Canada in Kandahar, some allies weren't impressed
sandorski @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:39 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
I found that the Americans assessment of risk a little out of whack, at times.
Agreed. Bush should not have waited for 9/11 to start taking al Qaeda seriously.
Corrected for accuracy.
Guy_Fawkes @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:49 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
I found that the Americans assessment of risk a little out of whack, at times.
Agreed. We should not have waited for 9/11 to start taking al Qaeda seriously.
I was thinking more specifically of the US Army.
BartSimpson @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:03 pm
sandorski sandorski:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
I found that the Americans assessment of risk a little out of whack, at times.
Agreed. Clinton should not have waited for 9/11 to start taking al Qaeda seriously.
Corrected for accuracy.
Corrected again.
The first al Qaeda attack on the WTC was in 1993 during Clinton's administration. Clinton did eventually take action by destroying an aspirin factory in Sudan and a collection of old, empty tents in Afghanistan.
Wolf1412 @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:21 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
though have been trolling this site for a number of years this will be my first post. Driven by Barts response to this thread. I have to agree with Barts humble Opinion and do so having completed two tours in the sandbox.
I will disagree with the ROE opinion as from 2006 through 2009 our ROE's had been pretty robust. All we requireed was PID (Positive ID) and within effective weapons range. I never found this restrictive and help prevent civilian casualties when employing support weapons.
I will disagree with the ROE opinion as from 2006 through 2009 our ROE's had been pretty robust. All we requireed was PID (Positive ID) and within effective weapons range. I never found this restrictive and help prevent civilian casualties when employing support weapons.
US ROE (the actual rules, not the BS the brass puts out for the press) prioritize the safety of US personnel first and foremost over enemy combatants and possible non-combatants. Sorry to say, but a little kid with a backpack running at your vehicle is a valid target. While I've never encouraged anyone to engage civilians if there's a furball and civlians get hurt I may feel bad about it but so long as my guys are safe then it was a good day.
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
Just to counter Barts post had to reign in a couple of trigger happy American Soldiers attached to my patrols. Say this not as a slight just a different way of conducting buisiness.
I enjoy the banter on this site
Pro Patria,
I enjoy the banter on this site
Pro Patria,
Operational differences, I'd say. Most US troops are taught to use covering fire which has been a standard US tactic since the 1860's.
By the way, welcome to CKA!
![[BB]](./images/smilies/beers.gif "Beers")
though I agree that a soldiers safety is a priority the nature of the job comes with accepted risks. A child running towards you with a backpack can be assessed as a risk when weighed with other evidence and intelligience. In Accordance With (IAW) the Laws of Armed Conflict the shooting of a child without the appropriate evidence that a threat exsisted would be unlawful. the Profession of Arms would require an informed assesment of the risk vice a shoot first ask questions later.
Canadian Forces also use covering fire but this was not the case on the patrol mentioned. The threat had been dealt with and the young american soldiers had continued to fire at god knows what and had been unable to provide me with a reason for the continued engagement of a none exsistant threat. I have witnessed this on a number of occassion in which an over zealous application of fire was utilized on a minor threat.
Oh and thanks for the welcome. Hope I didi this quote thing correctly if not forgive me I am new. Also forgive the spelling I am a soldier not an English Major
Pro Patria
Guy_Fawkes @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:23 pm
You're doing a fine job, just don't be surprised if you're the butt of a few chicken jokes further on down the road. 
Wolf1412 @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:30 pm
Guy_Fawkes Guy_Fawkes:
You're doing a fine job, just don't be surprised if you're the butt of a few chicken jokes further on down the road.
Ah the chicken jokes would constitute a thread of its own
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
BartSimpson @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:29 pm
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
though I agree that a soldiers safety is a priority the nature of the job comes with accepted risks. A child running towards you with a backpack can be assessed as a risk when weighed with other evidence and intelligience. In Accordance With (IAW) the Laws of Armed Conflict the shooting of a child without the appropriate evidence that a threat exsisted would be unlawful. the Profession of Arms would require an informed assesment of the risk vice a shoot first ask questions later.
One of my fellow shooters was once confronted with that decision and he went ahead and pulled the trigger. The resulting explosion killed several civilians (good guys, so I am told) and injured a Marine. I'd heard of three more exploding children when I was told to shoot any kids with backpacks who were running at the troops. As you well know, the local kids don't do backpacks so when you see one like that it stands out.
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
Canadian Forces also use covering fire but this was not the case on the patrol mentioned. The threat had been dealt with and the young american soldiers had continued to fire at god knows what and had been unable to provide me with a reason for the continued engagement of a none exsistant threat. I have witnessed this on a number of occassion in which an over zealous application of fire was utilized on a minor threat.
Because there's no kill like overkill. I've called in airstrikes on mud huts and would not hesitate to do so again. Call it an American thing where we have no shortage of ammunition and no one wreally gets too critical of guys at the pointy end who use it as they see fit.
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
Oh and thanks for the welcome. Hope I didi this quote thing correctly if not forgive me I am new. Also forgive the spelling I am a soldier not an English Major
Pro Patria
Pro Patria
You are most welcome! I've been on this site for seven years now and it's a pretty nice group of people and that includes the people I generally don't agree with, too.
Semper Fi
Gunnair @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:36 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I haven't got that impression here from talking to folks. I gather that, while Canada was less effective at hunting down insurgents than the Americans who followed, they did a good job with the provincial reconstruction teams, helping to maintain and develop critical infrastructure.
The Americans were much more efficient, but then a lot of their troops were battle hardened in Iraq, a much tougher war,where they learned a lot.
The criticism that troops were focussed in HQ roles is, I don't think, peculiar to Canada, but to the NATO mission as a whole.
The ostensible failures in Afghanistan are many. Failure to prosecute the war with more diligence early on--rumours here are that Osama and senior Taliban slipped through the nosse into Pakistan early on. Failure to prevent--through either diplomatic or military means--the porous Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The abdication of the US in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2009, as they went to Iraq. And yes, the failure of our political and military masters to recognize that Canada didn't have the manpower, the equipment or the experience to project itself in Kandahar province as effectively as it could have.
But to say that this latter failure cost NATO the war is a bit much. In my mind, the failure was the idea of inculcating some kind of liberal democracy in a conservative, tribal, warlord society. We were successful in remocing the Taliban from power. Whether we are successful in helping to create a central government capable of withstanding the Revenge of the Taliban, as well as mischief by Pakistan and Iran, remains to be seen. I'm optimistic. Then again, I'm Canadian.
The Americans were much more efficient, but then a lot of their troops were battle hardened in Iraq, a much tougher war,where they learned a lot.
The criticism that troops were focussed in HQ roles is, I don't think, peculiar to Canada, but to the NATO mission as a whole.
The ostensible failures in Afghanistan are many. Failure to prosecute the war with more diligence early on--rumours here are that Osama and senior Taliban slipped through the nosse into Pakistan early on. Failure to prevent--through either diplomatic or military means--the porous Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The abdication of the US in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2009, as they went to Iraq. And yes, the failure of our political and military masters to recognize that Canada didn't have the manpower, the equipment or the experience to project itself in Kandahar province as effectively as it could have.
But to say that this latter failure cost NATO the war is a bit much. In my mind, the failure was the idea of inculcating some kind of liberal democracy in a conservative, tribal, warlord society. We were successful in remocing the Taliban from power. Whether we are successful in helping to create a central government capable of withstanding the Revenge of the Taliban, as well as mischief by Pakistan and Iran, remains to be seen. I'm optimistic. Then again, I'm Canadian.
Well fair enough. Most of the front line naval types I talk to are impressed with what the RCN has and can do, but the insinuations aren't coming from the coal face, they are coming from very high levels - levels that I'd suspect we aren't really privy to. I have no doubt that the lads at the coal face do the best they can with the gear that they got, and the allies we have at the coal face see and appreciate that from a purely professional point of view. But I'd challenge any past and serving member here to refute the legendary CANDO attitude of the Canadian government and military leadership past and present.
That makes me wonder if there is a kernel of truth here.
Zipperfish @ Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:02 pm
Gunnair Gunnair:
Well fair enough. Most of the front line naval types I talk to are impressed with what the RCN has and can do, but the insinuations aren't coming from the coal face, they are coming from very high levels - levels that I'd suspect we aren't really privy to. I have no doubt that the lads at the coal face do the best they can with the gear that they got, and the allies we have at the coal face see and appreciate that from a purely professional point of view. But I'd challenge any past and serving member here to refute the legendary CANDO attitude of the Canadian government and military leadership past and present.
That makes me wonder if there is a kernel of truth here.
That makes me wonder if there is a kernel of truth here.
Yes. And perhpas I should have prefaced my statement that I'm in a non-combat role mostly at HQ. So my impression of the pointy end of things is based on hearsay--talking to folks here.
I work with members of all nations, but primarily Canadian and American soldiers. My most enduring memory of this place will definietly be the pride from even being associated with people of their caliber.
Wolf1412 @ Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:56 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
though I agree that a soldiers safety is a priority the nature of the job comes with accepted risks. A child running towards you with a backpack can be assessed as a risk when weighed with other evidence and intelligience. In Accordance With (IAW) the Laws of Armed Conflict the shooting of a child without the appropriate evidence that a threat exsisted would be unlawful. the Profession of Arms would require an informed assesment of the risk vice a shoot first ask questions later.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
One of my fellow shooters was once confronted with that decision and he went ahead and pulled the trigger. The resulting explosion killed several civilians (good guys, so I am told) and injured a Marine. I'd heard of three more exploding children when I was told to shoot any kids with backpacks who were running at the troops. As you well know, the local kids don't do backpacks so when you see one like that it stands out.
I myself would be hesitant to mark every child with a backpack as a legitimate target. though not the normal thing to see with constant PRT and CIMIC ops to win hearts and minds backpacks became more familiar 2006 thru 09. I would take the child as something to watch as a possible threat but not fire without futher reason such as failure to stay back when warned or trying to breach a cordon.
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
Canadian Forces also use covering fire but this was not the case on the patrol mentioned. The threat had been dealt with and the young american soldiers had continued to fire at god knows what and had been unable to provide me with a reason for the continued engagement of a none exsistant threat. I have witnessed this on a number of occassion in which an over zealous application of fire was utilized on a minor threat.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Because there's no kill like overkill. I've called in airstrikes on mud huts and would not hesitate to do so again. Call it an American thing where we have no shortage of ammunition and no one wreally gets too critical of guys at the pointy end who use it as they see fit.
Not try to begrudge American tactics or realiance on overkill I would wonder if blue on blue deaths would decrease with a little more restraint and fire discipline.
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
Oh and thanks for the welcome. Hope I didi this quote thing correctly if not forgive me I am new. Also forgive the spelling I am a soldier not an English Major
Pro Patria
Pro Patria
You are most welcome! I've been on this site for seven years now and it's a pretty nice group of people and that includes the people I generally don't agree with, too.
Semper Fi
With 25 years of Military Sevice I have worked side by side with most NATO Forces and have nothing but respect for my US Brothers in Arms. I have worked with US Army and Marines and do find myself being a "little" more cautious when I have a Yank on my flank then say a Brit or Aussie.
Pro Patria
Zipperfish @ Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:51 am
Wolf1412 Wolf1412:
though have been trolling this site for a number of years this will be my first post. Driven by Barts response to this thread. I have to agree with Barts humble Opinion and do so having completed two tours in the sandbox.
I will disagree with the ROE opinion as from 2006 through 2009 our ROE's had been pretty robust. All we requireed was PID (Positive ID) and within effective weapons range. I never found this restrictive and help prevent civilian casualties when employing support weapons.
Just to counter Barts post had to reign in a couple of trigger happy American Soldiers attached to my patrols. Say this not as a slight just a different way of conducting buisiness.
I enjoy the banter on this site
Pro Patria,
I will disagree with the ROE opinion as from 2006 through 2009 our ROE's had been pretty robust. All we requireed was PID (Positive ID) and within effective weapons range. I never found this restrictive and help prevent civilian casualties when employing support weapons.
Just to counter Barts post had to reign in a couple of trigger happy American Soldiers attached to my patrols. Say this not as a slight just a different way of conducting buisiness.
I enjoy the banter on this site
Pro Patria,
Welcome to CKA. great start.
EyeBrock @ Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:59 am
I love the Yanks but although my interactions are pretty dated now and my 'odd angry shot' doesn't come close to you guys who have done recent tours in shitty places, Wolf's assessment is pretty bang-on.
The Yanks are armed to the teeth. There is no such thing as too much firepower, peace through superior fire power and all that.
I don't know what it is with the Brits-Aussies-Canadians-Kiwis but I always felt pretty comfortable working with them in the air and on field/operational deployments on the ground. My mates still in confirm that this is still true.
The Yanks have a mix of lots of strange rules on some things and no fuckin' rules at all on some pretty important things.
Still, they have the best kit (mostly) and pretty kick-arse direction. I'm glad they are on our side!
Oh, Wolf, good first posts mate.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:56 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
The Yanks have a mix of lots of strange rules on some things and no fuckin' rules at all on some pretty important things.
Yeah, on first blush the 'no alcohol' thing looks silly but then when think of some nineteen year old kid controlling enough firepower to level a city while being drunk, well, then it makes sense. US ROE have inherent flexibility due to the fact that the enemy doesn't always play according to our rules. The first rule is to always protect yourself and then protect your team. If push comes to shove, that rule wins out over any others. Consequently, we seem odd to other forces who will retreat or etc. before violating a rule.
For instance, we're not supposed to indiscriminately drop ordnance in towns and etc. but if we've got someone pinned down in a town we'll blow the whole g***amn thing to hell to save our guys. That was one of the things that got Clinton the scorn of the military was in denying proper air cover to the troops in Somalia. One thing I will say for Obama is that he's not denying air cover to the deployed troops.
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Still, they have the best kit (mostly) and pretty kick-arse direction. I'm glad they are on our side!
Likewise, we're happy to have you charming folks on ours!
EyeBrock @ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:39 am
I'm not saying you guys levelling towns with bad guys in is a bad thing. You Yanks have the gonads to do things we Brits and our kin just won't do. Collateral damage is a bad thing but Canadians in body bags is worse.
I think alliances that have stood us well since 1917 should be viewed more charitably by some. Without the Yanks leading the remnants of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, we'd be fucked.
But as a Brit I reserve the right to moan about you over-gunned fuckers!
BartSimpson @ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:46 am
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I'm not saying you guys levelling towns with bad guys in is a bad thing. You Yanks have the gonads to do things we Brits and our kin just won't do. Collateral damage is a bad thing but Canadians in body bags is worse.
That's precisely how we view it. Someone on here once asked me about 'proportionality' relative to how many folks of a certain religious persuasion would I hypothetically be willing to kill to protect my wife and my answer was: all of them. I also carried that attitude in the field that there was no number of the enemy that I was willing to trade for one of mine.
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I think alliances that have stood us well since 1917 should be viewed more charitably by some. Without the Yanks leading the remnants of the Anglo-Saxon tribes, we'd be fucked.
Thank you. Now you know why I'm a little nervous about Obama staying in another four years and dialing down our military to 1930's levels and possibly eliminating our nuclear capability, as he has said he wants to do.
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
But as a Brit I reserve the right to moan about you over-gunned, over-paid, over-sexed, and over here fuckers!
Corrected for historical accuracy.
