# Responses to Boots on the ground... but where?



## Mike Bobbitt (18 May 2006)

Please post all replies to the "Boots on the ground... but where?" Editorial here.


----------



## couchcommander (18 May 2006)

That report is really getting a well deserved rough ride here at army.ca!

If only the media could be so critical.


----------



## stevenstaples (19 May 2006)

To “the Ruxted Group.”

Thanks for highlighting our report this week. 

A couple of brief responses…

First, you suggest “the timing of the release of the ‘analysis’ is highly suspect, coming as it did immediately before a critical vote on the future of Canadian operations in Afghanistan.” 

Not really fellas, because I began my press conference yesterday by saying we were urging MPs to vote “no” on the mission extension, and then cited the report’s findings as one of my reasons for making the recommendation – so no conspiracy here. 

Regarding your point about omitting a “contextual analysis of the UN's current operations,” the report quite clearly compares our UN peacekeeping contribution to international contributions, and we even pulled out all of the NATO-members’ contributions (which arguably supports the government’s case – not ours). 

In fact, _the whole point _ of the report is to put Canada’s UN peacekeeping contribution in a larger context – both international mission spending and international UN contributions.

On the methodology, any reader of the report will see we were very transparent by including both the Full Cost and the Incremental Cost of missions in the study – in fact we put them side-by-side in the same table. Then, we listed in detail, every mission we used to calculate the numbers.

So, you can quibble with our “Afghanistan-related” definition, but the only reason you are able to argue this point is because we went to such lengths to show where our numbers came from (all DND numbers and definitions, you’ll note).

And anyway, when Stephen Harper chats with George W. Bush about Canada’s contribution to the war effort, which number do you think he uses – the full cost, or the incremental cost?

Cheers,

Steve


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 May 2006)

Wow, 
Just read the "report", I want my two minutes back. You know, before I came to work tonight I read my daughters book report and even in Grade 7 they teach them something the Polaris "Institute" seems to have forgotten,....a point.

The "Institute" seems to be what Steve Martin refered to John Candy as,..... a "Chatty Cathy Doll,...just pull the string and "blah,blah,blah".


----------



## KevinB (19 May 2006)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> First, you suggest “the timing of the release of the ‘analysis’ is highly suspect, coming as it did immediately before a critical vote on the future of Canadian operations in Afghanistan.”
> 
> Not really fellas, because I began my press conference yesterday by saying we were urging MPs to vote “no” on the mission extension, and then cited the report’s findings as one of my reasons for making the recommendation – so no conspiracy here.



 : -- Stephen so you admit releasing your report on that day with the intent of tampering with the vote via your skewed platform?



> Regarding your point about omitting a “contextual analysis of the UN's current operations,” the report quite clearly compares our UN peacekeeping contribution to international contributions, and we even pulled out all of the NATO-members’ contributions (which arguably supports the government’s case – not ours).
> 
> In fact, _the whole point _ of the report is to put Canada’s UN peacekeeping contribution in a larger context – both international mission spending and international UN contributions.
> 
> ...




Steve - again its fine to snipe (even innacurately) from the sidelines - but you need to offer a real solution.

1) There is NO mission (UN or NATO or Colation of the Willing) in Sudan so what do you propose?

2) You offer no solution to the safe and secure environment in Afghanistan if Canada was to unilaterally pull out.

3) You sound more like Tim Robbins character in Team America ranting about "the corporations" when you talk about Harper and Bush.

4) The UN is a disgusting bloated pig -- anyone who wants to go out by the resevoir in Kabul can see the nice beachhouses the UN put up for themselves for "weekend retreats" -- having served with the UN before (and embarrassed for it) I cannot say I am surprised.


----------



## paracowboy (19 May 2006)

"Peacekeeper"
I truly wish everyone would stop using that insulting term to describe the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Canadian Forces. Whether used as noun or verb, it demeans our service. 

You highlight a number of problems (as you see them) Steve. What are your solutions?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2006)

Mr. Staples I have one clear and concise question.  What are your credentials that make you an expert in the military and what and how we should be doing things.  This is a serious question and not meant to fish or troll.


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2006)

Mr Staples,

I do admire and respect the fact that you take the time to come here and discuss what you've released.  Cheers.

I'm curious, your stance (or perhaps the Polaris Group's stance) on ending the mission in Afghanistan seems to be driven by the desire to maintain this "Peacekeeper" image that is often conjured up - an image I've yet to really see despite the fact that I've been deployed on a NATO "peace-support op" (or whatever it is called this week) and that most of the Canadian soldiers I've had the pleasure of serving with who donned the blue beret in the past abhor the idea of it becoming our _raison d'etre_.

Anyways, my views aside, from what I understand, the desire to pull away from the warfighting operation in Southern Afghanistan seems (and I may be wrong) tied to an effort to get a force of blue-hatted Canadian soldiers into Darfur to deal with the conflict going on there.  Is this course of action one that is supported by yourself or the Polaris Institute?  A quick scan through some of your published literature leads me to believe this to be the case, as it cites Jack Layton's criticism of our support of the "warlike" US OEF and the fact that our contribution to this mission is to the detriment of our "traditional support for the United Nations."  Today, criticism of this nature seems to come hand-in-hand with condemnation of Western governments for not deploying to the Sudan.

If so, why Darfur and not Afghanistan?  As well, how can you reconcile your criticisms of our mission to Afghanistan and US policy in general with the realities that would be entailed by a deployment to Darfur, which has been highlighted quite clearly by another member here: 



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> Iraq "didn't attack anyone on 9/11" .. well, neither did Sudan. We're "warmongers" for wanting to attack Iraq after a broken cease fire agreement and many acts of war, but they are "peacekeepers" for wanted to attack Sudan after no threats against us. Are they advocating we "unilaterally invade" Sudan (with a coalition of 0) , like they nattered at us for "unilaterally invading" Iraq (with a coalition three dozen strong)? Do I see a UN mandate for this "illegal" war? Certainly would be less of a mandate than a broken cease fire agreement and about 16-18 resolutions. There's a genocide in Darfur? There was one in Iraq. Where's the international outcry at this "abhorant" "imperialistic" dialogue? We certainly can't attack the Janjaweed without a unanimous security council resolution (which has to explicitly outline the use of military force, btw.)
> 
> The hypocrisy and the double standards in this article and parroted elsewhere are astounding. So is the idea that stopping this conflict is somehow going to be "traditional peacekeeping", or at least more "traditional" than our actions in Afghanistan (Gee, I could ding them as "traditionalists" now too).  I don't recall any Invade Sudan plans being tabled by the NDP during the last election. Yet here is "warmonger" Layton wanting to abandon Afghanistan to the wolves and take on a considerably more difficult task (on our own, no less), all the while having no problem with a diminished CAF.
> 
> So go ahead, supporters of OEF and OIF, use every epithet and distorted catch-phrase that's ever been used against you. I have. It feels good. Thumbs up Ruxted Group.



If this is not the case and you are not opposing Afghanistan for the purpose of a Blue Beret mission to Darfur, then I apologize for making the assumption but then I guess I must then redirect you to the question posed by the Ruxted Editor in the above article:

*"There is no contextual analysis of the UN's current operations, including the actual requirement for large, well-armed "peacekeeping" forces to conduct Security and Stabilization operations in the absence of a true desire for peace by the warring parties.  Given that there is no current UN mission in Darfur, where does Polaris suggest Canada begin to participate?"*

Where are we to go?  If there is no suggestions for policy direction from the Polaris Group, am I to assume that a form of 1930's isolationism is your goal?


----------



## couchcommander (19 May 2006)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> So, you can quibble with our “Afghanistan-related” definition, but the only reason you are able to argue this point is because we went to such lengths to show where our numbers came from (all DND numbers and definitions, you’ll note).



Such lengths? You've got to me kidding me. It's called a bare minimum, something I can get away with posting here, casually on a forum, but definitely completely 100% insufficient as far as a report from an "institute" goes. 

Proper referencing would include specific pages, appendix's showing all of your calculations, and sources which validate your inclusion of the missions in question, all presented in a well recognized standard format.  The fact I had to go looking through the RPP's to find out exactly how you got your numbers is a testament to the fact that this was in fact not done correctly. 

Regardles, this statement is pointless and designed to try and diffuse a major flaw in your methodology by redirecting the argument, Mr. Spokesman. You either:

A) Didn't know that most significantly OP Apollo, as well as other operations, had significant elements or were in their entirety unrelated to our mission in Afghanistan.

or

B) Purposefully misrepresented, *at the very least*, 400 million dollars of mission spending to try and push your agenda. 

Please excuse me if I seem a little on edge regarding this, but I have heard a lot of ignorant statements come out of the Polaris Institute, even for a relatively ignorant civvie like myself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 May 2006)

So, ideally, we should expect the full weight of the fully informed, practically experienced, non partisan researchers of the Polaris Institute to respond to our reasoned and, so far, intelligent and educated debate? Let Polaris, who've never served a day, never drank putrid water, nor ate mouldy IMPs, wondered whether today was their last, or even considered a soldier's job or what it would be like to be the one on the wire at 00:dark thirty responsible for two thousand lives, respond to our criticisms. Their job is not to protect Canada and it's citizens or soldiers, but to protect their political bosses and the warped view they wish to project.

The Lieberals, NDP and the BQ have been pushing their anti Afghan agenda for weeks. Finally, Harper called them on it. Oh!! We didn't have time!!! This isn't fair!!! This was no more than a case of "Put up or shut up!!" and the opposition lost. The majority of Canadians agree with what we are doing and how we are doing it. Polaris and CBC be damned. Most of the countries radio and newspaper polls for the last two days supported Harper, by a large majority.

S. Staples has real experience to speak to the true issues that the soldier on the ground nor the diplomat in the field has experience in. If he can defend his status otherwise, he can post here, with the rest of us that have "Been there, done that" and can "Walk the walk, not just talk the talk". Otherwise, he and his ilk are nothing more than high paid mouth pieces for the opposition.

I could be wrong, and more likely am, but it wouldn't suprise me. The Polaris Institute came on line when the lieberals realized they were in major trouble. Nothing they have ever put forward has been proven in fact, but has always been against Harper. The best they've been able to do is the world according to the Cretin or Martin, both proven liars and cheats. They are paid for by, possibly, more money that has been, hidden, moved, buried, double booked or flat out stolen by the previous dictators, that tried to subjugate the people of the country. The Polaris Institute seems to be nothing more than a last ditch effort, of a now forgotten, supporting the lost, immoral and unpopular ideas of a now dead and defunct (hopefully not to be resurrected) lieberal government.

Any other time, I would push for such a poser to be banned. However, simply because of the supposed national status of this so called psuedo institute, I'll leave it be. Really, they are nobody. A thrown together consortium of like minded, self proclaimed, know nothing commoners. They have no real political or more importantly, military status. They have no time in the troops. No doubt, they have more time in the political trenches than most, but their Generals are all paper tigers, with no combat time. Their arguments and statistics are only valuable and important to the ignorant and uninformed, and don't stand against the scrutiny and examination, or real world experience, of the informed veterans and true experts on these subjects.

Staples and the "Institute" are not even worth the time it took to type this response. They are not the experts, nor do they speak for the majority of informed and patriotic Canadians. They speak only to their political masters.


----------



## MJP (19 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, ideally, we should expect the full weight of the fully informed, practically experienced, non partisan researchers of the Polaris Institute to respond to our reasoned and, so far, intelligent and educated debate? Let Polaris, who've never served a day, never drank putrid water, nor ate mouldy IMPs, wondered whether today was their last, or even considered a soldier's job or what it would be like to be the one on the wire at 00:dark thirty responsible for two thousand lives, respond to our criticisms. Their job is not to protect Canada and it's citizens or soldiers, but to protect their political bosses and the warped view they wish to project.
> 
> The Lieberals, NDP and the BQ have been pushing their anti Afghan agenda for weeks. Finally, Harper called them on it. Oh!! We didn't have time!!! This isn't fair!!! This was no more than a case of "Put up or shut up!!" and the opposition lost. The majority of Canadians agree with what we are doing and how we are doing it. Polaris and CBC be damned. Most of the countries radio and newspaper polls for the last two days supported Harper, by a large majority.
> 
> ...



Quit holding back...tell us how you really feel.

+1 btw


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (19 May 2006)

Folks, let's stick to using facts here. We don't do anyone favours if we fall back to name calling, and it drags the discussion away from it's true aim. Let's let the details of the Polaris report and the Ruxted editorial duke it out and proclaim a winner based on that. Falling back to ad hominem responses gives the impression "we" don't have enough facts to make our case.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 May 2006)

So, to summarize the report:

1) We commit a lot of money and people to non-UN operations in southeast Asia, and
2) We don't commit very much money or people to UN operations.

That's very exciting, but so what?  Is this supposed to be a collective national penis-measuring contest at the UN in which we're failing to place well?

Having read Daillaire's accounts of UN behaviour in the matter of Rwanda; having compared UN proficiency and behaviour during the humanitarian response to the Indian Ocean tsunami to the proficiency and behaviour of ad hoc "coalitions of the willing"; having read of the UN's novel approaches to bartering with destitute and desperate children and women to provide them with food; and having read of the UN's notable unwillingness to live austerely in the field in order to better focus funding on relief efforts, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go near UN operations.  Is one supposed to be proud of reinforcing such corruption and failure?


----------



## HDE (22 May 2006)

Apparently lots of militaries in the third world love sending troops on UN missions, given how much the UN pays for each soldier there's money to be made, so when Staples uses a blunt object like "numbers of troops sent on UN peacekeeping" he's blowing smoke and hoping nobody notices.  Where/how does he compare effectiveness :


----------



## GAP (22 May 2006)

I have recently made a point of listening to some of the full speeches on CPAC of Senator Daillaire's.
 I now understand why the press only quotes him in little snippets. Not to begrudge his previous rank and experience, but you need a scoreboard to follow his speech. It is pure bureaucratize. Every sentence is past and present referenced to the degree you forget what the sentence was originally about...really frustrating to determine exactly what he was trying to say. Maybe that was the point

I am not focusing on Daillaire, so much as the rhetoric and non-speak of anything relating to Darfur. Lots of empty words, little of substance, except that which is read between the lines and is completely subjective.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 May 2006)

Mr Staples fails to give any reason why it would be preferable for Canada to take part in operations that are run directly by the UN rather than those (both Enduring Freedom and NATO ISAF) that are authorized by the UN Security Council but not run by the UN.

The UNSC imprimatur is the same in both cases; the latter however are better run.

Everyone who is advocating for a UN mission in Darfur (Dallaire, Keith Martin et al.) is demanding that it be a Chapter VII mission and thus not "traditional peacekeeping".  Indeed such a mission would almost certainly involve combat.  So can Mr Staples explain the essential difference from the mission in Afstan, other than who is in direct charge?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## HDE (23 May 2006)

I saw the Dallaire speech on Rwanda on CPAC.  During the Q and A portion he mentionned he received units from Ghana and Bangladesh that didn't have any equipment and couldn't be used.  These are two of the units Staples refers to as supplying so many more "peacekeepers" than NATO countries..  Do the research, Stephen!


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

Harper just announced on CPAC that there will be increased support for the African Union force and increase in medical and food contributions


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2006)

I just checked online.  Is there anything out there in the usenet or internet?


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

on Rutherford right now


----------



## GAP (23 May 2006)

We are providing food & water, health care, etc through UN $40million. No troops, just support for making African Union troops more effective. When talking about food & water I wonder if they are talking about using DART?


----------



## probum non poenitet (23 May 2006)

I think asking for practical plans from the Jack Layton crowd is like tilting at windmills.
A tangible plan is 'subject to reality' i.e. scrutiny, and therefore isn't very likely from those who find it easier to criticize rather than propose ideas.

Maybe some of you archive hounds could dig back to 1992-3, but weren't the NDP gravely upset at our 'belligerent methods' in Yugo back in the early days? Now our 'reckless militarism' has turned into 'a cherished Canadian peacekeeping tradition'?
I must have missed something when I went to the fridge.

I'm committing an army.ca sin here by going off of memory, but I seem to remember all sorts of doomsaying about how the UN peacemaking in Yugo was the beginning of the Fascist Apocalypse. Now the NDP sees them as the halcyon days of Canadian nice-ism.
Anybody feel like digging through Hansard?

I know, I know, it's about scoring political points, it isn't about truth.
Which brings me to:

7 things you will never see from the Security Council and/or Jack Layton:

	a.	A clear mandate for intervention, outlining whether the Government of Sudan was considered a supporter or opponent, and what to do if the Government of Sudan does not cooperate with the intervention. (i.e. forcible overthrow if they stop playing along, not a tersely worded Christmas Card)
	b.	Clear rules of engagement, and delegation to field commanders to take organized offensive action if the situation warrants. These should be clearly announced ahead of time so that 'black ops' (i.e. soldiers bending the rules to defend themselves) become a thing of the past. This means politicians and not soldiers might have to take responsibility for things going wrong and people getting killed. Ouch.
	c.	An acknowledgement that some nation's contingents are ineffective at combat duties. Anyone who has served with them knows who they are. Don't say it out loud though, or you will be a neo-colonialist.
	d.	A clear military hierarchy that will step in and kill/destroy any who offer a military challenge to that authority. Call it the 'Srebrenica was Bullshit' clause, or perhaps 'Do you speak B-52?'
	e.	Clear intent to disarm the militias, kill/capture those who resist. And don't hand back the weapons to the factions you took them from. Who the hell thought that one up?
	f.	Clear intent to administer aid, but a pre-existing plan to imprison those who skim the aid for personal use - both locals and those wearing blue hats. I hear Alcatraz is empty. You listening Kofi?
	g.	A clear end-state: i.e. new form of government in Sudan, new state in Darfur, Green Line, I don't know, let the smart people pick the smartest one. Just pick one and make it clear and don't change it every three weeks when someone does something violent to change your mind. And give the governments who are sending soldiers there the option to read over your end-state, and exclaim, "Why that is the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long while. We will not participate." Oh, hang on, we're doing that now.

There are more points I'm forgetting, but you get the idea.
You won't see the above-criteria from the idealists. It's why they love the UN so much, and why soldiers generally hate the UN so much.
The UN is not a concrete alternative, it's an idea, a concept, like Cubism or Zen. Only more expensive.

Goes to my underlying theory of the universe that most people would be really bummed out if they actually got their way.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 May 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> Maybe some of you archive hounds could dig back to 1992-3, but weren't the NDP gravely upset at our 'belligerent methods' in Yugo back in the early days? Now our 'reckless militarism' has turned into 'a cherished Canadian peacekeeping tradition'?
> I must have missed something when I went to the fridge.
> 
> I'm committing an army.ca sin here by going off of memory, but I seem to remember all sorts of doomsaying about how the UN peacemaking in Yugo was the beginning of the Fascist Apocalypse. Now the NDP sees them as the halcyon days of Canadian nice-ism.
> ...



 Modify that to the NDP and the Reform Party, and I would agree with you. http://www.parl.gc.ca/35/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/206_95-05-29/206ED1E.html#12932


----------



## GAP (24 May 2006)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160837Z_01_L24517616_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SUDAN-DARFUR-NATO.xml&archived=False



> NATO says African Union asks for more Darfur help
> Wed May 24, 2006 5:08 PM BST
> BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The African Union has accepted a NATO offer to extend its assistance in Sudan's violent Darfur region, the Western military alliance said on Wednesday, stressing its presence there would remain small.
> 
> ...



This thing is going to be a real nightmare


----------



## pbi (24 May 2006)

Probum: I concur: we went through almost exactly the same doom-saying, hand-wringing, cut-and-run type of thinking during our time in Yugo. "The people don't want us there" and "Why are Canadian soldiers dying there" and  "let's come home", etc. Ironically enough, IIRC it really only died away once the US and NATO (those hideous forces for evildoing...) got engaged, backed the Serbs into a corner and put a "real" military force on the ground. IMHO, it was that pathological Canadian public reaction to Yugo that led our govt (and NDHQ...) to hide the truth of Medak. It was the Yugo experience, I think, that showed us once and for all that if you are going to use military force to achieve a political objective, do it in a coherent, credible and effective way, or pack up.

Cheers


----------



## couchcommander (26 May 2006)

Oh where oh where did the Polaris Institute go?

I was looking forward to a lively debate.


----------



## warpig (27 May 2006)

There seems to be a trend by some of the focused forum members to bash the Polaris Report for whatever personal agenda they may have, instead of just looking at the data the report presents. I was only able to see the linked pdf file at this address http://www.polarisinstitute.org/pdf/bootsonground.pdf
and there could be more to it, but I do not see any “attack” on Canada’s contribution to World Security here at all. All I see is presented data that should be drawing the reader to some basic conclusions that we all know are self-evident. For example that while we don’t contribute to UN missions in a meaningful manner any more we have cycled through nearly 40% of our Combat Land Forces through Afghanistan and have spent more money on Specific Nation Building than most of the Developing Nations combined. Look at some greater facts to understand our Nation’s actual participation in regards to other Western Nations in UN operations for a trend. 

Belgium has 17
Japan 30
Holland 40
Demark 71
Norway 73
Italy 113
Germany 279 
United Kingdom 366 and
France 588.
America has 332, less per capita than we do, and has never contributed more than a tiny fraction of the soldiers on UN missions at the best of times.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/

If you look at the data from the above source the nations that contribute the most soldiers, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India have the majority in Liberia and Congo, both traditional Blue-Hat missions. It is also pertinent to note that these nations send a comparative fraction of their total military strength in line to what Canada sends. Also these three nations use very inexpensive troops pro-rated for UN cost to a NATO soldier in order to satisfy their UN monetary obligations instead of dollar contributions. The missions themselves are paid for by Western Nations, as stated in the UN’s own literature. 
A better example is Nepal, with more troops involved in UN missions than all the Western European countries combined (3,523) yet anyone who has served in the Former Yugoslavia knows those troops aren’t worth a total of an Infantry Tpt Platoon.  Raw numbers alone aren’t much to get exited about if you don’t look at the context.
One fact to note is that the Developing World has taken on more complex and challenging missions, and that’s a credit to the First World Nations that have trained them. But none of the missions Developing World Nations do are as complex as Afghanistan or East Timor or as dangerous as Iraq. 

So while some are using this forum to vent on a personal opinion perhaps some should view the figures in the context they were provided and understand what they really say: The Developing world is manning most UN missions now and Western Nations have focused their efforts on specific missions in line with our collective fear of Muslim Terrorism. Any Questions? How these facts bash on Canada’s contributions only you lot can say, I guess.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2006)

warpig: The Polaris Institute clearly wants people to think that service with UN missions is preferable and morally superior to service with any other sort of mission.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 May 2006)

Warpig for all we know you are Mr. Staples (no filled out profile).
Also have a look at all their previous rhetoric.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2006)

Further to the article posted by GAP
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43951/post-385562.html#msg385562

Why do our media keep repeating Gen. Dallaire's calls for substantial numbers of Canadian soldiers on the ground when it has been made clear they are not wanted (full text not online)?  Why do our reporters not ask the Senator about that?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060517.DARFUR17%2FTPStory%2FTPInternational%2FAfrica%2F&ord=9082250&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false
"...
UN diplomats say the force [if it is ever sent] is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes..."

And why I have seen the facts in the quote above mentioned only once, in that Globe article, and in no other Canadian media (at least as far as I have noticed)?-- whereas the Senator is quoted constantly.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## couchcommander (27 May 2006)

The problem is that the Polaris Institute is trying to use those numbers to push an agenda, which is pulling out of combat operations in Afghanistan, if not Afghanistan all together. 

You're right, any semi-litterate canadian with three working fingers can verify those numbers (the troop levels... the spending estimates, as I have pointed out several times, are kinda off the map), but it's the agenda behind pointing them out to a press conference in conjuction with some other questionable at best "facts" which we have a problem with. 

Honestly, if the Polaris Institute wants to come and out say "we think we shouldn't be Afghanistan because a), b), c), and instead we should be here due to a), b) and c)" well then great, lets hash it out.


----------



## warpig (29 May 2006)

For all those who think the world is coming to an end because somebody as an agenda other than yours you can relax now, the Conservatives won the election. Rather than become reactionary to any single small and barely threatening jab by those who don’t think exactly as you do, perhaps using their facts and expanding them for your own agenda would be preferable to a Divisional Frontal with Corp Level Artillery. 

Perhaps the Polaris Institute does want Canada to participate in more UN missions, and they would have a strong argument that there are places in the world right now that have Zero visibility to the West, for example Africa. The UN is the only ones who would like to do more that wax sympathetically about Darfur, for example. One could possibly get past their agenda and see the relative factualness of their point that the UN needs more support for these missions from the West if they are to get off the ground. Just a point to discuss, IF discussion is indeed some people’s intent here. 

And no, I’m not Mr Staples. Who would use such a nickname, aside from Ozzy freaks?


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Polaris Institute does want Canada to participate in more UN missions, and they would have a strong argument that there are places in the world right now that have Zero visibility to the West, for example Africa. *The UN is the only ones who would like to do more that wax sympathetically about Darfur, for example*. One could possibly get past their agenda and see the relative factualness of their point that the UN needs more support for these missions from the West if they are to get off the ground. Just a point to discuss, IF discussion is indeed some peoples intent here.



Wow, that was hilarious! The UN is the only organization that can produce idle chatter about Dafur and play word games to deny there is anything worth taking action about, lest they offend China, who supports the Sudanese regime in exchange for oil (yes, it IS all about oil), or the Arab league (since killing Kuffers is part of their cultural inheritance, nach). What is happening in Dafur is not Genocide, the UN has told you so directly! 300,000 or so people of the same ethnic background just happened to have had firearms accidents in a short period of time........

Anyway, look at the alternatives. The UN will not take action, the African Union has no ability to take effective action, the Sudanese government refuses to let anyone on the ground to take action, so what are we left with? A unilateral invasion led by the Anglosphere West, with the United States as the senior partner (having the only developed ability to project military power on a global basis), which must eradicate the militias, overthrow the Sudanese government, establish a consensual government and conduct large scale nation building over a period of decades, just like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't forget the Al Qaeda used Sudan as a base, the former Sudanese government will try to establish an anti-western insurgency and China may react negatively to this course of action, so there will be a "little" bit of resistance to this course of action on the ground.

While this is not impossible, is that sort of expenditure in our national interest? Do we accept the sniping about "unilateral action", "international Law" and "no blood for oil" while we are doing so?


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2006)

warpig said:
			
		

> For all those who think the world is coming to an end because somebody as an agenda other than yours you can relax now, the Conservatives won the election.


Good for them, but what has that got to do with anything? The previous government (Liberals) are the ones responsible for pulling us from various United Nations taskings such as Golan. They consistantly 'down-sized' the numbers of Candian soldiers serving as UN peacekeepers, not the Conservatives. 


			
				warpig said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Polaris Institute does want Canada to participate in more UN missions, and they would have a strong argument that there are places in the world right now that have Zero visibility to the West, for example Africa.


And this zero visibility must explain the whereabouts of some of my vanishing co-workers, currently serving under UN mandate in Africa training and providing Logistical support to African Union UN troops serving in Sudan.


			
				warpig said:
			
		

> The UN is the only ones who would like to do more that wax sympathetically about Darfur, for example.


And the Polaris Institute seems to be waxing over the ever-emerging dis-organization, corruptness and ineptness of the UN to accomplish much these days.


			
				warpig said:
			
		

> One could possibly get past their agenda and see the relative factualness of their point that the UN needs more support for these missions from the West if they are to get off the ground. Just a point to discuss, IF discussion is indeed some people’s intent here.


And if the Polaris Institute could get past their UN agenda and see the relative factualness of the point that the UN needs to drasticly overhaul it's current outdated and irrelevant logistical, operational and structural organizations, and end it's wasteful practices (as detailed in other threads in this forum) with the money contributed to it by those same western nations, perhaps they'd understand why western soldiers are not eagre (or their governments as supportive as they used to be) to serve under the "esteemed" blue beret these days.

And if the UN itself would finally make the changes it needs to end corruptness, begin financial accountibility and responsibility, and most of all, provide unequiveqable support to those soldiers wearing it's blue beret on missions (witness Rwanda/Srebencia) perhaps it would once again gain that required support for missions from those western nations. 

And that, I believe is the crux of the matter. It's mine (and yours) tax dollars supporting the UN after all, and I'm pretty sure that the same wasteful spending of taxpayers dollars is what actually led to the Conservatives winning the last election after all. I've heard the expression "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but unfortunately, the UN is broken and it needs to get fixed in a major way, if it wants to once again enjoy the wide-spread support it used to.
So relax, because *that* is certainly a point to discuss, if discussion is indeed some people’s intent here. Unfortunately, the Polaris Institue seems to wax sympathetic about the UN, and fails to call them to task for what the UN itself can do to fix the situation it finds itself in.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2006)

All I know is that my question hasn't been answered yet....


----------



## couchcommander (29 May 2006)

+1 Infanteer



> preferable to a Divisional Frontal with Corp Level Artillery



But what about the pretty lights!?


----------



## Echo9 (30 May 2006)

The Infanteer raises exactly the right point.  Why Darfur and not Afghanistan (nor, for that matter, Iraq)?  Mark Steyn had a great article a few weeks ago that compared Darfur to Iraq that called out George (Rosemary's baby) Clooney on his inconsistency between the two.

The main difference between the two is that maintaining a western military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran and syria, for that matter) is in the west's interest, where there is little strategic benefit from us being in Sudan.  That seems to be the common thread on the Left- if the West stands to benefit, then there is every reason to oppose.  If it is mere altruism, then perhaps the appropriate move is to put soldiers in the breach.


Oh, and as an aside, let's remember that UN Peacekeeping has largely devolved into welfare for third world armies.  Heck, it's not even that- it's welfare and a good pimping job (see African prostitution problems with UN missions).  I'd have thought that the last thing the average peacenik would be in favour of is giving more money to armies who use it for rape and pillage...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 May 2006)

Western "boots on the ground" not wanted for Darfur--the views of a senior UN official should interest the Polaris Institute (but probably won't):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1105AP_NATO_UN_Darfur.html
'...
"We either get good news in the next few weeks, or we have catastrophic news later," Jan Egeland [U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator] told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

He said a major international conference would be held in June somewhere in Europe to try to boost humanitarian aid and assistance for the peacekeepers.

Egeland was in Brussels to meet top officials at NATO and the European Union. He said military powers should provide more resources to improve transport, communications, logistics, training and planning for the African peacekeepers.

However, he warned against deploying a Western military force, as some politicians in the United States have suggested.

"We have to be careful to calibrate the humanitarian and security response so it doesn't provoke a reaction," Egeland said. "I'd like to see the African Union and the U.N. play the lead role there, NATO and other organizations can complement and very usefully complement our efforts."..

NATO and the EU have provided airlift, training and other back up for the peacekeepers and have offered more help to bolster the AU troops before they are due to hand over to a U.N. force in September.

Egeland said the Africans need more trucks and helicopters to move swiftly around the vast region. He said African nations also needed to provide more and better-trained troops and said the African Union should urgently bolster the force's mandate so it could better protect the local population...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jun 2006)

UN peacekeeping at work (sort of): "U.N. Council Cuts Ethiopia, Eritrea Forces".  I wonder what the Polaris Institute thinks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR2006053102498.html

Excerpts:

"The Security Council cut the number of peacekeepers deployed in Eritrea and Ethiopia by at least one-third Wednesday night while extending the U.N. mission's mandate for another four months.

A unanimously passed resolution reduced the force from 3,500 to 2,300. The United States sought a cutback because Ethiopia and Eritrea made no progress in resuming talks on the demarcation of their border...

Eritrea has repeatedly ignored council demands that it lift restrictions on U.N. helicopter flights on its side of a buffer zone separating the two countries. Ethiopia similarly has rejected calls to abide by the deal that awarded the key town of Badme to Eritrea..."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (21 Aug 2006)

And the opposition wants us save a little for Darfur...did they think we wouldn't have casualties there also? 

African Union soldiers killed in Darfur
Saturday 19 August 2006, 23:29 Makka Time, 20:29 GMT   Al Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/38AF6C86-8477-4C30-86DA-80BD5B8F7AA9.htm

Two African Union soldiers have been killed and three injured in an ambush on a convoy in Sudan's Darfur region.


The attack which targeted a convoy carrying fuel in the Kuma area around 80 kilometres (50 miles) northeast of Darfur's main town of el-Fasher was condemned by the African Union mission in Sudan.

An African Union statement said: "The African Union mission in Sudan [AMIS] condemns in the strongest possible terms this outrageous attack against its forces in Darfur and intends to carry [out] a thorough investigation."

The attack happened in an area that is under the control of rebels who did not sign the May peace deal, but the AU said it was not clear who the attackers were.

Only one of the three rebel factions involved in negotiations signed the AU-brokered peace deal in May. Tens of thousands of Darfuris have protested against the accord, saying they want more compensation for war victims, more political posts and a monitoring role in disarming Arab militia, known as Janjaweed.

This week the AU expelled non-signatory rebel representatives from its camps, saying it could no longer guarantee their safety because the government called them terrorists after some of the groups formed a new alliance which has attacked the government since the May deal.
More on link


----------



## gunner_1956 (12 Sep 2006)

Folks - I served with the AU mission in Darfur for 7 months as part of Op AUGURAL and the DITF.  Please believe me that the POLARIS Institute's assertion that this would be a re-vitalization of Canada's blue beret tradition is absolute nonsense.  I'm not sure that world exists anymore.  To be successful, this mission would quickly devolve into a full blown "knock-em-down-drag-em-out".  There are so many parochial interests (both local and international) you can't keep track of the players without a scorecard.  In a classic PK situation there has to be a least a core of reasonable parties to deal with - Darfur does not qualify on that count.  There are no good guys or bad guys - just bad guys and victims...... and as soon as any victims get guns - they become bad guys too.  Retribution is an institutional blood sport with deep historic and cultural ties for those folks - read your history books.

As for some of the comments about the effectiveness of the AU troops.  I think they did an outstanding job in their first year.  They put 5000 troops on the ground in the first three months and the raid count dropped from 427 to 4 in that time - all the while covering an AOR the size of France.  The UN was never that successful.  Frankly the West should be a little less sanctimonious.

Ref a UN mission in Darfur.  There is no UN mission in Darfur.  No UNSCR for Chap 6.  No clamouring for TCNs........ the list of failures goes on and that should tell you something.

Sorry about ranting - these guys just hit one of my buttons.

Cheers


----------



## Chewie (13 Sep 2006)

Tell it like it is GUNNER

Maybe some folks from their organization should get their boots on the ground..

paper warriors aren't worth the paper they write on

Andy


----------

