- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
you suck.a_majoor said:
Seeking insight on Canadian Security and Defence
- Thread starter PoliticsStudent
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
PoliticsStudent,
Something you've probably not seen,
http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/research/research_e.asp
That's for the research paper headings from the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. You will find something for #3 in there (but the search function is not the best, better to peruse).
The Canadian Defence Academy has a number of academic resources available to them, much of it brand new.
http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/index/engraph/e-lib/can/can_e.asp
You probably won't be able to access everything, but there are a lot of sites and info there that will not be showing up on google anytime soon. I've used a lot of these resources on economics, politics, history and psychology papers. I always like seeing academic papers on the web, that you can properly reference, that are free. If there is anything you see that you can't get access to, let me know. I'm on site with the CDA and CFLI offices and can get you a hard copy of some stuff if it has been released to the public (that will take time though).
Good luck.
Wook
Something you've probably not seen,
http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/research/research_e.asp
That's for the research paper headings from the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute. You will find something for #3 in there (but the search function is not the best, better to peruse).
The Canadian Defence Academy has a number of academic resources available to them, much of it brand new.
http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/index/engraph/e-lib/can/can_e.asp
You probably won't be able to access everything, but there are a lot of sites and info there that will not be showing up on google anytime soon. I've used a lot of these resources on economics, politics, history and psychology papers. I always like seeing academic papers on the web, that you can properly reference, that are free. If there is anything you see that you can't get access to, let me know. I'm on site with the CDA and CFLI offices and can get you a hard copy of some stuff if it has been released to the public (that will take time though).
Good luck.
Wook
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
a_majoor said:
Thanks for the links. I am however going to focus on Topic 4: Canadians pride themselves on their nation's participation in UN peacekeeping operations, but Canada currently contributes most of its peacekeeping personnel to non-UN (i.e. NATO) peacekeeping missions. What are the positive and negative implications of this change in emphasis?
If you do have links on this topic that could provide who is a better institution to put our scarce resources into, I could perhaps buy some cookies and mail them. I am a horrible cook/baker!
I currently, with the information that I have, understand that NATO and the UN accomplish the same end goals. One has an entirely different internal structure (more bureaucratic red tape) than the other, but their end result objectives are frequently the same. I could be way off here since I don't have much research as of yet. Flame away if I sound mornonic, lol.
Thanks again everyone,
E
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
An interesting place to find commentary on your topic is Ruxted.ca, and here are some posts:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/14-Canada-to-Darfur.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/16-Boots-on-the-ground...-but-where.html
As you can see, the author or authors are on one particular side of the issue, but this gives you a certain idea of the range of opinion.
Since NATO has a smaller structure and a clearer mandate, I personally would suggest that is the way to go, otherwise we end up either supporting or appearing to support disasters like "Oil for Food", or forced to sit on the sidelines while member nations with ulterior motives (i.e. national self interest) twist and turn to prevent any real action from taking place (i.e. Dafur, Iraq prior to OIF etc.). This is not to say NATO is ideal either (many member countries either make token deployments or insist their troops must only operate in areas where there is no risk, such as the situation in Afghanistan today), many of the same national interest imparatives continue to apply, but at least we are talking abut a member group which has a greater degree of common interest than the United Nations.
My editorial take on the topic.
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/14-Canada-to-Darfur.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/16-Boots-on-the-ground...-but-where.html
As you can see, the author or authors are on one particular side of the issue, but this gives you a certain idea of the range of opinion.
Since NATO has a smaller structure and a clearer mandate, I personally would suggest that is the way to go, otherwise we end up either supporting or appearing to support disasters like "Oil for Food", or forced to sit on the sidelines while member nations with ulterior motives (i.e. national self interest) twist and turn to prevent any real action from taking place (i.e. Dafur, Iraq prior to OIF etc.). This is not to say NATO is ideal either (many member countries either make token deployments or insist their troops must only operate in areas where there is no risk, such as the situation in Afghanistan today), many of the same national interest imparatives continue to apply, but at least we are talking abut a member group which has a greater degree of common interest than the United Nations.
My editorial take on the topic.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Take a look at Dr Maloney's work.
He has written a great deal on Canadian Army involvment in peacekeeping; especially in the early, formative years. The 'Global Mobile' articles are good.
The article on LGen Burns is useful and may give you a bit of an insight into who some of us think had a huge impact on peacekeeping (this can be informative I think, when one considers what peacekeeping began as, what the Army saw it as becoming and finally what it actually became).
The context of Peackeeping as Canada engaging in Operations other than War to stave off US Soviet confrontation are discussed in the book "Canada and UN Peacekeeping-Cold War by Other Means". There are a couple on Chapters as I write.
Finally I would recommend a good survey through the "Canadian Army Journal"; all volumes are available online off of this root link.
Here's some links for you...
Suez is often studied, but don't forget to find out about Congo as well
You may end up with a rather interesting argument to your chosen thesis with this material... Good Luck.
Oh, and ah, chocolate chip..... ;D
He has written a great deal on Canadian Army involvment in peacekeeping; especially in the early, formative years. The 'Global Mobile' articles are good.
The article on LGen Burns is useful and may give you a bit of an insight into who some of us think had a huge impact on peacekeeping (this can be informative I think, when one considers what peacekeeping began as, what the Army saw it as becoming and finally what it actually became).
The context of Peackeeping as Canada engaging in Operations other than War to stave off US Soviet confrontation are discussed in the book "Canada and UN Peacekeeping-Cold War by Other Means". There are a couple on Chapters as I write.
Finally I would recommend a good survey through the "Canadian Army Journal"; all volumes are available online off of this root link.
Here's some links for you...
- Global Mobile, Dr Sean Maloney, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 3, Number 3, Spring 2000, pp20-34
- Global Mobile II, Dr Sean Maloney, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 4, Number 2, Summer 2001, pp 7-24
- The Forgotten: Lieutenant-General E.L.M. “Tommy” Burns and UN
Peacekeeping in the Middle East, Dr. Sean Maloney, Canadian Army Journal, Volume 9 Number2, Summer 2006,pp 79-95 - Canada and UN Peacekeeping-Cold War by Other Means, Dr Sean Maloney, Vanwell, 2002, ISBN 1551250888 (can usually be found used at chapters.ca, also is reviewed at Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin, Volume 5, Number 4, Winter 2002-3, pp 79-81
Suez is often studied, but don't forget to find out about Congo as well
You may end up with a rather interesting argument to your chosen thesis with this material... Good Luck.
Oh, and ah, chocolate chip..... ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hey Everyone,
Please don't kick my arse for this (I bet it is a stupid question)... I just want to know your thoughts because I am a little puzzled. I am currently reading "Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War", written by Celeste A. Wallander (2000). The author notes, "forces for peacekeeping missions need to be mobile, are less reliant on ground forces than those with a traditional defense mission, require multinational command, and operate under rules of engagement more akin to police forces than traditional militaries".
The example of the 'war' in Afghanistan counteracts this, doesn't it? I mean, the mission is an offensive mission fought on their soil, still requiring mobility just as peacekeeping, still requirely multinational command just as peacekeeping, still operating under rules of engagement (including policing forces and extended) as peacekeeping does. This can't be the only difference between the role of the soldier in war, versus the role of the soldier during peacekeeping operations: the reliance on ground forces??? I would have expected that peacekeeping would also rely on ground forces since you don't exactly know what hostility you are going to face once you're there. Additionally, peacekeeping isn't always policing when you are being shot at by someone? Shouldn't peacekeeping missions be looked at via the same lense of the combat role?
Thoughts to de-jumble my head would be great!
E
Please don't kick my arse for this (I bet it is a stupid question)... I just want to know your thoughts because I am a little puzzled. I am currently reading "Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War", written by Celeste A. Wallander (2000). The author notes, "forces for peacekeeping missions need to be mobile, are less reliant on ground forces than those with a traditional defense mission, require multinational command, and operate under rules of engagement more akin to police forces than traditional militaries".
The example of the 'war' in Afghanistan counteracts this, doesn't it? I mean, the mission is an offensive mission fought on their soil, still requiring mobility just as peacekeeping, still requirely multinational command just as peacekeeping, still operating under rules of engagement (including policing forces and extended) as peacekeeping does. This can't be the only difference between the role of the soldier in war, versus the role of the soldier during peacekeeping operations: the reliance on ground forces??? I would have expected that peacekeeping would also rely on ground forces since you don't exactly know what hostility you are going to face once you're there. Additionally, peacekeeping isn't always policing when you are being shot at by someone? Shouldn't peacekeeping missions be looked at via the same lense of the combat role?
Thoughts to de-jumble my head would be great!
E
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,606
- Points
- 1,260
Just curious, but have you read Chapter VI (blue beanies, empty rifles "peacekeeping") and Chapter VII (locked n' loaded "peacemaking) of the UN Charter?
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
In my humble opinion (I was never there, so take it with a grain of salt) Yugoslavia should have been a Chapter VII mission, instead of a Chapter VI mission, for the sole reason that there was no peace to keep, but there was a need to intervene.
Some books in the underground royal commission report may have some good info too:
http://www.theurc.com/defence.cfm
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
In my humble opinion (I was never there, so take it with a grain of salt) Yugoslavia should have been a Chapter VII mission, instead of a Chapter VI mission, for the sole reason that there was no peace to keep, but there was a need to intervene.
Some books in the underground royal commission report may have some good info too:
http://www.theurc.com/defence.cfm
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
UN Chapter six operations (AKA Peacekeeping) are predicted on the idea that both sides want peace, or at least are no longer interested in actively persuing hostilities. Canada's mission to Cyprus was a perfect example of this sort of thing.
UN Chapter Seven, as noted, are predicted on continuing hostilities on the part of one or more of the warring parties. NATO Non Article Five missions (such as Bosnia) are very similar except that NATO chooses to intervene and there has been no attack against a NATO partner, while Article Five is the "Three Musketeers" phase, an attack against a NATO member is considered an attack against all NATO members, and so the full power of the Alliance can be harnessed to defeat the aggressor.
WRT your reference, I think this guy is smoking crack, since the best and most effective way to conduct constabulary, peacekeeping and even Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is to have boots on the ground (i.e. more ground forces), a strong and unified command structure (Multinational or not) and robust Rules of Engagement (ROE's), so transgressors cannot find "grey areas" to work in. The general consensus among soldiers (particularly in the Army.ca community) is that Peacekeeping is a mission, not a role, and that well equipped, well trained and highly skilled soldiers can perform this role without too much difficulty (since they can always perform military missions in the Area of Responsibility should the need arise), while a specially raised Peacekeeping or Constabulary type force has no recourse should one or more hostile parties attempt to renew the conflict.
Please let us know what our grade is once the paper is marked!
UN Chapter Seven, as noted, are predicted on continuing hostilities on the part of one or more of the warring parties. NATO Non Article Five missions (such as Bosnia) are very similar except that NATO chooses to intervene and there has been no attack against a NATO partner, while Article Five is the "Three Musketeers" phase, an attack against a NATO member is considered an attack against all NATO members, and so the full power of the Alliance can be harnessed to defeat the aggressor.
WRT your reference, I think this guy is smoking crack, since the best and most effective way to conduct constabulary, peacekeeping and even Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) is to have boots on the ground (i.e. more ground forces), a strong and unified command structure (Multinational or not) and robust Rules of Engagement (ROE's), so transgressors cannot find "grey areas" to work in. The general consensus among soldiers (particularly in the Army.ca community) is that Peacekeeping is a mission, not a role, and that well equipped, well trained and highly skilled soldiers can perform this role without too much difficulty (since they can always perform military missions in the Area of Responsibility should the need arise), while a specially raised Peacekeeping or Constabulary type force has no recourse should one or more hostile parties attempt to renew the conflict.
Please let us know what our grade is once the paper is marked!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Ha, Ha. I will let you know the grade, but that won't be for months to come. I am just doing preliminary research so that my arguments are sound, correct and salient to the topic. I want the best of the best. The paper isn't due for another 5 months. I have a lot of research to do. So, as I am reading, I ask you questions to clarify what doesn't go over easily in my mind. I don't want to misunderstand something by taking it at face value.
Thanks for all the help of course. I can't believe there hasn't been any requests for White Chocolate Macademia Nut cookies!
E
Thanks for all the help of course. I can't believe there hasn't been any requests for White Chocolate Macademia Nut cookies!
E
- Reaction score
- 16,380
- Points
- 1,010
Didn't take her very long to figure out the essential truth about this place, did it?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
well, we're not really that deep.SeaKingTacco said:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,314
- Points
- 1,040
>I want the best of the best.
Tsk. You're aiming low. Here, you can get the best of the best of the best.
Tsk. You're aiming low. Here, you can get the best of the best of the best.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
As for Canada in Afghanistan:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/
http://www.pajhwok.com/
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp
OT: sounds like a fun course. Sure beats my last one "Global Political Issues" or as I called it "The Leftist Diatribes" ???
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html
http://www2.hq.nato.int/isaf/
http://www.pajhwok.com/
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp
OT: sounds like a fun course. Sure beats my last one "Global Political Issues" or as I called it "The Leftist Diatribes" ???
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I am doing a similar essay. On the failure of Peacekeeping in Bosnia. I would recommend you take a look at the 3 missions which changed our(the military community) perception on Peacekeeping. Bosnia is of particular interest for the following reasons:PoliticsStudent said:
1.It happened in Europe and concerned a lot of the major powers
2.The response in Bosnia was strongly influenced by images from the media ( a new concept at the time)
3 Was the first time that a Ch. VII mission REALLY failed BIG TIME.
4. Lewis Mackenzie was there.
5. *** Was the first ever military action for NATO in the alliance's history***
6.Peacekeepers were humiliated by being taken hostage and unable to prevent movement of Serb forces.
That's all I can think of now. sorry
Got to do some French homework.
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,606
- Points
- 1,260
career_radio-checker said:
At the risk of sounding like an ignorant boob, but wasn't the FYR a Chapter VI mission until the Dayton Peace Accords? Or are you talking about it being a failure after NATO took over as a Chapter VII mission?
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The chain of events in Bosnia and Former Yugoslavia is very tangled. The EU attempted to take action with a monitoring group, and the UN had a very ineffectual mandate (or series of mandates since the events in the different parts of Yugoslavia were treated as separate events). Even the involvement of NATO eventually became contingent on President Clinton deciding to get involved.
The essential lesson is this: Once you decide to get involved, there can be no half measures, you are either "in" or you are "out".
If you are only going to be half hearted in your commitment, then you will fail.
The essential lesson is this: Once you decide to get involved, there can be no half measures, you are either "in" or you are "out".
If you are only going to be half hearted in your commitment, then you will fail.
Similar threads
