The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[silentbutdeadly]

Hey no disrespect! from my exp. in trades that support the army within the CMBG sometimes feel this way! but i must admit the hel ops units help out alot with our missions so i don't consider them as part of the peacekeeper ideal. Cheers

 

[Young KH]

Call it Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Policing, War or even a live firing exercise with live targets that shoot back.They are just words, Gobble DE Goop, Makes no never mind it is the same job and people get killed.

It's the job, whatever they decide to call it.
Political considerations will dictate what it is called in the end.

Statements made above are my own opinion are not to be taken as fact.

 

[McG]

Call it Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Policing, War or even a live firing exercise with live targets that shoot back.They are just words, Gobble DE Goop, Makes no never mind it is the same job and people get killed.

It is more than just words.   If we, as a military, are content to give it the wrong name then our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.   They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.

 

[Young KH]

It is more than just words.   If we, as a military, are content to give it the wrong name then our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.   They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.

Granted

 

[c4th]

our politicians and the public will expect us to do the job with the wrong equipment, wrong training, and wrong funding.

At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.  It is an oversimplification and in many ways the shirking of responsibility to blame the public or the politicians for failures in the nuts and bolts of our battalions, BG's or TF's who are deployed or preparing to do so. 

No one has disagreed that those outside of the military have the foggiest idea of the difference between peacekeeping, peacemaking, war fighting so I would argue that the differences in the terms are truly only semantic. Personally I know enough to know when I am on an operation or an exercise and don't particularly feel a need to substantiate my existence with what are little more than media terms. 

They will also develop unrealistic opinions about the threat and achievable results.

How many times in the last 100 years have we heard the favourite phrase of Generals that  'the troops will be home by Christmas?'  I challenge anyone to cite an example of a realistic opinion or threat given prior to an operation.  If there is one there will be a hundred examples of the opposite.  One could argue that the end states of peacekeeping and war fighting are identical. 

 

[Young KH]

Yes the media and I guess for publicity sake many terms are not to my liking, such as

Friendly fire,
collateral damage,
smart bomb
and so on.

 

[Dare]

At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.  It is an oversimplification and in many ways the shirking of responsibility to blame the public or the politicians for failures in the nuts and bolts of our battalions, BG's or TF's who are deployed or preparing to do so. 

No one has disagreed that those outside of the military have the foggiest idea of the difference between peacekeeping, peacemaking, war fighting so I would argue that the differences in the terms are truly only semantic. Personally I know enough to know when I am on an operation or an exercise and don't particularly feel a need to substantiate my existence with what are little more than media terms. 

The name isn't for boosting moral. It's to give a public face to C.F. operations. Yes, the C.F. is created to kill people but I don't think that the label Killer is very Public Friendly (if you will). The outcome of C.F. killing Bad Guys is designed to be peace. You might not feel the need to substantiate your existence to yourself, but you definitely should to your employer because without public support, the C.F. has little to nothing. Currently, they think the C.F. are Peace Keepers and they are funded as such (much like one would fund a large police force). Peace Maker implies force and could (positively) change the way the C.F. is perceived, so the public understands it does take effort and force to accomplish our goals (there are *a lot* of voters who don't get that simple concept, thus the media successfully playing up the "shocked" act).

 

[McG]

At the tactical level, politicians and the public are not at all responsible for training, and are at least arms distance from equipment and funding.

Yes, we must bear responsibility for the equipment we choose and the training we conduct.  However, it is naive to assume an incorrect understanding of our roll/function by our political masters cannot have life threatening consequences.  Remember what happened the last time the public opinion went against the CF getting the "Cadillac" equipment?  The Sea King replacement was cancelled.  The politicians control the purse strings and approve money for projects.  Do you think they will approve an aggressive direct fire anti-tank system (or even a MBT) of non-warfighting peacekeepers?  Do you think they will determine that "peacekeepers" need to invest in an expeditionary capability like naval weapons systems capable of long range inland fires in sp of our ground forces?

No.  The government & the public must understand that we are warfighters that, because of our big stick, can enforce peace when required.

How many times in the last 100 years have we heard the favourite phrase of Generals that  "the troops will be home by Christmas?"  

This misses the point.  If the public thinks we "peacekeeping" in some fuzzy comfy place, they will be less supportive of major projects to ensure our combat effectiveness.  I'm still surprised by the number of voters that I encounter who are oblivious to the fact that our soldiers fought a major battle while "peacekeeping" in the FRY.  I've met people that state "but it's peacekeeping" and are shocked to hear that belligerents intentionally engaged our soldiers in Bosnia, they are more surprised that some of our soldiers have died this way.

The fact is, if we do not use honest language with civilians, then we should not expect them to support our real needs.

 

[jerrythunder]

I think the usage of the term Peace Keeping has been a poor policy move for a long time. The focus of our nations defence forces should be on Peace *Making*.

U're right, you have to make the peace before you can gard and keep it.

 

[jerrythunder]

OH MY GOD!! FINALLY! Ive been waiting for someone to finally it!!! :threat:  "our job is to be able to kill people" and " we are the canadian forces and our job is to be able to kill people" that in itself is the truth i believe. why else do our forces carry guns? to scare people? i dont think so! im very pleased that it has finally dawned on a top canadian forces officer that we need to be more aggresive force. because that is what an army is for basically, to kill another army.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

i think thats right! We must be honest with the public and call it what it is! this tour to Afghanistan is warfighting, we will be going out in the Kandahar region and stopping bad guys from doing bad things point! yes there will be CIMIC and all that come with it. It puts the public into a false sense, so when the CDS says there could be soldiers coming home in boxes we can't and don't want people going " But we are peacekeepers how can they do that!" I just think our leaders sugar coat things , so we don't look like the americans and follow there poilices.

 

[jerrythunder]

true but this operation to Afganistan is one of the first offensive operations that canada has had in a while and it will be good for the military's morale when we show the world what our canadian warfighters are capable of! make us proud boys( and girls)!!!

 

[Chimo]

I think DND first started using the term "Peacekeeping" because it garnered a lot of public support, was nice and fluffy, and lots of pics of men and women in blue berets, holding babies in far away lands. Don't forget, where there is public support, there is money!

This was far from the reality of any peace support operation I was ever involved in. We need to adjust our thinking to the three block war. That is the reality of todays mission, not all combat and not all HA, a bit of this, some of that, and a whole bunch of some other stuff.

Whatever, the mission calls for from killing the enemy to handing out rations and blankets to the locals, I know our Soldiers will do us proud.

 

[Bartok5]

true but this operation to Afganistan is one of the first offensive operations that canada has had in a while...

Hmmm....tell that to the 800-odd members of 3 PPCLI Battlegroup who conducted no less than 4 deliberate offensive combat operations against Al Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan back in 2002.   Not to mention defensive combat operations around the Coalition bases at Kandahar Airfield and Khowst whenever not otherwise engaged in   carrying the fight to the enemy.  

No offence to you personally "JerryThunder".   Whether intentional or not, your comments are sadly indicative of the disturbingly short memory that the Canadian public holds for the deeds of its uniformed servants.   I can't count on both hands the number of media stories I have read over the past 2 weeks regarding the ongoing PRT deployment to Kandahar and the follow-on 1 CMBG mission in Feb 06.   Most of which take pains to note that this will be the (I directly quote) "first combat deployment since Korea".   Funny, they said the same thing about our crew when we deployed....

I have always empathized with those who served in the Medak Pocket crew and were not recognized in a timely nor substantive manner for their actions.   It was shameful.   At the same time, I would not for a second presume to infer that the same situation is ongoing now.   The members of 3 PPCLI BG were well recognized at the time for their efforts.   Having said that, some 3 years later it seems that an admittedly small but significant piece of Canadian Army history is all but forgotten - at least in the infamously attention-deficit minds of the Canadian media.  

What irks me in a rather silly (and admittedly petty) way is the fact that the Canadian media quite apparently have no institutional checks and balances when it comes to recounting history.   The deeds of yesterday may as well have never happened.   The media are hauling out the EXACT same cliched phrases that they used to describe our operations 3 years ago - to the further detriment of those who saw combat with 2 PPCLI in Medak, and now to the apparent disregard of those who served during Op APOLLO.   Which leads an aging  soldier to query whether or not anything we do truly ever sinks into the quasi-permanent public conscience, let alone that of the so-called keepers of public situational awareness (eg.   the media).   Sadly, I think not.  

I'm not unduly upset about the historical oversights and/or falsehoods perpetuated by the Canadian media.   Such oversights are sadly a fact of life in a navel-gazing nation such as ours.   I am merely disappointed and resigned to the regretfull reality of Canadian public awareness - more specifically the dreadful lack thereof.    

I wish those who are headed back to Kandahar Godspeed and every success.   It was with no surprise that I saw a bunch of the same faces from 2002 ponying up yet again.   Now THAT is a story deserving of print.   The guys and girls who have been there/done that, and are willingly putting it all on the line AGAIN.   In keeping with the above however, we will probably never hear their stories....

My hat is off to them, and to those who are headed over for the first time.   Godspeed, and come home safe.

Mark C

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    Peacekeeping is a politcal myth that has never had a basis in fact.  Peacekeeping is the net effect of positioning a warfighting force of sufficiently overwhelming force in postition to deter would be agressors.  It is possible only when the perception of a political will to comit those forces to the systematic destruction of beligerants exists.  In the 1950's we kept the peace, those who violated the peace had their butts kicked up between their ears, and our declaration that peace was declared was accepted; it was accepted because those who would break the peace feared our military force.  By the seventies and eighties, we did not keep the peace, we refereed the wars.  The political will to fight to stop someone else's war was gone.  Peacekeeping was a sick joke.  We guarded the villages until our political masters ordered us out, at which point the massaccer we were there to stop happened, was duely doccumented, and our troops moved somewhere else.  All sides in our peacekeeping missions laughed at us, for our ROE kept us from making a difference, and our greater military potential was irrelevant, as men with machetes and the will to use them will always trump men with APC, artillery, and jet fighters who have to get Ottowa and the Peace Corps rejects at the UN in New York to authourize the use of force.  Our troops can make peace in Afghanistan, as they have the mandate from our politicians to prosecute the war on terror and take whatever steps are necessary to MAKE PEACE.  No peacekeeper will ever get that mandate, so no peacekeeping mission will ever bring about peace, and soldiers by nature detest half measures.  General Hiller calls it like it is, he is probably never going to end up a senator, like some Generals we know, because he actually remembers what we are here for, to seek out and kill the enemies of our nation.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Mark C, the public cant remember something that they've never really known about...

 

[Gunnerlove]

Cyprus seemed to work.

 

[dutchie]

Well, maybe I'm over simplifying it, but to me Peacekeeping is little more than a task, albeit a complex task. The 'job' of an army (or Navy, or Air Force) is to wage war, and everything else is secondary. Peacekeeping is a task just as forest fire fighting, floods, humanitarian missions, etc are tasks. It just so happens that there is no other group out there that can DO this particular task, unlike fire fighting et al. I know people who feel that peacekeeping is 'enlightened soldiering'. I was baffled into silence when I heard that particular nugget of poop.

It's the media, and by extension the public, that get all wrapped around the axle with labelling operations. IMHO, the lads doing the job just worry about the job, and could give a rat's arse what it's called.

This fascination with 'Peacekeeping' has been a double-edged sword for Canada. On one hand it put a   on the CF, particularly in the last 10-15 years when our image was taking a beating. The cost of this 'kinder, gentler CF' image is that many Canadians actually believe we can exist strictly as a Peacekeeping force, which is of course ludicrous.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

This is my favourite subject upon which to rant, so I couldn't resist.

The public has the image of the happy "peacekeeper" precisely because that's the image that many in DND, the CF and the government wished to project.  DND still uses the term to describe soldiers, although there appears to be a concerted effort to move away from the "peacekeeper" legend.  An example:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/decpr/teachers_friends_e.asp

Using the term allows the government (and by extension DND) to:

1.  Put a uniquely Canadian "spin" on the use of military force.

2.  Distance our military from those of our major Allies (the US and UK , in this case).

3.  Display, to a nation that doesn't know better, our "commitment" to the UN and multi-lateralism.

4.  Justify an unwillingness to embark in major capital procurement programs.

5.  Indicate that the military is a "progressive" institution and put a kinder, gentler face on our operations.

I am completely convinced that the term came into vogue as we civilianized the military in the 1970s.  "Peacekeeping" put operations into terms civilians liked, and we raised an entire generation of soldiers to believe that being a "peacekeeper" was the norm for CF deployments.  This has created huge disconnects between the CF and the public and, even, within the CF itself. 

I used to take great pains when providing operations briefings to the press that Bosnia was not a peacekeeping mission.  Many reporters were shocked to discover that we had the authority and obligation to use force to ensure the Dayton Accord was followed and that our job there was not to come between two combatants, but to direct that fighting cease.  NDHQ, of course, had deliberately avoided saying so.

We (the military) have done this to ourselves.  Embracing the term "peacekeeper" has mollified the Canadian public, but has hidden what we really do for about three decades.  It has cost us institutional credibility - to the point were there are people who do not believe we can/should undertake any combat roles; it has cost us within the world of capital procurement - to the point where specific weapons system are questioned because they are"too aggressive" (dig up Sheila Copps' old comments on the Eryx ATGM for an example); it has cost us institutional pride as peacekeeping as degenerated into a failed and morally bankrupt policy; and finally, it has created a myth with which soldiers at all rank levels, including the CDS, have to struggle every day.

Frankly, I loathe the word.  While I can understand the pride of those who truly were "peacekeepers", it has cost us far too much as an institution.

 

[silentbutdeadly]

Haha trust me my section/platoon/company do not consider ourselves PeaceKeepers! i have banned the word in my section! haha