# U.S. set to hand Canada larger role in Afghanistan



## GAP (28 Nov 2009)

U.S. set to hand Canada larger role in Afghanistan
 'Super brigade' could place Forces in command of Taliban-infested area
 By Matthew Fisher, Canwest News ServiceNovember 28, 2009
Article Link

With the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, on his way to Ottawa for high-level talks next month, Washington may be upping the ante to get Canada to keep combat forces in Kandahar beyond July 2011 by expanding the Canadian battle group's numbers and responsibilities.

The army brigade under Canadian command in Kandahar is set to explode in size to about 6,500 soldiers from 4,000 soon after President Barack Obama announces his long-delayed troop buildup in Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Under the new force structure, Canada is expected to retain responsibility for Kandahar, which is considered an absolutely vital piece of terrain by NATO and the Afghan government because it is coveted by the Taliban which consider the provincial capital to be its spiritual home.

The enlarged brigade also appears poised to resume command responsibility for the Taliban-infested town of Arghandab, just to the north of Kandahar that they handed over to a U.S. army Stryker Brigade three months ago.

Asked whether expanding Canada's brigade by putting another 2,500 U.S. troops under Canadian command might a way for Washington to try to convince the federal government to reserve its decision to pullout in 2011, NATO's chief spokesman, Canadian Brig.-Gen. Eric Tremblay, replied that "that might be an interpretation some might try to put on it."

However, Tremblay, said his view was that while "it is quite clear that Kandahar City remains in Canadian hands, that is a clear sign that the alliance believes in us. Kandahar City has not fallen because the enemy tried and failed because we were there."

Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard, who commands all Canadian Forces overseas, put a somewhat similar spin on the situation in an interview last week.

"I'll speak very plainly," Lessard said. "We, the Canadian Forces get it, population centred counter-insurgency."
More on link


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2009)

"So, my Canadian friends.  Look at the size of the force you'll command.  Look at the nice additional capabilities you've got.  Are you sure you want to leave?"

Methinks this is one gambit of many to persuade military leadership that, just maybe, they should work on their political leadership...


----------



## Journeyman (28 Nov 2009)

But with our political "leadership" governing one opinion poll at a time, the wacko comments following any online CBC news article suggest changing the withdrawal date isn't promising.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (28 Nov 2009)

Once the renewed Joint Deployable HQ in Kingston reaches FOC, one could see it undertaking this role.  IMO it would be a good compromise for the government.  Pull out the BG and its components as it has declared but deploy the JDHQ in its place.  C2 is an easier sell politically both domestically and internationally.


----------



## brihard (28 Nov 2009)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Once the renewed Joint Deployable HQ in Kingston reaches FOC, one could see it undertaking this role.  IMO it would be a good compromise for the government.  Pull out the BG and its components as it has declared but deploy the JDHQ in its place.  C2 is an easier sell politically both domestically and internationally.



I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the Americans to be amenable to a situation in which we command their combat soldiers, without committing any of our own- sort of a 'put your money where your mouth is' situation. Were we to continue to contribute a BG to such a combined brigade, such an arrangement would not be at all unreasonable- but if your BG is going to be pulled out anyway, what possible interest would the Americans have in granting us OPCOM over so many of their troops?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2009)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Once the renewed Joint Deployable HQ in Kingston reaches FOC, one could see it undertaking this role.  IMO it would be a good compromise for the government.  Pull out the BG and its components as it has declared but deploy the JDHQ in its place.  C2 is an easier sell politically both domestically and internationally.



Now _there's_ something we've all been saying for years.

"Gee, we don't have enough HQs, sucking up staff, with not enough work to do.  Let's build another one, a joint one, in Kingston, on top of the one that's already there.  Why, between the Land Staff, CEFCOM, CANADACOM, CANOSCOM, LFDTS, CTC and all those any trade slots throughout NDHQ there are hardly enough staff officer billets around.  Some majors might have to actaully get out into the field army again!"


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (28 Nov 2009)

I would offer - political expediency.  To maintain the alliance and legitimacy both in NATO and in Afghanistan the US needs as many supportive partners as possible.  The list has been dwindling over the last few years.  If Canada is determined to pull out ground troops in 2011, and the US can't stop it, then at least the HQ would maintain some Canadian presence in theatre and provide support to the US cause.  As well, for the Canadian government it provides a "flag" on the table in NATO and enable some bargaining power.  Both countries gain at home and abroad.


----------



## Xiang (28 Nov 2009)

It makes little difference what the US wants.  The general consensus in Canada is that the troops will be coming home in 2011.  Any government that doesn't abide by that mind as well forfeit the next election to the opposition.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> It makes little difference what the US wants.  The general consensus in Canada is that *the troops will be coming home in 2011.*   Any government that doesn't abide by that mind as well forfeit the next election to the opposition.


Actually, the resolution is to leave Kandahar.  Having said that, were the Canadians offered an HQ-role only, then that would definitely be "non-combat", and then maybe palatable?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Actually, the resolution is to leave Kandahar.  Having said that, were the Canadians offered *an HQ-role only*, then that would definitely be "non-combat", and then maybe palatable?


As long as the HQ goes somewhere other than K'Har _Province_ to meet the mandate of the (current) resolution (since it doesn't say "Kandahar City") - given this part of the original article:


> .... Canada is expected to retain responsibility for Kandahar, which is considered an absolutely vital piece of terrain by NATO and the Afghan government because it is coveted by the Taliban which consider the provincial capital to be its spiritual home.
> 
> The enlarged brigade also appears poised to resume command responsibility for the Taliban-infested town of Arghandab, just to the north of Kandahar that they handed over to a U.S. army Stryker Brigade three months ago ....


could you have an HQ _outside_ Kandahar province controlling this work _in_ Kandahar?


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Nov 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> could you have an HQ _outside_ Kandahar province controlling this work _in_ Kandahar?


Well, if they moved RC (S) HQ to Helmand and make it a Canadian HQ,  I suppose you could ;D


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2009)

Aren't the Dutch talking about leaving Ugann Province?


----------



## ballz (28 Nov 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> It makes little difference what the US wants.  The general consensus in Canada is that the troops will be coming home in 2011.  Any government that doesn't abide by that mind as well forfeit the next election to the opposition.



I don't think most Canadians just want to leave the sandbox altogether. Even if their ideal "peacekeeping" role isn't possible, they do realize it's a country that needs help. Your everyday Canadian just doesn't want our troops dying and taking heavy casualties, who does? Those who want a pull-out, they just don't believe the objective is worth the lives our sons and daughters, right, wrong, ignorant, well-informed, whatever it may be, at the end of the day they just don't think it's worth blood. So if it's an ultimatum of "pull-out or prepare for KIAs," most will choose the former.

Were the role changed in ways that made it safer for our troops, but we were still helping in some way, if only in a supporting role, I think Canadians would be happier with that. I think most Canadians will just judge any decisions based on how many troops are KIA after that decision takes place.

This is what I think is the voter's perspective on it. I'm sure someone will have a rebuttal.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Nov 2009)

Does a Brigade (-) of PRTs with an attached US QRF qualify as "withdrawing from combat roles" - politically speaking?

Practically speaking it might not make a difference - pretty sure PRT troops are "at risk" right now and historically - but the CBC/GM nexus isn't much into practicality.


----------



## Xiang (28 Nov 2009)

> Actually, the resolution is to leave Kandahar.  Having said that, were the Canadians offered an HQ-role only, then that would definitely be "non-combat", and then maybe palatable?



You give too much credit to the population.  Do you honestly believe they understand the intricate details of the resolution?  (ie: Leaving Kandahar.. but shifting manpower to a different region would be acceptable)

If troops remained, in any region, in any role, rest assured the opposition would be all over it come next election, manipulating peoples perspectives.


----------



## ballz (28 Nov 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> You give too much credit to the population.  Do you honestly believe they understand the intricate details of the resolution?  (ie: Leaving Kandahar.. but shifting manpower to a different region would be acceptable)
> 
> If troops remained, in any region, in any role, rest assured the opposition would be all over it come next election, manipulating peoples perspectives.



You don't give the population enough credit. There's nothing very "intricate" about what he said. And what ground could the opposition stand on when trying to argue that a country in serious need while taking little-to-no casualties is a bad idea?

All the population cares about is the heavy price tag associated with the mission. If the price were less, they'd be more willing, and since they're such simple folks, their way of evaluating the price is pretty cut and dry.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Nov 2009)

Xiang said:
			
		

> You give too much credit to the population.  Do you honestly believe they understand the intricate details of the resolution?  (ie: Leaving Kandahar.. but shifting manpower to a different region would be acceptable)


Too much credit?  I don't think so, after all, people are fairly bright.  Usually.  Now, "Leaving Kandahar" is not an intricate detail.  Just tell people that, that's all.  Simply state:
"In accordance with Parliament's resolution to leave Kandahar by 2011, and in accordance with our commitment to Afghanistan, the Canadian Forces will move to [insert province name here] in order to focus on [insert non-combat role here]."


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (29 Nov 2009)

In 2011, I suspect there will be a big show and lots of good photo ops of heavy mil equipment such as tanks and guns being redeployed.  However, quietly, the PRT under civilian leadership will continue and the OMLT will transition to more of an inside the wire training team - much like an ATC or CTC.  These options are more politically palatable to the government and the population and hopefully produce less casualties.  As well, it provides the mil with the opportunity to deploy the "new" unit (renewed JDHQ).    Although the BG and attachments will be home and ready to redeploy somewhere else, Canada IMO will still have a sizable commitment in Afghanistan albeit in small disparate groups.  Like they say on BSG, "this has happened before, it will happen again."  This is similar to the operational pause in 2004.  The BG redeployed from Kabul but the contingent that replaced it was still the size of a BG although a collection of sub units lacking the larger C2 element.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## Love793 (29 Nov 2009)

I'd still like to see a official Govt of Canada document that states we will be leaving in 2011. No such document exists.  The only thing official is that the current Parliamentary mandate expires in 2011.  One election could and would change this.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Nov 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> U.S. set to hand Canada larger role in Afghanistan
> With the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, on his way to Ottawa for high-level talks next month, Washington may be upping the ante to *get Canada to keep combat forces in Kandahar* beyond July 2011 by expanding the Canadian battle group's numbers and responsibilities.





			
				Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> As well, it provides the mil with the opportunity to deploy the "new" unit (renewed JDHQ).



Somehow I doubt if Stan McChrystal is wringing his hands, saying "damn, if only I had more staff officers -- then we'd have the necessary PowerPoints to win this thing."


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Nov 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Somehow I doubt if Stan McChrystal is wringing his hands, saying "damn, if only I had more staff officers -- then we'd have the necessary PowerPoints to win this thing."



That's what I was thinking.  But then again, I'm not a general ;D


----------

