# Canadians deploying to AFG (early days, merged)



## Spr Earl (6 Feb 2002)

On the new‘s showing our people living in RECCE. TENT‘s say‘s it all and bumming rat‘s from the yank‘s , all this just for Petite Jean‘s EGO.
As the saying goes beware what you wish for !
WE CAN NOT SUSTAIN THIS OP!

 Were are our Wheather Haven‘s ?
Were is the support this element need‘s coming from? YANK‘S?

 I was choked when I saw our folk‘s being issued M.R.E.‘s ,I feel let down by the poletician‘s seeing this on the NEW‘S . What are we the military BUM‘S
of the world ?

   I‘AM F@#$^ CHOKED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 P.S. We have Air Field Engineer‘s who could have been flown in and prepared a camp for the use of  our  Battle Group ( minus)and here is the kicker no comm‘s between all elemnent‘s of our command!!!

 The above post was made with out due thought and one to many Hic* and in the heat of the moment and I will leave the post as  written as a reminder to myself to engage brain first then my finger‘s    

 If I have offended any one I apologise.


----------



## Gunner (6 Feb 2002)

Spr Earl, if you don‘t know what is going on...you had better not talk about it because you do not know what you are talking about.  Consider the following:

a. the deployment has only begun, hence not all the kit is on the ground.

b. canadians are on a US base, is it that unreasonable to eat US MREs?  Do it make logistic sense to bring in two types of rations?

c. all support for Qandahar is airlifted in ... does this leave room for the nice to haves?

d. Weather havens?  You have done one to many tours of Bosnia buddy.  Qandahar is a forward operating base.  I would be surprised if they didn‘t sleep in tents the remainder of the tour.

Now if you were complaining about the lack of Canadian Strategic Lift, we can talk.

Cheers,


----------



## Spr Earl (6 Feb 2002)

This deployment was decided when?

Ergo the logistic‘s should have been in place!

Ergo the Puzzle Palace is  letting down our side 
as we are under U.S. Command ergo should not the accomadation‘s have been  ready to except said troop‘s !



 Ergo welcome the G.D.!!!

 And This is my opinion as to Little John‘s last kick at the Politicle bag and I don‘t want to see my fellow comrade‘s in arm‘s used as cannon fodder for political gain‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Wake Up we are Being USED!!!!!!!!!

 P.S. We have Air Field Engineer‘s who are trained in rapid deployment for setting up a camp and running a air field and camp, now you tell me why these pers. werent deployed  as we all know it was 
a given we would be in Kandaha. 

 Question ? How  do leave this COUNTRY ON OUR OWN?
 AND still remain CANADIAN‘S?

As I see it now we have become combatent‘s!
We have lost our nuetraltiy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## enfield (7 Feb 2002)

Woah, Saper, slow down.. and use spell check!

Weather Havens?? Uh? The Yanks are in tents, why the ****  shouldn‘t we be? What‘s wrong with MRE‘s? When your loading up the C-17 do you say "no, wait, leave the Coyotes, we need to bring IMP‘s - otherwise we‘ve given away our national soverignty"

Air Field preparation team? They were already there... it‘s called a MEU(SOC). Do we really need to send an advance party to set up tents??

What irked me was watching CBC interview a bunch of middle-aged females today at the airport, sitting around like it was an office whining about how cold it was and saying that they were in the Air Force and this is their first time in the field or in a tent. WTF??!! I found that disturbing.


----------



## armd_recce (7 Feb 2002)

>Ergo the logistic‘s should have been in place!

Where? If you mean at home, they were, except for our obvious lack of hvy lift transport. If you mean over there, well WTF, the Marines are supposed to make our beds for us?

>Ergo the Puzzle Palace is  letting down our side 
>as we are under U.S. Command ergo should not >the accomadation‘s have been  ready to except >said troop‘s !

NO! Who is going to set them up??? Zoinks, Scooby! Again, what are we going to do? Ask the USMC to set up hoochies for us? There was no advance accomidation party for Op Overlord either (ha, bad comparison I know but I couldn‘t resist)

> Ergo welcome the G.D.!!!

Who has long been the staple of any army. Remember the old 90% waiting, 10% fighting rule of thumb? Doing GDs is the given in any army, much less any war. 

> And This is my opinion as to Little John‘s last >kick at the Politicle bag and I don‘t want to see >my fellow comrade‘s in arm‘s used as cannon >fodder for political gain‘s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don‘t agree with that assesment at all, for reasons too lengthy to ramble about here. And loyalty prevents with me from agreeing about your comments on the PM        Ahem, cough, cough

>Wake Up we are Being USED!!!!!!!!!

That‘s the gov‘ts perogative. You don‘t like how they use you, fine, get out. But if you‘re in, it isn‘t a volunteer org anymore, you do what they (the Gov‘t and your higher) say. Period. 

>As I see it now we have become combatent‘s!
>We have lost our nuetraltiy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is another way of saying we stand for something. Thank God. And we were never neutral, we just didn‘t have leadership that chose to committ us to battle. If you think Canada is a neutral country you have some reading to do.

God D*amn I hate this sh*t - This is the kind of thing that takes all the fun out of soldiering. 
And it‘s why I usually never try to talk people out of releasing.


----------



## portcullisguy (7 Feb 2002)

Hmmm.. let‘s see...

Sleeping in tents... eating rations... open-air washing facilities... digging latrines...  gee, sounds like the army to me!

My god... it IS the army... imagine that!


----------



## King (7 Feb 2002)

Yes, that CBC report bugged me too. I guess they feel it‘s more important to talk to support soldiers then combat ones even when everyone at home people have been going ape**** about what those combat troops are going to be doing over there. 

More then likely they didn‘t care or don‘t know the difference. But the media always has to include at least one or two females whenever they report on a combat unit.


----------



## Jungle (7 Feb 2002)

Come on... people have lived in Afghanistan for centuries, surely some Canadian soldiers can spend 6 months there. This is not the first time Army pers deploy to an inhospitable area of the world... and remember, they are replacing someone over there, meaning there are already installations in place. Surely, it will not be an easy mission, but I think they can manage... now, what is all this about this one being the first combat mission in decades... as far as I know, this is under chapter 7 of the UN charter, just like a number of other missions we have been on. The problem is, in the CF we go on 2 kinds of missions: peacekeeping or war. Other countries have more descriptions for ops: the aussies called the INTERFET mission "WARLIKE CONDITIONS". Our govt called it peacekeeping, but we still sent platoons after pro-indon militia groups when they were reported burning villages and killing people. Now we were going after them with guns AND ammo, certainly a combat mission (or search and d... oups,can‘t use this word!!!)


----------



## Jungle (7 Feb 2002)

Sorry... double post!!!


----------



## rceme_rat (8 Feb 2002)

Not to mention that if you are expecting the reception to be a little unfriendly, you want to be sleeping as close to ground level as possible, if not in a hole.

I wish I had taken pictures of a certain 5/4 that got hit by a 105 round.  Serves to show why trucks don‘t make good sleeping quarters and why a high pile of sandbags is always worth the effort.

As for logisitics being in place - funny how people always want logistics when they do it fo real, but don‘t want to give up the budget or manpower to keep it ready in peaccetime. (pet peeve, sorry)


----------



## Robert Bickle (22 Feb 2002)

If  Canadian forces are being supplied with American supplies like food, tents,beer etc. I would say they are fortunate.During the last combat action...Korea ...we were U.S. supplied even our vehicles...Compared to what the Brits. and the other forces had we were thankful. So using U.S. ordinance is not new...


----------



## Yard Ape (22 Feb 2002)

We had American weapons in Korea because our troops traded Canadian beer for US caribines.  Canadian‘s were issued World War 1 quality Lee-Enfields,  and WW 2 helmets.  These were all Brithish kit from Canadian war stockes.  Don‘t forget, we served as part of a British Comonwealth Division and so our higher level support was British, not American.  

   Yard Ape


----------



## rceme_rat (22 Feb 2002)

Not too fortunate if they have to drink American beer.


----------



## enfield (22 Feb 2002)

The Commonwealth Brigade used a mixture of British and American equipment. Since Canada had virtually no military stores in 1950, the Brigade was sent to FT. Lewis and got most of their gear and weapons from American stocks there.
I woudl expect that the situation was similar for Aus and NZ forces.  
The French in Indochina fought with American gear and weapons as well.

Spomething interesting comments from Desmond Morton‘s "Military History of Canada" re: Korea
The annoyance of the Cdn gov‘t that Canadian troop had been used to quell a prison riot without consulting Ottawa first, and how a war waged far away by regular soldiers produced little emotional response at home.

Oh, and when Korea started, what did Canada first send? The RCAF‘s only transport squadron and three ships.... sound familiar???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Feb 2002)

They won‘t be drinking US beer. The yanks have been dry on deployment (including exercises) since Nam.


----------



## rceme_rat (27 Feb 2002)

True enough.  It was always a great thing to invite them into the field mess for a beer - and to watch their faces.

Probably a good policy for us to adopt, but I don‘t see it happening any time soon.


----------



## Black6 (4 Mar 2002)

RCEME_RAT:

Not sure what policy you think is good to adopt: drinking or no drinking on exercises/deployments.


----------



## rceme_rat (4 Mar 2002)

"to adopt" implies a new policy, doesn‘t it?

But for clarity - "no drinking on ex".  Ex should be more field inensive, with longer stretches of manouevres, etc - not just heading to Wainwright and setting up a field base.  All unit level training should be done before heading for formation level.


----------



## Mark Schiller (21 May 2002)

Who thinks we should stay til the job is over?

   





> *Canada to pull troops out of ground war against terrorism in Afghanistan*
> 
> Canada will pull most of its ground troops out of Afghanistan this summer, leaving a few planes, ships and a handful of special forces soldiers in place, Defence Minister Art Eggleton announced Tuesday.


----------



## Gunner (22 May 2002)

What‘s the criteria for the job being over?  Will it ever be achieved?


----------



## Mark Schiller (22 May 2002)

bin Laden ‘Dead or Alive‘...or is that a pipe dream? He probably is long gone or dead and buried already. They should at least be around until all the *al-Qa‘ida* (The Base) are eliminated. The US is already saying apartment buildings are the new targets for suicide bombers. The al-Qa‘ida need to stamped out. Gunner you make a good point when you say *"will it ever be achieved?"* Will it indeed?


----------



## portcullisguy (22 May 2002)

It seems clear that bin Laden is probably still alive and well and living in a remote area in Pakistan, or, very probably, liberated and spirited away to Sudan or Yemen.

It seems, based on newspaper reports this week, that very probably he had a kidney transplant done, which should keep him healthy for a while.

Since al-Qaeda were so willing to send men to their certain deaths aboard airliners, it is entirely possible that bin Laden‘s kidney donor wasn‘t hard to find.  All hypothetical of course.

In any event, terrorism may never be quashed, but it can at least be quashed in Afghanistan, and certainly forced back into obscurity.  However, if the job ain‘t done right this time around, we will be doing it all over again in less time than we think.


----------



## McG (22 May 2002)

For a long time, a lot of people have been asking, "When will the government admit that the military cannot continue doing everything it is doing or do anything more?"  This is probably the closest thing we will see to such a statment.

*Ottawa takes fire for ending mission* 
By JEFF SALLOT
With reports from Kim Lunman and Barrie McKenna
From Wednesday‘s Globe and Mail

Ottawa â€” The decision to pull Canadian infantry troops out of Afghanistan this summer is further evidence of just how stretched the military has become, former generals and military analysts say. 

The announcement sends the wrong political signal to Washington at the wrong time, they say: that Canada is not taking the terrorism threat seriously, even as U.S. officials are warning of possible new attacks.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton said Ottawa is withdrawing 850 infantry soldiers in late July and early August even though the Pentagon wanted to keep the Canadians in Afghanistan longer.

Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit said the pullout from Afghanistan is the result of years of Liberal neglect of the Canadian Forces and budget cuts.

Canada should have quit the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia rather than the campaign in Afghanistan, said David Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. 

"The government shut down the wrong mission."

Unlike the Bosnian operation, the war in Afghanistan directly affects Canadian national security, Mr. Rudd said.

The government cannot live up to its own defence policy commitment to be able to put two battle groups into the field at the same time, retired major-general Clive Addy said. "The bench is empty."

The strain is hitting master corporals and other non-commissioned officers particularly hard. The fast tempo of overseas deployments in recent years is putting so much stress on these middle ranks "it is bordering on abuse," Mr. Addy told CTV News.

Retired major-general Lewis Mackenzie, the former United Nations commander in Sarajevo, said the government is making a major political mistake, letting down Canada‘s most important ally.

The contributions of the navy and air force are not going to earn Canada the credit ground troops will, "and this game is about getting credit where it counts," Mr. Mackenzie said.

If the soldiers themselves could decide the issue, they would rather be on combat missions in Afghanistan and not "directing traffic in Bosnia," Mr. Mackenzie said.

The Canadian ground force will pack up this summer even though Mr. Eggleton and General Ray Henault, chief of the defence staff, acknowledged that the war against terrorism will continue for a long time.

U.S. commanders who are leading the Afghan operation asked if Canadian infantry troops would stay, "but they understood we couldn‘t stay," Mr. Eggleton told a news conference, acknowledging that the Canadian Forces are stretched to the limit.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, U.S. General Tommy Franks praised the work of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, calling the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry "a magnificent outfit."

Gen. Franks, commander of the U.S.-led Afghan campaign, denied a suggestion that the brigade‘s pullout signaled that the Canadian forces aren‘t up to par or that the enthusiasm of some of the coalition partners may be waning.

"Good for PPLI. They‘ve done an absolutely wonderful job," he said. "What we try to do in this coalition is to cycle our forces in and out for ther purpose or rearming, refitting and in fact resting."

Gen. Franks also suggested that the Canadian withdrawal might well be co-ordinated with the arrival of fresh troops from another coalition partner.

Canada will replace 40 commandos from the elite Joint Task Force 2 with a fresh contingent of about the same size. But the 850-member battle group from the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry will return at the end of its six-month tour of duty.

Six months has become the standard length for overseas operations deployment for Canadian troops since the Korean War in the early 1950s.

Extending the current tour for several months was an option, but the cabinet rejected the idea.

Mr. Eggleton said the deaths of four soldiers in Afghanistan last month when their unit was accidentally bombed by a U.S. warplane were tragic, but were not a factor in the decision to pull out the infantry.

"We‘re stretched [thin]. There‘s no doubt about it," Mr. Eggleton said, noting that Canada has a total of 3,800 service personnel on overseas missions from Bosnia to the Golan Heights.

Thousands of soldiers, including reservists, will be busy next month providing security for the Group of Eight summit meeting in Alberta.

Canada might also be asked to play some kind of military role in the Middle East if there is a peace agreement, Mr. Eggleton said.

Mr. Eggleton said Canada "will continue to make a significant contribution" to the U.S.-led coalition‘s war against terrorism by maintaining warships in the Arabian Sea and air transport for resupply flights. The number of air force and naval personnel involved will be about 1,300.

Canadian officers might also help to train a new Afghan national army, the minister said.

Mr. Eggleton said it is possible that Canadian ground troops could return to Afghanistan next year. Hundreds of Canadian soldiers may be freed up next spring as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization scales back its peacekeeping force in Bosnia. About 1,700 Canadian soldiers are serving there now.

Meanwhile, Lieutenant-General Mike Jeffrey, the commander of the army, told the Commons defence committee Tuesday that the army needs more resources. "Clearly [more resources are] going to cost money," he said, when pressed for details on the costs. "I‘m not going to sit here and put a price tag on it."


----------



## Gordon Angus Mackinlay (22 May 2002)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The following from The Times (of London) makes a lot of sense.
Yours,
Jock in Sydney
May 22, 2002

Mad dogs and our men go out in the Afghan sun
simon jenkins


The account ran: “Akbar Khan, heir to the Afghan throne, was forced by his British conquerors to wander the wilderness in exile, plotting his revenge . . . A swarthy horseman galloped towards him bringing news. The garrison of Kabul had been depleted. The Afghan tribes were in revolt. They had written their oaths in blood on the leaves of the Koran. Akbar’s dark eyes glowed. His powerful sensual mouth uttered fierce orders.” By the time he had driven the Infidel back through the Khyber, 20,000 Britons were dead. 
We do not report wars like that any more. These days cynical journalists chase cynical spin-doctors round conference tables. But British troops still scramble over Afghan ravines, “denying” them to tribesmen for a month or two to keep London happy. I doubt if any expedition has ever been sent on a mission so militarily obscure and so politically blatant as the present Marine operation in Shah-i Kot. 

What are these troops doing? The Taleban have been toppled, so easily as to amaze all but those who knew their Taleban. As long as the West is meddling, Afghan politics has returned to lawlessness, whether financed by drugs or aid. Al-Qaeda has shifted its headquarters to Pakistan and a dozen other places. The Marines can do no more than obey their covert orders. These are to find a proper firefight, take casualties as predicted by ministers, declare a victory and return home in glory. 

Why? The Americans have all but given up the fight in Afghanistan. Their abortive bid to find Osama bin Laden ended in the same Shah-i Kot district now being scoured by British troops. They were badly shot up and left with eight dead. After the failure of Operation Anaconda, George Bush asked Tony Blair to take their place. He asked the Marines, who declined to move for a month. 

The Americans are now openly saying they have “no dog in the Afghan fight”. Last October can be seen for what it always was, a punitive revenge raid for domestic consumption. Finding Osama bin Laden was not a priority, since Pakistani negotiations with the Taleban and Saudi Arabia on his extradition were then on a knife-edge. The story is told by Rohan Gunaratna of St Andrew’s University in his remarkable new study, Inside Al Qaeda (Hurst). The bombing wrecked the negotiations and abruptly cemented a weakening alliance between the unpopular al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Kabul. That did not matter to the Americans. Bombing mattered. 

Today the reconstruction of Afghanistan is no longer America’s business. Nor are conditions in the appalling prisons of Britain’s so-called ally, General Dostum. Nor is the reopening of the opium warehouses and the falling price of European heroin. Nor is the fate of Kabul’s hapless Hamid Karzai, desperate for Western troops to hold territory outside his capital. Afghanistan may still be host to the world’s “special forces”, eager for bounty or glory. 

But the country is off the political map. 

The truth is that America’s war aim, unlike Britain’s, was coherent. It was to hit hard and get out. Americans are not now whingeing about the Taleban “refusing to confront Our Boys and fight”. They are not complaining that we cannot tell “friend from foe” or that “they keep returning to their villages”, all reported comments of British Marines last week. Americans are not staying around to police the unpoliceable. Once it was clear that Osama bin Laden was not to be found, the US declared the battle won. Mr Blair can tell the Afghans that “Britain will not desert you” but President Bush has moved elsewhere. 

In 1841 the British resident in Kabul, Sir William Macnaghten, was summoned by Akbar Khan and, much to his surprise, beheaded on the spot. This week Sir William’s successor, Brigadier Roger Lane, appeared to suffer a similar fate. Like him, the brigadier was trying to get his troops out of Afghanistan without loss of face to his political masters. Like Sir William, he was the victim of fiendish and treacherous tribal rivalry, albeit in Whitehall. Defence ministry officials have not forgiven the Marines for demanding a slice of the Afghan action and then failing to move. This was bad publicity for Britain’s much-vaunted “rapid reaction force”. 

The Marines must now find a victory to cover their retreat. It is elusive. Afghan irregulars always refuse open combat. The Taleban were bound to disappear and bide their time. There is no territory for the British to capture and hold. Local warlords can only be “rented but not bought”. There is no political pacification to be engineered short of colonisation, which would be suicide. All outside troops can do is bomb suspect “al-Qaeda” villages and explode suspect arms dumps. This wins no friends and hardly rates a score on the regimental banner. Brigadier Lane’s chief engagement has been with the British press. But it too will not join battle. It flatters, feints, ambushes and decapitates. 

Now Washington has sold the Afghan pass. The US Vice-President, **** Cheney, has warned Americans that “another September 11” is “not a matter of if but when”. His Homeland Security colleague, Colonel Randall Larsen, adds that the attack will be “much bigger than September 11”. It might involve cyanide in air-conditioning systems or bombs stuffed in apartment blocks. Al-Qaeda has not been curbed. Its networks have not been destroyed. The world is no safer today than it was before September 11. Nobody mentions Afghanistan. 

Nobody even mentions Pakistan. If Afghanistan was so great a threat to the West when the bombing began last October, why is not Pakistan the same threat today? Waziristan and the North-West Frontier harbour the same warriors as protected al-Qaeda in the Afghan mountains. Eager to avenge the sons, fathers and brothers killed by Western bombs in Afghanistan, they have already fired missiles at the American base at Miram Shah. Are they not also plotting to undermine Western freedoms? Besides, Pakistan is a base for terrorism in Kashmir, much of it penetrated by al-Qaeda. Whatever the provocation and however much Islamabad may struggle to deny it, this terrorism is no less lethal than that of September 11 or the suicide bombers of Palestine. It is probably more dangerous since it has led a million troops to confront each other across the Kashmir partition line, both armed with “weapons of mass destruction”. Yet because Pakistan is a “friend” nobody talks of bombing Waziristan or of sending special forces to Kashmir. 

No one reading Gunaratna’s book could be in any doubt that al-Qaeda is an awesome force. It is scattered not just across the Muslim world but had, and presumably still has, a corporate structure in states across the entire world. It is a sinister fundamentalist church in thrall to a charismatic leader. The attack on Afghanistan was like combating an international drugs cartel by bombing the boss’s house in Marbella. Many al-Qaeda leaders were killed, but the networks remain, together with the targets, the training, the young men eager for martyrdom. 

I doubt if Mr Cheney was last week bluffing to divert attention from allegations of White House negligence prior to September 11. But his constant terrifying of hyper-sensitive Americans does al-Qaeda’s job for it. An al-Qaeda memorandum after September 11 gloated that Americans were now so scared that Intercontinental had to lay off 20,000 employees, “thanks to Allah’s grace”. Al-Qaeda can tax the American economy of billions of dollars merely by getting Mr Cheney to do its work for it, on pain of a “negligence” charge in Congress. 

Mr Cheney’s plea can only be for all citizens to show normal vigilance. But he reminds us that Afghanistan is a sideshow. Wiping its regime from the map made people feel better, but it did not diminish any threat. This terrorism is only territorial in its target, the sophisticated Western nations where its agents live, move and have their being. 

The challenge is therefore the same as it was before September 11. It is to find and eliminate these agents in each and every Western state. This is difficult given the freedoms that the West holds sacred. To sacrifice these freedoms is to let the terrorist win. Not to sacrifice them is to risk another outrage. Democracy is always a balancing of evils. 

But Afghanistan is nothing to do with the case. British troops should leave before they suffer any more decapitations.


----------



## Jungle (22 May 2002)

Jock, excellent article... but we‘re only leaving because we‘re broke !!! If our government did not see Ahmed Ressam, they are certainly not seeing this...


----------



## 30 for 30 (27 May 2002)

Can someone fill me in on why we are unable to replace our battle group in Afghanistan? I realize we have a large group in the Balkans, plus a few understrength bns here at home (or are they all understrength?), but you would think that with 9 inf bns total we could replace one abroad. I mean, we can‘t have more than two in the Balkans, that would theoretically leave six here at home. Are all our inf bns that small and that worn out? It‘s a shame. I‘m beginning to think that fielding even just a brigade the next time a big war rolls around will be too much for us to manage.


----------



## rceme_rat (27 May 2002)

G-8 Conference in Kananaskis.  They are deploying ADATS, among other things.  Looks like it will be bigger than RV.  

Sad when internal security takes such a bite out of the army that it can‘t deploy anyone else for actual cbt ops.


----------



## van1 (11 Nov 2002)

_Canadians in Afghanistan_ aired tonight on the History Channel.  EXCELLENT documentry, I really enjoyed it.

Made me appreciate what you folks do even more and, of course, made me feel guilty for allowing you to do it for me   

For those of you who missed it, no worries, I hooked up my digital cable box to my computer and recorded both episodes.

If you‘d like a copy I‘d be happy to send it.  Just e-mail me at admin@pharaonicegypt.com and request it.

Cheers.


----------



## Gunnar (12 Feb 2003)

They‘re going to be there for a year?  What‘s the rules on roto‘s, or do they change as the funding disappears?

=================

Canada sending troops back to Afghanistan 
Last Updated Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:47:58 
OTTAWA - Canada will send troops to Afghanistan within months to take part in the Kabul-based international security force, Defence Minister John McCallum announced Wednesday. 


INDEPTH: Target Terrorism: Canada‘s Military

McCallum said Canada would send a battle group to Kabul by the end of the summer. The troops and brigade-level headquarters will serve for one year. 
"Canada has been approached by the international community for assistance in maintaining peace and security in Afghanistan to the UN-mandated mission in Kabul," McCallum told the House of Commons. 

"We are currently in discussion with a number of potential partners." 


 BACKGROUNDER: Afghanistan: The continuing saga


The Canadian troops will take part in the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force, which is currently headed by Germany. 

Germany assumed command of the multinational force this week, saying either Canada or Spain could be next in the command rotation. 


Written by CBC News Online staff


----------



## SNoseworthy (12 Feb 2003)

Being a peacekeeping mission, I‘d say there will be two ROTOs of the standard 6 months during the deployment.


----------



## Marauder (12 Feb 2003)

Gotta hand it to Papa Jean, he sure knows how to weasel us out of having to make any firm commitment to going into Iraq.

"I be sorry, dere, Georgie, but our only ready troops is going to dat Sum-ting-gan-er-stan to do da peacekipping da Canadian pipples like so much."

Gets out of having to show any spine making a decision one way or the other on Iraq but still looks good to the peaceniks. Call him what you want (God knows I do), but he is one crafty sumbeech.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Feb 2003)

Marauder, you have to be insane!

Canada has no capability to field a combat worthy brigade in any desert op in Iraq(what would we equip them with - rusted out MLVWs and Iltises?  Bright green combats?)  How many brigade sized exercises have the regs conducted in the last ten years?

On the other hand, peacekeeping is supposed to be something we wrote the book on.

So why not send our troops to Afghanistan and release US combat troops to fight their war in Iraq (which still looks like it will not be UN backed)?

I personally feel that Canada is correct not to commit fighting troops to an American (vice UN) sanctioned military action in Iraq.  For all the reasons cited above.

I do, however, wish this would be seen as the clarion call it should be - ie that we need to beef up our Forces and be prepared to field at least a brigade as a combat field force, should the need ever arise.  Right now, it wouldn‘t make any sense to attempt such a deployment.

Would it?

We killed 900+ soldiers at Dieppe in order to make a point about our combat capability and willingness to shoulder a fair load.  Why go down that road again?

As a side note - I‘m tickled that there is the possibility of Canadian soldiers being commanded on operations by a German commander.  Kind of shows how much Europe and the west have grown up in the last 50 years.  Pity the rest of the world can‘t keep up.


----------



## Pikache (13 Feb 2003)

Here‘s national post article on it

 http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id={388D211A-7F6A-4EFB-8916-2487FD31EE72} 

Canada to send troops to Kabul; Iraq role unlikely
1,500 to 2,000 soldiers

Sheldon Alberts, Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief and Chris Wattie, with files from Bill Curry  
National Post 


Thursday, February 13, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT 


Canada is sending up to 2,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to join a United Nations-mandated security force, a move that all but rules out a major Canadian contribution to a U.S.-led war in Iraq.

John McCallum, the Defence Minister, announced yesterday that Canada has agreed to join the International Security Assistance Force, based in Kabul, that was established after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001.

"Canada has been approached by the international community for assistance in maintaining peace and security in Afghanistan to the UN-mandated mission in Kabul," Mr. McCallum told the House of Commons. "Canada is willing to serve with a battle group and a brigade headquarters for a period of one year, starting late this summer."

It is expected Canada will join the 4,000-member force after Germany and the Netherlands complete their command rotation in August. Mr. McCallum said Canada is looking for another partner to take over joint command of the Kabul force.

While the force was formed under a UN mandate, it is not a UN peacekeeping operation and senior military sources warn its job is more counter-insurgency than keeping the peace.

Mr. McCallum would not confirm the exact number of soldiers who would be sent to Afghanistan, saying it would be "a sizeable contribution," but a spokesman for the Department of National Defence said it would be between 1,500 and 2,000 soldiers.

Canadian generals have said a shrinking budget and fewer soldiers have already over-extended the army and observers say the decision to send so many troops to Afghanistan means Canada will be unable to contribute any meaningful ground force to a war in Iraq.

"It allows the government to plausibly argue we are in no position to make a ground contribution to a ground war in Iraq," said David Rudd, director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. "They can say that preparations for the deployment in Afghanistan preclude a ground contribution to any action in Iraq."

John Thompson, director of the Mackenzie Institute, said there are just not enough soldiers left in the army to send a unit to both Afghanistan and Iraq. "They don‘t have the troops any more -- the army‘s stretched absolutely thin."

Mr. McCallum said the deployment does not rule out a Canadian contribution to a possible war in Iraq. "We are not making any decision on the subject of Iraq," he said. "Now it is true that the more one sends to one place, the less one may have available for other places. But beyond that, I will not comment on this topic of Iraq."

But experts said that any contribution to an Iraq war would be limited to a handful of commandos from the elite JTF-2 and a few warships patrolling waters far from the war zone.

"They‘ll be floating flagpoles, to let the government say: ‘Look, we‘re here,‘ " Mr. Thompson said. "But that‘s about it.... It won‘t be a meaningful contribution and it won‘t get us much credit from the Americans. Basically, we‘ll get a pat on the head."

The announcement of Canada‘s role in the Afghanistan force came on the eve of a speech in Chicago tonight by Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, on Canada‘s commitment to multilateralism.

The deployment of Canadians in a peacekeeping role gives Mr. Chrétien valuable bragging rights in advance of the speech, in which he is expected to urge the United States to remain committed to solving the Iraq crisis through the United Nations Security Council. In an address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Chrétien intends to re-affirm Canada‘s commitment to the UN and stress the importance of multilateralism in dealing with Saddam Hussein.

A senior official in the Prime Minister‘s Office, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Chrétien plans to send the Bush administration a strong message about the importance of operating within international institutions.

"The Prime Minister‘s speech is going to emphasize the very strong relationship between the two countries, but what the Prime Minister believes is that everybody is better served with international institutions, not just the UN, but the WTO and NATO."

Senior Canadian Forces officers were leery yesterday about the prospect of sending troops into the maelstrom of Afghan factional fighting. "They‘ll be doing counter-insurgency, not peacekeeping," said one officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"If the situation blows up between the government in Kabul and the warlords in the countryside, guess who‘s going to be in the middle? It could be more dangerous than invading Iraq."

Mr. Thompson said Ottawa is using the contribution to Afghanistan as a way out of sending the army into combat. "They don‘t want Canadian soldiers to be seen as fighting men; they want them to be seen as peacekeepers -- which they think of as Boy Scouts with rifles."

Canada sent an 800-member battalion group from the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry on a combat mission in southern Afghanistan last summer, but was forced to withdraw them after six months because the Canadian Forces could not supply enough soldiers to replace them.

The Prime Minister has also come under fire from the opposition for being slower than other U.S. allies such as Great Britain or Australia to back up diplomatic efforts with military muscle.

But Ottawa appears to be inching closer to the U.S. side, vowing last month Canada would make a military contribution if war is sanctioned by the UN. Mr. Chrétien has never ruled out joining a U.S.-led "coalition of the willing" if the UN cannot agree on a course of action.


----------



## Pikache (13 Feb 2003)

And the Star‘s take...

 http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777751252&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154 

Feb. 13, 2003. 05:55 AM 

Canada sending troops to Kabul
As many as 2,000 to join U.N. force


TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWAâ€”Canada will send as many as 2,000 Canadian troops to Afghanistan this summer as peacekeepers, a move that makes it unlikely the military would send any significant forces to a war in Iraq.

Six months after Ottawa pulled its ground combat forces from Afghanistan, the government has agreed to contribute a battle group that could range between 800 to 1,000 people, plus a brigade-level headquarters that could mean another 500 to 1,000 troops as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force.

The 850-member battle group was withdrawn last year after working alongside American combat troops. Four Canadian soldiers were killed by U.S. friendly fire near Kandahar last April. 

Defence Minister John McCallum, while stating the government has made no decision about what role the Canadian military would play in any Iraq war, said, "it is true that the more one sends to one place, the less one may have available for other places."

But Liberal MP Art Eggleton, McCallum‘s immediate predecessor as defence minister, was more categorical.

He said sending troops to Afghanistan effectively rules out making any significant ground troop contribution to Iraq.

"That‘s self-evident," Eggleton said. "There‘s only so many ground troops that we have and to send a battle group and a brigade headquarters, I think that‘s pretty well going to be the ground contribution.

"From my understanding of the number of troops we have available, it‘s either-or. And the decision is to send them into Afghanistan. I think it‘s a good decision. 

"We can help in the rebuilding of that country and the establishment of a civil society."

The troops will replace a Dutch-German force based in Kabul that began a six-month tour there this week. 

The United States has no troops assigned as part of the Afghanistan peacekeeping force. It has not yet been decided what other country will be Canada‘s partner in the joint command operation.

Although McCallum would not specify the number of troops to be deployed, government officials said it would likely number about 1,500, but could go as high as 2,000 depending on what other country participates and its capacity.

McCallum said the decision was made after a meeting last weekend at a Munich security conference with his American and German counterparts and NATO Secretary-General George Robertson.

Canadian troops would be committed for one year, starting in late summer. 

The announcement caught opposition members off guard. The Canadian Alliance complained it was a politically expedient move that relegates Canadian soldiers to a "second-tier mission" and takes them out of the running for a contribution to Iraq.

McCallum denied it was a convenient way to get out of committing troops to Iraq, saying "we have not made any decision on the subject of Iraq."

"This is a tough and a dangerous mission but it is also in the peacekeeping tradition of Canadians." 

He noted the Canadian government said last summer when it pulled its combat forces out of Afghanistan after one six-month tour that it would consider going back in at some point in the future.

"It indicates our commitment to the war against terrorism and the post-Sept. 11 war against terrorism began in Afghanistan," McCallum said. 

The international force in Kabul, which now numbers about 4,000 soldiers, is dedicated to peacekeeping and the Canadians are not expected to see offensive military action.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`This is a tough and a dangerous mission but it is also in the peacekeeping tradition of Canadians.‘ 

Defence Minister John McCallum

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


But it‘s still a dangerous mission. Peacekeepers have come under attack from rebels, and 14 have died on duty since the United Nations created the force â€” seven of them German soldiers killed in a helicopter crash.

It‘s clear the decision would leave Canada able to supply only small specialized forces teams such as Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) or sniper specialist teams to any war in Iraq â€” should Ottawa decide to contribute.

David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said yesterday the timing of Ottawa‘s decision "is awfully convenient because it allows the government a way out of the Iraq box."

"It precludes our making any sizable ground contribution to any action in Iraq, either a conflict or post-conflict role in Iraq."

Rudd said in light of the commitment, Canada should pull its peacekeepers out of the Balkans, leaving operations in Bosnia to other allied European forces.

"Doing both, and going (to Afghanistan) for 12 months? That‘s not an insignificant task," he said. But he added, "there is more at stake for Canada in Afghanistan than there is in the Balkans. 

"If the Balkans goes to ****  in a handbasket, neither the Canadian land mass nor Canadian lives are threatened. But if the Taliban make a second run for power, if Afghanistan descends into warlordism allowing the Taliban to come back, if Al Qaeda is able to regain a foothold, then once again they‘ve got their base from which they can launch terror attacks."

There are already about 950 members of the Canadian forces, mostly on two frigates, in the Arabian Gulf region, with another 1,500 deployed in other operations overseas, such as in the Balkans.

With the Afghanistan commitment, the number of Canadian troops deployed overseas could reach more than 4,000.

For planning purposes, however, military strategists must always account for triple the actual number deployed, to factor in those in the field who must return after a six-month tour, the forces who are preparing to leave to replace them, and those who have just come off a mission.

Most observers believe that is close to the current peak deployment capacity of the Canadian armed forces.

Yesterday, there was speculation that the troops could come from the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment based in Petawawa, Ont., which is currently the designated rapid reaction force.

But the battalion‘s six-month tour as the rapid reaction force would be up by late summer, and with six months‘ lead time to prepare, there‘s no guarantee it will be the Petawawa group.

A government source said it could just as easily be the Royal 22nd Regiment out of Quebec, or another group. "Those are literally the staffing decisions that now have to be made," he said. McCallum insisted the deployment will be "significant" and will combine diplomatic and foreign aid efforts of the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Development.

"Everybody is very conscious of the need to continue this mission. It‘s a very important mission. Some of these counterparts suggested to me Canada could play a role, and yes, we have decided to serve."

He also dismissed any concern that Canadian forces who fought as combatants in Afghanistan would have any difficulties working there as peacekeepers, noting the British have also served in the peacekeeping force.

"The operation in Afghanistan is in Kabul, the capital city. Before, we were a long way away from Kabul in Kandahar. I think Canada is respected around the world as a peacekeeping force since the days of Lester Pearson, and I‘m sure that the performance of our people there will be something in which Canadians can take great pride," he said.

Alliance MP and defence critic Leon Benoit said the Chrétien government should have found ways to contribute to efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He added it will disappoint many in the armed forces who would want to contribute to any war in Iraq.

"For soldiers that are as good as any in the world, they expect to be on the front lines. They don‘t expect to be relegated to a second-tier mission."

Tory Leader Joe Clark said he viewed the decision as separate from the Iraq situation, and supported it for now.


----------



## Illucigen (13 Feb 2003)

Err. re: equipment for desert ops, I agree. except for the cadpat.

We have supposedly taken delivery of enough ARID pattern CADPAT for at least one battlegroup, probably two, and that was as of last summer (after we came back from ‘ghani.)

IF we were really screwed, Im sure we‘d just "borrow" some american suits, like what was offered for ghani...

OUtside of that, I think a UN mission to afghanistan is a smarter choice. Canada shouldnt be thinking Combat for at least 5 years, until the new liberal governement decides to give us procurement money, instead of oay-for-our-commitments-last-year defecit clean up money.


----------



## Deleted member 585 (23 May 2003)

> Theatre Activation Team Departs for Afghanistan
> 
> 
> OTTAWA, May 23 /CNW/ - The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National
> ...


One question:  is it common for military forces to employ "chartered aircraft" for equipment delivery in OOW?

Cheers.
Tim


----------



## Deleted member 585 (23 May 2003)

> Theatre Activation Team Departs for Afghanistan
> 
> 
> OTTAWA, May 23 /CNW/ - The Honourable John McCallum, Minister of National
> ...


One question:  is it common for military forces to employ "chartered aircraft" for equipment delivery in OOW?

Cheers.
Tim


----------



## Spr.Earl (24 May 2003)

Any reserve unit‘s out there receive a warning order for volunteer‘s yet?


----------



## Spanky (24 May 2003)

We‘ve already got three members on predeployment trg for Roto 0.


----------



## Armymedic (24 May 2003)

Chartering of aircraft has become a necessity due to our lack of transport aircraft larger than the CC-130 Hercs. Canada has chartered planes for a DART mission to Turkey and to move troops from Bosnia to Macedonia in Aug 2001. I‘m not sure how they got the troops to Afganistan last yr. But the CF did charter planes from civil airlines (Air Transit for one...) to help move tps to Wainwright for Ex Resolute Warrior this spring...


----------



## Armymedic (24 May 2003)

Chartering of aircraft has become a necessity due to our lack of transport aircraft larger than the CC-130 Hercs. Canada has chartered planes for a DART mission to Turkey and to move troops from Bosnia to Macedonia in Aug 2001. I‘m not sure how they got the troops to Afganistan last yr. But the CF did charter planes from civil airlines (Air Transit for one...) to help move tps to Wainwright for Ex Resolute Warrior this spring...


----------



## Deleted member 585 (24 May 2003)

Armymedic, I had a feeling it was due to an absence of appropriate heavy-lift aircraft (i.e. >C130).  Apart from troop transport, would the CF be chartering aircraft as large as the C5 Galaxy, or the AN124 Condor for heavy equipment transport?  Something tells me, "not so much."  Deployment would have to be severely hindered for me to have a problem with chartering.  ATBE, our troops and our stuff will get there one way or another, and we know what the _real_ priorities are, anyhow.

My father also advocates that riding in a taxi is more economical in the long run than owning a vehicle... but even I know that he privately values his car like a cowboy does his horse.


----------



## Deleted member 585 (24 May 2003)

Armymedic, I had a feeling it was due to an absence of appropriate heavy-lift aircraft (i.e. >C130).  Apart from troop transport, would the CF be chartering aircraft as large as the C5 Galaxy, or the AN124 Condor for heavy equipment transport?  Something tells me, "not so much."  Deployment would have to be severely hindered for me to have a problem with chartering.  ATBE, our troops and our stuff will get there one way or another, and we know what the _real_ priorities are, anyhow.

My father also advocates that riding in a taxi is more economical in the long run than owning a vehicle... but even I know that he privately values his car like a cowboy does his horse.


----------



## Pikache (7 Jun 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2971004.stm 

Peacekeepers killed in Kabul blast


A helicopter landed to provide medical assistance 
A car bomb has killed four international peacekeepers and injured dozens of other people in an apparent suicide attack on a bus in the Afghan capital, Kabul. 
The force of the explosion threw the vehicle off the road, a few kilometres east of the city centre, near a base used by German and Dutch troops of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf). 

The attack is the deadliest assault on the Isaf force since it arrived in Afghanistan to support the government of Hamid Karzai after the removal of the Taleban. 

President Karzai offered his condolences and said the peacekeepers had given their lives for the Afghan people. 

Isaf had confirmed that three German soldiers had been killed before the German authorities said a fourth was also dead. 

The other 29 peacekeepers on board the bus were injured, at least seven seriously, as were several Afghan civilians who were near the scene of the blast. 

US military sources said the attack was carried out by a suicide bomber, who drove a taxi filled with explosives towards the bus, then blew it up. 

Peacekeeping force 
Isaf has UN mandate to help Afghan Transitional Authority maintain security 
Aims to develop reliable security structures, identify reconstruction needs and train Afghan security forces 
Comprises 4,600 troops from 29 nations, currently led by Germany and the Netherlands 
Area of responsibility limited to Kabul and vicinity 
Commander is Lt General Norbert van Heyst of the German Army  

The 33 peacekeepers were being driven to the airport to fly home to Germany after a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan. 

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder condemned the attack as the "cowardly and devious" work of terrorists. 

An Isaf spokesman said an investigation had been launched into the cause of the blast in close co-operation with the Afghan authorities. 

The BBC‘s Kylie Morris in Kabul says the road where the explosion occurred is busy and lined with stalls. Some of the casualties are thought to have been seriously wounded. 

The area was quickly blocked off and a German military helicopter landed on the road to give medical assistance. 

The injured were then taken to military hospitals. 

More attacks 

About 5,000 international peacekeepers have been deployed to patrol the streets of Kabul and to provide security for the capital. 

Our correspondent says it is too early to say who was responsible for the blast, but local Afghan officials have blamed the attack on remnants of al-Qaeda or Taleban. 


German soldiers are part of the Kabul peacekeeping force 

Anti-government forces have been issuing pamphlets calling on Afghans to rid their country of the peacekeeping forces, our correspondent adds. 

Suspected Taleban fighters have been stepping up attacks in recent weeks, particularly in the south and east of Afghanistan. 

About 40 Taleban fighters were killed recently in the south of the country in a battle with Afghan government forces. 

Saturday‘s explosion was the second violent incident involving German peacekeepers in Kabul in recent weeks. 

On 29 May, a German soldier was killed and another wounded when their vehicle hit a landmine near Kabul. 

And last month more than 60 Spanish peacekeepers were killed when a plane that was flying them home from their mission in Afghanistan crashed. 

***
Things are getting real hot over there...


----------



## Pikache (7 Jun 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2968138.stm 

High alert after Afghan battle


Afghan officials said they dumped the bodies to warn the Taleban 
Afghan soldiers remain on high alert in the south of the country following Wednesday‘s clash with Taleban fighters that left 49 people dead. 
The battle in Kandahar province near the Pakistan border was one of the deadliest since the fall of the Taleban regime in 2001. 

"We are still on high alert mode and ready for any further Taleban attacks," Kandahar military commander General Khan Mohammad told the AFP news agency. 

After the clash, the pro-government Afghan militiamen dumped around 22 Taleban bodies over the border in Pakistan but later retrieved some of them following Pakistani protests. 

 We have lodged a written protest with Afghan officials and told them that it was an attempt to malign Pakistan 

Saqib Aziz, Pakistan district administrator  

The fighting broke out when around 100 suspected Taleban fighters armed with rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers attacked the pro-government troops. 

Forty Taleban fighters and nine Afghan militiamen were killed. 

Bodies retrieved 

A row quickly erupted between Afghan and Pakistani officials about the origin of the Taleban fighters. 

Afghan officials claimed the Taleban fighters had crossed from Pakistan. 

The officials ordered 22 bodies to be dumped at the Killi Faizu refugee camp just inside Pakistani territory 


Reports varied about the fate of the bodies although Afghan officials accept that they retrieved some. 



Saqib Aziz, administrator of Pakistan‘s Qila Abdullah district, said the Afghan authorities had retrieved the bodies. 

He added: "We have officially lodged a written protest with Afghan officials and told them that it was an attempt to malign Pakistan. 

"If [the dead] were Pakistanis then why did the Afghan authorities accept their bodies?" 

Authorities in the Afghan town of Spin Boldak said they had taken back only 14 of the bodies. 

Deputy district governor of Spin Boldak Sayd Jan told Afghan Islamic Press (AIP): "The bodies of some of the Taleban had been taken by their relatives [in Pakistan]." 

He said the bodies were dumped in Pakistan "to show the fate of those who confront our government will be like these [dead Taleban fighters]. Even if a thousand people come from Pakistan, we will confront them". 

Mr Sayd Jan said there were no further problems in the area. 

Residents of Spin Boldak told AIP the Taleban fighters were encircled and killed after running out of ammunition. 

The battle was the culmination of about a week of sporadic clashes around Spin Boldak, with suspected Taleban fighters staging hit-and-run attacks on local forces.


----------



## Pikache (7 Jun 2003)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3014363.stm 

Afghan war ‘far from over‘

Stephen Cviic 
BBC News  



The US envoy met leaders in Kabul 
US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has been having talks in Afghanistan with President Hamid Karzai. One-and-a-half years after the US and its allies took control, peacekeepers are on the ground but the war is far from over. 

Afghanistan today is a patchwork of local fiefdoms, mostly run by former militia leaders or warlords. 

These local rulers owe nominal allegiance to the central government in Kabul, but despite this they often behave independently. 

Kabul itself is a special case because it is home to President Karzai and to an international peace-keeping force of 5,000 men. 

 There are real doubts that the Taleban can be fully defeated and local warlords‘ power broken 

In addition to the international peace-keepers, there are a total of 8,000 US troops on the ground in Afghanistan, involved mainly in military operations. 

The war in Afghanistan is far from over. 

The Taleban have regrouped in rural areas of the south, and there has recently been an upsurge in violence around the city of Kandahar. 

Many Western aid workers have left the area in fear for their lives. 

National army 

The United Nations will shortly begin efforts to demobilise militia men all over the country, in preparation for national elections in June next year. 

By that time, security is supposed to have passed partly into the hands of the new national army, which is currently being trained by the Americans. 

Around 4,000 men have already been through the process; the army is eventually meant to number 70,000. 


Afghan army due to take over security before elections next year 
Although the US has always said it does not want to be involved in nation-building, it is helping to fund both infrastructure projects - such as the rebuilding of the main highway from Kabul to Kandahar - and the training of new tax and customs collectors. 

Millions of Afghan refugees have returned to the country since the end of the war, and the Americans have recently set up local reconstruction teams to be deployed around the country. 

But there is little sense of economic progress, and there are real doubts about whether the Taleban can be fully defeated and the power of local warlords broken.


----------



## Pikache (9 Jun 2003)

http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=7CB8CC37-4358-49A9-B741-ADD05CFDAD87 

Kabul heats up as Canada to deploy
Bomb kills four Germans

Michael Friscolanti  
National Post, with files from news services 


Monday, June 09, 2003
ADVERTISEMENT 


A weekend suicide bombing that killed four German peacekeepers in Afghanistan is a chilling sign of things to come for Canadian soldiers deploying to the region this summer, according to military experts who fear Canadian casualties are all but inevitable.

Defence analysts believe the upcoming deployment, like many peacekeeping missions, will be hampered by strict rules of engagement that essentially force soldiers to sit back and wait to be attacked.

"The only way you can stop this sort of thing is if you go out there and get the bad guys," said David Bercuson, the director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"But if you don‘t have the rules of engagement to be able to do it, then you cannot stop them from coming. I hope people are prepared for, unfortunately, what is going to happen."

What is likely to happen, he said, is a scenario similar to what happened on Saturday, when a suicide bomber in Kabul drove a taxi laden with explosives into the side of a bus carrying German soldiers. The troops, who had spent months patrolling the capital, were en route to the airport for a flight home.

"You‘re a sitting duck," Dr. Bercuson said.

The attack, quickly blamed on Osama bin Laden‘s al-Qaeda network, killed four soldiers, one Afghan civilian and the taxi driver.

"We found several pieces of a body and one hand still attached to the steering wheel," said General Abdul Raouf Taj, a district police commander.

Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Lobbering, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), said the unit received daily threats that a suicide bomber may strike, but preventing such attacks is almost impossible.

"Although we have warnings, and in this particular case we had that beforehand, that something might happen at a certain time, at a certain place, it is always impossible to predict," he said.

ISAF, an international effort to bring peace and security to the Afghan capital, boosted security measures following the bombing, including halting all transport buses, but Lt.-Col. Lobbering said more attacks were expected.

"The type of terrorist attacks and the amount of terrorist attacks is in line with what we have been expecting, and what we still expect, I am sorry to say, for the upcoming future," he said.

Yesterday, military experts accused the federal government of grossly underestimating the looming danger facing the 1,800 Canadian soldiers scheduled to join ISAF this summer as part of Operation Athena.

Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, said he is well aware that risk is an inherent part of military operations. However, he fears the government is not giving the troops enough leeway to protect themselves in an environment that many people misinterpret as being safe.

"This magic term ‘peacekeeping‘ is interpreted by the vast majority of the Canadian population as helping little old ladies across the street," he said. "That‘s wrong."

Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said he hopes Canadian commanders in Kabul give their troops the freedom to sway from the rules if it means protecting themselves and their fellow soldiers.

"You don‘t put your soldiers at risk without giving them the option to use their initiative," he said.

"We‘ll sort out the court martials and all that later."

Saturday‘s suicide bombing added yet another level of complexity to an upcoming mission already plagued by equipment shortages and bureaucratic red tape.

The Canadian Forces is scrambling to acquire equipment for its mission in Afghanistan, including badly needed night-vision goggles, laser rifle sights and unmanned aerial vehicles. Last week, the government acknowledged the cost of the mission would exceed the $200-million set aside for the deployment.

On a political level, critics have charged that the Liberal government only agreed to join the mission so it could avoid having to send troops to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"It was a very political decision and it had not been properly considered before it was made," said Leon Benoit, the defence critic for the Canadian Alliance. "So I am concerned. We‘ve seen that before with especially UN missions, where the rules of engagement simply don‘t allow for proper protection."

Lieutenant Hollie Ryan, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence, would not comment specifically on Saturday‘s bombing, but she said Canadian troops are not going into Afghanistan "with their eyes closed."

"We recognize that we‘re going into an area [where] there are still threats to our security," she said.

"It‘s still a dangerous area. The Canadian Forces members are fully prepared for whatever scenarios they might face over there."

mfriscolanti@nationalpost.com

© Copyright  2003 National Post


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Sep 2004)

I guess this qualifies as a 'substantiated' rumour ... does anyone know any more about this?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/21/pf-637957.html

Full text:

September 21, 2004
Canucks into danger zone
OUR SOLDIERS READY TO TAKE ON AFGHAN WARLORDS
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU, SUN MEDIA

Prime Minister Paul Martin is expected to answer a call today to send Canadian troops into Afghanistan's badlands. Martin will meet privately today with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai in New York at the opening of the UN's General Assembly to discuss Canada's contribution to a provincial reconstruction team.

A senior federal official said Martin will discuss creating the team in an effort to boost security in the war-torn border regions of Afghanistan, where warlords and Taliban factions continue to fight for control.

"And I think that we will likely end up with a provincial reconstruction team sometime in the next several months," the senior official said.

That could see some of the 700 troops from CFB Petawawa, set to replace the existing Canadian contingent in Kabul this February, head into rural Afghanistan. In the past, Martin has adamantly rejected sending soldiers into the badlands until a plan was put in place for emergency evacuations.

RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS

Martin has kept Canadians in Kabul working as a part of the NATO-led force providing security in the capital.

So far only the United States and New Zealand have deployed reconstruction teams. They are made up of civilians tasked to rebuild rural Afghanistan's infrastructure, justice and education systems, and of soldiers who protect them and area residents.

Ashraf Hidari, spokesman for Afghanistan's embassy in Washington, D.C., said that a commitment from Canada is expected to cause European nations to follow suit.

Karzai sees the provincial teams as key to the ongoing campaign to win the hearts and minds of Afghanis.

Hidari said Karzai will also ask for more financial aid and would "appreciate further assistance from Canada."

The Canadian contingent in Kabul was cut from 2,000 to roughly 700 in August to give the army a break from deployments.

A defence department spokesman said the military is considering "all options" for the February deployment but no decision has yet been made.


----------



## canuck101 (22 Sep 2004)

If you read the article the USA and New Zealand sent civilians and if Canada was going to send anybody it should be civilians too, but it looks from reading the article some of the 700 troops going in the next rotation my be diverted for other operations.  Do we have the extra engineers too send.


----------



## McG (22 Sep 2004)

The construction troops in the CERs (and 4 ESR) would each be capable of participating in such a task in place of some civilians.


----------



## pbi (22 Sep 2004)

This is interesting, because one of my other jobs here in Afgh   is to assist in the planning of whatever Canada will committ to Afghanistan after this Roto. As of today (22 Sep) no decision has been announced, although   a Provincial Reconstruction Team is one of the options being briefed to the CDS. Unfortunately there are a number of mistakes/misconceptions in the article:



> A senior federal official said Martin will discuss creating the team in an effort to boost security in the war-torn border regions of Afghanistan, where warlords and Taliban factions continue to fight for control.



Without getting too specific due to OPSEC, this approaches exaggeration. Only the southeast frontier facing Pakistan can really be considered "war torn", and we are not looking at going there. There is a widespread danger from IEDs/VBIEDs/suicide bombers, especially in Kabul, but that does not really equate to   "war torn". The North is pretty quiet,   Kabul is so-so (we'll see what happens in the next while...) and the West (around Herat) is quiet now after the US and the Afgh govt persuaded the two local warlords to accept other employment. Their heavy weapons are being cantoned as we read this. Herat is probably one of the more secure places just at the moment, although we are all waiting to see what the ACF will unleash in order to try to derail the Presidential elections on October 09. They have already ramped up offensive ops along the Pak frontier in the southeastern provinces.(Although they are getting caught between the OEF forces and the Pak Army, who deployed a Corps along their frontier.



> "That could see some of the 700 troops from CFB Petawawa, set to replace the existing Canadian contingent in Kabul this February, head into rural Afghanistan. In the past, Martin has adamantly rejected sending soldiers into the badlands until a plan was put in place for emergency evacuations.



It might, but IMHO that would be pretty quick. A better guess would be in August. We really need to see how the Afgh Provincial Elections turn out in the spring, since the ACF will likely spend the winter reconstituting and planning. If the Provincial Elections go to sh*t, all bets might be off.



> Martin has kept Canadians in Kabul working as a part of the NATO-led force providing security in the capital.



This statement is wrong, except that their operations outside the city contribute to its security.Canadians have been operating well beyond the city for months now, but still inside the ISAF AOO (which was just re-jigged) .



> So far only the United States and New Zealand have deployed reconstruction teams.



This is completely wrong and has been wrong for months. While the US has 17 PRTs, the UK, Germans and   other nations are running several PRTs in the North. The Koreans also operate a PRT under the US, in Parwan province near where I am at Bagram.



> They are made up of civilians tasked to rebuild rural Afghanistan's infrastructure, justice and education systems, and of soldiers who protect them and area residents.



No, they are primarily military organizations, which facilitate the actions of the Govt of Afghanistan agencies like Ministry of the Interior,   foreign Government Organizations (GOs)   like US Dept of State or USAID, and in a few cases NGOs. As a rule they do NOT do any humanitarian work, as the NGOs take care of this. They are commanded by a military officer, and the military is the backbone, although the civilian component is vital. The military presence is strong enough to provide for hte force protection of the PRT should things turn ugly(which can happen-PRTs have been attacked). They focus primarily on rebuilding the infrastructure that supports the Afghan Govt, so that it   can effectively run the country. They do NOT "protect area residents" unless the PRT forces are dealing with a threat that is also a threat to the PRT itself. They are not "the Cavalry" (and that includes US PRTs). Protection of local residents is very clearly the responsibility of the Afghan National Police (ANP) trained by the US and Germans, and the Afghan National Army trained by the US and Canada. The PRT forces may be involved in assisting with the training of the ANP/ANA.

The really important point is that there are several different options on the table, and PRT is just one. Cheers.


.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Sep 2004)

Thank you, for the correct info,"horses mouth" .  Doesn't this link up to the "civi's are in the dark" thread, when our own media doesn't care enough to get facts straight before "posting".  
Hmm, I think we have higher standards on this internet website about qualifying information than our press. :-[


----------



## Kendrick (7 Dec 2004)

Who's up next for rotation in Afghanistan?  
I missed my chance with the vandoos roto, so I don't want to miss the next one.  
Also, even if its the RCR or the PPCLI, is it possible for a guy form 34 brigade to go?


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

There are NO R031 Infantry positions in Afghan.

 There are CIMIC and HUMINT positions.
Or D&S duties in the "secret" middle east airbase we like to call Mirage  ;D


----------



## Kendrick (8 Dec 2004)

And one has to assume that there will be NO R031 positions anytime soon either eh?   
Ah well sucks to be me.   

Yeah I have a few buddies that just came back from those "secret" bases there hehe.  I just want to get deployed on an interesting tour, I'll see what comes up.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2004)

I have no idea where 34 Bde is but I woudl suggest that in the next year you might (will) start seeing augmentation go up with the deployment of multiple battlegroups again....


----------



## Kendrick (8 Dec 2004)

34 brigade is in eastern Quebec.  Mostly Montreal regiments, reserves.  
And they are encouraging news!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Dec 2004)

2008 for us wherever that may be unless the balloon goes up.


----------



## ImanIdiot (8 Dec 2004)

if the order for the rotos is RCR(roto 0), Vandoo(roto 1), PPCLI(roto 2), then I assume the Patricias will be contributing to the BG in Feb 06? Or after our forces wide mini 'stand down' this year, is the order going to change?


----------



## westie47 (8 Dec 2004)

The rumour around the left coast (from the CO and Bde Comd) is that there is going to be a CRIC company going in late 2005/early 2006. I plan on being there!


----------



## Kendrick (8 Dec 2004)

Makes two of us!


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2004)

Go for it! There are lots of things that good Res soldiers could do there: IMHO we are well behind the US in the challenges we offer to our Res soldiers. As mentioned elsewhere, the US is doing the ETT thing using ARNG and USMC (R). Good luck! Cheers.


----------



## westie47 (8 Dec 2004)

Having served in Croatia in 1993 as a reserve member of B Coy 2 VP , I think reservists with the right amount of work-up training  do quite well on operations! We will show that again.


----------



## ImanIdiot (8 Dec 2004)

I just hope there are enough available positions for those that want to go, or at least a selection period that will weed out those who maybe shouldn't go.


----------



## little_mp (9 Dec 2004)

I'm pretty sure for R031 positions there were some open to go to the secret airbase in the middle east yes you kno which one I'm talking about, and i belive they are then going from there into theater in Kabul around March if I'm not mistaken, however they're work up is finished and they are leaving the middle of this month, so theres no change on getting on that one


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 Dec 2004)

ImanIdiot said:
			
		

> I just hope there are enough available positions for those that want to go, or at least a selection period that will weed out those who maybe shouldn't go.



There was for this tour that is leaving soon, they were in meaford, atleast for LFCA, for this selection proccess. They then moved to pet, My unit has one guy going to the "secret" base that my whole unit know about, because we had like 6 people on the selection process.


----------



## Kendrick (9 Dec 2004)

We have a few people from my unit that just came back from said "secret" base.


----------



## DFW2T (9 Dec 2004)

Kendrick said:
			
		

> We have a few people from my unit that just came back from said "secret" base.


Mirage is a secret????  I'm a civi (privy to a little INT) but i know about it....friends of mine know about it.  Is the military trying to keep this a secret?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2004)

Nuff said. If the government hasn't announced it, we shouldn't be even alluding to it. Everyone knock it off.


----------



## Gunner (9 Dec 2004)

Camp Mirage is not Canada's version of Area 51.   The Host Nation has asked that we don't publicize the fact that they have allowed the use of one of its airbases to support the war on terror.   Being Canadians, we respect the right of our hosts to do this.   Camp Mirage as the theatre support base is much nicer than other countries have (ie Germany in Turkmenistan (or Uzbeckistan...can't remember).

Cheers,


----------



## Kendrick (9 Dec 2004)

Durkadurkastan?
hehehe


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2004)

Gunner said:
			
		

> The Host Nation has asked that we don't publicize the fact that they have allowed the use of one of its airbases to support the war on terror.   Being Canadians, we respect the right of our hosts to do this.



Like I said.


----------



## Gunner (9 Dec 2004)

> Like I said.



Big difference between a secret location (ala Area 51, etc) and Camp Mirage.


----------



## ImanIdiot (9 Dec 2004)

Exerpt from the DND website, indicating the layout for Roto 2 OP Athena:


-An airlift element in Camp Mirage, the Canadian sustainment base located in southwest Asia, 
operating CC-130 Hercules tactical transport aircraft; and
-An infantry element from 38 Canadian Brigade Group responsible for force protection in Camp Mirage. 


Obviously, while they don't want everyone knowing where it is, they have acknowledged its existence. Area 51 it is not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2004)

Semantics. I'm not the one that said it was secret. Just said.....wait, I have to go piss up a wall.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 Dec 2004)

Kendrick said:
			
		

> Durkadurkastan?
> hehehe



lol, 



> Just said.....wait, I have to go piss up a wall



sounds fun, but different


----------



## Scott (9 Dec 2004)

DFW2T said:
			
		

> Mirage is a secret????   I'm a civi (privy to a little INT) but i know about it....friends of mine know about it.   Is the military trying to keep this a secret?



Privy to a little bit of Int....wouldn't that mean that you've had an OPSEC briefing?

recceguy hit the nail on the head, enough chatter about Mirage, please.


----------



## DFW2T (9 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nuff said. If the government hasn't announced it, we shouldn't be even alluding to it. Everyone knock it off.


   OK enough.. I'm scripting this from the Red Zone in Baghdad.(And I'm comfortable with saying this,  it's..non-compromising)   As a former soldier for 15 years I know enough about OPSEC to carry on here.   CAMP MIRAGE is not TOP SECRET If it was   all my buddies from SA, Austrailia, US ...(I could go on)   wouldn't know about it! 
 I think some people here are inflicted wth with the "BIG BROTHER" syndrome.......you know ...."OH..... don't say      J T........"
    A tour in Alert, Golan or Bosnia (late 90's) doesn't make you a cleric/guru, an OPSEC OPI.. 
    
 My question was only..."why is every body referring to Mirage like it's ....Well....    Area 51?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2004)

I think your question has been answered above.





			
				DFW2T said:
			
		

> I think some people here are inflicted wth with the "BIG BROTHER" syndrome.......you know ...."OH..... don't say    J T........"
> * A tour in Alert, Golan or Bosnia (late 90's) doesn't make you a cleric/guru, an OPSEC OPI.. *
> My question was only..."why is every body referring to Mirage like it's ....Well....   Area 51?



When I was flying in and out on Athena, we were ordered not to talk about it, no one has recinded that order that I know of.


----------



## bossi (10 Dec 2004)

For crying out loud ...
"Shake your head, Dopey!  Do you hear anything?  No?  I'M NOT SURPRISED!!!"

I have been asked to post the following (and, if you haven't already noticed, somebody else locked this thread because too many people were talking about something they KNOW they shouldn't ...)



> Hi, I was the person that gave the "Welcome to wonderful beautiful Camp Mirage Intro" for all the soldiers on Roto 0 to Afghanistan. I'm sure those that were there, were way to busy drinking the bottles of water from the kitchen as opposed to listening anyway...
> 
> I just wish to clairify why The CF doesn't talk about where Camp Mirage is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2005)

This, from today's _Globe and Mail_, is interesting.   (See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050213.wafgha0213/BNStory/International/ )   If I understand what I hear and read doubling our troop strength in Afghanistan will mean that the very NCOs who are needed to staff training establishments to help train the new 5,000 will not be available for another year or so.   Is that how others read it?



> Canada to nearly double number of troops in Afghanistan
> 
> Sunday, February 13, 2005 Updated at 1:14 PM EST
> Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)

I don't read that ROJ.  There are the permanent staff at the schools already that wouldn't be touched plus summer time add-ons.  Whether thats reserves or reg I think the staff will be there.

Unless I'm reading it wrong.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)

I wonder if the military planners anticipated this already and if the CDS has factored this into his new plan.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Feb 2005)

I think it was figured in.  We complete a yr on high overseas manning levels last yr with the first 2 rotos in Kabul, draw down in Bosnia, and the tour to Haiti. Roto 2 and 3 does not have an AOR to patrol and is really just there as to maintain CJ and continue on a few key roles (HUMINT, recce support to ISAF, CIMIC, and ETT) prior to revitalising a new battle group sized contingent with its own AOR and possibly command roles in ISAF HQ again this fall. In addition to this, add the PRT presence into the Kandahar region and you'll have a doubling of current troops strength to ISAF to a level over (probably) 2500 personnel.

Also supporting Op Enduring freedom would not be the same as the boys knew it in '02. Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now. So if that tasks comes out, and troops are pulled from Kabul, I see ops in support of that goal, not only against the Taliban, but also against the (still) powerful area warlords who control the drug trade and its money, like the HiG, for example.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)

Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now.

So now we are police.  Is this the official policy?  Sound like a Tom Clancy novel.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now.
> 
> So now we are police. Is this the official policy? Sound like a Tom Clancy novel.



Check on Google, for example...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0125/p07s01-wosc.html

Crop spraying draws controversy in Afghan drug fight

The US may scrap or divert $152 million earmarked for aerial poppy eradication in Afghanistan this year.

By Halima Kazem | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN â â€œ Shortly after becoming Afghanistan's first democratically elected president, Hamid Karzai declared war on one of his country's most lucrative exports: opium. Three months on, the president has won an early skirmish over tactics by prevailing upon the US to shelve plans for aerial spraying of Afghan poppy crops. 
Crop spraying is a major part of Washington's war on drugs in Latin America. But in Afghanistan, where income from the crop is crucial to many farmers, spraying has proved controversial.

Last November, the Karzai government protested when, without its knowledge, fields in two Afghan provinces were sprayed with a "mysterious substance." Both the US and British governments denied any involvement, but Afghan government officials say the US military controls that airspace.

The US had earmarked $780 million this year for Afghanistan's drug fight, including $300 million for eradication and $152 million for aerial spraying due to start in March. Now, the US State Department is reportedly reworking the budget proposal, possibly removing funds for spraying.

"We don't know the side effects of spraying. Also, Afghans are not used to seeing this kind of thing [spraying], it could be seen as an attack on the people not just the poppy crops. That is a dangerous road to take," says Gen. Mohammed Daud, Head of the Anti-Narcotics Department at the Ministry of Interior.

By ruling out crop spraying, the government has removed one of the few quick methods of combating the opium trade. But many analysts say that development efforts, such as finding alternatives for farmers, are more likely to succeed in the long run.

"[Spraying] is a ridiculous and shameful misallocation of resources, reflecting the political agenda of a few people in Washington," says Barnett Rubin, a professor at New York University and former adviser to the UN in Afghanistan. "Fortunately, faced with the united opposition of the Afghan government and the severe doubts of much of the US government and all US allies, they are now backing off and may reprogram funding for aerial eradication to alternative livelihoods."

According to a recent UN report, Afghanistan pumps out 87 percent of the world's opium and its heroin derivatives. The drug is planted in all 34 provinces of the country and can bring in 10 times the income of other crops. The trade in 2004 reaped $2.8 billion, up more than 20 percent from the previous year, and now makes up an estimated 60 percent of Afghanistan's legal economy.

Drug trafficking has also become a major source of income for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, a fact that has deepened US concerns.

"Virtually anything in Afghanistan that is funded by something other than foreign aid is funded by drug profits. According to reports, drug income in the south is sometimes split among various tribes, with a portion going to local Taliban," says Mr. Rubin.

The US military has so far shied away from playing a more active role in combating drugs in Afghanistan. Analysts say that US military involvement could overly tax its forces, and prove more expensive and time-consuming than mobilizing the Afghan government to tackle the problem.

Afghanistan currently has 1,000 trained and active counternarcotics personnel, about 600 of whom are in the provinces, burning and destroying poppy fields on the ground.

But officials say at least 4,000 officers are needed to actively monitor and destroy poppy farms, and another 5,000 to control the country's porous borders.

While ruling out crop spraying, Karzai is advocating another controversial tactic. In a recent press conference Karzai told reporters that he was considering offering amnesty to former drug traffickers with the hopes that they will lead the Afghan government to the bigger drug lords.

"We are discussing the amnesty issue. We need to make sure that the plan doesn't backfire on us and the big drug lords slip out of our hands," says General Daud.

However, in a country without any kind of formal national identification system, verifying drug traffickers and the identities of drug lords will be a major challenge. And with some 2.3 million Afghans involved in the drug trade the task becomes harder.

Some members of Karzai's Cabinet suggest a "bottom up" approach to the poppy dilemma. Afghanistan's newly appointed counternarcotics minister, Habibullah Qaderi, believes that subsidies and cash incentives should be given to encourage farmers to drop poppies and plant other cash crops.

Qaderi has suggested that the Afghan government pay the farmers involved in cultivating opium at least double the market price for crops such as rice, wheat, and cotton. But subsidies could cost upward of $1 billion for one year, more than has been promised by the US government for the entire antinarcotics effort over three years.

"We can't really beat a $2 to $3 billion-a-year industry with this type of money," said Omar Zakhilwal, chief policy adviser at the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.

Afghanistan's long drought compounds the difficulty of finding alternative crops. Poppies require very little water to thrive.

Rubin also warns against eradicating poppy farms too quickly or before taking out the traffickers and the drug lords, as many farmers are still financially indebted to their "bosses" and could revolt against the Karzai government.

"You cannot eliminate 40 percent of the total economy [60 percent of the legal economy] in one of the poorest countries in the world through law enforcement," Rubin says. "And you also cannot do it in one year, or in five years. Economic shrinkage is one of the surest predictors of instability and conflict."

The Afghan government is especially concerned about maintaining security going into parliamentary elections that are scheduled for this spring.


----------



## Gunner (13 Feb 2005)

> Roto 2 and 3 does not have an AOR to patrol and is really just there as to maintain CJ and continue on a few key roles (HUMINT, recce support to ISAF, CIMIC, and ETT) prior to revitalising a new battle group sized contingent with its own AOR and possibly command roles in ISAF HQ again this fall. In addition to this, add the PRT presence into the Kandahar region and you'll have a doubling of current troops strength to ISAF to a level over (probably) 2500 personnel.



Armymedic, although we didn't have an AOR the 700 Canadians "punched" above their weight for ISAF during Roto 2.  In fact, most of the success acheived by ISAF involved Canadian assets.  Future (next year or two) increases to Canadian numbers in Afghanistan will be under Op Enduring Freedom (US led) vice under ISAF.  Good luck on Roto 3.  

Cheers,


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Feb 2005)

A.M. Check my pm as to why I thought this was weird.


----------



## Armymedic (13 Feb 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Armymedic, although we didn't have an AOR the 700 Canadians "punched" above their weight for ISAF during Roto 2. In fact, most of the success acheived by ISAF involved Canadian assets.



I guess my poor choice of words suggested that because we don't have an AOR, we are not accomplishing anything there. Obviously this is not the case, as every member of the size reduced contingent has a vital role in the continuing success of ISAF and Afghanistan.


----------



## onecat (14 Feb 2005)

Maybe its just me, but is this another way for the Liberals to keep the CF out of Iraq.  By comminting more troops to Afghanistan, it leaves martin with an easy way to say no without saying NO to Bush.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2005)

of course it is.  But its not like were not needed in A Stan


----------



## onecat (14 Feb 2005)

"But its not like were not needed in A Stan"

Truly true, I think the CF will do a better job and will be more important in Afghanistan that in Iraq.  But that's not why the Liberals are doing it.. which is my point.  They just want a reason to have their No look okay.  This might work with Troops, but hopefully Martin is smart enough to know he can't say NO to missile defence.  If he does then just want kinda of ally is Canada to the US.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Feb 2005)

Ah missle defense.  A hole other can of worms that has and deserves its own thread.


----------



## Gunner (14 Feb 2005)

> Maybe its just me, but is this another way for the Liberals to keep the CF out of Iraq.  By comminting more troops to Afghanistan, it leaves martin with an easy way to say no without saying NO to Bush.



Good conspiracy theory but you're wrong.  The US has been pushing for other NATO countries to take more responsibility in Afghanistan in order to free up its soldiers and concentrate on Iraq.  Increased Canadian and NATO forces in Afghanistan is seen as desirable for the US.  Not sure if you have ever worked in a multinational environment but as soon as you start adding different nationalitiies into the mix, the effectiveness of the organization begins to deteriorate (he says with a sigh after living under Eurocorps for six months).



> of course it is.  But its not like were not needed in A Stan



Afghanistan isn't in the news alot lately but it remains a volatile situation.  Daily attacks occur in the southern and south eastern areas of the country.  If the US wasn't there (with all their bells and whistles) the country would slide back into anarchy pretty quick.  The Taliban, HiG, and Al Queda are not defeated merely laying low and doing what they have always done in the presence of a superior enemy.  

Cheers,


----------



## pbi (14 Feb 2005)

I second Gunner's comments here. IMHO (having had some involvement in the PRT planning process here) we are not trying to avoid Iraq: we have already clearly stated that we aren't going to deploy formed units. What we are doing, again IMHO, is rebuilding our relationship with the US (desperately needed) through the medium of Afghanistan. We are also finding a place where our currently quite limited contribution can make a good bang for buck. Having spent six months here working inside the HQ of CJTF76, I am very certain that the US hold us in good regard as soldiers (I'm not talking about what they think about me.....) and would be most grateful for an Inf Bn group to go into the operational area along the border with Pakistan. They need high-quality allied Inf and they don't have any.

Contrary to the comments of some, the US military presence in OEF is not about to become "drug police". IMHO there is a considerable amount of concern amongst US commanders about how this drug eradication will be done: they understand very clearly that if it is done stupidly, or done at the wrong time, there is a huge risk of setting back all they have done so far, which is considerable. We have NOT yet defeated the enemy (and I use "we" advisedly because IMHO he is *our* enemy too: we are not on a "neutral" UN mission despite the wishes of some Euro-tourist types that were running ISAF here recently.). The US is engaging in combat ops as we speak. The National Elections have not even happened yet: these pose a huge potential security threat and if they are not successful IMHO drug programs will not matter because we risk the whole place sliding into the ditch during Roto 3. (Keep your sights up, R3 folks...)

OEF is a very complex operation, covering the entire spectrum from humanitarian aid to combat ops. Alot of Canadians (especially our media) fail to understand the huge range of effort the US military are engaged in, and characterize them as just doing combat. Of course combat is important, and so is counter narcotics, but they all fit together like the pieces of a clock: if you screw up one piece the others will not work.

As for the PRT: I must say that I am as shocked as anybody to hear of its potential size. This would make it about twice the size of the average US PRT, with a much stronger military presence that I had expected. This will be great for the military but I wonder what all these people will do? Perhaps (IMHO) this is the first step of establishing Kandahar as our base (good move in my opinion-Kabul is gradually becoming a backwater...). Given the strong indications that we will contribute an Inf Bn TF in 06, this would make sense.

Maybe the near future will finally see us back where the hot action is in Afghanistan, alongside our US allies instead of trying to be the backbone for a bunch of Euro-floppers in Kabul. Just my jaundiced, end-tour opinion.

Cheers, and my best wishes to the new folks on R3: you may find yourself living in interesting times. Stay safe and stay alert.


----------



## Ubique RCA (15 Sep 2005)

Canadian troops taking part in the 
American-led anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan will be soon 
replaced by Romanian troops, it is reported here Friday.
   A report by the local newspaper the OTTAWA Citizen said that 
Romania will send 485 soldiers to Afghanistan to take over from 
the Canadian battalion currently operating in Kandahar.
   Senior Canadian forces officials are expected to inform the 
government that because of commitments at home and around the 
world, the military can not continue to support the mission in 
Afghanistan, the report said.
   Romanian troops could be in Afghanistan as early as July 15, 
the report said, quoting a Romanian government representative.
   However, a Canadian military spokesperson said no decision has 
been made on whether the 880 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will
return home.  Enditem  


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-05/18/content_398582.htm


----------



## D-n-A (15 Sep 2005)

I think its a fake or something. Especially since its dated May17, is this  even a credible news site?


----------



## KevinB (15 Sep 2005)

???


----------



## atticus (15 Sep 2005)

And its a chinese news agency.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2005)

And we are leaving Kandahar for Kabul.......so someone has to take over in Kandahar.


----------



## buzgo (15 Sep 2005)

It is referring to OP APOLLO. Its not fake, it really happened - IN 2002!


----------



## GNR (15 Sep 2005)

It's real.

I read it in the newspaper (and you know EVERYTHING they write is perfect)...I am looking for the official report and will toss it up as soon as I find it.


----------



## Ubique RCA (15 Sep 2005)

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/index.html


----------



## GNR (15 Sep 2005)

NEVERMIND


----------



## Ubique RCA (15 Sep 2005)

Wow this post is starting to sound way to much like the military. 
More questions then answers!

Cheers


----------



## GNR (15 Sep 2005)

LMAO 2002!!!

The article I read was from Sept 15, 2005.


----------



## P-Free (15 Sep 2005)

Yes...some will come home early, after they move to Kandahar from Kabul after the elections...

P...


----------



## GNR (15 Sep 2005)

P-Free is that going to effect the upcoming Roto?


----------



## Armymedic (15 Sep 2005)

The thing about the half battalion of Romainians, has happened, they came into CJ end July to augment the Norg AOR. They are patrolling the same areas we did the previous yr. They are also expected to leave by end Oct.


----------



## Ubique RCA (15 Sep 2005)

I believe that the original post has already happened but there is a new news article which has been put out today that is current.

RE: link provided.

Cheers


----------



## GNR (15 Sep 2005)

I just got the official word and for those that were interested it will not effect TF1-06.


----------



## Ubique RCA (15 Sep 2005)

won't effect 01-06 but what about following tours?


----------



## P-Free (15 Sep 2005)

GNR said:
			
		

> P-Free is that going to effect the upcoming Roto?



Don't know..my dads over there right now and he was mentioning to me awhile ago that some of his men, possibly even him, might come home around Chrimbo..

But I was also talking to a guy recently who knows some of the people training to go over in February..

P...


----------



## pte. Massecar (15 Sep 2005)

Considering reserve regiments, including my own, are going to work up for A-stan... I think this article isnt all correct. They just must be talking about the closing of camp Julien.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2005)

GNR said:
			
		

> I just got the official word and for those that were interested it will not effect TF1-06.



Don't forget those famous words:   " You won't know until you are actually getting off the plane in country."

The statement is only current as of the time it was said.   Two hours from now a decision may be made to counter it.   Who knows?   When you get on the plane and then disembark on Tour, is when you know that you are really going to be there, and then the length of your stay is not definite either.   Everything in the Military is "Subject to Change".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Sep 2005)

OK, some facts as I can't take it anymore.

1.  The original article deals with the replacement of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group with a Romanian mountain battalion in August 2002.  It is history and should never have been posted here as "fact".

2.  There has been no official announcement regarding the early repatriation of personnel from Afghanistan.  It could well happen - that's the nature of operations, especially on a rapidly evolving mission such as the one we have in theatre now.

3.  TF 01-06 is still a "go" for February.  The Deputy PM was quoted in the news - from Kandahar - as saying we're likely to remain in Afghanistan for "years" and the Defence Minister has been talking of the possibility of casualties.  Is that enough of a hint?

 :


----------



## super_pookie (15 Sep 2005)

I think the feb roto could be cut short with maybe only a 4 month tour. there's a para commenting on it in the followin article.

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=be961672-957e-4eda-a7f3-7820d9c9857e


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Sep 2005)

And where did you get your info linking the two?  This is how rumours get started.

Col Noonan is the current Comd TFK and is referring to soldiers _already in theatre_, as others have pointed out.  There are people moving between Kabul and Kandahar and some of those may not (stressing MAY) get a full tour.

If there's a change, wait for the chain of command to announce it.  The press gets it wrong in 90% of cases like these.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Sep 2005)

I think this issue has been solved by Mr Ruxpin.  Case closed.


----------



## McG (15 Sep 2005)

Ubique RCA said:
			
		

> A report by the local newspaper the OTTAWA Citizen said that


Best go to the actual Ottawa Citizen article instead of reading someone's bad interpretation of it.
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d930ec79-1d75-41df-b85a-45d2db1f357e


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2006)

We may want to check to see if this is Open Source or not.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Mar 2006)

Thank you.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (15 Mar 2006)

There are numerous links from official sites that make references to ROTO's as I've linked below.  

Looks to be pretty open sourse to me.  All the links came up from doing a google search under Afghanistan Roto 1.


From DND's site
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1228

Federal government's Rebuilding Afghanistan site
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/background-en.asp


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Mar 2006)

I may have missed it but I didn't see any mention of who will be the replacements in either of those links for the near future and beyond.
BTW I don't think they should mention what elements/numbers are over there now.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (15 Mar 2006)

CFL, 

By way of reporing numbers, NDHQ makes a rather detailed reporting for all op areas

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/current_ops_e.asp

While the numbers presented aren't 100% accurate, it looks as though they don't consider it a matter of general opsec.  

WRT who is deploying next, I agree that this is something that doesn't necessarily need to be discussed on this board.  If for no other reason then the fact that the situation is always changing.  Those who are going know they are going by way of them having their ramp up period.  All those who aren't "in the know" likely don't need to.  

That having been said, when I went over on Roto 1 it was hardly a secret that we were heading over there.  Especially considering the fact that we used Sherbrook as a mock Kabul (widely reported open source).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Mar 2006)

Understood.  I'm not sure who it was that started this topic but they had posted who was slated to go up to Roto 10 or so.


----------



## camochick (5 Aug 2006)

This is the first of many homecomings. For some of us, this is the begining of the end, and a big releif that our loved ones are coming home safe and sound. For those just begining on this journey, be safe, and take care.  

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060718/afghanistan_troops_060805/20060805?hub=TopStories

100 Cdn. troops arrive home from Afghanistan
Updated Sat. Aug. 5 2006 10:28 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The first of about 2,000 Canadian soldiers who will return home from Afghanistan in coming weeks touched down in Edmonton early Saturday, amid reports that one NATO soldier was killed and three others were injured in the war-torn nation on the same day.

A NATO statement said the death and injuries occurred when an armoured jeep which was accompanying a supply convoy, crashed in Kandahar province.

Though the accident was not the result of enemy action, it occurred in the same region where four Canadian soldiers were killed earlier in the week.

NATO has not released the nationalities of the soldiers.

Meanwhile, the roughly 100 troops who returned home Saturday were greeted by loved ones, cool 10 C weather, and Tim Horton's coffee in a fitting homecoming.

The military jet the soldiers travelled home on was accompanied by two CF 18 jets for the last leg of its journey to Edmonton's airport, as a tribute to the returning troops.  

The troops spent an hour filling out paper work and updating medical reports, before boarding three buses which carried them to the Edmonton military base where their families waited.

Andelaine Nelson, 21, held her two-month old son out as her husband Cpl. Kevin Pavan rushed to meet her and pick up his son.

Pavan's parents and brothers had flown from Vancouver to surprise him, carrying banners with the Canadian flag and the words "We support our troops."

Undoubtedly, however, many were thinking about the four Canadian troops who were killed earlier in the week.

"I'm very excited about him coming home,'' Pavan's mother Jan Pavan told The Canadian Press. "But I have mixed feelings because I'm also sad for all the parents that their kids aren't coming home.''

Pte. Kevin Dallaire, Sgt. Vaughn Ingram, Cpl. Bryce James Killer and Cpl. Christopher Reid were killed Thursday during fighting with Taliban forces west of Kandahar.

Their bodies are scheduled to arrive at Ontario's CFB Trenton Saturday afternoon. 

Pavan's joy was dampened by concern for his comrades still in Afghanistan.

"I'll be relieved when all the boys come home safe,'' he said.

His fellow soldier,  Edmonton paramedic and reservist with 8 Field Engineer Regiment Darcy Ressler, took a similar stance. 

Though he admitted he was glad to be safe and sound in Canada, and to have some relief from the nosebleeds due to heat that have plagued him in Afghanistan, he was worried about those left behind.

However, Ressler told CP he believes in the work Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan.

"I do feel we've made a lot of progress in helping social programs, helping some of the villagers with the necessities they didn't have before we came, like running water, digging wells, helping them with crops,'' he said.

The majority of the soldiers who will be rotating home in the next few weeks will spend the next month on vacation and adjusting to life back in Canada. 

Their replacements, about 2,000 troops mostly from Ontario and Manitoba, began arriving in Kandahar on Wednesday, where they will undergo training to take over the Canadian contingent's duties.

The work in Afghanistan is becoming more dangerous. More than 800 people have been killed in southern Afghanistan as the result of fighting, suicide bombs and ambushes. Of those, 23 Canadian soldiers have died since the mission began in 2002.


----------



## from darkness lite (5 Aug 2006)

"A NATO statement said the death and injuries occurred when an armoured jeep which was accompanying a supply convoy, crashed in Kandahar province. Though the accident was not the result of enemy action, it occurred in the same region where four Canadian soldiers were killed earlier in the week. NATO has not released the nationalities of the soldiers." 

Although the loss of any NATO soldier is sad, praying its not another Canadian.

FDL


----------



## MikeM (5 Aug 2006)

Job well done guys.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (6 Aug 2006)

There was a decent article on the front page of The Chronicle-Herald this morning with the pic of the Engr Cpl (forget his last name, sorrry) with his 2 month old on it.  Was nice to see.

Mud


----------



## TMM (6 Aug 2006)

Welcome home to all of them. I think I saw a couple at Pearson today.


----------



## armyrules (6 Aug 2006)

Welcome home guys you all deserve some R&R!! :cheers:


----------



## Jack O. (6 Aug 2006)

Welcome home guys.


----------



## Hot Lips (6 Aug 2006)

Welcome home troops...thanks for a job well done  



HL


----------



## Booked_Spice (6 Aug 2006)

Welcome Home!


A Job Well done


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2006)

Love the song and and the lyrics. To the troops that are coming home. 

In the quiet misty morning when the moon has gone to bed,
When the sparrows stop their singing and the sky is clear and red.
When the summer’s ceased its gleaming,
When the corn is past its prime, 
When adventure’s lost its meaning, 
I’ll be homeward bound in time.

Bind me not to the pasture, chain me not to the plow.
Set me free to find my calling and I’ll return to you somehow.

If you find it’s me you're missing, if you’re hoping I’ll return.
To your thoughts I’ll soon be list’ning, and in the road I’ll stop and turn.
Then the wind will set me racing as my journey nears its end.
And the path I’ll be retracing when I’m homeward bound again.

Bind me not to the pasture, chain me not to the plow.
Set me free to find my calling and I’ll return to you somehow.

In the quiet misty morning when the moon has gone to bed,
When the sparrows stop their singing, 
I’ll be homeward bound again.

-Music and Lyrics by Marta Keen


----------

