The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[The Bread Guy]

As for the written permission, that's the UNs fault.

Without knowing specifics, it might also be the troops don't trust their own military leadership to back them up, even if they did everything right according to the U.N.

... a UN peacekeeper must also remain impartial once the conflict is over ...

Unfortunately, not many UN missions are set up where both/all sides have agreed to stop fighting one another   

... 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 ...

Lots more shades of grey there than one might think - depending on the ROE, if a child soldier is not threatening or shooting at someone, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe some discretion is possible, but if they're shooting at someone (like a civilian)?  Not so much.

 

[Kirkhill]

Without knowing specifics, it might also be the troops don't trust their own military leadership to back them up, even if they did everything right according to the U.N.Unfortunately, not many UN missions are set up where both/all sides have agreed to stop fighting one another    Lots more shades of grey there than one might think - depending on the ROE, if a child soldier is not threatening or shooting at someone, maaaaaaaaaaaaybe some discretion is possible, but if they're shooting at someone (like a civilian)?  Not so much.

Get it in writing.....

'Ambulance chasing' law firm that hounded British troops over false claims of Iraq abuse banned from public funding

Robert Mendick, chief reporter  Ben Farmer, defence correspondent

2 AUGUST 2016 • 6:50PM

A leading human rights law firm accused of hounding British troops over false Iraq abuse claims could be forced to pay back up to £3 million after being stripped of its legal aid funding.

Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) has been barred from receiving public money for ongoing cases after an 18-month investigation by the Legal Aid Agency.

The Government agency said it would now trawl through all historic allegations brought by the law firm to see if fees, understood to total £3 million paid out over the past decade, can be clawed back.

The decision by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to revoke its contract with PIL is a massive blow to the firm, which could now be forced to shut down. The law firm, based in Birmingham and London, has levelled more than 1,100 allegations of mistreatment, torture and murder by British troop of Iraqis.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/02/ambulance-chasing-law-firm-that-hounded-british-troops-over-fals/

Bloody Sunday: Ex-soldier arrested over Londonderry shootings

10 November 2015

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-34775466

 

[Jarnhamar]

. 

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. 

100%
You can't negotiate or turn your back on scumbags like that.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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*

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.

Oh you mean like the end of WWII where the west ended up feeding and caring for the populations of Germany and Japan after the cessation of hostilities till they could look after themselves? The difference of course was that for the most part, both had functioning governments which the people for the most part obeyed the call to put down arms and work for peace. That is not going to happen in parts of Africa because the main loyalty is not to nation but to tribe and family. You really do need to identify and kill the bad guys before things will get better, things ill not improve without security and security will not improve until people in the region know that
1. You mean business and not shy on killing when required.
2. You intend to stay and deal with the bad guys for the long term.
3. You are out there all the time providing security.
4. You can with overwhelming force and mandate to get the job done. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

- hunting them down is age old, perfectly ruthless, and arguably necessary if there is clear expectation they will reappear as the murdering little shits that they were. Romeo Dallaire be damned, an AK in the hands of a 10 year old Boko Harem member makes them a legitimate and legal target, end of story unless they immediately lay face down on the ground with no weapon in reach;
- what "other forces" are you speaking of?? If the UN force is in place with a proper mandate, especially a first world western UN force, those "other forces" had better be there with a legal mission and legal ROE- almost certainly the same ROE as the UN force in place, unless you are suggesting that it's ok to endorse the idea that the laws of armed conflict ought not to apply to those "other forces", which makes them a liability and not a solution. 

A one hook private in the RCR is entitled to the same protection of her own life as that of a highly trained, super ninjette commando fashionably complete with brass knuckles.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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?

Won't work with the 2 beer rule. Nothing to broker peace with.

 

[Coffee_psych]

Oh you mean like the end of WWII where the west ended up feeding and caring for the populations of Germany and Japan after the cessation of hostilities till they could look after themselves? The difference of course was that for the most part, both had functioning governments which the people for the most part obeyed the call to put down arms and work for peace. That is not going to happen in parts of Africa because the main loyalty is not to nation but to tribe and family. You really do need to identify and kill the bad guys before things will get better, things ill not improve without security and security will not improve until people in the region know that
1. You mean business and not shy on killing when required.
2. You intend to stay and deal with the bad guys for the long term.
3. You are out there all the time providing security.
4. You can with overwhelming force and mandate to get the job done.

Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.

 

[Coffee_psych]

- hunting them down is age old, perfectly ruthless, and arguably necessary if there is clear expectation they will reappear as the murdering little shits that they were. Romeo Dallaire be damned, an AK in the hands of a 10 year old Boko Harem member makes them a legitimate and legal target, end of story unless they immediately lay face down on the ground with no weapon in reach;
- what "other forces" are you speaking of?? If the UN force is in place with a proper mandate, especially a first world western UN force, those "other forces" had better be there with a legal mission and legal ROE- almost certainly the same ROE as the UN force in place, unless you are suggesting that it's ok to endorse the idea that the laws of armed conflict ought not to apply to those "other forces", which makes them a liability and not a solution. 

A one hook private in the RCR is entitled to the same protection of her own life as that of a highly trained, super ninjette commando fashionably complete with brass knuckles.

Your first point is mute, once you call small children "little shits" and it's okay to murder them
As for your second point I agree, what I meant by other forces is exactly as you stated, so thank you for clarifying that, on my behalf and for others.

 

[Ludoc]

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.

If that were true we would not have a military. Let alone one equipped with assault rifles, tanks, fighter jets and the like.

Killing is unfortunate and something we should avoid when possible. However, if you truly believe killing is never required, may I suggest the CAF is not the place for you.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Coffee_psych]
Your first point is mute[/quote]
You mean moot,  right?

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.

In the context of the military you're quite wrong about killing.

Can you explain what you mean by some of us know killing someone can take a piece of us away?  It's a peculiar thing to say. Have you've been responsible for taking someone's life away?

 

[Lightguns]

Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.

1.  I, too, would like to understand your experience with killing, particularly since you claim to be an applicant, have you been freelancing with the Kurd's Womens battalion or are you going to quote me your case studies from university?  Killing is a matter of force protection and ROE, nothing more, no one in this army gets hard-ons from killing. 
2.  Valour is expressed in 100s of ways a day at home and aboard, Staying and helping are merely a matter of political decision and there is no valour in politics.  Once valour is required in staying and helping, the politicians usually order everyone to run away. 
3.  Yeah sure, try teaching a third world person who has generations of feudal dependence bred into him.
4.  He who comes early with the most and the will to use it is successful.  Yugo and Kosovo were more successful when Serbian bridges got blown up than when Serbia was a safe zone for aggressors, notwithstanding the issues with the other sides. 

Finally, you may want to study tribalism in Africa a little more closely.  It took me two minutes to find a dozen peer reviewed studies to say the opposite of your supposition.  Indeed, my last briefing on Africa in the army before retirement is completely opposite of your belief.  Simply stated there is no nation state loyalty in Africa except where the ruling tribe of the nation is concerned.  Even the Boers have no loyalty to South Africa, let alone the African tribes.  This article from the Economist sums up nicely:

http://www.economist.com/node/16796580

 

[The Bread Guy]

Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.

If you truly, truly believe the bit in yellow, you should seriously consider whether you want to join the military - or even a police force, for that matter. 

I'll agree with you on the bit in orange (similar to how a person leaving a war is not the same person that went in), but it's still the job of the soldier/cop to, if needed, use force (up to and including lethal if needed as a last resort) to do what the government we elected says needs doing.

Use your head in weilding the tools on behalf of Canadians, by all means, but if you can't use all the tools, you should seriously think about whether you want to put on the toolbelt in the first place.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Western society has run marathons after WWII, that is becoming an archaic example.  So I won't feed into that example, because Africa has also made significant economic and societal progress in the last 10 years, never mind 70.  Tribe loyalty is present in minor ways, but nationality takes precedence.

1. Killing is never, ever a requirement.  Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.
2. Intending to stay and help the good has more valour.
3. Security is a matter of protecting while teaching people the means to protect themselves.
4. I don't understand the language of your point here.

No it's the perfect example of what the west can do better than the rest, is that we can switch off the killing once the task is complete. If you go into those places you better be prepared to kill and do it with overwhelming force. The biggest issue with the West, is that we have no intention of staying and we telegraph that, so people hunker down and wait us out. They take the long view and we take the short view. Protecting people down there, means killing the people who do bad things, till most of the leadership of the bad guys is eradicated and then the rest will decide it's better to go home and try to survive. Nationalism is not doing so well there, Tribalism still rules the day for the most part. Even the Kenya and Tanzania are struggling to hold it together and they were considered the shining stars for many years.

 

[Kirkhill]

.... The biggest issue with the West, is that we have no intention of staying and we telegraph that, so people hunker down and wait us out. ...

That right there.

We fear being labelled imperialists.  The only debate there should be is over the nature of the empire and whose rules govern it.

Policing, like mowing the grass, is an unending and thankless but necessary task.

 

[The Bread Guy]

We fear being labelled imperialists. /quote]
I don't know if it's just that, or that our adversarial "nothing the other side does is ANY good" election cycles don't allow for long-term continuity.

Although that, too, is a lack of courage at one level ...

Policing, like mowing the grass, is an unending and thankless but necessary task.

True, no matter WHAT party's @ the helm ...  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed that our national politics are toxic.  But the "We" I refer to is broader than that.  Unfortunately I can't define "We" clearly because my "We" is probably different than your "We" although there is likely to be a degree of overlap.

And in that difference lies a world of conflict.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Killing is never, ever a requirement.

I beg to differ.  Current example?  ISIS.  Historical example?  Nazi Germany.

Killing is definitely a requirement in some areas of the world/conflicts.  It has, can and will be a requirement in our own Canadian society because people force the hands of people like our police officers to protect others. 

Killing is only to save the skin of the person with, but some of us know how killing someone can take a piece of us away.

Sometimes, NOT killing can 'take a piece of us away'.  Think of the Canadian peacekeepers who were in Rwanda but couldn't stop the massacre.  Ever talk to one of them?  I have.  Not being able to defend helpless women and children took more than a piece away from him.

The nice, tidy lines peacekeeping/peacemaking/operations appear to have to people who've never deployed from the safety of Canada aren't necessarily so nice and tidy out there where the rubber meets the road.  Consider your audience here;  this isn't some theoretical debate in a learning environment.  Many of us have deployed and have seen the rubber meet the road first hand.  :2c:

There is a concern amongst some of us who serve and actually do the deployments that the ideas, theories and hopes these people have...

 

are different from the realities faced by these people when their boots are actually on the ground...

When their ideas, theories and hopes don't unfold 'as per the plan', they then don't necessarily have the stomach (political, or otherwise) for things like this.

Or this (RIP  ).

 

[Coffee_psych]

So what I mean is very literal.  Killing is not ever necessary, you never HAVE to take someone's life.  However taking someone's life to save others and/or your own life is a different story.  So in many faiths it is 100% against that religion to ever kill someone, even if it means you must die.  So when it comes to weighing in the options of one life versus another, this becomes a very serious and ethical matter.

You're right, ISIS is an easy target (no pun literally intended), there is a set of ideologies within that group that makes the decision somewhat easy that killing them is to the benefit of pretty much all civil society.  However I myself am not the one shooting these men down (at this point in time), I am asking others to do it of me.  And even the worst of these men still have a sense of humanity in them, they are a son to somebody.  Asking someone to kill on my behalf is something many Canadian people take for granted or forget.  Killing is a big deal, and even if the choice is easy, the fighters who are protected us make a huge sacrifice.

So when I say killing isn't necessary, that is what I mean, that we are weighing 2 lives in the balance, the guy on our side versus the one on the other.  So we better be damn sure to sign on for that fight.

Feel me?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Another nudge toward the Colombia mission?  This from the Global Affairs Canada Info-machine:

The Honourable Stéphane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today made the following statement on the announcement that a Colombia peace agreement had been reached:

“Canada applauds the tireless work by parties over the past four years to reach the comprehensive peace agreement, signalling the end of more than 50 years of internal armed conflict. The agreement lays the foundation for future peace and prosperity for all Colombians. The success of these efforts shows that, through dialogue, peace is possible.

“Colombia will now have the opportunity to ratify what has been agreed by the parties. Building peace is not easy. It will require hard work to build an inclusive society and a path to sustainable peace, development and the rule of law, particularly in those regions that have been at the historic epicentre of the conflict. Building peace will also require effort and engagement across all of Colombian society.

“Canada welcomes the agreement and hopes the peace and security Colombians so richly deserve will be achieved.”

 

[jollyjacktar]

A much better option than Africa.