The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Edward Campbell]

One wonders if the "air transport' announced will include armed helos:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

One hopes we do not end up with a hodge-podge of penny-packet missions, with none making a really major contribution but rather simply showing the UN flag for the sake of showing that flag.

And one wishes our media took the government’s hint and stopped reflexively referring to “peacekeeping”:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=dion+sajjan+peacekeeping&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKss6e4N_OAhWL1hQKHScvDxoQ_AUICCgB&biw=1138&bih=523

Prof. Thomas Juneau gets to the heart of the matter:

Mark
Ottawa

My guess, and that's all it is, is that it will be penny packets spread over two or three or even more mission. Police, for sure; staff officers (and the gods all know they we have plenty of those in our bloated HQs), signallers and logisticians and, and, and ... I suspect the UN has already sent a pretty long list of support tasks that only a first world military can do ... our "price" is, probably, command, or s very senior appointment or two, on one hopeless mission or another.

I have a hunch that NDHQ and the PCO might want to avoid sending combat troops for either or both of two reasons:

    1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers; and

    2. There might be a need for combat forces in Eastern Europe if Putin decides that the opportunity is ripe for some low risk adventurism.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I did once, then I hung out with one.  Strange fellow, like the guys who hand out the bullets and rifles in Enemy at Gates; "Man in front gets rifle, man in back gets bullets, when man in front dies, man in back picks up rifle......"

"And remember, this is "sustainable logistics" ..."  >

I have a hunch that NDHQ and the PCO might want to avoid sending combat troops for either or both of two reasons:

    1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers; and

    2. There might be a need for combat forces in Eastern Europe if Putin decides that the opportunity is ripe for some low risk adventurism.

:nod:

 

[medicineman]

Thing is, the term "peacekeeping", like "drone" for RPA/UAV, has become so entrenched in the media that regardless of what the MND or CAF call it instead, the MSM and others will call it by that name.

The only way I could see that changing is if:
a) We don't wear the UN blue berets/helmets, and/or (god forbid)
b) CAF members on that operation come home in body bags

I have to wonder if they'll do what happened in the 90's in Bosnia and Croatia with the casualties we took there and accidentally on purpose ignore that they occurred.

MM

 

[dimsum]

I have to wonder if they'll do what happened in the 90's in Bosnia and Croatia with the casualties we took there and accidentally on purpose ignore that they occurred.

MM

I'd say it'd be a little tougher in this day and age of social media, etc.  Maybe ignored, but it would be broadcast somehow.

 

[medicineman]

I'd say it'd be a little tougher in this day and age of social media, etc.  Maybe ignored, but it would be broadcast somehow.

The cynic in me is not holding my breath...

MM

 

[Eye In The Sky]

With the amount of My Little Pony people in our society and people who write articles like this, I am not even sure a large majority of them would care.  It would be 'peacekeeping', after all, not war-mongering, following the US into WAR FOR OIL!!!! and all that crap that is spewed.  The ding-dongs among us would likely have no time justifying the death of a few Canadian troops for PEACE vice WAR over their macca-frappa-cino in La-La Land.

 

[George Wallace]

Yes.  It is not helpful that people who write articles like this are in positions to influence the less knowledgeable and easily influenced portions of our society.  Their naivete and/or personal agendas are very damaging to the image of the CF and hide the good work that the profession does.  That is the consequence of the CF performing its duties in preserving our freedoms and Democracy.  A definite point that the CF is successful in carrying out those duties, but one that goes totally unnoticed to the vast majority of Canadians who can't be bothered to see it. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Yes.  It is not helpful that people who write articles like this are in positions to influence the less knowledgeable and easily influenced portions of our society.  Their naivete and/or personal agendas are very damaging to the image of the CF and hide the good work that the profession does.

While the immediate "triggering" is likely an issue with some folks, none of these writers I've seen ever raise the possibility of educating refugees that here, the military's not always trying to take power, work just for a single political party or ethnic group, or attack people here in Canada.  But that wouldn't go with the "all things military bad" message track, would it?

 

[George Wallace]

That 'writer' in particular did not factor in the FACT that the refugees he is claiming to be afraid of all things 'aircraft', traveled half way around the world by 'aircraft'.  I have the distinct feeling from reading that article, that his comments are his own, not those of the refugees he claims to be speaking for.  But it is The Star; so can we expect much different?

 

[mariomike]

1. Casualty aversion killing aversion ~ no one want pictures of (mostly white) Canadian soldiers shooting at black Africans, some of whom will, likely be child soldiers;

I imagine BLM would / will? have a field day holding up those pictures in our cities.

Personally, I think a disarmament mission in Columbia would have a much greater return on investment from a diplomatic perspective.

Personally, from the perspective of a civilian  former visitor, 

COLOMBIA, TIERRA QUERIDA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSI_Rmi_IE


Re: "Air show too traumatic for newcomers who escaped war"

Depends on one's point of view, I suppose. Bombing is a solid lesson in the disadvantage of war to enemies, and potential enemies. Friends have nothing to worry about.

Germans and Japanese and Londoners who survived The Blitz, and others from bombed out cities across Europe came to Toronto after the war. They tolerated, perhaps even enjoyed, the CNE Air Show, "Over its six-decade-plus history."

RCAF war graves in French communes are treated as Liberators.

 

[Jarnhamar]

With the amount of My Little Pony people in our society and people who write articles like this, I am not even sure a large majority of them would care.  It would be 'peacekeeping', after all, not war-mongering, following the US into WAR FOR OIL!!!! and all that crap that is spewed.  The ding-dongs among us would likely have no time justifying the death of a few Canadian troops for PEACE vice WAR over their macca-frappa-cino in La-La Land.

I seen that article and laughed. I just thought "of course".  But didn't someone try the same shtick last year or the year before about airshows or the snowbirds or something?  Maybe that bad boy article will propel him into his full PolySci PhD glory.

That 'writer' in particular did not factor in the FACT that the refugees he is claiming to be afraid of all things 'aircraft', traveled half way around the world by 'aircraft'.  I have the distinct feeling from reading that article, that his comments are his own, not those of the refugees he claims to be speaking for.  But it is The Star; so can we expect much different?

Maybe we should give them pensions for the PTSD we surely gave them by flying them here.

 

[McG]

Lew MacKenzie, a guy who has been there and done that, seems to have a fairly confident view that the CAF will get the ROE it needs to execute this mission and protect our service personnel.

Retired General: Canada must play 'hardball' with UN on peace mission
CTV News
26 Aug 2016

Retired Maj.-Gen Lewis MacKenzie says Canada must play “hardball” with the United Nations, in order to keep Canadian troops safe during the peace operations announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday.

In an interview with CTV’s Mercedes Stephenson, MacKenzie said that when Canada participated in peacekeeping during the Cold War, the UN put dangerous restrictions on the amount of equipment, weapons and ammunition that Canada could bring.

“We will not adhere to those restrictions anymore,” he said. “If we are going to somewhere dangerous … we will insist that we take the proper equipment, have the proper rules and mandate and it won’t be developed by the United Nations, it will be developed by us,” he advised.

MacKenzie said he’s “confident that the current leadership, the (defence) minister knows exactly what is required – he’s stated over and over that we will be properly equipped and properly mandated … that we will go properly prepared.”

However, MacKenzie doesn’t believe Canadians realize how dangerous so-called “peace operations” can be.

“In the Democratic Republic of Congo there are at least 11 factions fighting and at least some foreign armies fighting so you don’t even know who to deal with,” he said, referring to the African nation where the UN has authorized deployment of nearly 20,000 troops. “All you know is civilians are being threatened and you’re going to go in and help protect.”

In Mali, 105 UN peacekeepers have been killed since the mission began in April 2013.

Countries where Canada might contribute troops include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Colombia, according to the retired general.

He called it brilliant “from a strategic media point of view” that the Liberals did not say Friday where Canadian troops will be deployed.

“Because if they had have mentioned during the briefing where our troops were going… immediately the conversation and folks like you would focus in on that location and the problems and challenges.”

Canada will send up to 600 troops for UN peace operations and spend $450 million over three years on peace and stability programs, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday, alongside Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion and International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau.

"We will now have important decisions to take around where and how those Canadian forces and resources are deployed," Trudeau said. "That will be in conversation and concert with the United Nations, but also with friends and allies around the world as we look at how Canada can best help and contribute."

The announcement comes weeks before Trudeau will address the UN General Assembly.

Canada is currently seeking a UN Security Council seat – which the Conservatives say is the real reason for Friday’s annoucment.

Asked about a link between peacekeeping and the seat, Dion said "the only link is that Canada is back.”

“We need to be in peace operations, as difficult as this may be,” Dion added. “We need to be back in the United Nations."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/retired-general-canada-must-play-hardball-with-un-on-peace-mission-1.3046734

 

[Altair]

Lew MacKenzie, a guy who has been there and done that, seems to have a fairly confident view that the CAF will get the ROE it needs to execute this mission and protect our service personnel.http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/retired-general-canada-must-play-hardball-with-un-on-peace-mission-1.3046734

All signs so far point towards far more sensible ROEs.

 

[a_majoor]

“We need to be in peace operations, as difficult as this may be,” Dion added. “We need to be back in the United Nations."

And the one question the media refuses to ask is "why?"

Why do we as Canadians need validation from third world kleptocrats and thugs?

What vital interests dies this serve for Canada and Canadians?

In what way is the Un an effective organization for carrying out Canada's Grand Strategy or supporting the National Interest?

Given how the UN squandered its mortal authority from the 1990's on with failed "peace making" and "peace support" missions, turning a blind eye to genocide and corruption and sexual abuse in the actual forces (never mind the catalogue of failure of conventional Peacekeeping missions), I cannot imagine what Dion is actually thinking. Should a real journalist actually ask any of the questions above, I would want time to get popcorn to see how Dion (or anyone else) would actually answer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Thucydides] Should a real journalist actually ask any of the questions above, I would want time to get popcorn to see how Dion (or anyone else) would actually answer.
[/quote]

Easy.  Canada's back  ;D

 

[Jarnhamar]

All signs so far point towards far more sensible ROEs.

Like first asking someone committing an atrocity what pronoun they want to be addressed by,  the offer them rehabilitation 

Mostly kidding,  I think you're right about the ROEs.  Liberals know how to manipulate the media,  they're too smart to risk backlash over shitty ROEs that put soldiers lives at risk.  Also since I presume there's going to be lots of photoshoots in Africa.

 

[PuckChaser]

Mostly kidding,  I think you're right about the ROEs.  Liberals know how to manipulate the media,  they're too smart to risk backlash over shitty ROEs that put soldiers lives at risk.  Also since I presume there's going to be lots of photoshoots in Africa.

Easy to avoid the ROE question if you deploy forces like non-combat aircraft, officers, and police officer advisors that will highly likely never need to use those ROE. Win win. next to zero risk, publicly palatable ROE.

That whole like about "leadership over deployed troops" says HQ deployment for CJOC staff officers.

 

[Kirkhill]

“We need to be back in the United Nations." 

Or

“We need to be back in the United Nations."

Are we back in the United Nations to see and be seen or are we backing the United Nations because we believe in the institution?

If we believe in the United Nations as an institution what do we hope it will accomplish and how do we expect to materially contribute to that effort?  Adding some soldiery may be part of the effort but surely it can't be the only, or even the main effort?

I am willing to hear arguments that will clarify how the United Nations will make this a better world but a bit of detail would be useful.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.

 

[Altair]

Iraq and Afghanistan don't scream to me as success stories when it comes to training locals over the 10 years the west was working with them.

20'000 UN troops already in Africa Peace keeping, a UN soldier being killed in Mali about every week and a half since 2013, it's hard to see this mission being anything other than quid pro quo for a seat with the UN in order to support our "We're Peacekeepers!" image.

So we ignore that it was a election promise and that a large amount of Canadians support peacekeeping? ( as uninformed as they may be)