Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

[Good2Golf]

I find it interesting that, outside of Canada, at international conferences, Mr. Dion is identified as the Foreign Affairs minister - none of that "Global" crap.

GAAAAAAAAC!  :blotto: ...oh, you mean the "for domestic post-election consumption in 20[insert year here]" name?

 

[Kirkhill]

The women and men of our military are well trained and prepared to offer a range of capabilities.

Canada’s contribution to peace operations will have the protection of civilians as its principal objective. We will work to defend and protect the most helpless civilians in war torn areas, especially women and children, who bear the brunt of human rights abuses in conflicts.

We are determined to prevent sexual violence and protect other human rights abuses. We know that integrating gender perspectives in our mission planning and operations is a key to our success in these areas.

Does this mean that Canada's new role at the UN will be as custodian of the custodians? I guess all that SHARP training will finally pay off.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Does this mean that Canada's new role at the UN will be as custodian of the custodians? I guess all that SHARP training will finally pay off.

Even though we may not see the entire story via MSM, that alone would be a MIGHTY big undertaking for anyone wanting to clean out that Augean stable.  #DiffifultYetThanklessTasks

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Another job for retired justice Deschamps?

 

[Jarnhamar]

I like it. When we get to Africa we can force allies and locals to take the Gender-based Analysis Plus module as well as whatever passes for SHARP training. A sort of train the trainer ambiance.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

So, rehash of this, or NEWS news?
op:

Rehash it is, then -- the Minister's speaking notes from the U.K. this week -- tea leaf highlights mine:

My reserved faith in this mission is dropping by the hour. This was literally a "buzz-word bingo" entry with absolutely no substance. If the goal is to essentially fix Africa, a continent with a myriad of issues that make ANYTHING in North America pale in comparison, how did we come to a 650 man number? What human rights are we defending- Natural human rights (life, liberty, etc) or the gimmicky UN ones (internet access is now a human right!).

When I read this all I could think of was the "Gender advisor" that was deployed to Ex TRIDENT JUNCTURE and what a gigantic waste of rations that position was. African issues need to be solved by Africans (same reason why I don't think there's any long term value in sending troops to fight ISIS- the solution needs to be an Arab one, done by Arabs, for Arabs) and not by outsiders who only understand the surface level issues. "Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.

 

[The Bread Guy]

"Whitey" going back to former colonies and lecturing Africans on how to be more western serves no purpose than to make "Whitey" feel better about him/herself.

:nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment

The Liberal government will not hold a vote in Parliament before committing troops to new peacekeeping missions, saying it received a mandate in the election to deploy soldiers on United Nations operations.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.

“We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible,” Mr. Sajjan said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the possibility of a House of Commons vote.

“The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”

Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.

He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.

The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper seek parliamentary approval in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions and military advisory operations in northern Iraq.

The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.

Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.

The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline yet. “Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”

He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.

"It is unfair to Canadians, our allies, and most importantly to our troops for the Liberals to blindly pledge 600 Canadian troops to a ‘possible deployment’," he said in a statement. "Any use of the Canadian military must be in our national interest, not to secure a position on the United Nation’s Security Council or to fulfil the Prime Minister’s political aspirations. The Liberals must clearly lay out the details and risks of the mission before deploying Canadian personnel to a war zone."

Canadian soldiers’ participation in peacekeeping has dwindled over time to about 100 today – a significant decline from historical levels. Current deployments include about 30 in support of UN peacekeeping missions and 70 posted to a non-UN multinational peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberals accused the former Conservative government of turning its back on peacekeeping.

Asked why Canada is pledging only 600 troops for peacekeeping when in the past this country has fielded many more soldiers for such operations, Mr. Sajjan said Canada would have the capacity to deploy more if necessary.

“We have the flexibility for more, but it’s better to be pragmatic about decisions like this,” he said.

He said Canada must also retain the capacity to deal with threats such as Islamic State militants. About 830 Canadian Armed Forces members are being deployed to improve the security of Iraq and surrounding areas.

Canada is also sending a battle group to Latvia as part of a move by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian aggression in that region.

At one point in 1993, about 3,300 Canadian troops were deployed in UN peacekeeping operations, but some experts say that was an unusually high commitment.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.

We should take all CIS males in leadership roles and put womyn put in those spots instead.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Rehash it is, then -- the Minister's speaking notes from the U.K. this week -- tea leaf highlights mine:

Gag me with a Smurf; a blue one of course!

 

[Jed]

It's good to be retired.  I don't think I would be able to stomach the hypocrisy and PC sunny ways the military is rapidly advancing towards adopting.

I fervently hope this sitting government is only in for 4 years so the irreparable damage is limited and can be eventually reversed.

 

[PuckChaser]

Remember everyone, its not how hard you work, how good you are at your job, or the kind of leader you are: You're only getting a deployment or leadership position now if you're not a white anglo-saxon male.

Eventually I'm going to have to self-identify as a new gender, race, religion and language so I can get promoted.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Article Link

Liberals won’t hold House vote on peacekeeping deployment

The Liberal government will not hold a vote in Parliament before committing troops to new peacekeeping missions, saying it received a mandate in the election to deploy soldiers on United Nations operations.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on a revived commitment to UN peacekeeping and Canadians expect this government to proceed as they promised.

“We will be deciding in cabinet and moving forward as quickly as possible,” Mr. Sajjan said in an interview on Thursday when asked about the possibility of a House of Commons vote.

“The Prime Minister, even during the [2015] campaign – we’ve been very prominent about the importance of multilateral organizations and our re-engagement on peace operations with the United Nations.”

Mr. Sajjan was in London for a summit of defence ministers from 80 countries on efforts to bolster UN peacekeeping operations.

He announced that Canada will host the next UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial in 2017. This summit is a new forum, inaugurated this year in London, to improve UN efforts to resolve conflicts.

The Liberals are fully within their rights to send soldiers abroad without consulting the Commons, but the past decade saw former prime minister Stephen Harper seek parliamentary approval in some instances – for extensions or deployments of combat missions and military advisory operations in northern Iraq.

The government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged last month to make up to 600 troops available for UN peacekeeping missions – and to spend $450-million for peace and security projects around the world – but has yet to decide where Canadian soldiers will be posted.

Canada is expected to commit soldiers to a peacekeeping operation in Africa and options include Mali, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.

Mr. Sajjan said the government plans to put more focus on bringing gender equality between male and female soldiers to peacekeeping operations – including more leadership roles for women – and said the London meeting has offered evidence that the idea has gone “mainstream” because many other countries are discussing this as well. “You have many other nations who weren’t even allowing females into combat roles [that] are talking about the importance of it now,” he said.

The Defence Minister said he is still gathering information before a decision is made on a new peacekeeping deployment and he could not provide a timeline yet. “Let’s put it this way: It won’t be years,” he said. “It will be moving much faster.”

He said he would like to make an announcement this year, but he will not commit to a schedule for a decision until he knows that a deployment would make a meaningful contribution.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberals are making commitments without sufficiently informing Canadians.

"It is unfair to Canadians, our allies, and most importantly to our troops for the Liberals to blindly pledge 600 Canadian troops to a ‘possible deployment’," he said in a statement. "Any use of the Canadian military must be in our national interest, not to secure a position on the United Nation’s Security Council or to fulfil the Prime Minister’s political aspirations. The Liberals must clearly lay out the details and risks of the mission before deploying Canadian personnel to a war zone."

Canadian soldiers’ participation in peacekeeping has dwindled over time to about 100 today – a significant decline from historical levels. Current deployments include about 30 in support of UN peacekeeping missions and 70 posted to a non-UN multinational peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula. The Liberals accused the former Conservative government of turning its back on peacekeeping.

Asked why Canada is pledging only 600 troops for peacekeeping when in the past this country has fielded many more soldiers for such operations, Mr. Sajjan said Canada would have the capacity to deploy more if necessary.

“We have the flexibility for more, but it’s better to be pragmatic about decisions like this,” he said.

He said Canada must also retain the capacity to deal with threats such as Islamic State militants. About 830 Canadian Armed Forces members are being deployed to improve the security of Iraq and surrounding areas.

Canada is also sending a battle group to Latvia as part of a move by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to counter Russian aggression in that region.

At one point in 1993, about 3,300 Canadian troops were deployed in UN peacekeeping operations, but some experts say that was an unusually high commitment.

It looks like this Liberal government may not have learned much from the mistakes of a previous Liberal government:

Somalia Affair

The Somalia Affair was a 1993 military scandal later dubbed "Canada's national shame".[1] It peaked with the beating to death of a Somali teenager at the hands of two Canadian soldiers participating in humanitarian efforts in Somalia. The crime, documented by grisly photos, shocked the Canadian public and brought to light internal problems in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Military leadership were sharply rebuked after a CBC reporter received altered documents, leading to allegations of a cover-up.

Eventually a public inquiry was called. Despite being controversially cut short by the government, the Somalia Inquiry cited problems in the leadership of the Canadian Forces. The affair led to the disbanding of Canada's elite Canadian Airborne Regiment, greatly damaging the morale of the Canadian Forces, and marring the domestic and international reputation of Canadian soldiers. It also led to the immediate reduction of Canadian military spending by nearly 25% from the time of the killing to the inquiry.[1][2]

The final report of the inquiry was a striking attack on the procedures, support and leadership of the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence. Many of the top officers in the Canadian Forces were excoriated, including three separate Chiefs of the Defence Staff. The CAR had been rushed into a war zone with inadequate preparation or legal support. Enquiry observer retired Brigadier-General Dan Loomis noted that the operation had changed, in December 1992, "from a peacekeeping operation, where arms are used only in self-defence, to one where arms could be used proactively to achieve politico-military objectives ... In short the Canadian Forces were being put on active service and sent to war (as defined by Chapter 7 of the UN Charter)." Its deployment into "war" had never been debated in parliament and indeed the Canadian public had been led to believe by its government that the CAR was on a "peacekeeping" mission. After the events the leaders of the Canadian Forces had been far more concerned with self-preservation than in trying to find the truth. The inquiry report singled out Major-General Lewis MacKenzie as a major exception, as he took full responsibility for any errors he made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:

The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.

Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.

Oh! And Lew Mackenzie had absolutely nothing to do with the whole affair. The Somalia inquiry basically found him to have some responsibility for the Airborne's leadership problem, but that was on the sole basis of superior command responsibility (they were in his Army command) which, at some point included oversight of the Airborne regiment, in which he had never served per se. 

 

[Jed]

Hate to say this Daftandbarmy, but when you are wrong, well ... you are wrong:

The Somalia operation was laid down by the Mulroney government, a PC government. Then the scandal arose from the Department of defence trying to hush to whole thing so as to not hinder the then Minister of National Defence Kim Campbell's run at the leadership of the party, again all PC. It had nothing to do with  the Liberal party.

Then the Liberal, after regaining power in Ottawa, instituted the Somalia inquiry, which did not exactly shine, and showed the high ups in DND and the CF leadership in a pretty bad light.

Funny, I certainly don't recall it that way. Kim Campbell's time as MND and PM was very short.  I recall the liberal MND putting the boots to CAR in 1993 - 1994 primarily for economic reasons.  And the Air element not being too overly concerned as it wasn't their CF 18's.  (They were later choked about the F5's, helicopters, etc.} The long dragged out flogging was perpetuated by the Liberals and was the start of the Decade of Darkness.

Just like we now seem to be starting up another decade of darkness.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree, broadly, with OGBD ~ completely as to the timeline and who was in power at each phase.

As to "blame," well ...

The leadership problems in the CAR were well pretty known circa 1980: the assaults, the misuse of explosives, the harassment, and so on ... none of it was "new" to the Army but the CAR seemed, from where I stood, to add a little extra pizzazz to it all. Essentially, all soldiers always get into mischief but the CAR soldiers, perhaps being better trained, got deeper into it. My sense (and I knew several of the "players" personally, some were and still are friends) was that Paul Morneault, then CO CAR, understood the problem and had a solution which the institutional army (which included Ernie Beno, John de Chastelain, Jim Gervais, Lew MacKenzie, and Gord Reay) would not accept. Additionally, Paul spent too much of his valuable time doing staff work that was the proper function of his OpsO, QM and Adjt and not enough time kicking the asses of his line officers (and Paul could have beaten Seward at anything and everything) and fighting for his regiment against the practices of the other infantry regiments (mainly of sending, as Peter Kenward said, their "bad apples" to the CAR and leaving them there).

The decision to send the CAR to Somalia was 100% John de Chastelain. He had, some months earlier, when a proposed Western Sahara mission fell though, promised the CAR, in public, that the next big mission would be theirs. Notwithstanding at least one report that said that a light armoured unit would be the best "fit" for the mission I am pretty sure (I was a lcol, at the time, on the staff in NDHQ, but not directly involved in recommending that sort of thing ... my responsibilities were of a facilitation and support nature) that it was CAR from day one ... because Prince John said so.

The decision to fire Morneault may have been mistaken but it was taken based on good officers' reasoned and seasoned judgement ... which in the end is all we usually have to guide us. The decision to replace him with Carol Matthieu, however, was made by a little cabal of senior officers and, although they had been told to find the best available infantry lcol, regimental matters got in the way. Lew MacKenzie said, in public, that it ended up that the best available infantry lcol was a PPCLI officer, as were the second and third best, but it was agreed that it would look bad if a bunch of PPCLI senior officer (he, de Chastelain and Reay) "parachuted" one of their own in so they decided to look for the best available R22R officer and that was Matthieu.

Carol Matthieu was not a bad officer, but he had a near impossible task, and he found poor guidance and no useful, helpful support in Serge Labbe, the Canadian contingent commander ... who was a "rising star" in the army but was already known to have poor personal judgment.

I wasn't there, in Somalia, so I don't know who did what to whom.

The Somalia Inquiry was a farce. In my opinion Justice Gilles Létourneau came in, on day one, with his mind made up, but after a combination of media howling and Dr Barry Armstrong's public statements it had to happen. It was, if my memory serves, very much a case of blind men and elephants ...

             

Disbanding the CAR was also, in my opinion, inevitable ... after the "hazing" videos came out. But it's not clear to me that the CAR was ever a good fit for Canada, post Mike Pearson. I am 99.9% certain that none of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau ever wanted, nor even imagined  a foreign policy that needed a hard hitting, quick reaction, combat force as part of its public face.


Edit: typo

 

[Good2Golf]

I am 99.9% certain that none of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau ever wanted, nor even imagined  a foreign policy that needed a hard hitting, quick reaction, combat force as part of its public face.

Agree, with special emphasis on the highlighted bit above. 

That said, Harper found what he was looking for in 2006 and beyond, in the well-trained and well-equipped and most importantly, much better-disciplined CSOR.  In time, it (through CANSOFCOM) was allowed to lift the Kimono a wee bit, and let Canadians know how things could be done....correctly (disciplined and effective)...with the appropriate will and fitting ways.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[OldSolduer]

I recall a CSM in 1 VP actually saying "send Bloggins to the Airborne, they'll sort him out". It turns out several people had the same thought and there was a critical mass of miscreants in Pet in the early 90s.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I guy I went through Basic, Borden and 1st posting with had a younger brother who was considered too agressive for the RCR, was sent to the CAR and was thought to be their kind of man.  He went onto serve in Somalia on that mission (albeit without involvement in the incident).

 

[Journeyman]

.... was considered too agressive for the RCR

He wanted to paint rocks with spray paint rather than a brush?