After Afghanistan - What Will Canada Do With Its Army?

[SeanNewman]

There are already a couple threads about this  ;D

Anyway, yet again more blue beret UN fantasies, just like those great success stories such as Rwanda.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Matthew Fisher is well connected in Ottawa, including in 101 Colonel By Drive, so I would not discount his story about new ambitions in Congo. It actually makes good army sense - if the inter-service politics haven't changed since I retired many, many years ago.

I agree that this should be merged with the "After Afghanistan ~" thread.


Edit: typo

 

[captloadie]

Logistically speaking, Lines of Communication for the Congo would be at least as difficult, if not more difficult than Afghanistan. Someone should speak with the French to find out how difficult it is to operate out of there. Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.

However, if money is no object . . ..  :

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Grey,

Your first three lines are exactly the core what I am saying.  The "bad guys will start something else" was just a quip, not a policy.  The point that I was trying to make is that typically other people have a say in a country's foreign policy decisions and rarely do you know it's going to happen.

Having said that, a foreign policy strategy should clearly identify one's interests, develop the relationship between ends, ways, and means, and then establish foreign policy priorities.  Canada's current stated priorities are trade, US relations, and Afghanistan.  Aid is tied to these priorities, with 20 countries receiving 80% of available funds.

This is too narrow a focus, is overly NATO-centric, and cedes our voice at a number of important fora.  Doing the heavy lifting in a NATO mission doesn't buy you a seat at the UN Security Council......

 

[SeanNewman]

I agree with that, too.

Just because "bad guys" (tm) have often started something in the past by no means that one shouldn't have a policy to do something in case nothing happens.

Still, I would rather see a policy consisting of staying at a high state of readiness in case something bad happens than a policy of expecting that the bad stuff is over and now we can hand in our guns at the armoury.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Logistically speaking, Lines of Communication for the Congo would be at least as difficult, if not more difficult than Afghanistan. Someone should speak with the French to find out how difficult it is to operate out of there. Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.

However, if money is no object . . ..  :

My wife works for a UN contractor on the MONUC mission (Based in Kinshasa, often deployed to other locations in and out of DRC) and we are able to talk every day for less than I pay for long distances between Canadian cities. 

 

[SeanNewman]

... Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.

I did my PsyOps course with a guy who had just returned from a year-long UNMO stint there.  He lived a couple hundred metres from the Ebola River. 

I'll take IEDs and bullets before the kinds of things in Africa that can kill me, thanks.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

My wife works for a UN contractor on the MONUC mission (Based in Kinshasa, often deployed to other locations in and out of DRC) and we are able to talk every day for less than I pay for long distances between Canadian cities.

Max,

"Lines of communications" has very little to do with phone calls - and the ability to make personal calls has even less to do with military communications.

Try this link:

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/ael/index.aspx

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Still, I would rather see a policy consisting of staying at a high state of readiness in case something bad happens than a policy of expecting that the bad stuff is over and now we can hand in our guns at the armoury.

Ah - the "keep your powder dry" approach to foreign policy.  This cedes the initiative to both events and the enemy - and is neither an effective national security policy nor a efficient strategic approach.  It is however a very useful military strategic / operational posture.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As I have said, in other threads, I think guess that Africa, somewhere in Africa, is our, Canada's, next stop. I suspect it will be less of a well thought out policy choice than it will be one of those opportunities that arrive when a crisis attracts public attention - UN and Congo have 'cheering sections' in Ottawa, including in the media - and provides some perceived immediate, partisan political advantage to the government of the day.

I am not as sure that we have any vital interests at all in Congo, or anywhere else in Africa for that matter. I am sure that Congo will be worse, in every aspect, than Afghanistan and that the media and the public will, quickly, turn against almost anything useful that might get done there because the costs in Canadian treasure, lives and, above all, in Canadian mythology will be too high.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I am not as sure that we have any vital interests at all in Congo, or anywhere else in Africa for that matter.

Vital interests are surprisingly easy to serve in a  country like Canada - especially if the government has failed to clearly articulate any interests at all.  However, if one accepts that the key vital interests are security, prosperity, and "values" which is, I seem to remember, in line with the last (2004) National security Policy, then I could make a weak case for the prosperity interest and a stronger case for the "values" interest.

If we move from vital to important interests, then it would appear that one could make the case for expanded engagement in Africa - and moreover, within the rubric of the UN.  And if you look at it through a lens of realpolitik, then if commitment to MONUC is a quid pro quo for a seat on the UNSC, then it would definitely be in our interest to do so.

 

[captloadie]

I can remember several weeks ago, in the media, and here, the big discussion was that Haiti would be our next AOO. How quickly that poor little country is forgotten. Why aren't we pushing to go there? Conditions are similar to Africa, but as a bonus we might actually get something accomplished, in our own backyard. Shorter LOCs, a language we can operate in (sort of), and an opportunity to do a real joint operation among the services.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.

Bil.  Osama's tattle tale little brother  ;D

I can remember several weeks ago, in the media, and here, the big discussion was that Haiti would be our next AOO. How quickly that poor little country is forgotten. Why aren't we pushing to go there? Conditions are similar to Africa, but as a bonus we might actually get something accomplished, in our own backyard. Shorter LOCs, a language we can operate in (sort of), and an opportunity to do a real joint operation among the services.

Umm, did you miss the whole Canada-in-Haiti thing before the earthquake hit?

As Africa goes, while I was at the PRT one of the USAID guys was saying that China is spending billions of "aid and development" dollars in that continent.  And clearly, that is out of the goodness of their big, red hearts  :  So since it appears that "Why Plan When We Can React" is the order of the day (and has been for quite some time) why not pursue a foreign policy that mitigates negative foreign powers/influence?  Or are we already too in bed with China and have to worry about stepping on their toes wherever they have chosen to operate? 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Vital interests are surprisingly easy to serve in a  country like Canada - especially if the government has failed to clearly articulate any interests at all ... [then] if commitment to MONUC is a quid pro quo for a seat on the UNSC, then it would definitely be in our interest to do so.

First prize for a realistic appraisal of our interests. (Or is that opportunities?)

 

[Old Sweat]

Is it really in our national interest to tie down a considerable amount of our modest military capability in a part of the world that makes your usual failed state look utopian? While command of the UN force in itself may not call up a large national contingent, I would not rule it out if our foreign service cabal decides it would be useful to go in pursuit of a seat on the Security Council. Has anyone ever asked what in fact does a seat on the august body really do for us, except make people like Bob Fowler feel good?

Bottom line - is the diplomatic prestige (and not necessarily a status that may not be in the national interest) of a seat on the security council worth the life of a Canadian soldier?

 

[observor 69]

Which raises the question, what would we do with a nice little military, post Afghanistan?
Say we had the military scaled up to what most of us would consider appropriate sized and equipped now what ?
Jets for continental defence, C-17's to do what?,  better equipped SAR yes, a navy to patrol our borders and do what, a properly equipped army to do what?
Easy to see the thinking that goes on in hard financial budget balancing times.
And yes I have read some books and stuff, Defence white papers how we doing historically in following those, but the answer doesn't spring to mind.

 

[Jed]

Fire fighters do a lot of training for the big event ( or hurry up and wait) and not much actually hands on fire fighting and saving lives. For our CF in peacetime it is essentially the same thing on a much larger and more complex scale.

I guess the big question is how much do we invest, treasure wise, to maintain our fire insurance or security of the nation insurance?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I did my PsyOps course with a guy who had just returned from a year-long UNMO stint there.  He lived a couple hundred metres from the Ebola River. 

I'll take IEDs and bullets before the kinds of things in Africa that can kill me, thanks.

So true, there are more things in Africa that can bite you, sting you, infect you and eat you than any other continent on earth.  Another reason to stay away from the place.

 

[SeanNewman]

Arguably Australia could challenge it for the most dangerous place (granted, not a continent before the Literal Police chime in).

On all the Discovery Channel-types of shows you'd always see 9 of the 10 most deadly everything in Australia, be it spiders, snakes, sharks, etc.  Of course those are just the things you can see, too.  Malaria, AIDS, and Ebola are all just a bonus.

That being said, after watching "The Pacific" last night I'd happily take Australia over Africa, anyway.

 

[Jammer]

The Congo is sooo going to suck!