# 5 More Canadian Soldiers Injured   March 3, 2006



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Here is another................
4 Canadian soldiers injured in suicide attack
Last Updated Fri, 03 Mar 2006 05:27:34 EST 
CBC News
A suicide bomber drove his car into a Canadian military patrol outside Kandahar Friday, injuring four Canadian soldiers, said the military. 


INDEPTH: Afghanistan

One of the Canadians has been critically injured, while three others are in serious condition. 

A spokesperson for the Taliban told Associated Press it sent the bomber, who it said was an Afghan from Kandahar province. 


FROM MARCH 2, 2006: Nova Scotia soldier killed in Afghan crash 

The attack comes a day after Canadian Cpl. Paul Davis was killed when his armoured vehicle ran off the road to avoid an oncoming car and flipped. Six other soldiers and one Afghan civilian were injured. 

Two soldiers were critically injured in the incident, which happened on the outskirts of Kandahar. One soldier was flown to a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. 

Davis was the ninth Canadian soldier to be killed in the mission to Afghanistan. Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry was also killed in an attack in January. 

Canada has approximately 2,200 troops in southern Afghanistan, under the command of Canadian Brig.-Gen. David Fraser. 

I think it is time for scorched earth!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> I think it is time for scorched earth!!!!!!!!!!!


No, it is not.  Remember, not all Afghanis are ready to sacrifice themselves in the name of Allah, and most want a stable country.  Four walls, a roof, food, clothes.  Stuff like that.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

UPDATE from http://www.cbc.ca/news:
Five soldiers injured.  Again, let's all keep these fellows in mind


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

Another update, this one from the Toronto Sun:
"KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - A Canadian soldier was in serious condition and could lose his arm after a suicide bomber exploded his vehicle beside a Canadian armoured vehicle Friday morning near Kandahar, the Canadian military said."
Source: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/03/1470570-ap.html
Date: 3 March 2006 at or about 0941 AST.


----------



## camochick (3 Mar 2006)

My thoughts go out the the families of these soldiers. Thank god no one was killed.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> My thoughts go out the the families of these soldiers. Thank god no one was killed.


You can say that again.  Hopefully we'll hear news, soon enough, of our lads over there taking it to "the man".


----------



## armyrules (3 Mar 2006)

MY hearts go out to all the victims families and I hope that the boys all will be ok and be in good health soon.


----------



## armyrules (3 Mar 2006)

I think CDN soldiers are being targeted because we are not used to going in and hunting down insurgents so they figure that we are a pushover. Please don't rant on me but that is just what I think!! OR maybe that we are the "new guys"


----------



## Guy. E (3 Mar 2006)

Maybe because we are occupying "There" country...

Compareable to the Marquis (?) and the Germans in WW2?


----------



## 735_winnipeg (3 Mar 2006)

They're targetting us cuz we are in uniforms and in their country PERIOD.  Some radicals have heavily warped some minds into thinking this situation, A-stan needing a stable security force, is not what A-stan needs.  I'm pretty sure there's no political motives behind the attacks, they pretty much targetted all military patrols and convoys, no matter which country it belongs to.  I'm sure that the other countries are getting this same treatment just that we haven't heard a lot about it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Mar 2006)

I think Canadian SOP's in Afghanistan will have to be reviewed. I dont want to generate a discussion that will violate OPSEC, but two practices have bothered me. The first is the decision not to counter-attack after coming under fire. This sends the wrong message to the bad guys that Canadians wont get out of their vehicles for fear of taking casualties. The second issue is how aggressive a convoy should be to protect itself.
US convoys have faced the car bomb in Iraq and it has forced us to fire on any vehicle that appears to be a threat. I agree with a previous poster that the taliban may feel that they can force a Canadian retreat from Afghanistan.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> Maybe because we are occupying "There" country...



We are over there.

We are not 'occupying' 'Their' country.

They're in need of our assistance in providing security so that they are  able to put their country back into a safe and orderly state.


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

735_winnipeg said:
			
		

> They're targetting us cuz we are in uniforms and in their country PERIOD.  Some radicals have heavily warped some minds into thinking this situation, A-stan needing a stable security force, is not what A-stan needs.  I'm pretty sure there's no political motives behind the attacks, they pretty much targetted all military patrols and convoys, no matter which country it belongs to.  I'm sure that the other countries are getting this same treatment just that we haven't heard a lot about it.



I bet this is all influencing your decision to deploy isn't it?


----------



## JBP (3 Mar 2006)

armyrules said:
			
		

> I think CDN soldiers are being targeted because we are not used to going in and hunting down insurgents so they figure that we are a pushover. Please don't rant on me but that is just what I think!! OR maybe that we are the "new guys"



Well, it's not that we don't know how to fight the insurgents, we have been doing it all along, we were there with the American's when we all first went into Afganistan! Remember Op Anaconda? Yeah, that was a combat operation. 

Problem is our hands -ARE- tied by ROE. You see, we want to try not to kill any civilians, at all if possible...

Speaking of returning fire, there was 2 seperate threads on here in past weeks of our troops returning fire. Once with our new arty guns supported from the rear even! From what people have said on this site and what I've heard, you just sometimes can't tell who is THE suicide bomber.... It's not like they run up and yell, "I'm a terrorist and I am going to blow your b*tch a$$ up!"..... Doesn't work like that from what I can tell. 

I concur that they will attack any and all countries or soldiers operating in the area regardless of what flag is on the shoulder, god I hope we don't loose too many more. Obviously there will be casualties but every time I read about one on this site it kills me, I couldn't imagine the pain and regret had I ever deployed and lost a buddy or had to think about what my family would be like if I came home in a box... It's harsh!

Goodluck to ALL friendlies in Afganistan


----------



## Pea (3 Mar 2006)

My thoughts and prayers are with the injured and their families.


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> Problem is our hands -ARE- tied by ROE. You see, we want to try not to kill any civilians, at all if possible...



And you are basing that on what? I think you're straying way out of your lane on this.

Op Archer ROEs are very robust and allow for a wide range of actions.....which I won't get into for OPSEC reasons.

When we switched from Op Athena to Archer we were quite relieved in the LAVs that it actually allowed us more freedoms.

Listen folks....these things happen and will continue into the near future. 

They happened on my tour and I'm quite sure that it's not the last for this one either.

As for reviewing their SOPs....I'm sure that's already been looked at by this point    

Regards


----------



## military granny (3 Mar 2006)

My thoughts and prayers go out to the wounded but especially to their families, I was in their shoes yesterday.


----------



## Pte_Martin (3 Mar 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Why are CDN soldiers being targeted?  I think A-Q and Taliban sympathizers think they can Spanish-ize CDN public support and then in turn force the CDN government to withdraw from A-stan.  I would suspect that CDN politicians other than the Conservatives will try to make hay with this....time will tell.



i agree if we had more public support and ALL the government was backing us it might help
but thank god noone was killed and a speedy recovery to the rest


----------



## muffin (3 Mar 2006)

Prayers and thoughts to the families of the wounded.

muffin


----------



## RangerRay (3 Mar 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Why are CDN soldiers being targeted?  I think A-Q and Taliban sympathizers think they can Spanish-ize CDN public support and then in turn force the CDN government to withdraw from A-stan.  I would suspect that CDN politicians other than the Conservatives will try to make hay with this....time will tell.



I can't see the Liberals making hay of this...they are the ones that sent our troops there in the first place.  But I can see the Marxist NDP start foaming at the mouth...

My thoughts and prayers go to those who are injured and their families.


----------



## Britney Spears (3 Mar 2006)

> Why are CDN soldiers being targeted?  I think A-Q and Taliban sympathizers think they can *Spanish-ize* CDN public support and then in turn force the CDN government to withdraw from A-stan.



What ever do you mean by this?


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> It has been argued by some that Spain withdrew from Iraq after one of it's planes crashed killing 75 (or so?) soldiers coming back from Iraq. So the idea would be, the Taliban tries to kill/injure as many Canadians as possible in a very short time to 'encourge' us to withdraw.
> 
> Keep safe over there and "git 'er done", as it were.


That plane crashed in May 2003 (25th or 26th) en route from Afghanistan.  I landed there on the 26th, and that was the first we had heard of it.  I think the original poster was thinking of the Madrid Subway bombings, days before their election, one which the ruling party was thought to have well in hand.  A few bombs go off, people react by voting "the other way", and then the Spaniards left Iraq.


----------



## Britney Spears (3 Mar 2006)

You mean like how after the Madrid bombings, which brought down the ruling Aznar goverment because they had tried to blame it on the ETA while it was obviously an Al Qaeda action, Spain dramatically increased it's troop prescence in Afghanistan while withdrawing its troops from the completely unrelated war in Iraq that the majority of Spaniards opposed? 

Somehow I doubt that was what he meant.  :


----------



## dutchie (3 Mar 2006)

well, to add my 2 cents, I think that Canadians have been targetted only because they are western. I don't think your average AQ/Taliban distinguishes between British, US, Canadian, Aussie, etc. - we are all infindels and equally threatening to them. The fact that Canada has taken over in that region and is (I assume) patrolling way more than before will inevitably lead to an increase in attacks. 

I only hope that this increase in risk/casualties doesn't scare the genral public. It is a little disconcerting to think that your average Candian Joe still doesn't understand that what we are doing in Kanadahar is NOT peacekeeping. Coming from the perspective of peacekeeping, if that is what the average Canadian thinks we are doing, than I can see them being a little alarmed. Once you realize this Canada is taking a more offensive and less neutral stance, the attacks don't seem quite so alarming. 

Any word on the names of those hit in the latest attacks?


----------



## Pea (3 Mar 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060301/afghan_canada_bomb_060303/20060303?hub=TopStories


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> I think it is time for scorched earth!!!!!!!!!!!



Well, that was certainly interesting.  Makes me wonder what George Wallace edited out of your post.

I would be interested in knowing
a) what you mean by scorched earth
b) what your understanding of Canada's objectives are in Afghanistan
c) how you feel your new "scorched earth" policies would effect these changes

Assuming of course, that wasn't just some childish off-the cuff-remark that is really best done in private rather than on a public forum where you've identified yourself as a 37 year old male with 18 years of military experience and the rank of Warrant Officer.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Mar 2006)

[quote author=Card_11 
[/quote]

"One soldier was critically injured but he will survive, said Dr. Scott Taylor, the head orthopedic surgeon at the Canadian hospital at Kandahar."

Damn, that dude's everywhere, isn't he?

Come to think of it, his bio at wikipedia seems rather malnourished - how come on one's gone to flesh it out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Taylor


----------



## Guy. E (3 Mar 2006)

Scorched Earth:

















An old computer artillery game using various weapons from Nukes to Napalm.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Mar 2006)

The LAV has proven to be very survivable in the IED/VBIED threat environment. 

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004101123.asp


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well, that was certainly interesting.  Makes me wonder what George Wallace edited out of your post.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing
> a) what you mean by scorched earth
> ...



Yeah, I am bitter, very bitter.............but hey, I guess what is happening is okay and no one is allowed to get pissed off. I have seen first hand the effects of Insurgents, enemy, scumbags, whatever you want to call them. And while I agree with what people say about how it isn't everyone who is against us, I still say, and will always say, you can't trust anyone.  For example, are you going to trust an interpretor??? I think you would be very naive if you did. Are you going to trust a cleaner??? Nope. Are you going to trust the contractor that gets hired to fill the hesco? Nope. So when I say scorched earth, I am pissed off and on a rant. Experience, smexperience. If your not pissed, your not human. People can say what they want about Somalia but when we showed up at a village and told them "on such and such a day, the UN passed a resolution saying that you were not allowed to have wpns or ammo and that in 5 minutes we are coming door to door to confiscate such items, and proceeded to go door to door, room to room, cupboard to cupboard, pot to pot, bag of rice to bag rice....it was very effective! Same as when the looters were shot.......never had another incident after that. Shock action does work..........of course Canada would not authorize it however it is very effective.

So yeah, slam me all you want, it's a free world and opinions are free to be voiced. It is mine and if you dont like my views, oh well. I am sure I am not the only one who feels the same way.

Chimo!


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well, that was certainly interesting.  Makes me wonder what George Wallace edited out of your post.
> 
> I would be interested in knowing
> a) what you mean by scorched earth
> ...



I can see by your profile that you too have quite a bit of Operational Experience!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (3 Mar 2006)

We all knew the day would come where the taliban would try a direct ied on a lav and I am glad it stood up to the challenge. I spent almost every day of my tour in a lav as an op party and always felt safe. Now if we could just get the air sentries and guys in the turrets protected better.

 Not sure if it has been looked at yet but I was thinking VBIED's might be less effective if we as Canadians practiced the American policy of keeping vehicles well away from our convoys.


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> We all knew the day would come where the taliban would try a direct ied on a lav and I am glad it stood up to the challenge. I spent almost every day of my tour in a lav as an op party and always felt safe. Now if we could just get the air sentries and guys in the turrets protected better.
> 
> Not sure if it has been looked at yet but I was thinking VBIED's might be less effective if we as Canadians practiced the American policy of keeping vehicles well away from our convoys.



I was thinking along the same lines as you wrt VBIED's but I am unfamiliar with current TTP's. How do they deal with traffic circles?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (3 Mar 2006)

In Kabul we had no choice but to sit in bumper to bumper traffic and just hope that if we can't get anywhere, a VBIED would be stuck elsewhere in traffic too.

 I am guessing the commanders in Khandahar have also thought of this and hopefully are speaking with the Americans about new possibilities.

 I can't remember any recent VBIED's being driven into American convoys recently, so maybee the taliban have (as a result of American convoy policy) just had to resort to ied's in parked vehicles or roadside.


----------



## MJP (3 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> I can't remember any recent VBIED's being driven into American convoys recently, so maybee the taliban have (as a result of American convoy policy) just had to resort to ied's in parked vehicles or roadside.


It still happens on a regular basis to the Americans as well, it's just not a media scrum everytime for them as it is for us.



			
				SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> We all knew the day would come where the taliban would try a direct ied on a lav and I am glad it stood up to the challenge. I spent almost every day of my tour in a lav as an op party and always felt safe. Now if we could just get the air sentries and guys in the turrets protected better.
> 
> Not sure if it has been looked at yet but I was thinking VBIED's might be less effective if we as Canadians practiced the American policy of keeping vehicles well away from our convoys.



Who says we don't already do that?

VBIEDs vehicles have two main ways of hitting....one being come across opposing lanes and hit convoys as they pass them and the other being sitting on the side of the road and pulling into a convoy as they pass.  Very rarely do they rear attack as no coalition force allows vehicles to approach them from the rear at any sort of speed.

Both types are very hard to deal with as anyone over here can attest to the roads are congested with all sorts of civilian traffic and narrow to boot.  Troops have to be constantly scanning and reaction times have to be fast to be able to deal with suicide bombers.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Mar 2006)

Sorry, few questions here.

It looks to me from pictures that the LAV III hit had some type of add on armour package on it.. is it similar to the packages that I've seen used on Coyotes before? And secondly, was the LAV III still mobile after it was hit (looks like it was hit right on the second wheel, right side, and damage was mostly confined to that area.. though the other tyres are popped..) ?  

Oh, and combat camera has some pictures of you guys practicing with 81mm mortars... i thought they were gone (hopefully not)??

Wishing a speedy recovery to all the injured!


----------



## Korus (3 Mar 2006)

> I can't remember any recent VBIED's being driven into American convoys recently, so maybee the taliban have (as a result of American convoy policy) just had to resort to ied's in parked vehicles or roadside.



Canada just greatly increased it's number of troops in Kandahar, and took over from the main American Task Force, TF Gun Devil in the area. Basically, more Canadians on the road, less Americans, so we're naturally going to provide a larger target, per se. As was mentioned previously, the Americans were getting hit too.. Canadian media just didn't make a big deal about it...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Mar 2006)

2023 said:
			
		

> I can see by your profile that you too have quite a bit of Operational Experience!



Yes, that's why I come here - to look to those of you with overseas experience for a better understanding of the world and the Army I belong to.  Imagine my surprise to see a WO posting about "scorched earth".  Sorry - which tour was it where that was one of your ROE's?  I'd like to add the term to the glossary on my website, now that I know it is a Canadian operational method.  As a personal aside, I think it's great that you come here to share your experiences like this.

You know, so that moms and dads and girlfriends of guys overseas can get a hint of what we really think and be comforted that we're every bit as racist and intolerant as they feared.  Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, eh?  

I think we're all better served by saving ranting for the mess, quite frankly, and putting on something more of a public face here.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (3 Mar 2006)

> Maybe because we are occupying "There" country...



No one is "occupying" anything.  Canadian Forces are there at the request of the government of Afghanistan.


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yes, that's why I come here - to look to those of you with overseas experience for a better understanding of the world and the Army I belong to.  Imagine my surprise to see a WO posting about "scorched earth".  Sorry - which tour was it where that was one of your ROE's?  I'd like to add the term to the glossary on my website, now that I know it is a Canadian operational method.  As a personal aside, I think it's great that you come here to share your experiences like this.
> 
> You know, so that moms and dads and girlfriends of guys overseas can get a hint of what we really think and be comforted that we're every bit as racist and intolerant as they feared.  Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, eh?
> 
> I think we're all better served by saving ranting for the mess, quite frankly, and putting on something more of a public face here.



hahahahahahaha


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Here's hoping a speedy recovery to all involved and to the commanders......patience!!


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Mar 2006)

> hahahahahahaha



2023 - thanks for disengaging from the "tit for tat" that was developing... I was expecting a much more.. umm.. "animated" response from you  

MD - 2023 pretty much indicated, when questioned - that it was a rant. These situations affect everyone differently, and are bound to elicit more emotional responses from some people than others. They are worried, frustrated, you name it. It's all fine and dandy that you can make an intellectual analysis of every single word typed here, but I don't think it's a very realistic evaluation, on your part. You never seem to want to acknowledge the "human factor". That doesn't mean emotion is an excuse to act like an idiot, nor does it mean that everyone who injects emotion into their responses is some kind of caveman. If I utter "damn" or "shit" when I hit my thumb with a hammer, it doesn't _really_ mean that I literally want to condemn that hammer to hades; nor does it mean that I am convinced that it is really a hardened and balanced piece of fecal matter.

Let's keep the topics on track, and take personal quarrels to PM-land. Thanks to all.


----------



## 043 (3 Mar 2006)

Oh it was difficult not to bite, trust me!!!!!!!

Your comments were very well said.

I noticed you are in Az, ever go jumping in Eloy?


----------



## Cannonfodder (3 Mar 2006)

Just got home from work and heard about the suicide bomber . Hopefully this does not become a day to day occurrance , hard to gain the initiative when the fockers play dirty pool . Hope Mike gets better soon , at least that extra armour saved some lives . What type of close quarter protection does the Lav 3 have ? . If the rear security sees a threat are they relegated to using a C9 ? , good gun , not much stopping power . Wouldnt be nice to have pintel mounted  miniguns ? that would sort out a would be suicide bomber . Even the old 50 cal would stop them in there tracks , the Lav 3 looks like it has some serious blind spots that make it vulnerable to attack from the sides and rear .


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> What type of close quarter protection does the Lav 3 have ? . If the rear security sees a threat are they relegated to using a C9 ? , good gun , not much stopping power . Wouldnt be nice to have pintel mounted  miniguns ? that would sort out a would be suicide bomber . Even the old 50 cal would stop them in there tracks , the Lav 3 looks like it has some serious blind spots that make it vulnerable to attack from the sides and rear .



We can't get into that without going into OPSEC concerns......

Sorry

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder EVERY vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses ie blind spots, high center of gravity etc.  We do the best we can with what we have.


----------



## Armymedic (3 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> I can't remember any recent VBIED's being driven into American convoys recently, so maybee the taliban have (as a result of American convoy policy) just had to resort to ied's in parked vehicles or roadside.



It is just not reported. US soldiers get hit often, I'd even say often enough for it not to be news.


----------



## Cannonfodder (3 Mar 2006)

OPSEC  a term d'jour  , nothing to secretive  about the question . Any reponse to a threat  at close quarter must be with maximum stopping force  . If pintel mounted C9s are being employed this is not adequate  something more potent must be used . Iam sure the CDS would not have a problem with footing the bill for some Miniguns for flank and rear protection . Quick , effective , devastating firepower , now is the time to hit him up , you might just get it .


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Mar 2006)

I'd say shooting the window would provide adequate stopping power.


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

Not a term du jour at all....    :

Would you like everyone in the world know what the troops mounted use in their vehicles and what they do to stop VBIEDs? 

I know I wouldn't if I were still there. 

How about posting the ROEs while we're at it then?

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Mar 2006)

Don't encourage him please.


----------



## elminister (3 Mar 2006)

may I inquire what the acronym OPSEC means? 
My guess operation secrets?

In addition, my best regards to the families and safe wishes to my "Family" there.


----------



## scm77 (3 Mar 2006)

elminister said:
			
		

> may I inquire what the acronym OPSEC means?
> My guess operation secrets?


Operational Security


----------



## teddy49 (3 Mar 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No one is "occupying" anything.  Canadian Forces are there at the request of the government of Afghanistan.



That doesn't mean that the populous sees it that way.  Especially in that neck of the woods.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (3 Mar 2006)

Best wishes to the wounded!  To all of those who are looking for a failure here, taking casualties against determined attackers who are willing to accept casualties, and willing to endager any number of innocent civilian bystanders to get a shot at one of ours, is inevitable.  We could shoot the shite out of anything that approached within 50m of one of our patrols, and not have to worry about suicide bombers for about a week.  At the end of that week, expect the entire country to rise against us.  Our ROE's will bind our hands more than the enemies do, for we do care about killing innocent civilians, protecting those civilians and helping them rebuild their country is why we are there.  None of us joined the army because we wanted to live forever, we are professionals who do their best to see that all of ours come home alive and well, and anybody that takes a crack at us goes down.  In the end, we have to accept a certain amount of risk, rather than protect ourselves at the cost of mowing down twenty innocents with 25mm to splash one hostile butt-monkey.  In the end, the discipline to respond with measured force, and the will to continue to patrol aggressively in the face of resistance, is what is going to win in Afghanistan.  When we are done, Afghanistan will be a country again, and not a terrorist training camp/drug factory.  To every soldier wearing the leaf in Afghanistan, keep the faith!  You are doing the toughest job in the world right now, and one that badly needs doing.


----------



## Jed (4 Mar 2006)

Roger that, mainer..


----------

