# Canadian soldiers 'prepared to kill'



## McG (4 Feb 2006)

> *Canadian soldiers 'prepared to kill' *
> Afghanistan 'a dangerous environment,' says general who will command troops
> JEFF SALLOT
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060203.wxafghan03/BNStory/International/home


----------



## McG (4 Feb 2006)

I always thought the PRT was just a part of our contingent.  Suppose there might be other errors above?


----------



## Sig_Des (4 Feb 2006)

I respect the fact that Gen. Fraser actually made those comments. It's not easy to say things like that in the public eye nowadays. A lot of people will probably take offence to it, but it needed to be said, and it's nice to hear it from up high.


----------



## winchable (4 Feb 2006)

Go on to read some of the comments on that article,
It's as entertaining as it is annoying and I've discovered two things:

1. Apparently Afghanistan has an abundant supply of oil we're in need of.
2. This isn't a war we're fighting, it's something else, but it's no war.
3. Somehow George Bush is to blame for everything...ever.

Well, I hope you're all as enlightened as I was, I can tell you I've changed my ways. I've given up any aspirations of a full military career, I'm moving to a small commune in India where I am going to take the name "Sunflower Auto Nexus" and live out the rest of my days as a maker of environmentally friendly crafts and write angry letters which I won't send because supporting Mail Services is supporting corporate America.


----------



## ChopperHead (5 Feb 2006)

lol Che that made me laugh


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Feb 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I always thought the PRT was just a part of our contingent.  Suppose there might be other errors above?



Don't get me started...


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Feb 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Don't get me started...



Well at least they didn't call us Peacekeepers this time...



			
				Che said:
			
		

> 1. Apparently Afghanistan has an abundant supply of oil we're in need of.



Ah yes the Michael Moore pipeline... I love people who believe that conspiracy theory. I've tried to explain to some of my more naive friends that building said pipeline would be impossible because:

1. The construction materials would be stolen long before they could be assembled,
2. If it somehow could be built, the oil would be siphoned off before it could reach the terminus, and
3. Someone would blow it up if points 1 and 2 could be solved anyways...


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2006)

Additional Fact - Clinton proposed pipeline during Taliban reign...


Mike's 100% right.

 People steal mine marking signs here as building materials...
Anyone attempting to build a pipleine woudl be bankrupted by security requirements for the materials - let alone the workers.


Closing issue - anyone armed with a weapon is prepared to use LETHAL FORCE - therefore prepared to kill.
Shocking I know  :


----------



## Armymedic (5 Feb 2006)

> *Canadian soldiers 'prepared to kill' *



OMG, say it isn't so.



IRT to the T-A-P pipeline. While I was over there, the World Bank annouced grants to the Afghan govt to assist in the project and Karzi announced he would use the ANA assets neccessary to protect the pipeline and the workers when construction started.

Its not Afghanistan's oil, just the bridge between the source and the sea. I am as confident of its completion in this decade as Mike.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I respect the fact that Gen. Fraser actually made those comments. It's not easy to say things like that in the public eye nowadays.



It seems to be much easier for our leadership to make such comments, now that the CDS and former-Defence Minister have repeatedly made the same statements. In fact there seems to be a growing "copy-cat" effect as Gens Fraser, Leslie, _et al_, jump on the bandwagon, saying what serving soldiers have  known, and what our leadership SHOULD have been saying, for years. Now, it's more like these Generals are peeking out from behind the CDS saying...."ya! what he said!"

When MGen Doug Dempster (Director General of Strategic Plans) got fed up with the federal government's military abuse, he put in his release. Now _that's_ the sort of public comment that shows bravery. Before he left, it was noted by a Parliamentary Senate Committee:

"... [MGen Dempster's testimony] was a more frank discussion than we normally get from military personnel. That might have had something to do with the fact that he was getting ready to retire, but maybe not."1


-----------------------
1  Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/25eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&comm_id=76


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Feb 2006)

Thats what soldiers do. Hope our liberal types can swallow that there is evil out there and wishing it away will not solve anything.

"Close with and DESTROY THE ENEMY".....


----------



## R031button (5 Feb 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> Go on to read some of the comments on that article,
> It's as entertaining as it is annoying and I've discovered two things:
> 
> 1. Apparently Afghanistan has an abundant supply of oil we're in need of.
> ...



 I was interested to learn that the commander is supposed to turn to his "civilian oversight" to understand his role. While civilian oversight is a signifigant principal in NDHQ, I wasn't away it generated out policies and missions.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

R031button said:
			
		

> I was interested to learn that the commander is supposed to turn to his "civilian oversight" to understand his role. While civilian oversight is a signifigant principal in NDHQ, I wasn't away it generated out policies and missions.



I'm not sure what you mean. Civilian oversight is a critical part of how we have always done business. The government outlines our duties and responsibilities, assignes us tasks and missions and provides the funding to raise troops, train and equip them to do these tasks and missions. (The actual levels of funding compared to our actual needs is a different topic).

Historically, if we don't have proper oversight, we end up with situations like Sam Hughes foisting his pals on the Army as Colonels, and ensuring we had lots of Ross rifles, shovels with holes in them (!) and so on. Seeing the Canadian Army grinding into action that first year of WWI was horrible to watch. You can only imagine what the CF would look like today if we were to operate in that fashion.

The former government determied (for whatever reasons) that going into Afghanistan was the proper thing to do to ensure Canada's long term security. Prime Minister Harper might reveiw the situation and decide to change things. No matter what, our leaders owe it to us, our families and the Canadian public we work for to tell the truth as they see it. Gen Fraiser is doing the right thing when he speaks out like that.


----------



## mo-litia (6 Feb 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It seems to be much easier for our leadership to make such comments, now that the CDS and former-Defence Minister have repeatedly made the same statements. In fact there seems to be a growing "copy-cat" effect as Gens Fraser, Leslie, _et al_, jump on the bandwagon, saying what serving soldiers have  known, and what our leadership SHOULD have been saying, for years. Now, it's more like these Generals are peeking out from behind the CDS saying...."ya! what he said!



Well said.  Still, copy-cat or not, it's nice to see the brass hats speaking out of their mouths instead of their nether regions when they are talking to the media these days.


----------



## TCBF (6 Feb 2006)

"People steal mine marking signs here as building materials..."

- Sure, why not?  They know where the mines are...mostly.

Peacekeeping.  I remember the "LOCKSMITH" missions in Cyprus in 1978/79.  The Mission Statement for all of them was: "Shoot to kill anyone who threatens the lives of the negotiators."

I still have the notebooks somewhere.

Tom


----------



## M Feetham (7 Feb 2006)

My question is what is Gordon going to do now and what happens when the present CDS's  term is up and he goes elsewhere? 
Marc


----------



## gunner_ty (7 Feb 2006)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> My question is what is Gordon going to do now and what happens when the present CDS's  term is up and he goes elsewhere?
> Marc



I would have to say that any answer to that question, by anyone but Mr Gordon himself, would be speculation. Realistically you won't know until a) you ask him yourself b) he announces his plans through the media or c) he does something. So in the words of Yoda "Patience my young Skywalker"

PS: I felt the quote fitting since his name is Marc and well if you know Star Wars you know where I am going with that!


----------



## M Feetham (7 Feb 2006)

Point taken, now let me see what did I do with his phone num..., nope that's not it. Guess he must have forgot to send that to me when he was appointed. The nerve of some people huh? I'll just have to wait like everyone else I suppose.
I get the Star Wars/ Hammil thing but I think he spells his name with a K as in Mark. Still though, works for me. Thanks. 
Marc


----------



## TCBF (7 Feb 2006)

Maybe Tuesdays should be Yodaspeak on Army.ca.

A good idea, I have.

Tom


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Maybe Tuesdays should be Yodaspeak on Army.ca.
> 
> A good idea, I have.
> 
> Tom



Use it all week some posters do.  On Saturday nights more seen it is, when filled with wobbly pop type we vitrolically.  Into Sunday twilight it extends.   ;D


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Feb 2006)

If Canadian Soldiers are prepared to kill does that mean the very effective "Shoot to Kill" range program is back and will be up and running ? And yes I am that old.


----------



## Acorn (8 Feb 2006)

How old is "Shoot to Kill?" I seem to remember the "Shoot to Live" programme came to us in the mid-'80s, but was based on a '40s or '50s pub (my ever-dimming memory recalls a copy of it in the Regt'l library of my old Mo regt.)


----------



## 3rd Herd (8 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> How old is "Shoot to Kill?" I seem to remember the "Shoot to Live" programme came to us in the mid-'80s, but was based on a '40s or '50s pub (my ever-dimming memory recalls a copy of it in the Regt'l library of my old Mo regt.)



You have identified the politically correct form of the same program and I might be referring to an unofficial name. The result of too much time around a  certain innovative Bn. Ops O. The name change occurred in if I remember correctly some where around 1985. This occurred I think due to the connotations of the peacekeeper image. I can remember a  "Lookout" article announcing or maybe formalizing the new name. Here again going on memory yes part of the program was based on some earlier drills. And I think the term was "musketry drills". The range portion was done out at Heales. Berm distance course  ending with steel plates at 800. Live fire section drills were done up at the Nanimo range. Pistol and SMG was done at the range down by the pump station.

 On top of that program we also had both range and live fire at Fort Lewis(village and house clearing), Gagetown, Yakima, a couple bases in Calif, good old Suffield and the trips back to Wainwright. My apologies to some of the other Dino's if I have missed a location or two. Another case in point in this was in 1983 there was enough ammunition available that I had on two occasions our two subordinated cadet corps doing a live fire  weekend range on FN C1, C2, and SMG. We also had a Carl G with the sub caliber for them. Cardinal rule from the ammo techs was do not bring any back. So, I think we shot a lot more from what I have been gathering than is going today. Yes the Anti Armor trackies whined about only getting two Cadillac shots a year.


----------



## Acorn (9 Feb 2006)

Actually, I challenge that it was purely a PC exercise. I distinctly recall seeing a pub titled "Shoot to Live" that was much older than the '80's variant. The weapons depicted in the illustrations were .303 Lee-Enfields.

And yeah, I also remember the abundance of ammo in the early '80s, except not much blank was available to Res units. RV '85 we had more 84mm rounds than our Coy could shoot (that was the most fun I ever had as an 84-gunner).


----------



## DG-41 (9 Feb 2006)

I was on the night-fire on Stalwart Ram 93 where the Karl gunners in 2 (?) VP had so much ammo that they got bored with the assigned targets and started engaging the 105mm illumination rounds....

RAP rounds go a *L*O*N*G* way when fired straight up in the air..... 

DG


----------



## KevinB (9 Feb 2006)

IIRC the 'book' that shoot to live was designed off was Shoot to Kill, hence the orginal proposed system was going to be called STK but it was chaged to STL prior before coming doctrine.


----------



## Haggis (9 Feb 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IIRC the 'book' that shoot to live was designed off was Shoot to Kill, hence the orginal proposed system was going to be called STK but it was chaged to STL prior before coming doctrine.



You recall correctly.

Shoot to Kill was the Brit system, adpoted by Canada in the early 80's.  I'd surmise that it was renamed "Shoot to Live" in Canada to foster and perpetuate our Peacekeeper mythology.


----------



## rifleman (9 Feb 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You recall correctly.
> 
> Shoot to Kill was the Brit system, adopted by Canada in the early 80's.  I'd surmise that it was renamed "Shoot to Live" in Canada to foster and perpetuate our Peacekeeper mythology.



I don't think it had anything to do with the recent "Don't call me a peacekeeper, I'm tougher than that.. :threat:" myth. Enough is enough.

It probably has more to do with the philosophy of killing where a individual is more accepting to kill for their survival, than kill for killing alone. It's the "Better you than me" philosophy.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Feb 2006)

Shoot to Kill morphed into Shoot to Live and anybody who is old enough knows that our PWT today is an f'ing joke compared to past days! :threat:

By the way I heard we are updating Shoot to Live to more properly reflect our Canadian values and to promote our love-in with anything UN. The new program will be called "Shoot to Annoy", where you get a higher score by missing the target rather than hitting it! :rofl:


----------



## rifleman (9 Feb 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Shoot to Kill morphed into Shoot to Live and anybody who is old enough knows that our PWT today is an f'ing joke compared to past days! :threat:



I agree. Its not really a program anymore, and for some 35 rounds/ yr isn't going to make anyone a Battle Shot.

**helmets on** I liked the days when we'd marched the 16 k's onto the range and did the run-downs, those who failed did it all again **helmets off**


----------



## 3rd Herd (9 Feb 2006)

+1 for all the dino's. I have three photo albums worth of pictures of the SKL programs and the cadet live fires. It is nice to know the grey fog does indeed part once in awhile. It was also extremely nice of some site members who remember the SHL program to get ahold of me. Yes strolls down memory lane that would bore you young pups to death. But given that having fired off so much live ammo we are a little hard of hearing.
Cheers

again thanks for the response


----------



## Fraser.g (28 Feb 2006)

just trying to ease this back on topic from the ranges back to Kandahar

Canadian takes command in southern Afghanistan 
CTV.ca News Staff

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060226/afghan_canada_060228

The Canadian general who took charge of coalition troops in southern Afghanistan today said they won't fight unless they have to, but warned the Taliban that "we're going to start kicking them."

Brig.-Gen. David Fraser is now in charge of a multinational force, including 2,200 Canadians, that will patrol six provinces in the southern part of Afghanistan, which spreads over some 220,000 square kilometres.

Fraser, in an interview with CTV's Lisa LaFlamme, warned that as more troops go into the sanctuaries where the Taliban live, including into the volatile city of Kandahar, "it will look bad."

"But in fact what we're doing is we're going into their yard," he said. "We're going to start kicking them."

However, he said the force, which also includes British, Dutch and U.S. troops, won't fight unless they have to. Fraser said they will instead focus more on helping the Afghan people, continuing the work of the U.S. Task Force Bayonet.

"My soldiers are trained to fight. But they're also trained into the humanitarian assistance and peace support, and that's our focus," he told LaFlamme.

"And we're here to work with the Afghans, to work on those non-fighting aspects, because that's the road to success. That's the road in the future to provide hope and opportunity."

U.S. commanders still in charge of the overall operations in Afghanistan have warned troops in the multinational force to expect a spike in violence in the spring and summer, especially with the build-up of troops.

"In the coming months we expect an increasingly desperate enemy will attempt to disrupt the steady progress which has been made with the Afghan people in the last four years,'' said Maj.-Gen. Benjamin Freakley, the head of coalition combat operations.

Fraser acknowledged that 17 American soldiers and 1,600 Afghans have died during this mission, but said the operation is a necessary one. 

"But it's a worthy cause. It's an expensive cause, but to give hope and opportunity, what you and I take for granted back home, it's worth it," he said.

"I mean, this is important for Canada. This I what we believe in."

Meanwhile, Col. Steve Noonan, head of Canada's Task Force Afghanistan, said the insurgency has changed its tactic in the southern portion of Afghanistan.

"They've changed their tactics a little bit, and what I'm saying in that regard is the use of suicide bombers," he told Canada AM Tuesday.

Suicide bombings were once rare in Afghanistan, but it is becoming increasingly the weapon of choice. 

Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry was killed in a suicide bomb attack on Jan. 15 in Kandahar. Three Edmonton-based soldiers were also injured in the blast.

Despite the change in tactic, Noonan said he thinks things are getting better.

"We're going to have some significant challenges to overcome over the next couple of months as the insurgency tries to take on the new guy on the block.

"But overall, the central government's ability to project its governance in the provincial regions is getting better."

As for Fraser, he said he is "imminently prepared" and "tacticly astute."

"David Fraser is my man," he said. "He's got good charisma and the troops like him."

Canada is expected to lead the coalition operation from late February until October 2006.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Feb 2006)

Nothing like going from cutting the head off the snake to shooing it away with a long stick.  If you don't go into the den the wolves will keep coming back.


----------



## WCST (28 Feb 2006)

"David Fraser is my man," he said. "He's got good charisma and the troops like him."

Gee, that's a good recommendation for the job, eh? Charisma and likeability... whatever happened to knowledge and leadership?

M :brickwall:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Feb 2006)

WCST said:
			
		

> "David Fraser is my man," he said. "He's got good charisma and the troops like him."
> 
> Gee, that's a good recommendation for the job, eh? Charisma and likeability... whatever happened to knowledge and leadership?
> 
> M



Wouldn't it just be assumed that he has that?


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2006)

WCST said:
			
		

> Charisma and likeability... whatever happened to knowledge and leadership?



Well, that'll happen when you quote out of context. The first sentence of that quote was

*As for Fraser, he said he is "imminently prepared" and "tacticly astute."*


----------



## WCST (28 Feb 2006)

It says he's 'imminently prepared'. Nothing about knowledge. Just that he read up. Big whoop. 'Tacticly astutute'. Yeah, so what? What's his previous skill? I was quite aware of what part I quoted. 

It still makes me cringe when I read stuff that's been 'dumbed down' for the civies.

M :brickwall:


----------



## Franko (28 Feb 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Don't get me started...



Come on.....

*poke...poke*






Wacha mean?    ;D

Regards


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2006)

WCST said:
			
		

> It says he's 'imminently prepared'. Nothing about knowledge. Just that he read up. Big whoop. 'Tacticly astutute'. Yeah, so what? What's his previous skill? I was quite aware of what part I quoted.
> 
> It still makes me cringe when I read stuff that's been 'dumbed down' for the civies.
> 
> M :brickwall:



~sigh~  OK, I'll try again...slowly. 

Right off the bat we need to sort out the terminology. Since this report was transcribed from a television interview, one can expect the occasional mistranscribed word. In this case, I assume the Colonel meant "eminently prepard," vice "imminently prepared." My trusty _Oxford English Reference Dictionary, 2nd Ed_. (NY: OUP, 1996), tells us clearly that "imminently" is the adverbal form of imminent; meaning "impending" (p. 706), whereas "eminently" is the adverbal form of eminent; "notable" (p. 461). In this case I assume General Fraser was being described as being "notable in his degree of preparedness." Again, one must expect occasional lapses in transcriptions. Hopefully, you're still following.



			
				WCST said:
			
		

> It says he's 'imminently prepared'. Nothing about knowledge. Just that he read up. Big whoop.


Now, how do imagine Gen Fraser became "eminently prepared"  for such a command without "knowledge"? Somehow, you have determined that he "read up" but bemoan there being nothing about his "knowledge." Perhaps you are simply unaware of the various aspects of Professional Development within the CF. I cannot tell, based upon your thoughtful judgement of "big whoop."



			
				WCST said:
			
		

> 'Tacticly astutute'. Yeah, so what?


You then seem to have problems with the expression, 'Tacticly astutute'_(sic)_. While some members here would point out the relative simplicity of using the spell check, I'll focus on the substantive issue. According to, once again, my handy dictionary, this expression would refer to someone who has "practical wisdom" in the "art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of carrying out manoeuvres in actual contact with the enemy"  (pp. 83, 1271, 1467). 

"Yeah, so what?" you say. While I hesitate to answer a question with a question of my own....*In what other areas would like a Canadian General, commanding multinational troops in a hostile environment, to have?*



			
				WCST said:
			
		

> What's his previous skill?


Ah well...again, the report is taken from a television interview. Seldom is complete information given because of the time constraints involved. I would suggest that anyone relying upon the television for their wisdom may be getting short changed. Were you hoping for a read-out of Gen Fraser's biography? Perhaps you should go, if you're _really_ interested (and not just trolling), to the CF Senior Officer Biography website:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerBiographies_e.asp?SectChoice=1

Oh look....not yet updated to reflect his promotion to BGen, but...PPCLI...Ops O during Cyprus deployment...Meritorious Service Medal for his Sarajevo deployment during the war...back to Bosnia commanding a battalion during SFOR Roto 0...back to Canada for some DomOps stuff and a Master's Degree...Commander 1CMBG. Doesn't sound _too_ lame. 



			
				WCST said:
			
		

> It still makes me cringe when I read stuff that's been 'dumbed down' for the civies.
> M :brickwall:



Yes...perhaps something here has been too "dumbed."  Nice avatar. Fitting.

ps: Please stick to your expertise. If you want to exercise your intellect in a harmless way, figure out why dictionaries have page numbers....after all, they're organized alphabetically, not chronologically or numerically.

Thanks for coming out


----------



## WCST (28 Feb 2006)

Look, YOU took my quote out of context. I was quite aware of what I wrote - I was commenting on ONE LINE, not the whole thing. 

ETA: I was actually upset about the POLITICIAN, not the military guy. For him to say, "he's my man..." makes the Comd sound like a political hack, not someone in charge of a fighting force.

My spelling mistake was due to me typing 65 wpm, so piss off if you can't understand an extra letter in a word. I'm sure someone as great as you would NEVER do such a horrific thing, eh?

And what the hell does my avatar have to do with anything? Check out my profile before you go assuming I'm someone who doesn't know a trench from a foxhole.

M :brickwall:


----------



## Franko (28 Feb 2006)

WCST said:
			
		

> Look, YOU took my quote out of context. I was quite aware of what I wrote - I was commenting on ONE LINE, not the whole thing.



Now now....take a deep breath.



> ETA: I was actually upset about the POLITICIAN, not the military guy. For him to say, "he's my man..." makes the Comd sound like a political hack, not someone in charge of a fighting force.



I saw the interview and knowing the Col and his demeanor....obviously he holds him in a very high regard. 

Also.......The man was in charge of a fighting force for 7+ months...*ALL Canadian troops in Afghanistan*. Watch what you say about someone who has been in the thick of things...through the good and the bad.



> My spelling mistake was due to me typing 65 wpm, so piss off if you can't understand an extra letter in a word. I'm sure someone as great as you would NEVER do such a horrific thing, eh?
> 
> And what the hell does my avatar have to do with anything? Check out my profile before you go assuming I'm someone who doesn't know a trench from a foxhole.



 :

Spell check button gets rid of excessive letters.

Regards


----------



## geo (28 Feb 2006)

possibly we should extinguish flames, take a deep breath and resume that friendly and informed discussion?

Chimo!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Feb 2006)

In the immortal words of Fantastic Four's Human Torch
"Flame On!"
;D


----------



## Franko (28 Feb 2006)

And with that last snip this thread is dead.

*Locked*

Regards


----------

