Author Topic: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy  (Read 139877 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #150 on: November 30, 2015, 15:48:47 »
Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

Which does China have in such abundance? (Two of the world's largest coal mines are in Inner Mongolia.) What about Alberta?
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #151 on: November 30, 2015, 15:59:01 »
Thanks, HB, so there is "hard" (cleaner burning) and "soft" (dirty) coal .. is that right?

We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 16:02:33 by Old Sweat »

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,733
  • Freespeecher
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #152 on: November 30, 2015, 16:00:18 »
One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. This limit is somewhat flexible, if you add other stages to the process (essentially adding another "Carnot cycle" to extract some of the left over heat energy), but there are cost and practical limits to what can be done to extract more energy.

Batteries and fuel cells are not limited by the Carnot theorem, since they are electrochemical systems, but since the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels is 20-25X that of even the most advanced batteries, we will be seeing hydrocarbons and coal in service for a long time to come. If it were somehow possible to use coal directly in a fuel cell, then you would see much higher conversion efficiencies.

Since we want to stay warm and ensure Canadians are not living in poverty, then *we* need to embrace mature, low cost energy sources, of which coal is number one in terms of energy density, versatility (you can build a coal plant anywhere) and cost, and not try to punish other people who are doing the same. Yes, coal is dirty and has lots of issues, but then freezing in the dark is not an acceptable COA either....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 213,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,956
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #153 on: November 30, 2015, 16:12:29 »
If they used the basic Geothermal initial heating, THEN used supplementry heat eg: coal, gas, etc.....then the overall used would reduce.

There was an article a long while back about using exchangers ("Carnot theorem"? ) in the stacks, to the point the boiler was up over 60% effective....
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,100
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #154 on: November 30, 2015, 16:27:25 »

...India needs to shift from coal to nuclear, to avoid the mess China now faces, but that's expensive, too.

Well, we did give them a Chalk River-like breeder in the 50's and CANDU 200's in the 60's, so it's not like we weren't helping them.  ;)

Well played by PM Modi to put the 'helping escape the binds of poverty' flavour on putting emissions controls off for his grand children to deal with.

Regards
G2G

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,721
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #155 on: November 30, 2015, 18:38:09 »
We were taught the difference between types of coal with some explanation re what was mined where, but that was back in public school circa 1950-1952. Anthracite, or hard coal, produced more heat per ton and less pollution than its soft counterpart, which, however, was cheaper. This was at just about the time London, England was hit with a massive "smog" bank that killed a lot of people and pretty well shut down the city. It was attributed to the near universal use of soft coal for heating in the UK, along with the presence of a longterm low pressure system that settled on the British Isles.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/case-studies/great-smog

Actually, as a resident of those London Fogs, remembered fondly (I still enjoy the smell of diesel fumes and soot), the issue in London was never about Hard Coal (Anthracite) versus Soft Coal (any grade down to and including lignite or Brown Coal).

No British boiler man would have tolerated Brown Coal in his boilers - far too much water and tar.  That is the stuff that is used to fire Saskatchewan and German coal plants.  British power plants were fired by various grades of Anthracite mined in the North of England and the South of Scotland.  They were marginally poorer than the Pennsylvania coals.

The problem in London was just the sheer volume of coal fires.  Take a look at an English city scape and count the chimney pots.  Everyone of those had a fire place attached - one per room.  All of them burning coal inefficiently.

The problem was partly solved by converting people from coal to coke, created as a co-product with coal gas from coal.  The real solution came with the electric heater.

Even now, to my knowledge, central heating is a minority solution in the UK.

Centralizing the burning of coal so that the burning can be managed efficiently and the wastes/byproducts also managed is a perfectly feasible solution.

Steam technology really is the heart of the heat and power industry - whether it is coal, diesel, gas, uranium or geo-thermal that is the primary heat source.  The one industry that hasn't figured that out yet is the renewable industry. 

You can also boil water with windmills and solar panels - and you can store that energy as hot water under pressure - just like geothermal energy.

If I am going to be stuck with these ruddy windmills cluttering up my sightlines and killing birds then for gawdsake somebody make them worthwhile and attach them to a proper steam plant and create a renewable geothermal facility.

Aaargh - nudder sore point found. :)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,721
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #156 on: November 30, 2015, 19:03:15 »
One thing about using any thermal cycle for energy generation is you run up against "Carnot's theorem", which essentially places a hard cap on the amount of energy that can be extracted by a thermal process. In rough terms, this means that most engines, boilers etc. can generally only extract @ 33% of the energy from the fuel. ....

With respect:

Boiler efficiencies typically run in the 85% range for carbon fuel boilers and >95% for electrically fired boilers.

The 33% applies to converting thermal energy into motion.  Diesel engines for example.

If you give me a supply of hot water under high pressure from any source, I can find a turbine that will use the steam generated when the hot water goes from the high pressure source to low pressure.  And I will find a use for the low grade heat in the water after it has condensed in the low pressure zone.  That water can be recycled and reheated to create high pressure hot water by any fuel known to man - including by turning a windmill into a simple boiler by taking the electrical wires from the generator on top of the mast and attaching them at the bottom of the mast to either a resistance coil, or even just a couple of electrodes, immersed in a closed container of water.

This stuff isn't rocket science - it is just that most folks seem to have forgotten who the Watt was named for.

Wind to turbine - 25% efficient
Turbine to electricity - 95% efficient
Electricity to boiler - 95% efficient
District electric CHP plant - 70 to 90% efficient.

You could just as easily find the heat by burning the coal in-situ and leaving all the carbon underground.

http://swanhills-synfuels.com/  - insitu coal gasification
https://www.google.com/patents/US3379248 - insitu coal combustion
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2015, 07:01:53 »
Canada's new, Liberal Foreign Policy is rather neatly summed up by Rick McKee in the Augusta Chronicle:

         
          Source: http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/cartoons/2015-11-19/rick-mckee-editorial-cartoon-0
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2015, 08:16:59 »
I think the Liberals, but also the Conservatives and the NDP and their confrères across the political spectra from Australia to Zambia, have missed the foreign policy boat ... it isn't climate change, although that's one driver, nor is it terrorism, although that, too, is a driver, it is the prospect of another historic, world changing, great migration.

The migrants are going to come, in HUGE numbers, from the world's 75 or so poorest and most vulnerable countries ~ from the Central African Republic, which is at the bottom of everyone's list through to, say, Fiji, which might suffer a lot from climate change ~ and they are going to aim to settle in the 30 or so richest and most liberal places like Luxembourg, Norway, the USA, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Czech Republic.

The people in the 75 'worst off' countries are, overwhelmingly, poor, dark skinned, culturally unsophisticated (to put it mildly), poorly educated and willing and able to work hard. They are not, by and large, Muslim, although some are. Some, perhaps many will have socio-cultural customs that range from strange, to us, to abhorrent. (Female genital mutilation and "honour killings," for example, are not, by and large, Muslims things: they are African and (sometimes) Asian customs that transcend religions.)

Dealing with climate issues might offer some very temporary, stop gap "relief" to a few countries ~ but famines are more likely to be caused by bad governments than bad climates. But, I suspect that the 100,000 people in small, poor (162 of 185 on the World Bank's list (where 185 is the poorest)), low lying Kiribati are going to need resettlement when the sea levels rise ...

               

Dealing with terrorism and despots might help stem the tide of refugees from some countries, but we need to be clear that many so-called political refugees seeking protection from wars and insurrections are, in reality, just ordinary people who have had enough, who have given up on Afghanistan and Benin and Chad and Djibouti and so on ... and want to come to Australia and Belgium and Canada and start again.

In the past 50 years the US led West has focused on, first, dealing with the USSR, and, now, dealing with the Middle East. In the process we, the West, have given China nearly carte blanche in Africa which is a treasure house of resources and wealth that we all need.

In the next 25 years China and India will add another 750 million people (about the entire populations of North America and the EU, combined) into the global "middle class." Those people will want to consume resources. Who will control the resources? Australia and Canada and the USA are well positioned, ditto Brazil and some other South American countries, but Africa is the mother lode.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Rocky Mountains

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 306
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2015, 11:40:37 »
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 420,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,076
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2015, 12:01:44 »
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920
Trying to get foreign politicians to change your politicians' minds?  NOT on, no matter how much you don't like the bosses. 

Treason, though?  The Criminal Code talks more about trying to kill the Queen, overthrow governments or assisting an enemy at war with Canada - not all disloyal f**ks are treasonous.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2015, 15:29:40 »
New foreign policy?  Not sure about that.  The bureaucracy at External Affairs was at war with the Conservative government.  It was a sad day when they removed capital punishment for treason and replaced it with lashes with a wet noodle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920


Neither issue ~ middle level civil service hatred of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in official Ottawa, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them.

     (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
      on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.")

Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 459,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,695
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2015, 15:43:10 »
Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.

Alan Gotlieb wrote a piece in the Globe a week or so ago, calling for the restoration of the Foreign Affairs mandarins as senior diplomats (vice political appointments to Washington, London and Paris).  It was (to be charitable) a rather shallow, self-important piece of puffery.  I suspect Canada's friends would rather an ambassador who can call the PM to address an issue of mutual concern over a well-rounded career diplomat whose connections may reach the level of the DM.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,721
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #163 on: December 01, 2015, 17:35:20 »

Neither issue ~ middle level civil service hatred of the Conservatives (hate is not too strong a word) and going to the Americans asking them to "lobby" our government ~ was a big secret in official Ottawa, but it wasn't talked about very much. The Conservatives and the senior ranks of the civil service were slightly embarrassed, and the middle ranks were dismayed to find that their superiors didn't support them.

     (My impression, as an outsider, was that, by and large, the senior ranks of the civil service (ADMs and DMs) were, generally, happy to see Prime Minister Harper and a (maybe slight) majority of his policies. The middle ranks,
      on the other hand, were most unhappy ~ and that includes all those scientists who complained about being "muzzled.")

Foreign Affairs used to matter, in the 1940s, '50s and '60s, but it no longer does. The policy centre in official Ottawa is the troika of PCO, Finance and TB ... Foreign Affairs, like Defence, Health and Transport, is just another line department that is more likely to screw things up than make a real, meaningful contribution. Foreign policy is made in the PMO/PCO and in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs ... not by officials in the department.

If you can't trust the water-bearer to carry water where and when you want it why on earth would you give them any water to carry or keep them on strength?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 143,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,575
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #164 on: December 05, 2015, 14:12:20 »
Ministers don't run the department, so they can only do so much. Proving absolute disloyalty may be difficult and an issue the Union will contest for sure. frankly if your not willing to obey the lawful directions of your elected government, then your in the wrong business.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,721
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #165 on: December 05, 2015, 15:07:08 »
So you are saying that Harper was right all along?  That his dominance of the House did not eliminate the Opposition?

Or - putting it another way:  Even paranoiacs have enemies.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #166 on: January 06, 2016, 09:37:57 »
What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote on the CDAI website ought ot be required reading in Ottawa for ministers and the commentariat. The key point he makes, and one that bears repeating, over and over, is that Canada needs coherent foreign and defence policies, not Minister Dion's abstract plans.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 552,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,131
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #167 on: January 06, 2016, 10:31:05 »
What BGen (ret'd) Jim Cox wrote....
:goodpost:

From the summary paragraph:
Quote
Canadians will want to know if government is inclined to slide back into aimless soft power and naïve liberal internationalism, or whether they have a more realistic world view and notion of modern conflict management.
I suspect that the Liberals want 'a' (because it feels good), with any dabbling in 'b' (because it's necessary) being due more to Allies' pressure than to any understanding of modern international conflicts.  Time will tell.

Quote
Whatever the decision, it must be derived from a coherent hierarchy, topped by a clear policy, leading to a credible strategy with achievable objectives. In the end, it must all be sufficient to justify putting Canadians in harms way.
This, as highlighted by ERC, is the critical, currently absent, bit.  It's also the piece I feel will be the most disappointing if/when the government gets to it. Annunciating concrete policy, amongst its other purposes, facilitates holding the government accountable.  Avoiding that... awkwardness... suggests that amorphous foreign and defence policy "plans" may be the more likely way ahead.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #168 on: January 06, 2016, 10:57:26 »
Well said, JM, except that you may attribute a clarity of thought and purpose to them that I fear is far too optimistic. I may be cynical, but to my mind the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 117,804
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,148
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #169 on: January 06, 2016, 11:05:20 »
On the topic of Naive Liberal Internationalism, here is an excellent piece from renowned South African private military contractor, Eeben Barlow:

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/africa-must-stop-demilitarising-its_2.html
Quote
AFRICA MUST STOP DEMILITARISING ITS MILITARIES

Having sat through numerous debates and discussions on ‘peacekeeping’, I have always been surprised and disappointed that this costly and failed approach to security and stability is, for some very (not so) strange reason, still being advocated and encouraged. 

The truth is that without sustainable peace, Africa will never see real development and prosperity. Economic development and stability is ensured by good governance, law and order, and the application of sound policies. But if the policies and approaches are wrong, no amount of strategy and tactics can provide peace and stability.
 
Ending a conflict or war can only be assured when the state has the political will and the military might—and will—to engage the enemy. This must result in the enemy or threat being decisively beaten, and begging and pleading for mercy to save it from complete annihilation. This requires a strong and capable deterrent force with strong military policies in place.

If a government cannot negotiate from a position of total strength, it is merely giving the adversary time to rebuild and rearm its forces and continue the conflict.  Besides, the terms of negotiation must be dictated by the government and not by the enemy or threat. Indeed, it must be an unconditional surrender or nothing at all. During negotiations, the enemy or threat must be subjected to intense intelligence scrutiny to ensure that the call to negotiate was not a deception measure aimed at reducing pressure on the crumbling threat forces.

A well-trained, well-equipped, well-led and disciplined armed force, correctly postured and able to rapidly project decisive force, is a significant deterrent to an armed adversary. So why have some African governments decided to demilitarise their armed forces and instead turn them into ‘peacekeepers’?

The mere thought of ‘peacekeeping’ when and where a conflict or war is raging is nothing short of idiotic and suicidal. But in order to remain politically correct, and in the good books of the UN and those governments driving the (failed) peacekeeping approach, this new form of ‘un-warfare’ has taken hold in some African governments whilst emasculating their armed forces.
 
Simultaneously, it has expanded the current and future market for ‘peacekeepers’ and other ‘partnership forces’ to enter fragile and troubled countries—the results of which, to date, have been catastrophic, disgraceful, and disastrous to say the least. The numerous scandals created by these forces have simply added to the already tarnished image of the ‘peacekeeping’ and ‘partnership’ approaches.

Besides, if peacekeeping was such a valuable tool in the arsenal for halting the spread of conflict and war, why aren’t these forces standing between the warring parties in Nigeria, Libya, Cameroon, Niger, Burundi, and so forth? And if they are there, such as in Mali, South Sudan, Somalia—why aren’t they keeping the peace?

Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces. Soldiers have now become ‘peacekeepers’ and ‘nation builders’ and time and money is spent on irrelevant ‘free’ training programmes supposedly aimed at keeping the peace and building nations—especially where there is no peace and governments have become fragile or failed. Soldiers have become quasi-policemen as opposed to fighting men who can and will fight to annihilate armed opposition or enemy forces.
 
The demilitarising of African armed forces has had serious knock-on effects such as a lack of intelligence gathering capacity—especially HUMINT, an inability to fight to decisively end conflicts and wars, a neglect of doctrine development and training, the neglect of essential combat equipment along with the procurement of unsuitable equipment, a watering-down of essential combat skills, the acceptance of bad advice, and so forth.

This, however, suits those powers who have encouraged a mission diversion to ‘peacekeeping’ as they are guaranteed that African governments and their armies will be required to call for foreign help when the wheels fall off. And fall off they will—and are.
 
Anyone who dares criticise the farce of ‘peacekeeping’ is shouted down and viewed as a warmonger. It is, after all, not politically correct to criticise a failed approach that gives violent and murderous threat forces—viewed by many in the West as ‘moderate terrorists’, ‘pro-democracy fighters’ and ‘freedom fighters’—the advantage. Also, ‘human rights’ have overridden common sense as national armies are expected to show tolerance and understanding to the very people trying to kill them, murder and terrorise the populace, destroy infrastructure, and collapse the government.

The ‘peacekeeping’ mantra has become a dangerous cancer that is eating away at the combat effectiveness of African armies—and it is subsequently endangering the populace, destroying societies, and eroding the stability of states.

For Africa to survive in an ever-increasing turbulent environment, be independent, and ensure the safety and security for its people, the concept of ‘peacekeeping’ needs to be given a very serious rethink. 

Perhaps the time has come for African governments to stop demilitarizing their armed forces and instead redefine their missions—away from peacekeeping and towards enemy and threat identification, deterrence, targeting, and annihilation.

After all, that is what the armed forces are supposed to do—isn’t it?

You could probably replace African with Canadian and this piece wouldn't need to be altered very much.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 11:08:10 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 552,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,131
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #170 on: January 06, 2016, 11:12:51 »
.....the overriding Liberal international affairs objective is to win another Nobel Peace Prize.
Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being that last guy, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 117,804
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,148
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #171 on: January 06, 2016, 11:16:00 »
Hey Obama got one just for showing up and not being that last guy, and Trudeau has much more awesome hair.  The Prize is likely just lost in the holiday postal rush.    :nod:


Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 552,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,131
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #172 on: January 06, 2016, 11:26:28 »
Sadly, many African governments have allowed themselves to be cajoled and hoodwinked into training their armed forces for peacekeeping missions—a euphemism for demilitarising and emasculating the armed forces

I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.



There are the added benefits of having your potentially problematic fighting-aged males dealing with their testosterone in someone else's country. 

And for the UN, Africans patrolling Africans is a much better image than having those 'white, colonial oppressors' doing it....regardless of the chronic scandals, malfeasance, and incompetence.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,721
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #173 on: January 06, 2016, 11:41:26 »
Humphrey & JM:

There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.

The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 117,804
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,148
Re: Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy
« Reply #174 on: January 06, 2016, 11:58:51 »
I haven't seen any cajoling or hoodwinking; African nations are becoming "peacekeepers" for the simple reason that it's a massive cash cow for the African dictators troop-contributing nations.



There are the added benefits of having your potentially problematic fighting-aged males dealing with their testosterone in someone else's country. 

And for the UN, Africans patrolling Africans is a much better image than having those 'white, colonial oppressors' doing it....regardless of the chronic scandals, malfeasance, and incompetence.

The part you noted in yellow is exactly what I think he meant when he said "cajoled and hoodwinked"

I see peacekeeping and the money that comes with it as basically another form of bribery.  Of course Mr. Barlow and his company are also in direct competition with the UN for business from African governments so his viewpoint ins't completely altruistic. 

He is indirectly telling African governments their money would be better spent hiring him and his cohorts (actual Africans) to solve their problems rather than a bunch of unproven outsiders.  Given some of his successes, I think he has a pretty good business case.

Humphrey & JM:

There is an illuminating discussion in the comments attached to that article that Humphrey posted.

The author of the blog is going out of his way not to name names and keep to generalities.   It is a dark art, reading between the lines, but the discussion between Barlow and "Unknown" references some of the driving forces.



Chris,

I'm glad you picked up on that  ;)

There is also an interesting little message he gave to a CBC reporter who requested an interview with him  ;D.

I'll say it now, I'm a big fan of Mr. Barlow.  I've been following his blog for a number of years and have read pretty much every post he has ever made.  I also own his first book "Against all odds" and have pre-ordered his upcoming book "Composite Warfare".  I'm particularly interested in his views on the profession of arms and the concept of warfare he calls relentless pursuit.