• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S.: Helloooooo Cdn Peacekeeping Force? Where Are You?

lenaitch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,045
Points
1,040
Too many citizens have a nostalgic view of Pearsonian peacekeeping; a blue beret force between two belligerent states who at least begrudgingly agree to the presence. Where does that exist now? Peacemaking is messier and the government isn't up for it.

Not only is the government, and possibly military leadership, bad at communications, they actively suppress it. How much coverage was given to Bosnia when things got messy?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
Peacekeeping or Peacemaking in Africa is always loose loose.
Blackside SOF missions work fine as long as they stay black, but any overt force by a Western Nation - even for the best of intentions goes sideways quickly.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,421
Points
1,190
Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.

Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help.

Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere) and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.

Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help.
Yup
Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere) and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.
Result --> a well trained criminal element involved in the conflict...

Targeted Killings are needed as well on leaders of criminal enterprises and brutal warlords.
Make it so if you run child soldiers, you disappear in the night.

Then in combination with selective removals - you can train forces that won't be just better thugs
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,391
Points
1,160
Peacekeeping or Peacemaking in Africa is always loose loose.
Blackside SOF missions work fine as long as they stay black, but any overt force by a Western Nation - even for the best of intentions goes sideways quickly.

"Out of Africa always something new."

Scipio Africanus
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,891
Points
1,260
We can do even better than sending troops and instead send trainer's who will teach developing nations how to reimagine thenselves into a more inclusive force. We can also inpart why women in the military are so important and use our treatment of women as the gold standard.
Bingo.

But then some will complain that "women are getting deployments because they're women."

The Reddit thread on Mali devolved pretty quickly into a bunch of folks getting pissed off that they weren't getting deployments, but women did (because the UN mandated X% of the force to be women).
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,836
Points
1,110
Africa needs to fix Africa. there I said it.

Rwanda, DRC, South Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Ethopia and Eritrea... We've seen our "Presence" there, but its not well received by any stretch of the imagination. Its Neo-Colonial in the eyes of the people we're trying to help.

Want to see our contributions actually take effect? Set up a CTAT in Kenya (or somewhere) and train African Union or UN folks from that neck of the woods into being more than just another criminal element involved in the conflict.
Stay. Out. Of. Africa.

Period. Let them sort themselves out.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,035
Points
1,090
Regardless of whatever UN mission they may potentially end up on, I personally don’t think it’s worth the hassle in the end.

The UN needs to streamline it’s operations, and have an end goal in mind. It can’t just drag itself along, while wrapping more and more layers of tape around itself. (The hoops our crews had to jump through in Mali is a good example.)


I agree with the posters who suggested using those 200 members as trainers, since that seems to be our thing right now anyway. With Iraq and Ukraine well underway with several roto’s each this far, a small 200 person mission doing something similar wouldn’t be hard to do.


It could help with retaining personnel, it’s another overseas adventure for people to go on, had huge PR potential, etc - if done correctly.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,392
Points
1,110
Regardless of whatever UN mission they may potentially end up on, I personally don’t think it’s worth the hassle in the end.

The UN needs to streamline it’s operations, and have an end goal in mind. It can’t just drag itself along, while wrapping more and more layers of tape around itself. (The hoops our crews had to jump through in Mali is a good example.)


I agree with the posters who suggested using those 200 members as trainers, since that seems to be our thing right now anyway. With Iraq and Ukraine well underway with several roto’s each this far, a small 200 person mission doing something similar wouldn’t be hard to do.


It could help with retaining personnel, it’s another overseas adventure for people to go on, had huge PR potential, etc - if done correctly.
Food for thought- missions that are primarily training are disproportionately heavy in their demand on NCOs that don’t suck. I’m out now, but the impression I get is that the field force is already thin on leadership, and there’s a significant training deficit to make up for post-pandemic. Caution is called for, lest too many training missions exacerbate the vicious deployments/schools cycle that pulls people away from family constantly and burns them out to the point of releasing.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,391
Points
1,160
Food for thought- missions that are primarily training are disproportionately heavy in their demand on NCOs that don’t suck. I’m out now, but the impression I get is that the field force is already thin on leadership, and there’s a significant training deficit to make up for post-pandemic. Caution is called for, lest too many training missions exacerbate the vicious deployments/schools cycle that pulls people away from family constantly and burns them out to the point of releasing.

Part of the issue might be that we are trying to train third world troops to first world standards.

Perfect might indeed be the enemy of good enough.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,398
Points
1,040
Part of the issue might be that we are trying to train third world troops to first world standards.

Perfect might indeed be the enemy of good enough.
I think that's the key point. Standards should vary depending on the audience. The Americans were having more success training the Afghan militias when the SF were initially doing foreign internal defence training then TF Phoenix had afterwards when they were trying to turn illiterate boys from small villages into a national army. I think the SF knew their audience and what they were capable of.

I'm not sure if I came across this article through a link from this website or in my own wanderings but I think it is particulalry apt in this debate and what our role in the future should be:


🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
I think that's the key point. Standards should vary depending on the audience. The Americans were having more success training the Afghan militias when the SF were initially doing foreign internal defence training then TF Phoenix had afterwards when they were trying to turn illiterate boys from small villages into a national army. I think the SF knew their audience and what they were capable of.

I'm not sure if I came across this article through a link from this website or in my own wanderings but I think it is particulalry apt in this debate and what our role in the future should be:



🍻
I think that in some ways conventional forces can do a decent job at teaching indigenous forces.
The main issue that always come up - is that it can start well - but always seems to get mission creep - when it branches out from training small unit work - that the Army wants to make them a larger cohesive western force - despite the logic of that being foolish.

My theory is if you want to build an effective force you leave it to SOF -- if you want to make a force that your Army can come back and smash - then let the Army train them ;)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,391
Points
1,160
I think that in some ways conventional forces can do a decent job at teaching indigenous forces.
The main issue that always come up - is that it can start well - but always seems to get mission creep - when it branches out from training small unit work - that the Army wants to make them a larger cohesive western force - despite the logic of that being foolish.

My theory is if you want to build an effective force you leave it to SOF -- if you want to make a force that your Army can come back and smash - then let the Army train them ;)

Didn't SOF help 'build the Taliban' back in the days of Soviet occupation?
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
832
Points
1,060
We can do even better than sending troops and instead send trainer's who will teach developing nations how to reimagine thenselves into a more inclusive force. We can also inpart why women in the military are so important and use our treatment of women as the gold standard.
sheldon.jpg

The new MND may have some input on that.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,626
Points
1,140
Didn't SOF help 'build the Taliban' back in the days of Soviet occupation?
Not SOF, Intelligence Agencies. CIA, IS, et al made a few grievous errors that came back to bite us in the ass.

There was some SOF assisting SAD GB folks - but by and large "our guys" where not the problem, as it was predominately the Norther Alliance that was assisted by the West, and it was in the South the Pakistani ISI that created the Taliban - but we did fund and give stuff to the ISI.


While sometimes they guys you want to fight an enemy, aren't folks you want around when the enemy is gone, the biggest issue was that the West did an about face when the Russians left - and the ISI didn't.
 
Top