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

[Lightguns]

It originally was an internal Cypriot matter, but then . . . Try getting ahold of this, which was written by the COS UNFICYP.

Henn, Brigadier Francis. A Business of Some Heat: The United Nations Force in Cyprus Before & During the 1974 Turkish Invasion, (Barnsley, 2004)

ebook, for those with a large enough screen.

https://books.google.com.cy/books/about/A_Business_of_Some_Heat.html?id=waZtAAAAMAAJ

 

[Eye In The Sky]

"Classic peacekeeping" holds a different mental image for the average Canadian, who knows a few things about the Canadian military such as (1) our Air Force is centered around the Snowbirds (2) most people who join the army are really joining our peacekeeping forces.  ;D

When the Liberals and average Canadian think of peacekeeping, they think of images like this:

The don't even like this one very much;  why is that Peacekeeper carrying a weapon!!!    anic:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

"Classic peacekeeping" holds a different mental image for the average Canadian, who knows a few things about the Canadian military such as (1) our Air Force is centered around the Snowbirds (2) most people who join the army are really joining our peacekeeping forces.  ;D

You forgot (3) We have a Navy ?? ?? ??    [

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mail sounds like Afghanistan. If the PM sends us there, we'll be mired in another insurgent war for years. Nothing blue beret about this one and no peace to keep or make.

With the French troops already doing their thing (sans blue berets) only able to help U.N. folks "if requested by the Sec-Gen" ...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You forgot (3) We have a Navy ?? ?? ??    [

I didn't, but I was giving examples of the average citizen.  I'm not sure they know about our Navy.  "Why do we need one of those?"  8)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Why the distaste from everyone for this potential operation?

If we go in to Mali, I'd expect a fairly robust ROE.  It's also a good opportunity to stick it to some Islamists. 

Better yet, it helps the Army keep the blade sharp.  If you didn't sign up for a little adventure with the potential for misadventure, what did you sign up for?

 

[PuckChaser]

I think the issue would be the "peacekeeping" label and government support, when we all know it's another COIN mission like Afghanistan, without tanks, artillery, robust engineer support, aviation, etc...

 

[a_majoor]

Cyprus, 1975 to 1993 for Canada, holiday in the Med with one full mag stored in your pocket and trading peanut butter for stuff with the Turks.  And the beaches and European women on the beaches........  Nobody dies but lots of hangovers make you feel like dying.  That kind of classic peace keeping.  And smuggling all the cheap impure gold.

Just to reiterate: http://army.ca/forums/threads/123590/post-1445284.html#msg1445284

And the distaste for the proposed mission in Africa stems from it being sold for something that it clearly isn't (peacekeeping), the loss of focus against real threats (ISIS, Russia, the potential for armed conflict in the South China Sea) and the fear that in order to make the propaganda point that it is peacekeeping, our forces will be held to a "peacekeeping ROE" and equipped for that mission and not for the very real contingencies of combat against insurgent forces.

 

[ModlrMike]

Yes, selling the mission as something it is not is misleading the public in the worst way. It's using the military as a cheap political exercise.

This article from the BBC gives me a great deal of concern. In addition, I have no faith that a "robust" ROE will be part of the plan.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think the issue would be the "peacekeeping" label and government support, when we all know it's another COIN mission like Afghanistan, without tanks, artillery, robust engineer support, aviation, etc...

Who cares what they label it.  If calling it "peacekeeping" keeps us in the game and off the bench, so be it.

We've got seasoned military leadership at the very top who I trust will provide the government with sound advice.

We don't pick our missions, they get picked for us.  We've also got a military perfectly suited for this sort of operation. 

I don't agree with the narrative that the government has taken their eye off ISIS. We've got a substantial SOTF and Intelligence apparatus helping combat that fight but the cancer is already there and being dealt with by other players.  A mission in the Sahel serves the purpose of preventing the cancer from spreading.  The last thing we need is another Afghanistan with AQIM given free reign over a plot of land.

I'm all for a little brushfire war if it keeps the rats off balance and contained to the MENA.  AQIM or ISIS, what's the difference?  Same shat, different pile. 

We also don't need Tanks for this theatre, far too burdensome logistically and ill suited for the Northern portions of the country where the fighting is.  An all wheels Infantry Battlegroup with dedicated Tactical Aviation is what's required.  Primary method of insertion is tan cadillacs.  The return of TOW couldn't have come at a better time either.  A very good weapon to blow rats out of little caves in the moonscape.

 

[Teager]

Yes, selling the mission as something it is not is misleading the public in the worst way. It's using the military as a cheap political exercise.

This article from the BBC gives me a great deal of concern. In addition, I have no faith that a "robust" ROE will be part of the plan.

This article gives a better overview of how bad it is. Although a bit older. It's pretty much Afghanistan by the sounds of it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34812600

 

[Altair]

This article gives a better overview of how bad it is. Although a bit older. It's pretty much Afghanistan by the sounds of it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34812600

Good. Let's go try to make it better. You know, like doing our jobs.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's not the mission, as others have said. It's the way our present government is trying to sell this as peacekeeping. Canadians think, pressed combat, spiffy blue berets, blue ascots and white UN marked vehicles. They carry rifles for the dogs. Canadians are the great UN negotiators that'll have the French and ISIS living hand in hand after six months. That's what Canadians think when the government says peacekeeping. Canadians are stupid and will have a very rude awakening when things go south. It's all Trudeau kumbaya shit and soldiers are, probably, going to die to satisfy his ego and arrogance. Anyone with a schmick of real world smarts knows that playing that kind of bait and switch with Canadians, typically, does not end well. However, the PM has never operated in the real world, so how would he know anyway.

 

[Altair]

Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.

I've read shake hands with the devil. Good enough for you?

UN peacekeeping > sweeping tents and counting inventory in a stores room at the slowest possible pace.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I agree with recceguy.  The notion of us peacekeeping is a bullshit trick sold to the public to reinforce the old media driving "peacekeepers not soldiers"  crap.

Personally I don't care what they call it,  I'm glad we're getting in the fight. Among other things a mission like this will help retention.  I know of at least four soldiers who put VRs on hold because they want to deploy. 

But just to add,  deploying as peacekeepers will most likely result in stupid roe's and get Canadians killed.

 

[Kirkhill]

A line from John Milton - oft quoted in barracks.

"They also serve who only stand and wait."

- On His Blindness

When the alternatives are considered, waiting may not be such a bad option.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Read up some on the past history of the UN;  ridiculous ROEs, TO & E restrictions, red tape between field commanders and the UN HQ desk commandos.  People who've been around for a while have little trust in the "UN Peacekeeping" stuff for a reason.  Find a few folks who were in Rwanda or UNPROFOR as examples, and talk to them for an hour.

EITS,

I believe the big problem we face as Canadians is that we tend to view everything through our own lense of Western cultural and political baggage. 

I'm including Canadian military members in this as well.  We are all political pawns, everything we do is a political calculation.  This is Clausewitz 101.

I believe every operation we are currently involved in is a worthwhile one and in our government's broader national interests.  Keeping AQIM out of Southern Mali is a worthwhile mission and one of a number of operations in a larger campaign combating islamic extremism.  It's a worthwhile cause.

It's not the mission, as others have said. It's the way our present government is trying to sell this as peacekeeping. Canadians think, pressed combat, spiffy blue berets, blue ascots and white UN marked vehicles. They carry rifles for the dogs. Canadians are the great UN negotiators that'll have the French and ISIS living hand in hand after six months. That's what Canadians think when the government says peacekeeping. Canadians are stupid and will have a very rude awakening when things go south. It's all Trudeau kumbaya crap and soldiers are, probably, going to die to satisfy his ego and arrogance. Anyone with a schmick of real world smarts knows that playing that kind of bait and switch with Canadians, typically, does not end well. However, the PM has never operated in the real world, so how would he know anyway.

Lets not pretend the previous government was any better, at least we don't have a bunch of control freaks running the zoo anymore.  I blame the present fighter jet/shipbuilding fiasco on the Conservatives.  They had 10 years in government to pull the trigger and couldn't do it.  The Harper government should have prescribed themselves some little blue pills, might have helped the decision making cycle.

As far as National Defence is concerned, the Liberals aren't as gun shy to make the hard decisions.  Whether we agree with them or not.

 

[Altair]

A line from John Milton - oft quoted in barracks.

"They also serve who only stand and wait."

- On His Blindness

When the alternatives are considered, waiting may not be such a bad option.

They will cease to serve those who only stand and wait.

Quote from Altair.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS,

I believe the big problem we face as Canadians is that we tend to view everything through our own lense of Western cultural and political baggage. 

I'm including Canadian military members in this as well.  We are all political pawns, everything we do is a political calculation.  This is Clausewitz 101.

I believe every operation we are currently involved in is a worthwhile one and in our government's broader national interests.  Keeping AQIM out of Southern Mali is a worthwhile mission and one of a number of operations in a larger campaign combating islamic extremism.  It's a worthwhile cause.

My concern is with things like ROE and 'what kit can we bring'...time will tell...