- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 1,210
Please post all replies to the "Peace Making, not Peacekeeping is the order of the day" Editorial here.
Replies to "Peace Making, not Peacekeeping is the order of the day"
- Thread starter Mike Bobbitt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
this article makes a lot of sense. it is very true in what it states.
There is a third reason to have peacemakers in locations like Afghanistan.
The major lesson of WW2 was the "the best way to ultimately defeat an enemy is to make him your friend". Europe, which had been a battleground almost continuously since the dawn of recorded history, is now fully at peace, thanks to the Marshall Plan breaking the cycle of war, reparations, and revenge which had up to that point provided the engine for Europe's war machine.
The key part of "making your enemy your friend" is ensuring that he has the same opportunities and standard of living as you do. You must rebuild your enemy's country, set him back on his feet, and help him get through the transition from enemy to ally. It is no longer enough to defeat the enemy on the field of battle, and to destroy his infrastructure so that he can no longer rebuild his armies. In the post-Marshall world, military victory is only the halfway point.
This task is too important to be left undone, and while the Canadian Armed Forces may not be directly tasked with the rebuilding and greening of Afghanistan, they *are* tasked with maintaining security in the country so those who do face the rebuilding job can continue to function. The rebuilding mission must not fail, lest all the effort and lives expended to date be in vain, and any rebuilding effort cannot hope to function unless those who would see it fail are kept at bay.
This is a "long haul" mission - the rebuilding of Afghanistan is not a short-lived task. But much depends on it. Afghanistan is the place where the West must demonstrate its good faith to Islam; where the West must forge the first links of true friendship with the Middle East by demonstrating that there is more to the West than raining destruction on its enemies.
With the Americans preoccupied in Iraq, it falls to us to take the reins and see the mission through.
DG
The major lesson of WW2 was the "the best way to ultimately defeat an enemy is to make him your friend". Europe, which had been a battleground almost continuously since the dawn of recorded history, is now fully at peace, thanks to the Marshall Plan breaking the cycle of war, reparations, and revenge which had up to that point provided the engine for Europe's war machine.
The key part of "making your enemy your friend" is ensuring that he has the same opportunities and standard of living as you do. You must rebuild your enemy's country, set him back on his feet, and help him get through the transition from enemy to ally. It is no longer enough to defeat the enemy on the field of battle, and to destroy his infrastructure so that he can no longer rebuild his armies. In the post-Marshall world, military victory is only the halfway point.
This task is too important to be left undone, and while the Canadian Armed Forces may not be directly tasked with the rebuilding and greening of Afghanistan, they *are* tasked with maintaining security in the country so those who do face the rebuilding job can continue to function. The rebuilding mission must not fail, lest all the effort and lives expended to date be in vain, and any rebuilding effort cannot hope to function unless those who would see it fail are kept at bay.
This is a "long haul" mission - the rebuilding of Afghanistan is not a short-lived task. But much depends on it. Afghanistan is the place where the West must demonstrate its good faith to Islam; where the West must forge the first links of true friendship with the Middle East by demonstrating that there is more to the West than raining destruction on its enemies.
With the Americans preoccupied in Iraq, it falls to us to take the reins and see the mission through.
DG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I would like to know what our standard of measurement would be for regarding a mission as completed in Afghanistan. At what point do we say "Yes! Mission accomplished! Time to go home.". This has over the past 20 years been related more to political and financial interests of contributing nations rather than a true measurement of goals.
For example: The mission will be considered accomplished when:
A stable democratic government is in place.
A credible military force with modern arms is effective and able to enforce government policy across the entire country.
A credible police force with modern laws is effective and able to keep the peace.
The level of insurgency is reduced to x number of attacks per year.
The number of insurgents engaged in anti-government activity is below x number of persons.
My question is: what criteria are we using to judge when this mission is successfull?
P.S. This is NOT a sounding board to criticise our deployment, this is a device for determining what goals our soldiers would like to achieve and at what point we can say we are successfull in Afghanistan. If you had a personal goal for this country what would it be?
For example: The mission will be considered accomplished when:
A stable democratic government is in place.
A credible military force with modern arms is effective and able to enforce government policy across the entire country.
A credible police force with modern laws is effective and able to keep the peace.
The level of insurgency is reduced to x number of attacks per year.
The number of insurgents engaged in anti-government activity is below x number of persons.
My question is: what criteria are we using to judge when this mission is successfull?
P.S. This is NOT a sounding board to criticise our deployment, this is a device for determining what goals our soldiers would like to achieve and at what point we can say we are successfull in Afghanistan. If you had a personal goal for this country what would it be?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I liked where the article was going, and it had some valid points. I would consider showing that article to my fellow academics but the style and grammar are lacking. I noted a few run-on sentances. If the Ruxted Group were to spend a few more hours editing it, the article would be truly worthwhile.
- Reaction score
- 6,366
- Points
- 1,360
Quote from BKells,
I would consider showing that article to my fellow academics but the style and grammar are lacking. I noted a few run-on sentances.
:rofl:sentences :rofl:
Hope your "fellow academics" aren't reading this drivel....... :clown:
I would consider showing that article to my fellow academics but the style and grammar are lacking. I noted a few run-on sentances.
:rofl:sentences :rofl:
Hope your "fellow academics" aren't reading this drivel....... :clown:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,489
- Points
- 1,040
>A two year old can make a coherent argument but if he can't deliver it using proper prose and structure then no one will listen to him.
Their loss. Frankly, it's the inability of the university-educated to make coherent logical arguments that concerns me more than their mastery of grammar.
Their loss. Frankly, it's the inability of the university-educated to make coherent logical arguments that concerns me more than their mastery of grammar.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The mission will be over when
The government changes hands regularly
Markets are open
Banking systems are in place
Rule of law prevails
Free flow of people
Foreign investment can come into the country - do its thing - and expect to be able to do it in peace
Telecommunications are available
Education for boys and girls is a reality
Note how I don`t mention Taliban - that falls under the rule of law.
You can see how the military overlay is the final backup, not the first one.
The government changes hands regularly
Markets are open
Banking systems are in place
Rule of law prevails
Free flow of people
Foreign investment can come into the country - do its thing - and expect to be able to do it in peace
Telecommunications are available
Education for boys and girls is a reality
Note how I don`t mention Taliban - that falls under the rule of law.
You can see how the military overlay is the final backup, not the first one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Why we continue to confuse and complicate these simple words I guess I will never know. Peace making is Peace keeping. Traditional peace keeping is observer missions we still do that but since the dawn of peace keeping we have been doing the bayonet and bullet thing starting with Korea and Suez. Nothing has changed just the countries.
