As Justin Trudeau prepares to announce Canada's new definition of peacekeeping, retired general Michael Day asks: "Is peacekeeping worth it?"
I've always considered that the litmus test for the deployment of our military should adhere to some version of the six rules outlined by Caspar Weinberger when he was U.S. secretary of defense. The Weinberger Doctrine, as it came to be known, had at its core a series of simple assessments, but the principle Canada might best adopt would be the requirement to articulate why it is strategically important to the country – to be more precise, why it is worth endangering the lives of young Canadians. I can think of many reasons, and I recognize that our democratically elected government has the authority to deploy military force wherever it sees fit. I merely want the government to say why – including why it is worth the cost in coin and, more importantly, the potential cost in blood.
Put simply, there has to be a clearly defined reason to put Canadian troops in danger -- because these days, keeping the peace not only costs money but lives:
If there is one thing observers of all political stripes might agree on, it is that the world is a messy place. Governments may claim that force, or the threat of force, is sufficient to deter violence at some level (despite recent examples to the contrary), but it most certainly does not rebuild a civil society based on the rule of law, let alone create economic well-being. Without these components, no effort can succeed.
Recent events illustrate Day's point. After the "shock and awe" of the invasion of Iraq, there was no attempt to rebuild a civil society. And, once you engage in military conflict, it's hard to bring the conflicted sides together. Syria is the most egregious example of that phenomenon.
What these fractured states need, Day writes, " is an approach that is 'whole of society' in its application, where the cultural, ethnic and religious fractures are equally addressed. Contemplating anything less is tokenism at best and most certainly self-defeating." That is the hard work which follows military intervention. And that work takes years.
Unless we are committed to rebuilding a civil society after the battle, the sacrifice will be for nothing.
Image: Ceasefire.ca
10 comments:
Its not worth the effort, propping up corrupt regimes is foolhardy.
If you have situation like Cyprus it may work, but those days are long gone.
In Ukraine we would be seen as a biased player.
That's the problem, Steve. The situations these days have changed. On the other hand, unless we find some way to deal with them, the UN becomes irrelevant.
Peacekeeping has always cost Canadian lives, not just these days. According to Veterans Affairs, 125,000 Canadians have participated in peacekeeping with 130 killed. But as missions go, peacekeeping is relatively safe. By comparison, 40,000 Canadians participated in the Afghanistan mission, with 158 killed.
I can understand why Day is hesitant to participate - Canadian lives are being risked. But let's not forget the lives they've saved by being there. As the saying goes, "Peacekeeping isn't a soldier's job, but only a soldier can do it."
Cap
I agree, Cap. It's a job which somebody has to do. The question is, in changed circumstances, what's the best way to do it?
Peacekeeping may have lost much of its purpose. The world has undergone too many changes from what it was in the 60s and 70s back when the notion of the Westphalian state was generally upheld. We spent decades patrolling the Green Line in Cyprus keeping Greek and Turkish forces from getting at each other. Those were pretty clean lines.
In what war studies experts call "new war" it's a confusing mix of state actors, quasi-state actors (regional militias mainly often tribal and headed by warlords), non-state combatants (terrorists/insurgents/rebels - they're not the same thing), criminal organizations that are sometimes tied to political interests and garden variety bandits. All of them employ violence and pursue their unique interests. They're hung together on loose and shifting alliances. Today's comrades may be at each others' throats next week. Into this sort of milieu the peacekeeper can quickly become just another cog in the gears, another combatant.
A couple of years ago I argued that, if Canada wanted some sort of peacekeeping role, we might choose a country such as Tunisia where the populace showed a real desire for democratic reform and use our presence to help defend the central government against the rise of an Islamist insurgency. That, I still believe, would have matched our limited capabilities with a deserving cause for an achievable objective. And if we did manage to help Tunisia develop a viable democratic government that might, just might, have been an inspiration to democratic movements throughout North Africa.
Your comment gets to the heart of the matter, Mound. Our success really does depend on making wise choices. There are some locales where the peace simply cannot be kept -- at least until there is some kind of commitment to it. And, as the actors get more and more fragmented, it gets harder to achieve that commitment.
!?
The Weinberger doctrine:
1 - The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
2 - U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
3 - U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
4 - The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
5 - U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
6 - The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinberger_Doctrine
Thanks for this,!? Wise policy. In recent years, it has not been followed.
In recent years? One could argue the Korean Police Action was the last legitimate use of US military power.
I think that argument carries some weight, Steve.
Post a Comment