The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[The Bread Guy]

I see irrational people with no BLM involvement. Regardless.

:highjack:

To link it back to what medicineman said, you make one mistake, or what you consider the "right thing" to do, and it's not impossible "irrational people" will be happy to hang you, guilty or not -- on an international scale.*

* - Not saying this dude's in the right, just showing how quickly the hate can spread and how far.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Sorry I didn't read your mind.

We're not going to a PSO with that either. There's no way 600 pers is going to be a robust BG. We needed 2000 people to support that, another 700 for tac aviation support. 600 is a regular Army Coy at most.

Im not entirely sure how this is relevant, but ok. Like your last post, you're trying to go somewhere the original post wasn't intended. If you guys want to discuss force packaging options for a joint symmetric or asymmetric operation than start a new thread and leave this one to peacekeeping.

By Doctrine a battle group is any grouping of armoured and infantry forces. All other forces are attached to the battle group. So, even doctrinally speaking, a battle group of an infantry battalion and armoured squadron (the smallest combination) would be larger than 600 with no more multipliers attached. Tomorrow I'll get my TO&E and give you the precise numbers if you want.

 

[PuckChaser]

You argued that 200 SOF is not a significant contribution. I argue that 600 troops in a joint context with a stated focus on CSS and leadership will do very little operationally. It'd be a Christmas miracle if we sent combat arms troops to this mission to do anything other than training, camp force pro, or convoy escort.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest on voting on any future mission, from Question Period in the House of Commons yesterday:

... Hon. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the decision to send Canadian men and women in our armed forces into harm's way is one of the most serious decisions that parliamentarians will ever undertake. That is why the Conservative government always believed in taking it to debate in the House of Commons.  Given that the Minister of National Defence formerly served for our country*, and it seems like he will not allow this to come to a vote, can he explain both to our men and women in uniform and to Canadians why the Liberals will not put this to a vote in the House of Commons?

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, we can be proud of our men and women who have served all over the world in previous missions, and even now. However, a lot of work needs to be done for peace operations. We are going to be going in with eyes wide open, making sure that we have all the necessary information to allow the military to do its work, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development. We will make sure that we have all the right information. We need to be able to get a full analysis.  Once we have better information, we will be presenting this to Canadians, as we have done, moving forward. A lot of work needs to be done, and I look forward to the healthy debate once we have all the necessary information.

* - Is this a bit of a dig?  From someone who never served at all?

 

[Lightguns]

Latest on voting on any future mission, from Question Period in the House of Commons yesterday:
* - Is this a bit of a dig?  From someone who never served at all?

I think it is a fair question from the official opposition in a democratic nation.  Whatever you think of cons, they held the debate and voted on the missions keeping the information in the minds of Canadians.  I do not think is particularly useful to limit someone's opportunity to debate simply because of service.  The current ministers former service was done in the full light of political debate and that is a valid political point.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.

 

[Good2Golf]

The MND may also be a statistical 'outlier' in Caucus and in fact be personally in favour of a Parliamentary session on the issue, but when the Head of Caucus and Chair of Privy Council says thus (no vote), thus it is...until of course he comes up with the innovative concept that Canadians, through their elected members, are informed of the factors influencing what Government's specific implementation of it's renewed focus on peace support operations is.  I would say give credit where credit is due, and that Minister Sajjan (and likely Andrew Leslie) has(have) been instrumental in the change in verbiage surrounding future CAF employment such that I don't think any reasonable person is expecting to see CAF personnel with no protective equipment but a light blue cotton ball cap and an unloaded/unreadied C7 slung over their back handing out candies to an African nation's 8-year old future leaders.

Regards
G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.

Presuming, of course, that being an MP doesn't constitute "serving" ...

... I do not think is particularly useful to limit someone's opportunity to debate simply because of service.  The current ministers former service was done in the full light of political debate and that is a valid political point.

Question was fair, and not saying debate should be limited, but the bit in yellow just sounded more like a bit of a "nick" than a dig.

The MND may also be a statistical 'outlier' in Caucus and in fact be personally in favour of a Parliamentary session on the issue, but when the Head of Caucus and Chair of Privy Council says thus (no vote), thus it is...until of course he comes up with the innovative concept that Canadians, through their elected members, are informed of the factors influencing what Government's specific implementation of it's renewed focus on peace support operations is.

True ...

 

[Teager]

I think this fits well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I didn't see that as a dig, Milnews.

I saw it more as a "How can someone who has served think of sending soldier into harms way without a serious debate of the reasons why?" type of question.

In agreement with you. When the MND was announced there was a lot of fan fare that he was (or is at the time) a service member. I'm sure the optics of his pedigree (if I'm using the term properly) isn't lost on many here.  The military service thing goes both ways IMO.

When he replied that they are going into it with eyes wide open I know the context he meant but when I think of eyes wide open I picture bewilderment and shock.

 

[The Bread Guy]

When he replied that they are going into it with eyes wide open I know the context he meant but when I think of eyes wide open I picture bewilderment and shock.

Good one ...

 

[Lightguns]

Good one ...

Sometimes I think they just play to our prejudices of them.  It's easier and they really don't care what anyone thinks of them as long as the domestic audience is happy.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sometimes I think they just play to our prejudices of them.  It's easier and they really don't care what anyone thinks of them as long as the domestic audience is happy.

Agree.  That is part of political messaging - with the other side of that coin being we often each read into stuff based on the glasses we each wear, too.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Call me a sucker, but I truly believe (for now) that this particular MND does give a shit about us and it's not just lip service as with many in the past.  Perhaps that might slip the further he gets away from having been one of us.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From what I hear from a lot of people who worked with him, is that he will try to do the right thing, but he may well end up being overwhelmed by his party. It's a case of a honourable man in un-honourable profession. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

From what I hear from a lot of people who worked with him, is that he will try to do the right thing, but he may well end up being overwhelmed by his party boss.

:nod:

At least we know he knows - once he makes his best case, though ...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Or for those crying we should go to Syria/Iraq?

Just a quick reminder that we have sent people to both of those places, some of whom have done 3 tours/ROTOs.  It's just that most of them wear flyin' jammies and a wedge so...

:

Alright, I'll spell this out.

When I say "in force" I meant a BG-Bde level force with artillery, armour, etc ad nauseum to conduct linear contiguous operations.

I'd rather not send a Canadian BG-Bde there.  The hard work has to be done by local forces, IMO.

 

[McG]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-consider-sending-peacekeepers-to-monitor-peace-in-colombia-1.3080616

Looks like Columbia is still a possibility for an UNMO mission, but I can't see a mission of 600 unarmed observers.  Does this increase the possibility that or 600 pers will be split across multiple missions?

 

[mariomike]

Looks like Columbia is still a possibility for an UNMO mission, but I can't see a mission of 600 unarmed observers. 

Ay por favor,

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You argued that 200 SOF is not a significant contribution. I argue that 600 troops in a joint context with a stated focus on CSS and leadership will do very little operationally. It'd be a Christmas miracle if we sent combat arms troops to this mission to do anything other than training, camp force pro, or convoy escort.

I actually never argued that at all. I used the term "in force" and didn't say anything about SOF.