# Canadian soldiers return to Kandahar



## scm77 (10 Dec 2004)

Cdn. troops headed to Kandahar: report

CTV.ca News Staff

Hundreds more Canadians could be headed to Afghanistan next year, as part of a military aid team the federal government is expected to announce today.

Citing an anonymous source, The National Post reports that between 250 and 500 soldiers will be sent to the southern half of the country to serve as (cut off)

The paper reports the multidisciplinary battle group will be comprised of personnel from infantry, combat engineer and other military units across Canada.

The new troops would head to the Kandahar-area beginning next summer, to accompany the agencies, diplomats and aid workers also on the "provincial reconstruction team."

After cutting its troop deployment from 2,000 last summer, there are currently 700 Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan. They will be replaced by a fresh contingent in February.

On Thursday, the soldiers heading out for that six-month tour of duty took part in a mock exercise recreating the conditions of Kabul on the grounds of Canadian Forces Base Petawawa in Ontario.

For those who have never been on a mission overseas, the simulation was an introduction to life on Camp Julien, outside the Afghanistan capital Kabul.

But the troops concede Even so, there is no telling what these troops will face.

"Anything could change on us at a moment's notice," Master Cpl. Darleen Massicotte told CJOH's Chris Day, "It's just unpredictable what we could run into over there."

Private Hugh Ruff is looking forward to his first mission overseas.

"I joined the forces to help people and I think this is a very good way to do it. I guess that's why I'm excited to be given the opportunity to help people," he said.

Just last month military ombudsman Andre Marin said Canadian troops at Camp Julien were exhausted and overworked.

He said the troops were doing double duty because of a recent decision that slashed the deployment of soldiers Afghanistan from 2,000 to 700.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1102682890804_171/?hub=TopStories
----------------
Anybody have any more info?


----------



## pbi (10 Dec 2004)

I was involved with assisting the national recce team that was in Afgh in late October. Kandahar(a US PRT) was one of several PRT locations that they visited, along with Herat in the west (US) and Mes-E-Sharif in the north (UK, etc). Kandahar was definitely one of the leading options under consideration when the team redeployed back to Canada. There were pros and cons to both Herat and to Kandahar (political as well as military) . The final decision was to be reserved for the MND following briefings and further discussions with allies.

Personally (and with no real knowledge of what happened after the team left Afgh..) my military prefernce is K'har. There is much more of a military job to be done there. It is also likely that we will work under the Brits or the US, far more preferable (IMHO) than ISAF (at least, based on what I see of ISAF VI...). K'har at present offers a lot of challenges, both to the military and to the GOs who would form the civ part of the PRT (Foreign Affairs and CIDA, with others such as RCMP and Agriculture Canada possible). Canada could be back in the spotlight again instead of being just a bit player in K-town (no disrespect whatsoever to those serving there right now...)

I hope we dump K-town altogether and get out complete to a new location soonest. I sincerely hope that some of the good folks on this board get a chance to serve in K'har or wherever we end up going. Cheers.


----------



## ImanIdiot (10 Dec 2004)

Does anyone think there will be militia augmentees allowed on the initial deployments? Or is this a reg force only party?


----------



## pbi (10 Dec 2004)

I don't think we've decided on the force composition of the military element of the PRT yet. You can be pretty suer there will be a CIMIC element, which raises the likelihood of Res being involved. There is a strong precedent here for the use of Res: the US mans most of its PRTs with Army Res or ARNG personnel, hopefully something that our national recce team picked up on.

One factor that may work against Res participation is the threat level in Kandahar and region: it is higher than Kabul and at the present time is smack in the centre of an area of bad guy activity. Most of the recent US deaths have occurred in that general area of the country. Although the threat may have declined by the time we go in (if we go in...), I think that some people may feel a bit queasy sending Res into the area. Cheers.


----------



## Gunner (10 Dec 2004)

> One factor that may work against Res participation is the threat level in Kandahar and region: it is higher than Kabul and at the present time is smack in the centre of an area of bad guy activity. Most of the recent US deaths have occurred in that general area of the country. Although the threat may have declined by the time we go in (if we go in...), I think that some people may feel a bit queasy sending Res into the area.



This would be the first time I have heard of Reserves not being allowed to go into a theatre of operations because it was too dangerous.  A more likely scenario is the level of skill sets (ie a LAV Coy) will preclude the deployment of formed Reserve sub-units.  Moreover, the army will almost be completed its reconstitution cycle (scheduled to be completed in Jan 06) and there will be more than enough Regular soldiers available to go.  As you have mentioned, CIMIC (a Reserve based capability) will be a key element on any PRT will deploy to Afghanistan in the future.

Any deployment that is planned in excess of 3/4 of a year in advance should have Reserve participation in varying degrees in order to provide additional flexibility within the army.  Keep the Regulars intact for short notice deployments that require a high degree of unit cohesion and training.

Cheers,


----------



## bossi (10 Dec 2004)

Some more, from another "open source":

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=9b25374d-9204-45fb-b753-f3f72c8614b8

Canada likely to deploy soldiers, civilians to Afghan region of Kandahar
  
Stephen Thorne, Canadian Press, December 10, 2004


OTTAWA -- Canadian soldiers will likely return to the southern Afghan region of Kandahar next summer to take over operation of a provincial reconstruction team from the U.S. military, an official said Friday. 

The region, where the Taliban was born and where about 900 fighting Canadian soldiers were based in 2002, is still considered a hotbed of resistance and ultra-conservative Islam. 

Canadian government and military officials are discussing plans with NATO to insert an undetermined number of civilians and soldiers into the ancient trade route near the Pakistan border. 

An official announcement is expected once plans are finalized later this winter, said Kimberly Phillips, a spokeswoman at the Foreign Affairs Department. 

Phillips said strategies are being planned to "mitigate the risk. 

"We have looked at the options and we felt that the Kandahar region best suits Canadian strengths and capabilities," she said. 

"The Kandahar region is very important to Afghanistan and stabilization and extension of Afghan government authority in this region is a critical component of the Afghan government's priority program." 

The so-called PRTs, numbering in strength from the dozens to the hundreds, were started in early 2003 with U.S.-led teams in Gardez, Bamian and Kunduz. By this fall, 19 PRTs had been established across Afghanistan, either under U.S. or NATO authority. 

Canada currently has about 700 troops with NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in the Afghan capital of Kabul. 

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Defence Minister Bill Graham have said Canada will maintain that commitment beyond its current mandate next August and add at least one PRT, possibly two. 

The PRTs deploy international soldiers and civilians in provincial areas with the aim of extending the authority of the Afghan central government and, with their added security, promoting development and reconstruction. 

PRTs also support the demobilization and disarmament of militias; building an accountable national army and national police force under democratic control; stamping out the drug trade; and building a legal system. 

The PRT in Bamian is now led by New Zealand. It and the teams led by the United States operate under the U.S.-led war on terrorism known as Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed in October 2003 to expand ISAF's mandate to allow it to operate outside Kabul, both in the form of PRTs and through limited temporary deployments.


----------



## armyrules (10 Dec 2004)

I Hope that everyone that is going to have a safe trip and come home safe


----------



## Da_man (10 Dec 2004)

Some 031 positions opening up! Good!   Im  young and stupid, its a job for me


----------



## Armymedic (10 Dec 2004)

Da_man said:
			
		

> Some 031 positions opening up! Good!   Im young and stupid, its a job for me



A "young and stupid" 031...
 :

Oh great, just what I need...more work (as I loosen the med bag straps and put on the gloves)....


----------



## Bartok5 (11 Dec 2004)

> Oh great, just what I need...more work (as I loosen the med bag straps and put on the gloves)....



Let's not become over-melodromatic here.   Given the options of an OEF role with a PRT in K'har or an ISAF PRT in Herat, the logical choice was blindingly obvious.   Unless the political decision-makers are even more dense that I automatically give them credit for, the selection of K'har within the ISAF construct was a "no brainer". 

Hmmm... let's see.   We can send a contigent to K'har City, 18 km up the road from a 5,000-person coalition base at the airfield with "on-call" Apache and QRF capabilities.   The K'har OEF Coalition base gives   a prospective Canadian PRT a proximate secure location to withdraw to should things turn pear-shaped.   The K'har airfield iteself, offers the ability to sustain the operation with immediate provision of logistics requirements.   Oh, and let's not forget that fielding the operation under OEF (vice ISAF) achieves numerous political aims.   Not the least of which is demonstrating to our U.S. allies (yet again) that notwithstanding the national disconnect over Iraq, we are "with them" for the coalition effort in Afghanistan.   Not to mention the fact that our renewed participation in OEF is likely to give us access to a whole host of resources ranging from airlift, to intelligence-sharing, to an immense logistics base, to a secure withdrawal location (and the requisite air and ground support to get us there).

What was the other option?   Oh yes - Herat, under the ISAF mandate.   Yep, good thinking there.   Let's see - that would (arguably) be the most volatile of all feasible PRT locations.   We would face the near-total dominance of the local warlord (versus the central government), the destabilizing (and very active) Iranian influence, etc, etc, etc.   Oh, and we would be 8 hours by road from the nearest Coalition support at Kandahar.   Did I mention that the road from K'har to Herat is closed from November to April?   So much for sustainment by ground transport.....

Deploying a PRT into K'har Province as part of the U.S.-led OEF Coalition is the smartest possible thing that we could do.   ISAF is all   fine and well (sort of), but in the grand scheme of things our ISAF commitment   is of limited utility.   Getting back with the mainstream program and committing a PRT to OEF (with all of the assciated benefits) is undoubtedly the way to go.   Quite frankly, I am dismayed that other ISAF-based alternatives were seriously considered....

Just my thoughts, of course....


----------



## little_mp (11 Dec 2004)

Just out of curiosity how much of Afghanistan is actually under controle by the intrim government and the ISAF? From what I hear its only in Kabul? What happend to the rest of the country and Kandahar where 3PPCLI was in 2001? Thanks in advance to anyone who can enlighten me a little more.


----------



## pbi (12 Dec 2004)

All of the country of Afghanistan is nominally under the control of the Afghan Transitional Authority, of which Hamid Kharzai is now the inaugurated President. By "nominally" I mean that in each Province there are ATA officials, and usually some Army (ANA) or Police(ANP) presence. How far these officials can actually project their power is a good question in some of the more remote areas, but except for the southern and eastern frontier provinces that border Pakistan (and are the location of the remaining Coalition combat ops), there are almost no significant examples of force being used against the ATA's officials.

The situation is somewhat complicated in the West and the North by two regional power brokers ("warlords") who could potentially challenge the ATA's authority if they saw some advantage in doing it. In the West is Ishmail Khan, who was briefly the ATA governor of Herat Provine, but was deposed by Kharzai in a move backed by US and ANA forces. Ishmael Khan remains in Herat and is still a local presence, but the West and in particular Herat Province is relatively calm: the US force presence there is quite light.So far "IK" is behaving himself. In the North is General Rashid Dostum, who was a major player in defeating the Taleban/AQ/HiG alliance, and still retains some militia forces. He has in general been cooperative, but like Ishmael Khan remains a potential force to be reckoned with.
Both these individuals, "IK" in particular, are believed to be making fortunes off various illegal activities such as narcotics and illegal trade duties. Cracking down on them could be problematic. To date Dostum has generally cooperated with ISAF who are the foreign military presence in the North.

As to the issue of ISAF's span of control: nominally it "controls" the Northern Provinces but in fact its military presence is limited to four or five PRTs and a coy-sized QRF. There is no secret that this "force" would be utterly inadequate to exert real "control" if it came to push and shove. ISAF instead relies on coperation with the local authorities, and tends to operate in support of the ATA rather than in place of it. ISAF also"controls" the Province of Kabul, which includes the capitol city of about 3 million people as well as the vital hydroelectric power site in Surobi District, in the eastern part of Kabul Province. While the ISAF military presence in the city is about a Bde (+), that out in the rest of the Province is very limited: ISAF cannot really claim to "control" Surobi District, for example.

My use of quotation marks around the word "control" is advised: in fact the official policy of both ISAF and the US-led Coalition is that the ATA is in control of the country and all actions are taken in support of its wishes and policies. This is known as the "Afghan Face" policy and was demonstrated very clearly during the Presidential election in Oct, when the immediate physical security of polling stations and counting houses was provided bty ANA and ANP. ISAF or OEF troops stood back, ready to suppotr if required, or conducted other operations to help counter the enemy threat to the elections.

US-led Coalition Forces (Operation Enduring Freedom-OEF) are present in three major Regional Commands which are in turn under the command of Combined Joint Task Force 76 (where I work). RC East (Task Force Thunder) conducts operations and runs PRTs in the eastern provinces such as Paktia and Nangarhar. RC South (TF Bronco) controls operations and PRTs in the southern provinces such as Kandahar and Zabul. Both these RCs are engaged in combat, stability and nation-building ops in cooperation with the ATA. These two commands are located in the most dangerous areas of the country. The western provinces (Herat, Gor, etc) are the responsibility of RC West (TF Longhorn). This RC is fairly quiet and is relatively lightly manned.

Overall, I would say that OEF is present in about 3/4 of Afghanistan, while ISAF is present in the remaining 1/ 4. Cheers.


----------



## little_mp (12 Dec 2004)

Thanks pbi I apricate you taking the time to type that all out to better the knowledge of an idiot like myself


----------



## armyrules (13 Dec 2004)

great post pbi


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2004)

Thanks, *pbi* for that clear, concise (and I assume, based on your previous contributions: accurate) report.

I hope some retired members (including some from your regiment) who have joined the national _commentariat_ are members of *army.ca* and take advantage of your inputs here.


----------



## Yeoman (13 Dec 2004)

I remember hearing this. hopefully this will make someone clue in, and they ship some more of the 031's from here to go over seas. cuz those boys will be burnt out within 3 months of being there.
Greg


----------



## amcd (15 Apr 2005)

Hi all,
What's the latest news on the upcoming PRT? I heard some units were given warning orders in February but haven't heard anything since. I'm sure things must be pretty advanced by now but there hasn't been much in the press. Anyone got the info?
Thanks.


----------



## Armymedic (15 Apr 2005)

The initial recces are being planned

Scuttlebut aound is that the gov't is reconsidering the plan to go to Kandahar with a PRT for "polictical" reasons. Also there is talk of Camp Julien being sold off in a yr or two to another country.

Point to note...The PRT program has been going on a while now, roughly 2 yrs. We are getting into the game a little late. So unless we take over someone elses AOR, then we will be getting some less desirable location. When they say Khandahar...do they mean the city or the provices? 

And why Khandahar, why not Herat, or Mazer-a- Sharef?


----------



## Gunner (15 Apr 2005)

> Scuttlebut aound is that the gov't is reconsidering the plan to go to Kandahar with a PRT for "polictical" reasons.



I haven't heard that (from a force generator perspective) and as you mention the initial recce is being planned .... but there are several poltical reasons why they would change their mind...



> Also there is talk of Camp Julien being sold off in a yr or two to another country.



We had the same talk on Roto 2 so obviously my information is out of date.  Canada was either going to have to sell the camp or reinvest alot of money in infrastructure (ie Hesco Bastien).   The other aspect of it, was we weren't going to have anyone in Kabul to actually live in the camp so responsibility needed to be dealt with.  There were several agencies that we thought might like to buy it from us.  Have to watch and shoot from this end (Canada).



> The PRT program has been going on a while now, roughly 2 yrs. We are getting into the game a little late. So unless we take over someone elses AOR, then we will be getting some less desirable location. When they say Khandahar...do they mean the city or the provices?



We are late from an Op Enduring Freedom perspective but not so much from an ISAF perspective.  Not sure how much we can discuss about ISAF expansion, etc here.  Probably best not to...



> And why Khandahar, why not Herat, or Mazer-a- Sharef?



Well, Herat was supposed to be Italian (according to the news release last Dec/Jan).  MeS (UK?) remains an ISAF PRT for the forseeable future.  Kandahar (see comments above about OPSEC).


----------



## amcd (16 Apr 2005)

Thanks for the info. As for whether or not the PRT is a go, well, nothing's for sure. But it would take some kind of wild political mess (Prime Minister Layton?) to stop it now. International commitments have been made. 

And, as for where the PRT is located, I heard it's not in Kandahar (where there are a lot of Americans) but rather to the southeast, maybe 30 clicks. Right in the middle of the 'badlands,' said  one Col. familiar with the area. This guy also said we waited too long and got 'the short end of the straw.' As in, this is going to be a pretty belligerent province to reconstruct.

I know some officers have received initial orders, but that's all. I'm trying to figure out when this deployment will occur. Originally the base was going up in June. Not sure if that's still the case.


Any more info is much appreciated.


----------



## paracowboy (16 Apr 2005)

word around here (and we're the ones supplying 031s) is fairly grim. Not enough bayonets to protect the other trades. The boys are going to be burned out within 8 weeks. It's looking more and more ridiculous to me with every day. The grand poobahs seem determined to fill bodybags pointlessly.


----------



## Mars (16 Apr 2005)

an undetermined amount of 031's. 16 hour days are expected.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Apr 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> And why Khandahar, why not Herat, or Mazer-a- Sharef?





> We are late from an Op Enduring Freedom perspective but not so much from an ISAF perspective.   Not sure how much we can discuss about ISAF expansion, etc here.   Probably best not to...



There are no OPSEC issues with ISAF expansion.   It has been extensively briefed (UNCLAS) in an open forum in Kabul.   Herat is being discussed as part of Phase II ISAF expansion, whereby the Italians or the Spanish will put in a PRT (I am dated by a couple of months on this).   Apparently, Iran was opposed to having Spain so close to its border, and that has caused a bit of a delay while the Italians decide what they want to do.   MeS is UK.

Canada has been talking about Kandahar for quite a while.   Any deployment there will (initially at least) be under TF BRONCO and the US-led coalition - vastly different from ISAF (in a good way, IMHO).



> The grand poobahs seem determined to fill bodybags pointlessly.



I strongly suggest that the "bodybag" talk needs to stop, particularly in the absence of orders, a recce, or a definitive operational plan.   The recce will determine a good deal of the deployment, as will the political direction that will inevitably determine what we're actually doing.



> (quantity removed) 031s...*snip*   16 hour days are expected.



This IS too much information for this forum, at the present time anyway.   I don't mean to be the OPSEC police, bu there should be no talk of numbers and tasks, please.   You may wish to edit your post.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## KevinB (16 Apr 2005)

FWIW most from my end are looking forward to the southward move

ANYTHING to get out from ISAF and the wishywashy way they do business


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Apr 2005)

Amen, brudda!


----------



## Trinity (16 Apr 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be the OPSEC police, bu there should be no talk of numbers and tasks, please.  You may wish to edit your post.



I disagree.  You should.. and so should everyone else.  I applaud you.

We do have to be careful here.. it is the net.

(mind you.. that whole pushup thread .... that would bore any enemy to death)


----------



## Armymedic (16 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> word around here (and we're the ones supplying 031s) is fairly grim. Not enough bayonets to protect the other trades. The boys are going to be burned out within 8 weeks. It's looking more and more ridiculous to me with every day. The grand poobahs seem determined to fill bodybags pointlessly.



You guys are too grim...who says it will be Canadian Bayonets securing this base?

Thats why there are good people here training the ANA...


----------



## Gunner (16 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> word around here (and we're the ones supplying 031s) is fairly grim. Not enough bayonets to protect the other trades. The boys are going to be burned out within 8 weeks. It's looking more and more ridiculous to me with every day. The grand poobahs seem determined to fill bodybags pointlessly.



I have no doubt the element with the PRT will be focussed on D&S related tasks (similar to what happened on ATHENA Roto 2, 3, and 4).  Burned out?  Possibly, but, hopefully your leaders will keep you focussed on your actual mission and not allow mission creep.  I echo Armymedics comments about you not being out there by yourself (ANA) and protection is not just an infantry responsibility.  Remember the PRTs not there to chase Mr Taliban....


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2005)

"but rather to the southeast, maybe 30 clicks. Right in the middle of the 'badlands,' said  one Col. familiar with the area."

Where you will see  my Coyote tracks from some of our "Pushing out the bubble" patrols in the spring of 2002.

You are going to love the biblical scenery.

Tom


----------



## paracowboy (17 Apr 2005)

> I strongly suggest that the "bodybag" talk needs to stop, particularly in the absence of orders, a recce, or a definitive operational plan.  The recce will determine a good deal of the deployment, as will the political direction that will inevitably determine what we're actually doing.


well, the phrase I used about filling bodybags wasn't direscted strictly towards this particular goat-screw specifically, but rather towards Parliament's and NDHQ's apparent attitude towards the CF in general. You know, little things like lowering standards, cheaping out on training, flying death-traps, submarines that....

Make ya a deal, I'll stop talking about my dead friends when our "Leadership" pulls it's collective head out of it's collective ass.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Korus (16 May 2005)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1660



> News Release
> Canada Expands Security and Reconstruction Efforts in Afghanistan
> 
> NR-05.035 - May 16, 2005
> ...


----------



## MikeM (17 May 2005)

Guess that means we're good to go.

They usually don't do press releases until everythings confirmed... *bites tongue*


----------



## McG (17 May 2005)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/02/14/930500-sun.html


> Operation Kandahar
> Troop commitment to almost doubleMon, February 14, 2005
> AP
> 
> MUNICH, Germany -- Canada will nearly double the number of troops it has in Afghanistan by this summer and is considering *sending a combat brigade* to the Kandahar region early next year, Defence Minister Bill Graham told The Associated Press yesterday. Canada currently has some 600 troops serving in the Afghan capital of Kabul with NATO's International Security Assistance Force, and plans to put a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in the southern city of Kandahar by August, Graham said.


----------



## pbi (18 May 2005)

Glad the cat is finally out of the bag-this decision was taken back before Christmas. Working with the US forces in the Kandahar region is a much better move for us-Kabul was becoming a backwater as far as "real" ops go. As well, I think that we have a lot of work to do on our relationship with the US and this is one way to do it. I know that when I was there, CJTF76 would  have gladly accepted a Cdn Inf TF to help out in the ops in the THUNDER and BRONCO AOs along the Pak frontier. Good luck, God speed and safe return for all those who go on this new task.

Cheers


----------



## supplyguy (18 May 2005)

Question for anyone, since the initial PRT team will be still part of the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition until handed over to NATO. Can anyone tell me if the medal given will be the South West Asia one or the new camp/star one????  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 May 2005)

Should be the SWASM.  However, it could (speculating) be the Campaign Star with a new bar...  different mission, so it's only a guess right now...

TR


----------



## Gunner (19 May 2005)

I am going out on a limb to say it would be the SWASM (similar to our other Op ARCHER commitments).  This goes back to the problem that all of the Op APOLLO soldiers will not receive "recognition" for their second tour in Afghanistan.  Hopefully this will be changed soon.


----------



## Armymedic (20 May 2005)

How about we go on a longer limb and say wait until someone in Ottawa decides...



			
				supplyguy said:
			
		

> Question for anyone, since the initial PRT team will be still part of the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition until handed over to NATO. Can anyone tell me if the medal given will be the South West Asia one or the new camp/star one???



But my guess, as opposed to what Gunner said, would be GCS as all the coalition PRTs are under ISAF guidance.

Going over for the sole purpose of getting a new medal is slightly lower then for the "money" in my professional morals book...What happend to getting to do our job?

I shake my head at your question.  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 May 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> But my guess, as opposed to what Gunner said, would be GCS as all the coalition PRTs are under ISAF guidance.



I know you're in theatre, but this is not correct (as of Feb).   Only PRTs operating in ISAF's AOR are under ISAF command.   No US PRTs currently work for ISAF, nor does the NZ one.   A Canadian PRT based in Kandahar would likely work for TF BRONCO and CFC-A until ISAF expansion is complete.  At the moment, I believe Phase IV is scheduled to take over sometime after our main force is in place (post Feb next year).  

From the press release:

_These forces will also play a key role in accelerating the expansion of the ISAF mission in southern Afghanistan, expected to occur gradually in 2006, during which the Canadian PRT, initially part of the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition, will transfer to NATO leadership. _  

Given how successful ISAF/NATO has been thus far, I wouldn't hold my breath.  Phase IV involves taking over the worst of the Southern part of Afghanistan and there may well be too many bad guys for that to happen soon.



> Going over for the sole purpose of getting a new medal is slightly lower then for the "money" in my professional morals book...What happend to getting to do our job?
> 
> I shake my head in disgust at your question.



"Disgust"?   Good grief!   :   It was a valid question - give the guy a break.

TR


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Geez, no kidding - the guy just asked a question; power down the Death Star....


----------



## Armymedic (20 May 2005)

yes, a little harsh....esp with no rolly eyes  : thingy beside it....

I based my opinion about the command structure on the fact that the PRT is under ISAF when it gets set up here in the next 6 months. But your quote of the news article suggests otherwise, and that would make sense seeing how we are going to depending on the US for alot of support.

I guess another wait and sees until it happens.


----------



## supplyguy (21 May 2005)

Wow!! ??? Armymedic... All I asked was a simple question. I am proud to be in the military and to have the ability to go over seas on various missions to see the difference we actually make. So as I stated above it was a simple question. It wasn't motivated about money or a possibility of a new medal, it was just a question. I didn't mean to make you so uptight there Armymedic  

Quote
Going over for the sole purpose of getting a new medal is slightly lower then for the "money" in my professional morals book...What happend to getting to do our job?

I shake my head in disgust at your question.

 thank you to the others for the more positive responses.  ;D


----------



## Armymedic (21 May 2005)

sorry for taking some fustrations out on you...


----------



## Blakey (23 May 2005)

> ... brigade headquarters and an army task force, expected to remain in theatre respectively for a period of nine and 12 months.


WoW   , so if I read that correctly, the BDE HQ's will be in theater for approx 9 months and the TF will be in theater for approx 12 months?.....if so, watch and shoot for all the "omg, i cant deploy my cats having kittens" people. :



Edit: NM, i figured it out... ;D


----------



## Bartok5 (24 May 2005)

Wowza!  I'm not even going to tread here - there are far too many "hot button"/highly emotive topics all rolled into one.  Medals?  Tour lengths?  Ah, the stuff of endless contention, turmoil, and rumour mongering.....

I'll tell you what.  Give me another chance to launch on deliberate combat operations intended to kill bad guys?  I will quite happily re-live the recce tent on a bed of gravel for 6 months, hard rats, showers on occasion, no HLTA, no fixed end-tour date, no expectation of a medal (or any other sort of recognition), and no whinging on my part.    

Some of the people participating in this "Army" forum really need to sort out their priorities and reasons for "serving".....

Just a humble observation....

Mark C


----------



## axeman (24 May 2005)

I hear you sir . those were the days,  to walk as men among men.   let the earth tremble as we pass ... all i ask is that we not be charged 10 bucks for a bag of trail mix


----------



## Blakey (24 May 2005)

axeman said:
			
		

> I hear you sir . those were the days,   to walk as men among men.     let the earth tremble as we pass ... all i ask is that we not be charged 10 bucks for a bag of trail mix


Wow, sounds like you were realy (to coin a phrase) "in the shit"....


----------



## axeman (24 May 2005)

well the worst thing about that was the fact  well alot of the troops saw a lot of  planes in and out of there if you were there you'd recall that . well on my side of the tent line i heard a lot of gripes about the lack of creature niceties. and when they do show up  taxed on our smokes  etc. man what a kick that was . nothing personal man just a view over the shoulder . i saw the other guys get a lot more logistical support then we did  . not that I'm bitchin against them as i know a bunch of em  but hey man was it hot and it was something to bitch about .... cant complain against the leadership  they had all the troubles we had  and then some.  when you aint got much theres always something to moan about and that was mine kinda like those big econo size tins of tuna . we were happy as we were moaning but when its quiet  theres something up  you know how it goes .


----------



## jc5778 (24 May 2005)

Funny how the motivation changes for some so quickly.





			
				Mark C said:
			
		

> Wowza!  I'm not even going to tread here - there are far too many "hot button"/highly emotive topics all rolled into one.  Medals?  Tour lengths?  Ah, the stuff of endless contention, turmoil, and rumour mongering.....
> 
> I'll tell you what.  Give me another chance to launch on deliberate combat operations intended to kill bad guys?  I will quite happily re-live the recce tent on a bed of gravel for 6 months, hard rats, showers on occasion, no HLTA, no fixed end-tour date, no expectation of a medal (or any other sort of recognition), and no whinging on my part.
> 
> ...



You're bang on.  I remember that tour fondly.  Seemed there was no talk about money or medals before we went.  Just the desire to actually do what we are trained to do.  I would go back in the mountains tomorrow for NO EXTRA MONEY, yes I am serious.  The good 'ol Bean and Rice Burrito, burning our own waste, Getting 4 hours of sleep a night in 2-hour blocks for a month straight.  When guys are talking about what they are going to buy with ALL that money it shows what the motivation is that they have.  I wonder how they would feel once they are faced with the realisation that this is not a game and it is playing for keeps.  Oh well, just another example of how things have changed so drastically so fast.  I've only been in a short while and it amazes me what changes I've seen in that time.  I couldn't imagine what it's like for those of you in the 10 years + range.   :warstory:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 May 2005)

who you kidding.  you'd rather clip ammo.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (24 May 2005)

axeman said:
			
		

> kinda like those big econo size tins of tuna



Never speak ill of the battle tuna.  That bastard fed my whole platoon one night.  

In regards to sleeping in a recce tent, suffering raining mud, the dreaded camel spider, a few turns on white cycle and the apparently carcinogenic intake of MRE's, I would have to say sign me up.  Even if it is for 12 months.


----------



## TCBF (25 May 2005)

"well alot of the troops saw a lot of  planes in and out of there if you were there you'd recall that ..."

Yes.

I was bitter at the time regarding our supply priorities.  One Coyote waiting weeks for an engine, mine waiting weeks for a WFOV/NFOV drive motor, and being told - after leading a two-Coyote patrol on another 80 to 100 km loop through the desert, that mine needed a left MacPherson strut, and not to push it, because there was only one spare.  

Meanwhile: planeloads of stuff, including gym and weightlifting eqpt arrive.

I have since been told that a lot of our heavy spares were shipped through a middle eastern country that was dissapointed we chose not to site a larger diplomatic presence in their nation, and - realizing we had no SOFA with them - decided to ice their point by holding up our supplies.  Nice guys.

Perspective is everything.  I spent maybe six nights living in 'camp', the rest sleeping in, on, beside, or behind Coyote c/s 42A.  We were a lot happier with our lives than most of the people who had to live in the camp were.  Our routine evolved into one week on surv, one week on QRF, one week on surv, one week on QRF...etc., not counting Ops CHEROKEE SKY, GREY HUSKY, etc.

Who wants to go on tour to live in a bloody camp?  Give me a trace on a map and a double load of main-gun ammo any day.


----------



## Britney Spears (25 May 2005)

Well, according to wikipedia, we can all thank (or blame) <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia_Affair#Effect_of_the_Affair_on_the_Canadian_Forces>The Somalia Inquiry and the disbanding of the Canadian Airborn Regiment!</a>



> The affair had a number of long lasting effects. It severely damaged the morale of the Canadian Forces and the DND. Recruitment became more difficult. The public revulsion led to the sharp cuts to military spending introduced by the Liberal government to be little criticized.
> 
> Many of the report's comments, along with the sustained media criticism of the military, led to the hasty imposition of drastic and unprecedented damage-limiting constraints on military leadership, training, operations, personnel policies and legal processes. In 1997, a former member of the British Parachute Regiment, Falklands war hero, and future commander of UN forces in Bosnia, Lieutenant-General Sir Hew Pike created a controversy among some Canadians when (apparently set-off by, amongst others, new Canadian policies favouring homosexuals and women in combat units) he said bluntly that "politically correct policies , none aimed at enhancing operational effectiveness, had badly eroded (the Canadian) forces' combat capability. He said *'The Canadians have surrendered any claim to be a war fighting force' "*. (See: Edited Hansard "¢ Number 094 Monday, October 15, 2001). (http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/094_2001-10-15/han094_2450-E.htm) Many of these practices, such as the micro-management of training, operations and disciplinary processes at the most senior levels in Ottawa, and the resultant restrictions on the leadership and initiative of commanding officers, continue to shackle Canada's operational units and bloat the size of its bureaucracy. *The significant overhead and the expensive facilities for Canadian soldiers in ex-Yugoslavia and Kabul (Afghanistan) that are undeniably the most comfortable field conditions in the world, are a reaction to criticism of the rudimentary conditions of the Airborne in Somalia.*




 ;D ;D ;D

*runs away before the whole board tears itself apart again* 


I don't care too much about the medals and what not, but I'll be damned if I go anywhere before I'm issued my C8SFW, RAS, PAQ4, Eotech, Magpul stock, screw-on sound suppresor(LCF kit, C1A1) and CADPAT thong. What's the point if I'm not going to get some full body shots posted over at lightfighter.net?


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2005)

You guys are making me blush....


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I don't care too much about the medals and what not, but I'll be damned if I go anywhere before I'm issued my C8SFW, RAS, PAQ4, Eotech, Magpul stock, screw-on sound suppresor(LCF kit, C1A1) and CADPAT thong. What's the point if I'm not going to get some full body shots posted over at lightfighter.net?



Brit - if they won't let us do the job - at least I try to look the part   ;D

I'd much rather go over on MRE's and a recce tent on a mission WITH A PURPOSE - not sit around a camp thinking of cool pictures to take.

And I think those who know me (and one or two who know my sit fairly well) know my concern for gongs and stars is a little trivial


----------



## prtbound (5 Jun 2005)

Has anyone else here noticed how this topic has turned from discussions about the PRT and more into talking about who is a real soldier and who wants to go back?  Not to **** on anyone's parade here, but the PRT is going in to Kandahar and as someone who will be there within weeks, I still don't have enough Int on what we are doing there, for how long or under who's command.

Anyone have anything pertinent to add here?


----------



## McG (24 Jun 2005)

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmo....html?id=b07dd59c-43fa-4597-8930-f3c6b0300b88



> *Afghan recovery team draws on 200 city troops*
> Their role: guarding aid workers, diplomats
> Jim Farrell
> The Edmonton Journal
> ...


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Jun 2005)

At the Kandahar Airfield, you are surrounded by desert.  The only interruption to the view is (besides local structures), a mountain.

I used to call it my "weather rock" - when it became fuzzy, I knew there was a sandstorm on its' way.  When I couldn't see it anymore, the sandstorm had arrived.

I recall a couple of occasions when it actually rained mud - there was so much dirt in the air that the rain mixed with it and it fell to the ground as a plug of wet earth.  It was during one of these storms that the MND was forced to stay an extra night.

When we first got there, it was still cold at night - not "Canada Cold", but bad enough without arctic equipment.  I don't know how early in the fall this type of weather begins, but if you're deploying in August for a six month tour, bring at least SOME cold weather stuff (long johns, etc).

Whenever I feel nostalgic for Kandahar (only twice since I returned - and I was extremely drunk both times), I wait for a REALLY hot day (for Edmonton) of over 25 degrees, then I turn the dryer on full blast, then I stick my head in the dryer exhaust vent - still only approximates the blast furnace the troops will experience.

Good luck to all deploying - Gentle Winds, Soft Landings.


----------



## TCBF (25 Jun 2005)

"I recall a couple of occasions when it actually rained mud - there was so much dirt in the air that the rain mixed with it and it fell to the ground as a plug of wet earth.  It was during one of these storms that the MND was forced to stay an extra night."

- My morale soared on that one!  Just before that, he was touring a position on the north side of Kandahar  airfield, I was watching from the south side, and a C-17 landed, then used the apron exit between us to turn right off the active.  When he turned, he goosed the furnaces, and sent 100 tons of high speed dust and sand blasting into the position the MND was inspecting.  Almost fell out of my turret, laughing.

"When we first got there, it was still cold at night - not "Canada Cold", but bad enough without arctic equipment.  I don't know how early in the fall this type of weather begins, but if you're deploying in August for a six month tour, bring at least SOME cold weather stuff (long johns, etc)."

- I landed 3 Feb 02 - I think - in the first few weeks, my canteen might have frozen maybe twice.

Tom


----------



## Armymedic (25 Jun 2005)

The weather will be the first of possibly many not so popular experiences no doubt. 
I can relate to the "weather rock". I have the mountains to the east of my camp, you can actually see the weather (rain, fog, dust) cresting it and moving towards us.
I particularly like (sarcasm) that they are returning to the area in July and Aug when the most inhospitable (in my opinion) weather hits...wind, sand and heat. This spring has been mild and wet and quite temprate so far in Kabul, and the weather in Kandahar has been a little warmer so far. But now as summer hits and the 100 days of wind come....


----------



## Sapper6 (25 Jun 2005)

I always liked it when the sky turned orange when the mother of all dust storms set in on KAF!  Particularly amusing when it happens and the Defence Minister is visiting....good thing the "un-named Canadian unit" had an extra bunk for him.

Rakassan!

S6


----------



## pbi (29 Jun 2005)

> I recall a couple of occasions when it actually rained mud - there was so much dirt in the air that the rain mixed with it and it fell to the ground as a plug of wet earth.



When this first happened at Bagram, it took me a while to realize that it was actually _raining_ mud. Great. Just what Afgh needs-more dirt.

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> When this first happened at Bagram, it took me a while to realize that it was actually _raining_ mud. Great. Just what Afgh needs-more dirt.
> 
> Cheers.



I dont think it was dirt...

Just think wet Poo-dust  ^-^


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2005)

If that wasn't enough, Southwest OP got moved to a new location 192 meters (we lazed it) from the Airfield Sh_tpond.  At least the flies provided some shade.

Tom


----------



## Redleg1971 (1 Jul 2005)

Hello, All, 

I was Security Forces Commander for the Kandhar PRT from December 2003-June 2004.  It was actually a very successful operation in my opinion.  We did not fire a single round in anger during our 8 month stay.  To my knowledge, the suicide bombing of a PRT convoy last month was the first direct contact the Kandahar PRT sustained since it was formed in the summer of 2003.  We had the support of the afghan people and were able to live in the city (yes, the PRT was in Kandahar City) in relative quietness from December 2003 when we opened the facility until we left in June 2004.  We witnessed a lot of progress in reconstruction with the support of the governor and other local officials.  Millions of dollars we spent to complete road projects, repair schools and dig wells for irrigation.  The people were appreciative and often gave us information that prevented attacks on our troops.

The weather was 115 deg F. in the shade, but we had airconditioning in the rooms.  The winter was cold enough to warrant long johns and a jacket on most days. The unit that replaced us had even more plans to make the living conditions there more comfortable.

Hope this helps to confirm or dispel some of your assumptions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jul 2005)

Redleg1971,
I would just like to welcome you to army.ca, hope you enjoy your stay.....


----------



## Gunner (1 Jul 2005)

Redleg1971, welcome to army.ca.   We have a few US participants on our website and all are welcomed.   I hope you will stick around and participate in the discussions and provide your experience.

Cheers,


----------



## McG (1 Jul 2005)

Redleg1971 said:
			
		

> yes, the PRT was in Kandahar City


I thought it was still in the city.


----------



## pbi (2 Jul 2005)

Redleg (I assume you are a Gunner...) welcome to a great site. It's good to have some of our US brethren here, especially those with recent Afgh experience. Hope you enjoy it here.


(Once Mike gets rid of this red haze......yuck....)

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Jul 2005)

as a Patrica how can you say that!


----------



## scm77 (4 Jul 2005)

> *Forces brace for Afghan casualties
> Car bombs, suicide attacks favourite tactics in Canada's new battleground
> *
> a journalist
> ...



http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=84f0b3c6-2fc4-4eec-bb87-43a3d0615c7e


----------



## paracowboy (4 Jul 2005)

> Col. Bowes said. "Canadian soldiers never go out looking for a fight..."


speak for yourself Col. I do. If you look for trouble, you can meet it before it finds you on its' terms.
At least he didn't call us Peacekeepers.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (4 Jul 2005)

> speak for yourself Col. I do. If you look for trouble, you can meet it before it finds you on its' terms



In a PRT, you don't go looking for trouble.  When 01-06 gets on the ground in Feb, though, that's a different story...


----------



## McG (4 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> speak for yourself Col. I do. If you look for trouble, you can meet it before it finds you on its' terms.


As the mission comd, he speaks for the PRT.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Jul 2005)

Within the PRT concept, the principle is valid.  Within the wider JTF-A - not so much.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> In a PRT, you don't go looking for trouble.   When 01-06 gets on the ground in Feb, though, that's a different story...


you can patrol aggressively *and* hand out toothbrushes. Every time you go out the wire, expect to get in a fight. The more prepared you appear, the less likely you are to get hit. If you don't get hit, excellent! If you do, you're ready. When you tell troops that you're looking for trouble, they stay alert. If you tell them that you're not, they rack their weapons and snooze in the backseat. By actively looking for a fight, you develop a mindset that makes you more alert and attentive. You gather better Int. One or two people can pass out blankets and kisses, the rest of the patrol scans for trouble. And when they find it, go kick the dragon's tail.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Jul 2005)

All true, but you're missing the point of a PRT.  With a PRT, there are likely to be civilians in the mix - from DFAIT, CIDA or a variety of NGOs.  Looking for trouble in such a situation is likely to bring just that - trouble.  I'm no expert, but I believe the infantry's role within a PRT is to provide force protection for the remainder of the team.

I know the OC of the coy assigned to the PRT very well - they're in good hands; he's hardly a shrinking violet.


----------



## MJP (5 Jul 2005)

I think I know where Para is going and I totally agree with him.  The best force protection you can have is too look too formidable to take on in the first place.  It may be true that the "infantry is there for force protection", and they won't be doing "combat msns", but to not be prepared for or to tell the troops that it isn't combat is a bit of a misnomer that can only lead to bad things.  Enemy combatants can't tell if you are a PRT member or a member of ISAF, OEF etc etc.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Jul 2005)

Good point, and I agree 100%.  There is a difference, however, between an aggressive posture designed to deter attacks and to respond quickly to threats and actively _seeking out_ contact.  I would suggest that the latter would not be appropriate in the context of a PRT.

I have absolutely no problem aggressively seeking out (and destroying) the enemy - if that's the mission.  In this particular case it isn't.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jul 2005)

A PRT would not be SCALED for such ops, but should work hand-in-hand with the force that IS.  There cannot be JUST a PRT presence.  We (meaning the 'allies') must must have both Cbt and PRT to complement each other, and if there is only a PRT, it must have it's integral 'ODA' or similar (JTF?) with bigger assets on call.

But, you are all correct, I think, in your beliefs that the minute you tell people you aren't there to fight, somebody will eventually try and prove you right.

Tom


----------



## from darkness lite (5 Jul 2005)

As a member of the PRT I can tell you that there will be no "racking their weapons and snoozing in the backseat"   Every single member of the PRT knows that this is an active combat zone and when a patrol goes out, they will be a very well equipped, loaded for bear, "hard target".   Everyone know the threat so yes "the best force protection you can have is to look too formidable to take on in the first place."   

No one, from the Inf Pte, to the truck driver, to the Col, has any illusions this is not a war zone.   As such, everyone is approaching this, and was trained to approach this, as soldiers first, tradesmen second.

FDL


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (5 Jul 2005)

well that is good to hear FLD.  I hope they maintain that posture the whole time they are there and come back in one piece.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> With a PRT, there are likely to be civilians in the mix - from DFAIT, CIDA or a variety of NGOs.   Looking for trouble in such a situation is likely to bring just that - trouble.


all the more reason for actively seeking the trouble BEFORE it gets to the civies. That's my job description: "to close with, and destroy, the enemy." The more aggressively I do so, the less likely (and less able) they are to engage those in my charge.





> I'm no expert, but I believe the infantry's role within a PRT is to provide force protection for the remainder of the team


yep. By conducting framework patrolling, as well as convoy escort, camp security, establishing OPs, and other assorted baby-sitting tasks.





> I know the OC of the coy assigned to the PRT very well - they're in good hands; he's hardly a shrinking violet.


I know him professionally, and he is that: professional. However, even if he were Patton, Monty, and Rommel all rolled into one, it wouldn't make any difference in the attitude and responses of the cpl/ptes in the Coy. That's where I come in. Senior officers really have very little impact on the troops. I've had dozens of OC's over the years, I can remember two. I remember every jack and sgt I've ever worked for. Fortunately, he's got several very good NCO's to ramrod the show. Aggressive lot. Fun at parties, too!



> There is a difference, however, between an aggressive posture designed to deter attacks and to respond quickly to threats and actively seeking out contact.   I would suggest that the latter would not be appropriate in the context of a PRT.


I agree almost completely. Only one caveat: once an enemy is identified, it would be best for the non-combat arms to hole up in the fort, and for the grunts to go and kill the bad guys. Immediately. Sets the proper precedent, and eliminates a potential threat before it can get to those under the ground-pounder's protection.



> A PRT would not be SCALED for such ops, but should work hand-in-hand with the force that IS.   There cannot be JUST a PRT presence.   We (meaning the 'allies') must must have both Cbt and PRT to complement each other, and if there is only a PRT, it must have it's integral 'ODA' or similar (JTF?) with bigger assets on call.


what he said. (But with more vulgarity.)



> No one, from the Inf Pte, to the truck driver, to the Col, has any illusions this is not a war zone.   As such, everyone is approaching this, and was trained to approach this, as soldiers first, tradesmen second.


I know, I was there for the training. Now, it's up to you guys to constantly re-inforce that. We have to guard against complacency, and by stating that "we're not looking for trouble" we give the impression that we'd rather have sand kicked in our faces than poke the bully in the lips. I realize that the Col's speech was for the media, and so had to be scaled down (after all, we certainly wouldn't want to give Canada the impression that Her soldiers actually fight), but that one line touched my sorest nerve.

I'll shut up now. We're all saying the same thing, anyway.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Jul 2005)

> I'll shut up now. We're all saying the same thing, anyway.



Yeah, in the end, we are.     Besides, I'd rather be working with soldiers straining at the leash to get at the enemy than to work with those who require a severe kick in the a** just to leave the camp.


----------



## KevinB (6 Jul 2005)

paracowboy for CLS


----------



## scm77 (6 Jul 2005)

A little follow up to the article...

*Canadian troops aren't allowed to act like soldiers*

Re: Forces brace for Afghan casualties, July 4.

The comments of Col. Steve Bowes, commander of the Canadian troops deploying to Kandahar, indicate the unrealistic outlook of the Canadian government in its conduct of the war on terrorism.

Rather than see it as a "war," they believe that the application of good intentions in the form of defence, diplomacy and development will make things right in Afghanistan.

What they overlook is that without defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda first, reconstruction teams and other soft measures hold little chance of success. There is a clear implication that Canada wishes to let others fight and die, such as Americans, Britons and Australians, while it arrives later and conducts what is busywork.

Col. Bowes's remark that "Canadian soldiers never go out looking for a fight" is the ultimate insult to members of the Canadian Forces. The remark ties in with another point in his remarks, the "security sector reform." Those who champion this concept, with Canada in the lead, ultimately wish to make it a criminal act for armed authority agencies (the military and the police) to kill people other than in clear cases of self-defence. Canada is well along the road towards implementing this concept as indicated by the details of the new defence policy statement and in evolving missions, such as in Afghanistan. In 2002, Canada did conduct combat operations in Afghanistan, but this aroused such an outcry within the Liberal caucus and among foreign-affairs bureaucrats and various interest groups, that a commitment was made to avoid combat and killing in the future.

Hence we see the Canadian Forces transforming into a robust constabulary, and Canada's international reputation sinking into further disarray and irrelevance.

Sean Henry,

Ottawa,

Colonel (retired) 

http://server09.densan.ca/scripts/showfile.asp?URL=/Archivenews/050706/cit/050706b7.htm


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Jul 2005)

Col Henry (good 'ol black hat that he is) has been out of the loop for a long time.  Again, the comments are off base.  There is a distinct difference in mission between the PRT (which Col Bowes will command) and the force we're likely to place in Kandahar in 2006.



> There is a clear implication that Canada wishes to let others fight and die, such as Americans, Britons and Australians, while it arrives later and conducts what is busywork.



I really don't know where he gets this, given the role of PRTs, including American and British ones, in theatre.  All are engaged in security sector reform and in a variety of "nation building activities".  The PRT deployment must be viewed in the context of the longer-term plan for CF involvement in Afghanistan.  We are likely to take command of a multi-national brigade conducting operations along the Afghan frontier, with a Canadian infantry battle group in the thick of it early next year.  Hardly "busywork"  :

Frankly, to vent a bit, I'm getting a bit tired of the media and/or retired people telling me what an "insult" things are to serving members when they have completely failed to conduct adequate research or to place things in proper context.  This letter was a perfect example.


----------



## from darkness lite (6 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin beat me to the punch. Some out there do not really understand the concept of PRTs - all PRTs - be they American, British, German or Canadian (No PRTs conduct direct combat, or kinetic, operations).   The PRT concept is not Canadian, as a matter of fact the US is a big pusher of the PRT concept.   They view combat operations in two lights.   Kinetic, ie direct action against the enemy, and non-kinetic, ie indirect action against the enemy.   If you take away the enemy's support-base, defeating the enemy is only a matter of time.   That is the role of the PRT.   No PRT in Afghanistan goes looking for trouble (ie busting down doors, etc), however all are prepared to meet it and defeat it.   The TF Bayonet commander (173d Airborne Bde commander) views the PRTs as his non-kinetic weapons.

As for security sector reform, it is not a plan to disarm/neuter militaries/police.   Its far from that.   The goal is to make the ANA and the Afghan National Police professional enough to take care of their own problems.   The people of Afghanistan have to see that their government is working before they'll be fully confident in it's ability. Until that goal is met, Afghanistan has no chance of coming out of chaos.

For those who prefer direct combat actions, I hear you, however we don't get the luxury of choosing our missions.   As Teddy Ruxpin alluded to, wait for TF 01/06!!

FDL


----------



## McG (6 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I agree almost completely. Only one caveat: once an enemy is identified, it would be best for the non-combat arms to hole up in the fort, and for the grunts to go and kill the bad guys. Immediately. Sets the proper precedent, and eliminates a potential threat before it can get to those under the ground-pounder's protection.


Yes, and as a military member of the PRT you protect the fort while the military element responsible for destroying the enemy in that AO does its buisness.

For now, that military element in the US.  It should be a Canadain BG by Feb 06.


----------



## pbi (6 Jul 2005)

I have to agree with Teddy on some of these superannuated "warriors",( many of them denizens of the pages of Esprit de Corps magazine): it's really quite sickening sometimes to read their utterly ill-informed comments, and to see how the media gives full play to their "expert" opinions. Such as, if I recall correctly, the comment that appeared from one of these worthies saying that the PPCLI soldiers killed at Kandahar died because they were undergoing in-theatre training, which was a sign of how poorly trained the unit was. Anybody who knew anything at all about that mission knows how well trained 3PP was, and anybody with a schmick about training for war knows that in-theatre training is a normal part of the game-it is how a force adapts to changing tactical circumstances.

Cheers


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2005)

> Such as, if I recall correctly, the comment that appeared from one of these worthies saying that the PPCLI soldiers killed at Kandahar died because they were undergoing in-theatre training, which was a sign of how poorly trained the unit was. Anybody who knew anything at all about that mission knows how well trained 3PP was, and anybody with a schmick about training for war knows that in-theatre training is a normal part of the game-it is how a force adapts to changing tactical circumstances.



Michel Drapeau made the comments.  Although I don't agree with Sean Henry's comments (I assume on behalf of CDA), I loathe to lump him in the same category as Drapeau.


----------



## Redleg1971 (7 Jul 2005)

We wrestled with the posture of our force while I was at the Kandahar PRT, and finally decided that first and foremost, we had to protect ourselves.  The Afghan people respected that.  Whenever we left the gates of the compound, we were locked and loaded and ready to fight and defend ourselves.  Being some 25km from the airbase when you are in the city, you cannot count on the grunts to get there to back you up.  Remember that your enemy will look for the weakest link to attack.  Don't look like that weakest link, even if your mission is reconstruction.

Kerry


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

Well said.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

I think Col Drapeau should have known better.   Had he read LCol Schrieber's "Shock Army of the British Empire: The Canadian Corps in the Last Hundred Days of the Great War", he would have been reminded that an Army must constantly learn, re-train and develop itself both between and during operations. 

We all trained at Kandahar.   Had that bomb been dropped the night before or the night after, it would have hit guys from TF 64, or some 4 digit ODA.   We even ran a Surv Opr course over there, as well as   firing everything we had.   As well, we don't even see a lot of kit until we hit the ground overseas and some bean counter grudgingly tell's a bin rat in Canada to take it off her shelf and ships it to us.   The Norgie 77mm MBGD DP Smoke Grenades are an example.

Tom


----------



## from darkness lite (7 Jul 2005)

Redleg1971 said:
			
		

> Remember that your enemy will look for the weakest link to attack.   Don't look like that weakest link, even if your mission is reconstruction.



Roger that, and that is Col Bowes' intent.

FDL


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

"As well, we don't even see a lot of kit until we hit the ground overseas and some bean counter grudgingly tells a bin rat in Canada to take it off her shelf and ships it to us."

That is truly a shame and I hope its being addressed as best it can at the highest levels.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> That is truly a shame and I hope its being addressed as best it can at the highest levels.



Best solution - force a deployment of all supply techs and Fin Officers - with augmentation by civil servants at DND and politicians...


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Best solution - force a deployment of all supply techs and Fin Officers - with augmentation by civil servants at DND and politicians...


everybody wins!


----------



## Haggis (7 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Best solution - force a deployment of all supply techs and Fin Officers - with augmentation by civil servants at DND and politicians...



Maybe with them all gone, the rest of us would get some real work done....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Jul 2005)

To put things into perspective, a couple of facts might be in order:

-  We bought over $13 million in new kit for the ground portion of OP APOLLO.  This is not counting the new natures of ammo procured. Often, we would react to items _found online_ by the BG itself.

-  Until the last week of Dec 01, we thought the BG would be deploying to Kabul as part of ISAF (we were formally stood down for Xmas on the night of 24 Dec - I know, I was at work.  1 CMBG leaned a bit forward to give 3 VP more of a break).  The combat ops order was received on 7 Jan 02 and the BG was launched three weeks later - with a totally different TO&E than was originally discussed (thankfully, the Strathconas had continued to keep Coyotes at a higher readiness level).  You can imagine the frenzy in the interim, which affected all sorts of things - including delivery of new equipment, ammo loading, flight timings, order of march for entry to theatre, delivery of ROEs, etc..

-  Concurrent with a shift to Kandahar was a shift to the exclusive use of USAF airlift.  The USAF uses a totally different system and our movements people had to jury-rig everything just to get flights organized.  The USAF tended to ignore our order of march recommendations and messed with our load plan, leading to problems at the APOD.  This was complicated even further in cross-loading in Germany.

-  Because of the difficulty of the theatre, we relied entirely on the US transport system and on ILOC (the NATO Log system) to get our stuff to Kandahar.  The Yanks would often bump even IOR items in favour of their own, leaving our IOR items, parts, etc. sitting in Dover or Germany or points in between (or in Kuwait, or Oman, or Bahrein...).

In other words, there is much more to this than meets the eye.  Yes, there were problems with the bureaucracy - I lived it too.  However, I have to note that in 99% of cases, I was surprised by the "can do" attitude shown by people all over the CF.  As one example, CFAD Dundurn crossloaded tons of ammo over the holidays, trying to keep up with all the changes.  They repacked the entire ammo load three times as we changed scales over and over again - a huge amount of work, all on spec.  In fact, the basic load for infantry ammo was given up by Wainwright, in order to reduce delivery timings.

What got to me were the stupid fights:

- calls from NDHQ about troops camming their equipment by spraying it tan
- calls from NDHQ about troops wearing webbing rather than tac vests
- the "cast in concrete" 100 vehicle cap
- the unwillingness to stand down those units that would obviously not be deploying

Those who were in Kandahar undoubtedly can add to the list - it is a long one.  But, I have to say that aside from a couple of individuals, I never encountered anyone that said no just for the sake of saying no.  I still remember the feeling that I got when I read in the op order:  "conduct combat operations against Al Qaida and Taliban forces"...

The good news is that the PRT has two senior individuals that lived all of this in 2001 and 2002 - and who well remember what everyone went through.

Enough from me...I've ranted enough and think I still have "issues" surrounding this op... ;D


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Enough from me...I've ranted enough and think I still have "issues" surrounding this op...


rant away, my fuzzy friend. Hopefully, others will read this as an AAR, and it will forestall such annoyances from occurring in future.

And it's cathartic.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> - calls from NDHQ about troops camming their equipment by spraying it tan
> - calls from NDHQ about troops wearing webbing rather than tac vests



WTF are they involving themselves with tactical matters for?  I'm curious of how the Staff relationship is supposed to work on this one....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

Hey Infanteer missed you in the mess.   :-*

I agree with your point as well.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

"launched three weeks later - with a totally different TO&E than was originally discussed (thankfully, the Strathconas had continued to keep Coyotes at a higher readiness level)."

- What a hoot!   We went on leave having re-orged a Recce Sqn from two 7 car recce troops and an NBC Tp to a deployable 7 car Tp with a spare veh (The LO).

 Our c/s were prep for loading on a Herky Bird, by us, supervised by the pathological liars ("Your GPS Btys will be in theatre when you get there.") who have been designated such by the red arm bands and yellow wagon wheels, and who checked out the Coyotes using AVGP load sheets.   I went on leave expecting a phone call any second, and was amazed when it didn't happen.   We come back to find our vehicles painted tan (nice job, 'B' Sqn), and re-orged into two 5 car troops, with the two now surplus patrols ready to join us on order (which we thought was the plan - but it never was).   This re-org required cross loading all of the issued consumables and re-distributing our ration mix - no big deal.   

We didn't even know when we were catching the C-5B, and even which way around the planet we were going to fly.   My chalk - the first - went through Gander and landed in Ramstein.   It almost didn't leave Edmonton at all due to our bus breaking down repeatedly between the LTF and EIA, and a Canadian driving a fork lift into the Galaxy as we were emplaning. The next day at Ramstein,   we bombed up what we could - no 25mm, but lots of co-ax - and loaded into a C-17 with my Coyote (42A, CFR 767), my driver, and half of 'B' Coy 3 PPCLI.   We landed in Kandahar on 2 or 3 Feb to find a bunch of Cdn journalists waiting.   Some had 'bounced' the Pak/Afghan border to get in ahead of us.   Follow on flights came in later, though through Rhine-Main (Frankfurt a.m.), not Ramstein.   Which is why I at least got to land with lots of co-ax ammo, the rest of the Sqn landed with squat.

Tom


----------



## McG (7 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> - the "cast in concrete" 100 vehicle cap


That is as irksome as the cast in concrete manpower numbers



> *War-bound troops train for worst*
> Taliban insurgents step up attacks in Afghanistan
> Terry Pedwell
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

Shouldn't a secure and safe environment be established before we go around building stuff.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

Concurrent.  People need water, sewage, electricity, schools, security.  If we wait for security to happen, we wait 50 years.  Yanks had probs in Iraq trying to build safety through democracy when people just wanted/needed essential services restored first.

Tom


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> WTF are they involving themselves with tactical matters for?   I'm curious of how the Staff relationship is supposed to work on this one....



Um...(must be careful here) Well, in this instance, there was an officer on LS who had his face in a knot about equipment (I won't go any further).   He'd see something on TV he didn't like and engage us directly - over the most mundane points.   "Oh my God, your soldiers aren't wearing tac vests!!!"   All this despite the fact that we lost control of anything to do with the deployment as soon as the guys got on the plane (or didn't as TCBF points out!)...   This sort of thing happens all the time and it is up to staff guys (as I was at the time) to fend it off.

I eventually came close to going to the DB by telling him to f**k off.   Worked, though.    ;D 

Thankfully, I deployed about a month later and all was forgotten...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Jul 2005)

This might be of interest to the warfighters out there...



> Troops expecting casualties, Hillier says
> By BILL CURRY
> 
> Friday, July 8, 2005
> ...


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Personally I think we just found a great role for reservists - PRT security forces - while the regs play hunter killer.


While I recognize you are advocating the "sexier" role for the regs, is there any other circumstance when you might recommend the reserves for the job that will requirer the more capable soldiers?


----------



## civvy3840 (8 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Shouldn't a secure and safe environment be established before we go around building stuff.



I agree with that 100%


----------



## KevinB (8 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> While I recognize you are advocating the "sexier" role for the regs, is there any other circumstance when you might recommend the reserves for the job that will requirer the more capable soldiers?



Not until I go back to the reserves  ;D


 Right now we have troops in our BN's who have not had a tour in 7 years - simply due to the Ad Hoc deployments we have had -- I dont see a reason to employ reservisits when we have regulars drawing breath and pay sitting around.  Its not a good use of resources.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Jul 2005)

They haven't been on a tour in 7 years 'cause your too damn sexy.


----------



## from darkness lite (10 Jul 2005)

Taleban behead Afghan Police in Helmand Province (part of TF Bayonet's AO).   Although this did not happen in our AO, part of Security Sector Reform is to equip and train the ANP so these incidents will become less frequent.   I agree with previous posts that hunting them down would be ideal, however as long as they can cross the border with impunity, and the allies cannot, the ANP will in many cases be the first to confront these "animals".   One of the roles of PRT's is to equip/train the ANP to operate more effectively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4668747.stm

FDL


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2005)

Sounds a lot like Cambodia/Vietnam with re to border issues.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Sounds a lot like Cambodia/Vietnam with re to border issues.


precisely. And the local troops in that area are either scared to act against the tribes, or are more loyal to the tribes than to the Pakistani government. Musharraf is in a tight spot. He can't rely on his army to quash the northern border tribes, and he can't invite foreign troops in to do it for him, without massive civil unrest. Actually, it's worse than that, because he can't rely on his Intelligence service either.

The tribes along what is now the Afghan/Pak border have never acknowledged any subservience or loyalty to the rulers of any neighbouring power, whether the local Grand Poobah was from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or England. They've always been independent, extremely conservative, xenophobic, insular, and violent. (Kinda like my family, only with more facial hair.)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2005)

Anyway to get these independents seeing things our way?


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Jul 2005)

The British used to gain their co-operation by a combination of bribes and force. Neither option worked very well, except in the short term.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Anyway to get these independents seeing things our way?



I have an idea...








Some SR mission combined with precision and low key DA's from the resultant int.  Act like the Israeli's pick up your brass and admit nothing...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2005)

oh you cad!


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Some SR mission combined with precision and low key DA's from the resultant int.   Act like the Israeli's pick up your brass and admit nothing...



I like that.  Deploying large forces is a double edged-sword, as our big footprint can act to piss off the locals.  These foes will infiltrate our society and hit us from the dark, so we should do the same.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (10 Jul 2005)

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/07/10/afghan.ambush.ap/index.html


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2005)

Infanteer - all the US Gov't did with Gray Fox is allow CAG guys to go hunting with a very deniable footprint - taken of the Israeli 'blueprint'.   I had a chance enounter with a Israeli SF officer a few years through a friend of mine down south - at the time both of us though they where on the extreme side of paranoid - that was prior to 911.

 All we need to to is insert some climbing cell guys into the moutains east of Afghan... to do so SR work - then bring in an element for one of the Sqn's - perhaps with 031 paticipation if the tgt is large - insert via freefall (and clown can land a square chute - even me) do the business - sanitise the site and extra to a point where the 160th elements can withdraw you...

 I'd bet CAG is already doing it since the US have assets in Pakistan for FID and that give the others a cover...


SR - Strategic Recon
DA- Direct Action - raids and more...
CAG - Combined Action Group -- just think Delta. with sprinkling of Rangers into workable Task Forces (i.e. TF Ranger from BHD/Battle of the Black Sea infamy)
Gray Fox - CAG guys who get to play outside the box (and put people in them quite well)
FID - Foreign Internal Defence - essential ETT pers - but unlike our ETT's they acutaly train and FIGHT beside the locals.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Jul 2005)

Thank you for the legend.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2005)

Rob,

T'was not for you - but the others reading  

 After I wrote it I realised that those out of the loop might miss what I was refering too.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Infanteer - all the US Gov't did with Gray Fox is allow CAG guys to go hunting with a very deniable footprint - taken of the Israeli 'blueprint'.   I had a chance enounter with a Israeli SF officer a few years through a friend of mine down south - at the time both of us though they where on the extreme side of paranoid - that was prior to 911.
> 
> All we need to to is insert some climbing cell guys into the moutains east of Afghan... to do so SR work - then bring in an element for one of the Sqn's - perhaps with 031 paticipation if the tgt is large - insert via freefall (and clown can land a square chute - even me) do the business - sanitise the site and extra to a point where the 160th elements can withdraw you...
> 
> ...


 BWAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! I just imagined the reactions of the various PONTIs in Parliament reading this.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jul 2005)

Oh I needed it.
BTW just heard that the BN is taking names for LUVW drivers. DAMN.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

Well look at the bright side - with the London bombing I doubt the spineless asshats are going to try to waterdown 1-06


----------



## Acorn (14 Jul 2005)

Unfortunately, I don't have your confidence Kevin, maybe because it wasn't London, Ontario (thankfully).

The horro stories I've heard about budget bunfights would curl your hair. If the TB needs to get $10 mil from somewhere in a few months, you can be assured that 1-06 is not a sacred cow.

Cynically,
Acorn


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

Well it better be - or 1VP may be planning an OP near Rideau...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Jul 2005)

Well, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that we've committed the TF and Bde HQ to NATO and the US already - time is growing short and we've announced the deployment publicly.  We're taking over an entire sector and that's not something you back out of without huge angst internationally.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

And you'd pretty much lose your Infantry Corps -- many guys re-signed contracts just to get on this tour -- if it went south you have a lot of angry folk.


----------



## couchcommander (14 Jul 2005)

A few things...

a) I don't think the Liberals would allow the mission to be pulled. Otherwise, people might start to think Canada was not as much of a world player as it once was, and the PM won't get to visit Bono as often. 

b) I like your thinking KevinB, re: the pick the brass and admit nothing.

c) thanks for the legend, I was lost.

d)YOU actually WANT to go to Afganistan?!?!?!?


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> d)YOU actually WANT to go to Afganistan?!?!?!?


It is the place to be if you want to do your job.


----------



## couchcommander (14 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is the place to be if you want to do your job.



And to think I avoid the US because their Customs and Immigration has become unpleasant. You guys need to be paid more... or given stronger medication.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> d)YOU actually WANT to go BACK to Afganistan?!?!?!?



fixed it  

I'd rather go to Iraq honestly.  I'd much rather take the fight to them, than have it come here to my family and friends.  Afghanistan's my second choice  ;D


----------



## TCBF (14 Jul 2005)

"Afghanistan's my second choice"

Yep.

Tom


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> YOU actually WANT to go to Afganistan?!?!?!?


why would you even ask this question?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jul 2005)

Because he/she is a University student, who to his/her credit is at least asking and not just condemning us like most students without ever hearing the answers to that question.


----------



## Roy Harding (14 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> d)YOU actually WANT to go to Afganistan?!?!?!?



(Just because I can't resist - these guys don't want to go to "Afganistan", they want to go to Afg*h*anistan.)

couchcommander:

Although recently retired (Jan 04) perhaps I can attempt to clarify this desire for you - others will no doubt pile on with their own opinions.

First - you've got to understand that being a soldier is not a "job", it is not a "career", it is a way of life and a mindset.  In my opinion, this holds true for all "emergency response/service" jobs, Police Officer, Fire Fighter, EMTs, medical professionals, etcetera.  This does not mean that all these types of service are "equal" - another discussion we won't get into here - but that the motivation for serving in them, and the culture surrounding them are, basically, similar.

Most soldiers join and/or stay in because they strongly believe in what they are doing - they're doing their part to preserve and protect our way of life, amongst MANY other motivations, all of which are (IMHO) basically grounded in service to and for their country and fellow citizens.

This is not to deny that some young recruits have visions of "Rambo" and personal glory dancing in their heads - these types either mature after being in for a while, or get out after discovering what's REALLY going on.

Now - given all that, an oft used analogy (imperfect as it is) is that of a sports team which does not belong to a league.  The team trains and trains and trains, but never gets to "play" another team.  Many members of the team leave out of boredom, those remaining continue honing their skills, just itching for a chance to play another team.  When a rare chance to use their skills as a team DOES occur, you can bet they're all itchin' for it - it is, after all, what they've been training for.

As I said - others will jump in with their own opinions - soldiers are no more homogeneous a group than any other collection of human beings - but watch how often the concept of "service" comes up.

Good luck in your studies - two of my sons are alumni of U of A, the third is still a student there.


----------



## MJP (14 Jul 2005)

> First - you've got to understand that being a soldier is not a "job", it is not a "career", it is a way of life and a mindset.  In my opinion, this holds true for all "emergency response/service" jobs, Police Officer, Fire Fighter, EMTs, medical professionals, etcetera.  This does not mean that all these types of service are "equal" - another discussion we won't get into here - but that the motivation for serving in them, and the culture surrounding them are, basically, similar.
> 
> Most soldiers join and/or stay in because they strongly believe in what they are doing - they're doing their part to preserve and protect our way of life, amongst MANY other motivations, all of which are (IMHO) basically grounded in service to and for their country and fellow citizens.
> 
> ...



Well said CC

+1


----------



## Blackhorse7 (14 Jul 2005)

Looks like the RCMP are going to Kandahar as well.  The tour announcements just came out.  My name is going to be going in, tours anticipated to start in fall.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Jul 2005)

would the RCMP get the same tax exempt break?


----------



## Korus (14 Jul 2005)

> d)YOU actually WANT to go to Afganistan?!?!?!?



Yup. Volunteered for it when my Pl Cmd phoned me during a night lab at the UofA in early April, two days after my last exam I started workup training. In a few weeks my boots will be on the ground in Kandahar.
It was an opportunity that I didn't want to pass up, and it came at the perfect time.


----------



## Blackhorse7 (14 Jul 2005)

Yup, RCMP get the same tax break.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

CC - excellent.

Blackhorse 7 - good luck.

~RoKo~ stay safe man


----------



## paracowboy (14 Jul 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Because he/she is a University student, who to his/her credit is at least asking and not just condemning us like most students without ever hearing the answers to that question.


Bruce, I know he's a student. What surprises me is that he could read 9 pages of troops talking about wanting to go over, and then express shock at Kev's post. Those previous 9 pages highlight what we are all about.


----------



## couchcommander (14 Jul 2005)

Yes Yes, Afghanistan,   

Paracowboy, 

It was not shock at KevinB's post in particular, but surprise in finding, as a whole, this attitude (KevinB's) over 9 pages of posts. It's not exactly human nature to put oneself into harms way without a clear and pressing reason, nor is this attitude (KevinB's) the impression many of us civilians get through the news media (it often seems to us through the news media that you guys DON't want to go). No offence was meant. 

Thanks

[edit] RetiredCC, I forgot to thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Gunner (14 Jul 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> It was not shock at KevinB's post in particular, but surprise in finding, as a whole, this attitude (KevinB's) over 9 pages of posts. It's not exactly human nature to put oneself into harms way without a clear and pressing reason, nor is this attitude (KevinB's) the impression many of us civilians get through the news media (it often seems to us through the news media that you guys DON't want to go). No offence was meant.



Civilians run away from danger, those of us in uniform, towards it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (14 Jul 2005)

Oddly enough, that was a criticism from the BC Forest Service during the Okanagan Fires...  Even when there was obvious danger, our guys would run _towards_ the fire...while the civilian firefighters would (sensibly in their view) run away from it.


----------



## Slim (14 Jul 2005)

> it often seems to us through the news media that you guys DON't want to go



If you want to get a feel for how the troopies really think stay here.

Forget the media...Not only do they not know the truth but they only print what will sell papers, or airtime...NEVER, EVER the truth!

Cheers


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (16 Jul 2005)

If you recall during the gulf war the media honed in on a Canadian sailor getting ready to head out and the sailor was saying "I never signed up to fight a war". IMHO since our forces have been kept away from the real action for so long, the riff raf have snuck in thinking they can get their education paid for and still eat granola and hug trees. Im willing to bet over 90% of the military would jump at the chance to finally put their training to the ultimate test. Too bad the general public thinks otherwise.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2005)

Hey, I eat Granola and like trees... (never known one well enough to hug yet   )


----------



## Acorn (16 Jul 2005)

Anyone who thinks they'll get their education paid for is misinformed.

Acorn


----------



## Armymedic (16 Jul 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Im willing to bet over 90% of the military would jump at the chance to finally put their training to the ultimate test.


Oh heck yes...I am definately one of tha 90%.

Too bad, in my case, it means somebody has got to get hurt.


----------



## Dale Turner (16 Jul 2005)

I would like to think that ALL members of the forces would be chomping at the bit to be able to practice the skills and the training and show our determination to do the job required of us to the citizens of Canada and the rest of the world.  Canadian taxpayers need to see what their forces can do (even if it is with limited and some antiquated equipment). We as members of the military say we need more troops and more equipment and generally more financial support. Here's our chance to put our money where our mouth is. 

The world also needs to see that the Canadian forces are just as war worthy as our more experienced allies. We just seem to be alittle more picky about the fights we fight in IMHO.

To those who are going over to Afghanistan...do your job well, look after buddy and do all of us proud. 


DT


----------



## Gunner (16 Jul 2005)

Coy medic said:
			
		

> I would like to think that ALL members of the forces would be chomping at the bit to be able to practice the skills and the training and show our determination to do the job required of us to the citizens of Canada and the rest of the world.   Canadian taxpayers need to see what their forces can do (even if it is with limited and some antiquated equipment). We as members of the military say we need more troops and more equipment and generally more financial support. Here's our chance to put our money where our mouth is.
> 
> The world also needs to see that the Canadian forces are just as war worthy as our more experienced allies. We just seem to be alittle more picky about the fights we fight in IMHO.
> 
> ...



I certianly feel as many others do in this thread.  However, if we do employ the skills that we are trained in, the chance of killed and injured soldiers increases.  I do not have a problem with this occurring (its part of being a soldier) but before I see my friends and comrades dieing for a cause, it had better be for the right Canadian national interest and not some vague notion of "soft power" trumpeted by the Canadian chattering classes.  Make sure every sacrifice is worth it...


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2005)

> Canadians in Kandahar will be nation builiding
> _Last Updated Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:27:18 EDT
> CBC News_
> 
> ...


 http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/16/forces-kandahar050716.html


----------



## civvy3840 (17 Jul 2005)

Coy medic said:
			
		

> I would like to think that ALL members of the forces would be chomping at the bit to be able to practice the skills and the training and show our determination to do the job required of us to the citizens of Canada and the rest of the world.  Canadian taxpayers need to see what their forces can do (even if it is with limited and some antiquated equipment). We as members of the military say we need more troops and more equipment and generally more financial support. Here's our chance to put our money where our mouth is.
> 
> The world also needs to see that the Canadian forces are just as war worthy as our more experienced allies. We just seem to be alittle more picky about the fights we fight in IMHO.
> 
> ...



Well said. The public does need to see what the forces can do. To everyone going to afghanistan Keep safe!


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2005)

> Troops ship out Tuesday for Afghanistan
> _Jim Farrell
> The Edmonton Journal
> July 16, 2005_
> ...


----------



## McG (18 Jul 2005)

> *Canadian casualties likely on mission*
> Posting in volatile Kandahar region will put Edmonton troops in daily danger
> _Terry Pedwell
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Gunnar (19 Jul 2005)

Canadian soldiers set to depart for Afghanistan
CTV.ca News Staff

The first wave of Canadian soldiers are preparing to leave on Tuesday for Kandahar, Afghanistan on a mission Canada's top soldier has described as dangerous but necessary.

The 40 soldiers leaving today from the Edmonton Garrison are the first of a 250-member provincial construction team or PRT, made up of soldiers, Mounties, members of the Canadian International Development Agency and Foreign Affairs personnel.

Over the next few months, the Canada's presence in Afghanistan will grow further as 2,000 Canadian soldiers will be part of the mission to help the Afghan government assert its authority in the region.

Some of the troops could be sent to the southern mountains, and regions still populated by remnants of the Taliban regime and al Qaeda militants. 

Last week, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, called the militants "murderers and scumbags," who "detest" the freedoms and liberties enjoyed by citizens of democracies. 

He said Canada is already a terrorist target by virtue of its status as a democratic member of the Western alliance. He said Canada can't let fear of reprisal stop it from confronting the threat.

"The London attack actually tells us once more: We can't let up," he said, referring to the July 7 terrorist bombings in London that claimed 56 lives.

Sgt. Major Shawn Croucher said this mission will carry more urgency than past ones which have involved Canadian troops.

"Most of our missions before have been with the United Nations, trying to keep two warring factions apart, whereas this one, the insurgents are directly targetting military," Croucher told CFRN News at the Edmonton Garrison.

Apart from rooting out terrorists, Canadian soldiers will be charged with training local police and soldiers, patrolling city streets, as well as ensuring that international supplies get through. 

This departure marks the first time Canadians have returned to Kandahar since 2002, when four Edmonton-based soldiers were killed in a friendly fire incident. This mission will last 18 months. 

CFRN's Sheldon Larmand says the military isn't giving specifics about when the next wave of troops will leave. 

"But they are saying that there will be two more flights after today and they will take place sometime before the end of the month."

Canada's elite Joint Task Force 2 commandos are also expected to provide protection for the team, although Department of Defence officials are refusing to provide details or even confirm their participation.

Critics of the PRT mission warn that Canadian soldiers could face dangers in Kandahar similar to those seen by American forces in Iraq.

U.S. officials predict the fighting in Afghanistan will intensify in the coming months as al Qaeda and Taliban fighters attempt to destabilize national assembly elections scheduled for September.

With a live report from CTV's Edmonton affiliate, CFRN News


----------



## Second Chance (19 Jul 2005)

May they all come back safe and mission completed.


----------



## Baloo (19 Jul 2005)

Good luck, lads.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 Jul 2005)

I wish I could go with them.
Rumors going around that they might callout a hundred reservists or so from LFAA to attach... i doubt its true but heres hoping.

May they all come back safe indeed.


----------



## Slim (19 Jul 2005)

Heads down and eyes open gents...Come back safe!


----------



## JBC (20 Jul 2005)

Godspeed fellas


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Jul 2005)

May God watch over you troops

dileas

tess


----------



## Jaxson (20 Jul 2005)

be safe and good luck guys.

 In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.


----------



## Hunter911 (21 Jul 2005)

Good luck gentlemen.. Keep your eyes open


----------



## supplyguy (21 Jul 2005)

Hey guys!! I will see you when you get here.... I've been here already a month setting up for you.   ;D:


----------



## Clarkus (21 Jul 2005)

Good Luck!!! Come Home Safe!!!!!!


----------



## Nomad (21 Jul 2005)

Wish I was going with you guys. :crybaby: Good Luck.

Godspeed and Keep your powder dry!


----------



## drrchief (22 Jul 2005)

All the best comrades!  
from a RCR (RET)


----------



## silentbutdeadly (22 Jul 2005)

boys! try to leave some for us when we get there in Feb! God Speed and a safe return!


----------



## silentbutdeadly (22 Jul 2005)

its a funny thing about the general public! When i am around my future wife's family they still say Peacekeeper every freakin time! and it drives me nuts! my unit is the one leaving with the roughly 1200 strong and well from what i am told its Peacekeeping through superiour firepower! haha I just don't think the public is not ready for soldier deaths while in combat! enough said. The comment about the fires was funny also because when i was there i did that stupid thing also. The civies ran away , when my section turned and ran towards this lever 5 fire! hahah onve in i was like  " OK VERY BAD IDEA!" but we got it out !


----------



## Devo (22 Jul 2005)

ya my fiance's family keeps saying the whole peacekeeping thing too.. and my family as well.. but i can't really say that much, at least the news is making it known.. WE"RE NOT PEACEKEEPING on this mission, i'm part of the 250 going this week, and man am i ever stoked, i have so much confidence with my guys, like it was said, we do it superbly, now lets just hope that everyone comes back home alive.

this should be a good one


----------



## Bartok5 (22 Jul 2005)

Devo,

Have a good one, and come home in one piece.  As an Op Apollo guy, I sincerely hope that this upcoming tour will be the pay-off for all of your training and preparation.  And I mean that in the most positive way possible.

Keep safe and watch your back!

Mark C


----------



## comet (24 Jul 2005)

God Speed and come home safe!


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Jul 2005)

Keep your powder dry, and your socks fresh.

I don't envy the conditions under which you will be living, but I do envy your opportunity to "earn your pay".

Take care of each other, no one else on the face of the earth cares as much for each other as soldiers in a tight spot.

I'll be watching your exploits with interest, and I know you'll make Canada proud, no matter what happens.

Bring 'em all home.



Roy Harding


----------



## redleafjumper (25 Jul 2005)

All the best troops, stay alert and keep safe.  Thanks for going and here's to your safe return.


----------



## PKR_Chequer (27 Jul 2005)

May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind always be at your back, and may God hold you in the hollow of His hand...


----------



## buzgo (27 Jul 2005)

I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I heard that the Americans have Pizza Hut and Burger King at the Khandahar Airport. This is from a guy on the TAT, but he may be referring to the food at the US mess.

Anyone heard anything like this?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2005)

It's true.   There are other facilities there as well (see the list).   KAF is a bit different than what 3 PPCLI encountered during OP APOLLO.   Gotta love the Americans:

http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Newcomers/Kandahar.asp



> Services Available:
> 
> PX/BX: Seven days a week 9:30 am to 9:30 pm
> Burger King: Seven days a week 9 am to 1 pm
> ...



_Note:   the link has been up and down - it may not be working when tried..._


----------



## Acorn (27 Jul 2005)

Holy crap! "Black Ops Store??!!"  :

Acorn


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Jul 2005)

The leather store really caught my eye. Is there such a huge demand for leather goods and accesories to warrant a seperate store?


----------



## buzgo (27 Jul 2005)

What about the embroidery store?!

My buddy on the TAT says that they are eating beaucoup Pizza Hut and BK!!


----------



## Korus (27 Jul 2005)

"Black Ops Store?" I don't remember seeing that when I was surfing through that list a couple months ago..

I'm on the next flight out... Can't wait.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The leather store really caught my eye. Is there such a huge demand for leather goods and accesories to warrant a seperate store?



The Afghans make all sorts of leather things - including a lot of pistol holsters (some custom)...  It's probably run by a (vetted) local.

I shudder to think of the leather store and the "black ops" store being co-located...


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (28 Jul 2005)

The Canadian troops were flown on two C-130 Hercules military aircraft to the U.S. military base just outside Kandahar on Thursday. 

Over the next couple of days, the remainder of the soldiers will arrive. They will rest for a day or so before going on patrols with U.S. forces already in the area. 

The reconstruction team, known as a PRT, is setting up camp closer to Kandahar. 

Most of the troops are from 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, mainly members of Edmonton Garrison's 1 Combat Engineer Regiment, 3 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and 1 Service Battalion. Another 50 from other Canadian bases will provide specialized skills such as satellite communications. 

In Kandahar, the southern Afghan region that was once a stronghold of the Taliban, the reconstruction team will assist in defence, diplomacy and development. 

The Canadians will take over patrols in and around Kandahar from a U.S. team that lost four soldiers to a suicide bomb attack less than a month ago.

Good luck boys, come home safe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2005)

The highlighted bit is what is really pertinent; a huge amount of the _information_ gathered by most agencies is _open source_ and is merged with other information, from all manner of sources, and, eventually, after massaging in the hands of skilled analysts, become real _intelligence_.  This is, still, just information.  It is interesting to note that we have provided 21st century _information distribution_ systems for 8th century wanabees.

From today's _National Post_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=99796e79-94d1-4566-ac40-16f2e8653c09 



> Taliban get 'heads-up' about Canadians message
> *'Ominous' online notice warns about new troops*
> 
> Chris Wattie, with files from Stewart Bell
> ...


----------



## scm77 (29 Jul 2005)

A letter from a reader of the Toronto Star

*The focus has been lost
Canada should have quit when the U.S. refused to negotiate for the rendition of Osama bin Laden*

Elite commandos off on `high-risk' mission

July 26.

We have no business supporting the Americans in Afghanistan. We are there ready to conduct "surgical strikes," to do combat, to take prisoners, to kill people who are in their own backyard doing their thing to rid their land of foreign invaders.

Why are we doing this? Why are we aiding and abetting the American criminal elites who are plundering and murdering like mad men in a giant swath across the Middle East?

We supported the Americans insofar as their initial attention toward Afghanistan was supposed to be a so-called police effort to capture the alleged perpetrators of 9/11. But the Americans refused to negotiate with the Taliban and quickly turned the police effort into an all-out shock and awe bombing campaign and military takeover of the country.

Now the "enemy" is the Taliban or anyone who opposes the American-installed rulers. What happened to our focus in bringing the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 â â€ Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden â â€ to justice with due process, according to the laws and practices of a civilized nation?

Now Canadians (at least our elites) define the "enemy" as the Taliban, just like the Americans, and are ready to go out in (rented) helicopters and hunt and kill them with inevitable "collateral damage." What gives here?

When the Americans refused to negotiate with the Taliban for the rendition of bin Laden and cohorts, we should have ended our involvement on the spot right then and there.

Subsequent to these moves by the U.S., any further involvement by Canada amounts to tacit support for the Americans and their criminal objectives and methods.

We will be held responsible. There will be blowback, especially as we up the ante through our actions as junior acolytes of the Pentagon savages. Do you think those who are defending their land, their homes, their women, their children and their way of life will defer revenge because of our admirable peacekeeping record?

Have we too lost our marbles?

Peter Cousins, Kingston
----------------------
 :boring:


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2005)

> Have we too lost our marbles?



Not all of us, just Mr. Cousins, Ms. Barlow, Ms. Parrish and a few others.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jul 2005)

Ok someone more eloquent then I must respond to clowny.


----------



## Armymedic (30 Jul 2005)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> "Black Ops Store?" I don't remember seeing that when I was surfing through that list a couple months ago..
> 
> I'm on the next flight out... Can't wait.



Good luck to you...

Black Ops is a little store that makes holsters and pouches (as you'd expect) in Pakastan. They have a shop in the Phoenix Px as well...

As opposed to our "professional" army...the US Army has indeed learned any fool can be uncomfortable and makes every effort to ensure that thier soldiers have access to the things they are used to at home, as best they can...

Thier DFACs (kitchens), Gyms, and most of thier barracks are air conditioned (unlike our CJ facilites), they need to get more morale phones and computers in but they are working on it, but thier Sat TV and radio kicks butt. Iraq is a big drain on their resourse, but its getting better.


----------



## SeanPaul_031 (30 Jul 2005)

Does anyone know of any sites which document the progress of the PPCLI soldiers who jus recently went to kandahar, because the news doesnt give it too much coverage...


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (30 Jul 2005)

Word of advice for you. Typically only a small percentage of a tours progress/information is actually released and its almost always innacurate. The PPCLI's home website will post some updates sent back by troops on the ground and the din will post info under current operations but unfortunately you will have to wait till end tour to get any valid information that isnt twisted by the media mongers.


----------



## SeanPaul_031 (30 Jul 2005)

alright, thanks


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2005)

Besides which, you may want to give them a chance to get settled in first.


----------



## Island Ryhno (10 Aug 2005)

TERRY PEDWELL 
1 hour, 44 minutes ago



KANDAHAR,     Afghanistan (CP) - Venturing out of their new home in hostile territory, members of Canada's provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan took the lead for the first time Wednesday on a foot patrol through the streets of Kandahar. 

 The patrol wasn't about rooting out suspected Taliban or al-Qaida supporters. Rather, the soldiers wanted to feel out the neighbourhood surrounding their compound, located on the outskirts of the city.

"I don't really think it's too dangerous," Pte. Jon Drew said as he took position at the head of the patrol. "Knock on wood."

Still, Drew, a rookie member of Edmonton's Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry who comes from a family with a long military history, kept a sharp eye out for anything suspicious.

There had been gunfire reported within the patrol area the night before, but the greatest concern for the soldiers was improvised explosive devices, or IEDs - mortar bombs or grenades that are fashioned into hidden killers.

At least three of the devices have been found by U.S. forces in the Kandahar region and in eastern Afghanistan since last week. There was also a failed suicide attack reported Friday in front of a U.S. base.

As he walked a narrow alleyway, Drew recalled some words of advice given by his father before deploying to Afghanistan.

"Just follow your training and you'll be fine," he said his father told him.

"We trained for a few months before we came over here," Drew said.

"We know what to do, how to react properly."

Canada has 250 soldiers in Kandahar, part of what's dubbed a PRT that will also involve member of the RCMP, Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. Over the next month, a main part of their task will be providing security in the area surrounding their compound for national elections to be held Sept. 18.

As the soldiers made their way along the dusty streets under the sun's intense heat, some stopped and spoke with local residents.

"We're here to get situational awareness, to get an idea of how many people are here, what they're doing," said Master Warrant Officer Rick Hassan, a member of Canada's civil-military co-operation unit.

"Also, there are a number of kids about. We'll ask them questions about whether they're going to school and such."

At one point, Hassan approached an elder standing beneath a tree, asking him if he was looking forward to the elections.

"I'm not sure about any elections," the man replied through an interpreter, appearing to have other things on his mind.

"I'm sick, and my wife is not working," the man continued.

"I cannot work, I cannot speak." 

There was a moment of levity as the soldiers inspected a courtyard where a rusting Soviet-era armoured vehicle was a centrepiece, and a mule began braying loudly. 

"It was more or less a familiarization patrol, and presence patrol," said Sgt. John Goodman, a member of the U.S. military who tagged along with the Canadians. 

Canada is taking over the PRT and responsibility for the area surrounding it from an American team that has been in the region for almost two years. 

"It kind of gives them a good sense of what's out there beyond the compound walls," said Goodman, who made note of the uncontrolled traffic along one roadway. 

"The traffic laws are kind of weird around here. There really isn't any, so you gotta keep your eyes open for the trucks and the vehicles," he said. 

"There are more and more motorcycles. You've got to watch them the most." 

By the end of the patrol, the soldiers couldn't help but notice that they were soaked in sweat under their heavy body armour and laden backpacks. 

"It's a different experience because you don't realize how bad the heat is until you get out there," said Sgt. Mike Rude of Edmonton who took charge of the section. 

"You really feel the effects of the heat more."

Stay safe, let's hope it doesn't turn into another Iraq.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (10 Aug 2005)

For these new operations, does anyone think we should go back to battle group style deployments.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Aug 2005)

No.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Aug 2005)

> Stay safe, let's hope it doesn't turn into another Iraq.



It won't. Unlike Iraq, the Afghan people do not feel like they are conquered and for the most part want the peace and security that has eluded them for the last 20+ yrs. 95% of Afghans are supportive of the US and thier allies... Its the 5% of AQ and Taliban supports in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan who are causeing the trouble.

BTW the Taliban has registered as a party in the upcoming elections and is hoping to have candidates run.



> For these new operations, does anyone think we should go back to battle group style deployments.



No, the PRT is a unique situation which demands a mix of all trades and units. Also as opposed to whats reported it is not meant to go out "hunting".

When they send the "hunting" force in Feb then it should be a light infantry Combat Team (ok, battle group) designed for the task, with a dedicated NCE to answer to Ottawa and C2 both groups (unlike the useless NCE component that TFK has had).


----------



## Unknown Factor (10 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> No, the PRT is a unique situation which demands a mix of all trades and units. Also as opposed to whats reported it is not meant to go out "hunting".



I would disagree, although the PRT team is made up of a mix of trades with the goal of reconstructing and stabalizing the Kandahar region, it would be a mistake to go out the front gate without planning and preparing for combat first.  Now if this includes hunting then it is apart of the mandate, not first knowing where your enemy is before leaving is disasterous, not feeling that shooting to kill is a nessessary part of your mandate is criminal.

The Afghan people no more want Canadian's in their country than they want the Taliban, accepting us does not mean that they don't feel occupied, if they could do it themselves they would.  For the most part the Russian support of the Communist government that took power began much the same way as this current 'occupation' has, the general population of Afghanistan is passive. But it's not the passive people you worry about it is the ones that are able to organise unwilling people into willing mobs that you'll truely see the conviction of the Afghan people.  So 'blowing wind up our asses' I would say at this point is premature, as Gen. Leslie said we will be their for 20 years, if this is the case I'm guessing that around the 10 year mark our moral will be in the basement again unless something more interesting happens or comes along.

"Passing out candy and bandages does wonders for personal moral, but does nothing for Army moral."
-Unknown Factor


----------



## Armymedic (10 Aug 2005)

> it would be a mistake to go out the front gate without planning and preparing for combat first.  Now if this includes hunting then it is apart of the mandate, not first knowing where your enemy is before leaving is disasterous, not feeling that shooting to kill is a nessessary part of your mandate is criminal.



"Hunting" may have been a poor choice of a word...My meaning was "to seek out and destroy the enemy". Any and every soldier in Afghanistan (and anywhere for that matter) should always be ready to use deadly force whenever, and wherever it is warranted. 

In my understanding (and may stand corrected) the PRT does not have the mandate of seeking out and destroying the TB, AQ, HiQ and ACAGs.


----------



## Unknown Factor (11 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> In my understanding (and may stand corrected) the PRT does not have the mandate of seeking out and destroying the TB, AQ, HiQ and ACAGs.



Well I'd say that the jury is still out on that, but it has to be realized that they are not just going to let them hang around the outside of the camp either.  If it is waranted I am under the understanding that they may be doing just that if needed.


----------



## P-Free (11 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> 95% of Afghans are supportive of the US and thier allies... Its the 5% of AQ and Taliban supports in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan who are causeing the trouble.



Hey, sounds like Iraq to me.. 

BTW, I thought we weren't going to Kandahar till after the elections..


----------



## Franko (11 Aug 2005)

We've been in Kandahar for a few weeks now....

Afghanistan is no way close to Iraq.....

 :

Regards


----------



## Island Ryhno (11 Aug 2005)

Hey Franko, thanks for dropping a line. Of course we are aware it's not like Iraq, however do you think it has that potential? Are you there now with the PRT (sorry, if it's opsec or persec, please ignore) I imagine it must be a tad bit more stressful that the TFK rotos were. Thanks.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Aug 2005)

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> Hey Franko, thanks for dropping a line. Of course we are aware it's not like Iraq, however do you think it has that potential? Are you there now with the PRT (sorry, if it's opsec or persec, please ignore) I imagine it must be a tad bit more stressful that the TFK rotos were. Thanks.



I can surely say Franko is not with the PRT, nor will he be.

OK, let me get this out...as it is bugging me. Despite what you hear in the media, Kabul is still not safe. Is Kandahar City more dangerous then Kabul...not really. Are the outlands between Kandahar and the border, AND Kabul and the border full of bad guys willing to disrupt the elections? Hell Yes. Is one of those region more dangerous then the other? NO. But thats where the fighting and most of the attacks that are killing the ANA and US forces are happening..out in the valleys and villages near the border regions. From those regions, the baddies are bringing in their stuff to Kabul and Kandahar. In the last 6 months their have been an equal amount of attacks in both cities, the most successful being the Mosque attack in June in Kandahar, which targeted a Karzi supporting Mullah from the region.

Despite what you hear in the Canadian media, everyone who wears a CF uniform and travels on any road in Afghanistan is under a threat, and must always be vigilant to it. We have just been lucky in the last year a Canadian has not been severely wounded or killed.




> BTW, I thought we weren't going to Kandahar till after the elections..


With the exception of the KMNB Recce Sqn group, everyone involved in TFK Op Athena has been doing nothing more then maintaining Camp Julien for the last yr, so their entire focus is the move of CJ to Kandahar. And yes officially, they are not suppose to start to move before the elections, but if the PRT needs stuff, they are getting it from CJ.

I have been home since Tues...and the reporting I see on TV makes me shake my head.  :


----------



## Island Ryhno (11 Aug 2005)

Thanks Armymedic and welcome back to the world. Glad you and everyone else came home safely. Of course I don't get my A-stan news from the media, I get it here at army.ca! I feel much like yourself, the safety net that's been cast by the media is quite false. People quickly remember the tragedys that happened not to long ago (4 Navy Seals) and even our own tragedys have been shunned by the media (Murphy). Of course with the media on Liberalmania here it's no wonder that the "security action" over there has been made to look all cuddly and such. Rant off.

Are the "insurgents" as well armed and creative with IED's as we have seen in Iraq?


----------



## P-Free (11 Aug 2005)

How are Iraq and Afghanistan different? Seems to me that everything happening in Iraq is also happening in Afghanistan (suicide bombings, IEDs, etc.). And it is only a small minority carrying out the attacks, like in Iraq.


----------



## GerryCan (11 Aug 2005)

It's different from Iraq because there haven't been 40 ISAF soldiers killed here in the last few weeks. In Iraq there has. People die each and every day there and will continue to, luckily that doesn't happen nearly as much here. As ArmyMedic said, Kabul is generally not safe, but it's safer than Kandahar that's for sure. As for PRT going and seeking and destroying such and such enemy....don't bet on it, it's not part of their job. I doubt that there will be much of that going on with any canadians. Remember who we work for. But then again, who knows until the time comes, all I've heard is 'possible' cbt operations.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (11 Aug 2005)

I think Island Rhyno also forgets recent events, there were 12 other people that died that day also (not just the Navy Seals), the media got you, you focused on the glamorized name of the Seals!


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Aug 2005)

No, I didn't focus on the glamourized name of the seals. I'm quite aware of the helicopter that was shot down bringing support to those troops. My point was; the public in general reacts to things they recognize and they should be very aware when it says that SEALS were killed. Don't patronize me.


----------



## Franko (12 Aug 2005)

Thanks Ash for clearing that up.....I'm not part of the PRT...nor will I be. 

As for the insurgency...Ash summed it up.

Regards


----------



## P-Free (12 Aug 2005)

Okay, so Afghanistan and Iraq differ only in scale. But that can change anytime the enemy feels like stepping up its attacks, like for example, right before the elections coming up, like we saw happen in Iraq earlier this year before their elections. 

So really Afghanistan could turn into another Iraq.


----------



## GerryCan (12 Aug 2005)

Altogether you're comparing 2 very different places with 2 different missions. I suppose it could turn into the next 'Iraq', but remember that allied forces have been in country for 4 years now. If they were to step it up, they probably would have done so by now. All in all, it has scaled down.


----------



## Armymedic (12 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> So really Afghanistan could turn into another Iraq.



NO, no matter how you try to break it down....NO.

There are too many cultural and historical differences between the two to draw more then a couple parallels. Perhaps in tactics, as those in Afghanistan learn what works from Iraq and vice versa...

1. Iraq was "conquered" (for lack of better terms), wheras the US assisted previously established resistance groups who just didn't have the military might (but had public support) to move against the Taliban Gov't. 

2. Karzi actually fought against the Taliban and was chosen by the Tribes before being "established" with Western assistance, unlike the plug who is the figurehead in Iraq.

3. Afghanistan's disarmament is progressing successfully and many of the weapons used during the war are in the hands of the Gov't, where as in Iraq the victorious US forces fail to initiate a disarmament program until several months after the fall of Bagdad, leaving arms in the hands of the former Iraqi military.

4. Afghanistan has been in a state of internal war since the before the Russian takeover, and the people are tired of war. Iraq had a period of "peace" since 92.

there are more, and several people smarter and better spoken then me can explain it if you are still confused.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Aug 2005)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050817_2466.html

A little PR for our Canadian friends. Good luck during the deployment.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Aug 2005)

never assume anything as it makes an ass out of u and me
I got that tidbit from Benny Hill.


----------

