The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[dimsum]

But what about the fleets of drones you will command, during future wars, from your Argus like position over the battle space? Nothing like slaughtering the unjust while hunting Pokeman and enjoying a nice cuppa.

:rofl:

 

[jollyjacktar]

But what about the fleets of drones you will command, during future wars, from your Argus like position over the battle space? Nothing like slaughtering the unjust while hunting Pokeman and enjoying a nice cuppa.

What?  The Lieberals are bringing back the Argus as a replacement for the Aurora?  ;D

 

[Halifax Tar]

What?  The Lieberals are bringing back the Argus as a replacement for the Aurora?  ;D

Nope we are getting the Tracker and the Avenger hahahaha

 

[McG]

Are pre-conflict OMLTs & MAGs and PSO OMLTs the way of the future?  Some individuals might think so.

Preventative military missions ‘not a bad idea,’ but hard to assess
The challenge is knowing where and when to go and how to convince politicians and the public that a mission is worthwhile, says MacEwan University's Jean-Christophe Boucher.
Denis Calnan
The Hill Times
26 Sep 2016

While it may be difficult to measure and evaluate the successes of a preventative approach to conflict resolution, many defence analysts agree with Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance’s comments that it is the direction the world’s militaries are going in. The challenge will be resources.

Earlier this year Mr. Vance told The Canadian Press that militaries now often have to “stitch together and reweave the social, political, and economic fabric” of countries, rather than have clear wins that come with wars.

Stephen Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, described it as follows: “Prevention’s always less expensive than actually fighting a war. It’s like medicine. It’s far cheaper to prevent something from happening than having to actually deal with the bigger problem once it starts.

“So it’s a very sensible approach. The challenge is always getting politicians and others to commit to these kinds of efforts because its easier to get people to respond to some things that are in the news and prevention is never in the news because it’s acting before things blow up,” he added.

“I think it's pretty wise of Vance to be focused on prevention as something definitely Canada can contribute to.”

Stéfanie von Hlatky, the director of the Centre for International and Defence Policy and a professor at Queen’s University, described it as "expectation management."

“I think [Mr. Vance is] probably also speaking to some of the other commitments that Canada might make, including peace support operations, as part of the UN. And so here, an emphasis on prevention is very important, but also very difficult to achieve if you’re getting involved in a place like Mali,” she said.

Prof. von Hlatky said Canada can contribute to conflict prevention by training and assisting peacekeepers and military observers.

“It can do it quite well,” even though the capacity is limited, she said.

“Increasing the professionalization of foreign forces that could train with Canadian Armed Forces for instance; that to me is a way where Canada can make a real impact in terms of peace support operations without necessarily committing huge forces.”

She said a missing connection between military and foreign policy may hinder Canada’s efforts in conflict prevention.

“At the end of the day, the defence policy is not well connected and complementary to development efforts and foreign policy objectives, then that conflict prevention piece becomes very difficult to achieve,” said Prof. von Hlatky.

“So, I think that part is maybe missing from the current exercises to see how all these different parts fit together,” she said.

“And [that's] how a single country, like Canada, can truly get involved in conflict prevention, because conflict prevention to me, is a very political dynamic; it’s a political effort,” Prof. von Hlatky added.

If Canada does aim to ramp up its efforts in conflict prevention, it will face hurdles in terms of knowing where to go and how to measure its successes.

“Conflict prevention is a difficult one, just like deterrence, because if you deploy and there’s no conflict then you don’t know if the force worked … or if in fact there would not have been any conflict to begin with,” said Elinor Sloan, a professor of international relations at Carleton University.

“So it’s a hard concept to deal with. I guess you would have to look at countries that are at a tipping point or about to boil over. And if that’s the case then you need to have, I would say, a dramatically enhanced oversees intelligence gathering capability,” said Prof. Sloan.

She says that very little conflict prevention is currently happening.

“Conflict prevention is a big part of the responsibility to protect, but right now … I would say most if not all operations are reacting to something that has happened,” she said.

“For instance, we’re thinking of going to Mali. Why? Because there is terrorist activity in the north. So in other words, we’re not deploying to prevent the rise of terrorist activity in the north; we’re deploying because it’s already there and has to be addressed. Same as ISIS, dealing with ISIS,” said Prof. Sloan.

“Ideally, you would prevent conflict, but it’s hard to conceptualize. You just have to have such an increase in intelligence resources and also the manpower to prevent conflicts. It’s hard to imagine when there are so many conflicts already out there that are already hot in fighting and need to be addressed and resolved,” she said.

Conflict prevention is “like a buzzword,” said Jean-Christophe Boucher, an assistant professor in political science at MacEwan University.

“It’s not a bad idea,” he said, but he agrees that the challenge is knowing where and when to go and how to convince politicians and the public that a mission is worthwhile.

“If you’re trying to convince a politician that we should intervene … in a country because something might happen. Then that becomes a really hard sell for the public,” he said.

“It’s a counter-factual problem. So, if you deploy troops and nothing happens, how do you know that it's your intervention that allowed peace to continue. There’s actually no way to know this,” he said.

“I don’t see this as being a realistic policy with clear objectives,” Prof. Boucher added.

 

[jollyjacktar]

All bets are off in Colombia now.  Peace deal receives the thumbs down from voters.

Breaking
Colombians narrowly reject peace deal with FARC rebels
No camp wins 50.23% to 49.76% as votes counted from 99.59% of stations

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/farc-colombia-peace-accord-1.3787962[\quote]

 

[McG]

More advice for the government on how to do a PSO right:

Think carefully before deciding to deploy peacekeepers
J.L. GRANATSTEIN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Oct. 03, 2016 6:00AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Oct. 01, 2016 6:26PM EDT

Some nations, Bangladesh for one, provide troops to United Nations operations for the money the UN pays for each soldier’s services. That cash is a good boost for its scarce foreign exchange reserves. Canada, however, is much different. We don’t need the foreign exchange. Instead, we are offering the UN up to 600 soldiers and 150 police in exchange – we hope – for votes for a term for Canada on the UN Security Council a few years hence.

Trolling for votes with our men and women in uniform as bait is uniquely unseemly for Canada, but what makes this even worse is that we don’t yet know which UN mission(s) we want to support. Canada is preaching for a call somewhere, some day. But as the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, says, this quest is not politically motivated: “I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm’s way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force,” he told a parliamentary committee. There, that’s settled.

So where will the troops go? Somewhere in Africa seems to be the government’s preferred option, with Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan always mentioned. None of these existing operations is a traditional peacekeeping mission where a blue helmet and an unloaded rifle once sufficed. These are wars with mass civilian killings and heavy casualties between opposing forces and “peacekeepers.”

Yes, Canadians can play a useful role in such conflicts, but we need to understand the desiderata before we send our men and women overseas. First, there must be strong support at the UN with the full Security Council on board. Then, the parties that are doing the fighting must accept the UN deployment – if not, we must understand we will be fighting against one (or more) sides in the dispute. Next, Canada must ensure that its contingent is well-trained and well-equipped for the particular mission, something that takes time and money. There must be reliable allies on the UN force, a safe logistical base, and a way into the operation – and a way out if the mission collapses into chaos. And we require a set withdrawal date – no more 30-year commitments such as the UN Cyprus operation that kept as many as a thousand Canadians there from 1964.

In addition, we need to consider carefully some other factors. There may be no value in putting our soldiers into the jungles of the Congo, for example, not least because white troops are unwelcome to the factions at war there. The infrastructure of that huge nation is also underdeveloped, making logistics a challenge. Think very carefully before deciding to deploy, in other words.

Finally, the government needs to consider how to sustain and maintain our troops. We have Special Forces operating in Iraq against Islamic State; we have trainers working in Eastern Europe; and we recently put a frigate into the Black Sea. Canada has also committed to station some 450 soldiers in Latvia as a counter to possible Russian aggression. Each one of these deployments requires logistical support, and when the military adds another 600 soldiers in Africa, the supply and air transport demands will quickly become very large. Add to this that troops need to be rotated every six to 12 months, that new deployments must be trained, and that soldiers cannot do deployment after deployment without a break. The challenge to sustain the Canadian Forces abroad can quickly become unsustainable.

So what should Canada do? Peace operations can be useful, and the government should undertake them if the requirements are met, but only if they are met and the operations are sustainable. To ensure that this is so, Parliament should be asked to vote to support every substantial deployment overseas. Without a parliamentary mandate, there cannot be long-lasting public support, and it is always important for our MPs to accept the burden of responsibility for the lives of Canada’s soldiers. The government is under no obligation to get the House’s support, but it should.

J.L. Granatstein is a Fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/think-carefully-before-deciding-to-deploy-peacekeepers/article32174021/

 

[Journeyman]

Somewhere in Africa seems to be the government’s preferred option, with Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan always mentioned.

If one has faith in crisisgroup.org, crises that noticeably worsened in in September featured: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Mali, Korean Peninsula, Kashmir, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Syria, and Libya. 

Central African Republic gets a special "Conflict Risk Alert" shout out, actually being expected to worsen  in October.

In a surprise move, the assessment for South Sudan has been 'upgraded' from "Deteriorated Situation" to "No Change."  woohoo!

 

[The Bread Guy]

If one has faith in crisisgroup.org, crises that noticeably worsened in in September featured: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Mali, Korean Peninsula, Kashmir, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Azerbaijan, Syria, and Libya. 

Central African Republic gets a special "Conflict Risk Alert" shout out, actually being expected to worsen  in October.

In a surprise move, the assessment for South Sudan has been 'upgraded' from "Deteriorated Situation" to "No Change."  woohoo!

A very good resource - worth tracking.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If only there were a Liberal Party senator with some first hand experience with UN missions in Africa who could tell them that they are crazy.

Oh, wait, what is this?


Rwandan Genocide

On April 6th, 1994, genocide began in Rwanda. It was the greatest slaughter of human beings since the Holocaust. The majority of the 800,000 or so who were killed died of machete wounds. Many would have known their killers. The survivors and the perpetrators continue to live next to one another.I was the commander of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda at the time of the genocide. I promised never to let the memory of the Rwandan genocide die. I felt it was my duty having witnessed it, and having stayed to witness it, that I had to talk about it and keep it going.

http://www.romeodallaire.com/index.php/rwanda-genocide/

 

[Altair]

If only there were a Liberal Party senator with some first hand experience with UN missions in Africa who could tell them that they are crazy.

Oh, wait, what is this?


Rwandan Genocide

On April 6th, 1994, genocide began in Rwanda. It was the greatest slaughter of human beings since the Holocaust. The majority of the 800,000 or so who were killed died of machete wounds. Many would have known their killers. The survivors and the perpetrators continue to live next to one another.I was the commander of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda at the time of the genocide. I promised never to let the memory of the Rwandan genocide die. I felt it was my duty having witnessed it, and having stayed to witness it, that I had to talk about it and keep it going.

http://www.romeodallaire.com/index.php/rwanda-genocide/

Oh look.

Taking about the 90s again like it matters today.

Never gets old.

By all accounts there will be more robust ROEs that will allow the CAF to react to protect lives in scenarios likes that as opposed to the 90s. That said, as I'm sure someone will say, we haven't seen the ROEs yet so that may not be the case.

Which is a 100% correct. We haven't seen the ROEs. So let's stop talking like they will be the same shitty messed up backwards thinking ROEs that UN troops had to deal with in the 90s because nobody has seen them yet and nobody knows(although everyone who has talked about it makes it seem like they will be far more sensible)

OK?  Good.

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't know for certain but the way the UN is run the ROE will be of the kind that basically states you better have a sucking chest would before you shoot back.

Some of us here have seen the results of poor/ineffective ROE thta were drafted by some t#at or committee in New York, none of who have to lay their butts on the line on any mission.

Be careful what you wish for. It may come true. And those that ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Get it?

 

[McG]

I don't know for certain but the way the UN is run the ROE will be of the kind that basically states you better have a sucking chest would before you shoot back.

What of General Vance's promise that Canada, not the UN, will provide the ROE; that he will be he guy holding the hammer to ensure deployed Canadian troops have the ROE that they need?

 

[Ostrozac]

If only there were a Liberal Party senator with some first hand experience with UN missions in Africa who could tell them that they are crazy.

LGen (Ret'd) Dallaire resigned from the Senate in 2014.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What of General Vance's promise that Canada, not the UN, will provide the ROE; that he will be he guy holding the hammer to ensure deployed Canadian troops have the ROE that they need?

What of it?

Gen Vance has a boss, too.

If cabinet (or PMO) decides the ROE are going to look a certain way (hypothetically), then what?

 

[Happy Guy]

There is an implicit thrust that the CDS, who served in combat, will not deliberately send us into situations where the ROEs are not robust enough to protect ourselves. Based on my experience it is not the politicians that you should worry about but their staff who are not held accountable for their actions or inaction.

 

[McG]

If cabinet (or PMO) decides the ROE are going to look a certain way (hypothetically), then what?

I don't believe one personally commits to the extent that he did without being ready to fall on their sword.  Well, some politicians might falsely put themselves on the line, but I don't see our CDS making that sort of personal commitment without being ready to stand to it.  He was talking to the Senate committee, but he knew the troops were listening.

 

[Altair]

I don't know for certain but the way the UN is run the ROE will be of the kind that basically states you better have a sucking chest would before you shoot back.

Some of us here have seen the results of poor/ineffective ROE thta were drafted by some t#at or committee in New York, none of who have to lay their butts on the line on any mission.

Be careful what you wish for. It may come true. And those that ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

Get it?

Learn from the past, don't live in the past.

Again, it makes no sense to be talking about the ROEs because we have not seen them yet. You're assuming they will be the same ones that were in effect in the 90s.  It's not the 90s. Assume. A s s-u-me.

 

[Loachman]

The past is frequently a good indicator of the future.

Those who lived through certain aspects of the past have learned to be cautious, for good and still-valid reasons.

The UN has not changed since then. It is the same corrupt and dysfunctional organization as it was "in the 90s".

The Liberal Party has not changed since then, either.

You have many lessons to learn. I hope that your education is more gentle than that which many of your predecessors had.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why use the past as an indicator?

There are no new UN missions being contemplated at this time (assuming Colombia is dead). So Canada would be joining a current mission, likely in Africa. Look up the ROE's they are operating under right now ... and don't expect them to change just because Canada is back and wants in.

In fact, I suspect that the very reason we are not finding out where the CF will be going and the fulfillment of this (alleged) promise is dragging and dragging is because the MND and MGA have not been able to find a mission out there with ROE's that would satisfy Canada. The politicos in Ottawa won't admit it, so they just waffle and play out for time.

You may have noted that, it was all the big thing when the delegation went to Africa and then, when the PM delivered his address to the General Assembly: But not a word, totally out of the discussions now. Whoosh! Disappeared!

 

[Lightguns]

LGen (Ret'd) Dallaire resigned from the Senate in 2014.

From the moment of his appointment, he was a good party soldier, I doubt he would have veered much from the party line.