NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for all the countries AND AREAS in the world like canada or japan, new zealand, western europe etc etc etc who should be actually doing some peacekeeping.

We need modern army elements from the developed world to peace keep or even peace make.

We can use our military to peace keep instead of taking the easy way out by giving that 0.7% of our GDP.

We could have gone in a created a area in war zones where at least civilians could excape the carnage and war. Aid aint going to stop that. And no one wants the USA to do it, so therefore its up to countries like canada to get off its ass and do something about it.

We wouldnt be able to stop a war but at least we could set up "safe zones" for civilians while whatever war is occuring wages on.

What u think??


EDIT: did i mention the fact that i believe countries like canada have a DUTY to do this...

This thread is for all the countries in the world like canada or japan, new zealand, western europe etc etc etc who should be actually doing some peacekeeping.

I'm thinking :confused:

I'm thinking :confused:

dude gimmie a break lol

*EXPLODES*

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109187593182_13/?hub=TopStories

Military spending on the rise, you may get your wish - at least in regards to Canada.

Jayastan, if I had my druthers, Canada would be more involved in peacekeeping AND be donating the .7% target in aid. Keeping the peace is important, but you can't look after people and kickstart an economy without some cash.

This thread is for all the countries AND AREAS in the world like canada or japan, new zealand, western europe etc etc etc who should be actually doing some peacekeeping.

We need modern army elements from the developed world to peace keep or even peace make.

We can use our military to peace keep instead of taking the easy way out by giving that 0.7% of our GDP.

We could have gone in a created a area in war zones where at least civilians could excape the carnage and war. Aid aint going to stop that. And no one wants the USA to do it, so therefore its up to countries like canada to get off its ass and do something about it.

We wouldnt be able to stop a war but at least we could set up "safe zones" for civilians while whatever war is occuring wages on.

What u think??


EDIT: did i mention the fact that i believe countries like canada have a DUTY to do this...

Speaking for canada, we have been VERY involved in peacekeeping over the past several decades. Indeed, we have averaged a contingent of around 3,000 men in Afghanistan since the start of the war there. We were involved in Somalia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, and the recent operations in Haiti, and have been part of the mission in Cyprus since it's inception - amongst numerous others. Indeed, it had largely been our involvement in Afghanistan which has precluded us from helping out elsewhere these past few years.

And while I have agreed for decades that we need a larger force to contribute more, at least the current government finally seems to be onside with that idea as the draft budget released yesterday includes a 13 Billion boost in military expenditures. In terms of per-capita expenditure, that would be equivalent to about a $120B increase in military spending in the US.

Compared to several Western European countries, Canada has done more than it's share. Compared to what we could be doing - I agree that we should do more.

Cheers Zepistan, I'm actually from Australia, which has a similar peacekeeping tradition. We've even helped to create a whole country (Timor Leste). But I agree we can do a lot more, and in fact I think the way the current system's set up needs a bit of work

SG Kofi was on the right track when he said the current security council composition was based on the balance of power 60 years ago and so has added more permanent members. I however disagree fundamentally with the idea that a single country - ie US - can single-handedly stop a potential peacekeeping mission if it decides it's "not in it's own national interest." We've seen previously with the US/USSR divide how tension between two superpowers can potentially jeopardise world security.

My idea is that the security council should be composed of a single delegate - either appointed or elected - by the various regional bodies, such as the European Union, African Union, Pacific Union, Arab League, Association of South-East Asian Nations, etc. None of them would have a veto power, but at least a 2/3 majority would be required for any potential action.

There are also problems with the fact that heaps of countries - seriously heaps - refuse ICJ jurisdiction. This needs to be made compulsory for UN membership.

Cheers Zepistan, I'm actually from Australia, which has a similar peacekeeping tradition. We've even helped to create a whole country (Timor Leste). But I agree we can do a lot more, and in fact I think the way the current system's set up needs a bit of work


Yes, the interdiction effort in East Timor has certainly been one that can be chalked up as a great success in UN peacekeeping records - and should be a real source of pride to the Aussies who served there.

"Peacekeeping" is a nice euphemism. What it actually entails is you pick a side in a fight (presumably the "good" guys, or a local majority), and make a deal with them... don't commit (too many) atrocities and we will help you win. Then you attack the other side with overwhelming force until they see they are going to lose anyway because they are up against a much greater force, and give up fighting. At this point you try to prevent revenge attacks from both sides, and try to get everyone to be involved in government, at least somewhat. "Peace" ensues.

Notes: Expect to need a force considerably greater than the "bad" guys (maybe triple). You don't "peacekeep" with a force that cannot (in a pinch) take on *both* sides and win. Expect the whole thing to cost between $1000 and $10000 per person of the population involved. If things go well, expect it to take a decade. Also, expect to kill between 1/100th and 1/10th of the "bad" guys' total population, unless you have such a fearsome reputation that they give up sooner.

Your view of peacekeeping is waaaaaaaaaaay off the mark.

I think that if what you are thinking is a worldwide tax on nations to be collected by the corrupt and useless U.N., then I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire statement.

Your view of peacekeeping is waaaaaaaaaaay off the mark.

And presumably you have a more accurate view? Which is, just possibly, based on visiting places where "peacekeeping" was actually happening?

This thread is for all the countries AND AREAS in the world like canada or japan, new zealand, western europe etc etc etc who should be actually doing some peacekeeping.

We need modern army elements from the developed world to peace keep or even peace make.

We can use our military to peace keep instead of taking the easy way out by giving that 0.7% of our GDP.

We could have gone in a created a area in war zones where at least civilians could excape the carnage and war. Aid aint going to stop that. And no one wants the USA to do it, so therefore its up to countries like canada to get off its ass and do something about it.

We wouldnt be able to stop a war but at least we could set up "safe zones" for civilians while whatever war is occuring wages on.

What u think??


EDIT: did i mention the fact that i believe countries like canada have a DUTY to do this...

heck yes, its not a good sign when the majority of the worldn't peacekeeping forces come to pakistan

too bad clinton signed that bill saying Americans can only contribute when American intrests are directly involved

but looking at how clinton handled the rawanda situation you could see he was a duchebag in the peacekeeping department to begin with

And presumably you have a more accurate view? Which is, just possibly, based on visiting places where "peacekeeping" was actually happening?

Actually yes...I don't know what examples of "peacekeeping" you are using for your description, but they are certainly not commonplace. Peacekeeping forces are frequently small; even tiny in comparison to those forces around them. Rather than "pick sides" it frequently meants attempting to enforce either the current status quo (which MAY favor one side over another) or the historical precident before the conflict started. Very, VERY rarely is the peacekeeping force "capable of taking on both sides" in more often than not forced to either retreat or desperately defend limited objectives if one side turns aggressively against them.

Where on earth did you come by this radically different viewpoint of peacekeeping? It bears little resemblence to anything I've seen. Are you talking about "peacekeeping" in the Korean War or something? Even then, if you study the conflict the original peacekeeping force that was stationed there before the war got going was miniscule.

I think that there has to be some distinction made here between peace keepers and peace enforces, peace keepers being only allowed to act to protect themselves, where as peace enforces are allowed to protect the population. I used to work with a former peace keeper and he told me a horrible story about watching someone be killed and he wasn't allowed to do anything. :(

Actually yes...I don't know what examples of "peacekeeping" you are using for your description, but they are certainly not commonplace. Peacekeeping forces are frequently small; even tiny in comparison to those forces around them. Rather than "pick sides" it frequently meants attempting to enforce either the current status quo (which MAY favor one side over another) or the historical precident before the conflict started. Very, VERY rarely is the peacekeeping force "capable of taking on both sides" in more often than not forced to either retreat or desperately defend limited objectives if one side turns aggressively against them.

Where on earth did you come by this radically different viewpoint of peacekeeping? It bears little resemblence to anything I've seen. Are you talking about "peacekeeping" in the Korean War or something? Even then, if you study the conflict the original peacekeeping force that was stationed there before the war got going was miniscule.

What you're describing is "showing the flag", not peacekeeping. It's what the UN forces did in Congo, Rwanda, and Somalia, with predictable results. It's also what they were doing in Bosnia until the US got involved in a big way. Sometimes it works, but mostly because the sides aren't all that set on having a big fight, or their foreign supporters back off under the greater level of scrutiny. However you can't count on that. Dropping a couple of thousand guys with light armor and minimal air support in the middle of a fight with *hundreds of thousands* of people involved on both sides is a recipe for disaster... more likely than not you will have to bug out in a hurry, and the disaster will be compounded by the fact that many of the locals actually expected you to save them (again, just as in Rwanda - a lot fewer people would have died there had the UN not been involved at all, since they would have fled sooner).

The real deal is what the Brits did at Omdurman, or what the US did in Fallujah and Najaf more recently. Get the guys who want to fight all in one place and kill or capture them all. Primitive, but it works.

Where on earth did you come by this radically different viewpoint of peacekeeping? It bears little resemblence to anything I've seen.

Yeah, because what is usually described as "peacekeeping" these days doesn't actually keep the peace.

Exercise: what is the minimum level of force (military/political/economic) that would be sufficient to end the genocide in Darfur? How would you do it?

Exercise: what is the minimum level of force (military/political/economic) that would be sufficient to end the genocide in Darfur? How would you do it?

Funny, nobody wants to take this on.

Okay, I'll tell you how I would do it.

* First, get an agreement with Uganda and Kenya, allowing me to base two fighter wings at Gulu airfield.
* Attack and destroy the military airfields at Khartoum and El-Obeid, and destroy any fighter aircraft on the ground or in the air (and hopefully deal with the 14 top-of-the-line MiG-29s flown by experienced Russian pilots for the Sudan airforce without suffering any losses).
* Enforce a no-fly zone west of the 30th meridian and south of the 12th parallel.
* Land airborne forces in battalion strength at El-Geneina, Nyala and El-Fashir seizing the airfields there, and set up bases for helicopter operations. Destroy any ground forces that counterattack.
* Insert SOF forces to work with the SPLA in the south and provide them with enough air support in order to destroy the government garrisons at Wau and Uwayl, and advance northwest towards Dilling.
* Bomb every single Janjaweed militia camp or government military installation in Darfur, and any concentration on the roads.
* Set up a training camp for black militia (call it the Darfur Defense Force, DDF) at El-Geneina and arm and train some 20-50,000 of them from the camps in the area.

A year later there will be no government forces or Janjaweed militia anywhere in the no fly zones. About 5 million people will be able to return to their villages and start rebuilding. About 20-50,000 people will have died - most of them Janjaweed militia - and $50-100 billion or so will have been spent on this operation.

Do you have a better idea?

Funny, nobody wants to take this on.

Okay, I'll tell you how I would do it.

* First, get an agreement with Uganda and Kenya, allowing me to base two fighter wings at Gulu airfield.
* Attack and destroy the military airfields at Khartoum and El-Obeid, and destroy any fighter aircraft on the ground or in the air (and hopefully deal with the 14 top-of-the-line MiG-29s flown by experienced Russian pilots for the Sudan airforce without suffering any losses).
* Enforce a no-fly zone west of the 30th meridian and south of the 12th parallel.
* Land airborne forces in battalion strength at El-Geneina, Nyala and El-Fashir seizing the airfields there, and set up bases for helicopter operations. Destroy any ground forces that counterattack.
* Insert SOF forces to work with the SPLA in the south and provide them with enough air support in order to destroy the government garrisons at Wau and Uwayl, and advance northwest towards Dilling.
* Bomb every single Janjaweed militia camp or government military installation in Darfur, and any concentration on the roads.
* Set up a training camp for black militia (call it the Darfur Defense Force, DDF) at El-Geneina and arm and train some 20-50,000 of them from the camps in the area.

A year later there will be no government forces or Janjaweed militia anywhere in the no fly zones. About 5 million people will be able to return to their villages and start rebuilding. About 20-50,000 people will have died - most of them Janjaweed militia - and $50-100 billion or so will have been spent on this operation.

Do you have a better idea?

Well, excuse some of us for having better things to do than plan this particular military campaign. ;)

Seriously, you've put some thought into this. Its a good idea; is it the minimum possible though? Look through your force deployments, look at the length of duration they would need to be deployed; how on earth are you gonna find the money and the political will to do this? Certainly your plan might work, but who's gonna fund it?

In addition you are destorying a government's military to the point where it more than likely would be incapable of defending itself against ANY aggression, UN mandated or not. Turning around and training 50,000 troops who were recently brutalized by this government sounds like a call for revenge attacks. How would you respond to your new allies growing beligerent?

You might want to consider reducing the strength of the DDF somewhat, or not so completely destroying the Sudanese miltiary. In any case what about the surrounding nations? How likely are they to capitalize on your movements? How likely is it/how would you deal with political oposition from a) your home country, b) foriegn powers c) Neighboring nations d) Sudanese people.

Naturally I approve of any military operation that follows the creed of going in with strength, securing the objectives with speed, and leaving before you get kicked out...but you still have much more planning to do beyond the military nature of the campaign.

Engineers are better suited for peace-keeping than soldiers.

Water supply and wells, schools and hospitals, farm to market roads, swimming pools and sport stadiums - all do more for peace than tanks and bullets.

Well, excuse some of us for having better things to do than plan this particular military campaign. ;)

Really? I couldn't imagine what ;)

Seriously, you've put some thought into this. Its a good idea; is it the minimum possible though? Look through your force deployments, look at the length of duration they would need to be deployed; how on earth are you gonna find the money and the political will to do this? Certainly your plan might work, but who's gonna fund it?

Minimum possible? Hmm, good question. The no-fly zone is absolutely necessary, and one fighter wing is close to the minimum forces to accomplish that. A second wing would be needed for bombing ground targets and providing CAS. The airborne landings are not strictly necessary, one could just train locals in camps over the border in Chad. Of course once that starts the other side will try really hard to simply kill off most of the refugees that are still in Sudan, and they will probably succeed since all they need to do is prevent food distribution. If you want to save the refugees, you have to seize the airfields. So that's necessary too, and these are pretty darn minimal forces for that. You will probably want to reinforce them to close to brigade strength.

Length of deployments? You can probably bring half the planes back in a month. The ground forces will be there for a year or two though, although possibly at reduced strength.

Who will fund it? Damn good question.

<devil's advocate>
I would say the Canadian government should seize the assets of Talisman Energy, the Canadian company providing the government of Sudan with the fuel their military uses for their little genocide campaign. That will pay for, oh, a third of the cost. Alternately, impose a naval blocade on oil exports from Sudan unless the companies involved agree to pay a war tax - nothing egregious, perhaps as low as 50% of their take for ten years. Alternately, simply offer oil exploration rights in Sudan to the highest bidder *only* (and bomb anyone else if they try to edge in).
</devil's advocate>

Btw my cost estimate may not be accurate, it could be as low as 10 billion but I thought I'd be on the safe side.

In addition you are destorying a government's military to the point where it more than likely would be incapable of defending itself against ANY aggression, UN mandated or not.

Not really. I'm not proposing destroying all of their military, merely their air force. If any invading army made its way to the outskirts of Khartoum, they will certainly have enough forces to fight back. They will be essentially incapable of attacking anyone, however, which is a good thing. Also - there aren't exactly any neighbouring countries that have the capacity to attack. Ethiopia is busy with their dispute with the Erithreans, Chad is essentially a military protectorate of the French, and Uganda is busy with the Sudan-sponsored "Lord's Resistance Army" terrorists.

Turning around and training 50,000 troops who were recently brutalized by this government sounds like a call for revenge attacks. How would you respond to your new allies growing beligerent?

Ah - now that is a very good point. The answer is three-fold. First, they are the cannon-fodder (to be un-PC), but I have all the logistical resources and heavy firepower. They can't get to where they can engage in revenge attacks (no transportation of their own), and if they do they won't be able to do more than quick raids (no artillery or armor, which the government forces still have). Second, these guys will have US SOF officers, at least at first, and that should give them a certain standard of civilized behaviour to live up to. Third, and this is where we get to the unsavory part of this... people will have to be separated on racial/ethnic grounds into different areas. The Arabs who settled in the places from which the black population was forced to leave, will just damn well have to go back to where they came from. Any nomadic Arab herders will have to stay well clear, unless they are on very good terms with the black militia.

You might want to consider reducing the strength of the DDF somewhat, or not so completely destroying the Sudanese miltiary.

Maybe. I think 50,000 is enough to garrison that area so that every village has enough people to deter a raid. They are not a military force, they are essentially incapable of force projection, but they will prevent the kind of brazen aggression that the Janjaweed militia engages in. Think about it this way.. ok, you're a Janjaweed commander, you have a couple of hundred guys with rifles on horseback and a few machineguns and mortars on trucks... are you going to try to destroy a village that has 100 guys defending it with rifles only? Yeah, you could certainly take them on, but it will cost you, and it will take time, long enough that the accursed Americans with their F-16s will arrive and bomb the crap out of you... this changes the equation completely from wanton slaughter to a more-or-less even fight, which I don't think the Janjaweed has a stomach for.

In any case what about the surrounding nations? How likely are they to capitalize on your movements? How likely is it/how would you deal with political oposition from a) your home country, b) foriegn powers c) Neighboring nations d) Sudanese people.

Another good question. The southern neighbours - Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda - have already formed a sort-of anti-Sudan alliance, since the Sudanese government has tried to export violence by supporting terrorists in border areas. So I would tend to think they would be supportive. The northen neighbour, Egypt, is a (nominal) US ally who has had border disputes with Sudan. The rest are too weak to do anything.

The Sudanese - this is nothing new there, Arabs have always brutalized black people. The British Empire fought a war over that ("The River War"), but things are back to "normal" now. Presumably the black people will be in favor of putting an end to this for good. Will the Arabs oppose this? Well, let me put it this way, if it was a choice between having their refineries bombed, or pulling out of Darfur, which will they oppose less?

Foreign powers - yeah, especially China, Russia and any other country that is involved in either oil or weapons deals. I will assuage them by saying that they will get better terms from a weaker government, and that the region will be more secure once this genocide campaign is stopped for good. Also, see above regarding refineries.

Home country - I will damn well run *all* of these pictures (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/opinion/23kristof.html?ex=1266901200&en=d9bc5fbe39eed505&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland) on prime-time TV, along with interviews with survivors, etc etc. That will be a problem though, especially since we are still engaged in one major campaign at the moment. I kind of wish for once somebody *else* would deal with putting out fires like this. Not that anybody else can, or has the stomach for it.

What I would hope for politically is that (a) someone else pays the money for this, while we do the work... it is not *hard*, exactly, but it costs a bunch and (b) as the campaign starts rolling, the Sudanese government comes to their senses and stops the agression for real (as opposed to merely saying they did).

Naturally I approve of any military operation that follows the creed of going in with strength, securing the objectives with speed, and leaving before you get kicked out...but you still have much more planning to do beyond the military nature of the campaign.

Yeah. What I was trying to illustrate is a couple of things... this really can be done, it will cost though, it is difficult because the area is remote and roadless, the Sudanese military is not a pushover and the Janjaweed has a strength of 15-20,000, and finally at the moment there really isn't a "political option"... notice how nobody has come up with one. What it boils down to is that the Sudanese government is dead set on displacing and/or killing the black population in the area, who are now living in camps, entirely dependent on foreign aid organizations for food, and without any defense against the depredations of the Janjaweed. They are essentially hostages: any threatened attack against the Sudanese government will result in them cutting off aid, and tens of thousands will die. As it is, the Sudanese government stall for time, maintaining the intolerable situation as more people die due to insufficient food, water, or medicines in the camps, or flee across the border. The only solution is to quickly secure the area (first the airspace, then the area around the camps) and build a local opposition force, so that people can return to their homes. It is a nasty situation, with no good options... but anything has got to be better than this.

<devil's advocate>
Well, of course there is the easy solution... drop a nuke in the desert north of Khartoum and say "Withdraw now, or the next one will be a little further south". There is one *proven* way to deal with barbarians, which is to be more barbaric than they are. The saddest thing is, this will probably work, and with zero casualties, too.
</devil's advocate>

Engineers are better suited for peace-keeping than soldiers.

Water supply and wells, schools and hospitals, farm to market roads, swimming pools and sport stadiums - all do more for peace than tanks and bullets.

Which will do you a hell of a lot of good in the middle of a forced relocation/extermination campaign. Yeah right.

The people who have been herded off their land and into camps had water wells and schools and farms... but now all they have is some UN-provided plastic sheeting to put over their heads, and a UN food truck that arrives once a week - maybe - and some armed guards, who happen to be the same people that burned their village down and raped all the women. Their most pressing concerns: will the men with guns keep the food away next week? If we leave the camp to collect firewood, will they shoot us?

"Peace"? What peace? The war is already begun.

"Stadiums and swimming pools"? No, what they need is indeed guns and bullets.

Seriously, you've put some thought into this.

Thanks. It helps that I love wargames.

The side-effect is that when people say inane things like "why can't we just close Iraq's borders" I start fuming a little. Or "let's just deploy some UN monitors and get them to stop the genocide" . Or the ever favourite "Iraq was a diversion, we should have used those troops in Afghanistan" (and you will get them there by means of?... :headbang: ).

Naturally I approve of any military operation that follows the creed of going in with strength, securing the objectives with speed, and leaving before you get kicked out...

Right on.

This thread is for all the countries AND AREAS in the world like canada or japan, new zealand, western europe etc etc etc who should be actually doing some peacekeeping.

We need modern army elements from the developed world to peace keep or even peace make.

We can use our military to peace keep instead of taking the easy way out by giving that 0.7% of our GDP.

We could have gone in a created a area in war zones where at least civilians could excape the carnage and war. Aid aint going to stop that. And no one wants the USA to do it, so therefore its up to countries like canada to get off its ass and do something about it.

We wouldnt be able to stop a war but at least we could set up "safe zones" for civilians while whatever war is occuring wages on.

What u think??


EDIT: did i mention the fact that i believe countries like canada have a DUTY to do this...

The bigger nations need to do more in war areas. My country has a poppulation of 290.000, we do not have a regular military and we have a peace keeping force in Afganistan. Yes we have been attacked but not a single prson has been killed. We also controll Kabul Intl. Airport.