Canada's Renewed Commitment to Peacekeeping

Yeah, I will vote for bruce too. One can dream but unfortunately at the end of the dream is fog

double the budget . that would bring us up to the minimum amount Canada has agreed all NATO members should be spending on defence . 2% GDP boys and legislate it as mandatory spending .

yup all moneys not spent in a fiscal year in the entire defence budget DOES NOT return to general coffers but moved to a continuous procurement budget that can ONLY be used for procurement .

sort out the crazy procurement system and the fracked up T and E circus and all will be good .

propat

If only I had the authority pinger. I'd spend the 300 billion dollars to acquire this equipment.

Just add some tweaks and the training $, but I'll vote for you Brucey. Hands down.

80 Leopard II Tanks
100 CF-18 Super Hornets
6 Nuclear Submarines
200 Light Armoured Vehicles with 25mm cannons
500 Armour Plated Hum-Vees with .50cal mounted
250 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 80 of which should be armed for anti-aircraft defensive & offensive measures
25 Naval destroyers of varying classes
16 battleships of varying classes
20 supply ships and transport ships
15 early warning aircraft
250 helicopters for rapid troop deployment, search and rescue
30 attack helicopters
20 frigates of varying classes
2 Nuclear powered Naval Aircraft Carriers
1200 artillery pieces

Here's a shopping list for the Liberals.

Football ... football? lol teen.

Something in that article I posted dealt with the political football procurement process.
Two teams. Both keep losing.

But a memory I have from way back is paint ship routine.
Painting red lead or yellow over a hole on a topside stbd deck.
Lookie way. Pretty sadder now I believe.
We had the training to beat the semi's south quite often though.

But now... Back to your regularly scheduled CFL game.

Is it the bureaucratic process or the political football of negativity from the opposition parties that have caused the replacement of much needed military equipment?

I have noticed since the 90's anything to do with the Military is a cue for oppostion parties to make political hay on the floor of the HoC.

And, sadly, the political hay has flowed over to the veteran problems. Con's bitched at Libs in the 90's, Libs and NDP bitched at the Con's.

Getting very tired of being a f'n political football for MP's. We ain't toys we are humans!

Funny how when one of their own MP's, Mauril Belanger, is diagnosed with Lou Gehrigs disease they rush a bill thru the HoC to change the words of O'Canada in less then 2 weeks before he dies. A topic that was ignored for the last 15 years.

How come when veteran's die it means jack squat to our government? Guess that's the way they are used to treating us....useless toys not even worthy to be sold in a yard sale.

Here's a tack on topic... politics included.

It is not surprising that, with Canada’s last, rusty destroyer, the HMCS Athabaskan, retiring next spring, our navy will be without proper long-range naval air-defence or command-and-control capabilities for seven years or more. But it should be.

It is not surprising because Canada has had chronic problems replacing military hardware for decades. One problem is Ottawa’s unwillingness to spend properly on naval vessels, aircraft or guns and troop transports. But another is a lack of political will or capacity to manage or reform a broken procurement process. And another, the most serious, is growing public numbness to military unpreparedness and the complacent incompetence that produces it.

We are no longer surprised, let alone angry, to hear politicians boast that they will plug a critical gap … by around 2025. But we should be. Canada acquired an entire navy in just six years between 1939 and 1945. It now routinely takes decades to buy equipment that is often ill-suited to a changed strategic or tactical environment by the time it arrives. Yes, military hardware is more sophisticated than it used to be. But so are design and manufacturing techniques. And with technology changing so fast, it is ever more dangerous to be equipped with outdated weapons and control systems, especially in inadequate numbers. Yet we increasingly take it for granted.

In 1993, the incoming Chrétien government cancelled the contract for EH-101 Cormorants to replace the Navy’s aging and undersized Sea King anti-submarine helicopters and antiquated CH-113 search-and-rescue helicopters. But there was considerable controversy over their inability to purchase a replacement, especially given the political nature of the decision and the cost of cancelling what then-Liberal leader Jean Chrétien had snidely called “Cadillacs.” The process had already taken 10 years by the time Chrétien cancelled the EH-101 and, 13 years later, his successor, Paul Martin, left office having ordered a replacement but not received one.

The Conservatives subsequently bungled the acquisition of icebreakers, logistics trucks, supply ships, fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft and light artillery pieces, as well as, most infamously, fighter aircraft, prompting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to dismiss the F-35 in the same sneering tone as Chrétien had the EH-101. But people were getting used to it.

It no longer seemed odd that the first of 28 Sea King replacements finally arrived in 2015, fully 32 years after former prime minister Pierre Trudeau first began trying to replace them, to concerns that they may have insufficiently powerful engines for today’s needs. And the current government’s drawn-out attempt to keep twin election pledges of an “open” competition that the F-35 would not be permitted to win produces weary shrugs rather than outrage.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is unveiled at a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas, in 2006.
These antics are not only undignified. They are dangerous. Canada cannot patrol its coasts, defend its skies, project force or work effectively with its allies. We boast of our intentions, while having little ability to aid our allies beyond token, symbolic deployments, sustainable only for brief periods. We would be unable even to defend our own Navy, if we had one. Instead, with a G7 economy, a long-standing promise to NATO to spend two per cent of our GDP on defence and three major oceans lapping the shores of the world’s second-largest country, we have a dozen refurbished frigates and a handful of small, slow patrol ships. And yet the populace is in danger of yawning and turning to other things instead of demanding that it be fixed.

The bureaucratic procedure for purchasing military hardware needs a serious overhaul. But this is no more true than it has been for decades, and nothing has been done. The blame rests partially with the politicians and bureaucrats who continue to put partisan politicking and procedural meddling ahead of properly equipping those who volunteer to fight on Canada’s behalf, but it rests first and foremost with us, the Canadian voter.

We who have inherited a land of peace and plenty have forgotten that such things do not come cheaply and cannot be taken for granted. Until we remember that, and make clear to our political parties that a properly sized, trained and equipped Canadian Armed Forces is a responsibility, not an aspiration, they will do no better.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-canada-seeks-peace-on-the-cheap

Well outside of the politics, JT might blend right into Africa without a shirt.
But it's a very slippery pickle on Harjit Sajjan's count to JT re: Africa.
In spite of the bad stuff occurring there it will very harm our guys much much worse.

Ain't it a funny thing reflecting back though... I wouldn't give a flying rat when I was 18.

Don’t send Canadian troops to dysfunctional UN missions.

August 16, 2016

Canada’s Minister of National Defence, Harjit Sajjan, is a serious guy. A respected combat veteran of our war in Afghanistan, he has brought vast knowledge and credibility to his new job in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet. One of the priorities for our Liberal government has been finding a peacekeeping mission that Canada can contribute forces to. To that end, the Minister has been travelling through some global hotspots of late, meeting with officials and allies and discussing ways that Canada may contribute. He says that he knows how many troops Canada could spare, on top of our existing domestic security needs and our recent agreement to lead one of the four NATO augmented battalion groups being established in Eastern Europe. The Minister told the CBC he needs only a decision from cabinet as to where those troops should go.

Peacekeeping can work. When the right factors align, a properly armed and equipped neutral third party can be a critical ingredient of transforming a ceasefire into a stable peace. Canada has done honourable service on these missions in the past, and there’s nothing wrong, in theory, with seeking to do so again. But unless Canada intends to lead a mission on its own, or in partnership with like-minded nations under their own rules of engagement, Canadians have to question if this is the best use of our military resources, or even worth pursing at all.

Too many of the UN’s recent peacekeeping forays have been absolute debacles. As flattering as it is to tell ourselves that they failed for lack of sufficient Canadian involvement, the truth is probably this: the UN is too dysfunctional to operate effective peacekeeping missions in the parts of the world most urgently in need of the help.

You may have read in recent days a report about a horrific incident in South Sudan. A purportedly secure compound in the capital of South Sudan, home to foreign aid workers, including Americans and other Westerners, was besieged by armed men in South Sudanese Army uniforms. The people inside the compound called for help, notifying a nearby — one mile away, according to the report — UN base that they were under attack. The message was received and logged.


And nothing was done.

The troops besieging the compound forced their way inside eventually. They took the aid workers prisoner. At least one man, a local, was executed. The men were beaten and threatened, some apparently tortured. At least five women were gang raped, by as many as 15 soldiers. Americans were singled out for particular abuse.

It was, in other words, an entirely typical atrocity of the type too often seen and heard of in failing states and war zones all the world over. It’s exactly the sort of reason the international community came up with the concept of peacekeeping and stabilization missions in the first place.

But this incident does more than illustrate the need for such missions. It also illustrates how, under the current UN structure, they’ve become impotent. There are 17,000 UN troops in South Sudan. The aid workers’ compound was minutes away from local UN military headquarters. The staff there knew there was an attack against civilians, including foreign aid workers, unfolding. They logged the incoming distress calls in their logs. But the local UN quick reaction force declined to deploy. Local troops, who were waiting around for the UN to lead the mission, also stood down. Individual battalions of troops assigned to the UN mission, including Ethiopian, Chinese and Nepalese soldiers, were then contacted. None bothered to come to the aid of a group of civilians under attack by an armed force practically in their backyard. Local troops eventually rescued the civilians, except for three Western women who were taken by the attackers. The UN was asked to send a rescue party to find them, and declined.

It is an absolutely astonishing story of failure … and yet not at all that astonishing. Time after time, we have heard reports of civilians under attack while UN forces nearby do absolutely nothing. Just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that UN peacekeepers in South Sudan ignored the mass rape of women who had sought shelter at a UN compound. The AP reported that the peacekeepers declined to intervene when the women were attacked by local forces, and watched as women and girls were attacked. Indeed, we’ve heard too many stories of the UN forces themselves being the attacking force, raping their way through villages they’re there to protect.

And how did the UN respond to these incidents? After the rapes near its compound last month, a spokesperson said, “The mission takes very seriously allegations of peacekeepers not rendering aid to civilians in distress and the (local UN) command is looking into these allegations.” They must still be looking into it, because that sounds a lot like what they said after the incident at the aid workers’ compound. And no doubt it’ll be what they say next time, too.

The UN is supposed to be an institution that makes the international community responsible for the safety of vulnerable populations. In reality, it does the opposite —it absolves countries of taking real action by offering up instead the comforting fiction of engagement and commitment. The locals, who turn to the UN for help and are ignored, understand this better than Canada’s government seems to.

And yet we are apparently determined to offer up hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Canadian troops. These troops will be sent thousands of miles from home, away from their families and at great expense, to take their place in a system that is so dysfunctional it cannot stop the rape of women and girls that unfolds literally on the doorstep of their barracks. Canada’s troops, fine and brave as they are, can only ever be as effective as the system they are assigned to serve in, and unless the UN is willing to completely overhaul its operations, so that atrocities such as this stop happening with such bleak regularity, there’s no point tainting our troops and our proud military with any affiliation with disgraces such as these. Unless the Liberals are willing to guarantee the public that any mission Canadian troops would serve on would include rules of engagement that not just authorize but require our troops to use whatever force necessary to stop attacks on civilians, the troops shouldn’t be sent. Absent that guarantee and major reforms, there’s no point.

Come to think of it, pushing for that kind of meaningful reform of the broken UN sounds like a fine idea. The world does need peacekeepers, but it needs better peacekeepers, and better leadership, than the UN is capable of providing. This is a place Canada could lead. Perhaps the Trudeau government and our highly capable Minister of National Defence should make a priority of fixing what’s broken, rather than taking part in the dysfunctional process in exchange for praise and a chance to reassure the world, once again, that Canada’s back.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-dont-send-canadian-troops-to-dysfunctional-un-missions

Well pinger it's either UN peacekeeping or NATO deployments. One or the other because it is damn near impossible to do both without burning out the troops....especially the support troops.

But then again I haven't worked for or seen a Liberal gov't that has said no to a high profile deployment. And we all know how much JT is itching to take of his shirt and do a selfie during a UN or NATO deployment! LOL

Or better yet have his kid with him again to inspect the troops in the field.

Good observation and analogy teen.

Only thing I can of is he's doing homework for JT's future decisions come NATO?

Just a thought...

Why is our MND on a fact gathering tour?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the UN decide where to set up shop in Africa?

This looks like the tail wagging the dog!

Yeah sure.....send the troops here and there and everywhere. But don't allow any military equipment purchases for 5 years. We don't even have naval supply ships anymore...our fighters are 35 years old. ...Sea King is 53.....

If Trudeau wants to send us everywhere then he should ensure that the military has the equipment it needs. But oh well, too late for that anyways. Maybe buy some useless subs from the Brits again but even at that...equipment purchases have been deferred for 5 whopping years.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/sajjan-africa-peacekeeping-1.3721800

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan knows how many troops he wants to send to Africa, but says he has no clear direction from cabinet on where to place them.

Sajjan told reporters in a conference call on Monday, at the end of a five country tour in the troubled region, that an announcement on Canada's renewed United Nations peacekeeping commitment will be made shortly.

There has been a lot of speculation about a possible Canadian contribution to existing missions in Mali, and perhaps even Congo.