# Time to Send CF Fast Air to AFG?



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2006)

(FULL DISCLOSURE:  This is from an e-zine I edit and distribute, written by one of the subscribers.)

Interesting question posed:  If U.S. fast air collateral damage is causing too much hostility among Afghan civvies, why not bring in Canadian air to support our troops in a way that won't antagonize those facing Canadians?

http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/13309

"Time to change the Piper:  How U.S. Air Power is Hurting Canadian Efforts in Afghanistan"
Lorne Warawa

Highlights:

"When Taliban fighters retreated from open warfare in the region, they took shelter and used civilians as human shields to ward off the pressure, a tactic perfected against Western Forces by the insurgents in Iraq to great effect. The predictable result was a wholesale bombing of a town and the loss of innocent civilian lives."

(...)

"I'm going to add that if the whole thing there blows up into a full bore insurgency on the unremitting scale of the Sunni Triangle, Canadian support for the mission will crumble. Harper will face a disaster in policy directly because US firepower caused anti-Western sentiment to grow to an extent that sustained an increased number of Insurgents. Even though closer American ties will not be to blame for this, they will none the less be seen as a factor in Harper's Afghanistan policy. The opposition will pounce on the fact US firepower caused our credibility as peace-makers there to crumble. There will be a real linkage of the two factors and Harper will face a Lyndon Johnson dilemma."

(...)

"So far, Canada has had success in convincing Afghans that we are fair and there to develop the rightful Afghan government, not take their country over. That success was jeopardised by wholesale destruction. What I fear is more Canadians will have to die to kill the recruits this mess has garnished the Taliban and those Afghans who are opposed to the Government."

(...)

"First off, until we can implement change, all U.S. airpower and any other large scale support weaponry for any sector ISAF is working inmust be placed under fire control of ISAF fire controllers only - regardless of U.S. activity. That means ISAF and NATO rules of engagement are the only ones in effect. Those who are risking their lives on the ground should be the ones calling the shots - that’s fair enough for anyone ... ISAF nations should supply their own airpower as soon as possible. The Canadian, British and Dutch forces have the capability, and therefore will supply all such support. "

(...)

"They can allow US warplanes to decimate our credibility and cause more Canadian soldiers to die, or they can withdraw our forces. Or they can take a bold lead and elevate a key problem in establishing trust in that war torn country. "


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2006)

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, thats what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.

In WW2 the allies bombed military targets but civilians were killed at those targets because they were munitions factories, refineries, aircraft plants and so on. The air campaign was expanded to bombing entire cities in retaliation for the mass bombing of London. This was total war. Today we strike only tragets that are either attacking coalition forces or are targets of opportunity. Taliban "civilians" will be killed if they are aiding insurgents by housing/feeding them. In the GWOT civilans cease to be so when they become active participants. The insurgency cannot exist without sympathizers. So when you read about an airstrike killing enemy fighters and "civilans" substitute sympathizer for civilian. The sympathizers are the support network the insurgency requires to survive.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2006)

One of the problems with prescion (sp) bombing is that the world thinks these bombs and missles are so accurate that when we miss its on purpose.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2006)

We don't miss with these PGM's. The taliban sympathizers are comingled with the taliban fighters.


----------



## geo (26 May 2006)

In the eyes of the Afghan people, airpower - be it American, Dutch, Brit, French, German OR Canadian.... is "American".

You're wasting your time & breath on thinking in such a fashion (IMHO)


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 May 2006)

Probably the fastest and most efficent way possible to eliminate the CF-18 from inventory would be send a few of them over there right now. One civilian death and it would be game over.


----------



## Ahkenaten (26 May 2006)

> This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, that’s what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.



What were they doing at a Taliban base? Taliban don't have any 'bases' in Afghanistan. It wasn't a 'location containg 80 Taliban', it was a village. These Afghans weren't sheltering these Taliban, according to my information they were just sitting there hoping not to get killed when the Taliban entered their village after running away from an American attack. This is harbouring/sheltering? A muderer being chased by the cops runs into your home and when it’s all over you get charged as an accomplice to murder for aidding and abbeding? C’mon, man. If someone else has information other than that PLEASE pipe it this way, it would be much appreciated. Also it's looking now like it might be closer to 50 Taliban dead and 34* civilians killed. 

Now I'm the first in line to agree with you 100% with regards to your assessment of the media and it's 'hammer the emotion' angle -- I'm right there with you on that one...further more I also realize that if this was done solely with ground units and artillery there would still likely be many civilian casualties and coalition dead to boot...BUT if you think NATO can run a campaign whereby every air strike kills 1-2 civilians for every 5 (confirmed) Taliban kill and succeed in a mission that *requires*, (not a secondary objective by a long shot) convincing the people to work together...well I think yer dead wrong. We need to convince them to work with us and the rest of their countrymen and not the Taliban...after all this isn't 'democracy at gunpoint' as many protesters would claim, right? *They have to do it themselves or we've already lost*.

Now what the writer is suggesting in article seems a little simplistic to me. For example what one poster said here is probably true: Most people equate all airpower with 'American'. But every civilian killed is a step backwards. To my thinking 80 Taliban dead - 16 (34?) civilians dead is easily equitable to 80 steps forward and 16 (34?*) steps backwards. I don't pretend to have a solution, but I don't think it's to overstretched to say this incident's strategy used in overabundance is not going to work.



> US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, that’s what really matters.



Not if the mission is lost it doesn’t. Not by a long shot. If that were ‘all that mattered’ none of us would be there.


*http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/26/afghanistan.deaths/index.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 May 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have seen lately. When we drop bombs on a location killing 80 taliban and a dozen "civilians" the idiots in the media hammer away at the loss of civilian life. What were those "civilians" doing at a taliban base ? The taliban are fair game and anyone harboring/aiding them are as well. US airpower have saved the lives of many US and Canadian troops, thats what really matters. Only the taliban propagandists and their allies in the media highlight the loss of "civilians" in airstrikes and not the fact that they were taliban enablers.
> 
> In WW2 the allies bombed military targets but civilians were killed at those targets because they were munitions factories, refineries, aircraft plants and so on. The air campaign was expanded to bombing entire cities in retaliation for the mass bombing of London. This was total war. Today we strike only tragets that are either attacking coalition forces or are targets of opportunity. Taliban "civilians" will be killed if they are aiding insurgents by housing/feeding them. In the GWOT civilans cease to be so when they become active participants. The insurgency cannot exist without sympathizers. So when you read about an airstrike killing enemy fighters and "civilans" substitute sympathizer for civilian. The sympathizers are the support network the insurgency requires to survive.



Just my humble opinion but I think there's a huge difference between total war and counter-insurgency, in particular where you are trying to build popular support for a new democracy.  More to the point when those soldiers and NGO's that are bringing "western ideals" to replace tribal customs also drop bombs and even by accident kill civilians, you create a tremendous amount of resentment and anger.  In short, I think the use of air power in any urban setting where there is the possibility of civilian casualties (whether Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else) while trying to gain popular support is ill-advised as even tactical gains are guaranteed to result in a strategic loss.


Matthew.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 May 2006)

The taliban were fair game as a military target. They occupied a village which also makes that a legitimate target. The villagers were sympathetic to the taliban cause which makes them an enemy. The province was the seat of taliban power so it shouldnt come as a shock that they support the aims of the taliban. The use of airpower is legitimate both in defending coalition forces when they come under attack and for striking taliban positions BEFORE they are able to strike coalition forces. These strikes are directed by special operations forces that locate enemy positions, paint the target for a precision strike then ground forces go in to assess damage.

The taliban spring offensive has had the aim to capture a town for propaganda purposes and overrun ANA/coaltion base camps. They have used over 1000 fighters coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan and so far over half have been kileld or captured. No towns have been captured. No bases overrun.
I for one could care less about the loss of people who are supporting the taliban. You have to remember these villages can defend themselves if they don't want someone from entering the village. The taliban are there because they have permission to be there.

I agree that this is obviously an insurgency against the elected government of Afghanistan. So far the ANA and police have proven able to more than hold their own against the taliban because most people do not want a return of rule by religious zealots. In eastern Afghanistan we are operating in the heart of Taliban power.To defeat them we have to beat them on their own ground. The more ineffectual they show themselves to less power they will have. On the other hand the reconstruction efforts are important because these projects are visible and help improve the lives of local people. Any time our medics hold sick call in a village we create goodwill. Goodwill is returned with reports on taliban movements in an area. Every time you get a civilian seeking medical attention at the camp gates you are beginning to make real progress, because they would never do that unless they felt safe from retaliation.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 May 2006)

But you have to realize the allied bombing of "civilians" story smeared all over the news live and in living colour was the biggest "win" for the bad guys all Spring.

And for the record, I'm with you....If the villagers were sheltering them, then they should be fair game.  But if you're going to overcome the apologists in the media, you better have your 4-star General out front saying that in plain english rather than letting the photographs and video coverage out while providing no context to the viewing public....and letting ignorant journalists try to provide context on their own.



Matthew.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 May 2006)

....and I can't help wondering, since the Taliban don't wear uniforms just how do the "press" seem to know who's who?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (26 May 2006)

I say send them over. Give the Airforce something to do!!!! Plus it wont hurt to get them some op experince!!!


----------



## KevinB (26 May 2006)

:

Dumbest Idea ever.

For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
 Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.  IIRC not all Cdn Hornets are equiped for PGM's - not do we have vast stores of them anyway -- so we would drop a lot of "dumb" bombs for a while...

Two - its war, a lot of LAV's and Howitzers are putting rounds on tgt - neither which are terrible descriminate.

IF the populace was so concerned about taking fire they should not shelter the enemy - PERIOD.

Besides - the ANA kill a ton more civilians than the Coaltion anyway.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (26 May 2006)

"For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
 Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.  IIRC not all Cdn Hornets are equipped for PGM's - not do we have vast stores of them anyway -- so we would drop a lot of "dumb" bombs for a while..."

First off we have pilots already flying with the US Marines and Airforce. I don't think it would increase any deaths if CDN AF got involved. I do believe that they do need the proper equipment which alot of our planes don't have.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ....and I can't help wondering, since the Taliban don't wear uniforms just how do the "press" seem to know who's who?



I believe it was Grange on CNN commenting on Iraq who said something to the effect of "That although 95% of bullet wounds occur in young men of the exact same demographic as the insurgents, if they don't have a gun on their person when admitted into hospital, they're immediately classified as a "civilian casualty" which is nuts".


M.


----------



## mdh (26 May 2006)

> For one - the US has a combat experienced system -- IMHO there would be a marked increase in both Coalition and civilian death if the Cdn AF got involved.
> Both from the ground forces and air force interaction - and from pilots that where not used to doing this sort of thing.



Exactly the point I was going to make; there seems to be an assumption in the original thread that US combat pilots are wildly bombing anything that moves (perhaps an understandable prejudice given our recent history with the USAF in Afghanistan.)  I guess the idea is that the CAF would do "peacekeeping" CAS as opposed to the aggressive US "peacemaking" CAS  ; either way it doesn't sound like a convincing argument given the realities of war in Afghanistan.


----------



## SupersonicMax (26 May 2006)

We were supposed to send a 6 pack there in July but the idea has been cancelled...  I took this info last summer in Bagotville... Pilots were training for this.

Max


----------



## geo (26 May 2006)

if memory serves me right, the CF18s weren't wanted the last time things flared up in the Balkans - or was it the Gulf? . IICR something about the compatibility of our comms systems (old) compared to the US & UK gear (new)


----------



## Good2Golf (27 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> if memory serves me right, the CF18s weren't wanted the last time things flared up in the Balkans - or was it the Gulf? . IICR something about the compatibility of our comms systems (old) compared to the US & UK gear (new)



Kosovo, but they went after some discussions with the USAF.  We didn't have HAVEQUIK II - compatible radios.  In the end, USAF needed section and element leads (many Cdn Hornet pilots were so qual'd) more than they didn't want to transmit on single frequency.  Our 18's are now HQ-II compliant.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## probum non poenitet (27 May 2006)

A very touchy topic, a very emotional one, and if there were a clear and simple answer, we would have taken it.

Tomahawk, I must disagree with you. If a village containing enemy is considered fair game, ie those 'sheltering' Taliban are legitimate targets, why not level the whole village with a B-52 strike? Why mess around with presence patrols at all?
Once you acknowledge that tactic, you can no longer claim to be fighting "to free the populace" - rather you are seeking to annihilate segments of it. Once that sinks in to the locals in Afghanistan and to the public in Canada (and probaby U.S.A.), it's over.

There are many reasons against that approach, both on the Afghan front and the home front.
Schrecklichkeit does not work in counter-insurgencies. It creates more enemies than it kills.
History is replete with populations turning against an occupier the more violent their methods became. I cannot think of many that were tamed that way - conquered yes, but brought onside, I cannot think of any.
It is the dangerous consequence of fighting a counter-insurgency with a conventional-war mentality.

I don't judge the tactical commanders. Their responsibilities are to win the tactical battle with minimal loss of friendly life. Grand strategy doesn't mean a hell of a lot when you are under fire.
So what happens if your patrol comes under fire from a village? Do you order an airstrike on it?
Damned easy for use to argue from the armchairs.

But consider this: maybe the villagers are 'active supporters' of the Taliban. Or maybe they were villagers, just trying to stay alive and back a winning horse that won't treat them too badly. Taliban, ANA, take your pick, just let me go to mosque, don't kill me, and don't drive me into poverty.

One day in roll the Taliban - you cooperate or you and your family die. Fair enough. Most villagers would choose cooperate.
Then in comes the coalition - in the fight an airstrike destroys your house and kills half your family. Now you have a bias where perhaps you didn't before.
Maybe before you just wanted to back the winning side, but now you have a sworn vendetta against the West.
Put the shoe on the other foot, you would probably be ready to kill if you weren't before.
I am speculating, but there are many examples of this from other nations in other wars.

Now, some of the 'civilian casualties' are perhaps guerillas. But some of them are children, and that is a bad, bad thing, and you can't say they were combatants.
Those casualties are taken to the regional centres for treatment - Kandahar - and the word is going to spread.
I don't say one incident turns the tide of the war, but if the Coalition adopts a "It was a Taliban village, they were all fair game" they are setting themselves up to fail.

The enemy knows this. They are no doubt going to use it as a tactic.
I don't know the means to defeat this tactic, but we must put our tactical/strategic heads together, or this issue could defeat us.

If you can put the photo of a child wounded by Canadians and/or Coalition on the cover of the papers every day, support will crumble. That is almost a certainty. It is an emotional issue more than a logical one - you can explain Taliban tactics and area of effect weapons to the public until you are blue in the face, but the fact is: You kill too many children by mistake, the mission ends.

Like any new tactic that is hurting you in war, you must find an innovative way to counter it.
I do not have that tactic yet, but it is imperative that we (as a Coalition) find one, IMHO.

Please don't take this personally, I think this is an ugly topic that must be hashed out if we are to succeed.


----------



## Ahkenaten (27 May 2006)

> If a village containing enemy is considered fair game, ie those 'sheltering' Taliban are legitimate targets...



And it's a pretty big 'if' too, given the nature of the region. 

_"Last week Mohammed Mir packed up his home, left his mulberry orchards and wheat fields in Panjwai district on the outskirts of the city, and moved his family back into Kandahar.

He no longer knew who the enemy were: the police who ransacked the village houses for valuables, or the Taliban who asked for food and shelter at gunpoint.

“One night the Taliban is coming, the next the police are coming. Both of them are asking for food and bribes and if there is a fight the government will blame me for sheltering the Taliban or vice-versa,” he explained._

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/4119ec22-ec46-11da-b3e2-0000779e2340.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2006)

There's no point in bothering with all this--the war is already lost.  Read this piece in the Globe, May 27, by Geoffrey York, "Taliban rising":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060527.AFGHAN27/TPStory/International

Excerpt:
'...
Just like the U.S. troops in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s [See! it is a quagmire!] , the coalition is trying to prop up a corrupt and unpopular government. Local governments are dominated by so many warlords and gangsters that many Afghans express nostalgia for the Taliban regime of 1996 to 2001, which at least was not perceived as corrupt and immoral.

"The Afghan population is throwing up its hands," a veteran aid worker in Kandahar said. "The disorder today is coming from the government itself. Its mandate was to clean out the warlords, but instead it's engaged in an endless dance with them. Everyone says that the Taliban regime, if nothing else, at least stopped the corruption and created law and order."'...

By the way in this article, May 23, by  Mr York, "Bombs kill Afghan villagers", he called the B-1 a "stealth bomber".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060523.AFGHAN23/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (27 May 2006)

Isn't it nice to see a positive attitude? He could have just as easily taken another tack, but I guess that might bolster support on the home front.


----------



## GAP (27 May 2006)

Well, Gosh... I guess we should just....get out!!! 

Why he has "visited" 4 times (at company expense no doubt) and well, gee, things aren't getting better, so why not go back to only losing a few malcontents who refuse to wear a burka, agitate about this freedom stuff, and such.


----------



## Ahkenaten (27 May 2006)

Globe&Mail is a declining paper anyways. Mostly because of things like this. And mostly because I read somewhere that their readers were the least likely to vote on average. Students and drunks who need to keep warm is my guess. So like who cares. I talk to 'normal' people....they are misinformed, true, but even they see beyond this "WE KILLED PEOPLE" hype on the part of this paper.

CTV has seemed to take a more positive view. CBC seems to mercifully keep their attention elsewhere. The Globe seems to be on the 'warpath' though. They seem to have a definite single-mindedness to their brand of crap.

.


----------



## mdh (27 May 2006)

> There's no point in bothering with all this--the war is already lost.  Read this piece in the Globe, May 27, by Geoffrey York, "Taliban rising":



Ah yes...written by Geoffrey York...nothing more needs to be said...


----------



## warpig (29 May 2006)

Not to cause too much fuss but I was the originator of the Milnews opinion on having Canada and NATO supplant US fast-air and support fire resources in areas we are to operate in. While there was some emotional reactions based I think on trampled feelings and misconceptions rather than listening to what I had to say, that was not my intent. It was to point out that OUR ROEs and OUR responsibility for implementing them based on OUR Operations in the area would go a long way to preserving our good work and effort in the Kandahar region. I think that some only heard what they wanted to out of it, and not the intent. 

I’ll state it again: I think we need to be the ones directing all operations in our AOR. If the Yanks have intel, have targets and want something done, they why aren’t they asking us to do it? This goes to the relevance of our mission, and if we need to change our Mission parameters to be the masters of our AOR then we should. We have the capability and the tools, in conjunction with our NATO ISAF partners, to support our own troops. Or do we not? If anyone can voice a factual opinion on this than they should share it, much as it has already been stated in this thread. 

The methodology of the US regular forces deployed in Iraq is not winning them anything. Civilian casualties promote the enemy’s agenda, not ours. We need to avoid what Tomahawk6 promotes, killing for the sake of it alone, even though he doesn’t say it directly. Making the Kandahar region a free-fire zone is wrong. If this is debateable then bring more facts than the ever-persuasive “You just don’t lead ‘em so much” mentality. It didn’t work in the war it was coined in and it isn’t working now. Don’t tell me my assessment of the situation is ridiculous. Prove it. And proving it isn’t quoting WW2’s mistakes. You could quote your successes in the Iraq campaign, as an example, if there is any.


----------



## couchcommander (29 May 2006)

warpig,

Wow quite a stir for your third post, glad to see you're not some nameless troll though. 

To address your suggestion that Canada take over the AOR with OUR ROE's and make it all OUR responsibility, my response would be to simply question whether or not Canada actually has this capability?

It is my understanding that before deployment on Archer the CDS considered sending CF-18's to the region. The argument at the time I believe went that if we want to have air support whenever we need it, we need to have our own.

While this is indeed true, and I should mention that I am in fact I am very in support of Canada having it's very own AOR, I would like to point out a few things..

The planned deployment of the CF-18's was scrapped due to, from my understanding at least, a virtual inability to sustain their operations in theater. If something has significantly changed to alter this and make it a distinct possibility, then I am all ears.

As well Canada would also need to send a much larger groundforce in if we were to completely remove other NATO partners from the AOR, as we rely on them for a variety of services as it is.

Canada would also need to pull out of the CJTF-76 and establish our own "sovereign" command over the AOR free from any higher authority - the reason being it is my understanding that the decision to launch the support mission in question was made above the local commanders. This brings into question the stability of our supply line, IMO. 

Finally, though I agree that causing civilian casualties is a very bad thing, and have in fact vehemently argued on these very forums that even the simple action of killing insurgents can lead to the creation of more insurgents, and that if civilians are a part of these casualties, and their brethren see their death as an example of an abuse of power by the western nations, then that in particular will create even more insurgents.

However, at the same time we have some undeniable facts. They are the enemy. They will and at that particular instance were trying to kill the men on the ground. The only reasonable option at this point is to kill or capture them in the most expedient manor. Yes indeed considerations need to made for collateral damage, and quite possibly the deaths of these civilians and the resulting uproar did not justify that particular action .

However that should not lead us, both as allies and active participants on the ground, to blindly say "we would not have done the same thing, our fast air should be there instead." - it is very possible that given the situation that was emerging (from the reports it seems like a SF group found itself faced with an unexpectedly large and aggressive enemy) we would in fact have ordered that bombing. 

As well take into consideration that, at least from what the Commanders are telling the media, we believe the local insurgency to be a fairly small group - taking out this many at one time could represent a major victory that overshadows even the resulting mess.


----------



## C and P (29 May 2006)

We don't need any more fast air. Too much Ordnance flying around already. Collateral damage in a COIN op isn't an error, it's a military defeat.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 May 2006)

This thread has left me shaking my head, so I find myself posting.  A couple of points:

1.  We ARE operating under our own ROE in Afghanistan - issued and approved by the Government of Canada, so any thoughts of us following US direction in that regard are completely erroneous.  The US does not have operational command of Canadian forces and major Canadian operations are undoubtedly approved in Ottawa (by a process that I will not discuss here).

2.  What makes anyone here think that Canadian CAS would be any different than US CAS?  Are our pilots more "sensitive"?  Are our munitions more precise?  Bollocks.

3.  The decision to employ CAS is typically up to the commander on the ground, who well could be a Canadian, Brit, Dutchman or American.  ROE have very little to do with it, the decision does; either one is authorized CAS or one isn't.

4.  Canada has deployed FACs into Afghanistan for several years.  The FAC is critical to the effective use of CAS and to the avoidance of "collateral damage".    It is entirely possible to have a scenario where a Canadian FAC is directing US CAS on to targets - as identified by the commander on the ground.  The fact of the matter is (as KevinB has hinted at) that US FACs are very experienced and very, very good.

Again, deploying Canadian CF-18s wouldn't make any difference at all  to the rate of civilian casualties.  In the final analysis it is the decision of commanders on the ground to employ air power as they see dictated by the tactical situation that is the critical step.  US commanders have traditionally been quicker to use air power - based partially on their military history, but that isn't to say that a Canadian couldn't or wouldn't make exactly the same decisions under similar circumstances.


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2006)

Game, set and match....


----------



## C and P (29 May 2006)

If the enemy is hiding amongst the population, bombardment of any kind (no matter how precise) is likely to result in civilian casualities, including these peoples babies. You might imagine what the local population is going to think.  they're not going to care if you say : "we were after the Taliban.." for them the price will be too high.  We should not fall into the trap of using airpower in these situations. The enemy wants us to. The whole point is to sucker us into doing that. I don't think this mission was protecting Canadian troops. If anything they're likely to suffer the payback. There is an endless supply of Pashtun Taliban coming over the border from Pakistan. It's not worth the damage to us just to knock off a couple more. It's not a war of attrition. No offence, but your position on airpower smacks of fighting the last war.  This is not a contest of firepower.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 May 2006)

> I don't think this mission was protecting Canadian troops.



How do you know?  Were you there?  I for one am extremely reluctant to second-guess tactical decisions made by commanders on the ground.



> If anything they're likely to suffer the payback.



Again, I suspect that none of us were there.



> It's not worth the damage to us just to knock off a couple more.



Hardly a couple.  Again, without a detailed assessment of this particular tactical situation and the decisions that were made on the ground, none of us are in a position to judge.  When the decision was made, it may well have seemed worth it.



> No offence, but your position on airpower smacks of fighting the last war.  This is not a contest of firepower.



I assume that this blanket statement is directed at me.  Hey, all I'm saying is how business is typically done.  Read into it what you will.  You seem to be arguing that there are no situations in which the use of CAS is acceptable.  I would argue that it isn't quite that simple.


----------



## GAP (29 May 2006)

This thread has been the attempted education of someone with zero knowledge of how the military and military conflicts work, who does not care, and even when it is pointed out, will not listen. 
 :brickwall:


----------



## Infanteer (29 May 2006)

A few points:  I'm not sure you know what CandP's experience is, so let's refrain from idle speculation for now.  Stick to the content of the posts.

As for CandP's general idea on not winning an insurgency with firepower, I think nobody is going to dispute that.  We've read Lind, Poole and the 4th Generation Warfare stuff.  However, this does not mean that you can -never- use it as a tool to establish tactical dominance, which is why your criticism of the particular incident, coalition application of airpower or the quality of American FAC's is empty (unless, as Teddy points out, you know something we don't).  

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## C and P (30 May 2006)

Sorry to leave you in the dark troops, but I just saved up enough money for this computer and I'm new to the game. Tess directed me to modify my profile and I have.  As for the thread I'm sorry if I didn't show proper deference. I am just pissed off that US command orders an airstrike, and the people who I feel are my extended family may have to bear the brunt of payback. Meanwhile you fella's are arguing over the quality of the FAC's. Sorry for offence.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2006)

Having been in theatre and seen how CAS assets are tasked on the ATO, folks should not believe that CF18's would be a CF/TF Orion-only asset.  I would venture to say that our 18's would go onto the ATO as an available CAS asset just as would the Brit Harriers, Dutch F-16s and all the USAF assets.  Whether a GBU-12, JDAM or other munition comes from a B-52 based in Diego Garcia or a CF-18 potentially based in Kandahar doesn't matter to the FAC passing his/her 9-liner to the assigned CAS asset, or when things head South in a hurry, to a troop commander making an all-arms call for fire on the theatre command net.

The question of targeting and ROEs is another issue.  Not to discuss ROE specifically for OPSEC reasons, but in general, CAS would be called in to support troops-in-contact (TIC) for a very good reason.  As members of the profession of arms, we are bound by the Law of Armed Conflict and other conventions to avoid injury to non-combatants and ensure that collateral damage to civilian property is minimized.  That does not, however, mean that such injury or damage will not occur, as unfortunate as it is.  People should not think that troops on the ground are indiscriminantly calling in fires without due regard for the very citizens of the country we are there to support. 

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2006)

C and P said:
			
		

> If the enemy is hiding amongst the population, bombardment of any kind (no matter how precise) is likely to result in civilian casualities, including these peoples babies. You might imagine what the local population is going to think.  they're not going to care if you say : "we were after the Taliban.." for them the price will be too high.  We should not fall into the trap of using airpower in these situations. The enemy wants us to. The whole point is to sucker us into doing that. I don't think this mission was protecting Canadian troops. If anything they're likely to suffer the payback. There is an endless supply of Pashtun Taliban coming over the border from Pakistan. It's not worth the damage to us just to knock off a couple more. It's not a war of attrition. No offence, but your position on airpower smacks of fighting the last war.  This is not a contest of firepower.



C&P -- Judging by both your comments and your profile you have ZERO experience in the Afghan conflict.

 Duey and Teddy R are VERY experienced in this manner -- and other us have have had/still have our boots on the ground.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> US commanders have traditionally been quicker to use air power - based partially on their military history, but that isn't to say that a Canadian couldn't or wouldn't make exactly the same decisions under similar circumstances.



I don't know if history has much to do with it - more like sheer availability of on-call tactical aircraft. When Canada has had direct access to same, we used them; I think Richard Rohmer would agree to that. See the use of cab ranks over Normandy. Is there any reason to believe that Canadian commanders on the ground anywhere in the world would decline to use air power if directly available?

If the suggestion is that US forces have historically relied on firepower, that is true enough, but a careful analysis will show that Canadian forces have done the same - when that firepower was available to them. In that regard, the last half of your sentence is correct.


----------



## geo (30 May 2006)

during ops last week, Cdn troops did have available and did use CAS.... 

All in all, it's a question of the FAC and the local commander making judicious use of a resource it has available.


----------



## C and P (30 May 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> C&P -- Judging by both your comments and your profile you have ZERO experience in the Afghan conflict.
> 
> Duey and Teddy R are VERY experienced in this manner -- and other us have have had/still have our boots on the ground.


Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.


----------



## Infanteer (30 May 2006)

C and P said:
			
		

> Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.



Considering that the "friendly fire incident" was not a case of CAS by a FAC, but rather an errant pilot (who was duly chastised by his chain of command) your relation is poorly placed.  Would you scorn the use of a rifle (or MG/or Tank/or whatever) if someone was hit with it in the chaos of the battlefield?

As you reveal more I see your criticism fits the earlier guess I made - empty.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (30 May 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering that the "friendly fire incident" was not a case of CAS by a FAC, but rather an errant pilot (who was duly chastised by his chain of command) your relation is poorly placed.  Would you scorn the use of a rifle (or MG/or Tank/or whatever) if someone was hit with it in the chaos of the battlefield?
> 
> As you reveal more I see your criticism fits the earlier guess I made - empty.



Infanteer

I think the door is now closed.  I just hope C and P got his foot out before you slammed it.

Opinions are like a holes everyones got one and some are bigger then others.  This is an issue that will not be solved on this or any other Form.  But i have to agree Teddy and Duey do seem to have the most knowledge on the matter at hand.  And that is placing CF-18's in theater, and how this will affect the troops on the grounds ability to call in Canadian air for a Canadian mission.  I personally don't think it would help nor would it hinder our troops ability to do their job.  

I can't remember who said it but they are probably right that if they did drop munitions that caused civilian causalities you could see the end of the CF-18 program.  To back this up look at the 8 billion dollar plan the feds just but forward.  Nothing in there in the way of fighters, even though we are down to around 60 operational 18's for a country that is a lot bigger then an American Aircraft carrier.

Just my MOO


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2006)

C and P said:
			
		

> Your to quick to judge people's experience. I relate to the Afghan conflict throuth the death of Ainsworth Dyer. My Friend, who grew up in My neighborhood, and joined My regiment. He was one of the best soldiers we ever had in the 48th, and he's dead because of an airstrike gone wrong.  Thats my experience with Afghanistan.



In that case I suggest you STFU and stop showing your ass.  

 As Infanteer pointed out - that was a specific error by the pilot  (I would call a criminal error- but that is neither her not there to this issue).  As a former Patricia the April 17 2002 bombing also is an issue with me.  However I truly believe that more coalition lives have been saved to to use of Airpower.


----------



## C and P (30 May 2006)

My to response was to the statement that I had no experience with airpower in afghanistan.  That was my experience.  I lost my friend .  Why is that talking out of my ass? Why do you think your exxperiencess invalidate mine?


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2006)

Your reacting emotionaly, and not looking at the facts - my experience is irrelavant to that point.

However I've seen the Dutch Apache's use much less restraint that US AirPower - I've also seen the effects of US AirPower and glad it was around.

Teddy and Duey pointed out the fact that just adding Hornets to the Coaltion CAS pool (which we would have to do) would not get us anything more.  The US AirForce Combat Controllers have had a great deal of experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- they get attached to "other assets" as well so you can be sure they are up to snuff.

Simply wanting to add a Canada stamp on certain operations is fine - except when it will serve no purpose and potentially expose the troops to greater harm.

The added fact that you have never had boots on the ground here means that you really dont understand that these people dont have an understanding of us a distinct group - but are simply Westerners which equals American's


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2006)

C and P said:
			
		

> Why do you think your experiences invalidate mine?



Oh probably because Kev here has been actually near a FAS situation, and may have in fact requested a few FA runs in his day.

It's not so much that his experience invalidates yours so much as it simply trumps it.


----------



## C and P (30 May 2006)

I'm reacting to you posting "STFU."



EDITED by Staff to Correct meaning of post..


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2006)

C and P

That's was probably not the smartest move you could have made, in fact it's probably up there in the dumbest.

US air power saves lives it's that simple, for every innocent killed dozens of soldiers are saved I myself will take those odds, in fact I'm willing to gamble my life on it and have before. I think you need to get some serious operational experience before you jump in here and debate from a postion of "My friend died because of...." cause if that's your only point it's not a valid one. I could from that perspective argue that the CF took away my friend by putting him in ILTIS and as such they are responsible. But that argument doesn't wash now does it?


----------



## coachron (30 May 2006)

Quote from some U.S. commander in Vietnam:  "We had to bomb the village to save it."


----------



## couchcommander (30 May 2006)

C &P - word of advice - from experience on this front

If you're arguing from a position of a relative lack of first hand knowledge, you'd most likely be better to back up anything you say with the words of someone who is experienced, extremely well trained, or with some type of well done study or article - because if you encouter people who do have first hand experience and disagree, they will, rightfully, call you on it. Otherwise it is best to identify it as your opinion, that way it can be debated as such (ie IMO this is best because a) b) c), that way others can debate those points with you and you don't end up with  :argument: and STFU). 

Not telling you want to do, just telling you what has seemed to work for me. 

These guys are usually pretty respectable.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (30 May 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> C and P
> 
> That's was probably not the smartest move you could have made, in fact it's probably up there in the dumbest.
> 
> US air power saves lives it's that simple, for every innocent killed dozens of soldiers are saved I myself will take those odds, in fact I'm willing to gamble my life on it and have before. I think you need to get some serious operational experience before you jump in here and debate from a postion of "My friend died because of...." cause if that's your only point it's not a valid one. I could from that perspective argue that the CF took away my friend by putting him in ILTIS and as such they are responsible. But that argument doesn't wash now does it?



Excelent points,  the only thing i would dis-agree with is that operational experience or not, I know my life and the lives of my fellow troops are more important then the lifes of my enemy.  

   So in this conflict/war/peace making action, however you want to dice it, calling in Air support be it Canadian, American or even Chinese to soften up an area before we go in to make our job easier is all part of the game.  You don't want to play put your weapons down and come out.  War is not an Olympic sport, it is not supposed to be fair, there is no silver medal for finishing second.  It is a matter of us vs them and if we have better tools then we use them to win.  This is what saves lifes.  Yes it is sad when civillians die it is always sad when someone who really and truely has nothing to do with matter at hand dies.  But to say that it would be less likely to happen if we had Canadian Airpower in place is a really hard and big pill to swallow.  Yes the world sees as being peace keepers and the such but our bullets kill just like the American ones, same with our bombs, last time I looked they were just as deadly as the ones being droppoed by American aircraft.


----------



## coachron (30 May 2006)

[US air power saves lives it's that simple]

And cigarettes cure lung cancer.


----------



## George Wallace (30 May 2006)

You two are arguing like a couple of little girls.  If you don't have any constructive arguments, go troll in some other site's 'doll house'.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 May 2006)

Well its nice to see how this thread as gone down the toilet.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (30 May 2006)

Nothing less could be expected especially when opinions get heated logic and common sense get boiled right out of the equation.


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2006)

Back to topic....

I fail to see a difference in wether it's the US Air Force or the Dutch or our own planes that drop the ordinance to help support ground action so long as it is there when needed. People I talk to who are over there right now have never not had air cover when it was called for that's also why we have the TIC net on our radios.

It would honestly surprise me if we did send C18's and they were only tasked with supporting CF operations. I would expect that it would be more likely that those aircraft would be added to to the mix and sent here and there for support of all ground activity. Don't get me wrong though I do indeed support sending our planes if it was a feasible plan for their sustainment and their use.

*edit for spelling and grammer*


----------



## HItorMiss (30 May 2006)

HEY wait a minute Geogre did you just call me a troll  :'(

Ok humor off LOL  :dontpanic:


----------



## Bobbyoreo (30 May 2006)

I think it would be nice to see CDN CF18's there but working with the rest of Nato not just for CDNS. Plus it would enhance their combat experince. My 2 cents.,..


----------



## C and P (30 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> C &P - word of advice - from experience on this front
> 
> If you're arguing from a position of a relative lack of first hand knowledge, you'd most likely be better to back up anything you say with the words of someone who is experienced, extremely well trained, or with some type of well done study or article - because if you encouter people who do have first hand experience and disagree, they will, rightfully, call you on it. Otherwise it is best to identify it as your opinion, that way it can be debated as such (ie IMO this is best because a) b) c), that way others can debate those points with you and you don't end up with  :argument: and STFU).
> 
> ...


10-4. I hear ya.


----------



## paracowboy (30 May 2006)

coachron said:
			
		

> [US air power saves lives it's that simple]
> 
> And cigarettes cure lung cancer.


you are very close to being punted. Show some respect for those who die to give you the right to be a dumbass.

Everyone else, knock off the crap, or I'm locking it down and handing out spankings. I was learnin' shit here, till you clowns started havin' a hissyfit.

-para-mod-boy who is havin' a crappy day and is out of Skoal.


----------



## couchcommander (30 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 1.  We ARE operating under our own ROE in Afghanistan - issued and approved by the Government of Canada, so any thoughts of us following US direction in that regard are completely erroneous.  The US does not have operational command of Canadian forces and major Canadian operations are undoubtedly approved in Ottawa (by a process that I will not discuss here).



I think what warpig was getting at, and what I was responding to, was kicking everyone else out of an AOR and having us be in sole control to run the counter insurgency as we see fit, without other forces there, period. 

I'm not sure if this was in response to my post or his(page 2), but the intent of what I posted was to show that trying to take over an entire AOR and kick everyone else out is not feasible right now.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 May 2006)

Gents, RC(S) currently Commanded by BGen Fraser is, in the big picture, REALLY, REALLY SMALL compared to the cone above and around AFG where air assets are marshalled and employed.  There is NO way that we (CDA) would be able to run our own show in our little southern sector by ourselves.  Running out of gas and not having our own KC-135's orbiting seemingly endlessly to tank off, not having EW support from assets that most folks haven't ever heard of, not having surveillance from systems that make TUAV look like George Eastman's first pinhole camera...there should be no question that our Hornets would be anything other than contributing to the coalition capability.  Aviation is about the only air asset that has a chance of lower-level dedication to a nation's own elements, but even aviation would respond to other nations' TIC -- I know I would if I heard other guys on the TIC-Net.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jun 2006)

coachron said:
			
		

> [US air power saves lives it's that simple]
> 
> And cigarettes cure lung cancer.



What are you saying and what are you trying to prove with such verbal shyte spewing from your keyboard? I have read all of your posts. 

Air strikes are a necessity, and have saved the lives of countless soldiers caught in a hard spot, and if you fail to realise that, your are lying to yourself, and talking out your arse at the same time.

Collateral damage and civvy casualties? Sometimes that happens, but thats the reality of war, people die, soldiers and non-combatants alike.

Comparing air strikes that to that lung cancer line is nothing but a big pile of BS, and I find this comment rather disgusting.

Do you have a hidden agenda here Mate? Judging by the the 'meat' in your posts, I think so.

We are not war mongers on this site mate, professional soldiers do not wish for and want to go to war.


Wes


----------



## geo (1 Jun 2006)

well said Wes.

CHIMO!


----------

