The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[TangoTwoBravo]

So we are deploying to the nearest Canadian University? 

How do you stop a violent act without being violent yourself?  I don't know what your plan is to stop rape but that's a pretty tall order. 

Kind of reminds me of a certain President who declared war on "terrorism".

I don't have a plan to stop rape in Canada, and I am not sure what that has to do with the topic or my post. My point about rape and other forms of gender-based violence was to add it to the list of things that must be done that another poster had made. A peacekeeping force has the job of restoring some sense of order. Part of that is preventing rape, especially in vulnerable populations impacted by the conflict that brought the peacekeepers there in the first place. Having women in the peacekeeping force can help protect those vulnerable populations.

Who said anything about not being violent?

I recently spent a year as a UN peacekeeper. While I was unarmed there were close to 10,000 armed peacekeepers in the AO. UN peacekeeping has changed a lot since the early 90s. Its certainly not the perfect tool for every situation, but it is more capable than many give it credit.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Having women in the peacekeeping force can help protect those vulnerable populations.

Mind explaining how? 

And...it's not only women and girls that are vulnerable.  Young/teenage boys are also vulnerable in some cases/places.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Mind explaining how? 

And...it's not only women and girls that are vulnerable.  Young/teenage boys are also vulnerable in some cases/places.

Women and girls in those vulnerable populations tend to be more open and trusting with women peacekeepers. This can facilitate the flow of information and help create security. As for your second point - we are not talking about an entire force made up of only women.

If your force interacts with the population on the ground then it can be very useful to have a mixed-gender force.

 

[YZT580]

The issues of rape and gender violence are valid concerns but they are not the primary issue.  A peace keeping force is there to keep two warring factions apart so that the poor bastards that are caught in the middle can go about trying to feed themselves and their families, provide shelter and all other fundamentals that we take for granted.  Once that is accomplished (and there will be deaths to explain to bereaved families back home) it is the task of teachers, doctors and civilian leadership including judges to provide the social stability to keep it that way.  That is not the job of the chap in the blue helmet.  He is only there to make it possible.  And I use the word only without taking away at all from the immensity of his task.  But a soldier's primary job is to be prepared to and when necessary to kill the other fellow with a gun, not hand out Hershey Bars.  Again that is not to take away from the brilliant negotiations carried out in Afghanistan on numerous occasions.  Once the shooting stops the troops should simply maintain the status quo until a domestic force, properly trained can assume their responsibilities: at which point their task is finished. 

The training of such a force should be totally separate from the peace-making mission until late in the training period and should be conducted by a second group of experts who are acquainted with local customs and traditions.  As for Trudeau's desire for gender equality, that is for when the place has been stabilised and honest judges and courts are firmly entrenched because those changes only come as a result of respect for western customs and law.  Although many may disagree, it is only in what was once classified as Judaeo-Christian cultures have women been given the opportunity to achieve parity: not Islam, not Hindu and not the scores of animistic cultures in the continent of Africa.  But I digress.

If Trudeau is sincere, which I doubt, he has to be prepared to write letters of appreciation and condolences to the bereaved and he has to face up to the truth that true change can only happen when there is civil order and peace.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Are you aware of the UN concept of integrated missions? The military component has a part to play beyond standing between two sides, although there are certainly tasks that are much more suited to the civilian component. Sometimes there are not simply two sides, and providing security is not just manning two sides of a line drawn on a map.

 

[McG]

You understand that modern peacekeeping must be more than just a military component, right?  There will be a political component and there will be other civilian components.  Great big international summits are going to look at both the military and civilian aspects.  So, I don’t see how declaring something as not a soldier’s job is a valid dismissal of that something from the topic of peacekeeping.  Even when we were still fighting in Afghanistan, gender issues were on NATO’s and Canada’s agendas.

Forget the civilian/political aspects of a peacekeeping operation and you just have a mission that will never end.

 

[MilEME09]

You understand that modern peacekeeping must be more than just a military component, right?  There will be a political component and there will be other civilian components.  Great big international summits are going to look at both the military and civilian aspects.  So, I don’t see how declaring something as not a soldier’s job is a valid dismissal of that something from the topic of peacekeeping.  Even when we were still fighting in Afghanistan, gender issues were on NATO’s and Canada’s agendas.

Forget the civilian/political aspects of a peacekeeping operation and you just have a mission that will never end.

The three block war model strikes.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Women and girls in those vulnerable populations tend to be more open and trusting with women peacekeepers. This can facilitate the flow of information and help create security. As for your second point - we are not talking about an entire force made up of only women.

If your force interacts with the population on the ground then it can be very useful to have a mixed-gender force.

Thanks...and yes, I guess that answer should have been a little more obvious to me.  I think I've been looking at the 'gender' part Canada hopes to include at the talks from the wrong perspective.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Forget the civilian/political aspects of a peacekeeping operation and you just have a mission that will never end.

Or even attempts to resolve the civilian/political aspects, which fail.  http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unficyp/background.shtml

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You understand that modern peacekeeping must be more than just a military component, right?  There will be a political component and there will be other civilian components.  Great big international summits are going to look at both the military and civilian aspects.  So, I don’t see how declaring something as not a soldier’s job is a valid dismissal of that something from the topic of peacekeeping.  Even when we were still fighting in Afghanistan, gender issues were on NATO’s and Canada’s agendas.

Forget the civilian/political aspects of a peacekeeping operation and you just have a mission that will never end.

I think almost everyone here understands this, the real question is does any of this actually work? Or does it simply brief well off a Powerpoint deck? 

 

[YZT580]

I concur which is why there is a paragraph two in my reply.  I personally observed the military aspects of the mission in both Mali and Haiti and realised that it puts too much on the soldiers' back.  Consider Hadrian's wall.  It was constructed to keep the Scots out of England and was guarded 24/7 by Legionnaires.  This allowed the administrators to establish Roman civilisation in England.  Likewise peacekeeping today is needed to establish a similar bulwark.  People are afraid of the man with the weapon and are intimidated by his presence (male or female).  Overcoming that fear is a huge problem and requires the needless expenditure of resources.  It is far more effective to have the well-driller, the agricultural expert and the builder able to work unconstrained.  The desired result is nation-building.  The history of UN peacekeeping is a self-perpetuating morass in almost every country it has been tried so the current philosophy would appear to be the wrong one.  Perhaps the Romans had it right.

Summarising:  separate peace keeping from nation building and treat them as individual tasks.

 

[Remius]

  Consider Hadrian's wall.  It was constructed to keep the Scots out of England

Not entirely accurate.  It's a common misconception actually that that is what it was for.

I also question if peacekeeping is needed to create a similar bulwark as you stated.  In fact the comparison is way off.  Hadrian's wall is more comparable to what Donald trump wants to do with the Mexican border.  Or Israel with the Palestinians. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Wasn't it more of a "make work" project to keep the troops from getting bored and into trouble, with the added benefit it might help keep the Picts at bay to some degree?

 

[Remius]

Wasn't it more of a "make work" project to keep the troops from getting bored and into trouble, with the added benefit it might help keep the Picts at bay to some degree?

We're derailing a bit (my fault).  There are a variety of theories as to why it was built.  It was more of a political statement and projection of power (Romans liked to build things to impress).  It served more to control the flow of people and goods that to defend against any perceived threat.  Like a souped up border services/customs point than anything else. The cost to benefit analysis questions the need for it in the first place. 

 

[a_majoor]

I concur which is why there is a paragraph two in my reply.  I personally observed the military aspects of the mission in both Mali and Haiti and realised that it puts too much on the soldiers' back.  Consider Hadrian's wall.  It was constructed to keep the Scots out of England and was guarded 24/7 by Legionnaires.  This allowed the administrators to establish Roman civilisation in England.  Likewise peacekeeping today is needed to establish a similar bulwark.  People are afraid of the man with the weapon and are intimidated by his presence (male or female).  Overcoming that fear is a huge problem and requires the needless expenditure of resources.  It is far more effective to have the well-driller, the agricultural expert and the builder able to work unconstrained.  The desired result is nation-building.  The history of UN peacekeeping is a self-perpetuating morass in almost every country it has been tried so the current philosophy would appear to be the wrong one.  Perhaps the Romans had it right.

Summarising:  separate peace keeping from nation building and treat them as individual tasks.

Looking at this discussion thread, it seems we are not talking about "Peacekeeping" at all. What is being described is an evolved form of the tache d’huile counter insurgency strategy first used in Indochina prior to 1895 by Joseph-Simon Gallieni. It has been reinvented numerous times (the British strategy in Malaysia, to the USMC's "Civic Action Plan" to "Seize, build, hold" today). The real difference is the counterinsurgency fighter is usually not there at the invitation of the Host nation (and thus has less legitimacy or ability to access HN resources), but otherwise the name of the game is stopping the conflict so people can get back to their normal lives.

The political aspect is one thing where traditional UN Peacekeeping fails. Cyprus has been divided since 1974 with no end in sight, the situation in former Yugoslavia was a complete cluster under UNPROFOR and it took the armed might of NATO intervening to force the cobatitents to stop fighting (IFOR). And we can look at the example of Rwanda as well. Not to say NATO or other military organizations necessarily "get it" better, but with less "International" politicking the mission mandate should be clearer, and the ROE's robust enough to deal with armed violence by any part of the population.

UN "Blue beret" peacekeeping is as dead as Monty Python's parrot, and it is well past time for the public to be actively engaged in the new realities so they are not being fed fairy stories before being asked to decide to expend Canada's blood and treasure.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not entirely accurate.  It's a common misconception actually that that is what it was for.

I also question if peacekeeping is needed to create a similar bulwark as you stated.  In fact the comparison is way off.  Hadrian's wall is more comparable to what Donald trump wants to do with the Mexican border.  Or Israel with the Palestinians.

Just reading a book about the 6-day war and it's interesting how the IDF balked at building any walls or fences on the pre-67 borders and preferred to respond offensively to border attacks and incursions.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Just reading a book about the 6-day war and it's interesting how the IDF balked at building any walls or fences on the pre-67 borders and preferred to respond offensively to border attacks and incursions.

That's because Israel subscribes to the Apartheid South African way of warfare that the best defence is a strong offence.  South Africa supported the Portuguese in Angola and the Ian Smith government in Rhodesia. They also conducted their own offensive operations in Namibia, Angola and Rhodesia for close to 30 years.  The idea?  Long term delaying action at the strategic level until such time as a reasonable political solution could be found.  Israel practices a similar strategy with the one advantage being they have far more support from external actors.

Peacekeeping served a useful purpose when the world was a bipolar one, not so useful anymore in an increasingly multipolar one.

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's because Israel subscribes to the Apartheid South African way of warfare that the best defence is a strong offence.  South Africa supported the Portuguese in Angola and the Ian Smith government in Rhodesia. They also conducted their own offensive operations in Namibia, Angola and Rhodesia for close to 30 years.  The idea?  Long term delaying action at the strategic level until such time as a reasonable political solution can be found.  Israel practices a similar strategy with the one advantage being they have far more support from external actors.

Peacekeeping served a useful purpose when the world was a bipolar one, not so useful anymore in an increasingly multipolar one.

In Israel, building a permanent border wall means that you're probably satisfied with what you've already got.

Which they aren't.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

In Israel, building a permanent border wall means that you're probably satisfied with what you've already got.

Which they aren't.

They should take a page from Leichtenstein 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Walls are very rare. The biggest and best were attempts at a Strategic Defence Initiative to make the "homeland" secure, for a while at least ...

... they all failed, eventually.

The Israeli wall ...

... seems to be to be totally tactical: a temporary internal security/counter terrorism measure. It's aim is also to keep the "homeland" more secure, to, as Humphrey Bogart says, stabilize the situation until an acceptable strategic solution materializes.

In short, walls don't work ... but facts on the ground might.