?


----------

