Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

They aren't saying that at all.

   

Thank you; that is the point. Al Qaeda attacked our ally, the United States, on September 11, 2001. Since then they attacked the London Underground. We went into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda. We didn't go to fight the Taliban, we didn't go to impose a western style democratic government, we didn't go to prop-up the current Afghan government, we didn't go to impose western cultural values like what clothes women can wear or who can go to school, we did not go to fight an insurgency. We went for the single, solitary goal of taking out Al Qaeda.

Unfortunately George W. Bush wanted to attack the Taliban; they were an easy target because NATO's military is designed to fight the military of another nation, not a Non-Government Organization. Fighting an NGO is police work, not military. So he went after the Taliban as an easy surrogate, and tried to convince all Americans that they are the ones who attacked so American voters would feel reassured. When Canada tried to clean up the mess left by American and other NATO forces in Afghanistan, remaining American forces continued to attack the Taliban. This resulted in reprisals, Taliban forces attacking Canadian aid workers because they don't know the difference between Americans and Canadians. That deliberate goading by American forces pushed Canada into a fight with the Taliban, a fight we didn't want to be in.

I still think we should have "gone in big, got out quick". That meant going in with everything we have at once. Send in both PPCLI and the Van Doos at once. Send in APCs, tanks, Griffin helicopters, some CF-18 fighters for air support, supply with both Dash-8 and Hercules aircraft, carry troops with our CC-150 Polaris aircraft, use our Polaris tankers to supply the CF-18s when the cross the Atlantic. Send in JTF2. Navy ships, especially an AOR for its hospital. Have our diplomats arrange with allies to coordinate activity to prevent Al Qaeda from taking refuge in their country. Ensure the job is finished in 2002, fully pull out at the end of that year. Much of this was done, but Van Doos relieved PPCLI rather than both at once. Initially we sent jeeps rather than APCs. Our Leopard 1 tanks didn't show up until the Conservatives were elected. Troops were transported by American aircraft rather than our own. Helicopters and fighter jets never did show up, and fighter jets aren't needed now. Al Qaeda is taking refuge in Pakistan; there isn't any effort to coordinate with Pakistani forces to root-out Al Qaeda from their territory.

Now we're stuck in a quagmire which really amounts to attempting to govern a foreign country.

If we are to maintain our image as international boy scouts, we have to ensure we aren't in a prolonged occupation. We should spend multiple years without military engagements; when an engagement is necessary go in so fast and strong that the enemy won't know what hit them. Then get out and once again become the smiling, polite boy scouts.

   

Winnipegger, you seem to forget that the CF do not have an infinite amount of resources. It's not as simple as 'send in everything and bring them back'. We could never hold a supply line as huge as what you just mentioned.

Also you seem to forget that a huge part of the RCAF never experienced combat, much less long range missions that would require a lot of coordination there is something else you must know about close air-support. It must be available within 5 minutes or the situation on the battlefield won't be the same. You can't fly the CF-18 from Bagottville, Qc all the way to Afghanistan. That's probably a 8 hours trip (the CF-18 has a subsonic cruise speed). The pilot would be way too tired to provide close air-support. That's without counting the fact you need airplanes on standby for close-air support. CF-18's may be multirole aircrafts, but they can't do EVERYTHING. Long-range bombing is not something they were designed for. The other option would be to move all of our equipment to Afghanistan, build complete new bases (that's a lot of money) and maintain those airfields, with an additional garrison to protect them. As it stands right now, our Air Force is not experienced enough to provide the kind of close air-support the Americans can. Their bomber pilots fought all over the world in the past 3 decades and they are better equipped, also it's free. So I don't see why you would want to spend millions on projecting our air power in an inefficient way.

For each soldier on the battlefield there are two soldiers at home supporting him. Our army has roughly 100 000 men. Right now we have 2500 in Afghanistan, this means 5000 men at home supporting him, now that's 7500 who are currently deployed. Now let's stack the people who are training for the next tour, I'll throw a conservative estimation and say 1000. They must also be supported because training requires similar operational costs as a deployment. That's already 10 500 men who are directly allocated on either fighting, training, or supporting the mission in Afghanistan. 10.5% of our military. You can also remove 20 000 men and women who are part of the first reserve. 10 250 men/women (10% of the men in Afghanistan are reservists) out of 80 000 = 12% of our personnel.

We need to keep a certain amount of men at home for the 'who knows what can happen', another percentage are doing non-combat roles (recruiting center workers, clerks, quartermasters, cooks, etc). The RCAF and Navy could also be removed, because they are not present in Afghanistan.

Those are raw numbers, somewhat based on estimations, but they're conservative.

Now you want us to send more? Do you have any idea how costly it would be?

You must also take into account it takes 9 months to train a soldier to go to Afghanistan, and we don't have enough training facilities to train our whole army at once (this is why a part of training is done in Texas).

It's also useless 'to go in big' because we can't go out quick, guerilla warfare is a long process. It's like hunting, will you kill more deers with a rocket launcher? No, you have to hide and wait for the animal to show up, or lure it out. I for one disagree with deploying our tanks (and I'm an armored reservist) because tanks are not made for this kind of warfare, they are made to provide heavy, mobile firepower mainly against hard targets. The LAV-III is much more suited to the task, as it can at least move people around and still provide good, constant firepower (instead of 3 huge blast a minute). It's also quicker.

You also overestimate the 22nd and the Princess Patricia's. Nobody will argue the fact that they are some of the toughest soldiers in the army. I'll be the first one to say that I would stand by their side in any fire-fight but for guerilla warfare, they are as unadapted as any other part of the army. Those footages of the 22nd fighting Talibans are very intense, but they don't represent what Afghanistan really is like.

The reason we attacked the Taliban isn't just because Bush wanted to. It's because they were helping Al-Quada a lot. They are similar groups with similar views.

The best way to fight the talibans is not by going out and killing them all, because as I mentioned in a previous post, they are a political group just like Greenpeace or conservative party (for sake of not showing too much bias against liberals!), would killing all the conservative members in Canada remove the conservative movement? I doubt so. We have to educate them, show them what is wrong about the talibans and why they shouldn't support them. Not by rolling around in our tanks, with a C-6 in each hands and shooting everything we see.


Streaker, how could Afghanistan ruin the navy and air force? They're not even participating.

   

A-stan is swallowing up a huge amount of money, nearly all of it going to the army. There are signs that funding this effort has put the Navy and Air Force on the back burner and that they will atrophy over time.

   

However this could be related to General Hillier, he's an army man. Usually the top general tries to move more funds into his original branch because he knows what can be fixed there (better than he (perhaps one day she) knows what must be fixed elsewhere.

The mission has its own budget I believe unlike the Americans who's system doesn't have a 'deployment' budget but instead each branch uses its own money (it might be the other way around, if someone can approve/disapprove me it would be appreciated).

In either cases, the money isn't used to upgrade the army but instead to maintain its fighting ability.

   

Nice post mapleleafsnation.

Do you mean worst than another Liberal government??

   

Do I have to spell out all the fiddly details of an invasion? First, I assumed the US would use their air force and carriers for the initial invasion. That initial invasion lasted, what, a couple days? The Canadian army secured airfields rather quickly. Once secure a CF-18 can fly a ferry flight from Bagottville to Kandahar or Kabul in something like 8 hours, then stop for a good steak dinner and a night sleep. After that base the fighters from the Afghani airfield. If you want the CF-18s to have been part of the initial invasion, they can stop to rest/refuel/arm at an ally air base, either Saudi Arabia or Turkey. You don't fly a bombing mission directly from Canada!

As for support, each regiment has its support services built into the regiment. Each company has a Recce platoon, a pioneer platoon, and an HQ and signals platoon. Each regiment has an entire administration company that consists of vehicle technicians, cooks, medics, etc. It's all part of the regiment. So deployment includes utilizing those support services to provide what their own regiment needs, whether it be in the field or back at home.

As for home defence, remember Canada has 3 infantry regiments, there's a reason I didn't call for deployment of the Royal Canadian Regiment. We need one at home, and since that one wasn't ever sent to Afghanistan I didn't list them.

Actually I agree with what you said about tanks. The media kept talking about the need for tanks every time a soldier got hurt by a road-side IED. But tanks can't transport infantry; they're just a big self-propelled cannon. But our tanks were never used before Afghanistan, if we don't use them there then why do we have them at all? There might have been a role for them during the initial invasion, but they're useless for anti-insurgency or holding ground against guerrilla warfare. That's why I argue we don't need more tanks. But the "go in big" doctrine requires sending everything at once, one big initial shock that leaves enemy forces disorganized and traumatized. Guerrilla warriors won't have time to run from their camps in a "blitzkrieg" assault. Too late for that, now we're down to policing.

Actually, I agree that hunting down and killing the Taliban will not solve anything. I agree they're a political movement, they see themselves as a political party in their country. That's one reason why I keep staying they're not our enemy. It doesn't matter how similar their views may be, the bottom line is Al-Qaeda attacked our ally while the Taliban restricted themselves to within their own nation's borders. That restriction has to be rewarded by leaving the Taliban alone. Don't help them, but don't hunt them either. The enemy is Al-Qaeda, only Al-Qaeda, nothing but Al-Qaeda.

As for sending more, the whole point is a very short term deployment. Now that we're bogged down in a quagmire, we can't just shove-in still more forces. It was done badly; we got distracted fighting the political opponents of the current Afghan government rather than the attacker who took down the WTC. Now is the time to pull out. I would still like a diplomatic coordination with the Pakistani government to root-out Al-Qaeda (only Al-Qaeda, not the Taliban) from Pakistan, but if we can't do that then we're wasting our time and soldier's lives. Do the job right and focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda, or go home. Complete the job quickly or go home now.

   

Chretien did not send us there for combat... It was Martin who agreed to it...
we were and should be a peace keeping military.. It was baby bush licking george wya's ass that is keeping us there.... its a useless fucking situation and a no winner... and the cost is billions over budget so why stay...
its armchair warrior wanna be fuckers that are in favour of continuing... wasting money and lives for a useless fucking cause... give over...

   

ridenrain you really need therapy.... get help... the liberals arent the cause of all the worlds ills...

   

Kenmore: Give it up.
Chretien sent us there, Martin sent us south and neither even bothered to mention those wimpy qualifiers that the Euro-weenies have. There's ample proof and documentation of both so all you're doing by denying it is making you'reself a bigger buffoon.

I'm going to hold my comments reguarding tanks because without tanks and artillery, a war is just another soccer riot, but I don't want to see Canadian pilots learn close air support on the job. The US has been doing it for a long time and has the aircraft for the job and to think that we could pick it up just because we're Canadian is misunderstanding the problem.

   

Incorrect. Your plan is based on paper knowledge and is unsustainable. It also indicates a fatally superficial knowledge of the subject. For example, Reg F Infantry Regiments in Canada are paper organizations. What you're talking about is a Battalion. A simple yet crucial error. Those organizations are not capable of sustaining themselves beyond an short time and certainly not without outside support. Read up on "Combined Arms" and how the CF utilizes that approach in the field. The glaring errors you've made will then be illuminated. BTW, how exactly does your solution address, say, the manpower and time problems faced by the Field Force units?



Again, read up on "Combined Arms" operations and how an organization wins a fight. Once you know the differences, advantages and disadvantages of the types of fire support available to those on the ground, you'll be better able to identify the part a tank plays on the field. BTW, you're also incorrect about them never being used before Afghanistan. As well, no mention is made of the impact that the PRT or OMLT operations have in the other area's you indicate are a concern.

The shallow assumptions and incorrect facts presented have made the proposed solution flawed. Fatally so.

   

You seem to forget that this is no conventional warfare. Tanks are king of the ground, in conventional warfare. Tank are best in open spaces, against hard targets. Perhaps against soft targets if in an open area. Afghanistan isn't a huge desert. There are a lot of mountains. Finally to quote a captain 'Tanks are best at killing other tanks.'

APC's are much more suited to combat insurgency. They're faster and have a semi-automatic cannon that is effective against soft targets. They can also carry personnel (you know that's in their name...) so while traveling they're not so vulnerable to ambush (as opposed to a group of men walking up a road).

Don't take me wrong, tanks are useful but they're not in their environment and the risk of deploying them there outweigh the advantages since they are as vulnerable as APC's to IED.

In your whole post (about the tanks) you never mentioned any reason why they should be deployed in Afghanistan.

Your first paragraph is true though.

   

(A quick look at your profile indicates that your a Reservist, if not then some of this may be over your head, and I'll gladly clarify that which is not clear.)

I haven't forgotten. You too have made the error of assuming tanks are employed solely by themsleves when they aren't. I think that it's glaringly obvious to anyone with half a shred of common sense that nobody would employ tanks in "The Whale" type terrain like that encountered during Op Anaconda. Your captain would also agree that tanks kill everything less than a tank supremely well.

Again, the lack of understanding the mechanics involved in field operations is telling. No one is suggesting that tanks replace APC's. Tanks provide support to the APC. I figured that was obvious and therefore didn't require a specific mention. You've neglected to identify that huge characteristic of a tank, the one that makes it more effective than the APC. That would be large calibre direct fire. It has been mentioned many times by the troops that those grape huts (amongst others) are a concern, given the Taliban habit of using them as strongpoints. So is the ability of the LAV to reduce them. It follows then that reduction of those types of positions require support. Choose one. Air, Indirect, or Direct. Which is most effective, accurate and timely? Would you be satisified with the LAV pecking away? Or expose a Carl G team with all the problems that beast has? Which method is less likely to go awry and cause collateral damage?

That would be but one of the ways that combined arms teams operate. Since you mention it, exactly how does the employment of tanks in Afghanistan "violate" our Armoured doctrine?

   

You are right, I hadn't thought about this.

I didn't say the tanks were useless nor that they violate our Armoured doctrine.

I'm pretty sure the people in Ottawa know (and so do you) a bit better than me why the tanks are there. I was making more general assumptions.

Thank you for proving me wrong and thus helping me learn a bit more!

However would you be in favor of removing the tanks if another piece of equipment could take care of those grape huts? This is just a question, not an argument.

   

It's based on lack of knowledge. That's why assumptions without doing any meaningful research are dangerous. Most stem from watching the the unblinking eye around 1800 hrs.

As for your last question, my answer is "No" with some explanation.

There isn't anything in our inventory that can replace the tank. The MGS has it's own limitations. So does the tank, of course. Would I stand by that if the CF acquired another piece of kit that would be more effective or safer for the troops? Not a chance, I'd be in favour in a heartbeat.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next