Opponents to Increased Defence Spending Prefer Peacekeeping Missions
Opponents to Increased Defence Spending Prefer Peacekeeping Missions
Opposition to any increases in Defence spending often begin and end with the argument that Canada has chosen, in the past – and should continue in the future – to specialize in 'peacekeeping' instead of 'combat' missions.
This argument rests on two false assumptions:
1) That 'peacekeeping' operations are cheap. More accurately: that overseas humanitarian intervention, nation - building, and reconstruction projects will cost less than 'combat' or 'counter - insurgency' operations.
2) That intervening in a 'failed' state, under UN mandate, does not require a willingness and a capability to fight back against armed insurgents, informal militias, criminal gangs, or any other hostile, non - state actors.
Anyone who considers these two assumptions will realize that neither one holds water. Obviously, it will cost more to re-build a nation than it took to destroy it.
Even when operating in a constabulary role, the CF's must be combat-capable
We arm our police, because there is always the possibility that they may need to use lethal force – either to protect others, or to defend themselves.
Peacekeeping armies are asked to perform a similar 'constabulary' role. Members of the CF's – like so many other Western soldiers have endured that wrenching, first- hand experience of being unable to use their soldiers' skills to defend innocent civilians. Imagine being sent to built - up areas, where people are seething with racial or religious hatred, and finding yourself under such stringent 'Rules of Engagement' that you can do nothing to avert the ensuing chaos.
For the complete article published by CASR, please click here: Opponents to Increased Defence Spending Prefer Peacekeeping Missions