I'd be interested in discussing opinions about this one. The West, through the UN and NATO, have been in the Balkans now for ten years. Our first foray into the region was UNPROFOR. I believe UNPROFOR was a failure because it exceeded its original mandate to protect aid convoys and provide a buffer betwen Croats and Serbs. The UN declared a number of safe havens and then failed to provide the troops to secure them resulting in significant loss of Muslim lives. Similarly, UNPROFOR failed to prevent the Croat invasion of the Krajina which resulted in significant loss of Serb lives. the Croat operation of 1995 brought an end to the conflict and the intervention of NATO. NATO succeded in ensuring the peace through the superior firepower of IFOR, SFOR and KFOR. Now the mission has been reduced to a policing mission similar to the Cyprus mission which Canada was involved in for 29 years. The war criminals are in jail or on the run. The troops are bored and severely disappointed that we (Canada) pulled out of Afghanistan instead. Is SFOR going to degenerate into another Cyprus? should NATO pull out completely? If not how long should we stay there? I am of the opinion that the real conflict remains in Afghanistan and that i where our emphasis should remain.

It is time to pull out of the Balkans in my opinion! Canada should stay in Afganistan to help our closest friends the Americans sort out the true threat to the world.
Bosnia is very similar to Cyprus now,big camps and lots of jobs for the locals!! The threat in Bosnia is very low,unlike the threat that Osama bin Laden and his flunkies pose which is still very high. The Canadian Govt has once again shown that they do not have the "Guts" to get involved in a real fight against the "Bad guys".The Troops with the PPCLI BG did a great job,and the Troops in 3 RCR wanted to continue that mission in the fall.
So Time to "Pull pole" in Bosnia and really help our US friends!
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant,but somethings really get me going.

Have a good one

Degenerate into another Cyprus...Well...if by that you mean keep the lid on and things quiet, then I would hope so. Granted, that does not make for exciting soldiering but I am one American who appreciates the effort the Canadian Forces have put into these endeavors.

I am afraid that if NATO pulls out the violence will simply start up again. We need to stay there keeping the lid sealed until economic development makes people wealthy enough that warfare looks like a real bad option--htey have too much to lose. This may take a hundred years, but that's fine with me if it lays the foundation to end a thousand years of internecine squabbling, sniping, warfare, and occasional genocide.
Greg

If I remember correctly didn't President William Clinton state that the U.S. will not remain in Bosnia more than 365 days back in 1995. I looked at my orders taking me into country in Jan of 96 and it states units will not be deployed longer than 364 days. Also talking to guys that have been there more recently, it seems as though Bosnia is cooled down alot. The finding of terrorist groups hiding within Bosnia does bring up a good point for western prescence though.

As far as Kosovo goes, I am not sure if Nato and the UN are still needed there. Cordon and Searches still end up revealing hidden weapons stashes. Almost every Albanian blames a Serb, most Serbs blame Albanians, for every bad thing that happens. The threat of Serbian forces rushing across the border is almost non-existant at this time. I do believe though that President George W. Bush is correct in saying that it is time to scale down the involvement in the Balkans again.

Stephen

I must respectfully disagree with you and the President, Stephen. I do not think it is time to leave, and if we scale down it must be done very slowly and incrementally. Clinton's comments were meant to soothe a public that still fears an open-ended large scale combat operation like Vietnam. None of the conflicts in the Balkans fit that template, at least not in terms of large scale operations and casualties. Given that arms caches are still being found and each side points at the other it is my contention that NATO must remain. If the security blanket provided by NATO/UN troops ir removed the fighting will almost certainly begin again. As I see it the real problem is the American perception of what peacekeeping and stabilization really means. We have become accustomed to charging in, cleaning house, and leaving with the expectation that the changes we bring will be permanent. That is a fantasy. These operations will never be a quick-fix thing, and we must start thinking in terms of a multi-generational presence in order to achieve or policy goals. Like I said before, if it takes a hundred years then we had better plan to be there that long.
Greg

Interestingly enough, NATO decided this week to significantly reduce the troop commitment in Bosnia and as part of that reduction, the Canadian troop commitment has dropped from 1700 to 1200 troops. I share the opinion of those who think its time to pull out of Bosnia. I think we would be a better ally had we left Bosnia to be replaced by Romanian troops as opposed to leaving Afghanistan to be replaced by Romanian troops. Not that I have anything against Romania or any other PFP country, but Bosnia is in their backyard.
It is also interesting to note that the CBC aired a news special on the Canadian Army sayiing that Peacekeeping was hurting the Army's ability to fight wars and hurting the morale of the troops. some NCOs have been in theatre 5 or 6 times. Soon we will be in the Cyprus situation were soldiers will patrol the same routes as their fathers did. I'm getting my own mind wrapped around roto 13, which will by my 4th mission.
Nevertheless, recognition is appreciated. [

Greg, you misunderstand me. I am for toning down the involvement not a full withdrawl as of yet. Now in hindsight I read my post and realize that my point is lost in sleep deprived rambling. Also in many ways KFOR3B was a scaling down for us forces. The Brigade comp when I was there was a light Brigade containing one mech BN and a lone armor company. It was a little rough on us tankers because for some reason the light higher up couldn't realize that one tank platoon is only 16 soldiers, but all missions were accomplished.

Stephen

all i am going to say is that NATO made things worse, massacres only happened they arrived.

get the ouzo and the souvlaki, we'll party #:-)

I must agree that it is time that ALL NATO forces leave the balkans and dismantle their bases. Fact is, Serbs trying to protect their homes from the Neo-fascists of Croatia, the Islamic fundamentalists and Narco-Mafia of Bosnia and Kosovo is mush less dangerous to the security of the world than the rantings, ravings and suicide bombings of Islamic fundamentalists and narco-funded terrorists of the middle east. Let's reinstate the crusades and clear out the middle east of all the crazy Islamites and make the world a safer place.

All I can say is "Wow." This discussion went down hill pretty quick. Almost verges on a now taboo CE forum type deal. Some of you folks may want to remember that this is an international modeling forum and tone the rhetoric down a notch.

Not a moderator, by any means, just a thought.

Shaun

this is a very dodgy thing to say, and may cause offense!

it is very dangerous to generalise like this,

fair enough muslim fundamentalists do some terrible things, but not all muslims are like this, or agree or support it.

im sure there are a few muslims on this site who may disagree with what you say.

i have no problem what so ever with dealing with the people who do commit terrorism, but i think rather than act as you say, we should remove their means and capability to fight, and make them aware of the error of their ways.

it worked with germany and japan in 1945 didnt it

cheers

joe

My good Friends--- intelligent discussion of this topic must continue. I ask that we categorize those criminals hiding behind the face of religion as criminals not spokespersons for or representatives of a religious movement. The sooner we bring these criminals to justice the safer the world will be for all of us. How long have the Canadians been in Cyprus? What do they do--patrol the Green Line?
thanks
DJ

I think it's time for the role to be passed over to UN troops, Britain has had troop over there
for over 10 years now coupled with dutyies in NI and the middle east/africa ect it's just putting on too much pressure on an over streached armed forces by pulling back from the Balkans it would allow more troops to be ready should they be needed for other opertations
elsewere,give units longer between deployments and stop a mass exedous of soliders leaving due to over commitment and little time with their families its time the UN played a larger role in the world these days instead of having a weak presence on the ground

Well, let me build on the point of the UN assuming responsibility for some of these rather benign areas (Cyprus, Africa, Sinai). It is always to the benefit of the more prosperous nations to have someone from say, Bangledesh (I am spit balling here) take on these duties. But, who is paying for these operations? Member contributions fund the UN. Who is paying the lion share of costs? Regardless, why are the Canadians still in Cyprus ? Who picks up the tab for those folks?
DJ

The United Sates pays for about 25% of everything the UN does,
Quote
"The United States is today and has always been the largest financial contributor to the United Nations System. The U.S. contributed a total of $2.4 billion to the United Nation programs and budget in 1999. This includes contributions to the UN regular budget, the regular budgets of the specialized agencies, peacekeeping efforts, and a wide variety of special programs and emergency relief operations.

Member states contribute to the United Nations in two basic ways: through assessed contributions to the UN regular budget and to the regular budgets of the United Nations specialized agencies, and through voluntary contributions to special United Nations programs.

Contributions to the Regular United Nations Budget
The contributions of member states to the regular United Nations budget are set under the United Nations scales of assessments. The scale is based broadly on "capacity to pay" as measured by Member States' shares of the world Gross National Product (GNP) and other factors. It includes discounts for countries with low per capita income (PCI).

For the period 1998 through 2000, the United States has been assessed 25 percent of the regular UN budget (which totals $2.536 billion for 2000-2001). This covers the overall Secretariat and Headquarters costs as well as programs established by the UN General Assembly. For many years, the United States has been advocating comprehensive reforms to bring the scale of assessment up to date and create a broader and more equitable distribution of the responsibility for UN financing. Any change to the scale of assessments needs to be approved by the United Nations General Assembly.

Contributions to Peacekeeping Operations
In 2000, the United Nations was funding 15 peacekeeping operations around the world with over 19,000 troops in the field. With major peacekeeping operations (PKOs) around the world, from Kosovo and East Timor to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone, the United States expects that the UN budget will double to nearly $3 billion in 2001. Member states are assessed separately for each peacekeeping operation.
For Calendar Year 2000, peacekeeping is funded by an ad hoc system of apportionment that is based on the regular budget rates, but provides substantial discounts to most countries. The assessment rates of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council are increased to accommodate these discounts. Today 98 percent of costs are assessed to just 30 UN member states. The top five contributors pay more than 75 percent of expenses.

The UN assesses the U.S. at 30.3 percent for peacekeeping operations, but, in accordance with U.S. law that went into effect in Fiscal Year 1996, the U.S. can pay no more than 25 percent. In 1999, the U.S. contributed $216 million for United Nations peacekeeping operations around the world.

From the website below..



http://www.genevabriefingbook.com/chapters/uscontrib.html


Today 98 percent of costs are assessed to just 30 UN member states. The top five contributors pay more than 75 percent of expenses.


Shaun

from what I've been told in the past a daily rate per soldier was paid by the UN to the countries suppling the troops ie around £/$ 90 per day not sure well as this is more than many soldiers probaly earn in a week?month for some of the other countries they use this to put money back into the defense buget ect so it's a bit of a money maker for them I'm assuming that the UN pays the bill for them

If I may play Devil's Advocate, if NATO (plus the US) pulls out, who will help keep the peace and maintain stability? Understand these people have a deep-seated grudge against one another that has ran for centuries. It's kinda hard to leave them going at each other's throats forever. They have very long memories which only increases their animosity.

WHOA THERE, Buddy. The last time we did the Crusades, that caused the rift between Muslims and Christians. Not all Muslims are "evil." The ones we should be on the lookout for are the ultra-orthodox or fundamentalists. They justify their jihad by painting outisders (notably Americans) as evil. That's why for them, THEY THINK they're on some sort of a Crusade of their own to rid the world of this evil. But of course, we know otherwise.