# Canada's options: fight in Afghanistan or secure 2010 Olympics ?



## wannabe SF member (20 Nov 2006)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/canada_security_military

This report says that Canada can't do both personally i disagree but well... read for yourself.


Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2006)

No problem, just make security a PPP project and charge extra on admission (why should taxpayers pay?). I am sure I-6 can figure out a decent bid and doing security in Whistler might be a lot of fun.


----------



## safeboy43 (20 Nov 2006)

I disagree as well. The CF has at least 40-50 thousand troops (Regs) that are currently not on deployment. We have more than enough to sustain security in 2010. The only drawback is that troops would have to be moved in from other provinces as some of our Reserve companies in BC are on tour.

Cheers


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Nov 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am sure I-6 can figure out a decent bid and doing security in Whistler might be a lot of fun.



What is I-6?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2006)

Super secret specialist who presence occasionally graces this forum, You will know him by his G19. 

if I say anything more I will have to kill you and then myself, or is it the other way around? I keep forgetting.


----------



## rmacqueen (20 Nov 2006)

sssh, even mentioning I6 can get you in trouble (looking over shoulder)


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

OK I-6,

Where's your plan? I volunteer for TD!!


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Nov 2006)

LOL 

but okay seriously can we have some comments about the starting quote please!


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

IF the CF follows the same overkill method from G8...

It will still have assets to send to Afghan.

G8 2002 was accomplished while:
 3VP was in/returning from Afghanstan.
 1VP was in run up for Roto 11 Bosnia
 Roto 10 was still occupying a BN Btl Gp

Theoretically we have lowered our commitments - and with CSOR increased our numbers

and


> "There's no doubt. It's impossible to protect the 2010 Olympics and maintain forces elsewhere in the world, whether it's Afghanistan or somewhere else," retired colonel Michel Drapeau told the newspaper. "We're already squeezed



D is a talking asshat -- out of his depth on operation deployments and utterly lost on security.

 Security is not troops numbers.  - at least not inside a permissive environment.


The Olympics are a security issue - however other than NLI CT and NBCD responces the CF do not have anything specific beyond what the RCMP and municpal LE can do -- in a more environment fitting role.

IMHO is a nation is worried about specific athletes and want to take preemtive action in the form of secuirty details - that can be covered by the private sector - or by their host nation security services.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

OK,

We can do both. I volunteer. I volunteer for the roto to Afgh, or failing to get a position on that (_if we go to 2010_ - current mission expires in 2009), I volunteer to go to BC for the Olympics. I've never been to BC.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that we could pull both of these these off. 

Look to Montreal - 1976 where the Canadian Airborne Regt ran with the task. 
And we were supporting Ops to
UNTSO
UNMOGIP
UNIFICYP
UNEFME
UNDOF
At that time we did have more troops but then again, a whole Brigade full of them were overseas in Germany.

Proper planning, it can happen.


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Nov 2006)

> I disagree as well. The CF has at least 40-50 thousand troops (Regs) that are currently not on deployment.



That's without counting the police force and eventual security contractors, you can add up to that the local reserve units, maybe I'm wrong but i hardly see how Olympic security could hamper a contingent of 2500 men.

Just my 2 cent.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

Again,

Proper planning and this shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

I just re-read this article and quite frankly, this quote scares me once again. Is it just a typo or is there some move to indicate to the masses that our CF is a hell of a lot smaller than it actually is?



> As well, officials worried that Canada's small military could not deploy elsewhere as long as a quarter of its forces remained in Afghanistan. The remainder are support staff or are undergoing training at various levels.



Since when are 2500 troops 1/4 of our military? Has my 18 year career just passed me by and I've missed this great reduction in strength?

So how accurate exactly is the statement that our officials are worried about this when the size of the CF which is indicated, is so grossly inaccurate?
BIG innaccuracies in the media once again.


----------



## rmacqueen (20 Nov 2006)

First strike against that article is 



> "There's no doubt. It's impossible to protect the 2010 Olympics and maintain forces elsewhere in the world, whether it's Afghanistan or somewhere else," retired colonel Michel Drapeau told the newspaper. "We're already squeezed."



When is this *logistics* officer going to learn to keep his mouth shut on operational matters? (If only I live so long)

Now, let's have a realistic look at this.  Even if we deployed the 





> 15,000 soldiers and _police_


 like they did in Turin, the real question is, so what?  The deployment for security would be for what, a month?  What effect would that be on our commitment to Afghanistan?  It is not like the troops who return from Afghanistan then get to sit around doing nothing and the deployment to provide security would be no longer than going on an exercise...and I don't see that interfering with overseas commitments.  The larger problem will be to come up with the personnel to actually fill the positions needed due to the size of the forces in general.   But, as was pointed out earlier, they don't have to come from combat arms trades.

I love this one though, 





> As well, officials worried that Canada's small military could not deploy elsewhere as long as a quarter of its forces remained in Afghanistan. The remainder are support staff or are undergoing training at various levels.


.  I didn't realize we had reduced the entire military to just 10,000.  No wonder people are overworked. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> OK,
> 
> We can do both. I volunteer. I volunteer for the roto to Afgh, or failing to get a position on that (_if we go to 2010_ - current mission expires in 2009), I volunteer to go to BC for the Olympics. I've never been to BC.
> 
> ...



Dont forget that a large portion of 5 GBMC was in Montreal as well doing security, Not just the CAR.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Dont forget that a large portion of 5 GBMC was in Montreal as well doing security, Not just the CAR.


Oh yes, and not just them. My father was also tasked to the 76 games....from his Navy Base in Halifax.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

I will re-iterate that the CF is not the tool -- beyond units that have a in Canada role already -- for this mission


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> First strike against that article is
> 
> When is this *logistics* officer going to learn to keep his mouth shut on operational matters? (If only I live so long)



Pardon the small sidetrack, and personal opinons of M. Drapeau aside, but I assume you did know that even Logistics officers attend Command and Staff College?


----------



## rmacqueen (20 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Pardon the small sidetrack, and personal opinons of M. Drapeau aside, but I assume you did know that even Logistics officers attend Command and Staff College?



Point taken, I stand chastised, my opinion of said person over rode my common dog.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I will re-iterate that the CF is not the tool -- beyond units that have a in Canada role already -- for this mission



OK I-6, I'll give you this one on second thought. 

So, perhaps the answer is....;

"Yes we can do both, but should we?"


----------



## Signalman150 (20 Nov 2006)

I was one of the Olympians back in '76...i.e. a reservist volunteering to serve as security. 

Based on what I remember of that, there will be A LOT of res people who might  be unable to commit to the 9-12 mos required for Afghanistan, but who would easily manage the 3-4 mos required for the Olympics in Whistler.  When I was with 2RCR in Montreal, the entire Regimental Police platoon wound up being res except for the sec cdrs and Pl WO.  The airborne, which is where I first wound up (in an ersatz Cdo comprised of the Eng Tp and the Arty Bty) had about a quarter of its strength fm reserves. 

More scare mongering by ex-soldiers who should know better, and media to quick to pick up on a non-story.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2006)

I was 8 months to young to do this, they hired lots of reserves for the 76 to deal with this, although I am not sure how good most of them would been. However planning a "surge" in the reserves to ensure decently trained reservists were available for 2010 would not be hard to do.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security field.

Deploying troops - specifically reservists - w/o a large weapon refresher (todays climate is much different than 76) is a potential accident in a DOMOP.
 And for what avail?

I consider this a method the Anti-afghan contingent is using to mobilize the pulbic -- fearmonger the public to demand the CF to "protect" the Olympics.

Remember the CF has JTF-2 for CT/AT roles
 What could a "surge" do other than form a outer cordon - for what an open event?
G8 was doable since it involved closed Red and Blue zones enclosing the site - with a restricted list of visitors.

The Olympics is none of those...


----------



## Signalman150 (20 Nov 2006)

Infidel,

I'm not interested in getting into a contest with you: you seem to have some reasons to want to keep the security at the Winter Olympics primarily in civ hands, and that's fine by me.  However...just to clear things up there's a couple of comments here (one by you) that are B.S.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I was 8 months to young to do this, they hired lots of reserves for the 76 to deal with this, although I am not sure how good most of them would been. However planning a "surge" in the reserves to ensure decently trained reservists were available for 2010 would not be hard to do.



The reserves that were in Montreal in 76 were just fine thank you very much.  During my first few weeks w/ 4Cdo we trained hard alongside the members of the regiment, and there was not a single incident that I'm aware of to indicate we weren't up to the job. When I went to 2RCR, we were put on the unglamorous job of walking perimeters around the practice soccer fields and the building where gymnastics practices were being held.  Again, things went smoothly, and the res people there did their jobs well.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security Deploying troops - specifically reservists - w/o a large weapon refresher (todays climate is much different than 76) is a potential accident in a DOMOP



Yeah the climate was so much better then back in '76....4 years after the entire Israeli team was wiped out by terrorists.  How's that again?  Our weapon's drills worked, they were adhered to and their were no weapons accidents involving Res Pers the entire time...(note: I specify PRes, because there WAS an accident during the Olympics, but not involving a Militia Plug). I guess what I want to say is...

quit talking out of your hat.  I don't mind if you object to CF providing the security, but don't create non-existent reasoning to do it.

Thanks.


----------



## armyvern (20 Nov 2006)

Well, '76 did also occur in Montreal shortly after the FLQ crisis as well on that note. It wasn't exactly a peaceful climate.


----------



## eurowing (20 Nov 2006)

If my memory serves me right we had about 120,000 regular forces in 1976. Army,Navy Air force combined.  I joined in 75 as a Gunner and happily spent 76-80 in Lahr.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think Lahr and Baden combined was about 3000.

The numbers today are much tighter when it come to doing more.  It has been said that the numbers could come from other trades instead of Combat Arms.  A lot of those other trades are "one deep", especially in flying units and the Air force will be full into it's lowest numbers of qualified personnel by 2010.  I think the Navy is in a similar boat.(sorry for the pun) 

Of course aircraft can be tasked to support the mission, but the Air Force would have very limited personnel assets to offer as "boots on the ground" for general duties etc


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

Signalman150 -- how often did you "roll" with a round chambered? -- 
72 Munich nor the 70's FLQ issue where not specific issues to the 76 Montreal Oylmpics.
Regardless IF something had happened it would not have been a CF only issue.

Realsitically - a hostage taking is a NLI incident and JTF-2's elelments will deal with it.
WMD - The NBC unit out of trenton.

either are already on call for anythign else in Canada

My point with keep the CF out of it is the CF - conventional side - is not equipt nor trained to deal with this sort of issue - PERIOD.


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Nov 2006)

Pardon the other sidetrack but do they make extensive use of vehicles and/or aircrafts in this kind of context.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Nov 2006)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> Pardon the other sidetrack but do they make extensive use of vehicles and/or aircrafts in this kind of context.



I'm sure that whatever is used, vehicules, aircraft or otherwise, for security or any plans DND may have isnt for public consumption.


----------



## Darth_Hamel (20 Nov 2006)

I think that this thread is overlooking a lot about the security needs for 2010. APEC was protecting 50 people in a remote location, 2010 is protecting several thousand people spread out over 3 urban centres. The Montreal Olympics were undertaken with a much larger army and in a culture which demanded far less security than today's [arguably paranoid] post 911 mindset.

The current planned CF contingent for 2010 is somewhere in the area of 5,000-10,000 troops, and 39 Bde would be hard pressed to supply 500 pers for a  month contract. According to their web site they may have around 2,000 soldiers on paper, but we all know how many boots on the ground that translates into in a reserve org.

The reality is that they will have to pull reservists from all across Canada and mobilize just about every available reg force pers that is in a field unit not deployed to have enough people. Then there are the enormous problems of feeding, housing and transporing a force that big.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Nov 2006)

Where do I sign up for TD for this?  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security field.



Neither of which limitation are a direct result of his being a "Logistics officer", which the original critic used to decry his lack of current expertise.

Outdated, misinformed, misquoted, or all three perhaps he may be, but it was not because he was Logistics, or because he was an officer.


----------



## Cronicbny (20 Nov 2006)

I think we're also overlooking the Marine Security aspect of all this. I'm not by any means a security expert, but one would think you'd want to be pretty sure what cargoes were on the dozens of container ships/bulk carriers coming in and out of Vancouver. While I won't speak to the ACTUAL requirement for us to do all sorts of boardings (or what have you), guaranteed someone is already looking at that as an option. Furthermore, there may be a small requirement for some Mine Warfare stuff?!

Just a thought.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2006)

The Navy and Airforce already patrols our seas and skies.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Nov 2006)

As usual, the "critics" are only telling part of the story and are taking things out of context.

A number of posters have alluded to the number of service personnel in the CF and comparing them to the number deployed in Afghanistan in an attempt to address the critics.

The actual answer isn't quite that simple.

Domestic operations, which the Olympics would be an example of, are not normally constrained by deployment considerations.  The amount of workup training is typically less, and operational waivers are not required.  Moreover, a much wider group of personnel can be used on domestic operations than could be employed on combat operations in Afghanistan - a theatre requiring very specific skillsets.  In other words, the "pool" of available personnel is much greater for the Olympics than for Kandahar.

Personally, I have little doubt that the Olympics will be a challenge.  However, it will be a "full court press", much as the G-8 was a few years ago.  Everyone will be "deployable" and everyone will be utilized - operational pace be damned.

I-6 is correct:  there are specialist elements that deal with specialized situations.  However, other posters have alluded to additional tasks, from logistics support, to port security, to air defence, to (as was done during the G*) manning of observation posts.  I have no doubt that the bill will be significant and that the entire CF will - in the end - be involved, despite attempts to manage expectations.

Frankly, without knowing exactly what the civilian authorities will (or have) requested, none of the commentators - Col (retd) Drapeau included - have the slightest idea what the impact on the military will be.  Besides, as was pointed out, is not our mission in Afghanistan to end in 2009?  :


----------



## John Nayduk (21 Nov 2006)

Maybe there is another plan here.  Could it be that the military and government are talking like things are very bad, manning wise, because they are looking at doing something outside the box and need the population to believe the move is necessary?  There is 15,000 reservists that no one seems to mention.  Please, no childish flame war over reg/reserve crap, we heard too much of that.  Why mention civilian contractors or mercenaries, but never a "call up" of the reserves?  Why take noncombat trade recruits and make theminto infantry when they already have a bunch of infantry trained reservists?  Conspiracy theory, perhaps.


----------



## TCBF (21 Nov 2006)

The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.


----------



## rmacqueen (21 Nov 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.


+1


----------



## Cronicbny (21 Nov 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.



+100000 LOL


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2006)

I have to agree with Teddy. Force generation for a domestic op is much easier than for a deployed op, especially a combat op in difficult environment like Afghanistan. An Op like the Games, where the military is usually very clearly in support, not the primary security provider, can use all kinds of CF resources, many of which we would think of as "non-deployable". Training requirements vary from no special trraining for some to moderate for most folks. As well, force employment periods for a domestic op like this are usually quite short, which makes it ideal for Res of all components. As long as this op is truly "joint", and we don't waste uniforms where LEA or competent contractors can be used, IMHO we should be able to generate the needed force.

Cheers


----------



## wannabe SF member (21 Nov 2006)

Does somebody has number on the size of the police force and/or the total number of reserve and regs in Vancouver?


----------



## pbi (21 Nov 2006)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> Does somebody has number on the size of the police force and/or the total number of reserve and regs in Vancouver?



Those figures don't really matter, because they aren't real limitations on anything. Using the G8 summit (OP GRIZZLY) as an example, or the Montreal Olympics (OPGAMESCAN) in 1976, the policing function will probably be led by the RCMP. Even if the Vancouver Police lead it, the RCMP will be a huge player, bringing in reinforcements from all over Canada. As well, (again using G8 and other dom ops as examples)  other provincial and major municipal forces from across Canada can be expected to contribute people (public order units, etc). As for the military, if it is a joint op (as it almost certainly will be under thte new CANADA COM structure...) then the entire non-deployed strength of the CF, Reg and Res, across all of Canada, will be the source for force generation. CF numbers will not be limited to what JTFP, or MARPAC, or 39 Bde can provide. 

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2006)

Holy, sounds like a discussion on staff college about DOMOPS, who does what for whom, etc etc.  Anyway, how long is the Olympics: two weeks?  If we cannot as a country host the Olympics for two weeks without redeploying our entire expeditionary force, then we, ladies and gentlemen, have indeed "jumped the shark" as a nation.

But, as others have said: no problemo.  Personally, I say contract out the security   Oh, and I'm pretty sure that the RCMP, Civpol and others will do the lion's share of 'stuff'.


----------



## hank011 (21 Nov 2006)

Glad I joined the Air Force and dont have to do anything dangerous. I have to get my car detailed this afternoon. Sure is hard being so short on personnel, we have a curling day tomorrow. Too bad about the manning issues in the Army...damn I spilled my coffee on my keyboard. I'm going home for the day...this is too stressful. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2006)

hank011 said:
			
		

> Glad I joined the Air Force and dont have to do anything dangerous. I have to get my car detailed this afternoon. Sure is hard being so short on personnel, we have a curling day tomorrow. Too bad about the manning issues in the Army...damn I spilled my coffee on my keyboard. I'm going home for the day...this is too stressful. ;D



And this bit of drivel is supposed to be.........what?     'Air Force' isn't going to make any difference when they start looking for 'desk jockey's' to screen people entering an olympic site.  It won't stop you from walking the perimeter of an Olympic site at 0300 hrs.  It won't stop you from serving food to Olympic athelets.  Get used to it.  You are just as likely to get a tasking as anyone else in the CF.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2006)

hank011 said:
			
		

> Glad I joined the Air Force and dont have to do anything dangerous. I have to get my car detailed this afternoon. Sure is hard being so short on personnel, we have a curling day tomorrow. Too bad about the manning issues in the Army...damn I spilled my coffee on my keyboard. I'm going home for the day...this is too stressful. ;D



This guy is the reason the AF gets a bad name.  Dont worry, we have lots of mission-focussed people to make up for him.  Good thing he is not in my unit......


----------



## hank011 (21 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And this bit of drivel is supposed to be.........what?     'Air Force' isn't going to make any difference when they start looking for 'desk jockey's' to screen people entering an olympic site.  It won't stop you from walking the perimeter of an Olympic site at 0300 hrs.  It won't stop you from serving food to Olympic athelets.  Get used to it.  You are just as likely to get a tasking as anyone else in the CF.


Maybe you missed the rest of the thread. The general idea is that the "Canadian Forces" is short of pesonnel because of Afghanistan. Last time I checked 90% of our deployed force is hard ARMY. The posts here seem to suggest that only an infantry platoon can accomplish security for the olympics, it is only a part of the package. The Navy and the Air Force will be used in any role so I totally disagree that we are understrength.
As for the "Air Force" part, it makes all the difference. The Army has its organizational structure and we are not a part of it. The 500 series trades in Tac Hel can attest to that. The Army excludes the other two elements at all costs.   
It also illustrates the absurdity of how numbers are calculated in the military. "Combat Arms" is not the same thing as "Army" or "CF" so just because we dont have enough infanteers doesnt mean we dont have enough personnel.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2006)

hank011 said:
			
		

> Maybe you missed the rest of the thread. The general idea is that the "Canadian Forces" is short of pesonnel because of Afghanistan. Last time I checked 90% of our deployed force is hard ARMY. The posts here seem to suggest that only an infantry platoon can accomplish security for the olympics, it is only a part of the package. The Navy and the Air Force will be used in any role so I totally disagree that we are understrength.
> As for the "Air Force" part, it makes all the difference. The Army has its organizational structure and we are not a part of it. The 500 series trades in Tac Hel can attest to that. The Army excludes the other two elements at all costs.
> It also illustrates the absurdity of how numbers are calculated in the military. "Combat Arms" is not the same thing as "Army" or "CF" so just because we dont have enough infanteers doesnt mean we dont have enough personnel.



Maybe you should spend some time in my squadron and come tell us we are not short of personel. Maybe your unit is doing just fine but i know that in my comunity, were are in the serious hurt locker for both 500 series and aircrew.


----------



## hank011 (21 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Maybe you should spend some time in my squadron and come tell us we are not short of personel. Maybe your unit is doing just fine but i know that in my comunity, were are in the serious hurt locker for both 500 series and aircrew.


As a former AVS tech I have seen both sides of that argument and I totally believe you. There are units however(that must go un-named) that run 24/7 on a 7-3 7-4 shift just to launch one plane a day. They do not have enough personnel as well but its because such a schedule requires five times as many people most of whom watch movies and sleep. No two units are the same.


----------



## dglad (21 Nov 2006)

Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics?  The exact numbers, skillsets, equipment, etc. required will depend on the security estimates done, and the plans developed therefrom.  There may be several thousand personnel required...or several hundred.  There will certainly be no request for more resources than the CF can provide.  Conversely, if and when the CF is committed, it will provide what it is tasked to provide.  And if that means pulling people from behind desks, wheels of trucks, or wherever, to do it, so be it.  As for transporting, feeding, and housing them...well, that's what we DO, no?  This really is mostly sound and fury, and probably originally a product of some fuzzy attempt to raise further concerns about the "impact" of the Afghanistan mission.

We'll be given a mission that's within our capabilities to deliver, and we'll deliver it.


----------



## KevinB (21 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics?  The exact numbers, skillsets, equipment, etc. required will depend on the security estimates done, and the plans developed therefrom.  There may be several thousand personnel required...or several hundred.  There will certainly be no request for more resources than the CF can provide.  Conversely, if and when the CF is committed, it will provide what it is tasked to provide.  And if that means pulling people from behind desks, wheels of trucks, or wherever, to do it, so be it.  As for transporting, feeding, and housing them...well, that's what we DO, no?  This really is mostly sound and fury, and probably originally a product of some fuzzy attempt to raise further concerns about the "impact" of the Afghanistan mission.
> 
> We'll be given a mission that's within our capabilities to deliver, and we'll deliver it.



+1 

Good post


----------



## midget-boyd91 (21 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics


I agree exactly. We have police to do jobs like this, it is one of the things that the police do.
Assuming that we will need to deploy in either BC, or Afghanistan does not make very much sense, we have had other major events happen in Canada in which we didnt need to pull troops from Afghanistan. A perfect example would be the 2003 BC forest fires.


----------



## hank011 (22 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics?  The exact numbers, skillsets, equipment, etc. required will depend on the security estimates done, and the plans developed therefrom.  There may be several thousand personnel required...or several hundred.  There will certainly be no request for more resources than the CF can provide.  Conversely, if and when the CF is committed, it will provide what it is tasked to provide.  And if that means pulling people from behind desks, wheels of trucks, or wherever, to do it, so be it.  As for transporting, feeding, and housing them...well, that's what we DO, no?  This really is mostly sound and fury, and probably originally a product of some fuzzy attempt to raise further concerns about the "impact" of the Afghanistan mission.
> 
> We'll be given a mission that's within our capabilities to deliver, and we'll deliver it.


It wont affect Afghanistan, thats just tabloid style headlines. We will be there for one simple reason...MONEY. We are slave labour to keep costs down. The last olympics, the G-8 summit, the ice storm, Manitoba floods(the stuff we are proud of). Every one was manned by CF personnel working side by side with people who are making overtime, double time, triple time whilst the CF member got honourable mention. You think they will pay overtime to an OPP officer when they can get an MP to do the same for free?
It may seem kinda negative but watching NB Power employees make 250-500 an hour alongside a CF lineman making 500 a week opens the eyes rather quickly. If you have stars in your eyes then you wont notice.


----------



## nsmedicman (22 Nov 2006)

AFAIK.....the RCMP has a recruiting problem of its own. They have a target of 2000 new members per year over the next 5 years, and are having problems meeting that quota. Also more members are retiring than they can replace. While they receive many applications, only a fraction of those actually complete the process for whatever reason. So, I don't know how much of a contibution that the LE community can make as a whole. I am sure that the RCMP, along with their provincial and municipal counterparts, can raise a sizable force, but I can't see it succeed without a significant contribution from the CF.

Just my opinion.....


----------



## dglad (22 Nov 2006)

hank011 said:
			
		

> It wont affect Afghanistan, thats just tabloid style headlines. We will be there for one simple reason...MONEY. We are slave labour to keep costs down. The last olympics, the G-8 summit, the ice storm, Manitoba floods(the stuff we are proud of). Every one was manned by CF personnel working side by side with people who are making overtime, double time, triple time whilst the CF member got honourable mention. You think they will pay overtime to an OPP officer when they can get an MP to do the same for free?
> It may seem kinda negative but watching NB Power employees make 250-500 an hour alongside a CF lineman making 500 a week opens the eyes rather quickly. If you have stars in your eyes then you wont notice.



Well, money is part of it, certainly.  But my experience with civil authorities is that they also believe that the military has an enormous capacity and is capable of heroic feats.  As a CO in LFWA, I was given the power to immediately provide unarmed assistance to civil authorities, on my own authority, where a clear and present threat to life and limb existed.  This fact made us immediately relevant to disaster planning in Thunder Bay.  At my first meeting with civil disaster planners, I was asked how many troops, trucks, tracked vehicles and helicopters I could get, and how quickly.  It took some true diplomacy to deflate expectations without also unduely deflating the opinion of the CF.  Even then, it was clear that the main interest of the mayor, police chief, fire chief, coroner, etc. was the availability of even a few dozen trained and disciplined soldiers, used to functioning efficiently in a structured chain of command and living for extended periods under austere conditions while working long, hard hours.  The hardware--the trucks, trailers, canvas, radios, etc. that we COULD provide--were also a major bonus to these planners who, aside from their usual emergency vehicles, didn't have much available.

So don't sell the civvies short on their genuine desire to tap into the capabilities offered by the CF, which are far from insignificant.  Now, I do hear you about the pay...but those who choose  to work with the CF, either as member of the Reg F, or a Reservist taking time away from a civ job to assist in dom ops, surely must be doing it for something more than the money....


----------



## pbi (22 Nov 2006)

Turn this pay thing around for a second. What about the members of a local volunteer fire dept, serving on the front lines in a disaster situation in their community, who are being paid very little or maybe nothing for day after day? Put them next to a platoon of soldiers. How do the civvies feel next to somebody who gets free meals, free medical care, free quarters, free transport to "the workplace", field operations allowance, and a pretty good paycheque to boot? If you look at it that way, doesn't it make this carping about those overpaid Quebec Hydro guys seem a bit selfish and weak? It's all relative. This paycheque envy is IMHO  pretty pointless and should really be beneath us. We are NOT poorly rewarded by any realistic standard (by "reward" I include all entitlements we receive, from medical care over and above Provincial Health to relocation costs to educational reimbursements to our allowances and our basic paycheques.) and we shouldn't winge about it.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## hank011 (22 Nov 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> Turn this pay thing around for a second. What about the members of a local volunteer fire dept, serving on the front lines in a disaster situation in their community, who are being paid very little or maybe nothing for day after day? Put them next to a platoon of soldiers. How do the civvies feel next to somebody who gets free meals, free medical care, free quarters, free transport to "the workplace", field operations allowance, and a pretty good paycheque to boot? If you look at it that way, doesn't it make this carping about those overpaid Quebec Hydro guys seem a bit selfish and weak? It's all relative. This paycheque envy is IMHO  pretty pointless and should really be beneath us. We are NOT poorly rewarded by any realistic standard (by "reward" I include all entitlements we receive, from medical care over and above Provincial Health to relocation costs to educational reimbursements to our allowances and our basic paycheques.) and we shouldn't winge about it.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> DJB


A good point except if we apply that theory to the 2010 Olympics(NGO to steal an acronym), why not just contract out to Erinys or Halliburton? The answer remains at money. The Federal contribution to the Olympics will invariably be in the form of security and they get better bang for their buck providing those of us who work on a "fixed income" than those who get paid overtime.


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

Quite frankly Private Security is not an option for securing of sites etc.

Companies could be hired to private security to individual athletes. From a Canadian PMC perspective Alan Bell's Globe Risk is the only real option for PSD for athlete's.

However in the grand scheme a PMC (Erinys is not a good example) would have to contract TCN's (Third Country Nationals) to keep costs down -- look at Triple Canopy in Iraq (Philipino's, El Salvadoran etc.) the result is a questionable mismatch of personnel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Nov 2006)

Sounds like a job for the Gurkha's national ski team!!  ;D


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

LOL -- but seriously an Armed Force -- especially a Foreign force is not the answer to the Olympic security issue.

Canada is NOT a Police State -- despite what Jack Layton and other seem to be intent on creating


----------



## wannabe SF member (22 Nov 2006)

> but seriously an Armed Force -- especially a Foreign force is not the answer to the Olympic security issue.



You don' expect the Vancouver police and the RCMP to cover the entire event themselves do you?


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2006)

Your missing the entire point.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Nov 2006)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> You don' expect the Vancouver police and the RCMP to cover the entire event themselves do you?



Seriously...?  They should - but can't.


----------



## safeboy43 (23 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Seriously...?  They should - but can't.


Many thanks to the Liberal government for under funding the RCMP  :threat:


----------



## Haggis (23 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Quite frankly Private Security is not an option for securing of sites etc.
> 
> Companies could be hired to private security to individual athletes. From a Canadian PMC perspective Alan Bell's Globe Risk is the only real option for PSD for athlete's.
> 
> However in the grand scheme a PMC (Erinys is not a good example) would have to contract TCN's (Third Country Nationals) to keep costs down -- look at Triple Canopy in Iraq (Philipino's, El Salvadoran etc.) the result is a questionable mismatch of personnel.



I seriously doubt that government would condone armed foreign nationals employed by non-state entities (i.e a private firm, as opposed to a "federal" law enforcement or military organization which could be legally allowed to be armed in Canada under a Status of Forces Agreement) providing security for Olympic venues or participants.  The legality of any potential use of force scenarios, for one, would be a huge concern and a public relations nightmare.  Picture this in the National Post:  PERUVIAN OLYMPIC SECURITY DETAIL KILLS CANADIAN AT WHISTLER


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Nov 2006)

Hmmm, depends on who they whack... 8)


----------



## hank011 (23 Nov 2006)

...and as luck would have it, every force has its own training system. This means no quick fix for them as they have to train them all over again in Regina. I saw what happened when they absorbed the Townies in Nova Scotia. It took many years before they weeded out enough "good ol' boys" to start making arrests again. 
It's going to take many years at the rate they recruit and train to catch up to the retirement rate let alone expand to anything more than just a token force. Every town I've lived in recently barely has enough staff to cover the phones, if you need anything you have to make an appointment. 
At one time the rarest sight in Canada was an RCMP officer's butt, cause they never got out of their cruisers. Now its the RCMP themselves that are rare.


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that government would condone armed foreign nationals employed by non-state entities (i.e a private firm, as opposed to a "federal" law enforcement or military organization which could be legally allowed to be armed in Canada under a Status of Forces Agreement) providing security for Olympic venues or participants.  The legality of any potential use of force scenarios, for one, would be a huge concern and a public relations nightmare.  Picture this in the National Post:  PERUVIAN OLYMPIC SECURITY DETAIL KILLS CANADIAN AT WHISTLER



Haggis -- I agree 100% with you ---

 I was meaning unarmed security from Globe Risk (and FWIW Firms can be legally armed in Canada...)
  BTW some of the Foriegn Security details will be armed and covered by a Diplo passport.


----------



## nova_flush (23 Nov 2006)

Why will the Olympics be a problem in 2010? I remember in September went I went back to my unit, they made me sign a paper asking me if I'm willing to be deployed to Vancouver in order to assure security for the 2010 Olympics (I’m a reservist btw). We have the reserves to ensure back-up for domestic security, I say start training the reserves and a little bit of regs and we are good to go.


----------



## Haggis (23 Nov 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I was meaning unarmed security from Globe Risk (and FWIW Firms can be legally armed in Canada...)



True, as long as all the requirements of the enabling legislation (i.e. in Ontario the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act and the federal Firearms Act) are met by the firm and it's employees.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> BTW some of the Foreign Security details will be armed and covered by a Diplo passport.



.. and a SOFA as they are usually "agents of the state".  They will also be required to coordinate their efforts with the lead host nation agency and operate within very strict host nation ROE, diplomatic status notwithstanding.

My point is that the *final responsibility* for Olympic security must rest with the host nation security and law enforcement services.  In some countries the Armed Forces are an integral and pervasive part of that service.  In Canada, the Armed Forces provide a complementary and supplementary capability to the public security institution.... a force of absolute last resort. 



			
				nova_flush said:
			
		

> I remember in September went I went back to my unit, they made me sign a paper asking me if I'm willing to be deployed to Vancouver in order to assure security for the 2010 Olympics (I’m a reservist btw).



Good on your unit for being proactive but the CF hasn't been asked/tasked to provide support yet.  Secondly, if you get a high paying civvy job 18 months from now and release, is that paper you signed still binding?  I doubt it.  



			
				nova_flush said:
			
		

> We have the reserves to ensure back-up for domestic security, I say start training the reserves and a little bit of regs and we are good to go.



The Reserve (all of 'em, not just Army) will be made available to planners if/when appropriate.  Until the CF receives a request for assistance, we do not know what tasks to train for.  Again, jumping the gun a bit, I'd say.


----------



## nova_flush (23 Nov 2006)

We should ask the liberals in their next debate what is their plans for the army and how are they planning to handle the 2010 situation. They are currently in their race for leadership so it is a perfect time to see what they are willing to do to handle the situation. It is becoming tight between the liberals and the conservators and they might be the ones in power when big decisions need to be taken concerning the army and the 2010 Olympics.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (23 Nov 2006)

Ok no where in there did I read about specific roles for security so obviously nobody took a look at the news a couple days ago.
In a CTV article http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061120/oly_security_061120/20061120/ it is the RCMP's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team that will head the security for the olympics in which it will include the Vancouver Police, CSIC, RCMP, Transport Canada, and members of the CF. 
Plus I know a lot of members from 39CBG would love to provide security for the games considering housing would not have to be provided for most of the brigade members considering this is our back yard. A little bit of extra training to make sure no mishaps occur and what is the problem with using reservists? Plus, would people really like the idea of us walking around with chambered rounds? why not just go to the load but not ready?
Just my two cents.

Dan


----------



## Haggis (23 Nov 2006)

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Ok no where in there did I read about specific roles for security so obviously nobody took a look at the news a couple days ago.
> In a CTV article http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061120/oly_security_061120/20061120/ it is the RCMP's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team that will head the security for the olympics in which it will include the Vancouver Police, CSIC, RCMP, Transport Canada, *and members of the CF*.



Check your source.  The web article correctly states "and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)".   CF involvement is not mentioned in that paragraph but is pure speculation by the NDP member Dawn Black and the journalist earlier on.



			
				Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Plus I know a lot of members from 39CBG would love to provide security for the games considering housing would not have to be provided for most of the brigade members considering this is our back yard. A little bit of extra training to make sure no mishaps occur and what is the problem with using reservists? Plus, would people really like the idea of us walking around with chambered rounds? why not just go to the load but not ready?



Given adequate warning for *specific tasks*, along with time, resources and money for training, there is no problem with Reservists.  The problem is that the CF hasn't been asked/tasked YET!!  When (note that I didn't say "if") the time comes, the INSERT will make specific requests to the CF for personnel and resources which may or may not include portions of 39 CBG.  

This is all fear mongering by the NDP and the media.  This is all "pie-in-the-sky" stuff at this point.  Who knows what else will happen in the world between now and 2010 that will impact the 2010 games?  Maybe the Olympics will be canceled because AQ has nukes?  Maybe BC will slide into the ocean because of an earthquake?  Maybe we'll have an NDP majority who will gut the CF once again?  Maybe the Leafs will win the Cup?  Maybe Dubya will have his North American Union? (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/11/21/2433311-cp.html)



			
				Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> Does any body have an evaluation of the required manpower, material, money for the security of the 2010 Olympics?



No

Why?

*Because we haven't been asked to provide anything yet!!*

Maybe this?  Maybe that?  Maybe?  Geez!!!


----------



## rmacqueen (23 Nov 2006)

You can probably count on JTF2 being in the area during the Olympics, just like they were during the Commonwealth games in Victoria in 94


----------



## KevinB (23 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You can probably count on JTF2 being in the area during the Olympics, just like they were during the Commonwealth games in Victoria in 94


----------



## mercury (24 Nov 2006)

1976 Olympics was held in both Kingston and Montreal, I was employed in Task Force 2 HQ, Montreal.  Approximently 12,000 pers were deployed in both locations.  We did pre olympic exercises and spent six weeks in situ..


----------



## pbi (24 Nov 2006)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> You don' expect the Vancouver police and the RCMP to cover the entire event themselves do you?



I don't think any reasonable poster here suggests that they will have to. The point of argument that I support, and that makes sense based on domestic security ops I have been involved in, is that the CF will ;provide mostly "general supportt" and some specialized capabilities only where these can't be provided by civil authorities and contractors (who can, in some cases, probably work more cheaply than what DND would charge the Province in cost recovery) We might still be required to provide armed force beyond what the police can generate, but even that doesn't necessarily require that subtract any Army troops from Afgh. But anyway, what is the threat assessment? Is the CF even the right agency to guard against the peceived threat?

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2006)

Ruxted has weighed in.  Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is their take:

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/31-Doing-All-The-Jobs.html 


> Doing [All] The Jobs
> 
> The Ruxted Group is aware of a recent AFP report, reproduced at Yahoo Canada News and discussed at length in Army.ca, which suggests that DND and the CF cannot, simultaneously: help provide security for the 2010 Winter Olympics at Vancouver/Whistler; and continue the mission in Afghanistan. The article cites both Le Devoir and Colonel (ret’d) Michel Drapeau who suggest, respectively that: The dual tasking will be a “headache” for the defence department and military planners; and “It’s impossible to protect the 2010 Olympics and maintain forces elsewhere in the world, whether it’s Afghanistan or somewhere else … We’re already squeezed.” Ruxted believes the AFP article misrepresents the real situation.
> 
> ...



I agree with Ruxted: both _Le Devoir_ and Col (ret'd) Drapeau are exaggerating the problem - nearly, but not quite to the point of fear mongering.

This is not to minimize the problems which will materialize.  I expect the problems are already surfacing as, I hear on the *rumour* net that the organizing committee (VANOC) is already trying to use DND as a cost cutting service: asking DND to so jobs which can and should be done, for fees, by the private sector.


----------



## wannabe SF member (1 Dec 2006)

I stand admirative as once again the Ruxted group has answered questions i hadn't even though of yet ;D,

Thanks Edward Campbell


----------

