SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Futurists & Theorists

Futurists & Theorists Future Competition & Conflict, Theory & Nature of Conflict, 4GW through 9?GW, Transformation, RMA, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-15-2009   #1
moatandbailey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2
Default United Nations Peacekeeping (catch all)

Forward: This is a piece that is composed for a class on insurgency and counter insurgency and as such is limited in its scope to materials specifically related to that class

The business of peace keeping is one of the most complex and exhausting processes which modern military forces find themselves involved in. Classical logic tells them they have won the war, but in these cases the war may just be a battle in the process of a greater war for the stabilization and development of the country.

The two perspectives on nation building that are commonly discussed in the western world are the US model of heavy forces, large money and extended deployment versus the United Nation blue helmets minimalist approach.

The Comparison of the US versus UN Peace Keeping operations is fundamentally flawed. The reason that this is so is extremely simple. The situations into which the UN is willing to intervene are on a whole a lot less unstable and dangerous than there American comparisons.


To counter balance the UN Peace keepers preference for more stable situations it is common to sque the American data by including Japan and Germany as successful operations. While these may have been successful reconstruction operations, there was no internal conflict in these countries, not to mention the fact that they had been extremely successful economic players on the world scale prior to the war. They where then brought to the table of unconditional surrender, the conflict had ended and been resolved, it was not stalled in flux. The countries they are being compared to are fundamentally divided be it by a civil war, an internal power vacuum, or a tyrannical leader oppressing his people.

The other interesting point when considering the literature is that there seems to be a constant statement that just a little more money and a few more soldiers could have gotten so much more done, which is likely inaccurate. I can understand the reasoning from a systemic perspective for a constant lobby for expanded capabilities but this constant if only statement doesn't delve into the actual situation. It instead glosses over the subject and defers discussion. If there was a finite need for more soldiers or more money it would be amazing for there to be a reason listed.

All in all I found the literature to be plauged by these and other problems, including an extreme lack of bipartisan ship, making dispariging comments about early war on terror tactics while celebrating the same tactics when carried out by the UN.

Dobbins, James. America's Role in Nation-Building; From German to Iraq. RAND. 2009.

Dobbins, James. United Nations's Role in Nation-Building; From Congo to Iraq. RAND. 2009.
moatandbailey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009   #2
jcustis
Council Member
 
jcustis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SOCAL
Posts: 2,147
Default

MAB,

Please post an introduction in the appropriate thread.

After that, please give us some more detail on what you are trying to accomplish with this thread. Are you critiquing Dobbins?
jcustis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2009   #3
Steve the Planner
Council Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 827
Default Apples to Mushrooms

The problems with comparisons to Japan and Germany are numerous.

Most important was the concept of complete capitulation. Those countries were totally defeated, yet educated, effective, and in need of rapid humanitarian and capital assistance. The peoples were largely responsible for stability and reconstruction.

In Iraq, we defeated the leadership, not a country. Then, took a thin occupation stance while removing the existing governmental structure. To my knowledge, we never effectively engaged a post-conflict population stabilization and reconstruction effort, which, in part, exacerbated the instability.

Moreover, unlike Germany and Japan, the UN sanctions did what they usually do---created a huge black market, and very entrenched mafiosi. This, we probably made worse, not better, by bringing back all the exiles as the power base.

As conditions worsened after occupation, arguably 15%-20% of the population voted with their feet (refugees), compounding instability, and undermining further reconstruction.

Against all of that, we launched incoherent and uncoordinated stabilization/reconstruction efforts amongst the bullets flying, and never established an effective effort to get basic human and government services re-established under our supervision.

Been there, done that.

Is the question really whether, by incorporating traditional (UN style) approaches to post-war conflict, a viable alternative strategy? If so, we might get somewhere.

Political parties aside, what's the biggest concern of average Iraqi in the past and next election? Establishing basic services.

But Iraq became Iraq, for its own reasons. It seems that scabbing some UN ideas onto it after the fact is not going to let us refight that war.

Steve
Steve the Planner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2009   #4
ja6345a
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2
Default Peacebuilding

The future of peacebuilding under the auspices of the United Nations

There has been extensive debate on the future of peacebuilding missions, concerning issues such as the role of peacebuilding missions and the length of missions. After flawed peacebuilding missions in the past, as in Liberia in 1997, where hasty elections led to neither free nor fair elections, the United Nations has critically examined its role in peacebuilding. In 2000 it commissioned the "Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations," or the Brahimi Report, to evaluate the UN's current peacebuilding strategy and to list a series of recommendations to strengthen the planning and management of complex peace operations, which were summarized in to twenty objectives.The UN after noticing a gap in the "relief-to-development" continuum continued its efforts by establishing the UN Peacebuilding Commission in 2005, and since then has gathered over $267 million in pledges from the international community to carry out about forty peacebuilding missions around the world. The commission hopes to work towards having developing the best practices for peacebuilding activities and acting in concert with related actors in sectors such as politics, security and development, and to provide continued financial support for rebuilding activities.
A recent speech from the Norwegian Ambassador to the United Nations offered his suggestions for improving peacebuilding missions, which included increasingly emphasizing national ownership in peacebuilding efforts and relying on locals to help with rebuilding institutions, and increasing training opportunities so that more locals could get involved. The ambassador also emphasized that these efforts "must be done to empower national authorities further, not to replace them." The ambassador confirmed the need for long term recovery efforts, as Roland Paris suggests, but also reminded that there needs to be a distinction made in situations are emergencies and require immediate humanitarian assistance, which the UN calls "quick impact projects," and others which are long term projects.
Although there has been much work to work on peacebuilding, there are many challenges that are faced in peacebuilding. For example, as with any effort involving many actors, coordination is always an issue and acting under common goals (as each group has their own interests), which the Peacebuilding Commission has done work to reconcile by bringing together involved actors; however it still remains that the coordination effort remains difficult as it involves many people over a long period of time. Aside from the individual actors involved in peacebuilding effort on the ground, even within the UN there are many groups involved in the process, from the Crisis Prevention and Recovery branch of the United Nations Development Program to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, so inter-agency coordination also remains an issue. In order for these current peacekeeping missions to be successful, and in order for the Commission to adequately prepare for future missions, these issues must be given further improved.
ja6345a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2009   #5
John T. Fishel
Council Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
Posts: 1,065
Default And your point is?

You also might introduce yourself so we have some idea of where you are coming from.

Substantively, Peacebuilding is another one of those words that fall within the rubric of the 100 Names of LIC. As such, we already know quite a bit about what works and what doesn't. Development theory and experiencce explains quite a bit, COIN, FID, and SFA still more. Put them together and you have Nation Building, Nation Assistance, and a bunch of other names for the same thing, such as Peacebuilding. A critical problem that won't be solved by any studies or general SC resolutions is that of unity of effort. Since each state remains sovereign, the donors/personnel/force contributors still choose to contribute only what they see as being in their interest and no more. Think too of the cases where the UNSC has tried to direct force contributors to do more than the Terms of Reference (TOR) they agreed to with DPKO said - I am thinking here of the aftermath of UNSCR 938 in Somalia (UNOSOM II) where none of the force contributors had signed up for the 938 mission which differed in significant ways from the 814 mission. Granted, this was Peace Enforcement but it had major elements of Peacebuilding built in. Bottom line problem is unity of effort.

Cheers

JohnT
John T. Fishel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009   #6
goesh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,188
Default

Sorry ja6345a, I find little credibility and ability with the UN, in fact, they are pretty much a joke and I intend no personal affront at all in making that statement. I'm not alone in this opinion, far from it. I saw a TV show last week about the most dangerous places on earth. The UN can't even control City Soleil, a large Haitian slum on the edge of Port-Au-Prince - they had abandoned an outpost somewhere inside the slum and retreated back to the edge and common street thugs still own the streets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020900902.html

This link tells about a raid the UN made in an attempt to capture a thug leader by the name of "Evens" - the UN purports him to be a cannibal. This character is even suspected of voodoo rituals in which cats are killed because Evens regards them as bad luck. He goes by the nickname of Little Knife because he carves the bodies of his victims.

Taken from the article, the words of the UN mission leader regarding this thug leader: "I don't want to kill him," the U.N. mission chief added. "I just want him to give up, surrender and face justice."

There ya' have it - the UN can't even take down a common cat killer. Without the will and ability to apply lethal force and having that as a component in any peace mission in this world of ours today, there can be no peacebuilding. Some readers here may have been on hand in Baghdad when the UN declined US security around their headquarters, wanting to project an image of peace in Iraq and a truck filled with explosive rammed the HQ, devastating it.
goesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2009   #7
Kiwigrunt
Council Member
 
Kiwigrunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 466
Thumbs down

Ohhh, don’t get me going on the UN. IMO one of the worlds biggest black holes of resources. Now, I’m sure a lot of people within the UN do good work but it appears to me that the excessive input in money and energy bears no resemblance to the outcome/effect of their missions. (O.K., I do realise that that is hard to measure).

My first eye-opener was the three days I spent in Dili, capital of East Timor, during my leave in 2001. The few buildings (colonial mansions) that were still intact had been occupied by numerous UN departments, with nice ‘golden’ plaques at the gates. Their brand-new 4WD were parked on the lawns and hardly ever saw the road…….the population would throw rocks at them.

I was in Kathmandu two years ago (holiday) and the hotels were full of UN officials ‘monitoring’ the elections etc. Many of them were there for some two years. Speaking to a few of them, some had no idea why they were there and invented reasons. Also heard rumours (can’t confirm) that the danger-pay there went up from $150 to $200 per day. Yes…..danger-pay….in Kathmandu hotels! They too had nice big shiny 4WD that they used to ferry themselves from hotel to hotel, while cheap taxis waited outside for work.

WHO is another example. Again, I’m sure they do a lot of good stuff, but consider this: 85 % of the money that comes in the front door at HQ Geneva never leaves the building, that is, it gets used to pay the wages of the staff. How much of the remaining 15 % that feathers out to countries that need it disappears as a result of corruption is another story.

It appears to me that these monsters have become so large and unwieldy that they have become self fuelling gravy trains. Someone on another thread not long ago used the term ‘self licking ice-cream cones’.
__________________
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

ONWARD

Last edited by Kiwigrunt; 04-24-2009 at 03:07 AM. Reason: spelling error
Kiwigrunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2009   #8
goesh
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,188
Default Credibility Remains a Serious Issue With the UN

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518345,00.html

"Report: Unlicensed U.N. Doctors Administer and Take Controlled Narcotics

A group of largely unlicensed doctors and nurses at the United Nations are distributing controlled narcotics including Valium, Diazepam and Demerol, and in some cases they are self-medicating themselves with the drugs, according to a published report.

Serguei Oleinikov, deputy director of the U.N. Medical Service, recently approved the "disposal" of dozens of unexpired Valium tablets from the fifth-floor department within the United Nation's headquarters in midtown Manhattan, Inner City Press reports.

Ruth Martin Agwai, one of the unlicensed nurses reportedly connected to the scheme, is married to Martin Luther Agwai, a Nigerian general who is the commander of the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. According to Inner City Press, Agwai has used the diplomatic pouch and privileges granted to her by the Nigerian Mission to the U.N. to take medical equipment overseas."
goesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009   #9
MattC86
Council Member
 
MattC86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: REMFing it up in DC
Posts: 250
Default Dallaire: The Blurring Line Between Peacekeeping and COIN

FP.com had an interesting interview with Gen. Romeo Dallaire, who I'm sure you all know better than I was commander of UNAMIR in 1994. Some interesting stuff - or so I thought - on, for example, ". . . a need for a new doctrinal basis and new structures for the protection of civilians."

Check it out here.

Quote:
FP: It sounds like what you're talking about is almost a fundamental retooling of the world's militaries. What would that look like?

RD: The big players are still basing a lot of their security on the classic use of force. And in the last two decades, except for twice in Iraq or in Kuwait, we haven't been using the classic use of force. We're still learning how to handle Afghanistan -- we haven't got that thing solved. We're still trying to work out how humanitarians, the diplomats, the nation-builders, the security people, police, and military -- how are all of them working at the same time to bring about [peace] instead of blowing the place up and then throwing in a bunch to rebuild it.

There is a need for a new doctrinal basis and new structures for the protection of civilians. [It's about] using that force as part of your prevention tools. We're not going in guns blazing. There's a whole bunch of stuff that you can do before you use that force. But it's important to make sure that people know that as you're going through these stages, if it doesn't work, ultimately, we'll use the hammer. That makes [the use of force] much more powerful.
Matt
__________________
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
MattC86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009   #10
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default

Mat,

If you haven't read "Shake Hands With the Devil," I'll recommend it. His efforts were, quite literally, heroic. I'll also recommend Tom Odom's book, "Journey Into Darkness." Some additional sources on this topic (for you or others) are the Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre (PPC) and the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.

The clear impression I was left with (relevent to your post) is that Western militaries were reluctant to get involved because it wasn't the kind of "warfare" they understood, while Western nations were reluctant because there were no clear natioonal interests. Based on all the discussions on this board, those are still the critical issues.

I'll read the article when I get time, but for now "...new doctrinal basis and new structures for the protection of civilians" sounds exactly right for addressing the first problem. The second is that we need a 'new political basis and new structures for the protection of civilians.'
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009   #11
MattC86
Council Member
 
MattC86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: REMFing it up in DC
Posts: 250
Default Haven't read Tom's book . . .

But I did read Dallaire's.

I would agree with the need for a political basis, as well. But I guess my question off the top of my head would be "have things really changed that much since 1994?"

We're doing some "peacekeeping"-like work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But I would argue we're doing it as a necessary tactic, I suppose, for the accomplishment of the missions which began as definitely something other than civilian-protection.

Would western militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?

Matt
__________________
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
MattC86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009   #12
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default I don't think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
... But I guess my question off the top of my head would be "have things really changed that much since 1994?"

We're doing some "peacekeeping"-like work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But I would argue we're doing it as a necessary tactic, I suppose, for the accomplishment of the missions which began as definitely something other than civilian-protection.

Would western militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?

Matt
We got into A'stan and Iraq because of circumstances that were clearly in the province of National Interest: in A'stan because they harbored people who attacked us; in Iraq because we had intelligence (faulty, as it turned out) that they were pursuing WMDs which we believed would dramitically destabilize an already unstable region.

If I could rephrase your second question, "Would western governments and their militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?" To answer that, I'd say look at the Western/US response in Darfur, to the piracy off the coast of Somalia, to the list of crises in central Africa, etc. With those in mind, I'd have to conclude the answer is "No."
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009   #13
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,483
Default Interventions post-Rwanda 1994

MattC,

I am sure there have been some, but too late tonight to Google to get confirmation. So how about the UK in Sierra Leone in 1999 (partly to rescue a UN expedition), Australia & allies in East Timor in 1999, the French in 2002 then others in the Ivory Coast and mmmm.

On my limited knowledge each has threatened to be "hot" and each has used a level of that lovely military term 'force projection'.

Incidentally do read Tom Odom's book, I recommend it; grim in places.

davidbfpo

Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-23-2009 at 12:52 PM. Reason: Add dates for the interventions
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009   #14
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
But I did read Dallaire's.

Would western militaries be anymore willing or able to take on such a task today than they were in 1994?

Matt
Matt,

There are of course an infinite number of answers to that question; all are in fact irrelevant because the militaries do the mission the politicians hand them. We get to shape that process and we may influence the mission design. But ultimately they make the critical decision.

The driving issue in the Clinton Adminstration was the idea that all things African in April 1994 were the same as all things in Somalia in October 1993. The Nat Security Directive that came out of the Somalia episode stated the US would not commit forces in areas that did not concern our national interests. Chief advocate for that position was Richard Clark and he was the one who pushed the do nothing, don't say genocide, and push for a full UN withdrawal. I am not a fan of Madelaine Albright but in the case of Rwanda she was the person who as US Ambassador to the UN stood up and refused to push the UNAMIR withdrawal any further.

My issue with General Dallaire has always been that he did not understand how a UN peacekeepibng mission was at its very core a political animal, not a unified military force that he could actually command to do the things he wanted to do. I do not think the Belgian government would have allowed a preemptive operation as Dallaire proposed and as the UN Peacekeeping Office refused.

That said, a single brigade combat team with a mission to use force to stop the slaughter could have halted the genocide in its tracks in April 1994 on into May. Afterwards I am not so sure as the war was fully raging by then and the genocide much more widespread. Our own JTF came in Opn Support Hope with a clear get in and get out mandate; the chain of command wanted no mission creep and the opening Disney-like plans to get all the refugees back into Rwanda soon met reality.

For the next 18 months I watched and warned that a new, worse war was in the cards unless someone moved to checkmate what was happening in the camps. My fears and predictions came true a few months after I left.

Are we better today? Yes. No. Maybe.

Yes we are better at interagency, combined irregular warfare.

No because we still have a fundamental imbalance between our departments in the application of power, soft or hard, kinetic or non-kinetic, military, economic, or diplomatic.

Maybe because it all goes back to that fundamental: the decision to act comes from the politician, so whether we act or how we act is fundamentally changed every time we go through the decision process. Look at us right now in regards to Afghanistan.

In the end, I hope fervently that when we face another Rwanda we are allowed to act.

Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009   #15
J Wolfsberger
Council Member
 
J Wolfsberger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 806
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
My issue with General Dallaire has always been that he did not understand how a UN peacekeepibng mission was at its very core a political animal, not a unified military force that he could actually command to do the things he wanted to do.
Tom,

You were on the ground, so I'll defer to your evaluation. However, I had the impression Dallaire thought he'd been sent on a political mission, realized that a military mission was needed, and tried to get the mandate changed and resourced. Did I misunderstand?
__________________
John Wolfsberger, Jr.

An unruffled person with some useful skills.
J Wolfsberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009   #16
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
Tom,

You were on the ground, so I'll defer to your evaluation. However, I had the impression Dallaire thought he'd been sent on a political mission, realized that a military mission was needed, and tried to get the mandate changed and resourced. Did I misunderstand?
Somewhat but keep in mind I was in Zaire while he was hip deep in Rwanda. I draw my conclusions from his writings--especially his book.

He was from the very beginnig selected to command a UN peackeeping force. He and his cohorts helped craft what they thought they needed only to have the UN cut it to the bone. The initial misread was therefore at the UN in seeing UNAMIR as a low risk, purely political mission, even though the mandate included inherently risk laden military tasks.

Dallaire as the good soldier does took what he got and tried to make it work. And he had to fight all along to get the resources he needed. He believed that his request to preempt the genocide through targeted raids was within his mandate. Nonetheless he sought permission to do so and was denied. My ambassador later told me that he told Dallaire that in his opinion Dallaire had all the authority he needed without asking permission from the UN.

My issue is simply that even with UN permission it is nearly impossible to take a UN force on an offensive against elements of the host nation and hold that force together. Advocating and even getting a stronger mandate does not change the politics involved in conducting UN operations. Dallaire and his deputy Anyidoho essentially ignored UN orders to draw down even further than they did. Anyidoho ignored the orders of his own government as well. He was very much a hero and was largely ignored.

Does that clarify it?

Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009   #17
MattC86
Council Member
 
MattC86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: REMFing it up in DC
Posts: 250
Default

Tom/J,

I understand, obviously, the mission does not begin with the military and, as they say "theirs not to reason why," etc., but you don't think military unwillingness plays a role in a politicians' willingness to commit? It's like Scheuer's quote that Clinton would ask for ideas for using Special Ops in Afghanistan, and an unwilling Hugh Shelton would provide "plans that looked like the Invasion of Normandy."

I think a military's unwillingness to do something is very much a part of this question - not just the political will of civilian leadership. Bill had no stomach for Rwanda after Somalia, but I'm sure you know better than I just what the Army thought about sending, say, that single brigade to Kigali.

I feel like media campaigns, outpouring of sympathy/support, etc, can get an administration moving on something it doesn't necessarily want to do. But Dallaire seems to be rightly concerned about creating a military structure and culture that embraces this sort of mission and doesn't pose a massive obstacle to successfully taking it on.

Perhaps I'm way off base and out of line with that, but I feel like that's where he gets near fanciful.

Matt
__________________
"Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall
MattC86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2009   #18
Tom Odom
Council Member
 
Tom Odom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DeRidder LA
Posts: 3,949
Default

Matt

You said:

Quote:
I understand, obviously, the mission does not begin with the military and, as they say "theirs not to reason why," etc., but you don't think military unwillingness plays a role in a politicians' willingness to commit? It's like Scheuer's quote that Clinton would ask for ideas for using Special Ops in Afghanistan, and an unwilling Hugh Shelton would provide "plans that looked like the Invasion of Normandy."
I said:

Quote:
all are in fact irrelevant because the militaries do the mission the politicians hand them. We get to shape that process and we may influence the mission design. But ultimately they make the critical decision.
I would say we are in agreement. It is an iterative process up until the point the politician gets to decide. Even then the ways and means decisions that flow from a decision to act continue that iterative process.

As for Dallaire's force, it is fanciful and I don't think it will happen. I love the Canadians for their efforts in sustaining peacekeeping under the UN banner. I just don't see the UN model as an effective combat force necessary in an enforcement mode.

Best
Tom
Tom Odom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009   #19
Rex Brynen
Council Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
As for Dallaire's force, it is fanciful and I don't think it will happen. I love the Canadians for their efforts in sustaining peacekeeping under the UN banner.
Slightly off-topic, but you may need to frame that in the past tense.

Between past NATO peacekeeping in the Balkans, followed by the huge demands of the Afghan deployment on the relatively small Canadian military, we've had a sharply declining presence in UN missions. As of August, we had some 177 Canadian forces on deployment to UN PKOs, placing us 56th among troop contributing countries (somewhat behind Mongolia at 49th).

It remains to be seen whether, post-2011 termination of our Afghan combat deployments, we'll reemphasize UN missions or not. Much may depend on the party in power, with the current Conservatives noticeably cooler to the idea than the Liberals.
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
Rex Brynen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009   #20
davidbfpo
Council Member
 
davidbfpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 11,483
Default The will to intervene

The background to Dalliare's comment is that he is the co-director of a Canadian think tank, which has recently released 'Mobilizing the Will to Intervene': http://migs.concordia.ca/W2I/documen...2IAugust09.pdf

It is a long paper (160 pgs) so not read beyond the summary.

KOW have a rather sharp riposte: http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2009...anadian-style/

There you go MattC86 - a little reading inside the Beltway.

davidbfpo
davidbfpo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Small War in Mexico: 2016 onwards SWJED Americas 95 3 Weeks Ago 03:06 AM
Fiji (catch all) AdamG Asia-Pacific 4 01-22-2016 09:42 AM
Essay - UN Unable to Address Modern Conflicts McArthur International Politics 18 11-25-2012 10:59 PM
United Nations ReliefWeb jcustis NGO & Humanitarian 22 08-06-2007 07:44 PM
President Bush Addresses United Nations General Assembly SWJED The Whole News 2 09-19-2006 07:28 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation