The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Altair]

I think it's more of a want than a need but yea that might keep you in the running! Hope so.  If you dodge the gender bullet I'll hook you up with some sweet kit.


also..
Just kidding (well not really, it's apparently a thing)

I hope you're kidding and not getting all PC and soft on us here.

 

[Good2Golf]

Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

Let's take a moment to check the UN Peacekeeping Statistics from a reputable source, like...oh, I don't know...let's go out on a limb and consider using the UN Peacekeeping Statistics archive site: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

And let's look at a period from, let's say, 1990 to 2015 and see if the people who fabricated that photo (either 'accidentally' or deceitfully) were even close to any shred of truth in their efforts to demonize Stephen Harper compared to Paul Martin, or Jean Chretien or even Brian Mulroney:

2016 - 'on verra'

2015 - #1 Bangladesh 9398,  #68 Canada 112
2014 - #1 Bangladesh 9400,  #68 Canada 113
2013 - #1 Pakistan 8266,  #61 Canada 115
2012 - #1 Pakistan 8967,  #55 Canada 150
2011 - #1 Bangladesh 10394,  #54 Canada 190
2010 - #1 Pakistan 10652,  #53 Canada 198
2009 - #1 Pakistan 10764,  #56 Canada 170
2008 - #1 Pakistan 11135,  #49 Canada 179
2007 - #1 Pakistan 10610,  #58 Canada 149
2006 - #1 Pakistan 9867,    #69 Canada 132

2005 - #1 Bangladesh 9529,  #32 Canada 387
2004 - #1 Pakistan 8140,  #34 Canada 314

2003 - #1 Pakistan 6248,  #38 Canada 233 (note: now invading Iraq and USA is still #22 at 518)
2002 - #1 Pakistan 4677,  #31 Canada 263 (note: still doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #19 at 631)
2001 - #1 Bangladesh 6010,  #32 Canada 295 (note: even doing the 9/11 thing, USA was #18 at 750)
2000 - #1 Nigeria 3523,  #25 Canada 568 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #14 at 885)
1999 - #1 Poland 1039,  #15 Canada 291 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 619)
1998 - #1 Poland 1053,  #17 Canada 265 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #8 at 681)
1997 - #1 Poland 1084,  #19 Canada 254 (note: 'Big Satan'/USA was #10 at 644)
1996 - #1 WTF?!? USA...really???  ??? Yup...2449,  #11 Canada 956
1995 - #1 Pakistan 8795,  #6 Canada 2585
1994 - #1 Pakistan 9110,  #7 Canada 2811
1993 - #1 France 6370,  #7 Canada 2808

1992 - #1 France 6502,  #3 Canada 3285

1991 - #1 Finland 1006, #2 Canada 971
1990 - #1 Canada 1002 (the last time Canada was ever the #1 contributor)


So...the graphic should actually show "Lyin' Brian" as the last PM to have been the #1 contributor to UN Peacekeeping.  Five years later, 'Ptit gars from Shawinigan had busted Canada double digits down the list as USA soared like an eagle to #1.  For the rest of Chrétien's tenure, Canada was always behind the USA, usually less than half the peacekeepers provided from south of the border.  Paul Martin takes over from Chrétien and starts to work things back up, almost doubling the peacekeepers that Chrétien left behind.  Stephen Harper took over and Canada ramped up capability in AFG and about halved its peacekeepers from Martin's days.

So, to summarize...

- Canada was #1 under Mulroney
- Chrétien let Canada slide from #3 to #38...nicely done, dude from same party as "Peacekeeping Pearson." :slow clap:
- Martin reversed Chrétien's slide and raised Canada from #38 to #32, even as we were ramping up in AFG.
- Harper let peacekeeping slide from #32 to #68 and 275 less peacekeepers than in Martin's last year.

One would hope that Trudeau will be truly more supportive of the UN than his own party's predecessors were...

G2G

 

[Altair]

Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

One would hope that Trudeau will be truly more supportive of the UN than his own party's predecessors were...

G2G

J. Trudeau>Chrétien and Martin?

Ya sure, I'll buy that.

 

[Kirkhill]

G2G:

Just looking at your list.  Are Pakistan and Bangladesh notably peaceful countries?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Are Pakistan and Bangladesh notably peaceful countries?

Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?

 

[Kirkhill]

Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?

If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.

 

[Good2Golf]

Or are they aching for that extra U.N. money?

....this....and...

If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.

...that...

:nod:

G2G

 

[dimsum]

Well, I'll cheerlead for going on a UN mission so I can have some experience to base UN missions on.

You know you can ask for a UN tour, right? 

 

[The Bread Guy]

If I were a tinfoil buying type of guy I might be inclined to entertain the possibility that ISI might find it useful/entertaining to be sent to trouble spots with Muslimn populations on Western nickels.

But that would be just too wild as speculation.

Perish the thought, indeed ...

 

[Altair]

You know you can ask for a UN tour, right?

I will be doing that, thank you.

 

[a_majoor]

Slight refresher for those wishing to update their memory banks during these Sunny Days, as to who actually was (or wasn't) the big supporter of the UN and peacekeeping as it related to Canada's contribution:

G2G

Of course we have all heard the story of lies, damed lies and statistics. The huge spike in numbers in the early 1990s represents UNPROFOR, which although consuming a large amount of resources, accomplished virtually zero. I have some pretty sad memories of my friends returning and telling the story of hastily throwing their Kevlar gear to soldiers getting off the plane while they were double timing it to the plane, because the government of the day had minimal interest in actually providing the sort of kit needed to operate in that environment. This is related to point one, since even if meaningful ROE's would have been established under UNPROFOR, there was little way to actually enforce them. Many people who came back from UNPROFOR were pretty messed up by being forced to stand aside and watch atrocities or discovering the aftermath.

Change over to SFOR, and while the UN numbers abruptly drop, a similar number of soldiers under NATO command are now there doing the job with proper ROE's and a mandate to actively intervene to a much greater extent than UNPROFOR. Historians might note that the escalation of force, including a bombing campaign, finally resulted in the Dayton Accords.

So the moral of the story is it really does not matter how many troops you send on a mission. What matters is there is a clear mandate, a clear plan to carry out that mandate and the tools to do the job.

As a personal observation, since through a series of circumstances I am actually High Readiness and working across two organizations I could be deployed immediately on ROTO 0 or ROTO 1. This means that there is a potential that I will be sent into a dangerous environment and come home in a box. So I want to be able to let my wife and children to know the Memorial cross was for a significant purpose. If I were to deploy to Ukraine, I could possibly be in equal danger (Ukrainian CIMIC teams are high value targets for Russian SPETSNAZ units and Ukrainian separatists), but at least I can explain how working to secure Ukraine against Russian aggression is in Canada's national interest, and the Memorial cross would be well earned. Explaining how deploying to Mali or other African locations supports the National Interest is more problematic ("Because 2016" or "Canada's Back" are non answers designed to close off discussion or debate). Since government spokes people now no longer refer to the potential mission as Peacekeeping, at least some reality is seeping into the thought processes. Lets hope for more of this sort of thinking before we actually get sent anywhere.

 

[Loachman]

The UN had a rough go in the 1990s especially

Indications of UN improvement since then are...

 

[McG]

?

 

[cavalryman]

?

What does the main gun fire?  Stern warnings?  Teddy bears?  Cholera doses?  >

 

[Loachman]

That's a nice picture, but organizationally? Can it really run and support complex missions now?

 

[McG]

That's a nice picture, but organizationally? Can it really run and support complex missions now?

I think we need to be ready to run and support the mission.  That is what we bring to the table as a first world armed forces.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Indications of UN improvement since then are...

INTERFET, which led into UNMISET (East Timor) is an example of an effective UN mission. Australian led, INTERFET was able to secure clear goals under a UN mandate, followed by an effective peacekeeping force. Cyprus, the Golan, and some of the various other UNMO could be considered reasonably successful based on the limited aims of the missions. The track record of NATO and the "coalitions of the willing" aren't that hot either, unless you consider Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan successes

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Eeben Barlow, the prominent South African Mercenary let his feelings concerning the United Nations be known recently, I've pasted the post from his blog below:

SUNDAY, AUGUST 21, 2016

THE DISGRACEFUL UN ‘PEACEKEEPING’ FORCE

I felt I ought not to write something when I am filled with anger, but to say I am absolutely and totally disgusted would be an understatement.

The uncontrolled actions by South Sudanese troops on 11 July 2016, within close proximity of the increasingly useless and ever-incompetent United Nations Peacekeeping Force, resulted in multiple rapes of foreign aid workers, along with a looting spree and murder. One shudders to think how they treated the local population…

After winning a battle in Juba, the South Sudanese troops celebrated their victory with an uncontrolled four-hour rampage through a popular residential compound preferred by foreigners. One aid worker was allegedly raped 15 times…looting and stealing was the order of the day along with the murder of a journalist.

These despicable actions are indicative of an undisciplined rabble posing as soldiers who have no understanding or knowledge of what the mission of the armed forces is.

Not surprisingly, when the UN peacekeeping force stationed approximately a kilometre away were begged for help, they refused to even respond. Several embassies were also called on for help, but they too did not even bother to react.  Perhaps they did not want to infringe on the ‘human rights’ of the out-of-control soldiers?

I consider the lack of action by both embassies and the UN to be a display of spineless cowardice of the highest order, and nothing else. If the UN ‘peacekeepers’ are unable to protect non-participants, then what on earth are they doing in Southern Sudan let alone in Africa?

This is also merely another example of the folly of forcing the balkanisation of a country and then allowing it to implode.  I am sure Pres Bashir—he of now simply ‘Sudan’—is smiling at the incompetence and lack of control that has now become the norm in another state that was set up for failure.

I wish the day will come when African governments realise that the UN’s so-called ‘Peacekeeping Department’ has NO desire to keep peace. Their inability to perform their function has been proven time and again across Africa. Instead, it is a United Nations sanctioned ‘occupying force’ that continually turns a blind eye to atrocities committed against the vulnerable.

Instead of acting as their name implies and assisting the innocent, they cower behind their barricades like spineless creatures and watch rape, looting and murder take place.

Yet, despite a seriously blighted track record littered with failure after failure, the UN still continues to convince African governments that it is needed, and that it is a ‘successful’ organisation. To reinforce this bluff, they are probably going to increase their force levels and of course, their budget. This will imply that governments must ‘pay more for less’—a corrupt business model if ever there was one.

One only has to look at the gross failure ‘peacekeeping’ has become in DRC. If peace was measured by the amount of peacekeepers and the size of the budget, DRC ought to be a very stable and peaceful country. Sadly, that is not the case.

But if our governments wish to turn a blind eye to this grossly disgraceful incompetent organisation of incompetents, then they will have to suffer the consequences. Equally sad is that the ‘world’ watches and says very little to nothing. But watching these atrocities happen and saying nothing is silent complicity in this gross violation of all that is supposedly humanity.

One also has to wonder who trained these scumbags. It is obvious that they are lacking in any type of training befitting a peacekeeping force as they have yet to yield a positive result anywhere in Africa. Where does the UN find its particularly cowardly dirtbags who make up the misnamed ‘peacekeeping’ forces?

In the not too distant past, commanders who watched atrocities being committed and did nothing to stop them or intervene were considered to be complicit in the atrocities. They were charged with war crimes…

Not so the UN.

They will probably claim they were unable to stop the rampage, call for a ‘special UN investigation’, and insist on an increase in ‘peacekeepers’ along with a massive increase in their budget. And when they finally run out of Southern Sudan, they will hail it another great success story.

The so-called UN ‘peacekeepers’ are nothing other than an international disgrace and the perpetrators of these atrocities should, by all rights, face trial for war crimes. 

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html

 

[CBH99]

That's quite the interesting blog, and that fellow sure as heck knows what he is talking about.  Great post, Mr. Bogart - couldn't have been a more relevant read.  *thumbs up*

 

[jollyjacktar]

Eeben Barlow, the prominent South African Mercenary let his feelings concerning the United Nations be known recently, I've pasted the post from his blog below:

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-disgraceful-un-peacekeeping-force.html

From his profile paragraph, couldn't agree more.  We have no business whatsoever sticking our nose into the continent.

I believe that only Africans (Black and White) can truly solve Africa’s problems.