# Ottawa mulls role in Afghanistan past 2011



## kilekaldar (18 May 2009)

Alright, having just come back from tour with the Battlegroup I'm a little confused by what MacKay is saying here. Is he saying that the Battlegroup mission with end but the PRT and OMLT/POMLT mission will continue past 2011? And he expects a reduction in combat and casualties with this?? Anyone who been outside the wire in Zhari and Panjaway knows that the OMLT and POMLT get into fights frequently while mentoring the ANA and ANP/AUP. They rely on the BG Infantry Coys, the "QRF" from MSG, and the Guns for protection. Does that mean we won't be mentoring outside the city? And with the BG gone will we be relying on US forces for the protection and fire support that the BG giving now? What happens when the Taliban start fighting inside the city?

According to CTV, MacKay said Canada is not interested in simply holding on to "swaths of land" in Afghanistan. This in nonsensical, the BG along with OMLT/POMLT hold FOBs and Strong Points, we patrol into areas from those pieces of Tactical Infrastructure to disrupt the enemy. We don't actually hold wide swaths of terrain, this is not WW2 when we had Divisions in the field that could do that. 
Is Mackay saying that these patrol actions, including the ones conducted by the OMLT/POMLT, will cease? Will the US forces be doing this instead? Will they take over the TI? Or is NATO withdrawing from Zhari-Panjaway and letting it go back to a pre-Medusa state when the Taliban held the ground?

I'm sure those of us with tours into that area, who lost coworkers and friends there would like to know what's going on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ottawa mulls role in Afghanistan past 2011
During visit to Kandahar, MacKay says there are several roles Canada could play in future, including delivering aid


COLIN FREEZE

Globe and Mail Update

May 17, 2009 at 11:51 PM EDT

KANDAHAR AIR FIELD — Canada may well stay in Afghanistan beyond its 2011 military mandate, said Defence Minister Peter MacKay today, as he left a NATO base in Afghanistan where Ottawa is planning to buy up hundreds more beds for next year.

As U.S.-led forces and the Taliban brace for what may prove the deadliest summer yet, Mr. MacKay said Canada's role is changing to delivering aid to city dwellers “rather than simply focusing on holding swaths of land.”

“I believe there are a number of roles Canada can play well into the future,” the minister said, capping off a three-day visit, but added that's subject to the will of the people. “We've said time and time we're going to respect Parliament's voice on this,” he said. “We can't come to Afghanistan and help them develop their democracy and not respect our own.”

Public documents tendered this month on a government website indicates Defence Construction Canada wants to buy 400 more beds at the Kandahar Air Field by next year, at a cost of $5-million, with an option to build 400 more. The documents don't state who the beds are for.
Related Articles

Under their current military mandate, which expires in two years, nearly 3,000 Canadians soldiers bunk down at this sprawling air base, now growing by leaps and bounds to accommodate an American surge. Thousands of U.S. soldiers are flooding into Kandahar and its environs, after U.S. President Barack Obama pledged to quell a growing Taliban insurgency with more firepower – and more aid.

During the past three years, Canada has tried to hold a sprawling, restive province with a rotating contingency of soldiers that amount to the size of one U.S. combat brigade. Outposts set up in rural regions outside Kandahar City have lately been pulled down as Canadian soldiers redeploy to major bases and to be stationed inside the city.

“Rather than simply trying to take property and hold it, we're trying to work into areas and bring that ‘whole-of-government' concentration,” said Mr. MacKay.

“The focus is on the population centres,” he said.

During his visit, the minister announced programs meant to thwart improvised insurgent bombs in Kandahar, as well as Canadian programs aimed at giving help to veterans.

He said Canada will continue to mentor Afghan police and soldiers, and “we're going to build the schools, provide the immunization programs, and work with organizations to get microfinance credit available.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made similar remarks as he visited the base earlier this month.

Civilian casualties caused by U.S. air strikes are emerging a major irritant between Washington and Kabul, prompting local lawmakers to make noises about passing stricter rules-of-engagement for NATO forces.

Canada's Defence Minister says his officials can help cool down the tensions, before the issue boils over.

“First and foremost, Canada is not engaged in air strikes,” said Mr. MacKay. “We obviously take great pains not to have civilian casualties in any instance.”

“But,” he added, “can Canada be influential in these discussions at NATO? Absolutely.”

“Can we work close with our allies and with the Afghan government to play a positive role and ensure that everyone is engaged in these efforts to protect the public? Yes.”

Afghan authorities are claiming that more than 100 civilians were killed by U.S fighter planes this month in southwest Afghanistan, as the Taliban took refuge amongst villagers following a firefight.

This was not an isolated incident, and civilian casualties caused by both sides have been climbing.

Mr. MacKay did not criticize use of U.S. airpower and added that the Taliban “doesn't play by any rules of engagement.”

“This is a very insidious type of warfare the Taliban has engaged in” he said, adding they “deliberately try to place themselves in populations and use human shields.”


----------



## VIChris (19 May 2009)

Not being a member of the CF, I'm obviously not privy to all the info. However, from what I gather from media reports, as well as conversations with a few CF members I know, it sounds like current personnel and equipment status dictates some sort of change in our role overseas. I figure the two options are to throw a bunch of tax dollars at the problem, train up more troops, fund more equipment, and push on. Or, the more likely option, is to let the Americans shoulder more of the burden if Afghanistan, and allow us to revise our role while we repair equipment, train a moderate amount of new personnel, and prepare for a longer engagement. I feel the second is more likely, as it will be a tough sell to garner more funds for increased operations at the moment. Also because I don't see things in Afghanistan coming to an end any time soon, so we should be preparing for a long haul in that country. 

So my questions then would be, what specific problems would be caused by allowing the Americans to take a larger role as the CF regroups, as mentioned in the article? Are there specific problems that come from having another country providing support for our troops? Are these arrangements not already somewhat in place? I'm just curious, and not trying to antagonize in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Tow Tripod (19 May 2009)

This is the first phase of the Canadian withdrawal or surrender. Either way you look at it 2011 can not come soon enough for the Government of Canada. Giving up Mushan and the other COPS is the start point of a gradual withdrawal and to be honest I have not heard exactly what the Americans intent is for the Zhari-Panjaway, Phusmul districts. I have an idea, one or ten tactical nukes from route Summit to the west would be OK by me then maybe we could hit the restart button. Sooner or later we will be handing out beds in Kandahar just like in Bosnia because that is what the Canadian public unfortunately thinks we are the best at.

Tow Tripod


----------



## willy (19 May 2009)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> This is the first phase of the Canadian withdrawal or surrender. Either way you look at it 2011 can not come soon enough for the Government of Canada. Giving up Mushan and the other COPS is the start point of a gradual withdrawal and to be honest I have not heard exactly what the Americans intent is for the Zhari-Panjaway, Phusmul districts. I have an idea, one or ten tactical nukes from route Summit to the west would be OK by me then maybe we could hit the restart button. Sooner or later we will be handing out beds in Kandahar just like in Bosnia because that is what the Canadian public unfortunately thinks we are the best at.
> 
> Tow Tripod



I hope that (someone in a better position to comment than me) can/will respond to the comments made above.  I, however, will suffice to say that you, sir, are a bit of a douche.

*edited to remove specific reference.


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2009)

willy said:
			
		

> I can only hope that Midnight Rambler decides to respond to this post.  His will be a more informed response than mine.  I will suffice to say that you, sir, are a bit of a douche.



OK, but just in case your spokesmodel doesn't show up, please feel free to take a try at explaining your opinion; I'm sure you could flesh out "bit of a douche" a bit more.


----------



## willy (19 May 2009)

Sure.  

Regarding the matter of "retreat": 

I'm still waiting for my "spokesmodel" to weigh in, as he's the SME on the topic so far as I'm concerned.  I will offer my _inexpert_ opinion in the meantime, which is that the decision had less to do with _retreat_ and more to do with a troops to task ratio.  

And on other matters:

I consider it self-evident that tactically nuking Z/P is a bit douchey.  Pls explain if I am incorrect in this assumption.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 May 2009)

willy said:
			
		

> I consider it self-evident that tactically nuking Z/P is a bit douchey.



Well, it would certainly be difficult to convince the world afterwards that you have good intentions and are trying to set the conditions for reconstruction. It may have been an exaggerated suggestion, but the _"kill 'em all, let God sort them out"_ approach is definitely counter-productive.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 May 2009)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> This is the first phase of the Canadian withdrawal or surrender. Either way you look at it 2011 can not come soon enough for the Government of Canada. Giving up Mushan and the other COPS is the start point of a gradual withdrawal and to be honest I have not heard exactly what the Americans intent is for the Zhari-Panjaway, Phusmul districts. I have an idea, one or ten tactical nukes from route Summit to the west would be OK by me then maybe we could hit the restart button. Sooner or later we will be handing out beds in Kandahar just like in Bosnia because that is what the Canadian public unfortunately thinks we are the best at.
> 
> Tow Tripod



Couldn't agree more.
Thought I was the only one on the forum with who thought like that.



			
				willy said:
			
		

> I can only hope that Midnight Rambler decides to respond to this post.  His will be a more informed response than mine.  I will suffice to say that you, sir, are a bit of a douche.



Why?A PPCLI with 19 years in,I'm guessing he has been there.While his setiments about tacnuking West of the fob's is what I would consider "black humour" is felt by most who have been in there.While I believe total saturation of the area is a more humane COA.

Please tell me your journeys through that area willy.


----------



## willy (19 May 2009)

X-Mo: Since you've asked, I will send you a PM which details my experience with the subject.  I don't pretend to be the absolute SME.  However I considered the "tactical nuke" response, whether black humor or not, to be in bad taste.  

* edited to remove reference to another member.


----------



## 40below (19 May 2009)

Not an expert, but I was able to ask these very questions to B.Gen Thompson, the ROC, ambassador Hoffman and others when I was over there a few months ago - it's nice that PRT and OMLT and the even more dangerous POMLT continue to be a reconstruction priority but how do you do force protection without a battlegroup in place because they can't function without it? 

Nobody, from corporals or colonels that I talked to really believes we're leaving - I remember a cpl saying to me at a FOB that there would be a Wal-Mart in downtown Kandahar before the CF leaves –  although everyone is vague about how things will work after the nominal date of 2011 and the "combat role" morphs into something yet to be given an acronym. The ROC, for example, said we could ask ISAF or the Americans for force protection for our "signature projects", but they weren't ISAF's or the Americans'  idea, and they are going to have other priorities. Wouldn't be counting on them. 

I have no opinion on the tac nuke option, but it was also an idea I heard tossed around in the smoking areas.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 May 2009)

No nukes means no suits.

Anyway, my ears were burning.  I won't get into the specifics of COPs etc being torn down; however, as mentioned, this isn't Normandy and we aren't digging in to protect ourselves from the 12th SS Panzer Division.  So, without much in the way of details, troops to task is one reason why Haiji and Zangabad are no longer.  I can't say more without getting into the fuzzy realm of "OPSEC".  Sorry, not even by PM.

As far as I know, noöne knows more about those decisions than the commanders who were in place at the time.  I wasn't one of those commanders.  But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night


----------



## Cleared Hot (19 May 2009)

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> “First and foremost, Canada is not engaged in air strikes,” said Mr. MacKay. “We obviously take great pains not to have civilian casualties in any instance.”



Wow, chalk this one up to one of the most misleading political statements of 2009. Just because they are not our aircraft...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 May 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> No nukes means no suits.
> 
> Anyway, my ears were burning.  I won't get into the specifics of COPs etc being torn down; however, as mentioned, this isn't Normandy and we aren't digging in to protect ourselves from the 12th SS Panzer Division.  So, without much in the way of details, troops to task is one reason why Haiji and Zangabad are no longer.  I can't say more without getting into the fuzzy realm of "OPSEC".  Sorry, not even by PM.
> 
> As far as I know, noöne knows more about those decisions than the commanders who were in place at the time.  I wasn't one of those commanders.  But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night



Agreed.However I do think it worked against us in the eyes of the locals.But alas as you have said the whole opsec stuff plays hard in this medium.There are many topics I have seen where I have to bite tongue and watch a SME discuss something he read about in a news paper,i.e what happened on certain large OP's.

That's what keep's me sane,believing that the stupidity has a purpose I cannot see through my realm of vocation.


----------



## Tow Tripod (19 May 2009)

Jesus Christ if I insulted anyone about the Tac Nuke statement I apologize but come on lets get serious here. I would not ever consider myself the SME on counter insurgency operations ( I think General Leslie is. I think he wrote the PAM on it actually) Every Roto that has been over there has different operation or task for the Battle Group/OMLET/POMLET. We hold ground then the next Roto gives it back. There never has been a clear vision put forth that was not changed by the next Task Force Commander. We can talk about troops to tasks ,ROE, mounted or dismounted operations,insuffcient helicopter support, combat/reconstruction or security but when this operation is said and done thier had better be the mother of all after action reports. Well above my paygrade. This douche bag is just throwing out some thoughts.

Tow Tripod


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 May 2009)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ if I insulted anyone about the Tac Nuke statement I apologize but come on lets get serious here.



That's the funny thing about the internet.  When you post something, other people are actually led to believe it's actually your opinion.  And when you post something that sounds dumb, other people try to defuse it before journalists and others pick the comments off the page and declare them to be the general opinion of CF members on army.ca.

As for Jesus Christ, I don't think he's a member here, so you'll have to address him by other means.


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2009)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> ...the SME on counter insurgency operations ( I think General Leslie is. I think he wrote the PAM on it actually)



As CLS, General Leslie just signed off on it.

It was actually drafted by a civilian contractor, then "edited" by a committee of staff officers in the Directorate of Army Doctrine (DAD). 

When that edited version got lambasted (for several reasons), DAD returned to the contractor to ask if he had another copy of the draft, since they had been too stupid to keep an original before gutting it modifying it -- well, the modification efforts of two Majors anyway, since the LCol overseeing the project was too busy watching his daughter play soccer to actually oversee the project.

Said contractor, having seen the brilliance of the DAD staff, offered to sell them another copy for the same price. This offer was declined. The staff then reverse-engineered the Draft back to an approximation of the original version, which is currently promulgated under Gen Leslie's signature.


At least, that's the way I heard it   :camo:


----------



## vonGarvin (19 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> As for Jesus Christ, I don't think he's a member here, so you'll have to address him by other means.


I have a rosary you can borrow if you wish to address Jesus Christ!   >


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2009)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> There never has been a clear vision put forth that was not changed by the next Task Force Commander.



Probably something worth discussing.  Was "Selection and Maintenance of Aim" upheld?


----------



## vonGarvin (20 May 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Probably something worth discussing.  Was "Selection and Maintenance of Aim" upheld?


:rofl:

Oh...wait, you were being serious...  [/sarcasm]


----------



## McG (20 May 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Probably something worth discussing.  Was "Selection and Maintenance of Aim" upheld?


Never for any longer than the rein of a BG CO or TF Comd ... and I won't say with any certainty that the principle of Selection and Maintenance of Aim has ever even lasted that long.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 May 2009)

Sadly, "Leading Change" has never been interpreted as "Efficiently Maintaining an Effective Status Quo (i.e, Stability) in a Changing Environment".


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (20 May 2009)

> While I believe total saturation of the area is a more humane COA.
> 
> Please tell me your journeys through that area willy.



I'm sure there are people who have had this this thought from time to time, like myslef. Black humour or not, it would have one very positive effect. It would send the taliban scurrying back to their caves like rats to a sewer drain

As for Mckays comments, well all i can say is... "Spoken like a true politician" Give one a soap box and hand everyone a set of earplugs...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2009)

Can we please drop this tactical nuke talk before somebody thinks we are serious? I can not think of anything that would destablize the world more, and that includes acts as repugnant as the whole scale massacre of the population of disputed areas by gun, gas or garrotte.  Even if it was not a war crime on a massive scale, do we really want to eliminate one of the few transportation corridors in the theatre?

In the real bad old days of the Cold War, one of the specialties I trained in was nuclear target analysis which was one of the tasks performed by the DS field regiment CO's staff. Let me tell you that I grappled with the moral implications, but decided that being a very minor part of the nuclear detterent was far superior to leaving the west open to attack. The nuke was always the last step in escalation; to even consider using it against a civilian population not generally engaged in the war is to descend into barbarism. And if you can't see the difference between 1945 and 2009, then I question your comprehension of the world.

Last, even if we could overcome the above drawbacks, to use one or ten or . . . tactical nuclear weapons isn't really the best way to interdict a transportation/population corridor if the intention is to turn over the country to the national government.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (20 May 2009)

willy said:
			
		

> I, however, will suffice to say that you, sir, are a bit of a douche.
> 
> *edited to remove specific reference.



That douche has earned the right to speak on Afghanistan without being personally attacked by some internet tough guy.  I would put money on you not having the courage to call him a douche to his face.


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 May 2009)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> That douche has earned the right to speak on Afghanistan without being personally attacked by some internet tough guy.  I would put money on you not having the courage to call him a douche to his face.



The "right" to speak on Afghanistan is not solely earned by having been there.

Calling out one "internet tough guy" by being one yourself is not conducive to putting the conversation back on track.  Stick to the purpose of the thread or it will be locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## rampage800 (23 May 2009)

> “First and foremost, Canada is not engaged in air strikes,” said Mr. MacKay. “We obviously take great pains not to have civilian casualties in any instance.”
> 
> 
> Wow, chalk this one up to one of the most misleading political statements of 2009. Just because they are not our aircraft...



I agree wholeheartedly although I will say hes right on the civilian casualties, there have been times whereas weapons ie 82RCL, have been spotted with various assets and would have looked nice with a GBU-12 dropped on them.


----------



## c4th (24 May 2009)

willy said:
			
		

> I hope that (someone in a better position to comment than me) can/will respond to the comments made above.  I, however, will suffice to say that you, sir, are a bit of a douche.
> 
> *edited to remove specific reference.



So self admitting that you are not in a position to comment, besides name calling in French WTF did you bring to the thread Pot (as in kettle)?

Nothing that Tow Tri posted is that shocking to anyone who takes their SA from ground zero (no offence intended) as opposed to CTV or Minister's press releases.  

To answer the original question about what the MDN is saying.  My guess is not much of anything.  He is probably talking bollocks.  Reconstruction and training sounds good.  Considering what we (tow tripod included) were doing this time last year reconstruction and training without a ROBUST force pro it isn't a particularly realistic main effort.

Come on Tow Tripod, you know perfectly well, that without a significant force reduction, Red Bull(TM) will always get shipping priority over tactical nukes.

TNO


----------



## Tow Tripod (26 May 2009)

Iam addicted to Red Bull and the idea of Tac Nuking Zhari, Phasmul and Panjway all at once. 

Tow Tripod


----------



## Michael OLeary (26 May 2009)

And since there's obviously no intentions to return this topic to useful debate.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

