Whether launching a few missiles at a Syrian air base, sailing an aircraft carrier toward North Korea (or not), dropping MOAB, or sending more troops to Afghanistan, tactical demonstrations of U.S. strength not tied to strategic objectives sooner rather than later deteriorate into bloody demonstrations of futility.
Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged in a splashy way right after his 2015 election to “renew Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations,” the country’s contribution to peacekeeping remains at an all-time low. Since Trudeau’s seemingly impetuous campaign promise a year and a half ago, allies and UN member states have anticipated a Canadian deployment of troops, to no effect.
Podcast du Black Coffee Morning "L’ONU sous Trump/sous Guterres" du 24/03, animé par Alexandra Novosseloff, chercheuse invitée au Centre pour la Coopération Internationale (CIC) de l’Université de New York, Teresa Ribera, directrice de l'Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations Internationales (Iddri), et Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, directeur du bureau de Paris de l’ECFR.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a conflict in possession of no military solution must be in want of more troops. Or so one would think from the recommendations on how to succeed in Afghanistan made by Gen. John Nicholson, the force commander in Afghanistan; Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of Central Command; and Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. More troops with “greater authorities” will “break” or “end” the stalemate that all agree exists. “Greater authorities” means putting U.S.