The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[PuckChaser]

Edited to show the other half of what is effective enemy fire.

Thanks. If I'm taking effective fire, Bde main is overrun and we're screwed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's go in and help the french then. Problem solved.

I don't think you understand the problem(s). You're listening to the government and following their flawed logic, instead of listening to all the people, here, that have deployed to UN shitholes and seen the way the UN really works and the way our government cedes control of our soldiers to New York.

Considering you just finished BMQ, it might be awhile before you get to go anywhere. By then, there's a good chance the mission will have morphed and we're doing ramp ceremonies again. It won't be anything like what you think it is presently.

 

[Altair]

I don't think you understand the problem(s). You're listening to the government and following their flawed logic, instead of listening to all the people, here, that have deployed to UN shitholes and seen the way the UN really works and the way our government cedes control of our soldiers to New York.

Considering you just finished BMQ, it might be awhile before you get to go anywhere. By then, there's a good chance the mission will have morphed and we're doing ramp ceremonies again. It won't be anything like what you think it is presently.

I've been out of bmq for 6 years now, don't worry yourself, I'm good to go.

Like I said, lets not do the UN blue helmet stuff, let's go help out the french who are not playing by UN rules.

Problem solved

 

[PuckChaser]

Like I said, lets not do the UN blue helmet stuff, let's go help out the french who are not playing by UN rules.

Which is not peacekeeping, which is what Trudeau wants us to do.

Most of us would be all aboard for laying a hurt on ISIL/Al-Qaeda, but that would require us to "Whip out our CF-18s and show everyone how big they are." The problem is, Trudeau will paint this as a return to "peacekeeping", with political interference in the day to day business of warfighting, which is what Mali would actually be.

To be honest, I see Trudeau picking Sudan, as a civil war is breaking out again there. Can play the heroes in blue helmets standing between belligerents. The French won't get the help they need.

 

[Altair]

Which is not peacekeeping, which is what Trudeau wants us to do.

Most of us would be all aboard for laying a hurt on ISIL/Al-Qaeda, but that would require us to "Whip out our CF-18s and show everyone how big they are." The problem is, Trudeau will paint this as a return to "peacekeeping", with political interference in the day to day business of warfighting, which is what Mali would actually be.

To be honest, I see Trudeau picking Sudan, as a civil war is breaking out again there. Can play the heroes in blue helmets standing between belligerents. The French won't get the help they need.

Then pray tell, why would ottawa and Paris have been in talks recently about Canadians troop deployments?

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matthew-fisher-truck-attack-in-france-ups-the-ante-for-canadas-peacekeeping-mission-in-mali

Ottawa and Paris have been talking for some time about where Canadian soldiers would fit into one of France’s multiple troop deployments there

 

[PuckChaser]

I'll believe it when I see the Op Order, and the ROE card. If we're going anywhere to do anything in combat, we need a Battle Group like Kandahar. That's 2400-2700 pers (depending on whether Chinooks go).

1000 military members heading to MINUSMA is 7% of the total military component there. That's not help, that's lip service. "We'd like to do more, but we're busy rolling back planned defense budget increases."

 

[jmt18325]

That might be the case, if they'd actually rolled back planned increases.  In actually, they simply moved capital spending forward, as done by the Conservatives in 2012 and 2014 - mostly for the same reasons.

 

[Altair]

I'll believe it when I see the Op Order, and the ROE card. If we're going anywhere to do anything in combat, we need a Battle Group like Kandahar. That's 2400-2700 pers (depending on whether Chinooks go).

1000 military members heading to MINUSMA is 7% of the total military component there. That's not help, that's lip service. "We'd like to do more, but we're busy rolling back planned defense budget increases."

The French have 3000 there, a 1000 Canadians actually out fighting would be a significant contribution.

 

[OldSolduer]

Let's go in and help the french then. Problem solved.

UNPROFOR Croatia 1993. We moved to Sector South to take over the sector from the French unit. They hadn't been outside the wire in months.....
The unit was a conscript battalion, no one wanted casualties, the Serbs were not welcoming and in fact threatened them. The French Log Battalion was a different story. They were ok.
Sector South also had a Kenyan battalion....who were worse than useless.

In Cyprus, the peacekeepers were European and Canadian, all effective and professional military.
In Croatia, not so much.

We best be sure who our peacekeeping partners are.

 

[dimsum]

The French have 3000 there, a 1000 Canadians actually out fighting would be a significant contribution.

They do not.  They have 3000 French troops HQ'd in Chad, available to be sent to any of 5 countries for OP Barkhane, the successor to OP Serval.

Operation Barkhane is an ongoing anti-insurgent operation in Africa's Sahel region, which commenced 1 August 2014.[7] It consists of a 3,000-strong French force, which will be permanent and headquartered in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad.[3] The operation has been designed with five countries, and former French colonies, that span the Sahel: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.[3] These countries are collectively referred to as the "G5 Sahel."[8]

Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.

 

[Altair]

They do not.  They have 3000 French troops HQ'd in Chad, available to be sent to any of 5 countries for OP Barkhane, the successor to OP Serval.

Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.

Yeah, fine by me. As long as I get to go that is.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Also, thinking 1000 pers means 1000 riflemen (or "outside the wire" troops) is naive at best.  A significant chunk of those will be HQ, etc.

Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

 

[medicineman]

Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

:nod:

Polite understatement.

MM

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

I don't really think this is a fair statement.  When the CAF went in to Southern Afghan, they took the NSE used in Kabul and plopped it on to the BG in Kandahar.  The effect was the opposite of what you describe with the consensus being that we paid lip service to sustainment initially.  Luckily, we've got some switched on soldiers that made the square peg go in the round hole.  Definitely wasn't our finest hour though. 

I personally think the CAF does an excellent job at Strat level sustainment but we tend to lose the plot between the Op/Tactical level. 

 

[GAP]

Typical Canadian deployment. 80% support/20% teeth.

The U.S. is 9 to 1....so typical......

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada’s impending peacemaking mission to Africa took on a more urgent tone Thursday night when a Tunisian man drove a truck through crowds enjoying Bastille Day fireworks on Nice’s palm-lined waterfront.

French President Francois Hollande immediately announced that France’s already overstretched armed forces would mobilize 10,000 troops and every member of the army reserves to guard French streets, border crossings and airports.

France needs Canada’s help — and Canada will answer the call. The army and air force will be heavily involved in Africa and no unit more so than the French-speaking brigade built around the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos.

As Postmedia first reported on July 6, the Trudeau government intends to send troops to French West Africa. Mali is their most likely destination, but the Central African Republic and a couple of other nearby countries are in the mix, too.

Ottawa and Paris have been talking for some time about where Canadian soldiers would fit into one of France’s multiple troop deployments there. No date has been set for the mission. The Dutch and the Germans have already been helping France with the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). That is because even before the murderous attack in Nice, the Hollande government was having difficulty sustaining the tempo of its African missions as well as operations against the Islamic State in the Middle East and against terrorists on French soil. It is why the RCAF has already spent a lot of time in Africa, using its C-17 Globemasters to provide essential logistical support for French forces.

Canada’s Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan, had intended to travel to French West Africa next month to help hammer out the details of Canada’s mission there. After France’s latest terror attack, and the call-up of forces to defend France, that trip may have to be moved up ...

Some commentary/analysis on recent events making things lean more toward Mali ...op:

And from Dimsum

Operation Barkhane is an ongoing anti-insurgent operation in Africa's Sahel region, which commenced 1 August 2014.[7] It consists of a 3,000-strong French force, which will be permanent and headquartered in N’Djamena, the capital of Chad.[3] The operation has been designed with five countries, and former French colonies, that span the Sahel: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.[3] These countries are collectively referred to as the "G5 Sahel."[8]

Anybody else thinking Chickens and Eggs?

Hollande, and France, are still trying, IMO, to maintain their old colonial status on a shoe-string budget.

At home they don't have the old conscript army to provide depth.  Abroad they don't have the Legion, the Forces de la Marines and the settlers that they used to have.  But they still want to keep North Africa tied to France - but they don't want the North Africans IN France.

 

[medicineman]

I think the optics are that a lot of these deployments are about setting up large NCE's and NSE's to ensure cubicle dwellers get their chance to go somewhere.  I think of things like the 1CDHSR deployment to Rwanda in 1994, the attempt to deploy a sizeable HQ to the Rwanda/Zaire border in 1996 for the "Bungle in the Jungle", the sizeable HQ/NCE/NSE we had on OP HALO for a rifle company and a flight of Griffons as examples.  Made sense for us to have a decent HQ and WOG. oops, LOGBAT with our two battle groups in Croatia and Bosnia - it doesn't (to me) with these smaller forces unless they're going o be controlling more than our forces. 

MM

 

[Kirkhill]

http://army.ca/forums/threads/29913/post-1444826.html#msg1444826

1. Bangladesh 9,432
2. Ethiopia 8,309
3. India 7,794
4. Pakistan 7,533
5. Rwanda 5,685
6. Nepal 5,346
7. Senegal 3,628
8. Ghana 3,242
9. China 3,079
10. Nigeria 2,968
11. Burkina Faso 2,908
12. Indonesia 2,727
13. United Republic of Tanzania 2,342
14. Morocco 2,320
15. South Africa 2,165
16. Egypt 2,090
17. Niger 2,040
18. Togo 1,777
19. Jordan 1,627
20. Benin 1,495
21. Uruguay 1,463
22. Cameroon 1,358
23. Brazil 1,299
24. Burundi 1,265
25. Chad 1,162

By my count that adds up to a UN force of 85,054 - Or roughly a WWI Corps.

A pretty small force, especially when widely dispersed.  The effectiveness of such a force, even if all Canadians, or Brits, or French, of Yanks is always going to be debatable.

But the question I want to ask is who is paying the bill for these 85,000 mercenaries / indentured soldiers?

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1]  PDF Document are:

United States (28.38%)
Japan (10.83%)
France (7.22%)
Germany (7.14%)
United Kingdom (6.68%)
China (6.64%)
Italy (4.45%)
Russian Federation (3.15%)
Canada (2.98%)
Spain (2.97%)

How are peacekeepers compensated?
The UN has no military forces of its own, and Member States provide, on a voluntary basis, the military and police personnel required for each peacekeeping operation.

Peacekeeping soldiers are paid by their own Governments according to their own national rank and salary scale. Countries volunteering uniformed personnel to peacekeeping operations are reimbursed by the UN at a standard rate, approved by the General Assembly, of a little over US$1,332 per soldier per month.

Police and other civilian personnel are paid from the peacekeeping budgets established for each operation.

The UN also reimburses Member States for providing equipment, personnel and support services to military or police contingents.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml

According to the Bangladesh Army web site a Bangladeshi officer with 4 years service will be paid 15,000 Takas a month or 189 USD,  (400 USD with benefits).  That means that Bangladesh pockets between $900 and $1100 dollars a month for every Lieutenant it volunteers for UN service. 

At that rate the 85,000 "peacekeepers" would be generating a cash flow of $85,000,000 USD a month or about 1 BUSD per year.

I suggest that Bangladesh and Cameroon don't want more Canadian peacekeepers on the ground. They want Canada to pay for more Bangladesh and Cameroon peacekeepers.

On the other hand, what I believe the UN "needs" are more "West African Rifles", "Spahis", "Arab Legions" and "Ghurkas".

Edit: By the way, a Bangladeshi private, or Salnik, takes home  $57 of those $1332 supplied by the UN to his government.

http://www.joinbangladesharmy.mil.bd/benefits/money

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

More experienced members may chime in here, but for us in Canada, wasn't it the practice that the UN monthly payment for soldiers deployed on UN missions was actually paid in full to the deployed members serving on the UN deployment? Sort of  a UN service bonus thing.

 

[ModlrMike]

More experienced members may chime in here, but for us in Canada, wasn't it the practice that the UN monthly payment for soldiers deployed on UN missions was actually paid in full to the deployed members serving on the UN deployment? Sort of  a UN service bonus thing.

To a degree. One is paid Foreign Service Premium, Risk Allowance, and Hardship Allowance, and any subsequent bonuses to the latter two. I'm not sure how the government treats the money it gets from the UN.