The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[on guard for thee]

Understood, and in full agreement.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Any form of attack on Canada would not have the effect you would hope for guys. What would end up happeneing is the vocal peacenik types would say its because we are involved in Afghanistan or something other. People would get in an uproar and things for the CF would go from bad to worse.

 

[Bartok5]

Jaxson,

Don't fret.  It may suprise you to know that there are many of us wearing the uniform who fully expect your "hypothetical situation" to come true sooner rather than later.  None of us want a terrorist strike on Canada - indeed, the opposite is true for anyone wearing the uniform or our nation.  We work every day and put our lives on the line in far-flung places precisely to prevent such an occurence.  But we are also realists and we therefore know (without question) that barring a fundamental change of world events, such an incident in Canada is all but inevitable. 

The problem is that even if ((name your diety here) forbid) such an event should occur, the Canadaian government and general populace would be so far behind the power-curve in terms of sorting ourselves out that our immediate response would be entirely inadequate and meaningless.  The thing about combatting terrorism is that you have to PRE-EMPT the terrorists - ideally through a combination of "good works" overseas and by killing those who presume to challenge our way of life.  That's it - that's all there is too it.  Unfortunately, those things are far easier said than done.

I'm with you - I think that Canada is primed for a big terrorist hit, and it is going to happen.  And then what?  A bunch of self-reflective hand-wringing combined with navel-gazing and self-serving "K'um Ba Ya" candlight vigils and a renewed pledge to be friends to the world?  Or will we finally "get it" as a mollycoddled citizenry and promptly sort ourselves out as a nation - recognizing an immediate threat to our well-being and that of our children?  Just as we have done in two world wars and several overseas combat actions during the earlier years of this century?

The fact is that Canada has grown too soft for its own good.  Our collective conscience has been overtaken by rampant and unwarranted political correctness, coupled with a misplaced utopian belief that we can "get by" without overtly offending anyone.  Unfortunately, that Canadian societal premise is fundamentally flawed, and has been from the outset.  We are already at war, and we chose our side/made our bed when we sent 3 PPCLI on combat operations against the Al Quaida and Taliban in Afghanistan 3 years ago.  There is no turning back, unless we collectively choose to turn belly-up and have our women don Burkhas.  Because that is the choice.  There is no middle ground to be negotiated with those who would purport to impose their radical religious beliefs upon us.  We fight, or we die.  Simple eh?  Sadly, most Canadians cannot yet comprehend the fundamental reality of the situation.  We are at WAR.  Full-stop.

Getting back to your point, we all know that you don't want a terrorist strike against Canada resulting in mass casualties in one of our urban centres.  None of us does.  Heck - I've been wearing the uniform for 25 years in an active personal attempt to prevent just that.  But the fact remains that if we don't get our collective societal crap together, that is precisely what is going to happen.  You know it, and I know it.  And I'm sorry to have to agree with you that such an event is likely the only thing that will awaken the navel-gazing, self-indulgent and falsely secure Canadian public from their collective slumber.  I sincerely rue the day, but I have zero doubt that it is coming.  And sooner rather than later.

All of the above to say that your concerns are fully warranted, and you are not off-base.  It is only a matter of time, and the "grown-ups" know it - even if they are not yet admitting it.

See you when the dust settles.

Cheers,

 

[McG]

"We're sending in armed troops to kill people (in Afghanistan). This is a drastic change in direction,"
"I don't think anybody has consulted with the Canadian public."

Independent MP Carolyn Parrish​

It is inexcusable that a Canadian MP could be so miss-informed as to believe that we are making a "drastic change in direction" and not recognize that we are just carrying on with the same job.  However, because we have used dishonest vernacular to soften our image, it is our fault a a military that some in the public will believe her. This goes back to my earlier observation of how shocked the average citizen is about the violence involved in "peacekeeping."  We should have dropped that term long ago.  "Enforcers" may have been better but, personally, I think we should have just stuck with "soldiers."

If the CF had always used the honest language of our current CDS, then the public would see Ms Parish's current act for its true stupidity.  Unfortunately, because we have sugar coated our work, some people will believe her.

 

[McG]

Here is another example of the importance of pushing the correct language.  The following quotes of the same paragraph are taken from the article by Anne Dawson & appearing in newspapers today.  The first quote is from the Edmonton Journal and the second is from The Ottawa Citizen.

Parrish is furious that neither Canadians nor their politicians have been consulted about what she calls the "new" role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, which could include killing the enemy, a traditional role of soldiers.

The Edmonton Journal has used language that is honest about our roll.  Doesn't Ms. Parish come off a little goofy by being furious that Canadian soldiers are being asked to fill a traditional role of soldiers?

Ms. Parrish is furious that Canadians and their politicians have not been consulted about what she calls the new role Canadian soldiers are being asked to carry out in Afghanistan, a role that includes killing, which is not the traditional job of peacekeeping. She warns there will be outrage when Canadians in uniform return home "in body bags."

We know that it is incorrect to suggest that the use of lethal force is foreign to "peacekeepers."  However, to the uniformed civilian, Ms. Parish's ignorance based arguments may seem valid.

If we choose to use honest language & stick to that language, then eventually the news media will start to portray us in an accurate light.  In some papers, it is already happening.

 

[ShaneV]

i like that " peace maker" thats really good.

 

[pbi]

It is inexcusable that a Canadian MP could be so miss-informed as to believe that we are making a "drastic change in direction" and not recognize that we are just carrying on with the same job.   However, because we have used dishonest vernacular to soften our image, it is our fault a a military that some in the public will believe her. This goes back to my earlier observation of how shocked the average citizen is about the violence involved in "peacekeeping."   We should have dropped that term long ago.   "Enforcers" may have been better but, personally, I think we should have just stuck with "soldiers."

If the CF had always used the honest language of our current CDS, then the public would see Ms Parish's current act for its true stupidity.   Unfortunately, because we have sugar coated our work, some people will believe her.

Hear, hear! Well said and right on the money. We (the big "corporate" we...) tried for too long to to garner favour by selling a false  but supposedly more palatable version of ourselves to an abysmally ignorant public. Like most poorly conceived image programs, it carried a risk. This is it, right here: when we go to do what soldiers are supposed to be able to do (or why have us at all?...) people like Carolyn Parrish begin to squawk. This reminds me of the (apocryphal?) tale of the Federal MP who, during the Somalia situation, allegedly rose in the House to state how shocked and indignant he was that Canadian peacekeepers were actually carrying weapons on a mission. Where was Carolyn Parrish during Op APOLLO, or any of the other missions that we've embarked on in the last decade or so? She must have freaked when she saw the Army taking Leos to Kosovo.

Cheers

 

[silentbutdeadly]

OK! question Ms Parrish: If Canada is such a Peaceful nation , then tell why do our police officers carry guns then?The reason they do is for protection, and the fact that one day something or someone might take there life! or better yet Ms Parrish lets have them not go into the Bad areas within our cities just incase they get killed hows that. So if our Police forse loses and friend in the line of duty, that must mean we have to take all the offiers off the street! So end my rant! haha

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Is anyone else totally lost for words nowadays, with this whole Parrish issue? I keep going to type something, only to find myself getting riled up and having to implement that backspace button for fear of my rant never coming to an end.

Politics in general, and specifically those concerning the Canadian Military is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth, that seems to just get worse and worse.

Bah, i need to go fishing!

 

[48Highlander]

or better yet Ms Parrish lets have them not go into the Bad areas within our cities just incase they get killed hows that. So if our Police forse loses and friend in the line of duty, that must mean we have to take all the offiers off the street! So end my rant! haha

You've got the right idea now.  In fact, as any leftie can tell you, the propper way to fight inner-city crime is to pull out the cops and send in aid-workers to distribute food and clothing.  In addition to, ofcourse, petitioning the G8 to donate billions of dollars, and organizing rock concerts in Barrie to raise awareness of the problem.

 

[The_Falcon]

You've got the right idea now.   In fact, as any leftie can tell you, the propper way to fight inner-city crime is to pull out the cops and send in aid-workers to distribute food and clothing.   In addition to, ofcourse, petitioning the G8 to donate billions of dollars, and organizing rock concerts in Barrie to raise awareness of the problem.

hahaha that is funny.

But seriously we do we even give her the all this attention. She is just saying all this nonsense cause it gives her a chance to extend her 15 minutes.  Before the "Bastards" comment she was just some no name backbencher from the 905, who has been riding the fortunes of the liberals since the 90s to a big fat pension.  Now all we need to do is convince the CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail, and maybe the Post to stop giving her a platform.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

hahaha that is funny.

But seriously we do we even give her the all this attention. She is just saying all this nonsense cause it gives her a chance to extend her 15 minutes.   Before the "Bastards" comment she was just some no name backbencher from the 905, who has been riding the fortunes of the liberals since the 90s to a big fat pension.   Now all we need to do is convince the CBC, The Star, Globe and Mail, and maybe the Post to stop giving her a platform.

      The problem with that is the Canadian press would report those sentiments, from her, or anyone else they could find, as they represent the opinion they want to express.  The CBC and the leftist journalists want to embrace social justice, rather than the justice system, and far prefer beating our swords into plowshares than extolling the virtues of our own "swordsmen".  Our right wing publishers with to pursue a continued downsizing of government, slashing away at expensive capital costs like the purchase of new first rate military equipment, and shy from anything that might call for increased federal spending that might require  increased taxes.  Our limited military industry likewise doesn't want a credible threat against, or offensive opperations for our military as that might require hardware not made in Quebec or Ontario.  It is in not in the interests of the press, their owners, their favourite sources, or the bought dogs of the "think tanks" to point out the facts of life to the Canadian public, too many people are doing too well off our happy defenceless ignorance.

 

[Infanteer101]

In the words of a thoroughly trained and wise PPCLI Capt. "I didn't know a peacekeeper who didn't train for war first." Cheers! 

 

[reccecrewman]

Well, I for one have been hearing a whole lotta chatter in the past couple years about the "Three Block War" which basically encompasses the entire spectrum of the Army's capabilities.  Seems the big guys up at the top have their plans for us, we just have to sit back and be prepared for whatever role they come up with for us on any given mission.  Be trained and prepared for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance or full fledged war fighting

 

[muskrat89]

Anyone in the know care to comment on this?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051009/military_report_051009/20051009?hub=Canada

Report critical of Canada's peacekeeping mission

Canadian Press

OTTAWA â ” A highly critical report on a mission in Africa has raised questions about Canada's long-standing reputation as an effective peacekeeper.

Ottawa had little justification for sending military observers and others to a UN mission in Sierra Leone, says a Canadian Forces study on the seven-year operation.

And Canadian soldiers and reservists were so poorly matched to tasks that the British officers in command often had to find them low-level work.

"The problem is seen to be a lack of depth of experience or `operational maturity,' particularly in the case of reservists," says a lessons-learned report, obtained under the Access to Information Act.

"Often personnel without the necessary operational experience have been unobtrusively moved to less demanding positions more fitted to their real skills."

Training to prepare Canada's observers for the mission was so inadequate that they were given instructions on how to avoid landmine -- even though there was no landmine threat in Sierra Leone, says the study.

The problems have remained hidden because operations were in a remote area and involved only about 100 Canadian personnel in total over the years.

"The fact that these were small-scale missions likely discouraged detailed and searching analysis," wrote Lt.- Col. A.F. Robertson, author of the March 2005 report.

The UN first stepped into Sierra Leone in the 1990s to promote peace after an insurrection by the so-called Revolutionary United Front, which ultimately failed.

Canada became involved in 1999 when it agreed to send a commander and military observers to support a UN force made up of soldiers from at least nine countries.

Ottawa also sent soldiers to help train the Sierra Leone army. The Defence Department dubbed the contributions Operation Reptile, which ended in July, and Operation Sculpture, the training mission that continues.

In a recent publication, the Canadian Forces hailed Operation Reptile as a success, saying it made a positive impression on officials in other contributing military forces.

Robertson's report, however, questions whether Canada should even have participated, based on a checklist established in 1994 to determine whether Canadian troops should become involved in such peacekeeping missions.

The initial mandate in Sierra Leone was vague and unenforceable; there was no clear division of responsibilities between military and civilian authorities; the operational plan was "unworkable"; and at least one of the parties -- the Revolutionary United Front -- was opposed to the mission.

These were all contrary to Ottawa's checklist standards.

"The humanitarian disaster in Sierra Leone led Canada's commitment to two tasks, even though neither fully met published policy guidelines," the report concluded.

"In neither case is there any evidence that a review of the prospects of success, a risk-benefit analysis, an assessment of the national interest in the area, or an analysis of adherence to the . . . guidelines, was undertaken."

A peacekeeping school at Canadian Forces Base Kingston, Ont., briefed soldiers poorly for what awaited them in the tiny coastal state in West Africa.

"The cultural briefings were inadequate, and did not effectively prepare them for the social and security environment in Sierra Leone," says the study, based partly on interviews with returning soldiers.

Canada's international reputation as an effective peacekeeper dates from the 1956 Suez Crisis, when then-foreign affairs minister Lester B. Pearson helped broker a resolution.

Many governments have since tried to establish clear rules about which peacekeeping missions Canada should join, said Martin Rudd, a defence analyst with the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

But governments too often ignore the criteria in an effort to help, or to be seen to be helping, when a crisis breaks out.

"The desire to do something often gets the better of them," Rudd said from Toronto.

"The tendency to want to take on so many missions can have serious implications" for military resources.

In addition to the Sierra Leone mission, Rudd cited the example of East Timor, where Canadian soldiers were sent in the fall of 1999 for six months when Australian forces were capable of doing the job themselves.

Canada often joins too many missions abroad, partly because peacekeeping has become part of the country's mythology, says a political science professor at the University of Calgary.

"We've bought into our own press clippings," said Rob Huebert, who is also associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

"We're doing it because we believe it's the Canadian way and peacekeeping is seen as an end rather than a means _ and that just creates all sorts of difficulties for our forces."

 

[2 Cdo]

It's only our "forte" when the government wants to make a feel good statement about the military. We haven't been the leader in peacekeeping for some years now, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good thing. Canadians hold up the UN as some almighty, know it all entity, when in fact it has been shown to be possibly one of the most corrupt organizations ever. :threat:

Well except for the Liberal Party of Canada! ;D

 

[GO!!!]

What we really should be addressing is the death of peacekeeping in general - and why this is a good thing.

In the history of the UN, there has never, with the exception of the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, been a successful peacekeeping mission - by the UN's own definition. Peacekeepiong is expensive, dangerous and only nominally prodctive. In addition to this, the very goals of peacekeeping missions, a cessation of hostilities, are rarely satisfactory for the warring parties. The parties in question are fighting for a reason, and are usually mid - stride when the blue helmets show up and try to "freeze" front lines and borders.

All of the major conflicts of this century have ended in one of two ways - a victory for one side - leading to peace, or negotiated end to hostilities, leaving one or both sides convinced that they must carry on the fight at a later date. There must be victory for peace to follow.

Canada and Canadians, while taking great pride in calling ourselves peacekeepers, must really look objectively at the numbers. We have contributed only small fractions of the total peacekeeping forces in the Balkans, Africa and others. Our "participation" is often limited to a few middle management officers, and some logisitical staff to support them. We are also generous in dispenisng Commanders, with hazy goals and few resources. None of this is particularly admirable, and must be addressed and scrutinised in the harsh glare of the public eye, in order to spur improvement.

 

[Michael Shannon]

Our "forte"  is obviously the construction of comfortable camps.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Our "forte"   is obviously the construction of comfortable camps.

  :   Not worthy of comment...

To the subject at hand.   I have some fairly strong opinions about this subject, which I will try to keep in context.

First, we do not have access to the full report, and the quotes are undoubtedly chosen to provide the most "interest".   What the full report says, with recommendations, we're left to guess at.

Second, and this is my opinion only.   UNMO and IMATT-type missions are not the highest on the tasking food chain.   While they are attractive tours for many reasons, most Regular units (and a lot of Reserve ones) are reluctant to let their officers (which is what we're largely talking about here) deploy on "one of" missions.   As a result, the tasks float around for a considerable time, looking for a "fill" and we end up sending a person who is available, rather than one who has been deemed qualified.   I've seen total floppers - Regular and Reserve - deploy on individual tasks because there's no one else available or wishing to go.   People that cannot command in Canada find themselves in positions of considerable responsibility (generally on "one of" isolated tasks) because of our lack of people.   No amount of PSTC training can address their professional and personal shortfalls.   Some of these guys have been loose cannons of the first order and should never have been sent overseas wearing a Canadian uniform.

Third, I'm not in a position to comment on PSTC UNMO training, as I've never done it.   However, my experience with them both on deployment and as a force generator has been much less than positive.   If there's an organization within the Army that needs to change their operational focus and to become more aware of the new operational environment, PSTC is it.

I cannot add much to the discussion specific to Sierra Leone - there are others here more qualified to do that by far.   However, I agree wholeheartedly with GO!!! - peacekeeping is dead and buried, despite Government efforts to keep the corpse alive (witness ISAF being described as a peacekeeping mission, as is - from time to time - our current combat mission in S. Afghanistan).

 

[EW]

"Our "forte"   is obviously the construction of comfortable camps."

If by that, you mean a large and secure base of operations that is worthy of a G-8 nation, than I would hardly say that doing it once would make it our forte.   I seem to remember the Brits/Dutch having a much nicer base at Banja Luka than we did elsewhere in BiH.   I'm sure the US/UK would do the same in Afghan, if not for being stretched between Iraq and Afghan.  

It's not like Canada is supporting simultaneous major missions.   So long as the money was/is not diverted from buying appropriate equipment (biggest problem there seems to be the lengthy procurement process) than why not build a SECURE base.   I was there before Julien, and I saw the problems the Germans had with their site in southern Kabul.   Not exactly secure enough for what Canada wanted to do, not to mention too small for a Battalion Group.