The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
- Thread starter Boogilywoo
- Start date
- Status
Really...
Presuming that numbers are in your favour.
Presuming that you have enough transport, with adequate protection, for everyone.
Presuming that roads/trails are not laced with IEDs.
Presuming that you have enough ammunition to fight through.
Presuming that the airport is safe and secure in friendly hands when you get there.
Presuming that there are enough transport aircraft for everyone to leave at the same time (but the expensive kit will be left behind), and none get holes punched in/through them.
Some virgins are so desperate to get laid that they do not care what STDs they may contract in the process, or how incurable they may be.
Presuming that numbers are in your favour.
Presuming that you have enough transport, with adequate protection, for everyone.
Presuming that roads/trails are not laced with IEDs.
Presuming that you have enough ammunition to fight through.
Presuming that the airport is safe and secure in friendly hands when you get there.
Presuming that there are enough transport aircraft for everyone to leave at the same time (but the expensive kit will be left behind), and none get holes punched in/through them.
Some virgins are so desperate to get laid that they do not care what STDs they may contract in the process, or how incurable they may be.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Now you're learning.
:sarcasm:
;D
:sarcasm:
;D
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
We are falling into the ROE and the mission analysis problems here.
Would *we* have an ROE that allowed commanders to take the initiative and intervene in a situation like the one above? McG said commanders could in Afghanistan, but that was a NATO mission and essentially a war in all but name, so the commander had the ROEs and more importantly, effective tools to do the job: a 1500 man mechanized battlegroup with artillery, tanks, reasonably effective logistical support and access to massive amounts of airpower and whatever other support our close allies could bring. (When the Government of the day called for the Manley report asking what we needed to continue and the conditions were extra NATO troops and helicopters, Poland stepped up and said they would provide them).
The 650 man force will likely be based on a single (undermanned) Infantry Battalion with a multitude of staff and enablers, so having the means to engage in a shootout against undisciplined troops or Boko Haram/ISIS insurgents will be somewhat limited.
As for the point about us not being able to deal with non western problems, I will politely say that is PC BS. We did a pretty comprehensive job sorting out Imperial Japan, for example. The issue isn't that it isn't possible, it is that no one is willing to put the time and resources in to do so. Having "them" make the social, cultural and political changes and build their own institution is ideal, but that also requires investing a great deal of time and resources (the British took centuries to lay down the institutions that define the modern Anglosphere, and nurturing and protecting home grown institutions is also a generational proposition).
So once again, we need to answer the ultimate question of what, exactly, *we* intend to accomplish with this mission, and what resources we need to use to accomplish that (situating the estimate by allocating 650 soldiers prior to determining the mission, mission parameters etc. is problematic).
Would *we* have an ROE that allowed commanders to take the initiative and intervene in a situation like the one above? McG said commanders could in Afghanistan, but that was a NATO mission and essentially a war in all but name, so the commander had the ROEs and more importantly, effective tools to do the job: a 1500 man mechanized battlegroup with artillery, tanks, reasonably effective logistical support and access to massive amounts of airpower and whatever other support our close allies could bring. (When the Government of the day called for the Manley report asking what we needed to continue and the conditions were extra NATO troops and helicopters, Poland stepped up and said they would provide them).
The 650 man force will likely be based on a single (undermanned) Infantry Battalion with a multitude of staff and enablers, so having the means to engage in a shootout against undisciplined troops or Boko Haram/ISIS insurgents will be somewhat limited.
As for the point about us not being able to deal with non western problems, I will politely say that is PC BS. We did a pretty comprehensive job sorting out Imperial Japan, for example. The issue isn't that it isn't possible, it is that no one is willing to put the time and resources in to do so. Having "them" make the social, cultural and political changes and build their own institution is ideal, but that also requires investing a great deal of time and resources (the British took centuries to lay down the institutions that define the modern Anglosphere, and nurturing and protecting home grown institutions is also a generational proposition).
So once again, we need to answer the ultimate question of what, exactly, *we* intend to accomplish with this mission, and what resources we need to use to accomplish that (situating the estimate by allocating 650 soldiers prior to determining the mission, mission parameters etc. is problematic).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Loachman said:
So let's just not do anything anywhere then.... how is this any different than putting a BG to act as a speed bump in Latvia? Or putting troops in Kandahar? Or for those crying we should go to Syria/Iraq?
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,122
- Points
- 1,160
Bird_Gunner45 said:
'We' already are in Syria/ Iraq.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
daftandbarmy said:
Correct. It was more for those suggesting we, the west, should go in in force.
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Did I say that? Anywhere?
Bird_Gunner45 said:
There is a much more clear mission and purpose, and we are in a much more stable host country. Our potential opponent has a fair amount to lose by inflicting casualties upon troops from the various nations participating and provoking a NATO response. I see no difference between this and my presence in 4 CMBG during the peak of the Cold War.
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I am not one of those, and would be similarly leery if any such proposal were as sketchy as this one is.
This government did not show any interest in assisting refugees in general early in its mandate. A photograph of a dead Syrian boy on a beach went viral, so it fixated on Syrians to the exclusion of all others in order to exploit voter sympathy, won an election, brought in a rectally-extracted number of them (many of whom were already in the privately-sponsored mill, as were my current neighbours), posed for its photo ops, and went completely silent on refugees. Why no Yazidis, or Middle-Eastern Christians, or Burundians, or any other persecuted groups? There's no shortage of others. Why no sustained programme? This gives me no indication that this government cares about people rather than votes.
I have no objection to Syrians, by the way. My neighbours are great people. I'd not object to more like them, just not at the exclusion of all others because a photograph makes them the cause du jour.
Why Africa? Why not Colombia, where we are more likely to make a difference? I honestly do not see that this government cares about Africans as people, only about international prestige and that Security Council seat.
My previous Burundian neighbours were good people, too, and there is no shortage of misery in Burundi that could use some cleaning up, but the Burundian government would not be a willing host. They're too busy killing each other and do not want anybody getting in the way of their vicious power struggles and revenge-taking. I suspect that the majority of African countries are very similar.
We did more good in Afghanistan than we are likely to do in Africa, yet that does not seem to count for much in Liberal eyes, because it was not UN-run. We would have achieved/be achieving more by remaining there rather than leaving while it was still in a vulnerable and fragile state - I was astounded at the improvements made between my two tours (actually 1.5, as the last one got cut short).
I want to see a clear, logical, practical, achievable, and justifiable mission, a reasonably-sized and reasonably-structured force that has all of the equipment that it needs, decent ROEs (and regardless of what some are promising, the UN and host nation may well impose unwelcome limitations) and adequate support from Canada, other UN forces in the area, the UN itself, and the host nation.
I want Altair to learn some valuable lessons while he's there - just not at too high a cost should this not be done right.
And I've yet to see or hear anything that gives me the tiniest shred of confidence that it will be done right.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Loachman said:
Alright, from the beginning:
- I never said you said that. Your list of "what ifs" was exhaustive and could happen in any NATO or UN mission, so it's something of a strawman. I lost my "virginity" for such things years ago, so don't go into anything with closed eyes. My point was that if we "so what" something to death than we wont do anything. The initial point that that point was to was that if CAF leadership has the ROE to defend civilians and coalition forces (such as in A-Stan) there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't. Any leader who would allow people to die because of their moral or personal weakness should be removed from command, full stop.
- Agree about Syrian refugee's, but don't know why it was brought up. The Liberals played off of the publics sympathy and obsession with living in a 15 minute news cycle. The same for the picture of the Syrian child with blood coming out of his head after an airstrike. Why not Afghans? or as you say, Burundians or any other group? Syrians were the flavour of the day (add in that most don't understand the difference between Syrian refugees and the migrant crisis in Europe which includes far more than Syrians). People are generally ignorant to facts and reality (Liberals AND conservatives) and generally choose to live in ignorant bliss. Which is why I don't agree with a "anti-Canadian values" checklist any more than I agree with fast tracking a group of people because of a photo.
- To be honest I think Latvia is a waste of time and resources, aside from giving Canadian soldiers a good training opportunity to work with NATO partners (which is great). Russia is no threat to NATO as they cannot hope to win a war against NATO. The difference between your presence in the Cold War and now is that Russia is a decaying former super power unable to project power. So, I suppose they'll meet their mission of shielding against a Russian attack that was never going to happen. I think the Latvia mission was more of a bi-product of Obama and Trudeau's "bro-mance" than anything else and likely allowed us to "meet obligations" and avoid obligations somewhere else (whatever that may have been). I don't believe the Liberals have any strong desire to be returning to Cold War postures.
- The good we did in Afghanistan vs Africa is impossible to measure since we can't know what, if any, lasting effect we had in Afghanistan for some time in the future. If, in 15 years, Afghanistan is continuing to progress and able to combat insurgency (or perhaps even wiped it out) by itself than it is certain that we did a lot of good. If in 15 years in Taliban controlled and hasn't progressed, than we can't really say we did any, aside from short term, good. Same for Africa.
- I also want to see a clear cut UN mission with attainable and logical goals and a well defined end state (none of which we had in Afghanistan, IMHO). My position on that has been stated several times. I'm not cheerleading for this mission, but I'm also reserving judgment until we have some idea of what the intent, end state, etc are. I also don't get a lot of warm and fuzzies about what I've heard, but will wait. On the day the announce it, if it turns out to be poorly thought out and without clear goals, than I will be the first to criticize.
- Why not Columbia? Who knows. Maybe there's an intent to develop soft power within the African continent to counter Chinese influence. Maybe not. Maybe they want to bring in more African refugees and think a mission in Africa will assist? who knows. We should just do a peacekeeping mission to Chicago or Detroit where we could be of some real value to a key ally [
A final point for Good2Golf- I don't consider 200 SOF, helicopters and LCMR dets (since they're there too) to be us being there "in force".
And - who says we're not going to Colombia? It appears, given Trudeau's lack of committal words, that the Ukraine deployment is not open ended. That, combined with the fact that most people were expecting a military contribution of about 1000 people to an African mission, and we only gave 650, gives us some room to send a small mission to South America if we so choose.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
jmt18325 said:
Unless the Liberals intent is to break the Logistics system, three missions to three continents (South America, Africa, and Europe) is not feasible. That would officially be the worst idea the new government could come up with, unless they want to buy a bunch of new aircraft and train logisticians.
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I'm not thinking of anything large - I'm actually thinking it would be more along the lines of 100 - 200 trainers, perhaps coinciding with the end of the Ukraine mission. There's also the possibility of it just being some police trainers. Such a mission could be done without much in the way of military logistics aircraft.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
people were expecting a 1000 soldiers committed to a peacekeeping mission.jmt18325 said:
Then that pesky NATO mission popped up. 450 Canadians in Latvia. Then surprise surprise 600 peacekeepers in Africa.
There is your 950.
Actually won 100 bucks off a guy who did some peacekeeping in Cyprus who said they were going to deploy a 1000. I said no more that 650 because without a bigger nation helping out with logistics there was no way we can support that many troops overseas.
Altair said:
They were expecting 1000 people after the Latvia announcement, if I remember my timeline correctly. Perhaps there are simply too many vacancies to make that happen?
Thinking further, I can see the mission to Colombia, if it happens, being limited to police trainers. Since we're funding it already, I can see it happening.
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
The way I remember it going down was LPC starts mumbling about peacekeeping. Numbers around 1000.jmt18325 said:
Then NATO starts mumbling about troops in eastern NATO countries. Canada's name is brought up. Obama shows up talking about world needing more canada and for Canada to step up. Canada announces that 450 troops heading to Latvia.
I'm just going off memory so if anyone has a more accurate timeline feel free to correct me.
- Status
Similar threads
