The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[dapaterson]

...Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you fucking retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

This reads like someone talking about OP ATHENA.  I thought it took much longer for history to repeat itself...

 

[Journeyman]

This reads like someone talking about OP ATHENA.  I thought it took much longer for history to repeat itself...

Nahhhh......ATHENA was folks 'having carnal relations with the puppy' until the more favourable AOs were taken, thinking only "anything  but Iraq; Afghanistan must be easier." 

This is a self-inflicted wound;  this is looking actively for the worst possible mission, and saying "put me er, them  in coach."  :nod:

 

[sidemount]

I disagree.... with only a modicum of cynicism this time. 

The purpose of being "back" into peacekeeping is so that the current PM will have an international relations success as part of his re-election campaign -- namely, a seat at the UN Security Council (even more 'honourable' because the Conservatives did not secure that transitory seat when they attempted in 2010).

Our main competitors for that seat are Norway and Ireland, both of which have a lot more boots on the ground doing PKO.  To compete against that, Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you fucking retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

That being said, as I mentioned earlier,  I don't dismiss the deployment out of hand; it's one of the reasons we have a military.  Just don't do it with rose-coloured glasses.

I suppose a better line would have been "This is not the peacekeeping mission the GC is going to sell to the population"

I agree 100% the GC is doing everything with the goal of gaining the security counsel seat.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Good2Golf]

Journeyman, I think dapaterson was thinking of ATHENA V2.0, after all that ATHENA 1.0 and ARCHER stuff...

 

[Jarnhamar]

With our experiences in Afghanistan I think the government will be in for a headache if they try and enforce old school UN shitty ROEs on Canadian soldiers.

 

[PuckChaser]

Current CDS would likely be outspoken against it too, but at the end of the day; if it's legal, we get what we get. I just hope Altair's FSP points are worth any losses we take.

Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past.

 

[Journeyman]

Journeyman, I think dapaterson was thinking of ATHENA V2.0, after all that ATHENA 1.0 and ARCHER stuff...

I don't know what the hell he's trying to say half the time....    >

    ;D

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Current CDS would likely be outspoken against it too, but at the end of the day; if it's legal, we get what we get. I just hope Altair's FSP points are worth any losses we take.

Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past.

What gong show? We haven't been given a UN mission yet, let alone been given an objectives for said mission, let alone done any planning for it. I know you hate the LPC, but why dont you wait until the actual mission is provided to critique it?

 

[PuckChaser]

What gong show? We haven't been given a UN mission yet, let alone been given an objectives for said mission, let alone done any planning for it. I know you hate the LPC, but why dont you wait until the actual mission is provided to critique it?

"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."

That's why we're still waiting. The government does not want a single casualty coming back with a blue beret on a pillow. They can't find an African peacekeeping mission that is safe, so they're content with "studying" and "fact finding" something that's palatable to the electorate. They situated the estimate declaring a return to peacekeeping, without knowing if that was even a valid COA.

Maybe you're a fan of going somewhere with the Commander's Intent being "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat", but unfortunately there are far better reasons that could have outlined to really stir up support. We pulled CF-18s from the fight against the largest terror group in the world in order to commit ground forces against outliers of that terrorist group in a continent that's been killing each other for the last century or so.

 

[jmt18325]

Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.

No one cancelled the planned increases.  Someone moved the same money that was twice before moved - money for the CSC and JSS for the most part.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."

That's why we're still waiting. The government does not want a single casualty coming back with a blue beret on a pillow. They can't find an African peacekeeping mission that is safe, so they're content with "studying" and "fact finding" something that's palatable to the electorate. They situated the estimate declaring a return to peacekeeping, without knowing if that was even a valid COA.

Maybe you're a fan of going somewhere with the Commander's Intent being "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat", but unfortunately there are far better reasons that could have outlined to really stir up support. We pulled CF-18s from the fight against the largest terror group in the world in order to commit ground forces against outliers of that terrorist group in a continent that's been killing each other for the last century or so.

Maybe I'm just a fan of reserving judgments on things until there are actual facts to either support or deny those judgments? Some points/thoughts...

- Africa is in fact a quagmire of failed colonial aspirations. That said, where would you prefer we deploy? To Syria by ourselves? Iraq with a Bde perhaps? Are the lives of people in Mali or elsewhere in Africa not as important as those in other places? Can we have a strategic effect against ISIS in Africa? Moreover, how can be base any judgment of the strategic relevance of a mission to Africa with literally zero knowledge on it? (Spoiler alert- you can't, rationally at least)

- If, in the meetings with the UN, they told the government they needed support in Africa than would it not follow that stating something akin to, "we're deploying to somewhere in Africa" be logical?

- We deployed with NATO from 2002-2011 in Afghanistan with results that were negligible at best. Does this mean that we no longer deploy with NATO? Using the "past UN missions were bad" logic, with no knowledge of what the intent or strategic impact of a deployment is is premature.

- So you're against fact finding and studying potential missions? Would you rather we just shoot from the hip then? With limited resources, particularly with a mission in Latvia, making educated (if debatable) decisions would seem to be prudent.

- "Don't die, rape people, and win us a security council seat"? The Signals community needs to work on its SMESC......

 

[PuckChaser]

The Signals community needs to work on its SMESC......

Get over the Sigs thing, its a red herring and really just detracts from any coherent thought you had. We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Get over the Sigs thing, its a red herring and really just detracts from any coherent thought you had. We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.

Well, no ones perfect.  [ Luckily the Royal Regiment offers a wide breadth of career streams and opportunities outside of the Air Defence!

Back to the UN, why not focus on the coherent thoughts then.... no one can rationally dismiss or criticize a mission that we have details on. 

 

[dapaterson]

We all can't be Air Defense people with no Air Defense weapons or vehicles.

...or signallers without radios or a comprehensible occupational structure...

 

[PuckChaser]

Back to the UN, why not focus on the coherent thoughts then.... no one can rationally dismiss or criticize a mission that we have details on.

Pick a mission in Africa that we could have an appreciable effect on the ground with 2000 pers deployed, around 500-750 are your BG. There's missions with 15,000 troops deployed from all nations, and they're able to do very little to help.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Pick a mission in Africa that we could have an appreciable effect on the ground with 2000 pers deployed, around 500-750 are your BG. There's missions with 15,000 troops deployed from all nations, and they're able to do very little to help.

And this may well be a relevant point, once we have any direction. If the 2000 pers deployed are given a reasonable AO, clear mission, reasonable ROE, and a defined mission and exit policy than there's no reason why we couldn't have a strategic effect. If we go with your rationale than we may as well not deploy anywhere. Why send a couple hundred guys to Latvia to deter Russia? Clearly they have no ability to actually stop a Russian thrust.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"We're going on a mission"
"Where?"
"Somewhere in Africa, we haven't picked yet."
"Africa is a quagmire of failed colonialism, UN peacekeeping taken over by violent militias, Islamic insurgents and western peacekeepers aren't welcome in areas they're needed most."
"But we'll get us a UN Seat! We'll just find a safe one."

... and we're not scared!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gyI6ykDwds

 

[PuckChaser]

Why send a couple hundred guys to Latvia to deter Russia? Clearly they have no ability to actually stop a Russian thrust.

Cause someone in the new government found an old book about 4CMBG and thought it was a good idea again?  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

- We deployed with NATO from 2002-2011 in Afghanistan with results that were negligible at best. Does this mean that we no longer deploy with NATO? Using the "past UN missions were bad" logic, with no knowledge of what the intent or strategic impact of a deployment is is premature.

That's your takeaway about AFG?  Implying a broad brushing of NATO as just is ineffectual as the UN? 

I stay in touch with Afghans along whom I worked as an embed a decade ago and they consistently tell me that things are demonstrably better in their country than a decade and a half ago, so I'm not as ready to write of Canada's participation there as you seem to be.  UN missions on the other hand, have a long legacy of problematic ROEs and lack of meaningful support from the highest levels of the organization as well as many of the "supporting" nations.  I'm probably not the only one who will give NATO the benefit of the doubt over the UN....Dr. Walter Dorn's 'cheerleading' notwithstanding...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That's your takeaway about AFG?  Implying a broad brushing of NATO as just is ineffectual as the UN? 

I stay in touch with Afghans along whom I worked as an embed a decade ago and they consistently tell me that things are demonstrably better in their country than a decade and a half ago, so I'm not as ready to write of Canada's participation there as you seem to be.  UN missions on the other hand, have a long legacy of problematic ROEs and lack of meaningful support from the highest levels of the organization as well as many of the "supporting" nations.  I'm probably not the only one who will give NATO the benefit of the doubt over the UN....Dr. Walter Dorn's 'cheerleading' notwithstanding...

:2c:

Regards
G2G

I would ask that you re-read the statement. I never suggested that we don't deploy with NATO on future missions.... I was simply pointing out that Afghanistan was a NATO operation and wasn't a rousing success. The point was that while UN missions have been ineffectual in the past, we can't just write them off OUT OF HAND without at least KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. NATO, NORAD, and the UN are all tools available to the government to achieve a strategic effect.

I also served in Afghanistan and visited friends in Beechwood who gave their lives there, so don't discount my opinion out of hand is if I just fell off of a turnip truck.

Who knew that stating military personnel should wait to see what the mission is, what the intent of it is, and how it will be conducted and THEN have a professional debate about the merits of the mission would cause such strong emotions.