The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[ArmyRick]

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.

PM, you fail on COA selection

 

[Altair]

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.

PM, you fail on COA selection

You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.

 

[PuckChaser]

You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.

Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.

 

[Altair]

Gung ho because they fear more budget cuts after this recent budget stopped the planned increases. Ever wonder why the guys in black pyjamas with long haircuts are starting to get B Roll pictures of their training on CAF official social media accounts? That's never happened before, and very likely the exact same scenario. DND is easy to cut money from if it's not in the news on a daily basis.

Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?

 

[Journeyman]

You must have missed the part where it said the military is Gung ho.

It actually said ..... one NDHQ source.  If it's one  unnamed NDHQ source, it sounds like "cherry-picking."  Yes, you've made your view quite clear, repeatedly, that you're desperate to go anywhere;  that's perfectly commendable.  Just try to be honest with such broad-brush "opinions." 

Nonetheless.....

Walter Dorn... contends... there is a “new generation” of peacekeeping missions that differ from those Canada experienced in Rwanda and Somalia because the UN has since adopted a “protection of civilians” mandate. 

???  I'm confused.  Is he suggesting that this mandate will somehow make Mali easier / more successful than Rwanda or Somalia?  This is one time that I wish they'd given him more than a sound-byte, so he could explain that one (he's a media "go to" talking head for UN cheerleading;  shallow-thinking Canadians' views may be influenced such unsubstantiated one-liners).

But even if the cause is noble, the Canadian public deserves a thorough explanation on where we might be going and what the mission might entail.

Absolutely!!  :nod:    Especially  if marketed as some new construct in PKO that will somehow make everything more lovely than Somalia and Rwanda!


Summary: To be clear, I'm not saying the military should not be deployed; it's part of what we do.  The recurring theme in the three paragraphs has been "truthfulness" -- it's one of those integrity things that has been increasingly supplanted by photo-ops and incongruous throw-away lines about what year it is.


ps:

Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?

For some of us, that isn't a particularly thoughtful basis for foreign and defence policy development, but again, it's perfectly clear where you're coming from.

 

[Good2Golf]

Troops who have't been on a mission where restrictive ROE and lack of Gov't support to the in-theatre requirements put them, their colleagues and innocent civilians at risk, perhaps...

 

[a_majoor]

Altair, outside of the very real and serious objections that have been raised, you need to consider that virtually every UN mission has been a failure. Peacekeepers have never prevented a conflict if the parties decide to go at it (if they're nice like Nasser, they may order peacekeepers out, or if they are bloody minded like the Croats, the simply drive past the UN outposts on their way to war). Getting involved in other people's conflicts also means you are a participant, either as a hostage to deter someone else airstrike, or perhaps a convenient place to fire mortars and rockets from, so counter fire falls on the UN outposts.

Even Cyprus, the "poster" deployment, has been politically frozen in amber since the 1960's.

Surely your eagerness to be deployed should be tempered by a sense that your deployment actually accomplishes something besides pandering to Gerald Butts' vanity and political ambition? Doesn't Canadian blood and treasure (and trust me, a deployment to Africa will certainly involve both) count for more than that?

As they say, elections do have consequences, but getting killed to fulfill someone's political wish list shouldn't be one of the consequences for any of us.

 

[Lightguns]

Altair, outside of the very real and serious objections that have been raised, you need to consider that virtually every UN mission has been a failure. Peacekeepers have never prevented a conflict if the parties decide to go at it (if they're nice like Nasser, they may order peacekeepers out, or if they are bloody minded like the Croats, the simply drive past the UN outposts on their way to war). Getting involved in other people's conflicts also means you are a participant, either as a hostage to deter someone else airstrike, or perhaps a convenient place to fire mortars and rockets from, so counter fire falls on the UN outposts.

Even Cyprus, the "poster" deployment, has been politically frozen in amber since the 1960's.

Surely your eagerness to be deployed should be tempered by a sense that your deployment actually accomplishes something besides pandering to Gerald Butts' vanity and political ambition? Doesn't Canadian blood and treasure (and trust me, a deployment to Africa will certainly involve both) count for more than that?

As they say, elections do have consequences, but getting killed to fulfill someone's political wish list shouldn't be one of the consequences for any of us.

Excellently said and may I add; lets move the UN lock, stock, and barrel to Darfur so they don't have to pretend to like their biggest financial backers and their senior management's commute will be shorter and cheaper.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Or maybe troops want an actual mission instead of sitting around base doing SFA?

http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners 

 

[dimsum]

http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners 

Unless you can whine en francais.  :nod:

 

[Altair]

http://en.legion-recrute.com/?titre=recruitment&block=14

These chaps are always recruiting, though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners 

The pay is horrible.

If I'm leaving the Canadian forces ( and the thought has crossed my mind many a time) it would be for police of firefighting. Still serving the public and actually getting to do my job.

 

[Journeyman]

....though they don't take kindly to habitual whiners 

I was about to post, "that must have been autocorrect;  I'm sure you meant to type 'often misunderstood'."..... but I guess you were right.  :facepalm:

/tangent  (yet another )

 

[medicineman]

The pay is horrible.

It might be, but you really don't get many places to spend it, so still a net win with all the savings you have when your stint is up ;D.  If you stick around long enough, you can even get a second passport as well.  When I joined up in the late 80's, our pay was relatively shyte too...and got no better in the 90's when many of us here were frozen at the same pay incentive level for I've forgotten how long.

Glass half full Dude...take the Negative Nelly in your mind out back and either beat the shyte out of her or drown her.

Back to our regularly scheduled documentary of "UN Bashers R Us".

MM

 

[jollyjacktar]

You just can't satisfy some people.  At least he would get allllll the deployments and combat he pines for.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-it-is-failing.html?_r=0

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It might be, but you really don't get many places to spend it, so still a net win with all the savings you have when your stint is up ;D.  If you stick around long enough, you can even get a second passport as well.  When I joined up in the late 80's, our pay was relatively shyte too...and got no better in the 90's when many of us here were frozen at the same pay incentive level for I've forgotten how long.

Glass half full Dude...take the Negative Nelly in your mind out back and either beat the shyte out of her or drown her.

Back to our regularly scheduled documentary of "UN Bashers R Us".

MM

It's funny, I've spoken with a number of gents who served in the Legion, pay was never actually an issue. 

As you stated, you can't spend the money on anything so it steadily builds in your bank account.  Also, accommodations and food are free in the Legion so you always have a roof over your head and food in your belly although it ain't the Ritz Carlton.  Lastly, what they don't tell you when you join up is that you get heavily compensated for overseas postings, operational deployments, airborne pay, etc... much like we would if deploying to Afghanistan, etc...

The ones I spoke to said they all had relatively large sums of money sitting in their bank accouns at the end of their five year commitment.

 

[Good2Golf]

I Love the U.N., but It Is Failing

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/i-love-the-un-but-it-is-failing.html?_r=0

...
Our most grievous blunder is in Mali. In early 2013, the United Nations decided to send 10,000 soldiers and police officers to Mali in response to a terrorist takeover of parts of the north. Inexplicably, we sent a force that was unprepared for counterterrorism and explicitly told not to engage in it. More than 80 percent of the force’s resources are spent on logistics and self-protection. Already 56 people in the United Nations contingent have been killed, and more are certain to die. The United Nations in Mali is day by day marching deeper into its first quagmire.
...

Ouch!  Not surprised though. 

Imagine if/when Canadian Peace "Keepers" head to Mali...

 

[sidemount]

I've been going through a lot of the documents from the UN about Mali. To be quite honest, and please if someone else sees it differently please say so, this mission looks more and more Afghanistanish the more I read. Like was mentioned, most of the issues seem to be coming from insurgents and insurgent tactics.

Have a look through the latest report of the Secretary General (yes its 22 pages but focus on part III) and to me it reads of the same issues we were dealing with in Afghanistan. I don't think this is the "peacekeeping mission" the GC thinks it is.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/reports.shtml

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Peacekeeping in Mali

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7X2ETw6Wiw

 

[Journeyman]

I don't think this is the "peacekeeping mission" the GC thinks it is.

I disagree.... with only a modicum of cynicism this time. 

The purpose of being "back" into peacekeeping is so that the current PM will have an international relations success as part of his re-election campaign -- namely, a seat at the UN Security Council (even more 'honourable' because the Conservatives did not secure that transitory seat when they attempted in 2010).

Our main competitors for that seat are Norway and Ireland, both of which have a lot more boots on the ground doing PKO.  To compete against that, Canada needs to step up and take a more dangerous mission that quite a few nations are saying are you fucking retarded uh, no thank you. 

So despite the fewer number of troops, Canada looks like it's a team-player willing to do the heavy lifting.  I'm willing to bet that the government is content to gamble with troops' lives to take the higher risk, for a 'higher payoff.'

That being said, as I mentioned earlier,  I don't dismiss the deployment out of hand; it's one of the reasons we have a military.  Just don't do it with rose-coloured glasses.