If Canada had gone to Darfur instead of Afghanistan?

[Admiral Beez]

If the Liberals and then Conservatives had instead of sending forces to Afghanistan from Feb 2002 onwards (as part of the joint UN/NATO operation), sent an equal force to Darfur, would more Canadians support the mission?

I imagine that a hypothetical Darfur mission would be politically more supportable by all Canadian political parties, since it wouldn't have the "stink" of Bush on it.

Also, the Afghan mission was primarily a NATO mission called the NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) force, though the UN is closely involved under the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

So, what do you think? Would you rather Canada had gone to Darfur? We might have still lost 60+ soldiers by now, but it would be closer to peacekeeping than the Afghan mission. Thoughts?

 

[Hydrogen]

When the Taliban were running the show, there were plenty of people in this country who wanted action to get rid of this repressive regime. Troops were subsequently sent in as a NATO mission, and now there is shrinking support for this mission even though the Taliban, or someone like them, would have a fair chance of taking control over large parts of the country.

I think that roughly the same thing would happen in Darfur. Troops would become the target of insurgents or fighters who understand that support for such missions is always politically weak. Cause enough bloodshed and eventually the troops will be pulled out.

As a country, we like to talk about justice. Doing something about it is something we are never too sure about.

Cynical? Yup.

 

[TrickyRicky]

The hard truth however is it doesn't matter. Canada lacks the strength to project military and hence I would argue real diplomatic power in a meaningful way unilaterally. We only have the capacity to support international organizations and coalitions in the missions of their choosing. The international community is itself virtually incapable of acting in any capacity without at least some logistical support from the United States. The United States and hence international organizations chose not to get too involved in Darfur therefore making up our mind for us. Given these realities Afghanistan was and still is one of the only options for Canada to help out militarily in world affairs. We simply lack the capacity to transport and sustain boots on the ground in Darfur period.

 

[afransen]

I still support the Afghan mission. I sometimes wish we would have a better focus on the humanitarian aspect of the mission, as that is how this war will be won, rather than just banging Taliban heads. I think as long as Afghans want us there (and polling says they do), we should remain.

I think you might be underestimating the degree of influence Canada has in Afghanistan. But, it is kept somewhat quiet so as not to undermine the Afghan government. We have dozens of advisors in senior levels of the Afghan government, advising how to set up a system of governance. This is something many other NATO nations are jealous of. We are able to do it precisely because we don't brag about it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The hard truth however is it doesn't matter. Canada lacks the strength to project military and hence I would argue real diplomatic power in a meaningful way unilaterally.

Canada could field a large military if it wished. Canada's total GDP and population is about 50% of Britain's, though our military is tiny by comparison. Perhaps we don't want a large military, but if we don't then we should leave our lads at home.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I don't think fielding a military force overseas however is linearly proportional to country size or wealth. You need to reach a certain threshhold to be able to support the kind of transportation and logistical support needed to project power. I don't think Canada is large enough to hit such a threshhold.

Afransen, We certainly do have a degree of influence in the Afghan mission earned through the general knowledge that we took on one of the harder assignments. My point was that Canada can only have influence by making foreign policy decisions of how we can aid the effort within the framework of an international mission. As a stand alone country we are of virtually no importance. This is actually a case where I'm not afraid to admit I have respect for the position taken by the Harper Government. The previous Liberal government botched international dealings by doing something worse than nothing. They spoke as though they would do something but did nothing in reality. This old Liberal trick may work on domestic issues but on the world stage it makes Canada look like an ass. Looking at the issue from the point of view of national self-interest what the politicians can't say is that the sacrifice of our soldiers in Afghanistan wins Canada respect and greater influence on the world stage. If that is what we desire, greater influence than our soldiers belong in Afghanistan and we should ask for the tough assignments. If we don't care about projecting our influence and maybe we don't than we should send our troops home.

 

[dowlingm]

Admiral Beez - you know that Canada could not actually do that right? It could not have sent the Afghanistan troops to Darfur? And why they couldn't?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hmmm...there are several questions posed. Let me see if I can navigate through them.

Admiral Beez - you know that Canada could not actually do that right?

Not to answer a question with a question, but do what exactly? We certainly could have IMO sent troops to Darfur, especially if part of a greater UN mission. Our role and deployment level would likely mirror our role in the Balkans..

It could not have sent the Afghanistan troops to Darfur?

Of course we could. Now one could argue that the force would be too small or not the ideal make-up, but logistically we could have sent the forces that we've thus far sent to Afghanistan to Darfur. Yes, we'd need to lease and borrow the logistically capabilities from others, but we've almost always done that. Now, keeping forces in both theatres would not be sustainable for Canada, but in this hypothetical case, we've skipped Afghanistan and gone to Darfur; so we've only got one mission to content with. .

And why they couldn't?

I don't follow, are you asking me why they couldn't or asking if I know why they couldn't?

 

[dowlingm]

Admiral Beez

You presented the original question as if they were two equal choices. They aren't and in fact they still aren't. Afghanistan was essentially invaded under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions post September 11. The International Stabilisation Force (ISAF) is there with the assent (consent would be pushing it) of the Karzai regime.

In the case of Darfur, no such authority exists. UN intervention has been vetoed by China and thus any military missions have to be with the consent of Khartoum. Even with said consent, Sudan have made it clear that they will not accept a primarily western mission, so a brigade strength force such as the one Canada has deployed in Afghanistan would not be acceptable - western forces will only be accepted as a minor add-on to African Union forces.

Therefore it's not a question of manpower - it's a question of law.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Admiral Beez

You presented the original question as if they were two equal choices. They aren't and in fact they still aren't. Afghanistan was essentially invaded under the auspices of UN Security Council resolutions post September 11. The International Stabilisation Force (ISAF) is there with the assent (consent would be pushing it) of the Karzai regime.

In the case of Darfur, no such authority exists. UN intervention has been vetoed by China and thus any military missions have to be with the consent of Khartoum. Even with said consent, Sudan have made it clear that they will not accept a primarily western mission, so a brigade strength force such as the one Canada has deployed in Afghanistan would not be acceptable - western forces will only be accepted as a minor add-on to African Union forces.

Therefore it's not a question of manpower - it's a question of law.

So, if Canada or the UN wanted to help in Sudan, it would require an invasion, much like in Afghanistan.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes, but an invasion without UN authorization or broad international support.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Yes, but an invasion without UN authorization or broad international support.

While it's not always advised, sometimes you have to act first without waiting for UN or international consensus. In Rwanda, when Romeo Dallaire was calling the UN telling them that a genocide was imminent he was told that the decision makers were not available or that he'd have to wait.

IMO, what should have happened in Rwanda is Dallaire should have immeidately called DND HQ and the PMO, and we should have given Dallaire revised fighting instructions, basically police powers. Then, within 48 hours a greater force of green helmets should have been dispatched. Likely Canada could not do it alone, so a call to NATO might have been necessary. Too bad there weren't Islamic terrorists there.

Britain did just what I describe above in Sierra Leonne, where they say an imminent genocide about to start and sent a heavy RN/RM task force to restore order. They didn't wait around for the UN or international consensus.

 

[dowlingm]

So we should break international law in order to save it. In any case, the logistics of doing so are entirely beyond the capability of the Canadian Forces, who are only now receiving strategic transport aircraft and have virtually no sealift.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So we should break international law in order to save it.

I agree with you. I think we're on the same page there.

At first I thought you were asking a rhetorical question, but re-read your post and noted the lack of question mark.

I also agree, we'd need better sealift and airlift capability.

 

[dowlingm]

Adm Beez - Canada doesn't have those kind of balls so it's pointless pretending we do. Hell, Britain and France haven't had those kind of balls since 1956.