MarkOttawa said:
What with Latvia anything now for UN peacekeeping beyond a small, real blue beret, force in Colombia?
Haiti is our "employ VanDoos" default setting. Colombia could be a combination of maritime patrol (most of their drug shipments are by sea, with the San Andrés/ Providencia/ Santa Catalina archipelago being a popular trans-shipment hub), and police training.
For any UN mission, competent (as opposed to sycophant) leadership tends to be in dire need. While I periodically,
and subtly, bitch about our fondness for growing HQs, we may as well put them to work. This would provide the added benefit of having the HQ staff being OUTCAN, therefore make-work projects for subordinate units could only decline. :nod: Missions in isolated regions (ie - most African ops) need transport aircraft. We can provide that capability.
Now, the downside to all of these options is that they are not manpower-intensive. The PM is going to want to deploy ground troops to get the numbers up. As noted in Killford's OpEd piece, Norway and Ireland (our competitors for the two UNSC seats) combined, have deployed about 500 pers on UN ops; Canada currently has 79.
Can we deploy the equivalent of two battalions concurrently? Certainly. As a start state only, Mech Inf focus on Latvian cultural awareness briefings; Light Inf start thinking PKO. Other arms, dust off your Cyprus-vintage "re-roling to peacekeeper" lessons-learned.
Will there be a cost? Absolutely. The knock-on effects for developing our forces will be great as we attempt to force generate, deploy, shoe-horn in career courses (students and staff), meet all the marginal tasks that are critical to....
someone in the food chain...
Oh, and there's that tertiary effect on the group we often pay mere lip service to, the families; they'll take a big hit. But if it allows the PM to campaign for re-election on having 'earned' us a seat at the UNSC for two years, I'm sure they'll cheerfully bite the bullet.