Blue helmets cast aside, Canada keeps the peace no more (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/blue-helmets-cast-aside-canada-keeps-the-peace-no-more/article4240950/)

Once pre-eminent among peacekeeping nations with thousands of “blue berets” deployed around the world, Canada now ranks 53 – between Paraguay and Slovakia – on the United Nations contributors’ list with less than a schoolbus-load of Canadian soldiers serving on UN missions overseas.
“The need is greater than ever but Canada’s contribution has never been lower,” said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa research and advocacy group. “The Harper government doesn’t regard peacekeeping as a route to enhancing Canada’s international stature.”
After a decade of bloody, inconclusive war in Afghanistan, Canadians tell pollsters they want their military to return to UN peacekeeping as a priority.

(Globe & Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/blue-helmets-cast-aside-canada-keeps-the-peace-no-more/article4240950/))

Sad. Some of my earliest memories of Canada as a peace keeping force was from the news of our efforts in Cyprus.

Sad. Some of my earliest memories of Canada as a peace keeping force was from the news of our efforts in Cyprus.

What a snake pit that was and did we even accomplish anything in over 20 years of being there?

From the article...


Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who famously commanded the Canadian contingent of UN peacekeepers that secured Sarajevo airport, opening a lifeline to the Europe’s largest besieged city since the Second World War, says Canadians are living a bygone dream.

“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,” he said in an interview. The era of Cold War peacekeeping, with UN forces interpositioned along ceasefire lines is over, he added, and the UN has shown it isn’t good at coping with messy sectarian wars.

As a result, he said, “Not just Canada, but a whole hockey sock of regular contributors, Scandinavian countries, Senegal, Fiji – a lot of them fell by the wayside because the [UN] can’t run these.”

.

What a snake pit that was and did we even accomplish anything in over 20 years of being there?

From the article...

True, it has been a "snake pit", but the actions of the Canadian peace-keeping forces defined a new style of peacekeeping by actively intervening between opposing sides rather than passively occupying ground between them. It helped to gain Canada the reputation of being a peace-keeping force.

From the article...

Also from the article:

Some, both in and out of the military, defend the shift away from UN missions, claiming they are ill-suited to cope with the messy, mainly internal wars of the 21st century. But others regard turning away from the UN as short-sighted.
Meanwhile, even as Canada opted out, UN peacekeeping has soared, with nearly 100,000 peacekeepers deployed worldwide on missions in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Canada’s handful of military and police personnel are dwarfed not only by top contributors like India, with more than 8,000 peacekeepers, but also Britain, France and Germany, which have also sent large contingents to war in Afghanistan.

Regardless of the reality, it is interesting to note what many Canadians would like to see in terms of our military's role abroad. We want to think of ourselves as peaceable folk, who help others. Is that not a worthy goal? Or should we just sit back, let the military have its F-35s, and bomb the crap out of everybody like our southern neighbour?

Or should we just sit back, let the military have its F-35s, and bomb the crap out of everybody like our southern neighbour?

Or take a chill pill perhaps?

Canada's current active military numbers 68,250 members or 0.002 percent of our population.

We are hardly a bunch of war mongers. :rolleyes:

The problem is the UN has no teeth. It's all bark and no bite! Just look at Syria. The UN's in there and Syria keeps on murdering it's people. And the UN Security Council is a joke - thank goodness we didn't get our seat on that farce.

Then again, it's impossible to do peacekeeping when you're not wanted by the country your trying to keep the peace in and it's impossible to tell who is friend or foe. Ex. Afganistan.

Maybe it's time to rekindle the cold war. At least then someone had the power to do something and you knew what side everyone was on.

Also from the article:

Regardless of the reality, it is interesting to note what many Canadians would like to see in terms of our military's role abroad. We want to think of ourselves as peaceable folk, who help others. Is that not a worthy goal? Or should we just sit back, let the military have its F-35s, and bomb the crap out of everybody like our southern neighbour?

Once again for emphasis...

Canadians are living a bygone dream.

“There is no conventional peacekeeping out there; it’s a myth,

Rwanda anyone? Standing by and watching hundreds of thousands get slaughtered... "peace keeping" at its finest. :rolleyes:

Once again for emphasis...



Rwanda anyone? Standing by and watching hundreds of thousands get slaughtered... "peace keeping" at its finest. :rolleyes:

Agreed. You can only run a peacekeeping mission if the majority of both sides support the effort. If that ain't the case, you need to pick a side and start firing.

Agreed. You can only run a peacekeeping mission if the majority of both sides support the effort. If that ain't the case, you need to pick a side and start firing.

exactly.. I prefer Canadians be the second to shoot and be the last [ if you know what I mean } - but with our canvas jeeps and call HQ first to see if it is within budget to use the allocated bullets for the month is not going to get us any where. LOL

The problem is every opposition party always complains about money spent on military then when the first casket is send back home, they then change their tunes to should of spend more.. it is a no win situation.. we have the worst subs on the planet, and air support.. its embarrassing we might as well just let the US fight and protect our borders.

Speaking of Harper's military strategy....

Is Stephen Harper's global military policy delusional or just plain mad? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1208436--walkom-is-stephen-harper-s-global-military-policy-delusional-or-just-plain-mad)

Historian and defence expert Jack Granatstein is baffled by Ottawa’s decision to build seven forward military bases — in areas ranging from Africa to Singapore to the Caribbean to Kuwait — at a time when it is trimming defence spending. “We don’t have enough equipment to stock seven bases,” he says. “What would you put in them? Boxes of Corn Flakes?” - Thomas Walkom (commentary from Facebook post)
...the Harper government has quietly shifted Canada’s military posture from one focused on protecting North America (with a dose of United Nations peacekeeping thrown in) to one in which Canadian soldiers play an active fighting role in far-away places.

The decision to wage war in Afghanistan for more than a decade is the most obvious element of this new strategy. But the purchase of new, massive C-17 transport planes — and the plan to buy F-35 jets — also fit into the Conservative government’s new, if unarticulated, global military focus.Kuwait? Given that Canada is pulling its troops from Afghanistan, a Middle Eastern base doesn’t make obvious sense, he says — unless Canada is interested in helping the U.S. and Israel in a war with Iran.

(Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1208436--walkom-is-stephen-harper-s-global-military-policy-delusional-or-just-plain-mad))

Hilarious analysis--blaming Harper for policies that precede him.

There's another side to this story
A number of nations treat UN peacekeeping as a revenue source; they are paid by the UN per soldier provided. So they provide thousands of minimally trained soldiers ... with minimal or no supplies, arms or ammunition and absolutely no logistical/infrastructure support -- so the country saves money and makes the maximum profit on the employment. These soldiers then need to be provisioned as best they can in the field by the UN.

Canada on the other hand goes in with fewer soldiers but usually fully trained, equipped, and (usually) with top shelf logistical, engineering and medical support.

Peacekeeper numbers don't tell the whole story.

[QUOTE=CanadaRAM;1198347Canada on the other hand goes in with fewer soldiers but usually fully trained, equipped, and (usually) with top shelf logistical, engineering and medical support.[/QUOTE]

It might make sense, then, to have a few small bases around the globe to make logistics more effective.

MF, you are assuming that these bases are intended to support peacekeeping operations - but all indications are that the Harper government is taking a hawkish approach to global military conflicts, putting us in a position to support U.S. / NATO actions. There is an argument that Canada's more honourable path lies not in assisting the U.S. empire as it secures access to oil and other resources at the point of the gun.

I don't favour a considerable amount of U.S. military action because it is expensive and misguided. That doesn't mean I disapprove of all of it either. However, I won';t decry the logistics of having some support bases for the Canadian military of it is to have a role in the world at all.

.

Since closing the CFBs in Germany, I don't think the Canadian military has any bases overseas, period. Relying instead on the generosity of NATO (or host) nations and the Americans.

I'd have no issue with a couple of small logistical bases in strategic locations. If our military is going to be sent tear-assing around some of these world 'hot' spots, then they need a base of operations.

Hilarious analysis--blaming Harper for policies that precede him.

+1 and supported by the Liberals when in opposition...

Part of the problem with the UN is the fact that the world's largest most powerful nations have veto power because they have their tentacles spread out into countries around the world because of economic interests.

So like in the case of Syria now, even though the majority of the worlds nations may want greater intervention, because of Russia's interests there is nothing effectively being done.

Hilarious analysis--blaming Harper for policies that precede him.

huh?

the Liberals had a policy to build seven permanent bases on foreign soil?

i must have missed that.

huh?

the Liberals had a policy to build seven permanent bases on foreign soil?

i must have missed that.

I'm pretty sure it is this statement in the article that MF was referring to...

The decision to wage war in Afghanistan for more than a decade is the most obvious element of this new strategy...

Nothing "new" here. The Libs got us into Afghanistan and voted in favour of every extension while in opposition...

I'm pretty sure it is this statement in the article that MF was referring to...

Nothing "new" here. The Libs got us into Afghanistan and voted in favour of every extension while in opposition...

Exactly.

so one sentence about the war in Afghanistan = the entire focus of an article on creating foreign bases??

talk about cherry picking. the point of the article was not about Afghanistan. not even close.

so one sentence about the war in Afghanistan = the entire focus of an article on creating foreign bases??

talk about cherry picking. the point of the article was not about Afghanistan. not even close.

Well it kind of discredits the credibility of the author when he states:

the most obvious element of this new strategy...

Which is completely inaccurate at every level... it is a false argument...

It makes it seem like his research is decidedly lacking and he was doing a fair bit of "cherry picking" of his own... looking for the most sour cherries he could find and if they weren't sour enough he was capable of "souring" some with a little extra vinegar, just enough to suit his tastes.