The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)
- Thread starter Boogilywoo
- Start date
- Status
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,450
- Points
- 1,010
I could be wrong here (and please, SME's chime in if need be), but I am pretty sure that we still have the G-Wagon's (remember, we had the Iltis at the beginning), AHSVS, Leopard 2A6M, RG-31 Nyala (at least until they are replaced by the TAPV), the Buffalo A2, M777 Howitzer, the engineers Arva protected backhoes and, the Chinook helicopters.
All these were acquired on an ongoing basis with AGH as the logic supporting acquisition - I would almost put the C-17's in there also.
And George, let's not forget one of the most important thing: Courage and discipline under fire. Few things stand you in better stead when doing modern "peacekeeping" operation than the discipline and courage required to calmly, methodically and intelligently dealing with situations while under fire. You can't get better training for that than the situations our soldiers faced in Afghanistan.
All these were acquired on an ongoing basis with AGH as the logic supporting acquisition - I would almost put the C-17's in there also.
And George, let's not forget one of the most important thing: Courage and discipline under fire. Few things stand you in better stead when doing modern "peacekeeping" operation than the discipline and courage required to calmly, methodically and intelligently dealing with situations while under fire. You can't get better training for that than the situations our soldiers faced in Afghanistan.
Arctic Acorn
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 230
I don't know Paul Larose-Edwards, but the article left out a lot of information. I worked for the Pearson Centre between 2007 and 2013 when they closed.
First off, the Centre hadn't been based in Cornwallis for a number of years. They originally opened there in 1994 roughly after CFB Cornwallis closed, but eventually the 'headquarters' moved to Ottawa around 2005-6. Cornwallis had some staff remaining in order to facilitate a number of UN Staff Officer courses, but we left there for good when those ended. There was also a small office in Halifax I’ll mention in a sec.
Fun Fact! The Centre had its government funding gutted for a number of years prior to closing. We initially used to do a lot of research into armed conflicts (we had a number of civilian academics on staff for this purpose) in addition to training. By the time I started there the Centre was only funded about 4 million/year, split between DFAIT and DND through contribution agreements, so a lot of the academic stuff dried up. Fearing further cuts (but also in an attempt to better advertise the fact that we were also trying to stay with the times) we removed the ‘peacekeeping’ from our name, rebranding as the “Pearson Centre”.
In terms of what we actually did for the GoC, they (or we) would identify projects (run an SGBV course, develop a training package on how to run a UN mission, etc) and we would do the work on their behalf. This only accounted for a small amount of our overall business however so we had to come up with a lot of our own money, mainly though our Exercises department. In time (I think around 2012) we lost all government funding. We made it about a year before we closed after that last bit of funding dried up, but that was our own doing.
The branch office in Halifax was dedicated to developing and delivering Exercises for NATO/EU operational HQs. This is where I worked, and we were entirely self-funded. Our clients were mainly NATO Rapid Response Corps Headquarters (we worked with 3-4 of them over the years) or the EU Battlegroups, but we also did other work with the African Union. In the case of NATO/EU, we had a very Afghanistan-like focus, at an operational level so the training was directed at the 3-star general and his staff (not Chapter 6-type peacekeeping stuff!). In addition to scenario development (think the Common Army Training Scenario, but on steroids), we would assist the G7 staff with developing and delivering the exercise, and source experts (diplomats and other civilian experts, police officers, and the like) to participate as role-players and advisors. As an example, we had someone who worked with the UN Office of Drugs and Crime in Kabul (and was a personal advisor for a couple of COMISAF as well) who played that part on our exercises. We had a lot of talented people support us. Due to some internal (personality) conflicts, the exercises department office in Halifax closed in 2010 or so, moving some key staff to Ottawa. I think it speaks volumes that a (number of) NATO HQs, enroute to taking over ISAF, chose to pay a contractor (us) to not only help them develop and deliver their centrepiece exercise, but chose to do this instead of just using the Joint Warfare Centre's resources (and NATO-standard scenario).
In addition to our exercises, we also developed and delivered a variety of UN courses: sex and gender-based violence training and basic UN police officer courses, up to training aimed at senior UN leadership on how to run missions. I remember we developed a training package for the Afghanistan National Police on elections security a number of years ago (we didn't deliver it however). We did do some of this training in Canada (in Cornwallis) but it was delivered mainly at UN peacekeeping training centres located throughout Africa and Latin America. While we had some support from the Directorate of Military Training and Cooperation (DMTC) in the form of secondments and military advisors, that eventually dried up (again, personality conflicts). Our training material was accredited by the UN, but we had very little to do with them.
Where I sit, we did some very worthwhile work for a pittance to the Canadian taxpayer. No exaggeration, but we trained (or developed course material used in training for) thousands of peacekeepers, at all levels. Although Canada has gotten away from peacekeeping, it still goes on in the world. The UN is terribly dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean peacekeeping isn't important, and it sure hadn't become any less dangerous for the troops and police officers who still do it. My colleagues provided a tremendous service teaching police officers, staff officers, and senior mission leadership about how to do the job as well as can be expected under the circumstances, using people who had extensive experience doing the job themselves. If Canada has any positive reputation within the police and militaries of troop contributing nations, the Pearson Centre had a lot to do with that. I think it speaks volumes about the Centre’s reputation that groups like CANADEM (and Calian, apparently…if they’re looking at Kingston) want to pick the three-year dead bones of the Pearson Centre. In many respects they were competitors for some of the activities we conducted, especially once we lost that umbrella of government funding and had to start singing for our supper, so to speak.
I will also say that, while I had a fantastic group of colleagues at the working level, we were not particularly well managed (one or two folks in particular stand out who really didn’t do us any favours, but it is what it is). Our demise was a drawn-out affairs and largely self-inflicted, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of really outstanding work happened quietly and without notice for many years that actually made a difference, both on UN missions and in more current theatres like Afghanistan. We supported both, but not in Canada.
Anyway, I hardly ever post here anymore, but I read some of the comments here and felt I had to speak up. I just want to dispel any characterization our organization was a cash cow for over-paid liberal supporters to teach mine awareness training. Yes we had a few of those types over the years. I don’t care who sat on our board, their ties to past governments, or their reputations…they were an unwelcome distraction to the people that actually had to do the work. I'm proud of what I did there.
First off, the Centre hadn't been based in Cornwallis for a number of years. They originally opened there in 1994 roughly after CFB Cornwallis closed, but eventually the 'headquarters' moved to Ottawa around 2005-6. Cornwallis had some staff remaining in order to facilitate a number of UN Staff Officer courses, but we left there for good when those ended. There was also a small office in Halifax I’ll mention in a sec.
Fun Fact! The Centre had its government funding gutted for a number of years prior to closing. We initially used to do a lot of research into armed conflicts (we had a number of civilian academics on staff for this purpose) in addition to training. By the time I started there the Centre was only funded about 4 million/year, split between DFAIT and DND through contribution agreements, so a lot of the academic stuff dried up. Fearing further cuts (but also in an attempt to better advertise the fact that we were also trying to stay with the times) we removed the ‘peacekeeping’ from our name, rebranding as the “Pearson Centre”.
In terms of what we actually did for the GoC, they (or we) would identify projects (run an SGBV course, develop a training package on how to run a UN mission, etc) and we would do the work on their behalf. This only accounted for a small amount of our overall business however so we had to come up with a lot of our own money, mainly though our Exercises department. In time (I think around 2012) we lost all government funding. We made it about a year before we closed after that last bit of funding dried up, but that was our own doing.
The branch office in Halifax was dedicated to developing and delivering Exercises for NATO/EU operational HQs. This is where I worked, and we were entirely self-funded. Our clients were mainly NATO Rapid Response Corps Headquarters (we worked with 3-4 of them over the years) or the EU Battlegroups, but we also did other work with the African Union. In the case of NATO/EU, we had a very Afghanistan-like focus, at an operational level so the training was directed at the 3-star general and his staff (not Chapter 6-type peacekeeping stuff!). In addition to scenario development (think the Common Army Training Scenario, but on steroids), we would assist the G7 staff with developing and delivering the exercise, and source experts (diplomats and other civilian experts, police officers, and the like) to participate as role-players and advisors. As an example, we had someone who worked with the UN Office of Drugs and Crime in Kabul (and was a personal advisor for a couple of COMISAF as well) who played that part on our exercises. We had a lot of talented people support us. Due to some internal (personality) conflicts, the exercises department office in Halifax closed in 2010 or so, moving some key staff to Ottawa. I think it speaks volumes that a (number of) NATO HQs, enroute to taking over ISAF, chose to pay a contractor (us) to not only help them develop and deliver their centrepiece exercise, but chose to do this instead of just using the Joint Warfare Centre's resources (and NATO-standard scenario).
In addition to our exercises, we also developed and delivered a variety of UN courses: sex and gender-based violence training and basic UN police officer courses, up to training aimed at senior UN leadership on how to run missions. I remember we developed a training package for the Afghanistan National Police on elections security a number of years ago (we didn't deliver it however). We did do some of this training in Canada (in Cornwallis) but it was delivered mainly at UN peacekeeping training centres located throughout Africa and Latin America. While we had some support from the Directorate of Military Training and Cooperation (DMTC) in the form of secondments and military advisors, that eventually dried up (again, personality conflicts). Our training material was accredited by the UN, but we had very little to do with them.
Where I sit, we did some very worthwhile work for a pittance to the Canadian taxpayer. No exaggeration, but we trained (or developed course material used in training for) thousands of peacekeepers, at all levels. Although Canada has gotten away from peacekeeping, it still goes on in the world. The UN is terribly dysfunctional, but that doesn't mean peacekeeping isn't important, and it sure hadn't become any less dangerous for the troops and police officers who still do it. My colleagues provided a tremendous service teaching police officers, staff officers, and senior mission leadership about how to do the job as well as can be expected under the circumstances, using people who had extensive experience doing the job themselves. If Canada has any positive reputation within the police and militaries of troop contributing nations, the Pearson Centre had a lot to do with that. I think it speaks volumes about the Centre’s reputation that groups like CANADEM (and Calian, apparently…if they’re looking at Kingston) want to pick the three-year dead bones of the Pearson Centre. In many respects they were competitors for some of the activities we conducted, especially once we lost that umbrella of government funding and had to start singing for our supper, so to speak.
I will also say that, while I had a fantastic group of colleagues at the working level, we were not particularly well managed (one or two folks in particular stand out who really didn’t do us any favours, but it is what it is). Our demise was a drawn-out affairs and largely self-inflicted, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of really outstanding work happened quietly and without notice for many years that actually made a difference, both on UN missions and in more current theatres like Afghanistan. We supported both, but not in Canada.
Anyway, I hardly ever post here anymore, but I read some of the comments here and felt I had to speak up. I just want to dispel any characterization our organization was a cash cow for over-paid liberal supporters to teach mine awareness training. Yes we had a few of those types over the years. I don’t care who sat on our board, their ties to past governments, or their reputations…they were an unwelcome distraction to the people that actually had to do the work. I'm proud of what I did there.
- Reaction score
- 22,036
- Points
- 1,090
Dorn is, charitably, not in the top tier of Canadian academe. He co-authored a piece on the three-block war that missed the point of Krulak's essay entirely. He wrote (emphasis in the original):
- Walter Dorn Michael and Varey. “The Rise and Demise of the Three Block War”, Canadian Military Journal (vol 10 no 1, 2009)
- Reaction score
- 3,419
- Points
- 1,160
Seems a decision is coming soon on where we're headed on the "Canada's Back Peacekeeping Tour 2016".
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/12/canada-un-peacekeeping_n_10954236.html
Some info on the 2 UN peacekeeping missions mentioned:
Mali - Known as MINUSMA http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/
Central African Republic - Known as MINUSCA - http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusca/
Who is contributing to those missions? http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_5.pdf
Just a side note, if we add 1000 peacekeepers on a sustained basis, Canada still won't be "back". We'll move up to 26 on the list, from 88. Illustrious peacekeeping countries such as:
These guys will all still be ahead of us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/12/canada-un-peacekeeping_n_10954236.html
Some info on the 2 UN peacekeeping missions mentioned:
Mali - Known as MINUSMA http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusma/
Central African Republic - Known as MINUSCA - http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minusca/
Who is contributing to those missions? http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2016/apr16_5.pdf
Just a side note, if we add 1000 peacekeepers on a sustained basis, Canada still won't be "back". We'll move up to 26 on the list, from 88. Illustrious peacekeeping countries such as:
These guys will all still be ahead of us.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
We'll be the lead Western force, then.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
My bet would be on Colombia--blue beret trad, actual agreement to, er, police--not too many personnel and not much risk. Plus, maybe, something for Mali: airlift, comms, int?
Mark
Ottawa
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 3,419
- Points
- 1,160
Mali is full of risk. UN bases are under consistent IDF attacks. UN convoys have been ambushed with suicide bombers and SAF. This is the problem with the government policy. They incorrectly assume that Blue Berets (TM) mean people won't die, or get attacked. They'll find out pretty damn quick that is not the case. We'll also the one of the only major western contributors, marking a giant target on our nice blue berets/helmets (we'll need the helmets).
Oh well, I'll get 2 medals out of my 6 months, just hope I don't end up with head space and timing issues from the terrible ROE the UN is likely to impose.
Oh well, I'll get 2 medals out of my 6 months, just hope I don't end up with head space and timing issues from the terrible ROE the UN is likely to impose.
- Reaction score
- 4,844
- Points
- 1,060
Africa does not want white, western, armed troops there. We've known that for years and have avoided it, as much as possible, because of that.
The french deployed the legion there and they were not repeat were NOT wearing blue and they always kept one round chambered. It is not a peace keeping mission it is peace making, involving APC's escorting civilian convoys to guard against ambush and land mines. There will be casualties.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,449
- Points
- 1,140
recceguy said:
Then lets STFO of Africa.
I think the people being preyed upon would LOVE professional, white, well trained, well equipped, well paid military forces to be there to protect them. Forces they can rely on to be unbiased, and they don't have to worry about raping them & beating them.
On that note, I think people WOULD like us to be there.
But in the end, sadly, I agree. Africa is a lost cause when it comes to this kind of thing. The problems are too deeply rooted & too pervasive for us to make any sort of permanent change.
On that note, I think people WOULD like us to be there.
But in the end, sadly, I agree. Africa is a lost cause when it comes to this kind of thing. The problems are too deeply rooted & too pervasive for us to make any sort of permanent change.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
This may sound like a total lack of humanity, but after several decades of the UN and others trying to bring "peace" to some of these nations/continents; the drastic step of withdrawing all aid and attempts to bring peace to those regions may be the best and most economical solution. Peacekeeping is only a temporary cessation of hostilities; hostilities that reemerge as soon as the Peacekeepers are gone. Let's instead, let them solve their own problems, even if it means one faction completely annihilating another, and then if the remaining faction is acceptable to our standards we accept them. If they are unacceptable of our morals and ethics, then we blockade them and leave them to "die of their own devices". We can not save those who refuse to be saved. Why try and prolong their agony?
"I think the people being preyed upon would LOVE professional, white, well trained, well equipped, well paid military forces to be there to protect them. Forces they can rely on to be unbiased, and they don't have to worry about raping them & beating them." For the last half century i.e. since the end of colonialism, the general population of most of these nations have been taught that white= oppression. We would be about as welcome as an old-time southern sheriff at a "black lives matter" convention. In other words, not at all. Plus there is the problem of getting out afterwards. We can probably stop most of the Boko Harem attacks through aerial surveillance and active pursuit but as soon as we leave, things will return to the way they are. We cannot re-build something that was never there in the first place. I fear that sending troops into Mali is nothing more than Trudeau providing human sacrifices on the altar of U.N. acceptability.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
1,000 personnel available for peacekeeping?
Liberals consider peacekeeping mission to Africa
The Liberal government is weighing proposals to send a peacekeeping force, likely to Africa, as it reasserts Canada's presence on the world stage.
The Liberal government is considering proposals to deploy Canadian troops on a peacekeeping operation, likely to Africa, as part of its pledge that Canada is back on the world stage.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday that defence planners are looking at various possibilities but signaled that soldiers could be destined to Africa to help curb Islamic extremists.
“We will be moving ahead on this because it’s very important to send a message to our multilateral partners that Canada will play a responsible role in the world,” Sajjan told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.
“When we said we would be a responsible partner in the world, we meant it,” he said.
But just where and when the new deployment will occur is still being decided, he said.
“We’re at the very early stages of making our actual assessments of where we need to put the right resources,” Sajjan said. “We are looking at all the various requests in the different regions.”
Canada already has some 800 military personnel in northern Iraq and Kuwait involved in the mission to help combat Daesh extremists. Another 470 troops are involved in missions in eastern Europe...
Sajjan said the decision where to deploy could also be shaped by the need to curb the spread of Daesh extremism out of the Middle East.
“We need to look at the root causes of the problem, how certain radical groups will feed into other conflict zones,” Sajjan said.
“Certain parts of the world . . . haven’t gotten the right amount of attention and that’s why we are looking at Africa,” he said.
Any number of trouble spots beckon. Across Africa, potential deployments could include South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia and Congo.
But George Petrolekas, a retired senior military officer and defence analyst, says Mali, where Canada has assisted French forces in the past, is a logical choice.
“It’s no secret that the French have asked many times for more Canadian assistance,” Petrolekas said in an interview Wednesday. “Africa has been top of mind.”
Given existing deployments, he said the military could support a mission with up to 1,000 troops [emphasis added]...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/14/liberals-consider-peacekeeping-mission-to-africa.html
Mark
Ottawa
Liberals consider peacekeeping mission to Africa
The Liberal government is weighing proposals to send a peacekeeping force, likely to Africa, as it reasserts Canada's presence on the world stage.
The Liberal government is considering proposals to deploy Canadian troops on a peacekeeping operation, likely to Africa, as part of its pledge that Canada is back on the world stage.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Wednesday that defence planners are looking at various possibilities but signaled that soldiers could be destined to Africa to help curb Islamic extremists.
“We will be moving ahead on this because it’s very important to send a message to our multilateral partners that Canada will play a responsible role in the world,” Sajjan told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.
“When we said we would be a responsible partner in the world, we meant it,” he said.
But just where and when the new deployment will occur is still being decided, he said.
“We’re at the very early stages of making our actual assessments of where we need to put the right resources,” Sajjan said. “We are looking at all the various requests in the different regions.”
Canada already has some 800 military personnel in northern Iraq and Kuwait involved in the mission to help combat Daesh extremists. Another 470 troops are involved in missions in eastern Europe...
Sajjan said the decision where to deploy could also be shaped by the need to curb the spread of Daesh extremism out of the Middle East.
“We need to look at the root causes of the problem, how certain radical groups will feed into other conflict zones,” Sajjan said.
“Certain parts of the world . . . haven’t gotten the right amount of attention and that’s why we are looking at Africa,” he said.
Any number of trouble spots beckon. Across Africa, potential deployments could include South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia and Congo.
But George Petrolekas, a retired senior military officer and defence analyst, says Mali, where Canada has assisted French forces in the past, is a logical choice.
“It’s no secret that the French have asked many times for more Canadian assistance,” Petrolekas said in an interview Wednesday. “Africa has been top of mind.”
Given existing deployments, he said the military could support a mission with up to 1,000 troops [emphasis added]...
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/07/14/liberals-consider-peacekeeping-mission-to-africa.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 4,844
- Points
- 1,060
That's not peacekeeping or even peacemaking. It'll be just like Afghanistan only in Africa, with UN ROE'S, blue helmets and white vehicles. Unlikely that the TO&E will be as robust as we had in Afghanistan either.
- Reaction score
- 2,532
- Points
- 1,260
Zackly.recceguy said:
:nod: And, as Iraq & Afghanistan have shown (fairly or unfairly), once things go back for a s**t after the worst shooting stops, those who tried to help will be soon flagellated about why things aren't better once they leave.YZT580 said:
- Reaction score
- 2,532
- Points
- 1,260
And if the CDS is quoted correctly here, MORE than just "considering" - highlights mine ...MarkOttawa said:
More tea leaves ...
More on Mali here ...
and here (International Crisis Group monthly summaries since June 2012)PuckChaser said:
- Reaction score
- 4,844
- Points
- 1,060
Altair said:
Who cares what the French are doing.
- Status
Similar threads
