The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Fishbone Jones]

Who knew that stating military personnel should wait to see what the mission is, what the intent of it is, and how it will be conducted and THEN have a professional debate about the merits of the mission would cause such strong emotions.

In the absence of clear direction from the PM, given the facts that he and his government have said about it, There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The military does this all the time. Don't you think the government hasn't drilled down on each possibility we have for deployment?

We do it because it's what we are taught. We have an interest in what we are paid to do. We have an interest in where we are going and what we are expected to do. We know how to use the Combat Estimate, that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies.

"So what?"

That's why we do it.

:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We had a northern rail route. We were at the mercy of the neighbouring 'stans and Russia as to what, when and in what direction we could ship things. But I agree that a railroad would have been a worthy infrastructure project. Seems to have helped Canada, parts of Africa, etc. get a step up.

The NW western route was not really exploited till later in the game, we should have started sooner (we as in the ROW) that would have reduced Pakistan grip earlier on and given us 34 options (North through Russia, Through the stans, Pakistan and air). The players in the stans could have been bought off with improvements to their rail lines and ports. It would have required special rolling stock that had exchangeable trucks to accommodate the different rail gauges on each side of the Caspian sea and improved ports.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

In the absence of clear direction from the PM, given the facts that he and his government have said about it, There is nothing wrong with being prepared. The military does this all the time. Don't you think the government hasn't drilled down on each possibility we have for deployment?

We do it because it's what we are taught. We have an interest in what we are paid to do. We have an interest in where we are going and what we are expected to do. We know how to use the Combat Estimate, that attempts to provide for all possible contingencies.

"So what?"

That's why we do it.

:2c:

ok, ack on the need for contingency planning (which wouldn't be a combat estimate for a deployment of this scale, but I digress). However, there was no actual estimate completed, aside from a detailed assumptions para that could be summed up with "UN deployments suck and peacekeeping is stupid" and "Africa is a quagmire". Once there is information more detailed than "peacekeeping" and "Africa" than an actual, non-emotional discussion can be had as to merits and difficulties.

It is true that we, as military, have (or at least ought to have) an interest in what our missions are, where we are going, and how force is being applied. However, arbitrarily stating that peacekeeping will be bad because it was bad in the 1990's and before isn't constructive and without information on the actual mission isn't bound to be backed by any analysis or reason. Combat estimates, formal estimates, and the OPP cycle need to be based on more than just speculation. If not, than you're simply situating said estimate.

Finally, nowhere have I said I think that peacekeeping or NATO are more or less valid than the other. I simply stated that going on tirades about how the government is only using the CAF to score political points was premature since we literally have no idea what the mission is, or where it is. It makes the CAF look bad in my opinion. We're professionals and more capable of analysis and discussion than what was occurring.

:2c: 

 

[Good2Golf]

Some folks night actually have been involved in the strategic estimate, are respecting GoC OPSEC and still think that the GoC is posturing for a UNSC seat and, as other nations often blame Canada for, excusing themselves from the table for a pee break when the costly bill comes...

:dunno:

So, are you volunteering to be the first to provide an Estimate, or are you content just to opine that others haven't?

Regards
G2G

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Some folks night actually have been involved in the strategic estimate, are respecting GoC OPSEC and still think that the GoC is posturing for a UNSC seat and, as other nations often blame Canada for, excusing themselves from the table for a pee break when the costly bill comes...

:dunno:

So, are you volunteering to be the first to provide an Estimate, or are you content just to opine that others haven't?

Regards
G2G

Sure, maybe they have. Than they came here to say it was stupid.

The estimate idea came from elsewhere, not me so I wasn't opining about anything. Also, you can't do an estimate until you actually have some info, which (I would opine) few on here have aside from what's in the papers. If they do have details than great, but I would hope they could make better assessments than "peacekeeping is stupid", OPSEC or not.

For the third time, the mission may well be poorly thought out, may well be a waste of time, money, and lives, and may well achieve nothing but a UNSC seat. It may not be. I just don't see yelling at walls as a valid COA until there's something concrete.

 

[PuckChaser]

Good article on the "fact finding" trip, with some tea leaves reading on his chosen destinations. Highlights are mine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-minister-to-visit-drc-on-mission-to-learn-about-peacekeeping/article31277571/

Defence Minister to visit DRC on mission to learn about peacekeeping

Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — The Canadian Press

Published Thursday, Aug. 04, 2016 3:16PM EDT

Last updated Thursday, Aug. 04, 2016 5:46PM EDT

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan will visit the Democratic Republic of Congo next week as part of a trip to Africa to collect information for a potential future Canadian peacekeeping mission on the continent.

Officials have warned against jumping to any conclusions that Canada is preparing to send hundreds of troops to the DRC, where the United Nations has a major peacekeeping operation.

“This is an opportunity for him to go into a country that does have an ongoing peacekeeping mission and see what that looks like,” said Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Jordan Owens. “It’s to see what an ongoing mission looks like.”

But Walter Dorn, a peacekeeping expert at the Canadian Forces College, says despite its challenges, the DRC would be a “great mission” for Canada.

“There is the possibility of a major role there,” he said. “And we could be looking at a force-commander position.”

Former UN high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour and retired general Romeo Dallaire, who commanded a peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, will accompany Sajjan as he visits the DRC as well as Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda during the week-long, fact-finding mission.

The Liberals promised during last year’s election campaign to return Canada to peacekeeping and Sajjan and defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance both said last month that could involve a mission to Africa.

Owens said the defence minister undertook a similar fact-finding trip to Iraq before the Liberal government revamped Canada’s military mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in February.

“It’s a good way for him to see exactly when the African Union says it has this support, what does that actually look like?” Owens said. “When the UN says ‘We’re doing this,’ what does that mean? So we’re gathering information.”

There had been speculation that the Liberal government was eyeing a role in the west African country of Mali, where a UN peacekeeping mission has been in place since April 2013. Hundreds of German and Dutch troops are among the roughly 13,000 blue helmets in the country.

But that mission, which is intended to assist a ceasefire between the government in the south and armed groups in the north, has been fraught with risk. Eighty-six peacekeepers have been killed as insurgents, some linked to terrorist groups, have launched ambushes and attacks.

While Owens insisted no decision on a new Canadian peacekeeping mission has been made, the fact Sajjan is heading to East and Central Africa suggests the government is considering a deployment to that part of the continent and not Mali.

Info on DRC mission - MONUSCO http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/monusco/index.shtml

Deploying 2,000 troops there puts us 3rd behind India and Pakistan, ahead of Bangaldesh, Tanzania, Uruguay, South Africa, and Nepal as the only other contributions above 1,000 (there are 55 nations contributing including 8 Canadians already there).

The other countries listed as part of the fact finding do not have active UN peacekeeping missions.

 

[Good2Golf]

Out of interest, who said "peacekeeping is stupid?"

I certainly believe that we will see a repeat of poorly written, overly-restrictive ROE and a weak National rear-party support to the peacekeeps in the field, and while I will be pleasantly surprised if things are much better, I will not be surprised if it's the same crap show as Yugo, Somalia or Rqanda (amazing at many).

Glad you see a glass 1/4 full.  Good on you.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Out of interest, who said "peacekeeping is stupid?"

I certainly believe that we will see a repeat of poorly written, overly-restrictive ROE and a weak National rear-party support to the peacekeeps in the field, and while I will be pleasantly surprised if things are much better, I will not be surprised if it's the same crap show as Yugo, Somalia or Rqanda (amazing at many).

Glad you see a glass 1/4 full.  Good on you.

"Disheartening to say the least. PM wants a UN mission so badly, does not matter where or what but so long as it doesn't cost any lives or few lives? NEVER EVER have I seen such senseless decision making."


"Biggest issue I have with this gongshow, is that it's being sold to win partisan political points via UN Security Council seat. If the main intent was a responsibility to protect mission, sold as such with the full backing of force if needed, a lot more people would overlook some of the terrible UN missions in the past."

The stupid is inferred in lieu of other more terse terms, but is a general theme. Heck, I dont even disagree. The UN has accomplished little in these missions outside of wasting money (and the occasional good go tour to Cyprus).

To be honest, I have little reason based on 14 years in the army, history studies, and general feeling to believe that the potential mission wont go the way of the dodo. However, until proven wrong I choose to at least give the government the smallest benefit of the doubt and maintain a glass 1/4 full approach. I'm also prepared to criticize the %^$& out of the mission if the worst suspicions are found to be the case. As a professional officer I think maintaining some positivity and faith in the government and the CoC (including General Vance who was a tremendous TF Commander in 2010) that chooses my fate is the least I can do. Hopefully they choose to risk mine, and everyone else here and in the CAFs, life with the same reciprocal trust. If I can't maintain that level than it's time to move on to other avenues.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm going to find my essay on peacekeeping. There might be some good things in it.

 

[CBH99]

I would like to perhaps change the direction of this conversation, if I may.

I'd like to ask everybody - but especially those with relevant experience (whatever it may be) - what could we do differently to help ensure a noticeable & tangible change when deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission?

I've heard it stated by many that UN operations are a gong show.  Mismanaged.  Restrictive ROE, etc etc.

What could we do - both in general, and specifically - to ensure that by the time the Canadians leave, our area is better off & long term positive change can take hold?

 

[Old Sweat]

I would like to perhaps change the direction of this conversation, if I may.

I'd like to ask everybody - but especially those with relevant experience (whatever it may be) - what could we do differently to help ensure a noticeable & tangible change when deployed on a UN peacekeeping mission?

I've heard it stated by many that UN operations are a gong show.  Mismanaged.  Restrictive ROE, etc etc.

What could we do - both in general, and specifically - to ensure that by the time the Canadians leave, our area is better off & long term positive change can take hold?

Being a cold warrior completely without peacekeeping experience, I ask what would lead us to think the aim is to improve the situation so positive change can take hold? That implies one side or the other must concede defeat or at least make major concessions which is not the way the world works or is it? Without the wherewithal including the resources and ROE to fix things, and that means taking sides, nothing can change.

Does JT want to go to war in Africa to earn a seat on the security council, or does he think the appearance of Canadian troops wearing blue berets trying to recreate Cyprus in a war zone will suffice?

 

[TCM621]

My biggest problem with UN peacekeeping is the UN. The UN as an organization is not something that should be admired. They have some of the biggest human rights violators on the human right s council,  they sponsor was is essentially and antisemitic conference,  they are certainly corrupt and I don't buy into the idea that some African or middle eastern dictator's opinion is equal to a western democracy's.

I am all for peacekeeping (if such a thing truly exists) but the UN should be kept as far away from it as possible. I would rather do it with a coalition of like minded states. At least all the players would have complimentary aims compared to the UN's chaos.

 

[daftandbarmy]

My biggest problem with UN peacekeeping is the UN. The UN as an organization is not something that should be admired. They have some of the biggest human rights violators on the human right s council,  they sponsor was is essentially and antisemitic conference,  they are certainly corrupt and I don't buy into the idea that some African or middle eastern dictator's opinion is equal to a western democracy's.

I am all for peacekeeping (if such a thing truly exists) but the UN should be kept as far away from it as possible. I would rather do it with a coalition of like minded states. At least all the players would have complimentary aims compared to the UN's chaos.

The other foe is the overblown egos of some of our political and military leaders, who like to write cheques that our militaries can't cash, of course.

 

[TCM621]

The other foe is the overblown egos of some of our political and military leaders, who like to write cheques that our militaries can't cash, of course.

I have been witnessing this on a small scale over the last week or two. I think we currently have 3 or 4 number 1 priorities and the manpower to accomplish 1 or 2 of them.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?):

Peacekeepers made major errors that contributed to South Sudan massacre, U.N. report finds

Six months after an attack on a United Nations camp left dozens dead in South Sudan, an internal U.N. investigation concluded that peacekeepers made major errors that contributed to, and exacerbated, the massacre.

On Feb. 17, fighting broke out within the U.N. Protection of Civilians Site in the city of Malakal, first between young men from rival ethnic groups who had managed to smuggle guns through holes in the fence. Then the violence escalated after heavily armed government forces entered the camp.

A summary of the United Nation’s “board of inquiry report,” released Friday [Aug. 5], said the organization and its peacekeepers failed through a “combination of inaction, abandonment of post and refusal to engage.”

[Special Report: South Sudanese civilians fear U.N. peacekeepers can't protect them from a massacre]

In other words, some peacekeepers, whose most prominent mandate is to protect civilians, simply ran away once they were tested, abandoning sentry posts. Other peacekeepers demanded written permission to use their weapons, even though their U.N. mandate clearly gives them that authority.

But the failure began before the attack itself, according to the report. Peacekeepers did not heed warnings that violence was brewing, it said. The perimeter fence was poorly patrolled and left with gaping holes that could be used by combatants.

“Weapons and ammunition can easily be smuggled in and hidden,” the report said.

The end result was tragic, “ensuring that civilians would be placed in serious risk in the very location to which they had come for protection.”

It was not the first time the United Nations had failed to protect civilians, or the first time it had pointedly addressed those failings in a board of inquiry report (a list of others is below)...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/06/peacekeepers-made-major-errors-that-led-to-south-sudan-massacre-u-n-report-finds/?postshare=5091470683961795&tid=ss_tw

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for Mali--Euro view:

The risks of deeper engagement in Mali
http://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_risks_of_deeper_engagement_in_mali_7089

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=MarkOttaw]
Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?):

Mark
Ottawa
[/quote]

In other words, some peacekeepers, whose most prominent mandate is to protect civilians, simply ran away once they were tested, abandoning sentry posts. Other peacekeepers demanded written permission to use their weapons, even though their U.N. mandate clearly gives them that authority.

It's not PC but really there's two tiers of "peacekeepers".  As for the written permission, that's the UNs fault.

 

[CBH99]

One of the things that saddens me & frightens me about modern day society is that people are afraid to do what is morally right, in fear that they are condemned for those actions legally.

What is morally right and what is legally right should never be at odds with each other.  (And sadly, having worked in the criminal justice system for a few years now, I've seen how backwards and misguided it has become at times.)

The UN mandate gave those personnel clear authorization to use their weapons in a situation such as this.  That being said, however, they didn't trust that they wouldn't be thrown under the bus anyhow - and asked for written permission, presumably for their own protection, because they don't trust the UN's leadership on the matter.

Civilians under attack?  Protect them.  Simple. 

A militia attacking a group of destitute people based on some ethnic BS?  Protect them.  Use lethal force if necessary. 

Terrorist militia (Boko Haram) attacking villages and towns, kidnapping schoolgirls & taking the children to turn into child-soldiers?  Hunt the mother f**kers down and kill them all.  It isn't a video game, these guys don't respawn after 30 seconds.  Shoot them.  Cleanse the area of them.  Simplifies solving the other problems. 

Peacekeeping, re:  It'll be a lot easier to keep the peace if the trouble makers aren't around to make trouble anymore.    :2c:

 

[QV]

....they didn't trust that they wouldn't be thrown under the bus anyhow - and asked for written permission, presumably for their own protection, because they don't trust the UN's leadership on the matter.

Sadly this is not limited to the UN... I do agree with your points however. 

 

[Coffee_psych]

Meanwhile in South Sudan (want to go there?)

That is literally the best article to highlight the potential of peacekeeping missions, and also it's major issues that can be worked on.  By empowering those mission groups to be autonomous in their decisions would have probably saved these people...however that is also how certain military groups have gone too far. *cough cough CBH99*

Hunt the mother f**kers down and kill them all.  It isn't a video game, these guys don't respawn after 30 seconds.  Shoot them.  Cleanse the area of them.

Though I agree with much of what you said CBH99, this is the part of what you said that makes the UN necessary and why it has such strict codes of conduct.  It is this mentality from which the UN must protect itself, because guess what, some of those soldiers in Boko Haram, are also prisoners and aren't old enough to even get a proper hard-on.  Hunting them down and shooting them is careless. 

My stance is this: UN soldiers should have enough training in order to act in hostile situations, however a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over, which takes a much higher degree of mental restraint, it almost seems painful. This will allow other forces to track down and "cleanse the area of them"...if you will.