The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Bobbyoreo]

I've never ever trained for peacekeeping....dont recall anyone else doing the training either. I've always trained for war.

Sorry if Ive already said the samething as some others.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I apologize I just realized I have seen a peacekeeper ....he was an unarmed UN Observer. My mistake I was thinking too fast for my fingers.

 

[Infanteer]

As for the altruism of peacekeeping:

I'd argue that Peacekeeping tours meet the Realpolitik demands that I mentioned above.  Why do you think Canada contributed 3 battalions to the Balkans at one point (CANBAT 1, CANBAT 2, CANLOGBAT) and yet in terms of real gestures ignored places like Rwanda, the Congo, and Cambodia.  "Peacekeeping" is just an easy "sell" to the Canadian public (for many of the reasons that PBI mentions) because it makes us think we have the moral highground.

"We're refuse to debase politics to a Machiavellian level, we're Canadians and we're better then that.  As such, our military force will be used to Peacekeep."

While it may sound awefully enlightening, I think this is a "feel-good" smokescreen.  Just look at the record of Peacekeeping and Interventions and come to your own conclusions.

- Korea (Ok, before the time of peacekeeping, but along the same mentality of intervention in other peoples conflicts.): Second challenge (After Greece and the Marshall Plan) to the policy of Containment that the US adopted.

- Suez (The original Peacekeeping Mission): Did we really care about who won in the Middle East inferno - or were we concerned because the Soviet Union threatened to turn Paris and London into parking lots over the issue.

- Golan Heights (yep, we're still there too): Did we really care about who won in the Middle East inferno - or were we concerned because the Soviet Union threatened to turn Haifa and Tel Aviv into parking lots if the IDF marched into Damascus and Cairo?

- Cyprus: As I said before, staving off a war between the two allies who made up NATO's "Southern Front".

- The Balkans: As I said before, a stable and secure Europe.

- Somalia: A little more difficult to define, I think this one was executed with in a manner of "chasing" a new outlook on security with the post-Cold War "peace dividend" on the mind.  We got away from the two principles I mentioned earlier; as a result, the mission was an unmitigated disaster (both for Canada and for the US/UN forces in general).

- East Timor: Were we really concerned for the Timorese?  Or were we concerned about the stability of a Muslim state of about 200,000,000 people that was right next door to our Allies in the Southern Pacific, Australia (yes, they have their own interests).

- Afghanistan (Op Athena): That's a no-brainer.

Of course, you're going to find outliers (Ethiopia, Haiti, Somalia as mentioned above) which may not have so obvious of a purpose, but these missions are usually the ones that are launched to satisfy intense public outcry, and these are the missions that are folded up as soon as the media (and the public) loses interest and finds something else to watch.

Peacekeeping, then, is merely an "extention of politics by other means" (Didn't someone say that already?).  As such, the politics of Peacekeeping are informed not so much by idealism and notions of "the value of human life" and "a belief that civilization was worth it" - although elements will exist; look at Llyod Axworthy (and his failure).  Rather, these commitments are determined by self-serving, calculated decisions - and, for the sake of you and me - it's how they should be.

 

[48Highlander]

Umm...look up Ahmed Shah Masood.  That was before 9/11.  Hell, look up the battles of Bishqab, Mazar, Konduz, and Sayed Slim Kalay for post 9/11 examples of a conflict that existed before most Canadians knew where Afghanistan was.

Here is some reading material since you have a tendency to pull history out of your ***.  As well, I suggest you pick up Steve Coll's Ghost Wars to get an idea of what's been going on in Afghanistan in the last half-century.

Alright, wonderful, they had a few problems.  Point is, we didn't go there to settle their problems, and the conflict we're fighting now has little to do with any difficulties they may have had before we invaded.  By the time we got involved, the Taliban had become pretty succesfull at suppressing anyone who didn't agree with them.

"As for the altruism of peacekeeping", I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks it's entirely altruistic.  However, peacekeeping by definition is a NEUTRAL force, acting to prevent violence from re-emerging between two or more factions.  We didn't do that in Korea for one, there we clearly sided with the South.  The Balkans are an example of true peacekeeping - nobody there realy liked us, and we didn't much care for any of them.  We didn't pick sides, we just made sure (or tried to make sure) that they all stayed in their lanes.  We didn't care about helping one faction over another, we just wanted stability in the region.  In that respect, Afghanistan now is more like Korea than it is like the Balkans - we're not trying to make sure that everyone gets along, we're trying to make sure that the government survives and regains control of the country, and that anyone who doesn't like it ends up incarcerated, or 6' under.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Well I'm glad we have that all out of our system.

Lets get back to the focus peacekeeping myth......I don't agree with either of your views on why we are in A stan but we will hold that for another discussion.

I could not find "peacekeeper" in the Oxford, tells me it is not a word anyone got it in their dictionary?  I think that A stan is a perfect example of peacekeeping for lack of a better word. Bosnia did have sides we had a job to help end the war by applied force to ensure a BiH victory without an all out lose by the Serbs or Croats. Bosnia during the war had more ammo going down range then A stan from what I can see so how could Bosnia be a blue neutral peace op and A stan be a conflict more like Korea? As I said don't get caught up with the buzz words "blue" "UN" or "Peacekeeper". We prepare and train for war we go on operations they are either blue, green NATO or other not because they are different from the fighting perspective just the political view. Cant get a UN resolution to go in, do it anyway, and call it something else, point is its all the same for the fighting unit just different flag.

 

[old medic]

US Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Words:

Peacekeeping:

Military operations undertaken with the consent of all major parties to a dispute, designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement (ceasefire, truce, or other such agreement) and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement. See also peace building; peace enforcement; peacemaking; peace operations.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

It's an entry in the Cambridge.


<edit: added the link the cambridge dictionary>

 

[Infanteer]

I don't agree with either of your views on why we are in A stan but we will hold that for another discussion.

By all means, share.  It seems to be part of the discussion (since you imply that Afghanistan is peacekeeping).

I think that A stan is a perfect example of peacekeeping for lack of a better word. Bosnia did have sides we had a job to help end the war by applied force to ensure a BiH victory without an all out lose by the Serbs or Croats. Bosnia during the war had more ammo going down range then A stan from what I can see so how could Bosnia be a blue neutral peace op and A stan be a conflict more like Korea?

"Peacekeeping" status isn't defined by the amount of ammo sent down range.  Operation Enduring Freedom (of which Canada was and is again a part of) is not a peacekeeping operation.  Rather it is deliberate combat operation against Al Qa'ida and Taliban remnants in Southern Afghanistan.  Traditional "peacekeeping" implies neutrality.  We've chosen our side in Afghanistan.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Afghanistan (APOLLO, ATHENA, ARCHER) is not, in my opinion, peacekeeping.  We have a side and a defined (if amorphous) enemy. 

To me, classic peacekeeping involves the consent of all parties (in line with the definition above).  The problem with the 90s was that the western powers (less the US) tried to apply peacekeeping methods, mandates and legitimacies to what should have been warfighting operations.

Peacekeeping could, perhaps, be applied to operations where there is no "side" per se, but various criminal gangs that interfere with legitmate authorities.

As an aside, I would argue that US SF teams and associated airpower were instrumental in the collapse of the conventional Taliban forces.  For a fascinating pre-9/11 look at Afghanistan look up the Spring 2001 edition of Parameters for an article by Ali Jalali. 

Cheers,

2B

 

[Britney Spears]

To me, classic peacekeeping involves the consent of all parties (in line with the definition above).  The problem with the 90s was that the western powers (less the US) tried to apply peacekeeping methods, mandates and legitimacies to what should have been warfighting operations.

Peacekeeping could, perhaps, be applied to operations where there is no "side" per se, but various criminal gangs that interfere with legitmate authorities.

Let me try and refine this a little. Pearsonian peacekeeping, the "buffer between 2 sides" deal, could ONLY work if both sides were organized conventional armies who were more or less evenly matched, a la Suez or Cyprus, because in order to get everyone to agree to a ceasefire and whatnot both sides have to have actual effective, recognizable leaders. If one side has a preponderance of force over the other (Israel/Palestine) then this model also does not apply. What would the Israelis gain by allowing the UN into the occupied territories which they already effectively control?

This model really started to break down in Bosnia, because it was difficult in practice to establish a "ceasefire" between the 3 sides who were often only nominally answered to their respective leaders, and further more there wasn't a clear, definable boundary between the various ethnic groups (well, back then anyway, they've since solved that problem).

This model actually doesn't work at all in the case of a complete absence of order, such as Somalia and Rwanda. Who were the warring sides? Did they have leaders? Were their motives territorial? Trying to establish a "buffer" between 20 gangs of armed teenagers gets you nowhere. This is where the "colonial" strong arm type of peacekeeping needs to start. I think in recent years even the UN is starting to clue in on this. Pakistani UN blue helmets in the Congo earlier this year racked up over 50 confirmed "militia" kills in a <a href=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4310593.stm>major OFFENSIVE op</a> supported by gunships; a little more exiting than the kind of UN operation we were doing in the early 90s, no doubt.  I think this trend is going to continue as people clue in on how to deal with(kill) third world militias

I am a new Canadian and I've never been taught anything in school about peacekeeping or LB Pearson(never been taught a word of French either), so all these are just my own impressions from readings and experience. 

 

[pbi]

I never got confused by the term "Peacekeeping" for it just meant that I was under a UN command it never changed the way I trained my troops or executed my tasks I just wore a different colour beret and was answering to a UN commander. Comments have been made in this thread that make me feel that even soldiers are confused by the term. The example is Kosovo and Bosnia under SFOR well the difference between Bosnia during the war and SFOR or KFOR were the colour of the beret and the commander authority(other than the war). Same tasks same training same soldiers same places same reasons same results. It is also complicated by the 3 block war concepts we always did that just under a different name, hell the boys in WW2 developed it and we just absorbed it through training call it something new and get a paper written and you get a good PER that is all the 3 block war is just reinventing the wheel and calling it something different. Forget all the nice terms and buzz words what the CF does is train for war they go off and do NATO duty or UN duty or Special duty all the same, and they do very well!

I think most people here who have soldiered overseas in the last ten-twenty years would agree with your first few comments: we spent our time training for war, and we believed (at least in the Army, if not in the upper reaches of NDHQ) that what made us effective on these PSOs was our soldierly abilities. I still believe this today; in fact, it is truer than ever.

Where I disagree with you is in your apparent dismissal of the 3BW term. I am sure you know that the term was not invented by Gen Hillier: it comes from a former Comdt of the USMC who coined the term to try to explain to the Corps (and to the US political community at large, which includes the US public) the type of conflict that he thought would be prevalent in the near future, and that the Corps should be ready to handle. It is a "bumper sticker" term: a communications tool to get an idea across quickly. It is a pretty good image, I think (certainly a true one...). I will grant you that the problems represented by 3BW would probably be recognized by a Roman centurion in Palestine or a British Army officer in the Victorian Colonial period. That doesn't take away from its usefulness or its validity: in fact it reinforces both.

I think we might be  missing the point of Gen Hillier's use of the 3BW term, both when he was CLS and now, IMHO he was using it to change the thinking of the Canadian political community as much as the opinions of soldiers. We often complain on these pages that the political community (or political culture, I guess...) in Canada is abysmally ignorant of things military. I believe his emphasis on 3BW was an attempt to change that, in a 21st century "soundbite" way. However, I think there was also a military audience for this term: he was trying to change the Army (and is struggling to change the CF). The first and most important part of change is getting people to think differently. 3BW as an idea, or even as a "buzzword", was IMHO an attempt to do this.

Will this effort work? Or will 3BW just end up in that bottomless rubbish pit of "buzzwords of the moment" that the CF has been filling for years? Maybe it doesn't really matter, as long as we make the changes that are needed, and more importantly the political community in this country continues to demonstrate the support for the CF that (in general) it has in the last few years.

Cheers

 

[3rd Horseman]

pbi,

    You make very good points, my condemnation of buzz words was not to take away from the 3BW concept just that it is old hat with a new name. The way you present it is a logical argument and in that light I agree, just that sometimes it appears that soldiers not the public or politicians start believing the propaganda. Such as my example of "Peacekeeper"

BSpears,

    It was the 90s peacekeeping actions that had the big body counts if you want to count them. Also it had the most combat deaths sadly. 50 enemy KIA is nice but not the first time on a UN mission and it was common place in the 90s. You must be confusing the rather peaceful cold war 80s. I don't think the model is flawed and it didn't break down in Bosnia...leadership broke down. The reality is that Bosnia/Croatia was our first and thus far big shooting war since Korea and the UN ended it their way...too long but eventually IMHO. I cant predict the future but I hope A stan does not get into the same fight. 

    Pearson peacekeeping concept was to place a standing army built of neutral nations under UN flag and await the call to intervene as an aggressor if needed but as a stabilizing force preferred. What ended up as UN missions have been sadly not his original desire and they have been wholly lacking in neutrality.

   

 

[TCBF]

"Pearson peacekeeping concept was to place a standing army built of neutral nations under UN flag and await the call to intervene as an aggressor if needed but as a stabilizing force preferred. What ended up as UN missions have been sadly not his original desire and they have been wholly lacking in neutrality."


- Well, thank God that didn't work.  The last thing we need is for that collection of pimps and gangsters in the UN controlling some sort of global Army.

Tom

 

[TCBF]

"I am a new Canadian and I've never been taught anything in school about peacekeeping or LB Pearson(never been taught a word of French either), so all these are just my own impressions from readings and experience."

- Well, I wish a lot of OLD Canadians would get off their lazy butts and form some intelligent impressions of their own, rather than merely delegating everything but their semi-autonomous nervous system to the DNSC (Democratic Nanny State of Canada).

Tom (in the back row of an old grainy photograph, standing just to the RIGHT of Atilla the Hun).

 

[ArmyRick]

here is my 2 cents (american currency equals .5 cent). This is my opinion so bear with.

Peacekeeping and certain previous governments that loved that image have done the CF more harm than good. Too many of the Canadian public beleive that is all we do and thats all we can do.

Even worse, they do not realize the different UN missions and their mandates. UNPROFOR and UNICYP had different mandates even though both were done wearing the white and blue.

I remember preparing for a UNPROFOR roto that didn't happen (Thank you Dayton Peace accord) for 2 VP in '95. I remember the rather wacky UN ROEs. On the topic of the UN, I beleive CF should never do another mission for the UN. Why? BECAUSE ITS A FLAWED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATION. Too many rogue nations and dictators are allowed a say in security manners.

Also another myth to disect is that too many of our people do not know that a UNMO and armed troops involved in "peacekeeping" do different jobs.

I remember a relative of mind was shocked when she saw that CF UN troops going into Iraq/Iran in '88 or '89. She didn't realize that "Peacekeepers" were armed.

We as members of the CF have a responsibility to educate our friends and relatives on what the CF really does. I have gone a step farther and talked about the three block war.

On another note, I have met a CF personal who are a little naieve about our role as soldiers. I am thinlking of 3 years ago meeting a supply tech cpl (REG F) with close to 20 years in who beleived we should never go to war because as he put it "we are peacekeepers and its what I joined to do." I told him that was complete rubbish and he really didn't belong in the army. Whoa, he took it rather personally.

I once heard a canadian HAST and PER vet (WW2) say "freedom is not free, it has a price. That price is blood". Thecold reality is there are people out there who want to destroy us and our way of life. We must do what is neccessary to protect ourselves and I also beleive, innocent people of the world. Sometimes that means waging a bloody war that cost lives.

Some food for thought for all Canadians.

 

[SeanNewman]

Calling a soldier a "peace keeper" is like calling a Fireman a car accident specialist.

Is the fire fighters primary job to use the jaws of life to open a car door?  No.  If there were a building on fire somwhere, would he be there instead?  Yes.  Does an ambulance or police car have any tools that could save those people?  No, but the fireman can quasi do the task.  Is it his job?  No, but he's got the best skill set and tools that can do the task (if there's no fire).

That is why soldiers get asked to peace keep when there are no wars going on (even though we manned front line combat units in Europe during the cold war).  Our role is to close with and destroy the enemy, but if there is no enemy at the time, we can be used elsewhere.  When politics and local police forces have proven ineffective in resolving a situation, what other large body of structured people are you going to use, that have organic logistical support and controlled firepower?  The military is the only group.

Gen Mackenzie said it very well, and I only remember it to paraphrase it, but basically:  If you take your war fighters and make them peace keep forever, one day the country WILL need them to fight a war, but they'll say "I'm sorry, we don't do that anymore".

We can move trees after ice storms and fill sand bags during a flood, too!

 

[GAP]

On the National at about 20 minutes past the hour the National has Lewis Mackenzie and others pointing out we are not doing peacekeeping anymore. Normal CBC slant, but at least it getting the word out.

 

[geo]

the Peacekeeping term only fits when parties on both side want peace
the moment you have a sit where both sides are beligerent towards each other, it becomes impossible to do "peacekeeping" and keep the peace.... viz.. Yugoslavia meltdown.

Try the peacemaking term to see if it fits.....
Get a legitimate gov't having problems establishing a safe society.  You make peace.... THEN you can keep the peace.

 

[McG]

Try the peacemaking term . . .

For curiosities sake, where did this term come from?  Is there a doctrine that defines it? 

I think it is probably as often missused as "peacekeeping."  Both words seem to be something that is often thrown out there to make the nation feel good about a mission.

 

[geo]

Hmmm... good point... though I have had it served to me at many a presentation... I've felt it fits the bill well enough - most of the time.

 

[midget-boyd91]

The peacemaking term would probably apply best to the balkans during the early 90's.
Afghanistan is more a "three block war" than it is peacemaking.

But we still do a fair amount of peacekeeping, just look at Haiti. We're not there anymore  now but it is inevitable that we will soon be involved with more missions like it.