# Can Canada provide a Divisional HQ?



## charlesm (15 Jun 2006)

As posted in canda.com 

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=7d8f7b30-bc62-4f8e-a982-a87a02580403&k=70461


Terry Pedwell, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, June 15, 2006 
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada will boost its troop strength in Afghanistan should it take over command of NATO forces in the country as anticipated, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. 

O'Connor has told NATO that Canada wants to assume control of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) after it takes over operations in southern Afghanistan from the United States. 

"Canada's interested in commanding ISAF in '08," O'Connor said Thursday after meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Ottawa. 

"Canada is more than able to command ISAF." 

O'Connor said about 100 additional military personnel would be required for command operations, in addition to the 2,300 soldiers currently taking part in the Afghan mission. 

NATO is to begin taking over military operations in and around violence-plagued Kandahar province by mid-summer when the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom moves to a new phase. 

NATO is expanding its force to 16,000 from 9,700 by late July, effectively doubling international troop numbers in the southern region which was the Taliban's heartland. 

While it hasn't been decided which country will lead the force after next year, Canada is seen as the strongest contender for the job. 

ISAF, which is controlled by NATO, now operates in a peace-building and reconstruction capacity in the Afghan capital, Kabul and areas north. 

It will act more like a combat force if needed, however, in the southern regions, suggested de Hoop Scheffer. 

"When NATO takes over in the course of this summer, you'll see of course those ISAF forces . . . busy in dealing with reconstruction and development," he said. 

"But at the same time, the message to the spoilers, be it Taliban, be it drug lords, be it warlords, whatever, will be a very stern and strong message: 'You will be dealt with very robustly, if necessary."' 

Canadian soldiers are among more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces which began a massive anti-Taliban operation across southern Afghanistan Thursday. 

Dubbed Operation Mountain Thrust, it is the largest offensive since the 2001 invasion that toppled the former Taliban regime. 

The offensive is part of a major push to squeeze Taliban fighters responsible for a spate of ambushes and suicide attacks against coalition forces and Afghan authorities in recent months. 


  Is it just 100 more persons to move from a Brigade HQ to a Div HQ?

  Who would do it since we no longer have a Div HQ?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jun 2006)

We commanded ISAF AND a Brigade in Afghanistan in 2003/04.  Remember that HQ ISAF isn't 100% from one nation.  Instead, one nation provides the "lead" while the rest of NATO fills the "crisis establishment".  That is certainly the case here.


----------



## GAP (15 Jun 2006)

I would think that the command of ISAF would be a great experience and opportunity for the up and coming cadre of officers. This would allow Hillier and company to give the fast movers some operational experience. IMHO


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

well............. I guess we can send em Gen Leslie to lead the Division and he can take over as CDS when he's done


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Jun 2006)

O'course we could. The only thing we have absolutely no shortage of in the army is staff officers...... :warstory:


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jun 2006)

We pretty much still have a DIV HQ down in Kingston.  It just has another name, one it took on after 1st Cdn Div was stood down.


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The only thing we have absolutely no shortage of in the army is staff officers...... :warstory:



Heh, funny cause it's true.

What's the ratio of staff officer now compared to what it was 30 years ago again (I honestly don't remember, but I do remember reading a while back that during the 90's when the foces were downsizing the number of generals actually went up significantly)?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jun 2006)

> Heh, funny cause it's true.



And you'd know how?

You're all dismally wrong.  We DO have a serious shortage of qualified staff officers and the new JTFHQs are severely undermanned as a result.  We're sending barely qualified people to staff positions that they don't have the experience or expertise to fill, merely because the people aren't there.  This is a disaster in the making.  

The idea that we have bloated HQs from which to draw staff is a dangerous myth that's been perpetuated even after the massive cuts in the mid-90s.  The Joint HQ was essentially broken up to help man CEFCOM - there's nothing even resembling a Div HQ anywhere in the Army now.


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

the various JTF regional HQs have also stripped the competent & available reserve Junior staff officers & Senior NCOs from their units... creating some serious staffing problems for the summer Area Rank and trades schools.  While the CF is allegedly pushing to "grow itself" .... we're stripping away the resources needed to do the building with.

Interesting problem = isn't it?


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

Hmmm.... anyone remember what Cdn Officer replaced Gen Hillier as 2IC of the American IIIrd Corp in Iraq?

Polish name if memory serves me well.............


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jun 2006)

MGen (now LGen) Walt Natynczyk


----------



## geo (15 Jun 2006)

Yup............ that's the man.
well ....he's got experience as the Number 2 man of an Armoured Corps.
running a Division will be a snap..... 

mind you, most area commanders are +/- division commanders already.
(Div = anything more than 1 Bde).....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> And you'd know how?
> 
> You're all dismally wrong.  We DO have a serious shortage of qualified staff officers and the new JTFHQs are severely undermanned as a result.  We're sending barely qualified people to staff positions that they don't have the experience or expertise to fill, merely because the people aren't there.  This is a disaster in the making.
> 
> The idea that we have bloated HQs from which to draw staff is a dangerous myth that's been perpetuated even after the massive cuts in the mid-90s.  The Joint HQ was essentially broken up to help man CEFCOM - there's nothing even resembling a Div HQ anywhere in the Army now.



There wasn't in 1914, either...dare I bring up the Militia Myth?


----------



## couchcommander (15 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> And you'd know how?



CBC told me! They're never wrong!



> The idea that we have bloated HQs from which to draw staff is a dangerous myth that's been perpetuated even after the massive cuts in the mid-90s.  The Joint HQ was essentially broken up to help man CEFCOM - there's nothing even resembling a Div HQ anywhere in the Army now.



Hrm... well maybe only occasionally 

*edit* Seriously though, it was a while back, maybe 2000 that CBC did a small bit saying that the number of general officers in the army had actually increased from historical levels despite the fall in the number of troops. I take it they were wrong in this?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Jun 2006)

There's a difference between a general and a "staff officer", although the terms are not mutually exclusive.  A staff officer can be of any rank (including - recently - senior NCOs).

Canada has had a higher percentage of generals than other nations for quite a long time.  After the media got hold of it in the mid-90s, the number of generals was reduced, but (partially) because we allocate general officers to Allied and International HQs, the numbers are still high.

As part of the "HQs are evil" drive in 1996/7, Army Area HQs were reduced by 50% even though responsibilities have increased - particularly with the standup of the new JTF HQs and the new operational commands.  Further, as geo points out, personnel needed for the staff are generally more experienced and senior and are also required at the units and schools.

The result?  A feeding frenzy as everyone goes after the same limited pool of talent.  Ideally, staff officers are more senior, with significant field/operational experience.  They almost have to be to be effective, as they'll do the actual planning of operations at anything above the tactical level.  Indeed, in some armies (the German springs to mind) being selected as a staff officer is considered to be an honour and reflective of one's abilities.  Such is not the case in Canada...


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Jun 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Such is not the case in Canada...



I would have agreed 100% ten years ago, but I have seen this changing, especially since 2002.  Slowly, but changing...


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jun 2006)

you guys did notice my little smiley-helmet-head-clear-the-decks-for-action guy, didn't you?


----------



## pbi (16 Jun 2006)

I second Teddy's points. Canada has alreday provided the backbone for ISAF once before: ISAF V. I got there just after ISAF VI took over, and was employed as the ISAF LO to CJTF76 Although ISAF VI was a disgraceful shower of ****, ISAF V was very well remembered by the US CJTF. The Dep Comd of CJTF76 commented to me that when "Rick Hillier and the Canadians" were running ISAF "a least it had a backbone". As Teddy pointed out, we would fill the key positions and provide the structural stuff like the Sig Sqn, but there will be allied officers and WOs/NCOs as well. We are more than capable of doing this: we already have a good cadre of  officers with command and senior staff experience from Afghanistan, including Gen Leslie, Devlin, Semianiw and others.

As far as I know, the Div HQ "morphed" into the "CF Joint Ops Group" a while ago, and has since been pretty well picked over to man the new Op HQs. I don't know what is left but whatever it is is certainly not a "div HQ". And, anyway, ISAF is not a deployable tactical HQ: it is a static regional HQ that has some mobile elements under its command. It would be great if we had a Div HQ to form the backbone of the HQ, but as long as the HQ staff can be gathered together and trained as a team early enough, and there is a strong COS with good staff branch heads, it should work.

MGen Natynczyk was not really "the" Deputy Comd of  the Corps in Iraq: he was the DComd for Support. US major formations usually have two DComd: one for Ops and one for support. Still, it was a huge job: he commanded a force of several brigades worth of MPs, Engineers, CSS, Sigs, etc, with the very difficult task of keeping everything moving and shooting all around Iraq. His CSS troops were very often the targets of attacks, and his MPs fought a lot of engagements in their force protection role. He gave us an excellent presentation here at CFC last year. I believe MGen Matt McDonald (also Armoured-former Comd 2 CMBG) is down there in the Corps billet now.

Teddy is right about the staff officer shortage. This has been developing for several years now (even after we slashed the Army Area HQs) and HQs have been running on very weakly manned establishmens for a while. It shows. In order to fill the billets of the new Op HQs (CANCOM, CEFCOM, CANOSCOM, CANSOFCOM) and the new regional JTFHQs, we are short around 700 staff. While you can certainly employ "any" officer in some staff positions, the really key slots require experienced folks with staff training such as the Army delivers at Kingston, or the CF delivers here at CFC. I can assure you that an effective, capable staff, well-led by a strong COS, makes a huge difference to a commander. I've seen excellent staffs and shyte staffs: the former can make things easy for everybody-the latter just makes it all hell.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jun 2006)

Hillier, Natynczyk, and Macdonald all left the RCD and went to Ft Hood one after the other in the late 90's and early 2000's.  Macdonald is in Brussels (or just returning from there).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Jun 2006)

I believe it is BGen Peter Devlin down south right now, but will stand corrected.


----------



## couchcommander (16 Jun 2006)

What type of manpower is required to man a modern Div HQ anywho?

My experience, as I've pointed out, is largely soviet.. so I suspect it is slightly different (i.e. the Canadian version of a Brigade HQ isn't a pair of KS-12 AA guns, a staff car, and ~250-300 signal/engineer/chemical/generic staff stuffed into the back of some trucks)?


----------



## geo (16 Jun 2006)

Devlin is in Ft Hood with 3rd corps.

Matt McDonald............ isn't he PPCLI? or was there a 2nd Matt McDonald.
The PPCLI one had a short fuse and was also known as "Cap'n Chernobyl"


----------



## Gunner (16 Jun 2006)

BGen Matt MacDonald is an RCD.


----------



## geo (16 Jun 2006)

whew..................

thank god!!!!!

Had me scared for a moment!!! REALLY SCARED!


----------



## pbi (17 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> What type of manpower is required to man a modern Div HQ anywho?
> 
> My experience, as I've pointed out, is largely soviet.. so I suspect it is slightly different (i.e. the Canadian version of a Brigade HQ isn't a pair of KS-12 AA guns, a staff car, and ~250-300 signal/engineer/chemical/generic staff stuffed into the back of some trucks)?



 The question really depends on the country and the type of division. For example, even in the US you will probably find a big difference between the HQs of (let's say...) an ARNG Inf Div, an Active Army division under the new structure,  one under the old structure, and a USMC  Div.

IIRC both the UK and the US have taken a hard look at whether or not the Div should continue to exist as we have always known it, or if it should be replaced by more powerful brigades, or consist of an HQ and some core units, with the rest being "plug and play". Also, under the more joint type of ops that we tend to conduct today, the div HQ may be only the core of a larger JTFHQ. This is how it was with CJTF76 in Afgh (2004/2005): the backbone of the HQ was the Div HQ of 25 Inf Div (Lt), but there were contingents from all of the other services, allies, etc. making it (C)ombined and (J)oint.

A rough guess would be several hundred people split into two or three HQ (Tac/Main/Rear)echelons, plus a communication/HQ support unit and a HQ security unit/sub-unit.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Matt McDonald............ isn't he PPCLI? or was there a 2nd Matt McDonald.



Ah Ha!   Caught you not reading the posts.  (Up three....#18)   ;D


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jun 2006)

For ISAF HQ, don't forget to add a couple of staff to look after the bunnies in the garden.  You can't swing a dead cat in there without hitting three or four Cols of different nations.  Not that I would ever advocate swinging a dead cat at a Col.

2B

p.s. Multi-national HQs get pretty huge pretty quick.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jun 2006)

Or one of seven Generals...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jun 2006)

The entourages that accompany Generals make it hard to have much effect swinging a dead cat at them.  

In all seriousness (now that my credibility is shot), I figure that Canada could go as lead nation for ISAF HQ.  As others have said, we've done it before and we wouldn't be staffing the whole shot.  You can't swing a dead cat in Ottawa without hitting three or four Jimmy officers needing employment somewhere...

2B


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jun 2006)

pbi said:
			
		

> The question really depends on the country and the type of division. For example, even in the US you will probably find a big difference between the HQs of (let's say...) an ARNG Inf Div, an Active Army division under the new structure,  one under the old structure, and a USMC  Div.
> 
> IIRC both the UK and the US have taken a hard look at whether or not the Div should continue to exist as we have always known it, or if it should be replaced by more powerful brigades, or consist of an HQ and some core units, with the rest being "plug and play". Also, under the more joint type of ops that we tend to conduct today, the div HQ may be only the core of a larger JTFHQ. This is how it was with CJTF76 in Afgh (2004/2005): the backbone of the HQ was the Div HQ of 25 Inf Div (Lt), but there were contingents from all of the other services, allies, etc. making it (C)ombined and (J)oint.
> 
> ...



Very informative post, thanks a bunch. 

To get to the specifics, what would the organizational differences be between say the US 1st Armoured Division HQ deployed to Iraq and a Canadian manned ISAF HQ (org charts will be fine if that's easiest)?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jun 2006)

ISAF HQ from 2002 till 2005 pretty much had only one "manoeuvre" unit, namely the Kabul Multi-National Brigade (KMNB) with a fairly small AOO (area of operations).  ISAF has since expanded to incoporate "Regional Commands" of Afghanistan, and that expansion is set to continue in the near future (roughly 3/4 of the country will be under ISAF).

Both ISAF HQ and a US Division HQ (like CJTF-76 in Bagram) will have the usual staff branches (G1 for personnel, G2 for intelligence, G3 for operations, G4 for service support, G5 plans, G6 signals, G7 (training), G8 finance, G9 Cimic).  There will also be support staff for the commander and LOs from various organizaions.  The G2, G3 and G4 branches will be quite large, with the 3 shop probably being the biggest.  Two "static" Division level HQs will tend to be similar.  Division HQs conducting mobile operations will be a bit leaner by necessity.

In an multi-national HQ the positions will be spread among the contributing nations.  The lead nation will usually supply the staff principles, and the "backbone" of the branches themselves.  

The Brigade/Division debate is a good one.  For mobile operations, a Corps HQ with six or so maneouvre brigades has been discussed.  This "streamlines" command as long as the Corps HQ can manage the information.

For theatres like Afghanistan where you have a HQ covering the whole country and then two layers of HQs below then what you call them is, perhaps, a moot point.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jun 2006)

> For theatres like Afghanistan where you have a HQ covering the whole country and then two layers of HQs below then what you call them is, perhaps, a moot point.



Exactly.  HQ ISAF has, for example, often been based on a Corps HQ - EUROCORPS (   ), a Turkish Corps and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps have commanded in the past (the ARRC at present, in fact).  Similarly, CJTF-76 has been based on a US divisional HQ in the past - 10 Mountain, 25 ID, etc. - but SETAF formed the last TF HQ.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jun 2006)

I don't have my finger on the pulse of staff manning in Canada right now, but I figure that we could provide the backbone of ISAF HQ for a Roto.  As has been pointed out, we have in the past.  I imagine that ISAF HQ will be bigger in 2008 than in 2004, since it will have a much bigger area to worry about, so I'm not sure if we could also provide a "Bde" HQ at the same time like we did in 2004.  Still, a "surge" can be manageable.  We should also be spoiled for choice when looking for people with Afghan experience to fill the slots.

2B


----------



## McG (18 Jun 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> I don't have my finger on the pulse of staff manning in Canada right now, but I figure that we could provide the backbone of ISAF HQ for a Roto.


Maybe throw in some Bde/Div/Corps Tps with that?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jun 2006)

I was told the other day (from theatre) that the ARRC is even more bloated (personnel-wise) than previous rotations.  Having said that, they do have a bigger AOR to take care of, and I think it's safe to assume that a Canadian-led HQ ISAF would need about 1000 personnel, all up - particularly if NATO manages to take over the Southern Provinces on schedule.  As I said earlier, these would largely come from other NATO countries, with Canada providing the "lead", including the Commander.

As for Corps troops, ISAF didn't have any in 2005 (aside from dedicated signals and intelligence assets), although the force was surged a battle group-sized QRF at least twice IIRC.  The problem ISAF will have is to move from a PRT/Kabul centric mission to a more active one in the South.  That may require additional C2 and intelligence assets, a much more robust operations centre set-up, dedicated Canadian national comms and int, _potentially_ a dedicated QRF, _potentially_ dedicated ISAF-controlled CAS, a theatre-wide ASCC (plugged in with CFC-A) - on and on...

It could be done, but there'd be a significant challenge.  As 2B has pointed out, this won't be the ISAF of years past...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Jun 2006)

I figure that the HQ would number in the hundreds before counting LOs, force protection troops and the supporting sigs types.  I would then make a guess of around 200 Canadian personnel to form the backbone.  Most of these would be fairly senior, with a bill somewhat larger than one of our Bde HQs.  The HQ would have to stand-up rather early to gain any cohesion.  We don't have that Div HQ anymore (as mentioned above), and the remains got cannibalized to make Startop.

It first blush it could make sense to base it on a Bde HQ, but the ranks and structure aren't quite right. 

The ancillary stuff might pose some problems, considering we'd probably still have a Battle Group to mount and support as well.  That BG would most likely not be co-located with ISAF HQ.  Now that I mention it, however, what about keeping the Cdn BG as the ISAF reserve?  Use it to provide the QRF and surge into areas that are the Comd's main effort.  Everyone agree?  Good.  Approved.  Next question?

I'm now wandering well outside my lane.  Back to the beginning, we could do this given enough time to get it together and if we don't also have to provide a Regional Command or second line.  

Cheers,

TK


----------



## McG (18 Jun 2006)

I would not see an ISAF QRF in the cards.  The time & space issues would be too great in an emergency.  Each Bde/district needs its own airmobile QRF.  

I could see a deliberate striking force within the ISAF troops (maybe the ISAF counterpart to CJSOTF in CFC-A).

 . . . but I was thinking something like a CER as Bde or ISAF troops (shamelessly paving the way for my next trip to Afghanistan). 



			
				2Bravo said:
			
		

> ... we could do this given enough time to get it together and if we don't also have to provide a Regional Command or second line.


One could argue that there would be a second line but that it would be thrown in with the first in order to do this.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jun 2006)

> Now that I mention it, however, what about keeping the Cdn BG as the ISAF reserve?  Use it to provide the QRF and surge into areas that are the Comd's main effort.



This could be done (and I've argued somewhere else that regional QRFs combined with a national QRF is the way to go), but we'd need to be able to move it, as heliborne seems to me to be the only rational option.  Someone else does this, but OPSEC considerations unfortunately intervene in discussing it...

What you _might_ see, should we do HQ ISAF in 08, is the HR Bde HQ deploying, augmented by senior staff and additional assets from throughout the Army.  Our BG could stay on KAF, working for another nation's brigade (as we'd have ISAF anyway).  *shrug*  Watch and shoot, I suppose...

2nd Line is a combat team now, BTW...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Jun 2006)

Straying down the tangent a little further, a Kabul based BG with one light and two LAV companies would be a neat little ISAF Div reserve.  The light company would go on helicopters as a QRF, while the LAV company groups would be sent by the Comd to reinforce areas for specific operations.  I've been quite impressed with the "operational" mobility of LAV companies and their combat power once in an area.  Kind of like the ISAF "Fire Brigade."  

If they buy my CH-47s and AH-64s for the QRF in time we can make this work.  Hey, we could put the camp in SW Kabul.  I hear its nice there.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## pbi (18 Jun 2006)

IIRC, when I was with ISAF VI, the only "national QRF" it had existed during the Presidential Election surge, and was constituted out of temporary NATO reinforcements (a US Coy-size TF, a SP Mtn Inf Bn, an IT lt inf bn...I think that was about it for ground QRF.) There was a regional QRF up in ISAF NORTH, consisting of a composite lt inf coy (UK and NL, IIRC...) that was lifted by GE hvy lift hels as required. We also had UK Harriers, and NL F-16s and AHs.

CJTF76, on the other hand, relied heavily on air for its force-level QRF capability. There were surprisingly small ground troop elements located at BAF as the QRF, in an airmobile role, but AFAIK most of the reaction capability relied on AH/CAS. There was no US armour in Afgh, unless you count up-armoured HMMVWs. The Regional Commands (based on bdes or smaller orgs) probably had small QRFs, but the RCs were all tight on troops (RC West on the Iran border was based on a single Lt Cav Sqn) so it wouldn't have been much. What the US were relying on was speed and firepower, which was quite useful if the bad guys presented themselves to make a target, but not quite as useful if the enemy was wise to the use of CAS/avn.

Afgh is so huge (a Bde area can be 1,000s of sq km), and the transportation system so bad, that my suggestion would be to make any "national" QRF an airmobile light/mtn/commando style force, with the heavier elements being provided as (and if...) required from the Regional Bdes. Forget trying to move a national-level QRF by road. There is no armoured threat in Afgh, so almost everything you would need could be uploaded/slung, provided you have the right hels (and the right crews...and the right national caveats on their use...Ahhhh-national caveats......)

IMHO the drawback to an airmobile force is the flight restrictions in the winter and "Wind of a Hundred Days" periods: it can be almost impossible to fly in some areas. But then, this is always the restriction with avn-based forces: the flying conditions.

Cheers


----------



## geo (18 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah Ha!   Caught you not reading the posts.  (Up three....#18)   ;D



Hehe..... Quality control check.  I read it, just wanted to make sure.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Jun 2006)

The problem with helicopter QRFs is that once they are on the ground they are in a fair fight with the enemy and they are basically foot-borne.  

I would see the light company in CH-47s as the ISAF commander's tool to immediately influence events in a given area (reinforce a BG in immediate need of assistance).  The light company group would have 50s, 81mms and Mk19s.

The two LAV companies would be his ability to have greater influence in a given area needing stabilizing.  It would take a few days to get there, but once they are there they are engaging in an unfair fight.  They aren't going to fight the enemy's armour threat.  They are going to be the armour threat to the enemy.  A LAV company group is a pretty big dog round these parts.  They would go to a given province or district for a month, perhaps, or wherever the main effort is.

Cheers,

2B


----------

