1  2  3  4  Next

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... dahar.html

   

So, where does the fact that when we finally asked for help nobody responded for months fit into all of this?

   

Interesting if a bit uncomfortable read.

   

I've got 2 words " Musa Qala," someone should have asked for help if they couldn't handle it.

   

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.

   

   

In a nutshell

And even if a central government manages to resist the Taliban and outside interference from Iran, Pakistan, India, China and the US, how much better than a Taliban govt will it be? Are the Warlords really that much of an improvement?

   

I'm not going to jump into this too much other than to say that Canadian troops who were billeted with American units consistently performed outstandingly and a frequent comment was that they much preferred the US ROE over the Canadian ROE.

To paraphase a conversation that was passed along to me:

The US officers I've chatted with repeat similar stories to me but then tell me that after the CF guys 'fit in' they turn out to be outstanding and professional soldiers who are innovative both with kit and with strategy.

Just my humble opinion, but I think the problems with the CF in the field are all originating in Ottawa and not with the troops and their officers in country. If Ottawa would let their guys focus on their mission objectives instead of playing BS PC political games I'd fathom the CF would perform tons better.

   

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,

   

Excellent first post Wolf. Welcome aboard.

   

I think some of the problem could be that other nations have a pre determined perception of what the Canadian Forces are like based on previous campaigns and even misconceptions about what Canadians are like in general. I experience this a lot on a daily basis from my colleagues. Comments like "Canada has an army?" are all too common.

   

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.




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!

   

I would agree on one front, we did not have the resources to do the job properly. There should have been at least double the number of boots on the ground than was provided.

   

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.

   

1  2  3  4  Next