• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

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.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 
 
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.
 
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."
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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'  :o who knew!  :o.  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).
 
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.
 
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'  :o who knew!  :o.  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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top