# Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general



## Jarnhamar

Canadian Army headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

*Staff edit:* IAW Site Policy.


----------



## MilEME09

As cynical as it is, given the security situation in both possible locations for this "peacekeeping" operation, I wonder how the government will spin it when the first body comes back. Dozens of peacekeepers have been killed in the past few years. It's a fight against Islamic terrorist groups, this isn't peace keeping, its peace making.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> As cynical as it is, given the security situation in both possible locations for this "peacekeeping" operation, I wonder how the government will spin it when the first body comes back. Dozens of peacekeepers have been killed in the past few years. It's a fight against Islamic terrorist groups, this isn't peace keeping, its peace making.



Hopefully they won't sweep it under the rug, or relegate it to some back page in the news.  That being said, I think social media will aid in avoiding both.


----------



## Altair

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> As cynical as it is, given the security situation in both possible locations for this "peacekeeping" operation, I wonder how the government will spin it when the first body comes back. Dozens of peacekeepers have been killed in the past few years. It's a fight against Islamic terrorist groups, this isn't peace keeping, its peace making.


Hopefully they don't ban media from the repatriation ceremony. 

On another note, who thought it would be the peacenik liberals sending the army into combat? I didn't support them for that but it's been a great bonus.


----------



## dimsum

Altair said:
			
		

> Hopefully they don't ban media from the repatriation ceremony.
> 
> On another note, who thought it would be the peacenik liberals sending the army into combat? I didn't support them for that but it's been a great bonus.



Who said anything about combat?  No one has seen the ROE for this mission, and I'm willing to eat my hat if the ROE becomes the same as OP ATHENA in Afghanistan.  Peacekeeping and combat are two totally different things.


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Who said anything about combat?  No one has seen the ROE for this mission, and I'm willing to eat my hat if the ROE becomes the same as OP ATHENA in Afghanistan.  Peacekeeping and combat are two totally different things.


Fair enough. I'm just going off the fact that Canada has been talking to France about how we would fit into one of their deployments in the region, and the french are not doing UN peacekeeping as much as they are peace making.


----------



## Good2Golf

Canadian "peacekeepers" will live and die by the ROE.  

Let's hope they don't get sold out by the Government thinking that Kumbaya-like ROE will help shine "Sunny Ways" onto more parts of this planet.  :-\

G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Do you think they got any advice from Romeo Dallaire on that idea?


None at all.


			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Hopefully they don't ban media from the repatriation ceremony.


I disagree. I really hope they do ban media from the repatriation ceremony (or continue to do so).  Those ceremonies are for the honoured dead and their families in uniform and out. Not cameras turning it into a social media spectacle or political ammunition for our shitty politicians to fling poo at each other.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Who said anything about combat?



Exactly. It's all in the wording and how the government portrays it. Our soldiers sailors and airmen could be in TICs every day but it's not combat, because combat is aggressive and scary and Canada is a nation of peacekeepers  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

What France is doing in Africa has nothing much to do with _keeping or making the peace_ or anything else except French perceptions of French interests. France does exactly what it wants, it asks no permission and it seeks no support ... it protects French interests as it and it alone perceives them.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I really hope they do ban media from the repatriation ceremony (or continue to do so).  Those ceremonies are for the honoured dead and their families in uniform and out. Not cameras turning it into a social media spectacle or political ammunition for our shitty politicians to fling poo at each other ...


I agree this isn't a place for politics of ANY kind, overt or implied, and there's _*ZERO*_ room for harrassing families in mourning.  

That said, if the military wants coverage of the _good_ things it does, there's a case to be made for covering what's _not_ good.  Also, it's _Canada_'s military, so Canadians has some right (not the journalists) to bear witness to the ultimate sacrifice our troops can make, especially on behalf of Canadians.

Here's where I was on the issue ~10 years ago:


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... As for the media's "right" to be there, yer damned if you do (media get to blow it up and hype the story), and yer damned if you don't (the media talk about "censorship", and go all papparazzo on the event).
> 
> Personally, as long as it's respectful (that's what ground rules for attendance at events are for), I'm OK with media being there.  We complain if the media doesn't cover the military, so when they do, we have to live with the nasty as well as the good ...


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I agree this isn't a place for politics of ANY kind, overt or implied, and there's _*ZERO*_ room for harrassing families in mourning.
> 
> That said, if the military wants coverage of the _good_ things it does, there's a case to be made for covering what's _not_ good.  Also, it's _Canada_'s military, so Canadians has some right (not the journalists) to bear witness to the ultimate sacrifice our troops can make, especially on behalf of Canadians.
> 
> Here's where I was on the issue ~10 years ago:



Agreed.  I think that media coverage of ramp ceremonies is a good "gut check" as to why we are doing what we do.  There may be some political footballing, but it will also make the public mourn with us and hopefully remember that we are there because of the government, which is elected by them.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Great post _milnews.ca_.

It's a really fine line between acknowledging and showing Canada the sacrifice it's soldiers (and their families) are making while remaining respectful and non-political.

It's a bit off topic but as you say 10 years ago I remember we learned a lesson really quick about what happens when the media broadcasted when we were gathering on the KAF airfield to send fallen soldiers home; specifically the Taliban would plan rocket attacks to coincide with the ceremonies to try and kill us while we're all gathered together.

I would hate to see ceremonies today become juicy targets for protestors and anyone else who wants media attention knowing that the media with their cameras will be covering the ceremonies in full force. 


Back to the Africa mission I'm not sure where the government thinks we're getting all these soldiers but I'm glad to read this story. I've never been on a UN mission and much respect to everyone who has (understanding how shitty and painful they were) but this feels meaningful to me.  
Not knowing a deployment date means plenty of time to cry about black boots and green tacvests  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *It's a really fine line* between acknowledging and showing Canada the sacrifice it's soldiers (and their families) are making while remaining respectful and non-political.


Zackly - and that's why it can be tough to tightrope walk along.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would hate to see ceremonies today become juicy targets for protestors and anyone else who wants media attention knowing that the media with their cameras will be covering the ceremonies in full force.


+1000


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What France is doing in Africa has nothing much to do with _keeping or making the peace_ or anything else except French perceptions of French interests. France does exactly what it wants, it asks no permission and it seeks no support ... it protects French interests as it and it alone perceives them.



Pretty much bang on, French military operations in the Sahel are as much about maintaining French control of their mineral interests as they are about "Terrorism".  French electricity is 90% Nuclear Power based, most of that Uranium comes from Mauritania, Mali and Niger.  It's imperative the governments of those countries remain friendly with Paris, it's an energy security issue.

Ditto French Operations in the CAR.  That particular operation was born out of a power play made by the BRICS countries, particularly South Africa with backing from China.  They made a move in to French turf, a coup was staged and in a familiar scene French Colonial Marines seized the airport to "Evacuate Foreign Nationals"  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

Likely why no one else in NATO has rushed to deploy combat troops to help the French...


----------



## dapaterson

Quick troops to tasks: 1x Bn HQ +1x Rifle coy to Latvia. Balance of 450 commitment is engr,  sigs, int & CSS. Same Bn provides rifle company to Ukraine.  For an African mission, we have 8 more Bns to choose from.  Leaving 7 not deployed.  That suggests a 2 year cycle.
And we still have 3x Armd units to build standby high readiness groups.

Challenging, but doable.

EDIT: fix typo in # of Armd units (fat fingers on phone syndrome)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Likely why no one else in NATO has rushed to deploy combat troops to help the French...



The French don't need the help.  They've got enough forward deployed forces and pre-staged equipment to take on anyone in that region.  The help we provided in terms of airlift during SERVAL merely sped up the operation, the outcome would have remained the same.

France has an Airborne BG on 72 hrs NTM at all times.  A Reinforcing Bde is on 9 days NTM.  The 50 A400Ms the French Air Force has bought which are just starting to come online should reduce their need for strategic airlift. 

The French even have some nice graphics illustrating the airlift capabilities of A400







When the French did SERVAL they flew soldiers in to Ivory Coast and TChad where the equipment was already staged, additional equipment was brought in to Abidjan by Mistrals from Toulon.  Troops drove a couple of thousand Kim's to Mali from both locations, this is why the French love wheeled vehicles so much.


----------



## medicineman

I honestly don't think PET Jr has learned much from his party predecessors from our experience in the 90's...the only way this is going to work is if the ROE are appropriate for the environment.  If they're anything like the thing I still have from Croatia that fan folds out to something that would have got me killed if I followed it to the T, we'll be burying a number of folks I'm afraid.  Many of you might remember those - "STOP.  STOP or I'll say STOP again.  If you don't STOP, I'll have to think about chambering a round after I've told you to STOP yet again...etc ad nauseum".

MM


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The French don't need the help.  They've got enough forward deployed forces and pre-staged equipment to take on anyone in that region.  The help we provided in terms of airlift during SERVAL merely sped up the operation, the outcome would have remained the same.
> 
> France has an Airborne BG on 72 hrs NTM at all times.  A Reinforcing Bde is on 9 days NTM.  The 50 A400Ms the French Air Force has bought which are just starting to come online should reduce their need for strategic airlift.
> 
> The French even have some nice graphics illustrating the airlift capabilities of A400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the French did SERVAL they flew soldiers in to Ivory Coast and TChad where the equipment was already staged, additional equipment was brought in to Abidjan by Mistrals from Toulon.  Troops drove a couple of thousand Kim's to Mali from both locations, this is why the French love wheeled vehicles so much.



Excellent - The French can reinforce St-Pierre and Miquelon with an Airborne Battle Group in 72 hours and a Brigade Group (with 30 tonne vehicles) in 9 days.  At which point the Mistrales can start showing up with the rest of the Division...... Not that they ever would mind you.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Therefore Mali?  French ending non-US mission in CAR, have very few personnel with UN’s MINUSCA–so shouldn’t need Canadian Forces help there:

“France to end military operations in CAR in October”
http://www.france24.com/en/20160714-france-military-operation-car-central-african-republic-sangaris-end/

MINUSCA:
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusca/facts.shtml

French contribution (scroll down):
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_3.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Excellent - The French can reinforce St-Pierre and Miquelon with an Airborne Battle Group in 72 hours and a Brigade Group (with 30 tonne vehicles) in 9 days.  At which point the Mistrales can start showing up with the rest of the Division...... Not that they ever would mind you.



There isn't enough land in St-Pierre and Miquelon to park a Bde Gp of 30 tonne vehicles.


----------



## Kirkhill

I guess they would just have to find some additional parking in the area.


----------



## GAP

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I guess they would just have to find some additional parking in the area.



Quebec?


----------



## ballz

12 UN peacekeepers killed in the first 5.5 months of 2016 in Mali. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53977

And I would bet my last dollar, Mali is where we are going.


----------



## PuckChaser

ballz said:
			
		

> 12 UN peacekeepers killed in the first 5.5 months of 2016 in Mali. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53977
> 
> And I would bet my last dollar, Mali is where we are going.


Especially with the"fight terrorism" rhetoric coming out of the government now. The same government who pulled the CF-18s from fighting terrorism.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Especially with the"fight terrorism" rhetoric coming out of the government now. The same government who pulled the CF-18s from fighting terrorism.



Ah, but fighting THAT terrorism isn't under a UN flag and thus wont get a seat at the UNSC. Or so I'm told... :


----------



## a_majoor

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Back to the Africa mission I'm not sure where the government thinks we're getting all these soldiers but I'm glad to read this story. I've never been on a UN mission and much respect to everyone who has (understanding how shitty and painful they were) but this feels meaningful to me.
> 
> Not knowing a deployment date means plenty of time to cry about black boots and green tacvests  ;D



I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the fact of the matter is EVERY UN mission has been a waste of time at best and a failure at worst, and this fact needs to be repeated and broadcast at every opportunity. UN peacekeepers in the Sinai desert? Kicked out by Nasser so he could prosecute a war against Israel. UN in Cyprus? Political stasis since 1974, if not since 1963 when we first arrived. Golan Heights? Target practice for various groups. Israel routinely flys over the Heights to bomb Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon when advanced weapons shipments are detected. UNPOFOR? The is a reason it switched to IFOR. Rwanda? Didn't even slow down the Genocide. And that is a top of the head list of missions that Canada was involved in. the record of other UN missions we didn't take part in is even worse.

What the missions _did_ accomplish wasn't what the UN professed them to be about, but in the case of Cyprusand the other ME missions, they acted as an Economy of Force mission so that Canada's _other_ thousands of deployed troops, airmen and sailors could focus on the USSR and keeping the Cold War from going Hot.

Sadly, the media has no knowledge or understanding of this, and I doubt that Gerald Butts has any interest in this either. Kissing up to third world dictators in the UN seems to have irresistible appeal for Butts and his ilk, especially as they can sell this as showing Canadian 
"influence" in the world. The lack of any tangible results isn't going to get in the way of pushing for more UN "Peacekeeping missions", so all *we* can hope for is that our own military leadership will insist on a tangible mission parameter (including measurable outcomes), an exit strategy and robust ROE's (essentially IFOR rather than UNPOFOR).


----------



## Tow Tripod

Wouldn't it be a reasonable demand of the Canadian people to ask why the Government of Canada are sending Canadian Soldiers with Blue Helmets to Africa?
Where is the Peace to keep?
I don't get this....
Will this be another Stop or I will tell you to stop again mission....?
I don't know but I sure would like much more info...
Out...


----------



## PuckChaser

That's for the opposition to demand explanation, and for the media to throw softball questions at Trudeau to get no real answer. The actual answer is trying to score political points for reelection/UNSC seat election. The CAF again becomes a political prop for the Liberals.

Can't wait to see the LSVWs on the side of the road in Africa broke down, in their shiny white paint. Capability gap? Nah, that's just a buzzword for fulfilling political promises.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Remind me again which of the African missions is a pure peacekeeping between two States? Ethiopia and Eritrea is the only one I can think of.


----------



## Lightguns

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be a reasonable demand of the Canadian people to ask why the Government of Canada are sending Canadian Soldiers with Blue Helmets to Africa?
> Where is the Peace to keep?
> I don't get this....
> Will this be another Stop or I will tell you to stop again mission....?
> I don't know but I sure would like much more info...
> Out...



Quite a few political props will have to die before Canadians will think of UN peacekeeping for what it truly is.  Yugo should have buried the peacekeeping myth for good but the then current government, later opposition and Canadian media could not let go, as specially since it became a conservative beating stick.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Quite a few political props will have to die before Canadians will think of UN peacekeeping for what it truly is.  Yugo should have buried the peacekeeping myth for good but the then current government, later opposition and Canadian media could not let go, as specially since it became a conservative beating stick.


Made possible in part by governments underplaying deaths & strife in Yugo while it was going on - methinks any deaths on any mission in Africa now will be next-to-impossible to keep under the radar in the same way.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Remind me again which of the African missions is a pure peacekeeping between two States? Ethiopia and Eritrea is the only one I can think of.


No more U.N. mission there as of July 2008 -- and even there, there's not a ton of peace being _kept_.  Re:  country vs. country missions in Africa, not many (maybe UNAMID _if_ you stretch it) according to the U.N.'s list:

MINURSO United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara -- Morocco vs. Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el-Hamra y de Río de Oro (Frente POLISARIO)
MINUSCA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic -- "Mission will prioritize the protection of civilians and facilitation of political process, including implementation of provisions of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, and setting up a mechanism to investigate violations"
MINUSMA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali -- "support political processes in that country and carry out a number of security-related tasks.  The Mission was asked to support the transitional authorities of Mali in the stabilization of the country and implementation of the transitional roadmap."
MONUSCO United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- "the protection of civilians, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders under imminent threat of physical violence and to support the Government of the DRC in its stabilization and peace consolidation efforts"
UNAMID African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur -- "contributing to security for humanitarian assistance, monitoring and verifying implementation of agreements, assisting an inclusive political process, contributing to the promotion of human rights and the rule of law, and monitoring and reporting on the situation along the borders with Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR)"
UNISFA United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei -- "monitoring the flashpoint border between north and south and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, and is authorized to use force in protecting civilians and humanitarian workers in Abyei.  UNISFA’s establishment came after the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) reached an agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to demilitarize Abyei and let Ethiopian troops to monitor the area."
UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia -- "support the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the peace process; protect United Nations staff, facilities and civilians; support humanitarian and human rights activities; as well as assist in national security reform, including national police training and formation of a new, restructured military"
UNMISS United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan -- "Following the crisis which broke out in South Sudan in December 2013, the Security Council, by its resolution 2155 (2014) of 27 May 2014, reinforced UNMISS and reprioritized its mandate towards the protection of civilians, human rights monitoring, and support for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for the implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement"
UNOCI United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire -- "Following the 2010 Presidential election and the ensuing political crisis in Côte d'Ivoire, UNOCI has remained on the ground to protect civilians, provide good offices, support the Ivorian Government in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) of former combatants as well as on security sector reform, and monitor and promote human rights"


----------



## FSTO

The group above don't seem to be in the realm of classic blue helmet peacekeeping.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> The group above don't seem to be in the realm of classic blue helmet peacekeeping.



Is there any example of 'classic' peacekeeping?


----------



## Lightguns

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is there any example of 'classic' peacekeeping?



Cyprus, 1975 to 1993 for Canada, holiday in the Med with one full mag stored in your pocket and trading peanut butter for stuff with the Turks.  And the beaches and European women on the beaches........  Nobody dies but lots of hangovers make you feel like dying.  That kind of classic peace keeping.  And smuggling all the cheap impure gold.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> MINUSMA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali -- "support political processes in that country and carry out a number of security-related tasks.  The Mission was asked to support the transitional authorities of Mali in the stabilization of the country and implementation of the transitional roadmap."



Mail sounds like Afghanistan. If the PM sends us there, we'll be mired in another insurgent war for years. Nothing blue beret about this one and no peace to keep or make.


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Cyprus, 1975 to 1993 for Canada, holiday in the Med with one full mag stored in your pocket and trading peanut butter for stuff with the Turks.  And the beaches and European women on the beaches........  Nobody dies but lots of hangovers make you feel like dying.  That kind of classic peace keeping.  And smuggling all the cheap impure gold.



And Cyprus 1974?  What are your fine words on that event?


----------



## Lightguns

My fine words would be; how can two NATO countries go to war with one another through two other NATO countries there to keep them from war and everyone be caught be surprised?  But that's off topic.


----------



## Old Sweat

Lightguns said:
			
		

> My fine words would be; how can two NATO countries go to war with one another through two other NATO countries there to keep them from war and everyone be caught be surprised?  But that's off topic.



It originally was an internal Cypriot matter, but then . . . Try getting ahold of this, which was written by the COS UNFICYP.

Henn, Brigadier Francis. A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus Before & During the 1974 Turkish Invasion, (Barnsley, 2004)


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is there any example of 'classic' peacekeeping?



How about we ask the current PM what classic peacekeeping looks like. I would be interested what Gerald Butts has to say.


----------



## Lightguns

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It originally was an internal Cypriot matter, but then . . . Try getting ahold of this, which was written by the COS UNFICYP.
> 
> Henn, Brigadier Francis. A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus Before & During the 1974 Turkish Invasion, (Barnsley, 2004)



ebook, for those with a large enough screen.

https://books.google.com.cy/books/about/A_Business_of_Some_Heat.html?id=waZtAAAAMAAJ


----------



## Eye In The Sky

"Classic peacekeeping" holds a different mental image for the average Canadian, who knows a few things about the Canadian military such as (1) our Air Force is centered around the Snowbirds (2) most people who join the army are really joining our peacekeeping forces.   ;D

When the Liberals and average Canadian think of peacekeeping, they think of images like this:







The don't even like this one very much;  why is that Peacekeeper carrying a weapon!!!    anic:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> "Classic peacekeeping" holds a different mental image for the average Canadian, who knows a few things about the Canadian military such as (1) our Air Force is centered around the Snowbirds (2) most people who join the army are really joining our peacekeeping forces.   ;D



You forgot (3) We have a Navy ?? ?? ??     [


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mail sounds like Afghanistan. If the PM sends us there, we'll be mired in another insurgent war for years. Nothing blue beret about this one and no peace to keep or make.


With the French troops already doing their thing (sans blue berets) only able to help U.N. folks _"if requested by the Sec-Gen"_ ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You forgot (3) We have a Navy ?? ?? ??     [



I didn't, but I was giving examples of the average citizen.  I'm not sure they know about our Navy.  "_Why do we need one of those_?"   8)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Why the distaste from everyone for this potential operation?

If we go in to Mali, I'd expect a fairly robust ROE.  It's also a good opportunity to stick it to some Islamists.  

Better yet, it helps the Army keep the blade sharp.  If you didn't sign up for a little adventure with the potential for misadventure, what did you sign up for?


----------



## PuckChaser

I think the issue would be the "peacekeeping" label and government support, when we all know it's another COIN mission like Afghanistan, without tanks, artillery, robust engineer support, aviation, etc...


----------



## a_majoor

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Cyprus, 1975 to 1993 for Canada, holiday in the Med with one full mag stored in your pocket and trading peanut butter for stuff with the Turks.  And the beaches and European women on the beaches........  Nobody dies but lots of hangovers make you feel like dying.  That kind of classic peace keeping.  And smuggling all the cheap impure gold.



Just to reiterate: http://army.ca/forums/threads/123590/post-1445284.html#msg1445284

And the distaste for the proposed mission in Africa stems from it being sold for something that it clearly isn't (peacekeeping), the loss of focus against real threats (ISIS, Russia, the potential for armed conflict in the South China Sea) and the fear that in order to make the propaganda point that it is peacekeeping, our forces will be held to a "peacekeeping ROE" and equipped for that mission and not for the very real contingencies of combat against insurgent forces.


----------



## ModlrMike

Yes, selling the mission as something it is not is misleading the public in the worst way. It's using the military as a cheap political exercise. 

This article from the BBC gives me a great deal of concern. In addition, I have no faith that a "robust" ROE will be part of the plan.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think the issue would be the "peacekeeping" label and government support, when we all know it's another COIN mission like Afghanistan, without tanks, artillery, robust engineer support, aviation, etc...



Who cares what they label it.  If calling it "peacekeeping" keeps us in the game and off the bench, so be it.

We've got seasoned military leadership at the very top who I trust will provide the government with sound advice.

We don't pick our missions, they get picked for us.  We've also got a military perfectly suited for this sort of operation.  

I don't agree with the narrative that the government has taken their eye off ISIS. We've got a substantial SOTF and Intelligence apparatus helping combat that fight but the cancer is already there and being dealt with by other players.  A mission in the Sahel serves the purpose of preventing the cancer from spreading.  The last thing we need is another Afghanistan with AQIM given free reign over a plot of land.

I'm all for a little brushfire war if it keeps the rats off balance and contained to the MENA.  AQIM or ISIS, what's the difference?  Same shat, different pile.  

We also don't need Tanks for this theatre, far too burdensome logistically and ill suited for the Northern portions of the country where the fighting is.  An all wheels Infantry Battlegroup with dedicated Tactical Aviation is what's required.  Primary method of insertion is tan cadillacs.  The return of TOW couldn't have come at a better time either.  A very good weapon to blow rats out of little caves in the moonscape.


----------



## Teager

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, selling the mission as something it is not is misleading the public in the worst way. It's using the military as a cheap political exercise.
> 
> This article from the BBC gives me a great deal of concern. In addition, I have no faith that a "robust" ROE will be part of the plan.



This article gives a better overview of how bad it is. Although a bit older. It's pretty much Afghanistan by the sounds of it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34812600


----------



## Altair

Teager said:
			
		

> This article gives a better overview of how bad it is. Although a bit older. It's pretty much Afghanistan by the sounds of it.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34812600


Good. Let's go try to make it better. You know, like doing our jobs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

It's not the mission, as others have said. It's the way our present government is trying to sell this as peacekeeping. Canadians think, pressed combat, spiffy blue berets, blue ascots and white UN marked vehicles. They carry rifles for the dogs. Canadians are the great UN negotiators that'll have the French and ISIS living hand in hand after six months. That's what Canadians think when the government says peacekeeping. Canadians are stupid and will have a very rude awakening when things go south. It's all Trudeau kumbaya shit and soldiers are, probably, going to die to satisfy his ego and arrogance. Anyone with a schmick of real world smarts knows that playing that kind of bait and switch with Canadians, typically, does not end well. However, the PM has never operated in the real world, so how would he know anyway.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.


I've read shake hands with the devil. Good enough for you?

UN peacekeeping > sweeping tents and counting inventory in a stores room at the slowest possible pace.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I agree with recceguy.  The notion of us peacekeeping is a bullshit trick sold to the public to reinforce the old media driving "peacekeepers not soldiers"  crap.

Personally I don't care what they call it,  I'm glad we're getting in the fight. Among other things a mission like this will help retention.  I know of at least four soldiers who put VRs on hold because they want to deploy.  

But just to add,  deploying as peacekeepers will most likely result in stupid roe's and get Canadians killed.


----------



## Kirkhill

A line from John Milton - oft quoted in barracks.

"They also serve who only stand and wait."

- On His Blindness

When the alternatives are considered, waiting may not be such a bad option.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.



EITS,

I believe the big problem we face as Canadians is that we tend to view everything through our own lense of Western cultural and political baggage.  

I'm including Canadian military members in this as well.  We are all political pawns, everything we do is a political calculation.  This is Clausewitz 101.

I believe every operation we are currently involved in is a worthwhile one and in our government's broader national interests.   Keeping AQIM out of Southern Mali is a worthwhile mission and one of a number of operations in a larger campaign combating islamic extremism.  It's a worthwhile cause.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not the mission, as others have said. It's the way our present government is trying to sell this as peacekeeping. Canadians think, pressed combat, spiffy blue berets, blue ascots and white UN marked vehicles. They carry rifles for the dogs. Canadians are the great UN negotiators that'll have the French and ISIS living hand in hand after six months. That's what Canadians think when the government says peacekeeping. Canadians are stupid and will have a very rude awakening when things go south. It's all Trudeau kumbaya crap and soldiers are, probably, going to die to satisfy his ego and arrogance. Anyone with a schmick of real world smarts knows that playing that kind of bait and switch with Canadians, typically, does not end well. However, the PM has never operated in the real world, so how would he know anyway.



Lets not pretend the previous government was any better, at least we don't have a bunch of control freaks running the zoo anymore.  I blame the present fighter jet/shipbuilding fiasco on the Conservatives.  They had 10 years in government to pull the trigger and couldn't do it.  The Harper government should have prescribed themselves some little blue pills, might have helped the decision making cycle.

As far as National Defence is concerned, the Liberals aren't as gun shy to make the hard decisions.  Whether we agree with them or not.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> A line from John Milton - oft quoted in barracks.
> 
> "They also serve who only stand and wait."
> 
> - On His Blindness
> 
> When the alternatives are considered, waiting may not be such a bad option.


They will cease to serve those who only stand and wait.

Quote from Altair.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> EITS,
> 
> I believe the big problem we face as Canadians is that we tend to view everything through our own lense of Western cultural and political baggage.
> 
> I'm including Canadian military members in this as well.  We are all political pawns, everything we do is a political calculation.  This is Clausewitz 101.
> 
> I believe every operation we are currently involved in is a worthwhile one and in our government's broader national interests.   Keeping AQIM out of Southern Mali is a worthwhile mission and one of a number of operations in a larger campaign combating islamic extremism.  It's a worthwhile cause.



My concern is with things like ROE and 'what kit can we bring'...time will tell...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My concern is with things like ROE and 'what kit can we bring'...time will tell...



I agree that we should be concerned with this but I've got faith in the CoC.  The present CDS was seasoned in the Balkans and Afghanistan.  He is acutely aware of the dangers the troops will face.  This isn't 1992, it's 2016 and we've got combat seasoned Officers and Senior NCOs leading the military now and I trust them to set us up for success.


----------



## ModlrMike

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree that we should be concerned with this but I've got faith in the CoC.  The present CDS was seasoned in the Balkans and Afghanistan.  He is acutely aware of the dangers the troops will face.  This isn't 1992, it's 2016 and we've got combat seasoned Officers and Senior NCOs leading the military now and I trust them to set us up for success.



To be clear, it's not the military I don't trust.


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not the mission, as others have said. It's the way our present government is trying to sell this as peacekeeping. Canadians think, pressed combat, spiffy blue berets, blue ascots and white UN marked vehicles. They carry rifles for the dogs. Canadians are the great UN negotiators that'll have the French and ISIS living hand in hand after six months. That's what Canadians think when the government says peacekeeping. Canadians are stupid and will have a very rude awakening when things go south. It's all Trudeau kumbaya shit and soldiers are, probably, going to die to satisfy his ego and arrogance. Anyone with a schmick of real world smarts knows that playing that kind of bait and switch with Canadians, typically, does not end well. However, the PM has never operated in the real world, so how would he know anyway.



You forgot to add "for the troops", after "does not end well."


----------



## a_majoor

Altair said:
			
		

> I've read shake hands with the devil. Good enough for you?



No. 

Try listening to the opinions of people like me who have been there/done that. We have reasons to be concerned about Gerald Butts' plans for us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Try listening to the opinions of people like me who have been there/done that. We have reasons to be concerned about Gerald Butts' plans for us.



This.   :goodpost:


----------



## jmt18325

So, now that the TOW missile has been reintroduced....we wouldn't happen to have some air defense systems laying around that we declared surplus, would we?


----------



## Castus

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, now that the TOW missile has been reintroduced....we wouldn't happen to have some air defense systems laying around that we declared surplus, would we?



Wouldn't that be a sweet notion? Then we only need to grab a regiment's worth of SPGs, acquire more tanks and beef up our logistical capabilities. Easy peasy.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, now that the TOW missile has been reintroduced....we wouldn't happen to have some air defense systems laying around that we declared surplus, would we?



Only if the government finds a magical capability gap.

Oh wait.... they only use that term for political goals, not actual capability gaps.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only if the government finds a magical capability gap.
> 
> Oh wait.... they only use that term for political goals, not actual capability gaps.


The politics thread desperately needs a return.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, now that the TOW missile has been reintroduced....we wouldn't happen to have some air defense systems laying around that we declared surplus, would we?



No, but there are lots of perfectly good Avengers in the USA looking for a good home. Some of them may still have the Canadian insignia on them from the failed lease for Op PODIUM.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> The politics thread desperately needs a return.



Some people couldn't be adults, so we lost it. Kinda like alcohol on ships.


----------



## jmt18325

I think that's the one area (air defense) that we're really lacking in.  Maybe people at DND will push hard enough.  One can only hope.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think that's the one area (air defense) that we're really lacking in.  Maybe people at DND will push hard enough.  One can only hope.



"How could they possibly be Japanese planes?"

— Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, Dec 7th, 1941


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from "multiple sources" via CBC.ca ...


> One of the Trudeau government's contributions to peace and stability in Africa is expected to include a revamped training mission in Niger that has been — until now — the purview of Canada's highly secretive special forces, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was slated to arrive in Africa on Tuesday on a fact-finding mission for future peacekeeping operations.
> 
> But his assessment comes as the Liberal government is also considering a separate request to turn a special forces capacity-building mission, known as Operation Naberius, into a regular army training mission for troops in the war-torn country, multiple sources tell CBC News.
> 
> The switch could happen as early as September, not long after Sajjan attends a major international UN peacekeeping conference in London.
> 
> In an interview, Sajjan confirmed the proposal is being being debated.
> 
> "We are looking at that mission," Sajjan told the CBC. "There has been a really great impact made. And before we make a decision on that mission and what needs to be done, if there are other resources we need to bring to the table; we need to do the full analysis."
> 
> The operation has flown almost entirely under the radar since it was instituted over three years ago by the former Conservative government, which at the time faced repeated calls from the international community to help beat back Islamic militants, who have taken over a large swath of territory in neighbouring Mali ...


A little something to orient yourself with:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

What am I missing here? The Trudeau government campaigned on getting back to peacekeeping, claiming we'd been to long out of the game. Now they're considering an ongoing mission, started by the CPC? Are they going to proclaim this a new mission because they change the colour of the hats?

I can see the CBC, the Red Star and the Mop & Pail now:

Justin Trudeau says, "CANADA IS BACK!" PM OK's dangerous mission in Niger.

After years of neglect and non participation in UN missions, the PM has said "The days of ignoring the genocide and terrorism in Africa are over. Canadian Peacekeepers will once again sally forth as Canada's Boy Scouts to ............................................. :


----------



## Cloud Cover

What is Canada's strategic, security, or economic link to Niger? The ROE had better be "weapons free" and we had better bring lots of nasty weapons: http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/new-isis-islamic-state-daesh-amaq-news-pictures-videos-wilayat-west-africa-wilayat-gharb-afriqiya-boko-haram-bosso-army-camp-attack-full-uncensored-youtube-video/ 

ISIL runs across the borders into other countries after their raids, it is hard to see how a peacekeeping mission can deal with that. 

How many people will want to vomit when Trudeau, Dion and Singh are on the tarmac in Trenton.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> ISIL runs across the borders into other countries after their raids, it is hard to see how a peacekeeping mission can deal with that.



In Vietnam, I believe we used defoliants, and special forces that did not - do you hear - did not enter Cambodia or Laos  ;D.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> What is Canada's strategic, security, or economic link to Niger?



according to our embassy:

- We trade to the whopping amount of $7.8 million dollars/year;
- Canada provided around $30 million in humanitarian aid in 14/15;
- Canada contributed $5.4 million to the world food programme and CARE Canada to provide humanitarian aid in the Diffa Region;
- Canada pledge $20 million in July 15 to stop child marriage;
- Canada maintains a counter terrorism mission in Niger and Canada-Algeria co-chair a working group on the Sahel. Niger is allowed to take part! 
- Canada and Niger are both members of the UN and the francophonie

So, in sum, there is essentially no link between the two nations aside from the common French heritage/colonial association. 

Strategically, our association is iffy... Canada may have some interests in Africa, and taking a role in peacekeeping (making?) there might be a means of employing soft power throughout the continent, like China. That said, I look forward to the government trying to explain our strategic imperative and will make further judgments when (or if) that occurs.


----------



## Brad Sallows

The political decision-making process goes like this:
Q: What do we want to be seen doing?
A: Peacekeeping.
Q: Where do we want to be seen doing it?
A: Someplace unfortunate.  How about Africa?
Q: What do we want to do in Africa?  Do we have anything already in place to leverage?  Give me an estimate of the situation which finds that we should be doing peacekeeping in Africa.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> One of the Trudeau government's contributions to peace and stability in Africa is expected to include a revamped training mission in Niger that has been — until now — the purview of Canada's highly secretive special forces, CBC News has learned.



It will be interesting to see if and how we spin a training mission to peace keeping.  I hope CANSOF would be kind enough to lend us some vehicles and boots. And maybe uniforms and chest rigs. Same team right


----------



## a_majoor

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Strategically, our association is iffy... Canada may have some interests in Africa, and taking a role in peacekeeping (making?) there might be a means of employing soft power throughout the continent, like China. That said, I look forward to the government trying to explain our strategic imperative and will make further judgments when (or if) that occurs.



"Because 2016".

The sole reason for any of this is to satisfy the vanity of Gerald Butts and the Liberal back room in having a Canadian seat on the UN security council. The fact that we would be spending blood and treasure for an essentially meaningless position, in a hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual organization is irrelevant to them (even if it is very relevant to *us*).

This exercise in virtue signalling is especially puzzling, why is is so important for Canada to be validated by a bunch of third world thugs and kleptocrats?

However, don't ever expect to receive a clear answer from the LPC at any level, nor for the Legacy media to ever actually ask the hard questions. Welcome to the new decade of darkness, troops.


----------



## jmt18325

So we talk about expanding a mission initiated by the last government to get a seat that they failed to an it's all about Gerald Butts.  Right.....


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So we talk about expanding a mission initiated by the last government to get a seat that they failed to an it's all about Gerald Butts.  Right.....









 [


----------



## Altair

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from "multiple sources" via CBC.ca ...A little something to orient yourself with:


weird. In the National post they are making it sound like the D.R.C is the likely choice.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Altair said:
			
		

> weird. In the National post they are making it sound like the D.R.C is the likely choice.


I guess it all depends on which "multiple sources" they're talking to/hearing from, compared to the CBC.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> weird. In the National post they are making it sound like the D.R.C is the likely choice.



It could always be two missions.  One training and one pseudo-peace keeping.,  that would be cool.


----------



## Good2Golf

Reinforcing some element of stability in the region isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Niger also provides a 'relatively' secure 'launch pad' from which regional security support, be it formal UNMIwherever, or smaller multi-lateral support missions , can be conducted. 

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Thucydides said:
			
		

> "Because 2016".
> 
> The sole reason for any of this is to satisfy the vanity of Gerald Butts and the Liberal back room in having a Canadian seat on the UN security council. The fact that we would be spending blood and treasure for an essentially meaningless position, in a hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual organization is irrelevant to them (even if it is very relevant to *us*).
> 
> This exercise in virtue signalling is especially puzzling, why is is so important for Canada to be validated by a bunch of third world thugs and kleptocrats?
> 
> However, don't ever expect to receive a clear answer from the LPC at any level, nor for the Legacy media to ever actually ask the hard questions. Welcome to the new decade of darkness, troops.



Aside from your opinion and only thinly veiled hatred of anything Liberal is there any proof to back up this claim? Engagement in Africa isn't in an of itself a bad thing, especially considering we're already militarily engaged in Niger. The implementation of "soft power" as a means of gaining influence and possibly rights for Canadian firms to African resources isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Old Sweat

Retired Major General Lew Mackenzie cautions against pursuing a temporary seat on the Security Council in this oped piece from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealngs provisions of the Copyright Act.

So, Canada is on the search for a low-cost, low-risk, high-profile United Nations “peacekeeping” mission to enhance its chances to win a coveted seat on the UN Security Council in 2021.

This misguided emphasis on peacekeeping, especially given the UN’s battered reputation in this area due to a series of self-acknowledged peacekeeping disasters in the 1990s, is ill-founded. Given the considerable expense for Canada in attempting to secure a temporary two-year seat and, if successful, then participating as a non-permanent member of the council, it is time to examine a few relevant facts.

Canada did not abandon peacekeeping; peacekeeping abandoned us. During the Cold War, peacekeeping missions, with one disastrous exception, dealt with conflicts between countries. The member states involved in the conflict had delegations at the UN headquarters who could be called upon to help resolve breaches of ceasefire agreements and protocols. Post-Cold War conflicts where the UN has dared to deploy so-called peacekeepers have involved warring belligerents within countries. Factions in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and many places had no delegations at the UN; as a result, the world body had little influence as violence and killings continued.

As a result of those such disasters, countries that had provided the bulk of soldiers for peacekeeping missions during the Cold War – including Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Poland, Fiji, France, Britain, Australia and New Zealand – dramatically reduced their participation. In their place, countries such as Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Rwanda among others stepped forward to fill the gap. I have commanded soldiers from some of those countries and many are just fine; however, they are grossly underpaid and the temptation to subsidize their income by participating in illegal activities such as human trafficking, prostitution and the black market is too high for some to resist. At the same time, their parent countries are paid more than $1,300 (U.S.) a month for every soldier assigned to the UN, and while on duty, the soldiers are fed and accommodated by the UN. For some countries, UN peacekeeping has become a profitable business.

The United Nations was created in 1945 to address the issue of international peace and security. But even as the Security Council still struggles with conflicts around the world, other UN organizations that developed later are much more successful in achieving their objectives. UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the UN refugee commission and at least a dozen other UN agencies are indispensable in helping to deal with the chaos resulting from conflict and natural disasters. While it is perhaps less glamorous, enhancing Canadian support to such organizations would be more beneficial to the world than expending significant investment to try to gain a seat at the Security Council.

Canada will be competing for a council seat with the other 27 members of the ill-titled Western European and Others Group. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel are the four designated “Other” countries; the remaining 24 members are European countries. They, along with the other 165 members of the General Assembly, would have to be wined and dined and lobbied by Canada to obtain the two-thirds of votes necessary for selection.

Low-risk, low-profile modest participation in UN military operations will have little impact on Canada’s chance for gaining a seat in 2021. In the early 1990s, when Canada had more than 4,600 troops in Cambodia, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Somalia and Rwanda, that level of participation was noticed. But these days, thanks to chronic budget shrinkage, Canada is not even capable of deploying half that number, and would be challenged to sustain a contingent one-quarter that size.

If we really want to help make the world a better place, Canada should forget the obsession about obtaining an expensive temporary seat on the Security Council, where it would have little influence and, dare I say, little prestige in the face of the five veto-holding permanent members. Instead, Canada should focus on increasing support to UN agencies that have been saving and improving lives around the world.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I know guys working in Libya who talk about Niger like it's the 'hell generator' for most of Africa and the Mediterranean. 

Perfect....

"The country is rated by the UN as one of the world's least-developed nations and was recently named as the worst country to live in."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35842300


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know guys working in Libya who talk about Niger like it's the 'hell generator' for most of Africa and the Mediterranean.
> 
> Perfect....
> 
> "The country is rated by the UN as one of the world's least-developed nations and was recently named as the worst country to live in."
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35842300



So it is the African version of Kandahar, only larger, farther away from salt water and harder to support?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So it is the African version of Kandahar, only larger, farther away from salt water and harder to support?



And French...


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And French...


Vandoos - UP!  >


----------



## MarkOttawa

Prof. Roland Paris, recent PM Trudeau adviser in PMO,
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/top-trudeau-foreign-policy-advisor-roland-paris-heading-back-to-university-of-ottawa

responds to Lew Mackenzie:



> Canada and Peacekeeping: Two Misconceptions|
> 
> We do not yet know where, when and how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will deliver on his commitment to increase Canada's involvement in UN peace operations. As columnists and commentators begin to discuss these questions, however, two misconceptions are worth correcting.
> 
> The first is that the Trudeau government is exploring new peacekeeping opportunities in order to win a Security Council seat. Former general Lew MacKenzie made this assertion in today's Globe and Mail.
> 
> Of course, any contribution to the UN could potentially strengthen Canada's bid for a seat. However, the Prime Minister's commitment to reengage in UN operations seems to reflect his conviction that these operations play an important role in containing violence and promoting peace, and that Canada could make a useful contribution. (The Liberal election platform did not even mention running for a Security Council seat. Nor did the ministerial mandate letters. They did, however, clearly set out the peacekeeping commitment.)
> 
> The second misconception is that increasing Canada's contribution to peacekeeping necessarily involves sending a large contingent of Canadian troops into a UN mission. The UN would probably welcome any contributions from Canada, but the UN has long asked countries such as Canada to provide more specialized capabilities or "enablers" that are often missing in peacekeeping missions, in part because the developing countries that supply most of the troops for these missions tend to lack these capabilities.
> 
> Examples of such enablers include: special operations forces, transport planes and helicopters, engineering companies, field hospitals, signals companies, intelligence experts and capabilities, and police units. The UN also needs more and better training for the peacekeeping troops deployed by other countries (including training on proper treatment of civilians) as well as specialized units that can deploy quickly to help new missions get established, such as temporary headquarters teams.
> 
> In short, while the government may ultimately choose to deploy regular ground forces on a UN mission, renewing Canada's involvement in peacekeeping does not necessarily translate into large numbers of Canadian boots on the ground.
> http://www.rolandparis.com/#!Canada-and-Peacekeeping-Two-Misconceptions/c21kp/57ab623a0cf273602883fcbb



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kat Stevens

I went through some old stuff and found my OP HARMONY Roto 0 RoE card (that we got two months after arrival).  Fun read, good times.  Anyone want to borrow it?


----------



## medicineman

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I went through some old stuff and found my OP HARMONY Roto 0 RoE card (that we got two months after arrival).  Fun read, good times.  Anyone want to borrow it?



Still have mine from '94...still shaking my head to this day.

MM


----------



## a_majoor

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Aside from your opinion and only thinly veiled hatred of anything Liberal is there any proof to back up this claim? Engagement in Africa isn't in an of itself a bad thing, especially considering we're already militarily engaged in Niger. The implementation of "soft power" as a means of gaining influence and possibly rights for Canadian firms to African resources isn't a bad thing.



Just me and Gen Mackenzie apparently.

Is engagement in Africa really part of out National Interest? Is it serving as an economy of force mission for our forces deployed elsewhere (like Cyprus)? Do we actually have the resources to engage in the Baltic Republics, Ukraine, Iraq _and_ in an undefined mission in Africa (indeed do we have the resources needed for the current set of missions already underway?) Are there perhaps other areas in the world like the South China Sea where our intervention might have greater impact? Outside of aiming for a Security council seat, what sort of geopolitical end state will the mission on Africa accomplish? Are we willing to commit decades of time and resources to actually build and nurture effective social, political and economic infrastructure and institutions to ensure that the aims are achieved and the situation is stabilized in the long term? Are we willing to commit enough resources and demand the ROE for a robust military engagement to degrade and destroy radicals in place if we are not going to commit for nation building?

I know there are journalists who read Army.ca, so here is a list of questions you _might_ start asking, rather than focusing on who is wearing a shirt today...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just me and Gen Mackenzie apparently.
> 
> Is engagement in Africa really part of out National Interest? Is it serving as an economy of force mission for our forces deployed elsewhere (like Cyprus)? Do we actually have the resources to engage in the Baltic Republics, Ukraine, Iraq _and_ in an undefined mission in Africa (indeed do we have the resources needed for the current set of missions already underway?) Are there perhaps other areas in the world like the South China Sea where our intervention might have greater impact? Outside of aiming for a Security council seat, what sort of geopolitical end state will the mission on Africa accomplish? Are we willing to commit decades of time and resources to actually build and nurture effective social, political and economic infrastructure and institutions to ensure that the aims are achieved and the situation is stabilized in the long term? Are we willing to commit enough resources and demand the ROE for a robust military engagement to degrade and destroy radicals in place if we are not going to commit for nation building?
> 
> I know there are journalists who read Army.ca, so here is a list of questions you _might_ start asking, rather than focusing on who is wearing a shirt today...



Our Army etc does what the politicians tell us to do which, in turn, is largely driven by what it will take to make the Perfumed Princes look good.

So, no difference from the past couple of hundred years then.

Viz:


The Widow at Windsor

'Ave you 'eard o' the Widow at Windsor
 With a hairy gold crown on 'er 'ead?
She 'as ships on the foam -- she 'as millions at 'ome,
 An' she pays us poor beggars in red.
    (Ow, poor beggars in red!)
There's 'er nick on the cavalry 'orses,
 There's 'er mark on the medical stores --
An' 'er troopers you'll find with a fair wind be'ind
 That takes us to various wars.
    (Poor beggars! -- barbarious wars!)
       Then 'ere's to the Widow at Windsor,
        An' 'ere's to the stores an' the guns,
       The men an' the 'orses what makes up the forces
        O' Missis Victorier's sons.
       (Poor beggars! Victorier's sons!)

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/widow_at_windsor.html


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Prof. Roland Paris, recent PM Trudeau adviser in PMO,
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/top-trudeau-foreign-policy-advisor-roland-paris-heading-back-to-university-of-ottawa
> 
> responds to Lew Mackenzie:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



To this civilian it sounds like the Professor wants a Brigade Group to deploy without the combat arms elements.  UN to provide Force Protection as well as protecting the locals?


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> To this civilian it sounds like the Professor wants a Brigade Group to deploy without the combat arms elements.  UN to provide Force Protection as well as protecting the locals?


I suspect there would be Canadian infantry for force protection and maybe as an OMLT to a less developed nation's blue beret battalions, but otherwise it is the other parts of the brigade that are harder to source when poorer nations provide the bulk of the manpower.  Just as we have leaned on US capabilities to enable us in Afgahnistan, the UN wants a developed nation to be big brother in its blue beret theaters.

We have already committed to a field hospital for Op IMPACT, so maybe we send an engineer regiment to Africa?


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> To this civilian it sounds like the Professor wants a Brigade Group to deploy without the combat arms elements.  UN to provide Force Protection as well as protecting the locals?


Fitting.  

Roland Paris' major publication, _At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict_,  is all about wonderful ideas, which don't have a chance of working if implemented in the real world.  He has repeatedly stated we need "better planned" interventions..... without a lot of detail on 'better.'

Maybe even he has realized he's better off being back at Ottawa U than being known as this PM's "foreign policy advisor."  


Of course, none of this has _*anything*_  to do with the PM wanting a UNSC seat.....


----------



## Altair

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nature-of-peacekeeping-no-longer-fits-demands-of-conflict-zones-sajjan/article31364202/%3fservice=amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca



> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says what Canada will ask its soldiers to do in Africa can no longer be called peacekeeping because the term doesn’t reflect modern demands of stabilizing a conflict zone – something experts say could run the gamut from training other countries’ troops to counterterrorism.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan spoke from Ethiopia, the first stop in an eight-day fact-finding mission to Africa, as Ottawa tries to narrow where to deploy soldiers in what it promises will be a return to a major peacekeeping role for Canada.
> 
> The Defence Minister acknowledges the job in conflict-ravaged countries is potentially more dangerous these days and said he prefers the phrase “peace support operations” to describe the task Canada is preparing to embrace in one or more places in Africa.
> 
> “I think we can definitely say what we used to have as peacekeeping, before, is no longer. We don’t have two parties that have agreed on peace and there’s a peacekeeping force in between,” he told The Globe and Mail in an interview.
> 
> “Even using the terminology of peacekeeping is not valid at this time,” he said. “Those peacekeeping days, those realities, do not exist now and we need to understand the reality of today.”
> 
> Mr. Sajjan has been directed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “renew Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations” – a campaign pledge made by the Liberals, who had accused the Harper government of turning its back on peacekeeping.
> 
> Canadian soldiers’ participation in peacekeeping has dwindled over time to about 100 today – a major drop when compared with 1993 when 3,300 were deployed in UN peacekeeping missions. Current deployments include about 30 in support of UN peacekeeping missions and 70 posted to a multinational peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula.
> 
> Peacekeeping expert Walter Dorn, with Canadian Forces College, said it’s his understanding that an official memo on the deployment went to cabinet in June, a document he expects would have come with recommendations.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan said he’s made no decisions yet. His options include, but are not limited to, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali and the Central African Republic – all countries with UN peacekeeping missions.
> 
> The remainder of his trip includes the DRC, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya. The Defence Minister declined for security reasons to say if he was to visit Entebbe, Uganda, a major staging ground for logistics to UN missions in East and Central Africa, including the DRC.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan remained non-commital when asked to identify his priorities for a mission choice, saying he must gather more information first.
> 
> “Just because I am not going to a place doesn’t mean I am ruling it out. And just because I am going to a place doesn’t mean I’m putting resources there,” he said.
> 
> Prof. Dorn said if Mr. Sajjan were to visit Entebbe, rather than Kampala, while in Uganda, then he would take that as a stronger indication that Canada is seriously leaning toward a major commitment to the UN mission in the DRC.
> 
> He expects Ottawa will announce its new commitment in September, by the time the UN Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping takes place in London.
> 
> The DRC has been trying to recover from what has been called “Africa’s World War,” a massive conflict that at its peak involved nine countries and was formally ended in 2003 after a peace agreement. The UN mission has dealt with its aftermath and subsequent smaller conflicts.
> 
> “That is a tough conflict, partly because it’s multilayered, partly because of the size of the country,” said Jane Boulden, research chair in international relations and security studies at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston. “There is no easy transport across different zones in the country. It’s deeply corrupt.”
> 
> The former Harper government more than once turned down the command of the peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The last time, in 2008, Canada was still busy with a combat mission in Afghanistan but many in the military were wary, and for some, the prospect of leading a complex mission evoked memories of events in Rwanda, when Canadian general Roméo Dallaire was forced to watch spiralling mass killings under indecisive UN leadership.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan said Canada has a responsibility to do what it can to help African countries, plagued by high unemployment, to fight the forces of destabilization, including terrorist groups such as the Islamic State that are building alliances with regional militants such as Boko Haram and Al-Shabab.
> 
> He said military is not the only tool necessary for peace support operations, noting development assistance helps, too. “Far too often, we think we want to be able to send in a military resource because that is what we’ve done in the past.”
> 
> Accompanying the Defence Minister are Mr. Dallaire, now retired, and Louise Arbour, a former UN high commissioner for human rights who also sat on Canada’s Supreme Court.



Seems like the liberals are well aware of the realities on the ground and aren't going for some old school restrictive ROE blue helmet nonsense of days past.

Go figure.


----------



## CCCB

Altair said:
			
		

> https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nature-of-peacekeeping-no-longer-fits-demands-of-conflict-zones-sajjan/article31364202/%3fservice=amp?client=ms-android-rogers-ca
> 
> Seems like the liberals are well aware of the realities on the ground and aren't going for some old school restrictive ROE blue helmet nonsense of days past.
> 
> Go figure.



>Liberals seek robust new peacekeeping mission to mark "Canada's return".
>Liberals acknowledge this new mission is not peacekeeping.

Wew lad.  Our new political masters sure are funny.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get the impression that our reality based defense Minister is attempting to square the circle with his "Idealist" colleagues in Cabinet. He is to loyal to say "your idea sucks" in public.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> I get the impression that our reality based defense Minister is attempting to square the circle with his "Idealist" colleagues in Cabinet. He is to loyal to say "your idea sucks" in public.



People seem to get a lot of impressions without much evidence.

I get the impression that some use every situation as a chance for political spin and point scoring.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

What disturbs me the most in that article, is that it sounds like it's up to the Minister of Defence to decide. The government almost feels akin to a kid throwing a tantrum: "I want a Peacekeeping operation, I want it Now NOW NOW!! Go get me one."

If Canada wants to "re-engage" with UN peacekeeping operations - which I agree we should not blindly accept without checking it out - should not the first step be to ask the UN where they think we could be useful to them and then - only then - check to see if it fits our capabilities and national will to see through? Not the other way around where we shop the missions and then just tell the UN "I want in on that one."


----------



## jmt18325

I think I'd rather we decide than them.


----------



## Altair

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What disturbs me the most in that article, is that it sounds like it's up to the Minister of Defence to decide. The government almost feels akin to a kid throwing a tantrum: "I want a Peacekeeping operation, I want it Now NOW NOW!! Go get me one."
> 
> If Canada wants to "re-engage" with UN peacekeeping operations - which I agree we should not blindly accept without checking it out - should not the first step be to ask the UN where they think we could be useful to them and then - only then - check to see if it fits our capabilities and national will to see through? Not the other way around where we shop the missions and then just tell the UN "I want in on that one."


Would you rather a bunch of politicians in Ottawa decide or a army vet in sajjan and a former peacekeeping commander who has seen things go sideways in dallaire make the decision ?


----------



## Kirkhill

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> To this civilian it sounds like the Professor wants a Brigade Group to deploy without the combat arms elements.  UN to provide Force Protection as well as protecting the locals?



What would be the Command and Control issues with that sort of arrangement?   I am thinking of the implications on morale if you had well paid western soldiers staying in the rear supplying support while you had low paid third-world soldiers up front doing all the "interacting".  I can't imagine that the outcome would be good.  It seems to me that the risk of the mission generating bad press would be high with the supporting nation(s)'s reputation being dragged into the mud.

I am not saying that all third world troops aren't good troops.  I know that historically they have made as good soldiers as any - when well led.  And part of that leadership involves sharing their hardships.

It seems to me that, to demonstrate that leadership, the supporting nation is going to have to demonstrate a willingness to share sacrifice by taking up a front line role as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says what Canada will ask its soldiers to do in Africa can no longer be called peacekeeping because the term doesn’t reflect modern demands of stabilizing a conflict zone – something experts say could run the gamut from training other countries’ troops to counterterrorism.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan spoke from Ethiopia, the first stop in an eight-day fact-finding mission to Africa, as Ottawa tries to narrow where to deploy soldiers in what it promises will be a return to a major peacekeeping role for Canada.




Perhaps the latest from our MND is part of the greater plan.

1.  In the election, promise a return to peacekeeping after Afghanistan and Iraq.  War-mongering Harper!  

2.  Then, before deploying, send 'someone' into the area to assess.  Provide the assessment in a manner palatable to the public as to reasons why 'traditional peacekeeping missions actually no longer exist'    who knew!  .  Wow what a new piece of information that is!!  

3.  Get a feel for the public's reaction and go from there.  If people question your 'change', you simply point the finger and the previous government and say "we didn't know what was going on, we weren't in power for a decade.  Harper is bad remember?"

Regardless of motives, if this puts better ROE for our troops going  into harms way and less KIA/WIA, I'll take it (as a tax payers and serving member).


----------



## Old Sweat

In the seventies most of our participation in peacekeeping was with signals and combat service support organizations. The logic was that almost any country could provide infantry and light armour, but it took a sophisticated western nation to support them.

The medals on display on the CF Greens reflected this. Combat arms might have a Cyprus gong, with a few "new UNEF" ones, with the sigs and CSS would have three or four medals besides the inevitable CDs.


----------



## Altair

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Perhaps the latest from our MND is part of the greater plan.
> 
> 1.  In the election, promise a return to peacekeeping after Afghanistan and Iraq.  War-mongering Harper!
> 
> 2.  Then, before deploying, send 'someone' into the area to assess.  Provide the assessment in a manner palatable to the public as to reasons why 'traditional peacekeeping missions actually no longer exist'    who knew!  .  Wow what a new piece of information that is!!
> 
> 3.  Get a feel for the public's reaction and go from there.  If people question your 'change', you simply point the finger and the previous government and say "we didn't know what was going on, we weren't in power for a decade.  Harper is bad remember?"
> 
> Regardless of motives, if this puts better ROE for our troops going  into harms way and less KIA/WIA, I'll take it (as a tax payers and serving member).


Or pivot and take on a training mission as opposed to combat mission.

Don't see why they would do #3. Doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A current government blaming the previous one for something happening now?  You're right...never happened in the past and likely won't in the future.   :blotto:

You know I'm not a fan of the LPC, but I find this article/words from the MND hard to criticize.  If he went down and said "oh no, all is well, start issuing blue berets" people would be jumping up and down.  He isn't, he is stating things have changed from (what Canadians think of when they think of peacekeeping) and...people will still jump up and down.   :dunno:


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A current government blaming the previous one for something happening now?  You're right...never happened in the past and likely won't in the future.   :blotto:



I don't see ignorance of reality to be something that you can easily blame on the previous government.  Even if they were ignorant of this (I doubt they were, given that the Liberals have more ex military members than any other party), they aren't going to say it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think I'd rather we decide than them.





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Would you rather a bunch of politicians in Ottawa decide or a army vet in sajjan and a former peacekeeping commander who has seen things go sideways in dallaire make the decision ?



Neither.

What I want is a proper, professional, thought through process leading to a decision fully supported by the public.

In such process, you would start by engaging with the UN and ask them where they require assistance (ask for more than one, ask for their higher priorities). Then, you would obtain from the UN all of the information/intelligence the UN possesses on those conflicts.

Next, you would send a professional evaluation team to the various places to observe, review and evaluate. Note that I said professional - not the Minister of Defence, who should be in Ottawa with better things to do; nor an ex-UN "human rights" advocate or ex-justice, even if of the Supreme Court (basically a life long lawyer) who has never fought or learned to fight conflict in her whole life; and neither an long retired soldier (even with all the respect I have for general Dallaire) turned politician who has never fought in modern day counter-insurgency conflicts.

I would send senior military officers from the combat arms, together with senior people from the intel side, and senior Africa specialists from Foreign Affairs. They would then report to the political masters through their professional heads (DM for Foreign Affairs, Clerk of Privy Council for intel and the CDS and DM jointly for National Defence. I would hope that the Cabinet would hear the CDS on the military risks of each mission contemplated in the lead up to the decision.

Finally, I would hope that the government would then make its decision known to the public and clearly explain to the public both the why that mission was selected and what to honestly expect that we will accomplish and at what potential cost, so Canadians can get behind the mission.

Right now, with the Minister, Mr. Dallaire and Ms. Arbour, the whole show is completely and exclusively political, no matter how qualified on matters they used to be in past incarnations; and it is set so that the professional heads of the various department or of the military are in no position to advise properly. 

That, in my mind, is not good news.


----------



## Altair

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't see ignorance of reality to be something that you can easily blame on the previous government.  Even if they were ignorant of this (I doubt they were, given that the Liberals have more ex military members than any other party), they aren't going to say it.


This.

Blaming a previous government for the fiscal situation inherited or problems in certain departments is par for the course.

Ignorance of what is happening on the ground in UN peacekeeping/peacemaking missions? That's a stretch.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't see ignorance of reality to be something that you can easily blame on the previous government.  Even if they were ignorant of this (I doubt they were, given that the Liberals have more ex military members than any other party), they aren't going to say it.



With the current 'voting population' and love for any and all things JMT?  Sure they could (IMO).

They could say it...he could strike a new yoga pose while photobombing a wedding or something...and who'd remember that thing that was said before the photobomb?   ;D


----------



## Altair

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Neither.
> 
> What I want is a proper, professional, thought through process leading to a decision fully supported by the public.
> 
> In such process, you would start by engaging with the UN and ask them where they require assistance (ask for more than one, ask for their higher priorities). Then, you would obtain from the UN all of the information/intelligence the UN possesses on those conflicts.
> 
> Next, you would send a professional evaluation team to the various places to observe, review and evaluate. Note that I said professional - not the Minister of Defence, who should be in Ottawa with better things to do; nor an ex-UN "human rights" advocate or ex-justice, even if of the Supreme Court (basically a life long lawyer) who has never fought or learned to fight conflict in her whole life; and neither an long retired soldier (even with all the respect I have for general Dallaire) turned politician who has never fought in modern day counter-insurgency conflicts.
> 
> I would send senior military officers from the combat arms, together with senior people from the intel side, and senior Africa specialists from Foreign Affairs. They would then report to the political masters through their professional heads (DM for Foreign Affairs, Clerk of Privy Council for intel and the CDS and DM jointly for National Defence. I would hope that the Cabinet would hear the CDS on the military risks of each mission contemplated in the lead up to the decision.
> 
> Finally, I would hope that the government would then make its decision known to the public and clearly explain to the public both the why that mission was selected and what to honestly expect that we will accomplish and at what potential cost, so Canadians can get behind the mission.
> 
> Right now, with the Minister, Mr. Dallaire and Ms. Arbour, the whole show is completely and exclusively political, no matter how qualified on matters they used to be in past incarnations; and it is set so that the professional heads of the various department or of the military are in no position to advise properly.
> 
> That, in my mind, is not good news.


And then we wake up?

Seriously, when in the history of Canada as a nation has this ever happened?


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> With the current 'voting population' and love for any and all things JMT?  Sure they could (IMO).



I know a lot of people love me, but I don't think you meant me, so I'm going to assume you meant JPT.



> They could say it...he could strike a new yoga pose while photobombing a wedding or something...and who'd remember that thing that was said before the photobomb?   ;D



I get that people of a certain political stripe don't understand his popularity, but it's not really about that.  Still, this isn't the place for me to go into an analysis of the reasons that people like him in a way that they haven't liked their head of government for a long time.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If Canada wants to "re-engage" with UN peacekeeping operations - which I agree we should not blindly accept without checking it out - should not the first step be to ask the UN where they think we could be useful to them and then - only then - check to see if it fits our capabilities and national will to see through? Not the other way around where we shop the missions and then just tell the UN "I want in on that one."


Why do you assume this exchange of information has not already happened?



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Perhaps the latest from our MND is part of the greater plan.
> 
> ...


Or maybe it is a sign that the government has had a better understanding of modern peace support operations than many here have given credit for.  Could the minister have taken an opportunity to educate the media on things he already knows, to change vernacular of the discussion as it is presented to the average Canadian and thereby bring public perceptions in line with reality?


----------



## Good2Golf

If Global Affaires Minister Stephane Dion and his staff (which includes linkages with DND) had not already engaged the UN regarding its desired priorities for PK ops, I would be surprised (and disappointed).  Just because we haven't heard details about such discussions doesn't mean that they are not known.  

That a member of Privy Council is actually on the ground as part of the conduct of the recce is not necessarily a bad thing.  Ground truth, vice taking a report vetted through a number of bureaucrats and passed through the Clerk, isn't to say that the Executive (Privy Council) doesn't trust anyone.  Yes, there is a bit of showmanship going on here as well, no doubt, however, it is refreshing to see the MND make some rather frank (and true) statements about peace operations (ops with an intend to establish or build peace, particularly where little to non may exist), vice pre-judging every potential activity as a peace_keeping_ operation.  It would seem that Mr. Sajjan is beginning to find his pace in the Town.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> People seem to get a lot of impressions without much evidence.
> 
> I get the impression that some use every situation as a chance for political spin and point scoring.



I like Sanjin, but I think he has his work cut out for him to educate the rest of the Cabinet and yes I have decades of evidence from previous encounters with the Liberals and mindset.


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like Sanjin, but I think he has his work cut out for him to educate the rest of the Cabinet and yes I have decades of evidence from previous encounters with the Liberals and mindset.


That's like saying you have experience from Vietnam when talking about the Iraq war.

Cool, but not relevant to the current situation.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> Or maybe it is a sign that the government has had a better understanding of modern peace support operations than many here have given credit for.  Could the minister have taken an opportunity to educate the media on things he already knows, to change vernacular of the discussion as it is presented to the average Canadian and thereby bring public perceptions in line with reality?



I think that this may be closer to the truth than most on this forum are willing to give credit for. We have to remember the LGen (Ret'd) Leslie, former Commander of the Army, is also in the Liberal caucus and is, no doubt, providing as much, if not more, insight into these matters than Minister Sajjan. While some may not like Leslie personally, he has more knowledge of Peace Support operations and modern military requirements than likely the entire Conservative government before this one.


----------



## blackberet17

Time spent on recce is never time wasted.

I appreciate the MND taking the time to personally (when was the last time such a thing happened??) hear from the political and military minds during his fact-finding mission. I also appreciate Sen Dallaire there - someone who has had to deal with the UN, on a "peacekeeping" mission, in an African country. While it may have been more than twenty years since UNAMIR, it's still the most current experience available (aside from the CANSOFCOM pers in Niger, etc.).

On a side note, anyone visit the CANSOFCOM web page lately? Ironic how under the "Myths" tab for CSOR, there are...none.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> Or maybe it is a sign that the government has had a better understanding of modern peace support operations than many here have given credit for.  Could the minister have taken an opportunity to educate the media on things he already knows, to change vernacular of the discussion as it is presented to the average Canadian and thereby bring public perceptions in line with reality?



Sure, but I'm still wary of this government.  Overall, the MND might have taken advantage of the opportunity but I still lean towards the earlier post I made;  promise a return to peacekeeping, then find a way to explain to the public who elected you why 'peacekeeping' no longer exists.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Altair said:
			
		

> That's like saying you have experience from Vietnam when talking about the Iraq war.
> 
> Cool, but not relevant to the current situation.



This is the third government I have worked for, I am not seeing anything different than the previous Liberal one from the inside, other than Chreatian keeping his shirt on. The Liberal Party has not changed much, despite a few shining stars in Cabinet.


----------



## Altair

Colin P said:
			
		

> This is the third government I have worked for, I am not seeing anything different than the previous Liberal one from the inside, other than Chreatian keeping his shirt on. The Liberal Party has not changed much, despite a few shining stars in Cabinet.


While I would love to point out all of the difference between this liberal goverment and liberal governments past I think that would constitute a derail of this thread to a subject currently banned in this site.


----------



## jmt18325

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like Sanjin, but I think he has his work cut out for him to educate the rest of the Cabinet and yes I have decades of evidence from previous encounters with the Liberals and mindset.



And again, there are more Liberals that have military experience than people from any other party - I don't see the evidence.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The question is, IMO, is that experience falling on open, or closed, ears.   :2c:


----------



## jmt18325

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The question is, IMO, is that experience falling on open, or closed, ears.   :2c:



And we don't know the answer to that - speculation seems valueless.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And the numbers of members of the house in any party with military backgrounds is a pittance when set against sitting houses of the past.  I think the last sitting PM with any military experience was Mike Pearson in the 60's and his experience was 40 years behind him then.


----------



## Kat Stevens

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And we don't know the answer to that - speculation seems valueless.



Motion carried!  Shut the thread down!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And we don't know the answer to that - speculation seems valueless.



Agreed on both aspects.   8)


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And again, there are more Liberals that have military experience than people from any other party - I don't see the evidence.



 ???

There are, and have been, a fair number of former military Members of Parliament from Parties other than the Liberals.  I would not make any suggestions that the Liberals hold any higher form of legitimacy in stating that they have more former military members than others.   And as our elected representatives, does that even matter?


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> People seem to get a lot of impressions without much evidence.
> 
> I get the impression that some use every situation as a chance for political spin and point scoring.


You mean like everything between 2006 and Oct 2015?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And the numbers of members of the house in any party with military backgrounds is a pittance when set against sitting houses of the past.  I think the last sitting PM with any military experience was Mike Pearson in the 60's and his experience was 40 years behind him then.



Is LGen (Ret'd) good enough military experience? He commanded the army, so he probably has some concept of PSO, conventional, or asymmetric operations. Also, he was the COS for Sector south in Yugo and a DCO in Croatia and served in A-Stan.... 

In fact, he is likely a far better source of knowledge and is likely conducting a lot of the behind the scenes advising on these matters with the new government. Minister Sajjan's experience is good, but he wouldn't have been exposed to nearly as much on the strategic side of the military due to his tactical level position.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are, and have been, a fair number of former military Members of Parliament from Parties other than the Liberals.



I don't know why people read things that aren't there.  Currently, there are more Liberals that have served.  That's the current reality that this government is working with.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>And again, there are more Liberals that have military experience than people from any other party - I don't see the evidence.

Largely irrelevant.  We need to stop fetishizing prior military service as if it means every ex-member is broadly knowledgeable.  This is geopolitical turf.  The "military" is only a small piece.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And again, there are more Liberals that have military experience than people from any other party - I don't see the evidence.
> 
> Largely irrelevant.  We need to stop fetishizing prior military service as if it means every ex-member is broadly knowledgeable.  This is geopolitical turf.  The "military" is only a small piece.



Once again, former Commander of the Canadian Army... I'd say pretty knowledgable


----------



## Kirkhill

I suggest, that we as Canadians, stick our heads above the parapet and take a look around.   The world is getting to be a very messy place and by this time next year is at risk of being a very different place.

One reason that PM May is holding off on Brexit, I believe, one reason among many, is to see the outcome of the US elections.  She has until the end of March 2017 to "unilaterally" withdraw from the EU by triggering Article 50.

The old sureties from WW2 are no longer as firm as they were and China, Russia and the US are once more playing on a more level playing field.  Unfortunately it is at a diminished level on which even more players can play  New alliances are likely to be necessary - and new obligations.  I believe it is one of those rare periods of history when the world will force itself on Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Is LGen (Ret'd) good enough military experience? He commanded the army, so he probably has some concept of PSO, conventional, or asymmetric operations. Also, he was the COS for Sector south in Yugo and a DCO in Croatia and served in A-Stan....
> 
> In fact, he is likely a far better source of knowledge and is likely conducting a lot of the behind the scenes advising on these matters with the new government. Minister Sajjan's experience is good, but he wouldn't have been exposed to nearly as much on the strategic side of the military due to his tactical level position.



He's one man, amongst not too many men and women in the present HoC that have military experience in ratio to the whole.  The point I was making if you would like to review it, was that the numbers of MP's with said experience is a pittance when set against what there was in the past.  I am sure this select group will have a variance between the skill sets/exposure they gained as well, as do us all.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> This is the third government I have worked for, I am not seeing anything different than the previous Liberal one from the inside, other than Chreatian keeping his shirt on. The Liberal Party has not changed much, despite a few shining stars in Cabinet.




Lemme see, now: John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson alternated being PM when I first joined; then I served while Pierre Trudeau and (briefly) Joe Clark were in power (those were the real "decadesof darkness;" then it was John Turner, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell ~ yes, Turner and Campbell actually were PMs; then it was Jean Chrétien and what I would call a "decade of dimness" (I retired while JC was PM); Paul Martin and Stephen Harper followed and both wanted to do something but the "military machine" was, especially in its "brain" and "central nervous system" too old, and creaky and rusted out and seized up; now we have Justin Trudeau. So I served under eight PMs (four PC and 4 Liberal) and I've watched three more (one CPC and two Liberals) (total of 11 prime minister) and _I think I can say, honestly, that each did pretty much what Canadians wanted_, tempered, in most cases, by what more powerful allied political leaders demanded, too. I don't think governments, _per se_, are pro or anti-military ~ some leaders PET and JC, were, but their desires are tempered by their cabinet, the PM is "_primes inter pares_" which means he's still somewhat restrained by our system. Canadians don't want war ~ who does? and they don't like military _adventurism_ and they would much, much rather see their taxes either lowered or spent on social programmes than see defence spending increased.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> He's one man, amongst not too many men and women in the present HoC that have military experience in ratio to the whole.  The point I was making if you would like to review it, was that the numbers of MP's with said experience is a pittance when set against what there was in the past.  I am sure this select group will have a variance between the skill sets/exposure they gained as well, as do us all.



You're right, but they were also the veterans of WWII. Less another large scale war on that magnitude, having a former commander in parliament is about as good as you're getting.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Once again, former Commander of the Canadian Army... I'd say pretty knowledgable

I referred to "more Liberals", not "one Liberal".


----------



## OldSolduer

The CAF and Canadians and JT best be careful what they wish for. It may come true.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A few more tea leaves to read ...

_"The Security Council today authorized a 4,000-strong regional protection force within the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), “responsible for providing a secure environment in and around Juba,” the capital, which in early July was the scene of the latest eruption of deadly violence in the young country, exacerbating an already desperate humanitarian situation ..."_ (U.N. News Centre)
_"Canada welcomes UN Security Council decision to strengthen UN Mission in South Sudan"_ (Foreign Affairs Info-machine)
_"The Spokesperson of South Sudan President Salva Kiir angrily reacted on Friday to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing deployment of up to /4000 troops to protect civilians at risk of extreme violence and to help in the implementation of peace agreement.  Presidential Spokesperson Ateny Wek Ateny, told the media late on Friday that the government of President Salva Kiir on whose behalf he spoke, will not cooperate with the United Nations approved force ..."_ (Sudan Tribune)
_"South Sudan softens stance on UN peacekeeping force -- Presidential spokesperson says government will accept force if it can negotiate its size, mandate, weapons and members ..."_ (Al Jazeera)
_"Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will hold a teleconference on Monday, August 15th 2016 to provide an update on his trip to Africa.  The Minister is currently on a five-country*** visit to Africa where he is meeting with African partners as part of a fact-finding trip to inform Canada’s re-engagement in peace support operations ..."_ (DND Info-machine)

*** -- Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda


----------



## Edward Campbell

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A few more tea leaves to read ...
> 
> _"The Security Council today authorized a 4,000-strong regional protection force within the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), “responsible for providing a secure environment in and around Juba,” the capital, which in early July was the scene of the latest eruption of deadly violence in the young country, exacerbating an already desperate humanitarian situation ..."_ (U.N. News Centre)
> _"Canada welcomes UN Security Council decision to strengthen UN Mission in South Sudan"_ (Foreign Affairs Info-machine)
> _"The Spokesperson of South Sudan President Salva Kiir angrily reacted on Friday to a resolution of the United Nations Security Council authorizing deployment of up to /4000 troops to protect civilians at risk of extreme violence and to help in the implementation of peace agreement.  Presidential Spokesperson Ateny Wek Ateny, told the media late on Friday that the government of President Salva Kiir on whose behalf he spoke, will not cooperate with the United Nations approved force ..."_ (Sudan Tribune)
> _"South Sudan softens stance on UN peacekeeping force -- Presidential spokesperson says government will accept force if it can negotiate its size, mandate, weapons and members ..."_ (Al Jazeera)
> _"Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will hold a teleconference on Monday, August 15th 2016 to provide an update on his trip to Africa.  The Minister is currently on a five-country*** visit to Africa where he is meeting with African partners as part of a fact-finding trip to inform Canada’s re-engagement in peace support operations ..."_ (DND Info-machine)
> 
> *** -- Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda




The links suggests we _might_ join these guys (and gals) ...







... who are already taking casualties.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The links suggests we _might_ join these guys (and gals) ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... who are already taking casualties.


Some media outlets are saying it was sorta-kinda China's idea (or they brought it up, anyway) ...

I doubt the DefMin will commit on Monday, but it'll be interesting to see/hear what he has to say at tomorrow's chat with media.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I doubt the DefMin will commit on Monday.....


If I was the gambling type, I'd wager that _any_  announcement will be the sole purview of the Prime Minister....most likely at his September UN meeting photo op.

Interestingly, given the comment by E.R. Campbell above, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's state visit to Canada -- the first since 2010 -- will occur during the week before the expected UN announcement.


op:   <---- me, on the edge of my seat.    /not so much


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If I was the gambling type, I'd wager that _any_  announcement will be the sole purview of the Prime Minister....most likely at his September UN meeting photo op.
> 
> Interestingly, given the comment by E.R. Campbell above, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's state visit to Canada -- the first since 2010 -- will occur during the week before the expected UN announcement.
> 
> 
> op:   <---- me, on the edge of my seat.    /not so much


More grist for the mill, indeed.


----------



## Kirkhill

Meanwhile in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/09/chinas-relationship-with-uk-at-risk-over-hinkley-point-delay-war/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point

Hinckley Point is a proposed nuclear power plant in the UK being built by a French company - EDF - with Chinese backing.  It was approved by David Cameron and George Osborne over the objections of Theresa May.  At the time she was the Home Secretary and responsible for MI5.

After she became Prime Minister EDF tried to back her into a corner by organizing a grand project launch ceremony - The French and the Chinese were already booked.  

Prime Minister May - called a halt to the project and imposed an indefinite delay on it.  The French and the Chinese were not amused.

Now back to your discussions about CANZUK agreements (Canada - Australia - New Zealand  - United Kingdom) and our Prime Minister's appreciation for the way the Chinese Government is capable of managing its citizenry.

Journeyman will need an extra bucket of popcorn - and a couple of flats of beer for this one.


----------



## medicineman

Funny speaking of the Chinese in UN terms...I walked into my UMS in Haiti when on OP HALO and found about 30 Chinese dudes in there on a tour.  "What's this I ask?"  Guy looks at me with a straight face and says "They're Chinese National Police and they're here to train the HNP about riot control."  I just shook my head and walked out...when you consider that many of the militaries represented in MINUSTAH were a who's who of South American human rights violators, I shouldn't have been surprised.  Thankfully the HNP would have had a hard time redoing Tiananmen Square with taptaps.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another interesting element to throw into the mix -- this from a few days ago, from African media, shared under the Fair Use provisions of the _Copyright Act_:


> *Somalia: Ethiopia And Canada to Restore Peace in the Country*
> 
> Ethiopia and Canada will see increase in their exchanges in the fields of peacekeeping and security, according to Canadian Minister of Defense, Harjit Singh Sajjan.
> 
> The Minister (Friday) met and discussed with Prime Minister Hailemariam Dessalegn in Addis Ababa.
> 
> "It is a great opportunity for Canada and Ethiopia to build this relationship. We have had a long tradition of working together as militaries from Korea to many different UN missions we have conducted," the Canadian Minister told journalists following his meeting with Hailemariam.
> 
> Minister Sajjan appreciated Ethiopia's endeavors and the so far contribution in peacekeeping missions in the Horn of Africa and beyond.
> 
> "It [Ethiopia] is already showing a leadership role," he said, adding Canada values Ethiopia's contribution in trying to bring stability to Somalia and the South Sudan.
> 
> He said Canada is interested to cooperate with Ethiopian in areas of peacekeeping and security, with further interest to enhance cooperation in other fields such as trade and investment.


----------



## larry Strong

Apparently in for a long time........shared under the Fair Use provisions of the Copyright Act:  

*Canada's military plan for Africa will be for a 'long duration,' says Sajjan*




> OTTAWA -- Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan says he will soon announce a plan to send Canadian troops on a long-term mission to Africa.
> 
> Sajjan says while no decisions have been made yet on numbers, timing or location, Canada's contribution to a United Nations mission will involve more than the military and go beyond what would be considered a traditional peacekeeping role.
> 
> Sajjan made the comment in a teleconference marking the end of a five-country, fact-finding mission to Africa.
> 
> 
> The minister visited Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda before making his final stop in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during the eight-day trip.
> 
> He was accompanied by former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour, who is also a former UN high commissioner for human rights, and retired lieutenant-general Romeo Dallaire, who once commanded a UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda.
> 
> Defence and Global Affairs department officials have been assessing the possibility of Canada joining UN peacekeeping operations in Mali or the Central African Republic.




Cheers
Larry

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-s-military-plan-for-africa-will-be-for-a-long-duration-says-sajjan-1.3029508


----------



## blackberet17

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

>



Nice watch.

Is it only the guys on the end who get wpns?


----------



## Loch Sloy!

An interesting look at the kit the Chinese brought with them;
http://eng.mod.gov.cn/DefenseNews/2015-04/10/content_4579404.htm


----------



## McG

The Globe and Mail has given its thoughts on the subject:





> *Globe editorial: The Liberals promised peacekeeping, but it’s not 1957 any more *
> The Globe and Mail
> 14 Aug 2016
> 
> As he makes a whirlwind trip through half a dozen African countries, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is speaking honestly about a term beloved of many Canadians, particularly Liberal voters: peacekeeping.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s election platform promised: “We will renew Canada’s commitment to peacekeeping operations.”
> 
> Problem: The peacekeeping that Baby Boomers grew up with, and that some Canadians still mythologize, no longer exists. As invented by Lester Pearson, it involved troops standing on an international border or ceasefire line, placed between two states that wanted to prevent incidents that might restart a war.
> 
> But traditional peacekeeping is a business that died a long time ago. There’s a great demand for it in Canadian domestic politics, but nowhere else. Mr. Sajjan acknowledged this recently, saying that the “terminology of ‘peacekeeping’ is not valid at this time.”
> 
> The word “peace” is still part of the Liberal government’s emerging policy, but it means something very different. The prevailing phrase is “peace support operations.” Those operations may include combat. And “peace support” does not necessarily imply that there is an existing state of peace in the country or region in question.
> 
> Indeed, one of the “peace supports” in this evolving doctrine will be “more forceful military action required to establish peaceful conditions,” as some of its advocates put it. Call it peace imposition. Call it war.
> 
> The ironic upshot may well turn out to be that the Trudeau government, having campaigned in 2015 on what sounded like traditional Pearsonian peacekeeping, will end up having a more muscular foreign policy than anything the ostensibly hardline Harper government ever aspired to.
> 
> Some of the African countries Canada is considering sending “peacekeepers” to are dangerous places. It is telling that the Canadian Forces’ experience with so-called “peace operations” in Afghanistan is seen as helpful. Our troops in Afghanistan were not peacekeeping. They fought a war, and one more deadly than any Canadians had faced since the Korean War.
> 
> The Liberal spin-doctors want something they can brand “peacekeeping.” The government should be very careful about using and misusing that label, lest it end up deceiving the public, and itself.


 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/the-liberals-promised-peacekeeping-but-its-not-1957-any-more/article31393784/

If it was the minister's intent to shift the vernacular of the public conversation, then it would seem he is meeting his goals.  This is good.  "Peace support" has been the language of Canadian military doctrine for at least 20 years now.  If the Canadian media and public bring themselves to start speaking on the topic in the same language that the military is speaking, then they are that much closer to sharing our understanding of the topic.


----------



## MARS

The Comments Sections are best avoided, but occasionally you come across a little gem:



> Canada and Lester B Pearson did not 'invent' peacekeeping. That is a Canadian Liberal myth that the media is pleased to propagate. In a Ruxted Group report http://ruxted.ca/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html provides the real history - Peacekeeping was invented in 1948 by Ralph Bunche (US) and Brain Urguhart (UK). Peacekeeping (blue berets and binoculars), has been replaced with Peace Support operations (body armour and bullets).



Go Ruxted!!


----------



## MarkOttawa

And the UNEF peacekeeping force for Sinai in 1956 was not just a brilliant idea of Mike Pearson's--see second para here (with some personal background):



> Canadian Suez Policy was not About the Middle East
> http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=105



Mark Collins


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And the UNEF peacekeeping force for Sinai in 1956 was not just a brilliant idea of Mike Pearson's--see second para here (with some personal background):
> 
> Mark Collins



And now the return "East of Suez".

https://imperialglobalexeter.com/2016/05/10/britains-return-east-of-suez-a-historical-perspective/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And the UNEF peacekeeping force for Sinai in 1956 was not just a brilliant idea of Mike Pearson's--see second para here (with some personal background):
> 
> Mark Collins



The other aspect of that operation that people forget is how it impressed and influenced the future PM Pearson on the importance of a distinct Canadian identity.

Most of the equipment for the Canadian UNEF force contingent was shipped onboard HMCS MAGNIFICENT, Canada's then aircraft carrier. But like all Canadian warship of the time, she flew the same White Ensign as the RN ships, and the Egyptian threatened to sink her if she entered their waters. A quick "re-branding" using a combination of the Canadian blue and red ensigns was required as last ditch measure. Later, as PM, Pearson remembered this important draw back in independent operations abroad and that is what caused him to seek the adoption of a completely distinct and "non-British" Canadian flag, Diefenbaker's tears notwithstanding.


----------



## Edward Campbell

You may recall that the first Canadian contingent to UNEF was supposed to be the Queens Own Rifles of Canada (QORofC) but Egyptian President Nasser objected, on the not unreasonable grounds that he would not be able to explain to his own people why a regiment that "belonged" to the same queen whose aemy had just invaded Egypt was now being sent to "keep the peace."

A very nimble Canadian Army general staff very quickly tasked the Armoured Corps, Signals, and the Ordnance, Service and RCEME corps to cobble together squadron/company sized units that were, of course, a real godsend to the force commander and that became the template for other UN missions, including the Congo, UNEF II and the Golan Heights.

There's a brilliant cartoon about it ...


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You may recall that the first Canadian contingent to UNEF was supposed to be the Queens Own Rifles of Canada (QORofC) but Egyptian President Nasser objected, on the not unreasonable grounds that he would not be able to explain to his own people why a regiment that "belonged" to the same queen whose aemy had just invaded Egypt was now being sent to "keep the peace."
> 
> A very nimble Canadian Army general staff very quickly tasked the Armoured Corps, Signals, and the Ordnance, Service and RCEME corps to cobble together squadron/company sized units that were, of course, a real godsend to the force commander and that became the template for other UN missions, including the Congo, UNEF II and the Golan Heights.
> 
> There's a brilliant cartoon about it ...



Ted

As I recall, the real downside was that one of the QOR battalions was posted to Egypt from Currie Barracks in Calgary. The system reacted and made them clear out on posting, including vacating their PMQs which then went to the next folks on the list. When the deployment was cancelled, they came back to Calgary and the members who had been in PMQs went to the bottom of the waiting list. (I was in high school at the time, but saw a newspaper story about it. The QOR officer who was BM of 4 CIBG confirmed the story to me ten years after the event.) It may be a military legend, but it sounds like something the army of the time would have pulled.


----------



## Blackadder1916

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . .  the first Canadian contingent to UNEF was supposed to be the Queens Own Rifles of Canada (QORofC) . . .



While it doesn't get into a detailed explanation for the rejection of the QOR, this is an interesting clip about the preparations of the battalion and the "Maggie".

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/blue-berets-help-not-wanted


----------



## The Bread Guy

Narrowing it down a bit, then ...

_"Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan knows how many troops he wants to send to Africa, but says he has no clear direction from cabinet on where to place them ..."_
_"Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he has decided on the size of Canada’s expanded contribution to United Nations “peace support operations” and plans to announce that decision soon but would not say Monday where he plans to put those troops ..."_
_"... "I do have a number that we will be announcing shortly that we can sustain for a long duration," Sajjan said during a teleconference from the Democratic Republic of Congo.  And while no final decisions have been made yet on numbers, timing or location, Canada's contribution to a UN mission on the continent will involve more than the military and go beyond what would be considered a traditional peacekeeping role, Sajjan said ..."_


----------



## PuckChaser

He's waiting for Telford and Butts to tell Trudeau what to decide. Dollars to donuts they even have the size nailed down, and the minister's report is "taken under advisement" and then promptly placed in the Somalia Photocopier™.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's waiting for Telford and Butts to tell Trudeau what to decide.



This stuff gets tiring.  Unless you were there, you have no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is the case.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This stuff gets tiring.  Unless you were there, you have no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is the case.



Indeed.

PuckChaser, you forgot Dion.


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Journeyman will need an extra bucket of popcorn - and a couple of flats of beer for this one.


If that's what it takes....  :nod:       :cheers:


----------



## GAP

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> PuckChaser, you forgot Dion.



Hmmm.....that's a little above his paygrade.....no?.....


----------



## Lumber

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This stuff gets tiring.  Unless you were there, you have no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is the case.



Lol... if you think you can convince the gentlemen on this site, with your words alone, that our current PM is nothing more than a puppet for the Laurentian elites, then as they say, "You done come to the wrong town, partner".


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This stuff gets tiring.  Unless you were there, you have no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is the case.



It is rather naive to think that Telford and Butts are not 'right in there' advising Trudeau what to do.


----------



## Loachman

Lumber said:
			
		

> Lol... if you think you can convince the gentlemen on this site, with your words alone, that our current PM is nothing more than a puppet for the Laurentian elites, then as they say, "You done come to the wrong town, partner".



Unless he was there, he has no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is not the case.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is rather naive to think that Telford and Butts are not 'right in there' advising Trudeau what to do.



I'm sure they are advising him.  I doubt that they're puppet masters, as many here seem to constantly imply.


----------



## Lightguns

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is rather naive to think that Telford and Butts are not 'right in there' advising Trudeau what to do.



Yeah, does not make a tin foil hat to believe that the PM's BFF since uni and former WWF kingpin is not making some inroads into how Canada is run.  And those inroads likely are counter to how the country has been run successfully in the past.  As for ``Laurentian elites``, I am not sure what rock face they are standing on but they don`t shop where I do.  The reality is that there is a group of people who by hook, crook, or cash attempt to control a lot of stuff that can get you and me maimed, killed or taxed to death.


----------



## jmt18325

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yeah, does not make a tin foil hat to believe that the PM's BFF since uni and former WWF kingpin is not making some inroads into how Canada is run.  And those inroads likely are counter to how the country has been run successfully in the past.



Counter?  I've seen nothing that differs much from Chretien or even Harper when it comes to economic policy, or even foreign policy (somewhat different from Harper there, but not that much.

Sorry, I'm off topic.


----------



## Journeyman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This stuff gets tiring.  Unless you were there, you have no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is the case.


How magnificently ironic.


----------



## Lumber

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm off topic.



This is what happens when you lock the political thread...



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless he was there, he has no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is not the case.



...

touché...

In any case, I'm just excited to find out what the mission is so I can see if they need an OpsO or other staff job I can apply for.


----------



## jmt18325

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How magnificently ironic.



That was actually, exactly the point.  I get stomped on for evidenced claims that experience tells some here to disagree with.  Politics is something I've studied for years - people providing un-evidenced claims are definitely something I was going to stomp on.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless he was there, he has no idea, proof, or even suggesting evidence that this is not the case.



I don't have to prove that something that you have no proof of doesn't exist.


----------



## Lightguns

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:   That must have been autocorrect;  the term you were looking for is "repetitious."



Nope, according to the CFSME handout on the C7, repetitious is something you put your C7 on.


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Nope, according to the CFSME handout on the C7, repetitious is something you put your C7 on.


Yes.  I'd deleted the comment because it's really not worth the effort.


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't have to prove that something that you have no proof of doesn't exist.



AH!  The Jean Chretien School of Philosophy: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."


----------



## Good2Golf

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AH!  The Jean Chretien School of Philosophy: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."



The live version is even better than words, GW.  :nod:

Jean Chretien - A proof is a proof.


----------



## jmt18325

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AH!  The Jean Chretien School of Philosophy: "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."



It's well established that you don't have to prove a negative.


----------



## GAP

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's well established that you don't have to prove a negative.




and this is what is coming out of the gene pool that elected this government.......lord love a duck!!   :


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's well established that you don't have to prove a negative.



I believe that you have fallen afoul of a fallacy.


----------



## Lumber

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I believe that you have fallen afoul of a fallacy.



Me: Prove to me that there is a god.

Relgious people: Prove to me that there *isn't* a god.

Me: No.


----------



## jmt18325

GAP said:
			
		

> and this is what is coming out of the gene pool that elected this government.......lord love a duck!!   :



Yes logic is a real killer in society.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

hmm all seems vaguely familiar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE 


Meanwhile, it seems they are trying out balloons to see what the public might think about all this adventurism. Peacekeeping in Africa is really trying to square the circle.


----------



## jmt18325

We can't know that until we see the details of what's going to happen.  It's likely they're feeling for responses of what people would accept.  We'll have to see what they come up with before we can properly judge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Why? Politicians are always quite quick to judge and act before the facts are known.  [

The Liberals want/need a Peacekeeping adventure that fits the myth. Sanijin has the difficult job of attempting to make his parties desire into reality. Frankly I am glad they have the ex-military representation they do have in order to educate the rest of them on reality. Those people may be able to move this from a massive Cluster.... to just a bad idea.


----------



## Loachman

Some politicians more than others.

As long as there is a need for help somewhere in Africa (or elsewhere), the necessary help can be delivered at reasonable cost and risk, the help provided is likely to improve the lot of the people in that somewhere, and this government genuinely wishes to do something constructive, I can support a deployment.

I do not, however, believe that to be the case.

It looks more like a vanity-fulfillment exercise to me than anything else.

If CF members are going to be maimed and killed, it had better be for the right reason.

I do not think that I have EVER had reservations about a potential mission before. I do not know if I have changed, post-Afghanistan, if I simply do not trust this government, or a bit of both, but I strongly suspect that my reservation is more Number 2 than 1 or 3.


----------



## jmt18325

So your reservations are mostly political.  That's the reality that you've presented.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So your reservations are mostly political.



The reason for going to Africa is wholly political point-scoring. There's no "Responsibility to Protect" narrative, there's no push to go to Mali to stem the tide of Islamic extremism. We get a "fact-finding" tour, going to only 1 active UN mission and visiting a bunch of third-world countries who contribute vast amounts of warm bodies because the UN pays the country $1300 USD a month per soldier deployed.


----------



## Loachman

My belief, based upon several decades of fairly close observation of Homo Liberalis, is that this government is more interested in doing what will look good to the facebookarazzi than in doing something that is actually good.

No mission calls, but they will find one anyway, dammit, no matter what it takes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am glad they have the ex-military representation they do have in order to educate the rest of them on reality.


Dependent, of course, on the receiving callsigns' ability/willingness to be educated ...


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So your reservations are mostly political.  That's the reality that you've presented.



Not a wrong thing, particularly in light of what Clausewitz espoused...n'est-ce pas?


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a refresher on African countries currently engaged in war, insurgency and civil strife:

Western Sahara
Mauritania
Morocco
Mali
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya
Niger
Chad
Nigeria
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Angola
Burundi
Mozambique
Uganda
Kenya
Somalia
Ethiopia 
South Sudan
Sudan

And, of course Egypt which - by virtue of the Sinai brings us into Asia and

Israel
Palestine
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
Iraq
Iran
Pakistan
Afghanistan
India
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Thailand
Phillipines
West Papua 

And then there is 
Lebanon
Syria
Turkey
Azerbaijan
Armenia
The Caucasus 
And of course

Ukraine.

All of those conflicts are contiguous 

Now, where do you want to put your 1000 Canadians so that the Millenium will arrive, Jesus will come and peace will break out?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Since we dragged out good old Von Clausewitz, remember that War is diplomacy by a different means.

What would Canada's diplomatic aims in Africa be that justify getting involved in wars?

And Chris, why don't you make life easier on yourself next time and just list the few African countries NOT engaged in war, insurgency or civil strife  [.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And Chris, why don't you make life easier on yourself next time and just list the few African countries NOT engaged in war, insurgency or civil strife  [.



Nothing succeeds like excess!   [


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> My belief, based upon several decades of fairly close observation of Homo Liberalis, is that this government is more interested in doing what will look good to the facebookarazzi than in doing something that is actually good.



And the same was true of the Conservatives, doing things that looked good to the people who were more likely to support them.  What of it?


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The reason for going to Africa is wholly political point-scoring.



Every mission in recent memory, including Afghanistan, was political.


----------



## PuckChaser

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Every mission in recent memory, including Afghanistan, was political.


The Taliban government harboured a terrorist group who committed a mass murder of civilians on an allied countries soil. That's an act of war.

Just because you refuse to see this foolish entry into Africa for what it is, doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Taliban government harboured a terrorist group who committed a mass murder of civilians on an allied countries soil. That's an act of war.



And that makes our response not political in what way?

Just because you happen to like the politics involved, it doesn't make it any less political.


----------



## PuckChaser

You're equating response to mass murder of civilians because they weren't of a certain religion to deploying troops to Africa so someone can win a UNSC seat? Really?


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're equating response to mass murder of civilians because they weren't of a certain religion to deploying troops to Africa so someone can win a UNSC seat? Really?



Are civilians not being murdered at an alarming rate in Africa?  Often because of religion?

Do you not understand how the very fact that we choose to ally ourselves with the US, and responded in the way we did to September 11, 2001, is just as political as any move we might make into Africa?

Could it not be argued that we're supporting our allies by fighting Islamic terror in Africa, taking on a UN mission there?

Do you have it from anyone that this is being done simply to win a UNSC seat?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let's see if Team Red does what they always insisted Team Blue do ...


> Liberals won't confirm if a House of Commons debate and vote will be held before they commit Canadian troops to Africa for what's expected to be a lengthy mission.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced Monday that the federal government will soon unveil Canada's expanded contribution to United Nations peace efforts, but did not reveal precisely where.
> 
> (...)
> 
> But iPolitics reports that Sajjan, who was wrapping up a five-day fact-finding mission in Africa, did not answer when he was asked if a vote would be held in Parliament on future peace operation deployments.
> 
> Sajjan's spokeswoman Jordan Owens told The Huffington Post Canada that Liberals were clear about their priorities on the campaign trail last fall. She highlighted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's mandate letters to Sajjan, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, and International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau ...


Funny how things look different when the seats in the House are facing the other way ...


----------



## Loachman

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Are civilians not being murdered at an alarming rate in Africa?  Often because of religion?



And elsewhere. But let's pick somewhere arbitrarily, rather than assess greatest need, reasonable chance of success, acceptable risk and cost and ability to support, though, because it's whatever year it is.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do you not understand how the very fact that we choose to ally ourselves with the US, and responded in the way we did to September 11, 2001, is just as political as any move we might make into Africa?



Support to allies, and responding to clear threats, is rather a different level of political than votes and vanity above all else.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Could it not be argued that we're supporting our allies by fighting Islamic terror in Africa, taking on a UN mission there?



Yes, but ... Have we been asked? Is the government looking for/willing to accept a fight against terrorism, or a mythical blue-beret mission so that it can make another silly claim that "Canada is back"?



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do you have it from anyone that this is being done simply to win a UNSC seat?



Beyond campaign promises and statements?

There are legitimate reasons to become involved in many places in the world. Many of us would support involvement in every one of those, if we had the capability and improvement was likely. No reasonable person likes to see people suffer, especially when something can be done to help.

Sadly, we cannot do that.

We should, however, do what we can.

What irks me, though, is the poor process that is driving this.

The current government made some rather outlandish campaign promises, which is easy to do when one does not expect to ever have to follow up on them. These include, but are not limited to:

- Holding an "open competition" (still undefined by anyone) to select a fighter replacement - but NOT including F35.

- Rushing in 25000 Syrian refugees because of a photograph of a drowned boy on a beach that generated mass sympathy and therefore votes. The number was a rectal extraction. No thought was given to our ability to successfully integrate and support that many in that period of time, or to any security issues, which were a perfectly valid concern. Regarding the number, perhaps we can actually absorb more without difficulty in a short period - but that is not the point. Nobody in government, or in NGOs that support refugees, thought that rushing was a good thing to do, other than those running the Liberal Party election machine. No other refugees were "worthy" of consideration either. Syrians had suddenly become fashionable. I had been involved in a private sponsorship of a Burundian refugee family prior to that. They had been hopelessly trapped in a refugee camp for twelve years, the father severely injured and almost killed in an attack while there, and there are many thousands of Burundians still stuck in that "life" style. What about Middle-Eastern Christians and Yazidis, who have been brutally slaughtered and abused in a variety of ways? What about the Afghan interpreters and their families who we left behind? What about ... and ... and ...? Are Liberals unaware that these people exist? Or do they simply not care? The APPEARANCE is that the Syrians were merely backdrop for photo ops. And, by the way, I have a Syrian refugee family as neighbours (again, privately sponsored, with the process started long before the last election even though they arrived afterwards), and they are great people, working hard to integrate, the father and two oldest boys are employed, and I am happy that they are here and safe. It would have looked better, however, if a few equally-deserving members of other ethnic groups had been included in the 25000, or if measures were being taken to bring some in later/now - but the election's over, media coverage was great, and we can all get back to really important things like the Kardashians.

- Finding a "traditional" and safe UN Peacekeeping mission, despite significant changes in the world since those days (and significant differences between myth and reality even back then). It's got to be a UN mission, though. Those are the only ones "good enough". Stuff that we've done elsewhere - like Afghanistan - under other mandates, doesn't count.

- Reeling in that UN Security Council seat.

Had we received an invitation to help out somewhere, and had this government conducted an honest appraisal of the potential benefit to those in need, the risks to our troops and other supporters, our ability to support without bending/straining/breaking the organization again, and the cost, then I could back it. There is NO indication that this is the case, and plenty to the contrary.

I will freely admit that I neither like nor trust the current prime minister, nor any members of his party, nor his party in general, based upon considerable history. I was also less than impressed, and increasingly critical of, their predecessors. I will give both credit and blame where and when due, freely, to anyone, regardless of party, however.

We have put people into unacceptable situations - futile, risky, and lacking adequate support - before. I was aware enough of those then, but am more aware today. I have been to too many ramp ceremonies, repatriations, funerals, and memorials. Real need and real chance of success, providing that real support is given to those deploying, are acceptable. Personal vanity of the God-Emperor and votes are not.

And it certainly appears that vanity and votes are the critical factors.


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let's see if Team Red does what they always insisted Team Blue do ...Funny how things look different when the seats in the House are facing the other way ...


I would like to see a vote.  Not because I think the executive needs permission from the legislative, but because I would like to see a budget specifically approved to execute this mission without costs coming out of the CAF's hide.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> I would like to see a vote.  Not because I think the executive needs permission from the legislative, but because I would like to see a budget specifically approved to execute this mission without costs coming out of the CAF's hide.


I'd like to see a debate/discussion, too, just to hear what messaging all sides have to share.  I don't think previous votes on missions/tasks have included budgets (again, I stand to be corrected), so I don't think any would be forthcoming here if/when it comes to the House.


----------



## Lightguns

Team Red will do exactly as Team Blue, no vote and the troops will pick up bottles along the highway to pay for the mission. AND there will be a constant parade of ministers visiting the troops to tell us how this mission is the result of; climate change, poor diplomacy, too many guns, lack of UN seat for Canada, social inequality, insert (ministerial responsibility) here.  No one will blame the trigger pullers or their leadership and we will stay until we are a vital part of the local GDP.


----------



## Jed

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Team Red will do exactly as Team Blue, no vote and the troops will pick up bottles along the highway to pay for the mission. AND there will be a constant parade of ministers visiting the troops to tell us how this mission is the result of; climate change, poor diplomacy, too many guns, lack of UN seat for Canada, social inequality, insert (ministerial responsibility) here.  No one will blame the trigger pullers or their leadership and we will stay until we are a vital part of the local GDP.




"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"


----------



## Kirkhill

On the subject of supporting allies:

Our allies just recently asked for our support - in Latvia.
Previously they asked for it in Iraq and Syria.

We could be reinforcing ongoing efforts.  

I will be interested to see if we end up supporting the French in Mali, swanning off on our own unique mission or penny packeting a region.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I will be interested to see if we end up supporting the French in Mali again, swanning off on our own unique mission or penny packeting a region.


FTFY  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder what hotel we'll be giving the staff PTSD at for decompression.  Treetops hotel looks nice  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Last year President Obama specifically asked Western countries to do more for UN operations:



> US-Backed UN “Killer Peacekeeping”: Would Canadians Support Taking Substantial Part?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/mark-collins-us-backed-un-killer-peacekeeping-would-canadians-support-taking-substantial-part/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Mark.

All that has to be done is picking a target....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Mark.
> 
> All that has to be done is picking a target....


If it's going to be one of THOSE missions, the Ukrainians could actually share some tips with us...
-- _*"UN helicopters attack Ugandan rebels in DR Congo"*_ (March 2016)
-- _*"Ukraine helicopter unit mainstay of UN peacekeeping operations in DR Congo"*_ (Nov 2013)
That said ...
-- _*"U.N. Copter Raid Kills Five Bystanders"*_ (Oct 2015)


----------



## a_majoor

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If it's going to be one of THOSE missions, the Ukrainians could actually share some tips with us...
> -- _*"UN helicopters attack Ugandan rebels in DR Congo"*_ (March 2016)
> -- _*"Ukraine helicopter unit mainstay of UN peacekeeping operations in DR Congo"*_ (Nov 2013)
> That said ...
> -- _*"U.N. Copter Raid Kills Five Bystanders"*_ (Oct 2015)



So IFOR rather than UNPROFOR.


----------



## Good2Golf

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So IFOR rather than UNPROFOR.


----------



## McG

Liberals commit $450M, up to 600 troops to UN peacekeeping missions, but you will have to wait until next month to find out where we are going.

Since a dollar value is being given, it would be nice to see Parliament approve this as a special approvisionnement.


----------



## Jarnhamar

At least we have new  tan boots,  that'll save money. 

Off topic but does anyone know if the new combats (mandarin collar)  come in arid CADPAT?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> At least we have new  tan boots,  that'll save money.
> 
> Off topic but does anyone know if the new combats (mandarin collar)  come in arid CADPAT?



I thought you'd be more interested in light blue paint in spray cans.   8)


----------



## Lightguns

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> At least we have new  tan boots,  that'll save money.
> 
> Off topic but does anyone know if the new combats (mandarin collar)  come in arid CADPAT?



Six months after end of mission they will.


----------



## Journeyman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Off topic but does anyone know if the new combats (mandarin collar)  come in arid CADPAT?


....along with Velcro-backed, arid jump wings; _apparently_  that shortcoming was critical to morale.   :nod:


Of course we have a new Army Commander now, so maybe that's been recognized as a stupid idea


----------



## medicineman

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Of course we have a new Army Commander now, so maybe that's been recognized as a stupid idea



Not if we continue to have the same Army CWO I'm afraid...he's got some real bugs up his bum about these patches.

MM


----------



## dimsum

Latest from CBC:



> Canada's mission in Africa will be focused on 'peacemaking,' UN ambassador says - 650 troops will be deployed to either Mali, Congo or the Central African Republic
> 
> Canada's ambassador to the UN says there will be "no quick fix" in Africa — a sign that Canadian peacekeepers waiting for deployment there could be in for a long-term commitment to the region ravaged by civil war and terrorism.
> 
> "There is no quick fix for anything in peace and security in some areas of the world and in the regions [Canada is considering for a mission]," Marc-André Blanchard said in an interview with CBC Radio's The House. He said while the road ahead might be dangerous for Canadian troops, the country has an obligation to intervene to prevent the violence from reaching our shores.
> 
> The government announced Friday it will commit $450 million to peace operations and the Canadian Armed Forces will, on top of existing commitments in the Middle East, eastern Europe and elsewhere, deploy up to 600 troops as part of the mission to Africa...



This bit is interesting:



> Blanchard, a top Liberal fundraiser and corporate lawyer tapped by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to bolster Canada's role at the UN ahead of a bid for a Security Council seat in 2021, said that the new mission in Africa will be different than those of the past. *A big shift will be a focus on "peacemaking" and the right of Canadian troops to protect civilians caught in the crosshairs of conflict*.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Latest from CBC:
> 
> This bit is interesting:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/un-ambassador-peacekeeping-africa-1.3736907


Good. Maybe everyone whining about 20 year old ROE cards can shut up now.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Good. Maybe everyone whining about 20 year old ROE cards can shut up now.



Maybe they will when they see an actual ROE card, instead of a Liberal fundraiser telling the media what military rules of engagement are.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....along with Velcro-backed, arid jump wings; _apparently_  that shortcoming was critical to morale.   :nod:



Is that really a thing?





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Good. Maybe everyone whining about 20 year old ROE cards can shut up now.


Consider some of those members whining may have had to watch men women and children raped and butchered in front of their very eyes so those old ROE's are understandably a sore spot.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe they will when they see an actual ROE card, instead of a Liberal fundraiser telling the media what military rules of engagement are.



Normally I'd wholeheartedly agree, but said Liberal fundraiser is also Canada's ambassador to the UN, so I'd think he has some "inside info" on the future ROE of whatever mission(s) are coming down the pipe.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is that really a thing?



Yep, you can wear 2 specialist badges on your lower left velcro on your sleeve in CADPAT. Critical to operational effectiveness.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> Good. Maybe everyone whining about 20 year old ROE cards can shut up now.



I wouldn't, until I saw the ROEIMP msg and the soldier's card.

 :2c:


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is that really a thing?
> 
> 
> Consider some of those members whining may have had to watch men women and children raped and butchered in front of their very eyes so those old ROE's are understandably a sore spot.


Sure. But when you consider that nobody knows what the ROEs are going to be bring up old ROEs as a reason to whine about current peacekeeping/peacemaking is annoying.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe they will when they see an actual ROE card, instead of a Liberal fundraiser telling the media what military rules of engagement are.


That's a great idea. Let's all wait to see what the ROEs are and then comment on them when we know what they are.

Much better than bringing up old 20 year old ROEs like they matter today.


----------



## GAP

tow the line man....tow the line....... :


----------



## Good2Golf

That's fine.  What's one man's annoyance is another's concern. 

At least those who are doubtful about better ROE are basing that on a long list of poor ROE in numerous PKOs...you know, "Deeds Speak", etc...  

Is it any less annoying to hear "Sunny ways, trust us, the ROE will be much better...?"  Probably not...

G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Altair said:
			
		

> Good. Maybe everyone whining about 20 year old ROE cards can shut up now.


Unlike the "I've got no time in;  I _need_  a deployment so people will respect me!!" whiners?    :tempertantrum:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> ....annoying.


   :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> That's a great idea. Let's all wait to see what the ROEs are and then comment on them when we know what they are.
> 
> Much better than bringing up old 20 year old ROEs like they matter today.



Tracking. We won't bring discuss anything unless it aligns with the current government's view, that way you won't get so emotionally invested in adult discussions about ROE or the futility of yet another African "peace support operation" that really won't change anything.

Anything for a UNSC seat, am I right?


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tracking. We won't bring discuss anything unless it aligns with the current government's view, that way you won't get so emotionally invested in adult discussions about ROE or the futility of yet another African "peace support operation" that really won't change anything.
> 
> Anything for a UNSC seat, am I right?


Screw the UNSC seat. I'm far more selfish than that and want my deployment.

Also, let's not discuss things like ROEs being restrictive and stupid like in days past when nobody has a clue what the ROEs will be.


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's fine.  What's one man's annoyance is another's concern.
> 
> At least those who are doubtful about better ROE are basing that on a long list of poor ROE in numerous PKOs...you know, "Deeds Speak", etc...
> 
> Is it any less annoying to hear "Sunny ways, trust us, the ROE will be much better...?"  Probably not...
> 
> G2G


And pray tell, when did I say that?


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Unlike the "I've got no time in;  I _need_  a deployment so people will respect me!!" whiners?    :tempertantrum:
> :nod:


I have purposely not posted in here for quite some time as to stop annoying you all about my overwhelming need to actually do something worthwhile. 

Nice to see that you haven't noticed.


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> Sure. But when you consider that nobody knows what the ROEs are going to be bring up old ROEs as a reason to whine about current peacekeeping/peacemaking is annoying.



I sure hope that you are not so naive to think that we had the same ROE's for every deployment we did since 1945.  Your attitude seems to point that way.  Your disrespect for members who have already experienced the BS involved with UN ROE's over the years does you little credit.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Screw the UNSC seat. I'm far more selfish than that and want my deployment.



There's a far easier way for you to get deployments that doesn't involve wasted effort in Africa. VOT17 is open for AESOP, or you can always apply to CANSOF. Both of those groups seem real busy.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Also, let's not discuss things like ROEs being restrictive and stupid like in days past when nobody has a clue what the ROEs will be.



"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
- George Santayana


----------



## Journeyman

Disregard.  It is truly not worth the bandwidth engaging.

I hope you get your deployment, and it completes all your fantasies.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a far easier way for you to get deployments that doesn't involve wasted effort in Africa. VOT17 is open for AESOP, or you can always apply to CANSOF. Both of those groups seem real busy.



Remember when I mentioned AESOP?  That went over like a fart in church.

But, Altair, given what the Ambassador says we'll likely need, you will have no shortage of deployment chances in your current trade.  Bring your mosquito net and remember this conversation when you're on your 5th (or more) time over there.


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a far easier way for you to get deployments that doesn't involve wasted effort in Africa. VOT17 is open for AESOP, or you can always apply to CANSOF. Both of those groups seem real busy.
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
> - George Santayana


If I didn't care about my family I would love to go CANSOF. I I didn't care about going through the whole switching trades, going back into the training system I would love to go AESOP. Turns out I care about both of those.


If the conversation was I hope we have learned from the past and don't have restrictive stupid ROEs that get people killed I would agree. Sadly the conversation seems to go,great we will have stupid, restrictive ROEs and people will be killed because that's what happened in the past. So, no, I don't agree with that. It's as useful as the French talking about ww1 trench warfare of twenty years prior when the Germans are rushing tanks over the meuse


----------



## Kirkhill

When they did their announcement at Bagotville I got to wondering if 2 Wing may end up being the lead element in all of this.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/2-wing/index.page


----------



## PuckChaser

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> When they did their announcement at Bagotville I got to wondering if 2 Wing may end up being the lead element in all of this.
> 
> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/2-wing/index.page



Interesting hypothesis, would make it significantly less risky to have some strat airlift or helicopters involved, than actual ground troops.


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> When they did their announcement at Bagotville I got to wondering if 2 Wing may end up being the lead element in all of this.
> 
> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/2-wing/index.page


I suspect it had more to do with location of the caucus meeting the day before.

I do not think they would deliberately link location of the announcement with the intended deploying force unless they were ready to publicly announce who will be deploying.

But, I am making assumptions.  Maybe there is a link that was not announced.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Interesting hypothesis, would make it significantly less risky to have some strat airlift or helicopters involved, than actual ground troops.



Well, this is from the same article:



> Blanchard said Canadians are not being deployed to simply supply boots on the ground but rather to provide leadership for existing troops and police officers, and to help train those local forces to confront mounting security threats — an expertise that was developed on the battlefields of Afghanistan and honed in northern Iraq in the face of ISIS.


----------



## medicineman

I would hazard to guess might have something to do with the language capabilities of units in the same geographic area of those likely to be needed in the host nation, since they're all ex-French or Belgique.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser

medicineman said:
			
		

> I would hazard to guess might have something to do with the language capabilities of units in the same geographic area of those likely to be needed in the host nation, since they're all ex-French or Belgique.
> 
> MM



Maybe there will be more than a handful of French language courses available for us Anglos once the Vandoos and 2 Can Div get tired of being on constant deployments?


----------



## MJP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe there will be more than a handful of French language courses available for us Anglos once the Vandoos and 2 Can Div get tired of being on constant deployments?



Nah, they can keep the Africa task as long as they want.


----------



## quadrapiper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe there will be more than a handful of French language courses available for us Anglos once the Vandoos and 2 Can Div get tired of being on constant deployments?


Don't forget VdQ and Montreal, if there's to be a maritime element added at some point. Are there RCAF French units?


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> I suspect it had more to do with location of the caucus meeting the day before.


Good point -- as well as other announcements to be made in the same place:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=3&nid=1117339


----------



## Journeyman

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Don't forget VdQ and Montreal, if there's to be a maritime element added at some point.


I sure hope you're not a Navigator;  if the RCN is patrolling CAR or Mali, something has gone horribly wrong.   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I sure hope you're not a Navigator;  if the RCN is patrolling CAR or Mali, something has gone horribly wrong.   ;D



;D

I was checking in behind the two actors who play "Mr. Lahey and Randy", John Dunsworth and Patrick Roach at the Halifax Airport in 07.  We got into a conversation about where we each were going, they to Winnipeg for a fan fest, me to the sandbox.  

Mr. Dunsworth, bless his heart, cocked his head when I said "Afghanistan". I could see the gears moving behind the eyes, he asked in a bewildered voice "we're sending ships to Afghanistan?".  See, we go everywhere why not the CAR.  Besides, who hasn't heard of "the ships of the desert"?


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I sure hope you're not a Navigator;  if the RCN is patrolling CAR or Mali, something has gone horribly wrong.   ;D









RCN's new patrol ship.


----------



## Eaglelord17

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Don't forget VdQ and Montreal, if there's to be a maritime element added at some point. Are there RCAF French units?



HMCS Montreal is not a French ship. VDQ is the only one.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> RCN's new patrol ship.



Sand Frigate (dust, tent and fleas)


----------



## dapaterson

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> HMCS Montreal is not a French ship. VDQ is the only one.



MONTREAL is a bilingual ship.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> MONTREAL is a bilingual ship.



MONTRÉAL (you forgot the accent) is not a bilingual ship either, unless that was officially changed in the year I've been gone.. X-Ship and all...


----------



## dapaterson

Not using a bilingual keyboard here 

According to the CFOO with a DTG of 011200Z MAR 16,



> LINGUISTIC DESIGNATION
> 10. HMCS MONTREAL IS DESIGNATED A BILINGUAL UNIT



See: http://vcds.mil.ca/dgsp/pubs/tools/cfoo/frame.asp?cfooId=1677-01MAR16.txt (DWAN only)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Could they have made a mistake and meant HMCS DONACONNA, in Montréal, the Naval Reserve Unit, which has always been the only RCN unit designated as bilingual before?

Of course, the military machine is always behind the times: When I was X.O., we covered 17 different languages at the Unit.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not using a bilingual keyboard here



Alt+Num 0201. You don't need a French keyboard and frankly they are the worst thing since allowing communities to set their own speed limits!



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Could they have made a mistake and meant HMCS DONACONNA, in Montréal, the Naval Reserve Unit, which has always been the only RCN unit designated as bilingual before?
> 
> Of course, the military machine is always behind the times: When I was X.O., we covered 17 different languages at the Unit.



Nope... that's her UIC...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Then, on behalf of DON, welcome to the club MON.

Now begins your fun of drafting all your routine orders, COTM, XOTM, any one's TM and all other internal communications in both languages, all the time. Enjoy!


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then, on behalf of DON, welcome to the club MON.
> 
> Now begins your fun of drafting all your routine orders, COTM, XOTM, any one's TM and all other internal communications in both languages, all the time. Enjoy!



This might be the first time that I don't miss her... ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Africa: Neither hopeful nor rising

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/177211/gf_international_1401.pdf


----------



## McG

Matthew Fisher indicates his read of political messaging as indicating that Canada will deploy specifically into French West Africa.  He also indicates that "Ottawa has been keen to begin that mission with French-speaking troops" but I don't know where this idea comes from, except maybe rumour mill.

As noted in the article, a deployment from 5 brigade would deprive those units of their rest cycle in managed readiness, and it would waste economies of using the units already in high readiness from 1 brigade.  There would still be plenty of Francophone soldiers deployed as, at least outside of manoeuvre arms, there are Francophone soldiers throughout the brigade units.  And our government has expended significant funds investing in French language skills for English soldiers, so we may as well seek some operational return from that investment.


> *Despite the potential complications, all signs point to Canada sending troops to Africa*
> Matthew Fisher
> National Post
> 30 Aug 2016
> 
> Colombia and South Sudan are the long-shot options for Canada’s first major UN military operation since Jean Chrétien sent troops to East Timor 16 years ago.
> 
> A reasonable case can be made for Colombia, where the government and rebels have just signed a peace accord that may end a war that has gone on for years. But Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion and Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan have made it clear the government has its heart set on a mission in French West Africa to further Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ambition to gain a seat on the UN Security Council.
> 
> Only time will tell whether it was worthwhile in Canadian blood and treasure to deploy on an open-ended mission to Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo or other options equally fraught with danger, such as Niger or Burundi. Factored into the equation when that reckoning comes will be the true value to Canada of the UN appointment when, like the other 10 non-permanent members, it would only be admitted to the inner sanctum for two years and would be powerless to do anything there in the face of the veto powers of the five permanent members.
> 
> As it is almost certain Canada will become involved in French West Africa, Ottawa has been keen to begin that mission with French-speaking troops. This makes sense, but could seriously complicate the training and readiness regimes of the country’s three combat brigades.
> 
> Since early August, the Canadian army’s high-readiness brigade has been built around the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry. But the first force to be deployed to Africa may have to be drawn from the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, the Vandoos, some of whom returned only weeks ago from a deployment to eastern Europe.
> 
> Not much has been heard from Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, about the potential perils of a mission in a region where Canadian deployments to Rwanda and Somalia have had difficulties and where the UN’s current peacemaking operations have been so rife with allegations of grave sexual misconduct, incompetence and cowardice, they can only be described as a total disaster.
> 
> Once the Canadians’ destination is revealed in September, Vance, who is a famously straight shooter, is likely to begin making it clear to the troops and the public what lies ahead.
> 
> Among the unspoken military concerns is that this is an open-ended mission and little or no help can be expected from the Americans. That may sound great to some Canadians. But if things go south, as they might, nobody except perhaps the French, who are already badly stretched by combat operations in Africa and the Middle East and in dealing with the terrorist threat at home, may have our backs.
> 
> One of the reasons Canadian forces would prefer to go to Mali may be because that is where the French have the most troops and the most robust military capability. It is also where the German and Dutch have quietly sent about 1,000 troops over the past year although those countries do not see their contributions as part of a bid for a Security Council seat.
> 
> Like the French, the Canadian military needs to be careful about becoming overstretched. As African operations involving about 600 ramp up, it must also sustain about 800 troops in Kuwait and the Kurdish part of Iraq. It will soon send about 450 combat troops on a new NATO mission to Latvia to to try to contain Russia’s irredentist impulses on its western borders.
> 
> With only five C-17 heavy-lift aircraft and oceans between these disparate missions and Canada, getting the logistics right will be job No. 1.  Much of the planning will fall to Maj.-Gen. Chuck Lamarre.
> 
> The logistician responsible for the massive undertaking of bringing all Canada’s equipment back from Kandahar, he is now Vance’s director of staff and his  right arm on operations.
> 
> Given that the Trudeau government intends to keep Canadian Forces in Africa for many years and that those troops will require scores of heavy armoured personnel carriers, weapons, a field hospital and helicopters, something to look for soon may be an announcement Canada intends to establish a regional logistics hub, most likely in the Senegalese port of Dakar. It would be something akin to the ones that already exist in Kuwait and Cologne.
> 
> Identifying personnel and assembling the tens of thousands of nuts and bolts required to deploy to a part of the world where infrastructure is almost totally lacking will take time and patience. That will give Canadians the opportunity to ponder whether the African mission is an altruistic endeavour to do good in a deeply troubled part of the world or a grand bid to enhance Canada’s chances of winning the Security Council seat.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/matthew-fisher-despite-the-potentical-complications-all-signs-point-to-canada-sending-troops-to-africa


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> As noted in the article, a deployment from 5 brigade would deprive those units of their rest cycle in managed readiness, and it would waste economies of using the units already in high readiness from 1 brigade.  There would still be plenty of Francophone soldiers deployed as, at least outside of manoeuvre arms, there are Francophone soldiers throughout the brigade units.  And our government has expended significant funds investing in French language skills for English soldiers, so we may as well seek some operational return from that investment.


Again, common sense.  But the reality is, no government (Lib or CPC) knows or cares about our managed readiness cycle;  notwithstanding any assumed CDS advice it's nothing more than a photo op,  a poker chip for a UN bid, and a "Canada's Back" election slogan.


----------



## blacktriangle

I love how the emphasis placed on the importance of winning the security council seat instead of bringing stability and peace to the region. 

I really don't see what we are going to accomplish in Africa. However, I could get behind it if we were actually going after the bad guys and stabilizing the region. I don't see us actually doing anything of that nature. 

As leaders, how do you all rationalize the potential casualties you will suffer in a mission like this? Is it even possible to confidently lead your people when you have no confidence in your assigned mission itself? Or those that assigned you the mission?


----------



## Old Sweat

Thinking out loud, 600 is not a very large number of troops to be able to do anything very military that might actually involve confronting bad guys. There has been lots of talk/speculation about nation building and civil involvement and humanitarian work, but that may just be wishful thinking about the "good old days" of peacekeeping. Surely somebody hasn't hauled out the concept of three block war that was all in the vogue circa 2005.

What have I missed?


----------



## Lumber

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Thinking out loud, 600 is not a very large number of troops to be able to do anything very military that might actually involve confronting bad guys. There has been lots of talk/speculation about nation building and civil involvement and humanitarian work, but that may just be wishful thinking about the "good old days" of peacekeeping. Surely somebody hasn't hauled out the concept of three block war that was all in the vogue circa 2005.
> 
> What have I missed?



Those of you with far more deployment and army experience than I:

With 600 troops, how many of those would be available to go out on patrol and conduct combat operations, after factoring all the support trades that are likely to go with?


----------



## Journeyman

Maybe our focus will be on introducing gender-neutral washrooms and convincing them not to wear offensive Chicago Blackhawk jerseys.    :dunno:


----------



## Lumber

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe our focus will be on introducing gender-neutral washrooms and convincing them not to wear offensive Chicago Blackhawk jerseys.    :dunno:



I love it when two threads come together.


----------



## McG

Lumber said:
			
		

> With 600 troops, how many of those would be available to go out on patrol and conduct combat operations, after factoring all the support trades that are likely to go with?


I have heard speculation (ie. one step lower than even rumour) that our contribution to peace support might be "force support" (the logistics, medical, engineering and training support to third world UN troops) and C2.  If there is any substance to this speculation, there will not be substantial Canadian numbers to conduct combat operations  ... but we will still have to be Canadian infantry and armour for Canadian force protection.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe our focus will be on introducing gender-neutral washrooms and convincing them not to wear offensive Chicago Blackhawk jerseys.    :dunno:


http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/course-cours-en.html


----------



## Lumber

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/gba-acs/course-cours-en.html



Woohoo! PER points in PD!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Lumber said:
			
		

> Those of you with far more deployment and army experience than I:
> 
> With 600 troops, how many of those would be available to go out on patrol and conduct combat operations, after factoring all the support trades that are likely to go with?



I think MCG nailed it.

I can see less "combat operations" and more highly visual, touchy feely tasks which make for great photo-ops. (not the "touchy feely" stuff the UN is known for mind you).
I suspect the PAFOs will be run ragged.


----------



## ballz

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Again, common sense.  But the reality is, no government (Lib or CPC) knows or cares about our managed readiness cycle;  notwithstanding any assumed CDS advice it's nothing more than a photo op,  a poker chip for a UN bid, and a "Canada's Back" election slogan.



The managed readiness plan has been nothing but a burn-out for all those who have to be a part of it, and with no level of actual operational readiness to show for it. When you combine tasks like NEO, IRU, etc, 2 RCR came back from Op ATTENTION in December 2012 and I have essentially been on high-readiness, or on the road to high-readiness since July 1st 2013 and I am not an anomaly by any stretch of the imagination.

I blame the fact that they insist on having a Brigade on high readiness, so its a 3-year cycle instead of a 9-year cycle to keep a Battle Group at high-readiness (something that is actually realistic and could actually be manned).

My years since arriving at 2 RCR in Dec 2012 have been... July 2013 Road to High-readiness, July 2014 on high-readiness (TF 1-14) while simultaneously doing high-readiness training for NEO, July 2015 on high-readiness for NEO, and now July 2016 Road to High-readiness for TF 1-17 which will take me to July 2018. 5 full years of a death-con 10 op tempo. Thanks for working a rest cycle into the "managed" readiness program, Canadian Army!


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Matthew Fisher indicates his read of political messaging as indicating that Canada will deploy specifically into French West Africa.  He also indicates that "Ottawa has been keen to begin that mission with French-speaking troops" but I don't know where this idea comes from, except maybe rumour mill.
> 
> As noted in the article, a deployment from 5 brigade would deprive those units of their rest cycle in managed readiness, and it would waste economies of using the units already in high readiness from 1 brigade.  There would still be plenty of Francophone soldiers deployed as, at least outside of manoeuvre arms, there are Francophone soldiers throughout the brigade units.  And our government has expended significant funds investing in French language skills for English soldiers, so we may as well seek some operational return from that investment.http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/matthew-fisher-despite-the-potentical-complications-all-signs-point-to-canada-sending-troops-to-africa




From Matthew Fishers article quoted:


> Given that the Trudeau government intends to keep Canadian Forces in Africa for many years and that those troops will require scores of heavy armoured personnel carriers, weapons, a field hospital and helicopters, something to look for soon may be an announcement Canada intends to establish a regional logistics hub, most likely in the Senegalese port of Dakar. It would be something akin to the ones that already exist in Kuwait and Cologne.



Operational Support Hubs



> Canadian imperialism extends its reach around the globe
> 
> In addition to the base in Kuwait, the Department of National Defense announced at the beginning of June that the CAF has already reached agreements to open military bases in Germany and Jamaica. The CAF has also indicated its interest in pursuing bases in Senegal (ie Dakar) in West Africa, Kenya (ie Mombasa) or Tanzania in East Africa, South Korea (ie Busan), and Singapore.
> 
> Situated in countries of critical geo-strategic importance, the “Support Hubs” will serve as “trampolines” for deploying troops and material in future CAF missions.
> In confirming the CAF’s intention to set in place the Support Hub Network, Lieutenant John Nethercott underscored that Canada’s military is seeking to develop the capacity to rapidly intervene around the world. The CAF, he said, “doesn’t have a crystal ball” as to where it will be called upon to take action.
> 
> Accordingly, the CAF plans to locate military bases at geo-political flashpoints and areas of importance for Canadian imperialism



https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/cana-j14.html

Evil Harper imperialism or Sunny UN support net?


----------



## vonGarvin

> I recommend it for those who wish to understand further how gender and diversity must be considered in every facet of the work we do.




Meanwhile, in Russia, the infantry division that did this:






.


The 150th Infantry Division (Destroyed in 1941, reformed and destroyed in 1942 and finally reformed in 1943 and fought across into Berlin, hoisting the USSR banner in the picture above before being disbanded in 1946) has been reformed in 2016 in the Donbas region of Russia.  



Why is that important?  From an article here:



> The unit will materialize in late 2017 and resume the legacy of the 150th Idritsk-Berlin Division from World War II. That bit of historical trivia is not inconsequential, because it was the 150th that raised the flag over the Reichstag in 1945. The symbolism of establishing such a unit with such a prominent legacy of defeating fascism on Ukraine’s flank is doubtfully a coincidence.


----------



## daftandbarmy

"Out of Africa, always something new'

Pliny the Elder


----------



## Altair

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in Russia, the infantry division that did this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> The 150th Infantry Division (Destroyed in 1941, reformed and destroyed in 1942 and finally reformed in 1943 and fought across into Berlin, hoisting the USSR banner in the picture above before being disbanded in 1946) has been reformed in 2016 in the Donbas region of Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that important?  From an article here:


So it's due to be destroyed twice more eh?


----------



## vonGarvin

Altair said:
			
		

> So it's due to be destroyed twice more eh?


By whom? Us*? Not bloody likely.

*Us=The West.


----------



## Eland2

Lumber said:
			
		

> Those of you with far more deployment and army experience than I:
> 
> With 600 troops, how many of those would be available to go out on patrol and conduct combat operations, after factoring all the support trades that are likely to go with?



It's been a long time since I've been in as a reservist, but making a very wild-ass, non-professional guess based on the tooth-to-tail ratio that seems to exist now, I would daresay we wouldn't be able to deploy more than a company-sized formation for anything resembling combat operations. Two companies might be a stretch, or somewhat feasible, depending on operational taskings and tempo.

Even then, such numbers are too few to permit full-scale combat operations. A force that size could probably handle force protection, with limited numbers hived off to conduct site recces and route-proving patrols if the main body needs to move to a different location. 

One problem is that the proposed deployment is intended to conduct some sort of peacekeeping operation in Africa. That is, in an environment where a Rwanda-type situation could erupt with little to no warning, and where trying to conduct combat operations while vastly outnumbered by either side of the conflict could result in large numbers of casualties and inability to meet your objectives.

When conducting peacekeeping operations with limited numbers and resources, your aim is not to make the peace, but to de-escalate situations wherever and whenever possible, and shoot back only when you have absolutely no other options.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eland2 said:
			
		

> It's been a long time since I've been in as a reservist, but making a very wild-***, non-professional guess based on the tooth-to-tail ratio that seems to exist now, I would daresay we wouldn't be able to deploy more than a company-sized formation for anything resembling combat operations. Two companies might be a stretch, or somewhat feasible, depending on operational taskings and tempo.
> 
> Even then, such numbers are too few to permit full-scale combat operations. A force that size could probably handle force protection, with limited numbers hived off to conduct site recces and route-proving patrols if the main body needs to move to a different location.
> 
> One problem is that the proposed deployment is intended to conduct some sort of peacekeeping operation in Africa. That is, in an environment where a Rwanda-type situation could erupt with little to no warning, and where trying to conduct combat operations while vastly outnumbered by either side of the conflict could result in large numbers of casualties and inability to meet your objectives.
> 
> When conducting peacekeeping operations with limited numbers and resources, your aim is not to make the peace, but to de-escalate situations wherever and whenever possible, and shoot back only when you have absolutely no other options.



I'm sure we have enough people to participate in this although, it's clear, our vehicles and communications will be outclassed: 

The Dakar Rally (or simply "The Dakar"; formerly known as the "Paris–Dakar Rally") is an annual rally raid organised by the Amaury Sport Organisation. Most events since the inception in 1978 were from Paris, France, to Dakar, Senegal, but due to security threats in Mauritania, which led to the cancellation of the 2008 rally, races since 2009 have been held in South America.[1][2][3] The race is open to amateur and professional entries, amateurs typically making up about eighty percent of the participants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally


----------



## McG

Seems a multi-department recce has been launched to Mali.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-sends-fact-finding-mission-to-mali-to-study-peacekeeping-operations/article31641823/


----------



## Kirkhill

Funny to a reprobate like me.  Timbuktu used to be used as a synonym for the back of beyond, or the arse end of the universe.  Timbuktu is in Mali and it is 1600 km by air from Dakar.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Funny to a reprobate like me.  Timbuktu used to be used as a synonym for the back of beyond, or the arse end of the universe.  Timbuktu is in Mali and it is 1600 km by air from Dakar.



Sort of like driving from Battleford SK to Thunder Bay ON.  In several ways...


----------



## GK .Dundas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sort of like driving from Battleford SK to Thunder Bay ON.  In several ways...


 Only if you take the Yellowhead Route.


----------



## Kirkhill

True enough DAP.  Except that I have a son currently in Thunder Bay and I understand there is a decent baker in town.  

In other words: I have a reason to make the trip.


----------



## dapaterson

But why are you in Battleford?


----------



## Cloud Cover

MCG said:
			
		

> Seems a multi-department recce has been launched to Mali.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-sends-fact-finding-mission-to-mali-to-study-peacekeeping-operations/article31641823/



"....Those dangers may cause some Canadians to shy away from Mali."

You know, if the people of Canada really are the pussies and wimps that the media makes them out to be, that should by no means influence or reflect upon the determination of the armed forces to do whatever job the government orders them to do, and smartly with 3 bags full. While I continue to question the need to engage with any peace support missions whatsoever with the UN in Africa, because frankly the place is of no relevance to the problems we have at home and on our northern borders, I refuse to accept by any measure that the armed forces should be afraid, just because the Grey Goose is. As a citizen, I am willing to allow the government to expend and sacrifice as much of the shirking HQ bloat as they possibly can on these particular endeavours, and I expect them to go bravely and without question. In fact, I wish Trudeau was demanding that Canada be tasked with "commanding" as many of these missions as possible, and strike to metal all the meaningless gongs that will go to them.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Thinking out loud, 600 is not a very large number of troops to be able to do anything very military that might actually involve confronting bad guys. There has been lots of talk/speculation about nation building and civil involvement and humanitarian work, but that may just be wishful thinking about the "good old days" of peacekeeping. Surely somebody hasn't hauled out the concept of three block war that was all in the vogue circa 2005.
> 
> What have I missed?



Hal Moore started out with less than 600 at Ia Drang...


----------



## dimsum

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> In fact, I wish Trudeau was demanding that Canada be tasked with "commanding" as many of these missions as possible, *and strike to metal all the meaningless gongs that will go to them.
> *



If it's a UN mission, then it'd just be one of the UN Medals already authorized, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Medal

Side note:  There's a medal for working at UNHQ New York.  Imagine the "war stories" from there.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why are you in Battleford?



Passing through.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Hal Moore started out with less than 600 at Ia Drang...



With the rest of the Brigade on call, as well as the divisional artillery, and a 'weapons free' ROE.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> With the rest of the Brigade on call, as well as the divisional artillery, and a 'weapons free' ROE.



And don't forget "Broken Arrow"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctnK7wdJmAo


----------



## Journeyman

...and Sam Elliott as his Sergeant-Major.   :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar

And a gun toting civi photographer ...


----------



## Cloud Cover

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> With the rest of the Brigade on call, as well as the divisional artillery, and a 'weapons free' ROE.



And did they ever come in handy, which is a good point. Moore ran into a force that they thought would be H-15 Viet Cong, instead it was a very large NVA formation + VC support. What are the chances of of a UN force finding itself dealing with an overwhelming force?


----------



## Ostrozac

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> What are the chances of of a UN force finding itself dealing with an overwhelming force?



It happens pretty routinely. The Sinai, Cyprus, Kashmir, Srebrenica, Krajina, Rwanda, Lebanon, etc...

The UN's usual response is to hunker down and wait till it all ends. That sometimes works out badly for the troops caught in front of an overwhelming force.


----------



## quadrapiper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I sure hope you're not a Navigator;  if the RCN is patrolling CAR or Mali, something has gone horribly wrong.   ;D


Definitely not a Navigator; had something like operations on the opposite coast of the continent, and those in the Gulf, in mind.

On that note, is there a coastal set of problems in that area to match the inland ones?


----------



## Journeyman

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> On that note, is there a coastal set of problems in that area to match the inland ones?


Piracy and smuggling (drugs and humans) are popular hobbies throughout Africa's flanking waters.


----------



## Kirkhill

Used to be a handy little organization known as the West Africa Squadron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa_Squadron


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we go to Mali in force, a wheeled SPG mounting 120mm mortars or 105mm howitzer would be very useful.


----------



## a_majoor

While there are references upthread to the battle of Ia Drang, people should remember that in 1954, GM-100, a French mechanized Regimental Combat Team was destroyed in an ambush near where the Americans had their action. And it should be noted that after Hal Moore's unit left, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry (1st Battalion's sister unit) was ambushed and took heavy casualties on their approach to LZ Albany. 

The size and power of the force really isn't at issue, rather the nature of force's orders and the nature of the enemy they are fighting matters.

Canadian troops may find themselves in grave danger regardless of wether they send a lightly armed "peacekeeping" unit or a mechanized battlegroup with tanks and artillery if the mission parameters are unclear or the task they are given is unsuitable for the unit deployed.

Sadly for Collin P, the adoption of wheeled SP or 120mm mortars would only be considered (as an urgent requirement ) _after_ the unit was overrun or nearly overrun in action, and given the way things work, they would probably be considered surplus and abandoned or given away after the "peacekeepers" came home to Canada.


----------



## medicineman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While there are references upthread to the battle of Ia Drang, people should remember that in 1954, GM-100, a French mechanized Regimental Combat Team was destroyed in an ambush near where the Americans had their action. And it should be noted that after Hal Moore's unit left, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry (1st Battalion's sister unit) was ambushed and took heavy casualties on their approach to LZ Albany.



The movie really should have shown the second half of the book - 2/7th really got hammered.  IIRC, they walked into an NVA regimental sized U shaped ambush...this was pretty much a light infantry vs light infantry battle, very much what could happen in Mali or elsewhere.  If the bad guys show up with something even resembling armour, Houston will be hearing about some problems, as long as it's during working hours in New York :...one of the reasons we had TUA deployed with us in Croatia and Bosnia in the 90's, since if the hordes came across, the 8xRAP rounds for the Carl G's weren't going to last long...nor the 6x60mmWP rounds...nor the 2 boxes of 0.50 cal...or 7.62mm...or the 300 odd rounds we had each of 5.56mm (speaking for me anyway).  This is all tongue in cheek of course, since our ROE's wouldn't likely have let us engage directly unless we were shot at first...and then after fair warning back.  I found it interesting that that Danes brought Leo's to Bosnia when they were blue helmeted, but we apparently couldn't as they might scare someone...

You're right of course, we'll likely get something we need after a "HOLY SH!T" S.I.R. gets sent in...and we'll get rid of it just as fast when it isn't apparently needed anymore.

MM


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly for Collin P, the adoption of wheeled SP or 120mm mortars would only be considered (as an urgent requirement ) _after_ the unit was overrun or nearly overrun in action, and given the way things work, they would probably be considered surplus and abandoned or given away after the "peacekeepers" came home to Canada.



The artillery intent for the reserve for years has been to replace the 105mm howitzers with 120mm mortars, if, had honourary colonels and parliamentary openings not gotten in the way, would have provided significant capability right now for a mission like this.

the other thing to remember about "overwhelming force" is that it doesn't need to be an armoured division.... it could simply be 1 x Hind helicopter operated by rebels. One of those would easily eliminate a Canadian combat team. A GBAD capability would be helpful in this theatre as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We'll need the .50Cal back

And what about bringing the RG31s back?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We'll need the .50Cal back
> 
> And what about bringing the RG31s back?



I'd be happy to be a consultant on the .50


----------



## Lightguns

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The artillery intent for the reserve for years has been to replace the 105mm howitzers with 120mm mortars, if, had honourary colonels and parliamentary openings not gotten in the way, would have provided significant capability right now for a mission like this.
> 
> the other thing to remember about "overwhelming force" is that it doesn't need to be an armoured division.... it could simply be 1 x Hind helicopter operated by rebels. One of those would easily eliminate a Canadian combat team. A GBAD capability would be helpful in this theatre as well.



Worked in T and E as a #1 on the 120 Mortar Project in 1986, we had a few versions of RO-120 by Hotchkiss if I recall correctly, it was French anyway, towed by the muzzle.  We used for 4 tubes and competed against 4 pack 105mm.  We were faster in battery and out, better fire, longer range.  We experimented with mounted versions in a German M113 and towed versions behind a 5/4, MUTT jeep (one for tube, one for ammo), and M113 with fitted ammo racks.  After almost a year, everything was summed up and turned in to base supply.  Beautiful weapon!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Solving the reserve arty issue would be easy if the will was there, I suspect we could totally re-equip with 105's again from the reserve stock in SK or have 120mm mortars and 105mm saluting batteries.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Colin P said:
			
		

> Solving the reserve arty issue would be easy if the will was there, I suspect we could totally re-equip with 105's again from the reserve stock in SK or have 120mm mortars and 105mm saluting batteries.



A mobile 120mm capability would be great for a mission such as Africa where manoeuvre and firepower will be essential (assuming at least). It will be interesting to see if any arty capability would be deployed with the UN force (600 pers isn't much after all) as it would also necessitate us sending our own FOO parties (as third world FOO's are unlikely to be able to do a proper call for fire and we are unlikely to accept CFF from another nation).

Honestly, I would see any arty contribution being limited to STA and GBAD (if we had some) in a shield capacity. IMHO, the M777's are likely to sit this one out, though we will see.


----------



## Old Sweat

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> A mobile 120mm capability would be great for a mission such as Africa where manoeuvre and firepower will be essential (assuming at least). It will be interesting to see if any arty capability would be deployed with the UN force (600 pers isn't much after all) as it would also necessitate us sending our own FOO parties (as third world FOO's are unlikely to be able to do a proper call for fire and we are unlikely to accept CFF from another nation).
> 
> Honestly, I would see any arty contribution being limited to STA and GBAD (if we had some) in a shield capacity. IMHO, the M777's are likely to sit this one out, though we will see.



I tend to agree with you, especially given the limited size. I could see a FSCC/ASCC deployed along with two or three FOO/FAC parties, perhaps a mortar group or troop and a UAV element and perhaps some other STA kit. That eats up a fair amount of spaces, however, and maybe our political masters will want a more passive posture.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with you, especially given the limited size. I could see a FSCC/ASCC deployed along with two or three FOO/FAC parties, perhaps a mortar group or troop and a UAV element and perhaps some other STA kit. That eats up a fair amount of spaces, however, and maybe our political masters will want a more passive posture.


 I'm quite certain our political leadership want a passive role .That however is not up to them ,rather the other guy.  
 Whom ever that may be depending where we end up.


----------



## PuckChaser

Passive = force pro only. I'm willing to bet it'll be some helicopters, some medics, some engineers, and a crapload of officers as "advisors".


----------



## McG

The international development minister seems to add weight to speculation that we will be in Mali.

It also appears our decision may be aimed influence in la Francophonie in addition to the UN. 





> *International development minister says Mali's peacekeeping needs are 'obvious'*
> Melanie Marquis, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 02 Sep 2016
> 
> OTTAWA -- While many countries have asked Canada for help with peacekeeping, International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said Thursday that Mali's needs are some of the most obvious.
> 
> Mali is one of the poorest and most vulnerable and fragile countries on the planet, Bibeau said in an interview with The Canadian Press from the country's capital, Bamako.
> 
> Bibeau will wrap up her first official trip to Africa on Friday, having visited three francophone countries on the continent's west side: Senegal, Mali and Burkina Faso.
> 
> All three were once considered oases of stability on a continent rocked with conflict, yet all have suffered recently from terrorist threats they can't control.
> 
> "Unfortunately, (these countries) don't have sufficient resources to face this threat," Bibeau said.
> 
> Mali is often cited as one of the countries where Canada could deploy some of the 600 troops Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently said he will make available for UN peacekeeping operations.
> 
> Additionally, the federal government announced Wednesday it was sending a "reconnaissance mission" to take a closer look at the UN peacekeeping operations in Mali, known as MINUSMA.
> 
> Bibeau cautioned the "technical" mission shouldn't be seen as a sign Canada is committed to sending peacekeepers to any particular country.
> 
> "There are really a large number of countries that unfortunately are on the list of states that have asked us for help through the UN," she said. But she added "the needs are obvious" regarding Mali.
> 
> The current UN mission in Mali is one of the most dangerous in the world, with 105 peacekeepers killed there since 2013.
> 
> Bibeau said the Liberal government will announce an overall strategy on international development when it attends la Francophonie, the summit of French-speaking nations, in Madagascar in late November.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/international-development-minister-says-mali-s-peacekeeping-needs-are-obvious-1.3055488


----------



## brihard

I'm curious if the police side of it will look more like CIVPOL doing actual operational policing, or if it'll be morebehind the wire POMLT type stuff...


----------



## Castus

Here's to hoping that we're actually roped into Op Barkhane (the French TF in Africa).

About a snowball's chance, I know.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

The MINUSMA Force Commander should be coming up for rotation early next year.  It would be convenient if Canada had a spare Maj Gen looking for work.  The Dutch also announced in July that they are withdrawing their three chinooks from Mali.  No TCN has offered up to replace them at this point.   :2c:


----------



## jmt18325

Speculation also related to their Apaches, also being withdrawn.  It's thought that Canads could contribute chinooks and armed griffons.


----------



## ballz

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3771443/Central-Mali-town-falls-suspected-jihadists-officials.html



> *Central Mali town falls to jihadists: officials*
> 
> The central Malian town of Boni was under jihadist control on Friday after administrative buildings were attacked and the army driven out, an elected official and a security source told AFP.
> 
> Boni is home to several thousand people and remained under the control of the unidentified armed group by nightfall, who fired on administrative buildings and torched the mayor's office in the afternoon.
> 
> "At the moment jihadists are in control of the town of Boni. They infiltrated the town and today fired on several buildings," an elected official who requested anonymity said, adding: "the army is no longer there."
> 
> At the moment jihadists are in control of the town of Boni in Mali
> 
> Ongoing international military intervention since January 2013 has driven Islamist fighters away from major urban centres which they had briefly controlled, but large tracts of Mali are still not controlled by domestic or foreign troops.
> 
> Jihadist groups early last year began to carry out attacks in central Mali as well as the long-troubled north.
> 
> "We asked our forces present in Boni to withdraw to the locality of Douentza, which has been done," a military source told AFP, also asking not to be named as the Malian army has refused to comment on the incident.
> 
> Douentza is around 90 kilometres (56 miles) from Boni.
> 
> Residents reached by phone described men entering the town riding motorbikes and carrying weapons, shouting "Allahu Akbar" during the attack and flying several jihadist flags.
> 
> "They set fire to the police chief's house, as well as the mayor's office. They kept firing in the air," the resident said.
> 
> "I saw the army leave the town," he added. "Some jihadists were on motorbikes and had accomplices inside the town. It was planned."
> 
> Lawmakers in Mali agreed to extend a state of emergency across the country in July, after attackers stormed an army base in Nampala, also in the centre, leaving 17 soldiers dead and 35 wounded.
> 
> Two groups -- the Islamist organisation Ansar Dine and a newly formed ethnic group -- claimed to have carried out that raid, which the government described as a "coordinated terrorist attack".
> 
> Attacks have become more frequent near Mali's borders with Burkina Faso and Niger, both from criminal and jihadist elements.
> 
> Long prey to rival armed factions, plagued by drug trafficking and at the mercy of jihadism, Mali has struggled for stability since gaining independence from France in 1960.



Yup, blue helmets seems real appropriate...


----------



## Altair

ballz said:
			
		

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3771443/Central-Mali-town-falls-suspected-jihadists-officials.html
> 
> Yup, blue helmets seems real appropriate...


Why not? Couldn't a well trained force deal with some men on motorcycles?


----------



## ballz

Altair said:
			
		

> Why not? Couldn't a well trained force deal with some men on motorcycles?



I thought the blue helmets reference clearly implied that the comment was meant to criticize the idea of it being a "peacekeeping" or even "peacemaking" mission. But I guess not clearly enough...

If we're going to get involved in this, we should be closing with and destroying, actively disrupting EN operations... not bumbling around like idiots with blue helmets waiting to get blown or brewed up. I suspect the latter part will happen first, and then maybe if we're lucky, the former part will follow after much bureaucratic bullshit by men in suits that aren't worth the silk in their tie.


----------



## a_majoor

Altair said:
			
		

> Why not? Couldn't a well trained force deal with some men on motorcycles?



You obviously have not been paying attention to the conversation. Yes, a well trained force could deal with this sort of threat, much like SFOR or ISAF dealt with issues like this in former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. These were *not* UN peacekeeping missions, nor were they under the command or control of the UN. These were NATO missions with a UN "mandate" to provide a fig leaf for the politicians to wave in front of the voters, press, academics and the chattering class.

UN "Peacekeeping missions" have mandates and ROEs which generally don't reflect reality, and we end up with cluster****s like UNPROFOR, which did not have the mandate, ROE's or even generally equipment to deal with "some men on motorcycles".

If it makes Gerrald Butts feel like a big man to claim the mission is "peacekeeping", I'd be OK is it is *actually* an SFOR/ISAF type mission and we don't wear blue aiming markers. Sadly, there is no indication that this sort of reality has penetrated, they still have not stated any *actual *reason to join this, or any mission, how it supports Canada's Grand Strategy or National Interest or why it is going to be worth the blood of our colleagues and taxpayers treasure to do. Yes, I understand that there are people who are very enthusiastic about deployment, but if your life is going to be placed on the line it should be for something meaningful.


----------



## PuckChaser

France also only has 30 troops assigned to MINUSMA. Op BARKHANE is outside the UN Peacekeeping mandate. If we deploy to help them, we're not wearing blue berets like the Liberals want, ergo we're not deploying to do counter insurgency with the French.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes, I understand that there are people who are very enthusiastic about deployment, but if your life is going to be placed on the line it should be for something meaningful.



Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> UN "Peacekeeping missions" have  had mandates and ROEs which generally don't did not reflect reality ...


Fixed that for you.  Things have changed.  You can see the government understands this as they have stopped using the term "peacekeeping."  You know the MND understands what such a mission needs to look like on the ground , and I hope you trust the CDS to advise on the capabilities, force package and ROE requirements.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... if your life is going to be placed on the line it should be for something meaningful.


It was sold to (and bought by many) Canadian voters as being for altruism.  You can debate if this is adequately meaningful, but it is a meaning that we have attached a great many missions.  We are going to go somewhere, and when we get there we are going to make life better for a lot of people.  Recycle all the media lines about making Afghanistan a better place ... and they will be equally true when we say them about wherever is next.  



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Gerrald Butts


You over use this boogeyman.  His name is not a mike-drop, and he really does not deserve mention outside the politics thread.


----------



## Good2Golf

PSO is the new terminology and the MND was untraditionally clear on there being potential harm and some element of combat-like engagement if required, so even if Blue helmets are traipsed onto a C-17 leaving Trenton for the media, it would still allow for 'value-added activity' on the ground.  CH-147/146 package wouldn't be a bad thing either...worked pretty well supporting ops from K-har to the tip of the Horn and beyond.  :nod:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Altair

MCG said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.  Things have changed.  You can see the government understands this as they have stopped using the term "peacekeeping."  You know the MND understands what such a mission needs to look like on the ground , and I hope you trust the CDS to advise on the capabilities, force package and ROE requirements.
> It was sold to (and bought by many) Canadian voters as being for altruism.  You can debate if this is adequately meaningful, but it is a meaning that we have attached a great many missions.  We are going to go somewhere, and when we get there we are going to make life better for a lot of people.  Recycle all the media lines about making Afghanistan a better place ... and they will be equally true when we say them about wherever is next.
> You over use this boogeyman.  His name is not a mike-drop, and he really does not deserve mention outside the politics thread.


thank you. Sounds better when you say it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dutch also withdrawing Apaches (replace with armed Griffons?)--from July:



> Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

I like the Fireforce orbat, personally, for doing the business in an African context.

A nice little package based on an infantry platoon/ company with helicopter gunship and cargo carrying support, as well as a para assault capability. Ground support QRF was also available as required through armoured cars/ APCs etc. Flexible, fast, fairly cheap, able to cover a large geographical area, and a great overall deterrent, or emergency response set up, with a nice 'sting' if required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireforce

From what I can determine, the FFL used a similar setup when they banjoed the bad guys in Mali a couple of years ago.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.  Things have changed.  You can see the government understands this as they have stopped using the term "peacekeeping."



The government has stopped using the word peacekeeping?  http://army.ca/forums/threads/123590/post-1452896.html#msg1452896

  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The government has stopped using the word peacekeeping?  http://army.ca/forums/threads/123590/post-1452896.html#msg1452896
> 
> 8)


<contentcountgeek>
Not _quite_ stopped, but using it faaaaar less frequently via the Info-machine - only once in the big 26 Aug ann't, and twice in the assoicated Backgrounder -- or three mentions out of about 1,700 words of content.  That's compared to 49 mentions of "peace" in the same 1,700 words.
</contentcountgeek>


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm kinda looking forward to getting told I'll be charged and sent home if I spray paint any vehicles (or wear unauthorized patches) if we deploy  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now this is something we could do and help us increase our own capabilities http://aviationweek.com/defense/unmanned-peacekeepers-africa


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm kinda looking forward to getting told I'll be charged and sent home if I spray paint any vehicles (or wear unauthorized patches) if we deploy  ;D



You're making some RSMs head explode.....fortunately not mine.  [


----------



## Lightguns

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You're making some RSMs head explode.....fortunately not mine.  [



Do we have an authorized patch thread?  Since coming back as a civie, I am noticing a lot of bling on the sleeves of the new combat shirt.  Mostly in the field but I am starting to see pretty coloured formation patches in the hard stand.


----------



## dangerboy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Do we have an authorized patch thread?  Since coming back as a civie, I am noticing a lot of bling on the sleeves of the new combat shirt.  Mostly in the field but I am starting to see pretty coloured formation patches in the hard stand.



All brigade commanders and up (along with their RSMs) are wearing formation patches to "promote" the upcoming decision for all troops to wear formation patches.  The idea is that it will help instill esprit de corps within the soldiers  :


----------



## George Wallace

dangerboy said:
			
		

> All brigade commanders and up (along with their RSMs) are wearing formation patches to "promote" the upcoming decision for all troops to wear formation patches.  The idea is that it will help instill esprit de corps within the soldiers  :



Funny.  Us old Recce guys used to have quite a bit of esprit de corps by camming up and removing all patches and rank.  Times have changed.


----------



## Armymedic

Colin P said:
			
		

> Now this is something we could do and help us increase our own capabilities http://aviationweek.com/defense/unmanned-peacekeepers-africa



UAV use in the Sahel would be an asset given the region is mostly flat, sparsely covered and with predictable, often clear and windy, weather conducive to flying operations.

Blue berets not carrying rifles, but flying unarmed UAVs and providing medical support would fit the current government's utopian ideals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ballz said:
			
		

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3771443/Central-Mali-town-falls-suspected-jihadists-officials.html
> 
> Yup, blue helmets seems real appropriate...



Looking at Googlemaps, one small town off the main highway, but quite a few towns in the area, would be a hard place to police without a lot of local support.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Altair said:
			
		

> Why not? Couldn't a well trained force deal with some men on motorcycles?



You mean, like the Taliban?


----------



## Lightguns

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean, like the Taliban?



Blue helmets are never a correct response to an insurgency unless said insurgents have decided to lay down arms.  Blue helmets in an active insurgency are just another source of arms and fodder.


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You mean, like the Taliban?



We could hire the Taliban to provide security in Africa.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could hire the Taliban to provide security in Africa.



Brilliant. 

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is pretty much how the Gurkhas got started on the Imperial payroll


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course hiring the Nepalese pissed off the Hindu Regiments hired by the East Indian Company which helped to stir stuff up for the Mutiny.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> UAV use in the Sahel would be an asset given the region is mostly flat, sparsely covered and with predictable, often clear and windy, weather conducive to flying operations.
> 
> Blue berets not carrying rifles, but flying unarmed UAVs and providing medical support would fit the current government's utopian ideals.



Yes, not to mention that REDFOR tends to operate near sources of fresh drinking water.  It's how the French are able to get away with a relatively small force for such a large plot of land.  All that is required is a few OPs watching the few rivers and oasis that exist, with a Fireforce waiting in helos back at base and catching the terrorists becomes far easier.  Just ISR soak the rivers and the rats will be found.


----------



## medicineman

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Blue berets not carrying rifles, but flying unarmed UAVs and providing medical support would fit the current government's utopian ideals.



I can't see me providing medical support in that craphole unarmed any more than I can see you doing that, celestial camouflage hat or not.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill

medicineman said:
			
		

> I can't see me providing medical support in that craphole unarmed any more than I can see you doing that, celestial camouflage hat or not.
> 
> MM



Do you need rifles in Nevada?  (Well, maaaaybe  ;D ).   And as for medical assistance - drop first aid kits from 20,000 feet.


----------



## medicineman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Do you need rifles in Nevada?  (Well, maaaaybe  ;D ).   And as for medical assistance - drop first aid kits from 20,000 feet.



You never know - aliens from Area 51, rattlesnakes, mobsters, drunken tourists...the medical supplies from 20K up sounds good to me ;D

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

Tick, tick, tick?


> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will travel to London, UK, from September 7 to 8, 2016, to participate in the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial and to highlight Canada’s commitment to contributing to future UN peace support operations ...


So, rehash of this, or NEWS news?
op:


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Tick, tick, tick?
> 
> 
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan will travel to London, UK, from September 7 to 8, 2016, to participate in the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial and to highlight Canada’s commitment to contributing to future UN peace support operations ...
> 
> 
> 
> So, rehash of this, or NEWS news?
> op:
Click to expand...

Rehash it is, then -- the Minister's speaking notes from the U.K. this week -- tea leaf highlights mine:


> Defence Secretary Fallon, Defence ministerial colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> Thank you for this opportunity to address everyone today.
> 
> Last month, in an effort to better understand the ground truth of Africa’s many conflicts, I undertook a five-country visit on the continent.
> 
> The trip reinforced what all of us here know to be true: Conflicts today are more complex than ever before.
> 
> The actors are not always well defined, their goals are not always clear and their methods are far from conventional.
> 
> In short, we must elevate the conversation on peacekeeping. This is not peacekeeping of the past. Where peace does exist, it can often be tenuous.
> 
> Conflict resolution requires a creative, comprehensive approach. One that engages broadly, one that enlists the support of all organizations whose collective work will make peace endure.
> 
> *Political, security, development, and humanitarian responses are all needed to establish peace. These solutions must be brought together under the umbrella of “peace operations”.*
> 
> Canada is committed to being part of those solutions. Last month, our Government pledged up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to be available for possible deployment on United Nations peace support operations. Canada has also renewed the International Police Peacekeeping Program and committed to deploying up to 150 police officers over the coming years.
> 
> The women and men of our military are well trained and prepared to offer a range of capabilities.
> 
> *Canada’s contribution to peace operations will have the protection of civilians as its principal objective.* We will work to defend and protect the most helpless civilians in war torn areas, especially women and children, who bear the brunt of human rights abuses in conflicts.
> 
> *We are determined to prevent sexual violence and protect other human rights abuses.* We know that integrating gender perspectives in our mission planning and operations is a key to our success in these areas.
> 
> But we also know that real peace – lasting peace – requires more than a reactive approach. *We must identify the factors that make protracted conflict possible. And we must eliminate them before the kindling is sparked.*
> 
> We know that *child soldiers, for instance, represent a near endless supply of fighters for radical groups bent on exploiting them*.
> 
> In some African nations, the population under 25 years is nearly 60%. Not only are these youth the most vulnerable victims of conflict, they are the very fuel that powers the militias who enslave them.
> 
> The future stability of Africa hinges, in large part, on preventing the recruitment of children into armed conflict, and also on providing this new generation with hope and economic opportunity.
> 
> Canada’s contribution will not be only military in nature. *We bring a ‘whole of government’ effort to the table. I work closely with my colleagues the Minister of Foreign Affairs Stephane Dion and International Development Minister Bibeau.*
> 
> Together we are committed to the broad range of activities involved in peace support operations, including *conflict prevention and mitigation, dialogue, and the empowerment of women in decision-making for peace and security.*
> 
> A couple weeks ago, the Government of Canada also announced that we would devote $450 million dollars to our new Peace and Stabilization Operations Program.
> 
> We’re going to use this funding in a variety of ways.
> 
> Canada will support and enable Canadian diplomacy; especially by addressing the root causes of conflict. We will facilitate dialogue and conflict resolution, so that communities can recover their livelihoods and a sense of normalcy. We also want to make sure that women can participate meaningfully in peacebuilding, because we believe that this -- and all of the other activities I listed -- will lay the groundwork for stability in the troubled regions where we’ll operate.
> 
> *We must stretch beyond traditional military roles and work closely with local authorities, NGOs, diplomats, and a range of international and regional partners, too.*
> 
> *Police officers must also be integrated in peace support missions, as will other trained professionals focussed on the prevention of sexual violence and human rights abuses*. Each brings a specific skillset to our comprehensive response.
> 
> There is work to be done on so many fronts. But Canada has a rich history of leadership in supporting peace and can be a leader again.
> 
> Next year marks Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation. Throughout the year and across the country, we are planning activities to showcase and honour our history and what it means to be Canadian. In a most appropriate convergence of events, 2017 also marks the 60th anniversary of Lester B. Pearson’s Nobel Peace prize, for his role in resolving the Suez Crisis.
> 
> Supporting and encouraging peace is certainly part of what it means to be Canada. For that reason, I am pleased to announce today that Canada will host this Defence Ministerial conference next year. We truly look forward to continuing this important work with you.
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the United Nations has welcomed Canada’s contribution and renewed engagement in peace operations.
> 
> Canada has a rich history of supporting and building peace around the world. We have seen the tremendous contributions that Canada and our allies can make, and we stand ready to take up this role again.
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> We must identify the factors that make protracted conflict possible. And we must eliminate them before the kindling is sparked.


Would that be a Platoon or a Company task?    op:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and how long will the "rest of government" hang around when their staff get killed?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

One infantry platoon ... supported by a 550 people strong Corps level HQ, obviously.  :threat:

I find it interesting that, outside of Canada, at international conferences, Mr. Dion is identified as the Foreign Affairs minister - none of that "Global" crap.

I am looking at what the M.N.D. claims Canada wants to achieve in Africa, and all I can think of is "Good luck achieving that in our century!"


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that, outside of Canada, at international conferences, Mr. Dion is identified as the Foreign Affairs minister - none of that "Global" crap.



GAAAAAAAAC!   :blotto: ...oh, you mean the "for domestic post-election consumption in 20[insert year here]" name?


----------



## Kirkhill

> The women and men of our military are well trained and prepared to offer a range of capabilities.
> 
> Canada’s contribution to peace operations will have the protection of civilians as its principal objective. We will work to defend and protect the most helpless civilians in war torn areas, especially women and children, who bear the brunt of human rights abuses in conflicts.
> 
> We are determined to prevent sexual violence and protect other human rights abuses. We know that integrating gender perspectives in our mission planning and operations is a key to our success in these areas.



Does this mean that Canada's new role at the UN will be as custodian of the custodians? I guess all that SHARP training will finally pay off.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Does this mean that Canada's new role at the UN will be as custodian of the custodians? I guess all that SHARP training will finally pay off.


Even though we may not see the _entire_ story via MSM, that alone would be a MIGHTY big undertaking for anyone wanting to clean out _that_ Augean stable.  #DiffifultYetThanklessTasks


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Another job for retired justice Deschamps?


----------



## Jarnhamar

I like it. When we get to Africa we can force allies and locals to take the _Gender-based Analysis Plus_ module as well as whatever passes for SHARP training. A sort of train the trainer ambiance.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, rehash of this, or NEWS news?
> op:
> 
> Rehash it is, then -- the Minister's speaking notes from the U.K. this week -- tea leaf highlights mine:



My reserved faith in this mission is dropping by the hour. This was literally a "buzz-word bingo" entry with absolutely no substance. If the goal is to essentially fix Africa, a continent with a myriad of issues that make ANYTHING in North America pale in comparison, how did we come to a 650 man number? What human rights are we defending- Natural human rights (life, liberty, etc) or the gimmicky UN ones (internet access is now a human right!).

When I read this all I could think of was the "Gender advisor" that was deployed to Ex TRIDENT JUNCTURE and what a gigantic waste of rations that position was. African issues need to be solved by Africans (same reason why I don't think there's any long term value in sending troops to fight ISIS- the solution needs to be an Arab one, done by Arabs, for Arabs) and not by outsiders who only understand the surface level issues. "Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> "Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.


 :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment

The Liberal government will not hold a vote in Parliament before committing troops to new peacekeeping missions, saying it received a mandate in the election to deploy soldiers on United Nations operations.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.

“We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible,” Mr. Sajjan said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the possibility of a House of Commons vote.

“The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”

Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.

He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.

The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper seek parliamentary approval in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions and military advisory operations in northern Iraq.

The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.

Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.

The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline yet. “Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”

He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.

"It is unfair to Canadians, our allies, and most importantly to our troops for the Liberals to blindly pledge 600 Canadian troops to a ‘possible deployment’," he said in a statement. "Any use of the Canadian military must be in our national interest, not to secure a position on the United Nation’s Security Council or to fulfil the Prime Minister’s political aspirations. The Liberals must clearly lay out the details and risks of the mission before deploying Canadian personnel to a war zone."

Canadian soldiers’ participation in peacekeeping has dwindled over time to about 100 today – a significant decline from historical levels. Current deployments include about 30 in support of UN peacekeeping missions and 70 posted to a non-UN multinational peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberals accused the former Conservative government of turning its back on peacekeeping.

Asked why Canada is pledging only 600 troops for peacekeeping when in the past this country has fielded many more soldiers for such operations, Mr. Sajjan said Canada would have the capacity to deploy more if necessary.

“We have the flexibility for more, but it’s better to be pragmatic about decisions like this,” he said.

He said Canada must also retain the capacity to deal with threats such as Islamic State militants. About 830 Canadian Armed Forces members are being deployed to improve the security of Iraq and surrounding areas.

Canada is also sending a battle group to Latvia as part of a move by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian aggression in that region.

At one point in 1993, about 3,300 Canadian troops were deployed in UN peacekeeping operations, but some experts say that was an unusually high commitment.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.





We should take all CIS males in leadership roles and put womyn put in those spots instead.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Rehash it is, then -- the Minister's speaking notes from the U.K. this week -- tea leaf highlights mine:



Gag me with a Smurf; a blue one of course!


----------



## Jed

It's good to be retired.  I don't think I would be able to stomach the hypocrisy and PC sunny ways the military is rapidly advancing towards adopting.

I fervently hope this sitting government is only in for 4 years so the irreparable damage is limited and can be eventually reversed.


----------



## PuckChaser

Remember everyone, its not how hard you work, how good you are at your job, or the kind of leader you are: You're only getting a deployment or leadership position now if you're not a white anglo-saxon male.

Eventually I'm going to have to self-identify as a new gender, race, religion and language so I can get promoted.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment
> 
> The Liberal government will not hold a vote in Parliament before committing troops to new peacekeeping missions, saying it received a mandate in the election to deploy soldiers on United Nations operations.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.
> 
> “We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible,” Mr. Sajjan said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the possibility of a House of Commons vote.
> 
> “The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”
> 
> Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.
> 
> He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.
> 
> The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper seek parliamentary approval in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions and military advisory operations in northern Iraq.
> 
> The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.
> 
> Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.
> 
> The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline yet. “Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”
> 
> He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.
> 
> Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.
> 
> "It is unfair to Canadians, our allies, and most importantly to our troops for the Liberals to blindly pledge 600 Canadian troops to a ‘possible deployment’," he said in a statement. "Any use of the Canadian military must be in our national interest, not to secure a position on the United Nation’s Security Council or to fulfil the Prime Minister’s political aspirations. The Liberals must clearly lay out the details and risks of the mission before deploying Canadian personnel to a war zone."
> 
> Canadian soldiers’ participation in peacekeeping has dwindled over time to about 100 today – a significant decline from historical levels. Current deployments include about 30 in support of UN peacekeeping missions and 70 posted to a non-UN multinational peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberals accused the former Conservative government of turning its back on peacekeeping.
> 
> Asked why Canada is pledging only 600 troops for peacekeeping when in the past this country has fielded many more soldiers for such operations, Mr. Sajjan said Canada would have the capacity to deploy more if necessary.
> 
> “We have the flexibility for more, but it’s better to be pragmatic about decisions like this,” he said.
> 
> He said Canada must also retain the capacity to deal with threats such as Islamic State militants. About 830 Canadian Armed Forces members are being deployed to improve the security of Iraq and surrounding areas.
> 
> Canada is also sending a battle group to Latvia as part of a move by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian aggression in that region.
> 
> At one point in 1993, about 3,300 Canadian troops were deployed in UN peacekeeping operations, but some experts say that was an unusually high commitment.



It looks like this Liberal government may not have learned much from the mistakes of a previous Liberal government:

Somalia Affair

The Somalia Affair was a 1993 military scandal later dubbed "Canada's national shame".[1] It peaked with the beating to death of a Somali teenager at the hands of two Canadian soldiers participating in humanitarian efforts in Somalia. The crime, documented by grisly photos, shocked the Canadian public and brought to light internal problems in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Military leadership were sharply rebuked after a CBC reporter received altered documents, leading to allegations of a cover-up.

Eventually a public inquiry was called. Despite being controversially cut short by the government, the Somalia Inquiry cited problems in the leadership of the Canadian Forces. The affair led to the disbanding of Canada's elite Canadian Airborne Regiment, greatly damaging the morale of the Canadian Forces, and marring the domestic and international reputation of Canadian soldiers. It also led to the immediate reduction of Canadian military spending by nearly 25% from the time of the killing to the inquiry.[1][2]

The final report of the inquiry was a striking attack on the procedures, support and leadership of the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence. Many of the top officers in the Canadian Forces were excoriated, including three separate Chiefs of the Defence Staff. The CAR had been rushed into a war zone with inadequate preparation or legal support. Enquiry observer retired Brigadier-General Dan Loomis noted that the operation had changed, in December 1992, "from a peacekeeping operation, where arms are used only in self-defence, to one where arms could be used proactively to achieve politico-military objectives ... In short the Canadian Forces were being put on active service and sent to war (as defined by Chapter 7 of the UN Charter)." Its deployment into "war" had never been debated in parliament and indeed the Canadian public had been led to believe by its government that the CAR was on a "peacekeeping" mission. After the events the leaders of the Canadian Forces had been far more concerned with self-preservation than in trying to find the truth. The inquiry report singled out Major-General Lewis MacKenzie as a major exception, as he took full responsibility for any errors he made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:

The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.

Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.

Oh! And Lew Mackenzie had absolutely nothing to do with the whole affair. The Somalia inquiry basically found him to have some responsibility for the Airborne's leadership problem, but that was on the sole basis of superior command responsibility (they were in his Army command) which, at some point included oversight of the Airborne regiment, in which he had never served per se.


----------



## Jed

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:
> 
> The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.
> 
> Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.



Funny, I certainly don't recall it that way. Kim Campbell's time as MND and PM was very short.  I recall the liberal MND putting the boots to CAR in 1993 - 1994 primarily for economic reasons.  And the Air element not being too overly concerned as it wasn't their CF 18's.  (They were later choked about the F5's, helicopters, etc.} The long dragged out flogging was perpetuated by the Liberals and was the start of the Decade of Darkness. 

Just like we now seem to be starting up another decade of darkness.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree, broadly, with OGBD ~ completely as to the timeline and who was in power at each phase.

As to "blame," well ...

The leadership problems in the CAR were well pretty known _circa_ 1980: the assaults, the misuse of explosives, the harassment, and so on ... none of it was "new" to the Army but the CAR _seemed_, from where I stood, to add a little extra *pizzazz* to it all. Essentially, all soldiers always get into mischief but the CAR soldiers, perhaps being better trained, got deeper into it. My sense (and I knew several of the "players" personally, some were and still are friends) was that Paul Morneault, then CO CAR, understood the problem and had _*a*_ solution which the institutional army (which included Ernie Beno, John de Chastelain, Jim Gervais, Lew MacKenzie, and Gord Reay) would not accept. Additionally, Paul spent too much of his valuable time doing staff work that was the proper function of his OpsO, QM and Adjt and not enough time kicking the asses of his line officers (and Paul could have beaten Seward at anything and everything) and fighting for his regiment against the practices of the other infantry regiments (mainly of sending, as Peter Kenward said, their "bad apples" to the CAR and leaving them there).

The decision to send the CAR to Somalia was 100% John de Chastelain. He had, some months earlier, when a proposed Western Sahara mission fell though, promised the CAR, in public, that the next big mission would be theirs. Notwithstanding at least one report that said that a light armoured unit would be the best "fit" for the mission I am _pretty sure_ (I was a lcol, at the time, on the staff in NDHQ, but not directly involved in recommending that sort of thing ... my responsibilities were of a facilitation and support nature) that it was CAR from day one ... because _Prince John_ said so.

The decision to fire Morneault may have been mistaken but it was taken based on good officers' reasoned and seasoned judgement ... which in the end is all we usually have to guide us. The decision to replace him with Carol Matthieu, however, was made by a little cabal of senior officers and, although they had been told to find the best available infantry lcol, regimental matters got in the way. Lew MacKenzie said, in public, that it ended up that the best available infantry lcol was a PPCLI officer, as were the second and third best, but it was agreed that it would look bad if a bunch of PPCLI senior officer (he, de Chastelain and Reay) "parachuted" one of their own in so they decided to look for the best available R22R officer and that was Matthieu.

Carol Matthieu was not a bad officer, but he had a near impossible task, and he found poor guidance and no useful, helpful support in Serge Labbe, the Canadian contingent commander ... who was a "rising star" in the army but was already known to have poor personal judgment.

I wasn't there, in Somalia, so I don't know who did what to whom.

The Somalia Inquiry was a farce. In my opinion Justice Gilles Létourneau came in, on day one, with his mind made up, but after a combination of media howling and Dr Barry Armstrong's public statements it had to happen. It was, if my memory serves, very much a case of blind men and elephants ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Disbanding the CAR was also, _in my opinion_, inevitable ... after the "hazing" videos came out. But it's not clear to me that the CAR was ever a good fit for Canada, post Mike Pearson. I am 99.9% certain that none of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau ever wanted, nor even imagined  a foreign policy that needed a hard hitting, quick reaction, combat force as part of its public face.


Edit: typo


----------



## Good2Golf

> I am 99.9% certain that none of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau ever wanted, nor even imagined  a foreign policy that needed a hard hitting, quick reaction, combat force as part of its public face.



Agree, with special emphasis on the highlighted bit above.  

That said, Harper found what he was looking for in 2006 and beyond, in the well-trained and well-equipped and most importantly, much better-disciplined CSOR.  In time, it (through CANSOFCOM) was allowed to lift the Kimono a wee bit, and let Canadians know how things could be done....correctly (disciplined and effective)...with the appropriate will and fitting ways.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## OldSolduer

I recall a CSM in 1 VP actually saying "send Bloggins to the Airborne, they'll sort him out". It turns out several people had the same thought and there was a critical mass of miscreants in Pet in the early 90s.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I guy I went through Basic, Borden and 1st posting with had a younger brother who was considered too agressive for the RCR, was sent to the CAR and was thought to be their kind of man.  He went onto serve in Somalia on that mission (albeit without involvement in the incident).


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> .... was considered too agressive for the RCR


He wanted to paint rocks with spray paint rather than a brush?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment


Ah, what's good for the (Team Blue) goose doesn't seem to be quite good enough for the (Team Red) gander  :tsktsk:

Meanwhile, other reads of what Sajjan & others have  said (or didn't say) ...


> ... The minister was asked repeatedly whether the eventual mission would be voted on by MPs from all parties in the House, but he did not answer the question directly ...


(source)


> ... International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau told The Huffington Post Quebec this week that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make the final call about a future mission with his ministers, not members of Parliament.
> 
> "The decision will be taken at the cabinet committee," Bibeau said in an interview Tuesday.
> 
> She did suggest, however, that there could still be a debate in the House of Commons ...


(source)
Sorry, Team Red - if you insisted on some level of parliamentary participation with other missions, hard not to look hypocritical if you don't allow at least _some_ level of participation for your own deployments.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=milnews.ca]
Sorry, Team Red - if you insisted on some level of parliamentary participation with other missions, hard not to look hypocritical if you don't allow at least _some_ level of participation for your own deployments.
[/quote]

Funny that.


----------



## McG

There has been some message adjustment in the last 24 hours.


> *Sajjan wavers on Commons vote
> Defence Minister says Liberals won’t seek parliamentary support on peace missions, then backtracks*
> Steven Chase
> The Globe and Mail
> 09 Sep 16
> 
> The federal government is refusing to commit to a parliamentary vote on troop deployments for what it promises will be a return to a major peacekeeping role for Canada – one or more missions that could hold significant peril for soldiers in an era in which stabilizing conflict zones has grown more dangerous.
> 
> The government shifted message on this matter within a matter of hours on Thursday. Early in the day, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told The Globe and Mail that the Liberals would not put the matter to a vote in the House of Commons.
> 
> The government is currently considering options for a major new peacekeeping deployment and Mr. Sajjan said in a taped interview that the government had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations.
> 
> Asked twice whether there would be parliamentary votes on peacekeeping deployments, he replied: “No. We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible on this.”
> 
> But later in the day, after questions from journalists on a teleconference, Mr. Sajjan declined to answer whether MPs would be asked to vote on peacekeeping deployment.
> 
> Instead, he said the cabinet will determine how things will proceed. “Once we have that discussion, a process will be decided on,” he said.
> 
> His office later said the government was not ruling out a parliamentary vote.
> 
> In the Globe interview, Mr. Sajjan said Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.
> 
> “The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”
> 
> Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.
> 
> He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.
> 
> The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper hold votes in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions.
> 
> The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but it has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.
> 
> Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.
> 
> Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.
> 
> The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline.
> 
> “Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”
> 
> He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.
> 
> The Liberals have come under fire this year for limiting debate on legislation on medically assisted dying.
> 
> NDP foreign affairs critic Hélène Laverdière called on the Liberals to hold a vote on any peacekeeping deployment. “For a government that wants to consult on every issue, I do not understand why they wouldn’t consult Parliament when it comes to combat or peacekeeping missions.”
> 
> Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.
> 
> Philippe Lagassé, an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said he is not a fan of parliamentary votes on military missions partly because there are no clear rules on when they are necessary.
> 
> “In Canada, the practice is effectively to vote when the executive thinks it’s in its political interest to do so. Is that the best approach?” He said the Commons could make “take note” debates on deployments mandatory.



If the Liberals want to keep their cake and eat it too, I suggest that they make it a budget bill.  The government is right (as were previous governments) that the executive does not need to ask permission of the legislative to deploy the military.  But, Parliament does have the right to approve the budget.  So make a special appropriation to fund this mission without cutting into defence baseline funding.  Parliament gets its debate and vote on what money to spend, and the government gets to claim that it retained its prerogative to deploy the military or not.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> There has been some message adjustment enforcement massaging refinement in the last 24 hours.


 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yep!

Them's the same people that claimed that PM Harper did not have legitimacy because he got a majority government without getting a majority of the casted votes - so if they were elected, FPTP would be changed. Then get elected to a majority government with a smaller percentage of the casted votes - but now it is legitimate for them to change the only way Canadians have voted (FPTP) for the (almost) last 150 years without going back to see first if an actual majority of Canadian want that change.

Democracy, and its boundaries, is a highly flexible concept in that government's mind, rather elastic where it favours their point of view - and notwithstanding contradiction with their past own selves.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:
> 
> The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.
> 
> Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.
> 
> Oh! And Lew Mackenzie had absolutely nothing to do with the whole affair. The Somalia inquiry basically found him to have some responsibility for the Airborne's leadership problem, but that was on the sole basis of superior command responsibility (they were in his Army command) which, at some point included oversight of the Airborne regiment, in which he had never served per se.



I never said I was perfect, just good looking (and humble )


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep!
> 
> Them's the same people that claimed that PM Harper did not have legitimacy because he got a majority government without getting a majority of the casted votes - so if they were elected, FPTP would be changed. Then get elected to a majority government with a smaller percentage of the casted votes - but now it is legitimate for them to change the only way Canadians have voted (FPTP) for the (almost) last 150 years without going back to see first if an actual majority of Canadian want that change.
> 
> Democracy, and its boundaries, is a highly flexible concept in that government's mind, rather elastic where it favours their point of view - and notwithstanding contradiction with their past own selves.



A very large shopping list of promises in their platform.  All agreed in detail by the public when the public voted the Liberals into power.  No further need for votes.

One man.  One vote.  One time.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar

Awwwwww, Chris, you're being critical of the current Government.  This threads going to be locked too now.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.

And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.   All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.


Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.


----------



## Loachman

And lives.

And health.


----------



## Jed

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.
> 
> And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.   All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.
> 
> 
> Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.



Yah, but what about a rainbow coloured gender-neutral Tishirt?   [


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's pretty narrow minded to assume 100% of the people who voted Liberal support 100% of the platform promises they made in so far as to say they "had already received an election mandate from voters to deploy soldiers to United Nations operations."  so it's good to go.
> 
> And even then I think it's pretty safe to say the majority of Canadians who voted Liberal aren't in a position to deploy to Africa and risk death or getting smashed up then having to deal with the nightmare that is veterans affairs.   All to seemingly get a gender-neutral coloured UN mug.
> 
> 
> Pretty easy to gamble with other peoples money.


Say what?

Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Say what?
> 
> Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?



Coherent foreign and defense policy should decide where we're going to dip our toes. Soldiers have just as much one person one vote as anyone else. Biggest problem is, mission is not being debated in the Commons, as demanded previously by these very same Liberals. Yes, the motion will pass to deploy as they have a majority. However, it allows proper debate and firmer details dragged out of the government instead of the piecemeal crap we've been fed thus far. 

There has been 0 justification provided for us to deploy to Africa other than "Security Council Seat".


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Coherent foreign and defense policy should decide where we're going to dip our toes. Soldiers have just as much one person one vote as anyone else. Biggest problem is, mission is not being debated in the Commons, as demanded previously by these very same Liberals. Yes, the motion will pass to deploy as they have a majority. However, it allows proper debate and firmer details dragged out of the government instead of the piecemeal crap we've been fed thus far.
> 
> There has been 0 justification provided for us to deploy to Africa other than "Security Council Seat".


I agree, it should be debated in the Commons. I'm actually pretty sure it will be, this government has backtracked in the face of public opposition in the past and I am pretty sure they will on this one.

As for security Council seat, I dare you to bring up where one Liberal has used that as a justification for this mission. Is it common knowledge?  Sure. Have the Liberals ever once used it as a reason? No. 

What they have said is they want to be more engaged with the UN and one of their election promises was to go back to UN peacekeeping. Sure, be pissed about the mission. Don't make stuff up.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> Say what?
> 
> Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?



Moving the goal posts eh? 
It's a hell of a lot easier voting to send soldiers to war zone Africa when it's not your guts on the line-not sure how to simplify my statement more for you. 


The mali army
https://www.funker530.com/clown-army-of-mali-techniques-analyzed/


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> As for security Council seat, I dare you to bring up where one Liberal has used that as a justification for this mission. Is it common knowledge?  Sure. Have the Liberals ever once used it as a reason? No.
> 
> What they have said is they want to be more engaged with the UN and one of their election promises was to go back to UN peacekeeping. Sure, be pissed about the mission. Don't make stuff up.



I'm sorry you can't read between the lines. Canada has been engaged with the UN for the last 20 years, we're not "back". The issue is, the previous government wouldn't compromise on principles, so we lost the votes of the third world dictators who didn't like that when we ran for the last seat and voted against us. If we drop a bunch of peacekeepers somewhere, and court Iran's vote by removing sanctions from a country who consistently threatens to wipe Israel off the map, maybe we can totally get that seat.


----------



## mariomike

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> "Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.



Will there be a possibility of,

Fighting child soldiers?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/104732.0

As if there is not enough mayhem going on already in our cities, BLM would have a field day with that.

Based on past experience, an estimate from government "brain specialists" about the number of potential PTSD claims might be of interest. 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I never said I was perfect, just good looking (and humble )



What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left. < Just kidding.


----------



## Loachman

Altair said:
			
		

> Say what?
> 
> Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?



Say what?

Should soldiers (and sailors and airmen) not be allowed to express displeasure at being used as pawns in pursuit of somebody's personal  vanity project, à la some mediaeval king?

Is expectation of a clear, coherent, logical, justifiable reason for being placed in danger so outlandish?

I get it - you're hot and horny to go anywhere, for anything, anytime, for any reason. Those who have lost/discarded their deployment virginity, however, tend to look at such things a little more critically.

Like many here, and as I said upthread, I've been to too many funerals, most for people that I knew and served with, and have seen too many grieving, shattered families. There had better be a ****ing valid reason for this.

If a valid reason magically appears - and I am not optimistic - I will cautiously back a deployment, but not until then.

And nobody said anything about "soldiers (and sailors and airmen) decid(ing) where they go and when".


----------



## Kirkhill

Altair said:
			
		

> Say what?
> 
> Should soldiers be the ones that decide where they go and when because we have skin in the game?



No.  In a mercenary army (sorry, all-volunteer) army like ours, the soldiers get to decide if the game is worth the candle.  They can withdraw their services.


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Moving the goal posts eh?
> It's a hell of a lot easier voting to send soldiers to war zone Africa when it's not your guts on the line-not sure how to simplify my statement more for you.
> 
> 
> The mali army
> https://www.funker530.com/clown-army-of-mali-techniques-analyzed/


Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.

What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.
> 
> What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.



Why are you inventing a strawman argument when clearly  no one suggested soldiers should be the ones to decide where and when they deploy?


----------



## Altair

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why are you inventing a strawman argument when clearly  no one suggested soldiers should be the ones to decide where and when they deploy?


If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?



Exactly how it reads


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?



Perhaps as a bunch of civilians who are helping decide where a country (Canada) should direct its foreign efforts, and that they don't have a personal connection or appreciation to the reality on the ground, so it's easier for them to support going to a place they "think" they understand, but don't really?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Altair said:
			
		

> Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.
> 
> What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.



The bigger issue is that the Liberals, while in opposition, used things such as the Conservatives not voting on Libya to show that they were not respecting parliament. Then in power they do the same things, but without any sort of clear mission or end state. Also stating that they dont need to have a vote since their election win was a clear "mandate" from the people also smacks of self importance and hypocrisy. 

Everyone in the military understands that once the powers that be say it's go time that it's go time. However, there is still a valid reason to ask why for those in the military and for the citizens of Canada, of whom 61% didn't vote for the Liberal mandate.


----------



## Altair

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The bigger issue is that the Liberals, while in opposition, used things such as the Conservatives not voting on Libya to show that they were not respecting parliament. Then in power they do the same things, but without any sort of clear mission or end state. Also stating that they dont need to have a vote since their election win was a clear "mandate" from the people also smacks of self importance and hypocrisy.
> 
> Everyone in the military understands that once the powers that be say it's go time that it's go time. However, there is still a valid reason to ask why for those in the military and for the citizens of Canada, of whom 61% didn't vote for the Liberal mandate.


I agree. 

I still believe they will. They backed down on forcing MPs to be on schedule for votes.

They backed down on having a majority on the committee on electoral reform.

I think they will back down on this.


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps as a bunch of civilians who are helping decide where a country (Canada) should direct its foreign efforts, and that they don't have a personal connection or appreciation to the reality on the ground, so it's easier for them to support going to a place they "think" they understand, but don't really?


When has this not been the case?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Altair said:
			
		

> When has this not been the case?



How's about when many of the MPs were veterans themselves and/or serving in the military.


----------



## Altair

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> How's about when many of the MPs were veterans themselves and/or serving in the military.


And when was this?


----------



## Kirkhill

> ...Over the history of the House of Commons, only 18 per cent of the 4,202 MPs ever elected have military duty on their resume, according to statistics on the parliamentary website.
> 
> Among them was George Baker, elected as a Tory in 1911 as the Canadian government decided to join the British effort in the First World War. He then joined the military and was the commander of the 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles when he was killed in action at Ypres in July 1915.
> 
> The majority of MPs who have military records come from the First and Second World Wars, when collectively about 2 million Canadians served in the forces.
> 
> Fewer veterans to draw on
> 
> As the number of Canadians serving has dwindled, so too has the number of politicians drawn from their ranks, said military historian Christian Leuprecht.
> 
> "In the U.S., the military has a strong linkage with society — one in eight Americans will serve at some point in their lifetime," he said via email from a conference in Spain.
> 
> "In Canada, it's closer to 1 in 100. It just doesn't have the same cachet as it does in the U.S."
> 
> Of the 43 men who have served as U.S. president, only 11 have zero military experience on their resume. By contrast, of the 22 Canadian prime ministers, 15 have never done military duty.
> 
> The last prime minister to see active duty was Lester Pearson, who was both a member of the Canadian Army Medical Corps during the First World War and then a pilot in Britain
> 
> Thirteen current MPs list some military service in their official backgrounds: two are Liberals, five are New Democrats and six are Conservatives.....



This referred to the last parliament.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-send-soldiers-to-war-but-few-have-gone-themselves-1.1188017


----------



## jollyjacktar

Altair said:
			
		

> And when was this?



Feel free to look it up, there's been 836 members whom have connections to service in the military. 

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/lists/MilitaryService.aspx?Menu=HOC-Bio&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Feel free to look it up, there's been 836 members whom have connections to service in the military.
> 
> http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/lists/MilitaryService.aspx?Menu=HOC-Bio&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb


And if you go thru it, you maaaaaaay be surprised which party ends up with a larger number of folks with military service ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lieberals, I'm sure, although NDP would make milk squirt out my nose and bust my gut laughing. 

OK, just had a quick look and as suspected, Lieberals for the win (they weren't always whiney anti-military bitches).  But holy fuck Batman, I've never heard of, nevermind dreamed of the so many different parties listed over the years.  Amazing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Lieberals, I'm sure, although NDP would make milk squirt out my nose and bust my gut laughing. OK, just had a quick look and as suspected, Lieberals for the win.


Also likely because they've been up to bat a bit more often, too.

I think the captain of the ship makes more of a difference in our system than the make-up of the crew when it comes to political decision making, including military.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> When has this not been the case?



Arguably never, and exactly why I answered as I did to your original question here:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?



You do remember asking that question, right?  Perhaps you could knock out the middle man and entertain us with you challenging your own questions.  :nod:

G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Har Sajan is our current Minister of National Defence. A former soldier, with recent operational experience, and a good one.

Even he will have not much to say about how, when or where we deploy our troops, I'm sure, as he will be expected to support the 'will of the government of the day'. Just like the rest of us.

'I am a soldier
And unapt to weep
Or to exclaim upon fortune's fickleness'

Henry VI


----------



## McG

Sure he is expected to support the will of the government, but as a minister he is also expected to have a role in crafting, guiding and developing that will.  As MND, he should have very much to say about how, when, where and why.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It seems like there's been a few times now where the MND has went on the record and said something only to turn around and change his statement days or even hours later.  I can't imagine he appreciates being put in that position anymore than we are when it happens to us.


----------



## Kirkhill

The MND has an opportunity to bring his views to the Cabinet table.  He has an opportunity to influence the decision.  He doesn't get to make the decision.  

Once the decision is made then he has a duty to implement the decision.  Or quit.

His life, and that of any other Minister, is actually pretty simple.

To prevent being embarrassed he is wise to hold his opinions to himself.


----------



## Good2Golf

That challenge is to be proactive in a manner that fits within toeing the line that the small cloister may (or may not) be clearly articulating to such ministers (or even MPs, for that matter).  What would no doubt be frustrating would be discussing issues in a manner consistent with the Party line, then get your chain yanked because senior insiders changed the line (based on the classic Liberal method of ruling by poles) and didn't do anyone the courtesy of letting them know of the change.   'Hypothetically'

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

"Hypothetically".

That level of inconstancy, in my opinion, is likely to push an honourable person to struggle with the decision of whether to stay in, and keep trying, or pursue other options.

Hypothetically.


----------



## McG

For those who doubt the government, do you have any confidence in hearing the message from Gen Vance?



> *Canada's top general rejects notion peacekeepers are being used to political ends*
> Jonathan Vance says he would never put troops in harms way to win a UN Security Council seat
> Lee Berthiaume
> CBC news
> 21 Sep 2016
> 
> The country's top soldier is pushing back against suggestions the Liberal government wants to use Canadian troops for political purposes by deploying them on United Nations peacekeeping missions.
> 
> The opposition Conservatives accused the Liberals this week of treating the military like "pawns" by promising to support peacekeeping operations in exchange for a UN Security Council seat.
> 
> The Liberal government has promised up to 600 troops for future peacekeeping operations, as well as 150 police officers and $450 million for peace support operations.
> 
> But chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said Wednesday that Canadian troops will be deployed as peacekeepers for no other reason than to help bring peace and stability to another part of the world.
> 
> "I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm's way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force," he said.
> 
> Vance told the Senate defence committee that his staff members are looking at various UN mission options to see where Canada could best contribute. The government still has not decided on a specific mission, he added.
> 
> Vance wouldn't say which missions the government is currently considering, but he acknowledged that many — if not all — carry some degree of risk. He said he wouldn't advise Canada participate in a mission with unnecessary or unmanageable risk.
> 
> "But a risky mission that has great potential of success may be a mission that you want to invest in," he said. "And the military, we do risk. We're good at that, if we can mitigate it."
> 
> Some have worried that Canadian peacekeepers could be put into a no-win situation, or bound by endless UN bureaucracy that might tie their hands or otherwise put them at risk, such as in previous missions in Rwanda and Bosnia.
> 
> Vance said UN commanders might give Canadian troops specific tasks, but he would "never" let the UN have the last word on when or how Canadian peacekeepers could act. He said he is the one who writes the rules of engagement for Canadian troops, which would continue with a peacekeeping mission.
> 
> "I never relinquish Canadian command of those troops," he said. "We have learned a lot since the days of Bosnia and Rwanda and elsewhere. And one of those is you're never out from under Canadian command."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-vance-not-political-1.3773216


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> For those who doubt the government, do you have any confidence in hearing the message from Gen Vance?
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-vance-not-political-1.3773216



I don't think he really has a choice.  If the gov says go here for what ever reason he must follow orders no ?


----------



## Lightguns

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't think he really has a choice.  If the gov says go here for what ever reason he must follow orders no ?



After having his say in private with the MND and PM if this government is doing things the way Harper and Martin administrations did.  I understand Jean C wasn't much for talking to top soldiers though and this crowd draws more on that side of the Liberal dual personality.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't think he really has a choice.  If the gov says go here for what ever reason he must follow orders no ?


But he can always resign if he disagrees.  Do you doubt he is speaking honestly when he says the CAF is going somewhere where it can make a positive difference, or when he says he will give the ROE that are required?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> But he can always resign if he disagrees.  Do you doubt he is speaking honestly when he says the CAF is going somewhere where it can make a positive difference, or when he says he will give the ROE that are required?



While our current MND and CDS may be different I really don't expect our politicians or generals to "fall on their sword" if they feel something a foot is fishy.  Admiral Landymore's type haven't existed for some time. 

I think he is honest when he speaks but I also think we as a nation, the CDS included, are not going into this with our eyes wide open.  This mission, IMHO, will go something like this:

1) Go in with rose colored glass, being sent/lead by the Liberals;  
2) Take some casualties, opposition to the mission rises; 
3) The Liberal government falls, the Cons win government; 
4) The Liberals, now sitting in opposition, then blame the Cons for the mission and the casualties it incurred;  
5) We will then pull out of the mission and as uniformed pers we will walk away wondering WTF just happened. 

Remind you of anything from the past ?  

Too cynical perhaps ?


----------



## Jarnhamar

> But chief of the defence staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said Wednesday that Canadian troops will be deployed as* peacekeepers* for no other reason than to help* bring peace* and stability to another part of the world.



Peacekeeping and bringing peace. We should probably concentrate on bringing peace to region in the first place before we try to keep the peace, no?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Peacekeeping and bringing peace. We should probably concentrate on bringing peace to region in the first place before we try to keep the peace, no?



So we will become importers/exporters, like Art Vanderlay, of Vanderlay industries? At least it will seem exciting if we say that we work there: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vanderlay%20industries


----------



## Kirkhill

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> While our current MND and CDS may be different I really don't expect our politicians or generals to "fall on their sword" if they feel something a foot is fishy.  Admiral Landymore's type haven't existed for some time.
> 
> I think he is honest when he speaks but I also think we as a nation, the CDS included, are not going into this with our eyes wide open.  This mission, IMHO, will go something like this:
> 
> 1) Go in with rose colored glass, being sent/lead by the Liberals;
> 2) Take some casualties, opposition to the mission rises;
> 3) The Liberal government falls, the Cons win government;
> 4) The Liberals, now sitting in opposition, then blame the Cons for the mission and the casualties it incurred;
> 5) We will then pull out of the mission and as uniformed pers we will walk away wondering WTF just happened.
> 
> Remind you of anything from the past ?
> 
> Too cynical perhaps ?



I see that our Prime Minister is the most popular politician on the planet, according to his foreign affairs minister.  I believe that the young fellow should take full advantage of his popularity and continue his desire to serve mankind by taking over from Ban Ki Moon (who seems to be getting kind of snarky in any case).

I propose Justin Trudeau for Secretary-General.  Tomorrow.


----------



## Lumber

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So we will become importers/exporters, like Art Vanderlay, of Vanderlay industries? At least it will seem exciting if we say that we work there: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vanderlay%20industries



I was thinking this was a more apt comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeepers_(Farscape)


----------



## Lightguns

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I see that our Prime Minister is the most popular politician on the planet, according to his foreign affairs minister.  I believe that the young fellow should take full advantage of his popularity and continue his desire to serve mankind by taking over from Ban Ki Moon (who seems to be getting kind of snarky in any case).
> 
> I propose Justin Trudeau for Secretary-General.  Tomorrow.



His ego is insufficiently large for that job, although he does wear the cool European cut suits and shoes the job seems to demand.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nobel peace prize inbound, for just being so likeable ( keep getting bothered by recurring images of Dion, a picture of JT and a chicken in a stall in a UN washroom.) [


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm so glad that Canada is back and we're here to help.  I'll sleep more soundly in my bed tonight and on subsequent nights, knowing this. (I'm sure :nod


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nobel peace prize inbound, for just being so likeable ( keep getting bothered by recurring images of Dion, a picture of JT and a chicken in a stall in a UN washroom.) [



Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for 'not being George Bush'. Trudeau would qualify for similar reasons, wouldn't he?


----------



## ueo

Hey watch them chicken jokes!


----------



## kratz

ueo said:
			
		

> Hey watch them chicken jokes!



There was no running with the chicken jokes.  [

I need some peanuts with this  op:


----------



## daftandbarmy

ueo said:
			
		

> Hey watch them chicken jokes!



The New Yorker started it


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> But he can always resign if he disagrees.  Do you doubt he is speaking honestly when he says the CAF is going somewhere where it can make a positive difference, or when he says he will give the ROE that are required?



Leadership 101: Never contradict your chain of command in front of your troops/publicly. Own their mission as your own mission. Gen Vance would be a poor leader if he let fly anything other than government policy, and he's not a poor leader. He'd also absolutely destroy the morale of the CAF members deploying if he disagreed with why we were going, and told them as such.


----------



## cavalryman

ueo said:
			
		

> Hey watch them chicken jokes!


Only until it crosses the road.  After that it's fair game. >


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Leadership 101: Never contradict your chain of command in front of your troops/publicly. Own their mission as your own mission. Gen Vance would be a poor leader if he let fly anything other than government policy, and he's not a poor leader. He'd also absolutely destroy the morale of the CAF members deploying if he disagreed with why we were going, and told them as such.



Then again:

"A good soldier obeys orders without question ... and keeps his buttons bright." I always did both ... until I gradually found out that some orders are criminal nonsense. - Strome Galloway, The General Who Never Was, 1981


----------



## a_majoor

More damning evidence that the entire idea of "Peacekeeping" or even "Peacemaking". "Peace Support Operations" and other such nostrums are dead on arrival. It is war over there, and the lessons, manpower and firepower that we *should* bring if we are there to make a real difference is a 1500 man battlegroup in the manner of Afghanistan (Given the logistical realities we will need a much bigger tail to support the battlegroup). I feel much more secure putting my name in for OP IMPACT (some positions have opened) since we know what we are going into and are equipped and have ROE's which reflect the situation. Maybe a "six pack" of CF-18s would make the job even easier....

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/23/malis-president-at-the-un-weve-still-got-a-colossal-jihadist-problem/



> *JIHADISM IN AFRICA*
> Mali’s President at the UN: We’ve Still Got a Colossal Jihadist Problem
> 
> This week at the UN General Assembly, Mali’s president was the bearer of bad news: the jihadists the French military crushed to much fanfare a few years back have returned with a vengeance, and they’re undermining a peace accord. Reuters:
> 
> Mali President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita warned the United Nations on Friday that the failure to fully implement a nationwide peace accord was helping al-Qaeda and Islamic State-affiliated groups spread their influence in the country.
> 
> U.N. peacekeepers are deployed across northern Mali to try to stabilize the vast region, which was occupied by separatist Tuareg rebels and al Qaeda-linked Islamist militants in 2012 before France intervened in 2013. Tit-for-tat violence between rival armed groups has distracted Mali from fighting Islamist militants and the country has become the deadliest place for U.N. peacekeepers to serve. […]
> 
> Keita said Islamist militants were using the slow implementation of peace accords to “manipulate” and “destroy” links between different ethnic groups in Mali.
> 
> A clash in the north this week between pro-government Gatia militia and the Tuareg separatist Coordination of Azawad Movements highlighted the fragility of a U.N.-backed deal signed last year between the government and northern armed groups meant to end a cycle of uprisings.
> 
> *UN peacekeepers’ incentives are just as perverse as those of the condottieri, the Italian mercenaries Machiavelli once wrote off as “useless and dangerous.” Like the condottieri of old, UN peacekeepers are paid for an input measure—a fee per soldier—not for an output measure, such as actually keeping the peace. The UN reimburses peacekeeping at a rate of $1,332 per soldier per month, making peacekeeping a lucrative endeavor for major contributors like Bangladesh where soldiers are paid roughly 1/20th that amount. Well-paid, professional militaries like those of the U.S. and the U.K. commit far fewer forces to peacekeeping; for those they do contribute, the UN reimbursement does not come close to covering the cost.*
> 
> Professional militaries have a difficult time implementing counter-insurgency strategy (COIN) effectively, so it’s no surprise that UN peacekeepers are struggling against the jihadist onslaught. As we’re seeing in South Sudan—where peacekeepers are turning a blind eye to mass rapes and otherwise failing to protect the civilians—the peacekeepers’ main objective is to avoid casualties, not to complete the mission.
> 
> Keeping ISIS and Al Qaeda at bay in Mali requires détente between two historically opposed forces: the Malian central government in Bamako and the nomadic Tuareg people, who fiercely defend their independence and cross Mali’s porous Saharan borders with ease. These “blue men of the desert” are known for their indigo turbans and their spirited resistance against central authorities—first the French and then the Malians. Even if the Malian state will never win the love the Tuareg, it must work to placate them and to isolate Islamist Tuareg militias like Ansar Dine, driving a wedge between apolitical Tuaregs and jihadist groups that might otherwise be inclined to join together against the state under the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
> 
> Here’s the thing about terrorists in Mali: we’ll hear nothing about them and nothing about them and then suddenly everything will be about them. The geography of the Sahara makes it possible for groups to lie in wait, regroup, and plan their next moves. *UN peacekeepers are useless against them.* Jihadists in Mali don’t just complicate the regional security situation—they threaten European security as well. We ignore Mali’s terror problem at our peril.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Leadership 101: Never contradict your chain of command in front of your troops/publicly. Own their mission as your own mission. Gen Vance would be a poor leader if he let fly anything other than government policy, and he's not a poor leader. He'd also absolutely destroy the morale of the CAF members deploying if he disagreed with why we were going, and told them as such.



While I don't disagree, there are times where leaders and given absolutely retarded orders to 'own and champion'. Subordinates recognize how insane it is and look to the leader to protect them. When the leader owns the order they end up looking like idiots or yes men.  I can't help but feel like the MND is being put in this position and forced to speak political-talk and cheerlead the Africa mission when on the inside he realizes what a shit show it will be.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree, there are times where leaders and given absolutely retarded orders to 'own and champion'. Subordinates recognize how insane it is and look to the leader to protect them. When the leader owns the order they end up looking like idiots or yes men.  I can't help but feel like the MND is being put in this position and forced to speak political-talk and cheerlead the Africa mission when on the inside he realizes what a crap show it will be.



Absolutely. He's in a Catch-22. Disrespect the PM and lose his job, champion a mission with unclear or dubious end-state/objectives, or say no comment and get torched on both fronts. The PM and thrown the MND and CDS to the wolves, and is happy to do so. All this talk without substance just digs the hole deeper.

I have a feeling Vance might pull a Thibault on the way out, he's too protective of his troops not to.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More damning evidence that the entire idea of "Peacekeeping" or even "Peacemaking". "Peace Support Operations" and other such nostrums are dead on arrival. It is war over there, and the lessons, manpower and firepower that we *should* bring if we are there to make a real difference is a 1500 man battlegroup in the manner of Afghanistan (Given the logistical realities we will need a much bigger tail to support the battlegroup). I feel much more secure putting my name in for OP IMPACT (some positions have opened) since we know what we are going into and are equipped and have ROE's which reflect the situation. Maybe a "six pack" of CF-18s would make the job even easier....
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/09/23/malis-president-at-the-un-weve-still-got-a-colossal-jihadist-problem/


is it possible to muster up 1500 soldiers for that with obligations in Latvia,  Ukraine, and Iraq?


----------



## George Wallace

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. He's in a Catch-22. Disrespect the PM and lose his job, champion a mission with unclear or dubious end-state/objectives, or say no comment and get torched on both fronts. The PM and thrown the MND and CDS to the wolves, and is happy to do so. All this talk without substance just digs the hole deeper.
> 
> I have a feeling Vance might pull a Thibault on the way out, he's too protective of his troops not to.



However, those watching and a little in the know, will see this and it indeed will reflect more on the PM and his Government, than on the CDS.  People have to realize that "THE BUCK STOPS HERE" does not stop at the CDS, but at his political masters.


----------



## a_majoor

Altair said:
			
		

> is it possible to muster up 1500 soldiers for that with obligations in Latvia,  Ukraine, and Iraq?



You know, or should know, the actual answer to that is "not a chance". Indeed, looking at the global situation, where is the reserve of manpower and resources to deal with the nuclear situation in the DPRK, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, the drug war and resulting instability in Mexico or other issues which have real impact on Canada and Canadian interests?

OP Impact and OP REASSURANCE at least touch on Canadian interests, and *could* be better resourced, or at least some consolidation could take place between Poland Latvia and Western Ukraine for economy of effort. Drawing 650 troops out of the kitty for some nebulous purpose means they are not available for Iraq or Eastern Europe, much less any flashpoint which require some sort of Canadian response.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You know, or should know, the actual answer to that is "not a chance". Indeed, looking at the global situation, where is the reserve of manpower and resources to deal with the nuclear situation in the DPRK, Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, the drug war and resulting instability in Mexico or other issues which have real impact on Canada and Canadian interests?
> 
> OP Impact and OP REASSURANCE at least touch on Canadian interests, and *could* be better resourced, or at least some consolidation could take place between Poland Latvia and Western Ukraine for economy of effort. Drawing 650 troops out of the kitty for some nebulous purpose means they are not available for Iraq or Eastern Europe, much less any flashpoint which require some sort of Canadian response.



A good indication of the "tooth to tail" and funding problems we face daily.  We're in trouble, I'm afraid.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A good indication of the "tooth to tail" and funding problems we face daily.  We're in trouble, I'm afraid.



Well maybe it's just coincidence but we recently saw more spots being allocated to the PRes for these ops which is telling me they are having a harder time keeping up


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well maybe it's just coincidence but we recently saw more spots being allocated to the PRes for these ops which is telling me they are having a harder time keeping up



In certain trades with specific skill sets yes.  However, a good deal of what gets pushed to the Res Force are the "anyone" can fill posns that aren't vital, allowing the Reg Force to fill the posns that have unique or in demand quals.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MJP said:
			
		

> In certain trades with specific skill sets yes.  However, a good deal of what gets pushed to the Res Force are the "anyone" can fill posns that aren't vital, allowing the Reg Force to fill the posns that have unique or in demand quals.



You also used to see a lot of PRes folks on small missions, like UNMO or working for DMTC because the Reg Force just didn't care about filling them.  When I was in Jamaica in 2012 for six months with DMTC, 5 of the 8 folks there were Class B or C folks at DMTC.  The Regular Force just doesn't care about those jobs which is why it was so hard to get on Rotos for Op ATTENTION, the Congo, etc... If it ain't about pumping out Battlegroups for the Army or ATFs for the Air Force, as a Reg Force member, forget about it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, in South Sudan....

The Disgraceful UN Peacekeeping Force

https://www.sofmag.com/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force/


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in South Sudan....
> 
> The Disgraceful UN Peacekeeping Force
> 
> https://www.sofmag.com/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force/


a perfect example of how a well train professional army such as the CAF could have come in handy as opposed to troops their because their government gets to collect 1300 a month per soldier.


----------



## Lightguns

Altair said:
			
		

> a perfect example of how a well train professional army such as the CAF could have come in handy as opposed to troops their because their government gets to collect 1300 a month per soldier.



There's a few ghosts in Srebrenica that may give you an argument. I would have to know the ROE these UN troops are operating under before I could fully comment.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> a perfect example of how a well train professional army such as the CAF could have come in handy as opposed to troops their because their government gets to collect 1300 a month per soldier.


600 western troops won't change the culture of 14,000 third world troops paid less than we get for incidentals a day.


----------



## a_majoor

Well, so much for Columbia as a viable alternative to Africa. While Columbia is indeed far more relevant to Canada's National Interests, the idea that there is a peace deal between the Columbian government and FARC, and that we *could* go in on a real peacekeeping DDR mission turns out to be as illusionary as a peacekeeping mission in Africa:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/santos-sets-a-trap-for-colombians-1474841797



> *Santos Sets a Trap for Colombians*
> Even if voters approve the tainted bargain with narco-terrorists, it won’t bring peace.
> By MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY
> Sept. 25, 2016 6:16 p.m. ET
> 27 COMMENTS
> 
> The paradox of Obama foreign policy is that its compromises with enemies of liberty in the interest of peace are leaving the world more violent, polarized and dangerous. This is especially true in Latin America.
> 
> On Oct. 2, Colombia will hold a plebiscite to ask the nation to approve or reject an Obama-backed agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization. The deal gives the FARC amnesty for its war crimes, which include the recruitment of thousands of child soldiers, massacres of villages, political executions, bombings and kidnappings.
> 
> Under the agreement, negotiated and signed in Havana, the FARC will also get unelected seats in Congress and special welfare benefits. It will be given dozens of radio stations—so that it can disseminate its propaganda, a privilege no other political party has.
> 
> The agreement does not require the FARC to pay any financial reparations to its victims, even though the narco-terrorist kingpins have wealth estimated in the billions. Reparations will be paid by law-abiding citizens via sharp tax increases. The FARC says it will not disarm until it’s good and ready to. Meanwhile it will be given weapons and training to enforce the agreement.
> 
> What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> Ask Cubans who are enduring the fallout from another Obama legacy project: the 2014 decision to normalize relations with the military dictatorship and increase American economic engagement with the island. Repression in Cuba has since spiked, and Havana has become bolder in its joint activities with dangerous states like North Korea.
> 
> Venezuela also is more brutal since Mr. Obama first tried to warm relations with Hugo Chávez in 2009. More recently the State Department has spent months dithering over “dialogue” between the beleaguered opposition and the country’s Cuban-backed military regime, when the U.S. could have been building international pressure for a return to democracy.
> 
> Mr. Obama’s support for the Colombia-FARC deal completes his Latin trifecta. In 2009 Colombia was united against the FARC and celebrating its near-defeat on the battlefield led by President Álvaro Uribe.
> 
> Now the country is being torn apart by the signed agreement, which is practically a surrender, and by vicious government intimidation tactics designed to silence dissenters and jam the accord down the throats of Colombians. President Juan Manuel Santos is openly buying votes by promising local populations around the country that if they vote “yes” he will direct government funds their way. He may have enough electoral tricks up his sleeve to produce an official declaration of victory. But only a fool would believe that it could produce peace.
> 
> Colombians don’t trust Mr. Santos because he has trouble keeping his word, telling the truth and obeying the law. I have observed this firsthand.
> 
> I spoke to him by telephone in September 2012, just after media leaks had forced him to admit that he had been negotiating with the FARC in Cuba for almost a year. He had been promising publicly that he would never negotiate until the FARC disarmed.
> 
> In our phone conversation he said that any FARC agreement would be put to Colombians in a referendum. A referendum, as defined in Colombia, would have consisted of multiple questions to allow the electorate to reject aspects of the agreement.
> 
> But when the president realized that if Colombians were given that power over their own destiny, they would not accept FARC demands, he went back on his word. He announced he would instead hold a plebiscite with only one question for or against the totality of the agreement.
> 
> Given his widespread unpopularity, it was unlikely that Mr. Santos’s plebiscite would get the 50% turnout necessary to be valid. So he pulled another trick by getting Colombia’s Congress to lower the turnout threshold to 13%.
> 
> The constitutional court, which leans left, allowed all of that. But it also said that the plebiscite question could not be worded in terms of voting for or against peace. Mr. Santos responded by saying that he could ask the question however he pleases.
> 
> The agreement is 297 pages and it is not wild speculation to suggest that few Colombians will read it. Instead, they will be asked whether they “support the final agreement to end the conflict and the construction of a stable and lasting peace.” As former Colombian vice minister of justice Rafael Nieto has observed, this wording directly violates the high court’s order. It also avoids mentioning either the hated FARC or the unpopular Santos government. Perhaps most egregiously, it misleads the public about the prospects for peace because dissenters in FARC, its criminal partners in drug running and the other guerrilla group, ELN, will remain active.
> 
> The Castro crime family badly wants this deal, which may be the only way to explain why Mr. Obama is putting the U.S. seal of approval on it.
> 
> Write to O’Grady@wsj.com.


----------



## mariomike

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, so much for Columbia as a viable alternative to Africa. While Columbia is indeed far more relevant to Canada's National Interests, the idea that there is a peace deal between the Columbian government and FARC,


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another reminder - highlights mine...


> A soldier who served with Lt.-Gen. Roméo Dallaire during the Rwandan genocide is deeply worried the Trudeau government is about to embark on another UN peacekeeping quagmire in Africa that could have grave consequences for the mental health of troops sent there.
> 
> “We have historically made the same mistakes again and again,” says Stéphane Grenier, who founded Mental Health Innovations Consulting after retiring from the Canadian Forces four years ago as a lieutenant-colonel. His retirement followed deployments to Rwanda, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Kuwait, Lebanon and Haiti.
> 
> “History will repeat itself because people will not be properly prepared to go overseas,” Grenier predicted.
> 
> Compounding the problem in past doomed missions was that the UN did not provide strong support for troops in the field, he added.
> 
> *“Is there any indication the UN is better equipped today to govern military forces trying to implement what are impossible mandates?” he asked. “I don’t think so. Until that is fixed, history will repeat itself.”* ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

And maybe not heading for Africa after all...



> Africa peacekeeping mission is just an assumption, says country's top soldier
> 
> Canada's top soldier says an expectation that this country's military will be deploying to Africa is premature.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said an analysis of where the Armed Forces may go should there be a future deployment is still underway.
> 
> "Right now, I'll tell you, honestly, there is no such thing as an Africa mission," Vance told The Daily Gleaner in an interview. "It's been over reported based on peoples' own assessments in the media, in my view, that if you look at the world, it's going to be an African mission. It's an assumption."
> 
> It's been widely reported that Canada will commit up to 600 troops to at least one still-unannounced peacekeeping venture.
> 
> Speculation is high that it could be Africa, possibly Mali, a landlocked country located in the western part of the continent, where French peacekeepers are currently leading a United Nations mission.
> 
> There has been unrest in the country since French soldiers ended an al-Qaeda occupation in 2012, making the mission one of the most dangerous anywhere.
> 
> Aside from al-Qaeda, peacekeepers in the northern part of the country face challenges from other groups with an interest in the area.
> 
> "I can honestly tell you that we have not yet finished the analysis of where it is that we might go," Vance said. "We are working through a first principles assessment as to where we might best contribute, globally, in UN peace operations."
> 
> The Chief of Defence Staff did, however, acknowledge there are different parts of Africa ... that are potential candidates.
> 
> But stressed the ongoing evaluation will "ultimately determine where the military can best contribute, how and why."
> 
> Vance said any such missions have yet to be brought to government for decision making.
> 
> On the weekend, Vance told The Canadian Press that the military was not recommending any missions that would stretch it too thin. He also said he was comfortable the military could conduct a peacekeeping mission in Africa while operating in the Middle East and Latvia.
> 
> Vance said with regard to how fast the military could respond to a deployment request would depend on the nature of it.
> 
> "Some, we can move on fairly quickly, within weeks and months," he said. "Others would take significantly longer to get ready for."
> 
> Vance said Canada has military commitments in many areas of the world, including this country.
> 
> The Second Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (2RCR) at Base Gagetown, meanwhile, is currently engaged in high readiness training.
> 
> In a recent interview, 2RCR commander Lt.-Col. Shane Murphy, said his soldiers will be the Canadian Army's next high readiness formation and will be set to answer the call by July 1.
> 
> "The battalion, as part of Task Force Tomahawk, will go through some of the best training the Canadian Army has to offer throughout the next year," Murphy said. "That entails a lot of collective training, working in a combined arms teams environment. The battalion will be working with armoured units, artillery units to form these combined arms packages and really develop our skill sets in that regard, from a collective training perspective."
> 
> The last deployment for 2RCR saw soldiers from the battalion travel to the Middle East to assist with Syrian refugee preparation for Canada.
> 
> Vance, who commanded 2RCR from 2001 to 2003, said the army's "force generation plan" and its production of "high readiness units" is intended to fill and support all missions that are underway with a look to the future.
> 
> Vance said the army commander generates a high readiness capability in anticipation of known missions while maintaining an ability to deal with the unknown.
> 
> "I don't know right now where 2RCR fits in his thinking about what forces he would assign to what mission."
> 
> But if 2RCR were to be called upon, Vance described the infantry battalion as an exceptionally talented unit with capabilities that are the best in the world.
> 
> He said it possesses the people, the equipment and the necessary training to operate the needed equipment effectively and efficiently.
> 
> "I am confident that any mission that is given to 2RCR - if they're given one - whether it's in Canada or external to Canada, will be done exceptionally well, as we have come to expect."
> 
> COPYRIGHT:  © 2016 Telegraph-Journal (New Brunswick)
> 
> http://media.mil.ca/show-voir-eng.asp?URL=/clips/national/160929/f00471CD.htm


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And maybe not heading for Africa after all...



What's that line about things not being official until they've been officially denied?   >


----------



## Journeyman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said an * analysis* of where the Armed Forces may go should there be a future deployment is*  still underway*.
> 
> .....Murphy, said his soldiers ....will be set to answer the call * by July 1*.


Timely responsiveness?


----------



## Kirkhill

> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said an analysis of where the Armed Forces may go *should there be a future deployment* is still underway.



If we go anywhere at all.

US version.  "Yes, Mr. President.  As you requested, to meet the threat from those perfidious Canadians, we have prepared a current invasion plan.  We await your further instructions."


----------



## The Bread Guy

MOAR speculation, this time from unnamed defence sources ...


> The Canadian military is finalizing plans to send transport aircraft to support French counter-terrorism operations in northern Africa.
> 
> Defence officials say the planes would likely be used to transport French troops and equipment into the Sahel region, which includes Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and Mali ...


This from the last time we did this (also attached in case link doesn't work).
op:


----------



## MarkOttawa

But the French op is not part of UN peacekeeping, peace support operations, whatever!
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/sahel/dossier-de-presentation-de-l-operation-barkhane/operation-barkhane

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But the French op is not part of UN peacekeeping, peace support operations, whatever!
> http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/sahel/dossier-de-presentation-de-l-operation-barkhane/operation-barkhane
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


*IF* that's what happens, I'm sure the Info-machine'll be up to the challenge  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> MOAR speculation, this time from unnamed defence sources ...This from the last time we did this (also attached in case link doesn't work).
> op:



the French are still waiting for their A400's. The C-17 and the C130J are the Tory gift that will keep giving for the next 25 years.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> the French are still waiting for their A400's. The C-17 and the C130J are the Tory gift that will keep giving for the next 25 years.



which probably lead to someone saying "I wonder if Canada might want those mistrals?" which of course didn't happen any way but it was nice to be considered. From the defense point of view the cons seemed to trying to bring closer ties to France, perhaps giving european and particularly French companies a chance for canadian contracts.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You also used to see a lot of PRes folks on small missions, like UNMO or working for DMTC because the Reg Force just didn't care about filling them.  When I was in Jamaica in 2012 for six months with DMTC, 5 of the 8 folks there were Class B or C folks at DMTC.  The Regular Force just doesn't care about those jobs which is why it was so hard to get on Rotos for Op ATTENTION, the Congo, etc... If it ain't about pumping out Battlegroups for the Army or ATFs for the Air Force, as a Reg Force member, forget about it.



Same phenomena on Op IMPACT


----------



## MJP

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Same phenomena on Op IMPACT



Not from a CSS perspective, Both ROTO 4 & 5 are out of the Reg Force hides.


----------



## Ostrozac

MJP said:
			
		

> Not from a CSS perspective, Both ROTO 4 & 5 are out of the Reg Force hides.



When I was on RSS duty a few years ago, reserve CSS was in bad shape, in terms of equipment, manning and training. I'm not sure that the Reserves being heavily used for CSS on Op Impact is an option.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Last time I was over to play in that sandbox, there was already *WAY* too much tail for the tooth in theatre;  it was becoming ''supporters supporting supporters".  Way too much bark, not enough bite.  If we need Res augmentation to keep IMPACT going, we are in pretty bad shape IMO.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Last time I was over to play in that sandbox, there was already *WAY* too much tail for the tooth in theatre;  it was becoming ''supporters supporting supporters".  Way too much bark, not enough bite.  If we need Res augmentation to keep IMPACT going, we are in pretty bad shape IMO.



We don't need Reserve Augmentation, our pers management is just that bad and we have blanket policies whereby ex-number of positions will be filled by Reservists.  

This is particularly true for General Service Officers.  I have a friend who left the Army two years ago and now works in Toronto.  He transferred to the Primary Reserve and immediately got a tour to Op IMPACT.  He is Int, you can't tell me we didn't have a Reg who could have filled his position?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> which probably lead to someone saying "I wonder if Canada might want those mistrals?" which of course didn't happen any way but it was nice to be considered. From the defense point of view the cons seemed to trying to bring closer ties to France, perhaps giving european and particularly French companies a chance for canadian contracts.



Our existing airlift capability gives us a strategic capability that allows us to help or take part in operations globally, you can buy a lot of favors that way for little political costs, the Mistrals would have given us another way to be part of the international community and to build relationships. It would have also changed the way we do many things.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> .... It would have also changed the way we do many things.



Silly boy.  [


----------



## daftandbarmy

Matthew Fisher: Canada’s jilted partners languish as peacekeeping fetish feeds love affair with the UN

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-canadas-jilted-partners-languish-as-peacekeeping-fetish-feeds-love-affair-with-the-un


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yup, increasing Jr. is acting more like Sr. in many ways (but without the experience and skills)... god help us all, we're really screwed.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Matthew Fisher: Canada’s jilted partners languish as peacekeeping fetish feeds love affair with the UN
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-canadas-jilted-partners-languish-as-peacekeeping-fetish-feeds-love-affair-with-the-un


----------



## Altair

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yup, increasing Jr. is acting more like Sr. in many ways (but without the experience and skills)... god help us all, we're really screwed.


I was unaware that nations such as Germany, France,  czech republic, Spain were not a part of NATO.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Altair said:
			
		

> I was unaware that nations such as Germany, France,  czech republic, Spain were not a part of NATO.



And that has what exactly to do with the son following the similar ideological paths as the father as indicated in the store?


----------



## Altair

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that has what exactly to do with the son following the similar ideological paths as the father as indicated in the store?





> On NORAD, it looks as if Trudeau is determined to buy a new fighter jet that will not have the latest capabilities that the American and other NATO aircraft have.



Quotes from the article you posted. 

That's ok, to Matthew Fisher NATO=America.


----------



## PuckChaser

Considering we spend more than Czech Republic and Spain combined per year on defense, and that France + Germany only equals 13% of what the US spends, I think its a safe assumption that we will spend a significant amount of time operating with US aircraft (especially for NORAD, which he directly related the statement to), than the combined air forces of Spain, Germany, France and Czech Republic.

We're way off topic now, although that article was pretty omnibus critical of all of the current government's defense/foreign policy decisions to date.


----------



## Jarnhamar

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55170&&Cr=south%20sudan&&Cr1=#.V_Bdvsny2nM
*South Sudan: 100,000 people trapped in Yei, UN refugee agency warns*


So the UN is going to start up their tanks, issue frag orders to foot soldiers and roll out to go help those 100'000 people right?


----------



## OldSolduer

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=55170&&Cr=south%20sudan&&Cr1=#.V_Bdvsny2nM
> *South Sudan: 100,000 people trapped in Yei, UN refugee agency warns*
> 
> 
> So the UN is going to start up their tanks, issue frag orders to foot soldiers and roll out to go help those 100'000 people right?



They haven't sent the letter yet telling  the bad people the UN will get very angry.....


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering we spend more than Czech Republic and Spain combined per year on defense, and that France + Germany only equals 13% of what the US spends, I think its a safe assumption that we will spend a significant amount of time operating with US aircraft (especially for NORAD, which he directly related the statement to), than the combined air forces of Spain, Germany, France and Czech Republic.
> 
> We're way off topic now, although that article was pretty omnibus critical of all of the current government's defense/foreign policy decisions to date.


13 percent is significant when you consider half or more of NATO defense spending comes from the USA. 

As for the political stuff I won't touch that because I've made a promise that I wouldn't.


----------



## Sub_Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering we spend more than Czech Republic and Spain combined per year on defense



Nice.   Spain has a decently equipped military...


----------



## PuckChaser

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Nice.   Spain has a decently equipped military...



Yep, we definitely don't get a lot of bang for the buck, but we cover an exponential amount of area (infrastructure and tpt costs):

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=spain


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering we spend more than Czech Republic and Spain combined per year on defense, and that France + Germany only equals 13% of what the US spends, I think its a safe assumption that we will spend a significant amount of time operating with US aircraft (especially for NORAD, which he directly related the statement to), than the combined air forces of Spain, Germany, France and Czech Republic.
> 
> We're way off topic now, although that article was pretty omnibus critical of all of the current government's defense/foreign policy decisions to date.



Due to our size and spread, we will always spend more, but for less bang for the buck. If you were able to measure effectiveness per dollar, that would be a better metric, but good luck defining those values, as "effectiveness" for war fighting will be different than home defense, domestic response, etc


----------



## PuckChaser

More tea leaves on where the deployment will be. Unfortunately, the government has lost the public affairs high ground, and the mission location will be leaked before they can get their crap together:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fjohn-ivison-canada-peacekeepers-seem-set-for-central-african-republic-deployment-before-end-of-year


----------



## McG

I saw that yesterday.  The forecast is now two African missions with CAR being the larger.  Interesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> More tea leaves on where the deployment will be. Unfortunately, the government has lost the public affairs high ground, and the mission location will be leaked before they can get their crap together:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fcanada%2Fjohn-ivison-canada-peacekeepers-seem-set-for-central-african-republic-deployment-before-end-of-year



'Greatest impact with the lowest level of risk'.

Now there's a bold mission statement for you .... meh


----------



## Kirkhill

All of the commitment and motivation of a Private Security Company managed by an accountant.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> All of the commitment and motivation of a Private Security Company managed by an accountant.



With even less motivation, we don't even get mineral concessions at the end of it all  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> With even less motivation, we don't even get mineral concessions at the end of it all  ;D



 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover

The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

A report on peacekeeping in Africa written by none other than a certain Lt. Granatstein in 1966, marked "Secret", and then Unclass in 1986. The report concerns the Congo, but more importantly it details the utter confusion within the UN when they requested Canadian assistance, and the hand wringing and lip twisting of the Canadian government of the day- Mr. Diefenbaker.  

However, it appears that the Canadian army was quite prepared to do some fighting and probably actually wanted (suggested?) to send 2BN R22R to the Congo (since this was the apparent ready duty force at the particular point in time, with an embedded and quite functional signals capability). However, so much dithering went on and about what to do, what to send, what the troop limits should be etc., that one might think there is not much difference between then and now....including purchasing, at the last minute, expensive equipment not even requested (Caribou aircraft for example) while the rest of the forces equipment were reaching end of life cycle, and then forcing DND to absorb unexpectedly high costs for other urgently needed equipment within the existing defence budget (communications equipment). 

One more thing, then as now, the forces were desperately short of Jimmies to such an extent they were considering sending RCN  personnel to assist in the jungle!

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/doc/cfhq/cfhq008.pdf

What is not stated in this report, because it was not within scope, is that the costs of the Avro Arrow program to the DND budget essentially bankrupted the rest of the armed forces at a time when there was a need for other more prudent capabilities such as transport aircraft, new armoured vehicles, trucks, secure radio, transport ships etc. At the time the Congo mission was starting, the 3 services were only just beginning to recover from the cost of the CF105 program.


----------



## a_majoor

Ultimately we have lost before we even depart these shores: there is no effective (or any) Stratcom in place to set the stage. What are the reasons we are going? How is this being communicated to Canadians? Prospective governments in the area(s) we are to deploy? The people of the region? NGO's and IO's that operate there? Enemy forces like Boko Harum, ISIS etc?

Without that sort of clear messaging, we will be constantly reacting to the messages of the other side(s), and whatever sort of support we might have expected from Canadians, foreign governments and the people in theater will either be non existent or drain rapidly away as we start encountering difficulties and take casualties.

Of course the rather venal message that "We are willing to spend blood and treasure for a symbolic UN seat" probably isn't going to sell very well either here or in Africa...


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ultimately we have lost before we even depart these shores: there is no effective (or any) Stratcom in place to set the stage. What are the reasons we are going? How is this being communicated to Canadians? Prospective governments in the area(s) we are to deploy? The people of the region? NGO's and IO's that operate there? Enemy forces like Boko Harum, ISIS etc?
> 
> Without that sort of clear messaging, we will be constantly reacting to the messages of the other side(s), and whatever sort of support we might have expected from Canadians, foreign governments and the people in theater will either be non existent or drain rapidly away as we start encountering difficulties and take casualties.
> 
> Of course the rather venal message that "We are willing to spend blood and treasure for a symbolic UN seat" probably isn't going to sell very well either here or in Africa...


I suppose it isn't prudent to wait to hear what our mission is,  what our goals are before declaring it a failure.

Although in all fairness it probably is faster this way.

I should email the CDS and MND this. At the presser just state the mission goals, declare that we as a armed forces and country have already failed and just move straight to tent sweeping on garrison.


----------



## QV

I look forward to reading your posts after a few tours and more years on the job. Not meant as a slight, only that I believe your perspective is going to change.


----------



## GAP

QV said:
			
		

> I look forward to reading your posts after a few tours and more years on the job. Not meant as a slight, only that I believe your perspective is going to change.



 good post:


----------



## Altair

QV said:
			
		

> I look forward to reading your posts after a few tours and more years on the job. Not meant as a slight, only that I believe your perspective is going to change.


I also look forward to reading my post after a few tours.

If only because it would mean I've gone on a few tours.


----------



## medicineman

I'm currently reading 'The Heroes of Jadotville"...after watching the movie "The Siege at Jadotville".  The movie is very simplistic and a bit off due to artistic license, however the books on the subject are pretty on target with how the UN military/civilian interphase worked in the 60's and how they haven't really fixed themselves since.  It's kind of like watching a brain damaged kid try to clap their hands and they continually miss.  The UN really hasn't sorted itself out since it's ops in Congo/Katanga, CAR, Somalia, Sudan/Dharfur, Rwanda and even the Balkans.  There are a lot of "Lessons Learned" from that battle that are being relearned frequently, since history has a habit of repeating itself when we don't actually pay attention to those lessons.  I'd be worried about some of those things repeating themselves under UN control yet again.  Fingers and toes crossed.

Altair - I went into my first tour much like you...despite the fact I'd like one more kick at the cat, I'd be really leery about one in Africa with Blue Helmet Drool, oops, Rule, since I really don't trust they have the wherewithal to do the right thing.

MM


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Central African Republic is a tinder pot too.  The media has played up the fact that it's relatively benign atm but that can change in a heart beat.  

The South African Army fought pitched battles in 2013 against Seleka rebels in who wanted them out of the country, losing 13 soldiers and 27 wounded in the process.

It was so bad at one point the South African Parachute Battalion in CAR was almost overrun.  The South African Government had Gripens and Air Force jets on standby to conduct a fighting withdrawal out of the country; however, an agreement was reached before it was required.


----------



## medicineman

A friend of mine was an MO on one of the tours in CAR in the late 90's...quietish, but she did have to go for her sidearm in a near mob scene.  Of course her Egyptian bodyguard only had a puppy pounder IIRC.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Central African Republic is a tinder pot too.  The media has played up the fact that it's relatively benign atm but that can change in a heart beat.
> 
> The South African Army fought pitched battles in 2013 against Seleka rebels in who wanted them out of the country, losing 13 soldiers and 27 wounded in the process.
> 
> It was so bad at one point the South African Parachute Battalion in CAR was almost overrun.  The South African Government had Gripens and Air Force jets on standby to conduct a fighting withdrawal out of the country; however, an agreement was reached before it was required.



Luckily, there's a good movie about operating in Africa that we could learn a lot from...  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kchkfqXxa0k


----------



## medicineman

Ahh yeas, one of my all time favorites...if you liked that, then The Siege at Jadotville is a good watch.  Almost as much back stabbing as The Wild Geese ;D


----------



## JacobPayne17

I can't be the only one worried about sending our soldiers into such a messed up place with bright blue targets on their heads

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## OldSolduer

JacobPayne17 said:
			
		

> I can't be the only one worried about sending our soldiers into such a messed up place with bright blue targets on their heads
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk



We all should be worried.


----------



## ArmyRick

It seems too much "Situate the estimate"... 
By that I mean the whole "Canada Back and we are going to do UN peaceKeeping!"
"Where?"
"NO idea, but we are back, lets find a suitable UN mission off the shelf and go!"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Greatest impact with the lowest level of risk'.
> 
> Now there's a bold mission statement for you .... meh



Says lots right there doesn't it??


----------



## Lightguns

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Greatest impact with the lowest level of risk'.
> 
> Now there's a bold mission statement for you .... meh



Doable, 300 B52s dropping blankets and MREs from 20,000 on every population centre once a day.  ohhh.... and winter coats!!!!


----------



## Kirkhill

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Doable, 300 B52s dropping blankets and MREs from 20,000 on every population centre once a day.  ohhh.... and winter coats!!!!



Have a care!  You wouldn't want to suffocate the darlings.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Have a care!  You wouldn't want to suffocate the darlings.



If you air drop large quantities out the back of a Herc on pallets you may be able to 'kill two birds with one MSP', as the loadies used to say


----------



## MarkOttawa

China to take big role at UN HQ running peacekeeping ops (major presence in Mali, South Sudan)? What does Canadian gov’t think?



> Peacekeeping with Chinese Characteristics?
> https://theglobalobservatory.org/2016/10/china-peacekeeping-dpko-south-sudan-mali/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> China to take big role at UN HQ running peacekeeping ops (major presence in Mali, South Sudan)? What does Canadian gov’t think?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Finally, we'll get to sing a cheerful Peacekeeping song during brigade level calisthenics together every morning


----------



## GK .Dundas

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If you air drop large quantities out the back of a Herc on pallets you may be able to 'kill two birds with one MSP', as the loadies used to say


 In his science fiction series Peace Company, Roland J Green postulates peace keeping with Starships.  
 The troops even have a phrase for it ,DFF or Death by Flying Fruit .                            
 The Ship not only provides transport but fire and logistic support  resupply being provide by either landing craft or   dropping supplies from the high orbitals .  
Picture a I tonne resupply container  dropped from 300 plus klicks with near pinpoint accuracy and then having the  braking rockets and parachutes fail .


----------



## a_majoor

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> China to take big role at UN HQ running peacekeeping ops (major presence in Mali, South Sudan)? What does Canadian gov’t think?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Given the current Prime Minister's openly expressed preference for the type of government China has, I'm sure he'll be just fine with this. And I'm sure anyone deployed with the Chinese on this sort of mision will discover they have dozens of new "friends" in the Chinese force willing to be with you 24/7, and extremely interested in _everything_ you do, where you surf on the 'net and all your issued and non issued kit.....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thucydides: "You might very well say that, I couldn't possibly comment".

Ontario:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=china++ontario

Plus media in Canada:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/mark-collins-the-dragon-vs-the-press-covert-canada-overt-hong-kong/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the current Prime Minister's openly expressed preference for the type of government China has,



If only that were what he'd actually said, right?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

JMT, you are correct. Here is the exact quote from 2013:

The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime."

Admiration is so much better than preference.

Yes, that is sarcasm.


----------



## The Bread Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> JMT, you are correct. Here is the exact quote from 2013:
> 
> The Liberal leader was asked which nation he admired most. He responded: "There's a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime."
> 
> Admiration is so much better than preference.
> 
> Yes, that is sarcasm.


And here's where that quote came from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/justin-trudeau-s-foolish-china-remarks-spark-anger-1.2421351


----------



## jmt18325

It was a poorly placed remark, to be sure (though he's not wrong - they can certainly get things done).


----------



## Lightguns

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It was a poorly placed remark, to be sure (though he's not wrong - they can certainly get things done).



Yup, they can harvest more human organs per year than the rest of the world combined and at the lowest cost........ Communist Dictatorships keeping expenses down since 1917!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jmt, you just can't admit that Trudeau jr. can be stupid at times, can you?

Well, here is an example of the results you get with a Chinese type of dictatorship running an economy by "turning on a dime" and, to quote you, "get things done".

https://www.laowaicareer.com/blog/empty-chinese-cities/


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yup, they can harvest more human organs per year than the rest of the world combined and at the lowest cost........ Communist Dictatorships keeping expenses down since 1917!


Since 1949 in China's case, anyway  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

People wanted a world with less USA, now they are getting it, enjoy the dragon, if you say the right things, they will allow you to keep a small rice bowel.


----------



## OldSolduer

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It was a poorly placed remark, to be sure (though he's not wrong - they can certainly get things done).



If you're speaking of the suppression of anti communist groups, religion and the execution of people who may or may not be criminals you have a case.

Honestly....  :facepalm:


----------



## Altair

Hey, isn't there a politics thread you guys can take this to?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> People wanted a world with less USA, now they are getting it, enjoy the dragon and the bear, if you say the right things, they will allow you to keep a small rice bowel.


----------



## jmt18325

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Jmt, you just can't admit that Trudeau jr. can be stupid at times, can you?
> 
> Well, here is an example of the results you get with a Chinese type of dictatorship running an economy by "turning on a dime" and, to quote you, "get things done".
> 
> https://www.laowaicareer.com/blog/empty-chinese-cities/



Poorly placed is a nice way of staying stupid.  It doesn't mean he's wrong.

Being able to do what you want all the time (building empty cities) doesn't dispute that you can do it any time you want.  He's not wrong in that their system is efficient, if nothing else.


----------



## Lightguns

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Poorly placed is a nice way of staying stupid.  It doesn't mean he's wrong.
> 
> Being able to do what you want all the time (building empty cities) doesn't dispute that you can do it any time you want.  He's not wrong in that their system is efficient, if nothing else.



I am thinking that building empty cities and efficient system may run toward the Oxymoronic.  All this commie admiration is creepy at best.


----------



## a_majoor

Building empty cities or otherwise making investments on the basis of personal feelings, paying off crony's or other, non market factors simply leads to waste, fraud, declining economic performance and eventually social and political turmoil. Sure, you can keep a lid on things, much like using a pressure cooker, or accept long term underperformance (ever wonder why Quebec, with an abundance of natural resources, educated population and diverse economy, is alway the caboose of Confederation rather than Canada's richest province?). F.A Hayek provides some good insights into why this is so.

At any rate, as both the earlier example upthread of a US support and UAV base in Niger and the more recent declaration of the Chinese becoming heavily involved in operations in Africa demonstrate, any reasons we may have had to go to Africa seem to be rapidly being overtaken by events. We run the risk of either being stranded (like the "Bungle in the Jungle", the government of that day was looking for a mission, but allies were not interested in either Africa or providing needed logistical support for the proposed Canadian mission), sidelined or being placed in a situation where the senior partners (be it France, the US or China) deem us to be useful, but in no way advancing any Canadian interest in the region.

Once again this comes down to not being able to articulate the "why" of this decision. Fighting ISIS and opposing Russian aggression in Europe have clear goals and support existing Canadian interests. It is possible to make arguments both "for" and "against" with clear premises and metrics to support your side of the argument. UN missions in Africa? Not so much.....


----------



## George Wallace

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am thinking that building empty cities and efficient system may run toward the Oxymoronic.  All this commie admiration is creepy at best.



And I can't figure out how anyone could state that building empty cities would be "efficient".  Would that also apply to bringing in tens of thousands of refugees, many of whom are uneducated and unskilled?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Poorly placed is a nice way of staying stupid.  It doesn't mean he's wrong.
> 
> Being able to do what you want all the time (building empty cities) doesn't dispute that you can do it any time you want.  He's not wrong in that their system is efficient, if nothing else.



Would you just please stop the Trudeau love?

There is nothing- NOTHING! To admire about a dictatorship that executes its people without due process and where the rule of law is really the just the whim of whomever is in charge. 

I do not mind saying that you are a dangerous idiot of the highest order if you actually believe for a second that their form of dictatorship is preferable or superior or a better fit for Canada in anyway to our democratic (but admittedly mess at times) system of government that has evolved over 900 years.

I am no Liberal fan boy, but I admit and accept that they won the last election and that they are the duly and legally constituted government of Canada. Like most governments, they have done things that I both agree and disagree with. I will both criticize and applaud appropriately.

You, on the other hand, seem to be so blinded by Trudeau love that you cannot even acknowledge what was a patently obviously STUPID statement from an inexperienced politician.


----------



## Altair

:trainwreck: :not-again:


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And I can't figure out how anyone could state that building empty cities would be "efficient".  Would that also apply to bringing in tens of thousands of refugees, many of whom are uneducated and unskilled?



It is easy George.

Decisions were efficiently made.
Actions were efficiently taken.
Cities were efficiently built.

The decision makers were efficiently given the opportunity to discover just how badly they had screwed up.

Edit:  Or, in other terms.

2Lt: "Thank you, Warrant.  I think we will do it my way, in any case."
WO:"Yes, Sir!"


----------



## jmt18325

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is easy George.
> 
> Decisions were efficiently made.
> Actions were efficiently taken.
> Cities were efficiently built.



Yes - that.  

Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?


----------



## OldSolduer

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Poorly placed is a nice way of staying stupid.  It doesn't mean he's wrong.
> 
> Being able to do what you want all the time (building empty cities) doesn't dispute that you can do it any time you want.  He's not wrong in that their system is efficient, if nothing else.



He's wrong. A government that willfully murders its people to hold power is fundamentally wrong. Or may you just don't get it.


----------



## VinceW

His daddy loved the communist dictatorships supporting countries like Cuba it's no surprise that another Turdeau loves them as well.


----------



## George Wallace

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Chris Pook said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy George.
> 
> Decisions were efficiently made.
> Actions were efficiently taken.
> Cities were efficiently built.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - that.
> 
> Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?
Click to expand...


Really?

Look at that again.

Decisions were efficiently made.
Actions were efficiently taken.
Cities were efficiently built.

Building Ghost Towns Cities is not efficient.  It is not efficient spending of money.  It is not efficient use of materials.  It is not efficient use of land.  

I am sorry that you missed the sarcasm in that post.  It was to make light of the inefficiencies and incompetence of those who make those decisions, take those actions and create something that is neither needed nor useful.  It reeks of the incompetence we are currently seeing in handling of our refugee program; but more importantly in the handling of the subject that this thread is discussing:.....Deploying Canadian Troops overseas with the proper equipment, ROEs, etc.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes - that.
> 
> Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Look at that again.
> 
> Decisions were efficiently made.
> Actions were efficiently taken.
> Cities were efficiently built.
> 
> Building Ghost Towns Cities is not efficient.  It is not efficient spending of money.  It is not efficient use of materials.  It is not efficient use of land.
> 
> I am sorry that you missed the sarcasm in that post.  It was to make light of the inefficiencies and incompetence of those who make those decisions, take those actions and create something that is neither needed or useful.  It reeks of the incompetence we are currently seeing in handling of our refugee program; but more importantly in the handling of the subject that this thread is discussing:.....Deploying Canadian Troops overseas with the proper equipment, ROEs, etc.


Oh, is that the topic?

I thought it was the bash trudeau thread. [lol:


----------



## MARS

Altair said:
			
		

> Oh, is that the topic?
> 
> I thought it was the bash trudeau thread. [lol:



Perhaps people are just examining the 'root causes' of his beliefs, which naturally informs his decision making thought process.


----------



## dimsum

MARS said:
			
		

> Perhaps people are just examining the 'root causes' of his beliefs, which naturally informs his decision making thought process.



:rofl:


----------



## Altair

MARS said:
			
		

> Perhaps people are just examining the 'root causes' of his beliefs, which naturally informs his decision making thought process.


There is a great thread to talk about root causes.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/121572.1300.html<-------------------------


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Yes - that.
> 
> Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?



My.  You have honed your excision skills to a fine edge.  Haven't you?


----------



## Kirkhill

:bravo:





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes - that.
> 
> Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Look at that again.
> 
> Decisions were efficiently made.
> Actions were efficiently taken.
> Cities were efficiently built.
> 
> Building Ghost Towns Cities is not efficient.  It is not efficient spending of money.  It is not efficient use of materials.  It is not efficient use of land.
> 
> I am sorry that you missed the sarcasm in that post.  It was to make light of the inefficiencies and incompetence of those who make those decisions, take those actions and create something that is neither needed nor useful.  It reeks of the incompetence we are currently seeing in handling of our refugee program; but more importantly in the handling of the subject that this thread is discussing:.....Deploying Canadian Troops overseas with the proper equipment, ROEs, etc.


----------



## a_majoor

After reading the last two pages of posts, I am now awaiting the peacekeeping contingent from Mali to arrive on Canada's shores.... ;D

Things are seriously screwed up, however. The last O group at my unit the word was "we will deploy in the near future, but no mission location has been selected as of yet" (or words to that effect).

When I was teaching at the Battleschool, this sort of "efficiency" was usually cause to issue a red chit or "failed" assessment on a leadership course, since the candidate had situated the estimate and was now trying to bend reality to fit their preconceived notions (with notable lack of success).

Going back to _my_ favourite flogging horse; What is the mission? What purpose are we trying to achieve? What resources are necessary to achieve these results? So far the answer the Government has given amount to "Canada's Back!" and "650 men".

The red chit is being mailed to 24 Sussex Drive.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> After reading the last two pages of posts, I am now awaiting the peacekeeping contingent from Mali to arrive on Canada's shores.... ;D
> 
> Things are seriously screwed up, however. The last O group at my unit the word was "we will deploy in the near future, but no mission location has been selected as of yet" (or words to that effect).
> 
> When I was teaching at the Battleschool, this sort of "efficiency" was usually cause to issue a red chit or "failed" assessment on a leadership course, since the candidate had situated the estimate and was now trying to bend reality to fit their preconceived notions (with notable lack of success).
> 
> Going back to _my_ favourite flogging horse; What is the mission? What purpose are we trying to achieve? What resources are necessary to achieve these results? So far the answer the Government has given amount to "Canada's Back!" and "650 men".
> 
> The red chit is being mailed to 24 Sussex Drive.


Two things.

Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.

Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.


----------



## a_majoor

Altair said:
			
		

> Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.



We have been given exactly two pieces of information, one of which is relevant (650 men), without knowing what they apply to. The proper course of action is for the government to look at the questions (in fact, look at the primary question of Canada's national interest, and then see if other developments support or hinder the National Interest) _*before*_ saying "We're sending 650 people to Africa for "peacekeeping", because 2016!

The Minister, and more appropriately the CDS and his staff were handed an "outcome" and told to make it happen. While this might be the way of things in more "efficient" governments, I think even you should see there are some issues in running the process in reverse. So of course *we* are now subjected to rampant speculation by the press and outsiders (I've been asked multiple times about where we're going and what are we going to do in Africa. To which I respond, the Government should be coming out with an announcement at some point), not to mention the rumour mill inside is spinning at warp speed.



> Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.



The unintentionally hilarity  of this remark is worth Midpoints!

Edit to add: lets hope there _is_ someone home after 2019


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> Two things.
> 
> Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.
> 
> Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.



Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?

...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?
> 
> ...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Now, now... we all know if we throw our hats in the ring of the 'Coalition of the Neo-Willing', Uncle Sam will kit us out with all the good toys... right?


----------



## Altair

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?
> 
> ...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G


make sure to email that to the CDS. 

You make it seem so easy, wonder why he's taking so long. [lol:


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> We have been given exactly two pieces of information, one of which is relevant (650 men), without knowing what they apply to. The proper course of action is for the government to look at the questions (in fact, look at the primary question of Canada's national interest, and then see if other developments support or hinder the National Interest) _*before*_ saying "We're sending 650 people to Africa for "peacekeeping", because 2016!
> 
> The Minister, and more appropriately the CDS and his staff were handed an "outcome" and told to make it happen. While this might be the way of things in more "efficient" governments, I think even you should see there are some issues in running the process in reverse. So of course *we* are now subjected to rampant speculation by the press and outsiders (I've been asked multiple times about where we're going and what are we going to do in Africa. To which I respond, the Government should be coming out with an announcement at some point), not to mention the rumour mill inside is spinning at warp speed.
> 
> The unintentionally hilarity  of this remark is worth Milpoints!


The announcement of 650 was simply to get into that UN peacekeeping conference. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they didn't need to make a commitment of forces to get in on that timeline I sincerely doubt they would have told the public even that tidbit of information. 

As for being handed a outcome, we'll,  I'm no military genius but even I could tell we couldn't commit more than 6 or 7 hundred boots with all the other commitments currently on the go.

Ukraine 

Iraq

Latvia

Kuwait

Ya, that 600 is pretty much all we can send especially if we aren't piggybacking off uncle Sam on a joint OP. 

So they say what they are sending, get in on the peacekeeping conference and they fill us in on the mission in full when it's finalized.

As for 24 sussex, I have no idea how long the renovations are going to take. Probably going to cost about 20 million though.

Just direct your red chit to Rideau hall, addressed to the PM not the GG.


----------



## a_majoor

You are either deliberately being evasive or actually do not understand the point.

Problem: we need to do "X". Here are the constraints and restraints.
Solution: In order to do "x" we need to take the following actions using the following resources 

Yes, 600 may be a real life constraint, so it _isn't_ given in the opening statement as "we are preparing 650 men for a mission".

It comes at the end of the process: "After careful deliberation, in order to achieve these following aims, the GoC is prepared to commit "x" personnel to the mission".

The 650 figure was obviously chosen because it represents the lower boundary of a battlegroup and sounds big enough to be impressive to the Canadian Public when dusting off the peacekeeping myth. There is no particular reason to think 650 is too large, too small or sufficient since there hasn't been the analysis needed to determine what is actually to be done.

I'm so enthralled by this, in fact, that despite the fact I could volunteer and have a better than even chance to go on an African mission because of my specialty, I have preferred to put my name forward for OP IMPACT and OP REASSURANCE, since my time away from family and friends and possible sacrifice will at least be in support of the National Interest, and not for an apparent vanity project.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You are either deliberately being evasive or actually do not understand the point.
> 
> Problem: we need to do "X". Here are the constraints and restraints.
> Solution: In order to do "x" we need to take the following actions using the following resources
> 
> Yes, 600 may be a real life constraint, so it _isn't_ given in the opening statement as "we are preparing 650 men for a mission".
> 
> It comes at the end of the process: "After careful deliberation, in order to achieve these following aims, the GoC is prepared to commit "x" personnel to the mission".
> 
> The 650 figure was obviously chosen because it represents the lower boundary of a battlegroup and sounds big enough to be impressive to the Canadian Public when dusting off the peacekeeping myth. There is no particular reason to think 650 is too large, too small or sufficient since there hasn't been the analysis needed to determine what is actually to be done.
> 
> I'm so enthralled by this, in fact, that despite the fact I could volunteer and have a better than even chance to go on an African mission because of my specialty, I have preferred to put my name forward for OP IMPACT and OP REASSURANCE, since my time away from family and friends and possible sacrifice will at least be in support of the National Interest, and not for an apparent vanity project.


So really quickly, just so we are clear.

You would prefer that the government had said nothing, committed nothing, and missed out on the peacekeeping conference while preparing to send Canadian men and women on a peacekeeping mission?

That's what you're trying to say?

Because that's cool, I get that,proper procedure and all.

I just dont see the harm in committing a number in order to to be able to attend a conference on peacekeeping while preparing to send forces on a peacekeeping missing while hammering out the details for a full disclosure later on. The 600 was a given, I don't see the issue in just saying it.

You're entitled to your opinion though, and best of luck wherever you end up.


----------



## ArmyRick

Altair,

Your entitled to your opinion as well.

Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE" 

We are supposed to do the opposite.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sending 600.

Cooks?

Mechanics?

Sanitary orderlies?


----------



## ModlrMike

Answering the question before it's been asked is a recipe for failure. Where people's lives are at stake, it's courting disaster.


----------



## Altair

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sending 600.
> 
> Cooks?
> 
> Mechanics?
> 
> Sanitary orderlies?





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Answering the question before it's been asked is a recipe for failure. Where people's lives are at stake, it's courting disaster.





			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Altair,
> 
> Your entitled to your opinion as well.
> 
> Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE"
> 
> We are supposed to do the opposite.


So the question I ask all of you is would you rather they said nothing, and didn't get included in the peacekeeping conference while preparing to send Canadian men and women on a peacekeeping mission?


----------



## ModlrMike

At its most basic it should have gone like this:

Where are we needed?

What would you like us to do?

Analyzing......

Right, we can provide "this many" troops for "this task" in "this place".

Signaling a desire to participate would have gotten them to the conference. They didn't have to make a commitment without sufficient knowledge and forethought.


----------



## Altair

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> At its most basic it should have gone like this:
> 
> Where are we needed?
> 
> What would you like us to do?
> 
> Analyzing......
> 
> Right, we can provide "this many" troops for "this task" in "this place".
> 
> Signaling a desire to participate would have gotten them to the conference. They didn't have to make a commitment without sufficient knowledge and forethought.


I'm not sure that's true.

The announcement seemed rushed, they had very few to no details and in general the whole thing challenged Dions coalition video in terms of sloppiness. 

Say what you want of this government but they usually have their media game on point.

The way they announced it signals to me they were under some pressure to get it done and quickly at that.

The only pressure they could have been feeling is not taking part in that conference on peacekeeping.

So if committing 650 soldiers for peacekeeping in a hastily planned announcement is what it took to punch their ticket to this conference then I don't see the harm. Especially if everyone and their mother knew Canada couldn't afford to send much more than that in the first place.

Meanwhile the planning just continues on as planned the way you described.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE"


But, it seems that is all anyone with an opinion wants to do.

We don't know where we are going or what we will do, but we can defend that the force package will be 600 to 650.  The ROE are not written, but we know the undefined mission will fail because of them.


----------



## Altair

MCG said:
			
		

> But, it seems that is all anyone with an opinion wants to do.
> 
> We don't know where we are going or what we will do, but we can defend that the force package will be 600 to 650.  The ROE are not written, but we know the undefined mission will fail because of them.


We don't know.

Do you think the CDS and MND don't know?

I'm pretty sure they know. All we have been hearing are leaks from unnamed sources and we may be giving to much weight to that.

And when the plan is finalized, we will know, the public will know and then, maybe then, will be good time to judge whether the mission will fail?

For all we know 650 is support staff. How does that fail?

Those 650 could be combat troops guarding a single village. Hard to see that failing.

But we just don't know. So how can you say with confidence that we shall fail?


----------



## a_majoor

I'll put it to you differently. Canada was _excluded_ from a conference by the major players fighting ISIS because the same government so eager to get into a "peacekeeping conference" withdrew the CF-18's from the fight. I have scrolled through the thread and somehow missed your outraged posts on how we were missing out because of that.

So what this mission really is "virtue signalling" on a grand scale. No actual reason has been given from the Grand Strategic level as to why we should be interested in traditional peacekeeping _at all_ (and you can always scroll through the peacekeeping myth thread to see the catalogue of failure), much less a national interest perspective as to why "this" particular mission is in our National Interest. It has been constantly pointed out that the conditions for "peacekeeping" don't exist, resulting in a minor semantic change by government spokespeople.

Listen to the very experienced members on this board: this is the recipe for disaster.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'll put it to you differently. Canada was _excluded_ from a conference by the major players fighting ISIS because the same government so eager to get into a "peacekeeping conference" withdrew the CF-18's from the fight. I have scrolled through the thread and somehow missed your outraged posts on how we were missing out because of that.
> 
> So what this mission really is "virtue signalling" on a grand scale. No actual reason has been given from the Grand Strategic level as to why we should be interested in traditional peacekeeping _at all_ (and you can always scroll through the peacekeeping myth thread to see the catalogue of failure), much less a national interest perspective as to why "this" particular mission is in our National Interest. It has been constantly pointed out that the conditions for "peacekeeping" don't exist, resulting in a minor semantic change by government spokespeople.
> 
> Listen to the very experienced members on this board: this is the recipe for disaster.


I must be naive in wanting to see what our actual mission is and how we plan to achieve it before writing it off as a failure.

What we do know.

650 soldiers going to Africa. 

What we don't know

Where they are going.

Who is going.

What the mission is once they get there.

What the ROEs will be.

Who we will be working with.

Somehow with all that we don't know, the experienced members on this board have deemed this mission a failure?

BTW (and in know this will cost me at least a 1000 very important milpoints) experience =/= being right.


----------



## ModlrMike

Altair said:
			
		

> Somehow with all that we don't know, the experienced members on this board have deemed this mission a failure?



Most of us are saying that it's a failure of planning. It's far too early to judge mission success. 

That being said... fail to plan, plan to fail.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> BTW (and in know this will cost me at least a 1000 very important milpoints) experience =/= being right.



Perhaps, but lack of experience =/= being right is more often true.


----------



## Altair

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Most of us are saying that it's a failure of planning. It's far too early to judge mission success.
> 
> That being said... fail to plan, plan to fail.


 I'm not sure why people are assuming that there is a lack of planning going on by the CDS and MND. In fact, I was of the opinion the longer we don't hear about the plan the better because they are planning on getting this right





> Perhaps, but lack of experience =/= being right is more often true.


You will notice I don't go around saying listen the inexperienced members,this mission will be a success.


----------



## PuckChaser

You keep trotting out the CDS and MND as scapegoats to the government's situated estimate. I'm willing to bet the CDS has multiple plans, for multiple AOs, because even he doesn't know where we're going yet. His planners probably pulled together numbers on what we could contribute to a random mission, hence the 650 figure. Now they know its somewhere in Africa, and that the government is very risk adverse. So they plan around that.

Its glaringly obvious you've never had to plan something remotely complex before, and don't understand how its supposed to work. The Wng O is supposed to contain probable mission and location. We have neither other than "go peacekeep somewhere in Africa". Rumint is that they've even narrowed it down to a handful of countries, great. The CAF still can't do jack squat until we have an assigned mission and location. All we're doing by prolonging these little tidbits of info here and there, is employing staff officers at NDHQ to create tons of contingency plans, and change them over and over as more info gets released. 2 Bde is starting their R2HR, and they have no idea where and what they're supposed to train for because the government hasn't made up its mind. I'm sure the CDS and MND would love to have them mission focused, with tailored-training to ensure highest probability of mission success.

Seems like the government is a big fan of "if you wait to the last minute, it only takes a minute."


----------



## Altair

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You keep trotting out the CDS and MND as scapegoats to the government's situated estimate. I'm willing to bet the CDS has multiple plans, for multiple AOs, because even he doesn't know where we're going yet. His planners probably pulled together numbers on what we could contribute to a random mission, hence the 650 figure. Now they know its somewhere in Africa, and that the government is very risk adverse. So they plan around that.
> 
> Its glaringly obvious you've never had to plan something remotely complex before, and don't understand how its supposed to work. The Wng O is supposed to contain probable mission and location. We have neither other than "go peacekeep somewhere in Africa". Rumint is that they've even narrowed it down to a handful of countries, great. The CAF still can't do jack squat until we have an assigned mission and location. All we're doing by prolonging these little tidbits of info here and there, is employing staff officers at NDHQ to create tons of contingency plans, and change them over and over as more info gets released. 2 Bde is starting their R2HR, and they have no idea where and what they're supposed to train for because the government hasn't made up its mind. I'm sure the CDS and MND would love to have them mission focused, with tailored-training to ensure highest probability of mission success.
> 
> Seems like the government is a big fan of "if you wait to the last minute, it only takes a minute."


I'm not willing to judge a mission without  knowing for sure more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.

Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry Altair but there is more to be said.

You say that you know that the government has committed 650 "soldiers".  I asked what trades would be required.  

PRESUMABLY - big word that - presumably the 650 number came from some sense of what the government was willing/able to commit.

But how do you define ability?

Is it based on dollars? Because 650 Lt Colonels are going to cost a lot more than 650 Privates.

It it based on bodies? If so what type of bodies with what capabilities?  A single skill set? A combination?  A trained team?  Trained for what?  Do we already have some teams, with some training, that we can leverage?

Where will they be used?  How will they be used?  For how long?  What allies? What support from those allies?  Where are we in their priority of supply?  How reliable are they?

I sincerely hope that you are correct and that the MND has clearly informed the CDS of the Government's intentions.


----------



## Good2Golf

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm not willing to judge a mission with know for sure nothing more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.
> 
> Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?



Well, you're coming close to identifying a couple of factors (650 & Africa), the missing (at least unacknowledged by the GoC, if there indeed is an actual mission defined militarily, even if withheld) information that would help.  Perhaps, Altair, you may be involved in the future in supporting planning activity and appreciate how much the lack of a defined clear objective, even if selected from a UN 'drop-down' list of missions, makes it extremely difficult for the military to focus on a well- (or at least reasonably-) defined mission.  Kind of makes the following Estimate of the Situation process turn into a bit of a branch-planning free-for-all with no clearly and explicitly defined direction and guidance from Government.

1.b, 1.c and 2.f are pretty hard to do in this case and make steps 3., 4. and 5. of the Estimate rather challenging... 

1. Mission Analysis
     a. Assumptions
     b. Superior Commander's Intent
     c. Higher Commander's Mission and CONOPS
     d. Assigned Tasks
     e. Implied Tasks
     f. Limitions (Constraints and Restraints)
     g. Changes to the Situation
     h. Mission Statement (Essential Task, Unifying Purpose, Time Constraints)
     i. Points for Clarification
2. Consideration of the Factors
     a. Environment
     b. Enemy
     c. Own Troops
     d. Surprise and Security
     e. Time and Space
     f. Assessment of Tasks
3. Course of Action Development
     a. Enemy - Most likely, most dangerous
     b. Friendly
4. Decision
     a. COA decision and justification
5. Outline Plan
     a. Overlay
     b. Mission Statement 
     c. CONOPS
     d. Groupings and Tasks
     e. Coordinating Instructions
     f. Service Support
     g. Command and Signals

As always, the military will do its best, then take the heat for when Team Sunny WaysTM says "Go!.....oh yeah, here..."

:2c:

G2G


----------



## a_majoor

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm not willing to judge a mission without  knowing for sure more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.
> 
> Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?



You actually admit there still is no mission and ROE's, but you still fail to see the point we are raising? There is literally nothing to judge, yet the Armed Forces must devote precious time and resources making contingency plans for....what, exactly....and for what purpose, exactly?

Look again at the planing process and tell me that based on the information you have (which is about the same people at all levels seem to have) what exactly we are going to do?

Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, since it is setting expectations in multiple places. Do you think the GoC is going to let the media, the UN or the voting public jump on them for discovering they only needed to send 200 men? Or what about the realization that in order to achieve anything they need a 1500 man battlegroup, but only "budgeted" for 650? So now the Minister and CDS have the additional constraint to ensure the GoC's lack of thought is not exposed. And don't believe for a second that Dion or the PM are going to take any blame if things go south (see planning process above). I sincerely hope your parents (or anyone elses) do not receive a memorial cross because of this; no one deserves to pay that high of a cost for "virtue signalling".


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, ........



A very NAIVE statement in fact.


----------



## Altair

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You actually admit there still is no mission and ROE's, but you still fail to see the point we are raising? There is literally nothing to judge, yet the Armed Forces must devote precious time and resources making contingency plans for....what, exactly....and for what purpose, exactly?
> 
> Look again at the planing process and tell me that based on the information you have (which is about the same people at all levels seem to have) what exactly we are going to do?
> 
> Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, since it is setting expectations in multiple places. Do you think the GoC is going to let the media, the UN or the voting public jump on them for discovering they only needed to send 200 men? Or what about the realization that in order to achieve anything they need a 1500 man battlegroup, but only "budgeted" for 650? So now the Minister and CDS have the additional constraint to ensure the GoC's lack of thought is not exposed. And don't believe for a second that Dion or the PM are going to take any blame if things go south (see planning process above). I sincerely hope your parents (or anyone elses) do not receive a memorial cross because of this; no one deserves to pay that high of a cost for "virtue signalling".


I doubt we as a country could support a battlegroup of 1500 soldiers on top of the operations in Iraq, Kuwait,  Ukraine, and the upcoming deployment to Latvia. Not without breaking the entire logistics system anyways.

But this conversation is going in circles. I don't agree, you don't agree. Shall we move on?


----------



## OldSolduer

Altair said:
			
		

> I doubt we as a country could support a battlegroup of 1500 soldiers on top of the operations in Iraq, Kuwait,  Ukraine, and the upcoming deployment to Latvia. Not without breaking the entire logistics system anyways.
> 
> But this conversation is going in circles. I don't agree, you don't agree. Shall we move on?



I've read your profile. You are in no position to demand that people "move on". 

Maybe if you read some of the posts some of our more senior members have written you'd learn something. Like humility. 

And as the esteemed Thuycides said.....I hope that any NOK does not receive a Memorial Cross from this yet to be determined mission. I have one....and what you have to go through to receive one is pure hell.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To be fair to Altair, I doubt his profile is up to date. He is not "just out of basic" anymore: That was in September 2010, so he now has six years under his belt.

I think that what he hasn't experienced yet, however, is politicians and NDHQ screwing him and his friends over to achieve their political (in all senses of the word) agenda. He may still believe that NDHQ means it when they say "We are here to help".

Youthful exuberance is a good thing, but in time, operational experience will knock in a few dents - or more - and he will transition to being a soldier. Let's just hope this experience doesn't come at too high a price.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I've read your profile. You are in no position to demand that people "move on".
> 
> Maybe if you read some of the posts some of our more senior members have written you'd learn something. Like humility.
> 
> And as the esteemed Thuycides said.....I hope that any NOK does not receive a Memorial Cross from this yet to be determined mission. I have one....and what you have to go through to receive one is pure hell.



I think the underlying issue here is that Altruism is never a good reason for us to "do something".  This is especially true when it comes to the use of military force.  What are Canada's interests in pursuing military operations in Africa?  

Is it securing a seat on the United Nations Security Council?  Is it some form of resource concessions?  Are we fighting the spread of Islamic Extremism?  What exactly are we gaining from going to Africa in the first place? 

The first question is most certainly not a good reason to use the military, the second and third are better reasons.  Using the military for altruistic purposes in order to support some sort of self-righteous agenda is a poor use of military resources.  Women's Rights, Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, Child Soldiers, etc... all terrible things but not worth stopping if the sole reason we are doing so is because of altruism.

The only thing such an operation will lead to is mission fatigue, poor morale within the ranks and ultimately, mission failure.  Wherever we send the military, we need to choose a side and have clearly defined objectives to ensure the side we choose comes out on top.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To be fair to Altair, I doubt his profile is up to date. He is not "just out of basic" anymore: That was in September 2010, so he now has six years under his belt.
> 
> I think that what he hasn't experienced yet, however, is politicians and NDHQ screwing him and his friends over to achieve their political (in all senses of the word) agenda. He may still believe that NDHQ means it when they say "We are here to help".
> 
> Youthful exuberance is a good thing, but in time, operational experience will knock in a few dents - or more - and he will transition to being a soldier. Let's just hope this experience doesn't come at too high a price.



Altair is therefore likely a great example of the perfect 'cannon fodder', which all of us were at one time or another. Which is exactly why the average age of front line troops should be around 25 years, with COs and RSMs - and their equivalent in other arms and services - topping out at the grand old age of about 30. Older, married, less fit, less fanatical (and more cynical) combat soldiers generally make for less effective combat formations, in one way or another.


----------



## Journeyman

For a possible change from the circular arguments... I recently attended two academic/practitioner events: the CDAI Graduate student Symposium and the Peace First workshop.  

The first was particularly interesting because one of the speakers was BGen Carignan, Army COS Ops.*  A recurring theme in her talk, as well as by thoughtful personnel involved with both events, kept coming back to justification -- for Canada's citizens and soldiers. 

Yes, the more blatant justification appears little more than 'a UNSC seat,' which our CDS has already been obligated to refute and attempt to provide our government with some intellectual credibility, saying  "I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm's way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force" [sub-headline reads: "Jonathan Vance says he would never put troops in harms way to win UN Security Council seat"]. 

Sacrificing soldiers for 'it'll help with our next election' may be too crass for even die-hard Liberal supporters.

So the actual justification, which the government or people here may wish to debate, is 'to what ends' -- what _effect_  do we hope to achieve?  Since, in the absence of any official details it's all hypothetical, what _could_  Canada contribute to some potential mission that could support those effects/justifications?


I was busy typing while Humphrey Bogart was posting, but I actually think altruism _may_  be a valid reason for involvement; I'd like to see some evidence that it's an honestly-held rationale.


* Small words here for those who need them: she will be _very_  much involved with any deployment of army personnel.

[for some, tl;dr -- got it  :cheers:]


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> For a possible change from the circular arguments... I recently attended two academic/practitioner events: the CDAI Graduate student Symposium and the Peace First workshop.
> 
> The first was particularly interesting because one of the speakers was BGen Carignan, Army COS Ops.*  A recurring theme in her talk, as well as by thoughtful personnel involved with both events, kept coming back to justification -- for Canada's citizens and soldiers.
> 
> Yes, the more blatant justification appears little more than 'a UNSC seat,' which our CDS has already been obligated to refute and attempt to provide our government with some intellectual credibility, saying  "I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm's way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force" [sub-headline reads: "Jonathan Vance says he would never put troops in harms way to win UN Security Council seat"].
> 
> Sacrificing soldiers for 'it'll help with our next election' may be too crass for even die-hard Liberal supporters.
> 
> So the actual justification, which the government or people here may wish to debate, is 'to what ends' -- what _effect_  do we hope to achieve?  Since, in the absence of any official details it's all hypothetical, what _could_  Canada contribute to some potential mission that could support those effects/justifications?
> 
> 
> I was busy typing while Humphrey Bogart was posting, but I actually think altruism _may_  be a valid reason for involvement; I'd like to see some evidence that it's an honestly-held rationale.
> 
> 
> * Small words here for those who need them: she will be _very_  much involved with any deployment of army personnel.
> 
> [for some, tl;dr -- got it  :cheers:]



My problem with altruism Journeyman is that there is always another underlying motive, usually self-righteousness driven by religion or ideology.  

We, as privileged white Westerners think that the Africans can't govern themselves so we'll "go in there and show them how it's done!"

It's an inherently flawed way of doing business, our cultures are incompatible in many ways and like a teenage girl, no matter how many times we tell them they're stupid they will continue to repeat the same behaviours until they figure it out on their own.


----------



## Journeyman

So let's pass on patrolling anywhere in Africa.  Let's provide SA technology; let's train police and judiciary; let's provide airlift or other forms of logistics support.  :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill

A problem that I have is simply the logistics of providing a unit of 650 bodies of any type on an ongoing basis.

If we accept a normal cycle then we need 5 units of 650 to maintain the pace indefinitely.

The only units we have 5 of are the infantry units and none of them have 650 effectives.

At best we only have three of most other units (armoured, combat support and service support) all of which operate with less then 650 effectives.

And for the really specialized stuff, like sigs, we have one.

Is this one unit, one time for one show?  Or is this intended to be an ongoing commitment?


----------



## Old Sweat

I suggest the 650 is going to be a composite unit, or a collection of units, including an headquarters, a logistics element, a medical element and from whatever is left over, some troops to do whatever the role is. And of course, we will need people to run the Canadian element of the airhead.


----------



## Kirkhill

Even at that, are we in a position to maintain a consistently staffed composite unit indefinitely?


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...I was busy typing while Humphrey Bogart was posting, but I actually think altruism _may_  be a valid reason for involvement; I'd like to see some evidence that it's an honestly-held rationale.



If altruism includes R2P, I'm game for that.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So the actual justification, which the government or people here may wish to debate, is 'to what ends' -- what _effect_  do we hope to achieve?  Since, in the absence of any official details it's all hypothetical, what _could_  Canada contribute to some potential mission that could support those effects/justifications?



Commander's Intent and End State will be figured out later, Because its current year. The Why part of the 5Ws is always pesky.


----------



## Brad Sallows

In which Altair criticizes what has been done so far without a shred of understanding that he is doing so.

"What we do know.
650 soldiers going to Africa.
What we don't know [followed by a long list]"

If we "don't know" all those other things, how can we possibly know 650 soldiers must go to Africa?  Do you get it?


----------



## McG

Where polling has suggested a majority of Canadians are supportive of a new Peace Support mission, I suspect that support is based in altruism.  There has been much posted about the requirement for the government to justify this mission to the public.  If altruism is justification enough for Canadians to accept the employment of military force, then that is all the justification the politicians will be held to owe the electorate.


----------



## Good2Golf

It's not to say that missions haven't been backwards engineered from the UN's (or NATO's for that matter) "pin count" game (let's just take 650 to be an arbitrary number that was agreed upon by the UN and Canada, either the UN's constraint, or Canada's restraint in the limitations section of the Estimate), but then one has to be prepared to form the achievable mission sets feasible with such a personnel count and feed that back to the UN, i.e. "With 650 pers in this composition, you [UN] get mission capabilities X, and Y, but notably not Z" and stick to our guns.  It's not a very principled way of doing things, but we appear to be operating a wee bit outside of the mission requirements taking the fore, envelope.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Altair

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> In which Altair criticizes what has been done so far without a shred of understanding that he is doing so.
> 
> "What we do know.
> 650 soldiers going to Africa.
> What we don't know [followed by a long list]"
> 
> If we "don't know" all those other things, how can we possibly know 650 soldiers must go to Africa?  Do you get it?


We, the general public, don't know.

I'm assuming there is a plan that hasn't been released yet of which the 650 is a small tidbit.

Just because we don't know all of the other things doesn't mean nobody knows the other things.

I guess this assumption could be wrong.


----------



## PuckChaser

There's a lot of high up people that don't know, this is probably the best kept secret in the entire CAF, which is comical because it doesn't need to be.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another tidbit:  South Sudan mission's looking for a new civvy boss:


> The head of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in South Sudan, Ellen Margrethe Løj, has informed Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that she will be stepping down at the end of November after more than two years of leading the Mission.
> 
> Ms. Løj was appointed by the Secretary-General as his Special Representative and head of the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) in July 2014 and assumed her duties in Juba in September 2014.
> 
> “Although the road ahead will be challenging, I remain hopeful that peace will prevail and that this young nation will finally live out its great promise. I look forward to the day where the girls and boys of South Sudan will never know the trauma of war again and will be able to actualize their full potential,” Ms. Løj said in a statement released today by the Mission.
> 
> According to the statement, she had planned to retire at the end of her current contract, which expired at the end of August this year, but chose to remain at the helm of the Mission in the wake of the July crisis until the situation could stabilize ...


Løj's statement attached.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> We, the general public, don't know.
> 
> I'm assuming there is a plan that hasn't been released yet of which the 650 is a small tidbit.
> 
> Just because we don't know all of the other things doesn't mean nobody knows the other things.
> 
> I guess this assumption could be wrong.



I think you're letting your personal wants to get in the way of critical thinking.

The liberals threw out a number of 25'000 refugees to be brought to Canada and to hell with expert advice, they were going to bring in 25'000 refugees.  The Liberals once again threw out a number without any reason or planning.  They wanted a beefy number out in the news.

If the mission only calls for 200, we'll send 650 because the Liberals won't want to lose face and look like they made a mistake.
If the mission calls for 1600 we'll send 650 because the Liberals won't want to lose face and look like they made a mistake.


----------



## jmt18325

Or, 650 is the number that is thought to be sustainable, and was provided as a ceiling.

Sorry to interrupt the stupid liberals line.  you may return to your regularly scheduled hypothesizing.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Or, 650 is the number that is thought to be sustainable, and was provided as a ceiling.



With no thought to what the exact make up of that organization would be.  Brilliant. 



> Sorry to interrupt


I think you're being liberal with the credit you're giving yourself   


*grammar


----------



## jmt18325

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With no thought to what the exactly make up of that organization would be.  Brilliant.



You actually have zero way of knowing that.


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You actually have zero way of knowing that.



You demonstrated no knowledge of having a reasonable idea as to what an appropriate composition of the 650 pers formation could be, or have to be, in order to ensure sustainability, so Jarnhammer's supposition is probably fairly accurate.  650 ACCIS Techs?  Yeah, that'll be sustainable....

G2G


----------



## Altair

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You actually have zero way of knowing that.


Truthiness.

It works far better than facts.

Especially when there are no facts one way or another.


----------



## YZT580

Altair said:
			
		

> Truthiness.
> 
> It works far better than facts.
> 
> Especially when there are no facts one way or another.


That is the first statement I have read that truly makes sense.  Did your class by any chance include a kid who really wasn't very well liked, couldn't play ball, but who had parents who supplied him with all the paraphernalia just so he would be included at recess?  Pathetically, that sounds like Dion and Trudeau.  Hi coach, pick me, I have these 650 soldiers I can send your way.  It was an election throw-out.  No one had identified any requirement for Canadian troops at that time.  Now, instead of responding to a request we are searching desperately for a hole to fit our particular peg in.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Or, 650 is the number that is thought to be sustainable, and was provided as a ceiling.
> 
> Sorry to interrupt the stupid liberals line.  you may return to your regularly scheduled hypothesizing.



I think the answer is 650 Canadian service personnel deployed on a UN Peacekeeping mission.  The government/DND is now trying to formulate the question.  

Nothing against the Liberals, per se, just that they are pulling defence and security policy out of their arse...  :facepalm:


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Now, instead of responding to a request we are searching desperately for a hole to fit our particular peg in.



In other words, a typical run ashore for a tipsy sailor?


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You demonstrated no knowledge of having a reasonable idea as to what an appropriate composition of the 650 pers formation could be, or have to be, in order to ensure sustainability, so Jarnhammer's supposition is probably fairly accurate.  650 ACCIS Techs?  Yeah, that'll be sustainable....
> 
> G2G



Since I'm not the one making any of those decisions - that doesn't follow.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Has VAC identified that we're going to see a big increase in op tempo, including up close to some shitty places en mass possibly, and they're going to get a lot more files across their desk? I wonder if they're be better prepared. Same goes for JPSU.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Now you be dreaming that anyone plans that far in advance. Any plan that crosses a fiscal year is doomed to failure or confusion in my experience. 650 is roughly a commitment of 2,000 people for an extended period of time, doable, but will suck up a lot of resources, particularly if no other significant nation joins in.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

An interesting article from Deutsche Welle about the situation in the DRC.



> DR Congo to remain 'unstable and violent'
> 
> A regional summit on peace and security in the DRC has just ended without major progress towards peace in eastern Congo. Congo expert Phil Clarke fears that more violence may follow.
> 
> A regional summit on peace and security in the Great Lakes region just ended in Angola's capital Luanda. The meeting, officially known as the High-Level Regional Oversight Mechanism for Peace, Security and Cooperation, focused on the long-running conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Burundi, the Central Africa Republic and South Sudan.
> 
> The summit tried to address why it has been so difficult for the DRC army to detect insurgents and restore security in the vast country. DW spoke to Phil Clarke, a lecturer in international politics at SOAS at the University of London, to try and shed light on the challenges and possible outcomes of the current crisis.
> _
> DW: Why has it been difficult for the DRC army to contain the security situation and to end the insurgency created by the various marauding rebel groups in the vast country?_
> 
> Phil Clarke: This is a problem that the Congolese armed forces have faced as long as anyone can remember. They are basically unable to bring any kind of peace and security to the eastern provinces because they are under resourced and poorly trained. The army is often extremely corrupt and in the last ten or 12 years, the Congolese army itself has built some important economic and political relationships with a range of rebel groups in the east.
> 
> Opposition groups and observers have accused Kabila of delaying elections in order to overstay his mandate as president
> 
> Because the army is a partner of those rebel groups, it does not want to target and eradicate them so the army has become a part of the problem and not a part of the solution in eastern Congo.
> 
> _Given the mistrust between the DRC, Rwanda and Burundi, how easy or difficult will it be for these countries to work together and achieve sustainable peace in the region?
> _
> One of the main reasons the regional actors have struggled to deal with the conflict situations in both Congo and Burundi is that the neighbors themselves are often also directly implicated in these conflicts. So Burundi accuses Rwanda of arming rebels who are now acting inside Burundi and over the past 15 years, Rwanda has backed various groups within eastern Congo.
> 
> Expecting Rwanda to play a stabilizing role in the neighboring states is of course a very far-fetched notion. Part of the reason for holding this UN Great Lakes Summit in Angola is to try and build more of a regional response to the conflicts in the Great Lakes.
> 
> It is very clear that both the United Nations (UN) and the African Union (AU) have failed in their efforts in eastern Congo. This summit is about trying to build a coherent position between the Great Lakes members themselves so that those regional actors might be able to bring pressure to bear on the conflict in the region. This is going to be a real challenge.
> 
> _One of the issues the meeting addressed was the revamping of the UN mission in DRC (MONCUSO), which they argued has allowed rebels to thrive. Do you think MONCUSO has failed in its mandate?_
> 
> MONCUSO has largely failed in its mandate to protect civilians ever since it came into eastern Congo 15 years ago. In recent times, it has found itself in a very difficult position in the sense that it can only act if it has the support of the Congolese military. But the Congolese military itself is one of the main perpetrators of crime. This has limited the UN's ability to protect civilians. This has been one of the key weakening factors of the mission.
> 
> Residents of eastern Congo have been living with insecurity for decades, even with the presence of UN peacekeepers
> 
> _DRC is currently embroiled in a crisis prompted by President Joseph Kabila evident attempts to avoid stepping down when his mandate expires. How can DRC political leaders ensure that there is some semblance of peace in the country during the election period?_
> 
> There is a real need for a sustained national dialogue in Congo but I also think that there is a key role for regional actors as well. This is where the government in Angola can play a central role. Of all the neighboring states, Angola is the one that has the greatest influence over Kabila's government. The economic ties between Angola and Congo are extremely strong as are the diplomatic ties. This is then the one country that could have an influence over Kabila in terms of scheduling elections quickly.
> _
> Do you see peace returning to the DRC anytime soon?_
> 
> I think it is difficult to be optimistic concerning the Congolese conflict at the moment. The picture has been very bleak for the last 12 months. As soon as it became clear that Kabila was not going to hold the elections on time, the number of protests in the country increased. In response there was a major government crackdown against protesters and against opposition leaders. Unfortunately that is a pattern that is likely to continue right up until these elections are actually held.
> 
> Every time there has been a large-scale protest in a major urban area in Congo, it has led to a major crackdown particularly by the Congolese police. This cycle is likely to continue. So I would predict a very unstable and very violent set of circumstances in Congo in the next six to 12 months.
> 
> Phil Clarke is a lecturer in international politics at SOAS at the University of London.
> 
> Interview: Isaac Mugabi



 Article Link


----------



## The Bread Guy

Another opening in the "sorta-kinda trying to keep some definition of peace in Africa" portfolio ...


> *Kenya withdraws troops from UN mission in South Sudan*
> 
> Kenya has said it is withdrawing its troops from the United Nations mission in South Sudan, a day after Ban Ki-moon sacked*** the Kenyan commander of peacekeeping forces in the country for failing to protect civilians.
> 
> In an angrily worded statement, the Kenyan ministry of foreign affairs said on Wednesday that it was "dismayed" by the UN secretary-general's decision to dismiss Lieutenant General Johnson Mogoa Kimani Ondieki.
> 
> Continued deployment of Kenyan troops in South Sudan "is no longer tenable", the ministry said, saying Kenya would "withdraw, immediately" its forces there.
> 
> Kenya has more than 1,000 troops deployed in South Sudan.
> 
> The ministry said the UN mission in the country, known as UNMISS, suffered from "systemic dysfunctionality" and that Ondieki was not to blame for violence that killed dozens of people.
> 
> "What is clear is that UNMISS suffers from fundamental structural and systemic dysfunctionality, which has severely hindered its ability to discharge its mandate since its inception," it said ...



*** - While the U.N. is *far* from perfect, it appears even _they_ can fire folks who aren't doing the assigned job ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

One is amazed at basic things even our better media can get wrong (further links at original):



> Canada and UN “Peace Operations”: Letter of Mine in Globe and Mail
> 
> November 8 in print edition–scroll down to the third letter at “War and peace” (links added):
> 
> 'Your editorial recommends that Senegal be the focus for renewed peace operations by the Canadian military (Start In Senegal, For The New Peacekeeping, Nov. 4). But the government has made it clear that the point of such missions is to support UN-led peacekeeping operations; unfortunately, there is no such UN operation in Senegal to support. It seems much more probable that the government will commit some military personnel to the UN mission in Mali, with Senegal serving as a logistics hub to support both them and the UN mission more broadly.
> 
> The editorial also states that “a counterinsurgency in a chaotic, arid country such as Mali … would be outside the experience of most members of the Canadian Armed Forces.” That “arid country” sounds like Kandahar province in Afghanistan where thousands of Canadians fought a counterinsurgency against the Taliban from 2006 to 2011.
> 
> How soon we apparently forget.'
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/mark-collins-canada-and-un-peace-operations-letter-of-mine-in-globe-and-mail/



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One is amazed at basic things even our better media can get wrong (further links at original):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


And why should Senegal not having a mission be such a hinderance to Canada's participation?  You're thinking WAY too small, here ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

milnews.ca: And a mere _bagatelle_ that both Kandahar and northern Mali are arid indeed .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

But _Globe_ did get Sufi Senegal right:
https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/jennifer-lang-on-islam-in-senegal
http://www.muslimpopulation.com/africa/Senegal/inslam%20In%20Senegal.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some more tea leaves to read -- three years (assessed year-by-year) and more than one place ...


> Canadian troops headed to Africa will operate in dangerous territory where peacekeepers have been killed, says Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with the Star from Vancouver Sajjan said Canada has committed to a three-year deployment that will be reassessed each year to ensure it has an “enduring” impact.
> 
> It will be spread among a number of unspecified African countries, have a major focus on training and increasing “capacity” of the host nation as well as other countries’ troops, and build on existing social, economic and deradicalization programs on the ground.
> 
> “These missions, all of them, have the level of risk where peacekeepers have been hurt, they have been killed. And we’ve been looking at the risk factor in a very serious way,” said Sajjan.
> 
> Asked about his approach to deploying Canadian forces to conduct counter-insurgency operations — something the previous Conservative government was keen to avoid in Africa when it turned down requests to deploy soldiers to Congo and Mali — Sajjan said “some of it is going to be the reduction of radicalization in certain areas, in other parts it will be developing the capacity of the host nation.”
> 
> Just back from Mali, which hosts the deadliest United Nations mission in the world right now, Sajjan says it’s clear there are risks there. He said the same risks exist in the other African missions under consideration by the Liberal government.
> 
> But, he added, there are also risks to Canada of doing nothing to counter insurgent groups that are terrorizing populations and radicalizing new recruits, and suggested he and the Liberal government have made this clear to Canadians from “day one.”
> 
> “This is not the peacekeeping of the past — we need to look at what the challenges are of today and develop the peace operations for today’s challenges.”
> 
> After having travelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia in late summer, and Senegal and Mali in the past week — Sajjan said he believes the UN mandate for and rules of engagement with hostile forces are “robust” enough to address the risks, particularly in Mali. The UN mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA, has seen 106 casualties since it was established in 2013, including 69 from “malicious acts.”
> 
> “One thing I did learn, the mandate for the mission is robust so there no concern that our troops would be limited in any way,” said Sajjan. “I had a very direct conversation with the political leadership of the UN and the force commander about that, and the safety of our troops is always paramount.”
> 
> ( ... )
> 
> Sajjan stressed that a big part of the federal analysis underway — as he, two other federal ministers, and military and civilian fact-finders have travelled to Africa — is examining how Canada’s contribution of some 600 soldiers and up to 150 police can have a maximum impact, whether it’s through military training, building on economic development programs and opportunities like on the “agriculture side” in Mali, or combating sexual violence, including by UN peacekeeping troops.
> 
> “What we do provide will be enduring. We committed for three years, but the thinking is to have the impact, we always need to assess,” said Sajjan.
> 
> Asked how Canada avoids sending troops to be injured or killed in a mission where there is no end in sight, Sajjan stressed Canada’s intention is to effect measurable change.
> 
> “I wouldn’t want to put troops in any place where there is no end,” he said, suggesting the plan is to provide “innovative” solutions, to help UN or African Union troops be better able to do their jobs, “so we don’t have to look at a very long, protracted deployment that will not have an impact.” ...


op:


----------



## MarkOttawa

So a _Schwerpunkt_ in Mali, logistics hub in Senegal, and several penny-packets elsewhere.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sandyson

Well if you want to park your prestigious rear in a Security Council seat you need as many votes as you can find at the lowest cost possible.  Now let me see...


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> So a _Schwerpunkt_ in Mali, logistics hub in Senegal, and several penny-packets elsewhere.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It seems that Natynczyk's Operational Support Hub plan form 2010 might still be an active file.



> *In recent months Canada has signed an agreement to house soldiers and equipment in Kuwait, Jamaica and Germany and is negotiating to set up bases in Singapore, South Korea, Tanzania, Senegal and Kenya. *According to a military briefing note obtained by Postmedia, the bases are designed to improve the Canadian Forces’ “ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world.” Publically, defense minister Peter MacKay called the base initiative part of expanding “our capability for expeditionary participation in international missions….We are big players in NATO.”



http://army.ca/forums/threads/106855/post-1160736.html#msg1160736

And I apologise for supplying oxygen to the source but it was the first actual reference I could find.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

> It will be spread among a number of unspecified African countries, have a major focus on training and increasing “capacity” of the host nation as well as other countries’ troops, and build on existing social, economic and deradicalization programs on the ground.



Whatever happened to the old adage about "Concentration of Force" and not spreading your forces around?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Retired AF Guy:

Montgomery on "penny-packets" (scroll down):
https://books.google.ca/books?id=Px4-gf1zPwkC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=montgomery+%22penny+packets%22&source=bl&ots=pkzHxSLovy&sig=aluF7P4HtLjAPpoIqd8CpPwU4yY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWi6nK-KHQAhVJ94MKHVHiDYUQ6AEIMzAG#v=onepage&q=montgomery%20%22penny%20packets%22&f=false

But then we won't really be fighting (much), rather doing as much good in as many places as we can.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

So if I understand this correctly the CAF will have troops scattered hither and yon.....so what's the plan if things go to crap?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So if I understand this correctly the CAF will have troops scattered hither and yon.....so what's the plan if things go to crap?



I think it's the modern way to diversify the blame risk.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Not to worry - decisions haven't been made yet (allegedly, anyway) ...


> Canada's defence minister says troops are headed to Africa for three years of dangerous peacekeeping missions, but his spokeswoman says cabinet hasn't made a decision yet.
> 
> Harjit Sajjan told The Toronto Star that Canada has “committed” to a three-year deployment in Africa that will be re-assessed each year to ensure it has an enduring impact.
> 
> Without specifying which countries Canadian forces and police are headed to, Sajjan said their UN missions would be focused on training, increasing local capacity, and the reduction of de-radicalization, the newspaper reported.
> 
> “These missions, all of them, have the level of risk where peacekeepers have been hurt, they have been killed. And we’ve been looking at the risk factor in a very serious way,” Sajjan told The Star in an interview published Friday.
> 
> However, Sajjan’s press secretary, Jordan Owens, told The Huffington Post Canada that the minister “got a little bit ahead of where we are as a government.
> 
> “Three years is part of the suite of options that will be considered, but this hasn't gone to Cabinet yet for a decision,” she wrote in an email ...


More op:


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to worry - decisions haven't been made yet (allegedly, anyway)


How dare he actually keep people informed about current _thinking_  before it's been released as a fait accompli.  He'll never make it in Ottawa.   ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So if I understand this correctly the CAF will have troops scattered hither and yon.....so what's the plan if things go to crap?



An ASIC here, couple of CIMIC teams there, few HQs here, which all amounts to whole lot of nothing other than some good photo shoots and bragging rights at the gentlemens club in NY. 

I'll be shocked if there is any sort of coherent structure to this come execution day.  

I'd love to see a Mach Inf Battalion in Mali with an Aviation TF but that would mean we actually cared about getting rid of the bad guys.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How dare he actually keep people informed about current _thinking_  before it's been released as a fait accompli.  He'll never make it in Ottawa.   ;D



Yes. He misunderstood as a result of his own background: When he was told to find missions in Africa, he took that as actual marching orders.  ;D

Hate to come down on the main stream medias (not!), but what I still don't see anywhere is the press asking the government: Why? What are you trying to accomplish? What Canadian interest is at stake? How will this benefit Canada?


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hate to come down on the main stream medias (not!), but what I still don't see anywhere is the press asking the government: Why? What are you trying to accomplish? What Canadian interest is at stake? How will this benefit Canada?


Why?  The answer was given in the election, and it would seem a plurality of voters bought it.  The government will deploy the military out of altruism. 

It does not matter if we buy into that reasoning on this site.  That's just the way it is now in sunny ways Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes. He misunderstood as a result of his own background: When he was told to find missions in Africa, he took that as actual marching orders.  ;D
> 
> Hate to come down on the main stream medias (not!), but what I still don't see anywhere is the press asking the government: Why? What are you trying to accomplish? What Canadian interest is at stake? How will this benefit Canada create more opportunities for selfies and yoga poses?



FTFY  :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar

I like the idea of more HQ's!

Before we deploy we should also make everyone take a _Gender Based Analyst +_ type package but make it about race. Maybe another about sexuality. And privilege.  :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I like the idea of more HQ's!
> 
> Before we deploy we should also make everyone take a _Gender Based Analyst +_ type package but make it about race. Maybe another about sexuality. And privilege.  :nod:



So we could call it the 'Champagne Socialist' primer then, right? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist


----------



## armyvern

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I like the idea of more HQ's!
> 
> Before we deploy we should also make everyone take a _Gender Based Analyst +_ type package but make it about race. Maybe another about sexuality. And privilege.  :nod:



A couple hours of my life that I will never get back.   :-\


----------



## MarkOttawa

Looks like pressure on government actually to make a decision:



> Canadian troops, helicopters urgently needed in war-torn Mali: top UN official
> Atul Khare said he's looking for Canadian help during an interview at the Halifax International Security Forum Friday [Nov. 18].
> 
> Canada's troops and helicopters are urgently needed to protect and ferry peacekeepers at risk of ambush from Islamist militant forces as they travel through war-torn Mali, a top United Nations official says.
> 
> Atul Khare, the under secretary general of the UN's department of field support, said he's looking for Canadian help during an interview at the Halifax International Security Forum Friday.
> 
> "I think the most important contributions currently would be devoted to Mali," he said after meeting with the Canadian and United Kingdom defence ministers.
> 
> He specified there is a shortage of both armed helicopters and military utility helicopters, adding "these challenges are quite critical and they need to be overcome."
> 
> Khare said he's also looking for Canada to help with combat logistical companies that escort military convoys as they make perilous journeys to the north of the West African nation.
> 
> "The logistical convoys ... are frequently ambushed and we face many challenges there," he said.
> 
> With a string of recent deaths along the roadways of the nation, Khare said he's hoping Canada makes its decision quickly.
> 
> "The needs were yesterday. We are searching for them today because we have not yet fulfilled those needs," he said...
> http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/11/18/canadian-troops-helicopters-urgently-needed-in-war-torn-mali-top-un-official.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## armyvern

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Looks like pressure on government actually to make a decision:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Indeed; we serve in interesting times.


----------



## Old Sweat

Wonder when the "Mister Dithers" handle gets resurrected?


----------



## Kirkhill

I suggest the UN contact the Minister of Defence's Press Secretary.  She seems to know his own mind better than he does.

I thought it was only Team Blue that controlled the message.


----------



## ballz

At risk of being a tinfoil hatter... I think the decision to go to Mali has long been made, and I feel like this "pressure" is staged...


----------



## daftandbarmy

ballz said:
			
		

> At risk of being a tinfoil hatter... I think the decision to go to Mali has long been made, and I feel like this "pressure" is staged...



Ohhhh you're good  :nod:


----------



## MilEME09

soo we are suppose to secure Mali, run Combat Logistic patrols, CAS with Griffons, and transport with Chinooks, with a 600 personal contingent?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I thought it was only Team Blue that controlled the message.


Nobody likes to see it done until _they're_ at the wheel, it seems ...


----------



## Loachman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CAS _*CCA*_ with Griffons



CAS is seized-wing. CCA is "Close Combat Attack".


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> soo we are suppose to secure Mali, run Combat Logistic patrols, CAS with Griffons, and transport with Chinooks, with a 600 personal contingent?



But we 'always punch above our weight', right?


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> But we 'always punch above our weight', right?



I feel like we are a Welterweight fighter about to go up against a Heavy Weight weight fighter


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I feel like we are a Welterweight fighter about to go up against a Heavy Weight weight fighter



With the 'PF Unicorn Team's ROE', I hope it won't be like a fighter with his hands tied behind his back up against a pack of hungry wolves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the Mission is to support the French in killing bad guys and rebuilding some of the infrastructure there, while the French handle the culture side, then it's doable. But it's a combat mission almost on par with Afghanistan.


----------



## OldSolduer

I think that maybe our leaders....have visions of OPs dotting the landscape and that a blue beret will automatically make the bad people stop shooting.
Lets not forget to present arms to every UN Vehicle that passes by.....oh and 80 km to the north...the Kyrenia mountains!! 

 [


----------



## Journeyman

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the Mission is to support the French in killing bad guys and rebuilding some of the infrastructure there, while the French handle the culture side, then it's doable. But it's a combat mission almost on par with Afghanistan.


I've heard no talk of supporting the French mission -- which wouldn't give us any points for that hypothetical UNSC seat -- but only adding on to the even worse-off UN mission.... whose troops are routinely attacked because they are deemed softer targets.  At the current rate, MINUSMA is well on its way to the dubious distinction of the most fatalities by belligerent attacks than any previous mission (yes, Somalia and Congo sucked massively, but the Jihadists in Mali are really upping their game).

Therefore, I'd argue that it'll be worse than Afghanistan, if only because:  a) there's _even less_  interest amongst the rest of the planet in African problems; and b) many Canadians still believe that this will be "peacekeeping," whereas it was eventually accepted that Afghanistan was a combat mission.  That belief, and the limited pers numbers, suggest that even with "robust ROEs" we won't have the full array of combat forces required -- we'll be bringing a knife to a gunfight.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've heard no talk of supporting the French mission -- which wouldn't give us any points for that hypothetical UNSC seat -- but only adding on to the even worse-off UN mission.... whose troops are routinely attacked because they are deemed softer targets.  At the current rate, MINUSMA is well on its way to the dubious distinction of the most fatalities by belligerent attacks than any previous mission (yes, Somalia and Congo sucked massively, but the Jihadists in Mali are really upping their game).
> 
> Therefore, I'd argue that it'll be worse than Afghanistan, if only because:  a) there's _even less_  interest amongst the rest of the planet in African problems; and b) many Canadians still believe that this will be "peacekeeping," whereas it was eventually accepted that Afghanistan was a combat mission.  That belief, and the limited pers numbers, suggest that even with "robust ROEs" we won't have the full array of combat forces required -- we'll be bringing a knife to a gunfight.



When do we launch the "Canadian Armed Forces' Lives Matter" protests in Ottawa?


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> When do we launch the "Canadian Armed Forces' Lives Matter" protests in Ottawa?


I've asked some of my friends who are stupidly involved in BLM in Canada and I assure you the BLM movement actually couldn't care less about the Canadian military.


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've heard no talk of supporting the French mission -- which wouldn't give us any points for that hypothetical UNSC seat -- but only adding on to the even worse-off UN mission.... whose troops are routinely attacked because they are deemed softer targets.  At the current rate, MINUSMA is well on its way to the dubious distinction of the most fatalities by belligerent attacks than any previous mission (yes, Somalia and Congo sucked massively, but the Jihadists in Mali are really upping their game).
> 
> Therefore, I'd argue that it'll be worse than Afghanistan, if only because:  a) there's _even less_  interest amongst the rest of the planet in African problems; and b) many Canadians still believe that this will be "peacekeeping," whereas it was eventually accepted that Afghanistan was a combat mission.  That belief, and the limited pers numbers, suggest that even with "robust ROEs" we won't have the full array of combat forces required -- we'll be bringing a knife to a gunfight.


Any chance that 600 number rises if the situation on the ground warrants it?


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> I've asked some of my friends who are stupidly involved in BLM in Canada and I assure you the BLM movement actually couldn't care less about the Canadian military.



To be honest, how many actually couldn't care less about the BLM in Canada?


----------



## Journeyman

Altair said:
			
		

> Any chance that 600 number rises if the situation on the ground warrants it?


Of course. 

However, that would require changing "the narrative." What would cause such a sea change in government thinking?  

Ponder.  I'll wait.


----------



## jeffb

Or we just have 400 people on "TAVs"....


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To be honest, how many actually couldn't care less about the BLM in Canada?


In general? A lot.

BLM members specifically? Ish. The BLM doesn't exactly have leader such as the civil rights movement did in MLK, but a lot of their protests are organized on social media in a top down sort of fashion.

The top in BLM don't have their eyes on the Canadian military. We, the military, don't exactly have a history of killing Canadian/American Blacks and getting off without charges.

And, like a lot of feminist groups in the west, don't care about blacks/women in other countries.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> Any chance that 600 number rises if the situation on the ground warrants it?


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> In general? A lot.
> 
> BLM members specifically? Ish. The BLM doesn't exactly have leader such as the civil rights movement did in MLK, but a lot of their protests are organized on social media in a top down sort of fashion.
> 
> The top in BLM don't have their eyes on the Canadian military. We, the military, don't exactly have a history of killing Canadian/American Blacks and getting off without charges.
> 
> And, like a lot of feminist groups in the west, don't care about blacks/women in other countries.



Seriously.  You have to be sitting in the center of that small clique to think that it is a lot.  

Another point that you and the BLM ignore, is that our POLICE don't exactly have a history of killing Blacks, let alone getting off without charges.  That really makes them irrelevant here; just like all the Canadians in Canadian cities protesting "Trump is not our President".  Sad that we have such ignorant people running around in our Canadian society protesting what are in essence IRRELEVANT issues to Canadians.  Proof that our Education Systems are failing us.


----------



## Altair

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seriously.  You have to be sitting in the center of that small clique to think that it is a lot.
> 
> Another point that you and the BLM ignore, is that our POLICE don't exactly have a history of killing Blacks, let alone getting off without charges.  That really makes them irrelevant here; just like all the Canadians in Canadian cities protesting "Trump is not our President".  Sad that we have such ignorant people running around in our Canadian society protesting what are in essence IRRELEVANT issues to Canadians.  Proof that our Education Systems are failing us.


Damn, Sorry. Meant a little. Don't know why I put a lot. Case of the Mondays.

As for Canadian Police, I agree. However, as with most things, American culture and ideas just kind of border hops with no need of a passport.

I have asked them what specific cases they are upset about in Canada and my friends don't seem to be able to point to many. There are not many. But they see what's happening in the states and they seem to want to act in solidarity.

I think it's stupid, but whatever. My main point is to say that as far as people in BLM are aware, nobody there has their sights on the CAF and what we do in Africa


----------



## George Wallace

Altair said:
			
		

> I think it's stupid, but whatever. My main point is to say that as far as people in BLM are aware, nobody there has their sights on the CAF and what we do in Africa



With their concerns of things not relevant to Canada, perhaps this is the problem the Government is also having and why there is no defined mission set in stone these many months after an announcement was made.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Altair said:
			
		

> I've asked some of my friends who are stupidly involved in BLM in Canada and I assure you the *BLM movement actually couldn't care less about the Canadian military.*



Today they don't because there is no benefit to it. There's no spotlight to be had.  The minute they sniff out a story that will give them a platform to garner media attention they will be all over it. BLM "stands in solidarity" with whoever they can if it means they can steal some air time.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With their concerns of things not relevant to Canada, perhaps this is the problem the Government is also having and why there is no defined mission set in stone these many months after an announcement was made.



I heard an interesting interview with a journalist on the CBC this morning. It's clear that our SOF in Iraq are 'kind of' engaged in a ground war there, but the general public aren't really aware of it right now and are being fed the 'trainers only' line by the government. Of course that would change if, gawd forbid, a chopper full crashed or something. It's basically a disingenuous stance by the government, IMHO, which the military will likely suffer for if there's any big dramas.

If we go into Mali, we'd better be clear about why we're there, and provide the right ROE and equipment, or everyone will be in the hurt locker, especially the troops on the ground.


----------



## PuckChaser

Troops flying around in a helicopter does not equal offensive operations, unless that chopper went down at night well behind enemy front lines....


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Troops flying around in a helicopter does not equal offensive operations, unless that chopper went down at night well behind enemy front lines....





> Sea King Disaster
> 
> On the night of May 19th, (1982 Falklands) a tragedy took the lives of 18 SAS men, many experienced senior ranks. A Sea King helicopter from 846 NAS, was bringing back a mixture of D/G squadron SAS men and other personnel back from the islands to a Royal Navy ship. The helicopter was forced to circle until its landing spot became available. It was while the Sea King was orbiting that it crashed into the freezing water, probably the victim of a bird-strike into the engines. Out of 30 men onboard the helicopter, only 9 survived.



Daylight, own lines, administrative move.

Numerous gray incidents in Afghanistan from what I understand.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I heard an interesting interview with a journalist on the CBC this morning. It's clear that our SOF in Iraq are 'kind of' engaged in a ground war there, but the general public aren't really aware of it right now and are being fed the 'trainers only' line by the government. Of course that would change if, gawd forbid, a chopper full crashed or something. It's basically a disingenuous stance by the government, IMHO, which the military will likely suffer for if there's any big dramas.
> 
> If we go into Mali, we'd better be clear about why we're there, and provide the right ROE and equipment, or everyone will be in the hurt locker, especially the troops on the ground.



Hopefully not another Medak Pocket scenario


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully not another Medak Pocket scenario



Worse because the other side won't have an issue with shooting us, or planting IED's everywhere


----------



## Kirkhill

Just saw an interesting comment on the CBC responses to the F18 announcement:

"Well, at least he (Chretien) kept us out of that Iraq mess that Harper wanted us in."

Fast forward 15 years and where are the Liberals doling out the ammunition?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Worse because the other side won't have an issue with shooting us, or planting IED's everywhere



Or using suicide bombers against 'neutral' UN positions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/world/africa/mali-suicide-bomber-attacks-un-base.html?_r=0

http://www.thelocal.se/20161011/attempted-suicide-attack-on-swedish-troops-in-mali


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Worse because the other side won't have an issue with shooting us, or planting IED's everywhere


One side at Medak didn't have an issue shooting at us....our guys shot back.


----------



## medicineman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> One side at Medak didn't have an issue shooting at us....our guys shot back.



They weren't too upset if we ran over their mines either...

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was thinking more of the political coverup of it and lack of acknowledgement.


----------



## medicineman

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was thinking more of the political coverup of it and lack of acknowledgement.



It was a Liberal government at the time...who's to say it wouldn't/couldn't happen again?  My guess is an all out battle like Medak or Jadotville would have a hard time being covered up these days, but I'm sure they'd try given that such an activity (ie actively engaging baddies and handing their backsides to them) kinda flies in the face of Capt Happy's idea of peacekeeping/peace support ops.

MM


----------



## Journeyman

Well, since we're now focusing on the more cheery aspects of this deployment.......

Consider also that three of the countries mentioned as potential deployment areas -- CAR, Mali, Senegal -- all have _significant_  numbers of child soldiers.  

- What will the media/populace view of Canadian troops having to shoot kids?  
- Regardless of self-defence or otherwise, what will the OSI impact be on our troops (in this case 'Moral Injury' rather than 'PTSD')?

With those thoughts in mind, I suggest people go to the UN site and wade through the bureaucratic-jargon to actually read those missions' mandates -- while there are some that seem valid (eg - protecting civilians), there are a couple (eg - protecting heritage sites), that I think are total BS.  

Mind you, even those reasons have not been formally raised as justification, which has so far has been limited to: a) help Canada's bid for a UNSC seat; and b) get at least one army.ca member a bit of coloured ribbon for DEU -- both of which are   :


----------



## Lightguns

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, since we're now focusing on the more cheery aspects of this deployment.......
> 
> Consider also that three of the countries mentioned as potential deployment areas -- CAR, Mali, Senegal -- all have _significant_  numbers of child soldiers.
> 
> - What will the media/populace view of Canadian troops having to shoot kids?
> - Regardless of self-defence or otherwise, what will the OSI impact be on our troops (in this case 'Moral Injury' rather than 'PTSD')?
> 
> With those thoughts in mind, I suggest people go to the UN site and wade through the bureaucratic-jargon to actually read those missions' mandates -- while there are some that seem valid (eg - protecting civilians), there are a couple (eg - protecting heritage sites), that I think are total BS.
> 
> Mind you, even those reasons have not been formally raised as justification, which has so far has been limited to: a) help Canada's bid for a UNSC seat; and b) get at least one army.ca member a bit of coloured ribbon for DEU -- both of which are   :



Our own elected members are still trying to fry the Military police over Afghan detainees.  I can just imagine the outcry the first time some poor trigger puller offs a child soldier to save his own life and CBC features 300 redundant stories complete with blurry video of the bodies......  Don't expect a single minute of political defense from the Trudeau for doing the right thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I might still be naive or something, but I'm going to give both the MND and CDS the benefit of the doubt going into this.  I don't see either of them as  post-Somalia Gen Boyle types and they both have BTDT t-shirts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Both Honourable people in large swamp of less than honourable types who don't care.


----------



## medicineman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I might still be naive or something, but I'm going to give both the MND and CDS the benefit of the doubt going into this.  I don't see either of them as  post-Somalia Gen Boyle types and they both have BTDT t-shirts.



The problem in the end is the person that actually tells those two how high and far to jump...

MM


----------



## dimsum

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Our own elected members are still trying to fry the Military police over Afghan detainees.  I can just imagine the outcry the first time some poor trigger puller offs a child soldier to save his own life and CBC features 300 redundant stories complete with blurry video of the bodies......  Don't expect a single minute of political defense from the Trudeau for doing the right thing.



Simple.  Issue everyone with helmet-cams like the police.   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

medicineman said:
			
		

> The problem in the end is the person that actually tells those two how high and far to jump...
> 
> MM



Agreed.  I was very specific in my wording.   :nod:


----------



## Ostrozac

medicineman said:
			
		

> It was a Liberal government at the time.



The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And while everyone's looking at and ranting about the bright shiny flying things, lookit what the Info-machine cranked out earlier this week ...

_*"The CAF conduct airlift operations in support of French operations in West Africa and the Sahel region"*_

Welcome, Op FREQUENCE -- let the "Canada being back" begin ...


----------



## Loachman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.



Medak Pocket battle occurred in September 1993. The unimpressive Kim Campbell government was defeated on 25 October 1993.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Both Honourable people in large swamp of less than honourable types who don't understand or care.


 :nod:


----------



## Lightguns

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.



Progressive, yeah...conservative.....never.


----------



## medicineman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.



That was such a short lived government I forgot about her...and M. Chretien was in there not long thereafter, continuing the cover up to ensure Canada stayed put in The FRY for some time to come - didn't want the image of Peaceful Peacekeeping" to get tarnished too much.

Thank you for correcting me on that.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

One step closer ...


> The military is about to sign off on a set of guidelines for Canadian soldiers on what to do when they encounter child soldiers in the field — a move one expert says would be the first of its kind in the world.
> 
> While Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is widely expected to unveil Canada’s pending contribution to UN peace support operations in Africa before Parliament rises for winter break on December 16, the past year has seen the military quietly ramping up its strategy for training soldiers on what to do when they encounter child soldiers, laying out their responsibilities under international and military law.
> 
> “We’re well aware we’re going to encounter this,” said one senior military source. “When that happens, our troops go through the spectrum. If someone was walking towards you slowly, you’d have time to employ possible several options to try and deal with the problem.
> 
> “But if someone is running at you from a fairly short distance, at some point the bottom line is our soldiers always have the right to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter the weapon, the context or who the attacker is. And it sounds maybe to the uninitiated jaded that our soldiers could maybe use deadly force against a child if the child was about to kill them, but the bottom line is if we didn’t do that, our opponents could use that tactic all the time.”
> 
> The instructions are currently in draft form but will be finalized shortly and will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first.
> 
> “We’ve been working with the Canadian Armed Forces over the last year and a half to make this point really clear and we’ve had good support from the Minister of National Defence and from the chief of defence staff,” said Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Child Soldier Initiative, a Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare.
> 
> “We’ve been doing presentations with them, working through with them the doctrine. They have a draft doctrine note that they have put together on this, and they would be the first country in the world that would have doctrine on how to encounter and interact with child soldiers.” ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Not sure who initiated the writing of that child soldier guideline, but good job guys.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Not sure who initiated the writing of that child soldier guideline, but good job guys.



Just the Christmas present I was hoping for: formal direction on when it was OK to shoot kids. 

I'm sure that the difference in relative risk between a 'walking armed child' and a 'running armed child' or 'children throwing petrol bombs and pushing a small car off the top of a building onto my patrol' will become more apparent on the battlefield, and the CDS and judge will back me up to the hilt.  :sarcasm:


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> :sarcasm:


Well, since you started it.......   

The article says Canadian troops' right of self defence authorizes deadly force, even against children... coupled with a "Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare."  I gather they agree on the end-state, but differ on means.    ;D  (again, he started it)


However....
The instructions "will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first."  This is the part that's troubling; I've no doubt that _they_  will get more than their share of sound-bites when African children start getting themselves killed -- Ottawa chair warmers focused on their age, and probably racism....not the fact that they're shooting at Canadian troops who were sent there to help. I also imagine backing from the sunny days camp will be particularly absent.    :


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, since you started it.......
> 
> The article says Canadian troops' right of self defence authorizes deadly force, even against children... coupled with a "Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare."  I gather they agree on the end-state, but differ on means.    ;D  (again, he started it)
> 
> 
> However....
> The instructions "will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first."  This is the part that's troubling; I've no doubt that _they_  will get more than their share of sound-bites when African children start getting themselves killed -- Ottawa chair warmers focused on their age, and probably racism....not the fact that they're shooting at Canadian troops who were sent there to help. I also imagine backing from the sunny days camp will be particularly absent.    :



I just find it bizarre, unrealistic and dangerous to introduce this kind of PC hogwash into the RoE. What's next? Various lines that include other disadvantaged/ minority groups?

The current RoE seem robust enough to handle most situations already, and determining if an armed opponent is under the age of 18 before I pull the trigger will definitely be 'tricky', unless I'm provided with some kind of DNA sensor that gives me the age of the bad guy before I can slot him/ her in a certain manner, or not.


----------



## Jarnhamar

If a child soldier is shooting at Canadian soldiers then the soldiers should get on a phone and call the child's parents.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If a child soldier is shooting at Canadian soldiers then the soldiers should get on a phone and call the child's parents.



Interesting you should say that...

One of our biggest threats, in downtown Belfast, were crowds of kids throwing things at us day and night. Troops would get bottled, bricked, and dirty diapered, which earned them various stitches etc.

We put a stop to it eventually, by running big arrest operations on, yes, children, in concert with the police. 

We'd have a vehicle 'break down' in rock throw territory knowing that they would converge on us like hungry sharks. Once the rain of debris started we would throw a cordon in around them, bundle them (terrified) into Pigs, then take the to the police station. We would then call their parents, who would have to GO INTO THE POILICE STATION to sign them out.

The IRA watched the police stations, of course, so knew that 'Mr and Mrs so and so from the Divis Flats' had gone into the station - perhaps to inform on them to the police. That night, they would usually get a visit from the Boyos and a gypsy's warning.

Funny, after that, the kids decided that going to school was a better option.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We put a stop to it eventually, by running big arrest operations on, yes, children, in concert with the police.
> 
> We'd have a vehicle 'break down' in rock throw territory knowing that they would converge on us like hungry sharks. Once the rain of debris started we would throw a cordon in around them, bundle them (terrified) into Pigs, then take the to the police station. We would then call their parents, who would have to GO INTO THE POILICE STATION to sign them out.
> 
> The IRA watched the police stations, of course, so knew that 'Mr and Mrs so and so from the Divis Flats' had gone into the station - perhaps to inform on them to the police. That night, they would usually get a visit from the Boyos and a gypsy's warning.
> 
> Funny, after that, the kids decided that going to school was a better option.



WIN/win situation.  Large WIN:Kids no longer a problem.  Small win: IRA temporarily confused.


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Interesting you should say that...
> 
> One of our biggest threats, in downtown Belfast, were crowds of kids throwing things at us day and night. Troops would get bottled, bricked, and dirty diapered, which earned them various stitches etc.
> 
> We put a stop to it eventually, by running big arrest operations on, yes, children, in concert with the police.
> 
> We'd have a vehicle 'break down' in rock throw territory knowing that they would converge on us like hungry sharks. Once the rain of debris started we would throw a cordon in around them, bundle them (terrified) into Pigs, then take the to the police station. We would then call their parents, who would have to GO INTO THE POILICE STATION to sign them out.
> 
> The IRA watched the police stations, of course, so knew that 'Mr and Mrs so and so from the Divis Flats' had gone into the station - perhaps to inform on them to the police. That night, they would usually get a visit from the Boyos and a gypsy's warning.
> 
> Funny, after that, the kids decided that going to school was a better option.



When we were sitting on our rucksacks waiting to not go to Zaire in '96, this very ROE scenario was played out as part of our (sit down in class) training - I was a syndicate lead because I'd been deployed before.  We went through the gradual force continuum stuff to someone taking something out of a vehicle...which in the end it turned out to be a rifle, so now we're chasing this kid with a C7.  The scenario came to the point where the kid stops and turns around - What do you do?  We discussed in our little group, one of whom was an AJAG, but in the end I just wanted a bit of clarification.  They came to me - "Syndicate 1, what is your response?"  "I just need clarification - does this kid that's running away whirl around on me or does he stop and slowly turn around?"  The class DS, who incidentally had never left the wire in Visoko, responded "You're chasing this kid, you've fired warning shots at them and they all of a sudden stop and turn around with the rifle!"  So I said without blinking an eye "I'd drop them where they stood".  Nothing but gasps and dropped chins and "How could you?!".  She looked at me with rather wide eyes - "Well, that is an option..." - it was apparently the third COA on the DS sheet, vice the first.  The only person smiling was the lawyer, who said he'd back me up if I felt the need to fire.

We've all seen this somewhere, whether it's NI, Croatia/Bosnia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, etc, where the adults use(d) the kids to do their dirty work since they feel we're less likely to do anything.  In the case of actual child soldiers, we actually see similar things in North America with gangbangers - a 12 year old is just as able to, and more likely to, shoot someone than an older person is simply because they don't completely understand finality of death.  I kept my air pistol on the dash of my ambulance in Croatia for the later part of my tour, since the kids were becoming more brazen...the ROE stated we were allowed to return fire with like fire, so it was there to deal with airguns, slingshots, etc.  Once I started displaying it, no more rock throwing...and I never fired it in anger...at a humanoid.

I suppose I could also bring up the Canadian Army facing off against the 12 SS (Hitler Youth) Division in Falaise/Caen...wonder if anyone thought to talk to the vets that fought there    ?

MM


----------



## George Wallace

medicineman said:
			
		

> I suppose I could also bring up the Canadian Army facing off against the 12 SS (Hitler Youth) Division in Falaise/Caen...wonder if anyone thought to talk to the vets that fought there    ?
> 
> MM



I was thinking that, but didn't want to invoke Goodwin's Law.    [


----------



## sandyson

The name to remember here is Kurt Meyer who was in charge.  They gunned down Sherbrooke Fusilier prisoners of war.  While he was convicted for this, the Canadian government later accepted him into Canada then gave him a job as prison librarian in New Brunswick.
The announcement seems more politically motivated than necessary. They are covering their proverbial asses.


----------



## mariomike

medicineman said:
			
		

> I suppose I could also bring up the Canadian Army facing off against the 12 SS (Hitler Youth) Division in Falaise/Caen...



I believe they were 18.

12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend

https://www.google.ca/search?q=12th+ss&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=JQVCWNzvH4WN8QeRioDABw&gws_rd=ssl#q=12th+ss+1926


----------



## Jed

mariomike said:
			
		

> I believe they were 18.
> 
> 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_SS_Panzer_Division_Hitlerjugend
> 
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=12th+ss&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=JQVCWNzvH4WN8QeRioDABw&gws_rd=ssl#q=12th+ss+1926



A guy from my home town said he was 16 before the Cdns captured him.


----------



## mariomike

Jed said:
			
		

> A guy from my home town said he was 16 before the Cdns captured him.



I'm just going by what I have read. That members of the 12th SS were born in 1926. 

Including on here,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+12th+SS+1926&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=YAlCWL_uNION8QeZ3KrgCA&gws_rd=ssl

Not to discredit whatever the guy from your hometown told you.


----------



## Old Sweat

I believe later in the campaign some reinforcements were younger. Not to be too much of a wet blanket, but the Hitler Jugend Division is not a good example of the child soldiers our troops could encounter in Africa. The young Germans were disciplined and operated under the control of older, more-experienced veterans of the Waffen SS from the Eastern Front. That is not necessarily the case for child soldiers.

And, contrary to popular belief, the 12th SS Division fought fanatically, but were tactically not all that good. Kurt Meyer embellished their achievements in his memoirs, but a lot of his claims do not stand up to critical analysis. Sorry for the sidetrack.


----------



## larry Strong

"......A recruitment drive began, drawing principally on 17-year-old volunteers, but younger members 16 and under eagerly joined. During July and August 1943, some 10,000 recruits arrived at the training camp in Beverloo, Belgium....."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-boy-soldiers.htm

".....with the majority of the enlisted cadre being drawn from Hitler Youth boys between the ages of 16 and 18......"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth#World_War_II

https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1200&bih=584&q=hitlerjugend&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSk9HS3tbQAhVN-mMKHRY7AdwQ1QIIVSgC






Cheers
Larry


----------



## mariomike

12. SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend 
The origins of the 12. SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend can be traced back to late 1942 and early 1943. In all probability, the idea to create a "Hitlerjugend" (Hitler Youth) division was first tabled by SS-Gruppenführer Gottlob Berger for Hitler's consideration sometime in January of 1943. His vision called for the drafting of all HJ members who were born in 1926 and assigning them to a "Hitlerjugend" combat formation. 
http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/119-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-divisions/1290-12-ss-panzer-division-hitlerjugend


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe we can issue soldiers (signed) "less lethal" boxing gloves to deal with the little munchkins?


----------



## larry Strong

mariomike said:
			
		

> 12. SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend
> The origins of the 12. SS-Panzer-Division Hitlerjugend can be traced back to late 1942 and early 1943. In all probability, the idea to create a "Hitlerjugend" (Hitler Youth) division was first tabled by SS-Gruppenführer Gottlob Berger for Hitler's consideration sometime in January of 1943. His *vision* *called for *the drafting of all HJ members who were born in 1926 and assigning them to a "Hitlerjugend" combat formation.
> http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/119-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-divisions/1290-12-ss-panzer-division-hitlerjugend




Not to say that younger was not accepted.......


Cheers
Larry


----------



## mariomike

I just awarded Jarnhamar 1,200 Milpoints!   That's a bit too generous, I only meant to award +300!


----------



## medicineman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we can issue soldiers (signed) "less lethal" boxing gloves to deal with the little munchkins?



Tazers?

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy

One of my previous jobs was Pl Comd, Junior Parachute Company, Depot Para and Abn Forces.

We took school leavers at the age of 16 and trained them for a year, by which time they were ready for 'adult service'. Those who passed entered the 6 month recruit training course. Amongst other things, they attended regular educational upgrading and were allocated a milk allowance. Yes, a milk allowance. I paid them in cash, at a pay parade, every month. Though it was a modest pay packet, for many, it was the most money they had ever seen in their lives. Every month.

They did everything the adult soldiers did, up to and including live firing and 10 milers. Unlike the adult soldiers, they participated in extensive adventure training activities including mountaineering, various kinds of skiing and a variety of competitive sports.With few exceptions, all who made it into Recruit Company went on to become long service soldiers. Many RSMs were Junior Paras at one time.

Good Fanatics. That's a good way to describe these fine young fellows. Would they have been formidable opponents in an infantry gunfight if required? Absolutely. 

We ignore the capabilities of similar young fighters, in other lands, at our peril.


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect if our leaders would treat our "adult" solders a bit more like Daftandbalmy's junior trainees, *we* would find retention much easier as well  

WRT the "child soldier" issue, this is going to be pretty big in the news, since it is easily sensationalized and can be used as a club against the troops when enthusiasm for the mission fades. (How much of a club it will be used against the ill advised decision to do the mission in the first place is open to question). OF course, in places like Mali or Sudan, radicalization of the Islamic community means that it isn't _just_ "child solders" who put our soldiers at risk, but _everyone_ in the radicalized community, as well as assorted foreign fighters eager to bag an "infidel" and assorted profiteers and hangers on who have their own motivations for conflict.

It is difficult to imagine what a quick, easy and media friendly solution will look like. I'm a bit torn between re reading "Street Without Joy" or "Hell in a Very Small Place" (both by Bernard Fall) as primers in what to expect...


----------



## mariomike

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Not to say that younger was not accepted.......



My reply was to this question.......



			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> I suppose I could also bring up the Canadian Army facing off against the 12 SS (Hitler Youth) Division in Falaise/Caen...wonder if anyone thought to talk to the vets that fought there    ?



Child soldiers have been a concern expressed throughout these 28 pages. 

But, as a non-expert, I would question the value of asking our surviving vets who served in Falaise/Caen for advice on how to fight, or avoid fighting, child soldiers.  

Simply because I question if military experts consider the 12th SS at Falaise/Caen to be a child soldier unit?


----------



## beachdown

So, right after Xmas then for soldiers to start rolling into Mali and Senegal????


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

mariomike said:
			
		

> I just awarded Jarnhamar 1,200 Milpoints!   That's a bit too generous, I only meant to award +300!



 I don't think that should happen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't think that should happen.



Me neither... the national equalization payment plan requires us to award points equally across time zones, I believe


----------



## beachdown

So, Op Frequence has lift off then


----------



## Jarnhamar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Me neither... the national equalization payment plan requires us to award points equally across time zones, I believe



I'm not giving the milpoints back. I'm saving them up for when I start playing the Army.ca Afghan Ops game again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

beachdown said:
			
		

> So, Op Frequence has lift off then



Yup, couple of weeks ago now...

Attention: Update

On November 20, 2016, the CAF conducted its first flight under Operation FREQUENCE. A CC-177 Globemaster aircraft transported personnel and equipment from France to West Africa and the Sahel region.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-frequence.page


----------



## larry Strong

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not giving the milpoints back. I'm saving them up for when I start playing the Army.ca Afghan Ops game again.


----------



## beachdown

Why can't the country/ies just be named? West Africa is large area just like North America



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup, couple of weeks ago now...
> 
> Attention: Update
> 
> On November 20, 2016, the CAF conducted its first flight under Operation FREQUENCE. A CC-177 Globemaster aircraft transported personnel and equipment from France to *West Africa and the Sahel region.*
> 
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-frequence.page


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

beachdown said:
			
		

> Why can't the country/ies just be named? West Africa is large area just like North America



Most likely OPSEC.  The French are very secretive about their operations and are one of the few that don't allow media embeds with their forces.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Three of Army's nine infantry battalions needed to sustain NATO Latvia mission--how many will be needed for UN peace ops mission in (likely) Mali?  What effect on regulars and reserves of two major simultaneous commitments?  Scroll down at link:



> ...Latvia’s preparing its bases to welcome three of Canada’s nine deployable battalions, “one of which will soon spend its time on the ground, one for standby support, and one to switch during regular rotations,” according to Canadian military spokesman Evan Koronewski. The federal government has earmarked $348.6 million for the three-year deployment...
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-feel-wonderful-about-russia-as-canada-prepares-to-send-troops-to-latvia-not-everybody-is-ready-to-welcome-them



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

An article from the TorStar about how the Dutch government is explaining its rational for deploying troops to Mali. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> Dutch letter spurs calls for Canadian transparency ahead of military deployment
> 
> By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH Ottawa Bureau
> Sun., Dec. 11, 2016
> 
> OTTAWA—As the Dutch government prepared to deploy its military to Mali in late 2013, parliamentarians in that country were given an extraordinary document.
> 
> In a 14-page letter presented to Parliament, the ministers of defence, foreign affairs, security and justice set out in detail the risks, costs and strategy for the mission.
> 
> It acknowledged the challenges, offered a blunt assessment of its partners — concluding the Malian military was barely capable and that some regional security partnerships were “relatively ineffective” — and laid out the strategy for what it called a “comprehensive” approach to help resolve the conflict.
> 
> Now, as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government prepares to announce the deployment of up to 600 Canadian soldiers on a peace mission, there are calls for cabinet ministers to be equally upfront with politicians and Canadians.
> 
> “There’s no more serious decision of a government than to put the lives of our brave women and men in uniform on the line,” NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said last week.
> 
> “They have the obligation to bring that into Parliament with full disclosure and have a debate and allow people to vote,” Mulcair said.
> 
> “It’s extremely dangerous, and we have to know that it’s not window dressing, that it has an objective, it has a beginning, it has an end and what’s going to be done exactly by those Canadian troops,” he said.
> 
> The Senate committee on national security and defence reproduced the Dutch letter in its recent report that examined UN deployments, saying it was revealing for its “clarity and transparency.”
> 
> “The clarity of the letter and the willingness to define the challenges, including the end date for the mission, contributed to the government earning the trust of all parties in support of the deployment on the most dangerous of all UN missions to Mali,” the defence committee said in its report.
> 
> The Star has reported that the deployment is likely headed to Mali though cabinet has yet to make a final decision.
> 
> With such a sizable troop deployment, Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate defence committee, said the Liberal government has an obligation to bring it before Parliament for a full discussion.
> 
> He said the government must be “open and transparent” on the mission’s objectives, the scope of the commitment and the time frame. “Unlike Afghanistan, where we just kind of slid into a situation that we were not prepared for and became involved in the longest war that Canada has ever gotten involved with,” Lang said.
> 
> The Senate committee report recommended that the federal government table a “statement of justification” outlining the size of the mission, its goals, risks, costs and rules of engagement and its term.
> 
> The Dutch letter set out the “national interest” in deploying the force to Mali, something Lang said the Liberals must make clear with their coming announcement.
> 
> “What is the objective . . . We better fully understand why we’re there,” Lang said.
> 
> “When they send those men and women over there, the sons and the daughters, they better do it in the context (of) would they do it to their own son or daughter,” Lang said.
> 
> The Dutch letter is remarkable for the details it provided about the mission. And it was more than a courtesy. Such notification about military deployments is required under that country’s constitution.
> 
> It set out the rationale for the deployment, outlining the strategic interests of the Netherlands to deploy to the African nation. Under the title “grounds for participation,” the letter notes how regions of Mali are a “breeding ground” for extremism and a sanctuary for terrorist training camps. Mali is also an important staging post for human trafficking
> 
> It did not sugar-coat the challenges. For example, it offered this damning assessment of the Malian military — “its combat capacity is minimal; morale and discipline are wanting; leadership is poor and in some cases the command structure has broken down.”
> 
> It offered the same damning assessment of the police and justice sector, concluding that “corruption and nepotism are rife.”
> 
> It set out Dutch ambitions for the mission, to “help tackle the root cases of the conflict,” an ambition that required a “comprehensive approach.” It explained how the Dutch would work with the United Nations mission, along with the French who are also active in Mali.
> 
> It provided a breakdown of the troop commitment and said the size of the contingent was determined “by the wish to make a coherent contribution and the proper robustness for self-protection,” the letter stated.
> 
> Surprisingly, it described in detail the responsibilities of various elements of the mission. The letter highlighted, for example, how helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and the work of 90 special forces soldiers doing long-range patrols would come together to provide intelligence.
> 
> It explained, too, how senior Dutch officers would retain command of troops, a procedure “adopted in part as a result of lessons learned from previous missions.”
> 
> It judged improvised explosive devices to only a moderate threat, warned that health risks were high and said if Dutch units came under attack, they would be able to protect themselves and, if needed, could call on UN or French forces for backup.
> 
> “Operations will be co-ordinated daily to take account of the latest threat assessment,” the letter states.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last week that his government will be upfront to explain its reasoning around the upcoming Canadian deployment.
> 
> “It’s about informing Canadians to making sure that they understand why we’re making a decision and then how we’re also looking to do it as well,” Sajjan said.
> 
> “Any time we send our troops, it’s extremely important to me and to the prime minister . . . we will thoroughly explain this,” he said.



 Article Link


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Three of Army's nine infantry battalions needed to sustain NATO Latvia mission--how many will be needed for UN peace ops mission in (likely) Mali?  What effect on regulars and reserves of two major simultaneous commitments?  Scroll down at link:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Don't forget IMPACT; while the cbt arms are not involved there, there is still the HQ,  CSS, Int etc deployed plus the  ongoing logistical and transport support from Canada to theatre that is required for support to the ATF,  Field hospital and SOF folks.


----------



## Journeyman

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Now, as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government prepares to announce the deployment of up to 600 Canadian soldiers on a peace mission, there are calls for cabinet ministers to be equally upfront with politicians and Canadians.


Stand-up comedy at its finest.   


(For clarity, my disbelief in government explaining deployments in any terms close to what the Dutch have done is not limited to any party)


----------



## beachdown

Update......



> Ottawa delays decision on overseas military deployment



https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/13/ottawa-delays-decision-on-overseas-military-deployment.html


----------



## Loachman

beachdown said:
			
		

> Update......
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/13/ottawa-delays-decision-on-overseas-military-deployment.html



"An announcement on the deployment of Canadian soldiers on a peace support mission overseas has been postponed until after the holidays as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government wants to take the time to "get this right."

Or time to "find a way to uphold a promise that we didn't think that we'd have to keep and still can't figure out where or how to do so"?


----------



## beachdown

Watch and shoot.....I guess


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Don't forget IMPACT; while the cbt arms are not involved there, there is still the HQ,  CSS, Int etc deployed plus the  ongoing logistical and transport support from Canada to theatre that is required for support to the ATF,  Field hospital and SOF folks.



Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Or time to "find a way to uphold a promise that we didn't think that we'd have to keep and still can't figure out where or how to do so"?


All while, 1)  being able to call it anything other than "combat" or "fighting", and 2) ensuring minimal risk of injury/death that could have an impact on public opinion.


----------



## Half Full

Colin P said:
			
		

> Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......


So what do you mean by "NDHQ types"?  Seems a little flippant and dismissive...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......



There's already enough HQ there now, trust me.   Tooth to tail is embarrassing.   Supporters supporting supporters, some of whom have no idea what the actual mission really is.  Garrison Kuwait with *hours of operation* signs galore.

People are for the most part located where they should be in theatre.  Front lines can be fluid.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Half Full said:
			
		

> So what do you mean by "NDHQ types"?  Seems a little flippant and dismissive...



Bus riding chair commandos with Sentinelle patches  :facepalm: who never come close to the battlespace but go home with *tour stories*.


----------



## Old Sweat

Am I being cynical, or maybe realistic, and did somebody over-guesstimate the number of bodies required for what we are doing? Rather than be open to criticism for reducing numbers, and heaven forbid we would increase the teeth, the decision is to maintain the status quo.

Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Half Full

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Bus riding chair commandos with Sentinelle patches  :facepalm: who never come close to the battlespace but go home with *tour stories*.



Sounds like someone who has never been to NDHQ...that comment probably includes about 0.5% of the NDHQ population.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

:rofl:

okay.  Thanks for the laugh!  Let's keep this one on topic now...


----------



## c_canuk

Over support and not knowing what the mission is, is nothing new. When I was in the Golan 10 years ago CanLogBatt worked in isolation from the rest of the mission. 

It was to the point that their Dispatch was better manned than the HQ Dispatch because we "didn't do anything" yeah, beyond being the back bone primary net for the observers, safety net for NGOs, admin net for the entire mission, conduit to adjacent missions, and SDS, we don't do anything, and you need more people to monitor your single dispatch net... 

The best was when the far side Sig O was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, in regards to responsibilities, because it wasn't covered in the sigs plan from, I shit you not, 1987. He thought that the Austrians were doing the night shifts, but they hadn't been for over 2 decades at that point.

The most common phrase there was "fucking Canadians!" by the other nations. They were always grounding fleets for general maint, changing support without asking permission let alone verifying it wasn't interfering with operations, and abandoning obligations with orders not to pass on information to our local CoC. 

The rest of the mission saw Canlogbatt as a nuisance to be marginalized cause it regarded it's support role as THE mission. they were busy creating their own support mechanisms to deal with the issues. I don't know how that panned out once the Indian army took over.

There were multiple times I almost got into a fight with the maintainers cause they kept seizing my 4 runner while I was in the middle of an SDS Run. Couldn't be bothered to email or call me to set up an appointment, nope, they'd just leap on it when I came to pick up their fucking mail. So I'd have to run back to the CP to call over to my dispatch and let them know what was going on, so the QRF didn't get dispatched to find me. The idea that they'd send out a QRF to find a late SDS seemed to confuse them... cause I wasn't the mission, I wasn't important, why would the QRF be so worried if I was an hour late... :


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Half Full said:
			
		

> So what do you mean by "NDHQ types"?  Seems a little flippant and dismissive...



Quite dismissive actually. When you look at the size and look at the results on the ground, soldiers without boots, uniforms and tents, etc, etc there is something very wrong. I suspect there are many people there that have burrowed into nice safe holes and will take explosives to remove. I freely admit my paint roller may inadvertently splashed others who do try and have served in nasty places.


----------



## daftandbarmy

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Over support and not knowing what the mission is, is nothing new. When I was in the Golan 10 years ago CanLogBatt worked in isolation from the rest of the mission.
> 
> It was to the point that their Dispatch was better manned than the HQ Dispatch because we "didn't do anything" yeah, beyond being the back bone primary net for the observers, safety net for NGOs, admin net for the entire mission, conduit to adjacent missions, and SDS, we don't do anything, and you need more people to monitor your single dispatch net...
> 
> The best was when the far side Sig O was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about, in regards to responsibilities, because it wasn't covered in the sigs plan from, I crap you not, 1987. He thought that the Austrians were doing the night shifts, but they hadn't been for over 2 decades at that point.
> 
> The most common phrase there was "******* Canadians!" by the other nations. They were always grounding fleets for general maint, changing support without asking permission let alone verifying it wasn't interfering with operations, and abandoning obligations with orders not to pass on information to our local CoC.
> 
> The rest of the mission saw Canlogbatt as a nuisance to be marginalized cause it regarded it's support role as THE mission. they were busy creating their own support mechanisms to deal with the issues. I don't know how that panned out once the Indian army took over.
> 
> There were multiple times I almost got into a fight with the maintainers cause they kept seizing my 4 runner while I was in the middle of an SDS Run. Couldn't be bothered to email or call me to set up an appointment, nope, they'd just leap on it when I came to pick up their ******* mail. So I'd have to run back to the CP to call over to my dispatch and let them know what was going on, so the QRF didn't get dispatched to find me. The idea that they'd send out a QRF to find a late SDS seemed to confuse them... cause I wasn't the mission, I wasn't important, why would the QRF be so worried if I was an hour late... :



Holy cr$p.

I hope Santa doesn't pass by that way.... he'll never get his job done this Xmas eve!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Quite dismissive actually. When you look at the size and look at the results on the ground, soldiers without boots, uniforms and tents, etc, etc



Morale is quite high. The soldiers don't mind paying out of their pockets for boots that don't explode if it means seeing their leaders with new hats, ranks, and patches


----------



## Old Sweat

This triggered a flashback to the late seventies when I was a staff officer in FMCHQ. There was a fair amount of angst being expressed because the combat arms had one mission, in Cyprus, while the Sigs and the CSS world picked up all the new missions. The rationale expressed to we humble beings of the lieutenant colonel genre was that any army could provide infantry, but only sophisticated western armies could send competent, effective logistics and communications organizations, and this pre-dated power point by 10 or 15 years.

Therefore peace keeping was the purview of the support trades, and this is not meant as an attack on any of these folks who served honourably and well. I wonder if this is where the peacekeeping image originated?

Or did our GOs have a different agenda?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Morale is quite high. The soldiers don't mind paying out of their pockets for boots that don't explode if it means seeing their leaders with new hats, ranks, and patches



The beatings will continue until morale improves. Carry on


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This triggered a flashback to the late seventies when I was a staff officer in FMCHQ. There was a fair amount of angst being expressed because the combat arms had one mission, in Cyprus, while the Sigs and the CSS world picked up all the new missions. The rationale expressed to we humble beings of the lieutenant colonel genre was that any army could provide infantry, but only sophisticated western armies could send competent, effective logistics and communications organizations, and this pre-dated power point by 10 or 15 years.
> 
> Therefore peace keeping was the purview of the support trades, and this is not meant as an attack on any of these folks who served honourably and well. I wonder if this is where the peacekeeping image originated?
> 
> Or did our GOs have a different agenda?



 :warstory:

It goes all the way back to 1957, when Mike Pearson and the defence chiefs wanted to send a combat unit to the first large scale UN force (the United Nations Emergency Force) that Pearson rammed through the UN in order to prevent a strategic breach between President Eisenhower and the mental midgets running Britain and France.

     (It's important to stress that Pearson didn't give a damn about Egypt or peace; his only aim ~ a good one ~ was to preserve the strategic unity of the West in the face of ever growing Soviet challenges.
      I know that a hundred thousand university professors and school teachers disagree; they are ALL wrong. Ditto the _*Liberal Party's*_ peacekeeping narrative: the part that isn't just wishful thinking is a lie.)

Anyway, as you might recall a battalion of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada was ordered to prepare to embark and then Egypt's President Nasser objected, saying that it would be impossible to explain to his people that a unit named for the (British) monarch who had just invaded his country was now being sent to keep the peace. Nasser didn't have to explain anything to anyone, of course, but he had been humiliated by the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion and upsetting the UN's applecart gave him a minor and needed, political victory. It also gave the UN staff an opportunity to press Canada to provide "services" that many other countries, like Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia and Yugoslavia, could not provide. Thus was born the "tradition" of Canada supplying "housekeeping" troops (Engineers, Signals, Supply, Transport and Maintenance) rather than combat units.

     (Parenthetically, it damned near destroyed the (really quite tiny) Signal Corps by about 1960; the burdens of manning a big brigade Signal Squadron in Germany (4CIBG) and two others on UN duties (56 Sig Sqn in the Middle East and
      57 Sig Sqn in Congo) was, simply more than that Corps could manage and large numbers of soldiers were recruited from other arms and extra people were withdrawn from Canadian based units to augment the School and train them.)

Ok, helmets off, back to your smoke break.

Edit: typo


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :warstory:
> 
> It goes all the way back to 1957, when Mike Pearson and the defence chiefs wanted to send a combat unit to the first large scale UN force (the United Nations Emergency Force) that Pearson rammed through the UN in order to prevent a strategic breach between President Eisenhower and the mental midgets running Britain and France.
> 
> (It's important to stress that Pearson didn't give a damn about Egypt or peace; his only aim ~ a good one ~ was to preserve the strategic unity of the West in the face of ever growing Soviet challenges.
> I know that a hundred thousand university professors and school teachers disagree; they are ALL wrong. Ditto the _*Liberal Party's*_ peacekeeping narrative: the part that isn't just wishful thinking is a lie.)
> 
> Anyway, as you might recall a battalion of the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada was ordered to prepare to embark and then Egypt's President Nasser objected, saying that it would be impossible to explain to his people that a unit named for the (British) monarch who had just invaded his country was now being sent to keep the peace. Nasser didn't have to explain anything to anyone, of course, but he had been humiliated by the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion and upsetting the UN's applecart gave him a minor and needed, political victory. It also gave the UN staff an opportunity to press Canada to provide "services" that many other countries, like Brazil, Columbia, Indonesia and Yugoslavia, could not provide. Thus was born the "tradition" of Canada supplying "housekeeping" troops (Engineers, Signals, Supply, Transport and Maintenance) rather than combat units.
> 
> (Parenthetically, it damned near destroyed the (really quite tiny) Signal Corps by about 1960; the burdens of manning a big brigade Signal Squadron in Germany (4CIBG) and two others on UN duties (56 Sig Sqn in the Middle East and
> 57 Sig Sqn in Congo) was, simply more than that Corps could manage and large numbers of soldiers were recruited from other arms and extra people were withdrawn from Canadian based units to augment the School and train them.)
> 
> Ok, helmets off, back to your smoke break.
> 
> Edit: typo



ERC, I think I remember you posting in the past that Canada used to be very well respected in the worlds of military logistics and signals.  Am I just making that up ?  Wish we could get back to that...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ERC, I think I remember you posting in the past that Canada used to be very well respected in the worlds of military logistics and signals.  Am I just making that up ?  Wish we could get back to that...




I'm not sure "respected" is the right word. We could and did do both, and a few other things like run airfields, run fixed services like water and electrical supply and so on, for the UN and on other missions ... something that only a few other armies, and most of them quite large, could do, and only a few of them could do them well. We were also politically and militarily "willing," again, something that several other countries were not.

The political willingness was obvious: "housekeeping" units were (still are?) less likely to end up in sustained combat thus they will neither inflict nor receive casualties and the attendant (too often unfavourable) media coverage, but we, as a country and the government of the day, still got "credit" for having "boots on the ground."

The military willingness was a bit more complex. Some admirals and generals understood that "services" are vital in war and that UN missions gave engineer, signals and logistics officers and NCOs a chance to improvise and innovate and so on and, also, gave them some (needed) operational experience.


----------



## MarkOttawa

E.R. Campbell:



> ...
> (It's important to stress that Pearson didn't give a damn about Egypt or peace; his only aim ~ a good one ~ was to preserve the strategic unity of the West in the face of ever growing Soviet challenges.
> I know that a hundred thousand university professors and school teachers disagree; they are ALL wrong. Ditto the Liberal Party's peacekeeping narrative: the part that isn't just wishful thinking is a lie.)..



Spot on--a post of mine in 2011:



> Canadian Suez Policy was not About the Middle East
> 
> A letter of mine sent to the Toronto Star that was not published:
> 
> "Re: *Travers: Once a Middle East player, Canada now a spectator, Feb. 12*
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/02/12/travers_once_a_middle_east_player_canada_now_a_spectator.html
> 
> Mr. Travers fails to understand what Canadian policy - as much Prime Minister St. Laurent’s as External Affairs Minister Pearson’s - on Suez in 1956 was really about.  Their main concern was not the Middle East.  It was rather finding a way to avoid a complete falling out between the U.S. (which strongly opposed Western military intervention) on the one hand and the U.K. and France (who were attacking Egypt in collusion with Israel) on the other.   It was feared that such a major falling out would be to the great benefit of the USSR, which was just suppressing Hungary.  The main point was to maintain NATO Cold War solidarity, not to bring peace to the Middle East.  The second point was trying to avoid the Soviets’ gaining substantial ground in the Third World generally in reaction to perceived British-French neo-colonialism.
> 
> I worked as research assistant on the relevant section of Volume II of Mr. Pearson’s memoirs, _Mike_.  People should look at it for a good account of what really went on.  Canada was actually very “cozy with the U.S.”, something Mr. Travers now decries us for being.  The “peacekeeping” force was in fact as much an American idea as Canadian; the U.S. asked us to front it for them at the UN as a way of salving Franco-British _amour propre_, i.e. so it did not look publicly as if the latter were bowing to the overwhelming power of the former.  Which of course they were.  The U.S was threatening to bring down the pound amongst other things."
> http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/?p=105



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure "respected" is the right word. We could and did do both, and a few other things like run airfields, run fixed services like water and electrical supply and so on, for the UN and on other missions ... something that only a few other armies, and most of them quite large, could do, and only a few of them could do them well. We were also politically and militarily "willing," again, something that several other countries were not.
> 
> The political willingness was obvious: "housekeeping" units were (still are?) less likely to end up in sustained combat thus they will neither inflict nor receive casualties and the attendant (too often unfavourable) media coverage, but we, as a country and the government of the day, still got "credit" for having "boots on the ground."
> 
> The military willingness was a bit more complex. Some admirals and generals understood that "services" are vital in war and that UN missions gave engineer, signals and logistics officers and NCOs a chance to improvise and innovate and so on and, also, gave them some (needed) operational experience.



I can hear the Unicorns crying from here... realpolitik at it's finest!


----------



## McG

So, will the new ebola vaccine be on the pre-deployment checklist when we head to Africa in force?

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/health/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/health/final-test-results-confirm-canadian-vaccine-for-ebola-is-highly-effective


----------



## PuckChaser

Depends if its a country affected by the Zaire strain. If its the Sudan virus, it wouldn't work.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Depends if its a country affected by the Zaire strain. If its the Sudan virus, it wouldn't work.



Pssst....it's called the DRC now


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pssst....it's called the DRC now


You're right, geographically, but WHO and CDC say the virus itself is still called _Zaire ebolavirus_.


----------



## PuckChaser

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pssst....it's called the DRC now


They can call it whatever they want as long as my allowances/pay are tax free and I don't die of Ebola.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They can call it whatever they want as long as my allowances/pay are tax free and I don't die of Ebola.



No deal. You get to pick 1 out of the 2.


----------



## Journeyman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They can call it whatever they want as long as my allowances/pay are tax free and I don't die of Ebola.


Don't forget the bit of coloured ribbon for the DEU.    :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Don't forget the bit of coloured ribbon for the DEU.    :nod:



2 bits if they put everyone under a UN alphabet soup mission name, free CPSM for your first tour!


----------



## Zoomie

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... who never come close to the battlespace but go home with *tour stories*.


One time - the pool was closed for 4 weeks....  <gasp>  :warstory:


----------



## dimsum

Ditch said:
			
		

> One time - the pool was closed for 4 weeks....  <gasp>  :warstory:



Or "the wi-fi was down and I can't watch my Netflix".

Wait, that's legit.     >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ditch said:
			
		

> One time - the pool was closed for 4 weeks....  <gasp>  :warstory:



As long as the ice cream machine and/or Krispy Cream donuts didn't disappear at the same time...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Or "the wi-fi was down and I can't watch my Netflix".
> 
> Wait, that's legit.     >



How are you supposed to order from Amazon with no wi-fi?   :tempertantrum:


----------



## Journeyman

Good thing the tread title reads "Canadian _Army_  headed to mission in Africa".....  

You Zoomies would be pretty traumatized to find that the 'pool' is actually the sh*t pond.   ;D

 :subbies:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Why would a hotel put shit in their pool ???

 ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why would a hotel put shit in their pool ???
> 
> ;D



Reminds some guests of home.


----------



## OldSolduer

Ditch said:
			
		

> One time - the pool was closed for 4 weeks....  <gasp>  :warstory:



In Cyprus 82/83 we threw Barry Ashton (CO) and John Clark (RSM) in the pool but it was a legit pool in Cyprus....oh the good old days!


----------



## a_majoor

Sending Canadian Soldiers to Africa to shore up a bid for a temporary seat on the Un Security council. Our blood and treasure could be at risk for this?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/02/un-human-rights-council-welcomes-saudi-arabia-to-its-ranks/



> *UN Human Rights Council Welcomes Saudi Arabia to Its Ranks*
> BY MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN JANUARY 2, 2017
> 
> You'll never believe which states joined the United Nations Human Rights Council. Or, well, if you know anything about the UN, perhaps you will believe it:
> 
> Welcome to the new 2017 membership @UN_HRC:
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> 
> Venezuela
> 
> China
> 
> Cuba
> 
> Iraq
> 
> Qatar
> 
> Burundi
> 
> Bangladesh
> 
> United Arab Emirates#UNreform pic.twitter.com/Z355F8mI8Z
> 
> — Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) January 2, 2017
> 
> That reads like a who's who of human rights abusers. Nowadays, however, these regimes -- which routinely oppress women, and jail, torture, and even kill critics -- are somehow deemed to be the protectors of our universal human rights. I'd laugh if it wasn't so incredibly sad.
> 
> But wait, the UNHCR says, don't criticize Saudi Arabia! According to Sharia they have "fair gender equality"!
> 
> Saudi Arabia begins 2017-2019 term @UN_HRC. Don't worry: "Saudi Arabia supports empowerment of women" & "guarantees fair gender equality." pic.twitter.com/J5ZIKWboZR
> 
> — Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) January 2, 2017
> 
> Satire, right? Nope, the UNHCR is dead serious.



Tell me again why Canada needs to be validated by third world dictators, kleptocrats and thugs?


----------



## Altair

I guess there are no other reasons to do peacekeeping other than to win a UN Security Council seat.  :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, as noted you can get a double-double for your services... ^-^



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2 bits if they put everyone under a UN alphabet soup mission name, free CPSM for your first tour!


----------



## MarkOttawa

One trusts any RCAF Griffons sent to Africa will look like this--official tweet:
https://twitter.com/CanadaNATO/status/816177780282912768



> Canada at NATO Verified account
> ‏@CanadaNATO
> 
> #Forces2016 #OpImpact @CanadianArmy @RCAF_ARC @CanadainIraq @CanadaKuwait @coalition @CanadianAlly



Earlier:



> Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Trump effect putting major Mali mission on hold for now, France and Germany unhappy:



> Liberal peacekeeping decision paused because of uncertainty around Trump
> _France and Germany working back-channels at UN to express worry over Canada's peacekeeping pause_
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peacekeeping-pause-trump-1.3945847



Jan. 19 from John Ivison:



> ...Canadian policy will have to adjust to the new U.S. government.
> 
> Sources suggest additional defence spending may be required to satisfy Trump that Canada is doing its part as a NATO ally.
> 
> All NATO members signed up to spend two per cent of gross domestic product on defence by 2024. Canada spends less than one per cent and has shown few signs of making progress toward the two per cent target.
> 
> Trump’s lieutenants are said to have conceded that Canada often punches above its weight in times of conflict, and that the quality of the contribution is as important as the amount of money spent.
> 
> But some concession toward a bigger NATO contribution can be expected, perhaps in the upcoming federal budget.
> 
> _A potential casualty of that commitment may well be Canada’s planned peacekeeping mission in Africa_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Officials concede that it is not 100 per cent certain the mission to send up to 750 military, police and civilian personnel to aid a United Nations mission in Africa will proceed, as Canada attempts to accommodate a U.S. government less disposed toward the UN than its predecessor...
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-in-what-will-be-a-bumpy-ride-trudeau-has-to-appease-trump-to-avoid-falling-off-trade-wagon



'Twould be a YUGE climbdown for this gov't, very hard for Liberals to stomach; would think at least some personnel will still be sent if not helos, infantry unit, whatever (i.e not much big equipment).  From November via MND Sajjan:



> Canadian Forces into Africa with UN for Three Years: Where? (hint Mali plus…)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/mark-collins-canadian-forces-into-africa-with-un-for-three-years-where-hint-mali-plus/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> *The Obama administration*, according to sources with knowledge of the file, *made it clear to Canada that it was free to engage in more peacekeeping as along as its other commitments to NORAD and NATO were fulfilled*.



From the cbc article referenced above....

Glad that we are a sovereign nation.


----------



## jmt18325

I can see that Obama allowance (we're still a sovereign nation, but we do have commitments) as the reason for increasing our fighter requirements to handle all foreseeable NORAD and NATO deployments.


----------



## Kirkhill

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I can see that Obama allowance (we're still a sovereign nation, but we do have commitments) as the reason for increasing our fighter requirements to handle all foreseeable NORAD and NATO deployments.



And also for the Latvian deployment - despite some reluctance on the part of the PM and his Foreign Minister at the time.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I can see France working back channels to convince Canada to go into Africa, especially to help them in Mali, where they could use another first world armed forces' assistance. But Germany? They don't do anything outside of their own country except NATO. What bloody business would they have to tell Canada what to do and where?


----------



## Kirkhill

I once heard this description of the French-German relationship in the European Union:  Germany is the horse that France rides.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver]What bloody business would they have to tell Canada what to do and where?
[/quote]

Or, France and Germany want Canadian peacekeepers in their own country to help them with their guests.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or, France and Germany want Canadian peacekeepers in their own country to help them with their guests.



Sign me up!  #wineinfrance #beeringermany    :subbies:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Glad that we are a sovereign nation.


Unlike media saying now a different American president is causing Prince Valiant to change his mind on policy he promised ...


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What bloody business would they have to tell Canada what to do and where?


Unlike the U.S. hinting to us and others to spend more on defence?

No matter the colour of the team jerseys on either side of the border ...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver:



> ...But Germany? They don't do anything outside of their own country except NATO. What bloody business would they have to tell Canada what to do and where?



Lots in Mali actually, esp. helos:



> German defense minister urges swift passing of Mali mandate
> 
> Germany's defense minister has called on the Bundestag to approve an increased military deployment to Mali. She warned, however, that it would be the most dangerous international mission for German troops.
> 
> German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen on Friday [Jan. 20] urged lawmakers to support an expanded peacekeeping mission for the German armed forces in Mali, a country she described as "holding the key" to stability in West Africa.
> 
> The German Bundestag is set to approve next week an expansion of the Bundeswehr's contribution to the United Nation's peacekeeping mission in Mali. The expansion would _increase the number of German soldiers in the UN's MINUSMA mission from 650 to 1,000_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Von der Leyen told a parliamentary debate on the deployment that it would be the most challenging as well as the most dangerous for the German military.
> 
> The German reinforcements largely cover the deployment of pilots and support crew for four rescue helicopters and _four attack helicopters to provide protection_ [emphasis added, NH-90s and Apaches https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/germany-deploy-tiger-and-nh90-helicopters-mali/ ].  The German plan to deploy helicopters comes as the Dutch will pull out seven transport and attack helicopters in February.
> 
> The UN has deployed 13,000 blue helmets under the MINUSMA mission, one of the most dangerous UN missions in the world...
> http://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-urges-swift-passing-of-mali-mandate/a-37207343



Chris Pook:



> ...also for the Latvian deployment - despite some reluctance on the part of the PM and his Foreign Minister at the time...



Indeed:



> Latvia with NATO vs UN Peacekeeping: Where Government’s Heart Truly is
> ...
> “It’s terribly unfortunate that Canada has to deploy its forces in Latvia instead of having peacekeeping in Africa or in an area of the world where it’s much more needed,” Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion told the Canadian Press on the sidelines of the summit Saturday [July 9]...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/mark-collins-latvia-with-nato-vs-un-peacekeeping-where-governments-heart-truly-is/



One notes that M. Dion is out, finally, as foreign affairs minister.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG

... so, spending only 1% GDP does not give us a military robust enough to do all the things that we want to do and that our allies expect are our obligations?


----------



## vonGarvin

This thread started in July....


----------



## cavalryman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This thread started in July....


Compared to our procurement process, that's the blink of an eye. [


----------



## Altair

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Trump effect putting major Mali mission on hold for now, France and Germany unhappy:
> 
> Jan. 19 from John Ivison:
> 
> 'Twould be a YUGE climbdown for this gov't, very hard for Liberals to stomach; would think at least some personnel will still be sent if not helos, infantry unit, whatever (i.e not much big equipment).  From November via MND Sajjan:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


 :crybaby:


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from late last week ...


> Canada may have missed a chance to provide the commanding officer for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali because it wanted to talk first to the Trump administration, the Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> The UN put out requests to a handful of top-tier countries in mid-December as the term of the mission’s previous commander, Danish Maj.-Gen. Michael Lollesgaard, was coming to an end.
> 
> Sources say the Liberal government asked the UN to hold off on a decision until after the government had a chance to consult the new American administration on Canada’s future peacekeeping plans.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last month he wanted to talk to his American counterpart, Defence Secretary James Mattis, before Canada sent peacekeepers to Africa because co-ordination with the U.S. is essential.
> 
> His office said Friday that Canada is still considering its options so it can make the best contribution possible to peace and security.
> 
> “We are going into this with our eyes open,” said spokeswoman Jordan Owens.
> 
> “We will ensure that our troops have the right mission, mandate, training and equipment in order to mitigate risk and maximize our impact.”
> 
> The UN force in Mali is still looking for a commander for its perilous mission holding the line in the fight against Islamic extremists in North Africa. The mission’s deputy commander, a general from Senegal, is currently the highest-ranking officer.
> 
> Though the UN has made no formal announcement, it appears the Mali job has been filled and it won’t be with a Canadian, said a western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
> 
> “They had to get going,” the diplomat said. “They haven’t had a force commander there for over a month.” ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Setting up another broken promise? Maybe he finally realized that taxpayers are not willing to spend blood and treasure in order to buy a seat on the UN?


----------



## CBH99

Is there a reason why we couldn't provide a Commanding Officer to the Mali mission?

Is one of the conditions of providing a CO that we also have to provide a contingent of troops also?  The article states that the UN put out a request for CO's for the multinational UN mission - didn't mention anything about troop contributions also.  

Just curious.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well then, CBH99, I'll just trow this out there, and please, all, keep in mind this is pure speculation on my part based on my knowledge of internal working of our Federal government system:

There is no requirement for the "C.O." of the Mali mission to be from a country that provides troops to the mission. However, when you are "looking" for a mission in Africa, the fact that a Canadian is CO of a given mission already becomes an important factor in where you decide to send your own troops - after all, you would not want one of your own general/flag officer to fail in his/her mission for want of some military support/equipment/troop that you could have provided to him but sent on another mission instead. So accepting the job of C.O. pretty much seals where you send your people (and I am sure that it played a large part in the UN's decision to call "strongly" on Canada for the C.O. position).

But on the other hand, the Trudeau government, I surmise, was taken by complete surprise by the election of Trump (maybe they only relied on mainstream US medias   ). As a result, they didn't have any plans for dealing with him in the Canada/US relationship and are now working full time on the program.

Now, normally, the Minister of Defence is a pretty senior position in Canada. But not this time. We got a very very junior minister, we no political experience at all, not even as a Member of Parliament, and no experience running large bureaucratic organizations. That means that all defence aspects are really run out of the PMO. But right now the PMO is over its head in trying to figure Trump, so the MND is simply instructed to "not do anything or take any engagement on" until they can get back to him on what to do next.

That's a personal point of view, but as I said, based in years of experience dealing with Federal politics. Do take it with a grain of salt, of course, as I have never played on Team Red.  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

> “We are going into this with our eyes open,” said spokeswoman Jordan Owens.


What an asinine comment. Might as well brag how we plan on putting one boot on at a time.



> “We will ensure that our troops have the right mission, mandate,* training and equipment* in order to mitigate risk and maximize our impact.”


Like information Security, GBA+ and some boots that explode after wearing them a month.



> Though the UN has made no formal announcement, it appears the Mali job has been filled and it won’t be with a Canadian


So we're losing out on a chance to lead UN soldiers that among other things get accused of rape, child rape and ignore civilians being butchered a kilometer away? What a missed opportunity  :   [Sorry if that sounds harsh and assholish but the more I read about the UN the more I'm blown away by the shit they're doing]


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like information Security, GBA+ and some boots that explode after wearing them a month.



Don't forget, we've got the Phoenix pay system to look forward too soon when we're deployed;  surely that will make live easier for our families back home.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Don't forget, we've got the Phoenix pay system to look forward too soon when we're deployed;  surely that will make live easier for our families back home.



Are you for real?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

;D


----------



## dapaterson

Phoenix is off the table as a military pay solution (at least for the near term).  CMP said as much at a town hall several months ago.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Is there a reason why we couldn't provide a Commanding Officer to the Mali mission?
> 
> Is one of the conditions of providing a CO that we also have to provide a contingent of troops also?  The article states that the UN put out a request for CO's for the multinational UN mission - didn't mention anything about troop contributions also.
> 
> Just curious.



We provided Dallaire no soldiers in Rwanda and he was stuck leaning on Bengalis to do his bidding (placing him in a very awkward position).  I wouldn't ever want to see another Canadian Officer placed in such a position.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A couple of tidbits ...

_*"Canadian aid and foreign affairs officials have made repeated visits to Mali — including one visit just last week — as politicians continue to consider a long-awaited peace operation*, the (Toronto) Star has learned.  While cabinet ministers insist that no location has been picked for the coming deployment, Mali has been the destination of choice for bureaucrats attempting to scout locations and determine how personnel, combined with millions of dollars in aid and development funding, can be best put to use.  Those “non-stop” visits to the African country over recent months have involved personnel from the Defence Department, Foreign Affairs, Aid and Development, a source told the Star ..."_
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Africa ... _*"As many as 25 Canadian soldiers, based out of Valcartier, Que., will soon take part in a revamped mission to train security forces in the troubled western African country of Niger.  *Last summer, CBC News reported that regular army troops would take over an ongoing deployment, known as Operation Naberius, from Canada's elite special forces.  A handful of the highly-trained soldiers have since 2013 helped train the Niger Armed Forces in marksmanship, reconnaissance and other basic military skills ..."_


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Don't forget, we've got the Phoenix pay system to look forward too soon when we're deployed;  surely that will make live easier for our families back home.


You do know that Phoenix is for civilian pay, right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

IIRC, recently Trudeau said wherever we go from now on, it'll be a total package.

The Commander and their troops and a gaggle of government civies.

I envision two problems immediately.

1) It'll be a constant struggle deciding if it's the 'Commander's mission' or some civie government worker's. 

2) Shit is bound to hit the fan, but instead of the mandate, Canadian soldiers will end up protecting the civies.

 :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

recceguy said:
			
		

> IIRC, recently Trudeau said wherever we go from now on, it'll be a total package.
> 
> The Commander and their troops and a gaggle of government civies.
> 
> I envision two problems immediately.
> 
> 1) It'll be a constant struggle deciding if it's the 'Commander's mission' or some civie government worker's.
> 
> 2) Shit is bound to hit the fan, but instead of the mandate, Canadian soldiers will end up protecting the civies.
> 
> :2c:



To be honest "soldiers protecting the civies" sounds about right.  The mission should be led by the civvies unless it is a full blown military coalition type effort.

The role of the Canadian military should be, first and foremost, to secure Canadians.  The Military Mission Commander's role then becomes telling the Civvies when it is time to pull pole because he/she can no longer guarantee their safety.


----------



## YZT580

Not to worry.  If our civilians are from the same pattern as those I encountered there, they won't leave Bamako (which is a very well guarded, reasonably safe town).  All administrative decisions were made from the bar, oops sorry,  conference rooms of the hotels.  Military outside of the city are mainly on there own.  The majority of UN troops remain in lager as well.  Just ask the french!


----------



## MarkOttawa

milnews.ca:



> A couple of tidbits ...
> 
> "Canadian aid and foreign affairs officials have made repeated visits to Mali — including one visit just last week — as politicians continue to consider a long-awaited peace operation, the (Toronto) Star has learned...



The acute Norman Spector tweets the _Crvena zvezda_ story as a go:
https://twitter.com/nspector4/status/839801919912632323



> Norman Spector‏ @nspector4
> 
> Based on this 'exclusive' on the front page of *this* newspaper, my guess is that a peacekeeping mission to Mali is a go...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We provided Dallaire no soldiers in Rwanda and he was stuck leaning on Bengalis to do his bidding (placing him in a very awkward position).  I wouldn't ever want to see another Canadian Officer placed in such a position.



Sorry, not sure what you meant by, "[h]e was stuck leaning on Bengalis to do his bidding"?


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Not to worry.  If our civilians are from the same pattern as those I encountered there, they won't leave Bamako (which is a very well guarded, reasonably safe town).  *All administrative decisions were made from the bar*, oops sorry,  conference rooms of the hotels.  Military outside of the city are mainly on there own.  *The majority of UN troops remain in lager* as well.  Just ask the french!



There's your problem.  They need a proper drink - a nice glass of brown ale.


----------



## YZT580

Spelling was never my forte.  Should be laager.  As for our troops being there to protect Canadian civilians.  Mali is a war zone.  There shouldn't be any civilians outside the wire at all and the UN has thousands of them already in place.  A few dozen or even hundreds from Canada won't make any difference at all until there is some sort of peace to administer.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Spelling was never my forte.  Should be laager.  As for our troops being there to protect Canadian civilians.  Mali is a war zone.  There shouldn't be any civilians outside the wire at all and the UN has thousands of them already in place.  A few dozen or even hundreds from Canada won't make any difference at all until there is some sort of peace to administer.



No.  You were right the first time.  Lager simply means rest.  Tanks rest up in a lager, even when it is called a leaguer or even a Boer laager.   And lager beers are created by allowing the beer to rest and the yeast to settle.

As for the explicit role of Canadian troops - protecting civvies going outside of the wire in personal protection details (team to platoon size) doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  If the exercise is a "Whole of Government" exercise then it is the civvies that need to be out in front being seen to be "making a difference".  

Now, as to the particular case of Mali - I have no idea how much freedom of movement there is - or if it is better or worse than Northern Ireland 1969.  Or Israel, or Palestine, or any number of other countries where civilian life continues in the midst of armed conflict.


----------



## YZT580

There is very little administration outside of Bamako, Timbuktu, and a couple of other major towns that are also garrison locales.  No airways, no navaids, and no controlled airspace except Bamako TMA.  No approaches either as they have stolen all the electronics and melted them down.  Mines are common and planted today where you walked yesterday.  Very few operational schools and clinics and those that are are well-guarded.  The north, is by far the worse.  Bamako itself has several dozen families sharing a single electric socket (when driving watch for extension cords), there is no sewage and the vast majority of locals are refugees from the north; living in tin huts and shacks.  Lots of NGOs running around sucking money and they live fairly well and every set of letters imaginable from the UN have a representative there.  If Canada really wants to spend money wisely, they will not send anyone other than soldiers and pilots.


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> There is very little administration outside of Bamako, Timbuktu, and a couple of other major towns that are also garrison locales.  No airways, no navaids, and no controlled airspace except Bamako TMA.  No approaches either as they have stolen all the electronics and melted them down.  Mines are common and planted today where you walked yesterday.  Very few operational schools and clinics and those that are are well-guarded.  The north, is by far the worse.  Bamako itself has several dozen families sharing a single electric socket (when driving watch for extension cords), there is no sewage and the vast majority of locals are refugees from the north; living in tin huts and shacks.  Lots of NGOs running around sucking money and they live fairly well and every set of letters imaginable from the UN have a representative there.  If Canada really wants to spend money wisely, they will not send anyone other than soldiers and pilots.



Call me crazy, or anchaos junky, but that sounds like it coukd be a lot of
Fun


----------



## a_majoor

For certain values of "fun". Otherwise you're in Afghanistan without the mountains, sans battlegroup.


----------



## OldSolduer

I really have to say this:

The African mission, if it ever happens, will be a dogs breakfast. As soon as one of our soldiers defends themselves or others, crap will hit the fan. There will be much wailing "how could this happen?" amongst other teeth gnashing and abuse Canada tends to inflict on its military.

Stay. Out. Of. Africa.

My opinion only.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> My opinion only.



I think there's a _few_ more of us that hold the same opinion.


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Out Of Africa":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089755/











Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No.  You were right the first time.  Lager simply means rest.  Tanks rest up in a lager, even when it is called a leaguer or even a Boer laager.   And lager beers are created by allowing the beer to rest and the yeast to settle.
> 
> As for the explicit role of Canadian troops - protecting civvies going outside of the wire in personal protection details (team to platoon size) doesn't seem unreasonable to me.  If the exercise is a "Whole of Government" exercise then it is the civvies that need to be out in front being seen to be "making a difference".
> 
> Now, as to the particular case of Mali - I have no idea how much freedom of movement there is - or if it is better or worse than Northern Ireland 1969.  Or Israel, or Palestine, or any number of other countries where civilian life continues in the midst of armed conflict.



NI... we had 16 battalions of Infantry, plus atts and dets, in a place half the size of Vancouver Island and still couldn't stop the mess. 

No, I don't see too many parallels here....


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> NI... we had 16 battalions of Infantry, plus atts and dets, in a place half the size of Vancouver Island and still couldn't stop the mess.
> 
> No, I don't see too many parallels here....



And that was in an English speaking western area. 

yikes.


----------



## blacktriangle

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I really have to say this:
> 
> The African mission, if it ever happens, will be a dogs breakfast. As soon as one of our soldiers defends themselves or others, crap will hit the fan. There will be much wailing "how could this happen?" amongst other teeth gnashing and abuse Canada tends to inflict on its military.
> 
> Stay. Out. Of. Africa.
> 
> My opinion only.



I'll agree to disagree on beards - but on this one, you are spot on.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And that was in an English speaking western area.
> 
> yikes.



Well, they apparently spoke some kind of English but most of us couldn't understand them


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Well, they apparently spoke some kind of English but most of us couldn't understand them



No problem.  The Lancs couldn't understand the Devons neither.


----------



## Rifleman62

The last two sentences are the usual Trudeau jiberish.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/25/un-peacekeeping-mission-possible-in-2017-trudeau-says.html

*UN peacekeeping mission possible in 2017, Trudeau says*

Trudeau has said the Liberal government is still looking at ways to make good on a pledge to support UN peacekeeping operations.

By The Canadian Press - Sat., March 25, 2017

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not ruling out sending troops to a peacekeeping mission this year, even though Canada has not yet told the United Nations what it is up to.

“We have a difficult history in Africa as peacekeepers and we need to make sure that when we embark on any ... military mission, we make the right decisions about what we’re going to do, how we’re going to do it, and the kind of impact we’re going to have on the ground and on Canadians,” Trudeau told reporters Saturday.

“That’s a decision we’re not going to fast-track. We’re making it responsibly and thoughtfully.”

The Liberal government pledged last summer to allot up to 600 troops and 150 police officers for UN peacekeeping operations, plus $450 million over three years on peace and stability projects.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan originally promised to reveal where they were headed by the end of last year. Military officials and Canadian diplomats put some work into figuring out where Canadian troops could make an impact, but an announcement has yet to be made.

The Liberals ended up stalling their plans — including a request from the UN to lead the peacekeeping mission in Mali — as the federal government tried to figure out the priorities of U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration.

Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for Sajjan, confirmed Saturday that Canada has not provided the UN with formal notice of its contributions, because the government has not yet decided what they will be.

Asked Saturday morning whether that means Canada will not be sending more blue helmets out in the world by the end of the year, Trudeau said he would not draw that conclusion.

“We continue to look very carefully at ways to move forward on the strong commitment we made on peacekeeping,” Trudeau said.

“We know that Canada has to play a strong and effective role on the world stage in ways that suit our capacities and we’re looking to make sure that that happens right,” he said.

Trudeau is on Parliament Hill for a rare weekend Liberal caucus meeting, where MPs are discussing the budget and how to make the most of their remaining time in Ottawa before they head home for the summer.

Liberal MPs who sit on the backbenches have recently been exercising the freedom Trudeau promised them with more free votes, such as when a majority of them voted earlier this month in favour of a bill that would bar health and life insurance companies from forcing clients to disclose the results of genetic testing. That happened even though cabinet voted against it and Trudeau said it was unconstitutional.

However, the prime minister said Saturday that his caucus is more united than ever.

“I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way to the meeting, which was in its second day.

“One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> “I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way to the meeting, which was in its second day.
> 
> “One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said.



Gag me with a Smurf!! [Xp


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Now, I might be picking fly sh*t here, but it seems to me that the two concepts contradict one another:

You can not simultaneously be "strongly united" in "approach and values" yet have a "range of perspectives" that "represent the range of perspectives of Canadians".

 :dunno:

This is the Trudeau quote I like the most (to sarcastically mean the least):

“We know that Canada has to play a strong and effective role on the world stage in ways that suit our capacities and we’re looking to make sure that that happens right,” 

Really! "Has to play"! No choice? We'll be the pariah of the world if we don't? The UN will sanction us if we don't?

Come on: We have no specific obligations to the world other than the ones we chose/elect/decide for ourselves to take on. Give me a break!


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, I might be picking fly **** here, but it seems to me that the two concepts contradict one another:
> 
> You can not simultaneously be "strongly united" in "approach and values" yet have a "range of perspectives" that "represent the range of perspectives of Canadians".
> 
> :dunno:
> 
> This is the Trudeau quote I like the most (to sarcastically mean the least):
> 
> “We know that Canada has to play a strong and effective role on the world stage in ways that suit our capacities and we’re looking to make sure that that happens right,”
> 
> Really! "Has to play"! No choice? We'll be the pariah of the world if we don't? The UN will sanction us if we don't?
> 
> Come on: We have no specific obligations to the world other than the ones we chose/elect/decide for ourselves to take on. Give me a break!



The current PM does a fantastic job connecting with Canadians on an individual level that totally destroyed Harper. But when it comes to gravitas on matters of substance he comes across as totally inadequate intellectually to see outside of talking points and buzz words. His government is so focused on getting into the UN Security Council that they cannot fathom that our military is quickly becoming unable to deploy from Shilo to Wainwright let alone deploying to Africa. I'm getting more and more disillusioned in our Defence Minister who may be a great guy but seems to be nothing more than window dressing for the current PM.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> The current PM does a fantastic job connecting with Canadians on an individual level that totally destroyed Harper. But when it comes to gravitas on matters of substance he comes across as totally inadequate intellectually to see outside of talking points and buzz words. His government is so focused on getting into the UN Security Council that they cannot fathom that our military is quickly becoming unable to deploy from Shilo to Wainwright let alone deploying to Africa. I'm getting more and more disillusioned in our Defence Minister who may be a great guy but seems to be nothing more than window dressing for the current PM.



That, I believe, is the reason he was hired by the Liberal Party of Canada "Inc." and why he is stumping the countryside doing townhalls and by-elections with the occasional foreign foray.  Trudeau serves the Liberals in the same manner that Her Majesty serves Canada - a figurehead.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... “I’ve been around the Liberal party an awfully long time, as you all know, and I’ve never seen a caucus as strongly united in our approach and our values,” Trudeau said on his way to the meeting, which was in its second day.
> 
> “One of the great strengths of the Liberal party is there is always a range of perspectives that allow us to represent the range of perspectives of Canadians,” he said.


"Until I decide what we do ..."


----------



## Rifleman62

> "Until *I *decide what we do ..."


 If you mean Mr. Trudeau you forgot the smiley.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If you mean Mr. Trudeau you forgot the smiley.


I did mean same, but I was serious - especially in a majority government situation ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Don't bet on much "all of government" support in any mission either. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/congo-un-investigators-dead-1.4045026


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's not a place (UN missions to Africa) we should be sticking our nose into as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Lightguns

Colin P said:
			
		

> Don't bet on much "all of government" support in any mission either. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/congo-un-investigators-dead-1.4045026



I understand the found a warehouse full of tropical tans and Hush Puppy tropical shoes left over from the Golan.  So there the uniform supply problem solved..............


----------



## armyvern

Lightguns said:
			
		

> ... So there the uniform supply problem solved..............



... Or not.


----------



## Infanteer

I love how this thread started in July of 2016 and has 33 pages.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... Or not.



I heard a month ago there was a shortage of things like flying suits and NCDs, and no money for new ones.  Stopped by Clothing today...still a shortage of operational kit.  Can't even get t shirts and socks!   Maybe they are waiting for the year long Defence Review to be complete to decide if military mbrs need uniforms and socks.

op:


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

We should start a GoFundMe page and raise money to get decent uniforms that won't fall apart after 4 months. Oh and don't forget boots as well...


----------



## The Bread Guy

A little something from the DND Info-machine (also attached in case the link doesn't work for you) on what the CAF's already up to in Congo ...


> On Operation CROCODILE, members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are working to help bring peace to the volatile region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
> 
> Currently, there are nine Canadian Armed Forces members serving in important leadership, planning, and liaison roles on this mission. Colonel Pierre Huet is the Task Force Commander for Operation CROCODILE, and also serves as the Deputy Chief of Staff Operations and Plans for the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) in Goma. In this latter role, he is responsible for the planning, execution, and coordination of all military operations in the DRC.
> 
> Canadians deployed on Operation CROCODILE are providing much needed advice, support, and knowledge to the nations involved with MONUSCO. Although a small group, the Canadians deployed on this mission bring a lot to the table.
> 
> “The Canadian contribution has a significant impact on the mission because of our varied experience and education,” says Colonel Huet.  “Our willingness to work hard and our can-do attitude make a big difference with the mission.”
> 
> One of the Canadian contingent’s main tasks is liaising with the Forces armées de la République démocratique du Congo (FARDC), offering mentorship and planning assistance to their forces. In the DRC, MONUSCO operations are conducted against armed groups on a monthly or even weekly basis, keeping the Canadian forces very busy with liaising and planning.
> 
> Over the course of this operation, the drive and determination of the CAF members and their partners from diverse nations has led to many successes and noteworthy moments.
> 
> In July 2016, Colonel Huet assisted with the extraction of more than 750 South Sudanese people who were under threat in the jungles of the DRC. They now reside in the safe custody of UN forces in Goma, DRC.
> 
> During his tour on Operation CROCODILE, Colonel Huet has been working to implement two operating concepts that have been approved by the Force Commander and the FARDC. These concepts are currently under development and testing for future use.
> 
> The first, Concept Weaponize, regulates how the MONUSCO Force Intervention Brigade conducts offensive and targeted operations against armed groups in the DRC. The second is the Combat Liaison Support Team. This concept will form small teams of soldiers who will mentor the commanders of the FARDC. Mainly, they will assist the FARDC with the execution and planning of missions at the formation headquarters level.
> 
> “Canadian Armed Forces members are working to strengthen the Congolese army,” says Colonel Huet. “By providing our experience and expertise to them, we will help them to grow and learn as an organization, making them more efficient on the ground.”
> 
> Operation CROCODILE is Canada’s military contribution to MONUSCO. This mission aims to protect civilians, facilitate peacebuilding, and prevent armed conflict in the DRC. Initiated in 1999 under the rubric of MONUC, and later rebranded as MONUSCO in 2010, the mission draws on the support of approximately 17 000 soldiers from 54 nations worldwide.


... as well as a Global Affairs Canada info-machine statement on whazzup in Congo:


> The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement:
> 
> “Canada is deeply troubled by the escalation of violence and the worsening political situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
> 
> “I am horrified by the continued violence in the Kasaï provinces, including recent reports of beheadings of ambushed police officers, as well as the discovery of the remains of two missing UN investigators and their Congolese translator. Our thoughts are with the families of the victims.
> 
> “We condemn these violent acts and remain deeply concerned about the resurgent violence and human rights violations committed in the country in recent months.
> 
> “Dialogue between the government and the opposition is now needed more than ever, as is an investigation of any human rights violations to ensure the perpetrators are held accountable.
> 
> “We join the international calls for all parties in the DRC to fully implement the political agreement facilitated by the National Episcopal Conference of the Congo (CENCO) on December 31, 2016. This includes the appointment of a prime minister from the opposition and paving the way for early elections, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.”


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A little something from the DND Info-machine (also attached in case the link doesn't work for you) on what the CAF's already up to in Congo ...... as well as a Global Affairs Canada info-machine statement on whazzup in Congo:



Belgium has done an excellent job with their former colonies. Almost as good as Portugal. Now we can pick up the mess, or (hopefully) not.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Belgium has done an excellent job with their former colonies. Almost as good as Portugal. Now we can pick up the mess, or (hopefully) not.



Was Somalia not a Portuguese Colony?


Opps!  I think I am missing the sarcasm......Sorry.


----------



## Brasidas

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was Somalia not a Portuguese Colony?
> 
> 
> Opps!  I think I am missing the sarcasm......Sorry.



Sarcasm or not, Somalia was an Italian colony and the Portugese never made a serious bid for it.

Trying to imagine a "good" place to go, and I'm coming up empty.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Brasidas: There was also British Somaliland:



> http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/britishsomaliland.htm



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

A rare time when I agree with the _Crvena Zvezda_ (PM Justin Trudeau: Ditherer-in-Chief?):



> Canada should not promise on peacekeeping and fail to deliver: Editorial
> _When it comes to peacekeeping, better to deliver on a more modest commitment than to make ambitious declarations and then balk at carrying them out._
> 
> By Star Editorial Board
> 
> Follow the bouncing ball:
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Feb. 16, 2016: “We are determined to revitalize Canada’s role in peacekeeping.”
> 
> Toronto Star, July 14, 2016: “Canadian troops will soon be headed to Africa as the federal government makes plans for a new peacekeeping mission.”
> 
> Justin Trudeau, Dec. 4, 2016: “We have a dangerous world right now... and we cannot simply sit back and say ‘we’re not going to do anything about it’.”
> 
> Justin Trudeau, March 25, 2017: “We have a difficult history in Africa as peacekeepers… That’s a decision we’re not going to fast-track.”
> 
> What a difference a few months make. A government so eager to get back into peacekeeping, to have Canada “step up” and assume its responsibilities as a committed member of the United Nations, now hesitates at the water’s edge.
> 
> There are plenty of understandable reasons for this. The international landscape has changed dramatically with the election of Donald Trump. UN missions in Africa are dangerous and difficult. They are more akin to counter-insurgency than to traditional blue helmet operations.
> 
> Taking time to get it right makes sense. But Canada’s drawn-out hesitation waltz carries its own risks, and they are undermining the very purpose of the government’s original intent.
> 
> It was just over a year ago that Trudeau pledged Canada was back as a staunch member of the UN and formally announced his government’s intention to win back a seat on the Security Council at the first opportunity.
> 
> And it was seven months ago that the government outlined in some detail the scale of its commitment to peace operations: $450 million over three years and up to 600 troops.
> 
> The UN and key allies welcomed the move warmly. France, in particular, is eager for help as its soldiers battle Islamic extremists in Mali. And as far back as November, UN officials were saying Canadian troops were urgently needed in Mali, where more peacekeepers have died than anywhere else in the organization’s long history with such operations.
> 
> But now, as the government quite clearly pushes any mission to Africa onto the back burner, it runs the risk of letting down the very allies whose hopes and expectations it deliberately raised. Already, a Belgian general has been put in command of the UN’s Mali mission, a position that was being held open for a Canadian.
> 
> _What are our allies to think? If 2017 drags on with no decision, they will be hard-pressed not to conclude that when it comes to peacekeeping, Canada is all talk, no action_ [emphasis added]. If committing troops to a difficult mission was key to making Canada’s case to rejoin the Security Council, surely failing to commit them will undermine that same case.
> 
> At this point, it seems better for the government to figure out exactly what it is prepared to do and how much risk it is ready to assume, and then carry through with that. Better to deliver on a more modest commitment than to make ambitious declarations and then balk at actually carrying them out.
> 
> The world is clearly ready to welcome Canada back to a more active role in peacekeeping, peace support, and similar operations. The _government needs to do a better job of matching its rhetoric with the reality it is ready to deliver on the ground_ [emphasis added].
> https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2017/03/31/canada-should-not-promise-on-peacekeeping-and-fail-to-deliver-editorial.html



Indeed, what must allies and friends think?  Donald Trump, if he should notice?  Certainly SecDef Mattis and SecState Tillerson will.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

They need to get used to the idea of the PM promising and reneging, like the rest of us. 

It's Trudeau time!.... everybody dance.  And take selfies.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The seemingly endless dither--by Col. (ret'd) George Petrolekas (note budget aspect--what about personnel availability too?):



> Canada's peacekeeping conundrum: Will we ever make a choice?
> 
> by George Petrolekas
> 
> _The Globe and Mail_
> April 2, 2017
> 
> Many have questioned what happened to the government’s promise to dispatch up to 600 Canadians on a peacekeeping mission, a major pillar of the Liberal campaign platform and part of its “Canada is back” mantra.
> 
> With a major peacekeeping conference scheduled this fall, the government has to choose one of two things: Abandon the promise to enter into peacekeeping operations or restart the process to find the location which will be most suitable for Canada.
> 
> The decisions the government considers will be influenced by Canada’s fiscal condition – especially as concerns the defence budget. Also, the Trump administration’s review of UN funding and the utility of UN missions recently announced at the UN by U.S. ambassador Nikki Haley will be in contradiction to the government’s desire to reinforce the “Canada is back” idea, and equally affect the presumptive search for a Security Council seat.
> 
> Throughout the fall of 2016, the defence minister and government officials visited nations in Africa as possible deployment locations meeting the government’s aspirations of having a measurable impact while garnering support from African nations in the quest of a Security Council seat.
> 
> Informed observers expected a Christmas announcement of Mali as the preferred location, a place where we would be combatting radical Islamists, avoiding missions where UN forces had tainted reputations, by aligning with NATO allies such as France, the Netherlands and Germany.
> 
> The expected announcement never materialized.
> 
> _The current defence budget, which has shifted spending to years in the future and already the cause of belt-tightening within the services, may not accommodate another overseas mission on top of current engagements in Iraq, the Ukraine and the upcoming mission to Latvia without financially stressing the Armed Forces. A cash-strapped forces will have to tell the government what it can and can no longer do_ [emphasis added--will the CAF leadership do so?].
> 
> Though Canada is one of a handful of nations that pays its own way, the current Trump administration review of UN financing threatens missions where some nations are reliant on UN funding to participate.
> 
> Therefore, certain missions may simply be closed or reduced because of lack of financing. The result will be fewer missions, no matter the conditions on the ground, and with fewer missions, there will be fewer choices for Canada on where to have an impact. Canada is also waiting for an indication of where the U.S. administration will focus its international efforts.
> 
> Canada’s conundrum does not stop there.
> 
> In the concentrated effort to find the correct role and location for Canada, UN authorities offered Canada specific roles, leadership positions, non-military roles and staff positions in areas in which Canada had indicated an interest. With Canada delaying a commitment, the UN has had to look elsewhere to fill gaps that were presumed to be filled by Canadians.
> 
> What may have been clear plans or understandings during the fall no longer exist as the UN has had to make alternative plans without Canada. That is why the government finds itself back at the starting gate again. Africa had been pre-eminent in the government’s planning, in part because there has been a large cohort within Foreign Affairs and Cabinet that felt the most pressing humanitarian, state-building or conflict-prevention roles rested in a myriad of African nations, names familiar in the long list of despairs: the Congo, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Niger and Mali, among others. In the government’s calculations it could do good, and also garner support for a Security Council seat, particularly amongst nations of the Francophonie.
> 
> However, without a mission – especially “a mission that will have an impact,” in the words of the government – it is difficult to see a pathway where the very large African voting bloc in the General Assembly of the UN would support a Canadian candidacy for a Security Council seat.
> 
> As a consequence, there have already been trial policy balloons floated by allied states suggesting alternative locations not limited to Africa.
> 
> With a peacekeeping conference scheduled for the fall, the government has to simply decide: Does it want to do good, and leverage its actions for a Security Council seat, or does it want to appease key allies and be willing to pay for its decisions? It cannot do all at the same time, and therefore has to make a choice – and time is not on its side.
> 
> _George Petrolekas is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He served with the military in Bosnia and Afghanistan and was an adviser to senior NATO commanders._
> http://www.cgai.ca/opedapril22017



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's not a place (UN missions to Africa) we should be sticking our nose into as far as I'm concerned.



Amen brother.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Amen brother.



History proves that European wars have killed more people than every other war put together. 

That should be our main peacekeeping focus.... through providing a credible deterrent to Russian aggression.


----------



## GR66

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> History proves that European wars have killed more people than every other war put together.
> 
> That should be our main peacekeeping focus.... through providing a credible deterrent to Russian aggression.



Reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Added:  That being said, I agree that while tragic and of general humanitarian concern, the conflicts in Africa have little impact on Canada's national interest and have relatively small chance of expanding to conflicts which pose serious risks to global/Canadian security.  I seriously doubt that any intervention by Canada in these conflicts can have anything more than a symbolic impact and agree that our limited capabilities should be much more effectively focused elsewhere.


----------



## Rifleman62

Latest attack of several. Still want that Security Council seat Mr. Trudeau?

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/05/03/520493/Mali-UN-Peacekeeper-Rocket-Attack

*1 killed, 9 wounded in attack on UN Mali camp* - Wed May 3, 2017 6:28PM


Shelling and rocket fire on a UN camp in the troubled Malian city of Timbuktu killed one person and wounded nine peacekeepers, the United Nations mission in the country said Wednesday.

"A mortar and rocket attack was launched against the MINUSMA camp in Timbuktu," a UN statement said, using the UN mission's acronym.

"The provisional toll is nine wounded among the peacekeepers, four seriously who are being evacuated to Bamako. The attack also killed one person, they are still being identified," it added.

The UN mission said it had reinforced the camp's defenses and deployed air cover to identify where the enemy fire had originated, describing it as a "terrorist" attack.

Sweden's armed forces also confirmed one of its soldiers was wounded, though not severely. "A Swedish soldier was lightly injured and is now being cared for by the Swedish medical unit," it said in a statement

The UN mission in Mali is considered its most dangerous active peacekeeping deployment.

Unknown gunmen have attacked a United Nations police base in the Malian city of Timbuktu, the UN said, while security sources said a Malian army checkpoint in the city had also come under fire.

Olivier Salgado, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA), told Al Jazeera the assailants launched the attack after they detonated a car bomb at the base at 6:30am on Friday.

He said one policeman was slightly wounded in the assault, and the attackers remained holed up inside the base.


----------



## Altair

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Latest attack of several. Still want that Security Council seat Mr. Trudeau?
> 
> http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/05/03/520493/Mali-UN-Peacekeeper-Rocket-Attack
> 
> *1 killed, 9 wounded in attack on UN Mali camp* - Wed May 3, 2017 6:28PM
> 
> 
> Shelling and rocket fire on a UN camp in the troubled Malian city of Timbuktu killed one person and wounded nine peacekeepers, the United Nations mission in the country said Wednesday.
> 
> "A mortar and rocket attack was launched against the MINUSMA camp in Timbuktu," a UN statement said, using the UN mission's acronym.
> 
> "The provisional toll is nine wounded among the peacekeepers, four seriously who are being evacuated to Bamako. The attack also killed one person, they are still being identified," it added.
> 
> The UN mission said it had reinforced the camp's defenses and deployed air cover to identify where the enemy fire had originated, describing it as a "terrorist" attack.
> 
> Sweden's armed forces also confirmed one of its soldiers was wounded, though not severely. "A Swedish soldier was lightly injured and is now being cared for by the Swedish medical unit," it said in a statement
> 
> The UN mission in Mali is considered its most dangerous active peacekeeping deployment.
> 
> Unknown gunmen have attacked a United Nations police base in the Malian city of Timbuktu, the UN said, while security sources said a Malian army checkpoint in the city had also come under fire.
> 
> Olivier Salgado, spokesman for the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali (MINUSMA), told Al Jazeera the assailants launched the attack after they detonated a car bomb at the base at 6:30am on Friday.
> 
> He said one policeman was slightly wounded in the assault, and the attackers remained holed up inside the base.


If he did, 

1. Soldiers would be deployed already.

2. They would be there in a combat role

3. They would be going to the more dangerous missions.

I think we can all safely say he doesn't care about a security Council seat.


----------



## McG

It would appear some people would like to see us go to South Sudan, and they are currently getting air time through news media.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-south-sudan-famine-1.4096529


----------



## daftandbarmy

Altair said:
			
		

> If he did,
> 
> 1. Soldiers would be deployed already.
> 
> 2. They would be there in a combat role
> 
> 3. They would be going to the more dangerous missions.
> 
> I think we can all safely say he doesn't care about a security Council seat.



You forgot about the three main reasons why Prince Justin wants to be a world leader, just like Daddy:

1. Ego

2. Ego

3. Ego

Watch and shoot....


----------



## Altair

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You forgot about the three main reasons why Prime Minister Trudeau  wants to be a world leader, just like his father:
> 
> 1. Ego
> 
> 2. Ego
> 
> 3. Ego
> 
> Watch and shoot....


If he wants a security Council seat to fill his ego and be a world leader, he's going about it in the worst possible fashion. 

There's little chance of Canada getting it now, not after all this delaying and lack of a mission after all this time. Even if the CF does deploy, our contributions is likely to be in a safe country instead of where the UN could actually use help in fighting, and not combat oriented when the UN needs help in combat situations.

In my opinion, that SCC possibility was off the table by December,when word was our allies were starting to ask questions about the Canadian commitment and got radio silence as a response.

Also, you're a grown adult, can you not even attempt to have a  civil conversation?


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You forgot about the three main reasons why Prince Justin wants to be a world leader, just like Daddy:
> 
> 1. Ego
> 
> 2. Ego
> 
> 3. Ego
> 
> Watch and shoot....




Actually, I think that it ~ the promise to go on UN peacekeeping missions rather than combat missions against real enemies ~ was very good campaign tactics. I suspect that some, maybe even a few hundred thousand of 1.33 million more votes that the Liberals got over the CPC came from young, first time voters who really want a different foreign policy from the one Stephen Harper offered

That the CF is not, already, in Africa, doing something useless, is illustrative of the enormous gap between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governing.

I also suspect that the young first time voters will, likely, stay home next time ... or vote Green or NDP.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that it ~ the promise to go on UN peacekeeping missions rather than combat missions against real enemies ~ was very good campaign tactics. I suspect that some, maybe even a few hundred thousand of 1.33 million more votes that the Liberals got over the CPC came from young, first time voters who really want a different foreign policy from the one Stephen Harper offered
> 
> That the CF is not, already, in Africa, doing something useless, is illustrative of the enormous gap between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governing.
> 
> I also suspect that the young first time voters will, likely, stay home next time ... or vote Green or NDP.



And they are certainly getting a different twist on foreign policy, just not in the way they imagined.  I would be very happy if we stayed away from Peacekeeping Operations, particularly ones where we have no actual national interests.  Now if we were going to North Africa to kill some Islamic Extremists, I would feel differently but the French seem to be quite capable of handling that job on their own.  

The only place where I think we would have a vested interest in making security investments is Haiti and that is set to become a Policing Action, hardly a role for the CAF to play there.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> If he wants a security Council seat to fill his ego and be a world leader, he's going about it in the worst possible fashion.
> 
> There's little chance of Canada getting it now, not after all this delaying and lack of a mission after all this time. Even if the CF does deploy, our contributions is likely to be in a safe country instead of where the UN could actually use help in fighting, and not combat oriented when the UN needs help in combat situations.
> 
> In my opinion, that SCC possibility was off the table by December,when word was our allies were starting to ask questions about the Canadian commitment and got radio silence as a response.
> 
> Also, you're a grown adult, can you not even attempt to have a  civil conversation?



Easy brother, I know you are raring to go but there are plenty of military misadventures to go around for everyone  8).


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The only place where I think we would have a vested interest in making security investments is Haiti.....


Sorry, but I'm not seeing any national interests in Haiti....other than _*perhaps*_  Haitian immigrants starting to behave like other diaspora fighting for the homeland.  

If there was such a risk, based on my admittedly slim base of Haitian acquaintances, I'm not too concerned about a Caribbean version of the Tamil Tigers or an Air India 182 bombing happening any time soon.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm not seeing any national interests in Haiti....other than _*perhaps*_  Haitian immigrants starting to behave like other diaspora fighting for the homeland.
> 
> If there was such a risk, based on my admittedly slim base of Haitian acquaintances, I'm not too concerned about a Caribbean version of the Tamil Tigers or an Air India 182 bombing happening any time soon.



The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine.  Economically speaking, you're right that there is nothing there for us.


----------



## medicineman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine.  Economically speaking, you're right that there is nothing there for us.



I seem to remember that is one of the reasons we ended up staying in PaP in 04 instead of filling the Hercs with citizens and leaving.  The Americans also pointed out that there could be spill over from the narco trash running place - refugees, drug/gun running, etc, and that this was essentially in our collective back yards.  The soon to be named GG was from there and there were/are large numbers of ex-pats in political ridings that had clout in Ottawa - some of those MP's came out to visit us (Jack Layton didn't though, especially after believing a constituent that we were "terrorists" and blabbing as much at a rally in Toronto - he must have thought we'd have had him in an orange jump suit on You Tube or something).   Economically, not a lot there as HB pointed out - unless you want to try and set up a resort built on a foundation of trash somewhere...or you want to set up your own import business for dope, guns and/or people.

MM


----------



## Journeyman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The national interest is the domestic Haitian audience, just like the Ukraine.


Let's see..... 

- No economic _or national security_  interests in Haiti;
- 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians (third largest grouping, after Ukraine and Russia) vs 140 thousand Haitians (97% residing in Quebec);
- narco trash running place.


If there is a CAF task, it's for the Engineers -- requiring explosives and bulldozers.   Stop throwing good money after bad.


----------



## Altair

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Easy brother, I know you are raring to go but there are plenty of military misadventures to go around for everyone  8).


I honestly don't care anymore. I don't plan to be around long enough for whenever whatever government in power makes up their mind.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Let's see.....
> 
> - No economic _or national security_  interests in Haiti;
> - 1.2 million Ukrainian-Canadians (third largest grouping, after Ukraine and Russia) vs 140 thousand Haitians (97% residing in Quebec);
> - narco trash running place.
> 
> 
> If there is a CAF task, it's for the Engineers -- requiring explosives and bulldozers.   Stop throwing good money after bad.



We need to bring the Sherman firefly back in to service  >


			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> I seem to remember that is one of the reasons we ended up staying in PaP in 04 instead of filling the Hercs with citizens and leaving.  The Americans also pointed out that there could be spill over from the narco trash running place - refugees, drug/gun running, etc, and that this was essentially in our collective back yards.  The soon to be named GG was from there and there were/are large numbers of ex-pats in political ridings that had clout in Ottawa - some of those MP's came out to visit us (Jack Layton didn't though, especially after believing a constituent that we were "terrorists" and blabbing as much at a rally in Toronto - he must have thought we'd have had him in an orange jump suit on You Tube or something).   Economically, not a lot there as HB pointed out - unless you want to try and set up a resort built on a foundation of trash somewhere...or you want to set up your own import business for dope, guns and/or people.
> 
> MM



Hence my point about it being a perfect police mission.  Economically, you could also make the argument that Canadian banks (they own the Caribbean) want to keep Haitian problems out of their CARICOM countries.  

I think of my six months in Jamaica where the JDF and JCF deal with huge gun problems.  The legal process of legally obtaining a firearm is quite long in Jamaica yet the Yardies have no problem because they smuggle them from Haiti.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect Canada could support the French Force in Mali with our C-17 and Jercs and some specialist assistance, not just SF, but engineering, comms, etc.


----------



## Rifleman62

Off Topic



> We need to bring the Sherman firefly back in to service
> >



If your context was to burn the trash, then it would be the Sherman Zippo used by the USMC in the Pacific, or the Churchill (tank) Crocodile. The Firefly had a high velocity 17 pounder (76.2) cannon vice the normal 75mm. There are tank experts here, not me.

Great book read years ago: Flame Thrower Hardcover – 1956 - by Andrew Wilson https://www.amazon.ca/Flame-Thrower-Andrew-Wilson/dp/0718305221



> The author retells his days as an officer serving in the Royal Armoured Corps during 1943 to 1945 in Europe. He was one of those assigned to the specialized tanks, in particular the Crocodile. The Crocodile class of tanks were fitted out to be used as flame throwers. The author found it easiest to tell the stories in third person (what Wilson did, rather than what he did). A number of the actions were in support of Canadian troops. The book was first published in 1956,


with a 1984 edition update.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Off Topic
> 
> If your context was to burn the trash, then it would be the Sherman Zippo used by the USMC in the Pacific, or the Churchill (tank) Crocodile. The Firefly had a high velocity 17 pounder (76.2) cannon vice the normal 75mm. There are tank experts here, not me.
> 
> Great book read years ago: Flame Thrower Hardcover – 1956 - by Andrew Wilson https://www.amazon.ca/Flame-Thrower-Andrew-Wilson/dp/0718305221
> with a 1984 edition update.



Mea Culpa!  Thanks for the correction Rifleman, I meant the Crocodile when I said the Firefly (it being he upgunned Sherman)!  Think of the possibilities, an efficient garbage disposal service for the Island, we wouldn't have to worry about Forest Fire as they barely have any trees left (caveat being we don't stray too close to Dominican Republic of course).  The environmentalists might not like it!

Also, I accidentally hit modify on your post when I tried to quote it, sorry about that and I have fixed it to what it was (blame it on the noob moderator problems).


----------



## Rifleman62

I have always marvelled the great difference economically between the Dominican Republic and Haiti.


----------



## Journeyman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I have always marvelled the great difference economically between the Dominican Republic and Haiti.


One has a Spanish ethos, the other one French. Haiti went from being one of France's most profitable colonial holdings.... to having the lowest Human Development Index in the Americas.


----------



## Old Sweat

Journeyman said:
			
		

> One has a Spanish ethos, the other one French. Haiti went from being one of France's most profitable colonial holdings.... to having the lowest Human Development Index in the Americas.


I think at one time in the Eighteenth Century Haiti had the highest per capita income in the Americas.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect Canada could support the French Force in Mali with our C-17 and Jercs and some specialist assistance, not just SF, but engineering, comms, etc.


Been there, done (a bit of) that - could be easiest.  But is it "UN Enough"?


----------



## Journeyman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think at one time in the Eighteenth Century Haiti had the highest per capita income in the Americas.


:dunno:   

I'll defer to your experience.     :-*


----------



## Old Sweat

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :dunno:
> 
> I'll defer to your experience.     :-*



On further reflection, it may be that one of its ports was the most prosperous in the New World, but the point is that the basket case status was self-inflicted.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think at one time in the Eighteenth Century Haiti had the highest per capita income in the Americas.



Until the much vaunted 'slave revolt', which subsequently killed their economy but made them the heroes of 'left whingers' everywhere....


----------



## Lightguns

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> On further reflection, it may be that one of its ports was the most prosperous in the New World, but the point is that the basket case status was self-inflicted.



1880 to 1911 under a new constitution, Haiti was stable and wealthy  It introduced the rum and sugar industry modernization to Latin America and was a model of Caribbean agriculture.  Excessive borrowing and indebtedness to the US resulted in US occupation and a steady decline afterward.  Interestingly, Woodrow Wilson, often lionized for his principled government by the US left, is responsible for that policy.


----------



## Old Sweat

Point taken, but the country has suffered from all sorts of ills since then.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I'm not seeing any national interests in Haiti....other than _*perhaps*_  Haitian immigrants starting to behave like other diaspora fighting for the homeland.
> 
> If there was such a risk, based on my admittedly slim base of Haitian acquaintances, I'm not too concerned about a Caribbean version of the Tamil Tigers or an Air India 182 bombing happening any time soon.



You're kidding, right?

It's a raison d'etre COA for Les Forces Armees Canadiens.

On Les auras!


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?
> 
> It's a raison d'etre COA for Les Forces Armees Canadiens.
> 
> On Les auras!



Then Les Farces Armee de Quebec can continue going  there should they please...I'd swim home if I had a plane that got delayed there longer than a minute or two.

MM


----------



## a_majoor

There is actually a case to be made for some sort of intervention in Haiti, but it will probably not be to the taste of Liberals or "liberals" anywhere, since essentially the only COA is to take over the place like the US Marines did in the first third of the 20th century and literally create new institutions from scratch. (Read Max Boot's "The Savage Wars of Peace"

Now while the Marines were there for the larger American strategic aim of preventing European colonization or influence threatening the approaches to the Panama Canal (the same considerations applied to Nicaragua in the west), they _did_ create efficient systems of schools, customs services, postal services, road building, revenue collection and so on. The essential issue is that in the 1900's to 1930's, the modern idea of "nation building" did not exist, and the Americans seem to have assumed the locals would absorb American culture and systems through osmosis. Sadly, when they left for good in 1934, the locals simply stole everything that wasn't nailed down....

For our purposes, leveling whatever dysfunctional institutions that exist in Haiti and replacing them with "our" social, political and economic constructs would also imply a generational program to raise and train local Haitians to carry on using and maintaining them (or alternatively exporting Haitian-Canadians to Haiti to run the place and train locals). Britain took over 200 years to create Anglosphere institutions across the world (with mixed success) using these sorts of methods, so this won't be an easy sell for Canadian taxpayers.

This also isn't a job for the Armed Forces.

If we are to go into Africa as a military, I would hope it would be to kick down the door, smash groups like Boko Harum or their analogues and provide enough of a shield to allow the "nation builders" to start their work. Once again, there is a case to be made for committing resources for many decades to make it work.

As a side bar, I would also point to Neil Ferguson's "Civilization, the West and the Rest"]"

Now while the Marines were there for the larger American strategic aim of preventing European colonization or influence threatening the approaches to the Panama Canal (the same considerations applied to Nicaragua in the west), they _did_ create efficient systems of schools, customs services, postal services, road building, revenue collection and so on. The essential issue is that in the 1900's to 1930's, the modern idea of "nation building" did not exist, and the Americans seem to have assumed the locals would absorb American culture and systems through osmosis. Sadly, when they left for good in 1934, the locals simply stole everything that wasn't nailed down....

For our purposes, leveling whatever dysfunctional institutions that exist in Haiti and replacing them with "our" social, political and economic constructs would also imply a generational program to raise and train local Haitians to carry on using and maintaining them (or alternatively exporting Haitian-Canadians to Haiti to run the place and train locals). Britain took over 200 years to create Anglosphere institutions across the world (with mixed success) using these sorts of methods, so this won't be an easy sell for Canadian taxpayers.

This also isn't a job for the Armed Forces.

If we are to go into Africa as a military, I would hope it would be to kick down the door, smash groups like Boko Harum or their analogues and provide enough of a shield to allow the "nation builders" to start their work. Once again, there is a case to be made for committing resources for many decades to make it work.

As a side bar, I would also point to Neil Ferguson's "Civilization, the West and the Rest" which makes a similar argument except that instead of creating and fostering social and political institutions, Ferguson's argument is that the "killer apps" of Western civilization (competition, science, the rule of law, modern medicine, consumerism, and the work ethic) can be imported and used by other cultures without necessarily tying them to the social, political and economic norms of "the West". So do "we" want to import our "killer apps" without necessarily importing our norms as well?

If we are going to argue about ideas like "Peacekeeping" we really should be grounding them to "effects" on the ground and how they support Canada's National Interest, rather than short term political gamesmanship. We all know this is about as likely as me winning the multi million dollar 6/49 grand prize.......


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If we are to go into Africa as a military, I would hope it would be to kick down the door, smash groups like Boko Harum or their analogues and provide enough of a shield to allow the "nation builders" to start their work. Once again, there is a case to be made for committing resources for many decades to make it work.



And, of course, this would need to be done within the context of maintaining and strengthening the institutions and culture surrounding the Islamic faith or, like we have seen elsewhere, we will become the enemy of everyone and not just the 'bad guys'.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... If we are to go into Africa as a military, I would hope it would be to kick down the door, smash groups like Boko Harum or their analogues and provide enough of a shield to allow the "nation builders" to start their work. Once again, there is a case to be made for *committing resources for many decades to make it work* ...


That bit in yellow can't happen, no matter what colour government Canada has -- most parties think in terms of mandates, not decades.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, of course, this would need to be done within the context of maintaining and strengthening the institutions and culture surrounding the Islamic faith or, like we have seen elsewhere, we will become the enemy of everyone and not just the 'bad guys'.



There are three perfectly good Islamic alternatives that are worth supporting as alternatives to both Sunni and Shia Islam:

The Hashemite family of the Kingdom of Jordan who trace their lineage back to the Great Grandfather of the Prophet 
The Ibadi faith, originating 20 years after the Prophet's death and before both the Sunni and Shia faiths, followed by the Sultan of Oman's family
The Ismaili faith, a branch of Shia, followed by the Aga Khan, a direct lineal descendent of Mohammed (host of PM Trudeau).

All of those gentlemen should be tightly engaged, supported and encouraged by the OECD as alternatives to both Iranian Shia and Wahabbi Sunna.  Pakistan used to be a pro-Western, liberal country, just as Persia and Afghanistan were.  

They have credentials that deserve to be supported.


----------



## MARS

Altair said:
			
		

> I think we can all safely say he doesn't care about a security Council seat.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-security-council-seat-campaign-1.4101984


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haiti sounds like the ideal place for muslim immigration.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well Hati is full of "African like people" and a shorter logistical tail, plus they speak French, so it's a good substitute for the real thing and sort of , kind of fills the promise sort of.....in a very Liberal Party kind of way.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> All of those gentlemen should be tightly engaged, supported and encouraged by the OECD as alternatives to both Iranian Shia and Wahabbi Sunna.  Pakistan used to be a pro-Western, liberal country, just as Persia and Afghanistan were.
> 
> They have credentials that deserve to be supported.



How would you get the Sunni and Shia to go along with this?


----------



## a_majoor

Loachman said:
			
		

> How would you get the Sunni and Shia to go along with this?



You don't. The point is to substitute a different "power source" by publicly going to these groups (not the Shiite or Sunni groups) whenever you need a sound bite, a public statement or someone from "The Islamic Community" for a photo op. You go to these groups when you are trying to write policy or understand the effects of your proposed policies. People will see who "The Strong Horse" is, at least in Canada, and while I don't think you will see mass conversions you will see a gradual delegitimization of many of the more radical groups, apologists and fronts like CAIR.

Turning the same thing on deployment will insert more options for the locals, many of whom are probably already suffering from the effects of their "traditional" overlords.


----------



## Loachman

Or we will see more of the ones that we officially like bullied and killed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You don't. The point is to substitute a different "power source" by publicly going to these groups (not the Shiite or Sunni groups) whenever you need a sound bite, a public statement or someone from "The Islamic Community" for a photo op. You go to these groups when you are trying to write policy or understand the effects of your proposed policies. People will see who "The Strong Horse" is, at least in Canada, and while I don't think you will see mass conversions you will see a gradual delegitimization of many of the more radical groups, apologists and fronts like CAIR.
> 
> Turning the same thing on deployment will insert more options for the locals, many of whom are probably already suffering from the effects of their "traditional" overlords.



That would require a level of commitment and single minded focus over a period of decades, which is impossible for an international community hooked on a 'dine, selfie and dash' style of intervention.


----------



## Altair

MARS said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-security-council-seat-campaign-1.4101984


They aren't winning squat. They told the world Canada was going to get back into peacekeeping and would have a mission ready by last winter.

 It's currently spring and we don't even have a destination yet.

Allies such as France were asking about it, radio silence from Canada.

 I don't care how much they spend, they aren't winning anything. When the cornerstone of you campaign is to re engage in peacekeeping, and you fail to do so, you don't have a leg to stand on.

The government probably knows that, and as a result, if their were willing to let their main play to get a security council seat fall to the wayside, they have shown with their actions(or inaction in this case) that they really don't care. 

I personally don't care what some hack at the CBC says about it, if this government really wanted a security council seat the forces would be in Africa, in a trouble spot, NOW. Not sitting on its hands, looking for the safest spot to hide 600 soldiers like some NATO countries did in Afghanistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That would require a level of commitment and single minded focus over a period of decades, which is impossible for an international community hooked on a 'dine, selfie and dash' style of intervention.


Not to mention democracies tied to far-less-than-decade-long electoral mandates ...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Altair said:
			
		

> They aren't winning squat. They told the world Canada was going to get back into peacekeeping and would have a mission ready by last winter.
> 
> It's currently spring and we don't even have a destination yet.
> 
> Allies such as France were asking about it, radio silence from Canada.
> 
> I don't care how much they spend, they aren't winning anything. When the cornerstone of you campaign is to re engage in peacekeeping, and you fail to do so, you don't have a leg to stand on.
> 
> The government probably knows that, and as a result, if their were willing to let their main play to get a security council seat fall to the wayside, they have shown with their actions(or inaction in this case) that they really don't care.
> 
> I personally don't care what some hack at the CBC says about it, if this government really wanted a security council seat the forces would be in Africa, in a trouble spot, NOW. Not sitting on its hands, looking for the safest spot to hide 600 soldiers like some NATO countries did in Afghanistan.




Actually, given how the UN works, internally (I used to work in one of the UN's major member agencies and actually participated in one (agency) election) and how votes are bought and sold, the peacekeeping mission is chump change.

It doesn't mater how disappointed France is: the Europeans are going to block-vote for Iceland, most likely.

We can buy a lot of African votes with cold, hard cash ... they don't even want Canadian peacekeepers: the fewer principled people on UN missions the better for them; all we have to do is send money.

We are, also, I read, courting China ~ and not just for a free trade deal. The Chinese would like a compliant Western client on the UNSC and they could swing a lot of votes our way.

Blue berets and sheep-shit have about equal value in the corridors of power; money talks.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, given how the UN works, internally (I used to work in one of the UN's major member agencies and actually participated in one (agency) election) and how votes are bought and sold, the peacekeeping mission is chump change.
> 
> It doesn't mater how disappointed France is: the Europeans are going to block-vote for Iceland, most likely.
> 
> We can buy a lot of African votes with cold, hard cash ... they don't even want Canadian peacekeepers: the fewer principled people on UN missions the better for them; all we have to do is send money.
> 
> We are, also, I read, courting China ~ and not just for a free trade deal. The Chinese would like a compliant Western client on the UNSC and they could swing a lot of votes our way.
> 
> Blue berets and sheep-crap have about equal value in the corridors of power; money talks.



Yep, the old French saying of "Beni-Oui-Oui" is alive and well.  The French much prefer working with Chadian and Senegalese soldiers because they will do "what they want, when they want it".


----------



## The Bread Guy

Altair said:
			
		

> They aren't winning squat. They told the world Canada was going to get back into peacekeeping and would have a mission ready by last winter.
> 
> It's currently spring and we don't even have a destination yet ...


And it may be a while longer yet ...


> Canada’s high-profile military mission to Africa appears off the radar for now with a decision on a deployment delayed, perhaps until fall, the Star has learned.
> 
> Political upheaval among key allies — notably the United States, France and Great Britain — is cited as the reason why Justin Trudeau’s government has pushed back its high-profile pledge to return Canada to international peacekeeping efforts.
> 
> The federal government does not want to deploy soldiers on a potentially dangerous mission only to find other nations have decided their priorities lie elsewhere, leaving Canada “stuck with a legacy mission,” one source told the Star.
> 
> One official at defence headquarters offered a blunt assessment of where the peace mission currently stood on the list of priorities. “It’s not on the radar,” said the source.
> 
> When asked about the delay, officials point to the political shake-ups around the globe, notably in Washington, where the unexpected election of Donald Trump as president and his unpredictable tenure in office so far has forced Ottawa to rethink priorities on issues from defence to trade.
> 
> But political change bubbles in other capitals too. Britons go to the polls in a general election in June. France just saw the election of a new president, Emmanuel Macron, who beat out right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. That country has a significant military mission ongoing in Mali, one nation cited as the likely destination for the Canadian deployment.
> 
> At home, other issues are competing for attention. Next week, the Liberal government will unveil its defence policy review that will lay out a new vision for the armed forces and the promise of additional funding to pay for it.
> 
> That vision, expected to provide policy guidance for the coming two decades, will almost certainly include a nod to the record of Canadian peacekeeping around the globe. But it’s not expected to include any new details of forthcoming missions.
> 
> The government’s attention has also been distracted as the political front as the man tasked to sell that new vision — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — is fighting for his credibility after being forced to apologize for inflating his role as an officer during an Afghanistan offensive.
> 
> And within defence headquarters, the fallout from the surprise January ouster of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military is still being felt ...


 :waiting:


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Political upheaval among key allies — notably the United States, France and Great Britain — is cited as the reason why Justin Trudeau’s government has pushed back its high-profile pledge to return Canada to international peacekeeping efforts.
> 
> The federal government does not want to deploy soldiers on a potentially dangerous mission only to find other nations have decided their priorities lie elsewhere, leaving Canada “stuck with a legacy mission,” one source told the Star.



Translation:  Having repeatedly gutted Canada's combat capabilities knowing that allies show up with the requisite kit, we are now incapable of deploying unless US/UK says it's OK.

Well, the college kids should be happy;  we are at one with our third-world brethren.   Kumbaya.   :not-again:


----------



## Altair

https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeau-says-canada-taking-appropriate-amount-of-time-on-peacekeeping-decision/amp




> Diplomatic sources have expressed growing impatience and frustration with what they call foot-dragging by the government after the Liberals promised last August to make up to 600 troops available for peacekeeping.
> 
> The government was leaning toward a deployment to Mali, where the UN has been charged with stabilizing the country after the central government and Tuareg rebels signed a peace agreement in 2015. The UN was hoping Canada would contribute transport helicopters as well as intelligence capabilities and even a force commander to the endeavour, considered the most dangerous peacekeeping mission in the world.





> Two Western diplomats interviewed this week said their countries have not received any explanation for the delay, which they say has caused problems on the ground in Mali. The UN had hoped Canada would replace a squadron of Dutch transport helicopters that one diplomat said had to be withdrawn from Mali because of technical issues.
> 
> Canadian officials, meanwhile, asked the world body to hold off on announcing a commander for the UN mission, known as Minusma, until they could consult with the Trump administration.
> 
> Germany and Belgium stepped into the breach when the Liberals continued to equivocate, committing both helicopters and a Belgian general to lead the UN mission, until Canada could make a decision.
> 
> “They bought time, so to speak,” one of the diplomats said of Germany and Belgium. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to protect the relationship between Canada and their respective countries.
> 
> “We hope (Canada) will decide now after assessing all they needed to assess. There is a certain expectation that Canada will come back.”
> 
> The other diplomat put it more bluntly, saying: “Just make a decision. Even if it’s a no, we need a decision.”



I maintain, we look like absolute garbage on the international scene and I would be shocked if we come close to a security Council seat.


----------



## PuckChaser

Altair said:
			
		

> I maintain, we look like absolute garbage on the international scene and I would be shocked if we come close to a security Council seat.



Its not our image on the international scene, its the fact that we'll have to suck up to tin-pot dictators and human rights abusers that we've previously called out for their actions to gain a seat. No amount of blue berets is going to fix that, and Africa doesn't want our troops, they want our money (no strings attached money).


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And it may be a while longer yet ... :waiting:





> Canada’s high-profile military mission to Africa appears off the radar for now with a decision on a deployment delayed, perhaps until fall, the Star has learned.
> 
> Political upheaval among key allies — notably the United States, France and Great Britain — is cited as the reason why Justin Trudeau’s government has pushed back its high-profile pledge to return Canada to international peacekeeping efforts.
> 
> The federal government does not want to deploy soldiers on a potentially dangerous mission only to find other nations have decided their priorities lie elsewhere, leaving Canada “stuck with a legacy mission,” one source told the Star.
> 
> One official at defence headquarters offered a blunt assessment of where the peace mission currently stood on the list of priorities. “It’s not on the radar,” said the source.
> 
> When asked about the delay, officials point to the political shake-ups around the globe, notably in Washington, where the unexpected election of Donald Trump as president and his unpredictable tenure in office so far has forced Ottawa to rethink priorities on issues from defence to trade.
> 
> But political change bubbles in other capitals too. Britons go to the polls in a general election in June. France just saw the election of a new president, Emmanuel Macron, who beat out right-wing candidate Marine Le Pen. That country has a significant military mission ongoing in Mali, one nation cited as the likely destination for the Canadian deployment.
> 
> At home, other issues are competing for attention. Next week, the Liberal government will unveil its defence policy review that will lay out a new vision for the armed forces and the promise of additional funding to pay for it.
> 
> That vision, expected to provide policy guidance for the coming two decades, will almost certainly include a nod to the record of Canadian peacekeeping around the globe. But it’s not expected to include any new details of forthcoming missions.
> 
> The government’s attention has also been distracted as the political front as the man tasked to sell that new vision — Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan — is fighting for his credibility after being forced to apologize for inflating his role as an officer during an Afghanistan offensive.
> 
> And within defence headquarters, the fallout from the surprise January ouster of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, the second-in-command of the military is still being felt ...









New manual for general distribution.  Perhaps she can demonstrate how to get it together.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Central African Republic anyone?

Based on the interesting face scarves worn by the Peacekeepers there, my hand is up 

Central African Republic death toll could reach 30 says UN 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/central-african-republic-death-toll-could-reach-30-says-un/


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Central African Republic anyone?
> 
> Based on the interesting face scarves worn by the Peacekeepers there, my hand is up
> 
> Central African Republic death toll could reach 30 says UN
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/central-african-republic-death-toll-could-reach-30-says-un/



Lol, Peruvian death squad "peacekeepers".


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Central African Republic anyone?
> 
> Based on the interesting face scarves worn by the Peacekeepers there, my hand is up
> 
> Central African Republic death toll could reach 30 says UN
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/central-african-republic-death-toll-could-reach-30-says-un/


Yeah, when the U.N. itself is complaining, how bad is it?
-- _*“Armed group attacks civilians, UN in Central African Republic overnight; one peacekeeper killed”*_
-- _*“UN chief ‘outraged’ by latest attacks in CAR, warns they could be war crimes”*_
Kumbya, indeed ...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Then again, there may be lower-risk options out there being run up the political flag pole to see who salutes ...


> A major component of the Liberal government's plan to return Canada to peacekeeping involves using Canadian soldiers to train and mentor other, less experienced United Nations forces, say defence and government sources.
> 
> The strategy, which would possibly be employed in some of the most dangerous parts of Africa, is a departure from traditional peacekeeping, which is popular in the public imagination.
> 
> And in the opinion of some defence experts, it bears some resemblance to the kind of capacity-building counter-insurgency mission the Canadian Forces carried out in Afghanistan for the better part of a decade.
> 
> "Capacity in training is a strength for Canada," said one official, who was unable to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file.
> 
> It is likely one of the reasons the Liberal government believes it must prepare the public for the risks of "modern peacekeeping."
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is slated to give a major foreign policy address in a few weeks' time, which will open the door to the delivery of the long-awaited defence policy review on June 7.
> 
> But it will also prepare the public for peacekeeping missions that could cost lives ...


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Then again, there may be lower-risk options out there being run up the political flag pole to see who salutes ...






> A major component of the Liberal government's plan to return Canada to peacekeeping involves using Canadian soldiers to train and mentor other, less experienced United Nations forces, say defence and government sources.
> 
> The strategy, which would possibly be employed in some of the most dangerous parts of Africa, is a departure from *traditional peacekeeping, which is popular in the public imagination*.
> 
> And in the opinion of some defence experts, it bears some resemblance to the kind of capacity-building counter-insurgency mission the Canadian Forces carried out in Afghanistan for the better part of a decade.
> 
> "Capacity in training is a strength for Canada," said one official, who was unable to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file.
> 
> It is likely one of the reasons the Liberal government believes it must prepare the public for the risks of "modern peacekeeping."
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is slated to give a major foreign policy address in a few weeks' time, which will open the door to the delivery of the long-awaited defence policy review on June 7.
> 
> But it will also prepare the public for peacekeeping missions that could cost lives ...



Well, on the good news front, I sense at least a change in the dialogue.  Imagination from myth from legend from history.  The chattering classes seem to be getting a better grip on what is reality and what is propaganda.

On the issue of Trainers for benighted places:  That manual has already been written.



> Rudyard Kipling
> 
> 
> Pharaoh and the Sergeant
> 
> 1897
> 
> ". . . _Consider that the meritorious services of the Sergeant Instructors
> attached to the Egyptian Army haue been inadequately acknowledged. . . .
> To the excellence of their work is mainly due the great improvement that has
> taken place in the soldiers of H.H. the Khedive_."
> 
> Extract from Letter.
> 
> Said England unto Pharaoh, "I must make a man of you,
> That will stand upon his feet and play the game;
> That will Maxim his oppressor as a Christian ought to do,"
> And she sent old Pharaoh Sergeant Whatisname.
> It was not a Duke nor Earl, nor yet a Viscount --
> It was not a big brass General that came;
> But a man in khaki kit who could handle men a bit,
> With his bedding labelled Sergeant Whatisname.
> 
> Said England unto Pharaoh,  "Though at present singing small,
> You shall hum a proper tune before it ends,"
> And she introduced old Pharaoh to the Sergeant once for all,
> And left 'em in the desert making friends.
> It was not a Crystal Palace nor Cathedral;
> It was not a public-house of common fame;
> But a piece of red-hot sand, with a palm on either hand,
> And a little hut for Sergeant Whatisname.
> 
> Said England unto Pharaoh, "You 've had miracles before,
> When Aaron struck your rivers into blood;
> But if you watch the Sergeant he can show vou something more.                                   '
> He's a charm for making riflemen from mud."
> It was neither Hindustani, French, nor Coptics;
> It was odds and ends and leavings of the same,
> Translated by a stick (which is really half the trick),
> And Pharaoh harked to Sergeant Whatisname.
> 
> (There were y ears that no one talked of; there were times of horrid doubt --
> There was faith and hope and whacking and despair --
> While the Sergeant gave the Cautions and he combed old Pharaoh out,
> And England didn't seem to know nor care.
> That is England's awful way o' doing business --
> She would serve her God (or Gordon) just the same --
> For she thinks her Empire still is the Strand and Hol born Hill,
> And she didn't think of Sergeant Whatisname.)
> 
> Said England to the Sergeant, "You can let my people go!"
> (England used 'em cheap and nasty from the start),
> And they entered 'em in battle on a most astonished foe --
> But the Sergeant he had hardened Pharaoh's heart
> Which was broke, along of all the plagues of Egypt,
> Three thousand years before the Sergeant came
> And he mended it again in a little more than ten,
> Till Pharaoh fought like Sergeant Whatisname.
> 
> It was wicked bad campaigning (cheap and nasty from the first),
> There was heat and dust and coolie-work and sun,
> There were vipers; flies, and sandstorms, there was cholera and thirst,
> But Pharaoh done the best he ever done.
> Down the desert, down the railway, down the river,
> Like Israelites From bondage so he came,
> 'Tween the clouds o' dust and fire to the land of his desire,
> And his Moses, it was Sergeant Whatisname!
> 
> We are eating dirt in handfuls for to save our daily bread,
> Which we have to buy from those that hate us most,
> And we must not raise the money where the Sergeant raised the dead,
> And it's wrong and bad and dangerous to boast.
> But he did it on the cheap and on the quiet,
> And he's not allowed to forward any claim --
> Though he drilled a black man white, though he made a mummy fight,
> He will still continue Sergeant Whatisname --
> Private, Corporal, Colour-Sergeant, and Instructor --
> But the everlasting miracle's the same!



https://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/pharaoh_and_sergeant.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Well, on the good news front, I sense at least a change in the dialogue ...


At least on the part of the mystery folk quoted, anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, does this mean any announcement'll wait until the fall now?


> Canada has a long and proud history of peacekeeping. For decades, brave Canadian women and men have put themselves in harm’s way to protect the world’s most vulnerable civilians – including women, children, and marginalized groups.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan was at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters in New York, today to launch the 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial. *The conference will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 14-15*. Approximately 500 delegates from 70 countries are expected to participate in the discussions.
> 
> Building on the successes of previous events held in New York and London, the 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial will review current contributions by UN members, and most importantly, secure pledges to meet the current and future needs of UN peacekeeping operations.
> 
> During his visit, the Minister also met with UN Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix, UN Under-Secretary General for Field Support Atul Khare, Canada’s Ambassador to the UN Marc-André Blanchard, and representatives of the ten countries co-hosting this year’s Defence Ministerial. Canada hopes that these co-hosts will play a key role leading up to the conference, by chairing meetings to identify and prepare key deliverables for the 2017 Ministerial.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “Canada is doing its part to make the world a more peaceful and prosperous place for everyone. And we are committed to increasing our engagement in peace support operations.  The 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial is one component of our engagement with the UN and I look forward to welcoming defence counterparts to Canada later this year.”
> 
> - Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> Ten countries will serve as co-hosts for the 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Japan, Netherlands, Pakistan, Rwanda, Uruguay, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Co-hosts will work closely with Canada and the UN to organize meetings to prepare the ground for the Ministerial.
> 
> On November 14, Canada will host a series of events called “Focus on Peacekeeping”. While not a part of the official conference, these events will complement the Ministerial, they will be geared towards a broad audience, and will explore several different themes to underline the importance of a comprehensive approach to peacekeeping.
> 
> On November 15, four plenary sessions will be held on:
> Integration of gender perspectives into peacekeeping: How to empower women, and take gender perspectives into account in all aspects of peacekeeping, to achieve better results on the ground.
> Innovation in training and capacity building: How to strengthen partnerships between UN, troop- and police-contributing countries, and other actors, to improve outcomes of peacekeeping operations.
> Protecting those at risk: How to ensure that high-level strategies align with the realities on the ground, while acknowledging that the success of UN peacekeeping should be measured by its impact on those we seek to protect.
> Early warning and rapid deployment: How to better identify and analyze emerging conflicts, while making sure key decision makers are informed in a timely manner so they can plan their response more quickly. During the Ministerial, Member States will also provide new pledges to meet the UN's rapid deployment requirement for 2017-18.
> 
> Today, Canada is active in a number of United Nations peace support operations, including those in Haiti, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cyprus and the Middle East ...


op:
Meanwhile, from one of the main contender countries ...

_*"Two UN ‘blue helmets’ killed in attack in northern Mali"*_ (UN info-machine)
_*"Calling Additional Peacekeepers ‘Force Multipliers’ in Mali, Secretary-General Urges New Contributions to Reinforce Mission’s Protection Mandate"*_ (UN info-machine)
_*"New French President Reaffirms Commitment to Fight Terrorism in Sahel* -- During his election campaign, France’s new president Emmanuel Macron promised he would visit French troops in Mali. Just days into his term, he made Mali his second foreign visit, and his first to Africa.  In choosing Mali as his second foreign trip, just a week into his presidency, Emmanuel Macron was sending a clear message that he is determined to continue the fight against terrorism ..."_ (Voice of America)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Barely any tea leaves to read from the DefMin's latest speech this week -- *highlights* mine ...


> On May 24, 2017, Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan spoke in front of the International Peace Institute. He discussed the future of UN peacekeeping operations and the role of the 2017 UN peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference in support of improving such operations. The Conference will be hosted in Vancouver on November 14-15 2017.
> 
> Opening remarks were provided by Mr. Atul Khare, UN Under-Secretary-General for Field Support. The event was moderated by Dr. Adam Lupel, Vice President, International Peace Institute.
> 
> Under-Secretary-General Khare…
> Your Excellencies…
> Dr. Lupel…
> And members of the International Peace Institute,
> 
> Thank you for your warm welcome and hospitality. I am delighted to spend the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers with those who are so committed to preventing and resolving global conflicts.
> 
> I am reminded that the best way we can honour the dedication and courage of our peacekeepers is to take up their cause with renewed determination. It is clear to me that the International Peace Institute does that every day.
> 
> I applaud IPI for its leadership in advancing global peace and security. Your work is inspiring. It is work that has contributed enormously to our understanding of conflict prevention, mediation and post-conflict reconstruction.
> 
> The increasing complexity of the UN’s engagements, has reinforced that fact that, now more than ever, we must collectively work toward the common goal of spreading peace and stability throughout the world.
> 
> No nation can rest on its laurels or just repeat what worked in the past.
> 
> Peace operations today are more complex than they were during the early days of the ‘Blue Helmets’. So our response to this new reality must evolve, as well.
> 
> We know we must reform UN peacekeeping to meet the demand for it now and in the future. The challenge, as always, is in deciding what those reforms should be and how we implement them.
> 
> Over the last two years, the UN has begun answering these questions. Several major reviews from across the peace operations spectrum have produced recommendations of how we can progress.
> 
> Secretary-General Gueterres has also set high standards in his initial steps to increase coherence and effectiveness in the UN system.
> 
> He recently said that the interconnected nature of today’s crises requires us to connect our own efforts for peace and security, sustainable development, and human rights. Not just in words, but in practice, as well.
> 
> Canadazagrees and is encouraged by his ambitious reform agenda. We also recognize that the reform agenda is but one piece of a larger puzzle.
> 
> As Member States, there are practical ways we can work together to better orient the future of UN peacekeeping.
> 
> One way has been the annual pledging conference, which was first hosted by the United States in 2015, and most recently by the UK in September 2016.
> 
> To date, these conferences have been successful in garnering pledges for increased Member participation in UN Peacekeeping operations.
> 
> We owe a great deal to the Members who have co-hosted this great initiative alongside the UN.
> 
> The conferences have also significantly diversified the pool of troop and police contributing countries on UN peacekeeping missions.
> 
> I am heartened by the fact that so many troop and police contributing countries carry the UN peacekeeping mantle, and I am encouraged by how much we can learn from each other.
> 
> As I have announced, Canada will host the 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial on November 14th and 15th in Vancouver, British Columbia. We are proud to take a leadership role in advancing the UN’s peacekeeping agenda.
> 
> Today, I am pleased to announce further details on this important initiative. We have established ambitious objectives for the forum.
> 
> As always, the plan is to maximize our time together. We will review the progress achieved since we last met in 2016, and focus on the best way forward.
> 
> I am eager to hear your thoughts on how best we can support meaningful reform in the UN system.
> 
> From my perspective, one important aspect of this will be to broaden the discussion at the upcoming Defence Ministerial in Vancouver.
> 
> During the Conference, we should consider our work in the context of the impressive and progressive work you are doing here in New York.
> 
> We must also consider the trends we are seeing in the field of global peacekeeping. For instance, it is Canada`s belief that addressing the root causes of conflict is a necessary precondition of success.
> 
> The father of modern peacekeeping, Lester B. Pearson, once said, “The best defence of peace is not power, but the removal of the causes of war.”
> 
> But make no mistake, we must understand the reality of conflict today and address the threat of radical groups in conflict.
> 
> Also, we maintain that a range of activities - from training to humanitarian assistance, development and education – are needed to increase our chances of building a lasting peace.
> 
> During the Ministerial, we will strive to identify pragmatic and innovative solutions to global conflict. We will build on the “3Ps” — pledges, planning and performance, as highlighted at last year’s Ministerial in London. But more than that, we will put a new spotlight on partnerships.
> 
> This focus will be important, because the UN system has the greatest impact when it enables others to do great work.
> 
> To do that, we must build meaningful and sustainable partnerships with governments, regional organizations, and civil society actors, so that peacekeeping can be more effective.
> 
> In Vancouver, we will continue encouraging pledges from Member nations, particularly in areas where the UN faces gaps, such as rapid deployment.
> 
> We will explore ways to accelerate innovations in training and capacity building, and to encourage partnerships between the UN and countries that contribute troops and police officers.
> 
> We will explore a variety of ways of protecting vulnerable populations, including the use of force in protection mandates and engaging with local populations.
> 
> But I am also struck by the Secretary General’s conflict prevention agenda, and I am eager to explore the intersection between conflict prevention and peacekeeping.
> 
> Building on the great work that was done at the London Ministerial, we will, once again, emphasize the importance of integrating gender perspectives into Operations planning.
> 
> The London Defence Ministerial endorsed ways to improve the planning and performance of UN peacekeeping operations by increasing the participation of women.
> 
> *We, in Canada, feel strongly about the integration of women at all levels and in all roles, in the promotion of peace and security. We know that local conflicts and crises often affect women and girls differently and more severely than they affect other demographic groups.
> 
> We believe that a diversity of perspectives in operational planning and implementation is essential to improve the circumstances for the most vulnerable populations.
> 
> Women maximize our collective efforts against gender-based violence. They play a key role in engaging youth and preventing the recruitment of child soldiers. They are actors of peace that can make agreements last in their communities.
> *
> 
> Many of you here today are troop and police-contributing countries, host nations and regional partners. Ultimately, the goal of our dialogue today as we head to Vancouver, is to benefit from your first-hand experiences. We will learn from you and build concrete proposals and commitments.
> 
> I look forward to hosting Members in Vancouver and hearing your thoughts about how we can meaningfully contribute to the future of UN peacekeeping. Thank you.


----------



## YZT580

total bafflegab.  Was it at the UK meeting that he pledged troops to Africa or was that earlier?  How about creating an environment where it is safe for women to walk and children to attend school by eradicating those who would implement slavery instead i.e. Boka Harem or ISIS or those bastards who set off the ambush in Egypt?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some more tea leaves to read ...

_*World Federalists (with RMC prof as spokesperson):  "Dithering and delay by Canada is harming our reputation at the UN"*_ (news release)
Note the order of the names of Ministers on this one:  _*"Minister Goodale, Minister Freeland, Minister Hehr and Minister Sajjan mark the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers"*_ #WhoSitsWhereAtPolitburoMeetingsINT?


----------



## The Bread Guy

A reasonably detailed outline of the various asks Canada's reportedly considering (and, in some cases, already turned down), via CBC.ca's Murray Brewster, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> The United Nations has presented Canada with a long list of peacekeeping requests that not only include fronting a dangerous mission in Mali, but separate military and police training deployments, including one in the volatile Central African Republic.
> 
> The list, obtained by CBC News under access to information legislation, paints the clearest picture yet of the expectations of the international community following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's declaration that "Canada is back" on the world stage.
> 
> The documents also hint at some of the diplomatic arm-twisting that's been underway, both before and after the Liberals announced last summer they would commit 600 troops and 150 police officers to international peace support operations.
> 
> Much of the content also helps explain some of the dismay, particularly among European allies at the UN, over the Trudeau government's indecision on the missions.
> 
> A spokesperson for Global Affairs reiterated in an e-mail that no decision has been made and that options are being "carefully and thoughtfully" weighed.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has been opaque about where troops might end up, but informally many government officials at National Defence and Global Affairs Canada have signaled that Mali, Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic were among the contending missions.
> 
> The documents, dated May 11, 2017, outline what precisely the UN and the European Union want to Canada to undertake in most of those troubled nations.
> 
> The ask for Mali is the largest and most significant.
> 
> Canadian troops are being asked to "replace (the) Dutch contingent" this year and that would involve taking over the role of being the eyes and ears of the UN mission, conducting reconnaissance and gathering intelligence on local insurgents and Islamic extremists who remain a persistent and deadly threat.
> 
> The Dutch have about 290 troops in the West African country, which is down from 400 after they withdrew their helicopter contingent.
> 
> *Peacekeepers and military training*
> 
> There have also been separate "repeated expressions of interest" for Canada to undertake a military training mission in Mali along the European Union, the records show, and to provide helicopters to the UN's stabilization mission there.
> 
> The German foreign ministry has sent two separate letters and the UN secretary general made a direct appeal last September, according to the documents.
> 
> Canada turned down a request that came in last August around the time the Liberal government made its announcement. The response said the country was "not yet in a position to make a decision on specifics" of the Canadian military contribution.
> 
> The Germans were particularly antsy last year because they relied on Dutch helicopter support to protect their troops.
> 
> *Police reform*
> 
> The UN has also requested Canada contribute to police reform and training in Mali to help instruct local security forces in counter-terror operations, deal with organized crime and gather intelligence.
> 
> Mali is the deadliest UN mission on the books right now, with more than 100 peacekeepers killed since the deployment began in 2013.
> 
> The mission is a significant challenge for the UN, said analyst Evan Cinq-Mars.
> 
> "The tactics by the armed groups, including targeting the UN mission with improvised explosive devices, really hinder the ability of the mission, not only to protect civilians but to also protect itself," said Cinq-Mars, who works out the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect in New York.
> 
> "I think it's important for the UN and member states like Canada to really ensure that considerations for deployments are made, and that troops and police that are willing and ready and trained to perform and are fit for purpose."
> 
> On Friday, the UN debated whether to allow five African countries in the region to set up a joint counter-terrorism force to tackle extremist threats — a measure the U.S. opposes.
> 
> In addition to Mali, there was a request for Canada to undertake a military training mission — alongside France and the European Union — in the Central African Republic, where UN troops have been accused of sexual violence. It also a nation where international forces have faced increasingly attacks, including one last month that left four dead and 10 wounded.
> 
> The documents list the request as "closed," but also note that National Defence was "against" the deployment.
> 
> As well, there is separate call for "several specialized police teams" in the Central African Republic, and similar pleas for "joint patrols and community police in South Sudan." International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau is expected to make a significant aid announcement for South Sudan Monday.
> 
> *Marquee postings*
> 
> Interestingly, Canada has been offered several marquee command positions under the UN flag, almost all of which have met with resistance at National Defence.
> 
> It is widely know that the UN asked for a lieutenant-general to lead the mission in Mali, but the documents show the ask was made twice before a Belgian general took up the post.
> 
> National Defence advised against taking that one, according to the documents.
> 
> Canada also turned down these high-profile posts:
> 
> Brigadier-general to Kabul as a senior military adviser to the Afghan government
> Deputy commander for UN mission in Democratic Republic of Congo
> Deputy commander for UN mission Central African Republic
> Task force commander role in the Central African Republic
> 
> Canada did agree to send an officer to serve as chief of staff at the UN's military affairs branch in New York.
> 
> Cinq-Mars says peacekeeping operations in the field rely on exceptional leadership and in the absence of that there have been "breakdowns in how these missions operate" and carry out their mandates.
> 
> "I think it's a big testament that there have been a number of requests to Canada to lead particular missions," he said. "I am not particularly sure about how the UN has responded to the denials."


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... Meanwhile, elsewhere in Africa ... _*"As many as 25 Canadian soldiers, based out of Valcartier, Que., will soon take part in a revamped mission to train security forces in the troubled western African country of Niger.  *Last summer, CBC News reported that regular army troops would take over an ongoing deployment, known as Operation Naberius, from Canada's elite special forces.  A handful of the highly-trained soldiers have since 2013 helped train the Niger Armed Forces in marksmanship, reconnaissance and other basic military skills ..."_


An update, via French-language media - Google Translate in quote:


> 45eNorthern.ca learned that as part of Operation NABERIUS, approximately 24 instructors and a small coordination element in the Canadian Army Theater have recently been deployed to Niger to conduct the first of two sets of training planned for 2017 ...


IIRC, this may not count towards Canada's U.N. ask.


----------



## a_majoor

YZT580 said:
			
		

> total bafflegab.  Was it at the UK meeting that he pledged troops to Africa or was that earlier?  How about creating an environment where it is safe for women to walk and children to attend school by eradicating those who would implement slavery instead i.e. Boka Harem or ISIS or those bastards who set off the ambush in Egypt?



While that sort of military action is necessary to establish peace, it is not "peacekeeping" as implied in the official Liberal mythology. If you can do the job without a Blue Helmet, then it doesn't fit the narrative.


----------



## jmt18325

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While that sort of military action is necessary to establish peace, it is not "peacekeeping" as implied in the official Liberal mythology. If you can do the job without a Blue Helmet, then it doesn't fit the narrative.



That's rather baseless, considering that the Liberal ministers have gone to great lengths to explain how peacekeeping today is not the blue helmet affair of the 90s.


----------



## FSTO

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's rather baseless, considering that the Liberal ministers have gone to great lengths to explain how peacekeeping today is not the blue helmet affair of the 90s.



The 90's is when peacekeeping died.

Ask any Canadian on the street what our military does and I'll bet the farm they'll say Peacekeeping nine times out of ten. That is the mythology that the current government is half heartily changing the channel on.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> The 90's is when peacekeeping died.
> 
> Ask any Canadian on the street what our military does and I'll bet the farm they'll say Peacekeeping nine times out of ten. That is the mythology that the current government is half heartily changing the channel on.



I worked for two people from Yugoslavia.  Husband and wife.  

Wife:  "My country is gone."

Husband: "Why were you there?"  

To be clear and for the record - he was talking about Canada in general and the Army in particular.   I never served there.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's rather baseless, considering that the Liberal ministers have gone to great lengths to explain how peacekeeping today is not the blue helmet affair of the 90s.


In your own words or even someone else's could you explain for me what today's peacekeeping is?


----------



## jmt18325

Today's peacekeeping is war, quite simply.  It would be a lot more like Afghanistan than Cyprus.


----------



## Loachman

One or the other. It cannot be both simultaneously.


----------



## dimsum

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Today's peacekeeping is war, quite simply.  It would be a lot more like Afghanistan than Cyprus.



Straight from the UN page on Peacekeeping:



> UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:
> 
> Consent of the parties;
> Impartiality;
> Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/peacekeeping.shtml



As Loachman says, blue-helmet peacekeeping cannot be like Afghanistan, as we definitely did NOT have the consent of the Taliban and we used force for more than just self-defence.


----------



## Jarnhamar

JMT, 
So we should stop using/ get rid of the erroneous name and stop manipulating the public?


----------



## Kat Stevens

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Today's peacekeeping is war, quite simply.  It would be a lot more like Afghanistan than Cyprus.



Thats "peacemaking", not peacekeeping. Two different things entirely.


----------



## jmt18325

What we call it really doesn't matter.  It's war.  Call it peacemaking if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Loachman

Terminology matters a lot. Imprecise terminology leads to imprecise understanding, which can lead to much more serious things.


----------



## Kat Stevens

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What we call it really doesn't matter.  It's war.  Call it peacemaking if it makes you feel better.



Thanks ever so much, you have no idea how much that means to me.


----------



## jmt18325

Loachman said:
			
		

> Terminology matters a lot. Imprecise terminology leads to imprecise understanding, which can lead to much more serious things.



They still call it peacekeeping, but you can;t have peace with terrorists groups.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They still call it peacekeeping, but you can;t have peace with terrorists groups.



Yes you can. If you elect them to high political office, like they did with Gerry Adams in NI. Or Mugabe, or Mandela etc...


----------



## jmt18325

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes you can. If you elect them to high political office, like they did with Gerry Adams in NI. Or Mugabe, or Mandela etc...



I don't think the ones that we're dealing with now are interested in that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What we call it really doesn't matter.  It's war.  Call it peacemaking if it makes you feel better.



That's the thing. The liberals campaigned on more PEACEKEEPING  missions and we know that a lot of canadians have  a romanticized/confused /disjointed view on what peacekeeping is. 

Whats the end result? The government pulls back fighter planes that are helping kill nasty murdering terrorists  but decide 500 soldiers are going to deploy SOMEWHERE, they're just not sure yet, to get some peacekeeping done.  Somewhere in Africa which is a shit hole. Believe it was Mali where a UN peacekeeper was getting killed every 11 or 13 days? 

That harmless terminology may very well get someone on this bored killed.


----------



## jmt18325

And yet the Liberals have gone to great lengths to explain that any of these missions that Canada may take will have real danger - real risk - the possibility of real casualties.  Canadians may picture cute and cuddly blue helmets.  I don't think the government does.


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps they speak while hoping that no one is really listening which is probably true.  What the libs are doing is trying to find a painless way to keep Justin's rather foolish election promise.  They have discovered that all the options are quagmires in which we will lose men and equipment and they will lose votes (think Somalia) and they are desperately seeking an alternative.


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That harmless terminology may very well get someone on this board killed.



Exactly.


----------



## Ostrozac

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's the thing. The liberals campaigned on more PEACEKEEPING  missions and we know that a lot of canadians have  a romanticized/confused /disjointed view on what peacekeeping is.
> 
> Whats the end result? The government pulls back fighter planes that are helping kill nasty murdering terrorists  but decide 500 soldiers are going to deploy SOMEWHERE, they're just not sure yet, to get some peacekeeping done.  Somewhere in Africa which is a crap hole. Believe it was Mali where a UN peacekeeper was getting killed every 11 or 13 days?
> 
> That harmless terminology may very well get someone on this bored killed.



I'm not sure why the government hasn't jumped all over a major leadership role for the RCMP in MINUJUSTH (the CIVPOL heavy replacement for MINUSTAH in Haiti). It would seem to check all the boxes -- limited logistics chain, no jihadist threat, well within capability, fulfills a campaign promise without actually deploying expensive armoured vehicles and aircraft. It wouldn't even strain RCMP manning numbers -- the vast majority of CIVPOL for MINUSTAH have been police seconded to the RCMP from the Sûreté du Québec and municipal forces, as the RCMP have historically struggled with generating sufficient numbers of French speaking police.

A cynic would suggest that only Africa will do, as the votes for a UN Security Council seat that Canada is looking for are African votes, or that the Canadian public doesn't think of Blue Beret CIVPOL as 'real' peacekeeping, but who would be that cynical?


----------



## Good2Golf

Semi-related, using jmt's take on things, I heard that one of our 'peacekeepers' elsewhere in the world just recaptured for Canada the world record for longest 'peacekeeping remote stabilization actionTM.'  3,540m. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace

I am a firm believer in "remote stabilization actionTM" and hope that we are doing quite a bit more of it.  Not being PC, I think it should be done with extreme prejudice; but that would only show my bias'.


----------



## tomahawk6

This was first posted in July of last year with the heading CF to deploy to Africa soon....   :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am a firm believer in "remote stabilization actionTM" and hope that we are doing quite a bit more of it.  Not being PC, I think it should be done with extreme prejudice; but that would only show my bias'.



I prefer 'Gunboat Diplomacy'. It's more 'authentic' .... and effective: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Butcher and bolt"?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2814866/Kill-without-mercy-party-like-theres-no-tomorrow-Churchills-secret-band-fearless-warriors-broke-hearts-rules-Nazis-spirit.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I prefer 'Gunboat Diplomacy'. It's more 'authentic' .... and effective:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy



I always preferred, "Terminated with extreme prejudice."


----------



## Kat Stevens

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "Butcher and bolt"?
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2814866/Kill-without-mercy-party-like-theres-no-tomorrow-Churchills-secret-band-fearless-warriors-broke-hearts-rules-Nazis-spirit.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Rule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules...   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This was first posted in July of last year with the heading CF to deploy to Africa soon....   :rofl:



Okay, you caught us. We like to hold rumors of deployments over the heads of our soldiers to try and bribe them to behave, not get DUIs etc..


----------



## The Bread Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This was first posted in July of last year with the heading CF to deploy to Africa soon....   :rofl:


Maybe they meant "very soon" in a _geological_ sense ...


----------



## tomahawk6

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe they meant "very soon" in a _geological_ sense ...



More like a glacial pace. :camo:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

So, Mr. Sajan, we're just about to go peacekeeping in Africa, are we not? Any minute now ... As soon as you finish re-intstating Admiral Norman further to your witch hunt, right!  :threat: 

P.s.: I'm in one of those mood today!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So, Mr. Sajan, we're just about to go peacekeeping in Africa, are we not? Any minute now ... As soon as you finish re-intstating Admiral Norman further to your witch hunt, right!  :threat:
> 
> P.s.: I'm in one of those mood today!



On the nose, Matt Fisher: 

Matthew Fisher: For Trudeau, a UN mission in Africa appears ever more daunting

The Liberals could not have picked a worse time to be considering a blue beret — or more accurately, a blue helmet — mission in Africa

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/matthew-fisher-for-trudeau-a-un-mission-in-africa-appears-ever-more-daunting


----------



## McG

This seems odd.  Not sure how you would do it.  Not even sure that the military is the best tool for "de-militarization of child soldiers".


> *Canada pushes back decision on UN peace mission*
> Federal government is considering suggestion Canada create a specialized military unit whose goal is the de-militarization of child soldiers.
> Tonda MacCharles
> The Star
> 13 Sep 17


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/13/canada-pushes-back-decision-on-un-peace-mission.html


----------



## medicineman

JT is back into his cache of MJ me thinks...are they going to hire and train a shyte load of child psych trauma specialists to do this or something?  The only thing the military should be involved with regarding this is ensuring the kids are disarmed properly, safely and securely...the rest needs to be dealt with by therapeutic reintegration to the real world by people that do this for a living.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## MilEME09

medicineman said:
			
		

> JT is back into his cache of MJ me thinks...are they going to hire and train a shyte load of child psych trauma specialists to do this or something?  The only thing the military should be involved with regarding this is ensuring the kids are disarmed properly, safely and securely...the rest needs to be dealt with by therapeutic reintegration to the real world by people that do this for a living.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> MM



That and you know, forceful remove the recruiters from the situation.....


----------



## medicineman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> That and you know, forceful remove the recruiters from the situation.....



Yes indeed  :nod:

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had the CPC managed to buy the Russian Mistrals, we would be offering them up as our contribution, perfect world, sit off some hot spot and let someone else go ashore.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a small problem, Colin: All the current UN peacekeeping trouble spots in Africa, be it South Sudan, Mali, central African Republic or Burundi, are all landlocked countries. Amphibious ships are pretty useless for those.


----------



## daftandbarmy

My hand is up for Kenya. 

At least Adventure Training would be easy: climb Mt Kilimanjaro and Mt Kenya


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> This seems odd.  Not sure how you would do it.  Not even sure that the military is the best tool for "de-militarization of child soldiers".https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/09/13/canada-pushes-back-decision-on-un-peace-mission.html



Strictly speaking DDR is the sort of mission where CIMIC and PSYOPS capabilities are needed, but (as noted) mostly to leverage the Host Nation, OGD and NGO resources to make these things happen. If there is insufficient will or resources in the host nation, then no amount of military force or capabilities will successfully enable DDR. (Look at Columbia, where the preconditions for a DDR were derailed by the population voting down a ceasefire with FARC because they wanted vengeance).

Reading the commentary of the various talking heads about how and where *we* should do *peacekeeping* is a bit like receiving messages from some sort of parallel universe, where rules and conditions are obviously very different......


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small problem, Colin: All the current UN peacekeeping trouble spots in Africa, be it South Sudan, Mali, central African Republic or Burundi, are all landlocked countries. Amphibious ships are pretty useless for those.



Have faith Africa is good at growing trouble spots and it may not be a full on UN mission either.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Have faith Africa is good at growing trouble spots and it may not be a full on UN mission either.


Ah, the eternal optimist ...


----------



## Jarnhamar

"de-militarization of child soldiers". Could be  good opportunity for adults to pretend to be "child soldiers" and maybe get a free trip to Canada and hooked up with social assistance.

Opening bid, 30'000 "children" in need of saving?  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62

Canadian "Dreamers". [


----------



## medicineman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Canadian "Dreamers". [



The word I was thinking of did indeed start with "d" and end in "s" but had "umbasse"  in between...

MM


----------



## MarkOttawa

Sure doesn't look like there will be any big contribution of Canadian Army troop to UN peace operations in Africa:



> Statement by Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard permanent representative of Canada to the United Nations - To the Security Council on Strategic Force Generation
> 
> New York, 05 October 2017
> 
> Mr. President,
> 
> I would like to thank France and the United Kingdom for convening this timely meeting on strategic force generation and for inviting Canada to brief on the upcoming Vancouver Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial.
> 
> Canada is convinced that when properly mandated, resourced, and supported, peacekeeping remains one of the most flexible and effective tools available to the international community in responding to crises.
> 
> But the nature of conflict is evolving, the operational tempo of peacekeeping is increasing, and the scale and complexity of peacekeeping operations is growing.
> 
> We have no choice but to anticipate, adapt and respond to the challenges.
> 
> This requires reforming our collective institutions, enhancing operational effectiveness, and making a sustained and collective effort to address capability gaps.
> 
> _However, addressing capability gaps requires more than just supplying boots on the ground_ [emphasis added]. It is about providing troops with the right training, capabilities, and equipment, and doing it in a timely fashion.
> 
> Strategic force generation is fundamental to this effort, and it is an area where we need to do our work together – Member States and the UN Secretariat – differently and better.
> 
> Since 2014, a high-level series of conferences have helped to bridge the gap between the operational needs of UN peacekeeping and the tremendous capabilities that Member States have to offer.
> 
> From New York, to London, to Paris – not only have we seen an unprecedented number of pledges to UN peacekeeping, but also a move by Member States and the UN to introduce qualitative considerations into the discussion on force generation.
> 
> These annual events are now a key part of the institution of UN peacekeeping, complementing the work of this body, as well as the Special Committee on Peacekeeping, or C34. UN peacekeeping has a renewed sense of purpose with the reforms proposed by the Secretary-General.
> 
> With these considerations in mind, Canada volunteered to host the 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial...
> 
> Discussions in Vancouver will accordingly highlight the importance of integrated approaches to preventing violent conflict. Ministers will advance these objectives through panel sessions on the following themes.
> 
> First, participants will close capability gaps in UN peacekeeping by announcing new pledges and taking stock of pledges already in place. In particular, these include strengthening capabilities related to gender, police peacekeepers, as well as to peacekeeping in a francophone environment.
> 
> Second, we will identify concrete ways to strengthen partnerships on training and capacity building between the UN, troops, police, and other actors. We all have a common purpose in making UN peacekeeping operations more effective, and we have complementary skills and experiences to offer.
> 
> It is time that troop and police contributors, along with the UN Secretariat, work closer together before deployments to ensure that all of our women and men in the field have the training they need, and are able to operate as one.
> 
> Third, we will examine how we can better protect those at risk, by ensuring our strategies align with the realities on the ground. This includes examining what concrete measures can be taken to better address sexual exploitation and abuse, and prevent the recruitment and use of child soldiers.
> 
> Fourth, we will encourage greater coherence in early warning and rapid deployment, by identifying innovative approaches, capacities and technologies to improve early warning, rapid analysis and planning capabilities. We will also look at ways to shorten new mission start-up times and ensure that we have filled the UN’s rapid deployment requirements for 2018...
> http://www.international.gc.ca/prmny-mponu/statements-declarations/2017/10/05.aspx?lang=eng



Blah, blah, blather.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Might one now assume that, given this: "In particular, these include strengthening capabilities related to gender, police peacekeepers, as well as to peacekeeping in a francophone environment."  the Government of the Day will be funding an additional 3000 positions for the GRC to sustain a new Field Force capable of sustaining 600 female, francophone police officers on foreign service?


----------



## MarkOttawa

One wonders how many real francophones there are in Sahel.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Sure doesn't look like there will be any big contribution of Canadian Army troop to UN peace operations in Africa:
> Blah, blah, blather.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Interesting that even in the world of Wikipedia, and its entry for Peacekeeping, Canada is only mentioned once, for contributed troop levels in 2014...

Perhaps Canada is not as awesome as it thinks it is?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good2Golf:



> Perhaps Canada is not as awesome as it thinks it is?



If only Canadians could both recognize and face reality; instead chattering classes and pols blather on about Canadian "leadership" all over the place and in all sorts of matters:



> The Mandela Memorial Ceremony and Canada: “…a little people, a silly people…”
> 
> At least we are not “…greedy, barbarous, and cruel…”...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/mark-collins-the-mandela-memorial-ceremony-and-canada-a-little-people-a-silly-people/



Except many people now think to our indigenous peoples...?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

Canada is right up there on the global rankings when it comes to self-adulation. :nod:


----------



## medicineman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Canada is right up there on the global rankings when it comes to self-adulation. :nod:



And pretty, albeit pretty useless, leaders.

MM


----------



## FSTO

Nothing ticks me off more than listening to people who have never been on a Peacekeeping Mission wax on about how great we are.

"Canada's Back!" has to be the most vacuous, meaningless, empty, valueless, worthless, useless, pyrrhic, nugatory, futile, fruitless, profitless and pointless statement that has come from the government of Canada since 1968. We rode on the coattails of our warriors of the World Wars, Korea and the early Cold War. But since Unification we have become a totally useless twit when it comes to international influence. Honest broker my ass. Nobody takes us seriously at all.


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe the CF could help us out in Niger ? :goblin:


----------



## medicineman

Maybe they government should pay some of us here ad infinitum to launch a Royal Commission about Canadian Peacekeeping - The Myth; Where We Should Go; How Cool Do We Need To Look While There (ie - live vs blank ammo, ratios of candies/toothbrushes to bullets (live or inert), gender bias, etc); ROE Beyond Handshaking or Tea and Toast With Local Bad People; Potential of Being Over Run and Potential Fall Out If Body Bags Return Home (and What Spin To Put On That...Not To Mention Which Flag To Cover The Coffins With); I could go on thinking of things to report on...much like the average Royal Commission  :evil:.  I'd say many of us would be able to quit our present jobs and have a tidy bit o'cash set aside after.

Anyone interested?

MM


----------



## MarkOttawa

tomahawk6:



> Maybe the CF could help us out in Niger ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually already there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ammunition procurement tender sheds light on secretive Canadian operation in Africa
> 
> A federal government public tender to purchase ammunition for the Canadian military is shedding more light on one Canada’s most secretive counter-terrorism international assistance programs.
> 
> The tender notice posted on the government’s Byandsell.gc.ca website is for 1.2 million cartridges for “AK-47 type weapons.”
> 
> The AK-47, which stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova model 1947 in Russian, is one of the world’s most mass-produced and iconic assault rifles.
> 
> Extremely rugged and simple to use, the AK-47 and its more modernized variants are used by dozens of militaries, militias, guerilla groups, narcotrafficers  and terrorists around the world.
> 
> But it’s not part of the day-to-day arsenal of Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> So why would the Canadian military need 1.2 million rounds, enough to start a small war [really?]?
> 
> Operation Naberius
> 
> The ammunition is for a little-known training and capacity building program run by the Canadian military in the West African nation of Niger under the codename Operation Naberius, said Capt. Vincent Bouchard, a spokesman for Canadian Joint Operations Command Headquarters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2017/08/03/ammunition-procurement-tender-sheds-light-on-secretive-canadian-operation-in-africa/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So not that secretive:
> 
> Operation Naberius
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=Operation+Naberius&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=QKSEWen-FYmijwTq45XQCw
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa
Click to expand...


----------



## PuckChaser

I know its a little update, but it looks like CANSOF was at least there in 2014 doing training. W5 did a special about it: http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/behind-the-secret-world-of-canada-s-covert-commandos-1.1761614


----------



## MarkOttawa

What's the minimum Trudeau can get away with for UN peacekeeping?  Bets? Location(s)?



> Military planners back at drawing board as peacekeeping summit looms
> 
> Officials at National Defence have dusted off their briefing books and are back looking at where they could send Canadian peacekeepers as the clock ticks down to a major UN summit on the subject next month in Vancouver.
> 
> The flurry of activity ends months of idling as military planners waited for some signs of interest from the Trudeau government, which first promised up to 600 troops and 150 police for peacekeeping last year.
> 
> National Defence conducted a number of fact-finding missions and drew up options on possible missions following that commitment in August 2016, but the Liberals refused to pull the trigger.
> 
> Instead, the whole idea was put on the back burner for months amid concerns about the potential risks of modern peacekeeping missions, and as the government turned to dealing with the Trump administration.
> 
> In the meantime, National Defence's proposals collected dust as they sat largely untouched with the Prime Minister's Office and Global Affairs Canada.
> 
> Sources tell The Canadian Press that defence officials are now back at it and that the Liberals hope to make a decision before the Nov. 14-15 peacekeeping summit in Vancouver, though it's not certain they will.
> 
> The government has previously said it will not be rushed into a mission, but the UN expected last year when it agreed to let Canada host the meeting that Canadian troops would already be on the ground.
> 
> The summit, to be hosted by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, is only supposed to be open to officials from countries that have made concrete pledges to peacekeeping missions.
> 
> Defence officials are still looking at possible roles for Canada in Africa, but have also reportedly expanded their search to include the new mission in Haiti, where Canadian peacekeepers previously served.
> 
> The _UN has prepared a list of requirements in advance of the Vancouver summit, which includes three missions with "critical" shortages of specialized troops and equipment: Mali, South Sudan and Haiti.
> 
> The UN is specifically looking for an intelligence unit, bomb-disposal company and transport helicopters for Mali; a special forces unit and transport company for South Sudan; and helicopters for Haiti_ [emphasis added].
> 
> But it also needs more medical personnel, engineers, female peacekeepers, francophone troops and police officers across the board -- all of which Canada has in supply...
> 
> A UN official expressed frustration Friday at the government's apparent foot-dragging, noting that the needs of the world's hotspots have not changed significantly since the Liberals first promised to do more peacekeeping.
> 
> "Mali is still Mali, and South Sudan is still South Sudan," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to diplomatic sensitivities. "You have all the information. There isn't much left for discussion."..
> 
> French Ambassador Kareen Rispal, whose country has a large counter-insurgency mission in Mali, came out in French-language media this week saying she hopes Canada will still support the UN there.
> 
> That may still be the case, but _sources warn Canada's footprint is likely to be smaller than anticipated wherever the government ultimately decides to go_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/military-planners-back-at-drawing-board-as-peacekeeping-summit-looms-1.3633127



_Quelle_ flipping _surprise_.

As for Haiti, note UN military mission ending, being replaced by mainly police one (RCMP? With RCAF choppers?):



> UN ending 13-year military peacekeeping mission in Haiti
> 
> A U.N. peacekeeping mission in Haiti that has helped maintain order through 13 years of political turmoil and catastrophe is coming to an end as the last of the blue-helmeted soldiers from around the world leave despite concerns that the police and justice system are still not adequate to ensure security in the country.
> 
> The U.N. lowered its flag at its headquarters in Port-au-Prince during a ceremony Thursday that was attended by President Jovenel Moise, who thanked the organization for helping to provide stability. After a gradual winding down, there are now about 100 international soldiers in the country and they will leave within days. The mission will officially end on Oct. 15.
> 
> Immediately afterward, the U.N. will start a new mission made up of about 1,300 international civilian police officers, along with 350 civilians who will help the country reform a deeply troubled justice system. Various agencies and programs of the international body, such as the Food and Agricultural Organization, will also still be working in the country...
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ending-13-year-military-peacekeeping-mission-haiti-50302816



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ballz

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What's the minimum Trudeau can get away with for UN peacekeeping?  Bets? Location(s)?



Basic training for African soldiers all the way up to training their HQs how to operate.

I think our leadership has, thank f**k, convinced the PM that his big commitment of "peacekeepers" to Africa was a mistake and they are all just trying to figure out the most gentle way out of it.

On a completely different note, I find the contrast between my political beliefs and my profession quite amazing. Politically I am vehemently opposed to a lot of this foreign policy, professionally I was praying for it. I guess I'll keep my wits about me and stick with being grateful that this is not going to transpire.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have no desire to embarrass the Liberals into sending our people into harms way for nada, so I won't be pushing them. I will point out their idea was always fairyland stuff and a indication of how out of touch they were and then advise them not to commit to anything half-assed.


----------



## McG

We could always try a blue helmet mission between Iraq and Kurds so as to keep their combat efforts focused on our mutual enemy ... of course, even the force in blue headdress will need liberal ROEs for when that mutual enemy does pop his head up.


----------



## Infanteer

ballz said:
			
		

> Politically I am vehemently opposed to a lot of this foreign policy, professionally I was praying for it.



It tends to be that way until you bury a friend or a subordinate....


----------



## Ostrozac

MCG said:
			
		

> We could always try a blue helmet mission between Iraq and Kurds so as to keep their combat efforts focused on our mutual enemy ... of course, even the force in blue headdress will need liberal ROEs for when that mutual enemy does pop his head up.



Well, the first step to triggering such a blue beret mission seems to be UN membership for the newly independent nation; Croatia and Bosnia both became UN members in 1992, coinciding with stand-up of UNPROFOR. And since new members need the approval of the security council, such membership could be vetoed by any of the permanent 5. So watch for both US and Russian recognition of Kurdistan -- I don't see it happening anytime soon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Some alternative propositions:

Catalonia
Basque Country
Vlaams/Wallonia
Armagh
Hadrian's Wall
Offa's Dyke
Bavaria




> Juncker says Catalan split would lead to splintering EU
> Reuters Staff
> 
> LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker said on Friday he did not want Catalonia to become independent, because that would encourage other regions to do the same, making the European Union ungovernable.
> 
> “If we allow Catalonia -- and it is not our business -- to separate, others will do the same. I do not want that,” Jean Claude Juncker said in a speech at Luxembourg University.
> 
> *“I wouldn’t like a European Union in 15 years that consists of some 98 states,”* he continued. “It’s already relatively difficult with 28 and with 27 not easier, but with 98 it would simply be impossible.”
> 
> *The EU’s statistics agency Eurostat lists the bloc as consisting of 98 major regions*...



The Kurdistan vote mirrors that of the Catalans.  The reaction of the Iraqis mirrors that of Spain.

12,000 years of failed empires and the "centralists" still don't get it.

The "liberal democracies"  (ca 1945 - definitions variable) may have defeated Hitler and the Nazis, and caused the demise of Mussolini... but they did nothing to affect the supporters of Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Petain, Tojo, the Habsburgs and the institutions that supported them.

Indeed, part of the problem associated with defining "liberalism" and "democracy" is the result of a concerted effort on the part of those that despised both concepts, on realizing that their only route to power was to declare themselves liberal democrats, was to redefine the terms to suit their needs.

Democracy was not about "the masses", who could be ignored, but about "the real people", who shared the right values and followed qualified leaders.

Liberalism was not about "toleration" and "latitudinarianism", which permitted individual belief, but about "truth", "justice" and conforming to the "right" beliefs.

Your conscience is not your own but the community's.  And there is always somebody available to tell you the "right" thing to do.

(Sorry for the cross-country ramble - but the opening was too good) 

 :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I enjoy your cross-country rambles, Chris!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Some alternative propositions:
> 
> Catalonia
> Basque Country
> Vlaams/Wallonia
> Armagh
> Hadrian's Wall
> Offa's Dyke
> Bavaria
> 
> 
> The Kurdistan vote mirrors that of the Catalans.  The reaction of the Iraqis mirrors that of Spain.
> 
> 12,000 years of failed empires and the "centralists" still don't get it.
> 
> The "liberal democracies"  (ca 1945 - definitions variable) may have defeated Hitler and the Nazis, and caused the demise of Mussolini... but they did nothing to affect the supporters of Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Petain, Tojo, the Habsburgs and the institutions that supported them.
> 
> Indeed, part of the problem associated with defining "liberalism" and "democracy" is the result of a concerted effort on the part of those that despised both concepts, on realizing that their only route to power was to declare themselves liberal democrats, was to redefine the terms to suit their needs.
> 
> Democracy was not about "the masses", who could be ignored, but about "the real people", who shared the right values and followed qualified leaders.
> 
> Liberalism was not about "toleration" and "latitudinarianism", which permitted individual belief, but about "truth", "justice" and conforming to the "right" beliefs.
> 
> Your conscience is not your own but the community's.  And there is always somebody available to tell you the "right" thing to do.
> 
> (Sorry for the cross-country ramble - but the opening was too good)
> 
> :cheers:



Here's a hint: if you have to include the word 'United' or 'Union' in the name of your country/ transnational organization, you're probably not.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

A similar rule to including the word "Democratic" in the name of your country or organization?


----------



## quadrapiper

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> A similar rule to including the word "Democratic" in the name of your country or organization?


"People's" and variations thereof, too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Here's a hint: if you have to include the word 'United' or 'Union' in the name of your country/ transnational organization, you're probably not.



That's a good discussion sparking comment;  how about our southerly neighbors?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I always refer to them as 51 countries traveling in the same general direction.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I always refer to them as 51 countries traveling in the same general direction.



And the single, geo-physical, reason they are going in the same direction? Plate tectonics....


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And the single, geo-physical, reason they are going in the same direction? Plate tectonics....



...except Hawaii...


----------



## a_majoor

Niger is probably the latest wake up call for the Liberal brain trust. If anyone is going to go in there to do anything positive you would need to be ready, willing and able to bring out the big stick right away. Of course sending a mechanized battlegroup with air support isn't the message the Liberals want to send....


----------



## MarkOttawa

An official tweet on a capability that might be welcome in Mali by MINUSMA:
https://twitter.com/CFOperations/status/922557801507049472



> CAF Operations‏Verified account @CFOperations
> 
> Door gunners with the #OpIMPACT Tactical Aviation Detachment keep watch from a Griffon helicopter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4:18 PM - 23 Oct 2017



July 2016:



> Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/



Pity they might actually end up killing people, eh Justin?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Niger is probably the latest wake up call for the Liberal brain trust. If anyone is going to go in there to do anything positive you would need to be ready, willing and able to bring out the big stick right away. Of course sending a mechanized battlegroup with air support isn't the message the Liberals want to send....



But then there's that pesky "African problems should be solved by Africans" issue...


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But then there's that pesky "African problems should be solved by Africans" issue...


. 

Are we still discussing this? Can no one in government make a decision?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> An official tweet on a capability that might be welcome in Mali by MINUSMA:
> https://twitter.com/CFOperations/status/922557801507049472
> 
> July 2016:
> 
> Pity they might actually end up killing people, eh Justin?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



No Pac4's on the door weapons, interesting.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> No Pac4's on the door weapons, interesting.



Didn't notice that at first, can the pac4 be seen on thermal? I thought they were more for night ops, in which case I would assume that our heli's are grounded at night?


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> An official tweet on a capability that might be welcome in Mali by MINUSMA:
> https://twitter.com/CFOperations/status/922557801507049472
> 
> July 2016:
> 
> Pity they might actually end up killing people, eh Justin?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




In general, Western politicians (and their countrymen) aren't very good at 'Arithmetic on the Frontier':


Arithmetic on the Frontier

by Rudyard Kipling

A GREAT and glorious thing it is
To learn, for seven years or so, 
 The Lord knows what of that and this, 
Ere reckoned fit to face the foe -
 The flying bullet down the Pass, 
 That whistles clear: "All flesh is grass."

 Three hundred pounds per annum spent
On making brain and body meeter
 For all the murderous intent
Comprised in "villainous saltpetre". 
 And after?- Ask the Yusufzaies 
 What comes of all our 'ologies. 

 A scrimmage in a Border Station-
A canter down some dark defile
 Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail. 
 The Crammer's boast, the Squadron's pride, 
 Shot like a rabbit in a ride! 

 No proposition Euclid wrote
No formulae the text-books know, 
 Will turn the bullet from your coat, 
Or ward the tulwar's downward blow. 
 Strike hard who cares - shoot straight who can
 The odds are on the cheaper man.

 One sword-knot stolen from the camp
Will pay for all the school expenses
 Of any Kurrum Valley scamp
Who knows no word of moods and tenses, 
 But, being blessed with perfect sight, 
 Picks off our messmates left and right.

 With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem. 
The troopships bring us one by one, 
 At vast expense of time and steam, 
To slay Afridis where they run. 
 The "captives of our bow and spear"
 Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.


http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_arith.htm


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> No Pac4's on the door weapons, interesting.



PAQ-4s are crap, almost 10x less power than a PEQ-2, which is what should be on the C6.

MilEME09, both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 are 830 nanometer (0.83 micron) wavelength, which is too close to visible to be seen on TI.  TI usually is out at 8 to 12 microns, or 8,000 to 12,000 nanometers.  Even mid-IR at 3-5micron won't 'see' a 0.83 micron beam.  NVDs/NVGs will see the PAQs/PEQs, because they usually have a pass filter that can see up to" around 1.063 micron (sometimes hear 1063 nanometers), which is the same frequency as laser target designators.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PAQ-4s are crap, almost 10x less power than a PEQ-2, which is what should be on the C6.
> 
> MilEME09, both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 are 830 nanometer (0.83 micron) wavelength, which is too close to visible to be seen on TI.  TI usually is out at 8 to 12 microns, or 8,000 to 12,000 nanometers.  Even mid-IR at 3-5micron won't 'see' a 0.83 micron beam.  NVDs/NVGs will see the PAQs/PEQs, because they usually have a pass filter that can see up to" around 1.063 micron (sometimes hear 1063 nanometers), which is the same frequency as laser target designators.
> 
> Cheers
> G2G



Need. Infantry. Translation.  :camo:


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Need. Infantry. Translation.  :camo:


. 

Small words. Short sentences.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PAQ-4s are crap, almost 10x less power than a PEQ-2, which is what should be on the C6.
> 
> MilEME09, both the PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 are 830 nanometer (0.83 micron) wavelength, which is too close to visible to be seen on TI.  TI usually is out at 8 to 12 microns, or 8,000 to 12,000 nanometers.  Even mid-IR at 3-5micron won't 'see' a 0.83 micron beam.  NVDs/NVGs will see the PAQs/PEQs, because they usually have a pass filter that can see up to" around 1.063 micron (sometimes hear 1063 nanometers), which is the same frequency as laser target designators.
> 
> Cheers
> G2G



Thanks G2G!  I'm not up on the latest in the laser designation world.  Just surprised they had no night fighting kit.



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Small words. Short sentences.



Basically, so they can shoot at night with NVGs using an infrared designator.  Think laser beam similar to the Paq4 you would attach to a rifle that can be seen through your nvg.


----------



## Good2Golf

PAQ-4 = Boulet. 

PEQ-2 = Lowa


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just surprised they had no night fighting kit.



...installed during daylight hours.

After dark may be different.

I am not sure about current mission details.


----------



## tomahawk6

More info has come out on this mission and its classic mission creep.The original patrol was just that a patrol,then higher thought hey there is a HVT in the AO,lets send in the patrol to get him. The patrol was spotted and then the local elders tried to delay them as much as possible. After leaving they run into the ambush. There remains  the question of why the one hour delay for the patrol to request support ? The French responded with 2 Mirage fighters and a ground element of French special forces.Additional US SF arrived soon after and the wounded were evaced and the search for the MIA was launched. We have alot to learn from the French on how to fight in Africa.


----------



## PuckChaser

Do you have a link for that extra info?


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> More info has come out on this mission and its classic mission creep.The original patrol was just that a patrol,then higher thought hey there is a HVT in the AO,lets send in the patrol to get him. The patrol was spotted and then the local elders tried to delay them as much as possible. After leaving they run into the ambush. There remains  the question of why the one hour delay for the patrol to request support ? The French responded with 2 Mirage fighters and a ground element of French special forces.Additional US SF arrived soon after and the wounded were evaced and the search for the MIA was launched. We have alot to learn from the French on how to fight in Africa.



Overweening ambition can take more lives than the enemy in some of these fights, sadly. Some rules to live by:

Never fight fair. Or on your own. That usually means fighting like the locals.

Never stick your own neck out when you can get a local to do it for you.

If it's worth hitting with a hammer, hit it with a really, really big hammer.

Keep one pocket full of candies to keep the kids hanging around so you can get information while making it less likely that they'll shoot at you. Keep some pepper in your other pocket for the dogs.

When in doubt, chicken out.


----------



## tomahawk6

Unfortunately we keep making the same mistake in Africa with regard to mission creep.I think its arrogance as a substitute for sticking to tactics. The bad guys know the terrain and have local support,we enjoy neither in parts of the AO anyway.A patrol like that should have had drone coverage and a QRF. Of course if you wait an hour to call for help thats part of the problem.In An urban setting like we faced in Mogadishu chasing after HVT's caused the whole fiasco in the first place.We either have to bide our time to grab a target or just take the target out with a drone as we have done in Syria and Afghanistan.


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we keep making the same mistake in Africa with regard to mission creep.I think its arrogance as a substitute for sticking to tactics. The bad guys know the terrain and have local support,we enjoy neither in parts of the AO anyway.A patrol like that should have had drone coverage and a QRF. Of course if you wait an hour to call for help thats part of the problem.In An urban setting like we faced in Mogadishu chasing after HVT's caused the whole fiasco in the first place.We either have to bide our time to grab a target or just take the target out with a drone as we have done in Syria and Afghanistan.



Exactly. Someone in AFRICOM needs to be told 'you're fired'


----------



## Old Sweat

To my mind, there are too many inconsistencies in the narrative, but one thing does come through: the affair was not up to a standard in planning and execution one would expect from special forces with or without the "O" word added.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we keep making the same mistake in Africa with regard to mission creep.I think its arrogance as a substitute for sticking to tactics. The bad guys know the terrain and have local support,we enjoy neither in parts of the AO anyway.A patrol like that should have had drone UAV/RPA/UAS coverage and a QRF. Of course if you wait an hour to call for help thats part of the problem. In An urban setting like we faced in Mogadishu chasing after HVT's caused the whole fiasco in the first place.We either have to bide our time to grab a target or just take the target out with a drone UAV/RPA/UAS as we have done in Syria and Afghanistan.



FTFY


----------



## OldSolduer

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> To my mind, there are too many inconsistencies in the narrative, but one thing does come through: the affair was not up to a standard in planning and execution one would expect from special forces with or without the "O" word added.



The good idea fairy strikes again.


----------



## MilEME09

Ottawa apparently out of touch with what the UN wants.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-un-peacekeeping-summit-contributions-1.4375711



> *Canadian peacekeeping proposals out of line with UN priorities: sources*
> 
> Canada has been discussing peacekeeping contribution ideas with the United Nations for months, but sources tell CBC News many of the proposals Ottawa has presented aren't considered by the UN to be operational priorities — or even necessary.
> 
> The latest talks are being held just weeks before Canada hosts an international peacekeeping summit and more than a year after Ottawa first pledged up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel and 150 police officers toward global peace operations.
> 
> But with the conference looming, even the UN isn't clear on how the country will contribute.
> 
> ''It would be very awkward for anyone to host a ministerial meeting on peacekeeping without having made a real contribution to peacekeeping,'' said one UN official, who spoke to CBC News on condition of anonymity.
> 
> It's expected that most of those details will be unveiled either right before or at the two-day UN peacekeeping summit in Vancouver which begins on Nov. 14. More than 80 countries, including some 50 defence ministers, have so far confirmed their presence at the conference where Canada will also launch an initiative aimed at preventing the recruitment and use of child soldiers.
> 
> Gender parity will be a focus of the international gathering, as will ''capability gaps that need to be filled, such as rapid deployment, helicopters and francophone units'' a UN report says. South Sudan, Mali and Haiti are listed as missions currently dealing with critical gaps.
> 
> How will Canada contribute?
> 
> Several peacekeeping scenarios have been put forward by Ottawa, according to UN officials familiar with the talks.
> 
> One involves the offer of a C-130 Hercules to the UN's logistics hub in Entebbe, Uganda. The military aircraft could be used to help transport personnel and equipment to and from missions in South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and possibly Somalia. Ottawa is also looking at capacity-building and training for peacekeepers, such as countering the threat from improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
> 
> The UN seems less enthusiastic about some of the other options Ottawa is mulling, including helicopters for the mission in Haiti which other countries, including Bangladesh, have already offered, said another UN source.
> 
> The same UN source says a Canadian proposal for a rapid response force for the UN mission in Golan Heights isn't a priority right now, but were Canada to offer a rapidly-deployable infantry force that could help in the Central African Republic ''we would be happy with that."
> Major need in Mali
> 
> Another country the UN considers a priority is Mali — but the peacekeeping operation there has the highest-number of fatalities of any current peacekeeping mission, a growing terrorist threat and a peace accord that the country is struggling to implement, which makes it an unattractive option for  decision-makers in Ottawa.
> 
> Mahamat Saleh Annadif, head of the UN stabilization mission in Mali (MINUSMA), has said he would welcome Canadian peacekeepers "with open arms."
> 
> Canada's contribution could involve multi-year commitments and in the case of Mali might only begin in 2019 after Germany and Jordan end their mandates in the West African country.
> 
> One of the UN sources says Canada has been asked to consider deploying personnel and equipment to Timbuktu.
> 
> ''We'll see. I don't know if that message will be heard or not," the UN source said.
> 
> The UN and allies have been urging Canada to consider Mali, a country Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan visited in 2016.
> 
> ''There were even rumours the next force commander might be a Canadian,'' said a third UN official, who was in Mali when Sajjan was there. The defence minister took part in several security briefings which the official said may have contributed to a reluctance to deploy.
> 
> If Ottawa does commit to the Mali operation, Canada's contribution could include the deployment of six Griffon and Chinook helicopters.
> 
> The peacekeeping summit in Vancouver is part of a push launched by the Obama administration in 2015 to get countries with more advanced soldiers and equipment into the field. It's paid off, but has also presented challenges as some countries have been reluctant to engage in high-risk operations.
> 
> ''None of them want to risk losing a soldier,'' the official said, without suggesting this was the case with Canada.
> 
> Focus on child soldiers
> 
> Ahead of the Vancouver meeting, Canada has written to UN member states requesting they sign on to a set of 17 principles aimed at preventing the recruitment and use of child soldiers. The initiative, called the Vancouver Principles, was developed in co-ordination with the Roméo Dallaire Child Soldiers Initiative and ''the child protection community,'' according to the Canadian letter.
> 
> ''Children associated with armed forces or armed groups are often exposed to horrific violence — often forced both to witness and commit violence, while themselves being abused, exploited, injured, or even killed as a result,'' says an explainer accompanying the note, and a draft of the non-binding resolution.
> 
> It goes on to say that the principles could be put to work in several ways, including training for peacekeepers on how to interact with a child soldier, liaising with schools and orphanages to help prevent abductions, and adjusting patrol routes to include areas where at-risk children are known to live and play.


----------



## McG

I have not seen any discussion on the announcements from the peacekeeping conference in Vancouver, and I am away from home with only a smart phone to view the world.  Did the government actually say we would provide attack helicopters (if yes, does that mean we are buying attack helicopters), or did CBC apply some artistic licence?


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> I have not seen any discussion on the announcements from the peacekeeping conference in Vancouver, and I am away from home with only a smart phone to view the world.  Did the government actually say we would provide attack helicopters (if yes, does that mean we are buying attack helicopters), or did CBC apply some artistic licence?



Griffons with GAUs meet the definition of attack helicopters, apparently.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Ottawa apparently out of touch with what the UN wants.



I thought that Ottawa was out of touch with anything that is out of the realm of what can be imagined by a high school drama teacher who believes his own science fiction play. Guess I was wrong, he's only out of touch with the UN.  :dunno:

Now awaiting  :clubinhand:


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I thought that Ottawa was out of touch with anything that is out of the realm of what can be imagined by a high school drama teacher who believes his own science fiction play. Guess I was wrong, he's only out of touch with the UN.  :dunno:
> 
> Now awaiting  :clubinhand:



In Ottawa, right now we have:

1. A delusional single member party;

2. A party dedicated to dissolving the nation, but not too fast, since it gives them a fine paycheque and benefits in the interim;

3. A third party that has with few exceptions never considered itself as a potential government, but rather a hotbed of radicalism where there's no risk of ever having to implement its largely incoherent policy suite;

4. An opposition headed by a career politician who is best described as his predecessor without the sex appeal; and

5. A government headed by an individual even less intellectual than his faux intellectual father, guided and directed by a guy named "Butts".


It sounds like an unlikely episode of the Trailer Park Boys, except Bubbles would probably be a better PM, with Julian as minister of Public Works, Ricky as Health Minister, the late Jim Lahey as Public Security Minister, Randy as President of the Treasury Board, Lucy responsible for National Defence, and Cory and Trevor responsible for Canadian Heritage.


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Griffons with GAUs meet the definition of attack helicopters, apparently.


So we did promise attack helicopters?  Someone is going to be disappointed when they see a delta.

And the QRF - is that to be assigned to a particular AOR with a complement of AFV, or will it be a parachute company ready to respond to any part of Africa from wherever we park the Hercs?


----------



## dapaterson

Given the undertone of "French Speaking", I expect 3 R22eR to start an aggressive recruiting campaign to increase their gender diversity.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the undertone of "French Speaking", I expect 3 R22eR to start an aggressive recruiting campaign to increase their gender diversity.



They've already got the 'species diversity' nailed down


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Griffons with GAUs meet the definition of attack helicopters, apparently.


 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor

Analysis by John Ivison in the NP. Frankly, we had this pegged way back when this thread was started:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-self-congratulatory-trudeau-fails-to-live-up-to-his-un-peacekeeping-commitment



> *John Ivison: Self-congratulatory Trudeau fails to live up to his UN peacekeeping commitment*
> Even peacekeeping is now considered too dangerous for the Canadian Forces — we are happy to enable soldiers from emerging nations to take those risks
> 
> John Ivison
> November 15, 2017
> 8:27 PM EST
> 
> For all the fine talk about the Liberal government “bringing Canada back to peacekeeping,” the calculation has always been how to minimize the commitment while still appearing to do something.
> 
> A seat on the United Nations Security Council in 2020 is at risk, after all.
> 
> The Prime Minster’s announcement at a peacekeeping conference in Vancouver was a typically self-congratulatory affair, but it is unlikely to have gone down as well with UN officials, who might have foolishly believed the 600 troops and 150 police pledged last year might end up bolstering an existing mission somewhere like Mali.
> 
> Instead, all they got was the offer of a Canada-based rapid-reaction force of up to 200 soldiers, a C-130 military transport plane to be based in Uganda and an unspecified number of armed helicopters.
> 
> There were add-ons for domestic consumption, such as the $15 million to help deploy more women on UN missions, new principles to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers and the ubiquitous promise of more training.
> 
> But the opposition’s calls last year to hold a parliamentary vote on a deployment to Africa now look faintly ridiculous.
> 
> At this point, there is no deployment. Even peacekeeping is now considered too dangerous for the Canadian Forces — we are happy to enable soldiers from emerging nations to take those risks.
> 
> As Trudeau put it, Canada will pioneer an innovative approach “showing the way to others through our capabilities and specialized skills.”
> 
> Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was not impressed by Trudeau’s “tap-dancing performance.”
> 
> “He had a lot of nerve to make that presentation. I found it so condescending to hear him say we’re going to throw money at the problem so other people can do the heavy lifting,” he said.
> 
> The military is unlikely to be happy either. Back in July 2016, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said the army would be deploying to Africa “very soon.” That hasn’t happened and, as Vance knows well, armies that don’t deploy end up with low morale and even lower budgets.
> 
> The Liberals were faced with a dilemma and, as always in such situations, opted for the choice most likely to offer political advantage.
> 
> At the conference in Vancouver, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN’s undersecretary-general for peacekeeping operations, said additional efforts are needed for the mission in Mali to fulfil its mandate. There are big gaps when it comes to helicopters and armed personnel carriers to support the 15,000 troops from Burkino Faso, Bangladesh, Chad and Senegal.
> 
> At the same time, it’s highly dangerous, with insurgent groups targeting peacekeepers. Of the 170 killed while serving on UN missions since the beginning of 2013, 86 were in Mali.
> 
> It’s clear Canada could do a job there. We may yet. But Trudeau is probably correct in judging it politically toxic for even one Canadian soldier to come home in a body bag. The Dutch defence minister was forced to resign last month after two troops died in a training exercise in Mali.
> 
> “Risk is acceptable if the cause is just. I’m not sure how you drag a just cause out of Mali,” said MacKenzie.
> 
> Mali and South Sudan are probably best avoided.
> 
> But there’s enough misery in the world for Canada to find an honourable role protecting civilians in a country like Central African Republic, where the UN also has a mission.
> 
> The Liberals used to have a leader in Michael Ignatieff who advocated the responsibility-to-protect doctrine the UN later adopted. “We should have the guts to stand by it when the going gets tough,” he once said.
> 
> The current crop of Liberal leaders have a more cautious approach.
> 
> Trudeau concluded his speech by saying Canada will lead institutional change on peacekeeping at the UN and be “agents of peace in a world that sorely needs it.”
> 
> But what can we really teach the world about peacekeeping? There hasn’t been a Canadian military unit rotated in a UN peace operation since 2001; the number of uniforms committed to missions is the lowest in 40 years.
> 
> No matter how many times Trudeau says his government will live up to its promise to deploy 600 Canadian Forces personnel and 150 police “over time,” it’s clear that Canada has not lived up to its commitments.
> 
> The Irish and Norwegians competing for that Security Council seat in three years will be cheered by the news.
> 
> • Email: jivison@nationalpost.com | Twitter:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile the adults were discussing this:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_CENTRAL_AFRICAN_REPUBLIC?SITE=TXNEW

UN votes to add 900 peacekeepers in Central African Republic

 UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday increasing the U.N. peacekeeping force in conflict-torn Central African Republic by 900 soldiers to a total of 11,650 military personnel.

The resolution comes at a time when the impoverished country, known as CAR, faces growing communal tensions, spreading violence and a deteriorating humanitarian situation.

France's U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre, who sponsored the resolution, said that with deteriorating security and increasing humanitarian needs, the Security Council "cannot afford to take the risk of allowing CAR to relapse into a crisis as tragic as the one in which it was mired between early 2012 and early 2014."

Central African Republic has been wracked by violence between Muslims and Christians since predominantly Muslim Seleka rebels overthrew the Christian president in March 2013 and seized power.

Anti-Balaka militias, mostly Christians, fought back, resulting in thousands of deaths, the displacement of hundreds of thousands more, and the flight of many Muslims to the country's north and across the border into Chad and Cameroon.

Despite peaceful elections in early 2016, sectarian violence has moved into the impoverished country's central and southeastern regions, prompting warnings of a national conflict roaring back to life.

The Security Council resolution condemns "in the strongest terms incitement to ethnic and religious hatred and violence and the multiple violations of international humanitarian law and the widespread human rights violations and abuses."

These include sexual and gender-based violence committed by ex-Seleka and anti-Balaka supporters and other militia groups, as well as the targeting of civilians from specific communities, it said.

The council called the humanitarian situation "dire" and said more than 600,000 people displaced in CAR and nearly 500,000 refugees in neighboring countries need aid.

It also emphasized that the current security situation "provides a conducive environment for transnational criminal activity, such as that involving arms trafficking and the use of mercenaries, as well as a potential breeding ground for radical networks."

The peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic, known as MINUSCA, is one of the U.N.'s most dangerous missions with 12 peacekeepers killed so far this year. MINUSCA also had the most sexual misconduct allegations against peacekeepers and U.N. personnel last year.

The resolution extends the mandate of MINUSCA until Nov. 15, 2018. It calls on peacekeepers to prioritize the protection of civilians, support efforts to promote peace, and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid.

It calls on Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to maximize MINUSCA's use of new rapidly deployable military units and to enhance its capabilities to gather "timely, reliable and actionable information on threats to civilians."

The council expressed "grave concern" at continuing allegations of abuse by peacekeepers in CAR, though it noted a reduction this year. It urged prompt and transparent investigations and called for alleged perpetrators to be held accountable.

The United States has been seeking to cut the costs of U.N. peacekeeping operations and there was concern that it might oppose adding 900 troops to MINUSCA, but the U.S. joined the 14 other council members in supporting the resolution.

U.S. deputy ambassador Michele Sison praised MINUSCA's work, including protecting thousands of Muslims trapped on the grounds of a church in Bangassou, and said the Trump administration believes the mission "is headed in the right direction."

The U.S. believes the additional troops will give MINUSCA "the necessary flexibility to address emerging threats and to fulfill its protection of civilians mandate," she said.

Sison said the United States is committed to supporting "focused, effective peacekeeping missions" that carry out their mandates and create conditions "to improve the lives of the people they have come to serve."


----------



## YZT580

From what I've read, the QRF will be Canada based which, given our transport facilities for equipment sort of deletes the Q from the title.


----------



## McG

YZT580 said:
			
		

> From what I've read, the QRF will be Canada based which, given our transport facilities for equipment sort of deletes the Q from the title.


I have seen that now too. If we really intend that it will be quick, that probably means we plan on it being an airborne company group. I struggle to imagine a scenario for which it is appropriate to rapidly launch a light company to the rescue from Canada, while at the same time is of a scale manageable by a light company (with out said company taking a fairly significant beating in the process).

I can think of a few times in Afghanistan where a light force, reinforcing within hours of a problem flaring, was able to stabilize a situation. But a situation that required rescue of a force that was able to hold its ground and wait a few days, that was a situation that needed a Canadian mechanized combat team to bring about amelioration.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> I have seen that now too. If we really intend that it will be quick, that probably means we plan on it being an airborne company group. I struggle to imagine a scenario for which it is appropriate to rapidly launch a light company to the rescue from Canada, while at the same time is of a scale manageable by a light company (with out said company taking a fairly significant beating in the process).
> 
> I can think of a few times in Afghanistan where a light force, reinforcing within hours of a problem flaring, was able to stabilize a situation. But a situation that required rescue of a force that was able to hold its ground and wait a few days, that was a situation that needed a Canadian mechanized combat team to bring about amelioration.





> *Jacob Zuma: 13 South African soldiers killed in CAR
> 25 March 2013
> From the section Africa
> *
> *Thirteen South African soldiers were killed in the Central African Republic as rebels seized the capital over the weekend, President Jacob Zuma has said.*
> 
> Mr Zuma said the South Africans had died in a nine-hour "high-tempo battle" against the "bandits" in Bangui.
> South Africa had about 200 troops stationed in the city to block Seleka rebels from seizing power.
> Ousted CAR leader Francois Bozize has fled to neighbouring Cameroon, officials there have announced.



More at link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-21923624

I read extensively about the above engagement when it happened.  The South African Base in the CAR was essentially overrun and multiple sources said that every available military aircraft in South Africa was put on standby.  The French ended up coming to the rescue, reinforcing the Airport they had control of and the South Africans were allowed to exit the country at the French controlled airport.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I have seen that now too. If we really intend that it will be quick, that probably means we plan on it being an airborne company group. I struggle to imagine a scenario for which it is appropriate to rapidly launch a light company to the rescue from Canada, while at the same time is of a scale manageable by a light company (with out said company taking a fairly significant beating in the process).
> 
> I can think of a few times in Afghanistan where a light force, reinforcing within hours of a problem flaring, was able to stabilize a situation. But a situation that required rescue of a force that was able to hold its ground and wait a few days, that was a situation that needed a Canadian mechanized combat team to bring about amelioration.



The South African unit above was also an Airborne Company Group.  Doesn't matter when you come up against 3000 heavily armed rebels.


----------



## McG

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> More at link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-21923624
> The South African unit above was also an Airborne Company Group.  Doesn't matter when you come up against 3000 heavily armed rebels.


Those South Africans did well, and they did well because they were on the ground when the requirement arose (much like our Airborne Regiment was on the ground in Cyprus when the requirement arose). If we were to forward deploy an airborne company with dedicated airframes, I would say it has a role.  Parked in Canada where it will take a weekend just to get itself into the fight, the company will be an organization that would have been too late to help in the "over the weekend" example you site.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MCG:

When I was a very junior dip in Islamabad 1975-77 our defence attaché's sergeant (a good friend--very sharp, eventually helped much with the ExtAff admin. of a pretty complex embassy and later got commissioned in Canada) had been at Nicosia airport in 1974 facing down the Turks:
https://lermuseum.org/1946-to-present/1965-1979/canadian-airborne-regiment-and-the-defence-of-nicosia-airport-july-1974/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO

Truth be told I have not listened to a word of the Peacekeeping announcement from our government due to my inability to listen to the inane BS without vomiting. The absolute fantasy land that these people are living in is astounding and I honestly don't know how General Vance can look in the mirror at night.

Rapid Reaction Force. How in gods earth will this be rapid? How many kitted and spurred soldiers can the C17's carry? How will they be resupplied? How heavy will the weapon load out be? How many C17's will even be available? How many Hercs?

Attack Helicopters. So a Griffon with a door gunner and a GPMG is an attack helicopter now? I'm sure the aircrew tasked with this unicorn will be oh so happy with that.

UN Command and Control. You would think that after the pain and heartache of Rwanda that the old hands of the Liberal Party would not want to go through that again. But maybe the smart people of the PMO don't need to listen to the old hands because, you know its 2017.

But then again this entire exercise has been so vapid, so air fairy, so god damn stupid that I hope the government keeps kicking this "Canada's Back in Peacekeeping" can down the road until its gashed with all the other feel good blather that is the legacy of this PM.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Truth be told I have not listened to a word of the Peacekeeping announcement from our government due to my inability to listen to the inane BS without vomiting. The absolute fantasy land that these people are living in is astounding and I honestly don't know how General Vance can look in the mirror at night.
> 
> Rapid Reaction Force. How in gods earth will this be rapid? How many kitted and spurred soldiers can the C17's carry? How will they be resupplied? How heavy will the weapon load out be? How many C17's will even be available? How many Hercs?
> 
> Attack Helicopters. So a Griffon with a door gunner and a GPMG is an attack helicopter now? I'm sure the aircrew tasked with this unicorn will be oh so happy with that.
> 
> UN Command and Control. You would think that after the pain and heartache of Rwanda that the old hands of the Liberal Party would not want to go through that again. But maybe the smart people of the PMO don't need to listen to the old hands because, you know its 2017.
> 
> But then again this entire exercise has been so vapid, so air fairy, so god damn stupid that I hope the government keeps kicking this "Canada's Back in Peacekeeping" can down the road until its gashed with all the other feel good blather that is the legacy of this PM.



We should call it 'OPERATION PAPER TIGER'

If we type it in caps all time it will sound more authoritative.


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We should call it 'OPERATION PAPER TIGER'
> 
> If we type it in caps all time it will sound more authoritative.



I was thinking more along the way of OP FORNICATE FIDO...but PAPER TIGER (or PUDDY CAT) is OK too.

MM


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> Those South Africans did well, and they did well because they were on the ground when the requirement arose (much like our Airborne Regiment was on the ground in Cyprus when the requirement arose). If we were to forward deploy an airborne company with dedicated airframes, I would say it has a role.  Parked in Canada where it will take a weekend just to get itself into the fight, the company will be an organization that would have been too late to help in the "over the weekend" example you site.



They did very well, despite being totally hung out by their government.  The ground force commander had been requesting heavier armoured vehicles, rooivalk attack helicopters, etc for months and when shit finally hit the fan, the Generals and Politicians were caught with their pants down.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> the Generals and Politicians were caught with their pants down.



... and no doubt it was the troops that got the spanking


----------



## MilEME09

Sounds like to me like out CAST commitment to NATO, how damn rapid can a reaction force parked in Canada be, even if in the best scenario I'd say 12H before they are organized to leave. 8-12 hours flying, a couple hours to get organized on the ground. By the time they can be of any use the situation on the ground might be way out of their ability.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ... and no doubt it was the troops that got the spanking



13 killed, 27 wounded, 1 missing in action.  Company fought until they ran low on ammo and were able to organize a ceasefire and hightailed it out with French help.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 13 killed, 27 wounded, 1 missing in action.  Company fought until they ran low on ammo and were able to organize a ceasefire and hightailed it out with French help.



So, pretty much a South African version of 'Blackhawk Down' then?


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds like to me like out CAST commitment to NATO, how damn rapid can a reaction force parked in Canada be, even if in the best scenario I'd say 12H before they are organized to leave. 8-12 hours flying, a couple hours to get organized on the ground. By the time they can be of any use the situation on the ground might be way out of their ability.



Well, in theory, you're supposed to be looking for signs of escalating tensions and violence, and forward deploy your rapid reaction force before a tense situation turns into a kinetic crisis.

<<Looks at Africa>>

Indicators are that we were supposed to deploy this QRF sometime in the 1950's.

Seriously, though, a Company sized airtransported reaction group based in Canada brings nothing to the table. With an area of operations of "Africa", they won't even be guaranteed to have the correct linguists or immunizations. Hell, would you even have them wearing green or tan?

Now, a Company sized airmobile QRF based in DRC, or Mali, or Darfur, or South Sudan, or Somalia, tied directly to that UN (or AU) operation -- all of those might actually prove useful to the respective force commander. But of course, that would be difficult and hard work, and well as tactically and politically risky. And our current leadership seems to be pretty risk averse.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sounds like to me like out CAST commitment to NATO, how damn rapid can a reaction force parked in Canada be, even if in the best scenario I'd say 12H before they are organized to leave. 8-12 hours flying, a couple hours to get organized on the ground. By the time they can be of any use the situation on the ground might be way out of their ability.



It's easy when you do this...I present to you, parentheses...

"Rapid" Reaction Force.


There...easy, peasey!  :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

In my opinion a rapid reaction force is an organization deployable in maybe a week at the earliest. Perhaps a smaller SOF organization can move a bit quicker, but there are necessary preparations that have to be made before even the O Group moves to the embarkation airfield. We are, after all, not in the "move now, orders later" business. Certain things can be planned in outline, but the devil is in the specific details for a specific mission into the "back of beyond." As one who in my J3 days had to prepare a "no duff" rapid reaction contingency plan that was not actioned, I can attest to that. For example, do you think we maintain 1:50,000 map coverage of the world in the numbers to issue to section level and below? How about diplomatic overflight clearance?

The one occasion that our old UN Standby Battalion deployed that I recall was to Cyprus in 1964. (I was no more than a spectator from my vantage point in the bar of the Brownfield Officers' Mess in Gagetown.) It was a fairly large force based on 1 R22R with the RCD Recce Sqn attached, and while most of the F echelon of the battalion along with a RCD troop deployed by air, most of the vehicles and stores and the squadron (-) sailed on HMCS Bonaventure. It took the better part of a month to complete the deployment and that was to a first world destination not that far away.


----------



## medicineman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my opinion a rapid reaction force is an organization deployable in maybe a week at the earliest. Perhaps a smaller SOF organization can move a bit quicker, but there are necessary preparations that have to be made before even the O Group moves to the embarkation airfield. We are, after all, not in the "move now, orders later" business. Certain things can be planned in outline, but the devil is in the specific details for a specific mission into the "back of beyond." As one who in my J3 days had to prepare a "no duff" rapid reaction contingency plan that was not actioned, I can attest to that. For example, do you think we maintain 1:50,000 map coverage of the world in the numbers to issue to section level and below? How about diplomatic overflight clearance?
> 
> The one occasion that our old UN Standby Battalion deployed that I recall was to Cyprus in 1964. (I was no more than a spectator from my vantage point in the bar of the Brownfield Officers' Mess in Gagetown.) It was a fairly large force based on 1 R22R with the RCD Recce Sqn attached, and while most of the F echelon of the battalion along with a RCD troop deployed by air, most of the vehicles and stores and the squadron (-) sailed on HMCS Bonaventure. It took the better part of a month to complete the deployment and that was to a first world destination not that far away.



I seem to recall it took us in 2RCR about a week and a half to get a company group and strap hangers /w vehicles to Port au Prince for OP HALO as the NEO force (someone can correct me if I'm wrong)...there were JTF2 folks there earlier of course.

MM


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite right Old Sweat.

The old UN Stand-by Batallion was for "rapid" deployment only after an actual UN response to a crisis had been agreed by all parties. It was the fact that it was identified in advance and did some of the pre-deployment training and equipment pack up to be ready to go much faster than a scratch force that made it "stand-by".

I think, however, that the people are taking from the Liberals here that their proposed "Rapid Reaction Force" is like a backup to troops already on the ground that need immediate reinforcement in the middle of an action. I don't think that's what they have in mind - I think they had in mind something akin to the old Stand-by Battalion. And that is the reason the UN and the rest of our allies  are less than impressed. They understand they are really being told: "Here, I'll have some of my people set aside here in Canada for the next time something comes up." I am sure they understand that it would mean Canada may or may not go to the next one if they don't like the risks of the "next one" when it does come up.

It would have been better for them to follow the advice of Lew MacKenzie (there is no peace to keep in the UN ops in Africa, which suffers from fratricide/tribal/religious fighting - not inter-states wars - and Canada does not have any specific interests there to defend, so don't go) but with the honesty to admit it publicly and explain to Canadians why they will not , in the end, fulfill that promise they made (in their ignorance).

Instead they chose, yet again, to come up with a cockamamie plan to sound/look like they are doing something without actually doing it, but be able to lure their real prey (the even less educated into military/world affairs Liberal/NDP electors) into believing the lie that they kept their promise during next election.

Wimps!


----------



## Old Sweat

Based on the PM's performance at the UN conference in Vancouver, Atlantis is likely to be elected to the Security Council before Canada. 

 :sarcasm:


----------



## medicineman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Based on the PM's performance at the UN conference in Vancouver, Atlantis is likely to be elected to the Security Council before Canada.
> 
> :sarcasm:



I'd vote for them.

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'd have to see Atlantis's number of female peacekeepers and how many gender advisors they're willing to deploy before they get my vote.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So, pretty much a South African version of 'Blackhawk Down' then?


I was thinking Ia Drang, but Mogadishu works too.   :not-again:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Former CDS Gen. Jean de Chastelain, in letter to _Globe and Mail_, takes on the Great Canadian Peacekeeping Myth:



> Re PM Defends Canada's Peacekeeping Plan (Nov. 16 [ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-offers-equipment-and-soldiers-for-peacekeeping-no-decision-on-where/article36985352/] ): Canada's "traditional military role" is not peacekeeping, it's war-fighting. The role of peacekeeping involved a relatively small percentage of Canada's armed forces from the mid-1950s through to the end of the 1980s, a time when Canada maintained a mechanized infantry brigade group and an air force fighter division in Europe, and naval forces in the North Atlantic in an anti-submarine role, all armed and prepared to fight a high intensity battle against potential aggressors.
> 
> Because these troops were professionally trained for war, they were highly effective in the decidedly secondary role of peacekeeping, a good thing when peacekeeping morphed into a much different task during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. Politicians, of course, favour peacekeeping as a role for the forces, as the costs are significantly less than the ever-more expensive weaponry that forces need if they are to play an effective part in maintaining peace in the world.
> 
> Some Canadians still get misty-eyed over the concept of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and police officers wearing blue or orange berets and standing bravely between warring sides while diplomats and politicians work out peace agreements.
> 
> Canadians are rightly proud of what our armed forces have achieved, in war and in peacekeeping, but they shouldn't be misled as to what the traditional role of the military is and always has been.
> 
> _John de Chastelain, chief of the defence staff (1989-93, 1994-95); Ottawa_
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/nov-17-peace-kept-and-not-plus-other-letters-to-the-editor/article37008051/



Plus an earlier post:



> Not Remembering Canada’s Real Post-WW II Military History
> 
> It was not that peacekeeping myth so fondly mis-remembered by so many so ignorant of our past...
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/mark-collins-not-remembering-canadas-real-post-ww-ii-military-history/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

> At least 14 peacekeepers killed and 40 hurt in Congo attack
> 
> Associated Press
> 8 DECEMBER 2017 • 3:53PM
> 
> Rebels attacked a United Nations peacekeeping base in eastern Congo, killing at least 14 peacekeepers and wounding 40 others in the worst violence against the mission in this Central African country in years.
> 
> Deputy spokesman Farhan Haq in New York said the peacekeepers were mainly from Tanzania, and that at least five Congolese soldiers also were killed in the assault blamed on one of the region's deadliest rebel groups.
> 
> "It's a very huge attack, certainly the worst in recent memory," Haq said.
> 
> The peacekeeping base is located about 45 kilometres (27 miles) from the town of Beni, which has been repeatedly hit by rebels from the Allied Democratic Forces rebel group.
> 
> The base is home to the peacekeeping mission's rapid intervention force, which has a rare mandate to go on the offensive, according to Radio Okapi, which is backed by the US mission.
> 
> The radio station, citing military sources, said fighting lasted four hours.
> 
> Nearly 300 peacekeepers have been killed since the UN mission arrived in 1999, according to UN peacekeeping data.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/08/least-14-peacekeepers-killed-40-hurt-congo-attack/

And how many people have died in the Congo since 1960 while wearing Blue Berets?


----------



## AbrahamL

Can't imagine that looking those people


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And how many people have died in the Congo since 1960 while wearing Blue Berets?


About 550. Of course, the last 60 years have been much tougher on the Congolese.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> About 550. Of course, the last 60 years have been much tougher on the Congolese.



The last 60 years have been tough on the Congolese?

Or the Congolese have been tough on the Congolese?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/stone-age-massacre-offers-earliest-evidence-human-warfare-kenya


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lots of non-Congolese, non-UN types have been involved too:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2012/07/congo-and-rwanda
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-11108589

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell

Congo ~ there's now two or three of 'em ~ was a socio-economic and political disaster zone in 1960 when the Belgians turned tail and fled in the face of a black revolt. If memory serves (I'm just too damned lazy to Google old, painful memories) there were 18 black people in Congo with university degrees when the Belgians left ... the Church did a great job, actually, and some of those nuns and priests were probably saints, but they only provided an elementary education, up to about a Belgian 8th grade standard ... maybe.

The Congolese Army was, to be charitable, a shambles ... but the civil government made it look pretty good.

Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, the big HUGE, corrupt and brutal Belgian mining conglomerate had its own mercenary army (a few, a small handful of them were quite good, most were white trash of the worst sort, afraid of their own shadows) and its own puppet government.

The Congolese people had a whole hockey sock full of legitimate grievances ... Belgium ran way, with most of the money and left a few priests and nuns to say prayers. The Army revolted ... some of the atrocities don't bear thinking about. Brigadier (later General) Jacques Dextraze oragnized and, personally, led raids into Kantaga province to rescue hostages. RCCS Colonel "Buster" Stethem comandeered a UN or Red Cross (I cannot remember which) light aircraft and took a box of 36 grenades and conducted a "bombing mission' to break up one attack on a civilian (nuns) run relief camp not far from Leopoldville. The UN administration was a complete farce ... inept officials and the "lord high secretariat" in new York interfering in minor, local decisions and the UN military command ranged from OK, sometimes, to, too often, a nightmare.

When the UN left, mid-1960s, they left the place worse than they found it and no one - not Belgium, certainly, not the USA, not the USSR and not the fledgling EEC, gave a damn because even though Congo is resource rich, Union Minière had survived and was selling whatever Congo had to whoever had cash money.

Don't blame the Congolese ... they never had a chance.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....
> Don't blame the Congolese ... they never had a chance.



Seen.  

And thanks for the canned history E.R.


----------



## medicineman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Congo ~ there's now two or three of 'em ~ was a socio-economic and political disaster zone in 1960 when the Belgians turned tail and fled in the face of a black revolt. If memory serves (I'm just too damned lazy to Google old, painful memories) there were 18 black people in Congo with university degrees when the Belgians left ... the Church did a great job, actually, and some of those nuns and priests were probably saints, but they only provided an elementary education, up to about a Belgian 8th grade standard ... maybe.
> 
> The Congolese Army was, to be charitable, a shambles ... but the civil government made it look pretty good.
> 
> Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, the big HUGE, corrupt and brutal Belgian mining conglomerate had its own mercenary army (a few, a small handful of them were quite good, most were white trash of the worst sort, afraid of their own shadows) and its own puppet government.
> 
> The Congolese people had a whole hockey sock full of legitimate grievances ... Belgium ran way, with most of the money and left a few priests and nuns to say prayers. The Army revolted ... some of the atrocities don't bear thinking about. Brigadier (later General) Jacques Dextraze oragnized and, personally, led raids into Kantaga province to rescue hostages. RCCS Colonel "Buster" Stethem comandeered a UN or Red Cross (I cannot remember which) light aircraft and took a box of 36 grenades and conducted a "bombing mission' to break up one attack on a civilian (nuns) run relief camp not far from Leopoldville. The UN administration was a complete farce ... inept officials and the "lord high secretariat" in new York interfering in minor, local decisions and the UN military command ranged from OK, sometimes, to, too often, a nightmare.
> 
> When the UN left, mid-1960s, they left the place worse than they found it and no one - not Belgium, certainly, not the USA, not the USSR and not the fledgling EEC, gave a damn because even though Congo is resource rich, Union Minière had survived and was selling whatever Congo had to whoever had cash money.
> 
> Don't blame the Congolese ... they never had a chance.



Just re-reading "The Siege of Jadotville" right now...in fact, at the part where the country went to rat snot and the ONUC were trying to move in.  I think the figure quoted for university degrees in the book was about 25 - not a huge difference from your quote.  All I can say is a feel sorry for those that ended up there, as it was a typical UN shytestorm that kind of reminded me of things that went wrong with UNPROFOR in the 90's...and definitely feel sorry for A/35 for basically being bent over the barrel by their own army upon return (kinda like the Medak Pocket being shuffled under the carpet) for what they accomplished.  Glad I never went there for the Bungle in the Jungle - I was supposed to go to Goma, on the then Zaire side of the line.

MM


----------



## MarkOttawa

As far as I know ONUC was the only UN "peacekeeping" mission that had fighter planes, Swedish J-29 "Tunnan":



> http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/29kongo.htm



Love that plane.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

Why send government troops when the private sector has done such a fine job in the Congo?

Guns for Hire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAX4IyRqrA


----------



## Kat Stevens

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why send government troops when the private sector has done such a fine job in the Congo?
> 
> Guns for Hire:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTAX4IyRqrA



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhRRWwH3Fro


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good piece by Howard Coombs of RMC at CGAI--excerpts:


> The Harsh Reality: Canada and 21st Century Peacekeeping
> 
> ...For many Canadians, Trudeau’s aspirational catchphrase “We’re back!” led to a belief that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) would take a rejuvenated and robust role in UN operations. This would include the deployment of combat units in peacekeeping roles to conflict regions, like the Central African Republic and Mali. However, in the last few months this political rhetoric has lessened. The recent 2017 UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference, held in Vancouver, resulted in an apparent volte-face to these previous ambitious promises. Despite that, one can argue that the assurances which have emerged as a result of this conference may be more pragmatic and versed in the nuances of domestic realpolitik than many would normally attribute to the current Liberal government. However, while this approach may resonate with a national audience, it is seemingly at the expense of meaningful contributions to international peace and security.
> 
> ...If Canada wishes to be taken seriously internationally and within the UN, she will have to up the ante. Only by providing the necessary military forces or capabilities, coupled with supporting non-military activities needed to tangibly resolve the dilemmas that war-torn regions pose, will Canada be perceived as a team member, instead of a bystander spectating from the sidelines...
> 
> _Howard G. Coombs is an assistant professor and associate chair, war studies, at the Royal Military College of Canada, in Kingston, Ontario. [ex-Army, more here https://www.rmcc-cmrc.ca/en/history/howard-g-coombs ]  _
> http://www.cgai.ca/the_harsh_reality_canada_and_21st_century_peacekeeping



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike

While not Africa, Don Martin has an observation on the government's approach to peacekeeping:

Waving the white flag on Canada as a middle military power



> Colombia is a country where two civil-warring factions have disarmed and declared a peaceful end to a 50-year conflict. That means it’s the peacekeeping equivalent of monitoring a Grade four class in the playground during recess.
> 
> Yet inexplicably Canada dithered, pondering the potential danger of the mission until the spots were filled by other countries which didn’t consider the world’s safest peacekeeping assignment too risky to join.


----------



## pbi

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> While not Africa, Don Martin has an observation on the government's approach to peacekeeping:
> 
> Waving the white flag on Canada as a middle military power



Not a completely accurate assessment. I was in Colombia last fall for some work with regional armed forces. I got to know a Colombian Arty Col quite well, and we discussed the history and current situation at length. He had extensive experience in COIN ops, both in the "traditional" gunner role but also "dismounted" as infantry. While FARC has mostly decided to behave (largely because its leadership got jolly good government positions), not all of that movement has surrendered. And, besides FARC, there is also a lesser known Marxist insurgency: ELN, who have not given up, either.

During the time we were there, the Colombian Army was actively engaged in COIN ops, and we witnessed the military funeral of a Sgt killed in one of the ops.

As well, he told me that they face two other threats: Venezuela (Colombia keeps at least one mech bde on that border), and constant efforts from Cuba to destabilize the region.

So, it isn't necessarily as peaceful as it may seem.


----------



## daftandbarmy

pbi said:
			
		

> Not a completely accurate assessment. I was in Colombia last fall for some work with regional armed forces. I got to know a Colombian Arty Col quite well, and we discussed the history and current situation at length. He had extensive experience in COIN ops, both in the "traditional" gunner role but also "dismounted" as infantry. While FARC has mostly decided to behave (largely because its leadership got jolly good government positions), not all of that movement has surrendered. And, besides FARC, there is also a lesser known Marxist insurgency: ELN, who have not given up, either.
> 
> During the time we were there, the Colombian Army was actively engaged in COIN ops, and we witnessed the military funeral of a Sgt killed in one of the ops.
> 
> As well, he told me that they face two other threats: Venezuela (Colombia keeps at least one mech bde on that border), and constant efforts from Cuba to destabilize the region.
> 
> So, it isn't necessarily as peaceful as it may seem.



And their Army number about a quarter of a million.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Forces_of_Colombia


----------



## tomahawk6

Maybe a Mali deployment and pull security for the drone base ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe a Mali deployment and pull security for the drone base ?



With our PM, it will be a mall deployment.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> With our PM, it will be a mall deployment.



 :rofl:


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> With our PM, it will be a mall deployment.



OP Connection redux?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Colin P said:
			
		

> With our PM, it will be a mall deployment.



He'll be excited to come and visit the troops so he can play African dress up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Saw a picture this a.m. of 'two Canadian warships tied up in Nigeria'. While technically correct (I guess), I think they are CDVs. Kinda like sending us into war zones with Cougars and Grizzlies. :facepalm:


----------



## Stoker

recceguy said:
			
		

> Saw a picture this a.m. of 'two Canadian warships tied up in Nigeria'. While technically correct (I guess), I think they are CDVs. Kinda like sending us into war zones with Cougars and Grizzlies. :facepalm:



They're there to work with regional navies and CG's in a training capacity, same as what they do in the Caribbean. As well they are doing quite a bit of support to the various charities.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sending Coastal Defence Vessels to the other side of the world. I'm guessing when I say they must've been like bobbing around like a cork on the crossing.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

They are "coastal" vessels, Recceguy. Built for OUR coasts, which are basically open ocean areas. They can take a crossing without too much trouble unless they hit a storm mid-ocean. But then again, even aircraft carriers can be mauled pretty bad by storms if they get caught - Just ask admiral Halsey.  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tanks! OGBD. Learned something new. Cheers.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Murry Brewster is reporting on the 6pm CBC news on radio that we are going to Mali.  There will be an official announcement on Monday with the details.  Murry said helos are going to be involved in the mission.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Did they expand at all on grounds troops or operations?


----------



## Privateer

Canada sending troops to UN peacekeeping mission in Mali

Link to CBC article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-peacekeeping-mission-mali-1.4580482

Excerpt:


> The Canadian military will deploy helicopters and support troops, including medical teams, to the troubled West African nation of Mali later this year, CBC News has learned.
> 
> A senior government official, speaking on background, said a formal announcement will be made Monday by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Jarnhamar

We outta send a battalion of infantry.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I hope this mission isn't fettered with BS ROE so they can take care of themselves properly.  I don't want to start seeing Trenton becoming a frequent destination or at all for that matter.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Two tweets by Postmedia's Matthew Fisher:



> Matthew Fisher
> ‏@mfisheroverseas
> 
> Canada finally makes small contribution to UN peacekeeping force in Mali. CBC broke story.
> Helos & doctors. UN happy to have this but no infantry which UN badly wanted too. Likely to be based in safety of Uganda. Curious this was leaked late on a Friday. Like govt ashamed...?
> https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/974779808776273920
> 
> Matthew Fisher
> ‏@mfisheroverseas
> 
> Was told outlines of this 3 months ago. Why so little after so much dithering? Key to this minimalist contribution is Canada only commits to two six month rotations. Hear mission will commute from safety of Uganda. Not very efficient. & why leak this on a Friday evening. Ashamed?
> https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/974783754609745920



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## cavalryman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We outta send a battalion of infantry.


We shouldn't send anything.  We have no national interests in Africa.  At least none that are worth the lives of our troops.  And if this is for PMJT's mythical two year seat on the UN Security Council, then it's likely too little, too late.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I suspect it has more to do with the naming and shaming about our (lack of) UN involvement these past few days.

I agree that we shouldn't be going to Africa either.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I hope this mission isn't fettered with BS ROE so they can take care of themselves properly.  I don't want to start seeing Trenton becoming a frequent destination or at all for that matter.



When was the last mission when we had BS ROE?


----------



## jollyjacktar

There are examples of bad ROE.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/rules-engagement-need-reform/


----------



## PPCLI Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There are examples of bad ROE.
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/rules-engagement-need-reform/



Good thing the US isn't undertaking this mission then I guess.


----------



## Cloud Cover

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42074081      I  wouldn't be surprised if the US is already operating in Mali, since there is some serious slapping required.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Good thing the US isn't undertaking this mission then I guess.



No, Mr. Dressup is.


----------



## OldSolduer

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42074081      I  wouldn't be surprised if the US is already operating in Mali, since there is some serious slapping required.



There and a few other areas. If a few ne'er do wells get capped you won't see me mourning their demise.


----------



## Jarnhamar

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42074081      I  wouldn't be surprised if the US is already operating in Mali, since there is some serious slapping required.



We could always go online and check the Fitbit website to if the US has a secret base there.


I'm hoping to score a _ gender advisor _ position on tour.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> When was the last mission when we had BS ROE?



Balkans??


----------



## Retired AF Guy

> Matthew Fisher
> ‏@mfisheroverseas
> 
> Canada finally makes small contribution to UN peacekeeping force in Mali. CBC broke story.
> Helos & doctors. UN happy to have this but no infantry which UN badly wanted too. Likely to be based in safety of Uganda. Curious this was leaked late on a Friday. Like govt ashamed...?
> https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/974779808776273920



Operating from Uganda makes no sense; its the other side of the continent!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Operating from Uganda makes no sense; its the other side of the continent!



Taking Adaptive Dispersed Operations to a whole new level!  

What I wonder, why not base in either Bamako or N'Dajmena?  The French literally have airbases in both with fighter Squadrons, battlegroups, full up attack helos, etc.


----------



## tomahawk6

If you ever get to Africa I think Mali or Dijibouti would be great locales both are french speaking and by going to the D you would work with the FFL.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The government made a huge deal about distancing ourselves from the combat mission against ISIS. Guessing they will carry it on in Africa. Peacekeeping not war fighting and all that. Colocated with frontline soldiers might be too close for comfort.


----------



## Journeyman

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Operating from Uganda makes no sense; its the other side of the continent!


Sure, if you're only considering operational effectiveness;  maybe the ceremonial garb of those Bantu-speakers is more colourful than the various Mali tribes.  

Photo Ops, not military ops!    :nod:


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sure, if you're only considering operational effectiveness;  maybe the ceremonial garb of those Bantu-speakers is more colourful than the various Mali tribes.
> 
> Photo Ops, not military ops!    :nod:


This is one of those cases where it pay off to wait until the official announcement on Monday. 

Not all leaks are accurate.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The Tac Hel folks are going to be busy.


----------



## Ostrozac

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If you ever get to Africa I think Mali or Dijibouti would be great locales both are french speaking and by going to the D you would work with the FFL.



The French Foreign Legion left Djibouti in 2011. The current French garrison is based around a regiment of the Troupes de marine. 

Djibouti also acts as host to bases for military contingents from the USA, Japan and China. It's a popular place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Balkans??



I'd agree with that for UNPROFOR, but was it the same for the IFOR/KFOR/SFOR?

I'd go with Rwanda as my answer.  And that was 2 decades + change ago now.

* maybe people assuming the worst ref ROE for Mali is based on the lack of confidence they have towards the sitting government and how "in stride" the CDS may be viewed to be with them.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Latest from the Canadian Press:



> Canada’s Mali mission will emphasize deployment of female peacekeepers
> 
> By The Canadian Press — Mar 18 2018
> 
> OTTAWA — The Canadian military's upcoming foray into Mali is expected to include a marked female presence as the Trudeau government looks to have Canada lead by example in the push to have more women on peacekeeping missions.
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Monday will unveil details of Canada's mission to Mali, which will centre around the deployment of up to six military helicopters.
> 
> The Canadian contingent will be a combination of Chinook helicopters, which will be tasked with providing medical evacuations and logistical support, and smaller Griffons to act as armed escorts for the larger transports.
> 
> The decision to send military helicopters to Mali follows a direct request from the United Nations after the Trudeau government promised in November to make such aircraft available to a future peacekeeping mission.
> 
> But a senior government official says Canada will also take the opportunity to make good on another commitment, namely to help increase the number of peacekeepers who are women.
> 
> The official says that starts with walking the walk, which is why the military will attempt to ensure women are well represented among the 200 to 250 Canadian military personnel deployed to Mali.



 Article Link


----------



## PuckChaser

Here we go. People will be picked for deployment solely based on their gender. What a #$%#ing joke.


----------



## Jed

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Latest from the Canadian Press:
> 
> Article Link



Oh wow.  A whole new level of stupidity.  How in good conscience can the CDS go along with this?  Or the esteemed Generals within the Liberal party or on the Senate?

Not only are we tasking troops to a unnecessary FUBAR UN Mission we are going to select our troops base on some BS gender qualification rather than assigning positions on suitability.


----------



## tomahawk6

The USN took over Camp Lemonier and the Chinese have a naval base in country.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here we go. People will be picked for deployment solely based on their gender. What a #$%#ing joke.



Right?

All those males that dutifully stuck around while their peers jumped shipped.  Quietly plugging along, waiting for a tour. 

Surprise lol


There's your feminist focused armed forces gentlemen.


----------



## Blackadder1916

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here we go. People will be picked for deployment solely based on their gender. What a #$%#ing joke.



Yeah, it's not like people were ever previously selected/excluded from deployment based solely on their gender.  As much as the current government's feminist policy is a little out to lunch, what makes you think that "unqualified" people will be deployed simply because of their gender.  Especially since the percentage of females in Air Force trades and particularly in medical trades are likely to be higher than in combat arms.


----------



## PuckChaser

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's not like people were ever previously selected/excluded from deployment based solely on their gender.  As much as the current government's feminist policy is a little out to lunch, what makes you think that "unqualified" people will be deployed simply because of their gender.  Especially since the percentage of females in Air Force trades and particularly in medical trades are likely to be higher than in combat arms.



So just because a bunch of dinosaurs in the CAF did it, its OK now for 2 wrongs to make a right? If I told you I was picking a man over a woman in any trade for a deployment because they were a man, you'd lose your mind. However, its suddenly OK to do the opposite?

I was brought up by my parents and taught by solid leaders in the CAF that it doesn't matter what your race/creed/gender are, if you can do the job you're a valued member of the team and should be rewarded for it. By forcing the CAF into identity politics, we no longer teach our leaders to promote the best, but to promote to a gender quota. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to increase women wanting to join the CAF, but when you limit operational commanders flexibility to have the best troops available, then you limit the operational effectiveness of the CAF as a whole.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's not like people were ever previously selected/excluded from deployment based solely on their gender.



Please tell me which tour where gender was a wide spread criteria when it came to selection to deploy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here we go. People will be picked for deployment solely based on their gender. What a #$%#ing joke.



Did you miss this one in the news recently??

RCAF member deploys as gender advisor

Pretty happy to be receiving the "Kuwait medal" (show me that one in the Chart...and that's from a frickin' CAF website).   rly:  If there was a Kuwait medal, it would a miniature 'top of an ice cream container' instead of the GSM medal.   :rofl:

Brace yourselves...it's going to get worse...much much worse I fear...before it...well, I don't honestly think it will get better at this time.  Not with Mr Dressup at the helm.  It will get worse.  When IMPACT started, the CAF wouldn't send SERE SMEs into theatre to talk to the coalition JPRC folks, there was 'no need' but there was no issue having 2 fuckin Official Visits Officers (Maj's) on a camp of people that didn't need to be there in the first fuckin' place.

This shit is just going to get worse IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Please tell me which tour where gender was a wide spread criteria when it came to selection to deploy.



Actually doesn't that kind of go against the Canadian Charter stuff?  Discrimination based on sex...something something...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Actually doesn't that kind of go against the Canadian Charter stuff?  Discrimination based on sex...something something...



_That's the way she goes, boys. 
_
 ;D


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Please tell me which tour where gender was a wide spread criteria when it came to selection to deploy.



In Jordan one of the main efforts has been assisting with the Jordanian Army's womens centre of excellence. Perhaps the "female" focus is something similar, which would make sense.  

On an aside- the decision in jordan to emphasize this was as it was seen as something canada could do well with minimal personnel/fiscal investment and was high visibility (king Abdullah I I often visited).


----------



## garb811

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So just because a bunch of dinosaurs in the CAF did it, its OK now for 2 wrongs to make a right? If I told you I was picking a man over a woman in any trade for a deployment because they were a man, you'd lose your mind. However, its suddenly OK to do the opposite?
> 
> I was brought up by my parents and taught by solid leaders in the CAF that it doesn't matter what your race/creed/gender are, if you can do the job you're a valued member of the team and should be rewarded for it. By forcing the CAF into identity politics, we no longer teach our leaders to promote the best, but to promote to a gender quota. There's absolutely nothing wrong with trying to increase women wanting to join the CAF, but when you limit operational commanders flexibility to have the best troops available, then you limit the operational effectiveness of the CAF as a whole.


You know, I used to hear the same thing during Bosnia and Afghanistan.  Troops upset they were being left behind because there was an arbitrary quota that needed to be filled.  Only difference there, the "quota" was the 20% Reserve requirement...  Strangely enough, there was a common theme to the troops who weren't getting what they thought was "their" tour.  But in the end, everyone who wanted a tour eventually got one, or more.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you miss this one in the news recently??
> 
> RCAF member deploys as gender advisor
> 
> Pretty happy to be receiving the "Kuwait medal" (show me that one in the Chart...and that's from a frickin' CAF website).   rly:  If it was the Kuwait medal, it would a minitop 'top of an ice cream container' instead of the GSM medal.   :rofl:
> 
> Brace yourselves...it's going to get worse...much much worse I fear...before it...well, I don't honestly think it will get better at this time.  Not with Mr Dressup at the helm.  It will get worse.  When IMPACT started, the CAF wouldn't send SERE SMEs into theatre to talk to the coalition JPRC folks, there was 'no need' but there was no issue having 2 ****** Official Visits Officers (Maj's) on a camp of people that didn't need to be there in the first ******' place.
> 
> This crap is just going to get worse IMO.



Kuwait is a textbook definition of the self picking lollipop


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Kuwait is a textbook definition of the self picking lollipop



And yet deemed successful, so the Senior Officers etc who 'deployed' there will go on in their march up the ladder thinking it was 'the way to do things'.   :

After the '18s left there wasn't even a need for a "air operations cell" in Kuwait and, on top of that,  there was a real one in another location looking after the entire coalition, like, some kind of...Combined Air Ops Center...

CJOC =  :facepalm: : :brickwall: ullhair:  Looks like my community will be sitting this one out.  I hope our brothers and sisters in the TH community have clear skies and fair winds.   :cdnsalute:


----------



## PuckChaser

garb811 said:
			
		

> You know, I used to hear the same thing during Bosnia and Afghanistan.  Troops upset they were being left behind because there was an arbitrary quota that needed to be filled.  Only difference there, the "quota" was the 20% Reserve requirement...  Strangely enough, there was a common theme to the troops who weren't getting what they thought was "their" tour.  But in the end, everyone who wanted a tour eventually got one, or more.



I lived through that. For Op ATTENTION Roto 1, someone decided just before silly week that there wasn't enough reservists deploying. We had started predeployment training in September (for the Force Pro guys) and Mid October for everyone else. Individuals who had just done 6-8 weeks of predeployment training were told they weren't going, just before Christmas, and we had to scramble to train a bunch of reservists in January for a mid-Feb deployment. They even had a hard time finding reservists to fill the slots, because all the ones that wanted to deploy had put their names in and gotten the tour.

I also think its a completely different situation to equate a gender quota to a quota for reservists. No male in the CAF should think they are entitled to a tour over a woman, and if they do, they shouldn't be in the CAF. Quotas for reservists are arbitrary numbers and in no way involve discrimination on Charter grounds.


----------



## OldSolduer

The CAF is quickly becoming another military that relies on “advisors” ( I really mean “political officers”) to ensure we are operationally ineffective.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I’m going to try and be an optimist about the gender issue. Is it not true that the assholes the Griffons will hopefully gun down or the Chinooks will deliver in terms of smoking barrel hell, are the ones that need the gender education. I think there might be something satisfying in having CAF women have a big part in that. And, to be very clear, I wish no harm or bad luck whatsoever to come to any member of the Armed forces, I fully expect that the same expectations of selfless, non gender specific sacrifice be expected of same. Nobody on civvie street gave two shits when my friends got blown into a pink mist after their caskets rolled down the 401, will the citizenry we have feel the same just because of gender. I think “we can and must do better”. (#slaytoo!)

 It’s time to step up ( Times Up!)  what’s between the legs should not matter.* Again, to be very clear, I expect the cry baby Mr Dressup to be respectful of the sacrifice AND the delivery of death to assholes that need a good killing. In fact, I would like to see the words “Bitchin Ride” chalked on a Griffon.

* edit: but what’s clearly in the mind of our PM apparently much of the time is exactly that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Stand aside, ladies...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfNcJBbRNpk


----------



## Journeyman

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The USN took over Camp Lemonnier and the Chinese have a naval base in country.


Relevance?  Djibouti is even further away from Mali than the previously-mocked Uganda.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I lived through that. For Op ATTENTION Roto 1, someone decided just before silly week that there wasn't enough reservists deploying. We had started predeployment training in September (for the Force Pro guys) and Mid October for everyone else. Individuals who had just done 6-8 weeks of predeployment training were told they weren't going, just before Christmas, and we had to scramble to train a bunch of reservists in January for a mid-Feb deployment. They even had a hard time finding reservists to fill the slots, because all the ones that wanted to deploy had put their names in and gotten the tour.
> 
> I also think its a completely different situation to equate a gender quota to a quota for reservists. No male in the CAF should think they are entitled to a tour over a woman, and if they do, they shouldn't be in the CAF. Quotas for reservists are arbitrary numbers and in no way involve discrimination on Charter grounds.



Ahhh yes, I remember this time as well.  My Battalion deployed a grand total of two officers and three NCOs on Op ATTENTION over a three year period.  We supposedly had 900+ people over there, I have no idea where they all came from. You couldn't buy a tour during that time period and had to have some connections to the Div HQ to get a spot.


----------



## Edward Campbell

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I’m going to try and be an optimist about the gender issue. Is it not true that the assholes the Griffons will hopefully gun down or the Chinooks will deliver in terms of smoking barrel hell, are the ones that need the gender education. I think there might be something satisfying in having CAF women have a big part in that. And, to be very clear, I wish no harm or bad luck whatsoever to come to any member of the Armed forces, I fully expect that the same expectations of selfless, non gender specific sacrifice be expected of same. Nobody on civvie street gave two shits when my friends got blown into a pink mist after their caskets rolled down the 401, will the citizenry we have feel the same just because of gender. I think “we can and must do better”. (#slaytoo!)
> 
> It’s time to step up ( Times Up!)  what’s between the legs should not matter.* Again, to be very clear, I expect the cry baby Mr Dressup to be respectful of the sacrifice AND the delivery of death to assholes that need a good killing. In fact, I would like to see the words “Bitchin Ride” chalked on a Griffon.
> 
> * edit: but what’s clearly in the mind of our PM apparently much of the time is exactly that.




I agree!

I served during the era (1960s to the mid 1990s) when we "integrated" the armed forces by welcoming women into most roles.

I commanded units (1970s (Middle East) an 1980s (Canada and Europe) when women appeared in increasing numbers.

Not all women did well in all occupations ... there are a few places (combat engineers, infantryman, gun number, loader-operator (do we still call them that?) and lineman) where stamina and superior body mass (muscle) make a soldier "better" but we have all seen that some women can excel in all those jobs, too. I was told, by a scientist, that women are, actually, stronger than men ~ broadly ~ when one measures the sort of "strength" that some jobs require: high performance fighter pilot was the one he was studying and he concluded that the "average" woman was "stronger," in the way that a jet fighter pilot needs to be, than the "average" man.

Yes we had both dinosaurs amongst the men and self-entitled cry-babies amongst the women ... just enough of each to be memorable. I recall the fuss I had to endure when, in the Middle East, I decided that it was an unnecessarily long hike from the female quarters to the places where most of my soldiers, male and female, worked and to our (better in every possible way) canteen and mess hall. I talked to some of the junior NCOs, male and female, and in short order we had a female "wing" in our barracks ~ one large, shared washroom, several rooms and a hallway door not locked!) for privacy. The door had a sign "Please respect our privacy ... knock and wait," I'm told it was all that was ever needed. I got push back from some male and female officers and WOs ... but nothing I (and my chum, the major nursing sister) could not bat down, easily. I was happier because my soldiers, male and female, were happier. The guys now knew that the ladies were not getting anything "special" just because they were female and the women felt "equal" in yet another way.

In general, and I'm thinking of RV-81 now, most females were able to do most jobs as well as most men, some females did some jobs better ... in the Middle East and in Canada and Europe I had super good luck with three or four, successive, senior crypto custodian NCOs. It's a mentally demanding job and it's one that sometimes requires the person to "correct" more senior NCOs and officers, including senior staff officers, for misusing crypto or registered materiel ... the custodian NCO must ALWAYS be 100% right, it's a tough job. I had a series of great NCOs ~ and I escaped censure for years and years because of them ~ who were ALL female ... to the point where, before arriving in one unit, I asked the career manager to post out a man I knew and didn't respect and replace him with a lady who had worked for me before. Incoming COs usually get one such request, they often use it for e.g. a sergeant major or adjutant; I took my "posting gift" at the rank of sergeant/WO (I wanted her promoted to WO and posted in before I got there).    

Women are not better than men, nor are they worse ... maybe, in some small way, the CF can help some other countries to see that.


----------



## Altair

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree!
> 
> I served during the era (1960s to the mid 1990s) when we "integrated" the armed forces by welcoming women into most roles.
> 
> I commanded units (1970s (Middle East) an 1980s (Canada and Europe) when women appeared in increasing numbers.
> 
> Not all women did well in all occupations ... there are a few places (combat engineers, infantryman, gun number, loader-operator (do we still call them that?) and lineman) where stamina and superior body mass (muscle) make a soldier "better" but we have all seen that some women can excel in all those jobs, too. I was told, by a scientist, that women are, actually, stronger than men ~ broadly ~ when one measures the sort of "strength" that some jobs require: high performance fighter pilot was the one he was studying and he concluded that the "average" woman was "stronger," in the way that a jet fighter pilot needs to be, than the "average" man.
> 
> Yes we had both dinosaurs amongst the men and self-entitled cry-babies amongst the women ... just enough of each to be memorable. I recall the fuss I had to endure when, in the Middle East, I decided that it was an unnecessarily long hike from the female quarters to the places where most of my soldiers, male and female, worked and to our (better in every possible way) canteen and mess hall. I talked to some of the junior NCOs, male and female, and in short order we had a female "wing" in our barracks ~ one large, shared washroom, several rooms and a hallway door not locked!) for privacy. The door had a sign "Please respect our privacy ... knock and wait," I'm told it was all that was ever needed. I got push back from some male and female officers and WOs ... but nothing I (and my chum, the major nursing sister) could not bat down, easily. I was happier because my soldiers, male and female, were happier. The guys now knew that the ladies were not getting anything "special" just because they were female and the women felt "equal" in yet another way.
> 
> In general, and I'm thinking of RV-81 now, most females were able to do most jobs as well as most men, some females did some jobs better ... in the Middle East and in Canada and Europe I had super good luck with three or four, successive, senior crypto custodian NCOs. It's a mentally demanding job and it's one that sometimes requires the person to "correct" more senior NCOs and officers, including senior staff officers, for misusing crypto or registered materiel ... the custodian NCO must ALWAYS be 100% right, it's a tough job. I had a series of great NCOs ~ and I escaped censure for years and years because of them ~ who were ALL female ... to the point where, before arriving in one unit, I asked the career manager to post out a man I knew and didn't respect and replace him with a lady who had worked for me before. Incoming COs usually get one such request, they often use it for e.g. a sergeant major or adjutant; I took my "posting gift" at the rank of sergeant/WO (I wanted her promoted to WO and posted in before I got there).
> 
> Women are not better than men, nor are they worse ... maybe, in some small way, the CF can help some other countries to see that.


Good post.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was told, by a scientist, that women are, actually, stronger than men ~ broadly ~ when one measures the sort of "strength" that some jobs require:
> 
> Women are not better than men, nor are they worse ... maybe, in some small way, the CF can help some other countries to see that.



Not sure if intentional, but well-played nonetheless.   

I totally agree with the rest of the post.  I also would never wish the job of Crypto Custodian on my worst enemy.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=E.R. Campbell]

Women are not better than men, nor are they worse ... maybe, in some small way, the CF can *help some other countries to see that.*
[/quote]

I'm not so sure about whether it's going to be a teachable moment or whatever that saying is.

The thing is it's not like other countries don't deploy women overseas.  In Afghanistan our allies deployed a fair number of women.My C/Ss Appache over-watch was more often times than not a female pilot. Fair number of hummer gunners and drivers in and around KAF I seen were female.  European countries had a lot of females deployed. Alot of tough no-nonsense women. We're hardly pioneers at this and the only one doing it.

So would the intent then be to show African countries that women are just as good as men? By the simple act of deploying a large number of them? Is that actually going to prove a point to them? Are they going to care that X% of members Canada deployed is female? 

Are we going to harm unit integrity when positions are outsourced to fill a gender-quota? Say a unit has to pull in members from 3 or 4 other units to meet a goal, if that's the case.  What happens when it's the losing units turn deploying and deploys the same women out on back to back tours. Will members become burned out when we try and keep up the numbers?  It's pretty small now, 250 pers, but it's not hard to imagine identity-based deployments becoming the norm with this government.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## dimsum

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are we going to harm unit integrity when positions are outsourced to fill a gender-quota? Say a unit has to pull in members from 3 or 4 other units to meet a goal, if that's the case.  What happens when it's the losing units turn deploying and deploys the same women out on back to back tours. Will members become burned out when we try and keep up the numbers?  It's pretty small now, 250 pers, but it's not hard to imagine identity-based deployments becoming the norm with this government.
> 
> :Tin-Foil-Hat:



That's a good point.


----------



## Altair

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's a good point.


It probably has to go hand in hand with increasing the percentage of women in uniform.


----------



## Furniture

Altair said:
			
		

> It probably has to go hand in hand with increasing the percentage of women in uniform.



In the right trades at the right training and rank level, and at exactly the right time... While I think it won't turn into a serious problem, recruiting isn't going to solve it any time soon.


----------



## Kat Stevens

DAPS v2.0 on the horizon.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> So would the intent then be to show African countries that women are just as good as men? By the simple act of deploying a large number of them? Is that actually going to prove a point to them? Are they going to care that X% of members Canada deployed is female?



There's probably no one on these means who can delve into the mind of the PM and determine his true intent.  However, I suspect that that a significant part of his process (whether right, wrong or loony) is to show "Canadians" that women are just as good as men.  Providing an example to Africans would probably be an off-shoot; if it helps - fine, but if not - who cares, they don't vote in Canadian elections.

Why would he need to show Canadians that females are just as good as men in the military?  Aren't all occupations open to women?  Okay, sure, but, though there are an increasing number of women reaching (or getting within reach of) GOFO ranks, what is the likelihood of seeing a female being a contender for command of any of the L1s in the near future?  Yes, there may be a quota for females in this upcoming Africa mission, but it would not surprise me to see that the important (read visible) quotas will be for the commanders.  By filling the senior slots (just enough so that it's not looking like they are synchronizing cycles) they provide that added boost to one's career profile so that they may have an advantage when it comes time to select for other senior jobs/rank.  This of course, would be primarily in the TH element of the mission as well as the overall contingent comd; the medical side, gender imbalance at the top is not so much an issue.


----------



## dimsum

Side track, but would the SAR Griffon pers be potentially tapped to do this?  Obviously a different skill set, but is it something that can be taught on a quick OTU or similar?


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Side track, but would the SAR Griffon pers be potentially tapped to do this?  Obviously a different skill set, but is it something that can be taught on a quick OTU or similar?



Highly doubtful.  National SAR (yellow helo) folks are very quick to point out to green (and black) helo folks that they have significantly different skill sets.  It should follow logically that peace-time administrative search and rescue skills and experience would not be very applicable to integrated armed helicopter operations in an area with an extant Al Qaeda-aligned terrorist force.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> .... to integrated armed helicopter operations in an area with an extant Al Qaeda-aligned terrorist force.


Hang on.....so you're saying it's _not_  peacekeeping?!   



Well, at least we know where "Uganda" came from:


> Sajjan and Freeland also said they're getting closer to deploying a C-130 Hercules aircraft for tactical support in Entebbe, Uganda, which was promised back in November during a peacekeeping conference in Vancouver.


...eventually.        LINK


----------



## Kat Stevens

Uganda didn't enjoy it last time a C 130 landed at Entebbe   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile is this this unit pledged by the PM from Nov. 2017 ever going to be formed and then deployed anywhere?



> Canadian contributions to United Nations peace support operations
> ...
> Canada is a strong supporter of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and will continue to play an important role by contributing high-end capabilities and specialized training...
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces will make the following military capabilities available...
> 
> A *Quick Reaction Force* that includes approximately 200 personnel and accompanying equipment...
> https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/11/15/canadian-contributions-united-nations-peace-support-operations



Mark
Ottawa


[/list]


----------



## Altair

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hang on.....so you're saying it's _not_  peacekeeping?!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least we know where "Uganda" came from:...eventually.        LINK


Like I said, it was better to wait until monday.

Not all leaks are accurate.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Uganda didn't enjoy it last time a C 130 landed at Entebbe   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Listening to the Evan Solomon radio talk show on the way home just now, he had Senator Romeo Delaire on by phone. 

The Senator was of the opinion in this case, sending the birds (on both counts) was a good move with bang for the buck to be had at a lower risk than ground forces.  The aircraft will provide a needed support element and allow crews to gain experience.  As for female participation, he said that wrt child soldiers, females bring pisitive capabilities to the table abd thus are a force multiplier.  His previous concerns for our participation in Mali have been soothed to a great extent.  So, his  :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't think it's anything to do with deploying female members,  I don't have a problem with that. They are qualified and do their jobs well.

Mali is a dangerous shit hole, it is the place for qualified people to be.

It is not the place for virtue signalling to the world what a feminist you are.

People should be picked for their qualification and for their ability to operate under extreme conditions.

Not because they are female and available.

We have been trying for years to integrate females into a family that doesn't have the biases of outside civilians. A team member, no matter sex, age, colour or religion. We are mostly blind to those things.

Now the PM is out there defining them as a separate group again. Much as he has done with most other groups in Canada


----------



## HB_Pencil

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Uganda didn't enjoy it last time a C 130 landed at Entebbe   ;D



While tongue and cheek, you should be aware that we deployed C-130s out of there in 1996 for our last African adventure. 

Rwanda on the other hand was a different story.


----------



## Kat Stevens

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> While tongue and cheek, you should be aware that we deployed C-130s out of there in 1996 for our last African adventure.
> 
> Rwanda on the other hand was a different story.



Wait. So you're telling me that C 130s have landed at Entebbe after July of 1976? Got sources for that? Fake news.   :


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you miss this one in the news recently??
> 
> RCAF member deploys as gender advisor



Bit off off topic but talking about Sweden and the Nordic Centre For Gender in Military operations where our gender advisors train (I'm sure I'll be there soon) from your link. I find it interesting that Sweden is often lauded as the standard for women's rights and equality but lots of first hand stories don't seem to match that narrative. 

http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2018/03/natalie-contessa-is-under-24-hour.html?m=1



> Natalie Contessa received death threats, her address made public, and her community site was hacked after she gave an exclusive interview to M1 TV about the Swedish refugee situation. She is now under 24-hour protection by former special operation soldiers.
> 
> Natalie Contessa has lived in Sweden for almost 40 years and moved to Hungary because of the deterioration of public security in the country. In an exclusive interview with M1 TV, she talked about migrant crime in Swedish cities, that the police ignore.
> 
> The woman received death threats after the interview, and the liberal media launched a smear campaign against her by publishing info about her personal life to undermine her credibility. The intimidation campaign and the threats are ongoing so she filed a complaint with police.



When you start reading some of the stories out of Sweden it sounds like they might need their own UN peacekeepers soon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When you start reading some of the stories out of Sweden it sounds like they might need their own UN peacekeepers soon.



Perhaps that's what the UN wants.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wait. So you're telling me that C 130s have landed at Entebbe after July of 1976? Got sources for that? Fake news.   :



Shocking, I know... 

The only reason why I raised it was due to the link to our last major African intervention that didn't end all too well.


----------



## medicineman

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> Shocking, I know...
> 
> The only reason why I raised it was due to the link to our last major African intervention that didn't end all too well.



The one that didn't end too well or the one that never really got started too well?  

MM


----------



## a_majoor

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Bit off off topic but talking about Sweden and the Nordic Centre For Gender in Military operations where our gender advisors train (I'm sure I'll be there soon) from your link. I find it interesting that Sweden is often lauded as the standard for women's rights and equality but lots of first hand stories don't seem to match that narrative.
> 
> http://www.hungarianambiance.com/2018/03/natalie-contessa-is-under-24-hour.html?m=1
> 
> When you start reading some of the stories out of Sweden it sounds like they might need their own UN peacekeepers soon.



Following the gender advisor thing, I have been advised as the S9 I am also responsible for writing the "Gender Annex" to the orders. (In addition to the CIMIC and PSYOPS annex, I might add). Do you have any sort of examples I could peruse? This will be useful because not only have I never seen one, no one can tell me which letter it falls under (my shorthand right now is "Annex XY").

Thanks


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Annex XY works for me.  ;D

But you have an easy job, Thuc. You get to write the first OPORD Gender Annex. It will be the model for all that follow.

Personally, I think it should read as follows:

ANNEX XY - GENDER:

1. In this OPORD, the pronouns he or she are used singly for ease of readability but include any and all genders, binary or otherwise.

2. All genders, binary or otherwise, are welcome to take part in the operation covered by this OPORD, so long as they otherwise meet the required qualifications for the job and are capable of doing it.


That's it! All you need really in a CAF "Gender" annex.  ;D


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I just hope that the troops will have the proper equipment needed for this mission. Unlike my last 2 deployments overseas, where we were left to purchase missing uniform parts from the Americans.


----------



## HB_Pencil

medicineman said:
			
		

> The one that didn't end too well or the one that never really got started too well?
> 
> MM



One can argue that's an accurate description for both of them.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Following the gender advisor thing, I have been advised as the S9 I am also responsible for writing the "Gender Annex" to the orders. (In addition to the CIMIC and PSYOPS annex, I might add). Do you have any sort of examples I could peruse? This will be useful because not only have I never seen one, no one can tell me which letter it falls under (my shorthand right now is "Annex XY").
> 
> Thanks



You should include something like this: 'All genders will attack as required or, like everyone else, suffer the consequences: friendly or enemy induced.'


----------



## tomahawk6

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> I just hope that the troops will have the proper equipment needed for this mission. Unlike my last 2 deployments overseas, where we were left to purchase missing uniform parts from the Americans.



The French deployed without enough ammo and had to get extra from the US.remember bullets are free anything else and you get charged lol. Gotta account for most everything. :


----------



## OldSolduer

I will admit I’m not up to speed on the situation in Mali. I’m not all that confident that the MND and the PM have made the right decision. Time will tell. Let’s hope we don’t see more trips down The Highway of Heroes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> I just hope that the troops will have the proper equipment needed for this mission. Unlike my last 2 deployments overseas, where we were left to purchase missing uniform parts from the Americans.



They didn't have LPSVs for us at the start of IMPACT, so we flew with the useless LPUC stuffed in the go-bags, and had a 'home made' LPSV using TACVEST and a combo of issued stuff and stuff from my civie hiking gear, I shit you not.  It wasn't until later on we got LPSVs, and then some daft-minded pipe-licker stuffed the radio pouch full of other crap, so it took longer to get the vest sorted out  :facepalm:.  Who looks at a pouch marked "radio" and then stuffs it with everything but a radio and signs off on it?

On R0 and part of R2 I used this rig as my LPSV;  just had to stuff my 112 in the right pouch (carried my pistol off the rig).  Worked but the point & question is...why did we have to do that in the first place??  * we also had people that could only get the 'orange colored' strobe.   :brickwall:


----------



## PuckChaser

Holy crap, someone found an actual operational use for the tacvest.


----------



## Journeyman

....with the knife upside-down

(unless the intent is to slice your throat, because you're not in an RCAF-approved hotel)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pointy end was down (that's the sharp end, right?)...that Ka-bar model is a little heavy, was more worried it would fall out (I modified the sheath that came with it).  Still seemed a better option that my issued SHTF knife, pictured below.

But, to get back on track...hopefully the 'required kit' is available for the air and ground pers heading out and people aren't raiding their personal gear to make ends meet.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Following the gender advisor thing, I have been advised as the S9 I am also responsible for writing the "Gender Annex" to the orders. (In addition to the CIMIC and PSYOPS annex, I might add). Do you have any sort of examples I could peruse? This will be useful because not only have I never seen one, no one can tell me which letter it falls under (my shorthand right now is "Annex XY").
> 
> Thanks


Yes, XY is perfect!


----------



## Haggis

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Pointy end was down (that's the sharp end, right?)...that Ka-bar model is a little heavy, was more worried it would fall out (I modified the sheath that came with it).  Still seemed a better option that my issued SHTF knife, pictured below.
> 
> But, to get back on track...hopefully the 'required kit' is available for the air and ground pers heading out and people aren't raiding their personal gear to make ends meet.



You are assuming that the ROE will allow knives to be carried.  Remember who is sending you there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Haggis said:
			
		

> You are assuming that the ROE will allow knives to be carried.  Remember who is sending you there.



 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat:



you sir have made me giggle!!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If anyone is interested in how this is playing in the Quebec based Laurentian Elites, here is the title of "Le Devoir" front page article on the deployment to Mali (my translation). Please note that the well balanced article actually fits the description in the title:

"_Blue Helmets: Canada to go on Mission in Mali - The Government is Incapable of Providing Any Details of Its Undertaking_"

My view: That's not gonna help the Libs in Quebec.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Pointy end was down (that's the sharp end, right?)...that Ka-bar model is a little heavy, was more worried it would fall out (I modified the sheath that came with it).  Still seemed a better option that my issued SHTF knife, pictured below.
> 
> But, to get back on track...hopefully the 'required kit' is available for the air and ground pers heading out and people aren't raiding their personal gear to make ends meet.



Find a new place for your knife. You're going to smash yourself in the chin. Makes it hard to draw also.


----------



## Jarnhamar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Find a new place for your knife. You're going to smash yourself in the chin. Makes it hard to draw also.



Knives are misogynist and represent rape culture.  :tsktsk:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Knives are misogynist and represent rape culture.  :tsktsk:



If they're Swiss, they're neutral though, right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I have a big bowie I made from a chain saw bar. It identifies as Swiss though, so it's OK too?


----------



## Loachman

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/mali-mission-1.4585038

Canada's peacekeeping mission in Africa is destined to become the folly in Mali

Whether we send 250 or 2,500 personnel, we'll be sending them into quicksand

David Krayden · for CBC News · Posted: Mar 21, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 11 hours ago

Canada's upcoming contribution to a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali - announced by the Trudeau government on Monday -  is destined to become the folly in Mali. It is exactly where Canada and the Canadian military does not need to be.  


First of all, the Canadian military has been unequivocal in issuing warnings of deploying to African nations that are in the midst of civil war, rife with Islamic extremism and replete with child soldiers - and all three conditions exist in Mali. It's become one of the deadlier UN missions in history as a result.


A military briefing note on potential peacekeeping missions to Africa, published before the Mali announcement this week, warned that "child soldiers … are likely to be encountered on an increasing basis," which can lead to severe psychological trauma for deployed personnel. The document noted that combat encounters between Canadian soldiers and Mali children could become a public affairs nightmare if the engagement "is not well-handled, and communicated effectively." In fact, the authors continue, "there is a strong potential for significant negative impact on the mission."


----------



## Cloud Cover

What are the chances this guy gets to send another opinion piece to the cbc for publication after this little gem:

"Instead of playing gender politics and demonstrating his sycophantic love of the UN, Trudeau should be ensuring that we have a military that is capable of fulfilling its basic obligations to NATO and NORAD."

"David Krayden has worked in print, radio and television journalism. He served in the Canadian Armed Forces as a public affairs officer and was employed for almost a decade as a communications specialist on Parliament Hill. He is currently the Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Daily Caller, a Washington-based news service."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

recceguy said:
			
		

> Find a new place for your knife. You're going to smash yourself in the chin. Makes it hard to draw also.



I don't want to keep talking about the knife, but...

1.  Ka-bars are great knives but their sheaths aren't the greatest.  I ordered the KaBar MOLLE one I used in theatre because it would attach to my TV (the stock one would not).  Once I got it, I realized it did not have a tight grip on the knife like others (such as the Gerber LMF to guy to the my left has on his), it just slid inside a lose plastic blade protector inside the sheath.  The snaps on my *new and improved* MOLLE sheath from Ka-Bar didn't actually stay snapped.  I had to replace them with a Velcro wrap holder.  

2.  Because of the shitty sheath and no time left to order a good Kydex one or something before my ride over the pond, and after some trials and stuff, the best option was to mount it 'tip down';  I was more worried about it falling out "on the run" and it being "not there!" if I really needed it.  The TV wasn't worn constantly, it was something I would have grabbed if things went really sideways and I was on the run (or perhaps a reasonably paced shuffle...situation depending).  My Camelback sternum strap kept it in place pretty nicely (by luck, not design).
  
3.  It actually rode a little lower than the Gerber LMF, as buddy next to me (on the right in the pic below) has strapped onto his TV.  I could have dealt with it tapping me on the chin easier than I could deal with it falling out.  Again, if I'd of known the 2nd KaBar sheath was going to be crappy in the way it was, I'd of gone straight for the $XXX Kydex one vice the $25 USD one.   Time ran out, I dealt with what I had.

4.  It was an interim, self-funded solution to a problem that never should have happened in the first place, but we did what (some of us) felt we needed to do.  I also carried a smaller CRKT Triumph NECK knife in my leg pocket (I still didn't 100% trust that sheath even after I modified it).  If anyone wonders what the issued "knife" we carried was:  http://www.eickhorn-solingen.de/epages/62631327.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/62631327/Products/102205/SubProducts/102205

Some us wanted something more beefy than a strap-cutter.  

*Now, back to the Mali mission...*


----------



## overwatch

Any idea which Air Force trades will be going? AEC a no go I’m assuming?


----------



## PuckChaser

overwatch said:
			
		

> Any idea which Air Force trades will be going?


The ones that are required to support helicopter operations?

I don't even think the CDS knows what's up yet. This government has been shown to disregard military advice to gain political points, so I doubt the CAF even had an idea what was deploying until the MND told them.


----------



## overwatch

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The ones that are required to support helicopter operations?
> 
> I don't even think the CDS knows what's up yet. This government has been shown to disregard military advice to gain political points, so I doubt the CAF even had an idea what was deploying until the MND told them.



I see, kinda terrible of them to do that but I haven’t heard the best things regarding the relationship between liberals and the CAF. On a side note, there is a specific squadron of AEC that deploy with helos (EATM, at Wainright). Curious if these guys will go.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It'll be a CJOC show;  for 6 helicopters they'll send about 800 support pers.  You have a decent chance of going.


----------



## Zoomie

Hopefully they just deploy an ATF with a SC as support... no need for JTF overhead.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It'll be a CJOC show;  for 6 helicopters they'll send about 800 support pers.  You have a decent chance of going.



Oh don't you know it.  Better get 3 or 4 TOCs or whatever for those 6 birds lol


----------



## overwatch

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It'll be a CJOC show;  for 6 helicopters they'll send about 800 support pers.  You have a decent chance of going.



Not AEC (yet, hopefully 🙂). Just doing some due diligence about the roles and expectations of the trade.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In all seriousness, there could be a role for AEC and AC Op;  air ops are air ops afterall, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Oh don't you know it.  Better get 3 or 4 TOCs or whatever for those 6 birds lol



An Air Ops Center, then a _Combined_ Air Ops Center, and then a _Joint Air Ops Center_...and then....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So the media experts are claiming things aren't so bad there, I bet they won't volunteer to quickly for a tour...

http://www.news1130.com/2018/03/22/baloney-meter-tories-dish-out-a-lot-of-baloney-on-mali-peacekeeping-mission/


----------



## Jarnhamar

Colin P said:
			
		

> So the media experts are claiming things aren't so bad there, I bet they won't volunteer to quickly for a tour...
> 
> http://www.news1130.com/2018/03/22/baloney-meter-tories-dish-out-a-lot-of-baloney-on-mali-peacekeeping-mission/



So by a rough estimate one UN peacekeeper dies there every 9.5 days?

Thats not so bad, it's not like someone's dying every week.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> So the media experts are claiming things aren't so bad there, I bet they won't volunteer to quickly for a tour...
> 
> http://www.news1130.com/2018/03/22/baloney-meter-tories-dish-out-a-lot-of-baloney-on-mali-peacekeeping-mission/



Media experts ? Did any of them do a few tours in uniform?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very few of MINUSMA fatalities in Mali have been European:



> "...
> Chad has lost 47 of its peacekeepers, Guinea has lost 18, Burkina Faso has lost 17, and Togo and Niger have both lost 16.
> 
> Bangladesh has lost 13 and the other 13 countries that have lost peacekeepers on the mission are in the single digits.
> 
> Of those, the Netherlands has suffered the largest loss of peacekeepers at five. Germany and France have both lost two..."
> https://globalnews.ca/news/4091649/mali-un-canadian-mission/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nothing to fear. The Master Architect will provide his all seeing, all knowing spin on the plan and bring peace to the region.

I'll reserve judgement on losses. Hopefully and God willing we won't have any.


----------



## Rifleman62

Fromthe CBC article above:



> While the numbers are staggering, they do not necessarily tell the whole story.



CBC running cover for the Liberals



> Of the 162 total peacekeeper deaths in Mali, 99 of those have been from what the United Nations defines as “_*malicious acts*_.”



Malicious acts; does the UN mean killed by hostile forces using firepower? Anyways, hostile action, accident, sickness, your dead.



> Dave Perry, vice president and senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute: “There doesn’t seem like there’s that significant a threat to aviation,”



Yet, until the Cdns arrive.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-with-mali-decision-the-trudeau-government-puts/?cmpid=rss&click=sf_globe&__twitter_impression=true

Quote: It is frankly horrifying that this government is willing to risk Canadian soldiers’ lives with so little justification.


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very few of MINUSMA fatalities in Mali have been European:
> Chad has lost 47 of its peacekeepers, Guinea has lost 18, Burkina Faso has lost 17, and Togo and Niger have both lost 16.
> Bangladesh has lost 13 and the other 13 countries that have lost peacekeepers on the mission are in the single digits.
> Of those, the Netherlands has suffered the largest loss of peacekeepers at five. Germany and France have both lost two..."



Is there a point to your post beyond _suggesting_,  "no worries;  very few are white folks"??!


----------



## MarkOttawa

journeyman: just suggesting that most of the real danger has been faced by troops not from the European _countries_ which have been part of MINUSMA.  No skin colour intended as the point.  I'm pretty sure all CAF personnel will not be white.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Here's an aspect of MINUSMA's recently broadened mandate that our media do not seem to have noticed and our pols have not mentioned--tweets:

1) 


> Evan Cinq-Mars
> ‏Verified account @ecinqmars
> 
> Something to keep in mind as we think about Canada’s deployment to the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali: a change in that mission’s mandate in December 2017 means Canadian helicopters and personnel could be called upon to support another operation — the G5 Sahel Joint Force.
> https://twitter.com/ecinqmars/status/976882259889475589



2)


> Evan Cinq-Mars
> ‏Verified account @ecinqmars
> 
> Quick re-cap on G5: an up-to-5,000-strong joint force comprising troops and police from Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, and mandated to do the counter-terror operations in Mali that MINUSMA can’t (and UN missions shouldn’t) do http://www.dw.com/en/eu-doubles-funds-for-g5-sahel-military-anti-terror-security-force/a-42711948
> https://twitter.com/ecinqmars/status/976882261286060033



3)


> Evan Cinq-Mars
> ‏Verified account @ecinqmars
> 
> MINUSMA was, however, mandated by the UN Security Council in December 2017 to provide logistical support the operations of the G5 Sahel Joint Force in Mali. The provisions of the support to be provided by MINUSMA:
> https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13112.doc.htm
> https://twitter.com/ecinqmars/status/976882270530392071



4)


> Evan Cinq-Mars
> ‏Verified account @ecinqmars
> 
> Now, there are some strong caveats in the UN Security Council resolution on MINUSMA’s support to the G5, including ensuring support by from UN does not “adversely impact its [MINUSMA’s] own operations or put mission personnel at undue risk”. But...
> https://twitter.com/ecinqmars/status/976882282450571266



5)


> Evan Cinq-Mars
> ‏Verified account @ecinqmars
> 
> It’s possible that Canadian helicopters and personnel could be asked to support the G5 during the 12 month deployment to MINUSMA, including, for example, by conducting CASEVAC or MEDEVAC for the G5 during or after operations in Mali.
> https://twitter.com/ecinqmars/status/976882284925251585



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

And note this:



> Malian PM makes landmark visit to restive north
> 
> Mali's Prime Minister Soumeylou Boubeye Maiga made his first visit to the country's troubled north on Thursday, but delayed a trip to the restive city of Kidal due to bad weather.
> 
> Five French soldiers were wounded on Thursday in Kidal when their base was attacked, the French army said, and France's defence minister said the assault was likely linked to Maiga's planned stop.
> 
> Maiga was appointed in December charged with bolstering security as jihadists mount near-weekly attacks on security forces, _raising fears for safety ahead of a presidential election due in July_ [emphasis added].
> 
> In the northern town of Tessalit, he met Malian soldiers, promising them "better conditions to face the common enemy, terrorism," and saying they were "not alone".
> 
> Bad weather meant the plane meant to fly the prime minister to Kidal could not take off, his entourage said, delaying his visit to Friday.
> 
> Around 4,000 French troops are deployed under [combat] Operation Barkhane [for Sahel, not just Mali] alongside the UN's 12,000-strong MINUSMA peacekeeping operation in Mali.
> 
> Last month, _French army chief Francois Lecointre warned parliament that it would take 10 to 15 years to resolve Mali's problems_ [emphasis added], according to a summary of his remarks published on Thursday...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5531671/Malian-PM-makes-landmark-visit-restive-north.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> journeyman: just suggesting that most of the real danger has been faced by troops not from the European _countries_ which have been part of MINUSMA.  No skin colour intended as the point.  I'm pretty sure all CAF personnel will not be white.


Ah, semantics.

I don't know the troop disposition, so I'm in no position to say that most of the "real danger" has been faced by non-European troops....or to interpret that as non-European troops are not as competent as Euros, hence the higher casualty rate. :dunno:

But thanks for your insight that not all CAF troops are likely to be white.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Here are the contributing countries to MINUSMA; clearly those from European countries face less risk--both in terms of numbers and in terms of roles they play.  Germany largest contributor:
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/minusma

More on Germans:



> ...
> The mission will also be cooperating with the G5 Sahel Joint Force. It will provide logistical support in putting in place infrastructure and will provide support inside Mali in the form of consumables and transport for the wounded.
> 
> The ceiling on troops for the new mandate will be raised to 1,100. More logistical staff will be needed to maintain and repair the vehicle pool. At the start of December 2017, Germany also took on the full responsibility for managing Camp Castor. And more staff are needed at the air transport base in Niamey...
> https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2018/03_en/2018-03-06-auslandseinsatz-der-bundeswehr_en.html



This is from Jan. 2017 and one doubts it has changed much--don't think there are infantry doing any patrolling:



> ...deployment of German personnel in the staff units of the mission, and the provision of liaison officers. The Bundeswehr is also providing tactical air transport capabilities and helping with mid-air refuelling. With this, the Bundeswehr is supporting French forces on the ground [Barkane], which are authorised by UN Security Council resolutions.
> 
> The Bundeswehr has also deployed a larger mixed reconnaissance company and forces to protect specific sites. To this must be added support forces in the fields of command support, logistics and the medical service...
> https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/EN/Artikel/2017/01_en/2017-01-11-minusma-mali_en.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loch Sloy!

Not sure how force protection can be effective without patrolling...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> Not sure how force protection can be effective without patrolling...



Especially if you are a military force with a shred of self-respect, or sense of self-preservation


----------



## a_majoor

Well meaning friends keep sending me links to articles, evidently they all believe that I will deploy tomorrow morning (as I am probably the _only_ person they know who has ever deployed anywhere, that may even be a valid assumption to them):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/mali-mission-1.4585038

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-when-it-comes-to-peacekeeping-canadas-sort-of-technically-but-not-really-back

What is interesting is they choose _these_ articles to send me (I may be vocal about the proposed mission here, but am non committal in person, since there was literally nothing to say until now). Maybe more Canadians are seeing through the smokescreen than the Liberals imagined.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well meaning friends keep sending me links to articles, evidently they all believe that I will deploy tomorrow morning (as I am probably the _only_ person they know who has ever deployed anywhere, that may even be a valid assumption to them):
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/mali-mission-1.4585038
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-when-it-comes-to-peacekeeping-canadas-sort-of-technically-but-not-really-back
> 
> What is interesting is they choose _these_ articles to send me (I may be vocal about the proposed mission here, but am non committal in person, since there was literally nothing to say until now). Maybe more Canadians are seeing through the smokescreen bullshit than the Liberals imagined.



That might be more accurate.


----------



## OldSolduer

A few reputable soldiers and not just retired generals need to tell Canadians what’s peacekeeping and what isn’t. Cyprus was peacekeeping: Mali isn’t. There is a difference.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A few reputable soldiers and not just retired generals need to tell Canadians what’s peacekeeping and what isn’t. Cyprus was peacekeeping: Mali isn’t. There is a difference.



You are a reputable soldier. And you are retired. I would say that you are more qualifed than most to give advice to Parliamentarians.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are a reputable soldier. And you are retired. I would say that you are more qualifed than most to give advice to Parliamentarians.



Thank you. Maybe a letter to my MP would be in order.

I’m not sure about the reputable part!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you. Maybe a letter to my MP would be in order.
> 
> I’m not sure about the reputable part!



Never underestimate what a good letter can do in the right places. Suggestion: If you send one to your MP, make sure that you copy your Municipal and Provincial representatives too, as well as the Minister of Vets Affairs & MND (if either of those don't happen to be your MP too). One page is a good length.

There's nothing like a possible 'I told you so...' to keep the egos of our overlords in moderate check.


----------



## medicineman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> A few reputable soldiers and not just retired generals need to tell Canadians what’s peacekeeping and what isn’t. Cyprus was peacekeeping: Mali isn’t. There is a difference.



HS - my MP is the Conservative Defence Critic...and his office is just a short drive from the Peg when he's in town.  Maybe we should both go pay him a visit (you're more reputable than me  ;D)

MM


----------



## ModlrMike

I've met the man, and he comes across as a genuinely  nice guy. I also sense that he actually cares about his portfolio. Maybe several of us should have a chat with him.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> One page is a good length maximum.


- the point that's critical must be in the first paragraph -- preferably the first sentence;
- No paragraph will exceed seven lines;
- Use caution when including words of more than three syllables;
......

PCO had all sorts of useful advice for drafting documents for Parliamentarians....    :nod:


----------



## AKa

Yesterday I was informed that the proposed operation in Mali had been named, and I passed the info on during our management meeting.  Everybody started laughing.  Are we juvenile or is "Op Magnum" the most hilarious name for an op ever?  

Of course, somebody could be playing an enormous joke on us and we fell for it...


----------



## medicineman

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I've met the man, and he comes across as a genuinely  nice guy. I also sense that he actually cares about his portfolio. Maybe several of us should have a chat with him.



I'm off this week - maybe he'll have office hours...

MM


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you. Maybe a letter to my MP would be in order.
> 
> I’m not sure about the reputable part!



And above all, you and your wife sadly know the full, true cost that can come from missions that may be folly.


----------



## OldSolduer

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I've met the man, and he comes across as a genuinely  nice guy. I also sense that he actually cares about his portfolio. Maybe several of us should have a chat with him.



That’s a good idea. I’d be happy to investigate this.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Estonia has different priorities in Mali from our gov't:

Estonia plans to contribute to a French military operation

Stenbock House, 22 March 2018 – at today’s meeting, the government decided to support the proposal to apply for a mandate from the parliament to increase Estonia’s military contribution in Mali to participate in Barkhane, an operation led by France.

The government will apply for a mandate from the Riigikogu to send up to 50 active servicemen [on _per capita_ basis equivalent to some 1,300 Canadians] to the Republic of Mali for a one-year mission.

During the Barkhane operation, led by France, the Estonian _contingent will be tasked with ensuring the security of the base and its surroundings. An infantry unit on armoured personnel carriers and a support element will participate in Barkhane. The unit will be based in the Gao military camp in Mali_ [emphasis added].

Prime Minister Jüri Ratas said that Estonia’s decision to contribute to an anti-terrorist operation is another example of the excellent cooperation between Estonia and France. “France sent their unit to Estonia last spring to accompany the unit of the UK in the NATO battlegroup located here. The French unit will return to the battlegroup next year. Countries do not send their units abroad without careful consideration. The fact that Estonia and France have found numerous opportunities over the past few years for defence cooperation with practical added value undoubtedly signifies the close relations of the two countries,” said Prime Minister Ratas...

Currently, Estonia contributes to two operations carried out in Mali: the EU training mission EUTM-Mali (four training instructors and staff officers) and the UN peacekeeping mission MINUSMA (_three staff officers_ [emphasis added)...
https://www.valitsus.ee/en/news/estonia-plans-contribute-french-military-operation

On the other hand the Harper government's 2013 airlift help to the French in Mali seemed quite reluctant and was quite short-term:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/mark-collins-the-canadian-forces-and-mali-no-glasnost/

And the French have been requesting serious help from us for MINUSMA since 2016:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/mark-collins-canadian-governments-peacekeeping-heart-with-france-in-africa-it-seems/

Estonia was also very stout the ISAF combat mission in Afghanistan--and don't seem to have become as terrible casualty averse as we now are (just listen to the Conservatives in the Commons!):



> Burden Sharing
> By Steve Coll
> 
> I was taken aback recently when a senior U.S. military officer I happened to be talking with launched into ardent praise of Estonia, for the performance of its soldiers in Afghanistan. This led to a conversation about per-capita burdens in the Afghan war. All the grousing and lobbying by U.S. public officials about NATO’s contributions might lead a casual newspaper reader to believe that the American population has borne a heavily disproportionate share of the hard fighting against the Taliban. That is not the case. While traveling to Canada to speak about Afghanistan from time to time, for example, I’ve been struck by how heavily Afghan casualties have fallen on that country, which has essentially not been called upon to take casualties in a foreign war since Korea...
> https://www.newyorker.com/news/steve-coll/burden-sharing



And any gov't now will do all it can to avoid those casualties.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

AK said:
			
		

> Are we juvenile or is "Op Magnum" the most hilarious name for an op ever?



Apparently, it is now, temporarily, a no-name op.


----------



## BurnDoctor

I don't think Op Magnum can take the juvenile Op name cake...let's not forget that Afghanistan included Operation Mountain Thrust.  Teehee.


----------



## OldSolduer

OP Magnum?


Maybe Tom Selleck could fly over on a morale visit.....with Tiger Williams.

Too soon?


----------



## Loachman

At least this one got caught before it became a public joke.

There really needs to be a vetting committee for all Op names and unit name changes (like CAAWC and CFLTC) etcetera. Five Corporals: two Anglo, two Franco, and one Newfoundlander.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> OP Magnum?
> 
> 
> Maybe Tom Selleck could fly over on a morale visit.....with Tiger Williams.
> 
> Too soon?



Funny, I was thinking more about the Champagne variety as in: 'Let's pop a Magnum of the good stuff because Man Child Trudeau has finally make a big boy decision!'


----------



## George Wallace

I know I posted this yesterday in another forum, but it is more relevant here and centers on how secure our troops will be while deployed in Mali:



> Militants in UN disguise explode car bombs, rockets at Mali Bases
> Reuters
> World News
> April 14, 2018 / 6:09 PM / Updated 3 hours ago
> 
> BAMAKO (Reuters) - Militants disguised as U.N. peacekeepers exploded two suicide car bombs and fired dozens of rockets at the French and United Nations bases in Mali’s northern city of Timbuktu on Saturday, killing one and wounding many, Malian authorities said.
> 
> The U.N. mission confirmed that the complex attack had killed a U.N. peacekeeper. The Malian government said in addition that 10 French soldiers had been wounded, but the French mission did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> “Terrorists wearing blue helmets aboard two cars laden with explosives, including one in the colours of the Malian army and another with a ‘UN’ written in it, attempted to infiltrate these camps,” the Malian government statement said.
> 
> “The situation is now under control.”
> 
> 
> U.N. peacekeeping and French military forces stationed in northern Mali have been under near-constant attack over the past year by determined and well-armed jihadist groups seen as the gravest threat to security across Africa’s Sahel region.
> 
> But even by the standards of Mali’s increasingly emboldened Islamist fighters, Saturday’s attempted breach of two foreign bases at once was ambitious.
> 
> “MINUSMA confirms a significant complex attack on its camp in Timbuktu mortars, exchange of fire, vehicle suicide bomb attack,” the mission tweeted. “One blue helmet was killed in the exchange of fire.”
> 
> 
> The United Nations last month said 162 people deployed in Mali have been killed since 2013, making it the world’s deadliest peacekeeping operation to date.
> 
> A 2015 peace deal signed by Mali’s government and separatist groups has failed to end violence in northern Mali by Islamists, who have also staged assaults on high-profile targets in the capital, Bamako, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast.
> 
> French forces intervened in 2013 to drive back Islamist fighters who had hijacked a Tuareg uprising a year earlier, and some 4,000 French troops remain. The U.N. Security Council then deployed peacekeepers to the country, but they have been targets of a concerted guerrilla campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting by Souleymane Ag Anara; writing by Tim Cocks; editing by Jonathan Oatis





https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mali-security/militants-in-u-n-disguise-explode-car-bombs-rockets-at-mali-bases-idUSKBN1HL1BX?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29


Incidents like this begs the question as to what kind of security our troops will have, and how much security we will have to provide to guarantee some semblance of safety.  This 'Mission' many not have been the right thing for this Government to have decided.  More likely a very naïve move and I suspect one made against all well founded intelligence on the situation in Mali.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Justin Trudeau's gov't sure is bursting with enthusiasm to be back helping UN peacekeeping (no Canadian MSM coverage; they have Kinder Morgan and Trump occupying them)--AFP story, note combat boots on ground request from UN:



> Canada rejects UN request to hasten Mali deployment
> 
> Canada is still "several months" away from deploying peacekeepers to Mali in support of a UN mission, an official said on Thursday, rejecting a UN envoy's call to accelerate its plans.
> 
> "Details regarding the final structure and chain of command of the Canadian mission in Mali are still to be determined," Byrne Furlong, spokesperson for Canada's defense minister, told AFP.
> 
> Questions over who will command or oversee the Canadian troops and military equipment and other mission details "will be addressed during upcoming reconnaissance and negotiations with the United Nations," she said.
> 
> "It is important to keep in mind that preparing for a mission can take several months," she added.
> 
> Ottawa said in March that it would send an infantry unit, military trainers and six tactical and transport helicopters to Mali in August.
> 
> But UN envoy to Mali Mahamat Saleh Annadif said this week the helicopters are needed in June, when Germany pulls out of the mission.
> 
> He urged that Canada speed things up or that Germany delay its departure in order to avoid a vacuum.
> 
> The _UN envoy also asked Canada to reconsider its objections to having Canadian soldiers join a rapid response force in the region, where conflict has claimed the lives of seven UN peacekeepers this year alone.
> 
> However, he said he has not received a reply_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The number of troops and the skill sets to be brought to the mission "will be determined as a result of the planning process and engagement with the UN, partners and the host nation [and reducing casualties as close to zero as possible]," said Furlong.
> https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/canada-rejects-un-request-to-hasten-mali-deployment-20180413



Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Several months, 3 years. Basically the same thing.


----------



## George Wallace

August is fast approaching.


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> August is fast approaching.



It’s too late now. With all the work up training etc I think November is more realistic. Just my opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> It’s too late now. With all the work up training etc I think November is more realistic. Just my opinion.




_I believe_ this is part of a carefully planned rotation of aviation support involving, at least, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and, now, Canada ... _I think_ the dates are fixed and have been committed to by Ottawa at the highest levels.

There are three months left and there are a lot of things that need doing ...  :nod: ... backing away or saying, "sorry, not quite ready," is not, it seems to me, an option. "_*Ready, Aye Ready*_" is what's required, again.


----------



## winnipegoo7

How much workup training needs to be done?


----------



## PuckChaser

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> How much workup training needs to be done?


 If its anything like Afghanistan, 9 months worth.


----------



## winnipegoo7

Well this doesn’t seem like Afghanistan... we are sending 6 helicopters, not a battle group. 

And I’m wondering if workups would have started long before the Mali mission was announced. 


Edited to add: I’ve heard of units deploying with very short workup periods as well.


----------



## Good2Golf

Tac hel squadrons are pretty decent at prepping without some of the extreme(over?) training (i.e. training longer than the deployment itself).  TMST pieces aside, high-readiness elements of aviation are always in the rotational pool, and designated elements will likely be most focused on aligning to the deployment schedule.  It is fortunate that 1 Wing didn't flush its AFG experience after 2011, nor its more recent experience in IRQ, but instead folded those experiences into SOPs, BTS and tactical-level doctrine, and keeps it up to date with regular user interaction with the Canadian Army and other users.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This is something that might not be so familiar to lots of people;  RCAF Operational Sqns maintaining assets (human and aircraft) at considerably higher readiness than most units.  That usually means thru all the DRT SET (IBTS) trg, DAGs, APRVs..basically waiting for some theatre specific PMed and ROE briefs, some simulator time (if possible / required) and off you go (in my fleet).  For a named op, my quickest time from 'phone call to wheels up' is just a little over a day and a half.  I tell my folks, consider yourself on 48 hours NTM for "insert timeframe here".  If I go camping out of province, my license plate # and camp site are on my leave pass.


----------



## McG

The government spoke earlier about the value of French Canadian soldiers going to French Africa.  Would that be 430 Sqn with any non-RCAF ground elements coming from 5 CMBG?  

Could we possibly have set the mission deployment dates around Maple Resolve, to which 430 Sqn and 5 CMBG are currently deployed? I am not saying that is how we should do business, just asking if that is what might be going on.


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> The government spoke earlier about the value of French Canadian soldiers going to French Africa.  Would that be 430 Sqn with any non-RCAF ground elements coming from 5 CMBG?
> 
> Could we possibly have set the mission deployment dates around Maple Resolve, to which 430 Sqn and 5 CMBG are currently deployed? I am not saying that is how we should do business, just asking if that is what might be going on.



French Canadian soldiers going to French Africa. 
Lots of soldiers outside of Quebec speak French. If this is the government's mindset then fine but let's turf the PER points for speaking French.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> French Canadian soldiers going to French Africa.
> Lots of soldiers outside of Quebec speak French. If this is the government's mindset then fine but let's turf the PER points for speaking French.



You know who our Prime Minister is, right?  ;D


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I believe the the deployment dates are based on the chinook Sqn reaching OFP, sometime this summer. Like EITS said, most Sqn maintain already an high pers readiness in case of short notice deployment. For instance, during Op Mobile (Libya) I received a phone call on Saturday night and was flying my first mission over there on Thursday.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> I believe the the deployment dates are based on the chinook Sqn reaching OFP, sometime this summer. Like EITS said, most Sqn maintain already an high pers readiness in case of short notice deployment. For instance, during Op Mobile (Libya) I received a phone call on Saturday night and was flying my first mission over there on Thursday.



I wonder what the 'DAG Red' rate was when the Army deployed on OP LENTUS last year? I know that the reserves struggled in some cases...


----------



## PuckChaser

I wonder if all the francophone women in the CAF will be tired of being in Africa when someone crunches the numbers and realizes we probably only have enough for one Roto that'll have to stay deployed permanently to meet the quotas...


----------



## Jarnhamar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if all the francophone women in the CAF will be tired of being in Africa when someone crunches the numbers and realizes we probably only have enough for one Roto that'll have to stay deployed permanently to meet the quotas...



I mentioned it before, then deleted it, but thinking about it again I wouldn't be all that surprised if there was serious consideration to not deploy white soldiers to Africa. If we can make an argument to specifically send more women as to appear pro-woman to everyone or whatever then I'm sure we could make an argument at the government level about not wanting the optics of white settles  peacekeepers in Africa. A certain group of Canadians would lap up I bet.


As far as deploying and meeting quotas good point. Maybe year long tours, or 3 year postings?


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> The government spoke earlier about the value of French Canadian soldiers going to French Africa.  Would that be 430 Sqn with any non-RCAF ground elements coming from 5 CMBG?



We only have three Squadrons to rotate - 408, 430, and 450. Each takes its turn as the core (with augmentation from other 1 Wing and non-1 Wing units) for high-readiness and ultimate deployment, should one occur. We cannot, then, suddenly chuck in a Franco-heavy Squadron in place of the one already in the "Go" position at whim.

1 Wing is very well-standardized across the whole community, as crews/Techs etcetera routinely work with those from Squadrons other than their own. Even mixed crews (on the Griffon side) are quite common on ops or major exercises - one could easily see each crewmember wearing a different Squadron patch.

There are Francos in Anglo-heavy Squadrons as well.


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> We only have three Squadrons to rotate - 408, 430, and 450. Each takes its turn as the core (with augmentation from other 1 Wing and non-1 Wing units) for high-readiness and ultimate deployment, should one occur. We cannot, then, suddenly chuck in a Franco-heavy Squadron in place of the one already in the "Go" position at whim.
> 
> 1 Wing is very well-standardized across the whole community, as crews/Techs etcetera routinely work with those from Squadrons other than their own. Even mixed crews (on the Griffon side) are quite common on ops or major exercises - one could easily see each crewmember wearing a different Squadron patch.
> 
> There are Francos in Anglo-heavy Squadrons as well.


There are francophones and Anglophones all over the country and neither is constrained in postings by the official language of a unit.  But never underestimate the power of political expediency to trump operational considerations.  If waiting just a couple of months will align the stars so that a government (of any political colour) can make a big show of parading French language units out the door to a French language theatre of operations, then I would not be surprised to see them do that.


----------



## Loachman

That would screw up things far more than it is worth - and Mali will not be our only op on the go. I somewhat doubt that we could put together a whole Franco Chinook component anyway, and certainly not a second roto. Planning and preparation are already underway, and I've heard no mention/hint of any such pressure.


----------



## overwatch

anyone have any idea which RCAF trades will go? I'm thinking pilots, flight engineers, air techs...not sure what else.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pilots, FEs, Loadmasters, Mission specialists, AVS/AVN/ACS/AWS Techs.  probably Supply, Admin...the required support for flying ops folks.  The hard air trades fly, but only with everyone who puts all the pieces in place doing their important jobs as well.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Pilots, FEs, Loadmasters, Mission specialists, AVS/AVN/ACS/AWS Techs.  probably Supply, Admin...the required support for flying ops folks.  The hard air trades fly, but only with everyone who puts all the pieces in place doing their important jobs as well.



And ACSOs.  Don't forget the ACSOs.




I mean, someone has to make the coffee and say "Sure, you could just rely on the GPS, but..."


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Heard/read something the other day (sorry can't remember where) that the plan was to have the choppers deployed by August.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Truly embarrassing:



> UN says Canada needs more helicopters to fully meet its peacekeeping commitments in Mali
> _El Salvador to provide critical aerial cover for ground troops in Mali during Canadian deployment_
> 
> Canada is taking over a key role in the peacekeeping mission in Mali, but United Nations officials worry it may not be able to fully implement its mandate because it plans to send limited helicopter support.
> 
> Ottawa has said it will supply two CH-147 Chinook transport helicopters for logistical support and medical evacuations and four armed CH-146 Griffon helicopter to the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission Mali (MINUSMA).
> 
> The UN, meanwhile, is expecting that two Chinooks will be available at any given time — which means Canada would need to send more than two to Mali.
> 
> ''A helicopter is not like a car. They have planned maintenance,'' said a UN official familiar with the talks. ''Therefore, in order to have two available on a daily basis you would need three."
> 
> The UN will meet with a delegation from Canada on Wednesday to discuss the mission's operational requirements, including the availability of two transport helicopters on a daily basis, the official told CBC News.
> 
> Germany, which Canada will be replacing in Mali, deployed four NH90 transport helicopters to make sure it had two operational on a daily basis. But that may have had more to do with the fact the NH90 is so new and had never been deployed into the desert, the official said.
> 
> The Chinook, on the other hand, is a workhorse that's been in operation for decades. Its quirks and reliability issues in harsh conditions are well known.
> 
> *Deadliest peacekeeping mission*
> 
> The four Griffon helicopters Canada is sending to Mali are armed, but they are not full-scale attack helicopters and won't be providing critical fire support from the air to secure convoys and troops on the ground...
> 
> Germany currently has four Tiger utility [actually attack] helicopters in Mali to provide protection for troops on the ground. The Netherlands had four Apache attack helicopters and three Chinooks when it was in theatre from 2014 to 2017.
> 
> Canada's military, however, doesn't have attack helicopters. The role of the Griffons will be to escort and defend the Chinooks, not protect ground troops.
> 
> According to the Canadian military's standard operating procedures, whenever a Chinook is dispatched in a hostile environment, it must be escorted by two armed Griffons for protection.
> 
> *El Salvador to provide firepower*
> 
> Instead, El Salvador will provide ground troops with aerial cover. The small Central American nation is supplying six U.S.-built MD500 attack helicopters — two air-cover units consisting of three helicopters.
> 
> One of the units has been operating out of Timbuktu in the country's north since 2015. Another trio will deploy in July and is expected to work alongside Canada at the UN mission's base in Gao, in northeast Mali.
> 
> The UN would also like Canada to allow the Griffons to do double-duty as light transport helicopters, with El Salvador providing the escort. That request is also expected to come up at Wednesday's meeting.
> 
> Germany, meanwhile, will continue to have soldiers in Mali providing ''intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance'' confirmed Peter Neven, a spokesperson at the German Mission to the UN. But the country's helicopter contribution will come to an end June 30.
> 
> Canada has said its aerial task force won't be operational until August.
> 
> Sources within the UN's peacekeeping department have said contingency plans are already in place, and that arrangements have been made with private contractors to fill any operational gaps that month...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/un-says-canada-needs-more-helicopters-to-fully-meet-its-peacekeeping-commitments-in-mali-1.4632036



El Salvador:



> Armed UN Little Bird Helicopters Are a Big Deal for Peacekeepers in Mali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16433/armed-un-little-bird-helicopters-are-a-big-deal-for-peacekeepers-in-mali



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

April 13, from Stéphane Dion's close adviser Jocelyn Coulon--excerpts:



> Le jour où Trudeau a déçu l’ONU
> _Le premier ministre Justin Trudeau a rompu une promesse phare en refusant de réengager 600 soldats dans les missions de paix de l’ONU. Le spécialiste en relations internationales et collaborateur à L’actualité Jocelyn Coulon, qui était conseiller du ministre des Affaires étrangères du Canada, Stéphane Dion, dévoile les coulisses de cette volte-face._
> 
> ...Le ministre Dion et le ministre de la Défense nationale reçoivent un breffage complet avant une rencontre le 1er décembre 2016 avec les membres du Comité du cabinet sur les affaires internationales.
> 
> La veille, à minuit, je prépare les notes de Dion pour ses collègues. Au comité, le ministre Dion présente les scénarios et ils passent la rampe. Il faut maintenant informer le premier ministre. Pendant ce temps, à l’ONU, le bureau du secrétaire général prépare la nomination d’un général canadien francophone à la tête de la Mission au Mali (MINUSMA). Tout est prêt pour une rencontre avec Trudeau afin d’obtenir son accord.
> 
> Patatras ! L’entourage du premier ministre panique. Tout va trop vite, dit-on à son bureau. Certains conseillers veulent s’assurer de bien comprendre les différents scénarios. Dès lors, ils préfèrent reporter l’annonce de la participation à une opération de paix à la fin de janvier 2017. Finalement, après des jours de discussions entre les cabinets ministériels et le bureau du premier ministre, le jeudi 15 décembre, Trudeau reçoit du chef d’état-major des Forces armées, le général Jonathan Vance, un breffage de deux heures sur les différents scénarios et sur la proposition d’un déploiement au Mali. Le premier ministre est satisfait. Il entend en discuter au conseil des ministres vers la fin de janvier au retour des vacances des fêtes. À l’ONU, on se dit prêt à retarder la nomination d’un général canadien à la tête de la MINUSMA. Mais le 6 janvier 2017, nouveau coup de théâtre : le premier ministre congédie Dion.
> 
> Je quitte le bureau de la nouvelle ministre Chrystia Freeland le 10 février 2017. Son chef de cabinet m’informe que les dossiers que je traite — multilatéralisme, maintien de la paix, Afrique — ne sont pas prioritaires pour elle. Toute son énergie est maintenant concentrée sur les relations avec les États-Unis et la renégociation de l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain. Le réengagement dans les opérations de paix est pour l’instant dans les limbes. En fait, jusqu’à l’annonce de Vancouver en novembre 2017, le bureau du premier ministre joue au pingpong avec les Affaires étrangères et la Défense nationale. À l’évidence, les conseillers de Trudeau le convainquent de rejeter les scénarios envisagés et d’en réclamer de nouveaux, moins ambitieux...
> 
> Le 19 mars 2018, à la surprise générale, le gouvernement annonce le déploiement au sein de la mission de l’ONU au Mali d’un contingent de Casques bleus composé d’une unité de six hélicoptères et d’un groupe de soutien logistique.
> 
> Le premier ministre a cédé aux pressions internationales et à celles qui s’exprimaient au sein de son cabinet. Devant certaines décisions de politique étrangère, Justin Trudeau sait se montrer audacieux, mais la plupart du temps, il est réactif plutôt que proactif. Il hésite, il procrastine, il est sujet aux volte-face. Dans le cas de la participation à la mission au Mali, les événements se sont précipités en mars et l’ont forcé à agir. Plusieurs pays alliés qui ont des troupes au Mali, dont l’Allemagne, la France et les Pays-Bas, ont exercé de fortes pressions sur le Canada afin qu’il participe à l’effort commun de maintien de la paix dans ce pays. En particulier, l’Allemagne cherchait un pays disposant d’hélicoptères afin de remplacer les siens sur le terrain...
> http://lactualite.com/politique/2018/04/13/le-jour-outrudeau-adecu-lonu/



Quel Charlie Foxtrot, eh?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Truly embarrassing:
> 
> El Salvador:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It's nice to be wanted though, right Rotorheads?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

so instead of 'thanks', its 'not good enough'.

I see the Millennials are already on staff the the UN HQ.   ;D


----------



## Loachman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> April 13, from Stéphane Dion's close adviser Jocelyn Coulon--excerpts:
> 
> Quel Charlie Foxtrot, eh?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



The article is a lengthy one. I had to translate it via Google Translate in four or five chunks. To save others from that inconvenience, I have consolidated said chunks and posted them here (and specifically not in the lengthy articles thread):

The day Trudeau disappointed the UN

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau broke a key promise by refusing to re-engage 600 soldiers in UN peacekeeping missions. International Relations Specialist and News Contributor Jocelyn Coulon, who was an advisor to Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, is backstage on this flip-flop.

Angelina Jolie slowly advances to the platform where a hundred Defense Ministers gather for the traditional family photo. She is the distinguished guest of the United Nations Defense Ministers' Meeting on Peacekeeping held in Vancouver on November 15, 2017. The megastar is an eye-catcher. The actress is an icon, and Justin Trudeau loves icons, especially when he uses them to dazzle an audience and serve as a backdrop to mask the announcement of a policy without ambition.

The Vancouver meeting has a very specific goal: the states represented in the room must announce a real commitment to UN peace operations, not just an intention to contribute. And as Canada hosts the meeting, the audience is eagerly awaiting the Prime Minister's speech, an impatience all the more justified by the fact that Trudeau has made Canada's return to peace operations a key promise of his electoral platform. This policy is against the Conservative government, which, during its nine years in power, has shown the greatest disregard for peacekeeping and peacekeepers.

After a long and tortuous speech, in which form wins out on the bottom, the audience realizes that Canada is backing away. His contribution will be modest. What is going on ?

Peacekeeping is of particular interest to Minister Stéphane Dion. It is largely for this reason that he recruits me as a political adviser. Upon my arrival, he asks me to work on this file and write several speeches on the issue. The development of a new strategy for Canada's re-engagement in peace operations mobilizes the energies of several departments, particularly those of Foreign Affairs, National Defense and Public Safety, as well as the Prime Minister's Office. In Minister Dion's office, it is Christopher Berzins, the policy director, and I, who are working on this issue.

This policy has three elements: a guidance document entitled Canada's Strategy for Reengagement in United Nations Peace Operations, which frames and flags the peacekeeping policy for the coming years; the five-year renewal of the International Peacekeeping Police Program, which allows Canada to deploy up to 150 police officers in theaters of operations; and the creation of the Stabilization and Peace Operations Program with $ 150 million in annual funding over the next three years to support conflict prevention, mediation and dialogue initiatives. and reconciliation, improve the effectiveness of peace operations, support fragile states and respond quickly to crises.

National Defense is taking advantage of the press conference [August 26, 2016] to confirm its ability to deploy up to 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel in UN peace operations. Everything is in place, except for one element: where exactly does the government want to deploy the Canadian military and police contribution? And that's where everything gets stuck.

The African continent hosts the six largest UN peace operations: Côte d'Ivoire, Darfur, Mali, Central African Republic, South Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo. We are quickly eliminating the first two and focusing on the other four, because they are difficult missions where the United Nations needs strong material and political support from its member states, particularly the industrialized countries. They have heavy equipment and specialized quotas to perform certain tasks. The four peace operations we are targeting are the subject of in-depth analysis. Minister of National Defense Harjit Sajjan and Minister of International Development Marie-Claude Bibeau visit several of them. Officials and military personnel spend several weeks in Africa conducting a technical assessment of each peace operation and holding political discussions with the various actors on the ground.

Public servants then develop four deployment scenarios, each with three options: small, medium, or large. The scenario of a large deployment in Mali is the one favored by all.

Berzins and I are familiar with these scenarios and, after discussions with our counterparts at National Defense, give our green light. Minister Dion and the Minister of National Defense receive a full briefing prior to a meeting on December 1, 2016 with members of the Cabinet Committee on International Affairs.

The day before, at midnight, I prepare Dion's notes for his colleagues. At committee, Minister Dion presents the scenarios and they pass the ramp. We must now inform the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, at the UN, the Office of the Secretary-General prepares for the appointment of a French-speaking Canadian general to head the Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). Everything is ready for a meeting with Trudeau to get his agreement.

Patatras! The Prime Minister's entourage panics. Everything is going too fast, they say to his office. Some advisers want to make sure they understand the different scenarios. Therefore, they prefer to postpone the announcement of participation in a peace operation at the end of January 2017. Finally, after days of discussions between cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister's Office, Thursday, December 15, Trudeau receives Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Jonathan Vance, a two-hour briefing on the various scenarios and the proposal for a deployment in Mali. The Prime Minister is satisfied. He intends to discuss it with the Council of Ministers towards the end of January when the holidays return. At the UN, we are ready to delay the appointment of a Canadian general to head MINUSMA. But January 6, 2017, new twist: the prime minister fired Dion.

I leave the office of new Minister Chrystia Freeland on February 10, 2017. Her chief of staff informs me that the issues I am dealing with - multilateralism, peacekeeping, Africa - are not a priority for her. All his energy is now focused on relations with the United States and the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Reengagement in peace operations is currently in limbo. In fact, until the announcement of Vancouver in November 2017, the Prime Minister's Office plays ping pong with Foreign Affairs and National Defense. Clearly, Trudeau's advisers convinced him to reject the proposed scenarios and to demand new, less ambitious ones.

The announced contribution remains limited. Canada will not play a role in supporting the peace process.
Three reasons explain this reversal: political, financial and security. The Prime Minister and his advisers have lost all political will to engage Canada in resolving a conflict. And the conflicts in which the United Nations is involved are often violent and inextricable. The case of Mali is instructive in this respect. The country is indeed grappling simultaneously with terrorist attacks and a difficult process of national reconciliation.

Secondly, the planned deployment in Mali is expensive. It varies from several hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the options selected. As the government anticipates the increase in the deficit, this new spending places it in an uncomfortable situation.

Finally, the third reason is the risks that this mission represents for future Canadian peacekeepers. The specter of Afghanistan haunts the government and many Canadians. In ten years of presence in Afghanistan, Canada has lost some one hundred and sixty soldiers. The UN mission in Mali is in no way comparable to that of NATO in Afghanistan, but more than a hundred peacekeepers have died since 2014. Trudeau backs off. The risks frighten him. In his mind, there is no question of deploying a contingent of Canadian soldiers. The message is transmitted to the UN, and on March 2 a Belgian general takes command of MINUSMA.

Scenarios of substantial deployments now spread, the Prime Minister is looking for a way out to save face. The Vancouver meeting is fast approaching, and Canada has nothing to offer. Trudeau's councilors are asking officials to propose other avenues that are cheaper and less risky. Over the months, officials provide half a dozen options, all rejected by the Prime Minister's Office.

In late summer 2017, just weeks before the opening of the Vancouver meeting, Foreign Affairs and National Defense officials are increasingly nervous. They are relaunching the Prime Minister's office, which is coming back with an unusual request. He urged officials to no longer focus on deploying to a particular mission, but rather to think about generic participation in UN peace operations: a transport plane; a group of helicopters; a training program. The officials are stunned. For the past year, they have been discussing with their counterparts in the United States, Europe, Africa and the United Nations a proposal to deploy military and police in one or two peace operations. All their interlocutors are preparing for this eventuality. And now the Prime Minister has changed his mind.

In Vancouver, the Prime Minister presents the Canadian re-engagement contribution to peace operations. This contribution is the result of last-minute consultations, made in the emergency even as the conference opens. It is modest and two-pronged. The first component provides funding for targeted programs that can be implemented in Canada or abroad: $ 24 million to modernize peace operations and increase the number of women in missions.

The second part of the contribution deals with the procurement of equipment and the deployment of personnel. It puts at the disposal of the UN a transport plane, a group of helicopters and a rapid reaction force. However, this participation in equipment and personnel is not a firm commitment.

The Prime Minister presents this contribution as an innovative and modern approach to improving peace operations. She is none of that. Canada no longer participates in United Nations operations since the mission between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2000. And, of course, since that time, the one hundred and twenty-four countries contributing to peacekeepers are not waiting for Canada to innovate and modernize peace operations.

Canada's contribution to peacekeeping announced in Vancouver does not impress anyone. At the UN, the Secretary-General and peacekeepers are disappointed.

On March 19, 2018, to everyone's surprise, the government announced the deployment of a contingent of peacekeepers in the UN mission in Mali, consisting of a six-helicopter unit and a logistical support group.

The Prime Minister yielded to international pressure and to those who spoke in his office. In the face of some foreign policy decisions, Justin Trudeau knows how to be bold, but most of the time, he is reactive rather than proactive. He hesitates, he procrastinates, he is subject to turnaround. In the case of participation in the mission in Mali, events rushed in March and forced him to act. Several Allied countries with troops in Mali, including Germany, France and the Netherlands, have put strong pressure on Canada to participate in the joint peacekeeping effort in that country. In particular, Germany was looking for a country with helicopters to replace its own on the ground.

In the government, discontent is growing. Many in Foreign Affairs argue that Canada is absent on the international scene when it is due to receive in June the leaders of the G7 countries, some of whom have blue helmet contingents abroad.

The announced contribution remains limited. Canada will not play a role in supporting the peace process. Therefore, it gives up one of its traditional roles, which was to engage in conflict resolution.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Loachman: Thanks.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

Have we listened to the Africans? I doubt it....

'When most well-intentioned aid workers hear of a problem they think they can fix, they go to work. This, Ernesto Sirolli suggests, is naïve. In this funny and impassioned talk, he proposes that the first step is to listen to the people you're trying to help, and tap into their own entrepreneurial spirit. His advice on what works will help any entrepreneur.

Ernesto Sirolli got his start doing aid work in Africa in the 70's — and quickly realised how ineffective it was.'

https://www.ted.com/talks/ernesto_sirolli_want_to_help_someone_shut_up_and_listen


----------



## MarkOttawa

Postmedia's estimable Matthew Fisher, our best foreign/war correspondent, lets Justin Trudeau have it full bore on the almost FUBAR MINUSMA Mali mission--the conclusion:



> Canada’s Mission to Mali: To What End?
> ...
> The government’s approach until now has been to tell Parliament and the public as little as possible. It has been hamstrung by an ill-considered campaign promise and has been unable to figure a way out of it without risking Canadian soldiers’ lives. Going into the desert in Mali with a small, lightly defended force is no solution.
> 
> At least six of Canada’s nine infantry battalions, each comprising about 600 troops, are languishing at home with nothing to do but train and train some more. Yet it is precisely such well-trained soldiers whom the UN has badly wanted for several years.
> 
> Without any sense of embarrassment or shame the Trudeau government, moving in slow motion, intends to do as close to nothing in Africa as possible without actually doing nothing. It will then announce that the blithe campaign promise the prime minister made more than three years ago has been fulfilled.
> ...
> _*Matthew Fisher* is a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was born in northwestern Ontario and raised there and in the Ottawa Valley. He has lived and worked abroad for 34 years as a foreign correspondent for the Globe and Mail, Sun Media and Postmedia. Assignments have taken him to 162 countries. He has been an eyewitness to 19 conflicts including Somalia, the Rwandan genocide, Chechnya, the Balkan Wars, Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan._
> https://www.cgai.ca/canada_s_mission_to_mali_to_what_end



More on Mr Fisher from his speaker's agency:
http://www.ideacity.ca/speaker/matthew-fisher/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dutch getting their military priorities right in age of Trump (NATO not UN)?



> Dutch gov't to put end to military mission in Mali: report
> 
> The government plans to put an end to the Netherlands' contribution to the the UN military mission in Mali, sources told RTL Nieuws. There are currently 250 Dutch soldiers in the African country.
> 
> The _Netherlands has been active in Mali for four years. The government wants to expand the Netherlands' military activities in Afghanistan, and therefore has to phase out the activities in Mali. According to the broadcaster, this involves a gradual phase out that will likely end in mid-2019_ [emphasis added]. Discussions about this are in their final phase and the coalition parties already agreed to termination, the sources said. The Ministries are still working on the exact planning.
> 
> In principle, the current Dutch contribution will end on December 31st of this year. But the Netherlands plans to stay a bit longer, so that another country can take over the duties currently fulfilled by Dutch soldiers.
> 
> There have been UN soldiers combating advancing extremists in Mali since 2013. The Dutch soldiers serve as the 'eyes and ears' of the mission Minusma. The Netherlands provides long-distance experts, intelligence personnel and police trainers. They mainly work from the city of Gao, though some Dutch officers are stationed in the capital Bamako...
> https://nltimes.nl/2018/06/13/dutch-govt-put-end-military-mission-mali-report



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JP4422

Nice article Mark. Does anyone  think there could be a realistic chance that we step up and take over for them? 250 isn't a huge amount and we could feasibly do it right?


----------



## MarkOttawa

JP4422: Dutch mission in Mali has been a lot more aggressive and, er, "military", than anything I think Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts would accept given their efforts to make whatever we do seem as warmy and fuzzy as possible ("primary mission [of RCAF helos] will be evacuating injured peacekeepers and others" http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/more-helicopters-to-mali-maybe-1.4675790):



> *Dutch contributions in Mali*
> 
> The Dutch contingent in Mali is mainly involved in conducting reconnaissance and gathering intelligence, serving, as it were, as the 'eyes and ears' of the mission.
> 
> The UN operation's primary objective is to restore security and stability in Mali and to protect the civilian population. The Dutch contribution chiefly consists of:
> 
> long-range reconnaissance personnel;
> intelligence personnel;
> police trainers.
> 
> *Gathering intelligence*
> 
> Troops from 11 Airmobile Brigade make up the operational core in the field.
> 
> The commander of Minusma leads the Dutch forces from mission headquarters in Bamako. Staff officers have also been deployed to ensure that the planning runs smoothly. In addition, a number of military specialists have been sent to Mali to assist in, among other things, electronic warfare, explosive ordnance disposal, logistics, communications and medical tasks.
> 
> *Apaches and Chinooks*
> 
> Over the past few years, four Dutch Apache attack helicopters and three Chinook transport helicopters played an important part in the mission. The Apaches gathered intelligence and escorted Dutch ground units. The Chinooks carried out medical evacuations, among other tasks.
> 
> All Dutch helicopters have now returned to the Netherlands. This was necessary to allow the pilots time to maintain their training and skills. Support personnel had also been in the deployment area for too long. The Apaches returned in January 2017, followed by the return of the Chinooks in March 2017. German forces have taken over the Dutch tasks in the mission area.
> Dutch train Malian police
> 
> Besides military personnel, 30 police officers and several civilian experts have been deployed to the Minusma mission in Mali. They are training the Malian police force, as well as contributing to the development of the judicial system and reform of the security sector.
> https://english.defensie.nl/topics/mali/dutch-contributions-in-mali



Plus a post from 2013:



> UN Mali (Peacekeeping?) Force: Dutch Participate with Spooktitude
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/mark-collins-un-mali-peacekeeping-force-dutch-participate-with-spooktitude/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JP4422

Ah, so just an unfortunate pipe dream to assume our military might be involved in something remotely military.


----------



## Gunner98

What I find interesting is that the Dutch withdrew from Afghanistan 2010: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10829837 and are now going back there.  The discussion/decision to stay/leave in 2010 caused a political storm that brought down the government.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> What I find interesting is that the Dutch withdrew from Afghanistan 2010: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-10829837 and are now going back there.  The discussion/decision to stay/leave in 2010 caused a political storm that brought down the government.



I'm guessing that they are motivated by the ongoing struggles with Muslim Unrest in Holland.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Simian Turner: The Dutch returned to Afghanistan after leaving Uruzgan in 2010--certainly they are there now, unlike us having pulled out completely under Harper gov't in 2014:



> ...
> *Afghanistan (Resolute Support)*
> 
> Since 2002, Dutch military personnel have assisted in bringing security to Afghanistan. They were mainly active in the province of Uruzgan, later followed by a deployment to Kunduz province. Today 100 Dutch military personnel take part in the NATO mission Resolute Support, aimed at further developing the security apparatus, the army and the police in Afghanistan. The Netherlands will be contributing to this mission until the end of 2018...



And now it looks like for some time further, perhaps in greater strength.  Betcha Justin Trudeau and Gerald Butts don't know.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Tweet about Dutch foreign deployments:
https://twitter.com/RobertDresen/status/1007638078331244545



> Robert Dresen
> 🇳🇱
> ‏ @RobertDresen
> 
> After today’s [June 15] cabinet meeting, @minpres Rutte announced:
> ▪️Increased NL contribution to #NATO in #Afghanistan
> ▪️Continued #EFP presence in #Lithuania thru 2020.
> ▪️Phase-out #Mali / #Minusma share in 2019.
> 
> Overview of all current NL mission contributions (via @DutchMFA ):



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Gunner98

Mark,

There is a difference between having at various times 545, 100 and then 6 troops in Afghanistan doing a police training role and have a MGen commanding Regional Command South with 2,000 troops in a combat zone circa 2006-10.  Three interesting articles about the "police training mission" circa 2013, which states that the troops were returned home one year early because they were sitting around with nothing to do. 

https://www.khaama.com/netherlands-to-deploy-545-troops-in-northern-kunduz-province/
https://dutchreview.com/featured/the-dutch-in-afghanistan-a-political-soap/  and https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2013/10/last_six_dutch_soldiers_leave/

I of course acknowledge that the Dutch returned in 2015 and have 100 troops in support of Operation Resolute Support.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolute_Support_Mission

These deployments have come at a great political cost at home.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And now a tweet by Matthew Fisher:
https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/1007739357028110338



> Matthew Fisher
> ‏@mfisheroverseas
> 
> NATO,US repeatedly have asked Canada for trainers for Afghanistan. Of the dozens of countries there when Canada was only France & Canada quit. One of many issues that create problems with our allies. A meagre contribution in Mali & pulling our jets from Iraq doesn't cut it.



And France is doing a hell of a lot in Syria/Iraq and in the Sahel vs Islamists et al.--robust Op BARKHANE:
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/operations/sahel/dossier-de-presentation-de-l-operation-barkhane/operation-barkhane

Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman

Acknowledging that I'm still on coffee #1‏ and not all the brain cells are firing yet, could someone translate this into English for me: 
"Of the dozens of countries there when Canada was only France & Canada quit." (Matthew Fisher)


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Acknowledging that I'm still on coffee #1‏ and not all the brain cells are firing yet, could someone translate this into English for me:
> "Of the dozens of countries there when Canada was*,* only France & Canada quit." (Matthew Fisher)



I think Matt forgot to add a comma, for clarity.  ???


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think Matt forgot to add a comma, for clarity.  ???


Ah, of course.   :facepalm:


(...and thanks for not adding "don't post until your 2nd coffee, dumbass"   ;D )


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Acknowledging that I'm still on coffee #1‏ and not all the brain cells are firing yet, could someone translate this into English for me:
> "Of the dozens of countries there when Canada was only France & Canada quit." (Matthew Fisher)



Yes. It appears he's trying to justify closing the dangerous 'me too' gap when it comes to 'rescuing Africans from themselves' for the purposes of looking good at home with the voters.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Maybe I'm getting crotchety as I veer towards senior citizenship or things have changed considerably since I retired, but why is the Chief of Defence Staff leading the advance party to Mali?  Surely there is someone more junior (but still senior enough - didn't Gen Vance say he needed all the generals for those circumstances) who is capable of being first on the ground.  Hasn't a commander for this mission been appointed yet?

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-dozen-canadian-peacekeepers-arrive-in-mali-as-yearlong-mission-begins

It's starting to remind me of 1996 when the Comd FMC LFC whatever the fuck the army was called deployed to central Africa.  A sense that if we send someone over-ranked they won't notice that we don't have the tools to do the job.


----------



## captloadie

Well, LGen Rouleau is right behind him, so maybe they wanted to get the visits out of the way at the beginning of the tour.


----------



## PuckChaser

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm getting crotchety as I veer towards senior citizenship or things have changed considerably since I retired, but why is the Chief of Defence Staff leading the advance party to Mali?  Surely there is someone more junior (but still senior enough - didn't Gen Vance say he needed all the generals for those circumstances) who is capable of being first on the ground.  Hasn't a commander for this mission been appointed yet?



Need the big guns out to sell the mission that has had no debate in Parliament or little in the way of goals other than "get a security council seat".


----------



## medicineman

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm getting crotchety as I veer towards senior citizenship or things have changed considerably since I retired, but why is the Chief of Defence Staff leading the advance party to Mali?  Surely there is someone more junior (but still senior enough - didn't Gen Vance say he needed all the generals for those circumstances) who is capable of being first on the ground.  Hasn't a commander for this mission been appointed yet?



To apologize on behalf of the government officials too chicken to visit themselves because of the shyteshow it has become?

MM


----------



## MarkOttawa

Justin Trudeau gov't has been stressing warm and fuzzy medevac aspect of mission but Gen. Vance acknowledges killer peacekeeping aspect pols don't like to talk about--note also two extra helos:



> ...
> Two large Chinook transport helicopters and four smaller Griffon escorts, along with one spare of each in case of break downs, are due to arrive next month and replace the Germans, who have been flying here for more than a year....
> 
> The Canadians will fly primarily medical evacuation missions — at least one Chinook and two Griffons must on standby at the expansive nearby helipad at all times — but Vance said they could also be called upon to do other tasks.
> 
> Those could include providing medical assistance to a joint counter-terrorism force established by Mali and four of its neighbours to fight Islamist jihadists and others [G5 Sahel force pushed by France and supported by UNSC, barely covered by Canadian media https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2018-05/g5_sahel_joint_force.php ], Vance said, as well as the actual defending of Malian civilians.
> 
> But it could also mean protecting convoys and giving fire support to fellow peacekeepers who find themselves in trouble, though Vance said those would only launched in extremis — if absolutely no other option was available...
> http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-dozen-canadian-peacekeepers-arrive-in-mali-as-yearlong-mission-begins



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm getting crotchety as I veer towards senior citizenship or things have changed considerably since I retired, but why is the Chief of Defence Staff leading the advance party to Mali?  Surely there is someone more junior (but still senior enough - didn't Gen Vance say he needed all the generals for those circumstances) who is capable of being first on the ground.  Hasn't a commander for this mission been appointed yet?
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-dozen-canadian-peacekeepers-arrive-in-mali-as-yearlong-mission-begins
> 
> It's starting to remind me of 1996 when the Comd FMC LFC whatever the frig the army was called deployed to central Africa.  A sense that if we send someone over-ranked they won't notice that we don't have the tools to do the job.



Because he is a tactical General and merely aping the customs of his risk averse peers by micromanaging the he** out of everything? 

Tactical Generals: Leaders, Technology, and the Perils

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tactical-generals-leaders-technology-and-the-perils/


----------



## Cloud Cover

"— if absolutely no other option was available..."

What great frickin allies we are, eh? Ok, sign this document affirming that you've tried everything else and no other option is available ... so after that's done, we will go in and blow every one of those heathen to gatling gun hell. Also, after that we'll use the big chopper to bring in some donuts and coffee, but not if it's dark outside.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Because he is a tactical General and merely aping the customs of his risk averse peers by micromanaging the he** out of everything?
> 
> Tactical Generals: Leaders, Technology, and the Perils
> 
> https://www.brookings.edu/articles/tactical-generals-leaders-technology-and-the-perils/



Cheap shot - but nice reference.

Alternatively, the military has provided sound military advice to the government on how they could best achieve their stated geo-political objectives.  Having done so, and having deployed a significant number of troops on a theatre activation party, the CDS is there to a) show the flag, b) lead from the front, and c) perhaps even settle a few outstanding details.

But no doubt you have it right.


----------



## TQMS

Trudeau's 1st peacekeeping mission just under stated goal of 15% female soldiers

'Canadian Armed Forces have done their work of making sure that we have the right people,' says Harjit Sajjan.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mali-women-peacekeeper-short-1.4721774


----------



## CBH99

Agreed with PPCLI guy on every point


----------



## daftandbarmy

Once_a_TQ said:
			
		

> Trudeau's 1st peacekeeping mission just under stated goal of 15% female soldiers
> 
> 'Canadian Armed Forces have done their work of making sure that we have the right people,' says Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mali-women-peacekeeper-short-1.4721774



I wonder if Prince Justin really understands the extra levels of stress he might be putting on female CAF members required to do more than their fair share, just to make sure that his quota is achieved.


----------



## brihard

Once_a_TQ said:
			
		

> Trudeau's 1st peacekeeping mission just under stated goal of 15% female soldiers
> 
> 'Canadian Armed Forces have done their work of making sure that we have the right people,' says Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mali-women-peacekeeper-short-1.4721774



From this article, what jumped out at me:

“He acknowledged it does not meet the target, but insisted that once other peacekeeping commitments make it to the field, including a proposed 200-soldier rapid reaction force, the numbers will improve.”

Are we looking at some sort of combat QRF capability as well for this op? Because that’s a game changer in terms of the risks our troops will be exposed to. I don’t know how else to read that but.


----------



## TQMS

Brihard said:
			
		

> From this article, what jumped out at me:
> 
> “He acknowledged it does not meet the target, but insisted that once other peacekeeping commitments make it to the field, including a proposed 200-soldier rapid reaction force, the numbers will improve.”
> 
> Are we looking at some sort of combat QRF capability as well for this op? Because that’s a game changer in terms of the risks our troops will be exposed to. I don’t know how else to read that but.



I caught the same thing. If they do add on a QRF (of some sort and of that size) they are essentially doubling the size of the original mission and will be including a whole lot more kit.


----------



## FSTO

Not an army guy but doesn't a QRF need some sort of armour and air support?


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:
			
		

> Not an army guy but doesn't a QRF need some sort of armour and air support?



'Depends'

A QRF could range from small det of light fast to something big and bruising with lots of enablers.  The definition will be interesting to see, once announced.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But it could also mean protecting convoys and giving fire support to fellow peacekeepers who find themselves in trouble....


That's the mission of another military powerhouse -- El Salvador. 






The Dutch AH-64s and German Eurocopter Tigers gone, but hey, El Salvador still has 3 x MD500s in location.  [:-[


I guess as long as the enemy has no Air Defence, three Killer Eggs is still a useful contriution.  :dunno:


----------



## daftandbarmy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Not an army guy but doesn't a QRF need some sort of armour and air support?



Like in 'Blackhawk Down'? 

Yeah, it's probably a good idea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well I guess we just found a role for the TAPV's perhaps with some LAV 6's to give them heavier firepower?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well I guess we just found a role for the TAPV's perhaps with some LAV 6's to give them heavier firepower?



Aaaaaaaannnnnnnd..... there's your slippery slope, right?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Aaaaaaaannnnnnnd..... there's your slippery slope, right?



What did Kennedy say about Vietnam:

"It's like taking a drink (of alcohol), it tastes good and eventually you want more"


----------



## garb811

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I wonder if Prince Justin really understands the extra levels of stress he might be putting on female CAF members required to do more than their fair share, just to make sure that his quota is achieved.


Has anyone actually seen any staff checks or CFTPOs for Op PRESENCE that state they are specifically looking for a female member for "x" position?  I've seen a few MP staff checks and CFTPOs and none of them mentioned anything about having a specific gender requirement.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Given that it appears the CAF personnel will be mainly at the base or on the helos it is hard to see how any percentage of female members will contribute to this goal in an official Forces tweet:
https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1011689432095784960



> ...The presence of women on peace support ops helps to empower women in host communities, reduces conflict and confrontation, makes UN forces more approachable and broadens mission skill sets...



Also:



> Canada’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
> http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/gender_equality-egalite_sexes/national_action_plan_wps-plan_national_action_fps.aspx?lang=eng



Meanwhile see what Bundeswehr helo pilot has to say at link about zero contact with locals when with MINUSMA--scroll down to 2:20 on 1st video under "More from CBC News on Canada's Mali mission" https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mali-bad-allies-canadian-troops-1.4720747 

All factless virtue-signalling.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman

garb811 said:
			
		

> Has anyone actually seen any staff checks or CFTPOs for Op PRESENCE that state they are specifically looking for a female member for "x" position?  I've seen a few MP staff checks and CFTPOs and none of them mentioned anything about having a specific gender requirement.



No, nor heard of any mention of that.

But, given our environment, I'd be surprised if we didn't naturally hit 15%, or even exceeded it and pushed the overall percentage higher. I don't think that it's even occurred to any of us to even consider the current gender ratio in our community. If we only had around 1%, say, women, they would stand out. It would also be noticeable if we had around 50%.

Gender is truly irrelevant here. We're short of both, not one or the other.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Given that it appears the CAF personnel will be mainly at the base or on the helos it is hard to see how any percentage of female members will contribute to this goal in an official Forces tweet:
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1011689432095784960



Unless of course the stated goal for the mission, and inherent ask from the UN, was to have 15% of Staff Officer positions female, and we hit just shy of that mark....


----------



## Good2Golf

More to the topic title, should we perhaps not now  consider a re-titling of the topic?  After all, the Canadian Army is only seven (7) years into reconstitution...


...just sayin’...


:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> More to the topic title, should we perhaps not now  consider a re-titling of the topic?  After all, the Canadian Army is only seven (7) years into reconstitution...
> 
> 
> ...just sayin’...
> 
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



 :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf

Forgot to add:

#RCAFpullingtheweightinAfrica

By Air to Battle!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Forgot to add:
> 
> #RCAFpullingtheweightinAfrica
> 
> By Air to Battle!



Let me know when the RCAF Light Infantry gets stood up. I'm in!

It's all been done before, of course:

"During World War II, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) raised a variety of airborne light infantry (Fallschirmjäger) units. The Luftwaffe built up a division-sized unit of three Fallschirmjäger regiments plus supporting arms and air assets, known as the 7th Flieger Division." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallschirmj%C3%A4ger


----------



## GK .Dundas

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Let me know when the RCAF Light Infantry gets stood up. I'm in!
> 
> It's all been done before, of course:
> 
> "During World War II, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) raised a variety of airborne light infantry (Fallschirmjäger) units. The Luftwaffe built up a division-sized unit of three Fallschirmjäger regiments plus supporting arms and air assets, known as the 7th Flieger Division." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallschirmj%C3%A4ger



 For the love of god man! Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Forgot to add:
> 
> #RCAFpullingtheweightinAfrica
> 
> By Air to Battle!


 
How do you think Canada is attaining its almost 15% goal of females deployed?

According to Murray Brewster of CBC most women join the RCAF and RCN so there you have it! ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> More to the topic title, should we perhaps not now  consider a re-titling of the topic?  After all, the Canadian Army is only seven (7) years into reconstitution...
> 
> 
> ...just sayin’...
> 
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Topic Title edited for accuracy 

 ;D


----------



## Remius

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Let me know when the RCAF Light Infantry gets stood up. I'm in!
> 
> It's all been done before, of course:
> 
> "During World War II, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) raised a variety of airborne light infantry (Fallschirmjäger) units. The Luftwaffe built up a division-sized unit of three Fallschirmjäger regiments plus supporting arms and air assets, known as the 7th Flieger Division." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallschirmj%C3%A4ger



I've briefly worked with a few of these guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Regiment

Note that they will be taking in women before their Army infantry units do.

Also note that their NCOs wear sky blue sashes instead of the red and crimson of the infantry.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's all been done before, of course:
> 
> "During World War II, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) raised a variety of airborne light infantry (Fallschirmjäger) units. The Luftwaffe built up a division-sized unit of three Fallschirmjäger regiments plus supporting arms and air assets, known as the 7th Flieger Division." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallschirmj%C3%A4ger



Don't forget the  Fallschirm-Panzer-Division 1. Hermann Göring 

A more recent example of course is the  RAF Regiment.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Don't forget the  Fallschirm-Panzer-Division 1. Hermann Göring
> 
> A more recent example of course is the  RAF Regiment.



I have a scrap book my grandfather gave me that his brother came in to possession of while serving in the European Theatre (North Shore Regiment).  It's a German soldier's who served in the Hermann Göring Division.  

I will take some pictures of its contents and post them.


----------



## Cloud Cover

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Unless of course the stated goal for the mission, and inherent ask from the UN, was to have 15% of Staff Officer positions female, and we hit just shy of that mark....



15 percent of Staff Officers??  The UN asked for that? Why just Staff Officers?  Genuinely curious...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I have a scrap book my grandfather gave me that his brother looted came in to possession of while serving in the European Theatre (North Shore Regiment).  It's a German soldier's who served in the Hermann Göring Division.
> 
> I will take some pictures of its contents and post them.



FTFY


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> FTFY



Should see the basement of my grand parents house, war trophies galore!


----------



## GK .Dundas

Someone once described the British Museum as the greatest storehouse of stolen good outside the Scotland Yard evidence lockers.

I have a scrap book my grandfather gave me that his brother looted came in to possession of while serving in the European Theatre (North Shore Regiment).  It's a German soldier's who served in the Hermann Göring Division.  

I will take some pictures of its contents and post them.




			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> FTFY


----------



## Good2Golf

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Someone once described the British Museum as the greatest storehouse of stolen good outside the Scotland Yard evidence lockers.
> 
> I have a scrap book my grandfather gave me that his brother looted came in to possession of while serving in the European Theatre (North Shore Regiment).  It's a German soldier's who served in the Hermann Göring Division.
> 
> I will take some pictures of its contents and post them.




Second to the Vatican’s archives, right?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

As promised:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I'm also in possession of a Knight's Cross which was also given to me by my grandfather, no doubt taken off someone.  

And no, they are not for sale.  8)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Islamist group JNIM affiliated with al Qaeda claims attack on French Barkhane force near Gao, Mali where RCAF helos to be based--a tweet:
https://twitter.com/maboulmaaly/status/1013541752064626690



> @maboulmaaly
> 
> URGENT
> 1-JNIM a revendiqué la responsabilité de l'attaque d'une patrouille des forces françaises(Barkhane) à Gao, et dit que l'un de ses éléments, nommé "Said Al ansari",est le conducteur de la voiture piégée qui a explosé.
> Et que le nombre initial de morts était de 6..(Suivre)



Earlier before claim:



> Suicide car bombing hits French troops in northern Mali
> https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/07/suicide-bombing-targets-french-troops-in-northern-mali.php



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apparently 2 VBCI's taken out, by a VBIED. I first assumed RPG when I saw the pics on FB.


----------



## MarkOttawa

"Op PRESENCE", name of Mali mission says it all--Trudeau gov't just wants to be seen showing a UN peacekeeping flag--CAF backgrounder:



> Operation PRESENCE - Mali
> ...
> *Air Task Force*
> 
> The Air Task Force will be located in Gao, in northern Mali. It will include the following components:
> 
> two CH-147F Chinook helicopters
> four CH-146 Griffon helicopters
> up to 250 personnel
> 
> The CH-147F Chinook helicopters will conduct medical evacuations. They could also transport troops, equipment, supplies, and food, and help with the rapid deployment of UN forces in Mali.
> 
> The CH-146 Griffon helicopters will be armed escorts for the Chinooks. They could also carry out other critical missions for MINUSMA as required [_will that include supporting G5 Sahel force, which UNSC has authorized MINUSMA to do_? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-has-been-supporting-g5-sahel-force-for-some-time-sajjan/] .
> 
> The CAF is also sending spare helicopters to make sure that the Air Task Force is always ready to support MINUSMA...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/operations/military-operations/current-operations/op-presence.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar

Not a sleight here by any means but do we really need 250 people for 6 aircraft?

That seems like a lot of people to my uninformed mind.


----------



## Good2Golf

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not a sleight here by any means but do we really need 250 people for 6 aircraft?
> 
> That seems like a lot of people to my uninformed mind.



Re-ask the question and insert CF-188 in place of CH-147F/CH-146...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

He also forgot that the "main" mission is medical evacuation, so there must be attached medical personnel in there somewhere, plus the staff necessary to deal with all the UN operations management byzantine organization - that last adds a lot in my past experience.


----------



## Good2Golf

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Re-ask the question and insert CF-188 in place of CH-147F/CH-146...



...and no-duff background on deploying and supporting air operations:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cf-aerospace-warfare-centre/elibrary/journal/2015-vol4-iss4-09-the-rcaf-air-task-force.page


> *Op IMPACT, 2014–2015*
> 
> Operation IMPACT is the CAF contribution to the Middle East Stabilization Force—the multinational coalition to halt and degrade the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the Republic of Iraq and in Syria.
> 
> Approximately 600 CAF personnel deployed as part of Joint Task Force-Iraq, which included planning and liaison personnel to work with the United States (US) and other coalition partners, aircrew support elements, command and control, logistics and the Air Task Force (ATF). Exercising CAF joint C2 doctrine, the deployed ATF Comd, subordinate to the joint task force (JTF) Comd, is responsible for liaising with the Coalition Air Component Headquarters, while at the same time delivering tactical air effects by flying missions. Within the theatre, a positive relationship evolved between the JTF HQ and ATF HQ in order to ensure the smooth flow of information and sustainment.
> 
> Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I) is contributing to coalition air operations against ISIS. This mission extension and expansion has allowed the RCAF to strike ISIS targets in both Iraq and Syria. The use of air power has contributed to the destruction of ISIS infrastructure and equipment, denying them the military means to attack Iraqi security forces or coalition assets. At its largest, ATF-I includes six CF188 Hornet fighter aircraft, one CC150T Polaris aerial refueller to support coalition air operations, and two CP140M Aurora surveillance aircraft to contribute to coalition intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
> 
> Originally an airlift mission, ATF-I aircraft conducted 25 CC130 and CC177 flights between 28 August and 26 September 2014, delivering more than 1,600,000 pounds [725,748 kilograms] of military supplies to Iraq. The donations from allied countries included small arms, ammunition and other military equipment. The supplies were delivered in concert with military partners, including the United Kingdom and the US, to security forces working in Baghdad and Erbil.
> 
> As of July 2015, ATF-I has flown almost 800 Hornet sorties, more than 200 Polaris sorties (delivering over 12-million pounds [5,443,108 kilograms] of fuel to coalition aircraft) and about 250 Aurora intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.
> 
> Op IMPACT is the first large-scale deployment of an ATF under the new RCAF ATF concept and, as such, is led by an ATF Comd at the rank of colonel.


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and no-duff background on deploying and supporting air operations:
> 
> http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cf-aerospace-warfare-centre/elibrary/journal/2015-vol4-iss4-09-the-rcaf-air-task-force.page



Yep, it takes a lot of "tail" to make the air "teeth" work.  

There's more that I'd like to say, but I'm feeling diplomatic today   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> There's more that I'd like to say, but I'm feeling diplomatic today   :nod:



OP IMPACT was too fat on pers #s !  I can't talk about where the 18s were operating out of as I was only there for brief times, but where the LRP and AAR Dets were located...fat!!  And it got worse as time went on.

For the TH folks - stay safe, stick on the ice.


----------



## medicineman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yep, it takes a lot of "tail" to make the air "teeth" work.
> 
> There's more that I'd like to say, but I'm feeling diplomatic today like not getting fired  :nod:



FTFY.


----------



## Gunner98

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "Op PRESENCE", name of Mali mission says it all--Trudeau gov't just wants to be seen showing a UN peacekeeping flag--CAF backgrounder:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



When I first heard the Op Name in May 2018 I thought it quite funny, ironic even - Op PRESENTS as in JT's gifts exchanged with Aga Khan (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-gifts-secret-1.4594447).


----------



## Jarnhamar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and no-duff background on deploying and supporting air operations:



Lieutenant-Colonel Pux Barnes starts off the article with comparing the RCAF to a 2 year old child and patting themselves on the back for out performing the kid  rly:

Totally out of my lanes here but 600 CAF members to fly 9 jets seems like a lot?


----------



## PuckChaser

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Totally out of my lanes here but 600 CAF members to fly 9 jets seems like a lot?



Aurora and the Polaris are going to have bigger crews than the 1 person show in a CF-188, but Mali has approx 41 pers per A/C deployed, and IMPACT at its height had 66 per A/C.

Was no different than all the Army staff types getting tours for Op ATTENTION so they could get a GCS.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Do aircrews double up on air frames?

6x CF18s will have 6x pilots
2x CP140s have 8-15 pers ea
1xCC150T Polaris not sure how many crew, say 8?

Under 50 aircrew out of 600.


In Mali we're providing some kind of hospital set up at least right?


We should send a battalion of infantry to Mali just to, you know, stretch their legs a little.


----------



## Gunner98

There is no Canadian military hospital set-up in Mali - the UN military hospitals are French (Gao) and Chinese (Gao city Level II) at the moment.  Med Evac is only health services commitment.  The Chinook will have a damage control medical stabilization capability team.  

The EU has been supporting Malian forces with medical assets for some time: http://eutmmali.eu/en/eutm-donated-the-prototype-role-1-medical-treatment-facility-mtf-2/:

Excerpt: 

By the end of summer 2018, the EUTM Mali will have provided the last 7 Role 1 MTFs deployed in support of the Groupement Tactiques Interarmes (each of which is around battalion size).

This donation is in addition to the 17 ambulances donated by a German NGO at the end of October 2017.  Germany had also offered training to the Malian Army.  At the end of November 2017, in Kati, trainers from Toyota instructed ambulance drivers from different military regions how to drive these vehicles over difficult terrain.  Training on the medical equipment held in these ambulances was also provided by the EUTM Mali.  A total of 16 of these vehicles have already been sent to the front, and will eventually become part of every Role 1.

Over the next few months, the European Union, in addition to the Luxembourg contribution, will finance the refurbishment of the Ségou, Sevaré, Nara and Kati infirmaries, including re-construction of the surgical blocks.  The European Union will also be providing massive support for psychiatric services at Kati Polyclinic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do aircrews double up on air frames?



By double up do you mean 1 plane with 2 crews?  I've never seen that.  I've done a Det of 3 crews/2 planes, but we usually are 1 crew/1 plane.  But, we have the ability to add extra pers if we need to;  extra flight deck or tac tube crewmembers.  It's not uncommon to have a flight deck of 5 (3 pilots, 2 Flight Engineers) and a tac tube of 9 (Tactical Navigator, 2 Comms/TACCO B and 6 AES Ops.  That still leaves room on the plane for X more people if needed.  If we are 'away' the remaining seats are usually for techs and support on the transit to/from homeplate to 'whereever'.

Not sure how fighters and smaller crew platforms like TH do things...they obviously don't have the space/seats for extra crew like an Aurora or Herc does.


----------



## Gunner98

There is a pretty comprehensive mission brief from July 2017 found here:  https://sites.tufts.edu/wpf/files/2017/07/Mali-brief.pdf


----------



## MarkOttawa

Op PRESENCE can support G5 Sahel combat counter-terrorism force--at very end of this CP story:



> Canada looks to deepen involvement in Mali by sending up to 20 police officers
> ...
> One senior official confirmed Thursday [July 5] that the Canadians, who are expected to have limited contact with locals or the Malian military, could also be called upon to provide occasional support to a five-country counter-terror force operating in the country.
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-looks-to-deepen-involvement-in-mali-by-sending-up-to-20-police-officers-1.4001547



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest Africa work, via the DND info-machine ...


> ... The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, ... announced that the Government of Canada will provide the UN with tactical airlift support out of Entebbe, in Uganda, during the next 12 months beginning as early as August 2019.
> 
> The Tactical Airlift Detachment will consist of one CC-130J Hercules aircraft, operated and supported by up to 25 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members. It will deploy for up to five days each month to assist with transporting troops, equipment and supplies to the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) and the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) ...


----------



## Good2Golf

If they get lost, they could ask the Israeli Prime Minister for directions. :nod:


----------



## medicineman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If they get lost, they could ask the Israeli Prime Minister for directions. :nod:



 :rofl:

MM


----------



## Cloud Cover

"...can deploy for up to 5 days each month."

They fly in for a week, out for 3? Like oil workers or miners?


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If they get lost, they could ask the Israeli Prime Minister for directions. :nod:



Well, his brother... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu


----------



## MarkOttawa

About the United Nations Regional Service Centre Entebbe from which our people presumably will operate:

1) 





> The RSCE is a shared service centre based in Entebbe, Uganda.  We consolidate administrative and support functions previously located in various field missions in a less volatile, more family friendly regional location, with the goal of providing efficient, client-orientated and scalable services while reducing the missions’ footprints to UN field missions across Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://rsce.unmissions.org/



2)





> ...
> The RSCE currently provides a full range of administrative, logistics and information and communications technology services to eighteen Client Missions in Africa, representing 75% of all United Nations peacekeeping and special political missions worldwide...
> 
> The Transport and Movement Integrated Control Centre (TMICC) was established with the goal of consolidating, integrating and optimizing transportation and movement services for operations in the RSCE client missions. Services provided by TMICC include providing integrated planning and execution of integrated regional flight schedule. In addition, the TMICC is leading a pilot project to provide end-to-end supply chain services for six commodities throughout the East Africa Corridor. The project is expected to result in reduced lead times and improved supply chain visibility, while implementing industry best practices...
> https://rsce.unmissions.org/about



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, his brother...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonatan_Netanyahu



Perhaps if working through a medium like John Edwards, and although it was his brother who led the Op, the younger brother remembers it well, having just left the Sayeret Matkal a short time before.


----------

