British Better Peacekeepers?

[centurion]

Canada losing out to the U.K., whose troops are adept at rapid deployment in
                   danger zones British Peacekeeping


                   By ALAN FREEMAN
                   Saturday, December 22, 2001 ? Page A13

                   LONDON -- Canadians may like to think
                   of themselves as among the world's top peacekeepers, but they'd better
                   look to Britain for a model when it comes to leadership in the field.

                   In Kosovo, Macedonia and now again Afghanistan, Britain has been the first
                   to deploy its troops and provide the command structure for the multinational
                   forces brought in to keep the peace and provide security.

                   What Britain has is not just the political will to see its forces deployed as "a
                   force for good" around the world but a military that is, in the words of the
                   British Ministry of Defence, "versatile, adaptable and deployable."

                   "This is a coalition of the capable, not just of the willing," said defence
                   analyst Paul Beaver, who says Canada has lost its edge in mounting
                   peacekeeping operations. "The Canadians are slipping back. It really started
                   when they withdrew from Europe."

                   He added: "The British can deploy a brigade headquarters in 48 hours. It
                   would take the Canadians several weeks."

                   Britain's expertise in rapid deployment came into focus last summer when
                   NATO assembled a force to collect weapons as part of a peace accord
                   between the Macedonian government and ethnic-Albanian rebels. "Of the
                   force of 4,000, we provided 2,000 and we stayed six weeks," a British
                   Defence Ministry spokesman said. "We pulled out and the Germans took
                   over."

                   The British plan to do the same in Afghanistan. The 200 Royal Marines now
                   in Kabul are the first of 1,500 British troops that will provide the heart of the
                   International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which will have total
                   strength of 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers.

                   Britain's long colonial history has not only given its armed forces vast
                   experience in hot spots around the world but also a tradition that means
                   there is broad public support for the military, manifested in several ways.
                   The British public doesn't mind spending its taxes on defence and isn't as
                   squeamish as North Americans about the dangers its soldiers face.

                   Immediately after Sept. 11, a poll by the leading British public-opinion firm
                   MORI found that 74 per cent of Britons supported the use of their troops in
                   Afghanistan. Since then MORI has asked the same question five times.
                   Never has support for British involvement gone below 66 per cent, with
                   only 25 per cent opposed.

                   "We have the political will to go and do these things," Mr. Beaver said,
                   noting that since 1642 there has been only one year, 1968, when no
                   member of the British forces has been killed in operations somewhere in the
                   world.

                   Mr. Beaver said that it's a question of attitude and commitment. He called
                   the Canadian government's decision to disband its parachute regiment after
                   the Somalia debacle as a "foolhardy move that was done more for political
                   than military reasons."

                   Much of Britain's current capability for rapid deployment results from an
                   ongoing strategic defence review that followed the collapse of the Berlin
                   Wall in 1989. "We realized that we didn't need big fixed forces like we did
                   during the Cold War," a top Defence Ministry official said. "We needed
                   light, readily deployable forces."

                   At the heart of this strategy is the Joint Rapid Deployable Forces, which
                   bring together readily available forces from Britain's army, navy and air
                   force. According to the Defence Ministry, it allows the UK "to draw the
                   right mix of forces to mount short-notice, medium-scale operations of all
                   kinds, from disaster relief to high-intensity war fighting under NATO,
                   European, UN coalition of national auspices."

                   Strategic airlift capacity is a key to this rapid deployment capability. Britain
                   recently took delivery of four Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, which have
                   considerably more range and capacity than the C-130 Hercules Canada
                   operates. The C-17 can load large wheeled vehicles and even an M1 tank.

                   The present deployment of British forces abroad provides a graphic
                   illustration of this capacity. Besides the peacekeepers and special forces in
                   Afghanistan, there are 2,000 British troops in Bosnia, 3,000 in Kosovo, 100
                   in Macedonia and 100 in Sierra Leone, plus soldiers supporting UN
                   missions in East Timor, Cyprus and the Kuwait-Iraq border. Others keep
                   the peace in Northern Ireland and defend Britain's claim to the Falklands.
                   More than 1,000 RAF personnel in Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia
                   support the no-fly zone over Iraq.

                   But the British enthusiasm comes at a price. Sir Michael Boyce, Britain's top
                   soldier, expressed concern in a recent speech that British armed forces may
                   be overstretched, a view shared by Dan Plesch, a senior research fellow at
                   London's Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies.

                   "The British are very good but they aren't Supermen," said Mr. Plesch. "We
                   can't do everything."

Maybe now the Great Pompous Posterior Potentate won't be able to say" We be da World Boy Scout. Canada always first to do dis stuff. Herb and Eggs say we in good shape an I don lack some udder guys say no. I be here 35 ans an I know sumting, by gar!

Maybe, just maybe (great wishful thinking here) this may be the kick to the seed sack this jerk, so deservidely and for so long has needed. Pretty sorry state for us when the tiny island Empire of Britian can have on deployment more personell than we have combat capable people in Canada. God Save the Queen!

 

[John Nayduk]

Maybe Conrad Black had the right idea, go where you are appreciated. I was the little ******* would just stand up in the Commons and publicly declare that he doesn’t want Canada to have any military assets, period. We could stop wasting out time training for nothing.

 

[John Nayduk]

Let‘s turn this into votes!

By INGRID PERITZ
From Friday‘s Globe and Mail

Two-thirds of Canadians believe Ottawa has not done enough since Sept. 11 to equip the nation‘s armed forces properly, a new poll suggests.

Reports of rusting military gear, missing batteries for fighter jets and dire underfunding appear to have seeped into the national consciousness.

Despite Canadians‘ view of themselves as a non-militaristic nation, they appear dissatisfied with the way their leaders are dealing with their military.

"People are saying, `We‘re not a warring nation, but when called upon, we want to be able to do the job,‘ " said pollster John Wright of Ipsos-Reid, which carried out the poll for the Globe and Mail and CTV.

"Canadians know that the men and women serving in the military are brave and operate in hostile conditions, but their helicopters don‘t fly and machine parts aren‘t available," Mr. Wright said Thursday. "The issue is whether the military is living up to its responsibilities."

Sixty-six per cent of respondents said Ottawa had not done enough to ensure the military has what it needs. Only 28 per cent said the government had done enough. The responses come after Canada has sent six warships and more than 1,400 personnel to the Persian Gulf area.

Experts say the results signal a shift in Canadian public opinion, which has historically been that the American military protected Canadians adequately.

"Canada traditionally slept under the blanket of security provided by the United States," Laure Paquette, a political science and military expert at Lakehead University, said in an interview yesterday. "I‘m really astonished [by the poll results]. It would be a significant reversal from the past."

The catalyst for the shift appears to be Sept. 11, which jolted Canadians from their feelings of security.

"Sept. 11 meant the end of feeling completely safe all the time domestically.
North America had been a fortress since Confederation," Ms. Paquette said. "Now we‘ve had a striking example of how we might need the military."

Military analysts, the auditor-general, opposition politicians and even Liberal MPs have criticized Ottawa for leaving the Canadian Forces ill-equipped and poorly funded. Critics say new defence money in the Dec. 10 budget, which gave the military an extra $300-million for capital spending, didn‘t address the chronic problem.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dismissed the criticism last week by saying that those who advocate more defence spending are either arms lobbyists or are living in the past.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton has backed the current level of military spending.

"This [the new poll] undermines whatever bluster the Defence Minister may have," Mr. Wright said. "With the world as unstable as it is, Canadians are saying to the government, `The emperor has no clothes.‘ "

While displeased by their government‘s handling of military preparedness, most Canadians are satisfied over all with Ottawa‘s backing of the United States‘ actions in Afghanistan. The survey found that 62 per cent say Ottawa
has done enough to support that effort.

The findings suggest that Canadians are satisfied with Ottawa‘s stepped-up border controls, security at airports and other measures, but feel that federal leaders should maintain a degree of independence from their southern neighbours.

"Canada always has this balancing act: making sure we stay on side with our most important ally, and still maintain our independence," said Darrell Bricker, president of public affairs at Ipsos-Reid. The poll results indicate that Ottawa is striking the right balance, he said.

It was conducted between Dec. 18 and 20 using a sample of 1,000 Canadians. Statistically, the results have 19 chances out of 20 of approximating accuracy within 3.1 percentage points, upward or downward.