Wasting Canadian Blood and Treasure

[Argus]

Yet, Gurney also says:

Is that not why the Minister is traipsing around assessing things?

Remember Rwanda? Romeo Dallaire remains convinced if the UN had only let him go in and raid those weapons depots that whole horrible slaughter could have been averted. But the UN refused permission for him to do ANYTHING. What makes you think this would be any different?

[Peter F]

Yes, I remember the General and I remember him being aware of the impending genocide and wishing to take steps to stop it. I remember him being refused permission to do so by UN bosses in NY. I also remember him busting his ass to assist where-ever he could but being pretty ineffective once the killing started.

I remember the General trying to maintain the peace agreement between Rwanda (then in the chaos of the genocide) and the rebel forces outside Rwanda. I remember the rebel forces telling him that the genocide then being perpetrated had negated the peace agreement and to get his peace-keepers the hell out of the way because they (the rebels) were coming in to put an end to the genocide.

They in fact did come in and took over and the genocide ended.

Up until the slaughter began, there was peace agreement functioning and a purpose to the UN mission under General Dallaire which was successfully being carried out.

Once the rebels decided that the peace could no longer be kept the purpose of the UN peace-keeping mission ended.

I think you and Mr. Gurney have a very distorted view of what Peace-keeping missions are.

[Argus]

Yes, I remember the General and I remember him being aware of the impending genocide and wishing to take steps to stop it. I remember him being refused permission to do so by UN bosses in NY. I also remember him busting his ass to assist where-ever he could but being pretty ineffective once the killing started.

I remember the General trying to maintain the peace agreement between Rwanda (then in the chaos of the genocide) and the rebel forces outside Rwanda. I remember the rebel forces telling him that the genocide then being perpetrated had negated the peace agreement and to get his peace-keepers the hell out of the way because they (the rebels) were coming in to put an end to the genocide.

They in fact did come in and took over and the genocide ended.

Up until the slaughter began, there was peace agreement functioning and a purpose to the UN mission under General Dallaire which was successfully being carried out.

Once the rebels decided that the peace could no longer be kept the purpose of the UN peace-keeping mission ended.

I think you and Mr. Gurney have a very distorted view of what Peace-keeping missions are.

I guess we think it's to keep the peace. Apparently you feel that is distorted, though you haven't explained why that is. If you think peacekeeping is to wag our fingers at people as they're slitting throats, and duly record the number of deaths and rapes in our little notebooks to forward to New York then I honestly can't see the point of wasting our time at it.

Peacekeeping used to be between nations. It worked then by inserting a third nation's soldiers between the two warring factions to preserve peace and prevent incidents. But conflicts for the past few decades are usually between 'groups' not nations, and peacekeepers are not assigned a middle point between them but jobs of looking after civilians. If they won't do that then they're pretty much useless.

[Peter F]

Ok, so whats Gurney's complaint then? That the UN's peace keeping/making missions are useless, yet Canada's peace keeping/making efforts will not be as long as we do not operate under the flag of the UN. Then, it seems, all will be well.

Gurney criticizes the government for looking for a UN peace mission. But also says Canada will do just fine in a peace mission.

So what exactly is the criticism about?

[Argus]

Ok, so whats Gurney's complaint then? That the UN's peace keeping/making missions are useless, yet Canada's peace keeping/making efforts will not be as long as we do not operate under the flag of the UN. Then, it seems, all will be well.

Gurney criticizes the government for looking for a UN peace mission. But also says Canada will do just fine in a peace mission.

So what exactly is the criticism about?

That peacekeeping as we knew it is dead because it's no longer between actual nations which can be held to account for violating the terms of a peace deal, or for attacking peacekeepers for that matter. Now it's between extremist groups who have little self-discipline. If you want to be a 'peacekeeper' now, you need to be heavily armed and ready to fight, and that is exactly the kind of job which the Liberals shrink from. They want smiling blue hats with daisies in their unloaded rifle barrels doing selfies with the locals. They do not want them shooting or arresting anyone for any reason.

[Peter F]

Of course. which explains why the Minister is traipsing around seeing if there is something somewhere Canada can do. So whats the problem again?

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course. which explains why the Minister is traipsing around seeing if there is something somewhere Canada can do. So whats the problem again?

The "problem" is that Canada still hasn't recovered from the fiasco that was the Somalia Affair. Canadian "peacekeeping" lost its moral branding and political blessing, becoming just another imperialist (and "racist") tool. See Dark Threats & White Knights by Sherene Razack (2004).

[Peter F]

A good point. I do believe the liberals are trying to resurrect peace-keeping a la Pierson for some re-branding. The interventionist peace-keeping brand hasn't worked out all that well.

[Argus]

A good point. I do believe the liberals are trying to resurrect peace-keeping a la Pierson for some re-branding. The interventionist peace-keeping brand hasn't worked out all that well.

They're trying to resurrect it in a world which is different than it was in the sixties and seventies. And it's liable to get unarmed Canadian troops killed.

I remember the fiasco that was Bosnia, when Serbs simply kidnapped Canadian soldiers, who weren't allowed to defend themselves, and chained them to bridges as hostages.

[Peter F]

They're trying to resurrect it in a world which is different than it was in the sixties and seventies. And it's liable to get unarmed Canadian troops killed.

I remember the fiasco that was Bosnia, when Serbs simply kidnapped Canadian soldiers, who weren't allowed to defend themselves, and chained them to bridges as hostages.

Yes, I remember that too. I think the problem there is that they were trying to keep a peace that one side, if not both, did not want kept.

They stayed far too long.

[cybercoma]

You can't be a peacekeeper if the parties don't agree to peace.

[Argus]

Yes, I remember that too. I think the problem there is that they were trying to keep a peace that one side, if not both, did not want kept.

They stayed far too long.

But today's peacekeeping is between highly undisciplined groups, not nation states, which means even if the leaders of the groups are grudgingly brought to the table many of their followers don't agree. And the leaders are usually so disreputable and dishonorable that they'll constantly change their minds and attack others. I don't believe there's ever been a case where the UN has simply pulled all its people out when this happens. Instead they stay around trying to keep a peace which doesn't really exist.

[PIK]

Remember Rwanda? Romeo Dallaire remains convinced if the UN had only let him go in and raid those weapons depots that whole horrible slaughter could have been averted. But the UN refused permission for him to do ANYTHING. What makes you think this would be any different?

If a general with peacekeeping experience would have raided that warehouse with out approval. Unfortunately romeo was a paper general and was looking so up his resume. It was a huge mistake to send him.

[PIK]

So what will the rules be, if our soldiers witness rape can they step in with deadly for if need be. Can they shoot 1st ,before shot at. I would bet many liberals are looking at this and wished they kept the jets flying and did more to help the kurds. This is a dangerous move by a government that has no clue what to do. And if our troops end up in Mali ,it could get very ugly.

[eyeball]

So what will the rules be, if our soldiers witness rape can they step in with deadly for if need be.

That ship sailed years ago when Canadian troops in Afghanistan were told don't look, don't tell.

https://www.thestar.com/news/2008/06/16/dont_look_dont_tell_troops_told.html

Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan have been ordered by commanding officers "to ignore" incidents of sexual assault among the civilian population, says a military chaplain who counsels troops returning home with post-traumatic stress disorder.

[cybercoma]

That's because soldiers are not police.

[eyeball]

Which is why 9/11 should have been treated as a crime, not an act of war.

[PIK]

IMO This shows how cowardly this government is, with peace keeping (which is a myth) allows the government to not pick sides.

[Smallc]

IMO This shows how cowardly this government is, with peace keeping (which is a myth) allows the government to not pick sides.

Yes - liberals. Amirite?

[Argus]

Matt Fisher lists the likely location of Trudeau's UN military adventure to come, and says it could easily be more dangerous for Canadian troops than Afghanistan was.

And that there's no exit strategy or any idea on how to solve the problems there. None are peaceful either, like the kind of peacekeeping mission all good little progressives are dreaming of. Instead there will be fighting and killing and dying. And what are we going to do with prisoners we take? Turn them over to their own government or take them home and give them refugee status?

And why? We were responding to our treaty obligations with the Americans in Afghanistan. What the hell are we volunteering to go into Africa for to see Canadians die? Just as a vanity exercise for Trudeau?

The strongly preferred choice of the Canadian Forces is Mali, which is about the same size as Manitoba and Saskatchewan together and has about seven times as many people. South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which have also been mooted, are believed by Canadian Joint Operations Command to present even greater perils and offer less chance of a positive outcome.

Before Canada’s mission to Kandahar in 2006, then-defence minister Bill Graham and Gen. Rick Hillier embarked on a cross-country tour to inform Canadians about how dangerous it would be. That process is underway again, with initial warnings from defence minister Harjit Sajjan and Canada’s new ambassador to the UN, Marc-André Blanchard, that what Canada is about to undertake in Africa will be peacemaking, not Pearson-style peacekeeping, and that the prospect of combat and casualties is very real.

If the mission is to Mali, the 600 Canadians would join 15,000 other peacekeepers in a country where there has been little peace to keep. More than 100 blue helmets have died in terrorist attacks there during the past 40 months.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/matthew-fisher-why-an-african-mission-could-be-more-dangerous-than-afghanistan

Edited August 29, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

Well that sure sucks - another complete waste of blood and treasure.

Too bad Conservatives are no more intelligent than Liberals when it comes to wasting blood and treasure or they could have set a better example when they were in power by not involving itself in these stupid adventures. Instead they gave the government even more power and latitude to do whatever it wants and then promptly handed it over to the Liberals.

Stupid is as stupid does I guess.

[Smallc]

Are Conservatives now against dangerous missions?

[The_Squid]

600 peacekeeping troops. Pretty conservative contribution.

[cybercoma]

Are Conservatives now against dangerous missions?

Funny that, eh?

[Argus]

Are Conservatives now against dangerous missions?

Given the miserable state of our equipment, training, supplies and the overall lack of manpower - yes. Just like the last time you "peacenicks" ordered them to go into a combat situation.

And since when did the Liberal party, which spent every single minute Canada was in Afghanistan - after they lost power, of course - decrying the mission, demanding it end, smearing the armed forces decide we needed to get involved in another pointless, open ended war with Muslim fanatics?

Oh, but what's a few dead Canadian soldiers, who the left hold in contempt anyway, if it results in selfies for Trudeau at the UN?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Argus