# Canada‘s role in NATO‘s War



## Argyll_2347 (13 Sep 2001)

Since NATO said that the war would conducted by them, what would Canada‘s commitment be? 

Would we send all reg force regiments and possibly reserves or would they pull a Gulf War?


----------



## Roko (13 Sep 2001)

It‘s hard to say what kind of a role we‘ll have.. it‘ll depend entirely on our leaders and what type of ‘war‘ is to be fought.. If it becomes a long, drawn out conventional war (which is not too likely, thankfully) then there will likely be a big comitement.. If it‘s a smaller war aimed solely at terrorists, we might not have too much of a role.

Nonetheless, some Canadians also died in the attack, so Canada should do something..

Canadians died in New York terror attack, says president of Canadian group


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Sep 2001)

Is it feasible to think that mobilization of the CF might be used as a bargaining tool in order to get Afghanistan/Pakistan to hand over the terrorists in their nations?  I mean, is it possible the Canadian government would use mobilization as a threat?  (In conjunction with other nations, of course, doing the same thing).

I really have no idea, which is why I am asking.


----------



## Gunner (13 Sep 2001)

I don‘t think you will see any large scale mobilization within Canada.  Our commitment will be focussed on existing units (or sub units) that will be used as part of a larger coalition force.  Unfortunately I think our contribution will be developed on navy and air force assets, vice,  warfighting army assets.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Sep 2001)

> Originally posted by Gunner:
> [qb]I don‘t think you will see any large scale mobilization within Canada.  Our commitment will be focussed on existing units (or sub units) that will be used as part of a larger coalition force.  Unfortunately I think our contribution will be developed on navy and air force assets, vice,  warfighting army assets.[/qb]




Same old, same old.  Considering our infantry is pretty much restricted to travel by foot, perhaps its just as well?


----------



## towhey (14 Sep 2001)

Some provocative thoughts...

"What if we held a war, and nobody came?"   An old joke rings true.  

Trouble is, who ya gonna fight?
... the terrorized, subjugated people of Afghanistan?
... the oppressed and impoverished Palestinians?
... the sick, diseased and starving Iraqi people?

Terrorists are few and far between... that‘s what makes them so powerful, so scary.  Governments are a handful of men.

For every terrorist or leader you target, you will have to risk killing someone‘s mother, someone‘s son, someone‘s husband, someone‘s daughter. someone‘s brother, someone‘s father, someone‘s wife.  For every one of these you kill, maim, starve, or impoverish... a dozen new potential terrorists are born... each, frankly, justified in hating an inhuman western power that killed their innocent loved ones without cause or care.

I want to beat the snot out of someone as much as the next guy.  I, too, believe that terrorism is an act of war, not a crime.  But, who are we going to fight?  

[ 14 September 2001: Message edited by: towhey ]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2001)

The above questions should not and will not (for me) even enter into it. If and when this comes together, I‘ll fight whoever I‘m told to with equal vigor.The old maxim applies here "Ours is not to question why, our is but to do and die". The time for questioning and second guessing are past. If your wearing green you have a job to do, plain and simple. Get on with it.


----------



## John Nayduk (14 Sep 2001)

I have to agree with Recceguy.  If you‘re wearing the uniform of our Armed Forces it is your duty to answer the call weather it‘s means going "over there" to fight or here for local defense.  We are facing a group that has shown it‘s ablity to strike where ever they feel and judging by the lastest news reports, it may not be over.  This is the time to show that all the money spent on your training hasn‘t been wasted and that you‘re not in a social club.


----------



## ender (14 Sep 2001)

I agree.
It‘s not our place to decide.  I made my choice when I signed up.  The army can be fun sometimes, but when all is said and done we have a serious purpose.  This is why we are here.
I don‘t want to go to war, especially the messy inconclusive kind that any fighting in Afganistan would bring. But ours is not to reason why.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2001)

>Is this a war that can be won?

This is an important question.  One of the traditional criteria for "just war" is that it not be a lost cause.

I think it can be "won" (ie. an aim achieved), provided we resolve to eliminate all terrorists and maintain that status.  We should not hope to achieve 100% results, but there is no requirement to do so.  Frankly, taking the offensive has to better than the unlikely hope that our defensive and security measures will always achieve 100% interdiction.  To paraphrase, the terrorist will always get through.  And the stakes have been raised - once something is shown to be possible, it is likely to be repeated.  What may have been thought to be "acceptable losses" of past years are no more.

An important phrase, I think, from elsewhere: we employ overwhelming, but not indiscriminate, force.


----------



## Disturbance (14 Sep 2001)

Part of the reason why we have to say any country involved is equally responsible is to invoke that fear in their peoples that "f,uck our innocent may get hurt with this one" and the gov‘t (should) then assist in getting the bad ashes out of their country (if they know whats good for them). And every gov‘t knows this, if they still refuse to help then like Bush said "you are either with us or against us".  

I just think of it like if I let some murderer hide out in my house and I see the whole city saying "Disturbance you s,hitpump if you dont give that f,ucker up then all 2 mil of us are gonna come in there and not only get him but your gonna get f,ucked as well" Well guys by all means come in and s,hitkick me if I dont give him up! Because the moment I refused to help I gave up any rights I had and just like the countries involved and harboring these f,ucks they become just as guilty as the t‘s involved. And yes towhey innocent people may get hurt and people not wanting to be invovled may get hurt but thats the risk you take in a time of war. A sick and diseased iraqi soldier with a rifle is just as a deadly as a healthy one. Another thing to remember is that this war will not be like the kinda of war we are used to, police and cia, fbi are going to play a major role, airstrikes and spec ops, if there are troops on the ground it probably wont be like one huge front but little pockets of troops scattered about. 

my brain hurts from last night so I will stop now.

Disturbance


----------



## Recce41 (14 Sep 2001)

Well
  i was on a Armerician army web sight and got bashed for being a Canadian. The our socalled friend from the south, blame us for it also. this was from fellow soldiers in the US. Those that know me, know Im from Windsor originaly and we travel across the boarder all the time.  Im not some far north Canuck wno hates the US. yes I have some thoughts! We were called an under country.We are a socialist state who lets criminals in etc etc. yes we have a let some in but everone has. Well as a soldier Ive served with a soldier from almost ever Nato country. Now im not to sure how to take an Americian. Any of you have a different or some view speak up. And our war maybe front and back.
            SGT J .    CD, CDS com


----------



## Roko (14 Sep 2001)

yeah, I‘ve seen some of that too.. This one yank thought Canada was largely to blame, and that we where harbouring them. When I told him they should bomb us, he said there was nothing to bomb, and that Canada had no army. At that point, all the Canadians got really annoyed with him, and he cowered off..

What so many yanks fail to realize is that it‘s American customs that let the terrorist in from Canada to the United states, not us... (and technically, by that logic, the stated harboured the terrorists too, in his stirct interpretation of the word)


----------



## RCA (15 Sep 2001)

Recce41: 
The US are a stung tiger and will strike out at anyone they believe responsible for their pain. Just like a mother bear. Eventually they will realize that we are on their side (hopefully by our actions.)


----------



## Recce41 (15 Sep 2001)

Well you might be right, But the British have losted 
just as many overtime by a IRA. Yes we lost also but there is 240millioin Americans to wave a flag. 
 In a way they did it to them selfs their foreign policys suck and never really take one side. then say sorry after. Look at Iraq when they supported them against Iran. Then kicked ***  because they were not the flavour of the month. We all feel for them. But you can pick flavours of the month when that flavour has been your favourt for a long time.
 Lest we forget other countrys that have suffered this kind of tragity. 
                    Sgt J.   CD,CDS com


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2001)

To be specific, individual Americans may lash out in different directions.  There is no "threshold of reason" test to comment on the internet.  Public opinion in the US ranges from attacks on innocent individuals and a desire to eradicate whole nations, to those calling for measured and reasoned response.

To those who criticize Canada‘s policies, the simple reply is that evidence is mounting that several of the terrorists resided in the US for several months prior to the attacks.  If blame is desired, there is plenty to go around.

The complex reply is to point out that we too value individual liberty and other basic human rights.  Our nations have differing priorities in this regard, but both sacrifice some essential security in order to have these rights.


----------



## Yard Ape (17 Sep 2001)

If Canada does not participate in a military effort, I forsee a trend similar to the Vietnam War.  Canadians will go south to serve in the US military.

  :fifty:   Yard Ape


----------



## McG (17 Sep 2001)

Looks like Canada will participate in a military effort . . .

*Canadian military awaits a plan and orders for possible action against terror*
JOHN WARD
Canadian Press
17 Sept 01

OTTAWA (CP) - A global campaign against terrorism could cost the lives of Canadian soldiers, sailors or flyers and may end up killing innocent civilians, the government acknowledged Monday. Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused in Parliament to guarantee that no civilians would be killed in an eventual confrontation with terrorism.

"There is nobody who can guarantee to anybody that there will be civilians who unfortunately might lose their lives in any operation," he said. "It would be naive to think so."

Defence Minister Art Eggleton said he foresees Canada playing a major role, even if such a campaign might mean dead Canadian soldiers, sailors or flyers.

"Nobody wants casualties," he said. "But that‘s the nature of conflict.

"It‘s not something anyone wants to see. But there are risks."

Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley said Canada is a fighting nation as well as a peacekeeper.

"Canada has a good reputation, we trade on that reputation in the world, but let‘s make no mistake about it: Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or a neutralist country.

"Canada has soldiers who are buried all over Europe because we fought in defence of liberty, and we‘re not about to back away from the challenge now because we think that somebody might get hurt."

While Parliament debated a motion of condolence over last week‘s terror attacks and while ministers spoke of potential casualties, others pleaded for a peaceful solution.

Outside the Commons, a handful of demonstrators strummed guitars and sang Give Peace a Chance.

"I think we have to be very careful about what we do," said Nancy Bayley of Verona, Ont. "The answer is not to declare war, the answer is to look at the causes of this terrible thing and to address those causes rather than just going out and blindly attacking with more violence."

Eggleton said Canada will stand with its allies.

"I think we‘re going to play a major role, a front line role, just as we did in Kosovo, just as we are doing now in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. We‘re going to do as much as we can."

Eggleton said he‘ll ask the treasury for more money if he needs it. He doesn‘t know if he‘ll have to, because no one yet knows what form Canadian participation will take.

Finance Minister Paul Martin said the money will be there if needed.

Canada‘s role in the coming campaign remains uncertain because there is, as yet, no plan for what Eggleton calls "an intensive campaign against terrorism."

"We will determine what the needs are, what is going to be the campaign plan, what are the needs, what is Canada capable of contributing."

Canada has many assets it can bring to the fight, from CF-18s to intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Analysts say the most obvious contribution to a conflict would be the fighter-bombers currently based in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que.

The twin-engine jets, which last flew over Kosovo in 1999, can drop laser-guided bombs and fire TV-guided Maverick missiles.

To deploy overseas, they would need to borrow a tanker plane for air-to-air refueling. Canada retired its tankers after the Gulf War.

The air force could also provide some tactical transport in the form of C-130 Hercules planes.

Lew MacKenzie, the retired general who won fame in Sarajevo a decade ago, said the Forces could probably scrape up a battle group of 1,400 or so fairly quickly.

"I don‘t think that there will be a requirement, other than tokenism, to respond in the immediate future because all of the polls in the United States indicate that the target has to be defined before we start going after people," he said.

The navy could contribute a flotilla of frigates and perhaps a destroyer with a supply ship.

Canada has a limited domestic anti-terrorism capacity in the form of Joint Task Force Two, a shadowy unit of about 200 to 250 people based at Dwyer Hill, just outside Ottawa.

The unit trains for hostage rescues, has provided bodyguards for politicians visiting trouble spots and took part in joint police-military security operations at events such as the 1995 G-7 summit in Halifax.

It was formed in 1993, when the army took over the RCMP‘s counter-terrorist function. It can‘t be compared to a special operations units like the British Special Air Service or the American Delta force, which are trained to operate in enemy territory. 

Eggleton said this is likely to be a long campaign, with less emphasis on conventional war-making capacity and more on the political and economic fronts.

"It‘s a long-term fight," MacKenzie agreed. "There‘s the shutting down of training areas, isolating governments that support terrorism, cutting off the money-laundering and things like that."


----------



## enfield (18 Sep 2001)

Interesting article, but it has a number of inconsistencies and misses a lot. Whoever wrote that JTF-2 can‘t operate in enemy territory may want to head back to the research table. 
Can Canada move those 1,400 troops and vehicles, and insert them tactically or rapidly? Nope. Could we supply them in a war in Afghanistan? Maybe, but it would be very hard. If we start losing LAV‘s or CF-18‘s (or guns, or whatever) can we replace them quickly? Doubtful. Plus, any contribution we make pales to almost insignificance beside what the US and the UK can deploy. If we try really really really hard we can put 1400 soldiers in theatre. Great - Uncle Sam has the entire 82nd Airborne sitting in aircraft right now.

But, personally, I‘m convinced this war will be different than all others. Conventional forces are next to useless -afterall, like Towhey said, who are you going to fight? Air strikes are of limited use - only a matter of days until there are simply no more substantial targets left in Afghanistan. I see massive law enforcement, intelligence, and maybe some special operations as the tools of war this time. Unless a "real" - ie, Iraq, Iran, Libya, a nation that deserves the word "nation state" gets involved, there will be no tanks and guns 
In this war, Canada Customs is probably more important than the PPCLI.


----------



## Jungle (20 Sep 2001)

Well, having watched the news tonight, i see the US is deploying 3 divisions to the operational area: the 101st Airborne (air assault), the 82nd Airborne and the 10th Mountain. The British are talking about deploying "commandos" (Royal Marines), and possibly elements of the 24th air assault Bde. It certainly looks like nobody is going in with "heavy metal"... it will be a "special forces" war, fought with paras, marines and light, air assault infantry. It will be long, with plans going over the next ten years... So i ask: what will Canada do ? Send the Airborne Regt ? TOO LATE !!! The light inf Battalions ? They are not trained in special ops... and are more worried about dismantling than fighting wars. We made a big mistake 6 years ago, and now we will pay for it... I hope this will be a "wake-up call" for the govt, and actions will be taken to restore our military. And yes, i am still A PROUD CANADIAN !!!


----------



## Roko (20 Sep 2001)

The statement that Canada is a fighting nation in that article doesn‘t seem to be true considering what we‘ve been doing to our military... But, I hope something is done.. If not only to improve the military for a combat role, but also to help improve and our peackeeping abilities too.. I‘m really proud that Canada has been a part of every peacekeeping mission since they began...


----------

