2011: Peacekeeping Reloaded?
by Major-General (ret'd) Cam Ross; CMM, CD

Canada will reduce its commitment in Afghanistan in 2011. As Canadians
consider their future role in the world they must not confuse reality with
wishful thinking.

While the extent of Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan has yet to be
determined, Ottawa has clearly signalled Canada will have a reduced combat
footprint. The key words are 'reduced' and 'combat'. We can initially expect
1000 to 1500 troops remaining to assist in training and development. And
there will no doubt be an element of combat capability that will be included
to provide security for those trainers and civilians. However, the bulk of
the Canadian battle group will return home. The new NATO Chief does not want
that to happen. He wants Canada to stay the course; that is not likely to
happen.

The reality is that there are four immovable truths. None have anything to
do with how incredibly effective our troops are.

First, the polls, while extraordinarily supportive of the Canadian Forces,
reflect increasing calls to 'bring the troops home'.

Second, it was not just the Harper government that decided on the 2011
reduction. By astutely commissioning the Manley Panel, the PM laid the
groundwork for a parliamentary vote to stay until 2011. A similar all-party
agreement would have to be undertaken to change the current 2011 decision;
this is highly unlikely.

Third, Afghanistan is expensive in dollars as well as human capital. At a
time of soaring national debt, it will be increasingly difficult to
rationalize such expeditionary expenses. Also, we are entering an Arctic
sovereignty era in which the military has a role. The cost will be immense.

Most importantly, the human cost in casualties and attrition from repeat
tours is staggering. One combat unit's recent study revealed that over a 33
month period, troops were spending, on average, 22 months away from home.
Afghanistan has placed Canada's Army, one of the best in the world, under
tremendous strain. At 19,000 soldiers, the Canadian Army fits into
Calgary's Saddledome. 3,000 of those soldiers are in Afghanistan, 3,000
more are training to go, and another 3,000 have just returned home. This
is unsustainable.

Fourth, Afghanistan presents a political 'burr under the saddle' for a
minority government, regardless of the party stripe. With a rebounding
economy on the horizon, there will be a great temptation to hold an election
within the year and the pressure on all parties to remove that Afghanistan
'burr' will be immense. The burr will be replaced by familiarity,
'traditional peacekeeping' - regardless of the logic of staying the course
in Afghanistan.

Many Canadians believe that UN peacekeeping is our traditional overseas
military role. It is falsely perceived to be 'safe'; it exemplifies our
desire to compromise, to be nice ... Chretien's 'boy scouts to the world'.
It is our 'comfort zone' as the NDP and others would say.

But what is 'traditional peacekeeping'? Too many UN veterans have vivid
memories of being shot at and blown up whilst under the UN flag to believe
the calm portrayed on the back of our $10 bill, labelled Remembrance and
Peacekeeping, is a realistic portrayal of their peacekeeping duties. Since
1948, traditional peacekeeping has cost us 114 lives; Canada has the 3rd
highest toll on the UN's country casualty list behind India and Ghana.

Since the end of the Cold War, the demand for international intervention has
grown almost exponentially. In June 2009, the UN had 93,216 military
personnel deployed on 17 missions worldwide compared with only 12,084
personnel on 15 missions in 1999. The foreseeable future does not herald a
rosier picture. The Haitis, Sudans, and Congos of the world will not be
solved easily or overnight.

The face of peacekeeping has changed. With the exceptions of Italy and
France, 18 of the top 20 peacekeeping contributors are developing countries.

For a well-to-do country of 34 million, Canada's current contribution is
abysmally small in numbers. Canada ranks #52 for UN peacekeeping with only
55 military personnel deployed on 10 UN missions. Whether it's a combat
role with NATO or a peacekeeping mission with the UN, we should be cognizant
of our own limitations. Something is wrong if we can only deploy about 3,000
military at a given time. Our wishful thinking is that we are a middle power
that can positively influence troubled lands. The fact is that we are
punching well below our weight class in both security and development, not
in quality but in quantity.

What is certain is that there will be increased interest in Canada returning
to its perceived 'default' position, more for political expediency than
sound foreign policy. A return to the UN fold will resonate well with the
voters. A re-commitment to Haiti will be especially attractive for Quebec
voters. To say no to the UN on the grounds that we don't 'do' peacekeeping
any more would be unwise, especially at a time when Canada is aggressively
seeking a January 2011 seat on the UN Security Council. And the response of
"sorry, we have already given at the office" will no longer apply post 2011.
Do I personally advocate a return to the traditional role of peacekeeping?
No. Peacekeeping reloaded? Probably. But, realistically, the peacekeeping
of today is scarcely identifiable as the task defined in 1956 by Lester
Pearson. Change that $10 picture for one that depicts Canada's Armed Force
as the capable warriors they are and stop deluding ourselves ... effective
peacekeeping sometimes needs a big bat.

MGen (ret'd) Ross, a former UN Assistant Secretary General and Force
Commander of UNDOF on the Golan Heights, is a Fellow of the Canadian Defence
and Foreign Affairs Institute.

Originaly published in the Calgary Herald.

Thanks for the article. You know that reading Canadian news will do strange things to you (part of it being the act of enjoying large rocks slide on the ice).

Not the first, nor ,I suspect, the last Canajan General to tell it like it is..sadly, they don't dictate public policy and the politicians will go all namby pamby in an effort to water down any action in Afghanistan [ or elsewhere] to win votes and ' reach consensus ' in the public eye...

which, of course, always puts the military in a tough situation [sometimes I think they spend more time fighting government than they do the 'enemy ' ]. As for ' Peacekeeping, HAH!.. my son spent time in the Sudan on a UN mission.. he has no kind words for the way the operation was run...a study in SNAFU and FUBAR on a global scale so that no one/country was 'miffed' by any perceived 'insult' or suggestion that they weren't contributing to the mission and the 'saving' of the situation to the betterment of mankind, or at least the UN...

sadly, no one ever listens to the soldier until its almost too late...


and don't think Obama will be any smarter about the'Stan or that anything will be 'better' after the elections on Thursday.. still narco warlords, still corruption, still Taliban 'insurrectionists' who won't accept the outcome, and still women and children getting the worst of it.

sorry, do I sound too jaded and cynical?

Sure enough!

someone else griping...sometimes you speak out, sometimes you keep your mouth shut..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8213266.stm

General Skrzypczak at least had the courage of his convictions.
He spoke out and when called to account did the right thing and resigned.
Some times things have to be said/done in house.Other times the frustration level is high and things are said/done out of house.
He got it out to the public and took the consequences.