While I certainly make no effort to speak for the CF or for anyone else, I strongly get the feeling that if Canada ever sends us on a blue beret mission like they did in the 90s (or earlier), they are going to get very different mission results.
Even with oppressive ROE, I just don't know of anyone I serve with that would allow that sort of thing to happen nearby without making all efforts to stop it.
I'm not saying that peacekeepers in the 1990s didn't do a great job, just that most of today's soldiers went through training and went through their first tour in a full-combat environment. Those factors, plus listening to lessons learned like those from Gen Dallaire himself, and you end up with (I believe) a force on the ground that won't be content with "Please stop what you're doing or I'll write it down".
If, more likely when we get involved in the
slow motion explosion (one little fire after another, at ever increasing frequencies until, for all intents and purposes, the whole place has
exploded) in Africa it is likely that, despite the blue berets, the ROE will be pretty robust. I do not detect any political or bureaucratic stomach for even the slightest risk of another Rwanda. That being said, people are fickle and governments tend to react to public opinion, not lead or form it. The
spark that ignites public outrage, and consequential demands to "do something, now (even if it's wrong and even if we'll hate it tomorrow)" could be just something like this incident - inconsequential, in and of itself (I apologize to those who find that cruel, but ...) but able to inflame uninformed, unthinking public opinion and, subsequently, to force governments to react. Further, bad leadership, a hallmark of UN missions - even when they are led by Canadians, can also have the effect of making even good troops, with good, robust ROE look bad.
I have a hunch that the situations tend to dictate their own outcomes - much more so, anyway, than do the troops on the ground.
