• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Coup in Mali 2020- Shouyld Canada Send Troops?

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
8,999
Points
1,160
I wonder if this might result in a request for more Canadians troops in Mali to oversee a peaceful resolution and elections?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53848223#_=_
 
Colin P said:
I wonder if this might result in a request for more Canadians troops in Mali to oversee a peaceful resolution and elections?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53848223#_=_

Hopefully not.  IMO, some of these countries need to clean up their own mess.  A big part of the reason for the problems in a lot of these countries is corruption and we can't do much about that.
 
So we only send troops to places where there is no mess in progress?  Like having free speech for speech that everyone finds agreeable?
 
Brad Sallows said:
So we only send troops to places where there is no mess in progress?  Like having free speech for speech that everyone finds agreeable?

I'm in favor of peacekeeping where there is peace to keep but I'm not into sending our people into force peace and have them killed or injured for no reason.  As soon as we leave they will be at it again.  There's probably a lot of mixed opinions and I know I risk splitting this thread but I've heard a lot of people say Afghanistan was for nothing because most of the people there don't subscribe to our way of thinking.
 
There is merit in carefully considering where we send our women and men in uniform and figuring out what we actually intend to accomplish. Canada isn't going to be able to fix Mali or any place like it. So why bother? What is the strategic value to us there? Once casualties and the financial cost become a reality, taxpayers and politicians will be looking for a way out. There will be a massive rush to declare some form of "mission accomplished" and we will be pressured to pretend that local forces are up to the job of keeping the peace. Sound familiar to anyone?

We have a lot to lose, and not much to gain from what I can see. I don't think we should be so quick to throw our personnel into unwinnable situations. All for what? So a couple members of the intelligentsia can feel better about themselves and have nice dinner conversation in neighbourhoods like Rockcliffe Park or the Glebe? You know they won't be rushing to sign their kids up to go.

This isn't to say that our forces couldn't make a positive impact on the country. I know there are lots that would be ready to go and do the job they have trained for, and I'm thankful to live in a country where that is the case. I just have no confidence in the political class or the average taxpayer to stand behind them, give them the tools and ROEs they need, and see the job through to some kind of tangible conclusion.
 
you have just stated the reasons why Steven Harper stayed out of UN politics and expeditions.  You can't win.  I can't think of a single UN operation where the troops have left after a designated period of time with a solid honest government in place and a functioning economy. 
 
The other involved option is to join with other Western military operations, in this case the French mission.
 
Colin P said:
The other involved option is to join with other Western military operations, in this case the French mission.

What benefit would there be for Canada to join that mission, why should we even be involved in Mali in the first place?
 
stellarpanther said:
What benefit would there be for Canada to join that mission, why should we even be involved in Mali in the first place?

Ethics. Morality. Dream of a peaceful coexistence on our planet?

Canada loves it's world image as peacekeepers. Defenders of humanity and the down trodden. Whether the word peacekeeper is accurate or not it's an image governments like the LPC are all too happy to purport. Many Canadians have bought into it absolutely.

Some of these countries "clean up their own mess" as you say by wholesale rape and slaughter of men women and children.
Burning babies alive and forcing mothers to eat the pieces. Cutting body parts off for sport. Cutting the hearts out of living victims.

Some people can shrug their shoulders and not give a shit about what happens to anyone else other than themselves. Ethics when it's convenient.
Others care even if it's someone on the other side of the world they'll never meet.

Sometimes the "benefit" is simply doing the right thing as a human being regardless of getting something material in return.



 
Jarnhamar said:
Canada loves it's world image as peacekeepers. Defenders of humanity and the down trodden. Whether the word peacekeeper is accurate or not it's an image governments like the LPC are all too happy to purport. Many Canadians have bought into it absolutely.
Canadians these days seem to enjoy the idea of UN peacekeeping much more than the practice, especially when it comes to committing resources. We have 34 personnel on UN duty right now. As to our world image, I doubt anyone is very impressed.
 
Colin P said:
I wonder if this might result in a request for more Canadians troops in Mali to oversee a peaceful resolution and elections?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53848223#_=_

Will it be "peacekeeper" or "peacemaker"?
 
Canada should rethink aid to Mali after two coups, analysts say

The Globe and Mail

GEOFFREY YORK AFRICA BUREAU CHIEF
STEVEN CHASE
JOHANNESBURG AND OTTAWA
PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGO

After two military coups in Mali in the past eight years, Canada and other key donors are being urged to reconsider their massive financial and security support for Mali’s dysfunctional government.

Soldiers seized power in the West African country on Tuesday for the second time since 2012, capitalizing on mass protests and rising discontent with a government that has failed to end years of violent insurgencies and corruption. The mutinying soldiers were greeted with jubilation in the streets of Mali’s capital, Bamako, in a clear sign that the government had lost the support of the population, despite the huge flows of international aid.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-should-rethink-aid-to-mali-after-two-coups-analysts-say/

(Open in incognito window)
 
Jarnhamar said:
Ethics. Morality. Dream of a peaceful coexistence on our planet?

Canada loves it's world image as peacekeepers. Defenders of humanity and the down trodden. Whether the word peacekeeper is accurate or not it's an image governments like the LPC are all too happy to purport. Many Canadians have bought into it absolutely.

Some of these countries "clean up their own mess" as you say by wholesale rape and slaughter of men women and children.
Burning babies alive and forcing mothers to eat the pieces. Cutting body parts off for sport. Cutting the hearts out of living victims.

Some people can shrug their shoulders and not give a crap about what happens to anyone else other than themselves. Ethics when it's convenient.
Others care even if it's someone on the other side of the world they'll never meet.

Sometimes the "benefit" is simply doing the right thing as a human being regardless of getting something material in return.
That can be said for half the world, maybe more than half.  If we're going to invest money that we don't have especially now and risk the lives of mbr's, lets make sure we're doing it in a place that has a chance for a successful outcome.  I don't see that with Mali.
 
If we can make it better while we're there, that's a measure of our success.

If it's a better place even once we've left, that is a measure of the success that the nation we're helping can appreciate.

If, once we leave, more badness happens, then whose fault is it?  Ours?  Or the people who do the 'badness'? 

Peacekeeping in places where there is little peace to keep is difficult. 
 
NavyShooter said:
If we can make it better while we're there, that's a measure of our success.

If it's a better place even once we've left, that is a measure of the success that the nation we're helping can appreciate.

If, once we leave, more badness happens, then whose fault is it?  Ours?  Or the people who do the 'badness'? 

Peacekeeping in places where there is little peace to keep is difficult.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting to help people but we only have so many resources and so much money, let's use it where we think we can offer the greatest help with hopefully a successful outcome.
Mali is basically a civil war with different factions battling each other.  I don't think an outsider with minimal if any knowledge of the issues will resolve their problems for them.

edit: corrected grammar

 
stellarpanther said:
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting to help people but we only have so many resources and so much money, let's use it were we think we can offer the greatest help with hopefully a successful outcome.
Mali is basically a civil war with different factions battling each other.  I don't think an outsider with minimal if any knowledge of the issues will resolve their problems for them.

So, in these type of situations, we leave it to the faction with the most firepower to assume control/power, notwithstanding their intentions or ideology? How very neutral and non-committal of you. 
 
Weinie said:
So, in these type of situations, we leave it to the faction with the most firepower to assume control/power, notwithstanding their intentions or ideology? How very neutral and non-committal of you.


I'm not sure if there is something in the air today, but everybody on the forum seems to be attacking each other rather than intelligently debating what the other members are saying.

Instead of having a useful and productive discussion about the pros & cons of getting involved in a Mali operation, everybody seems to be pounding their chests while belittling the other members who are suggesting something more akin to a discussion.

It makes it difficult for any members to have a productive conversation or discussion about the matter, when immediately jumped on and attacked. 

I'd also note that some of the members who have proposed questions above in this thread did just that - they proposed questions.  These questions aren't stupid, and should be kept in mind when deciding when/if to get involved either way.

I have a lot of respect for most of us who discuss issues on this forum on a regular basis.  So with that respect in mind, I'd like to gently suggest that if some of us are feeling snippy, self righteous, or confrontational - the comments section is open on CBC.  Since this isn't a CBC discussion forum, and since we all agree that leading by example is typically the best course of action, let's discuss issues and stop randomly belittling each other. 



That being said... some questions have been brought up by members here, and these same questions have been discussed previously in other threads.  These questions contribute to a philosophical debate that modern society has struggled with for ages.


1.  Do we have a moral obligation to become involved in operations like Mali?  (Ethnic cleaning, failed government, etc.)

2.  If we are not able to fix some of the underlying issues causing the problems, are we possibly putting our members in danger irresponsibly?  (Extreme poverty, no economic plans, no government, and an issue we don't necessarily recognize the importance of - overpopulation in areas of very little means to support the population.  Lack of food, lack of water, etc.)

3.  If we do decide to intervene, what does that look from a military perspective?  A battlegroup?  Advisors?  Medical help?  Special forces to surgically take out the extremist groups?  Air strikes to hollow out the threat?  etc.
 
stellarpanther said:
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with wanting to help people but we only have so many resources and so much money, let's use it where we think we can offer the greatest help with hopefully a successful outcome.
Mali is basically a civil war with different factions battling each other.  I don't think an outsider with minimal if any knowledge of the issues will resolve their problems for them.

edit: corrected grammar

I think you are correct.  I don't see a single reason we should involve ourselves in a "peacekeeping" operation in Mali.

I see a number of reasons why we should involve ourselves in a counter-terrorist operation in Mali.  Perhaps keeping/enforcing some sort of peace in Mali becomes part of that plan; however, there would need to be clear reasons why we went there, i.e. Deny AQIM a safe haven, Secure our Economic Interests, etc. 

Altruism shouldn't be used as a reason for expending Canadian soldiers.
 
Back
Top