When will we stop digging?

[AIC_2K5]

In my International Relations class today, my prof asked a rather broad overhead question of how international poltics affects us. Naturally, Iraq and Afghanistan was lunged to the forefront of the discussion fairly quickly.

A student argued how Canada should not "follow in the footsteps" of the US in Afghanistan (and Iraq : ) and how we should take a more 'passive' approach towards terrorism because we have created more enemies by following the United States. I subsequently countered this individual's arguement, pointing out that the mission in Afghanistan is UN-mandated, NATO-lead, with around 40 countries participating. I then went on to say something along the lines that we are fighting an ideology, not any single country, and this ideology's enemy is the West; they will stop at nothing to try to destroy us and if we don't bring the fight to them in places like Afghanistan then they will bring the fight to us in places like Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto in the form of a bomb attack...

Immediatley after saying this, I was surprised to hear the amount of snickers and negative comments recieved from the other students. It seems less than half of the students in my class shared the same view...

When will we stop digging ourselves into this hole that leads away from reality and closer to lassez-faire and isolationism? Canadians find it so unbelievable to even think that terrorists could actually attack us. One needs only to stick their head out of their hole and look around at our allies such as Spain and the UK.

The frustrating, or probably scary, thing about this whole thing is that these are university students and are our future teachers, business people, and political leaders. We are supposed to be the bright minds of our society yet they simply cannot wrap our minds around the 21st century world and how conflicting events are changing the face of the globe.

[rant off]

Has anyone else had similar dealings with seemingly intelligent, respectable people in respectable societal or job positions?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When they are standing there ashen faced because the football team just got blown up in the subway, you can say "I told you so". OK, that's crass, but kids think they know everything. Normally the easy answer is the one to go with. When they have to start working, fending for themselves, working with REAL people in the REAL world and dealing with true society, their opinions, for the most part, will change. Right now they're in a bubble. Utopia is theirs for the asking, simply because they don't realise the underlying sacrifice that allows them that thought process. Many of yeasterday's hippys are todays fiscally enabled and politically powerful leaders, contrary to their early upbringing and teachings. Unfortuneately, the ones that haven't changed have become our educaters and teachers who perpetuate this myth and idiocy. Nature and history has a way of weeding out the dreamers and parasites. Stick to your guns, literally. Sheep don't like sheepdogs...........but they look to, and depend on us.

I find a look of pity, while you slowly tsk, tsk shaking your head as you walk away, makes them implode in a fit of righteous indignation. If you don't engage in their game of superiority they become the enraged idiot that they themselves rant against. ;D

 

[Shamrock]

Welcome to the open minded world of post-secondary education.

The stuff I've heard makes me wish our legal system allowed Darwin as a defence for murder (Your honor, I had to remove him from the gene pool before he polluted it more.  I'm a humanitarian!)

Don't worry about the vocal majority.  Some kids are genuinely interested in having an informed opinion, something fueled by fact and not opinion.  Good on you for challenging the class.  Next class ask if they advocate military action in Darfur.

 

[Spanky]

the ones that haven't changed have become our educaters and teachers who perpetuate this myth and idiocy. This is certainly the case.  University professors are probably the worst.  Most of them have never left the "bubble" to experience the real world.
When a terrorist attack occurs in Canada, there is a real danger that the bubble brains will blame our involvement in Afghanistan.  They'll end up blaming us and excusing the terrorists when the subway goes up or the CN Tower comes down.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Hey Bubbles, I've recently experienced kind of the same thing;

I was asked to speak for a University class the other day.  I wasn't given many details about what they wanted me to discuss, just that they wanted some insight into what Canadian soldiers do in Afghanistan.  So I did what I always do for these types of speaking engagements, and gave them a quick rundown of what I went through and brought a laptop full of pictures. 

After telling the class about my experience over there (all 3 weeks of it) and why I came home and such, I opened the floor to questions.  I find this engages classes more and makes it easier to get what they want from my experience... and then I can use more pictures to help explain. 

Anyway, before starting the question period, I always inform them that I cannot comment on government policy or anything that may be considered OpSec and / or PerSec, and I'll try to stick with 'what I know' and not speculate.  I also tell them that any oppinions I have on Policy is just that; My oppinion.

So a question came up half way through; 'Do you believe we should be there?"  And since I know nothing of the class, I figure; University student = against war (cause thats what we're used to seeing), So I took up a defencsive stance and answered "Yes.  Or I wouldn't have volunteered to go."

Then another question came from the other side of the room; "Do you believe violence will stop violence? Why do we need to go over there and kill these people?  Do you really believe of we don't stop them there, they'll come here." 
To which I answere;  "The mission in Afghanistan is mandated by the UN and NATO as a peace support operation to help stablize and rebuild the country.  It's not so much that we're trying to stop them from coming here, it's that we're trying to stop them from killing people over there who crave peace and want to rebuild their society with out fear of reprisal from an oppressive ex-regime.  It's hard to build a school when people are trying to kill you, so we stand between, figuratively and literally, to provide protection."

The response to that was a long diatribe about how my logic is flawed and how Canada has no business there, or even having an army, and how violence solves nothing.

I said I could only see his logic if we live in a world where everyone shared it.  And I suggested an experiment.  I had him bring his laptop up to the front of the class and set it on the table. Once he did, I took it and put it in my bag.
He asked what I was doing, and I said "Liberating it for my god... you don't deserve it."
He protested, and I asked what he was going to do about it since he's a pacifist. He replied that he would call the police.
To which I said; "they'll never take me alive, How could you condone a violent action? and what would happen if there were no police? Can't you solve your own problems?"  He became angry. 
His response was; "Not everyone over there resorts to violent action like you." 
I gave him back his laptop and said; "No, thats true...Those people are usually the dead ones."  And I did as recceguy said, and shook my head.  I told the young man that he needs to do more research before he comes up with his 'logic'.

The rest of the students laughed at the guy... which I thought was strange until after my little presentation, when I talked to the Prof.  The course was on Conflict study. Most of the students there backed Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and were currently studying UN policy regarging Darfur in comparison. 

So, with all that said; not all profs are 'teaching ignorace', sometimes it's how the students are interpreting it.

 

[Danjanou]

RHFC Piper

Good work. Convincing even one person, even for 5 minutes, that reality is not the same as this self indulgent bubble version of the world that they created for is a start.

 

[x-grunt]

Has anyone else had similar dealings with seemingly intelligent, respectable people in respectable societal or job positions?

There's hope.

I have met this attitude from Univ. and College and high school students. Protest is the turf of the young university type and it has been for ages. Give 'em time and some maturing.

I work in a left-leaning, social service agency in management. The type of place that some members here stereotype as "hippy" "sheep" ( a term I despise ) and everything anti-military. Most of those around me are in there early thirties and either have master's degrees, or are in university part-time. They were these students 5-10 years or so ago. And the people I work with for the most part accept the mission has value and should continue, even if they don't really like it. (And that's okay, it's a war after all and shouldn't be something we want or like.)

Yes, some don't accept the mission, and at least one is anti-military. That's life, you 'll always have some with other viewpoints. They don't really understand it all that much - blame the fact that we are a zillion miles away from A-stan and so it's just not big news to the average joe/jane. There are other more pressing domestic issues for non-CF people.

One thing I think helps with the acceptance of the mission, in an agency you would think would be rabidly anti-military:  a high number of people here have taken their idealism on the road, and gone to the third world to work or volunteer. I work with people who have done AIDS work in Africa, built schools in the Amazon, taught school in Asia. So they have some experience of the dark underbelly of the world, up close and personal. I have found this fairly common in social services around here.

As an aside, I recently had to negotiate some time off for training...2.5 months. Wasn't looking forward to that. I'd kept my re-enlistment to myself. And I was met with respect and a real go for it attitude. They don't like my taking time, but they are working hard to accomodate me and seem to support my reserve career. This has reinforced my view that the average left-leaning person on the street is NOT like the university student or Taliban Jack.

 

[x-grunt]

RHFC_piper, that's outstanding. I think your experiment was a great idea!

 

[RHFC_piper]

RHFC_piper, that's outstanding. I think your experiment was a great idea!

I can't take all the credit.  I attended a seminar (at WLU), a long time ago, where the keynote speaker was a former CF CSM, and had served in many hostile conflicts and peace support operations (I can't, for the life of me, recall his name... But I think I've read one of his books). 

Anyway, he did the same 'experiment' with a protester in the crowd who called him a violent hate monger for resorting to conflict, but he took it to a level I didn't want to take it to. 

He had the gentalman come up to the stage, he then took his books and pushed him to the ground (the CSM was a big guy), and then mocked the student.  When the student got up to retrieve his books, the speaker punched him in the face.  The student threatened to call the police and the speaker retorted with "What do you think the police are going to do? I thought you were against advocating violence? 

The student then attacked the speaker, and actually landed a punch... the speaker gave him his books back and called him a violent hate monger for resorting to conflict.

He then explained how some times you have to use violence to protect people, cause words wont stop a bullet.

The protesting student returned to his seat with a bloody nose and a lesson he (or I) would ever forget.

But as you've said, x-grunt, not all 'leftists' are fully against the war.  Most disagree with use of force in general, but understand that sometimes it is required to enforce a peace, or atleast attain peace.  The speaker at the seminar also equated the non-acceptance of modern conflicts with the non-acceptance of WW2, sighting that some times its the only way to stop violent acts of a worse nature.  The protesting student couldn't help but agree that Hitler had to be stopped in WW2, due to the mass-genocide, and thus it seemed illogical to protest the military's involvement in other like situations.

Either way, in a sence, we need Leftist free thinkers, and I also explained this to the class I spoke to;  Without them, and without protest, we wouldn't have the freedoms we cherish so much that we want to share them.  I think the ultimate leftist freedom lover would be proud of what we are trying to accomplish (ya I know I'm wishing on a dim star), unfortunately, like you said again (x-grunt) it's hard to form a logical and informed oppinion on something thats happening a world away, especially with limited media coverage and lack of worldly experience on the part of the most die-hard protesters.

And as I wrap up the mega rant;  I've found that the average anti-military, anti-war, anti-government protester here in Canada has absolutly no experience in the reality of third world countries (or any other country) and has subsiquently lived in opulence and freedom, by comparison, here in Canada.  While over in Afghanistan, even for a mere 3 weeks, I learned one valuable lession (if nothing else); We have it pretty damn good, and sometimes we take it all for granted.
I guess it's just hard to hammer that home with pictures and videos alone... sometimes you have to go somewhere where people truely have nothing.

[/rant]

 

[AIC_2K5]

Unfortuneately, the ones that haven't changed have become our educaters and teachers who perpetuate this myth and idiocy.

I've seen this first hand, with at least one of my past poli sci profs sharing the same type of mentality that's being discussed. The lovely part of it is that he wasn't exactly reserved in his comments about the topic, and that's irresponsible when you're helping to mold future leaders. You would think that someone who devotes their career to the field of political science, studying the world around them, that they would have a greater sense towards reality than their students...

The prof in this particular class didn't speak out in favor of one arguement or the other for the sake of being neutral, although I got the sense that he quietly agreed with me.

I have met this attitude from Univ. and College and high school students. Protest is the turf of the young university type and it has been for ages.

But honestly, it's sick and I've had just about enough of it. At my Uni students pass out pamphlets showing a picture of an M777 in Afghanistan with a bold slogan, "Students Against the Occupation". It goes on, in no great detail, how Canada and other countries are commiting human rights violations in Afghanistan and how we should withdraw immediatly.

There was even a debate (ie a mob of people screaming 'war monger, murderer' to 2 or 3 others) at our campus a short while ago about Canada in Afghanistan. I was contemplating going but at the time didn't feel like getting heckled. I later heard that the only person who showed up in defence of the mission walked away out of sheer frustration...



Great 'experiment', RHFC. The way you dealt with that really laid out this subject into a different context for me.

 

[AMcLeod]

The response to that was a long diatribe about how my logic is flawed and how Canada has no business there, or even having an army, and how violence solves nothing.

The person needs to realise that sadly enough if one wants peace then one must prepare for war. As far as Canada having no business having an army, there may come a time when Canada needs to defend itself from those that wish to force their ideologies upon us. As far as Canada not having any business being there, it is not my job to decide where Canadas military goes, it is my job to go where I'm told, when I'm told, and what I'm going to do when I get there.

(keeping in mind that I'm still waiting for my call to go to BMQ )

 

[Exarecr]

Unfortunately, it,s going to take some "digging out", after our own inevitable terrorist attack to finally alert Canadians to the dangerous world we now live in

 

[RHFC_piper]

The person needs to realise that sadly enough if one wants peace then one must prepare for war. As far as Canada having no business having an army, there may come a time when Canada needs to defend itself from those that wish to force their ideologies upon us. As far as Canada not having any business being there, it is not my job to decide where Canadas military goes, it is my job to go where I'm told, when I'm told, and what I'm going to do when I get there.

(keeping in mind that I'm still waiting for my call to go to BMQ )

Well, I think the issues at hand are; 1) The majority of nay sayers don't understand that we were asked by both the People of Afghanistan, represented by their government, and NATO to help rebuild and restore peace. Unfortunately, like I've said before, it's hard to build a school when you're being shot at. So part of our mission is to defend our efforts, and to do that, we have to remove the very real threat posed by the taliban.  To do this, in the last few tours, we've had to take a proactive approach and that is what the majority of Canadians see and base their judgements on.

2) I doubt we will ever have to directly defend Canadian soil with our forces (Unless its from our friends to the south, but thats why we don't have to worry too much... our friends to the south )  But a Country with out an army is a huge political target.  In the book 'On Killing' it states there are 4 options for conflict; Fight, Flight, Posture or submit.  Most countries will rarely flee (politically) or fight unless it's a last resort, so that leaves Posturing or Submitting.  To Posture politically, you require a Military.  And that's not just to defend a nation from another, but to defend a nations interests and actions to another. (eg. Commiting troops to a mission is a form of posturing in the world arena.)  So it is almost a requirement of a country to have a military to be taken seriously by other nations.
Besides that; Without a military or conflict, we wouldn't have a lot of the technology and infrastructure we have today.

3) The majority of Canadians (and people in general) believe our military is brainwashed by some sort of conscription.  The beauty of our military system, and something we take for granted sometimes as soldiers, is that it is a reflection of our very freedom as civilians and our service reflects our strong love of that freedom.  We VOLUNTEER; for enlistment, for operations, for end of service.  Every Canadian soldier I fought with in Afghanistan wanted to be there, and if they didn't, they could have found a way out of Battalion or the forces in general (some did, but for good reasons).  As much as our civilain population wants to believe; we are not completely bound to go to combat (unless something drastic happens), and although there are provisions in place to effectively force a soldier to serve in combat, those provisions are rarely, if ever, used.  Most soldiers know that an army of the willing will fight better than an army of conscripts.
And if worse comes to worse, a regular force contract is only so binding.  Wright enough memo's, follow the right procedures and talk to the right people and you can leave whenever you choose. 

I hope that makes sense, and helps to put things into perspective.

Unfortunately, it,s going to take some "digging out", after our own inevitable terrorist attack to finally alert Canadians to the dangerous world we now live in

My Father in law (soon to be anyway - 24 Apr 06) became very patriotic when I deployed, and when I came home he became quite the advocate for the mission in Afghanistan.  The unfortunate thing, though, is that I believe he has misinterpreted the concept of the mission;  He tells people that we are there to fight the terrorists so that they don't come here.  This seems to be the common misunderstanding of the majority of Canadians...  We're there to help a country which is striving for peace and freedom.  The whole terrorist thing seems to just be a buzzword concept to simplify the sitation.

It's not so much that we need a taste of 9/11 to make Canadian appreciate our military as much as we need to show what we're really doing for the people of Afghanistan and underline the desperate situation they're in, and that at one point we were fighting for our own freedom, and may some day, have to do it again.

When I explained this to the class I spoke to, I was asked, again, if this is how Canadian tax dollars should be spent.  I gave them my oppinion as follows;  When you walk down the street and a homeless man hold out his hand, do you just walk by? What if he was, quite obviously, in need (cold, sick, etc)?  What if that same homeless person was being beaten by a much stonger foe? would you help then?  That's a fairly basic analogy, but I think it summerizes both why we're there and why we need a military; To fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, and uphold freedom.

I believe it is an obligation, not just a political obligation to NATO, but an obligation as human beings to provide help to the helpless.  I believe we are obligated by our own freedom to help the oppressed.  We are obligated because we have so much here that we can worry ourselves with lavish wants and they have so littile that they worry about basic needs.  By comparison, our poor are their rich.

There, I've ranted yet again.  Now I'll put a cork back into my bleeding heart.

 

[GO!!!]

I've done a couple of speaking engagements in my academic pursuits, and I've found that most people are quite receptive to the mission if you actually take the time to articulate the reasons for it to them.

It's pretty hard to argue with the ideals of nation building, protecting women's rights, stopping the export of heroin and removing terrorist sanctuaries.

The "our soldiers are hapless rubes" drivel comes up every once in awhile, but that's pretty hard to pull on me. I call them on it.

"Do I seem, after this twenty minute speech, like someone who does'nt know what they are doing?"

I also brought another stat to school I really liked, it was a StatCan comparison of wages of three year Arts Degree Grads, and third year Apprentices. I can't remember the exact number, but it was something like the average wages for Univ. Arts Grad was $31,900, while the third year apprentice made $55,000, and was not saddled with student loans.

The gist of the argument was that few young people have all the information they need to make an educated choice at 18, but given the use of wages after training as a comparitive tool, which group of people here had been lied to about their chances of success after school?

Young people joining the military may not have all of the info they need when they join, but like the apprentice or student, they all have the option to release at the end of their contracts, and, let's face it, it is very easy to DAG "red". Everyone I'm deploying with in less than a month volunteered, competed, and were selected for a lengthy workup training. No Canadians are pressed into service and deployed against their will, while every one of you here will be saddled with student loans whether you like it or not. 

 

[Shamrock]

I also brought another stat to school I really liked, it was a StatCan comparison of wages of three year Arts Degree Grads, and third year Apprentices. I can't remember the exact number, but it was something like the average wages for Univ. Arts Grad was $31,900, while the third year apprentice made $55,000, and was not saddled with student loans.

I'd be interested in seeing that statistic.

 

[career_radio-checker]

In my International Relations class today, my prof asked a rather broad overhead question of how international poltics affects us. Naturally, Iraq and Afghanistan was lunged to the forefront of the discussion fairly quickly.

A student argued how Canada should not "follow in the footsteps" of the US in Afghanistan (and Iraq : ) and how we should take a more 'passive' approach towards terrorism because we have created more enemies by following the United States. I subsequently countered this individual's arguement, pointing out that the mission in Afghanistan is UN-mandated, NATO-lead, with around 40 countries participating. I then went on to say something along the lines that we are fighting an ideology, not any single country, and this ideology's enemy is the West; they will stop at nothing to try to destroy us and if we don't bring the fight to them in places like Afghanistan then they will bring the fight to us in places like Montreal, Vancouver, or Toronto in the form of a bomb attack...

Immediatley after saying this, I was surprised to hear the amount of snickers and negative comments recieved from the other students. It seems less than half of the students in my class shared the same view...

When will we stop digging ourselves into this hole that leads away from reality and closer to lassez-faire and isolationism? Canadians find it so unbelievable to even think that terrorists could actually attack us. One needs only to stick their head out of their hole and look around at our allies such as Spain and the UK.

The frustrating, or probably scary, thing about this whole thing is that these are university students and are our future teachers, business people, and political leaders. We are supposed to be the bright minds of our society yet they simply cannot wrap our minds around the 21st century world and how conflicting events are changing the face of the globe.

[rant off]

Has anyone else had similar dealings with seemingly intelligent, respectable people in respectable societal or job positions?

Yes I have and my first question to you, is this a first/second year course? Because I have observed international relations students start off idealistic and end up pessimist realists.. for the most part. I am assuming (dangerous to assume, I know, but its my birthday and its the one day of the year I can get away with just about anything ) this is a first year class because it sounds like an introductory question a prof would ask; and conflict is the most obvious answer. As you progress you learn there are a lot of other actors behind international relations which have inverse actions on eachother (action reaction).

I think it's important to look at the history of the UN and the whole 'Human Rights' excuse to better understand why some maybe opposed to what we are doing. The UN was created by the allies at the end of World War II in hopes of maintaining international peace. Its idealistic doctrine was simply the League of Nations reborn. However the Cold War put a freeze on any hopes to genuinely pursue such a liberal agenda as realist politics ruled the political stage between East Vs. West. Its true liberal doctrine was only able to materialize with the end of the Cold War as evident with the explosion of UN Peacekeeping missions.
The Declaration of Human Rights was also an idealistic contraption signed in 1948 but really only emerged as reason for "Humanitarian intervention" following the Cold War. What's important to note is that both the UN and the Human Rights Charter are both Western concepts. Born from our notions of freedom and liberty and rights for individuals. Only 48 countires signed the Human Rights Charter when it was conceived. We won the Cold War therefore we have (or atleast we perceive) the moral right and capability to impose our liberal politics on the rest of the world.

From this vantage point we can see how some traditional sectarian nations, 3rd world countries, failed states and some of our more 'idealist' Canadians think that the West is just engaging in another form of imperialism. More specifically, an ideological imperialism which reflects Edward Said's "Orientalism" where the West thinks it knows what's best for the orient, and by democratizing the rest of the world, the West can 'civilize' it. Now what sticks out like a sore thumb in this democratic liberal ideology is a little phenomenon known as the 'market economy' which repeatedly seems to only favour the most powerful of the Western states -- the United States. We say that we are going to those countries for 'humanitarian intervention,' but all that the political left sees is money corrupting and destroying cultures and societies. Even in the more passive forms of democratization, where the IMF and World Bank gives out loans to desperate nation states, economic reforms are demanded which free up the market for overseas competition and invariably effect a state's ability to sustain itself. Its just like a student, a little bit of cash now but man, I'm going to be paying the gov't for a long time to come.

Now after all that diatribe, I actually support the mission and I support our strides for democracy and humanitarian rights around the world. How do I justify this to my peers in my international relations class?
Its like you said, this is the 21st century not the 1st century. Yes, this whole idea of a 'global economy' is a little onesided and needs some work, but  if you (addressing the political left) think democratizing the rest of the world in the name of humanity is another form of imperialism, then you have no right to gripe and groan about what is going on in Darfur, because that is what self-determination is.

As a political scientist you should look at all sides of an argument and not dismiss people who contradict you as 'hippies'. You can strengthen your argument by using theirs to support yours.

I'm kind of excited because I am doing two presentations on ISAF one for French and one for my class on International Organisations, with the latter concentrating on the NATO side of the mission. My job is to compare 'NATO peacekeeping' and 'UN peacekeeping' and explain how they are different and similar. Any tips?

Good story Piper. I really think you should go into writting.

 

[AIC_2K5]

is this a first/second year course?

Yes...so granted they won't be experts in the realm of international relations. I was just really taken aback by their ignorance towards the topic; like I said stated before these are post-secondary students yet they still view the outside world with their heads halfway up their a$$ not unlike 50% of the Canadian population.

What's important to note is that both the UN and the Human Rights Charter are both Western concepts. Born from our notions of freedom and liberty and rights for individuals. Only 48 countires signed the Human Rights Charter when it was conceived. We won the Cold War therefore we have (or atleast we perceive) the moral right and capability to impose our liberal politics on the rest of the world.

From this vantage point we can see how some traditional sectarian nations, 3rd world countries, failed states and some of our more 'idealist' Canadians think that the West is just engaging in another form of imperialism. More specifically, an ideological imperialism which reflects Edward Said's "Orientalism" where the West thinks it knows what's best for the orient, and by democratizing the rest of the world, the West can 'civilize' it.

I agree with everything you said. So what's your overall opinion towards the subject (besides Afghanistan ie Sudan, rest of Africa)?

Now after all that diatribe, I actually support the mission and I support our strides for democracy and humanitarian rights around the world. How do I justify this to my peers in my international relations class?
Its like you said, this is the 21st century not the 1st century. Yes, this whole idea of a 'global economy' is a little onesided and needs some work, but  if you (addressing the political left) think democratizing the rest of the world in the name of humanity is another form of imperialism, then you have no right to gripe and groan about what is going on in Darfur, because that is what self-determination is.

With this in mind, would you advocate similar interventions in other hotspots (Somalia, among others, comes to mind) to rid the world of our enemies? Is this the right thing to do: are we pursuing our own Western agenda or is this kind of intervention considered pre-emptive defense? Do we justify this intervention by a lengthly rebuilding/counter-insurgency period after the initial combat? Not trying to be a prick, just looking for debate with someone with similar views...

I'm kind of excited because I am doing two presentations on ISAF one for French and one for my class on International Organisations, with the latter concentrating on the NATO side of the mission. My job is to compare 'NATO peacekeeping' and 'UN peacekeeping' and explain how they are different and similar. Any tips?

Nice topic, I envy your course! Here's my take:

NATO - more regionally-focussed (TECHNICALLY) BUT with the demise of the Cold War and recent out-of-area operations is weakening the alliance. That being said, it's comprised of all-Western nations with same general mindset therefore less afraid to commit to full combat ops or otherwise unpopular missions.

UN - comprises nations from all over the world therefore zero common interest and lack of willingness to commit forces to anything short of 'baby-hugging, home-building, mine-clearing, ceasefire-enforcing' ops...Last and only 'real' war fully enforced by UN was Korea. Back to what you said about new world with conflicting and contradicting global interests, security council has both western countries and then on other side Russia + China so no real work gets done as of lately...

Hope you can take something out of that you didn't already have  ;D

 

[career_radio-checker]

I agree with everything you said. So what's your overall opinion towards the subject (besides Afghanistan ie Sudan, rest of Africa)?

Africa knows best what to do with Africa. If they can produce a peacekeeping force for themselves (with all its misgivings and inadequacies) good for them. It gives them something to be proud of and shows that they are taking charge of their own problems. It can also be seen as a more legitimate force since many African nations view Western (white) forces with suspicion. Plus it frees up our forces for other more contentious hotspots. Doesn't mean we can't help out with some equipment and training plus some more development projects.

With this in mind, would you advocate similar interventions in other hotspots (Somalia, among others, comes to mind) to rid the world of our enemies? Is this the right thing to do: are we pursuing our own Western agenda or is this kind of intervention considered preemptive defense? Do we justify this intervention by a lengthily rebuilding/counterinsurgency period after the initial combat? Not trying to be a prick, just looking for debate with someone with similar views...

No I don't see defense first as a legitimate policy. State sovereignty still exists today, something the Security Council failed to realize in the early 1990s. Violating a state's sovereignty is the worst crime another state could commit in international relations. If we did just invade 'failed states' at will we would have a bigger mess on our hands. Afghanistan is different because it hosted the terrorist network who attacked on 9/11 thus qualifying it for an article 5 NATO mission (the first of its kind). Sadly the only way to legitimise intervention is to be attacked first, or wait for an invitation at the Security Council so that peacekeepers can go in to a troubled area. If training camps start popping up in other states you can expect more one-night-missions for the USAF, that's about it.

Intervention counts on two major factors: Willingness and Capability. The United States is probably the only state who has both of those factors and is capable of projecting it all around the world. Every now and then you will hear of some air strike against a Terrorist Target in some far off country, most recently in Somalia. It doesn't piss off the rest of the West because 1. They indirectly benefit from the removal of the potential threat. 2. They don't really have any interests in the parts of the world where these terrorist camps emerge. 3. Most Western countries don't have the capability to oppose the US. 4. But most importantly, they aren't willing to get involved in these nasty little one night battles. And that is the mathematics of a realist world. 

This is the same for a long term intervention in Sudan. What's going on in Sudan is a travesty and is a travesty and I would sign up to go there if I could but the short answer is we simply don't have the capability to go there. The long answer would be the following: 1. We (the collective West) don't have the resources to engage in a peace-support operation in Sudan (capability). 2.Sudan has already made it clear that any Western intervention will be seen as an act of war (so not peacekeeping but actual war fighting) 3. The West doesn't really want to get involved in another sticky mission in Africa, especially when there already is an African Union force there trying to keep the peace (willingness). The best thing to do is to support them with more logistics.

If people give you trouble and say well why doesn't Canada do more in places like Sudan simply tell them that we are stretched to the max. Explain to them the mathematics of deployment (80 000 in the Canadian Forces, that's Army Navy and Air Force combined. Some 3 000 are deployed all over the world, with 3 000 more preparing to go on tour, 3 000 coming off tour. Not to mention that it takes an equal amout of soldiers to support those troops here at home maybe even more. Our Air Force is working like bats out of hell ( ) using 40 year old aircraft to resupply them and our Navy ( ) is feeling the pinch with their budget and can't even staff all of our ships.) Tell them, why don't you do something and join the military and do a good deed over there.
Also they shouldn't be looking at 'intervention' as the responsibility of a singular actor (state). This topic is a multi actor initiative with humanitarian intervention concerning all of the Western countries. Thus the burden and blame does not fall squarely on the US, Canada, Britain, Holland etc...
It's a shared responsibility which the rest of the democratized world needs to wake up to.

Nice topic, I envy your course! Here's my take:

NATO - more regionally-focussed (TECHNICALLY) BUT with the demise of the Cold War and recent out-of-area operations is weakening the alliance. That being said, it's comprised of all-Western nations with same general mindset therefore less afraid to commit to full combat ops or otherwise unpopular missions.

UN - comprises nations from all over the world therefore zero common interest and lack of willingness to commit forces to anything short of 'baby-hugging, home-building, mine-clearing, ceasefire-enforcing' ops...Last and only 'real' war fully enforced by UN was Korea. Back to what you said about new world with conflicting and contradicting global interests, security council has both western countries and then on other side Russia + China so no real work gets done as of lately...

Hope you can take something out of that you didn't already have

Thanks bi