The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[The Bread Guy]

One hopes, but remember what those who govern did with the Medak situation back in '93. Even the UN went against the grain and gave the CF props for that one. I always thought that was a golden PR opportunity for the Government of the day, a potential morale boost for the CF  and something that the public could get behind if reported properly.
But nope. None of the above.

Around that time, I also heard all was always well around the Maslenica Bridge, too ...

 

[a_majoor]

Overtaken by events (yet again). While the government searches for some sort of mission and justification for going on one, the United States is building a "Drone base" (which is also going to be an operational support hub) in Niger. How well a mission in the Central African Republic could leverage this asset is not clear to me.

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20161010.aspx

Intelligence: Long Eyes In Central Africa

October 10, 2016: The United States is beginning construction of a new base in Agadez, Niger, 730 kilometers northeast of the capital (Niamey). The U.S. had received permission from Niger for such a base in 2014, a year after American UAVs began operation from a Niger military base next to the Niamey airport. The new Agadez base will be built largely from scratch because, unlike Niamey, Agadez does not have a large airport or much in the way of support for lots of aircraft operations. Agadez is closer to Chad, southern Libya and Nigeria, where American aerial surveillance is more in demand by the local governments. Agadez will also apparently support armed UAVs as well. The U.S. will continue to supply intelligence obtained by the Niger-based UAVs with Niger and other nations in the area that have intelligence sharing agreements.

Agadez will be the second American airbase in Africa and, like the first one, will be shared with France and other allies. The first U.S. base was established in 2002 when the United States began sharing an old French base in Djibouti, which is the northwestern neighbor of Somalia. Since then Djibouti has hosted the one official U.S. military base (Camp Lemonnier) in Africa. France and the United States SOCOM (Special Operations Command) have had special operations forces (commandos and special aircraft) outside the Djibouti capital since 2002. In 2014 the U.S. signed another ten year lease for that base. U.S. forces in Djibouti were increased after resistance collapsed in Iraq in 2008 and the base became the command post for a network of American operations through the region. Most of the effort is directed at monitoring what is going on in the region (mainly Somalia and Yemen but also Eritrea, Nigeria, Mali, Libya, Kenya, and Ethiopia) not at interfering with the local terrorists. Not much, anyway. The Djibouti base also supports operations throughout the Sahel (the semi-desert strip between the North African desert and the Central African jungles, which stretches from the Atlantic to Somalia).

By 2013 Camp Lemonnier and nearby airfields supported fourteen large UAVs (ten MQ-9 Reapers and four MQ-1 Predators), six manned U-28 aircraft and eight F-15E fighter bombers. The two seat F-15Es carried surveillance gear and could fly long distances, find a target and destroy it with a GPS or laser guided weapon. In addition U.S. Navy ships off the African coast sometimes had MQ-8 and ScanEagle UAVs operated from ships to search inland. The U.S. Navy also had two P-3C maritime patrol aircraft stationed near Camp Lemonnier. More aircraft arrived after 2014, when ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) and al Qaeda became more active in North Africa and Yemen.

In 2013 the United States established a small intelligence base outside Niamey. As the eastern neighbor of Mali and just south of Algeria and Libya the Niger base was closer to the recent (since 2012) emergence of Islamic terrorists activity in northern Mali and southern Libya. These two areas were becoming a base area for al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups. Initially only a hundred Americans are stationed at the Niger base, most of them to maintain several American UAVs that flew surveillance missions over Niger, Mali and southern Libya. These UAVs did not carry missiles. There are also some intelligence operatives at the Niger base.

Thanks to satellite communications, this base had hundreds of other people involved in what it is doing, almost as if they were there. This is called “reachback.” For example, most of the people actually operating the UAVs are back in the United States. UAVs are very labor intensive, as you need a pilot and one or more sensor operators for something like the Predator or Reaper. In addition, you need shifts of operators because these air force UAVs typically stay in the air for 12-36 hours at a time. So having the operators back in the United States greatly reduces the number of people you have overseas. The UAV maintenance crews get the aircraft ready for take off and on the airstrip. But after that the crew back in the U.S. can take over. Reachback also works for intelligence work. The intel personnel in Niger are mainly there to work with local counterparts and provide them with intel collected by the UAVs and other sources. The Niger intel group are in constant contact with intel personnel in AFRICOM headquarters (in Germany, which is the same time zone) and those in the United States (like the Pentagon and SOCOM, both six hours away on the east coast of North America). The growing use of reachback over the last decade has occurred because the concept works. It enables a lot of troops to operate from a foreign base without being there.

Normally African nations are not keen to host major foreign military bases. But security and financial needs will change that in some cases. Thus Djibouti welcomed French military assistance first, when Somali seemed to be getting increasingly chaotic and Eritrea and Ethiopia were again talking of war. The Americans not only brought more security but also a bigger budget for the construction of facilities that would, eventually, be taken over by the government at little or no cost. In the meantime there were rent payments, jobs for locals and spending by the troops. Niger noted that and invited the small intel operation first and is now ready to deal with the Agadez base, which will involve over $50 million in construction of airbase, roads and buildings. Plus all the other benefits the Djiboutis have received.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

UAVs aren't drones by default; scanning thru the article, I didn't see an actual 'drone' system mentioned.  So...let's not call them 'drone bases'.  :2c:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

UAVs aren't drones by default; scanning thru the article, I didn't see an actual 'drone' system mentioned.  So...let's not call them 'drone bases'.  :2c:

.......and everything on tracks is a tank. WE know that. Write to the news outlet and complain. "I'll take, - WHO DUMB'S DOWN MILITARY ACRONYMS SO CIVIES CAN HAVE SOME CONTEXT - for  $1000 Alex.

 

[Kirkhill]

.......and everything on tracks is a tank. WE know that. Write to the news outlet and complain. "I'll take, - WHO DUMB'S DOWN MILITARY ACRONYMS SO CIVIES CAN HAVE SOME CONTEXT - for  $1000 Alex.

So, like, ships aren't boats unless they are subs?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Except when they are ballistic missile carrying subs ... in which case they are ships again.


Welcome to the naval world. Confused yet?

 

[Kirkhill]

Except when they are ballistic missile carrying subs ... in which case they are ships again.


Welcome to the naval world. Confused yet?

No more than you choose to make it!

"Confusion to the enemy!"

[ :cheers:

 

[dimsum]

Except when they are ballistic missile carrying subs ... in which case they are ships again.

???

I've only heard of "Boomers" being referred to as Boats, not Ships.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

.......and everything on tracks is a tank. WE know that. Write to the news outlet and complain. "I'll take, - WHO DUMB'S DOWN MILITARY ACRONYMS SO CIVIES CAN HAVE SOME CONTEXT - for  $1000 Alex.

Except, the article didn't say drone bases..it was the poster;  so one of the "WE" that know that. 

I like to be accurate in terminology.  Not anal for the sake of it, accurate for professionalism.

Hey look!  A M-72!  Awesome weapon eh? 

8)

 

[daftandbarmy]

Except, the article didn't say drone bases..it was the poster;  so one of the "WE" that know that. 

I like to be accurate in terminology.  Not anal for the sake of it, accurate for professionalism.

Hey look!  A M-72!  Awesome weapon eh? 

8)

We could paint them white, put a UN decal on each side, and call them 'Peace Pipes'

 

[MarkOttawa]

Canadians' memory is not shared by others':

The World Needs More Canada, Suez Section Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/mark-collins-the-world-needs-more-canada-suez-section-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Except when they are ballistic missile carrying subs ... in which case they are ships again.


Welcome to the naval world. Confused yet?

Famous name returns for first of Royal Navy's newest nuclear submarines

21/10/2016

One of the most symbolic names in Royal Navy history has been resurrected after more than 35 years and assigned to the first of the next-generation nuclear-missile-armed submarines.

On the most important day in the Royal Navy’s calendar - Trafalgar Day - Her Majesty The Queen has given her consent for the 17,200-tonne boat to carry the name Dreadnought.

It’s a warship title which goes back to the reign of Elizabeth I, more than 450 years, but was most famously borne by two British warships in the 20th Century.

The name was last held by Britain’s first nuclear-powered submarine, launched by the Queen exactly 56 years ago today in Barrow – the very same yard where the new boat is being constructed.

That ninth Dreadnought largely served as an experimental/trials boat for subsequent generations of hunter-killer submarines and conducted Cold War patrols, until she was paid off in 1980.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2016/october/21/161021-famous-warship-name-restored-for-first-successor-boat

I wish you joy on this 211th anniversary of Trafalgar.  :cheers:

 

[The Bread Guy]

An interesting study of Canadians and how their attitudes may be affected by photographs (entire study also attached) - shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ...

The issue: The media plays a well-documented role shaping public opinion and policy preferences. In a democracy, it is generally important that a government have public support before engaging in a foreign ground war.

Today public support is again an issue in nations that are fighting to destroy the terrorist group known as the Islamic State (ISIS), including Canada. Canada has contributed to a number of recent conflicts, including the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. At least 158 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan, according to government statistics, putting Canada’s per capita losses on par with America’s.

An academic study worth reading: “The Impact of News Photos on Support for Military Action,” in Political Communication, October 2016.

Study summary: Stuart Soroka of the University of Michigan and his colleagues design two experiments to test how different types of war photographs impact Canadians’ support for foreign interventions.

In the first, 767 Canadian adults responded to a question about their support for the Afghanistan war after randomly viewing one of two photos (at left)*: “The first photo evokes the military as a peacekeeping and development force. The second evokes the military as a war-making force. Importantly, the first photo is not of a non-military actor engaged in peacekeeping. Instead, a soldier is prominent in both photos, allowing us to focus on the effects of different military roles.”

The question was straightforward: “The Canadian military will continue to be involved in Afghanistan for the next several years. Do you support or oppose this?”

Finally, respondents were asked to assess their own “attentiveness to foreign affairs.”

About three years later they carried out a second experiment, which sampled 1,031 Canadian adults. Soroka and his colleagues added new variables, such as a control group that saw no photograph. In this experiment, those who saw photos each saw multiple images from the war against ISIS. Again the photos were of military peacekeeping operations (soldiers seen with no weapons) and of soldiers with weapons. They were then asked about their support for the Afghanistan intervention and the fight against ISIS. As in the first study, respondents were also asked to assess their own “attentiveness to foreign affairs.”

Findings:

    “Peacekeeping photos” (those without weapons) are more likely to be associated with support for intervention. This is higher among those who consider themselves attentive to foreign affairs (rated on a binary scale).

    In the first experiment, viewing the peacekeeping photo increases the chance a respondent moves one category higher on the intervention-support scale (“strongly support,” “somewhat support,” “somewhat oppose,” and “strongly oppose”) by 37 percent. Though the shift is “moderate,” it “is a consequence of a change in the picture alone.”

    In both experiments, those reporting high-attentiveness to foreign affairs are more likely to support intervention after seeing the peacekeeping photo: “Among those with low attentiveness, the peacekeeping frame increases support for intervention, but the change is slight, and statistically indistinguishable from zero. High-attentiveness respondents are, in contrast, more powerfully affected: support for intervention for those in the peacekeeping frame increases by nearly 15 percentage points.”

    Regarding ISIS, respondents who view peacekeeping photos are roughly 10 percentage points more likely to support intervention. “This effect is striking given that the ISIS intervention was barely — if at all — related to peacekeeping concerns.” ...

* -- Here's the photos showed in the Afghanistan part of the study ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit of backstory on Canada heading (or, in this case, not heading) into Africa ...

Canada took a long hard look at sending a military commander and soldiers to lead international peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the request of the United Nations.

It was early 2010. And the Canadian government was angling — in vain, it would turn out — for a rotating seat on the powerful UN Security Council.

By May, the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper had turned down the request.

Canada would not send soldiers to lead or boost a UN mission that was struggling to stabilize a massive country where government and army corruption was endemic, rebel attacks rocked the east, and violence to control Congo’s vast mineral riches flared.

The government offered only a brief explanation: “Canada is fully engaged in Afghanistan until 2011. That is what we are concentrating on for now.”

However, with Africa back on the radar, the Star conducted interviews and reviewed nearly 1,000 pages of heavily redacted documents obtained under the Access to Information Act to put together a picture of why Canada gave the UN the cold shoulder, and to shed light on the looming decision facing the current Liberal government.

It’s clear that in 2010 it wasn’t simply a question of military resource constraints. The military said it had enough.

Instead, it came down to a political decision by Harper to avoid what looked certain to be a military and political quagmire for years to come.

Sources say Harper and his cabinet took the view that Canadian soldiers should not be sent to function as domestic or counterterrorism police in countries that were effectively at civil war where there was no end in sight.

Another source puts it differently. Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs at the time, said: “Let me tell you, the Harper doctrine was very clear on these things — if you’re not effective, he does not see why we should be going out there.” ...

 

[Journeyman]

A bit of backstory on Canada heading (or, in this case, not heading) into Africa

...the Harper doctrine was very clear on these things — if you’re not effective, he does not see why we should be going out there....

I guess we're no longer burdened by such a bizarrely rational view.  :

 

[The Bread Guy]

I guess we're no longer burdened by such a bizarrely rational view.  :

To be just a titch partisan, that is a quote from someone who's said Canada's fight in Afghanistan wasn't a war:

... This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is ...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

To be just a titch partisan, that is a quote from someone who's said Canada's fight in Afghanistan wasn't a war:

A secure environment requiring tanks, helicopter gunships, artillery and fast air  :

All the political parties in Canada are equally stupid when it comes to dealing with the Armed Forces. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All the political parties in Canada are equally stupid when it comes to dealing with the Armed Forces.

:cheers:

 

[MarkOttawa]

What peacekeeping, er, peace support ops might look like in Africa (and our helos for Op Impact now?):

Via this tweet:
https://twitter.com/CanadasMilHist/status/792457905882750980

Earlier:

Canadian UN Peacekeeping in Mali? RCAF Helicopters?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/mark-collins-canadian-un-peacekeeping-in-mali-rcaf-helicopters/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

The CDS has again taken personal ownership of the commitment to ensure the right ROE, resources and C2 are provided to the pending UN mission.

Peacekeeper powers to be strengthened, general says
Military has learned lessons of Rwanda mission, Vance tells MPs
Bruce Campion-Smith
Toronto Star
16 Nov 16

Canada has learned the lessons of Rwanda and troops deployed on the coming peace mission to Africa will go armed with robust rules of engagement to defend themselves and those around them, Gen. Jonathan Vance says.

The top general said Canada has much to offer a peace mission, with skilled soldiers to train local troops, military muscle to deter violence and help foster stability, and an imperative to look after vulnerable populations.

With a potential risky deployment in the offing, Vance faced questions Tuesday about Canadian troops working under the umbrella of the United Nations and whether they would have the ability to ensure their own safety.

"We've learned a lot since Rwanda. I will make certain that the troops have the rules of engagement they need to be able to defend themselves and those who they work with," Vance, the chief of defence staff, said in an appearance before the Commons defence committee.

"They'll have the rules of engagement they need ... to be able to effectively contribute to that mission to the extent that we decide as a country to contribute," he said.

Retired lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire headed the UN mission in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide. With an ill-equipped force, he appealed to the UN for additional assistance and reinforcements in a bid to stop the frenzy of killings, but was turned down.

Memory of the Rwanda mission and the disgraced 1993 deployment to Somalia, where a local teen was tortured and killed, looms large as Canada ponders dispatching another military contingent to Africa.

The Liberal government has said it will commit up to 600 troops and 150 police officers but is still mapping out details of the mission.

Mali, where 35 peacekeepers have died so far this year, has emerged as one possible location for Canadian troops, raising worries about the risks they may face. Vance insisted that while soldiers can serve abroad on a NATO mission or under a UN mandate, Canada ultimately retains control.

"I never relinquish national command of our troops, ever," the blunt-talking general told MPs.

"I will put in place the command and control capacity and the leadership to ensure that I can exercise that command," Vance said. "That command allows us to take actions, extraordinary or otherwise, to ensure the safety and effectiveness of our troops in operations."

Because the federal cabinet has yet to finalize details of the mission, Vance steered clear of making specific comments. However, he sketched out his principles for such a deployment, saying a mission that is "well managed, well planned and supported" can reduce conflict and shield civilians from violence.

"Can we help achieve these outcomes? Yes we can," he said.

And as a "top-tier" military, Canadian soldiers can boost the skills of UN peacekeepers and local soldiers, he said.

"We can help them be more effective and professional. This capacity-building will help these countries achieve lasting stability. We must help them achieve their own security," Vance said.

And he said Canada has learned the lessons from decades of participating in UN missions to "mitigate the risks to our people and to civilians."

"Beyond simply placing forces into a particular mission, we must retain some control over them. We must ensure they are able to act and to protect themselves," he said.

"We must consider all aspects of the mission including the different threats faced by subsections of the population, women or children or fighting-age males, and plan how to address those." Vance said that a comprehensive approach is required for any peace mission to ensure an "enduring" stability.

"It's one of the best uses of a military, to set conditions for something more enduring to materialize," Vance said.

The general also spoke about the ongoing mission in Iraq to combat Daesh ...