# Afghan Killed by Canadian Troops - Fri. Sept. 19



## Celticgirl (19 Sep 2008)

Another Afghan killed after refusing to stop for Canadian troops:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080919/afghan_killed_080919/20080919?hub=TopStories

Why don't they stop?


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Why don't they stop?



And why does nobody ASK those who survive these situations why they didn't stop?


----------



## JesseWZ (19 Sep 2008)

This is speculation at its most and I'm well out of my lane, (I've never been to Afghanistan) but is it possible that this is being done intentionally to generate bad PR for us?


----------



## geo (19 Sep 2008)

... your're right - outa your lane

If the guy is a VBIED, they are trying to get close enough to blow you up.  PR has nothing to do with it.
If the guy is just a poor schmuck that isn't paying much attention to the road - busy on the phone or talking to his seatmate, then he is just a lousy driver & PR has nothing to do with it.


----------



## JesseWZ (19 Sep 2008)

Understood.


----------



## Shadowolf (19 Sep 2008)

He could be a potential VBIED, testing our reactions and seeing if he could get away with it.   Or he could just be a dumbass.   Either way, the troops followed ROE's as they were supposed to.   Good on them.


----------



## MG34 (19 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And why does nobody ASK those who survive these situations why they didn't stop?



They are asked ..you see we render aid when the tactical situation is possible, you don't use deadly force on vehicles and just carry on your merry way down the road,there are procedures that take place. ROE escalation ie warning shots are a different matter entirely.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2008)

MG34 said:
			
		

> They are asked ..you see we render aid when the tactical situation is possible, you don't use deadly force on vehicles and just carry on your merry way down the road,there are procedures that take place. ROE escalation ie warning shots are a different matter entirely.



My mistake - didn't mean to impugn anybody @ the sharp end, who I know are doing what you're trained to do.

It should have been:  "Why doesn't *MSM* ask......"


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> ... your're right - outa your lane
> 
> If the guy is a VBIED, they are trying to get close enough to blow you up.  PR has nothing to do with it.
> If the guy is just a poor schmuck that isn't paying much attention to the road - busy on the phone or talking to his seatmate, then he is just a lousy driver & PR has nothing to do with it.



Well hang on, it was a reasonable question/hypothesis that JesseWZ brought up.

I'm not suggesting that in this particular instance this is what transpired. But, given that the enemy does have a supply of people willing to off themselves for their cause, it's not an outlandish thought to suggest that people are probing our responses either for the purpose of simple recce, or to instigate an instance in which ROE escalations result in the death of what appears to be a civilian noncombatant. The enemy knows that public perception is one of our greater weaknesses, and they know how to exploit that. Situations like that have certainly happened in Iraq. They know that one of the worst blows to our mission comes from stories appearing on CBC about Canadians killing civilians, so if they can fraudulently generate such situations, they come out ahead.

I don't think you need to jump on the guy for his comment. Though it's probably not what went down in this particular case, it's not a blisteringly idiotic idea, either.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (19 Sep 2008)

To give an example.. when the Insurgents killed those aid workers last month (and Canadians made a HUGE deal about it in the media) it wasn't too long after that the Taliban decided to announce that they "knew" they were Canadians and will punish any others until we pull out, etc...

My opinion is that they got lucky, we made a stink, they saw opportunity and took it.  They have PSYOPS and Public Affairs pers in the Taliban just as much as we do.


----------



## Celticgirl (19 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well hang on, it was a reasonable question/hypothesis that JesseWZ brought up.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that in this particular instance this is what transpired. But, given that the enemy does have a supply of people willing to off themselves for their cause, it's not an outlandish thought to suggest that people are probing our responses either for the purpose of simple recce, or to instigate an instance in which ROE escalations result in the death of what appears to be a civilian noncombatant. The enemy knows that public perception is one of our greater weaknesses, and they know how to exploit that. Situations like that have certainly happened in Iraq. They know that one of the worst blows to our mission comes from stories appearing on CBC about Canadians killing civilians, so if they can fraudulently generate such situations, they come out ahead.
> 
> I don't think you need to jump on the guy for his comment. Though it's probably not what went down in this particular case, it's not a blisteringly idiotic idea, either.



I think it's at least moderately plausible as well. After all, the Taliban don't have a uniform that identifies them. There's no big scarlett T on their chests. Anyone could be Taliban, including these so-called "dumb@ss" drivers.

In any case, I would not want to have to be one of the troops manning those checkpoints. That has to be very high stress work indeed.


----------



## BKells (19 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Well hang on, it was a reasonable question/hypothesis that JesseWZ brought up.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that in this particular instance this is what transpired. But, given that the enemy does have a supply of people willing to off themselves for their cause, it's not an outlandish thought to suggest that people are probing our responses either for the purpose of simple recce, or to instigate an instance in which ROE escalations result in the death of what appears to be a civilian noncombatant. The enemy knows that public perception is one of our greater weaknesses, and they know how to exploit that. Situations like that have certainly happened in Iraq. They know that one of the worst blows to our mission comes from stories appearing on CBC about Canadians killing civilians, so if they can fraudulently generate such situations, they come out ahead.
> 
> I don't think you need to jump on the guy for his comment. Though it's probably not what went down in this particular case, it's not a blisteringly idiotic idea, either.



Moreover, the goal is to influence the Afghan public opinion vice the Canadian one. The en is acutely aware that winning the IO campaign is critical to winning the counter-insurgency. If they are goading us into shooting civilians, it would not surprise me in the least.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> They have PSYOPS and Public Affairs pers in the Taliban just as much as we do.



And the Taliban's hands aren't tied by having to tell the truth, speeding up their process immensely.


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2008)

Junius said:
			
		

> Moreover, the goal is to influence the Afghan public opinion vice the Canadian one. The en is acutely aware that winning the IO campaign is critical to winning the counter-insurgency. If they are goading us into shooting civilians, it would not surprise me in the least.



Yeah, that too- I was thinking of info ops in the context of our domestic media, but you're absolutely right that it will impact the perceptions of the Afghans themselves. Not sure how I managed to overlook that. Not to mention the detrimental effect on morale. An ROE escalation can be perfectly justified, and the right call to make on the ground with the information at hand- but at the end of the day one of our guys has to live with having killed a civilian.

All in all, the enemy stands to get a pretty good rate of return off the death of one sufficiently committed or simply desperate person.


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Ok , can I get a quick lesson in checkpoint procedures here. Doesn't these checkpoints follow a particular staged routine? What I mean is, are there not multiple stages that the general public goes through before they arrive at an armoured checkpoint? Like for instance, footpatrols out on the perimeter of the checkpoints, then a small mounted patrol, and finally the LAVIII with the 25mm vestal virgin delivery system? Or are our boys and girls just setting up a checkpoint without "probers" out as an advance lookout? The reason I am asking is I have no idea how these are set up, and I am trying to learn what it is we are sending our troops to do at these checkpoints. Ubique


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2008)

I'm guessing you're going to get either the sound of one hand clapping, or minimal info, on that question because of OPSEC.....


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

Gotcha.. " just shut up and you might learn something". Thanks for the heads up. Ubique


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Ok , can I get a quick lesson in checkpoint procedures here. Doesn't these checkpoints follow a particular staged routine? What I mean is, are there not multiple stages that the general public goes through before they arrive at an armoured checkpoint? Like for instance, footpatrols out on the perimeter of the checkpoints, then a small mounted patrol, and finally the LAVIII with the 25mm vestal virgin delivery system? Or are our boys and girls just setting up a checkpoint without "probers" out as an advance lookout? The reason I am asking is I have no idea how these are set up, and I am trying to learn what it is we are sending our troops to do at these checkpoints. Ubique



Can't be specific- firstly, due to OPSEC, but also because situation will always dictate how a cordon or checkpoint is set up.

Suffice to say that drivers are given more than ample notice when they are approaching one, be it physical signs or barriers, or soldiers on piquet, and that there is a full spectrum of escalation of force that is intended to be applied in progressive stages in order to enforce that cordon or checkpoint. Generally if lethal force is used, it means that either all previous warnings went unheeded, or a potentially lethal threat presented itself too quickly for anything short of lethal force to be used to immediately stop the perceived threat.

If you've received any use of force or ROE training before, it's the same kind of progression you would expect to see anywhere else. The big variable is always the tactical situation and the ground. It's a very deliberate, designed process designed to give everyone involved the possible best chance of resolving or calming a situation before shots are fired.

I know that's vague, but that's all you're going to get. Hope it helps anyway.


----------



## gun runner (19 Sep 2008)

When I wore the uniform, we only did local defense execises at the battery level. Plus the practice defense exercises at MILCON in Wainright. Nothing on ROE, or use of force. Sorry, we just didn't have to learn those tactics as of yet. Ubique


----------



## Dariusz (19 Sep 2008)

I know of cases where locals got injured in order to collect some money, rice, sheep...and so on, for their poor family, from the military forces ( nation) that injured them. :bullet:


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Sep 2008)

Sometimes a soldier can make multiple attempts to stop someone before having to use lethal force. I've counted up to 5.  Other times depending on the situation (say distance) a soldier doesn't have time to escalate and needs to jump to lethal force.

Also don't forget that in some of these "Canadian shoots a citizen" situations, the Canadian soldier wasn't aiming to kill said driver, sadly sometimes warning shots just hit too close.
In this case the soldier may have been attempting to warn the guy- he could have aimed for the engine to try and stop the vehicle and the rounds unfortunately hit the occupants.
These news blurbs hardly give enough detail to form an over all picture of what happened.

Also stemming back to one of the first questions, the Taliban have been caught local paying drivers to put pressure on convoys and VCPs etc.. They'll pay someone a few hundred dollars to see how close they can get before the soldiers enact their ROEs. Reasons for this are obvious. One night we caught the same car testing us 7 times.  This probably doesn't happen that much but it does happen.

If you were poor would you accept a years pay to go up and try to spook a cop knowing that 99.5% of the time he's going to first just shoot near you to try and scare you away? 


Most of the time though it's drivers just failing to see convoys/VCPs etc.. or not stop for whatever reason.  You can't understand the local drivers NEED TO BE FIRST mentality until you see it for yourself.

Good posts Brihard
RIP for the driver who sadly lost his life.


----------



## brihard (19 Sep 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Sometimes a soldier can make multiple attempts to stop someone before having to use lethal force. I've counted up to 5.  Other times depending on the situation (say distance) a soldier doesn't have time to escalate and needs to jump to lethal force.
> 
> Also don't forget that in some of these "Canadian shoots a citizen" situations, the Canadian soldier wasn't aiming to kill said driver, sadly sometimes warning shots just hit too close.
> In this case the soldier may have been attempting to warn the guy- he could have aimed for the engine to try and stop the vehicle and the rounds unfortunately hit the occupants.
> ...



Hey, thanks, I was hoping you'd show up here- after your last roto you're probably pretty close to being a SME on this exact subject.

You've got a PM.


----------



## forcerecon85 (20 Sep 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The enemy knows that public perception is one of our greater weaknesses, and they know how to exploit that. Situations like that have certainly happened in Iraq. They know that one of the worst blows to our mission comes from stories appearing on CBC about Canadians killing civilians, so if they can fraudulently generate such situations, they come out ahead.


I was thinking this same thing that it could be unarmed TB going for a media victory and have more debate over here.


----------



## JesseWZ (22 Sep 2008)

Asked the question, then went out of town for the weekend and didn't get a chance to check back on it.
I'm glad I'm not totally out to lunch.


----------



## gun runner (23 Sep 2008)

Well, IMHO, I feel that if these civillians, or TB are going to keep this up for monetary or PR gain, we can expect alot more of this scharade to continue for God only knows how long. Dig in boys and girls. Ubique


----------



## geo (23 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Well, IMHO, I feel that if these civillians, or TB are going to keep this up for monetary or PR gain, we can expect alot more of this scharade to continue for God only knows how long. Dig in boys and girls. Ubique


If these are just plain dumb civilians & we've plowed into them.... we're not going to win their hearts & minds very fast ... and that is exactly what the TB are counting on.  They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by having the locals mad at us.


----------

