# Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2014)

Here we go, folks ....


> *Canada is committing two cargo planes to move military supplies into northern Iraq as part of the international effort to bolster Kurdish forces in the embattled region.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a CC-177 Globemaster and a CC-130J Hercules transport will begin shuttling arms provided by allies to the Iraqi city of Irbil over the next few days.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Aug 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here we go, folks ....



Is this another Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2014)

From the PM's office ....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement announcing further assistance to the people of Iraq:
> 
> “As the murderous rampage of the terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) continues, Canada remains committed to providing assistance to the thousands of Iraqi children, women and men, including Yezidis and Christians, who desperately need it.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (28 Aug 2014)

> And Canada's not far behind in sending a 6 pack of CF18s, we hope?



and....JTF2 (which is probably already there with the US Special Forces...)


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> And Canada's not far behind in sending a 6 pack of CF18s, we hope?
> 
> Defense News



Unfortunately our expeditionary 6-Pack has just shifted from Romania, where it was close and doing double duty supplying the "threat" of covering Ukrainian forces in the Black Sea, to the Baltic.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Aug 2014)

Canada is doing yeoman service right now (kudos to our RCAF brethren) delivering lethal aid to the Peshmerga.


----------



## BadgerTrapper (5 Sep 2014)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/canada-sending-special-ops-personnel-to-iraq-1.1992540


Thoughts?


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Sep 2014)

Canada's CSOR is going to Iraq as trainers to the Iraqi Army.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Sep 2014)

I don't believe we should be sending in any "token" troops as 'advisers".  I don't believe that we should be sending in a "token" Battle Group either.  We have seen Western nations "come to the rescue" in far flung nations in Africa, the Middle East and South West Asia in the past two decades with little or no solution to the problems.  Somalia is still a hotbed for Al Queda today.  We see the spread of their barbarianism throughout Africa, North Africa through Syria to Iraq, reemerging in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and even whiffs of their spread outside of those confines. 

The West has no stomach to fight this war on the same scale as the previous two World Wars.  Western nations have to be prodded to make the minimal of contributions to stop the spread of this barbarianism.  They prefer, in their current safety, to turn a blind eye and hope that the problem will disappear on its own.  It may already be too late, as witnessed in Europe, South West Asia, and a smaller scale in North America, to stop the spread.   

Do I agree that we should send in troops?  Not on the scale that our government currently has indicated.  I believe the only way will be for the West, all the West, to come out of their complacency and step up to committing millions of troops, as in the previous two World Wars, to totally eradicate the barbarians.  I look at what the West is doing now as only a "Band-aid" solution that will allow the problem to fester and grow.  Sadly, there is currently no will to commit millions of troops and the problem will grow and spread.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2014)

In case you're interested, here's the Hansard transcript from last night's Emergency Debate in the House of Commons on Iraq.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Sep 2014)

And now the pressure starts. This CP story is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

U.S. wants more help from Canada in Mideast: Harper

By The Canadian Press — CP — Sep 24 2014

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada is weighing an extended military role in the Middle East.

He says he's just received a request in the last few days, from the U.S. government, for further involvement in the fight against Islamist rebels.

Harper made the announcement in a question-and-answer session before the New York business community.

He says there needs to be some debate within the government before he can make a decision.

When pressed for details on the possible new engagement, he declined to offer details because, as he said, the U.S. government "didn't make the letter public."


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And now the pressure starts. This CP story is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> U.S. wants more help from Canada in Mideast: Harper
> 
> ...



This is turning into the Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby story. We have a hand stuck on and if we are not careful we'll have all four limbs stuck.....and we'll lose more troops. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2014)

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, more proof of it being called "_Question_ Period", not "_Answer_ Period" - this from Tuesday (highlights mine):


> Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):   Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to answer clear questions about his ill-defined military deployment in Iraq.  Yesterday, Conservatives refused once again to answer in this House, but the member for Selkirk—Interlake stated on CPAC that the mission will end on October 4.  Will the Conservative government confirm that the 30-day Canadian commitment in Iraq will indeed end on October 4?
> 
> Mr. Paul Calandra (*Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister* and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion with respect to the NDP position on Israel.  I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition could confirm for me whether Alex Anderson, who identifies himself as a fundraiser at the New Democratic Party, speaks for the NDP when he says “[eff] the IDF and all who supports them. I am sick and tired of the media [BS] trying to sell lies and hide an [effing] genocide”.  Does Alex Anderson speak for the NDP when he says these shameful things?
> 
> ...



That, compared to yesterday's exchange:


> Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):   Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for answers to the clear questions put to the Conservatives about the military deployment in Iraq.  Yesterday, the Conservatives again refused to answer questions about this and instead chose to make unparliamentary remarks.  The member for Selkirk—Interlake said that the mission will end on October 4. However, he cannot speak for the government because he is not a member of cabinet.  Today in the House, will the Conservative government confirm to Canadians that the 30-day military deployment in Iraq will actually end on October 4?
> 
> Mr. James Bezan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, CPC):   Mr. Speaker, our government has been clear both inside and outside the House that the clock started on the 30-day deployment on September 5. At the end of these 30 days, we will look at renewing the mission. The atrocities currently being committed by ISIL cannot be left unanswered.  It is outrageous that the NDP would have us do nothing in the face of that threat. It is time the NDP explained what it would do to stop ISIL and its terrorist regime.
> 
> ...


----------



## eliminator (25 Sep 2014)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-canada-mulls-deploying-cf-18-jets-to-join-u-s-led-strikes-1.2778418

The federal cabinet will meet next week to discuss deploying Canada's CF-18 fighter jets to join a U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, CBC News has learned.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked the U.S. what more Canada could do to contribute to American-led coalition efforts in Iraq against ISIS, a Pentagon official said today.

Yesterday, Harper hinted in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that Canada may be ready for an increased role.

"We need to push them to the fringes and make their basic organization and logistical existence very difficult on an ongoing basis," he said. "A lot of that can be done from the air."

Canada currently has some CF-18 fighter jets patrolling eastern Europe, said Thomas Juneau, a former analyst for the Department of Defence.

"Does it mean it's impossible for Canada to deploy CF-18 fighter aircraft in addition to that in the Iraqi theatre?" he asked. "That really depends on how much. For how long."

Harper said he wants to meet with his cabinet before anything is decided. The meeting is expected to take place next week.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Sep 2014)

En français, still related...

http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/regional/quebec/archives/2014/09/20140925-195332.html



> Lutte contre l'État Islamique en Irak
> Les militaires de Valcartier sont prêts
> 
> Les militaires de Valcartier sont sur le qui-vive.
> ...



_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## Marchog (25 Sep 2014)

Bomb them into glass. That's my two cents. 



> Lutte contre l'État Islamique en Irak
> Les militaires de Valcartier sont prêts
> 
> Les militaires de Valcartier sont sur le qui-vive.
> ...



For those whose français is lacking, a translation: 



> The struggle against the Islamic State in Iraq.
> 
> The soldiers in Valcartier are ready.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Sep 2014)

Probably send the regiment that is so secret it cant be mentioned.


----------



## dimsum (26 Sep 2014)

Video of Mercedes Stephenson interviewing LGen (ret'd) Ken Pennie regarding the US request for expanded Canadian participation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/video?clipId=452630&playlistId=1.1261638&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, more proof of it being called "_Question_ Period", not "_Answer_ Period" - this from Tuesday ....


To be fair, here's a bit on the MP's apology:


> One of the Conservative government's most colourful guard dogs made a tearful apology to the House of Commons on Friday over his controversial non-answer to an opposition question.
> 
> Paul Calandra, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary, stood following question period and, his voice cracking with emotion, said he was sorry for failing to answer NDP Leader Tom Mulcair's queries earlier this week about Canada's mission in Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2014)

This is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, without comment except to ask: isn't LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie M. Trudeau's defence _guru_, does he agree this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-must-be-involved-in-iraq-but-not-necessarily-combat-trudeau-says/article20889487/#dashboard/follows/


> Canadian jets shouldn’t go into Iraq, Trudeau says
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC AND STEVEN CHASE
> Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Marchog (2 Oct 2014)

> “Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than, you know, trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are,”


Does this guy even have a clue?


----------



## Ducimus BTC (2 Oct 2014)

Marchog said:
			
		

> Does this guy even have a clue?



Definitely using this as a platform to gain votes ahead of next years election, surprise surprise.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2014)

The "stop, or I'll say stop again" approach to foreign policy.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Oct 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The "stop, or I'll say stop again" approach to foreign policy.


Don't forget the strongly worded letter....


----------



## dimsum (2 Oct 2014)

Ducimus BTC said:
			
		

> Definitely using this as a platform to gain votes ahead of next years election, surprise surprise.



Every party uses every situation as a platform to gain votes, especially so close to an election.  I would have been surprised if the Libs and the NDP _didn't_ oppose this.


----------



## pointfiveoh (2 Oct 2014)

Ducimus BTC said:
			
		

> Definitely using this as a platform to gain votes ahead of next years election, surprise surprise.



I second that, he just needs something to badger the PCs with closer to election day, so he sets the stage now. What's sad is if doo-doo hits the fan on Harpers plan some voters will turn liberal just over fears of starting a new war that seems to have already started. Sound political strategy for Trudeau, but I'd rather not have my safety in the hands of a man whose willing to use national security issues as nothing more than a political push to grab votes.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> “Why aren’t we talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in, rather than, you know, trying to whip out our CF-18s and show them how big they are,” Mr. Trudeau said


Between the catch-all "humanitarian aid" (which can be used without any thought of who, what, how, where, to what end) and the 'whipping out a penis' innuendo, he's obviously hoping to erode some of the NDP/feminist vote.  

Once again, no thought - no surprise.   Especially when the figurehead says "he hasn't decided" and his staff says "support isn't going to happen."

Forgive me....... :boring:


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2014)

Text of the resolution being discussed in the House of Commons at this point via CBC.ca:


> That this House
> 
> (i) recognise that the leadership of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has called on its members to target Canada and Canadians at home and abroad;
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2014)

P.M.'s statement in the House today:


> “Mr. Speaker, in recent months, the international community has reacted, with virtually unanimous outrage and alarm at the rise of ISIL, the so-called ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.’
> 
> “ISIL has established a self-proclaimed Caliphate, at present stretching over a vast territory roughly from Aleppo to near Baghdad, from which it intends to launch a terrorist jihad not merely against the region but on a global basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2014)

If you want to check out the House of Commons debate from yesterday, try here (links to Hansard) or here (6 page PDF of just the IRQ motion debate).


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2014)

And we have M. Trudeau's proposed response, brilliantly depicted courtesy of Graeme MacKay in the _Hamilton Spectator_:






Source: http://www.artizans.com/image/GMAC2739/justin-trudeau-whips-out-peace-doves-by-voting-against-iraq-mission-color/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Oct 2014)

;D  I like it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2014)

And they wouldn't be Liberals if they couldn't be ..... "politicially and ideologically flexible" ....


> The Liberal Party plans to support the Canadian Forces combat mission in Iraq once it is approved by the House of Commons, even though it will vote against the deployment of six CF-18 fighter jets to conduct air strikes in Iraq ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2014)

Hold on - Garneau now says he meant to say "he supports the troops, not the mission."


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And they wouldn't be Liberals if they couldn't be ..... "politicially and ideologically flexible" ....



M. Garneau (Capt(N) (ret'd) Garneau) said, in the link, above, that _"...the key issue is “being loyal” to the members of the Canadian Forces, once their mission is approved by Parliament, even in the face of Liberal opposition."_

All I can say is Wow! I have described this as being cynical and insulting; it's worse: it is two faced, in the extreme. I'm not sure I can find words to express the contempt I have for the Liberal Party of Canada and its leadership.


Edited to add:

Don't get me wrong. I do *not* support what the US led West (plus some "bought and paid for" locals) is doing. As I mentioned above I think "half measures" are going to fail, maybe even backfire. I'm of the _*go big or stay home*_ school of thought ... I don't think we can do much with a 'six pack' of CF-18s; _*maybe*_ if we sent 60, and the US sent 600 bombers, and _*maybe*_ if we sent a few brigades, and the US sent dozens f brigades, and _*maybe*_ if the Australia and Germany and the UK also sent proportionate forces then, _*maybe*_ again, we might sort out the region, and the "sorting out" must include the Saudis and all the other emirs and princes and so ons, IF we stayed for a few generations to civilize the place ... convince them with the bomb and the noose and the schoolroom that this is not the Middle Ages and the _"sky fairies"_ don't rule here on earth.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Oct 2014)

The folks here would never allow any of it.  Re-education would be forcing folks to act contrary to their beliefs: you can only force that on Christians in this country.  The noose would have every people's advocate in the country marching on OW.  The best you could hope for is 60 days and either a restraining order or a court order to refrain from decapitating.  If that didn't work they would also add in a 500 dollar fine an additional 30 days and a second restraining order


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2014)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The folks here would never allow any of it.  Re-education would be forcing folks to act contrary to their beliefs: you can only force that on Christians in this country.  The noose would have every people's advocate in the country marching on OW.  The best you could hope for is 60 days and either a restraining order or a court order to refrain from decapitating.  If that didn't work they would also add in a 500 dollar fine an additional 30 days and a second restraining order



My head hurts trying to figure out what you are saying. Care to clarify?


----------



## cryco (7 Oct 2014)

I think he meant that if you go big as ER Campbell said and follow up that scenario with a  couple of generations of re-education, the people of this? (not sure if he meant this ,as in the west, or this, as in middle east) country would object to having the west spoon-feed what the people in the Syria/Iraq area to learn and tutor them through life. 
After that, I'm lost. And now my head hurts too.
I also agree with E.R.Cambpell though. Go overkill, not just big. Send in as much military as you can and obliterate the fools.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Oct 2014)

Doves emerging from a clueless dauphin's fly aside...

It's now official: (EDITED to add more info from full article at link above)

Vancity Buzz



> *PARLIAMENT APPROVES MOTION TO SEND 600 CANADIAN SOLDIERS, CF-18 JETS
> TO IRAQ WAR AGAINST ISIS*
> 
> The House of Commons has voted to approve a motion that permits the federal government to join a international coalition to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) threat in Iraq.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2014)

Into the Briar Patch we go once more.....


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2014)

I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2014)

> ... 600 CANADIAN SOLDIERS ...


It is nice that military requirements always come to such easy rounded numbers.
I suspect this will be an opportunity to validate the AEW through a deployment?


----------



## cupper (8 Oct 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.



and yet they don't wear an RCN uniform. >


----------



## GR66 (8 Oct 2014)

I may not think it's the wise choice to deploy in this case but good hunting and safe return to all those deploying.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Oct 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> and yet they don't wear an RCN uniform. >



Can we get a carrier to match this new found naval air capability?


----------



## Furniture (8 Oct 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.



Fleet is an appropriate term to use when referring to aircraft, just as squadron, port, starboard, and nautical mile are also appropriate in the realm of aircraft.

Almost all terminology used in aviation comes from the nautical world, oddly enough having squadrons of armoured troopers is more out of place in modern military terminology than fleets of aircraft.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2014)

6 aircraft is hardly a fleet.  It's rather embarrassing.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (8 Oct 2014)

1 to spontaneously combust on the taxiway
2 to actually participate in the sorties
and the other three for spare parts


----------



## s2184 (8 Oct 2014)

I read this article in Alzaheera.  :



> Why is Canada joining the anti-ISIL coalition?
> Canada's move to join the anti-ISIL coalition is the right decision but made for a lot of the wrong reasons.
> 
> In many ways, Canada's decision to take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq was a foregone conclusion. Stephen Harper, the country's prime minister, announced his intention to go to war the week before lawmakers actually debated it. He deployed military reconnaissance teams to the region days ahead of any vote. Not that there was ever any shred of doubt as to whether his motion to deploy Canadian fighter jets into combat over Iraq would carry.
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (9 Oct 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> I read this article in Alzaheera.  :


Why the " : " ?

Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"? 

I certainly hope you're not taking issue with "Canada's participation in the international coalition against ISIL deserved more high-minded debate," because that is most assuredly true. 



ps - They transcribe their own name from Arabic as "Al Jazeera," and as they note with all publications in their Opinion pages: "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy."


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why the " : " ?
> 
> Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"?
> 
> ...



I'm with Journeyman on this one.  I can't find anything to object to in the article.

Actually, I am starting to see Al Jazeera in a new light.  It seems to be supplying more attempts to be "even-handed".  At least as much as any heirs of the pamphleteers are even-handed.


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2014)

I have to agree.  The article makes some very very valid points.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Oct 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> 6 aircraft is hardly a fleet.  It's rather embarrassing.



It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.

The crews going into this one might not like the thought of their own fellow service personnel referring to what they are doing as "embarrassing", no matter how 'small' the force there may be/seem to be.

 :2c:


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.
> 
> The crews going into this one might not like the thought of their own fellow service personnel referring to what they are doing as "embarrassing", no matter how 'small' the force there may be/seem to be.
> 
> :2c:



I don't think anyone here thinks what they are doing is embarrassing.  Just that the some people including myself don't think that it's anywhere near what's needed.  And I'm not just refering to our contribution either.


----------



## s2184 (9 Oct 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why the " : " ?
> 
> Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"?
> 
> ...



I was not sure about how others were interpreting this article. That is why I put Roll Eyes, expecting some comments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2014)

The Foreign Minister's office has posted of photo of him with personnel in _Camp Canada_ in Kuwait.







Grip and grin ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2014)

Now that the overall "fight against ISIS/ISIL" is called Op Inherent Resolve, the CF has an op name, too - from the Info-machine Fact Sheet:


> *Operation IMPACT* is the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) contribution to coalition assistance to security forces in the Republic of Iraq who are fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
> 
> The Government of Canada has extended the CAF mission for up to six months ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Foreign Minister's office has posted of photo of him with personnel in _Camp Canada_ in Kuwait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tfc Tech MCpl had one too many coffee at breakfast...


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Oct 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Tfc Tech MCpl had one too many coffee at breakfast...



And he should stand closer to the f$$kin razor when he shaves.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2014)

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien provides his assessment of what Canada is and should be doing in Iraq/the 'war' against IS** in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-true-role-in-the-mideast-conflict/article21138349/#dashboard/follows/


> Canada’s true role in the Mideast conflict
> 
> JEAN CHRÉTIEN
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




As usual Prime Minister Chrétien tells half truths and gets things half right, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Why didn't we join the USA, in some way, in 2003? They were asking for 'moral support,' political and diplomatic support, not "boots the ground." The reason is simple, Prime Minister Chrétien, unlike Mr Harper and even then _Minister of Everything_ John Manley and most of the punditry, correctly 'read' the Canadian mood: it was anti-American. Indeed, he, M. Chrétien, had helped organize that resurgent anti-Americanism when four Canadian soldiers were killed by "friendly fire" during our first Afghan mission in April of 2002. The national "outpouring of grief" was orchestrated (sometimes in poor taste) from Ottawa and it was heavily tinged with an anti-American bias. Did M.Chrétien know that he would want to use that anti-Americanism (which is never far below the surface in Canada) in the near future? No. He just knew that's it's almost always good politics and Prime Minister Harper has not been above using it himself ~ think about his first comments (after being elected in 2006) about the Arctic. It wasn't _principle_ that kept us out of Iraq; it wasn't good, clear _strategic_ vision; it was low, partisan, political calculation.

As to his prescriptions, he's half right:

     1. We should "immediately allocate $100-million‎ for the World Food Program, to help feed refugees facing a harsh winter." That's a good idea; but, and it's a *Big BUT*

     2. We should accept zero refugees from the region. We should rarely, and only in the most dire of circumstances, accept any refugees from  anywhere. We should help care for refugees - maybe another $100 Million - in or every near their homelands but bringing
         refugees to Canada is almost always a mistake. A refugee is, by definition, a person who needs temporary refuge because (s)he and her/his family have fled their homes in fear for life and limb. Settling them, permanently, in Canada is not the right
         thing to do - it often makes matters worse for them.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. We should accept zero refugees from the region. We should rarely, and only in the most dire of circumstances, accept any refugees from  anywhere. We should help care for refugees - maybe another $100 Million - in or every near their homelands but bringing
> refugees to Canada is almost always a mistake. A refugee is, by definition, a person who needs temporary refuge because (s)he and her/his family have fled their homes in fear for life and limb. Settling them, permanently, in Canada is not the right
> thing to do - it often makes matters worse for them.



I fully agree.  Beside the fact that they are not looking for a change of cultural values in escaping the violence in their homelands, we have not got the resources to properly screen them if we did bring them here.  As in the past, they could have health issues, criminal associations, or perhaps foreign intelligence affiliations.  We have no idea of whom they may be.  Just opening our doors for "feel good" reasons is not reason enough to accept anyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2014)

Let me be clear: the overwhelming majority of refugees who settle in Canada are honest, hard working and damned grateful to be here. They work hard, obey our laws and try their best ... it is the refugee _system_ that is broken, the refugees, themselves, are, mostly, decent, honest people who deserve our help. We need to help in better, more effective and, yes, more generous ways, but we need to respond "over there" not by bringing the refugees here. Our aim should be to protect refugees and return them to their homes when we have helped (maybe militarily) to remove the forces that made them seek refuge elsewhere.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Let me be clear: the overwhelming majority of refugees who settle in Canada are honest, hard working and damned grateful to be here. They work hard, obey our laws and try their best ... it is the refugee _system_ that is broken, the refugees, themselves, are, mostly, decent, honest people who deserve our help. We need to help in better, more effective and, yes, more generous ways, but we need to respond "over there" not by bringing the refugees here. Our aim should be to protect refugees and return them to their homes when we have helped (maybe militarily) to remove the forces that made them seek refuge elsewhere.



Agreed.  Just bringing them here, just for the sake of helping them, and introducing them to a completely foreign culture is much like the resettlement of Inuit communities to new locations in our not to distant past, perhaps even worse.  They may not actually want to come here.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2014)

I think the net effect would be more "Lebanese-Canadians" and "Hong Kong Canadians".  Citizens of a foreign land holding a Canadian passport and expecting to be bailed out by their "Insurer" when things go wrong.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Oct 2014)

And the CF18 "six-pack" arrives in Kuwait ahead of their planned strikes:

CBC



> *CF-18s arrive in Kuwait for anti-ISIS mission*
> By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press Posted: Oct 29, 2014 2:27 PM ET
> 
> Canadian warplanes have taken up position in Kuwait, a country straining in its own way to hold back the tide of Islamic extremism from its borders.
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Oct 2014)

Nice shot of '104 sitting in the 40s during PFIs before departing last Friday night.  Taken from the RCAF FB page.


----------



## dimsum (30 Oct 2014)

Is it just me or does the shadow (?) look like a happy face?


----------



## medicineman (31 Oct 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does the shadow (?) look like a happy face?



Does look like a happy plane  :nod:.

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Nov 2014)

Sorry to intrude on your PostAthon  ;D 

Article Link

Canada launches first air strikes against ISIS: CF-18 fighter jets drop laser-guided bombs on targets in Iraq

Canadian fighter jets dropped bombs over Iraq late Sunday night, Iraqi time, Defense Minister Rob Nicholson announced in a statement from Ottawa.

“Today, Canada’s CF-18s conducted their first combat strike since joining the fight against [ISIS] on Oct. 30. Co-ordinated with our coalition partners, two CF-18s attacked [ISIS] targets with GBU12 500-pound laser-guided bombs in the vicinity of Fallujah, Iraq,” Nicholson said

“The approximately four-hour mission included air-to-air refueling from Canada’s Polaris aircraft. All aircraft returned safely to their base.”


Canadian Forces Combat Camera

Canadian Forces Combat CameraA Canadian Armed Forces flight crew member services the CP-140M Aurora Long Range Patrol aircraft as they arrive in Kuwait in support of Operation IMPACT on October 29, 2014. .

Nicholson said the assessment of damage was continuing.

It was the middle of the night in Kuwait, where the Canadian warplanes are based, and nobody connected with Task Force Iraq was available to comment.

Ottawa received word of the attack at about noon Ottawa time (or around 8 p.m. in Iraq).

First word of the successful sortie came in a statement from the minister shortly after 6 p.m. ET.

Few other details were released about the airstrike, which was the first use of bombs by CF-18 Hornets since the war to oust Muammar Gaddafi.

“We are all proud about the first strike,” an officer in Ottawa familiar with the operation said.

“It’s all good news, but we cannot possibly release information because it has to all come out at once at a tech brief where all the information will be covered so that you have the whole picture.”

As of Sunday evening, that brief for journalists was scheduled to be given in Ottawa on Tuesday.

The announcement of the air strike on the fourth day of operations came after the chief spokesman for Task Force Iraq said that the mission had been going well since it started on Thursday, with the CP-140 M Aurora spy planes singled out for praise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every time I see the words "spy plane", I laugh to myself.  Even the picture from the same article calls it a LRPA. 8)

Yup, its a spy plane that carries....sonar buoys.   :nod:

 - mod edit to fix link -


----------



## dimsum (3 Nov 2014)

Maybe the reporter is paid by the word and the company was cutting costs?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Every time I see the words "spy plane", I laugh to myself.  Even the picture from the same article calls it a LRPA. 8)


That's because they've cut/pasted the Info-machine's caption/wording.  



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup, its a spy plane that carries....sonar buoys.   :nod:


To be fair to (in this case) a reporter who's trying to get it right, what does "Long Range Patrol Aircraft" mean to the average reader at a glance?  And the wide range of stuff the planes DO do (check here for one overview) is a little tough to sum up briefly for civilian audiences.  Another info-machine term - "reconnaissance capabilities" - gives only a _slightly_ better idea of the plane's job.

Maybe you can "lease" out your army.ca handle to Postmedia News as a short, sweet & less out there than "spy plane" descriptor?  Or does someone else hold the copyright?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe you can "lease" out your army.ca handle to Postmedia News as a short, sweet & less out there than "spy plane" descriptor?  Or does someone else hold the copyright?  ;D



 ;D

But the civies will only construe "Eye In The Sky" as "Spy In The Sky" and we are back to square one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> But the civies will only construe "Eye In The Sky" as "Spy In The Sky" and we are back to square one.


Or even "Pie in the Sky"?  Or even confuse it with the "cameras tracking the downtown" programs, right?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2014)

Bumped with the latest details from the Info-machine ....


> .... On 30 October 2014, all ATF-I aircraft commenced air operations over Iraqi airspace.
> •Two CF-188 Hornets conducted their first mission over Iraq. During the six-hour mission flown to the west of Baghdad, no targets were engaged. Throughout the mission, the CF-188’s were supported by coalition surveillance and tanker aircraft.
> •One CP-140 Aurora flew a six-hour intelligence gathering mission over northwestern Iraq. During its first mission, the aircraft supported intelligence gathering for the Canadian task force and coalition partners, which helps to develop a better understanding of the battle space.
> •The CC-150T Polaris flew an approximately six-hour refueling mission. The Polaris is part of a pool of coalition aircraft with air refueling capabilities assigned to support coalition air assets. The first mission for the Polaris resulted in almost 50,000 pounds of fuel being delivered to coalition aircraft ....


A bit more from CENTCOM here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's because they've cut/pasted the Info-machine's caption/wording.
> To be fair to (in this case) a reporter who's trying to get it right, what does "Long Range Patrol Aircraft" mean to the average reader at a glance?  And the wide range of stuff the planes DO do (check here for one overview) is a little tough to sum up briefly for civilian audiences.  Another info-machine term - "reconnaissance capabilities" - gives only a _slightly_ better idea of the plane's job.



If they say "long range bomber" they'd know what that means.  I guess I never thought the word "patrol" would throw people off.  They must be confused by a police "patrol" going thru their neighborhoods.   ;D

I know, it's like the news article's that refer to LAVs as "tanks".  We know their not, but we still go  :facepalm: when they do it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

Pie In The Sky...hmmmm.  Now that is a great idea.  Gotta talk to Flight Feeding and see about that.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Pie In The Sky...hmmmm.  Now that is a great idea.  Gotta talk to Flight Feeding and see about that.



Beware the flying cow pies.   >


----------



## CougarKing (4 Nov 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Beware the flying cow pies.   >



Or Flying Pigs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Beware the flying cow pies.   >



I was hoping more for apple!


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know, it's like the news article's that refer to LAVs as "tanks".


Good comparison, actually.


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Beware the flying cow pies.   >


Ah, khaki balmorals on a windy day - tried on 4 or 5 in Dundurn before I found mine  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Nov 2014)

Article Link   Video of the hit on the arty piece at the link

Canada's Iraq commander says ISIS 'on defensive' as new airstrike video released

Col. Daniel Constable, the commander of Canada's joint task force fighting against ISIS in Iraq, says his aircraft are finding few targets to strike.

Speaking from the Canadian base in Kuwait, Constable said that the aircraft under his command have carried out only two airstrikes in 68 sorties flown.

Those sorties include all flights by Canadian Forces, including six CF-18 strike aircraft, two Aurora reconnaissance planes and a Polaris refuelling aircraft, since their arrival in Kuwait on Oct. 30.

Constable briefed the media by teleconference Thursday, following Tuesday's airstrike against an apparent artillery installation north of Baghdad belonging to fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

He said the latest strike was on an artillery piece that was firing on Iraqi ground forces from a treeline near Bayji, Iraq. 

Bayji is a city about 200 kilometres north of Baghdad that has seen fierce fighting between ISIS forces and the Iraqi army.

Moving target

Constable said the target, which may have been a howitzer, was destroyed by a laser-guided bomb, and there was some indication the ISIS gun crew may have also been killed, but that could not be confirmed.

ISIS fighters were the only ones operating in the area, he said.

He also did not say who called in the airstrike, although one of Canada's Auroras was in the area.

Cockpit video first posted on the Canadian Forces website shows a strike by a laser-guided bomb on a vehicle that appears to be towing a piece of wheeled artillery. 

Capt. Melina Archambault of the Combined Joint Operations Centre told CBC News later Thursday that the gun had been hooked on to the vehicle between the time it was first detected by aerial surveillance and the time the CF-18 arrived.

On the video, the vehicle appears to sustain an almost direct hit while travelling on a dirt road between fields. Capt. Archambault could not specify the type of vehicle destroyed.

ISIS 'changing their tactics'

The slow tempo of airstrikes is a reflection of ISIS changing tactics since the current bombing campaign began, said Constable. 

"ISIL are now changing their tactics, they're hiding their targets, and that's one of the reasons it's harder to find targets — they're camouflaged."

Forces sometimes hide armoured vehicles in buildings, or even bury them in sand, when the other side enjoys air superiority. 

"They're moving away from tanks, into civilian-type vehicles," said Constable, adding that the change makes targeting more difficult, because "we want to be very deliberate. We are very confident we had no civilian casualties or collateral damage in either strike."

Constable added that the lack of airstrikes is not an indication that the airstrikes aren't working. Forcing the enemy to hide weapons it was previously using offensively constitutes progress, he said.

"Thanks to the airstrikes, Iraqi forces now have the confidence to move to offence. ISIL is now in a defensive posture. We are very confident that we are having an impact."


----------



## Pwegman (16 Nov 2014)

with all those targets hidings . sound like a soon to be ground deployment to me. Maybe not from CAF but  they're probably gonna have to dig them out of their holes .  :threat:


----------



## McG (22 Nov 2014)

Looks like we might take our fight into Syria soon.  Not sure the move will achieve any aims quicker, but there will be more targets for whack-a-mole.



> Iraq targets limited for Canadian fighter jets
> International law prevents Canada's military from hitting some targets in the fight against ISIS
> CBC News
> 20 Nov 2014
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/iraq-targets-limited-for-canadian-fighter-jets-1.2844006



> Syria could be next target of Canada's CF-18s
> CBC News
> 22 Nov 2014
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syria-could-be-next-target-of-canada-s-cf-18s-1.2845309


----------



## McG (12 Dec 2014)

So, Syria is not in the future for the CAF's mission ... at least for now.


> No plans to expand Canada's ISIS campaign to Syria: John Baird
> Adam Schreck, The Canadian Press
> CTV News
> 06 Dec 2014 (Updated 08 Dec 2014)
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/no-plans-to-expand-canada-s-isis-campaign-to-syria-john-baird-1.2136019

Meanwhile, CF-188s continue to bring the pain to bad guys ...


> CF-18s bomb Islamic State bunkers near Iraq's 2nd largest city
> CTV News
> 12 Dec 2014
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/cf-18s-bomb-islamic-state-bunkers-near-iraq-s-2nd-largest-city-1.2144696

... and the MND makes a pre-Christmas visit to the troops.  :christmas happy:


> Canada's defence minister visits troops in Kuwait
> CTV News
> 12 Dec 2014
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-defence-minister-visits-troops-in-kuwait-1.2144964


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Dec 2014)

Happy holidays boys.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/22/canadian-jtf-e-snipers-fighting-islamic-state-source-says


Normand Lester, QMI Agency

First posted:  Monday, December 22, 2014 11:15 AM EST  | Updated:  Monday, December 22, 2014 12:00 PM EST  
MONTREAL — Canadian commandos are engaged in ground operations against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq, QMI Agency has learned.

Members of the elite JTF2 (Joint Task Force 2) unit, armed with high-powered rifles, are involved in operations aimed at killing Islamist fighters far from the front lines, a source tells QMI.
The Canadians are officially in Iraq to accompany and train Kurdish and Iraqian snipers.
However, sources familiar with JTF2 operations tell QMI that the commandos are also shooting ISIS fighters.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in October that Canadian CF-18s would assist in airstrikes against ISIS, and had committed a small number of elite troops to help advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces, but Parliament didn't approve of Canadians engaging in the fight on the ground.
Department of National Defence spokesman Ashley Lemire confirms the Canadian Armed Forces is working in close collaboration with British special forces, but wouldn't provide further details.

A spokeswoman for Canada's special forces umbrella group wouldn't comment on whether JTF2 has fired on ISIS, citing "operational security reasons."
Lt. Julie McDonald would only confirm that special forces members are involved in a training mission.
"Members of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) are currently in Iraq and are participating in Operation IMPACT with the goal of teaching and advising Iraqi and Kurdish forces," McDonald told QMI in an e-mail.

She added the Canadians are offering "military training such as shooting, manoeuvres, communications and mission planning, as well as efficient use of weapons against (Islamic State)."
The e-mail goes on to say: "COMFOSCAN personnel are carrying out this training... in an appropriate location, far from what could be considered front-line positions, but in an area that allows them to remain sensitive to the current (ISIS) threat."

McDonald wouldn't say which special forces unit is in Iraq. JTF2 is one of five squads listed on CANSOFCOM's web page.
JTF2 "operators," as they prefer to be called, use a Macmillan TAC-50 rifle nicknamed "Big Mac."
It's the longest-range weapon available to snipers, with a range of 2.3 km.

The Big Mac has been standard issue for elite Canadian snipers since 2000.
QMI was unable to confirm if Canada provided TAC-50s to Iraqi and Kurdish snipers.

JTF2 previously waged a lengthy secret operation in Afghanistan. The Canadians were integrated into American and British special forces units.
Using their TAC-50s, two Canadian snipers set world records in March 2002 in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Kot valley in Afghanistan.

The Canadians killed enemy combatants at ranges of 2,310 and 2,426 metres.
The secret team of five JTF2 commandos killed more than 20 Taliban fighters at similar distances, earning Bronze Star Medals from the United States military.

In 2004, the JTF2 unit received the Presidential Unit Citation from then-president George W. Bush.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2014)

The Govt. is now denying these reports......

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/22/canadian-jtf-e-snipers-fighting-islamic-state-source-says


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The Govt. is now denying these reports......
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/22/canadian-jtf-e-snipers-fighting-islamic-state-source-says


And here's the official denial ....


> Major-General Michael Hood, Director of the Strategic Joint Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces, issued the following statement:
> 
> “Recent media reports have speculated that members of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM) have directly engaged in sniper activity against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This is not the case. CANSOFCOM’s role in Iraq is to provide training, military advice and assistance teams. Members in Iraq are working within a well-defined mission that was passed in the House of Commons. We have been clear that this mission does not involve ground troops in a combat role.
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (29 Dec 2014)

Rumour mill has the mission being extended for another 6 months.  



> Opposition leaders need to speak up about extending Canada’s military role in Iraq
> Matthew Fisher, Post Media News
> Edmonton Journal
> 27 Dec 2014
> ...


http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Fisher+Opposition+leaders+need+speak+about+extending+Canada+military+role+Iraq/10682525/story.html


----------



## McG (1 Jan 2015)

Very nice of our guys to drop a spectacular New Years fire works show.



> *Canadian military spends New Year's Eve bombing in Iraq*
> 2 CF-18s strike ISIS fighting positions
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-military-spends-new-year-s-eve-bombing-in-iraq-1.2888061


----------



## dimsum (3 Jan 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/03/marc-garneau-liberals-isolationist-hardly/



> So what is the highest and best use of Canadian strengths and talents? Yes, we can bomb as well as others, but we can also do other things better than others — like training Iraqi troops to defeat ISIS. We can also be a global leader in humanitarian aid, medical help and reconstruction — it’s all about winning the hearts and minds of local Iraqis and of ISIS’s victims. That’s where the real “heavy lifting” will have to be done. What could be accomplished if we took the considerable dollars we’re spending on bombing and used it for aid, medical support and training?
> 
> Our position is the opposite of isolationism. It’s active engagement designed intelligently to be the most effective it can be.



Yes, it's an election year and all things are secondary to it, but really?  Forget "isolationism", we will be the laughingstock of the coalition (and beyond) if we follow that line of thinking without the required security/combat mission to back it up when it invariably turns south.


----------



## McG (5 Jan 2015)

It would seem there is going to be a update on the progress of the mission today:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-update-expected-today-as-iraq-bombing-raids-continue-1.2889642


----------



## McG (16 Jan 2015)

More ground targets become available to our fighters as ISIS resumes offensive operations.



> Alberta-based fighter pilots respond to ISIL attacks
> Trevor Robb
> Edmonton Sun
> 16 Jan 2014
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jan 2015)

According to this CP story published on the NationalNewswatch.com site, members of CANSOFCOM returned fire in Iraq. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Canadian soldiers forced to defend themselves in firefight in Iraq: general

By The Canadian Press — CP — Jan 19 2015

OTTAWA - Canadian soldiers opened fire on enemy positions in Iraq over the last week in what a senior officer called an act of self-defence.

Brig.-Gen. Michael Rouleau, commander of special operations command, says the soldiers were visiting front-line positions with Iraqi forces when they came under mortar and machine-gun fire.

The Canadians, whose job is to train and advise the Iraqi military in their battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, were at the front to help plan an Iraqi operation.

Rouleau says the Canadians used sniper fire and "neutralized" the enemy positions without taking any casualties.

The general says that while Canadian soldiers are not participating in active combat in Iraq, they do have the right to fire back if fired upon.

He says most of their effort involves training Iraqi soldiers in battlefield skills ranging from medical assistance to mortar fire.


----------



## krimynal (19 Jan 2015)

Source : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-canadian-special-forces-came-under-fire-in-the-last-week-1.2917777

Canadian special forces came under ISIS fire sometime in the last week when they went to the front lines in Iraq following a planning session with senior Iraqi leaders, their commanding officer told reporters in Ottawa on Monday.

Brig.-Gen. Michael Rouleau, commander of the Canadian special operations forces command, said forces came under "immediate and effective mortar fire" and responded with sniper fire, "neutralizing the mortar and the machine-gun position."

He said the response was consistent with the inherent right of self-defence and suggested it was an incident typical of military missions, one that wouldn't have been unusual even in past Canadian peacekeeping missions.

Rouleau said Monday's briefing wasn't driven by a need to deliver that news and said his attendance had been planned well before the skirmish.

Lt.-Gen. Jonathan Vance, commander of the Canadian joint operations command, told journalists at a briefing that coalition forces have stopped the advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS.

ISIS has been forced into a defensive posture, Vance said.

"Now we are degrading them," he said of the three-month-old mission.

Stephen Harper confirms 26 Canadian soldiers now in Iraq
Strikes on ISIS in Iraq sparing civilians: Canadian commander
The joint operations command handles missions intended to defend Canada, assist in the defence of North America, and promote peace and security abroad.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jan 2015)

Another report posted here:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/116553/post-1346879/topicseen.html#new


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jan 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> Source : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-canadian-special-forces-came-under-fire-in-the-last-week-1.2917777
> 
> Canadian special forces came under ISIS fire sometime in the last week when they went to the front lines in Iraq following a planning session with senior Iraqi leaders, their commanding officer told reporters in Ottawa on Monday.
> 
> ...



And that, boy and girls, is exactly how the US got drawn into the Vietnam War  ;D


----------



## krimynal (19 Jan 2015)

sorry didn't see the previous post ! 

and yeah , seems like this might be an opening to something quite bigger .... question is ... will the CF actually take the bait ....


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jan 2015)

Fair enough.  This incident will make the subject and mission all the more political now.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jan 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> sorry didn't see the previous post !
> 
> and yeah , seems like this might be an opening to something quite bigger .... question is ... will the CF actually take the bait ....



The military does not decide where it will be employed. The GOC decides that.


----------



## krimynal (19 Jan 2015)

yeah sorry , should have said let's see if CANADA takes the bait ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2015)

What is 'the bait' we're talking about?


----------



## krimynal (19 Jan 2015)

personally I would say the bait is bringing in ground troops to Irak ... which I see as a 2 way street .... I am not really looking forward to something like that just because of what happened recently ( Afghanistan war ).  But on the other side , I don't like the fact that the only ground force we have over there are special forces , and are not there to actually bring in the hammer , they are there as a training purpose , I do realize I may be completely in the dark.  This is the reason why I started with PERSONALLY


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Jan 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  This incident will make the subject and mission all the more political now.



This will without a doubt result in whichever party leader/anti military group standing up and shouting very angrily that we should not have any boots on the ground whatsoever (unless they're handing out parkas etc)..
And personally I'd like to hear the MND or CDS respond to these individuals and parties by asking them a question: "Would you prefer we had nobody on the ground to give our air assets an 'eyes on' view that keeps non-combatant women and children from being killed in potential airstrikes?      No?       Well then stfu."  
But that's just me...


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2015)

I'm surprised that no lefty media picked up that Vance told the briefing that ISIL won't be crushed until there is boots on the ground.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jan 2015)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> This will without a doubt result in whichever party leader/anti military group standing up and shouting very angrily that we should not have any boots on the ground whatsoever (unless they're handing out parkas etc)..



Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

The parkas and boots are going to Ukraine.


Nothing left to send to Iraq.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
> 
> The parkas and boots are going to Ukraine.
> 
> ...



...bombs  ;D
That's the real reason why the CAF is striking ISIS.... we wanted to send parkas, but since those went to Ukraine all that was left was some bombs.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jan 2015)

John Ivison of The National Post engages in some not unrealistic speculation in this piece reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

John Ivison: If firefight with ISIS wasn’t start of combat mission, war may be yet to come

January 19, 2015 7:05 PM ET

OTTAWA — Last October, the House of Commons agreed to send “military assets,” in the form of CF-18 fighters, to Iraq to battle the Islamic State. The resolution presented by the government said Canada would not deploy troops on the ground in combat operations.

Yet in a briefing to media on Monday by Lieutenant-General Jonathan Vance and Brigadier-General Michael Rouleau, it was revealed that Canada’s 69 special forces troops have indeed been involved in combat.

Lt.-Gen. Vance said that special forces troops “neutralized” incoming mortar and machine gun fire, while on the frontlines within the last week. Special operations forces also identified targets with lasers and provided “eyes on” reconnaissance for air strikes.

Brig-Gen. Rouleau said the action was taken in self-defence, and an exchange of fire does not mean Canada has started a combat mission.

But the revelation provoked immediate accusations of mission creep, and claims that Parliament is being misled by the government: “We were told all the work would be away from the front lines but obviously that is not the case,” said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.

Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman, said in an email Monday the bulk of the special forces work is taking place away from the front lines, and that “a combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly. That is not the case with this mission.”

While the October resolution is not legally binding, the government has committed to no troops on the ground. And yet, by the military’s own admission, troops are not only on the ground, they are involved in firefights with the enemy.

The incongruity stems from the shadowy nature of our special forces’ mandate. We knew there were 69 special operations members in Iraq. We didn’t know what they were doing — quite frankly, it’s a shock to be told as much as we have been. But most informed observers assumed they were acting as frontline combat advisors to Kurdish and Iraqi forces, as well as providing reconnaissance for the air mission. This is still a long way from our experience in Afghanistan.

But there are signs that is the direction in which we may be going.

Lt.-Gen. Vance said ISIS’s advance has been halted but not defeated. A “large-scale reversal” has yet to occur, he said, and the unspoken coda is that that won’t happen without the intervention of ground troops.

He said the Forces are prepared, and preparing, to extend the mission, if they are asked to do so by Parliament.

The government has said it will return to the House of Commons to gain its support at the end of the six month period this spring, though it has no legal obligation to do so.

It seems inevitable that will happen, if only to force the Liberals and New Democrats to re-state their opposition to the mission.

But will the mandate be expanded to include ground forces?

In an election year, it would seem counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to deliberately drive up the risks and costs. The public is onside with a low-level war, in which Canada is seen to be making a solid contribution, without risking mass casualties.

But Stephen Harper has said the criteria on extending the mission will be the risk the Islamic State poses to Canada – and he believes the risk is significant.

“This is a movement that has declared war on Canada specifically and it has shown it has the ability to develop the capacity to execute attacks on this soil,” he said in B.C. this month.

Images made public at the weekend showed blindfolded men accused of homosexuality being pushed by ISIS fighters to their deaths off towers, for the amusement of a watching crowd.

They reinforced the sense that this is an evil that must be confronted wherever it rears its head — and made a mockery of the claims made by a letter writer in Monday’s National Post, who argued that if only Canada would acknowledge its participation in the Afghan war was unethical aggression, and that Israel is guilty of monstrous war crimes, it will find radical Islam becomes a “genuine friend and ally.” How ludicrous. There can be no appeasement or accommodation with such a carcinogenic interpretation of Islam.

But how far does our determination to protect our freedoms go?

The Prime Minister is obviously persuaded that we are engaged in a long conflict with militant Islam that will require resolve and more resources.

It suggests that if the special forces’ firefight did not signal the start of a combat mission, it may not be long before we are, incontrovertibly, at war.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Jan 2015)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> This will without a doubt result in whichever party leader/anti military group standing up and shouting very angrily that we should not have any boots on the ground whatsoever (unless they're handing out parkas etc)..
> And personally I'd like to hear the MND or CDS respond to these individuals and parties by asking them a question: "Would you prefer we had nobody on the ground to give our air assets an 'eyes on' view that keeps non-combatant women and children from being killed in potential airstrikes?      No?       Well then stfu."
> But that's just me...



A most excellent retort it would be!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Jan 2015)

What's everyone so shocked about?  We've been at war since 2001... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign in this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign.  People have such short memories!


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> What's everyone so shocked about?  We've been at war since 2001... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign if this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign.  People have such short memories!



Absolutely. Same enemy, new name. The Taliban are even losing recruits to ISIS: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-death-knell-for-foreign-fighters-in-pakistan


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Jan 2015)

> What's everyone so shocked about?  We've been at war since 2001... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign if this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign.  People have such short memories!



I wouldn't say it's a _surprise_ as much as it a very easy lightning rod for politicians and certain media outlets.

 This has gotten so much attention (and negative comments from the opposition) _I believe_ not because of the fact that Canadians are engaged in combat..... but because of _where_ Canadians are engaged in combat. Iraq has been tainted from a political point of view ever since Dubya's 2003 invasion which polarized opinions and political parties in Canada, and helped develop this very prevalent "America is an evil imperialist and so is Harper for standing beside them" rhetoric that we see from so many Canadians and opposition politicians in today's current climate.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Jan 2015)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say it's a _surprise_ as much as it a very easy lightning rod for politicians and certain media outlets.
> 
> This has gotten so much attention (and negative comments from the opposition) _I believe_ not because of the fact that Canadians are engaged in combat..... but because of _where_ Canadians are engaged in combat. Iraq has been tainted from a political point of view ever since Dubya's 2003 invasion which polarized opinions and political parties in Canada, and helped develop this very prevalent "America is an evil imperialist and so is Harper for standing beside them" rhetoric that we see from so many Canadians and opposition politicians in today's current climate.



I don't think the opposition gets the fact that the dialogue/political landscape in Canada has significantly changed since then.  How sick does this sound?  ISIS did Harper and Co a huge favour when they killed those two soldiers because Canadians now realize, these guys don't like us and we shouldn't like them either and it doesn't matter how much the Trudeau's, and Mulcair's try and tell us otherwise. Uncle Steven realizes Foreign Policy is a big weakness for Trudeau and Co and I think he is going to make this an election issue.  I think Canadians are firmly on his side in this regard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2015)

First: For _Liberals_, and for the entire anti-American faction in Canada, Iraq is special: _'tit Jean_ Chrétien stood up to George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, _et al_, and especially the _Great Satan_, Richard Perle, an especially dark _bête noire_ for "liberals. 

Second: For the government of the day, we you the CF is in combat when it is politically advantageous to be in combat, they just defend themselves when it is not politically expedient to be in combat. It's an election year, boys and girls, and power always trumps policy.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jan 2015)

It is interesting that the incident was made public at all, and perhaps there is a message there. Remember how incidents in the Balkans such as the Medak Pocket were kept quiet and how casualties were rarely announced.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2015)

There's a side of me that hopes we're going to be allowed to proactively report incidents like this, so the CAF can control the details about the event and how its spun. If we release what happened, who (within reason) it happened to, and the results/actions taken, the media won't get secondhand info and paint it like a CSOR raid into an ISIS stronghold or something equally ridiculous.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It is interesting that the incident was made public at all, and perhaps there is a message there. Remember how incidents in the Balkans such as the Medak Pocket were kept quiet and how casualties were rarely announced.


After Medak and before now was the Somalia Inquiry.  LGen Vance (et al) were senior captains/junior majors back then, and remember all too well the charade that went along with it.  They understand that in the long run, it's better to be open about things, than to try to sweep away facts.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> First: For _Liberals_, and for the entire anti-American faction in Canada, Iraq is special: _'tit Jean_ Chrétien stood up to George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, _et al_, and especially the _Great Satan_, Richard Perle, an especially dark _bête noire_ for "liberals.


I love how history has been spun to make it look like _Saint Jean Chrétien_ told them "No!", when the facts are this:
In 2001, he deployed a BG to Kandahar
In 2002, he said that we didn't have troops to replace those in Kandahar, so they came home
In 2003, with war looming in Iraq, he suddenly found ~2000 troops to send to Kabul (including me), complete without proper warning, equipment, training, etc, and then was able to say "We don't have the troops to send to Iraq".  Later, as the war in Iraq became unpopular, the note changed from "no troops available" to "No!  We won't go, because to go to war, we need UN approval...unless it's in Serbia....and unless...."
[rant]
All modern politicians are of the same stripe: same coin, different sides.  They all want the prestige of being in power, and the appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to retain that power.  
It's time for an absolute monarchy to rid us of the chains of careerists who have no interest in doing the right thing.
[/rant]


----------



## Jed (20 Jan 2015)

General Disorder said:
			
		

> I love how history has been spun to make it look like _Saint Jean Chrétien_ told them "No!", when the facts are this:
> In 2001, he deployed a BG to Kandahar
> In 2002, he said that we didn't have troops to replace those in Kandahar, so they came home
> In 2003, with war looming in Iraq, he suddenly found ~2000 troops to send to Kabul (including me), complete without proper warning, equipment, training, etc, and then was able to say "We don't have the troops to send to Iraq".  Later, as the war in Iraq became unpopular, the note changed from "no troops available" to "No!  We won't go, because to go to war, we need UN approval...unless it's in Serbia....and unless...."
> ...



Your accurate event timeline missed a relevant point;

Preparing for supporting the US and other traditional Allies in Iraq pre Afghanistan after the first go in Kandahar'  

You missed why we sent troops to Afghanistan the second time , ie: we can't be getting Canada committed to helping traditional Allies in Iraq; I know! Let's put our toe in the water elsewhere and say we are busy.

I believe some senior people saw the folly in this reasoning and were promptly sorted out.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jan 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Your accurate event timeline missed a relevant point;
> 
> Preparing for supporting the US and other traditional Allies in Iraq pre Afghanistan after the first go in Kandahar'
> 
> ...


Good points.  I was in a battalion that was ramping up, high readiness and all that, so that if the government of the day said "go", we would be ready.
That's what I mean about the second mission (Kabul).  "Oh, we'd go, but, we're busy...."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Jan 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> What's everyone so shocked about?  We've been at war since 2001 633 A.D. ... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign in this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign.  People have such short memories!



There... fixed that for you.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Jan 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> There... fixed that for you.



HAHAHAHA, Originally I considered putting something like this down.  Thunder officially stolen!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2015)

This is the "new" Canadian way; if someone on the playground punches you, you don't hit them back, you say sorry and then talk about it.

It worries me that so many Canadians are content to sit on the sidelines and let nasty crap happen in the world, as long as they still get their new iPhones on time and they 'get down south' in the winter.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is the "new" Canadian way; if someone on the playground punches you, you don't hit them back, you say sorry and then talk about it.
> 
> It worries me that so many Canadians are content to sit on the sidelines and let nasty crap happen in the world, as long as they still get their new iPhones on time and they 'get down south' in the winter.



I've been saying this for years, people will cry out that we should do something, but when it actually comes time to do something suddenly they are against it for what ever reason


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jan 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I've been saying this for years, people will cry out that we should do something, but when it actually comes time to do something suddenly they are against it for what ever reason



Aren't we sending parkas and winter boots? :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jan 2015)

What!?!?!?!...we have winter boots?  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What!?!?!?!...we have winter boots?  ;D



No, didn't we send them all away?


----------



## McG (20 Jan 2015)

I suppose the opposition would also have claimed mission creep if Op ATTENTION guys would have got in a gun fight in Kabul.  What do they expect when soldiers are sent into a war.  Our guys could hide the whole time they are there, but that does not change that the enemy gets a vote.  This is just a sign of convenient, willful ignorance.



> *Stephen Harper 'did not tell truth' on ISIS combat mission: opposition*
> Canadian Forces trainers returning ground fire has 'appearance of mission creep'
> JANYCE MCGREGOR, CBC NEWS
> 20 Jan 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-did-not-tell-truth-on-isis-combat-mission-opposition-1.2919630


----------



## acen (21 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> No, didn't we send them all away?



We sent away OD IECS gear as well as cold wet weather boots from what I've seen. Seems more like a gift to the enemy than anything else, though the Ukrainians will surely be adopting the prone position, whether by choice or by virtue of their footwear.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Jan 2015)

#HashtagWarrior
#Slacktivist
#GimmeMyiPhone


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to this CP story published on the NationalNewswatch.com site, members of CANSOFCOM returned fire in Iraq. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Canadian soldiers forced to defend themselves in firefight in Iraq: general ....


Interestingly, in this longer version of this article, we have a "definition" of a combat mission from the PMO:


> .... *"A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,"*said Jason MacDonald. "That is not the case with this mission.
> 
> "This mission is one in which they are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi forces only and as the general indicated, the bulk of their work takes place well behind the front lines. That said, we have always been clear that while this is a low-risk mission, it is not without risk and our forces on the ground will protect themselves if fired on in the course of carrying out their mission."


I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....


----------



## Jed (21 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interestingly, in this longer version of this article, we have a "definition" of a combat mission from the PMO:I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....



Whatever happened to 'Close with and destroy the Enemy' ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to 'Close with and destroy the Enemy' ?


I think one is a military definition of a specific role (yours), while the other is a political definition of "combat mission" (PMO's) - related, but in a lot of ways pretty different.


----------



## Jed (21 Jan 2015)

I know, just being a smart a$$.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....



They are probably hoping more for an image of UN Peacekeepers as shown below, as opposed to attach helicopters; its' not appropriate for us to "whip out our armed forces', after all...


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2015)

For all the new articles on combat vs non-combat missions, it is the accompanying photo that I find most interesting.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jan 2015)

Why?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Jan 2015)

Div patch on CADPAT AR, I think is what he's referring to.

We have well and truly jumped the shark - first with High Vis ranks and nametags for a uniform that's supposed to be camouflage, now folks are adding other accoutrements to camouflage uniforms.

What's next - abandoning rank insignia that were in service for two generations?  Oops, already did that...


----------



## dimsum (22 Jan 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Div patch on CADPAT AR, I think is what he's referring to.
> 
> We have well and truly jumped the shark - first with High Vis ranks and nametags for a uniform that's supposed to be camouflage, now folks are adding other accoutrements to camouflage uniforms.



It (like the full-colour Canadian flag above it) is backed in velcro, no?  Same with the nametapes, and the rank slides - all of that stuff can be taken off if/when needed.  

Of course, *someone* can then argue that if he's wearing a big red rectangle on operational uniform, why can't the RCAF have full-colour badges and crests (also velcro-backed) on flying clothing?


----------



## McG (22 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why?


The National Post has identified the wearer of the patch as MGen Milner, Comd 1 Cdn Div.  I'm just pondering the potential implications of Comd 1 Div being in Kuwait when there is not (yet?) an Army mission.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jan 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The National Post has identified the wearer of the patch as MGen Milner, Comd 1 Cdn Div.  I'm just pondering the potential implications of Comd 1 Div being in Kuwait when there is not (yet?) an Army mission.



Carpet shopping, perhaps?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Carpet shopping, perhaps?



He is over saying sorry to ISIS for all the fellows we just "neutralized" .... Canadians are so apologetic!  Even when we're shooting you with a Macmillan Tac .50


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jan 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The National Post has identified the wearer of the patch as MGen Milner, Comd 1 Cdn Div.  I'm just pondering the potential implications of Comd 1 Div being in Kuwait when there is not (yet?) an _*Army*_ mission.


And here I thought that you were au fait with how things run nowadays?

The Canadian Army is a force generator, and while it's true that 1 Can Div HQ is administratively part of the Canadian Army, its mission (found at this link) may help illustrate to you why the Comd 1 Can Div would be there:



> 1st Cdn Div HQ will provide task-tailored, deployable _joint_ headquarters at high readiness to command and control _joint, inter-agency, multinational forces_ to achieve national objectives at home and abroad.



Pay attention now, because the key points are in _italics_.


So, though this isn't an army mission, Comd 1 Can Div more than likely has a vested interest in operations there, given his formation's mission.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jan 2015)

Regarding our SOF mission, according in this article from the Marine Corps Times reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copy Right Act, Canadians are operating closer to the front than the Americans are.

Canadians closer to combat in Iraq than U.S. troops

By Andrew Tilghman, Staff Writer 8:45 a.m. EST January 21, 2015

American troops in Iraq appear to be more cautious than Canadians.

A Canadian general revealed Monday that his special operations troops in Iraq are now routinely going out with Iraqi soldiers "to the forward-most Iraqi fighting positions" and providing "eyes on" to help coalition airstrikes by "marking the target with a laser."

The mission described by Canadian Brig. Gen. Mike Rouleau, commander of Canadian Special Operations Forces, is very different from the one U.S. officials say American service members are performing in Iraq.

According to the Pentagon, U.S. troops on the "advise and assist mission" are staying out of harm's way inside headquarters facilities with Iraqi units at the brigade level or higher. These U.S. missions are underway only in several locations, including Baghdad, Taji and Al Asad Air Base in Anbar.

President Obama has said repeatedly that the 3,100 U.S. troops authorized for duty in Iraq will not have a "combat role," and U.S. military officials say today's forces are not operating on the battlefield alongside Iraqi troops. So officially, there are no Americans on the ground providing the kind of "eyes on" laser targeting that the Canadian general described.

"As far as we know, we do not have that capability," Army Maj. Neysa Williams, a spokeswoman for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "When the information was released from the Canadian general, that was the first we had heard of it."

Rouleau told reporters in the Canadian capital of Ottawa that his forces got into a firefight last week, marking the first time that Western military officials have acknowledged a direct combat engagement with Islamic State fighters.

The Canadian general said a team of his special operators had "completed a planning session with senior Iraqi leaders several kilometers behind the front lines" and "when they moved forward to … the front lines in order to visualize what they had discussed over a map, they came under immediate and effective mortar and machine-gun fire."

In response, the Canadian forces alongside the Iraqi troops exchanged fire with the militants, "placing effective sniper fire on the enemy positions, neutralizing the mortar and the machine-gun position," Rouleau said.

When reporters asked whether this type of operation reflected an expansion of the U.S.-led coalition's mission in Iraq, Rouleau said it does not, and explained that operating in forward positions with Iraqis is a part of the "advise and assist" mission.

"Let me be clear about the advise and assist training: We do all advise-and-assist training kilometers behind the front lines. This represents about 80 percent of our output. The other 20 percent or so happens in forward positions, mostly close to the front lines but sometimes right at the front lines if that is the only place from where we can accomplish it," Rouleau said.

"I think the situation is a lot more nuanced than just saying if you exchange fire with a belligerent force all of a sudden it's a combat mission. This is an advise-and-assist mission. In the context of that, our ability to bring air power is one of the things that we can add value to the Iraqi forces with. Moreover, we always deploy with the inherent right to self-defense. We have the right to be able to defend ourselves if we're fired upon."

Williams, the Combined Joint Task Force spokeswoman, said she is unaware of any U.S. units with joint terminal attack controllers, or JTACs — the ground troops who specialize in relaying detailed, time-sensitive targeting information to aircraft conducting airstrikes.

The potential use of JTACs in Iraq has been a subject of high-level debate inside the Pentagon. Last year, the head of U.S. Central Command, Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, requested JTACs to help improve the effectiveness of airstrikes, but that request was not approved by higher-level U.S. officials.

The accuracy of airstrikes is an issue of concern for the American-led coalition that has dropped more than 1,700 bombs since the air campaign began in August. U.S. officials have acknowledged in recent weeks that they are conducting investigations into alleged civilian causalities caused by the coalition strikes in Iraq and Syria.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They are probably hoping more for an image of UN Peacekeepers as shown below, as opposed to attach helicopters; its' not appropriate for us to "whip out our armed forces', after all...


Correct - more like this ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

Article Link

Air Task Force-Iraq takes part in Sinjar Mountains Offensive





Article / January 21, 2015

By: Air Task Force-Iraq Public Affairs

CAMP PATRICE VINCENT, KUWAIT— Throughout December 2014, members of Air Task Force-Iraq, serving on Operation IMPACT, supported the efforts against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in an effort to break their siege of the Sinjar Mountains.

Thousands of Yazidis and other Iraqi civilians fled to the area following attacks on their villages and the town of Sinjar throughout late July and early August 2014. 

Several human rights and observer organizations in the region reported that those who fled to the mountains were subjected to starvation, and lacked clean drinking water and medical care for several months as ISIL militants surrounded them. Hundreds of men, women, and children were abducted and killed. 

In response to the immediate threat to the approximately 30,000 people trapped on the mountain, coalition aircraft commenced humanitarian aid drops. These air drops included basic supplies such as food, water, and shelter and were conducted at low flight levels by coalition transport aircraft under the threat of ISIL surface-to-air attacks.

In direct support of humanitarian aid drops, CF-18’s provided top cover for a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) C-130 Hercules transport aircraft on 20 November, ensuring the transport crew was able to safely parachute supplies to waiting refugees below. Canadian fighter jets remained in close proximity to the transport aircraft to protect it from ISIL surface-to-air threats or attacks.

“After orbiting the area overhead and seeing people waiting for the drop from the [RAAF] Hercules, it was nice to finally see the pallets of aid touch the ground and see people rush out to retrieve them,” said a pilot from 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron, 3 Wing Bagotville.

Working as part of a larger, coalition air effort coordinated through the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC), Canadian aircraft directly supported ground efforts to liberate those displaced persons on Sinjar Mountain.

Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) aircraft flew strikes, surveillance and air-to-air refuelling missions in support of 8,000 Iraqi security forces troops who launched the offensive in late November to oust ISIL militants from positions around the mountains. 

CF-18 fighters also carried out strikes using 500lbs and 2000lbs bombs against ISIL vehicles, heavy weapons and bunkers that had been used to guard chokepoints along roads leading to and from the mountains. 

“Given the Iraqi forces’ relatively light arms, it’s rewarding to contribute our heavy weapons to achieve effects on the ground,” said a CF-18 pilot from 4 Wing Cold Lake, flying in his first overseas mission. “It’s also rewarding to employ my training after four years as a CF-18 pilot towards aiding in the defeat of an enemy like ISIL.”

Meanwhile, members of the Long Range Patrol detachment, with their CP-140M Auroras, contributed to the overall intelligence gathering in the area by locating targets for coalition air strikes and collecting battle damage assessment information following the attacks.

“We had a high mission tempo during the operation and the technicians were working hard to make sure we got airborne,” said a member of the Long Range Patrol detachment.  “The Block III CP-140 has really been shining on this mission and our crew members have been able to maximize the effectiveness of the camera, radar, and other sensors in the fight. ISIL is having a hard time hiding.”

Enabling fighter coalition strike operations, the crew of the Polaris air-to-air refueller aircraft was active near the area of operations, offloading several hundred thousand pounds of fuel to Canadian and other coalition aircraft throughout the offensive.

On 18 December, reports that a main road leading into the mountains had been retaken from ISIL resulted in a large exodus of refugee Yazidis off the mountain sides, as well as opened a corridor for aid to reach those still in the area. Only a day later, on 19 December, RCAF CF-18s conducted air strikes on ISIL vehicles and a hardened rocket emplacement between Mosul and Sinjar near the town of Tal Afar. 

“Each day that I flew over the area, you could see the line advancing as the Iraqi forces pushed forward,” said a CF-18 pilot serving on his first deployment overseas.  “You could also see a definite improvement in Iraqi forces’ abilities.”

Iraqi forces were able to reach Sinjar Mountain on 19 December 2014 to establish a humanitarian corridor. For the deployed Canadian personnel involved with Op IMPACT, it is satisfying to know that the same people whom they had helped with Canadian aircraft are now liberated and receiving the care and protection not experienced since ISIL’s aggression in the summer of 2014.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jan 2015)

The CDS notes that Op Impact has evolved in this CP story by Murray Brewster reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

No contradiction in Iraq comments: Lawson

By Murray Brewster — CP — Jan 22 2015

OTTAWA - Canada's top military commander is trying to clear up an apparent contradiction about special forces soldiers directing air strikes in Iraq.

Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, said publicly at end of October that the elite troops would not accompany Iraqi or Kurdish forces into battle, nor would they pinpoint targets for coalition warplanes.

Opposition critics have pointed to those remarks and others from Prime Minister Stephen Harper last September as proof the government misled people about the mission, but Lawson says things have changed since then.

"To be clear, the situation on the ground has evolved since I offered those remarks and we have increased our assistance with respect to targeting air strikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the (Iraqis)," Lawson said in a written statement.

"Our personnel are not seeking to directly engage the enemy, but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat."

The Iraqi government, throughout the fall, pressured the U.S.-led coalition to step up the bombing campaign to help contain Islamic State extremists as they overran swaths of the country's north and west.

Brig.-Gen. Mike Rouleau, the commander of Canada's special forces, said Monday his troops have guided 13 bombing missions from the front lines since the end of November.

National Defence has held several briefings since then, but did not reveal the expanded role, which Rouleau denied was an escalation.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, in a conference call on Thursday, suggested that guiding air strikes was a possibility considered when the deployment was approved in September and that the government was careful not to tie the hands of soldiers in the field.

"We didn't put limits on their ability to advise and assist the Iraqis," Nicholson said after a meeting of members of the anti-Islamic State coalition in London. "The special forces were there to provide advice and assistance and that's what they've done."

The meeting of 21 countries involved in the fight against the Islamic State covered a broad range of issues outside of the military campaign, which has been the main focus of the Harper government's public comments.

Nicholson reiterated how much humanitarian aid Canada has contributed and spoke in general terms about allied efforts to cut off the flow of funds and foreign fighters bound for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

If only our politicians and media would make the focus of OP IMPACT _*on the actual operation *_and the good it is doing for the people in that area, instead of their own political agendas and power struggles.  Like every other past operation (for the love of Pete, don't say "conflict" or "war"...), Canadians are putting their lives on the line while others sit back in chairs and 'tsk tsk', most of them never having so much as put on a Cadet uniform.

If anyone thinks that is actually possible, I also have a bridge to sell, and a unicorn tied up in the back yard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jan 2015)

Article Link

Op IMPACT from a First Officer Perspective

Article / January 19, 2015

By A First Officer of the Long Range Patrol Detachment, OP IMPACT

It’s surprising how quickly world events can sneak up on you. I, like many Canadians, had been tracking events in the Middle East for months without a thought of how it might specifically affect me. I was just recently married so my mind was pleasantly occupied with getting used to wedded life. It wasn’t until I attempted to book leave for my honeymoon, and was told to wait, that I realized world events were about to become very real for me. I was told to get ready to deploy.

As time went on, announcements and debates took place in Parliament. Plans began to solidify and our squadron prepared to join the fight in Iraq. I had only six months of operational experience on squadron; one of the most junior First Officers in the Long Range Patrol (LRP) fleet. I had less than 300 flying hours under my belt and had participated in only one major exercise—focused on anti-submarine warfare.

For many others and me, a drastic shift in mindset and mission focus was coming. By the time the Government of Canada had formally ordered the mission, our crews were identified and the preparation and training were underway in earnest for the new challenge.

I was impressed by the hard work and flexibility of our crews and support staff at 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S. as we trained over long days, including weekends and Thanksgiving, to ensure we were as prepared as possible to deploy. This also meant a few hard weeks of theatre and mission-specific training, as well as more routine readiness training, such as refresher training on the pistol and rifle.

What challenges did I expect? I wondered if we would be under fire often, how dangerous the country in which we would be based would be, and how difficult the heat, sand and dust would be to endure.

The challenges we have faced in actuality have proven to be somewhat different.

Initially there were the challenges that always accompany deploying on the initial rotations. We were the first on the ground; things were not fully set up when we arrived.  I learned that we were the key element required to transition a war zone into a smooth operation.

Added to the hard work required of the first rotation, it is difficult to be away from family at the best of times and especially during the holidays.

The heat has proven to be quite mild in the fall and winter; with temperatures similar to a mild summer day back in Canada. However, at night the temperature dips down to near zero quite often, so many of us wish we had brought more warm clothing.

What we didn’t expect was the challenge of an aggressive flying schedule. Working 18-20 hour days, every other day means that fatigue is something we constantly need to be aware of. On top of this, our flights are not always at the same time each day, so our sleep patterns are required to change often and quickly. Given the long work days, it is important we remain alert for signs of fatigue both in ourselves and with our fellow crew mates.

Beyond the fatigue factor, one of the largest challenges is remaining motivated and effective day in and day out. Back home there are normal daily life distractions of family, friends, hobbies and even simple errands that break up your day and take your mind off work. Here there are no such distractions. As a result, the daily routine can develop into a daily grind if you’re not careful.

As a less-experienced member of the crew, I’ve learned it is important to keep the larger operational picture in mind. While being the “unblinking eye” is sometimes unglamorous, this is the task at hand, and it is an important role to fill for the coalition. Our intelligence section and chain-of-command do a great job of keeping us informed on what we, as a coalition, are achieving. This goes a long way toward keeping us motivated and eager to stay in the fight.

So how do we overcome these challenges? The logistical and operational challenges that go with being first on the ground in theatre are immense, and despite some moments that proved frustrating, Air Task Force-Iraq has worked quickly through this phase and is having success.

In the LRP (Long Range Patrol) Detachment, one of the primary ways many of us relieve stress is to ramp up our physical training. Both the Joint Task Force and the Air Task Force are holding fitness challenges. Many of us work out daily. It helps to pass the time and keep us in a good mindset, which goes hand-in-hand with helping us shift our sleep schedules.

Motivation comes from many sources. For many of us, the ability we have here to keep in regular touch with our families has been an immense morale boost.

 We are now through the early months of our deployment. The remaining months will be full of challenges, but the Air Task Force and the LRP Detachment have the tools to overcome them. We are determined to fly over Iraq, to do our part to improve stability in the region and stop the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  And before long, we will return home to our loved ones.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They are probably hoping more for an image of UN Peacekeepers as shown below, as opposed to attach helicopters; its' not appropriate for us to "whip out our armed forces', after all...



I remember the days of peacekeeping. The ROE could stated like this: If you must fire at people that are firing at you, make sure one of you has a sucking chest wound or similar wound. If you are not wounded, then the fire wasn't effective and you have no reason to return fire.

Of course I jest........


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Jan 2015)

I just picked up this Sun News report on Facebook about the PM's comment re Canadian troops engaging ISIS forces in Iraq. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright act. The story includes comments from the NDP and the Liberal leader.

If ISIS terrorists fire on Canadian troops, 'we'll kill them': Harper
5:47 pm, January 22nd, 2015
5:19 pm, January 22nd, 2015

JESSICA HUME | QMI AGENCY

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it clear that if ISIS terrorists fire at Canadian troops, "we're going to kill them."

Harper's was responding to media questions in St. Catharines, Ont., on Thursday about whether the nature of the Canadian mission in Iraq would shift to more of a combat role.

"This is a robust mission where (Canadian Forces) are going to make (Iraqi Security Forces) effective to take on the Islamic State and deal with them," he said. "And if those guys fire at us, we're going to fire back and we're going to kill them."

Asked if Canada's initial commitment to provide advice to the Iraqi government and security forces as well as a six-month airstrike mission would not change, Harper replied "No."

Questions about the Canadian Forces' role arose earlier this week amid reports soldiers fired back at ISIS militants after coming under attack. 

The official Opposition accused Harper of lying about the role of Canadian troops.

"I specifically asked him in the House of Commons whether or not Canadian Forces would be targeting troops on the other side," NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said this week. "He did not tell the truth."

Earlier Thursday, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson issued a statement clarifying Canada's role in Iraq.

"The situation on the ground has evolved (since October) and we increased our assistance with respect to airstrikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the Iraqi Security Forces,"

Lawson said, adding that Canada's troops "are not seeking to directly engage the enemy but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat."

Defence department officials have given numerous technical briefings to the media since October, none of which included information that there had been an exchange of fire between Canadian troops and ISIS militants.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson couldn't explain why that information hadn't been provided earlier.

"We haven't done anything we shouldn't be doing," he said, adding that "we didn't put limits on their abilities to advise and assist the Iraqis."

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar has expressed concerns about "mission creep" for months. His party wants the emphasis on humanitarian contributions and said Thursday he's worried by what he's hearing.

"What has evolved in Iraq is that Canada's role has become increasingly military as opposed to humanitarian," he told QMI Agency. "With Canadian soldiers now involved in frontline combat operations on the ground, Conservatives seem more focused on being part of military actions than on resolving urgent humanitarian need."

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was vague when asked whether he thinks Canada's role in the coalition makes the country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

"Canada has always played a role in the world and we'll continue to," Trudeau said. "What's extremely important is that Canada is a force for good and presence that is pushing the kind of human values, safety and security around the world."


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I remember the days of peacekeeping. The ROE could stated like this: If you must fire at people that are firing at you, make sure one of you has a sucking chest wound or similar wound. If you are not wounded, then the fire wasn't effective and you have no reason to return fire.
> 
> Of course I jest........



Actually......I remember an RCR MCpl, who was my instructor way back when, telling us bright eyed and bushy tailed OCdts a Cyprus story, that if fired upon, they were to fire three rounds into their jeep first then return fire.    >


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I remember the days of peacekeeping. The ROE could stated like this: If you must fire at people that are firing at you, make sure one of you has a sucking chest wound or similar wound. If you are not wounded, then the fire wasn't effective and you have no reason to return fire.
> 
> Of course I jest........



I seem to remember back in 96 before deploying to Bosnia with 2VP, being briefed by a legal officer words to the effect that "if you return fire and kill someone, you WILL be charged with everything we can find to throw at you."  Gave me a pretty warm squishy feeling.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jan 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I seem to remember back in 96 before deploying to Bosnia with 2VP, being briefed by a legal officer words to the effect that "if you return fire and kill someone, you WILL be charged with everything we can find to throw at you."  Gave me a pretty warm squishy feeling.



That sounds about right.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Jan 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I seem to remember back in 96 before deploying to Bosnia with 2VP, being briefed by a legal officer words to the effect that "if you return fire and kill someone, you WILL be charged with everything we can find to throw at you."  Gave me a pretty warm squishy feeling.



I heard the same thing from a co-worker who was in Bosnia around the same time, except I believe he was with the RCR.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Jan 2015)

Harper sounded pretty clear regarding the ROE.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually......I remember an RCR MCpl, who was my instructor way back when, telling us bright eyed and bushy tailed OCdts a Cyprus story, that if fired upon, they were to fire three rounds into their jeep first then return fire.    >



Which leaves two rounds in the mag.


We only were issued five rounds......


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2015)

One media outlet's "mission creep" is another's "evolution" ....


> ....  On Thursday morning, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson issued a statement to clarify comments he made last October, when he told CTV’s Question period that Canadian special ops would not be guiding airstrikes from the ground.
> 
> “To be clear, the situation on the ground has evolved… and we have increased our assistance with respect to targeting airstrikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the (Iraqi Security Forces),” Lawson said in a statement to CTV News.
> 
> Canadian special ops “are not seeking to directly engage the enemy, but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat,” he went on ....



More from the CDS:


> “I understand that there may be some questions about my comments on Oct. 19th about the nature of activities being undertaken by Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq. To be clear, the situation on the ground has evolved since I offered those remarks, and we have increased our assistance with respect to targeting air strikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the ISF.
> 
> “Our SOF Personnel are not seeking to directly engage the enemy, but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat. The activities of Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq, as described by Generals Vance and Rouleau on January 19th, are entirely consistent with the advise and assist mandate given to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government. You should be justifiably proud of your men and women in uniform.”


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Jan 2015)

This CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act reports that Canadian Special Forces have come under fire twice in the past week.

Special forces troops involved in two more firefights with ISIL fighters

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Jan 26 2015

OTTAWA - Canadian special forces troops have been involved in more firefights with Islamic State extremists.

Navy Capt. Paul Forget says the elite troops, who were advising Kurdish fighters in battlefield planning, came under fire twice while visiting the front over the last week.

He says in both cases the Canadian troops returned fire and "neutralized" the threats.

The gun battles are in addition to an incident outlined last week by the commander of special forces, Brig.-Gen. Michael Rouleau.

As well, Forget says CF-18 jetfighters have conducted 12 more air strikes supporting Iraqi forces who are preparing to liberate Mosul, the country's second largest city.


----------



## krimynal (26 Jan 2015)

can't wait to see what the liberals and NPD are going to say about those 2 encounters !


----------



## McG (26 Jan 2015)

The NDP has already been asking for another debate in the House of Commons.  


> *NDP calls for debate on military role in Iraq*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 26 Jan 2015
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2015)

For reference, here's a round-up of how the Government has described the mission over time:

5 Sept 2014, CTV.ca:


> ....  “This is not a combat mission and our role is clearly defined. Canada is joining our allies in providing critical advice to forces in northern Iraq as they continue to hold back the terrorist advance,” (PM Stephen) Harper told reporters.  “But while this mission is low risk, it’s not without risk. Our men and women in uniform are ready to answer this call, and I thank them for always being prepared to defend Canadian values and interests in a dangerous world.” ....



24 Sept 2014, Parliamentary Secretary for NatDef, in the House of Commons:


> .... I can confirm that we have committed 69 members of the Canadian special armed forces to be in Iraq to provide tactical and strategic advice in a non-combat role .... we have committed to 69 members being deployed to northern Iraq to fight—to be in an advisory role with the Peshmerga, helping it out, along with the invitation of the Iraqi government. We are there strictly in an advisory role, non-combat, and it is very clear what we are trying to do there ....



30 Sept 2014, Question Period, House of Commons:


> Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):   Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the rules of engagement are to advise and assist the Iraqis, but the question is, assist them how? For instance, are Canadian soldiers currently going on patrols with Iraqis or Kurds?
> 
> Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   Mr. Speaker, I said “ advise and assist the Iraqis”.  [English]  If I could just use the terminology in English, it is quite precise. It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany. I think that was laid out before the parliamentary committee.
> 
> ...



3 Oct 2014, PM statement, in the House of Commons:


> .... On September 5th, I announced that members of the Canadian Army, in a non-combat role, would advise and assist security forces in Iraq battling the terrorists .... we are extending the deployment in a non-combat role of the up to 69 members of the Canadian Army advising and assisting security forces in Iraq.  “There will however be no ground combat mission, which is explicitly ruled out in the resolution ....



3 Oct 2014, from the motion passed by the House of Commons:


> .... the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations ....



17 Oct 2014, _Toronto Star_:


> .... Brig.-Gen Michael Rouleau, commander of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, said the soldiers are helping teach local forces on the tactics that go into a successful attack.  “We’re helping train them in elements like shoot, move, communicate. How you manoeuvre elements around the battle space, how you can most effectively bring your various weapon systems to bear,” Rouleau said.  And he suggested those lessons are happening in the heart of the action on a battlefield where the frontline is hard to define, rather than in the relative safety of a distant training centre.  “We’re getting with these forces where they are,” he said.  “What we’re dealing with in Iraq is a very hybrid battle space, where it’s difficult to define discernible front lines, friendly people, bad people.”  But while their mission is to “advise,” they’re not authorized to “accompany” the Iraqi forces on their combat missions, though Lawson said that is a “difficult line to define.” ....



late October 2014, CDS:


> .... Last October, Lawson told CTV's Question Period host Robert Fife that Canadian troops sent to advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS "would have nothing to do" with pinpointing targets for airstrikes.  "All coalition troops on the ground in Iraq are being used in the same role — advise and assist, but not accompany, and not engage in direct combat," Lawson said last October. "It's very important that it's Iraqi soldiers who do that."  He also agreed that helping out with laser targeting would be a "semi-combat role." ....



22 Dec 2014, Major-General Hood, Director of Strategic Joint Staff:


> .... CANSOFCOM’s role in Iraq is to provide training, military advice and assistance teams. Members in Iraq are working within a well-defined mission that was passed in the House of Commons. We have been clear that this mission does not involve ground troops in a combat role.  “CANSOFCOM is helping to provide Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) with military training such as shooting, movement, communications, and mission planning, as well as how to effectively employ their various weapons systems against ISIL ....



19 Jan 2015, PMO spokesperson:


> .... "A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,"said Jason MacDonald. "That is not the case with this mission.  "This mission is one in which they are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi forces only and as the general indicated, the bulk of their work takes place well behind the front lines. That said, we have always been clear that while this is a low-risk mission, it is not without risk and our forces on the ground will protect themselves if fired on in the course of carrying out their mission."



20 Jan 2015, MP web page posting (French - Google English)


> .... Les forces d'opération spéciales canadiennes doivent parfois se rapprocher des lignes de front. Or, elles passent 80% de leur temps bien en retrait de celles-ci. Ce n'est donc pas une mission de combat terrestre. Ceci étant dit, lorsque nos soldats sont sous les tirs des djihadistes de l'ÉIIL, ils doivent pouvoir répondre.
> 
> .... Canadian special operations forces may have to move closer to the front lines . However, they spend 80 % of their time well back from them. This is not a ground combat mission. That said, when our soldiers are under fire from (ISIL) jihadists , they must be able to respond.



22 Jan 2015, CDS statement:


> .... I understand that there may be some questions about my comments on Oct. 19th about the nature of activities being undertaken by Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq. To be clear, the situation on the ground has evolved since I offered those remarks, and we have increased our assistance with respect to targeting air strikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the ISF.  Our SOF Personnel are not seeking to directly engage the enemy, but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat. The activities of Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq, as described by Generals Vance and Rouleau on January 19th, are entirely consistent with the advise and assist mandate given to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government ....


----------



## krimynal (26 Jan 2015)

theres a time where you need to stop making things up , and actually go try something.  

I mean yeah you train the people there to do the job , but sometimes you actually need to get in a shitty situation to know if they are doing it right or not.  Would you let them call in an airstrike ?? honestly , you would probably go there , be next to them make sure they don't screw it up.  Then sadly yeah , you are on the frontline. 

chances are , you are in a battlefield shit is gonna happen.  Are we suppose to just be there , get shot at , and be like "oh no , what are the Canadians think about us if we shoot back ???" .... Jesus heck sometimes the regular people ( and mostly politicians ) are completely lost.


----------



## upandatom (26 Jan 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> theres a time where you need to stop making things up , and actually go try something.
> 
> I mean yeah you train the people there to do the job , but sometimes you actually need to get in a shitty situation to know if they are doing it right or not.  Would you let them call in an airstrike ?? honestly , you would probably go there , be next to them make sure they don't screw it up.  Then sadly yeah , you are on the frontline.



I was thinking this. Would you trust them with laser guided weapons and target tagging equipment. I wouldn't. I realise that the ISF is better trained the ANP and ANA and are a much more independent force, they still need guidance and direction. 
Part of being mentors and assistant providers is watching them, directing them in live scenarios. They go to the front and lose multiple times, your going to want to see why they are losing, having issues. In turn, you go to the front, watch and learn. At the front, of course you are going to get shot at, or near, and in turn your going to shoot back. 

This is just another excuse for politicians to run their mouths.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2015)

I, for one, agree with our guys shooting back. Good on them.

The GOC could make political hay out of this by stating the troops are there to assist and train, and if necessary engage the enemy. After all.....isn't that what the Libs and Dippers all about? Protecting those who can't protect themselves?


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The GOC could make political hay out of this by stating the troops are there to assist and train, and if necessary engage the enemy. After all.....isn't that what the Libs and Dippers all about? Protecting those who can't protect themselves?


But we also remember the _last_ time a government official was so clear and unequivocal, right?  If there _was_ political hay to be made saying "we're going to help kill people," it would have been said that clearly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2015)

From Canada's public safety minister ....


> Today, the Honourable Steven Blaney, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, made the following statement in response to the online posting of an ISIL audio message calling for attacks in Canada:
> 
> "The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Jan 2015)

According to the Globe and Mail in this story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, General Lawson has met with senior Kurdish leaders in Iraq.

Top Canadian general holds undisclosed talks with Kurds in Iraq

STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jan. 27 2015, 12:56 PM EST

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 27 2015, 1:12 PM EST

Canada’s top general held undisclosed meetings with top Kurdistan officials this week in northern Iraq, the same region where this country’s special forces are helping Kurds take on Islamic State fighters.

General Tom Lawson, Chief of Canada’s Defence Staff, met with Masrour Barzani, chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council on Sunday, according to BasNews, a news agency in Erbil, Iraq.

The leadership of the independent-minded Kurds, who want to retain autonomy in Iraq, pressed Gen. Lawson for greater military support from the West in order to advance their battle against Islamic State militants.

Nearly 70 Canadian special forces soldiers are acting as military advisers to the Kurds in the Erbil region and have ended up shooting and killing Islamic State fighters in the course of their duties.

The military had not notified media about Gen. Lawson’s trip, or the meeting, and declined immediately comment on the matter Tuesday morning, citing security concerns.

It’s infrequent but not unprecedented for a Canadian military official to meet civilian leadership in another country instead of, say, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird taking the lead.

According to BasNews, Mr. Barzani told Gen. Lawson that Kurdish peshmerga have taken control of the “strategically vital area of Kasike” that connects cities such as Mosul, still held by the Islamic State, to the Syrian border.

The agency said the Kurdish leader emphasized the need for further military support from the U.S.-led international coalition that is supporting the fight to beat back Islamic State extremists.

Mr. Barzani reportedly said that without additional help, the peshmerga will not only be thwarted in their advance, but risk losing territorial gains they’ve already made.

One request is for armored vehicles to help Kurdish fighters and other Iraqi security forces navigate a battlefront where jihadists have planted bombs, also known as improved explosive devices.

The Erbil news agency said Gen. Lawson told his host that “Canada understands the importance of the peshmerga forces in the conflict, and is impressed by the Kurds’ military ability.”

The sides agreed to maintain and develop the military relationship they share, BasNews reported.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2015)

Here's the original BasNews piece in German - Google English translation below:


> BasNews (editorial) - KRG security chief Masrour Barzani met on Sunday with the Canadian Chief of Staff Tom Lawson in Erbil. Lawson praised the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters for their military achievements against "Islamic state" (IS).
> 
> Talks between Masrour Barzani and Tom Lawson acted in the first line on the extension of the military supports the Peshmerga forces by the Canadian Forces.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2015)

Sun Media's Parliamentary Bureau Chief (and army.ca member) David Akin seems to sum up the mission debate quite well via Twitter:

_"On the technical point of what PM said or didn’t say about the mission last fall compared to what’s happening: Opposition wins .... But on the political point — Do Canadians really care about that technical point compared to the current mission? — government prevails."_

Meanwhile ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's the original BasNews piece in German - Google English translation below:


The English-language version of the article seems to focus more on the Kurdish need for mo' AFVs:


> The Kurdistan Region Security Council has emphasized the need for more armored vehicles in order to protect recent gains and continue advancing the frontlines against Islamic State (IS) militants.
> 
> Chanceler of Kurdistan Region Security Council, Masrour Barzani, on Sunday met with the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed ForcesGeneral Thomas J. Lawson and Canadian military delegation in Erbil.
> 
> ...


----------



## upandatom (28 Jan 2015)

If anyone hasnt seen it, There is a frontline documentary on Netflix right now about Iraq, and how and why things have ended up the way they have become, also one about Syria too, I think its called Losing Iraq. 

It was pretty informative for someone who didnt know much of the history in Iraq as I was more occupied with learning more about Afghanistan.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jan 2015)

This CBC story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, claims that Canadian JTACs are controlling air strikes, a role Americans are not allowed to do. 

ISIS fight: Canadian advisers guiding airstrikes but U.S. barred from doing same

Some say Canadians are taking on combat role in Iraq that U.S. advisers are prohibited from doing

CBC News Posted: Jan 27, 2015 8:25 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 28, 2015 8:16 AM ET

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

U.S. soldiers are not allowed to direct airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, a practice that their Canadian military allies have been engaged in despite it being seen by some as a combat manoeuvre.

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

But those roles are seen as combat roles. U.S. military Cmdr. Elissa Smith at the Pentagon told CBC News that that particular role — sometimes called JTAC or joint terminal attack controller — is one U.S. advisers on the ground in Iraq are barred from doing. 

"The advisers are assisting with planning ground operations, intelligence sharing, integrating air support into their operations, not as JTACs, but as planners," Smith said. "Their movements are carefully planned in advance in order to ensure that they are not inadvertently put into combat situations.

"We've been very clear that U.S. advisers are removed from actual or expected combat situations as part of our advise and assist mission in Iraq." 

Last week, Brig.-Gen. Mike Rouleau, the commander of Canadian special forces, said his soldiers have directed 13 strikes.

Walter Dorn, who teaches defence studies to Canadian officers at Royal Military College, said what the JTACs are engaged in is "definitely combat."

"It's not just self-defence. It's actually engaging in combat and making a difference on the ground, in the field. And we originally said we are not going in there to engage in combat," he said.

When it comes to airstrikes, Steve Day, the former commander of Canada's elite JTF2 unit, said Western air forces always prefer to have their own trained soldiers guiding those attacks.

"The gold standard is to always receive intelligence from your own Western sources. So, it's always best, especially in built-up areas, to have a Western set of eyes looking at the target."

This is another case where Canadian forces seem to be going further than their coalition allies — at least publicly.

Although the U.S. is leading the coalition, officials say American military advisers aren't accompanying Iraqi forces on the frontlines. But Canadians have gone close to the frontlines. At one point, the military estimated Canadian advisers spent 20 per cent of the time there. And those advisers have now been involved in three firefights.

In response to a question from CBC News on Monday, a spokeswoman for the Combined Joint Task Force, which is co-ordinating the international coalition's mission in Iraq, said, "Canada is the only coalition member whose soldiers have been involved in firefights."

The spokeswoman said she couldn't explain why, but when asked again on Tuesday by CBC News, she added:

"I can only respond on incidents that have been confirmed and reported to the high headquarters. The incidents with the Canadians are the only incidents that [have] been reported." 

However, Britain's Mail on Sunday, citing sources, reported that the U.K.'s elite SAS troops, who were officially in Iraq in a reconnaissance role, were conducting raids against ISIS fighters last November.

David Perry, a senior security and defence analyst for the CDA Institute, said countries often don't want to talk about what their special forces are up to.

"We've seen it before in Libya and Afghanistan," he said. "Different governments for different reasons have been very reluctant and sensitive to discuss what their special operations forces do when they're out there on the ground."

Asked about the rules of engagement back in September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canadian troops were in Iraq "to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany."

But Harper was hammered in question period Tuesday about whether the government misled Canadians about the mission in Iraq,

He said that Canadian troops are executing the mission that Canadians and Parliament have given them. 

"They are advising, they are assisting," he said. "Guess what, if fired upon, they are going to shoot back; and if they kill some of the ISIL terrorists, Canadians are going to support that, no matter what the New Democrats think."

An Iraqi news agency, BasNews, reported Tuesday that Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson was in Erbil over the weekend to meet with Kurdish officials, including Masrour Barzani, the chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council.

Canada's Defence Department confirmed Lawson's travel to the region later in the day, saying the purpose of the meetings was to "exchange information, and to update them on Canada’s ongoing contributions to the advise and assist mission."

The CDS also delivered a new shipment of non-lethal military gear from Canada, including clothing to equip the Iraqis for cold weather.

Canada's combat mission is up for renewal in April.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Jan 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> If anyone hasnt seen it, There is a frontline documentary on Netflix right now about Iraq, and how and why things have ended up the way they have become, also one about Syria too, I think its called Losing Iraq.
> 
> It was pretty informative for someone who didnt know much of the history in Iraq as I was more occupied with learning more about Afghanistan.



For those who don't have Netflix: 

PBS Frontline - Losing Iraq  29 Jul 2014

PBS Frontline - Syria's Second Front 11 Feb 2014

PBS Frontline - Children of Aleppo  11 feb 2014


----------



## dimsum (29 Jan 2015)

From the National Post.

This bit jumped out for me since Bill Shorten (leader of the Opposition in Australia) recently returned from a trip to Iraq where he publicly stated his bi-partisan support for the Australian operation there.  



> The ensuing hullabaloo is a reminder of the childish, uninformed level of debate in Canada about military issues. We are so different in this regard from our allies. One need only look at the Australians — who have three times as many special forces in Iraq as Canada does — and the more mature way they discuss defence matters.
> 
> There is a broad national consensus on defence Down Under instead of our deep chasm between handwringers and realists. Our elites want Canada to be heroic in some touchy-feely way but at the same time to remain boy scouts, unbloodstained, to let others carry the fight for us. They want to play armchair quarterback in a game they not only despise but do not understand.



http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/matthew-fisher-openness-over-combat-with-isis-bites-harper-government/


----------



## McG (29 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _"On the technical point of what PM said or didn’t say about the mission last fall compared to what’s happening: Opposition wins .... But on the political point — Do Canadians really care about that technical point compared to the current mission? — government prevails."_


That is about how I see it too.  If you want to nit-pick symantics, then the government words do not match actions (specifically with respect to the topic of accompanying and not so much on the topic of combat ops), but our actions would appear to be the right thing to do.  So, let's get on with it.

If the press can be called reliable on the topic, the RoE have not changed since the mission started.  Does that mitigate against the accusations of mission creep?



> *Canadian snipers kill IS militants*
> Analyst says troops' actions cannot be considered a dramatic shift in role, and rules of engagement have not changed
> GLOBE AND MAIL
> STEVEN CHASE
> ...




... and I may have found a use for the TAPV that will please the vehicle's detractors.  


> *Kurds ask for armoured vehicles*
> The Toronto Sun
> 29 Jan 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Jan 2015)

You can bet your bottom dollar, if ISIS massacred a bunch of women (after they had finished with them)/children, then staged a bomb blast with civilian casualties and said it was the Cdns, the would be an uproar. It has been done before.

I think the Government is prudent to have our own troops light up targets.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> If you want to nit-pick symantics, then the government words do not match actions (specifically with respect to the topic of accompanying and not so much on the topic of combat ops), but our actions would appear to be the right thing to do.  So, let's get on with it.


You've described the political fight, zackly!

That said, let's see how people respond if the Liberals get in and "adjust their wording" just a bit, in "peacekeeping" in Congo, as some on that side seem so enamoured about doing.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You can bet your bottom dollar, if ISIS massacred a bunch of women (after they had finished with them)/children, then staged a bomb blast with civilian casualties and said it was the Cdns, the would be an uproar. It has been done before.
> 
> I think the Government is prudent to have our own troops light up targets.


True - but keep in mind that if the yellow bit happened, the orange bit wouldn't matter in the public-info fight.


----------



## upandatom (29 Jan 2015)

I may be wrong in this-

This ISIL/ISIS war, is it not more traditional warfare. Enemies more clearly marked, for the most part, clear and definitive lines drawn? 

If we start handing Armoured vehicles over, the Iraqis/Kurds start to take ground back at even faster rate with our vehicles (needless to say who is going to train them on the vehicle systems), does logic not dictate they will start to use Insurgency methods and IEDs become more prevalent on the battlefield, and lines start to dissapear. 

The only way I do not see this happening is if the locals truly hate ISIS/ISIL and what they stand for as extremists. The locals then take cause and point out the Extremists and the IEDs. 


What about the more legal matter of the Iraqis lighting up targets, that could be incorrect/misdirected targets, and the Canadian pilots dropping bombs on innocents, If I was a pilot, id prefer to have SOFCOM directing me then the Iraqis.


----------



## McG (29 Jan 2015)

Looks like the CDS may have taken the heat off the government, but depending on which source you read he put it out or he put it onto himself.



> *Defence chief denies Canada in combat mission*
> CTV News
> 29 Jan 2015
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-chief-denies-canada-in-combat-mission-1.2211760




> *ISIS fight: Tom Lawson reassures MPs about risk to special forces*
> Foreign affairs, defence ministers face opposition at committee, along with top soldier Tom Lawson
> By Laura Payton, CBC News
> 29 Jan 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-tom-lawson-reassures-mps-about-risk-to-special-forces-1.2936134


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Jan 2015)

So I guess delivering gifts from the belly of a CF-18 isn't considered combat..


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> So I guess delivering gifts from the belly of a CF-18 isn't considered combat..


Here's what the PM said in September (also attached if link doesn't work):


> It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany .... Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat ....


Unless there were no Iraqi troops with the Canadians painting the targets, some people think that means  "accompaniment".

Do I agree with what's happening now?  I have no problem seeing Canadian troops killing truly bad guys.

Is it what the PM said it would be?  Not according to the wording he used in September.

Has the mission changed without taxpayers being told?  It looks like it.

Should taxpayers know what its military is up to?  I'll let those smarter than me wrestle with the OPSEC vs. transparency balance  ;D


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Jan 2015)

So much for "Deeds not Words" 
Larson is a no buddy, Roulue was weak in the Regiment at best other then hockey and being an CMR keener, did he not quiet the CF at one point? 
Combat is combat. The PM is lying as have they all lately, so is Larson.
  This very argument about what is combat what is not has been used as a defense at the War Crimes in the Hague for Yugo. Canadian government know that the use of air power in any form be it recce, target acquisition, directing targeting or delivering the bomb......its all considered a hostile act under the rules of war. So the CF-18 is involved in combat....the Tracker from Greenwood acquiring targets is involved in combat, and last but not least the advisers who train and follow there trainees to the front line and assist them are in combat. 

 So lets hope the so called leaders of our country and Army get there crap together and start doing what they have authority to do or stop doing what they dont have authority to do. And if that included combat then get on with it and tell the country they are in combat and tell the politicians to tell it like it is.

Lets hope this does not go the way all battles have gone for the last 20 years, lies and misinformation which disrespects those who are doing the fighting and risking life for the good of the world. 

Rags
3rd Horseman


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> So lets hope the so called leaders of our country and Army get there crap together and start doing what they have authority to do or stop doing what they dont have authority to do.


It's not so much doing the job, there appears to be some hesitancy about _how_ the job is described/talked about.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Roulue was weak in the Regiment at best other then hockey and being an CMR keener, did he not quiet the CF at one point?



A "weak in the regiment" and "CMR Keener" who was good enough to pass JTF2 selection and also serve numerous years with JTF2 and CANSOFCOM?  What does that make you?

You call people out for having an agenda but it sounds like you have one yourself.  Hate the mission but don't discredit good soldiers like General Rouleau.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2015)

This argument only shows the naivete of the Canadian Public.  Seriously.  It is a WAR ZONE.  We have people on the ground instructing Iraqi and allied forces in a Region with no defined Front Lines, where the war-fighting is that of an asymmetric war.  There is no guarantee that they will be safe in the rear teaching in classrooms.   At the same time there is no guarantee that one of our fighters or other aircraft will NOT be shoot down.  There is a risk when you send any CAF personnel into a WAR ZONE.  It is insane for anyone to think that they should not be allowed to defend themselves.


----------



## krimynal (30 Jan 2015)

Like I said in a previous post , as a mentor and a trainer .... you HAVE to be on the ground to see how they act , why they lose , what happens , etc. etc. etc.  

I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.  But they want to elect Muclair and Trudeau ?? when they both said they would rather send in humanitarian aid over forces. 

On paper this sound fantastic ... what happens once you drop humanitarian aid in a war zone that isn't controlled by any type of security ? they either get killed , capture or the "bad guy" take control of the aid , and use them to their advantage.  Now how would the Canadian Public reply to that ? We should have send in Troops to ensure security.

Basically , do everything to help them , as long as it doesn't involve any type of Canadian involvement !


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jan 2015)

Well the debate hasn't really been about whether Canadian Soldiers are allowed to shoot back or not, even the NDP have stated that if Canadian Soldiers are fired on they of course should shoot back.  The debate has been about whether Stephen Harper misled the Canadian public WRT the scope of the mission.

I believe the opposition parties are starting to sense that Canadians aren't going to bite on this one as they seem to be putting a check fire on some of their rhetoric.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.





			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The debate has been about whether Stephen Harper misled the Canadian public WRT the scope of the mission.


 :nod:  I think those doing the bashing are unhappy with the PM/Government saying in September, "no, Canadian troops _won't_ be going with Iraqi troops into battle" and now saying, "of course Canadian troops are moving toward the fight and painting things to get blown up/sniping bad guys".

To be fair, though, we're hearing a bit more of how things unfolded ....


> .... Lawson told the committee he “had not anticipated” Canadian special forces would be in a position to safely direct airstrikes when he ruled them out last October.
> 
> “What I had not anticipated at that time in October was that those tactical air controllers would be able to develop techniques that would allow them, in the relative safety of their advise and assist positions, to be able to help the . . . Iraqi security forces bring weaponry of coalition bombers to bear,” Lawson explained his reversal.
> 
> “In fact I provided them, within the advise and assist mission, the authority to go ahead with that, well within the mandate given to us by the government.” ....


Sounds like someone's now able to paint targets by "advising and assisting" but without "accompanying"  



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I believe the opposition parties are starting to sense that Canadians aren't going to bite on this one as they seem to be putting a check fire on some of their rhetoric.


 :nod:  I still think this from Sun Media nails it ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _"On the technical point of what PM said or didn’t say about the mission last fall compared to what’s happening: Opposition wins .... But on the political point — Do Canadians really care about that technical point compared to the current mission? — government prevails."_


----------



## krimynal (30 Jan 2015)

same principles apply .... at the beginning they were there to instruct and mentor , but when it comes down to actually make it happen , you need to follow them , that's a pretty basic and simple fact ... Yet the opposition is trying as hard as they can to make it sound SO bad , to me they just look completely stupid , but that's my personal opinion !


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> Like I said in a previous post , as a mentor and a trainer .... you HAVE to be on the ground to see how they act , why they lose , what happens , etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.  But they want to elect Muclair and Trudeau ?? when they both said they would rather send in humanitarian aid over forces.
> 
> ...



It's not the Canadian Public making a big deal out of it, it's politicians pandering to their base, in this case latte sippers and Unicorn herders.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jan 2015)

This story from the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act indicates the Canadian public supports the mission.

Support for airstrikes in Iraq at 63 per cent: Forum

Mission has strong support in Prairies and Alberta while those in Quebec are least likely to approve, poll finds.

A new poll by Forum Research found that support for CF-18 airstrikes in Iraq remains largely unchanged since November.

By: Alex Boutilier Staff Reporter, Published on Fri Jan 30 2015

OTTAWA—As parliament continues to debate the role of Canadian Forces in the fight against the Islamic State group, a new poll shows support remains strong for CF-18 airstrikes in Iraq.
The poll, released by Forum Research, found that 63 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly approve the Conservatives’ decision to send six CF-18 fighter jets for airstrikes in Iraq.
The support, largely unchanged since November, was strongest among Conservative voters (82 per cent). Regionally, Forum found more support in the Prairies and Alberta (70 per cent and 67 per cent), while Quebec respondents were least likely to support the mission (39 per cent disapproved).
When Forum pointed out that Canadian troops were fired on multiple times — and have returned fire — a slight majority (60 per cent) of Canadians approved of Canadian ground troops engaging Islamic State group fighters on the ground in Iraq.
A strong majority of Conservative voters (82 per cent) approved ground combat, while support was more muted among opposition voters (59 per cent of identified Liberals approved, while 43 per cent of New Democrat voters approved).
The poll also found that almost three in four Canadians (73 per cent) believed that the Canadian Forces will suffer casualties in the fight against the Islamic State group. As many as 69 special forces members are on the ground, although Parliament has approved a non-combat aid and assist role only.
The automated phone survey of 1,382 voting-aged Canadians was conducted on Jan. 27 and 28. Results are considered accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jan 2015)

I think both the opposition and the members of this site are basically in agreement: The problem (if any) is a political one - on what the government said or did not say the mission would entail - not on the actual actions of the military.

However, considering the fact that most SMA's on this site seem pretty clear that assisting would likely lead to accompanying trained forces near combat areas to solidify their training in designating targets, I must say that I have lost some confidence in the competence of our fearless leader (4 maple-leaves) when he states that he could not foresee such development.

I am less than impressed also with at least one of his responses: That "he" authorized this going along (I won't say "accompanying") with the trainees near the front. Either he missed the part where he should have indicated at the same time that doing so was within the terms he was given for the operation, or else, if the terms changed, indicate that they were modified by the government along the way. 

This may seem minor but it isn't. It is the very fundamental of civilian control of the military. It is for the government to decide what we are or are not to do, then for us to decide how we are going to do it within those limits. But we cannot change the limits ourselves.

If those limits were changed along the way (there is no information to that effect one way or the other), then it was up to the government to explain it to Parliament and to Canadians; if these limits were unchanged from the beginning, then (1) from a political point of view the government should communicate that fact clearly and (2) the military leadership should make it clear that it is acting within the terms it was given.

And BTW, it is perfectly fine for the opposition to try and get those very facts to the Canadians. It is their job to do so and hold the government accountable for either bad communications of changes made in secret.

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> So the CF-18 is involved in combat....the Tracker from Greenwood acquiring targets is involved in combat, and last but not least the advisers who train and follow there trainees to the front line and assist them are in combat.



I think any Tracker is on cement pads.  And none of those will be found at ZX.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think any Tracker is on cement pads.  And none of those will be found at ZX.



Yes you are correct I stand corrected the Aurora is what Im talking about. Didnt think anyone one would confuse a 1950s Bonaventure launched air craft with the "Tracker" being employed for surveillance in the desert in 2015, I just used the army slang for it Tracker. Cause thats what it does. I figured it was obvious when I said greenwood.

3rd Horsman


----------



## Loachman (30 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> 3rd Horsman



I have never, in forty-two years in uniform, heard _*anybody*_ refer to an Aurora as a "Tracker".

You even got your _*own*_ name wrong.

Credibility, Credibility - wherefor art thou, Credibility?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jan 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have never, in forty-two years in uniform, heard _*anybody*_ refer to an Aurora as a "Tracker".
> 
> You even got your _*own*_ name wrong.
> 
> Credibility, Credibility - wherefor art thou, Credibility?



My thoughts exactly, I was skeptical the minute he called out General Rouleau who is probably one of the smartest GO's we have and a soldier through and through.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Jan 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This story from the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act indicates the Canadian public supports the mission.
> 
> Support for airstrikes in Iraq at 63 per cent: Forum



Excellent. Now let's put a brigade in there to launch some fairly large raids and take some scalps in proper fashion, which will do more than a few airstrikes to convince ISIS that they are on a losing ticket.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Didnt think anyone one would confuse a 1950s Bonaventure launched air craft with the "Tracker" being employed for surveillance in the desert in 2015, I just used the army slang for it Tracker. Cause thats what it does. I figured it was obvious when I said greenwood.
> 
> 3rd Horsman



Not to those of us who actually crew Auroras - I have a fairly good idea what they do  .  I'm ex-army, and I never heard an Argus or Aurora called a tracker...because there was a Tracker flying the same time those did (at one point).  

Cheers

Tracker






Argus






Aurora


----------



## 3rd Horseman (31 Jan 2015)

Yawn,

To make it clear to Royal Drew I did not call Mike out. Mike is a nice guy he was fun to have around as a young officer. That does not change the facts as a Gunner officer he was weak at best. Had a lot to do with too much hockey no field time and he departed the Regt early in his career after being in Germany where ya learn almost nothing as a young officer on a good day add hockey ya learn zero.

As for the Argus and Auroura.......They track things dont they? Ah ya they do. 

3rd Horseman


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (31 Jan 2015)

No they don't.

Take it from someone who has spent a career at sea, greatly benefiting from the services of those angels over head (all of them, Trackers, Auroras, Argus and Arcturus'). And you always have to be very specific in identifying them because they don't all do the same thing the same way.

To go back to the point, they don't "track" things. They locate, identify … and do the hard kill, at least at sea. I gather they do the same thing over land, just without the kill capacity at the end, but also collate the intel picture and serve as communication hub. I would not call all that  "tracking" and I am not even in the Air Force. I bet that if I were, I would know all sorts of other things they can do as they are marvellous multipurpose platforms.


----------



## SupersonicMax (31 Jan 2015)

The Hornet also "tracks" things.  Do you call these Trackers as well?


----------



## Scott (31 Jan 2015)

Forget it, you're all wrong - he's right. You misunderstood him. Try harder. He didn't call Rouleau out, you misunderstood what he posted.

Same posting style, just six years removed from the last. Don't worry, I went through some of the old ones and didn't have to get far to see the trend.

Yawn is right, the others are wise to this - but you're still the only one in step, yeah?

Scott
Staff


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jan 2015)

Kind of funny to hear someone pretend that in 4 CMBG there was no consideration as to how well the brigade's soldiers could play hockey.  :rofl:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jan 2015)

Hey, I can play this game, (apologies in advance to all the gunners and mortar men, except Horsey):

Basically, since an 81mm mortar, an L5 and an M777 all do indirect fire, their names are interchangeable, too?

 :


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jan 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> So much for "Deeds not Words"
> Larson is a no buddy, Roulue was weak in the Regiment at best other then hockey and being an CMR keener, did he not quiet the CF at one point?
> 
> 3rd Horseman



3rd Horseman,

I was on Arty trg with the two brothers named Rouleau and you are confusing them. One was a weak Arty Offr who graduated from CMR, played hockey and went on to become a Colonel Public Affairs Officer (Marc).  Younger brother, Mike, on the other hand did not go to Military College.  He joined as a teenager and was impressive from day one.  He did leave the military at one point after being injured and joined the Ottawa Police Force.  Mike rejoined and resumed his SOF career.  He is battle proven and street smart beyond his years.  If you knew them like I do you would not confuse them for a second -  one would bore you to death and the other would spit chew in your face as his steely-eyed stare brought you to your knees.

Once a Gunner Officer, but never served in 3rd.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Jan 2015)

ST, there you go letting actual facts come into the discussion.  Rouleau-younger was DCO of 5e RALC as well, and I know the Regt didn't consider Dep Comd to be a fluff position.

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Feb 2015)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> 3rd Horseman,
> 
> I was on Arty trg with the two brothers named Rouleau and you are confusing them. One was a weak Arty Offr who graduated from CMR, played hockey and went on to become a Colonel Public Affairs Officer (Marc).  Younger brother, Mike, on the other hand did not go to Military College.  He joined as a teenager and was impressive from day one.  He did leave the military at one point after being injured and joined the Ottawa Police Force.  Mike rejoined and resumed his SOF career.  He is battle proven and street smart beyond his years.  If you knew them like I do you would not confuse them for a second -  one would bore you to death and the other would spit chew in your face as his steely-eyed stare brought you to your knees.
> 
> Once a Gunner Officer, but never served in 3rd.



And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our PERs SHOULD be written up  :nod:


----------



## 3rd Horseman (1 Feb 2015)

Sorry about the high jack it was a good thread for that I apologize, 

I know them both I did not confuse them. His stare never phased me. 

I will depart the thread and let the good discussion continue.

3rd Horseman


----------



## MJP (1 Feb 2015)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> I will depart the thread and let the good discussion continue.
> 
> 3rd Horseman



That is the best contribution you can make right there.  Thanks  man.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Feb 2015)

So....back on topic....


Any news from our forces over there?  I scoured the interwebs and found nothing more recent than 31 Jan.


----------



## McG (2 Feb 2015)

The only hits in the news feed from today are more editorials on the political wordsmith game.  The media seem to be settling to the conclusion that the Conservatives have won; the other parties should stop digging for a scandal in the past and start influencing/looking to the future.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Feb 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The only hits in the news feed from today are more editorials on the political wordsmith game.  The media seem to be settling to the conclusion that the Conservatives have won; the other parties should stop digging for a scandal in the past and start influencing/looking to the future.


Well, if all there is in the news is stuff on politicians being, well, politicians, then I guess that no news is good news.  Thanks for the update.


----------



## upandatom (4 Feb 2015)

krimynal said:
			
		

> same principles apply .... at the beginning they were there to instruct and mentor , but when it comes down to actually make it happen , you need to follow them , that's a pretty basic and simple fact ... Yet the opposition is trying as hard as they can to make it sound SO bad , to me they just look completely stupid , but that's my personal opinion !



Unless people have been deployed or on any sort of military leadership course that teaches instruction, mentoring, leading, they wont understand "Mentoring" in the mindset of a military member. On those courses, the staff followed along, they took note of what occured, and let you know how you could do it better, effectively, etc. You can not do that from a classroom.

In essence the way they see it happening is, 
1. Teach in the class/lesson plan/Battle plan
2. Send them out to the front, 
3. Attack or defend an objective. 
4. Have the Iraqi explain how it went down.

When it should be
1. Teach in the class/lesson plan/battle plan
2. Send them out to the front, ACCOMPANY
3. Attack or defend an objective. WATCH (Fire back if you are under contact)
4. Have the Iraqi explain how it went down. (Let them perform their own AAR and see how they thought it went)
5. Give the Mentors assessment (inform them of weaknesses and strengths and how they can play their strengths to their advantage)
6. Repeat


SH!t simple, OPSEC plays above all in this case, of course he cant divulge what the SOFCOM true intent is, that just puts them in more harms way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Feb 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> .... it should be
> 1. Teach in the class/lesson plan/battle plan
> 2. Send them out to the front, ACCOMPANY
> 3. Attack or defend an objective. WATCH (Fire back if you are under contact)
> ...


And if it wasn't for this little quote in the House of Commons ....


> .... 30 Sept 2014, Question Period, House of Commons:
> 
> 
> > Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):   Mr. Speaker, I said “ advise and assist the Iraqis”.  [English]  If I could just use the terminology in English, it is quite precise. *It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany.* I think that was laid out before the parliamentary committee ..... Mr. Speaker, I just said that *Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat* ....
> ...


.... the wordsmiths wouldn't have as much to wordsmith about.  It's all about calling a spade a spade, and when people are willing to do so, or not.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Feb 2015)

The Iraqis would probably do better with a Loan Service approach, something like that operated between Oman and the UK: http://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/articles-and-analysis/british-treaty-obligations-to-oman

Loan Service personnel are attached to the Omani military from the UK, wear Omani kit, train and lead Omani troops under this agreement. Most of those I know who have done this were under 2 year contracts that included generous allowances and leave packages. 

And they had a hell of a good time. Many went back for more tours.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Feb 2015)

A fellow I went to high school with, who joined the Light Infantry in the UK, did that. Pretty good wages.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Feb 2015)

Oh, but then there would be the cries from the usual suspects that we're now supplying mercenaries to regimes here and there.  Good Christ, the amount of tin foil that would be required for hats would eclipse the industrial output efforts of Fort Mac on a good day.


----------



## upandatom (5 Feb 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A fellow I went to high school with, who joined the Light Infantry in the UK, did that. Pretty good wages.



Thats how the Brits operation in IMATT in Sierra Leone, they were making some crazy amount of money 75k Pounds year plus, and it was treated more like a posting, they would spend 1-2 years, but lived on the Compound. It was a great go for them.

From what I gather is they were paid normal wages by the UK and then a "loan wage" for the SL Government capped it off that was basically the Brits giving them more money (Aid money or whatever)that was given the the SL.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Feb 2015)

upandatom said:
			
		

> Thats how the Brits operation in IMATT in Sierra Leone, they were making some crazy amount of money 75k Pounds year plus, and it was treated more like a posting, they would spend 1-2 years, but lived on the Compound. It was a great go for them.
> 
> From what I gather is they were paid normal wages by the UK and then a "loan wage" for the SL Government capped it off that was basically the Brits giving them more money (Aid money or whatever)that was given the the SL.



I once (foolishly) turned down a job like that in Mozambique. The posting came with a big ranch house, a driver, cook and gardener. 

A mate of mine took the job and loved it. Still goes down there for vacations etc....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2015)

Article Link

5 February 2015

On 5 February 2015, while taking part in coalition missions in support of Iraqi security forces ground operations conducted northwest of Baghdad, CF-188 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL compound used as a staging area using precision guided munitions.

3 February 2015

On 3 February 2015, while taking part in coalition missions in support of Iraqi security forces ground operations conducted southwest of Mosul, CF-188 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL IED factory and storage facility using precision guided munitions.


As of 1500 (Eastern Standard Time) 4 February 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 435 sorties:
•CF-188 Hornet fighter jets conducted 284 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 72 sorties, delivering some 4,063,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 79 reconnaissance missions.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Feb 2015)

Mozambique is on my to visit list for the next time we vacation in the area.  It has a lot of offer as a vacation spot.  Shame you missed out on that daft.


----------



## dimsum (5 Feb 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Mozambique is on my to visit list for the next time we vacation in the area.  It has a lot of offer as a vacation spot.  Shame you missed out on that daft.



Call me paranoid, but I generally avoid countries where an AK-47 is part of the national flag and coat of arms.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Feb 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Call me paranoid, but I generally avoid countries where an AK-47 is part of the national flag and coat of arms.



Oh pshaw... we all know that the Portugese colonial legacy is one of peace and enlightenment, right?  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You can bet your bottom dollar, if ISIS massacred a bunch of women (after they had finished with them)/children, then staged a bomb blast with civilian casualties and said it was the Cdns, the would be an uproar. It has been done before.


Along those lines ....


> American officials are desperately trying to confirm the veracity of a claim by Isis which said a female US hostage being held by the militants had been killed by a Jordanian air strike.
> 
> In a message posted on social media, Isis claimed that Kayla Jean Mueller died when Jordanian planes struck targets close to Raqqa, the de facto capital of Isis-controlled territory. Ms Mueller, an aid worker from Arizona, was taken hostage in Syria in August 2013.
> 
> The message from the militants was subsequently published by the SITE Intelligence Group, which track extremists activity ....


----------



## cryco (6 Feb 2015)

That's what i though when I heard the story. Perfect opportunity to try and sour relations between Jordan and US (not that it would).


----------



## YZT580 (6 Feb 2015)

this is a sad statement but far better a bomb than a knife or one of their other favoured methods of execution.  At least the bomb is unexpected and relatively quick and her torment has now ended.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> this is a sad statement but far better a bomb than a knife or one of their other favoured methods of execution.  At least the bomb is unexpected and relatively quick and her torment has now ended.


True, as far as it goes, but that assumes that if the hostage is dead, it really _was_ Jordanian fast air that did it.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Feb 2015)

^ :nod:


----------



## YZT580 (6 Feb 2015)

you are absolutely correct.  If she is dead I truly hope that it was a result of 'friendly fire'.  I cannot think of a more appropriate phrase than that one.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2015)

One has to pretty much assume that ISIS would never actually exchange anyone, based on their doctrine.  Any "hostage negotiations" are most likely being used purely to increase their effort to terrorize and influence, and not in any way an effort to actually trade hostages held for either their own or money, etc...

My gut feel though, is that Ms. Mueller was not killed by an air strike, but rather ISIS used that as a way of deflecting true accountability for their actions. 

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> My gut feel though, is that Ms. Mueller was not killed by an air strike, but rather ISIS used that as a way of deflecting true accountability for their actions.


Agreed - not to mention starting to build up the layers of the "lookit the West killing civilians" meme I'm surprised we haven't heard more of from "the usual suspects".


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2015)

Newest SITREP on the mission: more bombs dropped, another CANSOF gunfire exchange with ISIS, and the CAF has developed plans to either extend the mission or come home in April.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadians-trade-fire-with-isis-as-military-waits-on-possible-extension-1.2955157


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2015)

Some great shots of inside the CP140M.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=67401&site=combatcamera

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=67376&site=combatcamera


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2015)

Survey says ....


> Support for Airstrike Mission Against ISIS Rises to 76% (up 12 points since start of mission); Majority (83%) Believes it’s a Combat Mission
> Seven in Ten (69%) Support the Use of Canadian Forces on the Ground in a Combat Mission against ISIS in Iraq
> 
> ( .... )
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Feb 2015)

The results of that poll must really be giving the Liberals conniption fits.  I know it has been noted that JT is doing a very fast back pedal joined by Mr's Leslie and Garneau.  They probably look similar to a synchronised swimming team and if you can picture them in Borat Mankinis too boot, well...  ;D

Hoots of dismay have also been muted from Ms. May as of late too.  It's about the only thing the CPC have going correctly for it at the moment that the others can't do a damn thing about.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> this is a sad statement but far better a bomb than a knife or one of their other favoured methods of execution.  At least the bomb is unexpected and relatively quick and her torment has now ended.



stuff happens in wartime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Carthage

although I doubt very much it was bombs that killed her


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Feb 2015)

This CP story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, reports that another CF18 mission was flown last Friday. Of interest, it also notes that DND has requested a supplemental estimate to cover the costs of this mission, among other items.

Canadian jets destroyed Islamic State bomb factory on Friday:

By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Feb 19 2015

OTTAWA - The military says Canadian CF-18 fighter jets conducted a single attack in Iraq last week, leading a coalition strike that destroyed a factory making improved explosive devices.

Navy Capt. Paul Forget says the attack on Friday was a success.

He says coalition air attacks and Iraqi ground efforts continue to degrade the operational ability of the group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Since the Canadian mission began last fall, CF-18s have flown 328 missions.

A Canadian Polaris tanker aircraft has flown 82 sorties and delivered more than two million kilograms of fuel to coalition aircraft.

Forget says another 91 missions flown by Canadian Aurora reconnaissance planes bring the total number of Canadian sorties to 501.

The update came on the same day that the government fufilled a promise to release more information on the cost of the war against ISIL.

National Defence, through the latest round of supplementary spending estimates, asked for a budget top-up to the end of the fiscal year of $139 million, of which $122 million was for the combat mission in Iraq.

An additional $17 million is being sought for expenses related to Canadian involvement in the NATO mission to eastern Europe, which took place in the aftermath of Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Until Defence Minister Jason Kenney finally broke the government's silence this week, the Conservatives had been under fire for refusing to disclose the cost of deploying CF-18s and special forces advisers in the war-ravaged nation.

The additional budget request released Thursday shows that the bombing campaign itself accounts for $73 million of the Iraq war costs.

Canada has also deployed up 69 special forces advisers in northern Iraq, who took along vehicles and other specialized equipment.

Kenney warned earlier this week that the costs would increase if the government chooses to extend the mission — something that by all indications appears to be a likely possibility.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2015)

And here's a breakdown of the incremental costs for Op IMPACT (as well as a bit of $ for Op REASSURANCE) ....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Feb 2015)

> leading a coalition strike that destroyed a factory making improved explosive devices.



I beleive this si the first time that we have led an attack.  Well done.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Feb 2015)

Nope, not the first time.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Feb 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Nope, not the first time.



Just the first time anyone has mentioned it.


----------



## Armymedic (21 Feb 2015)

IMHO: If this mission gets extended, you will likely see a larger SF task force, and additional Regular Forces support in the form of medical and logistical units being pushed in to form a more substantial logistics chain home. It also would not surprise me if select small groups of Cbt arms have the opportunity to come in the form of force protection.

Conservative government has a majority and is making political hay of this mission. It would not hurt them to expand it now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2015)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> IMHO: If this mission gets extended, you will likely see a larger SF task force, and additional Regular Forces support in the form of medical and logistical units being pushed in to form a more substantial logistics chain home. It also would not surprise me if select small groups of Cbt arms have the opportunity to come in the form of force protection.
> 
> Conservative government has a majority and is making political hay of this mission. It would not hurt them to expand it now.


As long as folks still support the mission in general (usual caveats re:  any polling), and in spite of the howling of the opposition, this might be enough of a nudge up to increase our presence while still keeping it palatable to the voters.


----------



## Zoomie (21 Feb 2015)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> select small groups of Cbt arms have the opportunity to come in the form of force protection.


Force protection for what assets?  Our RCAF brethren are fully ensconced on well defended ally installations.  We didn't even use the army as gate guards at Mirage - just off-duty flight crew.

It will be interesting times indeed if this mission gets extended/expanded - maybe a reversal to the budgetary needs?


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2015)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> IMHO: If this mission gets extended, you will likely see a larger SF task force, and additional Regular Forces support in the form of medical and logistical units being pushed in to form a more substantial logistics chain home.



And speaking of an extended mission (with an  expanded mandate)...

CBC



> *Canada considers taking fight against ISIS to Libya, Syria*
> CBC – 2 hours 44 minutes ago
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney has indicated the government is not ruling out taking Canada's military mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group beyond Iraq — to Syria and Libya.
> ...


----------



## Tow Tripod (21 Feb 2015)

Say what you want but peace and security is more important in Central Europe than a few thousand wing nuts in the Middle East.


----------



## MJP (21 Feb 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Force protection for what assets?  Our RCAF brethren are fully ensconced on well defended ally installations.  We didn't even use the army as gate guards at Mirage - just off-duty flight crew.



Nope,  there may have a time when this was true but I was army and part of the force protection crew in 2003.  It was army folks in 2004 when we were on our way to Kabul and army reservists when I transistioned through in 2006.


----------



## Zoomie (22 Feb 2015)

Are we both talking about the same staging base? Mirage (aka UAE)?  My timeframe for the aircrew standing guard would be 2005-2008.


----------



## MJP (22 Feb 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Are we both talking about the same staging base? Mirage (aka UAE)?  My timeframe for the aircrew standing guard would be 2005-2008.



Yes, Mirage.  I didn't go through after 2006 so I can't speak onif it changed.  But 2003-2006 it was  combat arms (reg/reg) task.  Before we arrived in 2003 the MPs who had a million people there who did the guard duty.


----------



## Armymedic (23 Feb 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Force protection for what assets?  Our RCAF brethren are fully ensconced on well defended ally installations.  We didn't even use the army as gate guards at Mirage - just off-duty flight crew.



Don't limit yourself to the past. The Army will be looking for tasks to play in the new theater as it matures. And this will be especially true if the Conservative renew thier majority in the fall.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2015)

CBC News is reporting that "Andrew Joseph Doiron, Petawawa, Ont. [has been] killed in Iraq: 1st Canadian soldier killed in Iraq was based at Garrison Petawawa, according to Canadian Forces"

This is the picture posted by CBC News:







The CBC says he was killed by "friendly fire," specifically: "Members of the Special Operations Forces were mistakenly engaged by Iraqi Kurdish forces following their return to an observation post behind the front lines," and "three other soldiers were injured and were being treated in Iraq."


----------



## JS2218 (8 Mar 2015)

Very sad. RIP  

And then there's this...



> *Kurdish official blames Canadians for soldier’s death*
> 
> BRAM JANSSEN
> IRBIL, Iraq — The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2015)

The partisan-media controversy now begins.  Hopefully, our politicians can direct themselves away from turning Sgt Doiron into a political tool.



> Defence minister disputes Kurdish account of 'friendly fire' incident in Iraq
> Michelle Zilio and Emily Chan
> CTV News
> 08 Mar 2015
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-minister-disputes-kurdish-account-of-friendly-fire-incident-in-iraq-1.2269444


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Mar 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The partisan-media controversy now begins.  Hopefully, our politicians can direct themselves away from turning Sgt Doiron into a political tool.
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-minister-disputes-kurdish-account-of-friendly-fire-incident-in-iraq-1.2269444



My read of the NDP comments tells me that ship has already sailed and isn't likely to return to port.  Why focus on facts when you can stir the pot right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Mar 2015)

True enough, but for Minister Kenney to make stupid statements such as "It was not at the front because the OP was 200 meters from the front" is like saying "it was not downtown Toronto because it was 200 meters from the corner of King and Bay street". It not only is stupid as a statement, but also sounds stupid to the Canadian population, not to mention dishonest. Even some of the least educated Canadians know that this is not a WWI situation with a specifically defined "line" considered the Front, and that by almost definition, an OP is at a place where fighting is likely and thus "at the front". Minister Kenney's statement makes him either deceitful or ignorant to most people.

Much better was the explanation given by retired Colonel Petrolakos (? not sure on the spelling or exact name) on CTV: The SOF personnel are not involved in combat operations - that is they do not actively participate in actions against the enemy, but their role as adviser and trainer can take them anywhere, including near or at the front, in order to advise properly and assess the training they gave their counterparts. They however, do not fight except when needed to defend themselves. He then indicated that such were the terms of service from the starts of the deployment and that what they were doing at the time of the incident was clearly within those terms.

Why could Kenney not be so clear and forthcoming?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> True enough, but for Minister Kenney to make stupid statements such as "It was not at the front because the OP was 200 meters from the front" is like saying "it was not downtown Toronto because it was 200 meters from the corner of King and Bay street".



because clearly real bullets don't travel further than 200m  :facepalm: ISIS must only shoot at the Kurds with paintball guns???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> True enough, but for Minister Kenney to make stupid statements such as "It was not at the front because the OP was 200 meters from the front" is like saying "it was not downtown Toronto because it was 200 meters from the corner of King and Bay street". It not only is stupid as a statement, but also sounds stupid to the Canadian population, not to mention dishonest. Even some of the least educated Canadians know that this is not a WWI situation with a specifically defined "line" considered the Front, and that by almost definition, an OP is at a place where fighting is likely and thus "at the front". Minister Kenney's statement makes him either deceitful or ignorant to most people.



I disagree.  I also dont expect civilians regardless of occupation or position to understand and be able to articulate military terms and concepts the way serving members do.   We aren't even able to do it ourselves across the RCN, Cdn Army and RCAF, nor between trades and classifications.  Why would we expect any civilian to be able to do something we can't?   Can the average MARS officer explain how all arms call for fire works?  Can an infantry platoon commander speak aabout RMP and ASUW?  If they do will it be without error?

However you have indicated that there is no "front", a concept I suggest civilians see in their head as a straight line between 2 armies.  In my 25 years in uniform (17 army) we never used the term front.  We did use FEBA, LOD, FLOT, Rear areas, and such to identify various areas in the battle space/AOR.   Even in WWII the "front" wasnt a straight line and blue on blue happened.   War is waged by humans and humans make mistakes, more so under stress and under fire.

Concepts like FEBAs and FLOTs might seem trival to many, and IMO those many are the people who are lucky enough to never have to operate in or above them.

If the front is so difficult to point to distinctly on a map because as you say, there really isn't one,  I find it hard to understand how anyone not in theatre can determine if troops are behind, beside, or in front of it.  

When I did army stuff, there were imaginary lines on the ground, say a report line, a phase line, a LOD or a boundary.   200m behind the LOD was not on or across it, it was behind it.  I see 200m behind the FLOT as behind the FLOT.  It's not on it or past it.  It's behind.  If I was told to remain 200m behind a phase line until H hour +5, I was as close as tactically possible to that 200m and there was not a thing wrong with that;  that is how tactical control measures are trained and used in my experience on the ground and in the air.

FWIW, I have done OPs in the BAA as part of a RAS task before, no where near "the front".

I also highly doubt the average Canadian knows what the letters O.P. or L.P. even stand for let alone what they are and how they are used.



> Much better was the explanation given by retired Colonel Petrolakos (? not sure on the spelling or exact name) on CTV: The SOF personnel are not involved in combat operations - that is they do not actively participate in actions against the enemy, but their role as adviser and trainer can take them anywhere, including near or at the front, in order to advise properly and assess the training they gave their counterparts. They however, do not fight except when needed to defend themselves. He then indicated that such were the terms of service from the starts of the deployment and that what they were doing at the time of the incident was clearly within those terms.
> 
> Why could Kenney not be so clear and forthcoming?



Ref what I said above, expecting a politician to explain military concepts with the clarity a Senior Officer can is unrealistic.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Much better was the explanation given by retired Colonel Petrolakos (? not sure on the spelling or exact name) on CTV: The SOF personnel are not involved in combat operations - that is they do not actively participate in actions against the enemy, but their role as adviser and trainer can take them anywhere, including near or at the front, in order to advise properly and assess the training they gave their counterparts .... Why could Kenney not be so clear and forthcoming?


Because if the Minister used those words, the headline would be "Minister Admits Canadian Troops Can Be in Combat".  Also, there's that little thing about the PM saying "the troops won't accompany the good guys into the fight".


			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> because clearly real bullets don't travel further than 200m  :facepalm: ISIS must only shoot at the Kurds with paintball guns???


This is what you get when the Message o' the Day is "Canadian troops are _*not*_ on a combat mission."

Meanwhile, a bit more of the latest from Kurdish media:


> The Kurdistan Region’s Peshmerga Ministry has opened an investigation into the shooting incident in which a Canadian military adviser was killed and two others injured near the Bashiqa frontline, north of Mosul.
> 
> At 1 a.m. on Saturday morning, a Canadian commando was killed after Peshmerga fighters mistook him and two of his colleagues for Islamic militants and opened fire on them as they approached a frontline at night.
> 
> ...


----------



## Valhrafn (8 Mar 2015)

JS2218 said:
			
		

> Very sad. RIP
> 
> And then there's this...


RIP SGT Doiron

Here's part of an article from the CBC:

"When they returned, the peshmerga asked them to identify themselves," Hekmat told the AP. "They answered in Arabic, that's when peshmerga started shooting. It was their fault."

But a high-level Canadian government source disputed that account, telling CBC News that Doiron and three fellow soldiers were a couple hundred metres from the front line and had pre-arranged a rendezvous with Kurdish troops that went awry. 

The Canadian team had been at the location earlier in the day "to co-ordinate events to take place later" and had arranged a time to return that night, with pre-determined signals to identify themselves to the Kurdish troops, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Special forces don't freelance," he said, disputing the Kurdish account that they showed up unannounced. He added that the soldiers had operated using this system before.

The Canadians arrived for the rendezvous and were acknowledged by two separate groups of peshmerga fighters without incident, the source said. A third peshmerga group, however, engaged them by opening fire. 

Separately, Defence Minister Jason Kenney was also adamant that the Canadian soldiers were well behind the front lines when Doiron was killed. "They were approaching a Kurdish observation post behind the forward operating line," he said in an interview with CBC News. "They clearly identified themselves, and our understanding is that they were given permission to proceed toward the observation post...."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/andrew-doiron-s-death-in-iraq-sparks-dispute-over-what-happened-1.2986169


----------



## Armymedic (9 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Even some of the least educated Canadians know that this is not a WWI situation with a specifically defined "line" considered the Front, and that by almost definition, an OP is at a place where fighting is likely and thus "at the front".



You are incorrect in your assumption. There are clearly defined front lines in that region.




> On Saturday Peshmerga Commander Mosa Gardi on the Bashiqa frontline told BasNews that the Canadian advisors were in Erbil being treated for their injuries.
> 
> “On Friday night there was intensive fighting between Peshmerga and IS militants, when the insurgents attacked our forces in Qapani village near Bashiqa, north of Mosul,” said Gardi.
> 
> “During fighting the Canadian advisers left their vehicle and walked to the area. They got very close to the fighting without our coordination and when the Peshmerga saw them, they asked who they were. The Canadians answered in Arabic, leading the Peshmerga to believe they were IS militants, and shot them,” revealed the commander



Complete and utter bull crap.


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2015)

Federal parties would do well to avoid politicizing death of Canadian soldier
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/08/michael-den-tandt-federal-parties-would-do-well-to-avoid-politicizing-death-of-canadian-soldier/
Michael Den Tandt | March 8, 2015 

It would be a comfort indeed if Canada’s political class, setting aside partisanship as they’ve so often said they’d like to do, were to avoid crassly transforming the death of Sgt. Andrew Joseph Doiron in Iraq, apparently by “friendly” fire, into a political football. It would be a comfort but it is not at all likely. In an election year the temptation for all three federal parties to politicize this, and other casualties that may follow, will be nigh irresistible. That is lamentable.

Sgt. Doiron, and other Canadian Forces members waging war on Canada’s behalf against the Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham, deserve better than the misguided, hypocritical and often ignorant jaw-boning that characterized the early debate in Ottawa over the Afghan mission, as casualties there began to mount.

To start, we may as well cut straight to it: Were Sgt. Doiron’s death and the injuries of three of his fellow soldiers the result of a combat mission, or mere training? This will inevitably be the axis of political discussion, just as it was in the Afghan war debates between 2006 and 2009. Now, as so often back then, the answer is this: Of course it’s combat, and of course, based on the mission parameters, it’s training. It can be both. It often is.

Axis Number Two: Since Sgt. Doiron’s death is being put down to a tragic misunderstanding, whose fault was it? In the wake of reports Sunday that the Kurdish Peshmerga have blamed the Canadians for disobeying an instruction to remain in their car, this will become the next political question of the hour. Are Canadian special forces soldiers properly trained for their mission? Did they have clear rules of engagement? As is customary, Monday-morning quarterbacking from the Opposition benches will be carefully veiled in assurances that these are merely questions being raised on our soldiers’ behalf, for their own protection. Whereas the Conservative government will treat any and all Opposition questions about the mission as expressions of surly disloyalty to the troops, if not outright sympathy for the enemy.
More on link


----------



## PanaEng (9 Mar 2015)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> You are incorrect in your assumption. There are clearly defined front lines in that region.
> 
> 
> Complete and utter bull crap.



You have a source to back up your comment?


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2015)

*A Rare Interview with a Canadian Commander Fighting the Islamic State*

http://www.vice.com/read/vice-speaks-to-a-canadian-commander-fighting-isis-in-iraq-273



> If Canada's CF-18 Hornet fighter jets are the muscle in the nation's war against the Islamic State, then its CP-140 Auroras are the eyes and ears.
> 
> The high-tech surveillance aircraft are arguably the most advanced manned reconnaissance aircraft in the world, and they're Canada's secret weapon in outsmarting the Islamic State's evolving tactics.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2015)

In addition to the Kurdish investigation, the Iraqi Government has committed to look into the friendly fire incident:


> Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Tuesday spoke to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and promised that Baghdad would investigate the killing of a Canadian soldier in a “friendly fire” incident with Peshmerga forces.
> 
> Last week on the Bashiqa frontline, north of Mosul, Peshmerga forces shot and killed the Canadian soldier and wounded three more.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Mar 2015)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> You have a source to back up your comment?



Nothing that can be posted on here.


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Mar 2015)

Sorry folks, I've totally lost my religion where this mission is concerned. I'm not in the military anymore so I don't feel I have to be silent where government policy is concerned. Western intervention in the Middle East has caused nothing but chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. and this goes back as far as the First World War era and you all know it. Canada has no strategic interest in this conflict and we have no particular strategy apart from tagging along with the rest of the "coalition" in this ill-defined effort to "degrade" ISIS. ISIS is as evil as it gets, yes, but they're no more evil than Saudi Arabia and we never stop kissing the Saudi royal family's rear end, eg. when the king died no fewer than TWENTY U.S. officials attended the funeral. SA have beheaded more people in the last three months than ISIS. If our government said "We are in Iraq to help defend Kurdistan. Period." I would support that mission because these people somehow miraculously are culturally immune from the usual Islamic tribal conflict of most of the region, and actually seem to WANT a modern democratic and pluralist society. But that's not why we're there. Why are we there? We need to get out of there because we are not going to achieve any kind of positive outcome (look at Libya, come on honestly) and we're just delaying the inevitable, i.e. these people killing each other until they get tired of it and they've settled all their ethnic and Sunni-Shia issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Mar 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Sorry folks, I've totally lost my religion where this mission is concerned. I'm not in the military anymore so I don't feel I have to be silent where government policy is concerned. Western intervention in the Middle East has caused nothing but chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. and this goes back as far as the First World War era and you all know it. Agreed  Canada has no strategic interest in this conflict and we have no particular strategy apart from tagging along with the rest of the "coalition" in this ill-defined effort to "degrade" ISIS.  Disagree: we do have an "interest," it is to show active support for the USA. Many Canadians may not like it but "doing our share" is a cornerstone of our foreign policy; so is accepting US 'leadership,' even (maybe especially) when it is suspect.  ISIS is as evil as it gets, yes, but they're no more evil than Saudi Arabia and we never stop kissing the Saudi royal family's rear end, eg. when the king died no fewer than TWENTY U.S. officials attended the funeral. SA have beheaded more people in the last three months than ISIS.  Agreed!!!  If our government said "We are in Iraq to help defend Kurdistan. Period." I would support that mission because these people somehow miraculously are culturally immune from the usual Islamic tribal conflict of most of the region, and actually seem to WANT a modern democratic and pluralist society. But that's not why we're there. Why are we there?  I repeat: we're there to support the USA, even when it's flailing about like a blind, mindless, gigantic bull in a china shop.  We need to get out of there because we are not going to achieve any kind of positive outcome  Agreed (look at Libya, come on honestly) and we're just delaying the inevitable, i.e. these people killing each other until they get tired of it and they've settled all their ethnic and Sunni-Shia issues. Agreed, again


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Mar 2015)

Mr. Campbell, I get your point. It may be that supporting the US is ultimately in our stategic interests, to the point that it overrides all other concerns, but what if the US were completely isolationist, and non-interventionist with regard to anything happening in the world? Would that mean that we should also then be completely isolationist? Or would we have to go looking for another leader to follow, rather than having an independent foreign policy?


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Mar 2015)

I personally am having a hard time accepting that Canadian soldiers were shot to pieces just so we can be seen to supporting the USA. We do have our own interests in that region now, namely that it seems to be a place where some young Canadians who have become deranged have decided to fight for religion and kill innocent people on the streets of Iraq, Syria, and Canada. The war is also here, now. 

Even if the US was to pull away from the region, would we not at least have some consideration about the foregoing?   Do we stand for nothing but supporting the interests of a self indulgent nation to our south that is suffering from a severe case of ADD and memory lapse? I think not, I hope not, I will not.


----------



## PanaEng (12 Mar 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Nothing that can be posted on here.


Here are your clearly defined front lines:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/54f85dedecad04621e6eb466-954-702/screen%20shot%202015-03-05%20at%208.44.27%20am.png
from one source. It would be a stretch to say that the front lines are clearly defined.
Here is another, a bit older, that clearly does not show well defined front likes: http://static.businessinsider.com/image/548050686bb3f714404d6d65-1200/image.jpg


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2015)

Ok.


----------



## McG (12 Mar 2015)

A lot of articles today with a headline that MND has denied the Canadian contingent in Iraq will grow, but the details in the narrative seem to suggest he only denied the possibility of an increased CANSOF contingent.  Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister hints that our future involvement in Iraq may have similarities to Afghanistan.  It seems pretty clear that he is talking about foreign aid investment.  But lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good rumour.  Clearly, the ministers are trying to tell us that the Canadian Army will step foot into Iraq as the dominante Canadian presence and likely filling a role akin to the Kabul training mission but possibly even a Kandahar like OMLT.

... and, no - I don't really suspect any of that.  There is nothing to actually support such a conclusion at this time.  That does not seem to stop opposition from hinting at such possiblity.


> *Kenney denies plan to boost force in Iraq*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 12 Mar 2015
> ...





> *Canada’s role in Iraq could mirror Afghanistan, foreign minister says*
> Kim Mackrael
> The Globe and Mail
> 05 Mar 2015
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/foreign-affairs-minister-nicholson-to-speak-about-secret-trip-to-iraq/article23305564/


----------



## PanaEng (13 Mar 2015)

some more on the events surrounding Sgt Doiron death.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-doiron-s-colleagues-held-fire-when-kurds-turned-guns-on-them-1.2993010



> Things went horribly wrong when they arrived at the third and final checkpoint. According to the Canadian investigation, a young, possibly inexperienced Peshmerga fighter near the roadblock suddenly opened fire when the code word was used.


----------



## McG (17 Mar 2015)

Get ready for another 12 months in Kuiwait, Iraq and maybe Syria.



> *ISIS mission: Canada extension could signal year-long commitment*
> Current mission to Iraq expires in April, but could possibly expand to Syria
> Murray Brewster
> CBC News
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-canada-extension-could-signal-year-long-commitment-1.2997425


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2015)

CTV has posted a short item on the National Newswatch site to the effect that PM Harper has announced that next week Parliament will be asked to extend the mission for a year.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> CTV has posted a short item on the National Newswatch site to the effect that PM Harper has announced that next week Parliament will be asked to extend the mission for a year.


A bit more on that ....


> The federal government will seek Parliament’s approval to extend and expand Canada’s mission against Islamic State militants in Iraq, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday.
> 
> Harper said he will put a motion before MPs when the House returns next week.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Mar 2015)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page

First half of March appears to have proven  fruitful.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Mar 2015)

Good reading.  The more cockroaches they stomp, the better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2015)

And here's the wording of the motion The Canadian Press is sharing:


> That, whereas
> (i) the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has repeatedly called on its members to target Canada and Canadians at home and abroad;
> 
> (ii) ISIL poses a clear and active threat to the people of the Middle East, including members of vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups who have been subjected to a brutal and barbaric campaign of sexual violence, murder, and intimidation by ISIL;
> ...


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2015)

I am surprised this bit was written as such:





> Accordingly, this House
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


It is still technically true (as it was when combat vs combat role first consumed the attention of media and Parlaimentarians), but it risks distracting discussion from substance to semantics (again).


----------



## dimsum (25 Mar 2015)

From Vice News:



> On Tuesday morning, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled his plan to extend his bombing campaign against the Islamic State, putting Canada on a short list of nations that have opted to launch airstrikes against the strongholds near the caliphate's capital.
> 
> Harper announced that Canada would be contributing personnel and planes to the mission until March 2016, and that Canadian fighter jets would be hitting targets in Syria for the first time.



https://news.vice.com/article/the-canadian-government-is-about-to-start-bombing-the-islamic-state-in-syria


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2015)

Kurds invite Canada to take part in Doiron death investigation:


> The Kurdistan Region’s Ministry of Peshmerga has announced that they are waiting for the results of an investigation into the death of a Canadian soldier, and the wounding of three others.
> 
> In a statement released on 17th March, the Peshmerga Ministry says that investigations are ongoing, and invited Canadian authorities to take part in the inquiry ....


----------



## dimsum (26 Mar 2015)

By Terry Glavin:



> Some sense of proportion: The death toll of 158 Canadian soldiers during more than a decade of hard-won gains in Afghanistan is only slightly greater than the number of dead Muslims — 137 innocents at last count – butchered in a single jihadist suicide bombing last week at a mosque in Yemen. Some further proportion: the contribution Prime Minister Harper is making to the half-baked U.S.-led coalition is only another year’s modest commitment of a mere half-dozen Canadian fighter jets, a couple of Aurora patrol planes and a Polaris transport plane, a ground crew and a few dozen Special Operations Regiment advisers and trainers up in Kurdistan.
> 
> You’d think we were invading Russia.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/25/terry-glavin-opposition-is-selling-fairy-tales-on-the-mission-against-isis-canadians-are-not-so-gullible/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Mar 2015)

That para gives a nice thanks to those deployed.  Lol


----------



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2015)

And Canada becomes the first western country that's also a US ally to approve air strikes against ISIS in Syria; until now the only nations joining the US air strikes over Syria had been Arab nations like the UAE and the Saudis:

Reuters



> *Canadian Parliament backs air strikes on Islamic State in Syria*
> Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:05pm EDT
> 
> TORONTO (Reuters) - Canadian legislators on Monday voted to back the government's plans to bomb Islamic State positions in Syria, a move that opposition parties say threatens to drag Canada into a long war.
> ...


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2015)

From:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-mps-pass-motion-to-support-extension-expansion-into-syria-1.3014511


> Should they form government, the NDP have said they'd immediately pull Canada out of the bombing campaign, and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said he would do the same.
> 
> The Liberals, would, however, increase the number of soldiers sent to train Iraqis to fight ISIS.
> 
> ...


What would an expanded resettlement program be?  Is that solving the region's problems by exporting its victims to Canada, or building new cities in neighbouring countries?

A bigger training mission would probably make a few people happy.  It could create opportunity for the Army to join the RCAF and CANSOFCOM with a visible role in this mission.


----------



## dimsum (31 Mar 2015)

From former CDS, Gen (Ret'd) Rick Hillier on FB:



> Some of those who are elected to political office, in our Parliament, as our leaders should be ashamed today. 37 of them could not find it a high enough priority to be in the House of Commons when Parliament voted to extend and expand the mission against ISIL. They could not prioritize their lives and schedules sufficiently to be there when that most sacred trust - sending Canada's sons and daughters in harms way, to do violent things on our behalf - was decided. Shame on you. I'd like to hear each of them explain their priorities and why they could not be in the House to each of the moms and dads, husbands and wives and children of those we are sending and who there now. It pisses me off!



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-general-rick-hillier-angry-at-mp-no-shows-for-isis-vote-1.3016401

Vote for it, vote against it, whatever.  At least show up to work and do your job.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From former CDS, Gen (Ret'd) Rick Hillier on FB:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-general-rick-hillier-angry-at-mp-no-shows-for-isis-vote-1.3016401
> 
> Vote for it, vote against it, whatever.  At least show up to work and do your job.



Retired B/Gen Gordon O'Conner was one of the MIA.  I am disgusted by his missing the vote.  Pathetic.


----------



## cavalryman (31 Mar 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From former CDS, Gen (Ret'd) Rick Hillier on FB:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-general-rick-hillier-angry-at-mp-no-shows-for-isis-vote-1.3016401
> 
> Vote for it, vote against it, whatever.  At least show up to work and do your job.



I see Rick's lost none of his bombast.  Telling though that the majority of unjustified absences were from the government benches.  Very few unjustified absences on the Liberal and NDP benches.  Make of that what you will.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I see Rick's lost none of his bombast.  Telling though that the majority of unjustified absences were from the government benches.  Very few unjustified absences on the Liberal and NDP benches.  Make of that what you will.




MPs routinely do something called "pairing:" when one MP wants to/needs to miss a vote he will ask an MP from the opposite side to "pair" with him and also miss it, thus keeping the results in balance. It is good, accepted parliamentary practice. I didn't count the votes but I'm wiling to bet that many of the _no shows_ were properly paired.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (31 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> MPs routinely do something called "pairing:" when one MP wants to/needs to miss a vote he will ask an MP from the opposite side to "pair" with him and also miss it, thus keeping the results in balance. It is good, accepted parliamentary practice. I didn't count the votes but I'm wiling to bet that many of the _no shows_ were properly paired.



Math doesn't quite add up for the no shows being paired to miss; 
19 members of the governing party missed the vote, whereas only 9 members of the oppostion, both NDP and Liberals weren't there to vote. 

*Edit: counted again, and with independent no shows the number for opposing absent members is 13.  I'm working on my ABC's this week, I'll practice my numbers a bit more later.


----------



## Privateer (31 Mar 2015)

The CBC article said that no "pairs" were recorded, which I took to mean that (it appears that) there were no pairs.  I have seen pairing recorded in Hansard when it happens... 

Just checked Hansard.  It shows pairs as "nil" for the vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The CBC article said that no "pairs" were recorded, which I took to mean that (it appears that) there were no pairs.  I have seen pairing recorded in Hansard when it happens...
> 
> Just checked Hansard.  It shows pairs as "nil" for the vote.




Then I suspect some CPC MPs are going to be in trouble because my understanding was that the PM wanted a _double line whip_ on this vote.


----------



## GAP (31 Mar 2015)

From what I can see, they are mostly the B or even the C team members.......


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Apr 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> From what I can see, they are mostly the B or even the C team members.......


I'd say three cabinet ministers are more than just B Team members not voting.  We'll see how much trouble they get into - or not - for not showing up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Apr 2015)

Article / March 30, 2015

By: Air Task Force – Iraq Public Affairs

CAMP PATRICE VINCENT, KUWAIT—Canada’s military commitment to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant includes the deployment of Air Task Force Iraq (ATF-I), consisting of several aircraft types and crews who operate over hostile portions of Iraq every day. 

These dedicated aircrew are highly trained to conduct their missions in support of the Middle East Stabilization Force, including mandatory advanced training in survival, evasion, resistance to interrogation, and escape; also known as SERE training. While Op IMPACT RCAF aircrew are fully trained in SERE and Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) procedures, the desert environment poses its own unique challenges, including lack of cover from potential enemy forces and hot weather that can quickly cause dehydration.

To help keep their SERE skills at their peak, ATF-I aircrew recently joined several Coalition aircrew to participate in a CSAR exercise, known as the  “SHAMAL SERIALS”, led by the U.S. Army’s 34th Combat Aviation Brigade in Kuwait. The ATF-I aircrew who participated in this exercise were a mix of pilots, air combat systems officers, and airborne electronic sensor operators.

“Overall, the feeling I got from the eight members of my crew who participated was quite positive; they learned quite a bit about CSAR and really enjoyed their experience,” said a CP-140 Aurora aircraft commander with ATF-I’s Long Range Patrol Detachment.

The day-long exercise took place in a barren training area equipped with mock-up villages and ranges. Participants were dropped off by helicopter in the desert and made their way on foot between training stations.  At each stop, the participants received instruction from American experts in personnel recovery.

The ATF-I aircrew were able to refresh their skills using a ground-to-air radio to call for help and extraction, as well as practice their emergency first aid skills through the use of tourniquets and other field dressings.  Aircrew also practiced more traditional skills such as shooting compass bearings and using a mirror to signal rescue aircraft in the event their radio was lost or damaged.

“The practical demonstrations of the teaching points greatly enhanced learning,” said one captain. “This included the use of actual AH-64 Apache helicopters when calling for Emergency Close Air Support (ECAS).”

The ECAS station was taught by Joint Terminal Attack Controllers of the United States Air Force.  The purpose of ECAS is to provide combat air support to downed aircrew, protecting their escape or location until rescue aircraft can arrive.  The training involved exercise participants locating and describing targets in a mock-up village and requesting Apache gunship support.

U.S. Army instructors concluded the exercise serials by providing advice on tactical drills when escaping from an urban area, as well as marksmanship principles during a live-fire 9mm pistol range to prepare aircrew in the event that they have to defend themselves. With the pistol shoots complete, aircrew then walked to a designated rendezvous where they were extracted by helicopter for evacuation back to camp.

“This exercise took two months to plan and we usually try to do at least one serial a month for our pilots,” said a US 34th Combat Aviation Brigade Sergeant 1st Class who helped plan the event. “We typically run them to requalify our own members, predominantly helicopter crews; but we were happy to learn that the Canadians and [other coalition members] were able to come this time.”

 Article and images link


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2015)

Canada's first air strike in Syria is complete.  Two CF-18 joined eight other allied aircraft, hitting an ISIS garrison.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-canada-conducts-1st-airstrike-in-syria-1.3025559


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2015)

From the Info-machine:


> Today, Canada's CF-18 Hornets conducted their first airstrike in Syria since the Government’s decision to extend and expand Operation IMPACT, Canada’s military contribution to the US-led coalition against the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
> 
> Following the planning and coordination process conducted with our coalition partners, two Canadian CF-18s, using precision-guided munitions, were involved in an airstrike against an ISIL garrison near Ar Raqqah, Syria. A total of 10 coalition aircraft, including six aircraft from the US were involved in this airstrike ....


----------



## JS2218 (11 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Retired B/Gen Gordon O'Conner was one of the MIA.  I am disgusted by his missing the vote.  Pathetic.



Have you called or emailed to ask where he was? Some of them were across the world (i.e. Vietnam) on legitimate parliamentary business. Mr. O'Connor has had health problems owing to his age. *Hopefully* they all had a valid reason.


----------



## dimsum (16 Apr 2015)

Another piece on the Aurora from Matthew Fisher on the National Post, and yes the "C-140" is a typo:



> During a recent seven-hour intelligence-gathering mission that mostly took place to the west and north of Baghdad, the C-140 Aurora crew that Brig. Gen. Daniel Constable flew with observed an intense firefight between the jihadist fighters and Iraqi security forces near the disputed town of Fallujah.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/flying-with-the-canadians-fighting-isil-from-above-iraq-and-syria


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

Great article IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

Article Link 

Canada punching above its weight in fight against ISIL forces, U.S. military commander say

A Base Somewhere in Southwest Asia — A senior planner closely involved in directing the U.S.-led coalition’s air war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant says that Canada had contributed far more to the campaign than the relatively small number of Canadian Special Forces personnel and aircraft might suggest.

“I would submit it is a combination of all the coalition contributions that come together to produce capability. It is the sum of all the parts, if you will, and Canada is a key coalition member,” U.S. Marine Brig.-Gen. Tom Weidley said in an interview at a secret base in the desert where coalition commanders, including some Canadian officers, both collect and analyze intelligence from the battlefields in Iraq and Syria and advise Kurdish and Iraqi forces.

Canada’s deployment of approximately 70 Special Forces advisers with Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq and of 9 RCAF aircraft that have been flying missions out of Kuwait were significant force multipliers, said the general, who commanded a Super Cobra assault helicopter squadron that flew combat missions in Iraq when the U.S. had ground forces there.

Elaborating on the mission of Canada’s elite trainers, whose presence in Iraq has until now largely been clouded in secrecy, Weidley said, “They provide training, education and their experiences to the Kurdish Peshmerga, whether in the conduct of operations, in the integration of aviation fire support or in terminal control advice. They become integral to what the Peshmerga are capable of doing.”

In what were the first public comments from an American general about Canada’s role in the war against ISIL, Weidley added: “Every Peshmerga fighter the Canadians touch enhances a future Peshmerga leader. Those intangibles grow over time. That Peshmerga fighter is going to train his subordinates and it continues to grow as that leader moves up in the chain. Small numbers of trainers have the ability to make a huge impact across the battle space.”

About 6,500 hand-picked Iraqi and Peshmerga security forces had already been trained for between four and six weeks each at five different centres and about 5,000 more were currently in training, according to the general.

The Canadians and mentors from other Western nations such as Britain, France and the Netherlands have been providing training in everything from the law of war, basic marksmanship and counter-IED skills to mine clearing, the integration of aviation fire and squad, platoon and company level attacks.

“We are not looking to create Canadian-equivalent infantry battalion structures,” Weidley said. “The goal is to take those Iraqi units and get them to a level where they can be successful against Daesh (the Arabic acronym for ISIL) in the current fight.”

Although well back from the front lines, Weidley looked very much like a Marine straight out of Central Casting. Barrel-chested with ramrod straight posture, he sported a brush cut that looked as if you could polish shoes with it. Using common Marine parlance, he described the Canadian troops now serving in the Middle East as “brothers.”

Liberal Justin Trudeau has mocked the fighting abilities of Canada’s Hornet fighter jets and the fact that they were more than 30 years old.

While unaware of those remarks, the general said the RCAF’s warplanes were “an absolutely capable platform in this environment. They provide a great deal of flexibility in the ordnance they can carry in order to address different targets. They have a tremendous array of sensors and data sharing capabilities.”

As for the Aurora spy aircraft, “I have seen some of the products that they have provided and they are superb,” he said. “It is the synthesis of that ability to rapidly bring that information to bear that has an operational effect on the battle space. Working in combination with the other intelligence gathering platforms they give us a fused picture of what is actually happening on the ground.”

An area of great interest to Weidley’s headquarters was the Euphrates River Valley, all the way from Iraq to the Syrian city of Raqqa and beyond that to the northwest toward the Turkish border.

“Because they control the lines of communication those have become the focus of a lot of our intelligence collection in order to strike at Daesh’s revenue generating capabilities with oil refineries and wells,” Weidley said. “Coalition ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities including Canadian ones are helping us develop an understanding of the networks that Daesh uses to distribute weapons and move troops from Syria to Iraq. It is a lot of space and takes a lot of dedicated assets to do that.”

While it was difficult to “quantitatively” gauge the success of the coalition and their Iraqi and Kurdish partners “we continue to see progress every day,” he said. Proof of this, he said, was that territory had recently been regained from ISIS after what had been large-scale offensive Iraqi and Kurdish operations.

“This isn’t a near-term fight. It is a fight that is going to take some time.”


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2015)

As of 15 April 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 778 sorties:

- CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 506 sorties;

- CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 131 sorties, delivering some 7,701,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; 

- and CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 141 reconnaissance missions.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2015)

BZ CANSOF  

‘The Canadians are among our most important guys': Peshmerga praise elite commandos in fight against ISIL

BASHIQA MOUNTAIN, Iraq — It is clear from talking with front line Kurdish Peshmerga that Canadian special forces have done more on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant than their coalition partners, including the U.S., and are going to play a critical part in the coming action to expel these fanatical hardliners from Mosul.

The silence from Canadian Special Operations Forces Command about this fits with the secretive unit’s habitual reluctance to allow media access of any kind to its commandos when they are forward deployed or after they return from such missions. But it does not fully explain why CANSOFCOM has declined requests by Postmedia since last fall for general information from its operators here on what has been described as a training mission.

In a first, CANSOFCOM opened the door slightly earlier this year when it acknowledged in Ottawa that a few of the approximately 70 advisers it has in Iraq had defended themselves several times by shooting back when they were fired upon by ISIL jihadists. This was revealed before the tragic death of Sgt. Andrew Doiron in a friendly-fire incident with the Peshmerga on March 6 on a barren ridge that has a strategically crucial view of Mosul, one of the places where this war will be won or lost.

During interviews conducted in the autonomous region’s capital, Erbil, and in two location at the front, five Kurdish Peshmerga generals and a slew of junior officers and foot soldiers praised the elite commandos from the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and Joint Task Force 2. This was not simply the Peshmerga being polite to a visitor. They stressed again and again how immensely grateful they were to Canada for the unique role CSOR and JTF2 have been playing in the war against ISIL.

An infantry general responsible for a stretch of the front near Kirkuk told me he was envious because the Canadians were deployed with a fellow general he had visited near Mosul. Another infantry general told me “the Canadians are among our most important guys.”

American and French advisers have been on the front lines from time to time, the Peshmerga told me. But the consensus was that Canada has been more willing to go deep into the field to help them than any other country.

The difference between Canada and its partners in this fight against a resourceful, particularly vicious foe, is in how Ottawa has defined its training and mentoring role with the Peshmerga. Like Britain, Australia and New Zealand, among others, Canada has offered a range of courses inside protected training bases on how to fight.

But as near as I can tell — and this is a world where operatives seldom confirm anything — Canada is the only nation in the U.S.-led coalition that has regularly sent teams of military spotters far forward to identify ISIL targets and the only country whose observers have used lasers to pinpoint those targets for coalition warplanes to destroy.

To know what ISIL is doing and to direct air power to try to stop them, Peshmerga serving near Mosul told me that almost every night and sometimes during the day, Canada moves small groups of special forces to within shouting distance of ISIL positions.

Small wonder, then, that Canadians have come under attack or been caught in the crossfire a few times. While admitting that it was Peshmerga troops who killed Doiron, one senior officer told me that on the night that the Moncton, N.B., native died the Peshmerga and ISIL had also exchanged gunfire in the same area.
I know from having stood with the Peshmerga on the same ridge that Canadian forward air controllers have operated from that they have been close enough to ISIL fighters to see their quarry and their black flags and to hear them talk with each other over their two-way radios using their “noms de guerre,” always preceded by the honorific “abu”, which means “father of” in Arabic.

Another noteworthy thing that Canada has done that their Western partners apparently have not, is to have a few of its advisers camp a short distance behind the front, so that the Peshmerga can easily slip away from their heavily fortified bunkers to a nearby staging area to be mentored in a broad range of military skills before quickly returning to the fight. Canada has also been the only country to provide the Peshmerga with high-tech demining robots that work by remote control.

None of this means that Ottawa has taken up a combat mission in Iraq. The special forces it has in Iraq are too few in number and too lightly armed to undertake even modest offensive operations. The weapons the Canadians have with them are only sufficient to defend themselves against attack.

It would compromise operational security for CANSOFCOM to provide specific details about what its troops have been doing on Bashiqa Mountain and elsewhere in northern Iraq. But Canadians should at least be told that their most highly trained, combat-tested warriors have become central to what the coalition is trying to achieve against the most virulent strain of radical Islam yet seen.

Despite CANSOFCOM’s information blackout, the Peshmerga loudly attested to me how highly they value Canada’s presence with them at the front.


Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/within-shouting-distance-of-isil-755418#ixzz3Ye9hhvJm


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Apr 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As of 15 April 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 778 sorties:
> 
> - CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 506 sorties;
> 
> ...



I have no idea of course, but that sounds like a lot.

How does it compare with Libya?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Apr 2015)

Scroll down to the Air Component section for info:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/sites/FORCES_Internet/operations-abroad-past/op-mobile-metrics.page

Hornets 946 sorties

Tankers (combined) 389 sorties

Aurora 181 sorties


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Apr 2015)

As of 27 April 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 834 sorties:

CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 542 sorties;

CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 141 sorties, delivering some 8,293,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and

CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 151 reconnaissance missions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Apr 2015)

Article Link

‘The Canadians are among our most important guys': Peshmerga praise elite commandos in fight against ISIL

BASHIQA MOUNTAIN, Iraq — It is clear from talking with front line Kurdish Peshmerga that Canadian special forces have done more on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant than their coalition partners, including the U.S., and are going to play a critical part in the coming action to expel these fanatical hardliners from Mosul.

The silence from Canadian Special Operations Forces Command about this fits with the secretive unit’s habitual reluctance to allow media access of any kind to its commandos when they are forward deployed or after they return from such missions. But it does not fully explain why CANSOFCOM has declined requests by Postmedia since last fall for general information from its operators here on what has been described as a training mission.

In a first, CANSOFCOM opened the door slightly earlier this year when it acknowledged in Ottawa that a few of the approximately 70 advisers it has in Iraq had defended themselves several times by shooting back when they were fired upon by ISIL jihadists. This was revealed before the tragic death of Sgt. Andrew Doiron in a friendly-fire incident with the Peshmerga on March 6 on a barren ridge that has a strategically crucial view of Mosul, one of the places where this war will be won or lost.

During interviews conducted in the autonomous region’s capital, Erbil, and in two location at the front, five Kurdish Peshmerga generals and a slew of junior officers and foot soldiers praised the elite commandos from the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and Joint Task Force 2. This was not simply the Peshmerga being polite to a visitor. They stressed again and again how immensely grateful they were to Canada for the unique role CSOR and JTF2 have been playing in the war against ISIL.

An infantry general responsible for a stretch of the front near Kirkuk told me he was envious because the Canadians were deployed with a fellow general he had visited near Mosul. Another infantry general told me “the Canadians are among our most important guys.”

American and French advisers have been on the front lines from time to time, the Peshmerga told me. But the consensus was that Canada has been more willing to go deep into the field to help them than any other country.

The difference between Canada and its partners in this fight against a resourceful, particularly vicious foe, is in how Ottawa has defined its training and mentoring role with the Peshmerga. Like Britain, Australia and New Zealand, among others, Canada has offered a range of courses inside protected training bases on how to fight.

But as near as I can tell — and this is a world where operatives seldom confirm anything — Canada is the only nation in the U.S.-led coalition that has regularly sent teams of military spotters far forward to identify ISIL targets and the only country whose observers have used lasers to pinpoint those targets for coalition warplanes to destroy.

 more at link


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2015)

This from the Info-machine - also attached if link doesn't work for you:


> *Findings of the Friendly Fire investigations regarding the death of Sergeant Doiron*
> 
> May 12, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2015)

More details in attached ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 May 2015)

As of 11 May 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 896 sorties:

CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 582 sorties;

CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 151 sorties, delivering some 8,911,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and

CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 163 reconnaissance missions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2015)

Some other OP Impact stats from the Info-machine (also attached if you can't see the graphic):





Source


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2015)

As of 20 May 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 937 sorties:

CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 610 sorties;

CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 157 sorties, delivering some 9,306,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and

CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 170 reconnaissance missions.


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2015)




----------



## Quirky (30 May 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As of 20 May 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 937 sorties:
> 
> CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 610 sorties;
> 
> ...



Great job but it hasn't stopped the advance of ISIS. 

Maybe we should just leave Iraq/Syria alone and let fate decide the outcome. IMO, our presence there is nothing more than giving our fast jets something to do besides play peek-a-boo with the bears.


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 May 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Great job but it hasn't stopped the advance of ISIS.
> 
> Maybe we should just leave Iraq/Syria alone and let fate decide the outcome. IMO, our presence there is nothing more than giving our fast jets something to do besides play peek-a-boo with the bears.



Yes and no.  There is more going on that what we hear in the media, well all know Ramadi fell, and we all know why.  We can only do so much, but I don't think it is as bad as the media would have you believe.  If we sit back and let fate decide the outcome, (IMHO) we would be in a world of hurt years from now.  What we need (again my opinion) is the Muslim leaders from around the world to step up and start publicly condoning this extreme behaviour.  I have yet to hear/see anything from anyone, just the occasional "we are a peaceful religion" quip on the news.  If there was a collective stand against extremeism there would be fewer individuals heading to the middle east to fight.   We need Iran to stop publishing bullshit news stories, and take a more active role in this fight.  We need Turkey to stop sending arms to the rebels in Syria, they could also stop taking ISIS oil too, yeah that'd be great... Finally we need the people of Iraq to stand up and say enough is enough, lets fucking clean house.


----------



## YZT580 (31 May 2015)

Well spoken Dolphin


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (31 May 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Great job but it hasn't stopped the advance of ISIS.
> 
> Maybe we should just leave Iraq/Syria alone and let fate decide the outcome. IMO, our presence there is nothing more than giving our fast jets something to do besides play peek-a-boo with the bears.



Ehm.... Actually it has stopped their advance.  One year ago they were at the gates of Baghdad, not the case anymore is it?  Airpower has given the Kurds and our Iraqi allies an upper hand in this fight.  It's now become a war of attrition and the Shiites and Kurds in the area outnumber the Sunni.  The war will drag on for awhile but resources and manpower are finite.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jun 2015)

Yeah, Drew....love the completely uninformed rectal plucks from some people...they should be careful with how much they pluck from their brainass, as too much, and they'll drop their IQ below what it is already.  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jun 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Great job but it hasn't stopped the advance of ISIS.
> 
> Maybe we should just leave Iraq/Syria alone and let fate decide the outcome. IMO, our presence there is nothing more than giving our fast jets something to do besides play peek-a-boo with the bears.



I thought I was reading a CBC article comment for a second, or maybe listening to a dobber talk on the CC patio.   ^-^

I'm going to throw out a WAG that you haven't turned wrenches in the ATF-I lines yet.  As has been mentioned before, you because you aren't seeing it on CBC or Youtube doesn't mean shyte isn't happening.  Air power alone won't win the ground war, and that aspect of it isn't a ATF-I task.  The ATF-I task is being carried out and with success, even if limited in some people's view.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jun 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yes and no.  There is more going on that what we hear in the media, well all know Ramadi fell, and we all know why.  We can only do so much, but I don't think it is as bad as the media would have you believe.  If we sit back and let fate decide the outcome, (IMHO) we would be in a world of hurt years from now.  What we need (again my opinion) is the Muslim leaders from around the world to step up and start publicly condoning this extreme behaviour.  I have yet to hear/see anything from anyone, just the occasional "we are a peaceful religion" quip on the news.  If there was a collective stand against extremeism there would be fewer individuals heading to the middle east to fight.   We need Iran to stop publishing bullshit news stories, and take a more active role in this fight.  We need Turkey to stop sending arms to the rebels in Syria, they could also stop taking ISIS oil too, yeah that'd be great... Finally we need the people of Iraq to stand up and say enough is enough, lets fucking clean house.



I thought this kind of logic and thought process was *STRICTLY* prohibited in the Det lines??   >


----------



## Quirky (1 Jun 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm going to throw out a WAG that you haven't turned wrenches in the ATF-I lines yet.



Been there, done that. My opinion is based on what I've seen from our front lines. If I had a choice, I wouldn't be wasting away in that desert shit hole again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Jun 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Been there, done that. My opinion is based on what I've seen from our front lines. If I had a choice, I wouldn't be wasting away in that desert crap hole again.



Cool, well with people like you turning the wrenches, who needs ISIS.  May as well put up the white flag already as it seems you've already surrendered the initiative.  Do us all a favour and GTFO already so we can find someone that will do the job with at least a little zeal.   I'm certain you're probably content to sit back and collect a paycheque though.  

The last thing this military needs is more Bees In Trees Collecting Honey.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Been there, done that. My opinion is based on what I've seen from our front lines. If I had a choice, I wouldn't be wasting away in that desert shit hole again.



I know people who have XXX hours logged over the badlands and don't have an opinion based on being "at or near the front lines" (flying over/around them isn't the same as being boots on the ground, right?), and I am not trying to be condescending towards you or any 500 series types but unless you guys are listening to the briefs and seeing the small/medium/big picture and then working that airspace, I'll nicely suggest you probably don't have as much 'fact' as you have 'opinion'.  Again, I am not being condescending, just realistic.  It's just the different jobs we do for the big blue machine that differentiates what info we are privy to.


----------



## Quirky (3 Jun 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Do us all a favour and GTFO already so we can find someone that will do the job with at least a little zeal.



I care about getting my job done so the aircraft can meet its mission, we didn't miss one sortie due to maintenance during roto 0. I don't give a damn what the end result of that is, the middle east can burn in hell for all I care, you'll find the exact same sentiment among my peers.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2015)

Maybe you've just touched on the difference between an Army and AirForce mentality. We (Royal We, we're screwed if Sigs is doing this) have to hold the ground and give a crap what happens there. Turning wrenches on a CF-18, as important as that may be, affords you the luxury of disassociating yourself with any of the conditions in the area because you can tunnel into your work without consequence.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 Jun 2015)

I wouldn't generalize to Air Force. It is hard for pilots to dissociate themselves with what's going on on the ground.  Having seen both fighter wings in 2 different theatres over the last 4 years, I can guarantee most techs are also interested on what's going on and how we are helping.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jun 2015)

Yeah, its far easier for pilots and aircrew who are flying missions to get "sold" on whats happening on the ground, especially when you're running CAS. Was more leaning towards the ground crew, who'll never see where the shiny planes are headed.

Then again, this guy might just be here for a paycheque, and I'm over analyzing.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Jun 2015)

Perspective changes with time and progression in trade and rank. We didn't think a few Balkan countries were all that great either.....nor did we think a Mediterranean island nation all that great.

Turns out it was worthwhile.


----------



## Harrigan (15 Jun 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We need Iran to stop publishing bullshit news stories, and take a more active role in this fight.



Iran is already taking a very active role in the fight, and has been since December.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/22/middleeast/iran-fighting-isis/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-fight-against-isis-iraq-effective-could-lead-to-consequences/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-launches-piloted-air-strikes-against-isis-flying-in-to-iraqi-airspace-for-first-time-9899487.html

Harrigan


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (7 Jul 2015)

In case anyone asked:

RAAUZYUW RCCPJAQ1041 1881744-UUUU--RCEMDUS RCEMEYS RCEMFWS RCEMFXA
RCEMGBS RCEMHNS RCEMHZS RCEMKDS RCEMLES RCEMMTS RCEMNGS RCEMPDS
RCEMRKS RCEMSDS RCEMTOS RCEMWCS RCEMWFS RCEMWRS RCEMWVA RCEMWWA
RCEMWYA RCEMZZA RCEOCEA RCEODEP RCEOJOC RCEONWA RCEOPRA RCFPKGA.
ZNR UUUUU ZOC
RIFTST T NCISS LATINA
RXFENDC T NADEFCOL
RXCAFDA T CA NLR HQ SACT
RXFKBA T CFSU E DET RAMSTEIN
RXFKI T CFSU E DET BRUNSSUM
RAYASAP T CANSTANDREP CANBERRA
R 301812Z JUN 15
FM NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
TO CANFORGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANFORGEN 118/15 CMP 054/15
SIC WAC
SECTION 1 OF 2
SUBJECT: ADDITION OF QUALIFYING SERVICE - CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE 
MEDALS
BILINGUAL MESSAGE/MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. CANFORGEN 003/09 CMP 002/09 081950Z JAN 09
B. CANFORGEN 047/09 CMP 021/09 041418Z MAR 09
C. CANFORGEN 096/09 CMP 042/09 201315Z MAY 09
D. CANFORGEN 184/14 CMP 084/14 201429Z OCT 14
E. CANFORGEN 080/10 CMP 037/10 011817Z APR 10
F. CANFORGEN 192/14 CMP 090/14 311801Z OCT 14
1. AFC HAS APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THE FOL SVC TO THE ELIGIBILITY 
LISTS FOR CERTAIN CAMPAIGN AND SERVICE MEDALS, AS FOLLOWS:
A. GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR SOUTH-WEST ASIA (GCS-SWA):
- FURTHER TO PARA 1. A(2) OF REF E, THE END DATE FOR THE NAVAL 



PAGE 2 RCCPJAQ1041 UNCLAS
THEATRE IS 14 MAY 2014
B. GENERAL CAMPAIGN STAR EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP):
- SERVICE BY CAF MEMBERS INSIDE THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING 
OF THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES OF SYRIA, ITS AIRSPACE AND TERRITORIAL 
WATERS, SINCE 20 APRIL 2015 (OP IMPACT)
C. GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL SOUTH-WEST ASIA (GSM-SWA):
(1) ELIGIBILITY SHALL BE SUSPENDED FOR CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO 
QATAR, AL UDEID AIR BASE, ON 4 OCTOBER 2014 UNTIL THE DAY FOLLOWING 
THE CONCLUSION OF OP IMPACT. ELIGIBILITY IN THAT LOCATION WILL BE 
RESTORED AT THE CONCLUSION OF OP IMPACT
(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO FORWARD LOGISTICS SITES (FLS) 
IN DIRECT SUPPORT TO CANADIAN SHIPS ATTACHED TO THE COMBINED TASK 
FORCE (CTF) 150, 151 OR 152 (OP ARTEMIS), WHILE CONDUCTING 
ACTIVITIES IN THE PORTS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES: REPUBLIC 
OF DJIBOUTI, OMAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, KENYA, INDIA, EGYPT, 
TANZANIA, BAHRAIN AND PAKISTAN, AND ANY OTHER PORTS CONTIGUOUS TO 
THE NAVAL THEATRE CONSISTING OF THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, 
THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE 
INDIAN OCEAN AND THE ARABIAN SEA THAT ARE WEST OF SIXTY-EIGHT 
DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF FIVE DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, 



PAGE 3 RCCPJAQ1041 UNCLAS
FROM 22 APRIL 2012 TO 14 MAY 2014
D. GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL EXPEDITION (GSM-EXP):
- SERVICE BY CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO KUWAIT AND QATAR SINCE 5 
OCTOBER 2014 (DURING OP IMPACT). THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO 
THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: ALI AL SALAM AIR BASE, AHMED AL JABAR AIR 
BASE, AL MUBARAK AIR BASE, CAMP ARIFJAN, THE STRATEGIC LINES OF 
COMMUNICATIONS (SLOC) DETACHMENT KUWAIT OR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT HUB 
KUWAIT, AND AL UDEID AIR BASE
E. OPERATIONAL SERVICE MEDAL EXPEDITION (OSM-EXP):
(1) SERVICE OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL PARTICIPATING IN US CENTCOM-LED 
MULTINATIONAL COMBINED MARITIME FORCE (CMF) OPERATIONS (OP ARTEMIS) 
UNDER THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF COMBINED TASK FORCES (CTF) 150, 151 
OR 152, IN THE THEATRE OF OPERATIONS CONSISTING OF THE BOUNDARIES OF 
THE ARABIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, 
THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN AND ARABIAN SEA 
THAT ARE WEST OF SEVENTY-FIVE DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF 
THIRTY DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, SINCE 15 MAY 2014
(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO FORWARD LOGISTICS SITES (FLS) 
IN DIRECT SUPPORT TO CANADIAN SHIPS ATTACHED TO THE COMBINED TASK 
FORCE (CTF) 150, 151 OR 152 (OP ARTEMIS), WHILE CONDUCTING 



PAGE 4 RCCPJAQ1041 UNCLAS
ACTIVITIES IN THE PORTS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES: REPUBLIC 
OF DJIBOUTI, OMAN, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, KENYA, INDIA, EGYPT, 
TANZANIA, BAHRAIN AND PAKISTAN, AND ANY FUTURE PORTS CONTIGUOUS TO 
THE NAVAL THEATRE CONSISTING OF THE PERSIAN GULF, THE GULF OF OMAN, 
THE GULF OF ADEN, THE RED SEA, THE SUEZ CANAL AND THOSE PARTS OF THE 
INDIAN OCEAN AND THE ARABIAN SEA THAT ARE WEST OF SEVENTY-FIVE 
DEGREES EAST LONGITUDE AND NORTH OF THIRTY DEGREES SOUTH LATITUDE, 
SINCE 15 MAY 2014
F. SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL NATO (SSM-NATO):
(1) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS WHO DEPLOYED TO CAMPIA TURZII, ROMANIA, 
LITHUANIA AND SPANGDAHLEM AIRBASE IN GERMANY AS PART OF THE AIR TASK 
FORCE (ATF), OR WHO DEPLOYED TO EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE AS PART 
OF THE LAND TASK FORCE (LTF), SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 (OP REASSURANCE) 
NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR
(2) SERVICE ONBOARD SHIPS DEPLOYED UNDER THE STANDING NATO MARITIME 
GROUP 2 (SNMG 2) SINCE 29 APRIL 2014 PROVIDED THE SERVICE IS NOT 
RECOGNIZED BY A NATO MEDAL. ONLY TIME SPENT UNDER NATO COMMAND IS 
ELIGIBLE - TRANSIT TIME DOES NOT COUNT. NO MULTIPLYING FACTOR
G. SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL EXPEDITION (SSM-EXP):
(1) ELIGIBILITY SHALL BE SUSPENDED FOR CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO 



PAGE 5 RCCPJAQ1041 UNCLAS
KUWAIT IN THE STRATEGIC LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS (SLOC) DETACHMENT 
KUWAIT OR THE OPERATIONAL SUPPORT HUB KUWAIT ON 4 OCTOBER 2014 UNTIL 
THE DAY FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF OP IMPACT. ELIGIBILITY IN THAT 
LOCATION WILL BE RESTORED AT THE CONCLUSION OF OP IMPACT
(2) SERVICE OF CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO FORWARD LOGISTICS SITES (FLS) 
IN DIRECT SUPPORT TO CANADIAN SHIPS ATTACHED TO THE COMBINED TASK 
FORCE (CTF) 150, 151 OR 152 (OP ARTEMIS), TO THE OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 
HUB KUWAIT, AND WHILE CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT OF SHUWAIKH 
IN KUWAIT SINCE 22 APRIL 2012 (EXCEPT OP IMPACT PERIOD WHICH 
QUALIFIES FOR GSM-EXP)
(3) FURTHER TO PARA 1. A(2) OF REF F, THE END DATE HAS BEEN REMOVED 
FROM THIS ONGOING OPERATION (OP RENDER SAFE)
2. A PERSON CANNOT QUALIFY FOR TWO CAMPAIGN OR SERVICE MEDALS FOR 
THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME. THEREFORE, IAW PARAS 1.C(1) AND 1.G(1), ANY 
MEDALS AWARDED FOR SERVICE IN THOSE LOCATIONS AFTER 4 OCTOBER 2015 
WILL NEED TO BE RELINQUISHED BEFORE APPLICATIONS CAN BE SUBMITTED 
FOR APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION IAW PARA 1.D
3. OTHER DETAILS MAY BE FOUND ON THE DH R WEB SITE AT 
HTTP://WWW.CMP-CPM.FORCES.GC.CA/DHR-DDHR/CHC-TDH/INDEX-ENG.ASP
4. APPLICATIONS FOR ELIGIBLE PERS SHALL BE MADE IAW REFS A, B AND D



PAGE 6 RCCPJAQ1041 UNCLAS
5. AT TIME OF APPLICATION, PROOF OF SERVICE SHALL BE SUPPLIED IAW 
REF C (FOR EXAMPLE: PERSONNEL SERVING AS AIRCREW SHALL SUPPLY COPIES 
OF THEIR FLIGHT LOG SHOWING THE DEPLOYED SERVICE IN QUESTION)
END OF ENGLISH TEXT


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2015)

I'm a bit disappointed that they decided to use a "catch-all" medal (the GCS-Exp) as opposed to minting a new GCS Ribbon specifically for Op IMPACT, which is a significant combat mission for the CAF.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit disappointed that they decided to use a "catch-all" medal (the GCS-Exp) as opposed to minting a new GCS Ribbon specifically for Op IMPACT, which is a significant combat mission for the CAF.


Especially if it transitions to a larger mission later.


----------



## eliminator (7 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit disappointed that they decided to use a "catch-all" medal (the GCS-Exp) as opposed to minting a new GCS Ribbon specifically for Op IMPACT, which is a significant combat mission for the CAF.



Still better than the NATO medal that was awarded for Op MOBILE...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit disappointed that they decided to use a "catch-all" medal (the GCS-Exp) as opposed to minting a new GCS Ribbon specifically for Op IMPACT, which is a significant combat mission for the CAF.



Agreed, however this is what most people were expecting.  It is a nice ribbon at least, as well as the GSM-Exp.









> D. GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL EXPEDITION (GSM-EXP):
> - SERVICE BY CAF MEMBERS DEPLOYED TO KUWAIT AND QATAR SINCE 5 OCTOBER 2014 (DURING OP IMPACT). THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: ALI AL SALAM AIR BASE, AHMED AL JABAR AIR BASE, AL MUBARAK AIR BASE, CAMP ARIFJAN, THE STRATEGIC LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS (SLOC) DETACHMENT KUWAIT OR OPERATIONAL SUPPORT HUB
> KUWAIT, AND AL UDEID AIR BASE



It's actually Ali Al Salem.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jul 2015)

A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).



Despite what "awwwww...poor fighter pilots!" comments may follow, I am hoping they adjust something for this.

Why?

- fighter pilots are the folks who are operating in what I will call 'the threat envelope' for that theatre.  
- fighter pilots are the ones putting iron on the ground.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page
- fighter pilots are the ones who are conducting the deep fight (Syria)

The ISR and Tanker fleets are in the fight but not the same way.  Speaking for the 140 community, I don't know one person who thinks us and the tanker dudes should be getting the throwing star while the 18s don't.  Something is wrong there.

I have, however, heard more than a few comments on how the aircrews are getting the same risk allowance as the folks who sit in air conditioned offices and never leave the camps.   :

For those curious, info on the eligibility on the GCS-Exp prior to the CANFORGEN:

General Campaign Star – EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)

The GCS with EXPEDITION ribbon is awarded to Canadian Forces members and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who served in approved locations outside Canada and inside a specific theatre of operations in the presence of an armed enemy for at least 30 cumulative days commencing on January 1, 2003 provided that the service has not been otherwise recognized by another service medal.

The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 20 January 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal.

Aircrew flying into the theatre accumulate one day of service for the first sortie flown on any day, additional sorties flown on the same day receive no further credit.

The first and last days in theatre count as full days.


----------



## Underway (8 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit disappointed that they decided to use a "catch-all" medal (the GCS-Exp) as opposed to minting a new GCS Ribbon specifically for Op IMPACT, which is a significant combat mission for the CAF.



I won't be suprised if it changes in the future.  It won't be the first time a medal has changed half way through the mission.  In this case all it would be is a ribbon change, no bling modifications required.


----------



## eliminator (8 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> I won't be suprised if it changes in the future.  It won't be the first time a medal has changed half way through the mission.  In this case all it would be is a ribbon change, no bling modifications required.



Or they could just designate the GCS/GSM-EXP ribbons as "Iraq". Then design a new EXP ribbon or get rid of the a EXP all together for the two medals since there's already the OSM and SSM EXP. 

It could have been much worse, they could have just awarded the GCS/GSM-SWA given the Op's location.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Despite what "awwwww...poor fighter pilots!" comments may follow, I am hoping they adjust something for this.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## DonaldMcL (8 Jul 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I have, however, heard more than a few comments on how the aircrews are getting the same risk allowance as the folks who sit in air conditioned offices and never leave the camps.   :



Come on, surely the guys hanging out watching movies all day in the theater have the same risk as the ones dropping bombs over hostile territory! </sarcasm>


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (8 Jul 2015)

> A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).



I agree, it will require a few tours to qualify for it.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).



That really is unfortunate - not sure where AFC was getting its metrics from.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That really is unfortunate - not sure where AFC was getting its metrics from.



...or, they expect everyone to cycle through at least twice?


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jul 2015)

Guy A does 1 ROTO, gets posted in a non-flying position during summer time.  He has flown 14 missions in his 56 days.

Guy B does 2 ROTOs and flies 29 missions over 112 days.

Guy C does 2 ROTOs and flies 30 missions over 112 days.

All 3 scenarios are very likely.  Only C gets the star.  Very few people will cycle for a second full tour (I can probably count 12) and not all of them will get to fly that much.

My take on it:  if you have flown over Iraq or Syria in direct support of combat (ie: supporting the ATO, includes CP-140 and Airbus).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2015)

Is part of the problem the 'multiple sorties in 1 day = 1 sortie' for the fighter community?


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jul 2015)

No, with 8 hours sortie, we fly only 2-3 times a week...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jul 2015)

8 hrs in an ejection seat would suck. I can barely tolerate 2.5 in a sea King seat anymore, and I generally get to move around and do hoisting on most flights.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 8 hrs in an ejection seat would suck. I can barely tolerate 2.5 in a sea King seat anymore, and I generally get to move around and do hoisting on most flights.



The RAAF Hornets and Supers are based out of the UAE.  Imagine how long their transit must be to get to the same AO.  No thanks.


----------



## Quirky (9 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A bit disappointed that aircrew require 30 missions to be eligible for the Star.  No fighter pilot will get it (or very few).



Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber. One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free. Volunteers, moral and a general GIAF factor goes down when you aren't being compensated accordingly.


----------



## Sub_Guy (9 Jul 2015)

I am disappointed on how qualifying time is calculated.  I personally think it should be 15 missions, mainly because I think that this would capture the fighter fleet.   They really should reassess how the medals are awarded, the 30 days/30 missions just doesn't make sense from where I am sitting, as it takes much more than 30 days for aircrew to get 30 missions.   Plus, I doubt anyone (aircrew) is going to qualify for a rotation bar, which is another reason why I think they should reassess the policy.

I am also disappointed in the explaination I was given in Kuwait when the General was asked about a different risk level for aircrew, her reply that we get to keep our aircrew allowance was enough to make up for the extra risk.  I am of the opinion that if the camp is getting RA2, then one could easily assume that aircrew should be getting RA3 which would push us into the tax free zone, which is much more than our aircrew allowance.   I am cynical, but sometimes I feel it that when they make these decisions the RCAF and how we operate is an after thought.

On another note I did read this in an older CANFORGEN

WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, *THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD.* WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT 

So does this mean that since I have my GCS qualification, that the next time I go back can I qualify for the GSM?


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jul 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free.


Sadly, this seems to be more and more the case.  IMPO, if I were to choose between people who want to earn and those who want to serve, I'll choose those who want to serve, 100 times out of 100.

We have people on one side motivated by materialistic and personal gain fighting people who are motivated by eternal salvation.  Against them we cannot win.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2015)

FF quals for GCS-EXP seems inconsistent with theatre precedents.  JTF-Afg Air Wing was 30 days in to qualify for GCS-SWA, no minimum number of sorties required.  

RA/HA being the same for "inside/outside the wire" will continue to be an issue, as it was in the past.  Leadership seemed content to make the distinction between support bases back in the AO (GSM for those at Mirage) and operational bases forward (GCS [or SWASM] for those in AFG itself), but (generally) no subset once you're in theatre at the same location...although IIRC, there were some special cases of 5/4 versus the wider 4/4 in AFG. I see some logic in what the TF Comd is saying, if one looks at AIRCRA being still provided while on RA/HA, but, one could also make the case for raising the RA for all pers who are demonstrably at greater risk due to the very nature of what they're doing...aircrew, D&S, etc...



			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber. One of the biggest carrots of deploying is to make money - tax free. Volunteers, moral and a general GIAF factor goes down when you aren't being compensated accordingly.



Carrots?  ???  While I admit it was a nice perk when I got home, it SAF wasn't my principal motivation for doing a tour in the sandbox.  There are combat arms folks getting out in droves because there isn't the level of operations that there used to be -- while some may bemoan the tour money that also dried up, I think the primary demotivator is the lack of doing what you signed up to do.  I get it that to each his or her own motivation, but if that is a wider prime motivator, that's a bit of an unfortunate comment on the current state of things. 

:2c:

G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jul 2015)

It is unfortunate that money is a motivator but it is the reality.  I personally think anyone who deploys should get tax free salary (just like the Americans).  Not for the Hardship and Risk, but for the sacrifices the individuals have to make.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that money is a motivator but it is the reality.  I personally think anyone who deploys should get tax free salary (just like the Americans).  Not for the Hardship and Risk, but for the sacrifices the individuals have to make.



I find the whole hardship/risk allowance to be bogus.  I am content with being fed, clothed and given plenty of ammunition.  When it comes to pay we are already close to the best paid force in the world, now the government needs to give us more money to actually do our flipping jobs?  Whoever thinks they deserve a golden handshake for sitting in Kuwait why don't you step aside and let the REAL soldiers get on with the business at hand.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jul 2015)

Then why do we have allowances such as Hardship and Risk?  Or Environmental Allowances?  Or PLD? After all, we are all volunteers.

Certain circumstances go beyond what would be considered normal in our society and people are compensated for it.  There is a two tiered system already (tax free vs taxed).  Make it universal: tax free for everybody.

I guarantee you work for a contractor that does similar jobs than people here and they make more than most people in make.  

Yup, compensating your people for what the risk and hardship they face, and the sacrifices they make is part of successful HR strategy. When a majority of people feel wronged, we may be up to something...

But I guess I am not a "real" soldier, therefore my opinion doesn't count.


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Jul 2015)

Well, I've never served in Kuwait, so I jump into this hornet's nest with reluctance, but I'll take a stab.

I did multiple tours in Yugoslavia, back in the day, with minimal financial rewards, but we did get extremely generous leave packages. I also did multiple tours in Afghanistan, with incredibly generous financial rewards, but the same leave packages. Honestly, in the second case, I liked the extra leave and HLTA more than the cash. But with the Air Force model of short deployments for aircrew, the members are getting the short end of the stick for both cash and leave.

But I can see RoyalDrew's point. My Grandpa deployed in 1939 for the duration (albeit with generous local leave in the UK while they were waiting for Overlord to kick off). Would I have been willing to sign on for a 3 or 4 year deployment to Afghanistan, so long as I got generous R&R and leave packages? Probably. KAF had a bigger population than Petawawa, and better shopping.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Then why do we have allowances such as Hardship and Risk?  Or Environmental Allowances?  Or PLD? After all, we are all volunteers.
> 
> Certain circumstances go beyond what would be considered normal in our society and people are compensated for it.  There is a two tiered system already (tax free vs taxed).  Make it universal: tax free for everybody.
> 
> ...



Never said it doesn't count, I just think it's wrong.  We have a somewhat dangerous job, well some of us do sometimes, that includes you fighter Jocks when you're up there zipping around dropping bombs on Jerry Jihad, thanks for the services btw.  If anyone signed up for the military not knowing they could be potentially put in harms way I don't really know what sort of kool-aid their parents fed them?  

The military is a business and any successful business needs to be affordable.  Our brand of war is particularly unaffordable hence why we have such outdated equipment, no new boots since Ive been in the forces, no new ships, the list goes on and on.  Stop worrying about getting that extra $500 bucks on your pay cheque and maybe my feet won't fall apart next time I go for a March in my decrepit pair of Mark IIIs.  



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Well, I've never served in Kuwait, so I jump into this hornet's nest with reluctance, but I'll take a stab.
> 
> I did multiple tours in Yugoslavia, back in the day, with minimal financial rewards, but we did get extremely generous leave packages. I also did multiple tours in Afghanistan, with incredibly generous financial rewards, but the same leave packages. Honestly, in the second case, I liked the extra leave and HLTA more than the cash. But with the Air Force model of short deployments for aircrew, the members are getting the short end of the stick for both cash and leave.
> 
> But I can see RoyalDrew's point. My Grandpa deployed in 1939 for the duration (albeit with generous local leave in the UK while they were waiting for Overlord to kick off). Would I have been willing to sign on for a 3 or 4 year deployment to Afghanistan, so long as I got generous R&R and leave packages? Probably. KAF had a bigger population than Petawawa, and better shopping.



Yep, two of my great uncle's served in the North Shore Regiment during the war and both landed on D-Day, one of my great uncle's best friends was killed minutes after hitting the beach after a stray bullet hit the Bangalore torpedo he was carrying blowing him to pieces (I've been to his grave site in Beny-sur-Mer but his name is alluding me).  Both my great uncles were wounded multiple times and they had (RIP) the scars to show it.  Both made it all the way to Germany and one even married an English woman he met while on training in England.  They didn't get paid much and were barely compensated, they always said when they talked about the war that they just did what had to be done.  That's real hardship.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jul 2015)

If you knew....  My extra patterns in the Hornet today could probably pay for 1 pair of boots for all Army members...  Oh, and I did it because I had extra gas and I could, no other reason (other than the added landing training). The extra 500$ a month a person (which is not taken from the CAF purse for tax exemptions) will not have a quantifiable effect on what you get in the field.

I personally don't GAF about allowances and pay.  I would do this job for free (alright, maybe not anymore now that I have a family) But I see how it can seriously affect morale and simple solutions like tax free deployments would, I am sure, pay huge dividends in the long run.  In the end, it's less than 0.1% of the adult population.  It would have no impact on government revenue.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jul 2015)

I get what you're saying, Max.  Yes, the extra pay is nice (or so I hear: my ex squandered every penny of my three tours I went one while we together.  Booze ain't cheap, doncha know!) but if we want people to deploy for the *right* reasons, then I suggest that the materialistic reasons and incentives are not the right ones. Compensation is one thing, but an incentive is another.  I simply suggest that the incentive ought to be less materialistic and more..."noble".  That's all.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Jul 2015)

As much as I agree with you, it is just not the demographic we have anymore.  Not so much in the combat branches, but certainly in the support trades.  Most combat branches or operations branches do what they do because they enjoy it and wouldn't do anything else in the world.  I personally run on adrenaline I get from flying, no kidding.  Talk to my wife and ask her what happens if I don't fly for a couple of weeks.

Most of the support trades (from experience) do it because they have to (or it certainly feel that way when I interact with them).  Either because they are under obligatory service, they are close to retirement and want to "tough it out" till then or because they became slave to the military (they feel they wouldn't be able to transfer to a civy job).  The simple answer is to just let them get out if they are not happy.  The problem in technical trades is that we then lose a ton of experience that is irreplaceable in the near and medium term, leading to shortage of qualified personnel. So in that sense, the military is somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place.  

We used the "get out if you are not happy" method last year when we posted techs from Bagotville to Cold Lake.  Turns out none of them were bluffing and instead of missing pers in Cold Lake only, we found ourselves having to fill positions at both Wings.  But I disgress.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2015)

Max, probably an interesting distinction that you're making, and one that I tend to agree with (ops/sp, newer/older generations).  Operators tend to enjoy operating on the whole, and I have seen many motivated supporters, but they as a group seem to "enjoy things more" when there is incremental compensation for supporting deployed ops.  That may have been the limitations of my own perspective though, although like you, I was enjoying what I was doing due to the nature of that activity.  If I had been inside a wire for a year, perhaps I might have gotten grumpy and looked to things like compensation to balance making the tour "worth it."

 :2c:

G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> As much as I agree with you, it is just not the demographic we have anymore.  Not so much in the combat branches, but certainly in the support trades.  Most combat branches or operations branches do what they do because they enjoy it and wouldn't do anything else in the world.



I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.


----------



## Quirky (9 Jul 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Whoever thinks they deserve a golden handshake for sitting in Kuwait why don't you step aside and let the REAL soldiers get on with the business at hand.



I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.



All the tour incentives are ridiculous and anyone who thinks they deserve more than someone else for whatever task/role/job they filled needs to take a reality check.  One thing I am for is skill based incentives, so something like dive pay or parachute pay is G2G.  Also G2G in my books is spec pay as someone in a highly skilled trade like an aircraft mechanic should be paid more than an infantry corporal for his services, ditto pilots and SOF as well.  All the other incentives like LDA, Sea Pay, Field Pay, Hazard Pay, Hardship Allowance, etc... These all make little sense to me and should go the way of the DoDo.  

Nobody forced any of us to join the service or into a particular trade.  I joined the infantry because I wanted to shoot guns and push myself, the fact I am paid to do this is a bonus in and of itself!  I don't think being infantry makes me in any way superior to a support trade, all of whom are equally important to making the big machine turn.  



			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.



You misunderstand me, I respect all trades but expect people to do their jobs when called upon and don't think they should receive extra compensation just for doing their jobs.  We are all volunteers who knew the conditions when we signed up.  If we need "carrots" dangled infront of us to get us out the door than we have truly reached a sad state of affairs.  

As for people threatening to leave if they are posted, don't get what they want, etc... I say go ahead, the military will adapt, it always does.  The loss of a few people who probably lack motivation anyways will be offset by the good men and women who will no doubt pick up the slack.

"A few honest men are better than numbers" - Oliver Cromwell


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2015)

Even just having foreign service pay, and when in an operational theatre you're tax free up to the current 8k max is very fair. Don't get me wrong, I love all the HA/RA money, but I'd still be on the first chalk if it wasn't there. The swedes don't even get tax free or extra allowances and they still volunteer.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jul 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I'm happy being a fake soldier sleeping on a mattress and getting a shower every night. If you real soldiers want to bust up your knees and other joints playing around in mud, dirt and sand, by all means go for it.



:rofl:

Milpoints inbound


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jul 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> "A few honest men are better than numbers" - Oliver Cromwell



Quantity has a quality all it's own - Joseph Stalin


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Quantity has a quality all it's own - Joseph Stalin



Now if we were to suddenly activate the Militia, Naval Reserve, Air Reserve, etc... and mobilize for a gigantic war I would agree with you; however, we are not doing that.  We have a small regular force that is supposed to represent that quality which when we need to surge is there for that purpose.

We have neither the necessary mass or resources dedicated to our organization to have that quantity so what we put out better be quality.  Whether we are doing that or not is questionable.  I tend to agree with Rick Hillier in his assessment that we could probably shrink the Regular Force to 58,000 all ranks with no substantial loss to our combat capability.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jul 2015)

Seeing as our combat capability is rather small at any rate, I suppose that is true.  I do doubt, however, that will a small force that you're going to be able to "surge" anything.  I equate surges with numbers, big numbers.  

Yes, the Permanent Force was used as the training cadre to bring the civilians who flooded in the forces during the war's early days.  I seriously doubt also that we would be able to make that happen again.  Too many things not in our favour.  Training/recruiting systems could not handle the job, equipment today is too expensive and sophisticated to make in mass numbers just for starters.  As Gwynn Dyre stated in his book, War, (IIR) "the next world war will be a come as you are war"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Seeing as our combat capability is rather small at any rate, I suppose that is true.  I do doubt, however, that will a small force that you're going to be able to "surge" anything.  I equate surges with numbers, big numbers.
> 
> Yes, the Permanent Force was used as the training cadre to bring the civilians who flooded in the forces during the war's early days.  I seriously doubt also that we would be able to make that happen again.  Too many things not in our favour.  Training/recruiting systems could not handle the job, equipment today is too expensive and sophisticated to make in mass numbers just for starters.  As Gwynn Dyre stated in his book, War, (IIR) "the next world war will be a come as you are war"



I agree, we probably need a rethink of our whole mobilization strategy but it's not going to happen in our lifetime unless SHTF.  Dyer also talks about how our equipment has become so sophisticated and lethal but is otherwise untested against a peer enemy.  This places us in a situation much like WWI where we will probably end up blowing the crap out of each other and blow through our war stock in two weeks, at which point it will be back to Trench Warfare.  I tend to agree with him.

Glad you referenced his book, I have a copy on my shelf and generally enjoy his stuff.  

I'll part with this:

"New weapons require new tactics. Never put new wine into old bottles." - Heinz Guderian


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Considering the current Hardship/Risk I'm not surprised to hear other disappointments. I can't speak for Club Med at Salem, but it should be at least a 3/3 at Jaber.



Oh ya, ASAB was paradise.  I know CPV had it's moments (from what we heard) but we weren't exactly sipping drinks from the poolside bar.

You do know that both were assessed 3 for Hardship, and 2 for Risk right?  Not sure where you are getting the 3/3 if that other 3 is Risk.  If you want to split hairs, let's discuss anyone who didn't actually go into/over theatre getting the same RISK allowance as those who did.  Not sure where the logic in that is.  Or, isn't.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jul 2015)

Could say that the "rot" has run so deep now, that it is a wonder we all didn't die years ago of "Black Lung".   :warstory:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm glad you said most, because unfortunately some of those conducting operations right now think they should be making more money than their maint pers in Kuwait. I unfortunately cannot link the article (due to: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html). So some of those people are not just in it because they love it. I find it especially hard to swallow, if those individuals who complained (to a media outlet no less) are officers in the Pilot occupation, making both aircrew pay and significantly more money monthly than the NCM maint pers who are likely working extremely hard/long hours to ensure airframes are available for those missions.



Lets compare it to Afghanistan then.  Should, and did, the folks who never left KAF get the same RA level as those who lived and breathed outside the wire?  

It's kind of hard to imagine to some people, maybe, who've never done air ops before; they think we have it made and in some ways, we do over the army fighting end.  BUT in the current theatre, man if you go down away from home plate, the folks that are looking to get your hands on you like to burn aircrew alive.  In a cage.  And film it.

If that idea, concept, whatever in itself doesn't show there huge difference in RISK between the folks going on the missions, and the ones who support it, but never go into theatre, well then I guess there is nothing that can show that difference or people just don't want to see it.

But, you sure as hell feel it at zero dark stupid when you are over the badlands, not behind the multiple layers of protection at homeplate.

Personally, I think there are 4 actual risk levels in the current theatre; supporters who never see Iraq and ISIS except on their laptops, tanker and CP-140 crews (with a higher risk to the 140 folks, but not enough to justify a higher RA), CF-18 pilots who do things the other zoomies don't, and lastly the CSOR folks and friends who live and operate in the badlands.  

 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2015)

If we went strictly by location, the CLP security teams based in KAF would get less RA than the RRB crew who hangs out at Ma'Sum Ghar and will leave only for HLTA and RIP.

Why do we need to subdivide based on trade/employment? Pilots have a risky job, they get a special payscale and aircrew allowance (which is approved in concert with theatre allowances). CSOR operators are getting their HA/RA, plus SOA Cat 2 because of not only their training, but their consistent exposure to risk and hardship. The maint/support guys are getting spec pay based on training, and HA/RA. Seems like things are already divided up quite nicely, but not in a neat little umbrella that we can call "Risk Levels". Should we further make it complicated by giving Pilots/Aircrews an extra Risk Level, but only for the time they're actually in the air in the ops box? After all, they're only temporarily increasing their risk, after the mission is over they're back in the same camp as the maint guys (who might be putting in 20 hour days to keep airframes going, so maybe we give them an extra hardship level?). That'd be a nightmare for the clerks to sort everything out.

The current system has flaws, but you're never going to get rid of the people who think they deserve more money than X, because they're really only doing it for the cash. We could give OP IMPACT complete 5/5 (I think that's the max?) and you'd still have people bitching that the support staff are making too much money.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why do we need to subdivide based on trade/employment? Pilots have a risky job, they get a special payscale and aircrew allowance



I get aircrew allowance doing 4th crewman in the circuit on PPFs.  There is no 'theatre level AIRCRA', its covered in RA.  So, explain in logical terms why a clerk sitting in an a/c office in Kuwait gets the same risk as the crews going over the badlands; is the clerk exposed to the same risk?  Think about it. 



> Should we further make it complicated by giving Pilots/Aircrews an extra Risk Level, but only for the time they're actually in the air in the ops box? After all, they're only temporarily increasing their risk, after the mission is over they're back in the same camp as the maint guys



Yup, that's pretty much the solution right there.  Whats so hard about it, it has been done before and is exactly how they figure out which gong we get.  So...



> (who might be putting in 20 hour days to keep airframes going, so maybe we give them an extra hardship level?).



If tech's are doing 20 hour days, the solution doesn't lie in HA or RA lvls, that's a huge problem not tied to that.  

Seriously, think about this.  Someone who sits in an A/C office, never sees the theatre or even comes close to it, getting the same RISK allowance as the people who are operating in the theatre.  Makes sense, does it?  Really?  Take a piece of paper.  Write out the risks the clerk faces, then write out the risks the crews face if they have a very bad day.

As you said, the CSOR folks are getting higher risk because they FACE higher risk.  Same principle as the support folks who never leave the camp compared to the crews flying over the badlands.

System flaws aside, I've yet to see a good argument for why a clerk or MSE Op or Log O would be exposed to the same amount of RISK as a CF-18 pilot who flies into Iraq and Syria and bombs the bad guys, but I don't suspect I will.


----------



## Quirky (10 Jul 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Oh ya, ASAB was paradise.  I know CPV had it's moments (from what we heard) but we weren't exactly sipping drinks from the poolside bar.
> 
> You do know that both were assessed 3 for Hardship, and 2 for Risk right?  Not sure where you are getting the 3/3 if that other 3 is Risk.  If you want to split hairs, let's discuss anyone who didn't actually go into/over theatre getting the same RISK allowance as those who did.  Not sure where the logic in that is.  Or, isn't.



Yes I know its currently 3/2 but I hope that 2 goes up. I would have loved to be in ASAB and I took every opportunity I could get to go there for any reason. I don't think ASAB deserves a 3 for hardship considering the mass differences there were in base amenities, then again I don't know how they calculate it. AJAB started to get a bit better at the latter end of ROTO 0, but it was still pretty much bare bones in comparison.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Jul 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Seriously, think about this.  Someone who sits in an A/C office, never sees the theatre or even comes close to it, getting the same RISK allowance as the people who are operating in the theatre.  Makes sense, does it?  Really?  Take a piece of paper.  Write out the risks the clerk faces, then write out the risks the crews face if they have a very bad day.
> 
> As you said, the CSOR folks are getting higher risk because they FACE higher risk.  Same principle as the support folks who never leave the camp compared to the crews flying over the badlands.
> 
> System flaws aside, I've yet to see a good argument for why a clerk or MSE Op or Log O would be exposed to the same amount of RISK as a CF-18 pilot who flies into Iraq and Syria and bombs the bad guys, but I don't suspect I will.



How do you differentiate between levels of risk?  Say (using a Kandahar construct), between a CP-140 crew member who's facing some risk of his plane falling out of the sky or the odd chance of a SAM in his AO vs. an infantry soldier who is getting into 3 TICs a day and walks IED infested trails when he leaves his patrol base?


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Carrots?  ???  While I admit it was a nice perk when I got home, it SAF wasn't my principal motivation for doing a tour in the sandbox.  There are combat arms folks getting out in droves because there isn't the level of operations that there used to be -- while some may bemoan the tour money that also dried up, I think the primary demotivator is the lack of doing what you signed up to do.  I get it that to each his or her own motivation, but if that is a wider prime motivator, that's a bit of an unfortunate comment on the current state of things.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> G2G



Agree.  It shouldn't be this way, but we reap what we sow.  

"56 day rotations" were not initiated by accident, and certainly not driven from the pointy end.  It was a way to get people in and out of theatre before they passed the magic point (60 days?) where it triggered a host of allowances.  It was not the best use of aircrew resources, but that was secondary to the monetary calculation. 

The troops can figure this out.  If they are treated like a commodity, they'll act like a commodity and volunteer only when compensated accordingly.  

It is unfortunate that we have gotten to that stage in the CF, but that is where we are.  It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.

Harrigan


----------



## medicineman (10 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Agree.  It shouldn't be this way, but we reap what we sow.
> 
> "56 day rotations" were not initiated by accident, and certainly not driven from the pointy end.  It was a way to get people in and out of theatre before they passed the magic point (60 days?) where it triggered a host of allowances.  It was not the best use of aircrew resources, but that was secondary to the monetary calculation.
> 
> ...



I seem to recall that the 56 day rotations weren't due to allowances - those kick in 2 weeks after being in theatre generally - but to avoid VCDS waivers so they could be rotated more frequently.  Specialist MO's had the same deal going in and out of KAF with the Role 3 MNMU - this way they could send them back more frequently.

MM


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jul 2015)

Four pages on gongs and allowances.

How are things going in Iraq?

I guess that is why buttons and bows aren't just PMO/Heritage thing.


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I seem to recall that the 56 day rotations weren't due to allowances - those kick in 2 weeks after being in theatre generally - but to avoid VCDS waivers so they could be rotated more frequently.  Specialist MO's had the same deal going in and out of KAF with the Role 3 MNMU - this way they could send them back more frequently.
> 
> MM



I believe HLTA was based on 60 days.  You have hit on the other main reason: a way to get around that meddlesome requirement to give people at least 12 months at home* between 6 month rotations.  If you send them on 3 x 56 day Rotos in a year, we can get 6 months out of a member without any follow-on 12 month requirement.  That can be done indefinitely - and in some units - was.  

Again, though, the troops figure it out, and see it for what it was - a method used by the CF to get around the rules that are meant to protect the member.  And if the CF shows no loyalty to the member, do you blame them for "looking out for themselves"?

Harrigan

* understanding that 'at home' doesn't actually mean 'in garrison'


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How are things going in Iraq?



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/SOMNIA/article25404069/

I wonder if we have any "national caveats"?

Harrigan


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Jul 2015)

I went to Afg the first time with high hopes and dreams of "making a difference".  The second time I went for cold hard cash.  Don't get me wrong I did everything that was required of me and more.  

But when the government of the day, who sends me into harms way, isn't willing to own up to its responsibilities should I get wounded, and without saying it, would rather I die than be wounded because its cheaper in the long run then ya this is just about cash for me. 

I am deploying again in the next few months until late next summer.  Know what my first question was ?  How much extra are we making ?  I'm not ashamed of that at all.  And anyone who thinks these are all about helping people and making a difference is sadly mistaken and has drunk too much of the koolaide. 

Feel free to flame away.


----------



## Underway (10 Jul 2015)

It really depends on the "troop" whether the 56 day deployment is a good or bad thing.  Now being a family man I would love a 56 day deployment to get out, do some work and then come home to see my kids.  I'd rather the break up in the tour than the 6 months + 7 months pre-deployment, even with the extra leave and HLTA and loosing 12 months at home after the deployment.  If you have to go then its easier to sell to the spouse and kids that you'll only be gone for 2 months, no biggie.  Easier for reservists to get the time off work, jump in help out.  It's no different in many ways to lots of types of civi work.  It actually might lead to better retention as the CAF workforce gets older in general.

Also hasn't the airforce been doing these exact types of deployments domestically for years.  Send some guys up to work at the northern airfields for 2 months, rotate them out?

As for risk allowance etc...  this is going to make me sound like a jerk but I'm going to play devils advocate.  Just because you are dropping bombs doesn't mean there is a risk.  If you're at the coal face generally there is a greater risk and I support that generally they should get more risk allowance.  But aren't we just assuming?  Really...whats the air defence capability of ISIL? There might be more risk from a mechanical issue on the aircraft than getting hit with enemy fire.  It might just be a day on the range for these guys (not that I know...).  I would not be suprised if statistically speaking I have a higher risk of being killed on my daily commute than a fighter pilot dying to enemy fire while flying over ISIL (once again... I don't know and am happy to be proven wrong).  Risk might be higher that you have a suicide bomber at the gate or a rocket attack at the airfield  (or a car accident on base).

Also risk is relative and subject to change.  In retrospect KAF was a safer place to be than Massum Ghar, but what if the battlespace changed and the Taliban did a mass attack at KAF, while ignoring MG?  MG goes silent and now KAF is constantly under siege.  What's my risk as a gate guard at KAF searching vehicles and people for suicide bombs, vice the pay clerk in CNS?  What if (as happened to me) you start the tour with a nice safe job in CNS with an air conditioned office halfway through the tour get an extra 2 months tacked on travelling outside the wire on a regular basis as the job evolved or changed?  What's my risk now? Do I have a punch card with my number of patrols outside the wire or number of TIC's I got in?  Or how about the guys who were there in 2007 vice 2010.  It was quite a bit more quiet in 2010 so maybe we should have clawed back some of their allowance.

It's not a perfect system but you can see some of the issues with risk allowance in the first place and why there are percieved unfair treatments.  I think it can be better, but some of the people here going off are not thinking of all the variables and how difficult it may be to get it right.


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2015)

A 57 day rotation is just mind boggling.....no sooner are you aclimatized and orientated then you are gone, replaced by a new guy just getting aclimatized and orientated.

Them's union hours..... :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How do you differentiate between levels of risk?  Say (using a Kandahar construct), between a CP-140 crew member who's facing some risk of his plane falling out of the sky or the odd chance of a SAM in his AO vs. an infantry soldier who is getting into 3 TICs a day and walks IED infested trails when he leaves his patrol base?



I actually wouldn't compare the 2, the same as I wouldn't compare Afghanistan to Iraq/Syria.   What I am saying, or trying to, is the risk level for Op IMPACT folks looks something like this.  This is just my opinion from being there and seeing reality.

1.  JTFSC pers/anyone who doesn't leave the camp - nil, not much different than home.
2.  Tanker Det aircrew - some, less than 140 det types
3.  LRP Det aircrew - some, more than the tankers, less than the CF-18
4.  CF-18 Det pers - more than folks in 1, 2 or 3, less than CSOR boots on the ground folks.
5.  CSOR boots on the ground folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> A 57 day rotation is just mind boggling.....no sooner are you aclimatized and orientated then you are gone, replaced by a new guy just getting aclimatized and orientated.
> 
> Them's union hours..... :



It's not quite like that, and maybe 56 days is just a number being chucked around here but not reality.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> As for risk allowance etc...  this is going to make me sound like a jerk but I'm going to play devils advocate.  Just because you are dropping bombs doesn't mean there is a risk.  If you're at the coal face generally there is a greater risk and I support that generally they should get more risk allowance.  But aren't we just assuming?


I dunno, I'm guessing the guys driving bomb trucks are the type of guys who get noticed more than those not dropping ordinance.  I don't assume, I just have an opinion from my own experience.



> Really...whats the air defence capability of ISIL?


  Nothing anyone on here who actually knows is going to talk about on here or outside Sqn lines, IMO.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Jul 2015)

Really... What's the air defence capability of ISIL?

Enough to warrant aircrews a higher risk level than the guys in camp.

Work the Google, you will see that they have and use AD systems, that's all you get for free.

Everyone keeps comparing this mission to Afghanistan, it's a completely different mission, with different risks.  I know the system isn't perfect, but the only real risk the folks in camp run is being hit by a motor vehicle (Ali Al Salem).  No one is getting shot at in camp.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> the only real risk the folks in camp run is being hit by a motor vehicle (Ali Al Salem).



*Midnight omelettes* aren't considered a risk?

Well, we give out different medals for the same theatre/operation depending on where people do their business.  Maybe the wording used in the descriptions of those are simple enough to differentiate the differences in risk.  

GCS-EXP

_The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces *who deploy into a defined theatre of operations to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy*._

GSM-EXP

_The General Service Medal (GSM) is awarded to members of the CF and members of allied forces serving with the CF *who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support, on a full-time basis, to operations in the presence of an armed enemy*._

Seems one group there assumes a little more risk then the other.

As for the AIRCRA aspect, I get $311/month for that when not deployed.  Part of that must be the risk that the plane will crash, or any other normal incident/accident.  The stakes are kind of "upped" somewhat from that happening say, in the North West Territories, to somewhere in and over the Badlands, when your big honkin loud plane goes down in the desert for whatever reason (added fun if there is a big smoke trail pointing down from the sky to tell everyone exactly where you *landed*).   The people coming to look for you aren't SAR, coming with warm milk and cookies to ease your suffering.  Whats the risk of that happening?  Who can say for certain.  No one knew for certain who was going to get hit in a TIC in the last theatre, right?  

Is there a risk of that happening?  There is risk every time you go up that you might come down hard and fast.  The chances of surviving that are loads better in the NWT than they are over the badlands.


----------



## medicineman (10 Jul 2015)

There's always going to be the "I've got it harder than you" crowd no matter how the things go.  As an example, during my tour in Croatia, some creature in Ottawa decided that they wanted to cut our risk pay to pretty much nada, since the guys in Bosnia were getting shot at more than us.  However, we actually suffered a good deal more casualties, both actually and statistically, than the dudes across the mountains from us because of all the mine strikes we were having.  I call it the CNN effect - since all the news cameras were not on us but on Sarajevo, Gorazde, Srebrenica, etc., we apparently didn't have any risk.  I believe someone pointed that out to said person...our hazard pay didn't change.

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jul 2015)

Same thing for Op ATTENTION, Roto 1 was told to expect a cut in hardship and risk. Then MCpl Greff was killed and a large scale TB attack occurred in April. The rumors stopped (until they tried it again with Roto 2).


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jul 2015)

All which makes Rifleman62's yoga video of yesterday all the more relevant.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Should we further make it complicated by giving Pilots/Aircrews an extra Risk Level, but only for the time they're actually in the air in the ops box?



I just wanted to come back to this point, and point out how easy it is/would be to do just this which IIRC was how it went for OUP (Libya).

- The RA/HA for OP IMPACT - IRAQ was announced early winter.  Can't remember the numbers exactly, but lets say that the RA for that location (Iraq) is $600/month.
- The RA for OP IMPACT - KUWAIT is announced at, lets say, $300 a month.
- for the example, lets use a aircrew mbr who did a 90 day ROTO and flew 30 missions.

Using a 30 day month to pro-rate a 'per day' amount for the example, that would equal RA $20/day for IRAQ, and RA $10/day for KUWAIT.

So, dude/dudette flies 30 missions.  That's 30 days at the RA IRAQ rate ($600), and 60 days at the RA KUWAIT rate ($600) for $1200 RA total.  

I am not sure what would be so hard about this and, it would be for a minimal # of people.  Its admin work, which is what clerks are paid to do, same as I am paid to smash buttons and drop things out of the plane.  Pro-rating is also how they figure out FSP for a partial month and they can manage that.

Its not hard, its doable and there is no real reason to NOT do it, is there?  FWIW, even if I wasn't one of the 'monkey in the middle' types, I'd still think and support what I'm saying, because I actually believe it would be fair to the mbr's.

Before anyone starts another "well, in Afghanistan.." argument, please allow me to me say this pre-emptively...


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> It really depends on the "troop" whether the 56 day deployment is a good or bad thing.  Now being a family man I would love a 56 day deployment to get out, do some work and then come home to see my kids.  I'd rather the break up in the tour than the 6 months + 7 months pre-deployment, even with the extra leave and HLTA and loosing 12 months at home after the deployment.  If you have to go then its easier to sell to the spouse and kids that you'll only be gone for 2 months, no biggie.  Easier for reservists to get the time off work, jump in help out.  It's no different in many ways to lots of types of civi work.  It actually might lead to better retention as the CAF workforce gets older in general.
> 
> Also hasn't the airforce been doing these exact types of deployments domestically for years.  Send some guys up to work at the northern airfields for 2 months, rotate them out?



I agree with you, IF it is only once or twice.  56 days is fine, and easier on the family.  

But in the mid-2000's some units constantly rotated people in and out on 56 day rotos for years, and with only a relatively small number of qualified personnel, that meant 6 months out of 12 for multiple years.  Suffice to say the failure rate on marriages at that unit was extreme.

Harrigan


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2015)

Why you're not hearing quite as much ....


> Expect to hear a lot about the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant during the federal election, just not from the Canadian military.
> 
> National Defence has slipped into silent mode for the duration of the campaign and says it will update its website, but won’t hold public briefings about the combat mission in Iraq and Syria, barring something extraordinary.
> 
> Canadian warplanes have conducted 29 airstrikes against Islamic State positions and units, including one in Syria, since the last update on July 9 ....


More on the Caretaker Convention (what government officials can/can't do during the federal election) here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Well, it was bound to happen ... the accusation, I mean ... 

This article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-armed-forces-accused-of-killing-civilians-in-iraq-air-strike/article26138351/


> Canadian Armed Forces accused of killing civilians in Iraq air strike
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...





I have only one comment. Note this: _"The military has been asked repeatedly since last fall whether Canadian CF-18 Hornets have inadvertently killed or injured civilians ..."_ Journalism is, now, defined as the business of filing ATI request after ATI request saying, "Have ya done anything wrong yet? Well, have ya? Have ya?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have only one comment. Note this: _"The military has been asked repeatedly since last fall whether Canadian CF-18 Hornets have inadvertently killed or injured civilians ..."_ Journalism is, now, defined as the business of filing broad-strokes "shotgun" ATI request after ATI request saying, "Have ya done anything wrong yet? Well, have ya? Have ya?" "what's here that can stand out in a headline?"


FTFY

In all fairness, though, note the wording of the answers ....

January 2015:  "*information came to the Canadian Armed Forces that there might have been civilian casualties* as a result of a strike by our CF-18s,” said Captain Kirk Sullivan of Canadian Joint Operations Command. “The source of *this allegation* had himself heard of these potential casualties through a second-hand account.” "
July 9 2015:  “Canada is quite confident that with all the strikes that we’ve executed, *there is absolutely no evidence* of civilian casualties associated with our strikes”
August 3, 2015:  “All I can tell you is *we’re not aware of any claims of civilian casualties* as a result of the RCAF bombing ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria”
This is NOT just a Conservative practice (I'm sure there are loads of examples of such wordsmithing from parties of _*all*_ colours - what do "we" "officially" "know/hear"), but when things are less-than-clearly expressed, the eye can always be drawn.


----------



## Lumber (28 Aug 2015)

From the same article:

"The Canadian Armed Forces, which revealed this information _in response to a question from The Globe and Mail_..."
.
.
.
"They could not sufficiently explain Thursday evening precisely why they have now decided to make the allegation public."

Because you asked them you numpties! Read your own article!


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> From the same article:
> 
> "The Canadian Armed Forces, which revealed this information _in response to a question from The Globe and Mail_..."
> .
> ...


I think the other side of that question in green is "why didn't anyone say so earlier?"

And now, who gets the blame? ....


> Defence Minister Jason Kenney says the military never told him Canadian fighter pilots had been accused of killing civilians when they bombed an Islamic State fighting position on Jan. 21.
> 
> It’s a startling admission from the Conservative minister because the Harper cabinet member is effectively saying the Forces kept him out of the loop.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (29 Aug 2015)

Sooo…. What you are saying is that there is no there there?

That never happens!  :


----------



## Tuan (29 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> From the PM's office ....



Let’s just look at the Canadian approach in responding to ISIS threat in this operation. This summer the Canadian Prime Minister Harper was proposing to the parliament to extend and expand Canada’s military mission one more year particularly targeting Syria. However the opposition parties, both New Democrats and Liberals, are opposing this and suggesting that Canada should involve in humanitarian missions, such as helping to solve the refugee crisis and other aid work in Iraq and Syria. 

IMHO, the opposition parties’ idea does have a long term strategic advantage and we could benefit from it down the road. First we have to isolate the insurgents/terrorists from the general populace. Let the refugees come out and settle them in other countries thereby showcasing the soft power of Canada/NATO rather than PM Harper’s hard power strategy which is bombing Iraq and Syria. 

By weeding the insurgents out of legitimate refugees, we can eventually apply Mao Tse Tung’s theory that “insurgents are like fish in an ocean of people”. By separating the “ocean” of general populace from the insurgent “fish” we will be able to determine the survival of the enemy insurgents/terrorists. 

Since it is Middle Eastern crisis the solution should be confined within Middle Eastern region. Therefore migrants should be resettled in countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi or Egypt not Europe, given the ongoing migrant influx in the region. To deny access for would-be jihadists to infiltrate/exfiltrate other countries disguised as refugees, we can set up buffer zones.

Then there is a question of how should one separate the ocean of population from the insurgent fish?

Well, if we're able to win the hearts and minds of the general populace they will do the job for you, which is the core strategy of COIN doctrine. Yes, we have to win the hearts and minds of the people. That’s where a great nation’s soft power plays its part. Hard power is vital in order to safe guard a nation’s interest, however, when we confront an enemy of different faces we have to explore other options and tools to combat them by the means of non-military strategies. 

Remember, according to Sun Tzu, the best way to win a war is without even fighting it. As such, eliminating the will to fight and destroying the spirit of the enemy’s potential to fight is also paramount. An ideology has to be fought with another set of ideologies, rather than by swords and guns; may it be a religious ideology, ethno-nationalist ideology or secessionist ideology.

What I am trying to say here is that: “Don’t use cannon to kill a mosquito….” – Confucius


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Let’s just look at the Canadian approach in responding to ISIS threat in this operation. This summer the Canadian Prime Minister Harper was proposing to the parliament to extend and expand Canada’s military mission one more year particularly targeting Syria. However the opposition parties, both New Democrats and Liberals, are opposing this and suggesting that Canada should involve in humanitarian missions, such as helping to solve the refugee crisis and other aid work in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> IMHO, the opposition parties’ idea does have a long term strategic advantage and we could benefit from it down the road. First we have to isolate the insurgents/terrorists from the general populace. Let the refugees come out and settle them in other countries thereby showcasing the soft power of Canada/NATO rather than PM Harper’s hard power strategy which is bombing Iraq and Syria.



IMHO, the opposition parties have no idea how to deal with this situation.  They have no concept of how to stop the spread of this radical and despicable form of Islam.  Soft power is exactly what has brought us to this state.  Refugees are already flooding the EU, at a rate that the West is having difficulty in handling.  The financial burden these large numbers of refugees are placing on Western nations has yet to be faced.  The fact that terrorists being covertly inserted into Western nations is a major concern and a serious threat as there are NO actual means to identify who is or who is not a member of IS with 100% certainty.  



			
				Tuan said:
			
		

> By weeding the insurgents out of legitimate refugees, we can eventually apply Mao Tse Tung’s theory that “insurgents are like fish in an ocean of people”. By separating the “ocean” of general populace from the insurgent “fish” we will be able to determine the survival of the enemy insurgents/terrorists.



As I said: no 100% solution to effectively identify insurgents with 100% certainty.



			
				Tuan said:
			
		

> Since it is Middle Eastern crisis the solution should be confined within Middle Eastern region. Therefore migrants should be resettled in countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi or Egypt not Europe, given the ongoing migrant influx in the region. To deny access for would-be jihadists to infiltrate/exfiltrate other countries disguised as refugees, we can set up buffer zones.


  

I would tend to agree, but those fleeing would probably tend not to, preferring to get as far away from the turmoil as possible, into one of the "richer" Western nations.  We don't see any of the refugees fleeing Northern Africa, fleeing South.  Nor do we see many refugees in South West Asia fleeing East into Pakistan, India, and other Asian nations. China has fairly much reinforced its presence on securing its Western borders.


----------



## Tuan (30 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said: no 100% solution to effectively identify insurgents with 100% certainty.



What you think about imposing a buffer zone that Turkey is planning to do:

Will a Turkish border deal block IS recruits?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34060925


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> What you think about imposing a buffer zone that Turkey is planning to do:
> 
> Will a Turkish border deal block IS recruits?
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34060925



There are buffer zones in many locations around the world.  All of them are band-aid solutions and have been infiltrated thousands of times.


----------



## Tuan (30 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are buffer zones in many locations around the world.  All of them are band-aid solutions and have been infiltrated thousands of times.



Well, in May 2009 there was a similar situation in Northern Sri Lanka, where the LTTE, a terrorist organization was holding more than 300,000 Tamil civilians as mere human shield. When the Sri Lankan security forces tried to move in and cordon off the area the LTTE began to release and let the civilians pour into the cleared areas, including LTTE suicide bombers who blew themselves up and killed 19 soldiers in one single incident. Since then, the Sri Lankan military began setting up buffer zones and temporary displacement camps in the immediate vicinity and also with the civilian's help successfully weeded out the terrorists one by one. It is important to note that after this process, there was not a single incident of terrorist attack in the country as yet. All you got to do is "winning the the hearts and minds" of the general populace.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ...All you got to do is "winning the the hearts and minds" of the general populace.



Cool.  That would make an excellent slide in a PowerPoint briefing.


----------



## Teager (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> All you got to do is "winning the the hearts and minds" of the general populace.



What might win the hearts and minds of one group in the middle east could piss off another group. So many groups that have ongoing battles that go way back in history.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Cool.  That would make an excellent slide in a PowerPoint briefing.



Lol... it sounds like the intro slide to every briefing in Kandahar


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Let’s just look at the Canadian approach in responding to ISIS threat in this operation. This summer the Canadian Prime Minister Harper was proposing to the parliament to extend and expand Canada’s military mission one more year particularly targeting Syria.



Yes, the only way to win or hope to win the war against ISIS.



> However the opposition parties, both New Democrats and Liberals, are opposing this and suggesting that Canada should involve in humanitarian missions, such as helping to solve the refugee crisis and other aid work in Iraq and Syria.



Yup, and that shows how little they know about how to do this type of business.  



> IMHO, the opposition parties’ idea does have a long term strategic advantage and we could benefit from it down the road.



Great.  Let's hear how, and don't skip the details.



> First we have to isolate the insurgents/terrorists from the general populace.



Fuckin' excellent!  Please detail out your plan on how to do this, how this type of thing works.



> Let the refugees come out and settle them in other countries thereby showcasing the soft power of Canada/NATO rather than PM Harper’s hard power strategy which is bombing Iraq and Syria ISIS.



You're assuming the 'other countries' want these people, and you're assuming all of these people want 'out' as opposed to wanting a long-term solution that doesn't have them abandoning theirs homes and lives.



> By weeding the insurgents out of legitimate refugees



Still really looking forward to your theory on how to do this!!!!



> , we can eventually apply Mao Tse Tung’s theory that “insurgents are like fish in an ocean of people”. By separating the “ocean” of general populace from the insurgent “fish” we will be able to determine the survival of the enemy insurgents/terrorists.



 ???  



> Since it is Middle Eastern crisis the solution should be confined within Middle Eastern region. Therefore migrants should be resettled in countries such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi or Egypt not Europe, given the ongoing migrant influx in the region.



Again you are assuming these countries want these people, these people want to go to these countries, etc.  This isn't moving Canadians from Cape Breton to mainland NS you are talking about.  



> To deny access for would-be jihadists to infiltrate/exfiltrate other countries disguised as refugees, we can set up buffer zones.



Great!  Please explain how these will work!!



> Then there is a question of how should one separate the ocean of population from the insurgent fish?
> 
> Well, if we're able to win the hearts and minds of the general populace they will do the job for you, which is the core strategy of COIN doctrine. Yes, we have to win the hearts and minds of the people. That’s where a great nation’s soft power plays its part. Hard power is vital in order to safe guard a nation’s interest, however, when we confront an enemy of different faces we have to explore other options and tools to combat them by the means of non-military strategies.
> 
> ...



I don't think you really have a 'where the rubber meets the road' understanding of how this whole ISIS thing is going down in Iraq and Syria.  You are throwing ideas out that 'sound good' but are as simple as stopping the Atlantic tide from coming into the Bay of Fundy.  In short, I don't think you have a realistic schmick of the real problems or the real solutions.  Your post reminds me of that scene from Armageddon, when the dude that had WAYYY to much coffee was explaining how these solar wind sails would deploy, and...


----------



## Sub_Guy (30 Aug 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Well, in May 2009 there was a similar situation in Northern Sri Lanka, where the LTTE, a terrorist organization was holding more than 300,000 Tamil civilians as mere human shield. When the Sri Lankan security forces tried to move in and cordon off the area the LTTE began to release and let the civilians pour into the cleared areas, including LTTE suicide bombers who blew themselves up and killed 19 soldiers in one single incident. Since then, the Sri Lankan military began setting up buffer zones and temporary displacement camps in the immediate vicinity and also with the civilian's help successfully weeded out the terrorists one by one. It is important to note that after this process, there was not a single incident of terrorist attack in the country as yet. All you got to do is "winning the the hearts and minds" of the general populace.



Completely different situation, you really have no idea what is going on over there, and it scares me because most people are fucking clueless as to what is going on (80% of the people that are participating in Op Impact have no clue either).  Trust me, the only way this ends is through force.  They have no interest in stopping and sitting on a piece of land, they want it all, and they won't stop.   

You want to win the hearts and minds of the general populace, you can start by flushing these pieces of shit down the toilet.

IMHO if the ISF doesn't discover a good set of testicles, this will never end without a significant boost on the ground from the MESF.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Aug 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Completely different situation, you really have no idea what is going on over there, and it scares me because most people are ******* clueless as to what is going on (80% of the people that are participating in Op Impact have no clue either).  Trust me, the only way this ends is through force.  They have no interest in stopping and sitting on a piece of land, they want it all, and they won't stop.
> 
> You want to win the hearts and minds of the general populace, you can start by flushing these pieces of crap down the toilet.
> 
> IMHO if the ISF doesn't discover a good set of testicles, this will never end without a significant boost on the ground from the MESF.



He also negates to mention that the conflict against the LTTE only ended after they were utterly defeated by the Sri Lankan Army.  

In order to end a war you actually need to fight.  The whole Sun Tzu "defeat your enemy without fighting" only works when shots haven't been fired, far past that point unfortunately.


----------



## Tuan (30 Aug 2015)

Alright, I assume you gentlemen are in fact fighting the war in Iraq and Syria while I am not. So I may be completely wrong because I wrote my mind here after spending some time on assessing open source intelligence (OSINT) in the ongoing counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Syria. Having said that I did play a part in obliterating terrorism in Sri Lanka and thought that I could share with you my experience. I know that some of you have already said that it is completely different situation, but just so you know, LTTE in Sri Lanka and ISIS in Middle East differ ideologically and objectively, however, as far as their modus operandi and tradecraft are concerned, they both have some similarities. 

So this is what I had posted on a defense forum last year and I am reposting this again thinking that I don’t violate any forum rules here:

“While monitoring OSINT, I have noticed a pattern, in the Islamic State terrorists’ “modus operandi”, that of a spider. Spiders have eight legs and two body parts - a head region (cephalothorax) and an abdomen. Most spiders have toxic venom, which they use to kill their prey.

So if the international community wants to get rid of ISIS, hypothetically speaking, they have to get rid of the head region of ISIS, the “cephalothorax” of the spider, instead of fighting with its eight legs. What I was trying pinpoint is that, while ISIS's headquarters (cephalothorax) is located in Syria, their survival (abdomen) depends on how much area they control in Iraq. Thus before this ISIS "spider" transform into "multi-headed" and "multi-pronged" the international community has to get rid of them.

Of course, they will replace it with another head, so get rid of the other one too, then the next one and so on. All we need is accurate and effective tactical military intelligence collection. I feel that the international intelligence agencies have a bigger role to play, than just being the eyes and ears of any nation, with feet of clay, when faced with an enemy of many different faces. Recommendations for an appropriate tradecraft to achieve such a role are the need of the day. There is NO truth to search for, there is no absolute truth, and everything is subjective! But the kind of role intelligence play in deterrence is what paramount! And achieving A STATE OF GLOBAL DETERRENCE is what I consider the bottom line.

I shall explain how we could achieve a state of global deterrence in my next post.


----------



## Tuan (30 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> He also negates to mention that the conflict against the LTTE only ended after they were utterly defeated by the Sri Lankan Army.
> 
> In order to end a war you actually need to fight.  The whole Sun Tzu "defeat your enemy without fighting" only works when shots haven't been fired, far past that point unfortunately.



Yes they were utterly defeated at the end but there was a strategic deception that the Sri Lankan military orchestrated that you fail to understand. 

One of the ground breaking achievements the Sri Lankan military intelligence had done was that they engineered a split within the Tamil Tiger organization in 2004 and made one of the Tiger’s top commanders to defect from the terrorist organization with over 6000 Tiger cadres. Since SL military realized the importance of HUMINT in counterterrorism they temporarily enrolled the entire cadres including the Tiger top commander Karuna as a paramilitary group in the country’s army. Then the SL military indoctrinated the defected cadres with soft power and turned them against the rest of the Tiger organization’s main faction. This reverse tactic of turning the very same terrorists/ insurgents/guerrillas/rebels - whatever you may call them – against the main faction paid off since the tactical military intelligence collection was crucial and it was ready on the table obtained via this engineered defection. This was the “game-changer” in the Sri Lankan civil war’s history that could be extrapolated into ISIS and/or al Qaeda.

Also, the Tamil Tigers began as guerrillas in early 80s and by late 2000 they became a semi conventional force with an army, navy and rudimentary air force. However one of their fatal strategic and tactical miscalculations was that, at the last stages of the civil war they tried to resemble and mimic a full conventional force whereas the Sri Lankan military Special Forces fought and resembled that of guerillas. Not to mention the Tigers did survive the world’s fourth largest and powerful Indian army in the late 80s only because they then engaged themselves in a asymmetric warfare, like a typical insurgents-cum-guerillas opposed to later day’s semi-conventional army.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2015)

From Kurdish media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ - highlights mine:


> *Chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council Masrour Barzani received a Canadian delegation, headed by the National Security Advisor to the Canadian Prime Minister, Richard Fadden, on Sunday August 30th.*
> 
> The pair discussed the latest developments in the fight against Islamic State (IS), and the progression of the political process in the region.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tuan (31 Aug 2015)

> Quote
> By weeding the insurgents out of legitimate refugees
> 
> Still really looking forward to your theory on how to do this!!!!
> ...



Okay, you can use a method call “Spotter Force Multiplier Theory” (SFMT), which was a successful tradecraft in intelligence led warfare in Sri Lanka.

So what is it?

In any enemy organization, may it be police, intelligence and military or even among the non-state actors, such as gangs, mafia or terrorist groups; you can only identify the members of the particular organization using its own members. When we confront/combat these organizations we would definitely come across and identify at least one single genuine member of such organization, whom I would call as “Joe”. Using Joe as a “spotter” we’ll be able to identify few other Joes. And then keep using every Joe as a “spotter force multiplier” till we get the big fish. Please note that the each Joe we arrest/capture should undergo a brief rehabilitation process; instill them with compassion and indoctrinate them with soft power, contrary to the usual aggressive interrogation techniques. The advantage of using SFMT is that we would have a complete picture and understanding of insider information regarding any enemy organization, which is known as the tactical intelligence in the field.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Aug 2015)

Another name for Link Analysis.


----------



## Tuan (31 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another name for Link Analysis.



Thank you for the corroboration!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Aug 2015)

I don't know shit about Sri Lanka.  No comments there.  But for thought, what worked for the Nazi's on one front might not have worked so well on a different front.  Not all nails need the same size hammer.  Follow me?

I don't think you get how this deal is going down in the big dirt farm either.  I won't talk about TTPs and that stuff but let me suggest that your open source stuff isn't quite up to snuff.  You do understand the GOI is the driver of the big happy bus, right?  I say that because I don't think very many people understand the power structure in that region very well.  And the issues that arise from it that help/hinder the fight.  

 :2c:


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Sep 2015)

Did someone mention Cylons?


----------



## Tuan (1 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't know crap about Sri Lanka.  No comments there.  But for thought, what worked for the Nazi's on one front might not have worked so well on a different front.  Not all nails need the same size hammer.  Follow me?
> 
> I don't think you get how this deal is going down in the big dirt farm either.  I won't talk about TTPs and that stuff but let me suggest that your open source stuff isn't quite up to snuff.  You do understand the GOI is the driver of the big happy bus, right?  I say that because I don't think very many people understand the power structure in that region very well.  And the issues that arise from it that help/hinder the fight.
> 
> :2c:



How Sri Lanka won the war
http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/how-sri-lanka-won-the-war/


----------



## McG (1 Sep 2015)

Sounds like the Conservatives may push this mission into an election topic.


> Harper to discuss next steps on militants
> Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press
> Toronto Star
> 01 Sep 2015
> ...


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ...All you got to do is "winning the hearts and minds" of the general populace.





> Cool.  That would make an excellent slide in a PowerPoint briefing.





> Lol... it sounds like the intro slide to every briefing in Kandahar



I know that you guys are being sarcastic but I am appalled by the fact that  you fail to grasp the significance of “soft power” in conflict resolution. I think it would help to define “soft power” and how it emerges from a society. It is, at a basic level "mind control without active coercion”.  Soft power does work and that’s why terrorist or fascist organizations block soft power avenues from influencing people so that they can sustain their propaganda.

It doesn’t mean we can win the war on terror with soft power only. I believe the international community could utilize and balance its soft power and hard power when combating terrorism. Each and every nation has a unique popular culture that is so rich and deep that it can be greatly utilized against hardcore individuals and enemy organizations. Some leading western scholars suggest that success in world politics could be best achieved through the use of “smart power” – a combination of both hard power and soft power. 

An American Congresswoman, Jane Harman, had pointed out in her blog that "while the 'hard power' represented by drone strikes and aircraft carriers is essential to our security, living and portraying our values is as - if not more - important in the long run". She went on to say that "we have a responsibility to craft a winning narrative. When we fail to step up and define ourselves, the extremists will be happy to do it for us..."

*Fighting terrorism softly*
By Jane Harman 
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/10/fighting-terrorism-softly-opinion/


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Sep 2015)

I understand your point.  There is a time and place for soft power.   This is not one of them.

Could you imagine if we applied that theory to past conflicts?  We would still be waiting for Europe to fall.

These guys are barbarians, they are brutal, too brutal for western society to comprehend.   This is where I have a problem, because people like yourself come up with these great ideas, and they gain traction.  Not because it’s a great idea, but because the general population can’t fathom how another human being could be so violent.

ISIS/ISIL/Da’ish or whatever you want to call them, is a very brutal organization, they fear nothing.   The longer they stick around, the stronger they get, the longer the international community quibbles on how to deal with them, the stronger they get.

What we need is the world to come together and put this to bed, we all agree that they need to be stopped.  Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, U.S., and many others all agree this needs to stop, heck even the Taliban think they are too extreme.  If for a moment it would be nice if we could all work together to end this non-sense with ISIL, then we can focus on other issues (Turks vs Kurds, Syria, Ukraine).  We can’t solve all the problems at once, but if ISIL were to be relegated to a 4th line terrorist organization, it would make things easier over there.

To sit back and try to win this particular battle with soft power is a bad idea, of course this is my simple opinion.


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I understand your point.  There is a time and place for soft power.   This is not one of them.
> 
> Could you imagine if we applied that theory to past conflicts?  We would still be waiting for Europe to fall.
> 
> ...



I do agree with you that they are barbarians, but how many of them are voluntary ideologues and how many of them are coercively conscripted children? Do you think these kids have any idea what ISIS really wants? Or what even barbarian means? Did they have a choice? What did they do wrong when the option is do or die? 

OTOH, according to a recent study on radicalization, Muslims in western countries struggle with identity issues and the majority white culture is hostile to the Islamic culture in those countries so they try to search for their belonging and join the extremists like ISIS

Contrary to the Muslims in western countries joining the ISIS, the non Muslim westerners themselves join ISIS, particularly because of broken home background who tend to be detached from the society, and make matters worse the report claims, the western popular culture such as youngsters who listen to rap music are increasingly becoming violent and join extremists. 

Experts also warn that governments' anti-terror legislation could even play into hands of jihadists.

Therefore, we have to first and foremost fix our careless society from bottom up!

*The Children of ISIS*                                                   
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/teenage-jihad-inside-the-world-of-american-kids-seduced-by-isis-20150325?page=5


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

> Let the refugees come out and settle them in other countries thereby showcasing the soft power of Canada/NATO rather than PM Harper’s hard power strategy which is bombing Iraq and Syria.





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You're assuming the 'other countries' want these people, and you're assuming all of these people want 'out' as opposed to wanting a long-term solution that doesn't have them abandoning theirs homes and lives.



*"you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land"*

From a beautiful poem by Warsan Shire
http://zeyeon.tumblr.com/post/58052223804/home-warsan-shire


----------



## Sig_Des (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> I know that you guys are being sarcastic but I am appalled by the fact that  you fail to grasp the significance of “soft power” in conflict resolution.



I'm a little surprised by your "appalment". And I would hold off on assuming that we fail to grasp the significance.

Soft power, if you want to call it that, has it's place. But it comes from a place of diplomacy, culture and history. Which is valid in certain circumstances, or as a part of an overall approach to conflict.

WE, however, are by the very nature of our mentality, training and employment PART of Hard power. We are not choosing which power to use, it has been chosen by the political masters.

The fact is the immediate threat requires the application of force. Soft Power wouldn't even be a speed bump to the aggressive and violent spread of "The Caliphate". you can use it to try to isolate the power base and the source of people and support, but that is very much a long-term, future problem.


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Soft power, if you want to call it that, has it's place. But it comes from a place of diplomacy, culture and history. Which is valid in certain circumstances, or as a part of an overall approach to conflict.
> 
> WE, however, are by the very nature of our mentality, training and employment PART of Hard power. We are not choosing which power to use, it has been chosen by the political masters.



If your political masters could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t they use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> *"you have to understand,
> that no one puts their children in a boat
> unless the water is safer than the land"*
> 
> ...




Refugees are, by definition, people who are:

     1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_

     2. Want, and fully intend to return to their homes as soon as the danger is removed.

People who are fleeing their homes, for whatever reason, and who want to settle somewhere new are migrants, not refugees.

It is _wrong_ to settle refugees in far off, foreign lands, where they have little ability or, often, inclination to adapt. Refugees should be:

     First: _*Made safe*_ ~ provided with shelter, food, medical care, schools and security, as close to their homes as is practical. This will put a HUGE strain on a few countries which are unfortunate enough to border conflict zones.

     Second: Able to see the international community deal with the threats/dangers which have made them into refugees. This is the real nature of R2P: the civilized, able, mature countries must ACT to change governments which abuse their
     own people: invade; overthrow the cruel, repressive, unrepresentative government; hang the leaders and their henchmen (and women); and, _*briefly*_, support new, better leaders.

     Third: Assisted in returning to their homes.

Bringing e.g. Syrian refugees to Canada or Denmark or Germany is unproductive, possibly even counter-productive. Some people in refugee camps will decide that home is no longer attractive; they will want to change their own status from refugee to migrant. Those who want to immigrate to Australia or Britain or Canada should fill out the forms just like all other potential immigrants and hope that they have the "points" they need, based on skill and knowledge and so on.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Refugees are, by definition, people who are:
> 
> 1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

Very good points that seem to have been overlooked by the MSM.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> If you could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t you use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?



I am now beginning to really question your thought processes.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Sep 2015)

Except it's never that simple.  If there's a lack of international will you end up with refugee camps serving as long-term means of housing people who wish to return but are unable to.  Is it practical to keep people in camps for generations, in the hope that someday they may be able to return?

Even post-war, the facts on the ground may prevent restoration of the _status quo ante bellum_; Israel was settled by many who legally could return to their pre-war homes, but who risked injury or death to assert those rights.


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am now beginning to really question your thought processes.



Did I say something wrong, Sir?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> If your political masters could successfully use the soft power to undermine the idea of communism, rather than hard power, why can’t they use the same soft power to undermine the idea of terrorism? I wonder if terrorists are more brutal than communists?



soft power? No we used proxy wars, physical confrontations, occasional killings and the outright threat of nuclear war and we had significant forces on land, sea and air on standby to fight their significant forces. It was a stare down with a very real possibility of a no-win gunfight at any time. The big factor on the other side is that the USSR had suffered heavily in people losses in WWII and there was a rational desire not to commit suicide, just as we had no desire to commit suicide. For the hardcore centre of ISIS, death is liberation to a better life.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except it's never that simple.  If there's a lack of international will you end up with refugee camps serving as long-term means of housing people who wish to return but are unable to.  Is it practical to keep people in camps for generations, in the hope that someday they may be able to return?
> 
> Even post-war, the facts on the ground may prevent restoration of the _status quo ante bellum_; Israel was settled by many who legally could return to their pre-war homes, but who risked injury or death to assert those rights.




The Arab/Israeli conflict and the plight of the Palestinian regugees is a classic example of that lack of will.

The Arabs, considering, as they do, that Israel illegally expelled the Palestinian-Arabs,* should have attacked Israel, again and again ~ which they did, to their credit, and they should have won ... failing that, as they have done, again and again and again, they should have done _something_, almost _anything_ for the Palestinian refugees: almost anything other than use them as pawns in a propaganda war. 

     (An old _mentor_ of mine, a Brit with _looooooong_ service in the Middle East told me, over a few points, that _"the Palestinians are the Jews of Arabia."_ he was complementing the Palestinians because, as he explained,
      they are the best educated, most entrepreneurial, most family oriented, most sophisticated of ALL the Arabs. They are also, he explained, _despised_ by the Saudis and Syrians, Iraqis and Gulf Arabs, and so on as "town Arabs" by people who worship
      a nomadic lifestyle that none of them live anymore. The Palestinians are the doctors and engineers and accountants and small business owners and plant managers and lawyers, bankers and teachers throughout the region and across North Africa
      ~ needed and hated in equal measure.)

The Palestinians deserve better, but they put their faith in the wrong people: their brother Arabs. The Palestinians need to rise up and overthrow one or two governments ~ Syria might be ripe for the taking ~ and start a new Palestinian state. They, themselves, cannot bring Israel down and the Arabs are too frightened, too disorganized, too corrupt and too divided amongst themselves to help.

_____
* There is no doubt that some Arabs were expelled, improperly, at least, if not downright illegally. How many is open for debate. Equally there is no doubt that the _Absentee Property Laws_ effectively expropriated Arab property without payment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> soft power? No we used proxy wars, physical confrontations, occasional killings and the outright threat of nuclear war and we had significant forces on land, sea and air on standby to fight their significant forces. It was a stare down with a very real possibility of a no-win gunfight at any time. The big factor on the other side is that the USSR had suffered heavily in people losses in WWII and there was a rational desire not to commit suicide, just as we had no desire to commit suicide. For the hardcore centre of ISIS, death is liberation to a better life.




Actually, there was a significant, organized, conscious _soft power_ campaign against the USSR and China, specifically, and against communism in general, that was started, in the late 1940s, by US President Truman and which continued, strongly, under President Eisenhower and, less strongly, certainly far less coherently, under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. It involved not only government agencies like VOA and AID but, far more significantly (and requiring delicate management) American business and the arts, e.g: GE, GM and Coca Cola; Pan Am, Diners Club and Holiday Inn; and, esecially Disney, MGM, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. It was damned effective, too ~ arguably worth more than NATO.


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, there was a significant, organized, conscious _soft power_ campaign against the USSR and China, specifically, and against communism in general, that was started, in the late 1940s, by US President Truman and which continued, strongly, under President Eisenhower and, less strongly, certainly far less coherently, under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan. It involved not only government agencies like VOA and AID but, far more significantly (and requiring delicate management) American business and the arts, e.g: GE, GM and Coca Cola; Pan Am, Diners Club and Holiday Inn; and, esecially Disney, MGM, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong. It was damned effective, too ~ arguably worth more than NATO.



Thank you for the corroboration! How about rock and roll?

For young Soviets, the Beatles were a first, mutinous rip in the iron curtain
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/apr/20/beatles-soviet-union-first-rip-iron-curtain


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2015)

Thanks for the lecture, Tuan.  

My sarcasm is based on nearly a third of a century of service including a year-long tour embedded in a developing country's government exercising 'soft power' to help build their government's capacity.  I'm pretty sure that they appreciated my and my Canadian comrades' 'soft power', but thanks, I'll consider your advice the next time I'm deployed in a manner that supports Canada's use of soft power.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Sep 2015)

Tuan,

The MESF is not an occupying force, they are assisting the GOI in their efforts against ISIS (to the best of my knowledge, unless I really missed something important...) and therefore, IMO, the 'winning the hearts and minds' part is a battle between the GOI and ISIS.

The MESF has to ensure they, because they are linked to the GOI, do not do anything to make that battle harder for the GOI. 

My quick summary from the oar-puller perspective.


WRT the application of soft power.  What makes you think that this is not happening??


----------



## Acorn (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Arab/Israeli conflict and the plight of the Palestinian regugees is a classic example of that lack of will.



Probably the leading example, as you say. Palestinian refugee "camps" in Lebanon and (those not destroyed) in Syria are very permanent villages.

Other refugees that never returned include the Vietnamese Boat People though, which we welcomed, and integrated, knowing full well even if they could eventually go back it was going to be generations. One could argue there was a certain amount of Western responsibility to them, but large numbers were accepted into Britain and Canada, neither of which ranked among supporters of the US-led war.

Or the Lebanese, many of whom did go back after Taif, though they keep their Canadian passports (since we did offer them citizenship), knowing how volatile the region is. Of course we now just despise them as "Canadians of convenience."

All too often these days refugees become migrants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Probably the leading example, as you say. Palestinian refugee "camps" in Lebanon and (those not destroyed) in Syria are very permanent villages.
> 
> Other refugees that never returned include _the Vietnamese Boat People_ though, which we welcomed, and integrated, knowing full well even if they could eventually go back it was going to be generations. One could argue there was a certain amount of Western responsibility to them, but large numbers were accepted into Britain and Canada, neither of which ranked among supporters of the US-led war.
> 
> ...




A great example of doing the (mostly) right thing ~ accepting (mostly) sophisticated, hard working, adaptable people as immigrants ~ for the wrong reason: as refugees.

I agree they were refugees, many had been in Hong Kong camps, in poor conditions, but better than the Arabs and the UN provide for the Palestinians (yes, I've been in some of those camps), and others were, literally snatched from the ocean by ships. But we, and other Western nations, should have had (should have right now) well targeted immigration programmes that would have seen East Asians as "right," and many other socio-cultural (ethnic) groups as "wrong" for immigration. I could, even, make a weak argument that, given the geography (including the human geography) of East Asia, settling Vietnamese refugees in Australia and North America makes some sense.

But, essentially, we were lucky: the Vietnamese refugees were, concomitantly, excellent immigrants, too; ditto the South Asians from  Uganda in 1972 and the Czechs in 1968; we were not so lucky with other refugees. It's NOT the refugees' fault that they are unprepared to make their ways in Canada ... they're glad to be here, but (culturally) unprepared to prosper here.


----------



## Haggis (2 Sep 2015)

I'm sure this article from MacLean's, shared with the usual disclaimers, will cause some political leaders to question our future there.


----------



## crowbag (2 Sep 2015)

"In central Iraq, that targeting has been spotty: The only viable local forces are Shia militias aligned with Iran, and co-operating with them is a geopolitical minefield."

"As much as Canadians want to be part of the action against Islamic State, the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."

Great piece - unfortunately Harper et al prefer to paint the situation as pretty straightforward - I guess in an election year ya gotta do what ya gotta do right?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Sep 2015)

Kurds have better kit then us. Maybe we should sit this one out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Refugees are, by definition, people who are:
> 
> 1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_
> 
> ...




Here is the problem for Syrian refugees:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





This image is circulating on social media, now ...

              
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




You know, I almost hope IS** does well ... well enough to invade Saudi Arabia and string up every f'ing member of the House of Saud and all their friends and relatives in the region from every f'ing lamp-post in the f'ing country.


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You know, I almost hope IS** does well ... well enough to invade Saudi Arabia and string up every f'ing member of the House of Saud and all their friends and relatives in the region from every f'ing lamp-post in the f'ing country.



LOL


----------



## Tuan (2 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Alright lads, good cam and concealment, but the ******* Brigadier is coming to visit so take the ganja off your helmets NOW!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Sep 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I'm sure this article from MacLean's, shared with the usual disclaimers, will cause some political leaders to question our future there.



Here is a more accurate account of Canadian airstrikes since the op launched last fall.  Maybe that article author should spend some time reading.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page


----------



## Tuan (3 Sep 2015)

Thank you Rosemary Barton for keeping Chris Alexander in check....
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2674869415/


----------



## Acorn (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You know, I almost hope IS** does well ... well enough to invade Saudi Arabia and string up every f'ing member of the House of Saud and all their friends and relatives in the region from every f'ing lamp-post in the f'ing country.



Frankly I'd rather see our own governments face down the house of Saud and tell them what they can do with their oil. I'd rather see IS as a red mist and the Saudis treated like South Africa was in the '80s (at least).

Even if the Saudis (and inclue the other Gulf States) were inclined to accept regional refugees for anything other than cheap labour it's not exactly a popular destination. Limited livable space, limited opportunities for work and a hostile population are one reason Iraqi and Syrian refugees are heading in other directions. Jordan doesn't have much capacity anymore, and Turkey already has over 2 million living in appalling conditions. Plus the dead boy was a Kurd - is it any wonder his family risked all to get elsewhere.

I think I see a subtext in your earlier post that the people of the Middle East are somehow less desirable as immigrants than the 250,000 Southeast Asians we took in in the '80s. I doubt we can count education as a problem area - Levantine Arabs number amongst the best educated. I suppose we could return to the Christians Only policy that saw our Lebanese community grow prior to WWII - that's what Hungary is demanding should the EU finally get their collective thumbs out and figure out how to deal with a very unbalanced influx.

Yes, maybe the Arabs of the region should pick up more of the load. But perhaps "humanity" has no place in decision making of this sort?

Or maybe I spent far too much time in the ME, and went native, so it's colouring my view of the situation?


----------



## crowbag (3 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Here is a more accurate account of Canadian airstrikes since the op launched last fall.  Maybe that article author should spend some time reading.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page



Fair enough - the main point still holds strong though: 

*"...the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."*


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Frankly I'd rather see our own governments face down the house of Saud and tell them what they can do with their oil. I'd rather see IS as a red mist and the Saudis treated like South Africa was in the '80s (at least).
> 
> Even if the Saudis (and inclue the other Gulf States) were inclined to accept regional refugees for anything other than cheap labour it's not exactly a popular destination. Limited livable space, limited opportunities for work and a hostile population are one reason Iraqi and Syrian refugees are heading in other directions. Jordan doesn't have much capacity anymore, and Turkey already has over 2 million living in appalling conditions. Plus the dead boy was a Kurd - is it any wonder his family risked all to get elsewhere.
> 
> ...




I suppose you do. My own,_ personal_ (and very limited) experience is that my (few) Arab (Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese (Christian and Muslim) colleagues (mostly in the radio/telecomm engineering world) were excellent people, great immigrants and a real asset to Canada ~ very well educated, in many cases, and (universally, _I think_) eager to leave the Middle East for socio-economic and political reasons. On a slightly lower _scale_, ditto for my neighbour the Arab convenience store owner who is doing a great job raising two sons to be good, hard working, well educated, _productive_ (and, _it appears to me_, happy Canadians ~ happy to _be_ Canadian). Not the same, evidently, for many Arabs (just a minority, _I suppose_) who have come to Canada and cannot manage to adapt to a modern, sophisticated, Western/multi-cultural lifestyle and have become drains on both our social welfare and criminal justice systems.

Are there no Chinese and Vietnamese criminals? You bet your life there are: and they're a cruel and vicious lot, too. :nod:

But, my _personal_ experience is that my East and South Asian colleagues and friends seemed to have fewer _community_ problems than my Arab/Middle Eastern colleagues; one of my Arab-Canadian friends told us that he had withdrawn almost completely from any Islamic community organizations, cutting himself off from some of his own famiuly: he has three daughters and he explained that they could not grow to their full human potential if they were exposed to the influences of mosques and community organizations. I don't recall any of our Chinese or Indian colleagues saying anything similar, ever, not even about Hindu-Sikh problems.


----------



## observor 69 (3 Sep 2015)

The Last Neocon

"Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a hawk since the days of W. His looming defeat could finally mean an end to one of the most controversial foreign-policy eras in recent history."

Interesting take on PM Harper:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/02/the-last-neocon-canadas-stephen-harper/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors%20Picks


----------



## Tuan (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suppose you do. My own,_ personal_ (and very limited) experience is that my (few) Arab (Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese (Christian and Muslim) colleagues (mostly in the radio/telecomm engineering world) were excellent people, great immigrants and a real asset to Canada ~ very well educated, in many cases, and (universally, _I think_) eager to leave the Middle East for socio-economic and political reasons. On a slightly lower _scale_, ditto for my neighbour the Arab convenience store owner who is doing a great job raising two sons to be good, hard working, well educated, _productive_ (and, _it appears to me_, happy Canadians ~ happy to _be_ Canadian). Not the same, evidently, for many Arabs (just a minority, _I suppose_) who have come to Canada and cannot manage to adapt to a modern, sophisticated, Western/multi-cultural lifestyle and have become drains on both our social welfare and criminal justice systems.
> 
> Are there no Chinese and Vietnamese criminals? You bet your life there are: and they're a cruel and vicious lot, too. :nod:
> 
> But, my _personal_ experience is that my East and South Asian colleagues and friends seemed to have fewer _community_ problems than my Arab/Middle Eastern colleagues; one of my Arab-Canadian friends told us that he had withdrawn almost completely from any Islamic community organizations, cutting himself off from some of his own famiuly: he has three daughters and he explained that they could not grow to their full human potential if they were exposed to the influences of mosques and community organizations. I don't recall any of our Chinese or Indian colleagues saying anything similar, ever, not even about Hindu-Sikh problems.



In light of the recent, and ever-present, refugee debate in Canada, I would like Campbell's take on the Sri Lankan Tamil boat people:

Has Canada seen the last of the boat people? 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/has-canada-seen-the-last-of-the-boat-people/article21153005/


----------



## Tuan (3 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Fair enough - the main point still holds strong though:
> 
> *"...the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."*



AFAIC, Canada's end game in Op IMPACT would be rethinking strategy once the Liberals win the election on Oct19.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2015)

Re: Refugees and Immigrants.

As an immigrant myself I do not want people coming here out of fear and desperation.  I want willing volunteers to help this country grow and sustain the lifestyle we enjoy.   Fear and despair breed resentment.

Immigrants should be welcomed.  

Refugees are a necessary evil.  

The suitable response when someone is driven out of their home is to get them back into their home as quickly as possible.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Sep 2015)

From Thursday copy of the National Post. Re-printed under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act:



> Canada is watching Syria die
> 
> Terry Glavin | September 2, 2015 | Last Updated: Sep 3 8:36 AM ET
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Fair enough - the main point still holds strong though:
> 
> *"...the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."*



So, if it's hard or difficult, leave it for someone else?  Imagine if the world continued to do that in say, 1939ish...would have been a great ending no?

If we pull out of the MESF now, how long will it be before the Liberals and NDP are yacking that the Conservatives are 'doing nothing and letting innocent people die"?  

Point - no matter what the PM and government do, the Liberals and NDP will say it is wrong and not enough.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> AFAIC, Canada's end game in Op IMPACT would be rethinking strategy once the Liberals win the election on Oct19.



You aren't seeming to get it.  Canada can have all the 'strategy' revamped by the Liberals IF they win an election.  It will only (maybe) change a few things, Canada is NOT...NOT driving the big happy MESF bus.  We have a seat on the bus, if we don't like the way they bus is going we have the choice to get off, or stay.  The Coach Master is the GOI.

PS - this is an OP Impact thread, not a Sri Lanka thread.   :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, if it's hard or difficult, leave it for someone else?  Imagine if the world continued to do that in say, 1939ish...would have been a great ending no?
> 
> If we pull out of the MESF now, how long will it be before the Liberals and NDP are yacking that the Conservatives are 'doing nothing and letting innocent people die"?
> 
> Point - no matter what the PM and government do, the Liberals and NDP will say it is wrong and not enough.



I'm just waiting for the day JT starts claiming that we should have been and he would be dropping life jackets in addition to parkas.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2015)

The image of 3-year old Kurdi is heart-wrenching. 

If a building were on fire you could either focus your attention on having the fire-fighters hold out rescue nets for people to jump into to escape the flames, or the fire-fighters could focus their efforts at putting out the flames at their source. 

Helping immigrants cross the Mediterrainean is the former.  Canada, wrongly in the eyes of many, has currently chosen the latter.  I agree with the latter, but do consider that elements of the former could be done better. 

The problem with not fighting the fire at its source is that the fire will tend to increase in size and endanger other buildings and risk more people's lives.  

In the end, we as a Nation deserve whichever government we chose to elect in six weeks' time.

I have little confidence the the Liberal or NDP plan to withdraw from direct action at the source of The Da'esh's flames will decrease the human suffering of Syrian and Iraqi refugees...

G2G


----------



## Tuan (4 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You aren't seeming to get it.  Canada can have all the 'strategy' revamped by the Liberals IF they win an election.  It will only (maybe) change a few things, Canada is NOT...NOT driving the big happy MESF bus.  We have a seat on the bus, if we don't like the way they bus is going we have the choice to get off, or stay.  The Coach Master is the GOI.



Again, the current strategy isn’t working so we need to revamp it. As I've already mentioned here, we should be keep removing the ideologues/leaders of the ISIS, the (cephalothorax) of the spider, but it seems like MESF is committed to fighting with its legs. Wonder how many ISIS leaders have you removed so far? And I don’t buy your crap that GOI is the so-called “coach master”. Why don’t you tell them that beggars can't be choosers?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ........ Wonder how many ISIS leaders have you removed so far? ............



Several.  It takes time to track and identify the leadership of IS, but with dedication and hard work, it is being done.  If you for some reason think it is a simple matter, then you are truly naive.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Again, the current strategy isn’t working so we need to revamp it. As I've already mentioned here, we should be keep removing the ideologues/leaders of the ISIS, the (cephalothorax) of the spider, but it seems like MESF is committed to fighting with its legs. Wonder how many ISIS leaders have you removed so far? And I don’t buy your crap that GOI is the so-called “coach master”. Why don’t you tell them that beggars can't be choosers?



Official: local ISIS leader killed in western Mosul
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/030920151

No. 2 ISIS leader killed by air strike in Iraq, White House says
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/no-2-isis-leader-killed-by-air-strike-in-iraq-white-house-says-1.2527880

http://www.scmagazine.com/isis-hacking-leader-killed-by-drone-strike/article/435372/
http://www.scmagazine.com/isis-hacking-leader-killed-by-drone-strike/article/435372/

Afghan agency: ISIS leader killed in drone strike
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/11/asia/isis-leader-killed-afghanistan/

SAS go into Syria to kill ISIS chief: UK 'boots on the ground' for ferocious joint US gunbattle that killed terror financier Abu Sayaff 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190731/SAS-Syria-kill-chief-UK-boots-ground-ferocious-joint-gunbattle-killed-terror-financier-Abu-Sayaff.html

This is just in the past few weeks.  You sound like the typical 24 year old, political science student who probably still lives in his Mom's basement, but has all the answers  :.  You come on here and argue with a bunch of career soldiers, many of whom have extensive experience operating in many of the worlds worst places conducting all sorts of different missions (disaster response, peacekeeping and warfighting).  

Why do you think the current strategy isn't working?  What sort of actual evidence do you have to back that sort of statement up or is this just your opinion?  Do you even know what the current strategy is?




			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The image of 3-year old Kurdi is heart-wrenching.
> 
> If a building were on fire you could either focus your attention on having the fire-fighters hold out rescue nets for people to jump into to escape the flames, or the fire-fighters could focus their efforts at putting out the flames at their source.
> 
> ...



You know the worst part about this G2G?  The kid that drowned is Kurdish, aka the one group of people the Canadian government is actually trying to support!  Probably the only group over there that deserves any sort of support.


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> And I don’t buy your crap that GOI is the so-called “coach master”. Why don’t you tell them that beggars can't be choosers?



You are kidding right?  Look, the Government of Iraq is playing a huge part in running the show, you'd be surprised how much control they have (after all it is their country), MESF is responding to a request from them (Iraq).  This is unlike the war a few years ago where the US just showed up and started kicking ass.

This is *not going to happen overnight*, I will also point out that our current strategy has worked as the advance was halted.  I can't sit here and magically give every ISF soldier in Iraq Abu Azrael  sized balls, but in all honesty that's what they need, they are fighting an enemy who has no fear.   Which is why they are capable of over running towns with 12 guys, one side has fear, one does not (my opinion).


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> You are kidding right?  Look, the Government of Iraq is playing a huge part in running the show, you'd be surprised how much control they have (after all it is their country), MESF is responding to a request from them (Iraq).  This is unlike the war a few years ago where the US just showed up and started kicking ***.
> 
> This is *not going to happen overnight*, I will also point out that our current strategy has worked as the advance was halted.  I can't sit here and magically give every ISF soldier in Iraq Abu Azrael  sized balls, but in all honesty that's what they need, they are fighting an enemy who has no fear.   Which is why they are capable of over running towns with 12 guys, one side has fear, one does not (my opinion).



Something tells me DH that Tuan only believes what he wants to hear.  Trying to explain to him how a multi-national military operation actually works is probably a waste of effort.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150828-video-reporter-embedded-with-french-troops-sahel-desert?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-08-27&dlvrit=66745

Linked is a video of French soldiers working with Nigerien soldiers in the Sahel.  Watch in Tuan, maybe you'll learn something?


----------



## Tuan (4 Sep 2015)

According to reports, so far Abu Hussain the hacker of ISIS, Haji Mutazz the deputy of ISIS and Junaid Hussain the recruiter of the ISIS have been removed, which is significance. 

I know it is NOT an easy task; it needs meticulous planning, painstaking preparation and accurate and effective execution. That’s why I said, “intelligence is the capital” in counterterrorism operations. In order to acquire complete picture of the ISIS we have to engineer a defection within ISIS. A few renegades, so “ponder the improbable” instead of attacking me, will ya? 

Moreover, this is an open forum thus, for OPSEC/PERSEC reasons I won’t discuss further details here, follow me? I don’t know the ROE, TOE, TTP and so on because I am an average Canadian who is projecting ideas from OSINT. However if you take me in I will tell y’all what to do. Period.


----------



## Remius (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Moreover, this is an open forum thus, for OPSEC/PERSEC reasons I won’t discuss further details here, follow me? I don’t know the ROE, TOE, TTP and so on because I am an average Canadian who is projecting ideas from OSINT. However if you take me in I will tell y’all what to do. Period.



 ???


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ???



This guy is borderline troll material


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ...However if you take me in I will tell y’all what to do. Period.



As with all of us, you're passing on your opinion on the internet...then again, you seem to know so much, that maybe the PM should have you replace Mr. Fadden, as the National Security Advisor.


----------



## Scott (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> According to reports, so far Abu Hussain the hacker of ISIS, Haji Mutazz the deputy of ISIS and Junaid Hussain the recruiter of the ISIS have been removed, which is significance.
> 
> I know it is NOT an easy task; it needs meticulous planning, painstaking preparation and accurate and effective execution. That’s why I said, “intelligence is the capital” in counterterrorism operations. In order to acquire complete picture of the ISIS we have to engineer a defection within ISIS. A few renegades, so “ponder the improbable” instead of attacking me, will ya?
> 
> Moreover, this is an open forum thus, for OPSEC/PERSEC reasons I won’t discuss further details here, follow me? I don’t know the ROE, TOE, TTP and so on because I am an average Canadian who is projecting ideas from OSINT. However if you take me in I will tell y’all what to do. Period.



Your credibility is in a nosedive now, buds.

Go and read a little bit on here about this sort of approach and how it's fared in the past.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Tuan (4 Sep 2015)

Just the other day, I watched the movie “Thirteen Days” and pondered and wondered how far the United States came from the Cuban missile crisis to the fall of Soviet Union. 

The point is the world is between conformist and non-conformists. Liberals and Realists. Realists believe might is right, but intelligence says knowledge is power, another word for might, so there is always a chance for a small man to make a big difference, after all it took a small child to inform the mighty King that he was naked


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Sep 2015)

Oh, I get it...you're going for the Internet Troll of the Year Award.


----------



## Acorn (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, my _personal_ experience is that my East and South Asian colleagues and friends seemed to have fewer _community_ problems than my Arab/Middle Eastern colleagues; one of my Arab-Canadian friends told us that he had withdrawn almost completely from any Islamic community organizations, cutting himself off from some of his own famiuly: he has three daughters and he explained that they could not grow to their full human potential if they were exposed to the influences of mosques and community organizations. I don't recall any of our Chinese or Indian colleagues saying anything similar, ever, not even about Hindu-Sikh problems.



What you describe is a troubling aspect of how some Islamic organizations have evolved. Islam is due for a Reformation, but I don't know if it'll get worse before better. An Iranian gentleman of my aquaintance (a settled refugee from the Ayatollahs' regime) made similar comments about certain areas of Ottawa "look like Saudi Arabia." 

There are similar community tensions in the South Asian and Asian communities. A different sort of extreme, perhaps, but it's there. You may remember the tea kettle bomb in BC some time ago.

I'll have to ask my wife when it was dropped, but there used to be a section of an immigration file called "adaptability." It was an entirely subjective entry made by the immigration officer, which may be why it was dropped, but it helped screen out immigrants who held views or participated in practices that are against what are generally held as our Canadian values. In at least one case that she described to me (without specifics) she explained how she was able to "mark down" a Syrian gent who demanded to "see the _man_ in charge of my file" when my wife insisted he stop answering questions for his wife who was in the interview booth with him. She gently explained that she was the _man_ in charge of his file, and that he would have a great deal of difficulty living in Canada where he could find himself subordinate to a woman.

I think the current issue with refugees is one of approach. We have, in the past, taken refugees without the promise of citizenship. In fact, not all want it (the man who lost is family is returning to Kobani - Canada was a place of safety for his wife and kids, not home). Many Lebanese returned as soon as the Taif Accord was inked. I don't know how it would hold up legally, but perhaps we need to create some sort of status that provides for equality, but is forfeit when the refugee returns home. Anyone wanting to stay has to go through the regular immigration application process.

The other analogy posted above, about firefighters holding nets for people to jump from the buring building *or* fighting the fire is a false dichotomy. Ask a firefighter - they do both. So can we. We don't have to take them all (that would be absurd), just as we don't need to be the only "firefighters" trying to put out the flames. 

Merkel has said Germany could absorb 800,000 of the refugees  . That's nearly 1% of their population. By that metric we should be able to absorb 300,000, though I would suggest we could absorb 50k without even noticing. Yes, refugees are harder to integrate than those who want to come here, but it's not impossible.


----------



## Tuan (4 Sep 2015)

"Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution to the flood of refugees that is overwhelming Europe and galvanizing worldwide public attention...."

Thomas Mulcair dismisses Canada’s military involvement in Syria and Iraq as a solution to the refugee crisis


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> "Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution to the flood of refugees that is overwhelming Europe and galvanizing worldwide public attention...."
> 
> Thomas Mulcair dismisses Canada’s military involvement in Syria and Iraq as a solution to the refugee crisis



You can read!  Amazing!


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> "Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution to the flood of refugees that is overwhelming Europe and galvanizing worldwide public attention...."
> 
> Thomas Mulcair dismisses Canada’s military involvement in Syria and Iraq as a solution to the refugee crisis



That tells me one thing.  Thomas Mulcair is not part of the solution; but part of the problem.

Permitting IS to spread and force more people to flee the area, does not decrease the problem of refugees and migrants.  It has the opposite affect.  An even greater refugee and migrant problem is the result.

I hope that I am not too optimistic to hope that most Canadians can see this.


----------



## McG (4 Sep 2015)

Gents,
We don't have to agree with each other, but let’s put the personal insults away.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Sep 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Again, the current strategy isn’t working so we need to revamp it. As I've already mentioned here, we should be keep removing the ideologues/leaders of the ISIS, the (cephalothorax) of the spider, but it seems like MESF is committed to fighting with its legs. Wonder how many ISIS leaders have you removed so far?


 
Who the fuck is 'we' and why are you including yourself in this equation?  I don't think I saw you flying over the badlands.  Maybe you were tucked away in the pannier?  Musta been cold on those 3rd block trips!! (I know you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, so it just reinforces my_ very _valid point that you really don't know SFA about what you're talking about).  

You don't have a sweet fuckin' clue WHAT MESF is really doing; you rely on 'open source int' and news reports.   :   But, in short, the MESF is doing what the GOI is asking it to do.  Again IT IS NOT AN OCCUPATION FORCE.  



> And I don’t buy your crap that GOI is the so-called “coach master”. Why don’t you tell them that beggars can't be choosers?



I exist in a dark little place called the 'tactical level'.  My job is to do my job where I go, provide advice and guidance where I can on the areas I am (supposed) to be a SME in, to the people who expect it from me, and to keep my shit wired tight, so I can continue to do my job.  I subscribe to the 'beggars can't be choosers' stuff sometimes, like when I am trying to give away some good used clothing to a needy person, but not so much when the situation isn't about clothes, its about killing and torturing innocent people and helping that kind of nasty shit be stopped.  That's just me.  

See, now you're just becoming petty because (1) you don't have a clue what is really going on (2) you think some stuff from Sri Lanka applies that no one really gives 2 flying fucks about and (3) you can't accept that fact that your pretty plan of neatly separating spider legs and heads doesn't ACTUALLY work all neat and tidy like it does in your "how to beat ISIS for Dummies" plan.  

I don't care if you 'buy' that the GOI is the driver of the bus.  You can believe that it's really Mork from Ork who is in command for all I care.  You can try all the Na-nu Na-nu tricks you want; the fact remains and will remain that the GOI is overall in charge of the business taking place in their own country.  Sure there are influences and all that jazz but at the end of the day...the GOI is responsible, the same as the GOC is here in good ol Canada-land.







People have been trying to get you to see and understand things aren't all neat and tidy in the real world like they are in your head WRT this theatre.  You keep ignoring them.  It's really okay to just accept the fact there are people on here who know what they're talking about from experience.  Those on here who have experience specifically in this theatre aren't, can't and won't talk about it on here -you'll just have to accept their credibility or continue to piss people off by insisting this spider head-and-leg thing really is magical stuff, you are smart, have it all figured out while the rest of us just haven't seen the light yet.


----------



## Quirky (5 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> Fair enough - the main point still holds strong though:
> 
> *"...the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."*



This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money.



On the other hand we had an opportunity to secure Benghazi or Tobruk and establish secure havens there.  It wasn't, and isn't necessary to secure the whole of Libya to manage the refugee problem, or to influence events in Libya to our advantage.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Sep 2015)

Hmm:



> A Canadian Warplane Mistakenly Broadcast Its Location Over Islamic State Controlled Territory [Iraq]
> 
> For what appears to be an entire sortie, a Canadian warplane broadcast its flight location while flying over so-called Islamic State (IS) controlled territory.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Sep 2015)

Not the first time it happens...  Happened in 2011 as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

Lovin' the callsign, though ....  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Sep 2015)

I notice they said "fire on..." not 'effectively engage'.  But a detail like that doesn't make a difference in the news or to politicians... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> .... a detail like that doesn't make a difference in the news or to politicians... ;D


Or most media consumers, either.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

For the record, this from the CAF Info-machine ....


> The following statement is issued in response to recent coverage regarding possible civilian casualties resulting from a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) airstrike in ISIS-held territory in Iraq on January 21, 2015.
> 
> Shortly after the air strike, information came to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) through the Coalition headquarters that there might have been civilian casualties as a result of coalition action that included a Canadian airstrike. The source of this allegation had himself heard of these potential casualties through a second-hand account and, as far as we understand, there remains no eyewitness or credible information relating to any civilian casualties due to Canadian action on Jan. 21.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Sep 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money.



 :


----------



## crowbag (10 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, if it's hard or difficult, leave it for someone else?  Imagine if the world continued to do that in say, 1939ish...would have been a great ending no?
> 
> If we pull out of the MESF now, how long will it be before the Liberals and NDP are yacking that the Conservatives are 'doing nothing and letting innocent people die"?
> 
> Point - no matter what the PM and government do, the Liberals and NDP will say it is wrong and not enough.



I'm not sure conflating current events and 1939 is in any way effective beyond trying to stifle debate. Leave it for someone else? Maybe that isn't such a bad idea, regional stakeholders as opposed to MESF? Lets see how they make out in Yemen though...another sub-plot in this terrible saga...

I completely agree with the points on the political squabbling, though. Will be interesting to see what happens on this post-election, especially if the NDP end up winning (appears increasingly possible  :-\).



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...But, in short, the MESF is doing what the GOI is asking it to do.  Again IT IS NOT AN OCCUPATION FORCE.



Interesting take on the current relationship with the GOI: 

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/dont-bother-working-through-baghdad/

Not sure I agree entirely with the author, but it is food for thought, and brings up some important points. 

While clamoring to "do something" about ISIS, I fear we are being shortsighted on a strategic/geo-political level. Winning tactical victories does not necessarily translate into strategic success, as we all know from Iraq and Afghan. "Degrading and destroying ISIS," or whatever the official line is now, is not a long-term strategy. 

Maybe there is just a bad taste in my mouth from being shot at by Iranian funded/supported militias in Iraq, the same Iranian proxies we are now supporting in the fight against ISIS...Iran's influence in Iraq is there to stay, while ours is fleeting at best. I don't feel that this is recognized by our current government. 

Don't get me wrong, the situation is a quagmire, and if anyone claims they know the right answer they are deluded. It is important that the prudence of the mission is debated by Canadians though.

In any case - God speed to you and all the others involved over there on the tactical side of life. Lets hope the political masters are working equally hard on the rest of the picture, and adequately understand the nuances of the situation in the region as a whole. The rhetoric of the current government sure doesn't make me optimistic though...


----------



## Baz (10 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :



You may role your eyes but there is a lot of evidence, including at NATO within 18 months, that Libya was a tactical success, operational learning process, and strategic failure.

What if all we do against ISIS is teach them how to operate in the presence of air power, like the Talisman also learned?  Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Sep 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?



ISIS internet streams suggest they are already there.

Douhet still remains attractive, even though we learn every decade or so (Vietnam, Iraq, Libya) that airpower has limits as a coercive tool.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Sep 2015)

crowbag said:
			
		

> I'm not sure conflating current events and 1939 is in any way effective beyond trying to stifle debate. Leave it for someone else? Maybe that isn't such a bad idea, regional stakeholders as opposed to MESF? Lets see how they make out in Yemen though...another sub-plot in this terrible saga...



Not trying to stifle debate, but trying to show 'the head in the sand/ignore the problem' technique usually doesn't fair out well.  I believe the overall 'intent' is that the solution come from the middle east area.  I think there are many question on if that is realistically possible in the current...climate.  One thing is clear, there is no easy solution.  IMO it is plausible there will never be one, in my lifetime at least.  



> Not sure I agree entirely with the author, but it is food for thought, and brings up some important points.
> 
> While clamoring to "do something" about ISIS, I fear we are being shortsighted on a strategic/geo-political level. Winning tactical victories does not necessarily translate into strategic success, as we all know from Iraq and Afghan. "Degrading and destroying ISIS," or whatever the official line is now, is not a long-term strategy.



I wonder about the strategic/political level as well; but I try to keep it tucked away.  I may have an opinion on it but I don't pretend to understand or even be able to consider the factors in that quagmire.  Lacking an educated/informed opinion, I try not to embarrass myself too much.  



> Maybe there is just a bad taste in my mouth from being shot at by Iranian funded/supported militias in Iraq, the same Iranian proxies we are now supporting in the fight against ISIS...Iran's influence in Iraq is there to stay, while ours is fleeting at best. I don't feel that this is recognized by our current government.



Glad you made it out of the Badlands.  

Maybe our total force commitment is an indication of something? 



> Don't get me wrong, the situation is a quagmire, and if anyone claims they know the right answer they are deluded. It is important that the prudence of the mission is debated by Canadians though.



If someone does know the answer, they are being real pricks by keeping it to themselves all these years.  And agree on the debated by Canadians part, my beef is that they are not necessarily deciding on factual information, rather on bits and blurbs and political sound-bites centered more on an upcoming election than the actual mission and the people they've sent over into the litterbox who are risking the orange pajama dance.



> In any case - God speed to you and all the others involved over there on the tactical side of life. Lets hope the political masters are working equally hard on the rest of the picture, and adequately understand the nuances of the situation in the region as a whole. The rhetoric of the current government sure doesn't make me optimistic though...



I'll second that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Sep 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> You may role your eyes but there is a lot of evidence, including at NATO within 18 months, that Libya was a tactical success, operational learning process, and strategic failure.



History might not repeat itself?  



> What if all we do against ISIS is teach them how to operate in the presence of air power, like the Talisman also learned?  Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?



That's a question for a few floors up from where I work.  I'm just a self-loading button monkey.   8)  

Having said that, I felt pretty swept-up on the tactical and (less so) the operational level.  I don't pretend to know or have valuable input at the strategic level.  I was trained to think '2 up' and that is way above 2 for me.


----------



## Baz (13 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Having said that, I felt pretty swept-up on the tactical and (less so) the operational level.  I don't pretend to know or have valuable input at the strategic level.  I was trained to think '2 up' and that is way above 2 for me.



Then you are prepared to consider that simply dismissively rolling your eyes to someone asking these very questions is just a way to stifle the conversation? 

Some of us believe that promises are being made on the current capability of airport ti deliver strategic effect, which are causing politicians to make poorly informed decisions.  Directly related to your community is your designation as ISR; what is the long term cost of that?

The previous Come RCAF was completely focused on this; when your only obvious concern about the state of MH is how it can support ISR, especially the overland air effort, we have a problem.

I have worked at the strategic level on these questions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2015)

What I _am_ prepared to say (at the risk of offending some) is that ground crew aren't sitting in the DMSC getting eyes on the same info on the tactical/operational stuff, so I don't feel they have any real reason to be waving the 'this is a waste of time' flag.  

If you don't have any real, accurate info (and anyone who does won't be putting it out on this forum, naturally) then you have an 'opinion'.  That's a fair difference from having an 'informed' opinion.

The ATF task is not to 'win the war on it's very own'.  People need to keep site of that.  However, my opinion, is the ATF is doing it's mandated job and doing it as well as it is able to.

My community is, has, and will continue to do ISR and do it quite well.  I guess the only way anyone can really judge that is to see if for themselves, which won't happen for 99.9% of the CAF.  I personally know of 1 GOFO who was pretty impressed with the job after witnessing it with his/her eyes and it was over the normal op area.

I am hoping the long term cost of that is that we get a little more noticed, a little better supported/funded, more access to some beneficial training opportunites and 'gainfully employed'.   I'll also note that while IMPACT is ongoing, the community is still doing all the other things we normally do.  I am away from my postal code now but not at a sandy location.  

With limited resources, I suspect any Comdr these days are looking to wring every drop he/she can out of any resource.  My  :2c: is either the new or old MH platform would be better employed elsewhere.  However, I think the broad left and right of arcs on the term/buzzword "ISR" need to be explored and put into more...detail?  Definition?


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2015)

EITS, rest assured folks are tracking you guys -- and your last point is a valid concern, but is becoming better understood of late, both inside and outside the Department.

Fly safe!

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Sep 2015)

Tks.  In all honesty, I think ISR is a very generalized term that is used today.  ISR can be done by 1 pers, 1 CPF, heck a guy in a bug-smasher with a friend along for the ride with bino's can do "ISR".

Because of that, I don't think anyone can realistically expect to understand the nuances of that come with each and every platform that is capable, in whatever degree, of doing "ISR".  

Is ISR an appropriate term to use WRT what the CP-140 is doing in theatre?  Yes.  IMO.

Are the CF-18s doing the job they are supposed to be doing?  Again I say yes.

There's no need to take just my word for it though see the info below...and for the record, there's more to it than just the strike %s carried out by our Hornet folks.  Comparatively, if you are an infanteer on a defensive position, how much does the mere threat of an active sniper 'in the treeline' somewhere make you change the way you do your business, without ever having a fired a shot at you.  _There are more effects a weapon system can have on a battle space than just kinetic.   :2c:
_
Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 14 September 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1481 sorties:
•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 951 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 255 sorties, delivering some 15,359,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 275 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In all honesty, I think ISR is a very *inappropriately over-*generalized term that is used today.



   :nod:

Better granularity on ISR-elements and their context within the larger ISR framework is being dist'd extradepartmentally...small but positive steps.


----------



## eharps (7 Oct 2015)

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/former-chief-of-defence-staff-says-military-intervention-is-needed-in-iraq-syria-1.2598880

_The Canadian Press 
Published Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:23AM CST 
Last Updated Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:24AM CST 


WINNIPEG - Retired general Rick Hillier says military intervention in Iraq and Syria is needed.

The former chief of defence staff says the humanitarian crisis won't end unless Islamic State leaders are dealt with first.

Canada's role in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has become an election issue.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair has said he would end bombing campaigns and other military action, and put more resources into humanitarian and refugee efforts.

Hillier says that's wrong, and what's needed is continued air strikes and the ongoing presence of special forces in the region.

Hillier was in charge of Canada's military between 2005 and 2008._


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Oct 2015)

???

What does he think MESF, ATF-I et al are doing?


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2015)

He might be implying boots on the ground without actually saying it. You can only project so much power into an area, to secure it you need ground forces.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Oct 2015)

I get the boots on the ground stuff;  I wasn't always a zoomie.  I wish he'd just use plain language, there's enough fluff in the air with the election coming up.  

Personally, I agree with him about 'boots on the ground', I just don't know I believe those boots should come from Canada; the solution should be more local to the problem.  The "west" gets into this one at C7-range, the whole region could 'bond together' against that common enemy (aka "us") and then the fireworks will be on.

Oh - Mulclair...please stop.  Would you take the firefighters away from the fire so they could hand out blankets and knit mittens?   :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2015)

Absolutely agree. I think he's diving further into politics and poli-speak and anyway from the straight shooter talk that endeared him to his troops.


----------



## YZT580 (9 Oct 2015)

You are delving too deeply.  My first read had him simply stating that the intervention that we are doing now is the intervention that is needed; at least from Canada's position.   He even stated that the F18s and special forces were the way to go.  I don't see any poli-speak there


----------



## Ghazwan (14 Oct 2015)

It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

SOF doesn't work for the Army, so the percentage is 0.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Oct 2015)

Ghazwan said:
			
		

> It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.



Honestly, I read your post and it doesn't make sense.  SAY AGAIN ALL AFTER MUMBLE MUMBLE, OVER.  

'This op' will go?  It's BEEN going for just short of a calendar year.


----------



## dimsum (19 Oct 2015)

Considering it's election night, I got to thinking that both Trudeau and Mulcair want to stop the bombing campaign in Iraq/Syria, while either keeping or sending back the folks on the ground.  However, they don't mention (or I may have missed) anything about the CP-140s or the tankers - maybe since by keeping those assets in theatre, they can still tell the coalition that Canada is doing something?


----------



## Baz (19 Oct 2015)

Maybe they don't even realize that they are there???


----------



## dimsum (19 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> Maybe they don't even realize that they are there???



The sad part is I'm not sure whether you're joking or not, and that you may be completely right.


----------



## eharps (19 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> Maybe they don't even realize that they are there???





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> you may be completely right.



I think this is likely the case. Tonight will be very interesting, but not as interesting as the next 6 months after we decide who is taking the reigns.


----------



## Baz (19 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The sad part is I'm not sure whether you're joking or not, and that you may be completely right.



Joking, no; sarcastic, maybe...

To be somewhat fair, they have a lot of files they have to think about; this file, at the surface, is "we're over there bombing them..."  The details may not have sunk in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2015)

Trust me, there are CAF members who are working in the location the LRP and Tankers dets are at, working for OP Impact who don't know what the frig the ATF-I is doing.  I am dead serious.  I guess Air Task Force - Iraq as a name and all the news articles did not make it as obvious as we thought it did.  The self licking lollipop JTFSC doesn't seem to realize it exits to support something called "the mission end".  Dobbers.   :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> this file, at the surface, is "we're over there bombing them..."  The details may not have sunk in.


Good point - from the platform:


> *We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.*
> 
> We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.


Not tooooooooooooooo much detail or nuance there - watch and (no longer) shoot, indeed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2015)

If they are going to end the ATF-I part (therefore not needing the JFT-I IMO), the way to do it and save face is to just not extend beyond the current end date.

As a Canadian, taxpayer and directly affected CAF member, if the decision is going to be ""end the mission", I hope that is how it is chosen to be done.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they are going to end the ATF-I part (therefore not needing the JFT-I IMO), the way to do it and save face is to just not extend beyond the current end date.
> 
> As a Canadian, taxpayer and directly affected CAF member, if the decision is going to be ""end the mission", I hope that is how it is chosen to be done.


Here's hoping 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 someone in the administration makes as much sense as you do.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2015)

I wonder what the new MND will think and advise on the issue.  Needless to say I pray it doesn't involve blue berets and/or helmets.  If that is the case, please bring everyone back.   :2c:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2015)

We'll be UNing it for sure within 12 months....in Africa.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Oct 2015)

Yippee.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

Yea! Africa!

 :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34589250

So the message I see is "we don't like ISIS but we aren't willing to actually do anything about it".


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We'll be UNing it for sure within 12 months....*in Africa*.


 :nod:


----------



## Tuan (21 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34589250
> 
> So the message I see is "we don't like ISIS but we aren't willing to actually do anything about it".



here is a quote from your BBC link:



> However, he said he would keep Canadian military trainers in northern Iraq, the AFP news agency reports.



With all due respect for your service, I want to ask you a question. You have always said that the GoI is the driver of the bus in this operation. If so, why don't you train, arm and fund them and get the hell out of there? Why do you want to die for someone else battle?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> here is quote from your BBC link:
> 
> With all due respect for your service, I want to ask you a question. You have always said the GoI is the driver of the bus in this operation. If so, why don't you train, arm and fund them and get the hell out of there? Why do you want to die for someone else battle?



Ref the quote from BBC;  the tan beret folks are there and doing their business, but myself and many others (some, at least) hold the opinion that success in Iraq against ISIS is dependent on (1) establishing and defending the border in Anbar (2) eliminating ISIS between Bagdad and the border and (3) maintaining the deep fight on the Syrian side of the boarder, denying FOM throughout.  There is much more detail but that's the coles notes version and would be more complicated than this simple versionr.   Our SOF folks are...part of that larger geopraphical battlespace.   

BUT the real trigger pulling in this one, targets being engaged, enemy losing freedom of movement are our CF18s.  The SOF guys are doing their thing, and well but they have a different mission and ROE.  18 drivers are engaging ISIS across the battlespace.

As for why would I put myself in a position to die?  Horrible shit is happening to innocent people who only want to live their lives.  People are being tortured, executed, thrown off buildings.   There is also the idea of fighting this there where it is contained ( in a global sense ) and the farther it is from my wife, and my retired parents and in laws,  and the kids I see getting onto buses to go to school, the better.  I much prefer to fight the enemy in his backyard than mine.   I can focus then and not wonder if my door locks are good enough, kind of thing.

Germany was not a direct threat to Canadian soil, nor Korea, or Afghanistan yet we fought those fights.   For ideals, freedom, human suffering to be minimized, and many other reasons,  not only for us but for those being denied what we enjoy everyday.

I am also not a coward or a war monger, I simply accept the fact it is part of our world and some people deserve an early exit from life.   People pay me to crew an airplane that was designed to kill or help kill targets.   Firefighters run into burning buildings, right?  Same concept.  It's the job and I do it to help keep the sheep safe from the wolves.

Canada can hand out blankets and parkas all it wants; does it make sense to do that if you haven't stopped the people who took the ones people had away in the first place?


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> here is a quote from your BBC link:
> 
> With all due respect for your service, I want to ask you a question. You have always said that the GoI is the driver of the bus in this operation. If so, why don't you train, arm and fund them and get the hell out of there? Why do you want to die for someone else battle?



Why do I want to fight and die for someone else's battle?

I believe in defending those who can't defend themselves.  So if that means fighting someone else's battle then that's what I will do.  I know it was a long time ago, but World War II was someone else's battle.  frig even bleeding heart peacekeeping missions are someone else's battle.

Now back to your comment about the GOI.  They are driving the bus.  That's a fact.  Now to your training comment, did the GOI ask Canada to help them train?  That is a question you need answered.  We don't just show up uninvited and setup a training school.  It doesn't work like that.

After I posted I see ETIS pretty much said the same thing.  Tuan I don't think you will ever understand how guys like ETIS and many others on here operate.  We all pretty much feel the same way.  We sacrifice our time to help others, we miss births, holidays, anniversaries, and much much more. Sure we go because we were ordered to go, but no one ordered us into the recruiting center.


----------



## Tuan (21 Oct 2015)

I hear y’all and understand that you are all noble soldiers. However, I guess, our new government wants to do the job differently. IMO, we have come a long way since WWII, the Korean War and even the war on terror in Afghanistan began 14 years ago, whereas the contemporary “Hybrid Warfare” that we are fighting today contains many different facets and thus, I believe, the Canadian Armed Forces could engage itself in many different roles other than just bombing missions.


----------



## dimsum (21 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> I hear y’all and understand that you are all noble soldiers. However, I guess, our new government wants to do the job differently. IMO, we have come a long way since WWII, the Korean War and even the war on terror in Afghanistan began 14 years ago, whereas the contemporary “Hybrid Warfare” that we are fighting today contains many different facets and thus, I believe, the Canadian Armed Forces could engage itself in many different roles other than just bombing missions.



We are not just doing bombing missions - and this is something I'm interested to see when the new PM finally sets a date for the "combat mission" withdrawal.  What about the air-to-air refuellers, since those assets aren't limited to fuelling planes from their own country?  What about the CP-140s conducting Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance for the entire coalition?  Are those considered "combat" or not?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> I hear y’all and understand that you are all noble soldiers. However, I guess, our new government wants to do the job differently. IMO, we have come a long way since WWII, the Korean War and even the war on terror in Afghanistan began 14 years ago, whereas the contemporary “Hybrid Warfare” that we are fighting today contains many different facets and thus, I believe, the Canadian Armed Forces could engage itself in many different roles other than just bombing missions.



we are airmen, not soldiers.   8)  

You can't conduct humanitarian aide in an area you do not control.  You need to eliminate the wolves from the area first.  There is no peace to be had there and there won't be if people start leaving the coalition.  Take the gloves off and fight bare knuckles if you truly want to win.  Mr Trudeau is sending what global message with this act?

I am not comparing the conflicts of WWII, Korea or Afghanistan I am saying to fight this one for similar reasons summed up as "it is the right thing to do against the current bunch of shit heads".


----------



## Tuan (21 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> we are airmen, not soldiers.   8)
> 
> You can't conduct humanitarian aide in an area you do not control.  You need to eliminate the wolves from the area first.  There is no peace to be had there and there won't be if people start leaving the coalition.  Take the gloves off and fight bare knuckles if you truly want to win.  Mr Trudeau is sending what global message with this act?



I read otherwise though! According to military analysts, as hybrid war combines elements of an insurgency, nation-building, sectarian strife, and domestic terrorism;  it is more likely to pose the Alliance a strategic dilemma because our presence is likely to exacerbate rather than improve the situation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Groovy.  Now give me an example where this worked as well as these analysts suggest it does.  Iraq?  Afghanistan perhaps?  Walk away without the enemy eliminated and hope?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-police-ghormach.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> However, I guess, our new government wants to do the job differently  someone else to do the hard part of the job.



There, FTFY.   ^-^


----------



## Tuan (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Groovy.  Now give me an example where this worked as well as these analysts suggest it does.  Iraq?  Afghanistan perhaps?  Walk away without the enemy eliminated and hope?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-police-ghormach.html



Please check out this presentation


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Okay I did.  Now, do you have a single example of anywhere this theory has actually worked?

Here are 2 examples of stuff that actually worked.


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

Comparing World War II to what we are doing now is disingenuous at best.

Like it or not, Air Power is presented to governments as a way of doing something with very little risk; it does not have a good history being used by itself.  Air power alone did not win World War II.   Until the Russians entered it didn't look to be winning against ISIS.  What the Russians have done looks very much like supporting ground forces.

The National question is are we in this fight to do something, or to look to be doing something.  Other countries, especially the US, are having that discussion.  Why can't we?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What about the air-to-air refuellers, since those assets aren't limited to fuelling planes from their own country?  What about the CP-140s conducting Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance for the entire coalition?  Are those considered "combat" or not?


Very good questions, still unanswered.  I guess the reporters haven't asked yet - maybe because they don't remember/know about the rest of Canada's complement in theatre?

Meanwhile, on the ground ....


> Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region said Wednesday that Canada has played an important role in the war against the Islamic State group (ISIS), and that its announced withdrawal from combat roles is “bad news.”
> 
> “It is a bad news for us. Canada was a major partner in the coalition and it was a great help to Kurdistan,” Jabar Yawar, chief of staff and spokesman for the Kurdish Peshmerga ministry, told Rudaw Wednesday.
> 
> ...


On the other hand ....


> A retired military general says pulling back Canadian fighter jets in Iraq and Syria will not be missed by ISIS fighters.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## YZT580 (22 Oct 2015)

Article in Flight Global suggests that all aviation assets are to be withdrawn.


----------



## Tuan (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Okay I did.  Now, do you have a single example of anywhere this theory has actually worked?



Yes, there is one such case in point: the complete annihilation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), simply known as the Tamil Tigers.

During early 1980s at the height of cold war, India had to break the US-Sri Lanka nexus. Sri Lanka was aligned with the US and Pakistan. India was at that time aligned with USSR (and it is rumoured that USSR's KGB had a high level of control over Indian bureaucracy: ('KGB moles infiltrated the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s PMO'). The LTTE proved to be an ideal folly for India. Thus India’s foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) armed, trained and funded the LTTE and engaged them as proxies against the Sri Lankan armed forces just like the CIA engaged Afghan Mujahedeen against the USSR.

At late 1980s, India and Sri Lanka signed a mutual agreement to cooperate and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (Indira Gandhi’s son) made an inexplicable move to cozy up with the Lankans through the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. Under the terms of that accord, India was to deploy 100,000 troops to Sri Lanka to disarm the very same LTTE terrorists they had created. That’s when things got out of hand and the Indian troops ended up fighting with the LTTE and not only India lost more than 1200 soldiers, but also the LTTE assassinated both Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan  President Ranasingha Premadasa. 

Eventually, India was forced to withdraw its troops from Sri Lanka and made a u-turn and armed, trained and funded the Sri Lankan military to fight against LTTE. The Sri Lankan government also got support from the USA, the UK, Canada, Russia and China in order to arm and train its military and obliterated the LTTE in May 2009.  

As such, the Sri Lankan civil war had a complex dynamics and resembled modern hybrid warfare in recent times that was fought and won by the local forces who were aided by the international alliances.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> Comparing World War II to what we are doing now is disingenuous at best.



I am not comparing the 2, I am comparing the _reasons_ we were in WWII to the reasons we should stay in this one and every other conflict we've sent forces to between them.  I am not trying to compare apples and oranges, I am trying to compare old apples and their similarities to new apples.  

Fortunately, I am not the only person who holds the view we should be part of the mission, as shown in the article below (emphasis mine).  It's old but has value to this thread, IMO.  Have a read with an open mind is all I ask.

Article Link

National Post View: Canada’s fight against ISIS is a mission worth extending

March 24, 2015 

When Canada went to war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) six months ago, the limited commitment of Canadian jets and a small number of special forces advisers to Iraq was more than justified. ISIS, which emerged from the power vacuum created by Syria’s long-running civil war, had poured over the border in northern Iraq. After easily overcoming ineffective Iraqi military units, ISIS established a so-called caliphate in Iraq, with a population of millions.

The list of crimes ISIS’s barbaric thugs then embarked on is well known, but bears repeating: Ethnic cleansing of minority groups, mass murder, rape on a horrifying scale, public execution of homosexuals and “adulterers,” and the enslavement of women and girls into forced marriages with ISIS fighters (or anyone with enough cash to buy one on the open market).

If anything, ISIS has become even more barbaric and threatening since. But preventing a humanitarian catastrophe was only part of the case for military action. Left unchecked, there can be little doubt it would have spread over much of the Middle East, destabilizing those parts it did not control, using the oil revenues thus acquired to purchase weapons, hire manpower and rally to its side disaffected Muslim youth from around the globe.

The international community had to act, and as a member of that community, Canada was right to do its part. The mission proposed last fall was reasonable in scale and scope: Six CF-18 jets, two surveillance aircraft and an airborne refueler, with associated ground support personnel, joined the 69 commandos providing (mostly) non-combat assistance to Iraqi units and Kurdish militias. Moreover, it was limited to six months, allowing for some stock-taking before we decided whether the mission was worth continuing.


Six months on, the mission can be judged a success, on its own modest terms. It has stopped the advance of ISIS, giving the beleaguered Iraqi army time to regroup, without significant loss of life, either to our forces or civilians. But the battle is not yet won. Hence Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s address to the House of Commons on Tuesday, proposing to extend the mission for 12 months. There would, however, be one important change: Canada’s combat aircraft would no longer be confined to Iraqi territory. Our planes would now be authorized to seek out ISIS targets across the border in Syria, in areas outside the control of Bashar Al-Assad’s murderous regime.

This strikes us as entirely reasonable. While the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition has contained ISIS in Iraq, it has been frustrated by the group’s ability to seek refuge in Syria. There is no reason why Canada should seek to destroy ISIS targets in Iraq while politely abstaining from hitting them in Syria. Nor are we “aiding” the Assad regime by mounting limited strikes in parts of his country that he has effectively abandoned to ISIS rule. The risk to Canada’s pilots is real, but given the stakes, acceptable. This is what they joined the Air Force to do, and what they have spent their lives preparing for.

In the House on Tuesday, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau vowed to oppose the proposed extension and expansion of the mission. *They seemed to agree that ISIS is awful and that the threat is real*, but would prefer that Canada limit its role to humanitarian aid. As before, the only difference seemed to be that, while the NDP oppose any military action against ISIS, *the Liberals agree ISIS must be fought. Just not by us*.


_Leaving the fighting to others is not what we do; it is not who we are_

What nonsense. Humanitarian aid is certainly needed; Canada has been contributing much, and should continue to do so. *But the best way to help the threatened civilians of Iraq is to stop the barbarians who would kill, rape and enslave them. Security is the basic building block of any society. Until Iraqis are safe, they cannot be effectively helped.
*
It is true that other nations, such as Ireland or Poland, have contributed to the mission in non-military ways. But, well, Canada is not Ireland. Leaving the fighting to others is not what we do; it is not who we are. When the cause is just, this country answers the call — as we will and must in the current conflict. There is hard work to be done in Iraq and Syria, but it is work worth doing.

National Post


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> Like it or not, Air Power is presented to governments as a way of doing something with very little risk; it does not have a good history being used by itself.  Air power alone did not win World War II.   Until the Russians entered it didn't look to be winning against ISIS.  What the Russians have done looks very much like supporting ground forces.



Agree, but will add that there are ground forces involved that the air assets are supporting; they just aren't 'our' ground forces.  Perhaps this point needs to emphasized more often.



> The National question is are we in this fight to do something, or to look to be doing something.  Other countries, especially the US, are having that discussion.  Why can't we?



A very important question.  Are we 'asking that question' though?  Or is Mr Trudeau taking action 'on his own' and against even the majority of Liberal supporters?  

A second article on this point for consideration.  Again, read with an open mind and ask yourself some honest questions...emphasis mine again.

Article Link

Trudeau’s first move doesn’t bode well

Justin Trudeau’s first move as prime minister is to take Canada out of the fight against the Islamic State.

We will no longer be fighting the terrorist group that burns people alive in cages, is partially responsible for the refugee crisis, and has identified Canada as a target for attacks.

While the incoming prime minister has the authority to pull Canada out of the mission right away, it’s poor optics to do so for a number of reasons.

Late Tuesday afternoon we learned Trudeau told U.S. President Barack Obama over the phone that sooner rather than later our CF-18 fighter jets will no longer be engaged in sorties over Iraq and Syria.

We will still “engage in a responsible way” -- presumably meaning we’d continue some version of advising and assistance -- but, Trudeau said, Obama “understands the commitments I’ve made around ending the combat mission.”

This is a very big decision for Trudeau to have already announced as a fait accompli before he has even moved into 24 Sussex Dr.

It’s no surprise that Trudeau wanted to do this. It’s on the record. But it’s important to note it wasn’t one of the key parts of his platform.

It wasn’t something he repeated on every occasion as he did with his infrastructure spending plan.

Did voters give him a majority predominantly because of this position? No. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Canadians support Canada’s role against the Islamic State.

An Ipsos Reid poll earlier this year showed 67% of identified Liberal supporters were in favour of extending Canada’s mission in Iraq and Syria.

Trudeau is offside from his own party.

But perhaps more important is the question of teamwork. One of the ways in which we were told Trudeau would be different than Harper is that he would be less of a one-man show. Less dictatorial, more of a team player and consensus builder.

In fact, whenever someone criticized Trudeau’s credentials -- as I frequently did in election columns -- the main response was that what matters more in a leader is that they listen to those around him.

Yet this first move of Trudeau’s was made without listening to the team that was elected to join him in Ottawa. It was made from the top down.

There hasn’t been a caucus meeting yet. No defence minister has been announced. There is no cabinet.

This first move by Trudeau is as equally single-minded as decisions made by Harper that prompted the outgoing PM’s detractors to label him a “dictator”.

The Sun’s Tarek Fatah wrote a column just before the news broke about Obama’s call to Trudeau, hoping that the incoming PM would listen to those around him:

“Men such as former Toronto Police chief Bill Blair, Toronto Centre MP Bill Morneau and Canada’s first-ever Somali-Canadian MP, Ahmad Hussen from York-South Weston, are just three who give me hope some Liberals MPs will resist moves to pull Canada out of the war against ISIS.”

It looks like that didn’t happen. This should be cause for concern for those who thought Trudeau would “do politics differently.”

*Before the mechanisms of government were even in place, before the Governor General has even sworn him in, he spoke to the leader of the free world and withdrew Canada from a coalition committed to tackling the world’s worst human rights abusers. All by himself*.

*A sign of things to come?
*


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

The international community had to act: but what happened to the 3 block war?

I am not convinced that how we are fighting this (which is in large part, as I said, becuase Air Forces keep promising they can solve problems with little risk), is going to make it any better.

Doing something is not always better than doing nothing; witness Libya.  My worry, is that at the end of the day all we'll do is teach the bad guys how to operate in the presence of Air Power.

I welcome the discussion, and I never actively campaigned to stop doing what we are doing.  I just think we need to consider all the issues, and be careful about presenting a simple solution to the politicians, when in fact a complex one is needed.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Agree, but will add that there are ground forces involved that the air assets are supporting; they just aren't 'our' ground forces.  Perhaps this point needs to emphasized more often.
> 
> A very important question.  Are we 'asking that question' though?  Or is Mr Trudeau taking action 'on his own' and against even the majority of Liberal supporters?
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. 

Justin Trudeau has said since the very first vote in parliament that he didn't support Canadian jets bombing syria.

He also said it during the debates. Whenever asked, he stated that was his position.

To do a complete 180 the day after he gets elected would be another case of a politician lying. Like it or not, he campaigned on pulling the Jets from Iraq and Syria, it was public record, and anyone who voted for a liberal knew this was the plan. It would be lacking bottom to say "vote for me,and when I'm prime minister I'll ask everyone around me what I should do and come to some sort of concensus "

It was a campaign promise he made and he's following through on it, like it or not.


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A second article on this point for consideration.  Again, read with an opinion mind and ask yourself some honest questions...emphasis mine again.



I ask you do the same thing, and consider opinions from all sides, not just the ones that support you.

I have asked myself these questions, in rooms where the strategic implications were being decided, and I wasn't the only one asking...

Editted to add: I'm not agree with what JT is doing here, I just think there should be a discussion over what we are trying to accomplish.  In the HoC debates it was either "bomb" or "drop clothing."  Not good enough, in my opinion.

Modern wars (of any type) cannot be fought without Air Power.  I am just dubious that Air Power alone can accomplish anything.

So back to my point, if the only reason the US is in the ISIS fight is so that the Obama administration can be SEEN to be doing something, and we were dragged in to support that, then we are again in danger of making a dog's breakfast of this.  If we actually have a plan, other than just bombing stuff, then we should stick to it.

Based on my experience, I'm thinking it's more of the first and less of the second...


----------



## Jed (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Justin Trudeau has said since the very first vote in parliament that he didn't support Canadian jets bombing syria.
> 
> ...



Oh come on, Altair. That is ingenuous of you. PM elect Trudeau is acting very dictatorial and certainly did not stop and seek sage advice on this issue. His actions are purely political in this case. After all, it is not like he had't flip flopped on other issues during this campaign.


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Oh come on, Altair. That is ingenuous of you. PM elect Trudeau is acting very dictatorial and certainly did not stop and seek sage advice on this issue. His actions are purely political in this case. After all, it is not like he had't flip flopped on other issues during this campaign.


The man campaigned on this. So did mulair actually, would he have been dictatorial for following through on his campaign promise as well?

He made a commitment to this and he's following through. Lord knows if a cf 18 crashed somewhere in Syria and a CF pilot was burned to death in a cage the media and opposition would never let him hear the end of it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> .... In the HoC debates it was either "bomb" or "drop clothing."  Not good enough, in my opinion ....


 :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> The international community had to act: but what happened to the 3 block war?



I am not an expert in 3 block war, but again we don't have all the assets in place to conduct it;  we have some tools that can be used to effect it, but the ground piece is not ours to decide on how it is conducted.  



> I am not convinced that how we are fighting this (which is in large part, as I said, becuase Air Forces keep promising they can solve problems with little risk), is going to make it any better.



But the 'we' part, the RCAF assets, are doing the part they were sent to do;  halt and degrade ISIS where possible, deny them their FOM.  That was accomplished.  We (the greater Canada 'we') never said we would destroy ISIS/win the war/solve all the problems.  We said "here is what we will send as part of the air power assets to assist the GOI and MESF".  My experience and knowledge is we have done and are doing that.  I wish I was able to elaborate more, but anyone in uniform knows why that can't happen.  I can only hope my words and opinion on that can be considered credible because of the work I do.



> Doing something is not always better than doing nothing; witness Libya.  My worry, is that at the end of the day all we'll do is teach the bad guys how to operate in the presence of Air Power.



A valid concern and one to take into consideration.  I believe that kind of TRA was done.



> I welcome the discussion, and I never actively campaigned to stop doing what we are doing.  I just think we need to consider all the issues, and be careful about presenting a simple solution to the politicians, when in fact a complex one is needed.



I welcome discussion, debate...even heated debate.   ^-^

I also think we need to ask, and re-ask all the important 'so what?' questions.  I don't think Mr Trudeau has done that on this issue.  I think this was an easy campaign promise to 'keep' very quickly and publicly without consideration of several key "so what" questions.  IMO, the estimate was not complete and therefore the chosen COA was picked on _incomplete_ information.


----------



## Baz (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But the 'we' part, the RCAF assets, are doing the part they were sent to do;  halt and degrade ISIS where possible, deny them their FOM.  That was accomplished.  We (the greater Canada 'we') never said we would destroy ISIS/win the war/solve all the problems.  We said "here is what we will send as part of the air power assets to assist the GOI and MESF".  My experience and knowledge is we have done and are doing that.  I wish I was able to elaborate more, but anyone in uniform knows why that can't happen.  I can only hope my words and opinion on that can be considered credible because of the work I do.
> 
> I also think we need to ask, and re-ask all the important 'so what?' questions.  I don't think Mr Trudeau has done that on this issue.  I think this was an easy campaign promise to 'keep' very quickly and publicly without consideration of several key "so what" questions.  IMO, the estimate was not complete and therefore the chosen COA was picked on _incomplete_ information.



Absolutely the deployed forces are doing what they are good at: as I said, tactical success, operational wash, historical strategic failures.  But should we be putting them at risk without a plan?

I agree he should have studied more once he got on the inside and was privy to all the information.  However, I'm not sure Harper got good advice, or took it, either.  And I'm not sure Obama has a plan, or good advice, or did it for the right reasons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> I ask you do the same thing, and consider opinions from all sides, not just the ones that support you.



I try and knowing where I stand on the issue, try to rise above my own stance and look at it from the perspective of others.  Isn't that the only way we can achieve a greater awareness of a situation?  Spirited discourse  8) can be very productive.



> I have asked myself these questions, in rooms where the strategic implications were being decided, and I wasn't the only one asking...
> 
> Editted to add: I'm not agree with what JT is doing here, I just think there should be a discussion over what we are trying to accomplish.  In the HoC debates it was either "bomb" or "drop clothing."  Not good enough, in my opinion.
> 
> ...



That bit in yellow is the hard question, and also way above my level of knowledge.  

I can see we are along parallel lines of thinking, at least in some regards.  I don't believe some key 'so whats?' have been asked, let alone answered and we (the Canada 'we') should stop, define the questions at this point in the game that need answered and base the answers on relevant points of consideration.  I do not see where this has happened yet and this is a cause of concern for me; not only for this specific subject but as an indicator on the mentality of those who will govern our great country for the next 4 years.


----------



## BurnDoctor (22 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Okay I did.  Now, do you have a single example of anywhere this theory has actually worked?
> 
> Here are 2 examples of stuff that actually worked.



I'm totally with Eye In The Sky: A war worth fighting is a war worth fighting to win. In War Two, winning was defined as unconditional surrender. This is really only practical with state actors. Non-state actors such as ISIS demand a paradigm shift to a different end-state. Denying them territorial gain, revenue, and assets (coupled with making joining their ranks unattractive through psy-ops,etc. ) is fine, but, by gosh, I'm sure the end-state most of us would like to see for these ungodly ISIS scum would be complete and utter annihilation.  To make that omelette, some eggs will have to be broken, and neither Pierre's little boy nor the west in general currently seem to have the stomach for it, fatigued by 14 years of war. I genuinely believe that is too our detriment: by not tackling this now, we're deferring dealing with the threat until later, and quite possibly closer to "home"...ours, or that of our European friends.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Oct 2015)

> I genuinely believe that is too our detriment: by not tackling this now, we're deferring dealing with the threat until later, and quite possibly closer to "home"...ours

The forces are here, currently writing mid-terms.  They don't add to much, but their striking power is the broadcast of fear when they take the next act.

On JT's first day he is going to get one hell of a briefing from the security services.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Oct 2015)

just pray that he actually listens


----------



## Baz (23 Oct 2015)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> I'm totally with Eye In The Sky: A war worth fighting is a war worth fighting to win.



OK, we are all in agreement over that we have to win.  Now the question is how.

Firstly, my opinion is that the nation is not at war: small parts of the CAF are.  This has been the case right from Sept 11.  A little story, Jan 2002, right after I had come home from the Gulf (I was with HMCS Halifax) I was on a cruise.  Some grey hairs at breakfast from the US started to go on about how they were at war.  Notice the irony: the are talking about how they were at war while sitting at breakfast on a cruise ship.

So, if we want to fight to win, using what they taught me about targeting, what is the first step: identification of adversaries and own center of gravity.  I have my ideas, but I'll toss that out for discussion...

This should be a national discussion, and it should have been part of the election.  I know I'm seriously considering a call to my MP to discuss where we should be going...


----------



## BurnDoctor (23 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> > I genuinely believe that is too our detriment: by not tackling this now, we're deferring dealing with the threat until later, and quite possibly closer to "home"...ours
> 
> The forces are here, currently writing mid-terms.  They don't add to much, but their striking power is the broadcast of fear when they take the next act.
> 
> On JT's first day he is going to get one hell of a briefing from the security services.



I've had that thought daily since Monday, and that I'd dearly love to hear that briefing.  I really hope it's a good old-fashioned " 'splainin' " that JT gets. Currently he has no clue, from the mundane (calling LAVs "Jeeps") to the broad strategic (announcing to our allies on Day 1 that "we're back", despite having been shoulder-to-shoulder with them since...well...since forever; and then promptly bailing on Op Impact. Don't even get me started on how insulting it is to CF members that he implies that Canada was ever "gone" with respect to engagement with allies.)

Rant over. For today. Roughly 1500 to go, unless we get real lucky with some spectacular scandal.


----------



## CMoffs (24 Oct 2015)

In my opinion, we only fly 2.7 percent of all sorties over Iraq and Syria. So us pulling out in that aspect isn't a big deal to me. I agree with us having to win the war but with what it costs to fly those jets and the minimal impact we make as part of the coalition, we could be getting a bigger bang for our buck. I'm not sure what the humanitarian situation is with the coalition is but I'm sure with the money we're spending with the bombing mission could be being spent else where and make a much bigger impact. Cause until we put boots on the ground to fight the war and win it, create a proper plan to address radicalization and build a better tomorrow, then spend the time and money to actually follow through on this plan (cause it will at least a few generations to do so) only then will we have a chance at winning. But nobody wants to do it. I remember reading a British article on the War in Afghanistan. The Brit's said that it would take at least a 50 year mission to actually rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and the threat of radicalization. That's nearly 3 generations of soldiers fighting in the same war.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Oct 2015)

So percentages overrule principles?

Canada was one of the major proponents of R2P at the UN.  We're updating this to "R2FUAHTWMIOWTL - Responsibility to follow-up and help those who made it out with their lives?" ???

If percentages were the prime consideration, we should never have sent JTF 2 into Afghanistan after 9/11, nor the PPCLI Battle Group, nor follow-on Tasks Forces, nor anywhere else where Canada contributed but a few percentages, morality and principles be darned.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2015)

I've made no secret of my views over the years: I oppose any and all US led, Western _interventions_ in the region (North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia), except arms sales, until the people there have found some way ~ massive and monstrous bloodshed will, I suspect, be a major feature ~ to sort themselves out. In my opinion most of the peoples of the regions are in urgent need of a socio-cultural _enlightenment_ such as we, in the liberal, enlightened, secular West underwent in the 17th and 18th centuries. Of course, in our case, the _enlightenment_ had to be preceded by a religious _reformation_ which, in its turn, needed the bloody Thirty Years War. Similar events in Asia (the Chinese enlightenment happened, arguably, 2,500 years ago, after the bloody Spring and Autumn (春秋) and Warring States (戰國 / 战国) periods) followed a similar pattern, albeit with less religious involvement.

Anyway, I proposed, in the past, _isolation_, which includes, sadly, only very, very limited, non-governmental humanitarian aid.

So I applaud M Trudeau for backing away, but I oppose refugee resettlement and government humanitarian projects. Leave 'em alone for a generation or two, in my prescription ... let _Allah_ sort 'em out.


----------



## GR66 (24 Oct 2015)

As usual Mr. Campbell gets to the root of the issue and provides the logical course of action.  Which of course won't be taken by the West.  That's not to say that the West is collectively stupid or incapable of making hard decisions (at least not totally), but there are other factors than sheer logic that come into play.  

There is general human compassion and an abhorrence of violence and suffering which our (voting) public would find it difficult to sit back and simply watch.  There are short term economic and political factors which drive our involvement (which are always easier to see and pursue than the long term factors).  

My personal preference would be to see the Arab coalition members completely take over the bombing campaign from the West.  We could perhaps still provide our Aurora and tanker support to the campaign in order to maximize the effectiveness, but it really is their war to fight.  The problem is that many of these "allies" in the short term really are our enemies (or at the very least NOT our friends) in the long term and are contributing to the base problem of Islamic radicalism in the Middle East.  

That being the case, I'm not opposed to pulling even those elements out too, but I do think that politically it's very important to make it very clear to our Western allies in the coalition our reason for pulling out...not just pulling out because we're unwilling to do our fair share of the heavy lifting when it's required.  This means that we may have to be seen to be picking up the slack in other areas by our allies in order to maintain our credibility with them.

The Kurds may be a different case.  Supporting them may possibly be in both our short and long term interests.  They may have the possibility of being a more moderate, pro-Western, wedge into the Middle East that doesn't carry the negatives that support of the Gulf States carries.  Continued and even increased support for them could be something I'd support but there are certainly political risks in that as well.  NATO member Turkey certainly does not want a strong, independent Kurdish state developing and there is a real risk of Canadian-supported Kurds coming into direct conflict with Russian-supported (or even Russian national) forces in Syria.  Do we have the guts to follow through with our support if the going gets tough?  Is our national interest there strong enough to be worth that support?  I'm not sure I know the answer to that.

I also agree in general with Mr. Campbell's stand on refugees.  I don't think it does any good for us to take in large numbers of refugees from the region.  I'm fine with taking in immigrants who meet our requirements but we have a process in place for that already.  No need for special quotas, etc.  I am however fine with increasing humanitarian assistance to the region to support refugees locally.  Better to give money to Turkey, Jordan and the Kurds to support people displaced by the war rather then moving a handful of them to our country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I oppose refugee resettlement and government humanitarian projects. Leave 'em alone for a generation or two, in my prescription ... let _Allah_ sort 'em out.



^^^^ This :bravo:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Oct 2015)

CMoffs said:
			
		

> In my opinion, we only fly 2.7 percent of all sorties over Iraq and Syria. So us pulling out in that aspect isn't a big deal to me. I agree with us having to win the war but with what it costs to fly those jets and the minimal impact we make as part of the coalition, we could be getting a bigger bang for our buck. I'm not sure what the humanitarian situation is with the coalition is but I'm sure with the money we're spending with the bombing mission could be being spent else where and make a much bigger impact. Cause until we put boots on the ground to fight the war and win it, create a proper plan to address radicalization and build a better tomorrow, then spend the time and money to actually follow through on this plan (cause it will at least a few generations to do so) only then will we have a chance at winning. But nobody wants to do it. I remember reading a British article on the War in Afghanistan. The Brit's said that it would take at least a 50 year mission to actually rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and the threat of radicalization. That's nearly 3 generations of soldiers fighting in the same war.



we aren't the boots on the ground in this one, we are HELPING the boots on the ground in this one.

Also need to remember it's 2.7 of ALL sorts,  not just combat ones.  The great thing about a coalition?  Many hands make light work.


----------



## Tuan (24 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> we aren't the boots on the ground in this one, we are HELPING the boots on the ground in this one.
> 
> Also need to remember it's 2.7 of ALL sorts,  not just combat ones.  The great thing about a coalition?  Many hands make light work.



I was just wondering who is doing the tactical military intelligence collection in the region, which is extremely important in counterterrorism operations. If entire coalition is engaged in bombing missions why can’t the Canadian forces train the indigenous groups such as Kurds and Syrian rebels in "good human intelligence gathering” practices against the ISIS? 

I completely understand that the tactics/techniques can often be considered classified information in many realms, so it's quite hard to discuss that without revealing/spreading information, which isn’t available in the open forum. Those who knows does not tell, and those who tells does not know, because you don't just kiss and tell, no true professional talks, (except beating around the bush) because after having spoken, he becomes a non-entity.

Having said that, from open source we can extract 95% of strategic intelligence, but for tactical intelligence we need to depend on the human intelligence (HUMINT). It is not news that the NATO forces have been trying to strengthen its HUMINT gathering capacity for a long time and the best way in my opinion is that they train and deploy the ISIS defectors and indigenous groups of the surrounding region. 


Let me quote Professor Bruce Hoffman, a veteran American scholar on counterterrorism, whose writings I thought could be an a addition to our discussion in this topic: 



> The challenge that security forces and militaries the world over have faced in countering terrorism is how to obtain information about an enigmatic enemy who fights unconventionally and operates in a highly amenable environment where he typically is indistinguishable from the civilian populace. The differences between police officers and soldiers in training and approach, coupled with the fact that most military forces are generally uncomfortable with, and inadequately prepared for, counterterrorist operations, strengthens this challenge. Military forces in such unfamiliar settings must learn to acquire intelligence by methods markedly different from those to which they are accustomed. The most "actionable," and therefore effective, information in this environment is discerned not from orders of battle, visual satellite transmissions of opposing force positions, or intercepted signals but from human intelligence gathered mostly from the indigenous population.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/01/a-nasty-business/302379/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Oct 2015)

Not going to discuss anything on here other than to say Int comes from many sources and means.


----------



## Tuan (28 Oct 2015)

Canada's new PM is right: Bombs won't beat ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/opinions/canada-isis-trudeau/index.html



> Justin Trudeau's campaign promise to end the bombing mission, while continuing to train Iraqis away from the front lines, represented a balanced approach to recognizing the complexity of the Syrian conflict and the limited options available to the West.
> 
> While counterterrorism is most often linked with the exercise of "hard power" (intelligence, law, policing, and military power), it must increasingly make use of "soft power" (political, social, and economic control, together with broader policy initiatives dealing with the environment, development, critical infrastructure, migration, and humanitarian intervention).
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Canada's new PM is right: Bombs won't beat ISIS
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/opinions/canada-isis-trudeau/index.html



Yep, bombs alone won't work. That's why Obama is sending more ground troops to expand the training mission into more OMLT tasks and SOF raids.

Go to Syria and ask to negotiate with ISIS. I'll wait here for the Al-Jazerra video.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Oct 2015)

Bombs won't win but they will certainly slow down the advance to give time for other approaches to win.  Terrorists are not poor deprived children, but are often from middle and upper class backgrounds.  They are not underprivileged.  They are supported primarily because voting ISIS is preferable to losing your head or your children or your spouse.  These people are dangerous and handing out lollipops to the folks that are running from the gunfire is a feelgood but accomplish nothing approach.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2015)

Does pulling out fighters also mean pulling out refueling and surveillance capabilities?  

Could "continuing to train Iraqis" include more conventional force training capacity (as we had in Kabul)?


----------



## Tuan (28 Oct 2015)

> While counterterrorism is most often linked with the exercise of "hard power" (intelligence, law, policing, and military power), it must increasingly make use of "soft power" (political, social, and economic control, together with broader policy initiatives dealing with the environment, development, critical infrastructure, migration, and humanitarian intervention).
> 
> The Syrian conflict has its roots in a volatile mix of discriminatory practices by government, widespread corruption, chronic lack of opportunity for young people, lack of essential services, all combined to convince many that there is no alternative other than violent extremism and terrorism. A strictly military approach to such a complex situation is dangerously reductionist. As the great American psychologist, Abraham Maslow, wrote in 1966: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."



Above is a quote from the CNN article I just posted which reaffirms the same "soft power" concept I had argued in this forum during  Trudeau's campaign , if you'd go back and read. Point is "hard power" alone just won't work! What would work is "smart power", a combination of both soft power and hard power. Seems like somebody's listening.


----------



## Harrigan (29 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Does pulling out fighters also mean pulling out refueling and surveillance capabilities?
> 
> Could "continuing to train Iraqis" include more conventional force training capacity (as we had in Kabul)?



I would be absolutely shocked if the refuelling and surveillance capabilities are pulled out.  In fact, I could see the Hornets being replaced by air mobility assets, particularly if their "25,000 refugee" plan by the end of the year involves some RCAF assistance.

Harrigan


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I would be absolutely shocked if the refuelling and surveillance capabilities are pulled out.  In fact, I could see the Hornets being replaced by air mobility assets, *particularly if their "25,000 refugee" plan by the end of the year involves some RCAF assistance.*


That bit in yellow may need more than just RCAF help, if one believes "sources" ....


> A military airlift of the new Liberal government's promised 25,000 Syrian refugees would strain military resources and leave the air force largely unable to sustain operations around the globe, sources tell CBC News, suggesting contracted civilian airliners are a better option.
> 
> But the Liberal refugee proposal is also large and the logistics so intense, it's also unlikely the government could meet its obligations without relying heavily on the military and its network of bases and troops across the country.
> 
> These two realities are likely guiding planners inside the government and military as they prepare to meet prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau's campaign promise to welcome 25,000 refugees of the Syrian crisis by the end of the year ....


Much of the article covers how Canada dealt with Kosovar refugees in 1999 in OP Parasol.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Above is a quote from the CNN article I just posted which reaffirms the same "soft power" concept I had argued in this forum during  Trudeau's campaign , if you'd go back and read. Point is "hard power" alone just won't work! What would work is "smart power", a combination of both soft power and hard power. Seems like somebody's listening.



The point has always been that hard power/military force ALONE won't work, but that it is a necessary piece of the puzzle.  So this is hardly any sort of an epiphany on anyone's part, right?

No one has ever suggested that the air task force et al was the 'one stop solution' to the conflict in the area.  As I and others have said many times, the job of ATF-I was to stop the advance and 'strike where able IAW ROEs", ISIS forces who were advancing.  That job was done.

The rest of the job, problem, whatever you want to call it, is not the mandate of an ATF.

Simple analogy;  if your house is on fire, the first thing you probably want to happen is for the fire fighters to show up, stop the spread and put out the fire.  The rebuilding of the home, investigation into the cause, etc is 'after the fire is out' actions and not ones the fire fighters themselves do.  They go back to the firehouse, service their gear, continue their training, and wait for the bell to go off again.  

Bombs alone won't stop ISIS, but 'soft power' also won't stop a technical who is engaging a friendly position.  In that instance, you'll want the 'bomb'.


----------



## Tuan (29 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The point has always been that hard power/military force ALONE won't work, but that it is a necessary piece of the puzzle.  So this is hardly any sort of an epiphany on anyone's part, right?
> 
> No one has ever suggested that the air task force et al was the 'one stop solution' to the conflict in the area.  As I and others have said many times, the job of ATF-I was to stop the advance and 'strike where able IAW ROEs", ISIS forces who were advancing.  That job was done.
> 
> ...



If that’s the case can you list the soft power initiatives parallel to hard power strategy that the Tories put forward since this operation has begun?

I seriously think that as a North American solution to the problem, while our giant neighbour to the south trying to respond to the conflict with hard power strategy, Canada on the other hand should approach it with its traditional soft power policy, a discourse that would redress the balance at the end.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

Or, more accurately, did you mean the Government of Iraq and other countries from the region?

You miss the point here, overall.  The Canadian government is not, has not been, nor will be, the nucleus of change in that region.  They can advise, assist, etc BUT the solutions for this will not be ones IMPLEMENTED by the Canadian Government, whether that government is formed by the Conservatives OR Liberals.

Iraq has a government in place (without getting into whether it is effective or not, let's just acknowledge that there is a government in place.  What concerns there may be about that government would be a totally separate thread).  As you've heard me say, the GOI is driving the bus.  There may be interested parties telling that bus driver which way to turn or stop, but the driver has the final decision.  Not his Canadian tourist 6 rows back from the front.

Trying the link the  assumed 'lack of soft power' in the region to PM Harper and the Tories is vacuous in my opinion.   :2c:

While I am not involved in the application of soft power, I ask how you KNOW there are no efforts in its application ongoing now, or before WRT to soft power?  No news stories on it?  No 'open source intelligence'?  I don't like to assume things, so I would like some sort of credible, tangible evidence that no one is applying 'soft power' while the necessary campaign to stop and degrade ISIS is ongoing.


----------



## Tuan (29 Oct 2015)

I haven’t come across any reports about the application of soft power initiatives vis-à-vis war on ISIS, to date. Have you? But, I read otherwise WRT the US approach that should be.....



> The term "soft power" -- the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion -- is now widely invoked in foreign policy debates. This short book reintroduces the idea and argues for its relevance in forming post-September 11 U.S. foreign policy. Nye argues that successful states need both hard and soft power -- the ability to coerce others as well as the ability to shape their long-term attitudes and preferences. The United States can dominate others, but it has also excelled in projecting soft power, with the help of its companies, foundations, universities, churches, and other institutions of civil society; U.S. culture, ideals, and values have been extraordinarily important in helping Washington attract partners and supporters. Nye acknowledges the limits of soft power: it tends to have diffuse effects on the outside world and is not easily wielded to achieve specific outcomes. Indeed, societies often embrace American values and culture but resist U.S. foreign policies. But overall, Nye's message is that U.S. security hinges as much on winning hearts and minds as it does on winning wars.
> 
> Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Clinton Administration and author of several books on smart power strategy, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources. Employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate. Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing that combating terrorism demands smart power strategy. He advises that simply utilizing soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component. In developing relationships with the mainstream Muslim world, however, soft power resources are necessary and the use of hard power would have damaging effects.



https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2004-05-01/soft-power-means-success-world-politics


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2015)

I haven't, no, but that doesn't mean I do not assume they aren't ongoing.  If they are, are they 'news worthy'?  Are they even in the open source domain?  The answer to the first question, IMO, is "no".  MSM wants juicy things on their sites/printed versions.  The answer to the second question is better left for SMEs in that area, I would just be offering a WAG.

Is there a potential opportunity for Canada to play a bigger role as an 'advisor' to the stakeholders in the region?  I think there could be, yes.  I just don't know how much 'soft power' we have to project as a nation.


----------



## Harrigan (30 Oct 2015)

I don't think Tuan has 'missed the point', but he (or she) is just looking at it a different way.

From what I can see, much of the commentary in this thread is based on some assumptions:
1.  Our contributions is materially contributing to the overall mission goal
2.  Any change in that contribution would detract from the overall mission goal

I believe the answer to 1. is Yes, but I am not sure that a change in contribution would necessarily detract from the overall mission goal.  

If we pull out our 6 Hornets, it is not as though the entire ATF will collapse into a bubbling heap and ISIL will be in Baghdad tomorrow.  We have a small contributory role in the overall effort.  I would suggest that the relative impacts of the refuelling and particularly the ISR components are greater, though, and that is why I would be very surprised if the Auroras or tankers are sent home.  That is a niche capability that we are providing that is quite valuable.

The bottom line, though,  is that Canada's contribution to OP IMPACT, as with most of our 'coalition of the willing' deployments,  is not valued for the number of bombs it can drop in Syria or Iraq, or the number of planes refuelled, or the number of targets identified and prosecuted, as valuable in a tactical sense as those roles may be.  Our biggest contribution to the fight against ISIS is our flag - that is what the United States wants more than anything else.

I am quite certain that Obama was, as was reported, perhaps disappointed but understanding about Trudeau's position on Canada's combat role vs ISIS.  The removal of the Hornets fulfils a political promise by the incoming government that all Canadians were aware of and voted for.  However, as long as the US is confident that Canada's 'flag' is not being lowered from the fight against ISIS, I am sure they can live with the loss of 6 x Hornets from the ORBAT.  And I personally haven't heard anything from Trudeau suggesting that he intends to end the entire ISIS mission.  

We can argue against that decision, of course, but to do so requires us to ask these rather important questions:

1.  What does winning look like?
2.  Is our current strategy of aerial bombing of pop-up targets and providing training assistance to the GoI and Kurds making material progress towards achieving the answer to Q1?
3.  If the answer to Q2 is no, do we need to change our strategy or do we continue our current strategy indefinitely and hope that the results change?
4.  If the answer to Q1 has no obvious roadmap of 'how to get from here to there', what are the implications?
5.  If the answer to Q1 requires commitment and casualties that western powers are not prepared to take, see Q3.

My sense from this site is that the general consensus answer (mine too) to Q1 is something along the lines of 'ISIS is eradicated'.  

If we are well on our way to doing that, great.  I obviously missed that press conference then.  
If we are NOT well on our way to doing that, then perhaps "continuing the status quo" is not such a great COA.

Harrigan


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Oct 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> That is a niche capability that we are providing that is quite valuable.



That sounds good but it not based on reality.  Sorry, can't elaborate any more than that.  Also, the ATF is Canadian.  The MESF is the 'coalition'.  6 Hornets make up 66% of the ATF.

Here in lies the problem; it is a small op, involving aircrew only on the teeth end, most people don't know the facts or understand a lot of it and form opinions based on 'whats in the news'.


----------



## Harrigan (30 Oct 2015)

Apologies about the ATF/MESF mixup.  I meant that the loss of 6 x Hornets is not going to materially affect the operational goals of the coalition air effort.

As for the capabilities of the refuellers and tankers, my understanding is that the Auroras (in particular) are providing an excellent service that WOULD be missed by the coalition were they to be removed.  If that is not based on reality, that would be disappointing.  

Harrigan


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Oct 2015)

There is also an incorrect presumption in the discussion that Canada must also be exercising "soft power.'  

What is the answer to the question, "To whom should [Canada's or any other nation's] 'soft power' be focused?"    

GoI?  ISIS?  UN?  GCC?


----------



## Tuan (30 Oct 2015)

Supporting my opinion with Nye's notion, what I meant to say was, when combating terrorism, not only Canada but also other nations, would benefit if they apply "smart power" strategy, a combination of both soft and hard power.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Oct 2015)

...and again I'll ask, "apply such 'smart power' against whom?"

You are espousing a methodology, and I don't necessarily disagree with the overall premise, but the intended recipient of such engagement is also an important factor. Should ME and/or Western nations attempt to work directly with ISIS? Or with nations directly affected by ISIS? or with regional organizations? (Hence GCC included in my previous list of potential engagees)

G2G


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

My understanding is that apply the smart power concept directly against ISIS. By doing so, we (the NATO led coalition forces) would eventually be engaged in a PSYOPS project against ISIS. I believe that we can ultimately persuade some factions and/or members of ISIS to defect from the organization and thus turn this war on ISIS into a psychological warfare.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> My understanding is that apply the smart power concept directly against ISIS. By doing so, we (the NATO led coalition forces) would eventually be engaged in a PSYOPS project against ISIS. I believe that we can ultimately persuade some factions and/or members of ISIS to defeat from the organization and thus turn this war on ISIS into a psychological warfare.


WTF?  Buzzword bingo?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (31 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> WTF?  Buzzword bingo?



Lol someone make this man a General!


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> My understanding is that apply the smart power concept directly against ISIS. By doing so, we (the NATO led coalition forces) would eventually be engaged in a PSYOPS project against ISIS. I believe that we can ultimately persuade some factions and/or members of ISIS to defect from the organization and thus turn this war on ISIS into a psychological warfare.



My apologies, there was a typo that I've corrected that instead of "defect" I wrote "defeat"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> My understanding is that apply the smart power concept directly against ISIS. By doing so, we (the NATO led coalition forces) would eventually be engaged in a PSYOPS project against ISIS. I believe that we can ultimately persuade some factions and/or members of ISIS to defect from the organization and thus turn this war on ISIS into a psychological warfare.



What is your definition of psychological warfare?  Why do you assume that isn't part of the current op?


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is your definition of psychological warfare?  Why do you assume that isn't part of the current op?



Simply put, if you're really engaged in psychological warfare, you'd maximize the soft power and minimize the hard power, but what is happening in this operation is the other way around, don't you think?


----------



## McG (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Simply put, if you're really engaged in psychological warfare, you'd maximize the soft power and minimize the hard power ...


So, you believe "hard" and "soft" techniques are mutually exclusive?


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, you believe "hard" and "soft" techniques are mutually exclusive?


With all due respect, I am not interested in discussing a logical argument from a probability theory, rather I compare two different counterterrorism operations in which one was successful and other is not, and what we did right and wrong, that's all!


----------



## McG (31 Oct 2015)

I have not presented you a question of probability.  You have seemingly established your argument on the premise that we cannot exercise "hard power" if we are to exercise "soft power."  This false dichotomy may be inconvenient for you to address, but if you want to dialog then you can't just choose to avoid the questions that don't enable the conclusions desired by you.


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

Not at all, I am not trying to avoid questions or trying to win an argument here, that's not my purpose, rather I am interested in sharing my knowledge as a counterterrorism practitioner from Sri Lanka, where my countrymen with the support of rest of the world successfully obliterated one of the world most ruthless terrorist organization. Therefore my only argument is that if we can do that, why can't you and others?


----------



## McG (31 Oct 2015)

What I see you doing is selling a false dichotomy, tossing around buzz words, and not really defining your alternate solution in detailed plain-speak.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan, you do know that soft power is about applying political influence on other political (governmental and non-governmental) agencies that work in the same interactive context, right?  If ISIS had ambassadors or envoys to the UN, for example, soft power might be applicable.  They don't, so soft power's application towards them seems dubious, no?

Secondly, you said we apply 'smart power' which earlier you defined as a blend of both hard and soft power.  

How about the premise that Canada and other nations that can apply the hard power to directly intervene against hostile/in humane action by ISIS against others, and countries, such as those f the Middle East, provide the soft power, which arguably, M.E. countries using their significantly closer cultural ties could do with much greater effect.

G2G


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

I am sorry you see me that way but my intention is clear and concise; however as you would understand, I am reluctant to write everything on an open forum such as this one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2015)

Soft power, the best soft power, is very, very difficult, usually impossible, for governments to "deploy" because, as Prof Nye pointed out the soft power _weapons_ are, usually, not within a government's span of control.

If you want to see GREAT soft power, you need to look at:













  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Samuel Goldwyn and Louis B Meyer and bunch of other Eastern European Jews created the American Dream and_ sold_ it all over the world. They probably did more to create and wield American soft power than did even George C Marshal and Dean Acheson.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Oct 2015)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> SMALL WARS JOURNAL
> smallwarsjournal.com
> 
> August 27, 2010
> ...



Soft power huh?



> How to Defeat Insurgencies: Sri Lanka's Bad Example
> By Bobby Ghosh / Washington 	Time Magazine Wednesday, May 20, 2009
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Simply put, if you're really engaged in psychological warfare, you'd maximize the soft power and minimize the hard power, but what is happening in this operation is the other way around, don't you think?



Not exactly an answer to the questions...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is your definition of psychological warfare?  Why do you assume that isn't part of the current op?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Not at all, I am not trying to avoid questions or trying to win an argument here, that's not my purpose, rather I am interested in sharing my knowledge as a counterterrorism practitioner from Sri Lanka, where my countrymen with the support of rest of the world successfully obliterated one of the world most ruthless terrorist organization. Therefore my only argument is that if we can do that, why can't you and others?



Would you care to elaborate to what degree you were involved?  An outside observer?  A trigger-puller?


----------



## Tuan (31 Oct 2015)

Off to work right now, and respond to all queries promptly when I get back.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Soft power huh?



The Roman/Mogul methods work just ask Carthage.  The west doesn't have the balls or hasn't been pushed over the tipping point of restraint yet.


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Tuan, you do know that soft power is about applying political influence on other political (governmental and non-governmental) agencies that work in the same interactive context, right?  If ISIS had ambassadors or envoys to the UN, for example, soft power might be applicable.  They don't, so soft power's application towards them seems dubious, no?



Not necessarily, because Nye, who coined the term “soft power”, doesn’t restrict/classify it to be only for state actors, rather in his book he recommends it to be applied against non state actors such as terrorist organizations. 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Secondly, you said we apply 'smart power' which earlier you defined as a blend of both hard and soft power.
> 
> How about the premise that Canada and other nations that can apply the hard power to directly intervene against hostile/in humane action by ISIS against others, and countries, such as those f the Middle East, provide the soft power, which arguably, M.E. countries using their significantly closer cultural ties could do with much greater effect.



Much of the world’s Islamic extremists already view the Western nations as an enemy. As such, if the West continues to engage them in hostile manner, primarily by the use of hard power, while the Middle Eastern Muslim countries embrace the extremists/terrorist softly, the situation will exacerbate as the latter will perceive the Western nations as enemy intruders.  Is this what Nye trying to tell us by the U.S.’s success in world politics is best achieved through the use of smart power?


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Soft power, the best soft power, is very, very difficult, usually impossible, for governments to "deploy" because, as Prof Nye pointed out the soft power _weapons_ are, usually, not within a government's span of control.



Completely agree with you Sir!


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Soft power huh?



For the record, you won’t find everything in the open source but let me summarize the untold story of the Sri Lankan conflict that led to the total destruction of the terrorist organization. 

In 2002, a Sri Lankan statesman known as Ranil Wickremesinghe elected to power and unlike previous governments he chose to negotiate with Tamil Tigers. But while talking peace, the terrorists were rearming and rebuilding themselves with a strong army, navy and a rudimentary air force. In response, Wickremesinghe led UNP government was forced to engage them in a intelligence led psychological warfare. With the help of the U.S and Norway, one of the ground breaking achievements the Sri Lankan military intelligence has gained was that they engineered a split within the Tiger organization in 2004 and made a Tiger leader who was second in command in the ranks to defect from the terrorist organization with over 6000 Tiger cadres out of the organization's total number of10, 000 cadres. Since the DMI realized the importance of HUMINT in counterterrorism they temporarily enlisted the entire cadres including the Tiger top commander Karuna as a paramilitary group in the country’s army. Then they indoctrinated the defected cadres with soft power and turned them against the rest of the Tiger organization’s main faction. This reverse tactic of turning the very same terrorists/ insurgents/guerrillas/rebels - whatever you may call them – against the main faction paid off since the tactical military intelligence collection was crucial and it was ready on the table obtained via this engineered defection. This was the “game-changer” in the Sri Lankan civil war’s history that could be extrapolated into al Qaeda, Taliban and/or ISIS.

Please refer this:
http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/56/1/16.short

I am not done yet; following the defection, the Tamil Tigers forced all the Tamil population to vote against Wickremesinghe's UNP government whereby a far right wing hardliner Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected as President in 2006. He was a dictator who only knew “whom to use for what.”  Subsequently, he took advantage of the intelligence provided by the paramilitary group that the previous government formed and busted the entire terrorist organization including its supreme leader. Now Rajapaksa regime is being prosecuted for war crimes by the new government reelected this year led by the very same statesman, Ranil Wickremesinghe!



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Soft power huh?



Oh yeah, soft power it is!


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

I know many of you define terrorism through your eyes on the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and ISIS in Iraq, and would not be interested in other nations who are/were victims of terrorist organizations equally dangerous as ISIS, if not more. For those who are really interested in Sri Lanka here is an annotated bibliography.

Balasingham, A. (2001). The Will to Freedom: An Inside View of Tamil Resistance. 	Mitcham, England:Fairmax.
This book is an insider’s look at the armed conflict by the LTTE, which portrays them as freedom fighters. As a historical account, The Will to Freedom clearly examines important events, episodes, and turning points of the 30-year long conflict. This book will be an important source for this essay because it sheds the light on the unknown characteristics of the LTTE leaders, cadres and their mindset, motivation, strengths, and weaknesses. 

Balasuriya, M. (2011) The Rise and Fall of the LTTE. Colombo Sri Lanka: Asian Network on Conflict Research.                                
As an Inspector General of Sri Lankan Police, the author Balasuriya examines three main areas in his book. First, he addresses the crucial element for defeating the LTTE – political leadership and well-trained armed forces, police and intelligence services. Second, the author looks into the government of Sri Lanka’s realistic approach to war and peace. Third, he explores the LTTE’s genesis, growth, decline, infighting, and finally its defeat by Sri Lankan security forces andthe international collaborators, particularly the United States, India and China. As such, this book would be a valuable account for this paper because it focuses on the LTTE’s history and reasons for its defeat.  

Chandraprema, C.A. (2012) Gōta’s War: The Crushing of Tamil Tiger Terrorism in Sri 	Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Ranjan Wijeratne Foundation
This book presents a clear picture of the importance of the political and military leadership for wiping out terrorism in Sri Lanka. The author gives credit to the Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa and his brother, also the Secretary of Defense, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, for political and military victories respectively. The book will be an important account for this paper because it point outs how Gota (Gotabaya Rajapaksa) planned, prepared and executed the war against the LTTE successfully in the midst of many obstacles. 

De Silva, K.M. (2012) Sri Lanka and the Defeat of the LTTE. New Delhi, India: Penguin
	In his book, the veteran Sri Lankan historian De Silva outlines the history of ethnic tension in Sri Lanka since its independence in 1948. Then he examines the origin, development and demise of the LTTE, the triumphant Sri Lankan government and the security forces. Finally, De Silva talks about the necessity of post war reconciliation, rehabilitation, and rebuilding of the country as well. As such, contents of De Silva’s book will support this paper’s arguments about causes of the LTTE defeat.

DeVotta, N. (2009) The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Lost Quest for 	Separatism in Sri Lanka. Asian Survey, 49(6), 1021-1051.
This journal article analyses the root causes of the Sri Lankan conflict, such as discrimination and oppression of its own minorities by the successive Sri Lankan government. This led to the birth of the LTTE, which engaged in terrorism and fascistic rule in the areas they controlled, thereby weakening the Tamil community. DeVotta then went on to say that the Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa’s extra constitutional counterterrorism strategies led to the eventual defeat of the LTTE.  As such, this journal article is important because it provides an opinion on the ethnic conflicts in Sri Lanka that contributed to the development and demise of the LTTE.

Gunaratna, R. (2002). Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror. New York, NY: Barkley. 
As a leading scholar who wrote more than six books on LTTE and heads a counterterrorism think-tank in Asia-Pacific, Professor Gunaratna now writes about Al Qaeda comparing the organization’s ideologies, structures, tactics, and operations to other terrorist organizations, especially the trendsetter LTTE. Gunaratna writes this book based on the Al Qaeda’s documents and his own interviews with Al Qaeda associates, which led to five years of an extensive research. This book points out the obvious that Al Qaeda copies all their operational tactics from the LTTE, and therefore, this book’s findings will immensely contribute to this paper.

Gunaratna, R. (1997) International and Regional Security Implications of the Sri Lankan 	Tamil Insurgency. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Unie Arts.
Basing on surrendered and arrested LTTE cadres’ interviews, the author Gunaratna writes about how LTTE became a threat to regional and global security. This book analyzes the LTTE organization’s structure, strategies, tactics, and profiles. This is one of those books that led Western nations’ to label the LTTE as a terrorist organization rather than a freedom movement. Thus, this book’s contents will be useful for understanding of the reasons that led Western nations to ban and fight against the LTTE.

Hoffman, B. (2009) The first non-state use of a chemical weapon in warfare: the Tamil Tigers’ assault on East Kiran. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 20(3-4), 463-477.
This journal article explores a shocking detailed account of the LTTE as the first non-state actor using chemical weapons in East Kiran, Sri Lanka, against the Sri Lankan security forces in June 1990. The article begins with the general background of the LTTE and goes on to state how innovative and lethal they are as a terrorist organization. The article concludes with the outline of the motivations behind a terrorist group to use chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons, and suggestions on how governments can prevent this from happening in the future. Therefore, this journal article provides a key to understanding the dangerous dimensions of the LTTE and possible consequences for the global security.

Mayilvaganan, M. (2008) Is it Endgame for LTTE? Strategic Analysis, 33(1), 25-39.	This journal article examines the LTTE’s struggle during the “Global War on Terrorism” following the post-9/11 scenario.  The author enlists the factors contributing to the defeat of the LTTE, such as internal conflict, international pressure, predominance of the Sri Lankan military, scarcity of arms and new recruits, which are some of the elements. Mayilvaganan further questions the regional and global implications on the anticipated defeat of the LTTE. Therefore this journal article validates this paper’s argument about the impact of the 9/11 attacks on the LTTE.

Narayanswamy, M.R. (2003) Inside an Elusive Mind: Prabhakaran. New Delhi, India: Konark.
As one of India’s leading author on terrorism, Narayanswamy writes about why the LTTE was armed, trained and funded by the Indian government in order to placate India’s geopolitical interests in late 1980s. This book is an interesting portrait of a man who was the only decision maker and the supreme leader of the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization. Narayanswamy also throws light on the hitherto unknown facts of the Indian intelligence interventions in Sri Lanka that led to the eventual assassination of India’s Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi by the LTTE. Therefore, this book’s contents will be beneficial for this paper because they provide evidence on how a state-sponsored terrorism became a threat to the regional and global security. 

P/s: I wrote this bibliography for one my college paper.


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Would you care to elaborate to what degree you were involved?  An outside observer?  A trigger-puller?



Both! Here is an author’s bio from my upcoming book.



> Tuan was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka and raised in Northern and Southern provinces in that country. Later in 1997, he moved to Canada. He is married and a father of three young children. He has worked over two decades with several international intelligence agencies as an intelligence officer, intelligence analyst and security consultant.
> 
> At the age of 17, Tuan was abducted from high school and forcibly recruited by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) under the demand that at least one member from each family must contribute to the civil war. Subsequently, he underwent six months of basic military training and was deployed as a child soldier. After more than four years of nightmares and harrowing experience with one of the world’s most ruthless terrorist organization, he was eventually assigned to infiltrate the government of Sri Lanka as a sleeper agent, where he made a U-turn and became a double agent in order to play a significant role in obliterating the terrorists in May 2009.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Much of the world’s Islamic extremists already view the Western nations as an enemy. As such, if the West continues to engage them in hostile manner, primarily by the use of hard power, *while the Middle Eastern Muslim countries embrace the extremists/terrorist softly,* the situation will exacerbate as the latter will perceive the Western nations as enemy intruders.



...but not exclusively with soft power, you would agree.

G2G


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...but not exclusively with soft power, you would agree.
> 
> G2G


Yes, IMO, like the Sri Lankan model, the west should arm and train GCC nations plus the indigenous groups and may be act as an intermediary between the parties rather than fighting the war themselves because the conflict in ME is increasingly becoming complex.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Yes, IMO, like the Sri Lankan model, the west should arm and train GCC nations plus the indigenous groups and may be act as an intermediary between the parties rather than fighting the war themselves because the conflict in ME is increasingly becoming complex.



Not unreasonable.  I would think, however, that a significant issue regarding ISIS is that prominent members of the GCC do not appear as 'seized of the issue' as the Sri Lankan government of the day, was. 

G2G


----------



## Tuan (1 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not unreasonable.  I would think, however, that a significant issue regarding ISIS is that prominent members of the GCC do not appear as 'seized of the issue' as the Sri Lankan government of the day, was.
> 
> G2G



True, that's why the westerners should be cautious about when to push and pull in the region.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Both! Here is an author’s bio from my upcoming book.



Ahhhh.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Nov 2015)

> SMALL WARS JOURNAL
> smallwarsjournal.com
> 
> August 27, 2010
> ...



I believe I can assure you the MESF et al will not risk 'killing as many as 20,000 civilians'.  This article excerpt alone makes me discount the 'advice' that may come from this 'successful' operation.


----------



## McG (2 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I believe I can assure you the MESF et al will not risk 'killing as many as 20,000 civilians'.


I am sure the Russians would not lose sleep over it, nor would many of the regional powers.


----------



## McG (2 Nov 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Does pulling out fighters also mean pulling out refueling and surveillance capabilities?
> 
> Could "continuing to train Iraqis" include more conventional force training capacity (as we had in Kabul)?


It seems that media speculation to my second question is "yes"



> *Canada's training mission in Iraq to expand as bombing mission ends
> U.S. keen for Canada to remain part of the coalition in Iraq, Syria*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## Tuan (2 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I believe I can assure you the MESF et al will not risk 'killing as many as 20,000 civilians'.  This article excerpt alone makes me discount the 'advice' that may come from this 'successful' operation.



I am not going to argue about the civilian casualties and that's why the current government has set up a commission to investigate war crimes and all that but if you study the war you'll learn some lessons from it.

Although I'll definitely NOT justify the final brutal force that killed actually around 40,000 civilians according to a UN report, here is another article's point of view:



> Some have criticized the Sri Lankan victory as only being possible because the government disregarded civilian casualties and used military force bluntly and brutally. This view correctly emphasizes that wars are by their nature cruel and violent and should not be entered into or continued lightly. However, it unhelpfully neglects critical factors and explains little. As this article has discussed, victory came to the side with the most successful strategies – even if it took the government more than 22 years to find them.
> 
> In this regard, a comparison with the two other Western-led counterinsurgency wars of the period comparing soldiers and civilians killed is instructive:
> 
> ...



http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/how-sri-lanka-won-the-war/


----------



## opcougar (4 Nov 2015)

Spot on....as someone who survived a couple of IRA bombings in London UK, way before the Taliban, ISIS and ETA (Spain) malarky, my "terrorism" experience goes that far back. Oh, they are still in operation by the way, but most people don't see that or think of Northern Ireland like that.



			
				Tuan said:
			
		

> I know many of you define terrorism through your eyes on the al Qaeda in Afghanistan and ISIS in Iraq, and would not be interested in other nations who are/were victims of terrorist organizations equally dangerous as ISIS, if not more.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Nov 2015)

There is a key difference between ISIS and some of the other groups mentioned in this thread though.  LTTE, IRA, ETA, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, pick your freedom fighter movement are merely organizations fighting for some form of national liberation.  They may use terrorist attacks to further their agenda but ultimately they are fighting a war of national liberation.

ISIS, on the other hand, is a doomsday cult.  Yes they are Muslim fundamentalists but what differentiates them from other groups is they believe that the world needs to end and that all non-believers needs to be killed in order to be reborn as believers in Allah and Islam.  They are closer to a group like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians.  

So while all groups mentioned, LTTE, IRA, ETA, etc... use violence as a means to advance their cause, these groups ultimately have limited strategic objectives.  They are rational organizations and are run by rational people.  ISIS is not a rational organization, it wants to destroy the world.  They are, for all intents and purposes, a bunch of mindless zombies.  The only thing that will stop these people is "two to the chest, one to the head".



> The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.



I say we meet them at Dabiq, so we can begin the countdown.  The countdown until their entire doomsday organization is destroyed, one by one.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Nov 2015)

Absolutely, that's why "soft" power is more effective for those groups with political goals. ISIS could care less about politics, so using political negotiations is never going to work. They'll keep you talking so you're focused on that instead of taking the fight to them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, that's why "soft" power is more effective for those groups with political goals. ISIS could care less about politics, so using political negotiations is never going to work. They'll keep you talking so you're focused on that instead of taking the fight to them.



This is my point.  I agree partially with Tuan that soft power can be used on the periphery i.e. keeping others from joining ISIS but that ultimately, ISIS needs to be confronted with hard power.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Nov 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Spot on....as someone who survived a couple of IRA bombings in London UK, way before the Taliban, ISIS and ETA (Spain) malarky, my "terrorism" experience goes that far back. Oh, they are still in operation by the way, but most people don't see that or think of Northern Ireland like that.



That is part of the success of the combined military and political approach. The IRA was forced to the table by military action and then made irrelevant to most through political action.

However never mistake there is no line separating politics and fundamental Islam, the two are tightly intertwined.


----------



## Tuan (5 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is a key difference between ISIS and some of the other groups mentioned in this thread though.  LTTE, IRA, ETA, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, pick your freedom fighter movement are merely organizations fighting for some form of national liberation.  They may use terrorist attacks to further their agenda but ultimately they are fighting a war of national liberation.
> 
> ISIS, on the other hand, is a doomsday cult.  Yes they are Muslim fundamentalists but what differentiates them from other groups is they believe that the world needs to end and that all non-believers needs to be killed in order to be reborn as believers in Allah and Islam.  They are closer to a group like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians.
> 
> So while all groups mentioned, LTTE, IRA, ETA, etc... use violence as a means to advance their cause, these groups ultimately have limited strategic objectives.  They are rational organizations and are run by rational people.  ISIS is not a rational organization, it wants to destroy the world.  They are, for all intents and purposes, a bunch of mindless zombies.  The only thing that will stop these people is "two to the chest, one to the head".



This perception exactly emphasizes the statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” as it has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. 

As Professor Boaz Ganor pointed out, “the matter of definition and conceptualization of ‘terrorism’ is usually a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the research they intend to undertake. However, when dealing with terrorism and guerrilla warfare, implications of defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warfare.” 
http://www.ict.org.il/Article.aspx?ID=1123

For instance, once upon a time al Qaeda was freedom fighters in the eyes of America but later they turned out to be terrorists. Similarly, the LTTE was freedom fighters in the eyes of India once upon a time and later turned against them as terrorists. Let’s look at the present day dilemma in Syria, a group that is “terrorists” for Russia may seem to be “freedom fighters” for America and vice versa.

Therefore, the bottom line is that the dubious "distinction of terrorism” is fundamentally flawed. In fact, there’s no clear definition of terrorism in the UN database, to date. However, according to some scholars, politicians and experts, if someone attacks you they’re ‘terrorists’ whose ideology is Islamic extremism/jihadism or as you described ‘doomsday cult’ thus they have to be dealt with hard power, whereas if someone aiding you they’re ‘freedom fighters’ who are fighting for national liberation and thus apply soft power to deal with them, eh?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> This perception exactly emphasizes the statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” as it has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism.
> 
> As Professor Boaz Ganor pointed out, “the matter of definition and conceptualization of ‘terrorism’ is usually a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the research they intend to undertake. However, when dealing with terrorism and guerrilla warfare, implications of defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warfare.”
> http://www.ict.org.il/Article.aspx?ID=1123
> ...



I never said that we had to deal with any of those groups using only soft power.  I find the IRA, ETA, LTTE to all be equally detestable organizations.

I think all of these groups need to be dealt with using a combination of hard and soft power.  The soft power is used to keep people from joining them while hardpower is used to destroy the followers.

I agree that simply labelling anyone who is against you a terrorist is a poor word choice.  It's far too simplistic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2015)

Terror and terrorism are "tactics," usually used by the weaker opponent simply because he doesn't have the resources to fight any other way.

When Churchill told SOE (also known as the "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare") to "set Europe ablaze,"he wasn't talking about giving Hitler a birthday party: he meant "be terrorists, use terror to unsettle the Germans wherever you can strike at them." It was the classic tactic of the weaker side ... it's been around for centuries:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Counter-terrorism, assuming there actually is such a thing, is hideously complex ... think, in recent times, Viet Nam from the 1940s through to the 1970s, of Cyprus and Kenya in the 1950s, and so on.

I don't know enough about Sri Lanka except to say that there was much more than enough _wrong_ on both sides to keep all the gods busy for eternity.One can only hope that few other countries descend into such a hell ... but some will.


----------



## Tuan (5 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Terror and terrorism are "tactics," usually used by the weaker opponent simply because he doesn't have the resources to fight any other way.



Precisely, you've hit the nail right on the head Sir; and this is exactly why some analysts call it a asymmetric warfare!


----------



## YZT580 (5 Nov 2015)

As most who follow this site are aware, our very word assassin originates in the middle east amongst the ancestors of ISIS.  We are currently confronted with the descendants of the original 'assassins' who have 1. declared themselves an independent country and 2. subsequently declared war on Canada specifically (amongst others) and 3. are currently engaged in butchering or worse all those remaining within their declared sphere of influence who oppose them in any way.  Soft power will only work to help those who having experimented with ISIS, been revolted by its actions, and now want out if we can provide a safe environment for them while at the same time rescuing those from within the caliphate who want out. This haven includes good governance (something Obama and NATO forgot about during the uprisings in Libya et al and when they pulled out of precipitately pulled out of Bagdad).  Both of these elements require the employment of an organized and strong military offensive in the initial stages.  Dropping bombs in the meantime at least stops or slows the advance but until there is an organised army ready to go head to head with |ISIS that is all it will do.  Stopping people from crossing over is only possible when you control the access points and are ready to employ deadly force to sterilize the crossing points.  First thing to do is establish a safe haven so refugees don't have to leave their home territory for very foreign climates.  

That requires force again but then it requires good governance (a place where we are able to advise but it has to be an acceptable government to those who are displaced).  That means it has to be a middle eastern form of government administered by the Syrians themselves.  How you achieve that I don't know but the first step is to initiate plans to stop and eliminate the threat.  Namely destroy every element of ISIS you can find.  Forget name calling or branding and call it like it is: they are the enemy who have declared war on us.  

Does that make sense or am I being too simplistic?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Nov 2015)

First off, ISIL is not a descendant of the assassins - in fact they would have been mortal enemies.  The Assassins were a branch of the Ismaili sect of Shia Islam.  ISIL is rabidly Sunni.

As to the rest of it, governance is indeed the key, in both Iraq and Syria.  Indeed Gen Allen (President’s Special Envoy for the Global
Coalition to Counter Daesh) publicly speaks of five lines of effort:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2015/06/01-2015-us-islamic-world-forum/2015-0601-brookings-doha-forum-final.pdf

* A military component to deny safe haven and provide security assistance
* Disrupting flow of foreign fighters,
* Disrupting access to financial resources,
* Providing humanitarian relief and stabilization support
* Counter-messaging – or defeating Daesh as an idea. 

With respect to stabilization, he has this to say:



> As more territory is taken back from Daesh, we must also ensure we’re poised to empower the Iraqi government to act in relief of liberated populations.  We are working closely with the Iraqis, with the support of our Coalition partners, and in particular the Arab states, to help Iraq develop stabilization and recovery plans.


----------



## opcougar (7 Nov 2015)

I'll like to see an excerpt of that from the memo that you might be privy to...please



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is a key difference between ISIS and some of the other groups mentioned in this thread though.  LTTE, IRA, ETA, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, pick your freedom fighter movement are merely organizations fighting for some form of national liberation.  They may use terrorist attacks to further their agenda but ultimately they are fighting a war of national liberation.
> 
> ISIS, on the other hand, is a doomsday cult.  Yes they are Muslim fundamentalists but *what differentiates them from other groups is they believe that the world needs to end and that all non-believers needs to be killed in order to be reborn as believers in Allah and Islam. * They are closer to a group like Aum Shinrikyo or the Branch Davidians.
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> I'll like to see an excerpt of that from the memo that you might be privy to...please



http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/



> The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.


----------



## opcougar (7 Nov 2015)

So the New Yorker published comments by a US commander in the Middle East and that makes it kosher? I was expecting something from a site ISIS owns



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2015)

Do you have something to offer that is more credible?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> So the New Yorker published comments by a US commander in the Middle East and that makes it kosher? I was expecting something from a site ISIS owns


Will a mere academic studying what ISIS says/does do?


> .... Many new religious movements employ a set of practices for enhancing commitment. These include sharing property and/or signing it over to the group upon admission; limiting interactions with the outside world; employing special terms for the outside world; ignoring outside news sources; speaking a special jargon; unusual sexual practices such as requiring free love, polygamy, or celibacy; communal ownership of property; uncompensated labor and communal work efforts; daily meetings; mortification procedures such as confession, mutual surveillance, and denunciation; institutionalization of awe for the group and its leaders through the attribution of magical powers; the legitimization of group demands through appeals to ultimate values (such as religion); and the use of special forms of address.
> 
> Most terrorist groups employ at least some of these mechanisms. Violent cults develop a story about imminent danger to an “in-group,” foster group identity, dehumanize the group’s purported enemies, and encourage the creation of a “killer self” capable of murdering large numbers of innocent people.
> 
> ...


Otherwise, as others have said ....


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Do you have something to offer that is more credible?


----------



## Tuan (7 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> First off, ISIL is not a descendant of the assassins - in fact they would have been mortal enemies.  The Assassins were a branch of the Ismaili sect of Shia Islam.  ISIL is rabidly Sunni.
> 
> As to the rest of it, governance is indeed the key, in both Iraq and Syria.  Indeed Gen Allen (President’s Special Envoy for the Global
> Coalition to Counter Daesh) publicly speaks of five lines of effort:
> ...



As I said here many times, you can eliminate some extremists, some leaders and some groups by military might as for short term goals but you will never destroy an intergenerational idea, such as Qutbism/Salafism/Wahhabism or Jihadism because an ideology has to be countered with another ideology, not by bombs and guns as it would exacerbate the situation. To counter an ideology by another you need to apply soft power!

http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> To counter an ideology by another you need to apply soft power!



I have no issues with that - in fact that is the thrust of the fifth line of operation.  I will, however, not accept that your Sri Lankan model is in anyway applicable, given its reliance on overt and unrepentant hard power methods.

You keep asking me to look at the lipstick.  I insist on looking at the pig.


----------



## Tuan (7 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I have no issues with that - in fact that is the thrust of the fifth line of operation.  I will, however, not accept that your Sri Lankan model is in anyway applicable, given its reliance on overt and unrepentant hard power methods.


You cannot base your entire argument vis-à-vis Sri Lankan conflict from the last few months of the operation that was directed by a dictator. I suggest you study the entire 30 year long war and post here your bibliography as I did, and then continue your discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> As I said here many times, you can eliminate some extremists, some leaders and some groups by military might as for short term goals but you will never destroy an intergenerational idea, such as Qutbism/Salafism/Wahhabism or Jihadism because an ideology has to be countered with another ideology, not by bombs and guns as it would exacerbate the situation. To counter an ideology by another you need to apply soft power!
> 
> http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf




You, and Col Eikmeier, are talking about changing Islam ... which _might_ (I suggest would) be a very good thing, perhaps, some would suggest, it is even an essential thing if Islam, writ large, is to avoid a catastrophic conflict with both the US led West and China. There is a way to change religions ... we, in the West, did it 500_ish_ years ago, it's called:

                              
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                   By the way, I highly recommend the book: it's
                                   informative, insightful, and beautifully written 

Of course, the reformation took a while and external "help" (from the Muslims) was both unwelcome and unhelpful and, from a Muslim perspective, unwise.

I cannot see why, either:

     1. An Islamic _reformation_ is unlikely; or

     2. Any Western (or Chinese) "help" with the Islamic Reformation of, say, the late 20th through 23th centuries (I suspect it may have already begun) would be welcome, helpful or wise.

Our reformation did, and I expect the islamic Reformation will need to endure a long, bloody "civil war" ~ the Thirty Years' war, in our case.

There was some "soft power" ~ rather a lot, actually ~ involved in the European/Christian Reformation but it was *all* from within the European/Christian community, which is why it worked ... sort of. The Muslims tried to intervene, to exploit Europe's divisions (Selim I had his way with Egypt in some small part because Europe was divided, Suleiman the Magnificent exploited more and deeper divisions to conquer the Balkans and Mehmed III exploited even deeper divisions to defeat the Habsburgs, but his successors had, mostly, to deal with internal corruption, the Mughals and, later still, in the case of Suleiman II, a reuniting Europe that had surrendered about as much as it intended) but, in the end Muslim "help" was, I repeat, unhelpful and unwise. There is no reason to believe that Western "help" during an islamic Reformation will or can be otherwise, regardless of what sorts of power are applied.

In my mind the Islamic Reformation is more complex that the earlier Christian one because it involves not just _sects_ but also Big Ideas about man and society, about revered medieval traditions vs the 21st and 22nd and so on centuries, and about the very role of religion (belief/faith) in life. It's heady stuff and, I believe, the Muslims need to sort it all out ... by themselves, in their own way and in their own _ummah_.

Our power, soft or hard, is neither wanted nor needed.

(Israel can look after itself.)

Edit: format (paragraphing) and spelling


----------



## Tuan (7 Nov 2015)

^^ I will definitely go and get it from my library and read it and then comment on it, Sir!


----------



## opcougar (7 Nov 2015)

I wasn't trying to be paedantic, and am sure most people round the world know that Murica will say anything to justify whatever. WMDs rings a bell, and where is Bin Laden's body????



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Will a mere academic studying what ISIS says/does do?Otherwise, as others have said ....


----------



## McG (7 Nov 2015)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ^^ I will definitely go and get it from my library and read it and then comment on it, Sir!



It is not a bad book to be familiar with , Tuan, but I also suggest you look up, in a similar vein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "_Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now_".


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You, and Col Eikmeier, are talking about changing Islam ... which _might_ (I suggest would) be a very good thing, perhaps, some would suggest, it is even an essential thing if Islam, writ large, is to avoid a catastrophic conflict with both the US led West and China. There is a way to change religions ... we, in the West, did it 500_ish_ years ago, it's called:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But as with anyone who needs to make major changes in their lives, nothing will change or stick unless or until they're ready to make the  change.

My stopping smoking comes to mind as an example.  Didn't happen successfully until I wanted to quit for real.  

Are the followers of Islam ready, willing or able to accept a re-jig of what my wife tells me is the verbatim dictation from Allah?  I can't see how that would fly.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> As I said here many times, you can eliminate some extremists, some leaders and some groups by military might as for short term goals but you will never destroy an intergenerational idea, such as Qutbism/Salafism/Wahhabism or Jihadism because an ideology has to be countered with another ideology, not by bombs and guns as it would exacerbate the situation. To counter an ideology by another you need to apply soft power!
> 
> http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/07spring/eikmeier.pdf



The allies did a pretty good job at using hard power to destroy Nazism in Europe, and the equivalent in Japan, 1939-45. 

AFAIK the only thing soft about that conflict were the two boiled eggs my old man was issued in his 5 years of service as a gunner in 3 Div.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Nov 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The allies did a pretty good job at using hard power to destroy Nazism in Europe, and the equivalent in Japan, 1939-45.
> 
> AFAIK the only thing soft about that conflict were the two boiled eggs my old man was issued in his 5 years of service as a gunner in 3 Div.


But how we employ power changed greatly since...  Strategic attacks on civilian (essentially terrorizing them so that pressure is put on the Governments to capitulate) doesn't fly anymore.  That and we're fightig an ideology, not nations with regimes using an ideology.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> But how we employ power changed greatly since...  Strategic attacks on civilian (essentially terrorizing them so that pressure is put on the Governments to capitulate) doesn't fly anymore.  That and we're fightig an ideology, not nations with regimes using an ideology.




Both perceptive and correct, Max, and it's why Tuan is marching somewhere near parallel to the right track when he talks about "soft power," but, the _ideology_ at work, in the Middle East, is a religious one (and maybe I should say "are religious ones") and it/they is/are ones that has/have had deep divisions since very near the very beginning of Islam.

At a guess, all of Islam need some (more rather than less) reformation ... but my guess also ought to tell you that I sympathized with Francis Fukuyama a few years ago ... I believe hope guess that some sort of individualistic secular-humanism is the only way in which peoples can manage to coexist without murdering each other on very large scales, and I also guess that something akin to the European _Enlightenment_ (18th century), and the Chinese one 2,000+ years earlier, is needed but I suspect that an _Enlightenment_ must follow (a) religious _reformation_(s) which, I further suspect, must include some bloody civil wars ~ civil wars in which I suggest we in the US led West have no useful role to play.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Both perceptive and correct, Max, and it's why Tuan is marching somewhere near parallel to the right track when he talks about "soft power," but, the _ideology_ at work, in the Middle East, is a religious one (and maybe I should say "are religious ones") and it/they is/are ones that has/have had deep divisions since very near the very beginning of Islam.
> 
> At a guess, all of Islam need some (more rather than less) reformation ... but my guess also ought to tell you that I sympathized with Francis Fukuyama a few years ago ... I believe hope guess that some sort of individualistic secular-humanism is the only way in which peoples can manage to coexist without murdering each other on very large scales, and I also guess that something akin to the European _Enlightenment_ (18th century), and the Chinese one 2,000+ years earlier, is needed but I suspect that an _Enlightenment_ must follow (a) religious _reformation_(s) which, I further suspect, must include some bloody civil wars ~ civil wars in which I suggest we in the US led West have no useful role to play.



Matthew 24:6 - "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."

Archaeologists have just found another massacre site in Iran - 3400 years old.







And others have been found all over the Middle East dating back to 5800 years ago

These folks' problems date a long way back before Mohammed.  In fact I could argue that Mohammed was a "peace maker", making peace among his own by finding them an external enemy - just like Charlemagne and an multitude of others.

And I'm afraid I don't think a Reformation is going to provide an answer. The Reformation started with the Affair of the Placards in 1534 Luther's Theses in 1517 and lasted until Pope John XXIII.  I didn't see much sign of Christian peace in that interval and I don't see that fundamental attitudes on power and democracy have changed any in Europe.  The elites are still looking for top down mechanisms and for a man to lead them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Matthew 24:6 - "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
> 
> Archaeologists have just found another massacre site in Iran - 3400 years old.
> 
> ...




Quibble, quibble ... I think the _reformation_ started more than a century earlier, with Wycliffe and the Lollards; more important: _reformations_ don't need to bring peace, they need to pave the way for _enlightenment_ which is what, in my opinion, North Africa, the Middle East and South West Asia need ... desperately. My guess is that _sans_ some kind of _enlightenment_ the Arabs and the peoples they influence most will march themselves into a destructive situation from which there is no escape.


----------



## Tuan (8 Nov 2015)

Campbell, I have a couple of questions to ask you. I was just wondering if Nazism was an ideology? Because it was not crushed by another ideology, rather  by brute force. Or it was just the Nazi army/regime that was defeated? Then again can you explain how Nazism differ from Qutbism? Thanks!


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2015)

My _opinion_, worth even less than you are paying for it, is that _National Socialism_ (like _Fascism_ and the _Falange_) was a political _movement_. I think _Marxism_ and _communism_, in its many and various disguises are ideologies, but I think _Leninist-Stalinist communism_ and _Maoist communism_ were/are, like _National Socialism_ political _movements_. Maybe I'm slicing the salami too thinly, perhaps my _ideology_ is your _movement_ and vice versa ...  :dunno:

It seems to me that socialism, generally, and capitalism too, for that matter, are economic systems of social organization; I think that secularism, liberalism and Confucianism are also social organization systems, albeit not economically based. It is, I think, when you bend the basic tenets of, say, capitalism or socialism too far away from the "mushy middle" of each and too close to, say, Marxist-Leninist 'thought' or towards e.g. the _Falange_ in Spain  in the 1930s, that you get into real trouble. Ditto for attempts to overly politicize Confucian or Buddhist teachings.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> But how we employ power changed greatly since...  Strategic attacks on civilian (essentially terrorizing them so that pressure is put on the Governments to capitulate) doesn't fly anymore.  That and we're fightig an ideology, not nations with regimes using an ideology.



This is only true because nobody has threatened us enough to warrant such attacks.  If it became necessary, we would revert back in a heartbeat.  Some other folks, namely the Russians, have no qualms using such tactics.  It was only 16 years ago that they laid siege to Grozny 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Mind you they've done an excellent job rebuilding and pacifying the place since then:


----------



## opcougar (9 Nov 2015)

Ah....lets paint them all with the same brush eh. You mean like the followers of Christianity all get along like a house on fire, and have accepted a re-jig? I know for sure some modern day faiths will have nothing to do with my Anglican faith



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But as with anyone who needs to make major changes in their lives, nothing will change or stick unless or until they're ready to make the  change.
> 
> My stopping smoking comes to mind as an example.  Didn't happen successfully until I wanted to quit for real.
> 
> *Are the followers of Islam ready, willing or able to accept a re-jig* of what my wife tells me is the verbatim dictation from Allah?  I can't see how that would fly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Campbell, I have a couple of questions to ask you. I was just wondering if Nazism was an ideology? Because it was not crushed by another ideology, rather  by brute force. Or it was just the Nazi army/regime that was defeated? Then again can you explain how Nazism differ from Qutbism? Thanks!




Further to this, in _total war_, especially in "great" wars, soft power is vitally important.

Ideology or or political "movement" or whatever, we, the US led "democracies" (plus some less than democratic hangers on) had to mobilize both huge armies and public support sufficient to sustain the massive war effort.

This and this were, perhaps, not quite as vital as  this or this, but all were vital for this.

There was an _ideological_ element to our, allied effort: we needed to convince ourselves that what we were doing, sacrificing was necessary and that victory was achievable. Churchill's speeches and things like this which came into American living rooms in 1940 helped to mobilize the _will_ to fight, just as Leni Riefenstahl had done for the Germans in 1935.


----------



## Tuan (9 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Further to this, in _total war_, especially in "great" wars, soft power is vitally important.
> 
> Ideology or or political "movement" or whatever, we, the US led "democracies" (plus some less than democratic hangers on) had to mobilize both huge armies and public support sufficient to sustain the massive war effort.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your response Campbell. What I wanted to know is that if Nazism can be eliminated by hard power so is Qutbism. Then I actually figured that it was not the Nazi ideology that was defeated but the Nazi army/regime that was defeated, nevertheless, the ideology still exists in the form of “Neo-Nazism”, which borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.



> Following Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II and the end of the Holocaust, overt expressions of support for Nazi ideas were prohibited in Germany and other European countries. Nonetheless, movements that self-identify as National Socialist or are described as adhering to National Socialism continue to exist on the fringes of politics in many western societies. Usually espousing a white supremacist ideology, many deliberately adopt the symbols of Nazi Germany.



Please refer this:
Ed. Blamires, Cyprian and Jackson, Paul. World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. pp. 459–461.B
https://books.google.ca/books?id=nvD2rZSVau4C&pg=PA460&dq=neo-nazism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PIcXUqryD_ON0wWAk4H4DA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=neo-nazism&f=false


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Ah....lets paint them all with the same brush eh. You mean like the followers of Christianity all get along like a house on fire, and have accepted a re-jig? I know for sure some modern day faiths will have nothing to do with my Anglican faith



Unlike Christianity and the Bible,  Islam and the Koran are different.  As I said, they believe the Koran is directly verbatim from Allah and set out how mankind is to get on with life. Yes, there are those among that faith who play with it just as some do with the Bible.  But, seeing as Gabriel hasn't come back to remind mankind via another Prophet they're still stuck with version 1.0. Also, unlike most Christians of today the followers of Islam have it involved in their day to day life to a greater degree as was in Europe during the middle ages for the masses in Christianity.


----------



## captloadie (9 Nov 2015)

"Unlike Christianity and the Bible,  Islam and the Koran are different.  As I said, they believe the Koran is directly verbatim from Allah and set out how mankind is to get on with life."

The Baptist church I attended for a few years ago (so I assume all Baptist churches must be the same) did very much believe that the Bible was the direct word of God, written by him through the various authors of the books. They also believed theirs was the true religion, and it was our duty as a congregation to go out and not only spread the word, but convert other Christian followers to the true church. Not so different than what you say Islam is all about.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Nov 2015)

...except for that death of apostates thingy under Islam...


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> "Unlike Christianity and the Bible,  Islam and the Koran are different.  As I said, they believe the Koran is directly verbatim from Allah and set out how mankind is to get on with life."
> 
> The Baptist church I attended for a few years ago (so I assume all Baptist churches must be the same) did very much believe that the Bible was the direct word of God, written by him through the various authors of the books. They also believed theirs was the true religion, and it was our duty as a congregation to go out and not only spread the word, but convert other Christian followers to the true church. Not so different than what you say Islam is all about.



Sure, there are branches of Christianity that believe one thing or another.  Some try to use the Bible as "the word" and live by it's tenets, others say theirs is the "correct" franchise.  Hell some even believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.  Whatever...  

Not all Christianity, however, believes the Bible is the direct word of God, and that is a major difference.  Once maybe, but as ER says they had their enlightenment a long long time ago.  I just don't know how you would be able to get the straight laced Muslims to reconsider and reform to a more moderate version 2.0


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Thank you for your response Campbell. What I wanted to know is that if Nazism can be eliminated by hard power so is Qutbism. Then I actually figured that it was not the Nazi ideology that was defeated but the Nazi army/regime that was defeated, nevertheless, the ideology still exists in the form of “Neo-Nazism”, which borrows elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, antiziganism, antisemitism, and initiating the Fourth Reich. Holocaust denial is a common feature, as is incorporation of Nazi symbols and admiration of Adolf Hitler.




You're getting closer to the right track,

It took a whole helluva lot of _hard power_ to defeat the Nazi German Navy, Army and Air Force. They were formidable foes: well staffed, well equipped, well organized and well led. They were well staffed, and well led and so on because they were German, not because of National Socialism.

It took a fair bit of our _soft power_ to do two things:

     *First*: raise and sustain our own fighting spirit ~ see the _Second Principle of War_, etc; and

     *Second*: undermine, in the aftermath of victory, the underlying social discords that made Fascism, National Socialism and _Shinto_ nationalism/militarism attractive to the countries concerned.

It is in the latter aspect that  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   and   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...

... were just as important as  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   and   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Edit: format & a typo


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Nov 2015)

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 7 November 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1717 sorties:
•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1101 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 299 sorties, delivering some 17,778,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 317 reconnaissance missions.

317 for the LRP folks in a year;  well done, with a shout-out to the maintainers who are making that possible.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2015)

Oopsie ....


> The Defence Department says a CC-130 Hercules -- flying to Erbil, Iraq, in support of Operation Impact -- was held by authorities at Baghdad International Airport for several days late last month.
> 
> Department of National Defence spokeswoman Dominique Tessier said Monday in an email that the plane was held due to an issue with customs documentation with respect to its cargo.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Nov 2015)

I feel an episode of Border Security coming up.

"Did you pack that cargo pellet yourself? Do you know what is inside?"  ;D


----------



## 63 Delta (10 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Attention: Latest News - Air operations
> 
> As of 7 November 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1717 sorties:
> •CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1101 sorties;
> ...



Can you define a sortie for me? If a flight of 2 CF-188's take off on a mission, is that 1 or 2 sorties?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Nov 2015)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Can you define a sortie for me? If a flight of 2 CF-188's take off on a mission, is that 1 or 2 sorties?



Sure.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2015)

Historically, oppressive or evil regimes needed to be smashed by force and their institutions dismantled and discredited in order to remove the immediate threat, and also to allow the "new" ideas of the victors to take root. This argument was outlined in great detail by Victor Davis Hansen (especially in his book "The Soul of Battle"), using Sparta, the Confederacy and Nazi Germany as the examples.

The argument hinges on the ability to discredit the ideological underpinnings through the destruction and humiliation of the leadership (this is especially potent if the leadership is tightly tied to the ideology and use this to legitimize their own hold on power). More broadly distributed ideologies, like religions, are probably not as prone to this sort of decapitating strike: if Rome was bombed and the Pope killed, I rather doubt that Catholicism would vanish. Killing the leadership and "middle management" of radical jihadi groups can disrupt them and keep them off balance, but as has been pointed out, some sort of new and more attractive ideas need to be substituted for the radical interpretations of Islam being spread by the Jihadis.

One thing which I don't think people have paid enough attention to is _why_ the radical interpretations of Islam are taking root, and have at least tacit support among the rank and file of the population despite the rather grotesque activites being carried out in the name of religion. If people are not feeling threatened or compelled to take action _on their own_ against these monsters living right next door, then our own activities will not be particularly effective either.


----------



## Tuan (13 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It is not a bad book to be familiar with , Tuan, but I also suggest you look up, in a similar vein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "_Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now_".



I am not defender of Islam or any other religions for that matter but Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now", is kind of paradox since there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world right now, out of which the combined forces in total of Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban and Boko Haram makes up 0.003% of global Muslim population.  Therefore the statement that Islam propagates terror thus it needs reformation is flawed because if Islam really bred terror, we’d all be dead now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Nov 2015)

I don't think the "terror" to which Ms. Ali alludes is limited to the extreme examples of it from ISIS and Al Qaeda only. I saw it as including the terror imposed, for instances, on Muslim women in London, England, or the Netherlands or France, who are verbally assaulted by Muslim men in public on the street, for walking alone (without male escort) or not wearing a hijab; or the terror of being punished for unknown sins by the religious police in say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, or merely because you did not abide by their interpretation of Islam; or the terror imposed on young Muslim women in North America by their fathers to prevent them from going out with boys (or even their girl friends so that, god forbid, a man should accidentally join them at the restaurant) or going to school "undressed' (meaning without being covered from head to toe in 30o - 100% humidity weather when everybody else is wearing shorts and T-shirts), etc.

Basically I saw her thesis as being against the "terrorizing" of Muslims by other Muslims into total personal obedience to the rules and precept of the religion they have decided to be the "true faith" ones. These "terrorizing" Muslims are much much more numerous than the ones you singled out. 

If you pair that with the fact that  Islam, as a religion is also a political system, in that it seeks to impose on everyone the religions teachings as the law o the land to be imposed on all by the political powers that be, that is where she feels that a reformation is necessary so that Islam can become, like just about all other religions by now, a personal and private matter rather than a political and societal imposed one.


----------



## Tuan (13 Nov 2015)

Again, you cannot generalize an entire culture as "terrorizing" and paint them with the broader brush that Islam is such. One case in point is that the author's perception on the Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai is such that Ms. Ali fails to see that even though Malala was/is victim of Taliban's "terror" she was supported with her entire nation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Nov 2015)

I hate to break this news to you Tuan, but Malala has not been supported by her entire nation. A great deal of people in her neck of the woods in fact actually agreed publicly with the actions of the Taliban, which is why she has now had to expatriate herself permanently. That area, BTW, is the same area where the few remaining Christians are regularly dragged out in public from their home by mobs that then stone them with the acquiescence of the state, merely because someone alleged (without proof or direct knowledge), that they heard that they committed blasphemy in denying teachings of Islam or badmouthing the prophet.

If that is not terror, I don't know what is.


----------



## Tuan (13 Nov 2015)

Well, is that so? This is news to me.....My wife who is a Pakistani Muslim says otherwise though....


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2015)

So, our bombing continues for now.



> *CF-18s will bomb IS targets until told to stop*
> The Globe and Mail
> Steven Chase
> 13 Nov 2015
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2015)

op:


----------



## Tuan (13 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hate to break this news to you Tuan, but Malala has not been supported by her entire nation. A great deal of people in her neck of the woods in fact actually agreed publicly with the actions of the Taliban, which is why she has now had to expatriate herself permanently. That area, BTW, is the same area where the few remaining Christians are regularly dragged out in public from their home by mobs that then stone them with the acquiescence of the state, merely because someone alleged (without proof or direct knowledge), that they heard that they committed blasphemy in denying teachings of Islam or badmouthing the prophet.
> 
> If that is not terror, I don't know what is.



You're right about Malala! 

*The antagonism towards Malala in Pakistan*
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29568637


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> I am not defender of Islam or any other religions for that matter but Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book "Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now", is kind of paradox since there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world right now, out of which the combined forces in total of Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban and Boko Haram makes up 0.003% of global Muslim population.  Therefore the statement that Islam propagates terror thus it needs reformation is flawed because if Islam really bred terror, we’d all be dead now.



the current wave of radicalization is being fed by the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia oil money financing mosques throughout the Islamic world and using them to squash any other interpretation of Islam.


----------



## opcougar (13 Nov 2015)

Who is helping to design and build these mosques throughout that region? You've guessed it...the West



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> the current wave of radicalization is being fed by the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia oil money financing mosques throughout the Islamic world and using them to squash any other interpretation of Islam.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> People twist the statistics and stay on the 0.03% of all strikes are CF-18s. Its not a pure numbers game, the fact that we are there, sharing the load, with whatever we can provide, means something to our allies. They know we have aging aircraft in limited numbers, so that 6-pack means a lot more than the US sending a 6-pack of aircraft.
> 
> Every strike is important like EITS said. What if one of our CF-18s is tasked in a sortie to drop a JDAM on a HVT, who happens to be Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Do our strikes still mean nothing despite taking out the ISIL leader?



Article Link

Trudeau and ISIS: Is the bombing still a bad idea?

On Thursday, eight days after Justin Trudeau took office, two CF-18 fighters with laser-guided bombs screamed above the desert city of Sinjar, in northern Iraq.

Below lay a crucial artery for the so-called Islamic State: Highway 47, the main east-west route between ISIS headquarters in Raqqah, Syria, and the ISIS-held city of Mosul, Iraq.

On the ground, Kurdish forces were mounting an assault on the ISIS garrison at Sinjar in a bid to cut its supply line. The Canadian pilots' task was to take out an obstacle to the Kurdish advance: an Islamic State unit dug in to the east of Sinjar at Tal Afar. A second target was an ISIS ammunition store close to Sinjar itself.

Both targets were hit. The counteroffensive worked. With the aid of the Canadian, as well as U.S., pilots, plus Canadian special forces trainers on the ground, the Kurdish forces drove ISIS out of Sinjar. It was hailed as a "liberation" by the remaining Yazidi community, who had been massacred and enslaved by the Islamic State.

But... what happened to Justin Trudeau's pledge to bring the CF-18s home and end their participation in the war on ISIS? And will that pledge survive the massacre in Paris?

1,700 sorties, and still flying

Canada's six warplanes, with an airborne Polaris tanker and two Aurora surveillance planes, arrived at a base in Kuwait just over a year ago, on Oct. 30, 2014. Since then, their contribution to the coalition has been modest but certainly not insignificant.

As of Wednesday — Remembrance Day — Canadian planes had flown 1,731 sorties, according to the Department of National Defence. Of those, 1,109 were combat missions by CF-18 fighters, although they take a cautious approach to releasing their bombs and return without dropping them about two-thirds of the time.

In addition, the C-150 Polaris tanker flew 302 sorties, pouring nearly 8,160 tonnes of jet fuel into coalition aircraft. The two Auroras conducted a further 320 reconnaissance missions, gathering intelligence on ISIS movements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Full story at link;  I wanted to use this passage to show that, while the CF-18s contributions might seem to be insignificant to people judging from the safety of their own homes, inside Canadian borders, the people who they are supporting over there don't seem to agree with that position.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2015)

Reuters is _tweeting_:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




     Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters  4m4 minutes ago
     BREAKING: New IS video warns countries taking part in Syria airstrikes, they will suffer France's fate, threatens attack in Washington.

No link, yet.


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2015)

The latest on CANSOF's operations:



> *ANALYSIS: There are signs Canadian commandos are battling ISIS in northern Iraq
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hasn't yet clarified future of combat mission against Islamic State*
> James Cudmore, CBC News
> 16 Nov 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/special-forces-isis-iraq-combat-1.3318451


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Nov 2015)

Don't you just love journalists?

They try to hook us up with non-news, and they managed to hook you MCG  .

That is not an analysis, and the whole story does not justify the title at all.

Let's see here: We are told that the Cansof in Iraq are operating today under the mandate they have had from the beginning and is already known to the public. Moreover, I asked DND what precisely they are doing and was told absolutely nothing. So, I will imagine that they are doing what they were doing before end reporting as a hypothetical of  what they are up to today - even though I haven't a clue. 

Then I will blame the Prime Minister for not answering for the umpteenth time the question we have been asking him with the same response or no response at all for the last two weeks, when he has better things to do with his time, and before we even give him time to act, will stick his own electoral promise in his face.

Did I miss something? Is this news or analysis? No. It's complete bullshit. Can you give the poor man a chance to do something? And press, remember, he also promised governing by  consulting with his cabinet - well that means it takes more time to decide and then do anything.

And BTW, news orgs, read the mandates to his minister of defence and foreign affairs: they are to organize bringing back the CF-18's. Now go back to the actual mission and see what is left: The Aurora's, the tanker the SOF trainers (with their current mandate) all seem to remain there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Who is helping to design and build these mosques throughout that region? You've guessed it...the West



Let's see you expand on that and provide some fact and proof.

Or are you just trolling again :waiting:


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or are you just trolling again :waiting:



Again? I don't think he ever stopped.


----------



## Tuan (16 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't think the "terror" to which Ms. Ali alludes is limited to the extreme examples of it from ISIS and Al Qaeda only. I saw it as including the terror imposed, for instances, on Muslim women in London, England, or the Netherlands or France, who are verbally assaulted by Muslim men in public on the street, for walking alone (without male escort) or not wearing a hijab; or the terror of being punished for unknown sins by the religious police in say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, or merely because you did not abide by their interpretation of Islam; or the terror imposed on young Muslim women in North America by their fathers to prevent them from going out with boys (or even their girl friends so that, god forbid, a man should accidentally join them at the restaurant) or going to school "undressed' (meaning without being covered from head to toe in 30o - 100% humidity weather when everybody else is wearing shorts and T-shirts), etc.
> 
> Basically I saw her thesis as being against the "terrorizing" of Muslims by other Muslims into total personal obedience to the rules and precept of the religion they have decided to be the "true faith" ones. These "terrorizing" Muslims are much much more numerous than the ones you singled out.
> 
> If you pair that with the fact that  Islam, as a religion is also a political system, in that it seeks to impose on everyone the religions teachings as the law o the land to be imposed on all by the political powers that be, that is where she feels that a reformation is necessary so that Islam can become, like just about all other religions by now, a personal and private matter rather than a political and societal imposed one.



A different point of view and a must watch! Stupidity of the CNN has no limits!
https://www.facebook.com/issambayanofficial/videos/731193436971783/


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2015)

New boss in town ....


> Brigadier-General James Irvine assumed command of Joint Task Force-Iraq (JTF-I) from Brigadier-General Lise Bourgon yesterday as part of a regular, previously planned rotation for Operation IMPACT.
> 
> As Commander of JTF-I, Brigadier-General Irvine commands approximately 600 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel deployed on Operation IMPACT -- Canada’s military contribution to the multinational coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). JTF-I includes Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I) as well as planning teams and liaison officers working within the U.S.-led coalition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't think the "terror" to which Ms. Ali alludes is limited to the extreme examples of it from ISIS and Al Qaeda only. I saw it as including _the terror imposed, for instances, on Muslim women in London, England, or the Netherlands or France, who are verbally assaulted by Muslim men in public on the street, for walking alone (without male escort) or not wearing a hijab_; or the terror of being punished for unknown sins by the religious police in say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, or merely because you did not abide by their interpretation of Islam; or the terror imposed on young Muslim women in North America by their fathers to prevent them from going out with boys (or even their girl friends so that, god forbid, a man should accidentally join them at the restaurant) or going to school "undressed' (meaning without being covered from head to toe in 30o - 100% humidity weather when everybody else is wearing shorts and T-shirts), etc.
> 
> Basically I saw her thesis as being against the "terrorizing" of Muslims by other Muslims into total personal obedience to the rules and precept of the religion they have decided to be the "true faith" ones. These "terrorizing" Muslims are much much more numerous than the ones you singled out.
> 
> If you pair that with the fact that  Islam, as a religion is also a political system, in that it seeks to impose on everyone the religions teachings as the law o the land to be imposed on all by the political powers that be, that is where she feels that a reformation is necessary so that Islam can become, like just about all other religions by now, a personal and private matter rather than a political and societal imposed one.




I saw the _highlighted bit_, with my own eyes, in Singapore where Muslim men, some from Malaysia but mostly, I was told, from nearby Indonesia, come to Singapore on Sundays and 'terrorize' the (mostly Indonesian) housemaids on their day off. The difference between e.g. Europe, on the one hand, and Singapore, on the other, is respect for the rule of law. In Singapore the police are _johnny-on-the-spot_ and the Muslim men are carted away, quickly, and hustled across the border with their passports stamped so that they cannot return for some months. Such verbal assaults (I'm told these "assaults," which are almost never more than verbal ... out of fear of the _proportionate_ police reaction) are, apparently, a breach of Singapore's laws regarding personal privacy and public conduct ~ remember this is the place where gum chewing, in public, is against the law ... or, at least, dropping your 'used' gum anywhere is.)

And I agree, OGBD, it is a form of terrorism. I was also told, by a Malay acquaintance, that this attitude, including the dress codes, is relatively new. It is, my acquaintance told me, an "import"  from the Middle East, brought by Arabian _sheiks_ and _imans_ who have been invited to Malaysia and Indonesia by a handful of fundamentalist people in high (high enough) places. Some Malays (I don't know about others in e.g. Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines) want to fight back and, in at least one mosque in one city the "imported" _iman_ was ousted and the congrgation agreed that they would engage only a native born Malay who was educated in Malaysia.

That, ousting an _iman_ and insisting upon a local fellow, instead, is one example of real "soft power," at work. That one Malay congregation was (I hope still is) sufficiently comfortable in its own "skin," sufficiently confident in the strength of its own _"culture"_ to face down the foreign fundamentalists who claim that they have the 'Holy Writ" on their side. This sort of "soft power" ~ the very best kind ~ is never the result of any government programme, and never a "gift" from foreigners. It is "bottom up" or "grassroots" _power_ that reflects the strengths and determination of the people, themselves. It was easier, I suspect, in that particular Malay congregation because I think it was in an upper middle class district filled with well educated people. Poorly educated people often (usually?) are less "comfortable" and "confidant" and, therefore, less willing to stand up against outside influence.

I think there is a big difference between the "comfortable," and "confident" local community _power_ I saw in one small place in one small country and the fanaticism that, I suspect, animates many IS** members. IS** is, I believe, using its own brand of "soft power" but it is _imposed_ rather than being self generated and self sustained and I think (_hope_) it's influence is easier to counter, discredit and destroy (see e.g. Italian _fascism_, German _national socialism_ and Japanese _Shinto based militarism_). It is my thesis that _imposed_ or _imported _ can be valuable and long lasting, but only as a catalyst for the creation of local, indigenous _power_: the great legacy of the British empire, for example, was the "rule of law," respect for which is still a defining characteristic of some democracies (America, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, India and Singapore just to name a few) and which, I assert, delayed the decline of democracy in others.

At the risk of repeating myself: the best _"soft power"_ is home grown, but, just for example, a couple of poor, Easter European Jewish immigrants named Samuel Goldwyn and Louis B Meyer had more to do with giving America "comfort" and "confidence" than did Franklin D Roosevelt or even Thomas Jefferson. _General Electric_ and _General Motors_ were as important to the expansion of America's _soft power_ as was General Marshall and his amazingly generous "plan" to rebuild Europe. Louis Armstrong, Josephine Baker, Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald did more to shape "our" anti-communist "narrative" than did everyone in the CIA, _Voice of America_, the US State Department and _Radio Free Europe_, combined. Governments and old, tired, armchair strategists, like me, need to remember that.


----------



## Remius (17 Nov 2015)

Here's an interesting take on ISIS and why they attacked France from _The Atlantic _ titled *ISIS Is Not Waging a War Against Western Civilization*.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-paris-attacks-rubio-republicans/416085/?utm_source=SFFB

It does seem to put some things into perspective.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting take on ISIS and why they attacked France from _The Atlantic _ titled *ISIS Is Not Waging a War Against Western Civilization*.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-paris-attacks-rubio-republicans/416085/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> It does seem to put some things into perspective.




I agree with the thesis that IS or _Daesh_ is not a _"civilization"_ as Sam Huntington used that term in his famous essay, but it does represent one part of one of the factions that is contending, right now, to "lead" the Muslim _civilization_. And the real war isn't against the West ... yet. The Muslims have to sort themselves out first and that is something I suspect they will never, can never do ... tell me what constitutes _Christendom_ please, and how we define it in political, social, legal or military terms. Is essentially protestant and moderately religious America somehow _allied_ with very religious, Roman Catholic Peru or quite religious, Orthodox Ukraine? Islam is similar and despite what I believe is a religiously inspired set of civil wars and revolutions I doubt one, overarching _caliphate_ will be able to impose its socio-cultural/theological will on 1.5 Billion people, much less 6 Billion.


----------



## Tuan (17 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting take on ISIS and why they attacked France from _The Atlantic _ titled *ISIS Is Not Waging a War Against Western Civilization*.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/isis-paris-attacks-rubio-republicans/416085/?utm_source=SFFB
> 
> It does seem to put some things into perspective.



I completely agree with the author. I am not sure if this is appropriate to say on this military forum, but as a person who was born and bred in the Indian subcontinent region, I internalized Gandhi’s non-violent way of living which saved my life during the darkest period of my lifetime that I lived before start over from scratch in a beautiful country, such as Canada.  As such, I am against any military solution to this conundrum and always think like a peace-keeper. Therein, another plan to deal with ISIS, as follows:

I don’t think the US led west should engage neither ground troops nor air strikes,   I’ll tell you why: 

(Attn: cross-post)

1.	Because, regardless of the complexities of sectarian divide, the six-state GCC countries in ME are playing their cards deviously, for them it is a political issue but in fact it is a global security issue.
2.	They successfully draw the US led west, who is desperately looking for someone to sell their weapons, into this chaos while GCC nations are being very diplomatic with ISIS.
3.	There is no single attack in these wealthy GCC countries to date, whereas the west got caught into the ISIS world view of Crusade vs. Jihad narrative. In the eyes of ISIS, NATO is an enemy intruder but the GCC is a sacred land and common ground.
4.	Thus, in my opinion, we should turn the tables around diplomatically and make the Muslims fight the Muslims contrary to Christians fight the Muslims.
5.	It is against this backdrop, I believe, that the NATO should withdraw from its bombing mission and train and arm GCC plus the indigenous/local military to combat ISIS effectively and strategically.

In conclusion:  when you turn the majority of global Muslim population against these minute sections of the extremists there shall be peace at the end!


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Nov 2015)

No single attack in any wealthy GCC to date?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing


----------



## Tuan (17 Nov 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No single attack in any wealthy GCC to date?
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing



Okay, you found one attack on a country that was previously funding the ISIS, according to Newsweek.

How Does ISIS Fund Its Reign of Terror?
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html



> Royal Donors in the Gulf
> 
> Grossing as much as $40 million or more over the past two years, ISIS has accepted funding from government or private sources in the oil-rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait—and a large network of private donors, including Persian Gulf royalty, businessmen and wealthy families.
> 
> ...



So Kuwait part of MESF now?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I saw the _highlighted bit_, with my own eyes, in Singapore where Muslim men, some from Malaysia but mostly, I was told, from nearby Indonesia, come to Singapore on Sundays and 'terrorize' the (mostly Indonesian) housemaids on their day off. The difference between e.g. Europe, on the one hand, and Singapore, on the other, is respect for the rule of law. In Singapore the police are _johnny-on-the-spot_ and the Muslim men are carted away, quickly, and hustled across the border with their passports stamped so that they cannot return for some months. Such verbal assaults (I'm told these "assaults," which are almost never more than verbal ... out of fear of the _proportionate_ police reaction) are, apparently, a breach of Singapore's laws regarding personal privacy and public conduct ~ remember this is the place where gum chewing, in public, is against the law ... or, at least, dropping your 'used' gum anywhere is.)
> 
> And I agree, OGBD, it is a form of terrorism. I was also told, by a Malay acquaintance, that this attitude, including the dress codes, is relatively new. It is, my acquaintance told me, an "import"  from the Middle East, brought by Arabian _sheiks_ and _imans_ who have been invited to Malaysia and Indonesia by a handful of fundamentalist people in high (high enough) places. Some Malays (I don't know about others in e.g. Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines) want to fight back and, in at least one mosque in one city the "imported" _iman_ was ousted and the congrgation agreed that they would engage only a native born Malay who was educated in Malaysia.
> 
> ...



Yes the Arabs and it would appear from UAE's 2.6billion RM "donation" to the PM to be mainly the gulf States are pushing a singular brand of Whabbi/Safi Islam that is sanitizing the more relaxed Malay version. The various states across Malaysia vary greatly, Johor and it's Sultan are fighting back, whereupon Kedah is going full Islamic retard. More and more Islamic standards of "decency" are being pushed on the non-muslim population and there is a lot of them vs us propaganda targeting going on. The current government used up most of it's political capital to get elected and using the Islamic hammer is about the only tool left. Malays love their Palestinians brothers greatly, but not their Indonesians ones. Distance does make the heart grow fonder.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes the Arabs and it would appear from UAE's 2.6billion RM "donation" to the PM to be mainly the gulf States are pushing a singular brand of Whabbi/Safi Islam that is sanitizing the more relaxed Malay version. The various states across Malaysia vary greatly, Johor and it's Sultan are fighting back, whereupon Kedah is going full Islamic retard. More and more Islamic standards of "decency" are being pushed on the non-muslim population and there is a lot of them vs us propaganda targeting going on. The current government used up most of it's political capital to get elected and using the Islamic hammer is about the only tool left. Malays love their Palestinians brothers greatly, but not their Indonesians ones. Distance does make the heart grow fonder.



I love the bit in yellow, Colin. You should trademark it and then influence world leaders to use it instead of  "Islamic Extremists" or Islamic Extremism". Could you imagine the public relations effect against these people of constantly being referred to on the world stage and in the world press as "full retards"?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2015)

Here is an alternative for dealing with Daesh that hasn't really been discussed.

Why doesn't the Iraqi government hire this man:







His company, STTEP International (http://www.sttepi.com/default.aspx) did quite a number on Boko Haram and they've got plenty of success stories dealing with pesky Rebel Forces that annoy legitimate governments.  He doesn't really like the British or Americans either so he also has that going for him.

He is also releasing a new book which I have pre-ordered:






If his Blog and first book is anything to go by, I'm expecting it to be a very good read.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2015)

Interesting man.  I love South Africans, they're top notch.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Interesting man.  I love South Africans, they're top notch.



The Nigerian government was supposedly offered a team from JSOC to help them deal with Boko Haram.  They chose to go with Barlow's crew instead, probably because they wanted someone that could deliver results.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2015)

Naturally.  I'd want to go with the local SME who have the TI on the continent.  Twenty five years ago, Rhodesian veterans would also have been an excellent source of  fairly recent SME in my opinion too.


----------



## Tuan (18 Nov 2015)

Bombing ISIS in the past three years or so degraded them? Think again!

Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology



> If we think it's irrational, immoral or plainly reckless for ordinary Arab citizens to respond to violence with violence, then we should stop doing so ourselves.
> 
> I'm not saying the scope and severity of the violence from the two sides are the same. And I'm not drawing a moral equivalency between the actions of one side versus the other. Instead, I think it's futile to respond to terrorist violence with more violence in a way that creates more terrorists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinions/kohn-paris-attacks/



You say "keep watching CNN" as disparagement, then you post a CNN link to make some point.  Awesome.  :facepalm:



You can Google "disparagement" if need be. 

Some people say I can be condescending.  (That means I talk down to people   )


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Nigerian government was supposedly offered a team from JSOC to help them deal with Boko Haram.  They chose to go with Barlow's crew instead, probably because they wanted someone that could deliver results.


Still has some work left to do, I guess, for the former Executive Outcomes folks ....
_"Explosion blamed on Nigeria’s Boko Haram kills 32, wounds 80"_


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still has some work left to do, I guess, for the former Executive Outcomes folks ....
> _"Explosion blamed on Nigeria’s Boko Haram kills 32, wounds 80"_



That's because their contract was only for three months and their presence in the country became an election issue.  The new government chose not to renew their contract.


----------



## Tuan (18 Nov 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You say "keep watching CNN" as disparagement, then you post a CNN link to make some point.  Awesome.  :facepalm:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regarding CNN; I guess people like me moulding it into an unbiased media. In fact, I am surprised to see such an article on CNN website.

Secondly, in my opinion, no one here try to talk down on people, rather everyone reserve our fundamental rights of free speech, as long as we are impartial and doesn't have a bias to begin with.  :camo:

P/s: I do look up words because English is my third language; as my mother tongue is Tamil and then learned the official language of my native country, which is Sinhala.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> That's because their contract was only for three months and their presence in the country became an election issue.  The new government chose not to renew their contract.


Seen.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> Bombing ISIS in the past three years or so degraded them? Think again!
> 
> Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology



Or, it has degraded them, but not completely defeated them as a fighting force, or defeated their morale, but it has shaped the way they have to fight in the battlespace; which was the actual goal of the air task force.   :nod:  No one tasked the ATF to 'win 'er all on your own folks!' and no one expected them to because that would be foolish.

It has degraded them.  I don't care what CNN puts into type.


----------



## Tuan (19 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or, it has degraded them, but not completely defeated them as a fighting force, or defeated their morale, but it has shaped the way they have to fight in the battlespace; which was the actual goal of the air task force.   :nod:  No one tasked the ATF to 'win 'er all on your own folks!' and no one expected them to because that would be foolish.
> 
> It has degraded them.  I don't care what CNN puts into type.



I am not saying it did nothing, but just keep bombing and bombing and bombing isn't necessary.  Of course, when you have a real-time intelligence about a high value target you can act on it but just keep bombing like what Russia and France are doing right now, will not work.

Instead, (IF you really want to obliterate them) you have to study, collect, analyze and identify on which the terrorist's survival depends on: the lifeline of ISIS and its infrastructure; such as weapons and munitions supply, local and foreign recruitment base, communication, propaganda, and publicity avenues, food and water supply, oil and power resources, financial, trade, transport and banking resources., etc.. and simply eliminate them.

What western intelligence needs to do is, collect, analyze, assess and disseminate real-time tactical intelligence. I feel that the international intelligence agencies have a bigger role to play, than just being the eyes and ears of any nation, with feet of clay, when faced with an enemy of many different faces. Recommendations for an appropriate "tradecraft" to achieve such a role are the need of the day!

It is easier said than done, because terrorists will blend in to the mass and shift into non-operational defensive mode and later would reorganize again!


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Nov 2015)

And what better way to destroy that infrastructure they need than by turning their desert into a desert by bombing the crap out of it and them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2015)

Good intelligence services are Taoist ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> I am not saying it did nothing, but just keep bombing and bombing and bombing isn't necessary.  Of course, when you have a real-time intelligence about a high value target you can act on it but just keep bombing like what Russia and France are doing right now, will not work.
> 
> Instead, (IF you really want to obliterate them) you have to study, collect, analyze and identify on which the terrorist's survival depends on: the lifeline of ISIS and its infrastructure; such as weapons and munitions supply, local and foreign recruitment base, communication, propaganda, and publicity avenues, food and water supply, oil and power resources, financial, trade, transport and banking resources., etc.. and simply eliminate them.
> 
> ...



And AGAIN I will say you keep assuming none of the things you mentioned above are not happening.  Just because something isn't in a news article doesn't mean it is not happening.


----------



## Tuan (19 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good intelligence services are Taoist ...
> .
> .
> .
> ...



Agree with you! The wise man keeps silent and the more he kept silent the more he heard! You don't kiss and tell, no true professional talks, (except beating around the bush   ) because after having spoken, he becomes a non-entity; but what IF he is already a not-entity?


----------



## Journeyman (19 Nov 2015)

Tuan said:
			
		

> ....but what IF he already a not entity?


He gets added to the <ignore> list.


----------



## Tuan (19 Nov 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> He gets added to the <ignore> list.



duly noted  :nod:


----------



## PanaEng (19 Nov 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Naturally.  I'd want to go with the local SME who have the TI on the continent.  Twenty five years ago, Rhodesian veterans would also have been an excellent source of  fairly recent SME in my opinion too.


Meh, SME? whatever, not much more than our guys. They are pretty good and lots of experience but Angola and Zimbabwe are as different from Mali and Nigeria as Afghanistan is to Honduras.
The real difference is ROE.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Nov 2015)

Nice and clear, UN sponsored action with nice and clear Rules of Engagement.

Your service Justin......



> *Security Council calls for eradicating ISIL safe havens in Syria and Iraq*
> 
> 20 November 2015 – The United Nations Security Council this evening called on all countries that can do so to take the war on terrorism to Islamic State-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and destroy its safe haven, warning that the group intends to mount further terror attacks like those that devastated Paris and Beirut last week.
> 
> ...



http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52623#.Vk_MXPmrTWI


----------



## cavalryman (20 Nov 2015)

Sorry.  All of our UN lines are busy. Fratboy Justin is still basking in the glow of being declared the APEC hottie.  All international questions will be referred to Stephane Dion who considers mythical man made global warming a greater threat than Daesh.  Canada will be acting accordingly and slipping out back when the bill for global security is presented, as it did in the PET years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2015)

This report in the _Globe and Mail_, headlined "Kurds plead for more Canadian support against the Islamic State," is good news for the new Liberal government. Despite saying that "the Kurds would prefer Canada continue air strikes in Iraq and Syria," the article is, in the main, a prescription for a "beefed up," perhaps even uniquely Canadian, contribution to the _anti-Daesh_ campaign that does not involve quite as much direct contact with either the Syrians or the Iraqis.

I'm sure many Liberals are happy to consider this ... it's an "out" from the bombing campaign and a chance to be seen to be doing something against _Islamic State/Daesh_.


----------



## Jed (23 Nov 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report in the _Globe and Mail_, headlined "Kurds plead for more Canadian support against the Islamic State," is good news for the new Liberal government. Despite saying that "the Kurds would prefer Canada continue air strikes in Iraq and Syria," the article is, in the main, a prescription for a "beefed up," perhaps even uniquely Canadian, contribution to the _anti-Daesh_ campaign that does not involve quite as much direct contact with either the Syrians or the Iraqis.
> 
> I'm sure many Liberals are happy to consider this ... it's an "out" from the bombing campaign and a chance to be seen to be doing something against _Islamic State/Daesh_.



Rather like when the Liberals jumped out the'Iraq' frying pan into the 'Afghanistan' fire.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Rather like when the Liberals jumped out the'Iraq' frying pan into the 'Afghanistan' fire.



If, and it's a Big If the government decides to go in that direction, "attacking" _Da'esh_ by providing support and training assistance to the Kurds, then there will be some similarities.

One of Prime Minister Chrétien's aims was to join the ill named "Global War on Terror" without joining in the Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq, which was, even before it started, politically unpopular. There was, back then, a United Nations Security Council resolution (Resolution 1386 (2001)) which established ISAF in Afghanistan and asked nations to support it. There is one today, Resolution 2249 (2015),* asking us to do the something similar in Syria and Iraq.

My sense then was that Prime Minister Chrétien understood the mood of the country, and I think whoever is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, today, to get _out_ of the bombing campaign but stay _engaged_ against _Da'esh_, also reads the mood correctly. (I know that, at this moment, 60% of Canadians want to keep the CF-18s on station, dropping bombs, but my guess is that number will not hold for all that long.)

_____
* The full text of resolution 2249 (2015) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“_Reaffirming_ its resolutions 1267 (1999), 1368 (2001), 1373 (2001), 1618 (2005), 1624 (2005), 2083 (2012), 2129 (2013), 2133 (2014), 2161 (2014), 2170 (2014), 2178 (2014), 2195 (2014), 2199 (2015) and 2214 (2015), and its relevant presidential statements,

“_Reaffirming_ the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

“_Reaffirming_ its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and unity of all States in accordance with purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter,

“_Reaffirming_ that terrorism in all forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed,

“_Determining_ that, by its violent extremist ideology, its terrorist acts, its continued gross systematic and widespread attacks directed against civilians, abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those driven on religious or ethnic ground, its eradication of cultural heritage and trafficking of cultural property, but also its control over significant parts and natural resources across Iraq and Syria and its recruitment and training of foreign terrorist fighters whose threat affects all regions and Member States, even those far from conflict zones, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“_Recalling_ that the Al-Nusrah Front (ANF) and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida also constitute a threat to international peace and security,

“_Determined_ to combat by all means this unprecedented threat to international peace and security,

“_Noting_ the letters dated 25 June 2014 and 20 September 2014 from the Iraqi authorities which state that Da’esh has established a safe haven outside Iraq’s borders that is a direct threat to the security of the Iraqi people and territory,

“_Reaffirming_ that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law;

“_Reiterating_ that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict and emphasizing the need to implement the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 endorsed as Annex II of its resolution 2118 (2013), the joint statement on the outcome of the multilateral talks on Syria in Vienna of 30 October 2015 and the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November 2015,

“1.   _Unequivocally condemns_ in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh which took place on 26 June 2015 in Sousse, on 10 October 2015 in Ankara, on 31 October 2015 over Sinaï, on 12 November 2015 in Beirut and on 13 November 2015 in Paris, and all other attacks perpetrated by ISIL also known as Da’esh, including hostage-taking and killing, and notes it has the capability and intention to carry out further attacks and regards all such acts of terrorism as a threat to peace and security;

“2.   _Expresses_ its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France, and to all Governments whose citizens were targeted in the above mentioned attacks and all other victims of terrorism;“3.      Condemns also in the strongest terms the continued gross, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights and violations of humanitarian law, as well as barbaric acts of destruction and looting of cultural heritage carried out by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“4.   _Reaffirms_ that those responsible for committing or otherwise responsible for terrorist acts, violations of international humanitarian law or violations or abuses of human rights must be held accountable;

“5.   _Calls upon Member States_ that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

“6.   _Urges Member States_ to intensify their efforts to stem the flow of foreign terrorist fighters to Iraq and Syria and to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, and urges all Members States to continue to fully implement the above-mentioned resolutions;

“7.   _Expresses_ its intention to swiftly update the 1267 committee sanctions list in order to better reflect the threat posed by ISIL also known as Da’esh;

“8.   _Decides_ to remain seized of the matter.”


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2015)

Interesting new tack ....


> Canada has a finite number of military resources, and it must be careful not to overstretch those resources in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The West Block‘s Tom Clark in London, Trudeau explained that Canada may not have the ability to increase its training initiatives in the fight against the terrorist group while also continuing to participate in a coalition bombing campaign.
> 
> ...


I stand to be corrected (and jump in if I'm wrong), but aren't about 600 folks supporting the fighters AND two Aurora surveillance planes AND the Polaris aerial refueller?  If I'm wrong on these numbers, happy to be corrected - if PMJT is, though ....  :facepalm:


----------



## Remius (25 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting new tack ....
> Asked if the decision then boils down to a question of money, Trudeau replied that “decisions on sending Canada’s military into operational theaters will always be made on a case-by-case basis … I think that there is a sense, certainly amongst a number of the people I’ve spoken with — experts — that there are other things Canada can be doing that will be of even greater value (than bombing) to the coalition.”
> 
> This marks the first time Trudeau has referred to finite resources in response to questions about his government’s decision to end the Canadian bombing mission. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, critics had been asking why Canada could not simply continue to participate while also beefing up training in northern Iraq, something Trudeau pledged to do in the lead-up to the federal election ....
> I stand to be corrected (and jump in if I'm wrong), but aren't about 600 folks supporting the fighters AND two Aurora surveillance planes AND the Polaris aerial refueller?  If I'm wrong on these numbers, happy to be corrected - if PMJT is, though ....  :facepalm:



One could argue that the refueller supports the fighters.  Not sure if the auroras are or not.  Not my lane unfortunately.  How many people does it actually take to support 6 fighters?  I'm asking because I haven't a clue.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting new tack ....
> Asked if the decision then boils down to a question of money, Trudeau replied that “decisions on sending Canada’s military into operational theaters will always be made on a case-by-case basis … I think that there is a sense, certainly amongst a number of the people I’ve spoken with — experts — that there are other things Canada can be doing that will be of even greater value (than bombing) to the coalition.”
> 
> This marks the first time Trudeau has referred to finite resources in response to questions about his government’s decision to end the Canadian bombing mission. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, critics had been asking why Canada could not simply continue to participate while also beefing up training in northern Iraq, something Trudeau pledged to do in the lead-up to the federal election ....
> I stand to be corrected (and jump in if I'm wrong), but aren't about 600 folks supporting the fighters AND two Aurora surveillance planes AND the Polaris aerial refueller?  If I'm wrong on these numbers, happy to be corrected - if PMJT is, though ....  :facepalm:



The 600 also includes targeteers, C2, logistics, etc


----------



## Remius (25 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The 600 also includes *targeteers*, C2, logistics, etc



Is that an accurate spelling?  If so that is by far the best name for anything airforce.  Hopefully with feathered hats and rapiers.  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I stand to be corrected (and jump in if I'm wrong), but aren't about 600 folks supporting the fighters AND two Aurora surveillance planes AND the Polaris aerial refueller?  If I'm wrong on these numbers, happy to be corrected - if PMJT is, though ....  :facepalm:



The JTF-I composition and role 'hidden' on the OP Impact page.   ;D

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page

Joint Task Force-Iraq 

Approximately 600 CAF personnel are deployed as part of Joint Task Force-Iraq (JTF-I), which includes:
•provision of planning and liaison personnel to work with the U.S. and other coalition partners;
•command and control, and logistics; and
•an air task force.

As part of Joint Task Force-Iraq, Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I) contributes to coalition air operations against the so-called ISIS.This mission extension and expansion allows the CAF to strike the so-called ISIS targets in both Iraq and Syria. The use of air power contributes to the destruction of the so-called ISIS infrastructure and equipment, denying them the military means to attack Iraqi security forces or coalition assets.

The ATF-I includes:
•six CF-18 Hornet fighter aircraft;
•one CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller to support coalition air operations;
•two CP-140M Aurora surveillance aircraft to contribute to coalition intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities; and
•aircrew support elements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 total, for "JTF-I complete".  The ATF includes all 3 platforms (9 aircraft total), plus air and ground crews.  

My thoughts that you have to reduce the ATF to increase the SOF component?  IMO, this makes the CAF look...well not good, to say we can't even manage 600 people on an operation.   :2c:    2+2 does not = BOWLING BALL!

the Support Component side is where the fat is.  Too many _'supporters supporting supporters'_.  Cut the fat there, leave the ATF and up the SOF.  If the CAF can't maintain a 600 pers JTF...well aren't we in the proper hurt locker.  

Hopefully, this makes the PM realize he MUST increase the CAF budget to 2% GDP if we cannot even maintain a little 600 pers strong task force.   :nod:

Or are we just situating the estimate?


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> One could argue that the refueller supports the fighters.  Not sure if the auroras are or not.  Not my lane unfortunately.  How many people does it actually take to support 6 fighters?  I'm asking because I haven't a clue.



Auroras are part of the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance system for the entire coalition.  So....yes and no.

As for Targeteers, that's a real thing and I don't believe it's necessarily an Air Force member.  From Wiki:



> A targeteer is a military or intelligence officer responsible for planning and coordinating bombardment-type attacks. His/her duties include identifying critical elements or vulnerable points, estimating collateral damage, identifying effect and weapon required and presenting/submitting targets that meet the Commander's requirements for the operational plan for approval. Once approved, the targets are passed to the unit conducting the operation (squadron, artillery or submarine) for conduct of the strike. Post-strike, the targeteer is responsible for battle damage assessment (BDA) to establish whether the weapon had the effect desired.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeteer


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Auroras are part of the Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance system for the entire coalition.  So....yes and no.



The ATF complete is part of the coalition and not autonomous.


----------



## dimsum (25 Nov 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I stand to be corrected (and jump in if I'm wrong)[/color], but aren't about 600 folks supporting the fighters AND two Aurora surveillance planes AND the Polaris aerial refueller?  If I'm wrong on these numbers, happy to be corrected - if PMJT is, though ....  :facepalm:



I've mentioned this before, but I'm surprised (or some staffer really hasn't done his/her homework) that there is no explicit mention of the tanker and Auroras when anyone in the Liberal Govt mentions the Canadian contribution.  Putting on a bit of tinfoil headdress, it's either because:

a)  They don't know
b)  They don't care to report the facts
c)  They're purposely not publicizing it so that when the CF-18s get pulled out, people will forget while we still maintain some ISR and tanker support in theatre for others.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Nov 2015)

D) all of the above

 :blotto:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Nov 2015)

Or perhaps our Allies have signalled that the tanker and the ISR birds are substantially more useful than additional strike aircraft, and the government is following the best military advice that has been offered....

But you guys stick with your interpretation that the PM is a fool, and that the CDS cannot offer coherent advice.  That is easier to swallow than the prospect of a nuanced position based on sage advice


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've mentioned this before, but I'm surprised (or some staffer really hasn't done his/her homework) that there is no explicit mention of the tanker and Auroras when anyone in the Liberal Govt mentions the Canadian contribution.  Putting on a bit of tinfoil headdress, it's either because:
> 
> a)  They don't know
> b)  They don't care to report the facts
> c)  They're purposely not publicizing it so that when the CF-18s get pulled out, people will forget while we still maintain some ISR and tanker support in theatre for others.



Likely C) [modified], i.e. high value of "eyes and gas" to all...and they never promised to pull out tankers and ISR, nothing nefarious.

:2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or perhaps our Allies have signalled that the tanker and the ISR birds are substantially more useful than additional strike aircraft, and the government is following the best military advice that has been offered....
> 
> But you guys stick with your interpretation that the PM is a fool, and that the CDS cannot offer coherent advice.  That is easier to swallow than the prospect of a nuanced position based on sage advice



There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or perhaps our Allies have signalled that the tanker and the ISR birds are substantially more useful than additional strike aircraft, and the government is following the best military advice that has been offered....
> 
> But you guys stick with your interpretation that the PM is a fool, and that the CDS cannot offer coherent advice.  That is easier to swallow than the prospect of a nuanced position based on sage advice



Fair, and I agree with that.  

But, it's just puzzling to me that after the first few months, when there was media publicity (at least on the National Post) about the tanker and Auroras, that the MSM and government have essentially shut up about them and focused exclusively on the CF-18s, to the point that the PM has stated (from previous posts on this thread) that the 600 members are providing support to the 6 CF-18s.  

I'd think that the original reporters (the folks who worked on the Aurora piece, at least) would be thinking "hey...wait a minute...I was doing a piece on the Auroras and now no one talks about them?"


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:



If you are talking about the uniformed fool who let him put on a piece of PPE incorrectly in a war zone, and the countless uniformed fools who lacked the guts to say anything about incorrectly worn PPE, then I agree with you.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:



The "Decade of Darkness" would not been nearly as dark, if Canada's fairly-elected political leader had been corrected respectfully on how to wear the helmet.  

To call this moment a "turning point" for DND of the day, would be a gross understatement...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Fair, and I agree with that.
> 
> But, it's just puzzling to me that after the first few months, when there was media publicity (at least on the National Post) about the tanker and Auroras, that the MSM and government have essentially shut up about them and focused exclusively on the CF-18s, to the point that the PM has stated (from previous posts on this thread) that the 600 members are providing support to the 6 CF-18s.
> 
> I'd think that the original reporters (the folks who worked on the Aurora piece, at least) would be thinking "hey...wait a minute...I was doing a piece on the Auroras and now no one talks about them?"



To be fair, I think that some of this might just be in semantics... IMO, it may not be so much that the government doesn't know that there are aurora's and other aircraft in the area (and logistics, targeteers, etc) it's just that it knows that the average Canada a) doesn't know what aurora's and the other ISR aircraft/logisticians/targetting personnel do and/or b) doesn't care. Saying CF-18 without adding every single airframe type is likely more of a "They get the point" thing than an actual lack of knowledge or a slight.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

CF-18s 'drop bombs'.  (1) Bombs kill people. (2) Sometimes the wrong people. (3) Sometimes you are accused of killing the wrong people, even if you didn't.  

If you are a politician, you probably aren't initially concerned too much about (1) and likely very concerned about (2) and (3).  What's that saying about an ounce of prevention is worth something or other?

Question; how well does it bode for Canada and the CAF to suggest we are not militarily capable of a sustained operation of 600 pers?  Isn't that a good indicator that we need to injection some $ and resources into the CAF?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Question; how well does it bode for Canada and the CAF to suggest we are not militarily capable of a sustained operation of 600 pers?  Isn't that a good indicator that we need to injection some $ and resources into the CAF?



Or a good indicator that we need to change our Force Employment paradigm so that we don't a) keep offering a 1500 BG to complete a 100 man task, or b) keep all of our powder dry for the "next big thing".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

But that is not what was said though.  It said we have a finite amount of military resources and that the 600 pers TF might be stretching things too thin.  Example, maintaining all 600 pers for JTF-I (which actually encompasses ALL the support, ground techs and aircrew for 3 Detachments in the mission element sub-unit, the Air Task Force which is 9 planes and their crews), we are not likely able to expand the number of military advisors from our SOF community for the training mission.  

http://army.ca/forums/threads/116553/post-1403324.html#msg1403324

You can view the entire article and even watch the video of the interview.  PM Trudeau clearly answers the question asked "why can't we do both"? (it's at the 0:42 second mark). 

Canada can’t afford to bomb and train, says Trudeau

I don't see anyone saying anything about 'keeping our powder dry'.  So which is it?  It gets confusing to get different messages as to the reasons.

Agree with the 1500 for 100 part; we inject way too much tail per tooth and suffer the self licking lollipop SC on the mission end.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 24 November 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1784 sorties:

•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1143 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 308 sorties, delivering some 18,182,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 333 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

More information on the work our CF-18 are actually doing found here.  For November 2015, to date:

25 Nov 2015

On 25 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes to increase Iraqi security forces' freedom of movement in the region, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

19 Nov 2015

On 19 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes to increase Iraqi security forces' freedom of movement in the region, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS weapons production facility in the vicinity of Mosul using precision guided munitions.

18 Nov 2015

On 18 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces offensive operations, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three separate ISIS fighting positions, one south of Kirkuk and two others northwest of Mosul, using precision guided munitions.

17 Nov 2015

On 17 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three ISIS fighting positions during two separate airstrikes in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

15 Nov 2015

On 15 November, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces offensive operations, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position southeast of Haditha using precision guided munitions.

13 Nov 2015

On 13 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS compound and two separate ISIS fighting positions in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

12 Nov 2015

On 12 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Sinjar and seize portions of a significant ISIS supply route between Ar Raqqah, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS ammunition cache in the vicinity of Sinjar and an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Tal Afar using precision guided munitions.

7 Nov 2015

On 7 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position southeast of Mosul using precision guided munitions.

On 7 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position south of Sinjar using precision guided munitions.

6 Nov 2015

On 6 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

On 6 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIS fighting positions north of Fallujah using precision guided munitions.

5 Nov 2015

On 5 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIS compounds southwest of Sinjar using precision guided munitions.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Nov 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or a good indicator that we need to change our Force Employment paradigm so that we don't a) keep offering a 1500 BG to complete a 100 man task, or b) keep all of our powder dry for the "next big thing".



Perhaps PMJT understands that the military actually has the equipment and human resources to do many things, and probably even the money, but only if only DND HQ could get it's act together and stop squandering.  Maybe the MND has advised him of same and has requested time to sort it out, radically. I hope that is the case.  

BTW, I have not seen anything in these threads where the government has ordered the aircraft home? Have they only expressed an intention to do so?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

What I see is 'situating the estimate' stuff.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Nov 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The "Decade of Darkness" would not been nearly as dark, if Canada's fairly-elected political leader had been corrected respectfully on how to wear the helmet.
> 
> To call this moment a "turning point" for DND of the day, would be a gross understatement...



But it makes for very good trolling material though  [


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2015)

Look, a new government is in the process of enunciating a new foreign policy. They gave us some of the parameters during the campaign; the bulk will be worked out by the ministers concerned, including, above all the prime minister, and their political advisors, and by officials in PCO and Global Affairs Canada. What we have heard is that the government wants to _change_ from "bombing" to "training." When and how they want to make that change remains to be seen.

No one is arguing that the RCAF has done anything except a first rate job ... that's not the point. The point is that a new government wants to "turn that particular page" and "change the emphasis" the RCAF May still play a role, or Canada's contribution might change, entirely, in form. If it's the latter then it will be because some other form better suits the _national interest_ as defined by the democratically elected government of the day.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau differed with the former government on the bombing campaign from the very start. It should not surprise anyone that he wants to follow through and change what Canada is doing. He is not "dissing" the RCAF or the CF; he is, as he should must, shaping a foreign policy, including what sorts of military contributions we make here and there in the world, that is consistent with his broad, _strategic_ vision of Canada in the world.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

That is fine, ERC.  I don't suspect the crews would moan and groan about spending more time at home with their families.

However, the message delivered in the interview is that we are stretched thin and can't maintain the JFT-I and 'advisors' mission.  We have finite resources and have to decide; we cannot militarily do both.

Is that not the message that was conveyed?  Am I reading something incorrectly?  These are the PMs words in an interview.



> Canada has a finite number of military resources, and it must be careful not to overstretch those resources in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The West Block‘s Tom Clark in London, Trudeau explained that Canada may not have the ability to increase its training initiatives in the fight against the terrorist group while also continuing to participate in a coalition bombing campaign.
> 
> ...



Again, these are not my words.  I am simply saying that I had no idea that we were being stretched so thin by a 600 pers JTF and 69 advisors.  Under 700 pers commitment and it appears the PM has been briefed that this is stretching us too thin.   This should be cause for alarm.

Curiously our PM is saying we just don't have the resources, but other credible members here are saying it has to do more with keeping our powder dry, and changing foreign policy and not pointing to 'finite resources' being the reason.  So this is also somewhat confusing for a poor addle-brained operator type such as myself.

*I remember something my dad said to me years ago; _'say what you mean, and mean what you say'_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2015)

EITS: my _personal impression_ of prime Minister Justin Trudeau is that he is not at his best when he forgets the script, and, now that he is the prime minister, the _script_ is much longer, harder and far more complex than anything he has ever encountered in his life ... I have no idea what he "meant to say" but I would guess that it might have been something like, 'we have finite military resources and we must not stretch them too far on just one mission when we may be called upon to do others. We are, now, examining how to make the best possible, the most helpful contribution to the fight against ISIL while, at the same time, being ready to do a share when, not if, the next crisis comes up.' I doubt that anyone in DND or PMO or PCO told him that <700 is our "limit," but, as i said, I doubt he has the capacity, yet, to sort through all the information that has been dumped on him. You're heard the expression, I'm sure, about being force-fed information with a fire hose. I am pretty sure that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau feels that way right now and I suspect he is struggling mightily to make some sort of sense of it all.

I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though some of his answers make me wince.


----------



## GR66 (26 Nov 2015)

"Resources" are more than boots, aircraft, bombs and fuel.  He could be talking about money.  The Liberals promised a number of things in the election and said they would do it while capping the deficit (was it $10 billion?).  DND is a big chunk of that budget and it's facing many financial pressures.  

There will be expenses in transporting, housing and feeding the refugees.  A new fighter (of whatever type) will have to be purchased.  There are reports of huge cost overruns in the ship building program.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

I doubt that deploying 600 personnel to support a mission is leaving the CF "stretched thin" from a capabilities point of view, but perhaps maintaining an air taskforce in combat is leaving the operating budget for the CF "stretched thin".  I'm guessing that the training mission is less costly per person than the air mission. 

I don't take that quote by the PM as suggesting that the CF is incapable of such a deployment, more that it can't afford to pay for (or more properly isn't WILLING to pay for) that particular mission.  Given enough money we have the capability for a much, much larger deployment, but the political will would have to be there to pay for it.  Without that will...the "resources" (cash) is stretched thin.

 :2c:


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2015)

From the CBC - guess this answers some of the questions/thoughts bandied about before.



> The Liberal government will withdraw Canada's fighter jets from the fight against ISIS, but CBC News has learned that not all military aircraft will be pulled from the mission in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> *The Department of National Defence said Thursday that while the CF-18s will be withdrawn from the U.S.-led coalition combat mission, other planes — two Auroras, which are surveillance aircraft, two transport planes and a Polaris in-flight refuelling plane — will still fly alongside our allies.*



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-position-fighter-jets-1.3338186http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-position-fighter-jets-1.3338186


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

And still no word on tax free status.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And still no word on tax free status.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



FFS
 :


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And still no word on tax free status.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Which is very wierd, considering that committee is supposed to sit once or twice a year to decide those mission risk/hardship values. When will the CAF learn its more expensive and painful to backpay people, then to just sort it out right away.


----------



## dimsum (26 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which is very wierd, considering that committee is supposed to sit once or twice a year to decide those mission risk/hardship values. When will the CAF learn its more expensive and painful to backpay people, then to just sort it out right away.



Think about it as a very nice present when (if?) it comes in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

Well, folks were in theatre for well over half a year before the HA/RA was decided/announced.  Last info was request was submitted and waiting for CRA decision...something like that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Think about it as a very nice present when (if?) it comes in.



 :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Nov 2015)

It looks like the RAF will be taking over the Canadian role. Not to worry.



> David Cameron launches 'Isil-first' case for launching airstrikes in Syria
> Prime Minister unveils 36-page dossier to justify military, legal and moral arguments for RAF to bomb Isil in Syria
> 
> Tom Whitehead By Tom Whitehead, Security Editor5:54PM GMT 26 Nov 2015
> ...





> *War could last ‘many years’*
> 
> However, Mr Cameron cautioned that even with airstrikes it will still take “many years” to restore stability in Syria and that a post-conflict strategy was crucial.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12019470/David-Cameron-launches-Isil-first-case-for-launching-airstrikes-in-Syria.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Nov 2015)

A tiny bit more clarity, via "an advisor" ....


> The Liberal government will withdraw Canada's fighter jets from the fight against ISIS, but CBC News has learned that not all military aircraft will be pulled from the mission in Iraq and Syria.
> 
> The Department of National Defence said Thursday that while the CF-18s will be withdrawn from the U.S.-led coalition combat mission, other planes — two Auroras, which are surveillance aircraft, two transport planes and a Polaris in-flight refuelling plane — will still fly alongside our allies.
> 
> ...


.... and "a senior defence official":


> Canada will pull six CF-18s from the combat mission against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria but two reconnaissance aircraft and an air-to-air refueller could remain to assist coalition aircraft in their own bombing sorties.
> 
> A senior defence department official said Thursday that discussions on the future of Canada's contribution to the multinational campaign against ISIL continue and that no decisions have been made whether to leave other elements of the air task force in the region ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

Fromthis article:

Before Trudeau's meeting with Cameron, Howard Drake, the British high commissioner to Canada, told Power & Politics on Monday that it's for Canada to decide how it will contribute to the battle against ISIS.

"We've made very clear that it is for each country, for each participant in the coalition, to indicate and make clear where it thinks it can make the best contribution, and that's what Prime Minister Trudeau has said he's going to do," Drake said.

"We happen to think, and other allies happen to think ... that bombing is a very essential part of this to protect our interests."


----------



## Zoomie (27 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And still no word on tax free status.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


If they follow the Afghan strategy - you won't get it.  You need to be actually on the ground to get tax free.

AWACs crew flew over Afghanistan for almost 10 years - no tax free, no HLTA.  Unless you land there, it doesn't count.


----------



## dimsum (27 Nov 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> If they follow the Afghan strategy - you won't get it.  You need to be actually on the ground to get tax free.
> 
> AWACs crew flew over Afghanistan for almost 10 years - no tax free, no HLTA.  Unless you land there, it doesn't count.



Did the folks in Mirage get it?  If so, I'd think that the folks in Kuwait will as well.  HLTA would be for 6 months and over, of course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Nov 2015)

I think the "resource bit" is a red herring to make it look like the government is acting wisely and not just following a campaign promise that is past it's due date. It's a nice dodge but it has nothing to do about resources and frankly if we can't maintain 10 aircraft overseas indefinitely, then clearly we are under resourced and we can use that "out" to DND's advantage during the next election.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2015)

For Op MOBILE, when you were in Italy, you didn't get it.  As soon as you hit the NFZ, that counted towards 1 day of RA/HA level 3 and tax free.  Fly over midnight?  Get a second day.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> frankly if we can't maintain 10 aircraft overseas indefinitely, then clearly we are under resourced and we can use that "out" to DND's advantage during the next election.



Under resourced or poorly organized and poorly managing?

Both are possibilities in that scenario.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For Op MOBILE, when you were in Italy, you didn't get it.  As soon as you hit the NFZ, that counted towards 1 day of RA/HA level 3 and tax free.  Fly over midnight?  Get a second day.



Which is pretty much how things go for qualifying service for the GCS-Exp.  Although, this one, the crews who are going into the actual theatre are getting the same RA as the folks how never see the theatre at all.  Makes tons of sense.   :

If anything, the crews should get tax free; 1 day for each sortie in theatre.  That would make sense.  We are operating in the same boundaries as the folks on the ground who are getting tax free.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2015)

The GCS argument is a whole different can or worms. IMO, you either did it or not.  If you were in a flying line number, for 30 days, you should get it.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Did the folks in Mirage get it?  If so, I'd think that the folks in Kuwait will as well.  HLTA would be for 6 months and over, of course.


No, they were 1/1 for levels and not tax free. They did get HLTA though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The GCS argument is a whole different can or worms. IMO, you either did it or not.  If you were in a flying line number, for 30 days, you should get it.



Because the Exp is a '30 sortie' one, most ppl thought they'd do a new ribbon up...but...nope.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Nov 2015)

Big-Dome crews spent 6 months overseas - no HLTA.  No tax free for flying over hostile airspace.  Only HA/RA adjustments.  Each flight over bad-guy land gave one day towards the required 30 days.  Flying over the GOO counted for nothing.  30 sorties is almost 4 months of flying - for an airplane that does 14-16 hour missions at a time.

Time in the UAE (Mirage) counted towards the GSM - pretty sure that qualifying time has expired and no longer applies to those currently in Qatar.  GCS for ATF-I pers not flying over bad guy land is a bit misdirected - they should bring back or stand up a GSM-EXP for them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

Even the HA/RA adjustment would seem appropriate but not happening.  

IMPACT aircrew with 30+ will see the GCS-Exp, those with less will see the GSM-Exp.  Anyone flying for the ATF is logging hours over the Badlands.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Nov 2015)

I believe there is an initiative to lower the number of mission from 30 to 10.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I believe there is an initiative to lower the number of mission from 30 to 10.



The "get pilots more medals" initiative?

What I don't understand, is why its taking so long to get all these stories. 30 missions takes 4 months? 8 missions a month? Is there too many pilots? Too much downtime? Under utilization of the airframes?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2015)

Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Nov 2015)

And in Edmonton/Dawson Creek building the Alcan, the Alaska Highway plus the CANOL project during the Second World War.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 30 missions takes 4 months? 8 missions a month? Is there too many pilots? Too much downtime? Under utilization of the airframes?


There's more to flying a mission than just jumping in and turning the key and we're off.

I can't speak for other airframes - big-dome works on a 4 day cycle while deployed - only one of those days involves flying activities.  Hence the 30 missions in 120 days...  Numbers of crews and aircraft won't be a topic of discussion on these means - sorry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".




Canadians, in World War II, who went to Newfoundland were also in a "foreign" country and, for e.g. pension (and medal) purpose they were serving "overseas," too. The Americans were not unique in  that sort of thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some of you are starting to sound like the Americans who served in Argentia, Newfoundland, and were entitled to a medal for a "foreign service overseas".



You are comparing Argentia to Iraq, Syria and ISIS?  Seriously?  How many Army guys are wearing a shit-nickel for Cyprus; any risk of being BBQd alive while they served there?  You don't see us making stupid comments about stuff like that.   I don't see any comments about SSM-ALERT medals for 6 months of liver damage...oh wait.  It's aircrew medals.  We don't actually earn them, they are 'gimmes'.  If the theatre is so benign and risk-free, why not jump on a bus and take a tour of Anbar province?  Make sure you let them know you're retired CAF.

The 'worst case scenario' threat to Canadian aircrews in this theatre starts at about the 16:15 mark in this video.   Make sure you watch it all.

Anyone else have a fuckin' stupid comment about how 'safe' Iraq and Syria is they'd like to share from the safety of their chair and keyboard?   :


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> .........  How many Army guys are wearing a shit-nickel for Cyprus; any risk of being BBQd alive while they served there?  Y




Please tell that to the Airborne Regiment who fought to defend the airport in Cyprus in '74.  They loss three members of the Regiment doing so.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Nov 2015)

...and you don't see people from the RCAF making stupid, disrespectful comments about the risks they faced.

See how that works?

A few people yackin' about bucks and bling, because its about the only thing we can shoot the crap over on here.  The rest is decided; fighters are out, LRP and AAR are stayin'.  It's shootin' the shit, nothing more.  Some of us don't know each other but have worked the same places or even together, but not in the face to face sense.  

It's just shootin' the shit.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (28 Nov 2015)

You guys take life way too seriously lol.


----------



## Ostrozac (28 Nov 2015)

On the medals front, the CF is pretty inconsistent and slow-moving, and has been for as long as I can remember. We waited 7 years until after the mission to get our medals for Op HALO in Haiti. The Somalia guys waited almost as long, and the Sierra Leone guys waited even longer. Canada recognizes 12 different campaign medals for service in connection with the civil war in the Former Yugoslavia, which seems a little excessive, given that is equal to the number of different campaign and service medals that were issued for World War II.

But we need to get a grip on the pay and allowances side. We've been fighting the war in Iraq for over a year, and a final decision hasn't been made? That's unacceptable. I remember similar drama two years ago over how long it took to make a pay decision for the DART Op in the Phillipines. A few months delay is acceptable, years isn't. That's money in people's pockets, and it's important to get it right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Nov 2015)

Agreed, our system is slow for getting people money.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But we need to get a grip on the pay and allowances side. We've been fighting the war in Iraq for over a year, and a final decision hasn't been made? That's unacceptable. I remember similar drama two years ago over how long it took to make a pay decision for the DART Op in the Phillipines. A few months delay is acceptable, years isn't. That's money in people's pockets, and it's important to get it right.



The HA/RA levels were decided before the TB broke for their summer break;  I don't know anyone personally that hasn't been paid out their FSP/HA/RA.  The levels for OP Impact - Iraq were set in Oct 2014 (IIRC) and the OP Impact - Kuwait levels were announced early in the summer (IIRC).  FSP was paid out post-admin as per, and the HA/RA was in the bank shortly after it was announced.

What has been talked about some is the issue of the folks who never leave camp, and the folks who are going into the theatre, are in receipt of the same RA.  It has been suggested that it should be the same for the days aircrew don't fly, and the days they do fly, they get the OP IMPACT - Iraq levels.

I know the SOF guys are on the ground, but they are 'static' compared to the flyers who are over...not static.  CF-18 types are going not only into Iraq, but also Syria...'the homeland'.  How anyone thinks a clerk, MP, tech, ATIS Tech, or any of the other trades who are deployed but not going into theatre are at the same 'risk' as CF-18 pilots going into Iraq and Syria is...mind boggling to me.   :dunno:


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2015)

The tools are there to use, but sometimes seems they are not leveraged.  HA and RA often seem close and locked relative to each other.  One could consider HA similar for all based on where they are based, but RA would be the tool to adjust, based on specific employment within the AO.

G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

RA is the only part of the convo; HA was never even brought up.  

This isn't a HUGE point or topic of discussion, but my take it most people feel the risks the zoomie types are taking isn't necessarily being recognized.  I'm not convinced the real point is about actually $ myself.  It's part of a divide that exists between the Dets and Support Component worlds.   :2c:  

There is a (true) story about an aircew member who went into a SC sub-unit trying to get a task WRT a secondary duty done.  He explained to the Support Component person that he needed to try to get this done today as he/she 'would be flying' for a while and not able to get this other thing done.

The SC person replied "I wish _I_ could go flying".

Aircrew member said "You want to go fly over_ Iraq_??"

SC person reply:  "You guys are flying over Iraq?!?!?".


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2015)

EITS, that was my point, that there should be multiple RAs, aligned with the actual risk that such members were undertaking.  Higher RA for per deployed closer to, or actually over the combat area, vice lower RA for those who don't leave the MOB.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

check.  I think we're saying the same thing.  Word is 'it isn't going to happen'.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> check.  I think we're saying the same thing.  Word is 'it isn't going to happen'.



:nod:

Not that some folks aren't trying to at least have the issue looked in to...

Cheers
G2G


----------



## dimsum (28 Nov 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> RA is the only part of the convo; HA was never even brought up.
> 
> This isn't a HUGE point or topic of discussion, but my take it most people feel the risks the zoomie types are taking isn't necessarily being recognized.  I'm not convinced the real point is about actually $ myself.  It's part of a divide that exists between the Dets and Support Component worlds.   :2c:
> 
> ...



Um, where exactly did the SC person think they were flying over?  Does s/he not read or watch the news?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Nov 2015)

NO idea.  I guess the name Air Task Force - Iraq is misleading?

But ya, there is a fairly big divide (IMO) between most of the SC and mission types.  The crews can't talk about the mission so no one really knows whats going on.  Makes for an "us and them" environment I guess.


----------



## Sub_Guy (29 Nov 2015)

I found there was a huge disconnect between 70% of the people in Camp Canada and those who are directly involved in flight ops.  This could have been alleviated with monthly updates on what we are actually doing over Iraq.  I don't know, perhaps set up a little power point with some video footage from the missions.  They don't have to get too in depth but they could definitely start sharing some information.  The LRP Det CO would share information with the technicians on a weekly basis, obviously you wouldn't deliver classified information to the entire camp.  You could take the overlays off the footage and be generic with the descriptions.

Remind them that everything they are doing is having a direct effect on mission.  

All they see are guys and gals sitting around in their civvies one day and flight suits the next.   I think I wore my uniform about 40% of the time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I found there was a huge disconnect between 70% of the people in Camp Canada and those who are directly involved in flight ops.  This could have been alleviated with monthly updates on what we are actually doing over Iraq.  I don't know, perhaps set up a little power point with some video footage from the missions.  They don't have to get too in depth but they could definitely start sharing some information.  The LRP Det CO would share information with the technicians on a weekly basis, obviously you wouldn't deliver classified information to the entire camp.  You could take the overlays off the footage and be generic with the descriptions.
> 
> Remind them that everything they are doing is having a direct effect on mission.
> 
> All they see are guys and gals sitting around in their civvies one day and flight suits the next.   I think I wore my uniform about 40% of the time.




It has been this way forever ... most people, except for a few commanders and senior staff officers have "their own little war" because no one tells them what the "big picture" might be. I remember well in the 1960s that in a brigade HQ the soldiers least "informed" were the Signals folks actually working in the HQ. They might have "seen" everything but they looked at it through their own little lenses of accuracy, address, routing, security and procedure, not in terms of what was actually happening. Twice a day a staff officer went out and briefed those soldiers, with an up to date situation map; they were all always keenly interested. I'm fairly sure it's the same with the gals and guys in the support base ~ they want to know, they want to understand, but someone has to tell them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Nov 2015)

On a ship, most seaman know exactly what is going on ... because we have stewards in the captain's cabin and the wardroom.  :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Nov 2015)

In the artillery the best indication of the situation for the troops on the gun positions was if the grid references of the fire missions were getting closer or moving away. 

A little bit of effort to give the supporters an outline of what is going on would do a lot for their motivation and morale. Edward will probably remember the Gunner Newsletter the RCA staff in the HQ of the Mobile Command Division (an exercise organization) used to produce, primarily to break the monotony and express our appreciation to the supporting troops, especially during long, boring work-up periods.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I found there was a huge disconnect between 70% of the people in Camp Canada and those who are directly involved in flight ops.  This could have been alleviated with monthly updates on what we are actually doing over Iraq.  I don't know, perhaps set up a little power point with some video footage from the missions.  They don't have to get too in depth but they could definitely start sharing some information.  The LRP Det CO would share information with the technicians on a weekly basis, obviously you wouldn't deliver classified information to the entire camp.  You could take the overlays off the footage and be generic with the descriptions.
> 
> Remind them that everything they are doing is having a direct effect on mission.
> 
> All they see are guys and gals sitting around in their civvies one day and flight suits the next.   I think I wore my uniform about 40% of the time.



That reminded me of the short convo I heard about between M.K. and someone from the SC side on the patio last spring... ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Nov 2015)

I made a point to bring some of the ATF officers for a day on the flight line.  They would go to work with a crew, receive an int brief, assist to Mission Planning, briefing, aircraft start & takeoff. Then I would tell them to take note of the time.  Once the aircraft were on their way back, I would pick them up from the camp (most of the time I had to wake them up from bed), bring them back to the flight line, recover the jets, sit into the Int debrief and strike review prep and sit in the strike review with the ATF Commander.  Most were shocked by how long it takes to fully carry out a single mission: 12-14 hours.  Of that, at least 8 sitting in a space that is smaller than your car seat in which you can't stop for a bathroom break and in which you are tightly strapped in.  They were also shocked to see the threats we sometimes faced.

I think it was necesssary for the support side leadership to see what the operations side was going through and to see some of the reasons we tend not to do anything on time off. From when I started doing this, I say a big improvement in the relationship between "us" and "them".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2015)

That sounds like it worked well.   :nod:


----------



## dimsum (29 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I made a point to bring some of the ATF officers for a day on the flight line.  They would go to work with a crew, receive an int brief, assist to Mission Planning, briefing, aircraft start & takeoff. Then I would tell them to take note of the time.  Once the aircraft were on their way back, I would pick them up from the camp (most of the time I had to wake them up from bed), bring them back to the flight line, recover the jets, sit into the Int debrief and strike review prep and sit in the strike review with the ATF Commander.  Most were shocked by how long it takes to fully carry out a single mission: 12-14 hours.  Of that, at least 8 sitting in a space that is smaller than your car seat in which you can't stop for a bathroom break and in which you are tightly strapped in.  They were also shocked to see the threats we sometimes faced.
> 
> I think it was necesssary for the support side leadership to see what the operations side was going through and to see some of the reasons we tend not to do anything on time off. From when I started doing this, I say a big improvement in the relationship between "us" and "them".



Seems like a great initiative - hopefully the LRP and Tanker dets do something similar.


----------



## Zoomie (29 Nov 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> at least 8 sitting in a space that is smaller than your car seat in which you can't stop for a bathroom break and in which you are tightly strapped in.


Thanks for the reminder Max - I was almost wondering why I didn't pursue flying upside down for a living - now I remember why.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Nov 2015)

The worst part during those missions is that you don't even get to get upside down!  I can't really say I enjoy the long times in the aircraft....


----------



## McG (29 Nov 2015)

The editor's spin in titles & sub-headings aside, it looks like one former CDS can see a middle ground between the Conservative and Liberal visions for the Syrian & Iraq crisis.  


> *Rick Hillier urges use of airstrikes or special forces to keep ISIS 'off balance'
> Former top general slams Conservative record on Syrian refugees, saying 'we wasted a huge amount of time'*
> By Katharine Starr, CBC News
> 27 Nov 2015
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rick-hillier-isis-airstrikes-1.3340900


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Seems like a great initiative - hopefully the LRP and Tanker dets do something similar.



There was when I was there but not quite that..detailed and informing (IMO).


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2015)

Let's see how long it takes for the "where eez the fire?" jokes to begin  ;D


> The scope of the Trudeau government's reconfigured mission in Iraq will be broader than just the military and could include a sizable police training contingent, Canada's foreign affairs minister said Wednesday.
> 
> Stephane Dion found himself repeatedly buttonholed in the polished hallways of NATO headquarters over the last two days, sometimes by countries eager for Canada to join their endeavours, as the United States made clear it expects allies to do more in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
> 
> ...


A touch of backstory from the Italian side here, and info on a big hit the ITA carabinieri took in IRQ in 2003 here (usual Wikipedia caveats apply).


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2015)

It seems the Iraqi Kurds would like help training police and firefighters.


> *Kurds want help training police and firefighters too, envoy says
> Canada was right to open 1,300 spots for refugees in 2013, Saccomani adds*
> Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press
> The Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## Dissident (2 Dec 2015)

Put me in coach.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> > .... While the Kurds want the ongoing special forces training to continue, they are asking for help in other areas, Bruno Saccomani said Tuesday in an interview with The Canadian Press from his home base in Jordan.
> >
> > "Something that I'm very proud that they are asking for is police and firefighter training, which is something Canada can do," Saccomani said.
> >
> > Whether that's what Canada will do is up to the government to decide, he hastened to add. ....


And here's why this kind of help may be right up the Ambassador's alley, especially if dealing with Italian cops - from his bio - highlights mine:


> Bruno Saccomani (Dawson College, Montréal, 1979) has had a varied career serving with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Saccomani began his career in 1985 as a criminal investigator in British Columbia. He also held positions in the RCMP Drugs Section and as a senior investigator before being assigned to the prime minister’s security detail in Ottawa in 1996. Following an assignment as special investigator in the Immigration and Passport Division, Mr. Saccomani was promoted to the commissioned ranks of inspector and then prime minister’s travel officer. *Mr. Saccomani has served abroad as an assistant liaison officer in both Italy and Thailand*. In addition, Mr. Saccomani has been *involved in many major international projects*, including coordinating police activities in preparation for a G-8 summit in Italy and working with diverse international partners to provide a cohesive security response following the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States. Most recently, Mr. Saccomani was the officer in charge of the prime minister’s protection detail. Mr. Saccomani replaces Mark Gwozdecky.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Dec 2015)

Tracking ISIL: Canadian Long Range Patrol Detachment reaches 300 sorties

The low-pitched drone of a Canadian CP-140M Aurora’s engines greets members of Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I) as it taxies under the hot desert sun. The sound is a familiar one at the airbase in Kuwait, as the mission marked the 300th sortie for the aircraft in the fight to halt and degrade the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant..

The Aurora’s role within the coalition is to provide an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability; the Aurora gathers accurate information that informs any decision to engage a target. This effort is supported by the members of the Long Range Patrol Detachment team, along with the Weapon System Management team and key enablers in Canada.

“"Canada’s Long Range Patrol Detachment is proud to celebrate over 300 multi spectral, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance missions in support of Operation IMPACT. Aurora maintainers, aircrew, sensor operators, and communications suite personnel are providing vital assistance to coalition efforts to enable local security forces as they take the fight (to ISIL)," said the Long Range Patrol Detachment Commander.

Before CF-18s can execute a strike on a target, a significant amount of analysis needs to be performed to ensure that the target is a valid military objective and, most importantly, that it conforms to the Law of Armed Conflict.

The Aurora’s ability to gather video and still images over an extended period of time allows intelligence personnel to build a picture of the tactical level situation at a potential strike location. The footage and imagery attained is reviewed to determine the movement of ISIL fighters.

One of the Aurora’s tasks is to maintain awareness of ISIL positions and determine if there is any civilian activity in the area. This information allows planners and coalition partners to assess the impact an airstrike may have on a given area. The Aurora is a key component in the targeting process and assists leaders in determining the risks associated with an operation and minimizing the risk to the local population.

The Long Range Patrol Detachment flew its first mission on October 30, 2014, following the announcement by the Government of Canada that it would contribute air assets to the Middle East Stabilization Force.

A little over a year later, the ground crew technicians are maintaining high mission completion rates despite working in extreme heat and blowing sand.

“"It is definitely more challenging to work in a desert environment but we are adapting to the conditions,"” said an Aurora maintenance technician from 19 Wing Comox, British Colombia. “"We are proud to represent Canada and know we are providing a strong contribution to the coalition’s mission."”

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

BZ


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2015)

Well done to the RCAF's LRP force.  Thanks for the storyline, EITS, and thanks for your folk's contribution to ATF-I. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Tracking ISIL: Canadian Long Range Patrol Detachment reaches 300 sorties


Good catch - thanks for sharing.

BZ to the team!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Dec 2015)

330+ missions is A LOT of OFF-STA pizzas!!   :subbies:


----------



## Quirky (10 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 330+ missions is A LOT of OFF-STA pizzas!!   :subbies:



Makes peferct sense now. I saw an Aurora crew in ASAB get off their aircraft. Pretty sure the oleos leveled off.  :whiteflag:


----------



## dimsum (10 Dec 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Makes peferct sense now. I saw an Aurora crew in ASAB get off their aircraft. Pretty sure the oleos leveled off.  :whiteflag:



Isn't the Acoustic Sensor Operator motto "sleep 'til you're hungry, eat 'til you're tired"?


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Dec 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Isn't the Acoustic Sensor Operator motto "sleep 'til you're hungry, eat 'til you're tired"?



If any AES Op ASO is sleeping over Iraq they are in need of a serious ass kicking.   Not to mention there is no reason whatsoever that an ASO should find themselves bored as they should be gainfully employed on the EO/IR.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Dec 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Makes peferct sense now. I saw an Aurora crew in ASAB get off their aircraft. Pretty sure the oleos leveled off.  :whiteflag:



Jealousy will get your nowhere!  

Combat chips, war cookies and OFF-STA pizza will work.  HappyLand gitch-peeler.   :blotto:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Dec 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> If any AES Op ASO is sleeping over Iraq they are in need of a serious ass kicking.   Not to mention there is no reason whatsoever that an ASO should find themselves bored as they should be gainfully employed on the EO/IR.



Yup;  there is lots of work for wet and dry guys for sure.  AFAIK right now the single sortie 'most bag of chips eaten' record is about 13.  That was...an *ASO*.   ;D


----------



## dimsum (10 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Jealousy will get your nowhere!
> 
> Combat chips, war cookies and OFF-STA pizza will work.  *HappyLand gitch-peeler*.   :blotto:



I was going to ask about that, but I have a feeling it's best I didn't know.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Dec 2015)

A few weeks of groundhog day at the HappyLand all-inclusive resort...you never know what you might do!

Rumour has it that morale thundered in for a short while;  the softie ice cream machine was U/S.  UNSAT.   ^-^


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup;  there is lots of work for wet and dry guys for sure.  AFAIK right now the single sortie 'most bag of chips eaten' record is about 13.  That was...an *ASO*.   ;D


It's all about setting new standards to meet in healthy competition, right?   [

On the media front, one analyst's take from the latest Indian-media "rock star" piece on the new DefMin:


> .... Montreal-based George Petrolekas, fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said, “The part where he will primarily play a role is in discussion on the military-to-military basis with his colleagues, with other defence ministers, to ensure that the transition does not leave any gaps in operations.
> 
> “Certainly the government has articulated fairly clearly that it’ll do so in a responsible fashion.” *(Petrolekas's) “gut feel” is that Canada will keep its military refuelling and two surveillance aircraft active in that theatre* ....


----------



## Sub_Guy (11 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A few weeks of groundhog day at the HappyLand all-inclusive resort...you never know what you might do!
> 
> Rumour has it that morale thundered in for a short while;  the softie ice cream machine was U/S.  UNSAT.   ^-^



I can confirm this rumint.   I know of a certain individual who was waiting patiently in line at the machine when his fellow USAF buddies emptied the machine.  It was a sad day because they did not have any chemical ice cream refills around.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Dec 2015)

;D

2 words.  Mongolian BBQ.   :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Dec 2015)

Here is an interesting statement by the MND that suggests the CF18s may be coming home later rather than earlier. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

*No timetable on pulling jets, says Defence Minister*
By Evan Solomon and Yael Berger — Everything is Political – Sirius XM — Dec 11 2015

Canada will not pull its CF-18 fighter jets from the combat mission in Iraq and Syria if it degrades the overall capability of the coalition forces, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told SiriusXM in an interview on “Everything in Political with Evan Solomon.”

“The decision for that will be based on my conversations with my counterparts, making sure that the coalition’s capability is not reduced,” the defence minister said. He said he is working on various options and will announce a decision soon.

This stands in contrast to what the Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion said on Monday, when he announced that the combat mission would end imminently.

“It will be a matter of weeks not months,” Dion told reporters. Dion also said pulling out Canada’s jets would be done in conjunction with Canada’s allies and rolled out alongside a new plan, but he never hinted that the defining issue would be “capability.”

Sajjan also said he is considering leaving Canada’s air refueling and reconnaissance aircraft as part of the mission.

The Conservative defence critic James Bezan responded to Sajjan, demanding to see the details of the Liberal plan for the military mission. He believes there have been contradictory messages sent about the nature of the mission and whether the Liberal government will eventually put more boots on the ground.

“I’m looking forward to seeing exactly what the plan is because that wasn’t apparent,” says Bezan. “The defence minister is using language that’s quite different from what we’re hearing from the Prime Minister,” he said.

Bezan said the Prime Minister has said in the House that Canada needs to fight ISIS in its own territory. “Does that mean boots on the ground?” he asked.

The defence minister joined Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at Pearson airport on Thursday night to greet the incoming Syrian refugees, but Sajjan says the government is trying to avoid using military bases to house more refugees.

“We are trying to, hopefully, not even be able to use military bases, but if it’s needed, we are available for that purpose,” the minister said.

Today the threat level from ISIS was raised in Geneva after suspects related to the Paris attacks are being tracked by police, but the defence minister maintains his previous statement that Canada has nothing to fear from ISIS.

“Canada should not fear ISIS, and I am firm believer in that,” he said. “Canadians should feel safe but that does not mean that we are going to eliminate all threats, but we have security forces that 24/7 are looking out for these types of threats,” he said.

Sajjan also said his most important job is protecting the mental health of the men and women in the Canadian military.

The comments came in a wide ranging interview ton “Everything is Political” that covered new money in the budget for the military, sexual misconduct in the forces, and Canada’s support for the Afghan police force.

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 2 words.  Mongolian BBQ.   :nod:


Uh, that's not a euphemism for anything, is it?  >



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> .... “The decision for that will be based on my conversations with my counterparts, making sure that the coalition’s capability is not reduced,” the defence minister said. He said he is working on various options and will announce a decision soon.
> 
> This stands in contrast to what the Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion said on Monday, when he announced that the combat mission would end imminently.
> 
> “It will be a matter of weeks not months,” Dion told reporters. Dion also said pulling out Canada’s jets would be done in conjunction with Canada’s allies and rolled out alongside a new plan, but he never hinted that the defining issue would be “capability.” ....


And when speaking to the House of Commons on Thursday, Dion said this:


> .... The military campaign against ISIL is critical and Canada’s contribution has been and will remain significant. The issue is how we can make it optimal .... Canada’s contributions moving forward will be part of a long-term comprehensive strategy to address this key global concern. I understand that the opposition would like to see the full plan right away. It is its job to ask us to do so. It [the plan] will come. It is important to do it. We cannot do it alone in a corner of the table. We need to do it in full cooperation and consultation with our allies, which is what we are doing ....


----------



## McG (17 Dec 2015)

RCAF and CANSOF deliver a counter against an ISIS offensive.  Looks like this one should have more info coming soon from a media brief now.



> *Canadian Forces involved in 'supporting fire' against ISIS in Iraq*
> CTV News
> 17 Dec 2015
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/canadian-forces-involved-in-supporting-fire-against-isis-in-iraq-1.2464486


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Dec 2015)

BZ to our folks.     

I hope everyone remembers, before they start second guessing anything going on in the Badlands from their armchairs (or office chairs), that Canadian Forces always have the rules of engagement for self-defence.    

And, while we are on the discussion of anything JTF-I, I'll just leave this article here...


Why Trudeau is lost on the Middle East

_The many ways the Prime Minister’s position on the fight against ISIS is still shot through with contradictions_

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has had almost two months since his election win to craft a sensible response to the question of why he’s withdrawing Canada’s CF-18s (and possibly other aircraft) from the combat mission against the so-called Islamic State. He hasn’t come up with one yet, and didn’t again Wednesday when asked by a member of the public at the Maclean’s Town Hall in Ottawa.

You almost want to sympathize with the guy, because his position—by its own logic—is shot through with contradictions.

Islamic State, he says, must be confronted, including militarily, and Canada must play a role in the fight against it. “The question that we have to ask ourselves, as a government and as a country,” he said during the Maclean’s Town Hall, “is how best can we help.”

Trudeau suggested that training local forces to take the fight to Islamic State is the answer. This is a skill, he said, that Canadian troops honed during 10 years in Afghanistan.

Fair enough, although training is hardly the only thing Canadians did over there. But there’s a strange implication here that Canada can’t do both: bomb Islamic State and train local forces. This, of course, is what Canada has been doing for more than a year. Trudeau added: “We know that Western armies engaged in combat is not necessarily the way to solve the challenges in the Middle East.”

This is a popular trope, but in this case it’s irrelevant. No one is suggesting Canada send an infantry battalion to the frontlines in Syria. The question Trudeau was asked is why he’s pulling out the fighter jets.

Maybe Trudeau also thinks airstrikes are ineffective. Evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. Islamic State has been stopped and in places pushed back as a result of coalition warplanes, including Canadian ones, coordinating their airstrikes with local forces on the ground.

But if this is what Trudeau thinks, let him say so clearly. Let him make the case that the air campaign isn’t working. It certainly has not been sufficient, but to argue that it’s not doing much good would require Trudeau to marshal evidence and rhetorical skills he has not yet deployed.

For that matter, if engaging in combat is not a productive way for Western nations to “solve the challenges in the Middle East,” as Trudeau says, why is he continuing with a “training” mission that involves Canadian soldiers calling in airstrikes and, on more than one occasion, shooting at Islamic State fighters on the frontlines?

It also appears that Trudeau will keep Canada’s refuelling and surveillance aircraft in the coalition.

This is noteworthy. During the election campaign, I asked Trudeau’s spokesman, Dan Lauzon, whether, if elected, Trudeau would withdraw those planes as well as the CF-18s.

“A Liberal government would transition away from all aspects of the combat air mission to re-focus our military role on training,” he responded by email.

This seemed to me to be leaving some wiggle room, so I wrote back:

“Thanks, Dan. I’m sorry for being redundant, but I want to be crystal clear. Would the surveillance and refuelling planes be withdrawn? I just want to be sure that your statement isn’t intended to be leaving grey areas in which those planes would continue to operate.”

Lauzon’s complete response: “Hi Michael — All aspects of the combat mission.”

Now, it’s possible Lauzon was being deceptive—not telling a bald-faced lie, a particularly brazen lawyer might argue, but engaging in deception all the same. If that’s the case, Trudeau should probably not make further claims about running an open and transparent government.

But let’s give Trudeau the benefit of the doubt and assume he did in fact intend to pull out the surveillance and refuelling planes, but will now keep them flying because he recognizes they’re doing good work.

The good work they’re doing is combat. Those planes aren’t dropping bombs. But how is finding targets and relaying that information to allied planes who then drop bombs on them any less combat-related than if Canadian pilots were to continue dropping the bombs themselves?

*This is where the contradictions in Trudeau’s policy on fighting Islamic State really get messy*—because despite panning a combat role for Western militaries in the Middle East, and despite plans to withdraw Canadian warplanes from the fight against Islamic State, he’s also admitted the coalition’s bombing mission is effective. Asked by the BBC last month to clarify that he’s not against bombing Islamic State, Trudeau replied: “Indeed.”

So now we’re left with a hodgepodge of statements and positions from Trudeau that don’t add up to a coherent policy:

–       Canada’s armed forces do an extraordinary job of whatever they’re asked to do.

–       There are things we can do better than drop bombs.

–       Bombing isn’t an effective way for Western nations to solve problems in the Middle East.

–       I’m not against bombing Islamic State.

–       We will transition from combat to training (even though Canada is clearly capable of doing both).

One final thing: In the Maclean’s Town Hall, Trudeau pointed out that U.S. President Barack Obama hasn’t asked him to keep the CF-18s flying.

Obama hasn’t asked, because he doesn’t want to embarrass Trudeau. The reciprocal courtesy is for Trudeau not to imply the absence of that request means Obama doesn’t want Canada to keep its CF-18s in the air over Iraq and Syria. He does—as do the leaders of Britain, France and other allied countries. If Trudeau isn’t careful, one of them might say so publicly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2015)

Latest from the Info-machine, attributed to Major-General Charles Lamarre, Director of Staff, Strategic Joint Staff:


> “On the 16th of December at around 1600hrs (local), ISIL forces in Iraq initiated a coordinated attack against the Kurdish Security Forces’ (KSF) front line in Northern Iraq.
> 
> “Before proceeding, allow me to orient you to the map behind me.  In the centre of the map is the city of Mosul.  The green line indicates the separation between ISIL and the KSF.  The red arrows roughly indicate the main avenues of approach used by ISIL.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Dec 2015)

It was telling the other day, to hear Obama mention and thank those countries that are making major contributions and not hear Canada in the list.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It was telling the other day, to hear Obama mention and thank those countries that are making major contributions and not hear Canada in the list.



Yeah, well...meh. :

Apparently keeping eyes on the bad guys and passing the info real-time to the coalition, and handing out gas to the strike force and getting right in there with SOF helping mentor the Khurds, closer than any American-declared SOF, isn't 'major'?  CF-18s or not, Canada is contributing meaningfully.  Obama's speech writers and policy back-room boys went overboard on the "punishment for not giving us everything we told you to give..."   

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It was telling the other day, to hear Obama mention and thank those countries that are making major contributions and not hear Canada in the list.


1)  We're still listed in the Pentagon info-machine's dispatches as being part of the team - latest one here:


> ... Coalition nations which have conducted strikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Coalition nations which have conducted strikes in Syria include Australia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.


2)  I'm sure it was just an oversight, like when George W. Bush thanked countries immediately after 9-11 without mentioning Canada***.
3)  I kinda like this theory, too  ;D ...


			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... Obama's speech writers and policy back-room boys went overboard on the "punishment for not giving us everything we told you to give..."



*** - Although we did get our own "thank you" a few years later.  ;D


----------



## McG (21 Dec 2015)

On Friday, the MND states that the plan to withdraw jets "remains the same" (though it may be unclear to many of us what the details of that plan are).
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/plan-to-withdraw-jets-remains-the-same-sajjan-1.2705622

But, following a visit Sunday to northern Iraq where he met local government officials, he states that Canada will have a "more active role on the ground."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/sajjan-iraq-visit-1.3373892

I wonder if this will be OMLTs like Kandahar or schools and training centers like Kabul.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> On Friday, the MND states that the plan to withdraw jets "remains the same" (though it may be unclear to many of us what the details of that plan are).
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/plan-to-withdraw-jets-remains-the-same-sajjan-1.2705622
> 
> But, following a visit Sunday to northern Iraq where he met local government officials, he states that Canada will have a "more active role on the ground."
> ...


Something else to add to the "what's the new mission going to look like?" stew:


> Canada’s minister of foreign affairs says he is “proud” of the work Canadian soldiers did last week during a firefight against the so-called Islamic State, but that the men and women on the ground in the region are not there to engage in combat.
> 
> In an interview with the West Block’s Tom Clark this weekend, Stéphane Dion acknowledged that his party opposed combat troops on the ground in Northern Iraq when the Conservatives were in power, and that has not changed.
> 
> ...


If the statements of both Ministers are taken together, sounds like any training mission would be more like the Kabul School type.  Then again, it's not decided until "The Boss" says it's decided - out loud.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2015)

The only reason our Kabul school system was there was because of the massive rings of security all over the place provided by other countries. Unless it's a NATO effort, I wouldn't expect to see that sort of mission, we're too risk adverse and Iraq is too dangerous. Likely they're going to leave the training to the professionals already there, and just give them more bodies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2015)

Iraqi media (picked up by Russian state media):  _"A Canadian pilot has been named responsible for the accidental deaths of nine Iraqi soldiers near the city of Fallujah, a military source told Iraqi television channel Al-Sumar ..."_
CAF (quoted by CBC):  _“CF-18 Hornets did not conduct an airstrike near Fallujah, Iraq, on December 18, 2015.”_


----------



## Canuck_Jock (4 Jan 2016)

He used to be good commenting on low level issues affecting the CF, but since he got into army flapping moralising on international affairs, Scott Taylor seems to have lost the plot. Mate, take off your tinfoil hat and stick to writing about comfy fitting boots or regimental history and leave international reporting to those who know a thing or two about it.

His latest missive on...errr...something or other: 

http://m.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1330118-on-target-the-realities-of-kurdistan-defy-blimpish-theory


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Jan 2016)

Well, you've just killed some kittens by mentioning the unmentionable by name here....

That being said, I don't usually agree with he who's name must never be spoken aloud.  This time, I agree more than I disagree with what is in that opinion piece.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2016)

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> His latest missive on...


Could you be a bit more precise on what you're disagreeing with.


----------



## Canuck_Jock (4 Jan 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, you've just killed some kittens by mentioning the unmentionable by name here....
> 
> That being said, I don't usually agree with he who's name must never be spoken aloud.  This time, I agree more than I disagree with what is in that opinion piece.



Sorry, obviously not a frequent flyer here...I shall avoiding mentioning HWSNBN again.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2016)

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Sorry, obviously not a frequent flyer here...I shall avoiding mentioning HWSNBN again.


I'm not remotely a fan either, but much of what he's written in that article is being said in other places as well, so there _may_  be something to it.

If you've got heartache with the points raised, feel free to explain what and why.  

Think of it as an exercise in expressing informed opinion.


----------



## Canuck_Jock (4 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Could you be a bit more precise on what you're disagreeing with.




Aye, well. I must have the memory of a goldfish, but whenever I see the headline of his latest article listed on SOMNIA I click on it in the hope of reading some reasonably deep geopolitical analysis of some troubled corner of the world. And of course, it turns out to be some schimfing spiel spouted by the miserable bloke at the back of the pub. "Harper involved? It must be shite. Yanks involved? More shite. Want to do something, somewhere? Shite and bollocks!" Sums up his articles. The latest one is about because the Afghan Army are having a hard time of it....something....something....bollocks...we should pull out of Iraq. No bang for the buck in his articles. Any contextualisation on the post-Soviet Afghan pullout? Naw, just bollocks to it all...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2016)

I am not sold on calling Afghanistan a (complete) failure.  Of course, Iraq is a mess and seeing no easy solution to the problem there OR the entire region but something being difficult is not, on its own, a reason to leave the fight.  If Afghanistan did indeed 'fail', was it not after we repat'd our entire force?  Would the situation in Iraq/ME region also be improved if the entire MESF closed up shop and went home because it was complicated and difficult?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2016)

Latest stats:

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 9 January 2016, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 2001 sorties:

•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1280 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 347 sorties, delivering some 20,265,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 374 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

8 Jan 2016

On 8 January 2016, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIL from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL fighting position southeast of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

7 Jan 2016

On 7 January 2016, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIL from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL facility used as a staging area and for vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Device (IED) storage in Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

On 7 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIL fighting positions southeast of Haditha using precision guided munitions.

6 Jan 2016

On 6 January 2016, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three ISIL vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and one ISIS vehicle southeast of Haditha using precision guided munitions.

3 Jan 2016

On 3 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL rocket emplacement in the vicinity of Al-Baghdadi with precision guided munitions.

On 3 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIL vehicle-borne IEDs north-west of Al-Baghdadi with precision guided munitions.

2 Jan 2016

On 2 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIL fighting positions south west of Sinjar, using precision guided munitions.

On 2 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL compound near Bartallah, (east of Mosul), using precision guided munitions.

On 2 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIL compound near Kudilah, (southeast of Mosul), using precision guided munitions.

1 Jan 2016

On 1 January 2016, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security operations to clear ISIL from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck four ISIL fighting positions with precision guided munitions.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> •CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1280 sorties;
> 
> Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.



To help me comprehend the RCAF lingo, by that definition, and the fact that CF-18s are typically flown in pairs, there have been 640 "missions" (In that 2x CF-18 would be a sortie each)?


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jan 2016)

A sortie is a single aircraft. A mission is a group of aircraft: anywhere between 2 and 4.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2016)

Excellent, thanks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> A sortie is a single aircraft. A mission is a group of aircraft: anywhere between 2 and 4.



Which makes a person wonder why they refer to '140 trips as missions... :dunno:


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Jan 2016)

To be fair, I talked about Hornets:  because we never go ad singletons.  A mission, in Air Force lingo, is a line on the ATO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2016)

So the tanker dudes are doing missions, called sorties... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2016)

More tea leaves to read about the future mission, via CTVnews.ca:


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government is looking at ways to increase Canadian intelligence capabilities in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS.
> 
> Speaking to CTV’s Power Play on Wednesday, Sajjan emphasized the importance of the Canadian intelligence skills in the fight against the terror group.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2016)

So as i recall we had a number of our CF-18's upgraded to use a "sniper pod" and that piece of kit pushed the ability of the aircraft to see and id target above and beyond many of the other peer allied aircraft. Is that correct and do they give our aircraft and our allies an edge they might otherwise lose?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jan 2016)

I think the only person qualified to answer that is SSM.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think the only person qualified to answer that is SSM.



And if he wants to keep his security clearance, he won't.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jan 2016)

You can google the sniper pod, Lockmart makes it.

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/sniper-pod/mfc-sniper-pc.pdf


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2016)

This probably is not a surprise to most here.


> *'Of course' allies want Canada's fighter jets to stay, says defence minister*
> CBC Radio
> 16 Jan 16
> 
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/when-dark-economic-clouds-overshadow-the-political-agenda-1.3403555/of-course-allies-want-canada-s-fighter-jets-to-stay-says-defence-minister-1.3403789


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So as i recall we had a number of our CF-18's upgraded to use a "sniper pod" and that piece of kit pushed the ability of the aircraft to see and id target above and beyond many of the other peer allied aircraft. Is that correct and do they give our aircraft and our allies an edge they might otherwise lose?



The Sniper Pod is great.  In all of our missions. Without getting into specifics, it enables to do us our job from much farther than previous generation's pods as well as introducing capabilities we didn't have before.

Edit:  here's the LockMart promo video to give you an idea of the capabilities: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rXXWW-U6PQI


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jan 2016)

Striking targets on the ground is not a responsible thing to do ???

I tried to ignore this part but...



> The goal is for the Forces to be "representative of the demographic of Canada"



How about the goal being to recruit the best people possible, regardless of PC quota #s, to maintain combat capable forces.  That seems like a more effective recruiting goal to me.   :facepalm:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> This probably is not a surprise to most here.http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/when-dark-economic-clouds-overshadow-the-political-agenda-1.3403555/of-course-allies-want-canada-s-fighter-jets-to-stay-says-defence-minister-1.3403789



This literally made no sense.  Military Officers shouldn't go in to politics, it makes them look like idiots.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This literally made no sense.  Military Officers shouldn't go in to politics, it makes them look like idiots.



"Of course we're wanted there, but because of a purely political promise with no hint of logic, the boss says we're pulling them."

If that's not throwing Trudeau and the Liberal party under the bus, I don't know what is.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This literally made no sense.  Military Officers shouldn't go in to politics, it makes them look like idiots.



Some of them were 'politicians' to begin with, not really 'military officers'.    >


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This literally made no sense.  Military Officers shouldn't go in to politics, it makes them look like idiots.


If that's what you really want, then you can't also complain that MP's or other politicians don't "get" the military.

Unless you're encouraging NCMs to try to see if they can do better  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's what you really want, then you can't also complain that MP's or other politicians don't "get" the military.
> 
> Unless you're encouraging NCMs to try to see if they can do better  ;D



The last two Cpls I can think of really shit the bed on running their various monkey shows.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This literally made no sense.  Military Officers shouldn't go in to politics, it makes them look like idiots.



The koolaid is starting to take effect.  The message machine is starting to figure out how to square the circle and obfuscate.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Striking targets on the ground is not a responsible thing to do ???
> 
> I tried to ignore this part but...
> 
> How about the goal being to recruit the best people possible, regardless of PC quota #s, to maintain combat capable forces.  That seems like a more effective recruiting goal to me.   :facepalm:



I have no problem with reaching out to minorities, even caucasian ones, and inviting them to join up.  But not if during the 8 hours that it takes to try and convince one reluctant possibility the queue of willing possibilities is put on hold and told to come back tomorrow.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's what you really want, then you can't also complain that MP's or other politicians don't "get" the military.
> 
> Unless you're encouraging NCMs to try to see if they can do better  ;D



Actually I wouldn't be opposed to Military Officers never being able to run for political office at all, much like Judges.  

An officer should provide advice, based on sound military principles, that is independent of any political leanings.  We can leave the politiking to the politicians.


----------



## McG (18 Jan 2016)

The Toronto Star is advocating to keep the CF-18 mission going.  Knowing some site opinions of that paper, that will probably surprise a few people.



> *PM should back down on jet withdrawal*
> Rosie DiManno
> Toronto Star
> 18 Jan 2016
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jan 2016)

Yes, I'm surprised at this from the Red Star.


----------



## dimsum (18 Jan 2016)

Is it April 1 already?   :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Jan 2016)

Well the situation has changed.  IS is slowly but surely getting ground down through a war of attrition.  Perhaps the Air Campaign is working?


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Actually I wouldn't be opposed to Military Officers never being able to run for political office at all, much like Judges.



On the other hand, I think qualified MP's should be allowed and even strongly encouraged to serve in the CF concurrently with their duties as an MP.   Here is an example of service to country through and through, no matter what your politics are. Evern when handed a setback he remained engaged in the cause. I believe there is another member of the US Senate who is a serving C-17 pilot with an ANG unit. 

Wikipedia; Lindsay Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham#Military_service 

" Following his departure from the Air Force, he joined the South Carolina Air National Guard in 1989, where he served until 1995, then joining the U.S. Air Force Reserve.[19]

During the 1990-91 Gulf War, Graham was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war.[21] In 1998, the Capitol Hill daily newspaper The Hill contended that Graham was describing himself on his website as an Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm veteran. Graham responded: "I have not told anybody I'm a combatant. I'm not a war hero, and never said I was.... If I have lied about my military record, I'm not fit to serve in Congress", further noting that he "never deployed."[22][23]

In 1998, Graham was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. In 2004, he received his promotion to Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve at a White House ceremony officiated by President George W. Bush.[24] _That year, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held that it was improper for Graham to serve as a military judge while a sitting member of the Senate_.[25]

In 2007, Graham served in Iraq as a reservist on active duty for a short period in April and for two weeks in August, where he worked on detainee and rule-of-law issues.[26] He also served in Afghanistan during the August 2009 Senate recess.[27] He was then assigned as a senior instructor for the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps.[19][28]

In 2015, Graham retired from the Air Force with over 33 total years of service, after reaching the statutory retirement age of 60 for his rank"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2016)

I get a little irked when people focus on the "2% of all sorties".  It's a number.  Try looking at the number of times CF-18s have struck ISIS and changed the outcome of a battle or portion of a battle since they arrived in theatre.

Pulling the CF-18s out 'so Canada isn't involved with directly targeting ISIS' is smoke and mirrors.  The Aurora flys "ISR" missions, meaning they go find stuff.  Int folks take the info collected and find stuff in it that is ISIS.  The Polaris AAR helps keep fighters in the air; those fighters are carrying stuff that gets dropped on ISIS targets.  All of those 'stuffs' are part of the targeting cycle.

So it's okay if RCAF ISR aircraft go looking for stuff, that the Int folks decide is ISIS stuff, that then gets struck by fighters that just tanked off a RCAF flying gas cans;  but not if Canadian fighters drop iron on the target.  I don't get it myself.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I get a little irked when people focus on the "2% of all sorties".  It's a number.  Try looking at the number of times CF-18s have struck ISIS and changed the outcome of a battle or portion of a battle since they arrived in theatre.
> 
> Pulling the CF-18s out 'so Canada isn't involved with directly targeting ISIS' is smoke and mirrors.  The Aurora flys "ISR" missions, meaning they go find stuff.  Int folks take the info collected and find stuff in it that is ISIS.  The Polaris AAR helps keep fighters in the air; those fighters are carrying stuff that gets dropped on ISIS targets.  All of those 'stuffs' are part of the targeting cycle.
> 
> So it's okay if RCAF ISR aircraft go looking for stuff, that the Int folks decide is ISIS stuff, that then gets struck by fighters that just tanked off a RCAF flying gas cans;  but not if Canadian fighters drop iron on the target.  I don't get it myself.



Your first mistake is assuming the Average Canadian has even the faintest clue about how militaries operate.

ISR?  AAR?  Int?  You may as well be speaking Greek to the average joe.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Jan 2016)

Yes, there is that.  I guess as long as Joe and Jane Taxpayer don't know the difference and can comment about how we aren't taking part in combat operations at the work lunch meetings, they're okay.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Well the situation has changed.  IS is slowly but surely getting ground down through a war of attrition.  Perhaps the Air Campaign is working?



Without a doubt the air campaign has worked to stop the advance of the ISIS and suppresses their ability to concentrate in force against their opponents. but we are reaching the limits of what an air campaign can do. It still important and helps keep them weak, particularly when we finally got around destroying their sources of income, can you imagine fighting the Nazi's with these ROE's? The Kurds have almost reached their limit on how far they will go. The Shia Iraqi government is starting to operate in areas of the Sunni Tribes who they recently tried to back stab. Really what we need is Kuwait and KSA to move into the Sunni areas and push the ISIS against the Kurds and Shias. I suspect for long term peace you are going to need a Sunni state to be the protector of the Sunni Tribes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jan 2016)

Really?


> The parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence says it’s reasonable to assume that his government will have a plan in place for continuing Canada’s fight against the so-called Islamic State when coalition partners meet in mid-February.
> 
> Pressed on the timeline for the new plan – which the Liberals have said will include pulling out Canada’s CF-18 bombers and increasing training initiatives – John McKay gave a couple of reasons for the delay in drafting it since the election last fall.
> 
> ...


Today is day 81 since his swearing in, and the PM didn't allow for the "complexity of various conflicts in the Middle East and similar complexity of the international response"?  I'm a fat old guy typing on his computer in the basement, and I knew that ME confilcts are more than just "complex".

Happy to give new management the benefit of the doubt, but this?  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

Apparently the internal decision making process is "complex" as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Without a doubt the air campaign has worked to stop the advance of the ISIS and suppresses their ability to concentrate in force against their opponents.



And is denying them the freedom of movement they had in the beginning...



> but we are reaching the limits of what an air campaign can do.



Hmmm...disagree but I think I would add "on its own" to the end and then agree.



> It still important and helps keep them weak, particularly when we finally got around destroying their sources of income, can you imagine fighting the Nazi's with these ROE's?



No one knows the actual ROEs being used, outside the people who are using them.  I haven't seen them discussed in accuracy, nor should they ever be.

However, if we had the equipment, targeting, weapons and weaponeering then we do now, the collateral damage would have not been a factor then either.

Despite the appearances given to people who haven't been in theatre AND in the op area, I think the way things are being done now is the way to do them, despite the drawn out battle.  What is the point of helping the people who are under the thumb of ISIS if we decide to openly, knowingly kill them at the same time?

Kinda counter-productive, no?


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Apparently the internal decision making process is "complex" as well.



They seemed to have this plan all figured out during the 71 weeks before election night.   Weird they need 3 more months to put it into motion...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2016)

The latest:

_"Canada's role in fight against ISIS to be discussed by Trudeau cabinet 'soon' "_
_"Canada’s new Iraq mission to get Commons vote, says Sajjan"_


----------



## FSTO (26 Jan 2016)

I was listening to the Defence Minister on Sirius (All things are Political) this morning. I really feel for the guy as he tries to explain the governments actions regarding this file. I don't know about you guys but I think he is just parroting talking points from the PMO and is trying desperately in cabinet to get them to change their decisions.

http://everythingispolitical.libsyn.com/is-canada-facing-a-national-unity-crisis-over-the-energy-east-pipeline


----------



## Remius (26 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest:
> 
> _"Canada's role in fight against ISIS to be discussed by Trudeau cabinet 'soon' "_
> _"Canada’s new Iraq mission to get Commons vote, says Sajjan"_



I don't have a crystal ball, but if they are going to put this to a commons vote, would this not mean an increase of something somewhere? Or possibly changing the focus to something more robust?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I don't have a crystal ball, but if they are going to put this to a commons vote, would this not mean an increase of something somewhere? Or possibly changing the focus to something more robust?


Not just because it's going to a vote - there have been previous votes under the Conservatives on "let's confirm what's happening in principle".

If the ruling party wants to keep its promises and recent statements, though, we should see less of some stuff (fighter support) and more of other stuff (training).  Let's see how that juggle that now that they're behind the wheel.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I don't have a crystal ball, but if they are going to put this to a commons vote, would this not mean an increase of something somewhere? Or possibly changing the focus to something more robust?



Parties put any change to a Commons vote, lends legitimacy to their policies. Tories did it with a majority, Liberals will do the same. All it really allows is the MPs to be put on the record when the policy is debated prior to the vote.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jan 2016)

What has been 'hinted' at so far?

- removal of the CF-18s.  No mention of the LRP or AAR assets coming home.

- A beefed up 'train/advise' mission.

- a beefed up Intelligence presence.

- a MP training mission.

Sometimes the real hint is right under people's nose!   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What has been 'hinted' at so far?
> 
> - removal of the CF-18s.  No mention of the LRP or AAR assets coming home.
> 
> ...


Funny, that  ;D  Sort of like having to read tea leaves about what Canada was doing in AFG at one point in 2009, watch and shoot.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> - a MP training mission.


It was decided that we didn't have enough GOFO, so the Provost Marshal had to be upgraded to BGen; now it's time to 'justify' the change.

Maybe we should send over some RMC cadets too, to 'rationalize' their Commandant being a 1-star.


/tangent rant


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jan 2016)

We have more GOFOs than tanks.  Isnt' that they way its supposed to be?   >


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jan 2016)

And we have a statement by the Minister of Global Affairs that has little definite other than perhaps an indication that things take time. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing  provisions of the Copyright Act.

*Canada can’t agree to all allied requests in ISIL fight, Dion says*

By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press — Jan 28 2016

OTTAWA — Canada will have to say no to some of the requests that its allies are making in the fight against Islamic extremists, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said Thursday.

But the minister wouldn't say if some coalition members have asked Canada to keep its fighter jets in Iraq and Syria.

"We cannot say yes to everything," Dion said.

"When our plan will be out, it will not be all what our allies are asking us to do, but it will be pretty close of what they hope from us."

Dion was discussing Canada's future contribution to the mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at a major gathering of the Canada2020 think tank in Ottawa. He also delivered a major outline of the new Liberal government's foreign policy views, which differ sharply in some ways from those of the Conservatives.

On ISIL, he insisted the new Liberal contribution will be meaningful, even though the government plans to withdraw Canada's six CF-18 fighter jets from the U.S.-led bombing coalition, which has sparked criticism from the Opposition Conservatives.

Dion will not say when the government will announce its new plan, but he says there would be no gap in Canada's contribution to the air war in the meantime.

"The plan is not out because the current plan is still there. There is no gap. We are still involved."

He said Canada flies two to three per cent of the coalition airstrikes and he said it is "doable" for the coalition to cover that.

David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Canadian warplanes may have flown a relatively low percentage of bombing missions, but the contribution has been more meaningful than statistics would indicate.

"Canada's been flying a lot of the more difficult missions for quite some time and that will end."

Dion used the speech to tie together many of the emerging threads of the new government's foreign policy, which focuses on multilateralism and diplomatic engagement with countries with which Canada doesn't necessarily see eye-to-eye.

The Liberals have been under attack this week from the Conservatives for their plan to step up diplomatic contact with Iran and Russia — two countries the previous Harper government conspicuously shunned.

Dion used his speech to reiterate earlier statements that it is in Canada's interest to engage with Russia on the Arctic and at least open a dialogue with Iran. None of that diminishes Canada's support of Ukraine, which faces Russian aggression, or the condemnation of Iran's human rights record, he said.

Dion also extended an olive branch to the Conservatives, saying "the former government was not always wrong" and that there was no need for the Liberals to "start from scratch" on foreign policy.

He cited the Conservatives' focus on ending the forced marriage of young girls in the developing world, an initiative championed by former foreign affairs minister John Baird, as a worthy Canadian endeavour.

Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What has been 'hinted' at so far?
> 
> - removal of the CF-18s.  No mention of the LRP or AAR assets coming home.
> 
> ...


A few more tea leaves to read ...


> Canada's new role in the fight against the Islamic State will involve ensuring Jordan and Lebanon remain stable, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said Friday after a meeting with his U.S. and Mexican counterparts.
> 
> Dion promised that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will soon announce details of Canada's new deployment within the American-led coalition. The Liberals promised during the election campaign to end Canada's role in the bombing mission over Iraq and Syria.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jan 2016)

Sounds like our new policy (besides the standing CANSOF advisory mission) will be "You guys go do the dangerous stuff, we'll hang back here and cheer you on."

Canada's back, freeloading off the G8.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Jan 2016)

Summed up? If you really care, send in the combat arms....


America’s Misplaced Faith in Bombing Campaigns

Many think of aerial bombardment as a cheap, effective alternative to spilling American blood. They're wrong.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bombs-away/433845/


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Summed up? _If you really care, send in the combat arms...._
> 
> 
> America’s Misplaced Faith in Bombing Campaigns
> ...




But, of course, we don't really care much, at all.

The aim is *not* to *defeat* _Da'esh/IS**_, the secondary aim is just to *disrupt* it, the primary aim is to be being seen to be disrupting it in the hope that, like a magician's parlour trick, the illusion will hide rather shabby reality.

Shabby reality?

Since about 1960s American _*grand strategy*_ has been an illusion; the shabby reality has been unnecessary, unconvincing, most frequently aimless "exercises of power." It isn't for lack of a worthy foe. The USSR-China axis was a worthy foe; _hell's bell's_, the Warsaw Pact, all by itself, as a tool for Russian expansionism _in Europe_, was a worthy foe, but instead of focusing it's military, diplomatic, political and social (soft) power there the Americans allowed the Russians to drag them, often with allies in tow, into all manner of dirty little "hot spots."

In the beginning was the Cuban missile crisis ... and the Russians saw that it, a fake or a deke,  worked and so they tried it again and again ... sometimes with good effect, sometimes not. The Americans were also victims of their own _fears_. Although President Eisenhower coined the term, it was the amazing Dulles brothers, John Foster an Secretary of State and Allen as head of the CIA, who penned the "domino theory" about which the always conservative Ike was suspicious ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





...but which the Kennedy brothers explicitly cited as the reason for committing real combat power to the Vietnam civil war. It went downhill from there.

It wasn't, really, a big step stumble from Vietnam to Grenada ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







... and Iraq, and ...

Not everything America did was aimless and unplanned, much less "bad," but American _values_ are viewed with suspicion, even amongst its friends and America's _strategic vision_ is, I think generally, seen as being blurred, at best.

And what's next?

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Who knows? But I doubt things will get any better ...

I know that I can be accused of nostalgia, but, can anyone honestly say that this guy, who was rumoured to have had presidential ambitions ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... belongs in the same room in Valhalla as this guy?

                                            
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Or that she, or even him ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







... can hold a strategic candle to these guys?

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Jarrett and Petraeus aren't pygmies compared to Eisenhower and Acheson because they aren't smart and driven, they are and were, however, reflections of the America they serve: one strong, bold and principled, the other equally strong but confused and dull.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The aim is *not* to *defeat* _Da'esh/IS**_, the secondary aim is just to *disrupt* it, the primary aim is to be being seen to be disrupting it in the hope that, like a magician's parlour trick, the illusion will hide rather shabby reality.



And those are the aim's of who?  The military leadership?  Political leadership?  Joe and Jane Taxpayer?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And those are the aim's of who?  The military leadership?  Political leadership?  Joe and Jane Taxpayer?




In _my opinion_ those are the political aims of e.g. Barack Obama, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and King Abdulaziz Al Saud. Salman. Most military leaders just aim to get whatever their political masters dictate done with the fewest casualties possible. Joe and jane don't have any aims, except to pay less in taxes and get more in benefits ... about three times a year, after some especially bad atrocity, Joe says to Jane, "we otta blow those fuckers offa the earth," and Jane nods and says, "You're exactly right, dear, and don't forget to put out the garbage."


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Feb 2016)

We won't send in ground troops because the Iraqi government hasn't asked for ground troops.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Feb 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We won't send in ground troops because the Iraqi government hasn't asked for ground troops.


The US government will tell the Iraq government when to request ground troops soon enough I'd imagine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2016)

Interestingly Chin Peng in his book “My side of history” he explicitly states that when in Beijing, he was told that the Chinese did have a “domino theory” at work for SE Asia, but they also chastised him for starting a revolution without the “proper conditions for success”.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Feb 2016)

Article Link

*Our forces in the Middle East deserve clarity. Now*

On Saturday, two Canadian CF-18 jets dropped precision guided bombs on an Islamic State (ISIL) fighting position near the Iraqi city of Ramadi. Two days before that, it was a pair of Canadian jets bombing ISIL forces near Fallujah. The day before that, an enemy munitions production centre near ISIL-occupied Palmyra, Syria.

All in all, that was a pretty typical week for the Canadian military contingent in the Middle East. As of Jan. 30, the air group deployed there has conducted more than 2,000 sorties (one plane carrying out one mission constitutes one sortie) against ISIL. About 60 per cent of those sorties have been by the fighters, with the balance conducted by our refuelling and reconnaissance planes. It’s not a gigantic effort, by international or historical standards, but it’s a conspicuously large one considering no one seems to know why the planes are still there at all.

It’s becoming almost trite to repeat this, but, once more with feeling, the Liberals, while campaigning last fall, pledged to end the combat mission in the Middle East. The jets would come home — or the CF-18s would, at any rate. It’s possible that the refuellers and recon planes would stay. The Liberals gave every sign that they’d maintain the small ground training mission — non-combat, except for the odd defensive skirmish — and might even enhance it, along with ramping up humanitarian support to those directly impacted by ISIL’s rampage across the region. But the main thing, and there was no ambiguity here, was that the combat mission would end. The CF-18s would come home.

A decision will apparently be made in the weeks to come. Fine. Thing is, a Liberal decision on the jets seems to be Ottawa’s version of the quest for sustainable fusion power — 20 or so years away … just like 20 years ago and 20 years before that.

In all things, I strive to be reasonable. I don’t expect the Liberals to immediately master every file, and it’s fair to point out that timing was against them. Elected in late October, they didn’t take office until the first week of November. Then the government was occupied by a series of international conferences that Canada had already committed to, and which would have required a lot of attention no matter which party had won on Oct. 19. By the time those were done, it was Christmas, and most of January would have been taken over by putting final touches on full-time staffs, returning to Parliament, and all the various other things that new governments have to do. Getting a government going requires time even in optimal conditions, and for all the reasons above, these conditions were not optimal.

But enough is enough. The military is not just another unit of the civil service, and troops operating in war zones are not akin to bureaucrats punching the clock until they get clear new mandates from their ministers. Our military forces in the Middle East are in danger. The danger is not huge — we aren’t sending infantry into trenches to clear them out with bayonets and grenades — but you simply can’t put troops on the ground, or planes in the air, during a war without incurring very real risks.

Canada has already lost one soldier in Iraq. Andrew Doiron, a special forces soldier assigned to the training mission, died almost a year ago after a friendly fire incident. This is tragic, but part of what putting boots on the ground — even non-combat boots — means. There have been also at least two instances where our soldiers have directly engaged the enemy after being caught up in battles that overran their positions. No Canadians have died, but that’s as much a matter of luck as training and equipment.

_If we’re going to ask our personnel to be separated from their families, they need to know the government believes they’re over there for a purpose.
_
As to the jets, while ISIL isn’t believed to have any air defences of note, jets just sometimes …  break down. A Canadian jet could easily be forced to land in hostile territory, or a pilot with a broken plane could bailout and come down behind enemy lines. Consider that for a moment. We know what ISIL does to captured enemy personnel. They’ve sent us the videos.

I would never suggest that any Canadian government would be careless or callous with the lives of our military personnel, or that soldiers should never be put in danger. That’s what they sign up for. But I do suggest that this government has put off a decision as long as it can.

If our military forces are going to be put in harm’s way, it’s unacceptable for any government, even a relatively new one, to be anything less than clear about what the mission is. If we’re going to ask our personnel to be separated from their families, they need to know the government believes they’re over there for a purpose. The new government needed time. That’s fair, but it’s had it. Make a decision.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Feb 2016)

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 31 January 2016, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 2096 sorties:

•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1338 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 365 sorties, delivering some 21,397,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 393 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Attention: Latest News - Air operations
> 
> As of 31 January 2016, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 2096 sorties:
> 
> ...


Good stuff!



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> *Our forces in the Middle East deserve clarity. Now*
> 
> (...)


Sounds like they're still sorting it out, like previous governments have done in the past.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Feb 2016)

Blah. One thing that is consistently clear about Canada and war fighting in the past 2 decades is that nothing is, or ever will be, clear.  Stop dragging the families into it, the guy is just setting up the next "I told you so" play.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Feb 2016)

The families are 'in it' though, and for a smaller % of the total # of JTF-I folks [the ones married to the aircrew folks], they are the ones who have their sons/daughters/wives/husbands/moms/dads, etc going into theatre.  

I know, some (most?) people outside the air force, and even some in it, think that flying is an easy job.  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  There is always a risk you are going to put 'er down before making homeplate, part of the job.  It's a bit more hairy if you consider how much of the LOAC and Geneva Convention, etc that ISIS adheres to.

Keeping that in mind, the families of those who worked 'outside the wire' when we were in Afghanistan probably worried and were 'in it', much the same as the families of the RCAF folks who are working over The Badlands are 'in it' now.

I don't think he is setting anything up.   :2c:

The guy is talking about reality; not just for the people doing the flying, but also for the ones who are waiting for them back home.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Feb 2016)

Wow! Consider the implications of the International Development Minister announcing that the details of our new operation against ISIS will be revealed soon. This is posted under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

*Liberals to unveil new Iraq, Syria mission within days*

LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN

Published on: February 4, 2016 | Last Updated: February 4, 2016 5:35 PM EST

The Liberal government will unveil its new plan for fighting the Islamic State in days.

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau confirmed the pending announcement in a telephone call with reporters from London Thursday. She said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will present the plan with her, Foreign Minister Stephane Dion and Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

“We’re talking about days,” she said. “We really want to announce a holistic approach and this includes all our contributions in terms of military, in terms of diplomacy and in terms of humanitarian assistance and development. So it’s important for us to do it together, and we’ll do so.”

Bibeau would not provide specifics, including whether the plan will be presented before a NATO defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels next week, which will focus on the war against ISIL. The two-day meeting begins Feb. 10.

Six Canadian fighter jets have been bombing ISIL targets in Iraq since October 2014. The mission was expanded to include Syria in March 2015. Canada also has two surveillance aircraft and a refuelling plane operating in the two countries, and 69 commandos training Kurdish forces in northern Iraq.

During the election campaign, the Liberals committed to withdraw the fighter jets, but have said they will expand Canada’s fight against the Islamic State in other ways. The government has previously suggested it will keep its other aircraft in the region, and expand the number of Canadian military trainers on the ground.

The government has also said that the new plan will be focused not just on fighting ISIL militarily, but also politically and through development assistance. Bibeau was in London taking part in a Syrian refugee donor conference, but would not yet say what additional money Canada is prepared to offer.

Sajjan told a foreign policy conference last week that the government was taking its time deciding on a new mission to ensure Canada’s contribution was both meaningful and wouldn’t make things worse. He has previously called for better intelligence and an approach that deals with the region, not just Iraq and Syria.

Dion told the same conference that the Liberal government’s plan would focus not only on Iraq and Syria, but also on Lebanon and Jordan. Canada has been accepting thousands of Syrian refugees from Lebanon and Jordan, which have been overwhelmed with asylum-seekers, and has provided other support to the countries.

It’s unlikely that the new plan will involve any escalation in direct military action against ISIL. Aside from promising to stop the bombing of ISIL targets, Trudeau has previously worried that any on-the-ground involvement would draw Canada into a Middle East quagmire from which there would be no easy escape.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> *Liberals to unveil new Iraq, Syria mission within days*
> 
> LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> Six Canadian fighter jets have been bombing ISIL targets in Iraq since October 2014. The mission was expanded to include Syria in March 2015. Canada also has two surveillance aircraft and a refuelling plane operating in the two countries, and 69 commandos training Kurdish forces in northern Iraq.



Getting some basic facts straight would be nice.   :

Diplomacy with ISIS; can't wait to see the plan for that.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Feb 2016)

Diplomacy legitimizes their leadership. They're nothing more than barbarians, trying to use Islam to cover their desire to brutalize and control people. What an absolute joke.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Getting some basic facts straight would be nice.   :
> 
> Diplomacy with ISIS; can't wait to see the plan for that.



Since you mentioned getting facts straight, where does it mention diplomacy with ISIS?


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Feb 2016)

A "holistic" approach...  That sounds very hugs and kisses like.  A round of Kumbyah everybody.   :


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> *A "holistic" approach*...  That sounds very hugs and kisses like.  A round of Kumbyah everybody.   :


It could also be one man's "holistic" is another man's "whole of government" - you know, a mix of fighting (or helping fight), training and helping.


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Getting some basic facts straight would be nice.   :


Dare to dream ...


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Diplomacy with ISIS; can't wait to see the plan for that.


IF that's the case,  :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Since you mentioned getting facts straight, where does it mention diplomacy with ISIS?



Maybe I got the context wrong...



> Liberals to unveil new Iraq, Syria mission within days
> 
> The Liberal government will unveil its new plan for fighting the Islamic State in days.
> 
> “We’re talking about days,” she said. “We really want to announce a holistic approach and this includes all our contributions in terms of military, in terms of diplomacy and in terms of humanitarian assistance and development. So it’s important for us to do it together, and we’ll do so.”



 :dunno:


----------



## Baz (5 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe I got the context wrong...
> :dunno:



I think it's easy to read into the statement "in terms of diplomacy" that theya re talking about direct diplomoacy with ISIS; especially given that they seemingly have said such (ridiculus) things before.

However, giving the benefit of the doubt, it's also easy to think they are talking about diplmoacy amongst everybody else; ie influencing what the international community is doing.  That has been going on from the start, and the minute it stops we have a much bigger problem.

You know better than I it is a complex situation, with people lining up in all corners, some in more than one at the same time:
- ISIS, supported by no-one (internationally), but with plenty of sympathizers everywhere
- Iraq, ie the country, supported by the US
- Other Iraqi opposition, supported by?  Maybe Iran, who has a dog in their as well?
- The Kurds, pretty much on thier own, and with Turkey trying to use the opportunity to smash them
- Other Syrian opposition, supported by the US and Allies (but not all of them by everybody, eg Turkey has a choice)
- The Syrian Government, supported by Russia

Just those last two scare me; it goes the wrong way and we have a bigger problem.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe I got the context wrong...
> 
> :dunno:



You did get the context wrong, they definitely mean working with other partners in the region through diplomatic channels.  On a personal level I'm furious, on a professional level I don't really care.  Canadians voted for this government, they can live with the consequences of their actions for the next four years.

The average Canadian just doesn't care about the Middle East or the Military, it really is that simple.  We're the New Zealand of the North, piggy backing off our next door neighbour.  

I thought the air mission was a worthy cause and I thought that the fact we were helping the Kurds was even more awesome, they're possibly one of the few groups actually worth supporting over there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> You know better than I it is a complex situation, with people lining up in all corners, some in more than one at the same time:
> - ISIS, supported by no-one (internationally), but with plenty of sympathizers everywhere
> - Iraq, ie the country, supported by the US
> - Other Iraqi opposition, supported by?  Maybe Iran, who has a dog in their as well?
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db_qXKBle08


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Feb 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You did get the context wrong, they definitely mean working with other partners in the region through diplomatic channels.  On a personal level I'm furious, on a professional level I don't really care.  Canadians voted for this government, they can live with the consequences of their actions for the next four years.
> 
> The average Canadian just doesn't care about the Middle East or the Military, it really is that simple.  We're the New Zealand of the North, piggy backing off our next door neighbour.
> 
> I thought the air mission was a worthy cause and I thought that the fact we were helping the Kurds was even more awesome, they're possibly the one of the few groups actually worth supporting over there.



Copy that, thanks for clearing up my take on the statement.  I am far from anything close to an expert on the ME and how governments do their business, having grown up and existed in the tactical level almost exclusively over 26 years in the mob.

Great thing about this site, you learn something new pretty much every day.


----------



## Remius (5 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Great thing about this site, you learn something new pretty much every day.



This ^

I for one have changed my opinion on the value of the bombing mission as it pertains to the mission from a tactical perspective based on information provided here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Great thing about this site, you learn something new pretty much every day.


That said, thanks for sharing (more than just) a bit more than what we read in the media to give us the REST of the story of the mission underway.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Feb 2016)

According to this story from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act details of the plan will be announced next week. The story is fairly specific about details including the addition of a battalion to a training mission outside the actual combat zone.

Canada *to expand military mission against Islamic State*

ROBERT FIFE - OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 6:00AM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 7:21AM EST

The Liberal government will lay out its new role in the U.S.-led war against Islamic State next week that will include additional Special Forces, a non-combat air component and participation in an enlarged training mission, sources say.

The long-awaited announcement will be made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday, where the battle to defeat Islamic State militants will be a key topic.

“We’re talking about days,” International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said in a telephone conference call with reporters from London on Thursday, where she was attending a donor conference on Syria. “We really want to announce a holistic approach, and this includes all our contributions in terms of military, in terms of diplomacy and in terms of humanitarian assistance and development.”

The federal cabinet met Tuesday with General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, to put the final touches on the government’s military and diplomatic response, which will include a substantial humanitarian package for the region.

Sources say Canadian Special Forces are expected to continue training Kurdish militia, and the number of trainers will more than double to about 150. CF-18s will be pulled out, but two CP-140 Aurora reconnaissance aircraft and a CC-150 aerial refuelling plane are expected to stay in place.

Canada is also expected to participate in a proposed NATO-led training mission that will set up shop in military camps in Jordan, Turkey and possibly Lebanon.

One proposal was for Canada to provide an army battalion.

“How they structure that battalion will determine the size. It could be anywhere between 500 to 1,000, but it is a pretty wide window,” a military source said. “It is not like going into Syria or Iraq and it is very, very low-risk for the government.”

As part of the humanitarian package, the Liberals are expected to provide $15-million in annual funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency – set up in 1950 to help Palestinian refugees – after the former Conservative government cut all $30-million in annual funding in 2009.

Canada’s current mission, which expires March 31, includes six CF-18 fighter jets bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as 69 Special Forces soldiers offering military training to Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq.

The Americans privately pressed the Liberals to keep the fighter jets in the air campaign, citing their high regard for the skills of Canadian pilots, sources say.

But Mr. Trudeau would not relent on his election pledge to end Canada’s bombing mission.

The Conservatives and other critics have panned the Liberals’ pledge to end the bombing mission, particularly after six Canadians were killed in mid-January by a terror group linked to al-Qaeda.

A survey conducted for The Globe and Mail found that a comfortable majority of Canadians want Canada to stay in the U.S.-led coalition and to participate in the ground-troops training of Iraqi Kurds and the air combat mission.

“There is no appetite to withdraw politically out of the fight” against Islamic State, according to pollster Nik Nanos, who surveyed Canadians on the series of options under consideration by the Liberal cabinet. “It is pretty clear that continuing the fighter-jet mission is comparatively the more popular option at this point in time.”

The random survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 1 by Nanos Research Group, found that 29 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa should provide fighter jets to the air war, and 20 per cent favoured military training of local Kurdish forces. Only 14 per cent supported ground training outside Iraq. Nine per cent said Canada should provide surveillance and refuelling aircraft.

“Only a very small minority of Canadians of less than one out of every 10 believe that we should get out of there and do nothing,” Mr. Nanos said.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to this story from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act details of the plan will be announced next week. The story is fairly specific about details including the addition of a battalion to a training mission outside the actual combat zone.
> 
> Canada *to expand military mission against Islamic State*
> 
> ...




Indeed, but that 1 in 10 is very active, politically, and it voted Liberal ... the Liberals got 40% of the 70% of eligible voters that bothered to come to the polls at all: 28% in other words. If 7 of that 10% came out to vote then it really, really mattered.

The decision to make withdrawing the CF-18s was, at first, a defensive reaction to the media attention given to Justin Trudeau's "whip out our CF-18s" quip, but it proved to be a very smart campaign move and the Liberals ran with it. I believe (_guess_) that Jean Chrétien is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and one piece of advice he is giving is: "keep the simple, clear, easy promises, like withdrawing the CF-18s and not buying the F-35, because  you're going to have to break some other, important ones and you want a"cushion" of '_*promise made, promise kept*_' upon which to fall back when the media attacks. Cuts to the military type promises are easy to keep because they, the military, don't have a "cheering section" out in the voting public.


----------



## FSTO (5 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Indeed, but that 1 in 10 is very active, politically, and it voted Liberal ... the Liberals got 40% of the 70% of eligible voters that bothered to come to the polls at all: 28% in other words. If 7 of that 10% came out to vote then it really, really mattered.
> 
> The decision to make withdrawing the CF-18s was, at first, a defensive reaction to the media attention given to Justin Trudeau's "whip out our CF-18s" quip, but it proved to be a very smart campaign move and the Liberals ran with it. I believe (_guess_) that Jean Chrétien is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and one piece of advice he is giving is: "keep the simple, clear, easy promises, like withdrawing the CF-18s and not buying the F-35, because  you're going to have to break some other, important ones and you want a"cushion" of '_*promise made, promise kept*_' upon which to fall back when the media attacks. Cuts to the military type promises are easy to keep because they, the military, don't have a "cheering section" out in the voting public.



So god damn sad that this is the truth.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Feb 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> This ^
> 
> I for one have changed my opinion on the value of the bombing mission as it pertains to the mission from a tactical perspective based on information provided here.



Just curious; changed in a way that makes you think the air campaign is worth it, or not worth it?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, thanks for sharing (more than just) a bit more than what we read in the media to give us the REST of the story of the mission underway.



It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective.  

The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing.  

It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.   :2c:


----------



## cavalryman (6 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective.
> 
> The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing.
> 
> It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.   :2c:


 :goodpost: x100


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

Angus Reid pipes in ...


> With Canada’s participation in the military mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) scheduled to end next month, a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians are concerned about the effect withdrawing CF-18 jets from the fight would have on Canada’s international reputation and on the mission itself.
> 
> This concern may be rooted in a growing fear of ISIS itself – two-in-three Canadians say the threat posed by the terrorist group has been growing in recent months.
> 
> ...


Some charts attached, including one saying most respondents still trust the Young Prince even if he pulls the CF-18's.


----------



## FSTO (7 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective.
> 
> The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing.
> 
> It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.   :2c:



Good post!
That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.


Also keep in mind that they go by what they're told (or, in some cases, choose to listen to) - and the current gov't isn't going to be spewing messaging about the effectiveness of something that's a pretty clear platform promise.

And while the Info-machine has been sharing a bit of the story of the folks keeping the F-18s flying, and the "eye in the sky" folks, not to mention stats, not much I've found about the fighter _flyers_*** (PERSEC & OPSEC notwithstanding).  Just like under previous management, methinks that type of editorial management comes from faaaaaaaaaaar above ...

*** - The Liberty Bell March Info-machine IS sharing stories of F-18 sorties past, though (here and here) - are we becoming like the old Soviet Info-machine where we have to read between the lines while the machine writes in allegory?  >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Feb 2016)

Actually, Milnews, the article you quote is about the "eyes on the sky" folks: The land based air traffic controllers guys, not the "eyes in the sky" people, who would be onboard the Auroras ... and do work that is definitely OPSEC and doing a damn good job at it too.


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Feb 2016)

Increasing SOF troops and sending surveillance aircraft? Still technically taking actions against ISIS yet makes it look like we are being "less aggressive" (appeases Canadian far left crowd).

Its kind of half getting involved....


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Feb 2016)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Increasing SOF troops and sending surveillance aircraft? Still technically taking actions against ISIS yet makes it look like we are being "less aggressive" (appeases Canadian far left crowd).
> 
> Its kind of half getting involved....



At this early stage in their mandate the most important thing for the Liberals to do is to NOT look like the Harper government at home, even if it means damaging some international relationships.

The fight against ISIS is a good example of how that is playing out right now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Feb 2016)

This is just a gut feeling I have here, but I get the feeling that the delays in implementing PM JT's plan to cease the bombing mission but provide more trainers instead has to do with the fact that nobody is asking for more trainers. 

I mean, SOF trainers on the ground are soldiers, they can't just show up in another country and say "We're here to help training you" if they are not invited. I suspect that when talking with other coalition partners, Canada is being told "we don't want more trainers, we are doing well enough on that aspect - thank you. What we want is for you to continue with the bombing mission and intel support in the air that goes with it."

If there is no call for more Canadian boots on the ground from the warring factions themselves, it would put the PM JT's plan in a bit of a self-painted corner, wouldn't it?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> and the "eye in the sky" folks,



Just so there is no confusion, AC Ops (*Aerospace Control Operators*) work on the ground monitoring what's in the airspace.  Some of them fly on AWACS, but they are not an 'aircrew' trade [and some AECs and AC Ops moan that they can't wear flight suits even though they are posted to North Bay... :'(]  So while they are also _scope dopes_, they perform a different function.

AES Ops/AESOPs [you may see it written both ways] (*Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators*) are aircrew who are part of the CP-140 Aurora aircrew.

Here are a few links to some IMPACT Aurora crews from the Combat Camera site.  The first and third pics are AESOPs (not me).

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

And, one of the flight deck folks.

An article some people may not have seen before.  Tracking ISIL

_The Aurora’s role within the coalition is to provide an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability; the Aurora gathers accurate information that informs any decision to engage a target. This effort is supported by the members of the Long Range Patrol Detachment team, along with the Weapon System Management team and key enablers in Canada.

The Aurora’s ability to gather video and still images over an extended period of time allows intelligence personnel to build a picture of the tactical level situation at a potential strike location.  The footage and imagery attained is reviewed to determine the movement of ISIL fighters.

One of the Aurora’s tasks is to maintain awareness of ISIL positions and determine if there is any civilian activity in the area. This information allows planners and coalition partners to assess the impact an airstrike may have on a given area. *The Aurora is a key component in the targeting process* and assists leaders in determining the risks associated with an operation and minimizing the risk to the local population.
_

LRP crews can't function without techs and an op center.  Here is a good article on the LRP Det DMSC.



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> not much I've found about the fighter _flyers_*** (PERSEC & OPSEC notwithstanding).  Just like under previous management, methinks that type of editorial management comes from faaaaaaaaaaar above ...



Operation IMPACT – Air Task Force-Iraq airstrikes

This is about all you will find I think.  Jan was a good month and they've hit the s**theads as recently as yesterday.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2016)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> sending surveillance aircraft?



The ISR aircraft (or "spy plane"  :rofl has been in theatre since Oct 2014 and has flown just shy of 400 missions to date.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.



I guess they know more than say, then the General who speaks in the article Canada punching above its weight in fight against ISIL forces, U.S. military commander says.

_A Base Somewhere in Southwest Asia — A senior planner closely involved in directing the U.S.-led coalition’s air war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant says that *Canada had contributed far more to the campaign than the relatively small number of Canadian Special Forces personnel and aircraft might suggest*._

_Canada’s deployment of approximately 70 Special Forces advisers with Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq and of 9 RCAF aircraft that have been flying missions out of Kuwait were significant force multipliers, said the general,..._


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Just so there is no confusion, AC Ops (*Aerospace Control Operators*) work on the ground monitoring what's in the airspace.  Some of them fly on AWACS, but they are not an 'aircrew' trade [and some AECs and AC Ops moan that they can't wear flight suits even though they are posted to North Bay... :'(]  So while they are also _scope dopes_, they perform a different function ...


And that's why many voices here are available to correct dummies like myself  ;D  Thanks for the continued value-added.


			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess they know more than say, then the General who speaks in the article Canada punching above its weight in fight against ISIL forces, U.S. military commander says ...


That article is approaching a year old from someone who wants to keep Canada in the fight - very different motivation than the current "management".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That article is approaching a year old from someone who wants to keep Canada in the fight - very different motivation than the current "management".



But the article was from 17 April, 2 weeks and change after the vote to extent and expand OP IMPACT had passed in the House of Commons.  The US and other coalition partners knew then Canada was in for another year, so motivation to the article is not likely to keep us in the fight; we were already going to stay.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But the article was from 17 April, 2 weeks and change after the vote to extent and expand OP IMPACT had passed in the House of Commons.  The US and other coalition partners knew then Canada was in for another year, so motivation to the article is not likely to keep us in the fight; we were already going to stay.   :nod:


Touché - always good to hear good things from colleagues/allies, but still a very different hand of cards being played now.


----------



## GRACE OMALLEY (7 Feb 2016)

That's the Breaking News headline- What's everyone's best guess about this- with Dion, Sajjat and the PM making the announcement together tomorrow...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2016)

GRACE OMALLEY said:
			
		

> That's the Breaking News headline- What's everyone's best guess about this- with Dion, Sajjat and the PM making the announcement together tomorrow...



With only 24 hours (or less) to go, I'm content to wait and hear what they have to say, when they say it.  

:2c:

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

GRACE OMALLEY said:
			
		

> That's the Breaking News headline- What's everyone's best guess about this- with Dion, Sajjat and the PM making the announcement together tomorrow...


I'm going to risk a WA guess and move this one here ...


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Feb 2016)

I just did a search of the three English TV networks and the CBC is the only one that has mentioned it as of a few minutes ago.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2016)

I wonder if Trudeau will also announce the name change from OP IMPACT to OP MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF EFFORT, seems more fitting to their stated policies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2016)

Nothing on the usual Info-machine feed either as of this post.

op:


----------



## GRACE OMALLEY (7 Feb 2016)

This in the Ottawa Citizen a few hours ago


The announcement will be made at 10:30 a.m. Monday.

As Postmedia has reported, there will be details on police training and the contribution the Canadian Forces will be making. The CF-18s, as promised by the Liberals, will be withdrawn.

op:


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2016)

GRACE OMALLEY said:
			
		

> This in the Ottawa Citizen a few hours ago
> 
> 
> The announcement will be made at 10:30 a.m. Monday.
> ...



FTFY


----------



## Quirky (7 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if Trudeau will also announce the name change from OP IMPACT to OP MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF EFFORT, seems more fitting to their stated policies.



OP TOKEN CONTRIBUTION. 

With so many countries providing air power our withdrawal will have minimal effect me thinks. The refuelers and aurora's have a bigger impact. Platforms dropping bombs from 20,000ft is never a shortage among our allies.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2016)

Quirky said:
			
		

> OP TOKEN CONTRIBUTION.
> 
> With so many countries providing air power our withdrawal will have minimal effect me thinks. The refuelers and aurora's have a bigger impact. Platforms dropping bombs from 20,000ft is never a shortage among our allies.



Minimal operational impact, likely. International political impact, it will create "ripples" as the MND likes to say.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2016)

Quirky said:
			
		

> OP TOKEN CONTRIBUTION.
> 
> With so many countries providing air power our withdrawal will have minimal effect me thinks. The refuelers and aurora's have a bigger impact. Platforms dropping bombs from 20,000ft is never a shortage among our allies.



Don't be so sure.  Which of the coalition partners have bomb trucks in the AO?  Although you are not quite right on the 20,000ft part, it's probably not a good thing to discuss anything like that, at all.   :2c:


----------



## CougarKing (8 Feb 2016)

Despite this, Trudeau probably will still be piping the same old tune of "we need to contribute in another, non-violent way" in March in order to continue appealing to the peacenik base who make the core of his Liberal party (and probably to NDP members who voted for him as well):

CBC



> *Most Canadians disagree with Trudeau's plan to withdraw CF-18s, poll suggests*
> 
> CBC
> February 6, 2016
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Despite this, Trudeau probably will still be piping the same old tune of "we need to contribute in another, non-violent way" in March in order to continue appealing to the peacenik base who make the core of his Liberal party (and probably to NDP members who voted for him as well):
> 
> CBC


Don't forget the rest of the survey results, showing that even if PMJT pulls the fighters out, a bit more than 50% of those surveyed would still be confident in his ability to manage Canada's involvement in the mission against ISIS/ISIL.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2016)

The official term for the enemy is now *ISIL*.  This was from the PCO on down thru my CofC very recently.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The official term for the enemy is now *ISIL*.  This was from the PCO on down thru my CofC very recently.


Thanks for that, too.

Here's the official advisory (with a listen-only dial-in number for out-of-town media):


> On Monday February 8, 2016, the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, along with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Stéphane Dion, the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, and the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau, will make an important announcement.
> 
> A technical briefing will follow the ministerial announcement with officials from National Defence and Global Affairs Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

First reporter Tweet out of the news conference:


> Six CF-18s out; Cda w/ triple mil'y training personnel; keep surveillance planes, 830 Cdn troops to back Iraqi/coalition ops against #ISIS.












Another TWITREP:


> Govt will withdraw CF18s on February 22nd.


News conf just got under way (1052EST) ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Feb 2016)

Well, we all knew it was coming.   :not-again:


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The official term for the enemy is now *ISIL*.  This was from the PCO on down thru my CofC very recently.


A good thing for every person named Isis, a name that was used to be associated with a Egyptian goddess before it became associated with a death cult.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

(from live feed) Question from reporter to PM:  what, exactly, is wrong w/bombing?

PM:  There's a role for bombing in the short term, but there are other things we can offer "the best help in a different way" (e.g. training, offering stability), making this mission better than the last one and the best one possible.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Feb 2016)

I believe I am being proven correct (in great part anyway) for one of my past comment: Anybody noticed the frequent use of "Subject to further discussion with the Government of Iraq and coalition partners, we will ..." 

What they  wish to do and offer, after all this time and the negotiation has still not been asked for or agreed to by the parties we are offering it to and which needs to approve it for it to happen. It is smoke and mirror that we are doing more when in fact, we haven't got the authorization to do so yet.

Moreover, am I the only who thinks it is hypocritical to say, in effect, I won't drop bombs, but I will increase my ability to help you in locating exactly where to drop yours.

Finally, terminating the air mission on 22 February 2016: How much time before the actual scheduled end of the mission is that? Isn't it three weeks. And note that the brief doesn't say what will happen with the CF-188: It says they "will be redeployed in a phased approach" whatever the hell that means. If they are coming home, what about saying they are coming home in no uncertain terms!

And anybody notice the little line slipped at the top of page 2: "examine ways to enhance in-theatre tactical transport". Are we looking at sending Hercs? Why then, and at who's request?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2016)

OK, it's in the "promise made, promise kept" category, so it is very good *politics* even if I, personally, am doubtful about how good it is as _*policy*_.

It also, concomitantly, takes a bit of hear off the CF-18 replacement file. Since the aircraft are not will not be in combat anymore then there is risk risk of someone saying "you're depriving our brave boys (and girls) of the modern tools they need to fight the dastardly enemy" ... someone will still say it but there is less risk of anyone listening.


----------



## FSTO (8 Feb 2016)

I'm sorry but all I see when the PM is talking is that vacuous talking head that populates today's TV newsdesks. His answers, especially to the contradictions in his reasoning re: bringing back the CF 18's because bombing is bad but leaving in the ISR and Tankers because they are desperately needed were rambling and made (to me) no sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Fm tech briefing still under way w/CDS:  We're sending mo' troops to Coalition HQ & others to enhance "targeting efforts".

P.S. - another 20 minutes of tech briefing left if you're interested


> Participant dial-in numbers
> Local: 613-960-7527
> Toll-free from Canada and U.S.: 877-413-4815
> Pass code: 1972076


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> A good thing for every person named Isis, a name that was used to be associated with a Egyptian goddess before it became associated with a death cult.



There is company that used to be called "ISIS" that has been in Halifax for years (Immigrant Settlement & Integration Services ). Someone posted a picture on facebook about how stupid and negligent they must be to have such a name. I had to lay the smack down and explain to the people commenting on the photo that it was just a conicidence.

They've since changed their name to ISANS, which at first I thought was unfair, but then I read one of their previous billboards:


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

(fm tech briefing) CDS def'n of "non-combat" mission:  Canada's not a main combatant, even though troops will be "in proximity to dangers" faced by troops being trained.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Moreover, am I the only who thinks it is hypocritical to say, in effect, I won't drop bombs, but I will increase my ability to help you in locating exactly where to drop yours.



 :bravo:


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2016)

We have to justify NDHQ somehow. OP ATTENTION ended before all the career staff officers got their GCS medal.


----------



## Altair (8 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So, more training... obviously a bunch of Training Development Officers, to make sure it's done right;
> ..."a team of strategic advisorsto their Dept of National Defence" is puzzling, since we appear to be out of that business. Maybe Andrew Leslie and Scott Taylor?;
> ...small arms and ammo -- great, there goes this year's PWT 3 training;
> 
> ...


fixed that for ya.

Doubt you will find many of the former. Doubt you will find one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ..."a team of strategic advisorsto their Dept of National Defence" is puzzling, since we appear to be out of that business. Maybe Andrew Leslie and Scott Taylor? ...


I'm sure they'll be able to help IRQ sort itself out, right?



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...small arms and ammo -- great, there goes this year's PWT 3 training;


CDS just said in the tech brief that this'll include mortars, so no impact there on our infantry ranges  >

And here's the Info-machine's handouts attached - enjoy!


----------



## Journeyman (8 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> CDS just said in the tech brief that this'll include mortars, so no impact there on our infantry ranges  >


Harsh.... just harsh.  :'(


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ....and of course, those 830 pers will include a whole bunch of Public Affairs Officers to ensure word gets out of how everything is going smoothly throughout the Middle East now that Op KUMBAYA has removed those nasty CF18s.



The JTF was way too fat on the 'support' side before, I can only imagine what level of self licking the JTFSC will go to now.   :facepalm:

"Supporters supporting supporters".  

22 Feb eh?  You still got a few weeks to give 'em hell.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We have to justify NDHQ somehow. OP ATTENTION ended before all the career staff officers got their GCS medal.



The Ministerial Liaison Team is a CENTCOM initiative - and Canada was *one* of the countries asked to consider being the lead nation in the provision of strategic advise and assist capacity to Iraqi PMO, MOD and MOI.

I apologise for bringing facts to the discussion, although I would imagine that biases of all types will filter out those facts anyway...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The Ministerial Liaison Team is a CENTCOM initiative - and Canada was *one* of the countries asked to consider being the lead nation in the provision of strategic advise and assist capacity to Iraqi PMO, MOD and MOI.
> 
> I apologise for bringing facts to the discussion, although I would imagine that biases of all types will filter out those facts anyway...


Nonetheless, thanks for bring some more facts to the table.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 22 Feb eh?  You still got a few weeks to give 'em hell.


 :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2016)

I'm sorry for seeing a Roto of 25% staff officers WSE promoted up one rank to deploy, while they walked through the actual mentor schools cutting people who had more than one tour to "give someone else a shot". You're right, facts are scary.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

One more reporter Tweet from the CDS's tech briefing:


> Vance: yes, we will mark targets in defence of Iraqi, Kurdish forces, will mark targets in defence of ourselves.


... and ...


> Vance: We can expect to deploy roughly 100 military personnel to Lebanon, Jordan but #s not certain.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Feb 2016)

I won't comment, as I may have missed it, but did anyone hear or see anything about putting this extension and re-orinetation of the mission to a Parliamentary vote?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I won't comment, as I may have missed it, but did anyone hear or see anything about putting this extension and re-orinetation of the mission to a Parliamentary vote?


Will be debated & voted on next week.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2016)

Trudeau said he'd put it to parliament, but also said military missions are executive branch and don't need parliament approval. Very odd considering he demanded the Tories put missions to vote in the Commons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2016)

I wonder how many people will go  :tempertantrum: about the CDS comments about 'marking targets', because that is _bad_, without considering what ISR assets, Int and targeting folks do for a living.   :blotto:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Feb 2016)

As I recall the sensor pods on our CF-18's were considered very good, even better than most other NATO fighter/bombers. Is that correct?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

The Tories' initial response:


> Canada’s withdrawal from the combat mission against ISIS is a “step backward for Canada” from our country’s traditional role as fighters for human rights and international security, said Rona Ambrose, Leader of the Official Opposition and Interim Leader of the Conservative Party.
> 
> “For generations, our men and women in uniform have fought bravely against those who violate human rights, and those who threaten and terrorize the innocent and vulnerable,” said Ambrose. “Today, in his first major foreign policy decision, the Prime Minister has shown that Canada is not ‘back’. In fact, this Prime Minister is taking a shameful step backward from our proud traditions by pulling our CF-18s and Canada out of a combat role against the greatest terror threat in the world.”
> 
> ...


Nothing online yet from Big Orange.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I wonder how many people will go  :tempertantrum: about the CDS comments about 'marking targets', because that is _bad_, without considering what ISR assets, Int and targeting folks do for a living.   :blotto:



But your meme covers that.

They will confuse "marking targets" as not meaning actually "shooting at targets"    [


----------



## dapaterson (8 Feb 2016)

US DoD take on this:  .#BREAKING via @Pentagonpressec: #Canada is tripling training in N. Iraq, doubling intel efforts & expanding humanitarian contributions 

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/696762378810056705?p=v


----------



## Lumber (8 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> US DoD take on this:  .#BREAKING via @Pentagonpressec: #Canada is tripling training in N. Iraq, doubling intel efforts & expanding humanitarian contributions
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/696762378810056705?p=v



Well, I may not agree with the decision, but, at least it doesn't appear the Americans are too unhappy about it.

I mean, we are putting more Canadian lives at risk my putting the additional troops into theatre.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2016)

I guess it is all good.

We're not killing people.  We're just spotting them for other people to kill.

Kind of like the good people of the Inquisition.  They never spilled blood either. They just pointed out the miscreants and handed them over to the secular authorities to do the necessary.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

Graphics team - UP!




New buzzwords of the day, from the Info-machine info page:


> ... Attention: Latest News - Mission Refocus ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Feb 2016)

> Pentagon praises Canada for boosting training troops in Iraq
> Reuters
> WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday praised Canada's decision to triple the number of troops training Kurdish forces in Iraq.
> Canada will end its bombing missions by Feb. 22 but keep two surveillance planes in the region as well as refueling aircraft, and triple the number of soldiers training Kurdish troops in northern Iraq to about 200 from about 70 currently, the government said on Monday.
> ...



It seems our Allies are satisfied.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2016)

The NDP:  mission STILL too military/risky - this, from the Foreign Affairs Critic ...


> “The NDP believes Canada has an important role to play in addressing the threat that ISIS poses to the global community and in alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict. Instead of playing a military combat role, we have long argued that Canada should focus on stopping the flow of arms, funds and foreign fighters – including improving anti-radicalization efforts here at home.
> 
> “We are concerned that the Liberal government has chosen to place Canadian Forces personnel deeper into an open-ended combat military mission in Iraq – a mission that fails to even define what success would look like. And while we welcome the government’s announcement today of increased humanitarian assistance to the region, we are concerned that this aid is being linked to the military mission.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2016)

I know I'm repeating myself,  :bla-bla:  but this is nothing more (nor less) than very, very good politics ~ making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Justin Trudeau make a silly, downright juvenile remark, over a year ago, in a TV interview, when criticizing Stephen Harper because he, the PM, had decided to "whip out our CF-18s to show how big they are." He, M Trudeau, was, rightfully, excoriated, in even the Liberal friendly media, for both the tone and substance of the remark ... and it wouldn't go away. The campaign team, now the PMO, decided to neutralize it by building a policy around the notion that we could "do better" than bombing. The promise to withdraw the CF-18s was a good one ... for a campaign. It was, also, easy enough to keep.

There are,_ in my opinion_, *both* a _strategic_ and a _moral_ case to be made for not bombing ISIL, but neither Prime Minister Trudeau nor anyone in his camp has made them.

This policy decision is a direct result of an immature quip tossed off by a poorly prepared candidate ... but he's now our prime minister and getting him to that high office required the quip to be made into a promise which has, now, been translated into policy. That's all there is; there was no need for policy or diplomatic or military input; this was done, entirely, within the domain of the _"spin doctors."_


----------



## little jim (8 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It seems our Allies are satisfied.



I would be curious if this will impact the CoS position currently filled by a Canadian BG. 

Will also like to see what the reaction is to the impact on the number of support positions once the fighters leave. In a completely non-cynical way I am guessing it is non-porportional. 

Will CANSOF be able to sustain this op tempo?

If nothing else it is a hell of recruiting tool.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2016)

little jim said:
			
		

> I would be curious if this will impact the CoS position currently filled by a Canadian BG.
> 
> Will also like to see what the reaction is to the impact on the number of support positions once the fighters leave. In a completely non-cynical way I am guessing it is non-porportional.
> 
> ...



I'm willing to bet they were properly briefed on all aspects, and likely why it took so long to make a decision. When you don't have a clue, but have to fulfill a campaign promise, you have to start from 0 to learn capabilities and limitations of their plans.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

From the White House info-machine ...


> The President spoke by phone today with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada to discuss Canadian contributions to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.  The leaders noted recent gains on the ground against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and agreed that recent ISIL attacks outside of the Middle East have only heightened the need to keep pressure on ISIL in order to degrade and ultimately destroy it.  The President welcomed Canada’s current and new contributions to Coalition efforts and highlighted Canada’s leadership in the Coalition.  President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau both reaffirmed the importance of all aspects of the bilateral relationship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2016)

> a mission that fails to even define what success would look like.



How about "less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings" as a start...and go from there.   :2c:

Or hey, even this...



> halt and degrade the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).



If I hear or see the term _'exit strategy'_, I am going to lose my effin' Smarties.


----------



## Lumber (9 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How about "less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings" as a start...and go from there.   :2c:
> 
> Or hey, even this...
> 
> If I hear or see the term _'exit strategy'_, I am going to lose my effin' Smarties.



Why do we even put an end date on these things?

Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."

Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We do we even put an end date on these things?
> 
> Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."
> 
> Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!



We have entered well into the century of "Fast Food".  No more sitting down to a five course meal.  People want to get in, place their order and get out as fast as possible.  No one cares about the decor, the place settings, the atmosphere; just get served fast and be on their way.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why do we even put an end date on these things?
> 
> Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."
> 
> Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!



 :goodpost:

And perhaps a better analogy on the fast food front is that it is not the service that matters, but the purpose of the food in the first place.  Food is to fill you up.... until you need the next fill up.   There is no end to the requirement for food.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain  mount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!


And what's the indicator of success?   "Less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings"?  "Halt and degrade the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"?  How much less/degraded?  Until there's no more attacks in Canada?  Or until no attacks in Canada for x years?  

As long as you can't describe & measure goals specifically and objectively, politics will colour what "success" means, no matter who's in government.  And as long as the bit in yellow holds true, politicians can vote "mission accomplished" on anything.

Also, our democracy is built on periodic elections where the party may change, thus changing the "success goggles".  Only the Chinese, these days, can be sure of which party's going to be in power more than four years down the road - one reason for their long-sightedness.  Then again, their system comes with problems, too - great if you like it, sucks if you want to complain tooooooo loudly (let's not forget which country is second in the "where do refugees to Canada come from?" list) - so be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And what's the indicator of success?



ISIL is militarily defeated, their revenue generating ability destroyed, their credibility amongst those who 'follow' them non-existent, and the GoI is able to look after its own back yard again, can secure it's border and not start the crap Maliki did that he said he wouldn't do.  (the last one...maybe, maybe not).

Short version.  

I don't, personally, link "beating ISIL" to 'solving the REAL problem in the ME'.  But it is one fight that has to happen and decisively IMO.  The 'decisively' part is up to the Iraqi people, not the MESF ones.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ISIL is militarily defeated, their revenue generating ability destroyed, their credibility amongst those who 'follow' them non-existent, and the GoI is able to look after its own back yard again, can secure it's border and not start the crap Maliki did that he said he wouldn't do.  (the last one...maybe, maybe not).
> 
> Short version.


And although some bits would be harder to do than others, that's more clearly expressed than I've heard from government so far.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't, personally, link "beating ISIL" to 'solving the REAL problem in the ME'.  But it is one fight that has to happen and decisively IMO.  The 'decisively' part is up to the Iraqi people, not the MESF ones.


And it's those orange bits that are out of our control that make it hard to come up with firm "measurables".


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2016)

Did Vance not mention the possibility of sending helicopters to Iraq as part of the revisions?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did Vance not mention the possibility of sending helicopters to Iraq as part of the revisions?



News is coming out now that four Griffon helicopters are being sent to Iraq


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2016)

That part, I would have some concerns about.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> News is coming out now that four Griffon helicopters are being sent to Iraq



Do you have a media source?

What's the concern with helicopters, EITS? If we're doubling or tripling the advisor contingent from CANSOF (assuming they are all CANSOF, release wasn't specific), should we not give them an ability to move around the AOR, and perhaps call for help if required? Also gives another set of eyes, and a way to use those shiny Dillon Aero Miniguns.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2016)

http://cafdispatch.blogspot.ca/2016/02/canada-in-iraq-caf-looking-to-deploy.html



> Tuesday, February 9, 2016
> *Canada in Iraq: CAF Looking to Deploy Griffons to Iraq*
> Written by: JDM, Canadian Forces Dispatch author
> Last Updated: February 9, 2016 - 1:44 pm
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Feb 2016)

Good link, thanks. Also a much needed capability with that many people running around in the battlespace.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What's the concern with helicopters, EITS?



Article Link  [I know how old the article is]

Video Link

Article Link

Article Link

As I've said more than once in this thread, anyone who believes coalition aircrews are risk-free in this one is uninformed and incorrect.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Feb 2016)

Just a note on that one link from Mr. Charles Lister, Syria does not have Sidewinder missiles, and they never did. From the images those missiles look like AA2 Atoll, with some sort of red protective cap over the IR glassware.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link  [I know how old the article is]
> 
> Video Link
> 
> ...


It's absolutely a risky proposition, but so is a small team miles away from support, and that support gets there by road or we ask politely for someone else to help. Who's more valuable? Do we keep aircrews at home because of a manpad threat, and then expose those advisors to suicide bombers, ambush, etc? How do we balance it all out?


----------



## Altair (10 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ISIL is militarily defeated, their revenue generating ability destroyed, their credibility amongst those who 'follow' them non-existent, and the GoI is able to look after its own back yard again, can secure it's border and not start the crap Maliki did that he said he wouldn't do.  (the last one...maybe, maybe not).
> 
> Short version.
> 
> I don't, personally, link "beating ISIL" to 'solving the REAL problem in the ME'.  But it is one fight that has to happen and decisively IMO.  The 'decisively' part is up to the Iraqi people, not the MESF ones.


Funny thing about the middle east. Even if you win, you don't win.

For arguments sake,should isil be defeated, who is left to fight assad?

On the flip side, should assad be defeated who is left to fight isil?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Feb 2016)

For the foreseeable future, Assad isn't going anywhere and he isn't going to be defeated militarily as long as the Russians have anything to say or do about it. It might be a case of which is the lesser evil, or the devil you know...
He will eventually go by way of the assassins bullet ( or a cup of spiked tea) but only when Putin has selected a suitable replacement, and after ISIL is erased. For now he serves a purpose.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's absolutely a risky proposition, but so is a small team miles away from support, and that support gets there by road or we ask politely for someone else to help. Who's more valuable? Do we keep aircrews at home because of a manpad threat, and then expose those advisors to suicide bombers, ambush, etc? How do we balance it all out?



I don't suspect the new folks going in will be in FOBs a la Afghanistan, I would make a WAG their work will be done 'behind a FLOT' type location more than in/around it.  That is a complete WAG but I think one that lines up with the political goals.  The AO is different from the last one the TH folks were in, so I expect their employment will be different as well.  In Afghanistan, the mission was (partial) to engage in direct contact with the enemy.  I suspect there will be a different Mission Statement and ROE than what Afghanistan had.  Again, a WAG at this point, but (perhaps?) an educated one.   :2c:

Keep in mind, the different AO and mandate.  We are not going into direct contact with the enemy, that part is out of the picture eff 22 Feb.  

WRT threats, no aircrews aren't staying home because of a MANPAD threat, the ATF has flown over 2000 sorties over The Badlands so far.  

I just caution, urge people to not transfer "how Afghanistan was" to equal "how Iraq is now".   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Funny thing about the middle east. Even if you win, you don't win.
> 
> For arguments sake,should isil be defeated, who is left to fight assad?
> 
> ...



Agree, which is why I said "defeating ISIL doesn't equal peace in the ME".  That task is for people how make more money and score higher on IQ tests than I do to figure out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2016)

Article Link

Andrew Coyne: Now a word from our prime minister on Canada’s new role in Iraq and Syria

Good morning. I am here, 20 minutes late and with Members of Parliament out of town, to announce our new policy with regard to Canada’s involvement in the crisis in Iraq and Syria — one that will better reflect what Canada is all about.

I would first like to thank the brave and talented members of the Royal Canadian Air Force whose mission I am abruptly cancelling. In suggesting that what they have been doing the past 15 months is not “what Canada is all about,” I do not mean to imply there is anything unworthy or unCanadian about whipping out our CF-18s. Rather, I am suggesting, without quite saying, that it was a futile waste of time.

After all, airstrikes on their own do not achieve long-term stability. They may have proved useful for halting ISIL’s previously runaway expansion, they may have driven it from territory, denied it refuge, degraded its military capacity and destroyed more and more of the oil resources without which it cannot finance its activities, but they cannot, on their own, do something that no one has claimed they can. Maybe there are some who would prefer that we engage in airstrikes, on their own, and shut down all training, humanitarian and diplomatic efforts in the region, but this government rejects that ludicrous caricature of an alternative.

Still, in any mission, you need to make choices, even false ones. We can’t do everything. Rather, in the fight against ISIL we have chosen to do everything except the one thing our allies have asked us to do: fight ISIL. While Canadians have always been prepared to fight, we believe that in this campaign there are better ways we can contribute that build upon our uniquely Canadian expertise. Thus, rather than actually fly the planes ourselves, we will rely on our uniquely Canadian expertise in refuelling planes for others to fly.

Let me be clear. There is a role for bombing — just not by Canadian pilots. After all, combat is not what Canada is all about. Rather, what Canada is all about is standing by while others engage in combat on our behalf. Think of the consequences, if in the course of an airstrike aimed at ISIL one of our brave and talented Canadian pilots were to inadvertently kill a great number of innocent civilians. Whereas merely providing the fuel for the plane that does — along with aerial surveillance, and of course the essential work of identifying targets by our special forces, er, training advisers working on the ground — leaves us wholly uninvolved.

A word about those trainers. It is true that we are tripling their number, while increasing the total number of our military personnel in the region by a fifth. Here again I would caution people not to think this meant we were somehow engaged in combat. Yes, it is true that they will be installed near the front line, and yes, training will often involve taking Iraqi and Kurdish troops out on patrol, and yes, this will sometimes mean that our troops are fired upon, and yes, they will sometimes be obliged to fire back. But merely because our troops will be firing upon the enemy in a war zone or calling in airstrikes from above does not mean they will be in combat. I mean, it says right there in the platform: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.”

Likewise, just because I am increasing the number of personnel on the ground while extending their deployment for at least two years does not mean I am, as I accused the previous government of doing in a speech in the House a year ago, “steadily drawing Canada deeper into a combat role.” I am simply performing the time-honoured role of Canadian prime ministers: to do just enough to avoid being publicly rebuked by our allies abroad without doing enough to be exposed to any political risk at home.

Last, let me just position this decision in light of our ongoing efforts to recreate a role for Canada as some kind of “honest broker” in the Middle East, in the grand tradition of Pearson in ’56 and, er, Pearson in ’56. Some have expressed alarm at a sequence of events that in recent weeks has seen us issue statements critical of Israel for its settlement policy while at the same time dropping sanctions against Iran, even talking of restoring diplomatic relations.

But this should not be taken as indicating any weakening in our enduring friendship with Israel. As we like to say in this government, sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend facing existential threats on all sides is to single it out for public criticism while cozying up to its mortal enemy. And besides, it’s not as if we’re not also selling arms to Saudi Arabia.

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

Sniper round?


----------



## rnkelly (10 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That part, I would have some concerns about.



Agreed, I'd love to know the plan for the griffons.  Puzzling really.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Feb 2016)

looks like this won't die,

http://www.therebel.media/hotel_military_members_refugees_at_cfb_kingston

Can't say i know how reliable the source is but still interesting


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Feb 2016)

By "homes" I think he means "shacks", and although people were moved (with no notice), they were rehoused elsewhere in the base, pretty sure.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Feb 2016)

There are, categorically, no refugees staying in DND facilities at this time.


----------



## Jed (10 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> There are, categorically, no refugees staying in DND facilities at this time.



Are there any staying in PMQs that are not technically DND but are managed by arm's length contracts?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Feb 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Are there any staying in PMQs that are not technically DND but are managed by arm's length contracts?



No.  No refugees whatsoever.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2016)

As for Syria, neo-colonialism anyone?  Iran already has Iraq--and perhaps Russia in Syria as a comment suggests:



> Syria: The Horror, The Horror
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/mark-collins-syria-the-horror-the-horror/



As for Canada (Andrew Coyne did it better, noted in "Comments"):



> Moral Dishonesty: The New, Improved Canadian Mission vs ISIS
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/mark-collins-moral-dishonesty-the-new-improved-canadian-mission-vs-isis/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (11 Feb 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Are there any staying in PMQs that are not technically DND but are managed by arm's length contracts?





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No.  No refugees whatsoever.


... and PMQs do belong to DND.  There is no "not technically" nor contract about it.  CFHA is not a contracted service provider.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Feb 2016)

Are they not a SOA within the DND?


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Feb 2016)

With Canada helping the Kurds and the Iraqis, it looks like some lines are being drawn (or maybe, new lines on maps NOT being drawn?) early on ...


> Canada has told the Kurds that it wants to see Iraq remain united and not broken into different parts that would include an independent Kurdish state. But experts say it is only a matter of time before the Kurds, strengthened by Canadian military assistance, try to declare independence.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> With Canada helping the Kurds and the Iraqis, it looks like some lines are being drawn (or maybe, new lines on maps NOT being drawn?) early on ...




Yep, and that's just the sort of "unintended consequence" about which, I suspect, the new government did not have adequate time to deliberate. This was a pressing _political_ problem, a clever _political_ solution has been proffered and, it appears, accepted by most of the critics who matter. (The rabid _Trudeauphobes_® who have replaced the HarperHaters® on these pages don't matter.) But, of course ...


----------



## Jed (12 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and PMQs do belong to DND.  There is no "not technically" nor contract about it.  CFHA is not a contracted service provider.



Good to know.  I guess you didn't appreciate my question.  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2016)

And the new Info-machine graphic's out - sans CF-18's (source)


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And the new Info-machine graphic's out - sans CF-18's (source)



Compare that to to very first post in the thread. The common theme is change of mission year over year. I am trying to decide if this latest move will turn into an escalation by accident rather than design. When will this ground component turn into a PRT supported by a battle group. Have a Liberals again naively set the armed forces up for another 10 year ground war.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Compare that to to very first post in the thread. The common theme is change of mission year over year. I am trying to decide if this latest move will turn into an escalation by accident rather than design. When will this ground component turn into a PRT supported by a battle group. Have a Liberals again naively set the armed forces up for another 10 year ground war.


Deja vu all over again?


----------



## McG (14 Feb 2016)

The government is acknowledging that the new mission will be more dangerous than what we have been doing.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/it-is-more-risky-canada-enters-new-role-in-anti-isis-fight-1.2777342


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2016)

> Green Party Leader Elizabeth May also said Canada's new military role will mean troops are more likely to find themselves in combat roles.
> 
> "The reality of boots on the ground is, yes, that the Canadian troops who are going to be working with the Kurdish Peshmerga are clearly going to find themselves in combat situations," she said.



Thanks there, Tips!   :


----------



## GAP (14 Feb 2016)

Sigh....and here I was just getting used to not hearing  Elizabeth May and her inane comments on all things wonderful....... :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2016)

The way she said that, makes me wonder if she knows there ARE 'boots on the ground' _now_.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The common theme is change of mission year over year.



It is almost like the situation on the ground is evolving, and that the coalition is actually making progress or something....


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Feb 2016)

Heaven forbid that should happen....


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> News is coming out now that four Griffon helicopters are being sent to Iraq


More on that ...


> A week after announcing the withdrawal of fighter jets from Iraq, Canada's defense minister on Tuesday said it is swapping in four armored tactical Griffon helicopters to ferry special forces.
> 
> "The Griffon helicopters are being deployed for the safety of our troops in northern Iraq," Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan told parliament.
> 
> "They will be used for the transportation of our personnel because they provide increased force protection for our brave men and women in uniform," he said ...


----------



## McG (17 Feb 2016)

Armoured Griffons?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Armoured Griffons?


Methinks the reporter may be "projecting" a bit, given this is all the DefMin said in the House yesterday (Hansard here, here and here):


> Mr. Speaker, the Griffon helicopters are being deployed for the safety of our troops in northern Iraq. They will be used for the transportation of our personnel because they provide increased force protection for our brave men and women in uniform ... Mr. Speaker, our government is stepping up to the fight. We also know that the defeat of ISIL can only happen on the ground. It cannot be won from the air. Tripling our training capacity and doubling our intelligence is exactly the capability that our coalition needs ... Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that I was briefed on the attack. Our brave pilots did participate in that, but other coalition jets also participated in that strike. We are tripling our training capacity, doubling our intelligence, and as the coalition commander said to me while at the Munich Security Conference, our plan is forward looking, and that is exactly what they need.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2016)

Could it just be that the writer can not differentiate between "armed" and "armoured"?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Or one of the editors decided that, since the Minister spoke of increased protection, the journalist meant to say "armoured" instead of "armed" and changed it without consulting anyone.

I know a few written press journalists and they told me in the past that many times, they read an article under their name in their own paper and do not recognize them when compared to what they filed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I know a few written press journalists and they told me in the past that many times, they read an article under their name in their own paper and do not recognize them when compared to what they filed.


True dat - like in government, once you write something, be prepared to have anyone above you play with it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2016)

I have no objection to anything new they propose, I just object to the removal of the CF-18's and the insistence that the "territorial integrity of Iraq is maintained". Why is that important is not the ability of a people to determine their own fate equally important?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... is not the ability of a people to determine their own fate equally important?


I guess not when we need some of those people, for now, on our side to fight someone even badder?  Especially in an area where one of Canada's partners can make it hard for Canada to help another of Canada's partners.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Feb 2016)

BZ to the RCAF Hornet community.   

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page

Attention: Latest News - Mission Refocus

In accordance with Government of Canada direction, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) ceased airstrike operations in Iraq and Syria on 15 February 2016.

From their first sortie on 30 October 2014 to 15 February 2016, the CF-188 Hornets conducted 1378 sorties resulting in *251 airstrikes (246 in Iraq and 5 in Syria)*, expended 606 munitions and achieved the following effects:
•267 ISIL fighting positions,
•102 ISIL equipment and vehicles, and
•30 ISIL Improvised Explosive Device (IED) factories and ISIL storage facilities.

The six CF-188 Hornets, along with associated aircrew and support personnel, will depart the region in a phased approach in the coming weeks.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2016)

Concur with EITS, well done to the RCAF's Fighter Force!  

As for the Griffon, it does indeed carry protective armour panels that can be installed in a number of different configurations to provide protection to crew and passengers, so it is not incorrect to say that the Griffons will be both armed and armoured.  It is not reasonable to make it out as though either the reporter or the RCAF are trying to make the Griffon come across as an Apache-like attack helicopter.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

It's been decided and announced...

Article Link

*Tax Relief for Personnel Deployed on Designated International Operational Missions*

On February 16, 2016, the Minister of Finance added the following moderate-risk missions to the previous list of designated missions for tax relief:

Designated International Operational Missions 

Op IMPACT (Kuwait) - October 5, 2014 - Ongoing


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (27 Feb 2016)

Glad to hear that! I was hoping to do my income tax this weekend, but now I guess I'll wait until my SOR issue me the tax relief letter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

It's the kind of news people like to get!   ;D


----------



## opcougar (27 Feb 2016)

By "people" you mean yourself?  ;D



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's the kind of news people like to get!   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2016)

After only, what, 18 months from the start of the operation? Government bureaucracy at its finest.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

opcougar said:
			
		

> By "people" you mean yourself?  ;D



If I was to get any back, I would consider donating it to the "_*Special Health Care for Fucktards*_" fund.  I would love to see a cure for people affected with this socially disabling condition, such as yourself.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Feb 2016)

Did the HA/RA increase as a result?  We're still waiting for the shake-down to occur following the 6-pack departure before CFTPO gets updated for R3.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I was to get any back, I would consider donating it to the "_*Special Health Care for Fucktards*_" fund.  I would love to see a cure for people affected with this socially disabling condition, such as yourself.



Bam!! LOL


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Did the HA/RA increase as a result?  We're still waiting for the shake-down to occur following the 6-pack departure before CFTPO gets updated for R3.



Naw, not that I am aware of.  I did hear a few rumours about something in the works for those who go into the battlespace may be getting HA/RA rates for OP IMPACT - IRAQ on ATOd days vice the Kuwait HA/RA but so far it's just rumours...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2016)

That's similar to the herc guys in Mirage, correct? I heard something about that when we were still in the thick of it in Kandahar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

It's very likely and it makes sense to only get it the days folks go over The Badlands.

Biggest danger in Kuwait is the desert bar at the DFAC.   ^-^


----------



## Sub_Guy (27 Feb 2016)

I'll never forget the day I was next in line at the ice cream machine and some USAF mother fucker emptied it.

Damn near had the MPs called on me..

The struggle was real.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I'll never forget the day I was next in line at the ice cream machine and some USAF mother fucker emptied it.
> 
> Damn near had the MPs called on me..
> 
> The struggle was real.



The horrors of war.  Did you manage to find a peer support group when you "_RIPPED OUT_".   ^-^


----------



## Zoomie (27 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Biggest danger in Kuwait is the desert bar at the DFAC.   ^-^


My mandatory cultural training for Kuwait told me the country was dry - please tell me a tiny oasis exists at ASAM?


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's very likely and it makes sense to only get it the days folks go over The Badlands.
> 
> Biggest danger in Kuwait is the desert bar at the DFAC.   ^-^



Sorry...I read that too fast and read it as DECAF......Now that really is not coffee.


----------



## Quirky (28 Feb 2016)

So is this something we would file through CRA during tax season or will it be another deposit into our accounts. What's the process here to claim this benefit?


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2016)

Quirky said:
			
		

> So is this something we would file through CRA during tax season or will it be another deposit into our accounts. What's the process here to claim this benefit?



When you file.  Your HA/RA will be included in Box 40 on your T4.  The amount in Box 40 will not be included as taxable income.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Quirky (28 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When you file.  Your HA/RA will be included in Box 40 on your T4.  The amount in Box 40 will not be included as taxable income.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



So it's too late for this year.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2016)

Quirky said:
			
		

> So it's too late for this year.



If I read the Dept. of Finance page correctly, no...not too late; you would be covered for all of 2015 and the last three months of 2014 as well:

*Tax Relief for Personnel Deployed on Designated International Operational Missions*



> *Mission name                  Beginning of the applicable period             End of the applicable period*
> ...
> Op IMPACT (Kuwait)                   October 5, 2014                                                                Ongoing
> ...



Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Feb 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> My mandatory cultural training for Kuwait told me the country was dry - please tell me a tiny oasis exists at ASAM?



Not that I am aware of... :-\


----------



## Zoomie (28 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not that I am aware of...


 anic:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Feb 2016)

Don't panic though...there is 'fake' beer available to be had on 'fake' weekends!   ^-^


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not that I am aware of... :-\



I am headed over soon, and I see this as part of my 3 Step Jenny Craig Middle Eastern Diet plan:

1) no alcohol
2) DFAC food
3) 120F weather

I may well be able to reverse my slide from Light Infantry to Middle Heavyweight Infantry.....


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I was to get any back, I would consider donating it to the "_*Special Health Care for Fucktards*_" fund.  I would love to see a cure for people affected with this socially disabling condition, such as yourself.



Max Milpoints for that.


----------



## Respectyouall (29 Feb 2016)

I'm just wishing I could go over with you guys, mad respect for all you guys over there and going over.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Mar 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I am headed over soon, and I see this as part of my 3 Step Jenny Craig Middle Eastern Diet plan:
> 
> 1) no alcohol
> 2) DFAC food
> ...



If you are headed to the same location the LRP folks are at, the DFAC isn't bad really.  Bored at midnight?  Pop up for an omelette!  Bored at 3am?  Silver Bullet has food all night.  Breakfast starts at 0430, lunch starts at 1030.  You can eat, then get back in line for take-out (handy for getting flight feeding when on odd work hours).  

Middleweight might be more reasonable if you are bored a lot after the first week.    >


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Mar 2016)

EITS, glad to hat that the DFACs are improving.  Khar wasn't bad, but the one in Bagram was quite something, and definitely drove a lot of folks to Popeyes, Pizza Hut and Burger King... ;D

PLCLI Guy, the 15-20L of wate a day should help! :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Mar 2016)

Lots of people walk from Camp Canada to the DFAC and back, easy way to change the day up and burn a few calories.  Although that isn't so fun in the hotter weather.

Assuming most people are heading to Camp Canada with C P.V. doing the thing it is doing, I'll also mention there are a few other choices to the DFAC...and the one that does Chinese is worth the $.  Great spicy shrimp dish there (name eludes me).

There was an 11 day span when the soft ice cream machine was U/S.  That was a tough time. A few people cracked but no one actually broke.


----------



## dimsum (1 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you are headed to the same location the LRP folks are at, the DFAC isn't bad really.  Bored at midnight?  Pop up for an omelette!  Bored at 3am?  Silver Bullet has food all night.  Breakfast starts at 0430, lunch starts at 1030.  You can eat, then get back in line for take-out (handy for getting flight feeding when on odd work hours).
> 
> Middleweight might be more reasonable if you are bored a lot after the first week.    >



Ah, but does the place have <a href="https://justdfacsmaam.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-omelette-king">Santos the Omelette King?</a>


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Mar 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ah, but does the place have <a href="https://justdfacsmaam.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/the-omelette-king">Santos the Omelette King?</a>



No.  It does not.

But it does have someone similar at the desert bar.   

I was redeployed on a TAV after my initial tour and on my first trip to the desert bar the guy there gave me my usual order of this Caramel Pecan ice cream.  True story.

I walked all the time there, averaging 25kms on days when we didn't fly.  It is how I remained sane. 

ETIS - Have you guys gotten any word on medals yet?   How about the GSM/GCS combo now that you are eligible for both?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No.  It does not.



There are lots of omelette dudes but...not sure any of them are Kings.  



> But it does have someone similar at the desert bar.



 :nod:



> ETIS - Have you guys gotten any word on medals yet?   How about the GSM/GCS combo now that you are eligible for both?



Had to submit photocopies of log books to the SOR to be signed 'true copies' or something along that line before Xmas Leave.  On the actual medals, there seems to be 2 different schools of thought;  GW told me when he was doing his 1/2 days when he got back, the Medals Clerk said they were ordering both for aircrew who got their dirty thirty, but I've heard others say its 'one or the other'.

There school of thought that goes with the 2'fer-one is if you flew 35 missions, and were in Happy Land for say, 95 days, you had 2 gongs for the price of one with 35 op theatre days and 60 support location days.  The other school of thought is 'nope, you get the throwing star if you did 30+ and the gong if you didn't 29 or less.

 :dunno:

I hope whichever people get, it has _*Flush! Brush! Flush! *_ on it somewhere   ^-^


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There school of thought that goes with the 2'fer-one is if you flew 35 missions, and were in Happy Land for say, 95 days, you had 2 gongs for the price of one with 35 op theatre days and 60 support location days.  The other school of thought is 'nope, you get the throwing star if you did 30+ and the gong if you didn't 29 or less.
> 
> :dunno:
> 
> I hope whichever people get, it has _*Brush!  Flush!  Brush!*_ on it somewhere   ^-^



Yeah I don't think anyone would get two based on one rotation (yes the clerk told me that too, I sent her this ref, but I think I just confused things), but if you went over flew 30 and came back then redeployed you would be eligible for the GSM based on this reference..

" CANFORGEN 072/10
Para F.  WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD. WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT "

I think it would be worth looking into, I know the flavour of the day is "NO".   I know I would be looking into it, but I am handcuffed to my desk and can't get back over   [

I know people will read this para and say "but that only applies to the SWA..", when clearly it is an example.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yeah I don't think anyone would get two based on one rotation (yes the clerk told me that too, I sent her this ref, but I think I just confused things), but if you went over flew 30 and came back then redeployed you would be eligible for the GSM based on this reference..
> 
> " CANFORGEN 072/10
> Para F.  WITH THE NEW PRINCIPLE OF ROTATION RECOGNITION, THE EXISTING PROVISION STATING THAT ONE CANNOT EARN BOTH THE GCS AND GSM IN RESPECT OF THE SAME OP IS AMENDED SO THAT IT IS NOW POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO EARN AND WEAR BOTH THE GCS AND THE GSM FOR A GIVEN THEATRE AS LONG AS THE PERSON DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BOTH DURING THE SAME 6 MONTHS PERIOD. WHEN A PERSON MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE GCS-SWA OR A BAR TO IT AND THE GSM-SWA OR A BAR TO IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS, THE PERSON SHALL ONLY BE AWARDED THE GCS OR A BAR TO IT "
> ...



I didn't know about that ref.  I am 'meh' either way personally, but this ref should (will) go up the CofC.  And, it actually makes sense IMO.  Well, military sense.   ;D

The good news is the GSM folks are getting theirs now prior to departing.  I think that's the way to do it.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=72612&site=combatcamera


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I didn't know about that ref.  I am 'meh' either way personally, but this ref should (will) go up the CofC.  And, it actually makes sense IMO.  Well, military sense.   ;D
> 
> The good news is the GSM folks are getting theirs now prior to departing.  I think that's the way to do it.
> 
> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=72612&site=combatcamera



Yes I heard that.  I think it is good.    

I do however think that it stinks that we have to wait, personally I don't really care, but I do care about our young guys.  Some of those fellas have been there 4 times and still have nothing to show for it.  Yes it isn't all about the bling, but when you see the folks in camp getting their coin, it can be a bit of a morale killer.  Of course going over 4 times could be a morale killer too..


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2016)

Suspendisse!  Peniculus! Suspendisse!    ^-^


----------



## dimsum (2 Mar 2016)

Random question, but if someone with a GCS-SWA already goes over, do they then get a bar on their GCS for this Op and a GSM?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I know people will read this para and say "but that only applies to the SWA..", when clearly it is an example.



Is there an Op IMPACT or Iraq Bar?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Random question, but if someone with a GCS-SWA already goes over, do they then get a bar on their GCS for this Op and a GSM?



If they spend 30 days in Iraq (1 sortie = 1 day for zoomies), they will get the GCS-Exp.  If they deploy to IMPACT but do not go into the actual theatre, they will get the GSM-Exp after 30 days.  Aircrew who fly 29 or less missions will get the GSM-Exp provided they were deployed 30 days or more.

General Campaign Star – EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)

_The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 20 January 2003 onwards...As of 1 June 2012, 9 awards had been made. _  [Syria was added in a CANFORGEN last year]

Guess they need to make up a few more of these.

General Service Medal – EXPEDITION (GSM-EXP)

OP Impact - Kuwait base locations were added to the eligibility list for the GSM-Exp in the same CANFORGEN last year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Mar 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is there an Op IMPACT or Iraq Bar?



Just rotation bars; anyone who has/gets a GSC-Exp has either been in Iraq, or Iraq and Syria.  There's no other way to get the Exp ninja star.

I feel for anyone in light blue who comes out with a bar on this one though.  210 mission is a LOT of time away from your postal code.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Mar 2016)

Thanks - that is all quite clear.


----------



## Sub_Guy (2 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If they spend 30 days in Iraq (1 sortie = 1 day for zoomies), they will get the GCS-Exp.  If they deploy to IMPACT but do not go into the actual theatre, they will get the GSM-Exp after 30 days.  Aircrew who fly 29 or less missions will get the GSM-Exp provided they were deployed 30 days or more.



I wish they would rework this formula.   The 1 sortie = 1 day calculation.   It took almost 3 months to get 30 flights and I bet the bulk of the guys/gals delivering presents to those asshats didn't get their 30.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Mar 2016)

As opposed to those sitting in country for 6 months that wouldn't be entitled to a rotation bar (need 6 months after initial 30: days to qualify), or even a second medal?


----------



## Quirky (2 Mar 2016)

Nice to see people that came into a setup camp are receiving their medals. Meanwhile roto zeros that built everything from the ground up have seen squat.   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I wish they would rework this formula.   The 1 sortie = 1 day calculation.   It took almost 3 months to get 30 flights and I bet the bulk of the guys/gals delivering presents to those asshats didn't get their 30.



Ya, considering all the factors, the 30 doesn't seem right considering who was doing what on their missions.  If someone did 28 airstrike missions, half of them in Syria, they wouldn't get a ninja star.  Doesn't seem to accurately reflect 'mission contributions', does it?

In comparison to the GCS-Exp, there is the General Campaign Star – ALLIED FORCE (GCS-AF):

_The GCS with ALLIED FORCE ribbon is awarded to fighter pilots and AWACS crew members who flew at least 5 sorties during Operation ALLIED FORCE from 24 March to 10 June 1999 in the theatre of operations which consisted of the airspace over Kosovo and other territories of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Adriatic and Ionian seas. 
_


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As opposed to those sitting in country for 6 months that wouldn't be entitled to a rotation bar (need 6 months after initial 30: days to qualify), or even a second medal?



This as well.  There will be some folks who get the GSM with rotation bar from doing a single ROTO (I know a few who did) but I don't think the rotation bar requirements will change.  210 days is a lot of time, it's even more time for aircrew who have to do 210 sorties/missions.  Someone could do 6 ROTOs, max their hours out each ROTO and still not qualify for a 'rotation bar'.  So, the name 'rotation' bar does not seem to fit IMO.  



			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> Nice to see people that came into a setup camp are receiving their medals. Meanwhile roto zeros that built everything from the ground up have seen squat.   :



I hear ya.  I don't know what the method to the madness is WRT this.  I've heard of some ROTO 1 and 2 LRP Det folks getting the GSM already, while ROTO 0 folks haven't seen it.  I don't know of a single GCS being given yet to the guys who were boots on the ground Oct 14.

I know of at least 1 pers who has their 3rd ROTO in their log book and...nadda.  Log book copies weren't requested until well after a year into the op.

Not that gongs are the most important thing, I know, BUT folks should also have their contribution recognized in a timely manner;  it is supposed to be the whole reason for the Honours system isn't it?


----------



## exgunnertdo (3 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I hear ya.  I don't know what the method to the madness is WRT this.  I've heard of some ROTO 1 and 2 LRP Det folks getting the GSM already, while ROTO 0 folks haven't seen it.  I don't know of a single GCS being given yet to the guys who were boots on the ground Oct 14.
> 
> I know of at least 1 pers who has their 3rd ROTO in their log book and...nadda.  Log book copies weren't requested until well after a year into the op.
> 
> Not that gongs are the most important thing, I know, BUT folks should also have their contribution recognized in a timely manner;  it is supposed to be the whole reason for the Honours system isn't it?



I do know the logic, at least what I was told by a R0 coworker who asked when he saw a R1 guy on Nov 11 wearing his GSM - medals ordered from theatre take priority over medals ordered from Canada.  They didn't announce the medals until R0 was home, so they've been ordered by the members' ORs.  So, R0 will keep getting pushed down as new orders from theatre come in...as to how long it will take them to catch up? who knows...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2016)

That seems more like a *lack* of logic to me; someone at a higher level needs to speak up and say "hey, we dropped the ball on the RO guys, so let's make this happen".


----------



## exgunnertdo (3 Mar 2016)

Never said it was good logic!


----------



## Ostrozac (3 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That seems more like a *lack* of logic to me; someone at a higher level needs to speak up and say "hey, we dropped the ball on the RO guys, so let's make this happen".



Logic doesn't come into it. Nor does timeliness. Op HALO was in 2004, Op SCULPTURE started in 2000 -- the Operational Service Medals for both missions didn't start being awarded until 2010. Being a couple rotos behind pales in comparison. 

And why are we even issuing "GCS/GSM-EXPEDITION" for this war? Isn't "EXPEDITION" supposed to be a generic catch all for small missions? Iraq-Syria seems like a pretty specific large multi-year campaign to me. Wouldn't an GCS/GSM-IRAQ-SYRIA make more sense for this current war? Or maybe an "IRAQ-SYRIA" bar to the SWASM?

We keep tinkering with our Honours and Awards systems, but the cracks keep showing through.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Logic doesn't come into it. Nor does timeliness. Op HALO was in 2004, Op SCULPTURE started in 2000 -- the Operational Service Medals for both missions didn't start being awarded until 2010. Being a couple rotos behind pales in comparison.



I never see the reason for using an example of something that was done shitty as a reason to justify doing the current 'thing' shitty as well.    



> And why are we even issuing "GCS/GSM-EXPEDITION" for this war? Isn't "EXPEDITION" supposed to be a generic catch all for small missions? Iraq-Syria seems like a pretty specific large multi-year campaign to me. Wouldn't an GCS/GSM-IRAQ-SYRIA make more sense for this current war? Or maybe an "IRAQ-SYRIA" bar to the SWASM?



Nope, the GSC-Exp is very specific for criteria; perhaps the naming was done more to avoid using GSC-Iraq or GSC-ME? [the DH & R website is not updated with the info in the 2015 CANFORGEN]

_The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 20 January 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal.
_

The website info on the GSM-Exp:

_The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is service of Canadian personnel in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, more specifically Canadian Detachment AWACS, USAF Air Expeditionary Wing, Prince Sultan Air Base, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, since 27 February 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal. _

People associate the GCS-SWA to Afghanistan.  A separate ribbon and medal makes sense for IMPACT.  Apples and oranges.

Maybe you're thinking more of the Operational Service Medal – EXPEDITION (OSM-EXP)?


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Mar 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Logic doesn't come into it. Nor does timeliness. Op HALO was in 2004, Op SCULPTURE started in 2000 -- the Operational Service Medals for both missions didn't start being awarded until 2010. Being a couple rotos behind pales in comparison.
> 
> And why are we even issuing "GCS/GSM-EXPEDITION" for this war? Isn't "EXPEDITION" supposed to be a generic catch all for small missions? Iraq-Syria seems like a pretty specific large multi-year campaign to me. Wouldn't an GCS/GSM-IRAQ-SYRIA make more sense for this current war? Or maybe an "IRAQ-SYRIA" bar to the SWASM?
> 
> We keep tinkering with our Honours and Awards systems, but the cracks keep showing through.



Exactly my thoughts.  The EXP was designed for smaller missions, which made sense for the AWACS guys (they awarded 9 before this mission).   But this is a full on mission.   I think they are being lazy.  I do know the JTF-I CO (or whoever it was) did request an exclusive ribbon for this mission (as told by the JTF-I commander on my roto).

The explanation for the medal even specifies that it is a generic catch all.   From the honours website  "The EXPEDITION ribbon was created at the same time to provide a flexible tool of recognition for operations for which it is not possible or practical to create a separate ribbon."     I believe the CANFORGEN description is a little different.

When this was awarded for Iraq, I bet no one thought we would be there in the capacity that we are now.

Going back to the rotation/sorties days that count, I firmly believe that the decision was made by someone who never took into consideration the RCAF fliers.   15 Missions should be the norm for the GCS.

At least the fliers who are awarded the GCS, should be picking up their GSM on the subsequent rotations.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I never see the reason for using an example of something that was done shitty as a reason to justify doing the current 'thing' shitty as well.



Well, there goes all administrative and operational planning at NDHQ  ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Mar 2016)

Here a snip from the CANFORGEN

(3) EXPEDITION RIBBONS TO THE GSC AND GSM ARE CREATED TO PROVIDE A FLEXIBLE FORM OF RECOGNITION FOR THOSE MISSIONS CONDUCTED IN THE PRESENCE OF AN ARMED ENEMY, OR SUPPORT PROVIDED TO SUCH MISSIONS,* AND FOR WHICH SIZE OR SCOPE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE RIBBON. *


----------



## dapaterson (3 Mar 2016)

It is not impossible that a new ribbon will be created in the future, then presented retroactively to those who received the EXPEDITION ribbon.

Would you rather get recognition now (with possible changes in the future), or wait months or years?


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Would you rather get recognition now (with possible changes in the future), or wait months or years?



Being the cynical asshole I am.... I expedt to be waiting for years anyway..   Yes to do agree through, better now than later.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2016)

There is no requirement for a new ribbon.

_The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 20 January 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal.
_

They are already handing out GSM-Exps.  The ribbon is fine, they are already using it.  The CANFORGEN already includes OP IMPACT.  Stop trying to make a round wheel roll different, the GCS-Exp is fine just like the GSM-Exp is.

Fuck, why do people insist on making simple shit complicated.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2016)

Decades of doing things the UN way, perhaps? 

They always do a separate medal for each mission...mind you, that's the UN, so we shouldn't exactly try to emulate that... :nod:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is no requirement for a new ribbon.
> 
> _The only approved eligible service for this ribbon thus far is military service within the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq from 20 January 2003 onwards provided the service has not been recognized by another service medal.
> _
> ...



Because it's fun.


Yes they approved the EXP medal for the airspace over Iraq back in 2003, but I would argue that if it wasn’t authorized for those 9 individuals prior to Op Impact, we would have a different ribbon. 
Go back to 2003 and mention Canadians flying over Iraq/Syria, people would lose their minds.

I really don't care either way, but I wouldn't be surprised if things changed.  

My point is that I don't think Op Impact is the type of mission the EXP ribbon was designed for.


----------



## exgunnertdo (4 Mar 2016)

http://www.afcent.af.mil/Units/386thAirExpeditionaryWing/News/Display/tabid/5446/Article/671952/386th-aew-and-coalition-forces-first-responders-build-skills-partnerships.aspx



> Southwest Asia --
> Airmen from the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing partnered up with coalition forces for a mass casualty exercise at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia, Feb. 18.
> 
> The purpose of the exercise was to test the medical group and Canadian Forces field medical response capability.
> ...



This is from the USAF PA machine. In actual fact, this was a Canadian exercise - in which the USAF was invited to participate.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2016)

Don't worry, if when the Canadian main story comes out of the PA machine, it will no doubt be properly spell-checked and well written.......


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Don't worry, if when the Canadian main story comes out of the PA machine, it will no doubt be properly spell-checked and well written.......


... several weeks later.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> My point is that I don't think Op Impact is the type of mission the EXP ribbon was designed for.



Ya...except the whole "military service in the face of an armed enemy in the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq" stuff...other than that, there is no natural line drawn between the two.   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Mar 2016)

Denmark to send troops to Syria



> A majority of Parliament has approved sending Danish F-16 fighter jets, a transport aircraft and a team of special forces to fight the organisation Islamic State in Syria.
> 
> As of mid-2016, the total Danish military contribution will encompass about 400 soldiers, incuding pilots and support personnel. 60 of the 400 will be member of the two Danish special forces groups: the Hunter Corps (Jægerkorpset) and the Frogman Corps (Frømandskorpset).
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sub_Guy (4 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ya...except the whole "military service in the face of an armed enemy in the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq" stuff...other than that, there is no natural line drawn between the two.   ;D



I get what you are saying but it does go against what the medal was designed for.  It wasn't designed specifically for *"military service in the face of an armed enemy in the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq"*, it was designed for smaller missions where a separate award wouldn't be feasible or make sense, back in 2003 and with 9 awarded prior to Op Impact it made sense.   Have a look at the eligibility for the SSM-EXP, it's all small little missions/dets/etc...   "The EXPEDITION ribbon was created to provide a flexible tool of recognition for operations for which it is not possible or practical to create a separate ribbon."

I think that awarding it for Op Impact goes against what it was originally designed for that's all.

On to the Danes.   For a country as small as Denmark they have their shit together, we had them there with us last year.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Mar 2016)

Yes, the Neovikings are pretty gripped. :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Mar 2016)

Did a half NATO with HDMS Peter Tordenskiold (F356).  She and her crew were a joy to sail with, we loved the Vikings.  Awesome bunch of guys.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I get what you are saying but it does go against what the medal was designed for.  It wasn't designed specifically for *"military service in the face of an armed enemy in the political boundaries and airspace of Iraq"*, it was designed for smaller missions where a separate award wouldn't be feasible or make sense, back in 2003 and with 9 awarded prior to Op Impact it made sense.   Have a look at the eligibility for the SSM-EXP, it's all small little missions/dets/etc...   "The EXPEDITION ribbon was created to provide a flexible tool of recognition for operations for which it is not possible or practical to create a separate ribbon."
> 
> I think that awarding it for Op Impact goes against what it was originally designed for that's all.
> 
> On to the Danes.   For a country as small as Denmark they have their shit together, we had them there with us last year.



Well, thankfully they amended the criteria and GCS-Exp it is.  GSM-Exp's are being handed out in theatre...I don't know a single person who received a throwing star yet.  Imagine how long and fucked up it would be in they started from scratch.  Christ, they already have the medal and the criteria and guys who are on their 3rd ROTO haven't seen it yet.  Reinvent the wheel?  No thanks, the CAF sucks at this kind of stuff.

It took almost a year to decide the HA/RA for Kuwait (they were pretty quick to determine the Iraq rates though... :) and a year and a half to decide tax relief.  Fuck the starting something from scratch crap.

Exp is fine, nice ribbon, already in the system and criteria amended.  Now they just have to quick march instead of mark time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2016)

From the Info-machine:


> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) officially marked the transitioning of the Air Task Force-Iraq mission during a parade today in Kuwait. Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, Commander Royal Canadian Air Force, presided over the parade, which commemorated the contributions of all CAF members who have deployed to conduct and support air operations since the beginning of Operation IMPACT.
> 
> Air Task Force-Iraq will continue to operate two types of aircraft in support of coalition air operations. The CC-150T Polaris supports coalition air assets in the region with aerial refueling and two CP-140 Auroras conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions based on identified and pre-determined areas of interest.
> 
> As directed by the Government of Canada, the CF-18 Hornets ceased airstrike operations on February 15, 2016, and will depart the region in a phased approach in the coming weeks ...


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Mar 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> From the Info-machine:



And reading that, does this mean the Griffons will be under adult leadership?


----------



## Ostrozac (6 Mar 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And reading that, does this mean the Griffons will be under adult leadership?



Good catch. The Griffons operating up north will NOT be part of the Air Task Force -- they will be part of the Special Operations Task Force.

For our historians in the house, when did the helicopters of 10 TAG leave Mobile Command (now known as the Canadian Army) and join Air Command (now known as the Royal Canadian Air Force)? Was it on stand-up of Air Command in 1975, or later?


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Mar 2016)

Ostrozac, between 68 and 75, 10 TAG technically was under 'full command' (in the defined sense) of CADO (Chief of Air Doctrine and Operations) in NDHQ...the two-leaf precursor to Commander Air Command in Winnipeg. There was also an 'operational command' relationship with FMC (later LFC) that itself as an operational-level entity took its orders from CLDO (Chief of Land Doctrine and Operations) in Ottawa.  Perhaps E.R. Campbell or Old Sweat can confirm, but I believe CADO, CLDO and CMDO were direct reports to the DCDS.

That said, in 1975,with the stand-up of AIRCOM in Winnipeg, 'full command' of 10 TAG was chopped to AIRCOM, while 10 TAG retained its OPCOM relationship with FMC.  The only exception was 444 Tac Hel Sqn, which was chopped under full command to Comd 4 CMBG in CFE, while retaining a 'command for administration' relationship with HQ 10 TAG.  

With the formal move of the Air Staff (and by technicality and CFOO, Air Command) to Ottawa and stand-up of the operational-level 1 CAD in Winnipeg in the summer of 97, on 26 June 1997, the last Comd 10 TAG, BGen Ken Pennie on order from Commander Air Command stood down 10 TAG and transferred command of the Tactical Aviation force to then Col Charlie Bouchard as Commander 1 Wing, with tactical headquarters being transferred from St-Hubert to Kingston, to remain located with the Tac/Op level of the Army in the form of 1 Cdn Div.  There are others better informed and qualified to speak about the trials and tribulations of the 1990's re-birth of 1 Cdn Div (and subsequent thrash through the JHQ/JOG life cycle before re-re-birthing as 1 Cdn Div yet again), so I'll defer to those better suited to inform on that.

To this day, most of the 1 Wing units remain lodged on Army bases (less 400 AMS and 438e ETAH) and through 1 Wing HQ coordination with respective Div/Bde/CDSG HQs, continues to provide support to CA activities.  The notable exception being 427 SOAS that, while under Full Command of 1 Wing HQ, has an OPCOM command relationship with CANSOFCOM, and thus provides primary support to CANSOF units/TFs and residual support to other CAF elements as available.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Quirky (6 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> When you file.  Your HA/RA will be included in Box 40 on your T4.  The amount in Box 40 will not be included as taxable income.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Just checked block 40 and didn't see any significant amount, I did get t4 before this was announced. Am I waiting another year for this?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (6 Mar 2016)

My understanding talking with the SOR is they'll issue new T4, hopefully before end of April.


----------



## dimsum (6 Mar 2016)

From the CBC; I don't recall any Canadian article before this mentioning the complexity of the ROE/targeting process while in Libya/Afghanistan (happy to be corrected), so it's good that for once, the military isn't made out to look like the Huey door gunner in Full Metal Jacket.



> It's over now but, looking back, it's a wonder that the CF-18 pilots fighting ISIS didn't take a LEGAD with them every time they took to the sky. One wrong move, and they could violate the LOAC by bombing something on the NSL and end up on the wrong end of a CDE.
> 
> The LOAC is the law of armed conflict and the NSL is the no-strike list. A CDE is a collateral damage estimation. Watch out for those...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cf18-bombing-forms-milewski-1.3476675


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Mar 2016)

I like how he pretends to know what he is talking about...  Yup, he found out what the acronyms mean and has a general idea of what is required to get a bomb off however, he has no clue how the process actually works realtime...  Which is far more smooth than what he leads people to believe.  And the chain doesn't start and stop at the pilot.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Mar 2016)

The process may be smooth, but if the layman thinks it's very complex and difficult, makes it easier to counter the "baby killer" narrative that rears its head every time we use force somewhere.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I like how he pretends to know what he is talking about...  Yup, he found out what the acronyms mean and has a general idea of what is required to get a bomb off however, he has no clue how the process actually works realtime...  Which is far more smooth than what he leads people to believe.  And the chain doesn't start and stop at the pilot.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The process may be smooth, but if the layman thinks it's very complex and difficult, makes it easier to counter the "baby killer" narrative that rears its head every time we use force somewhere.


Can't win here (especially with the reporter in question).

If the process has a lot of steps, you get the headline you see.

If the process seems to have few steps or not enough oversight, the headline becomes, "Loose legal controls over CAF aerial bombing."


----------



## dimsum (6 Mar 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Can't win here (especially with the reporter in question).
> 
> If the process has a lot of steps, you get the headline you see.
> 
> If the process seems to have few steps or not enough oversight, the headline becomes, "Loose legal controls over CAF aerial bombing."



And between the two choices, I'd rather have the first instead of the second.  It's harder to stir up outrage when the message is "look at all the checks and balances we need to use our weapons."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Mar 2016)

For some reason that now eludes my memory, after reading the...I am hesitant to say "article"...I let myself continue to the reader comments.    :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Mar 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And reading that, does this mean the Griffons will be under adult leadership?



As it would be under the current commander of the ATF; a TacHel type.

Personally, I sometimes wonder why all this info is so available open-source but...

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1020939



> •Following a ceremony on October 19, 2015, at Camp Patrice Vincent in Kuwait, Colonel Shayne Elder assumed command of Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I) from Colonel Sean Boyle.
> •Before joining the CAF in 2011, Colonel Elder had a distinguished career as a tactical helicopter pilot with the Australian Army and retired after 26 years of service at the rank of brigadier.


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 Mar 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And between the two choices, I'd rather have the first instead of the second.  It's harder to stir up outrage when the message is "look at all the checks and balances we need to use our weapons."



We should refrain from discussing this further...


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Mar 2016)

Advice passed.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So Max, later on in your career you will look back on your interaction here and (hopefully) draw the conclusion that as a young fighter jock, you would sometimes lose the wrestle between your ego wanting everyone to know how much you know and your sense of discretion, which hopefully will get stronger as the years past.



This wasn't the point of the post...  But I will edit. Thank you.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And between the two choices, I'd rather have the first instead of the second.


Agreed.


			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> It's harder to stir up outrage when the message is "look at all the checks and balances we need to use our weapons."


Which is why the story angle is "why is it soooooooooooooo complicated and hard to read?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Mar 2016)

From the RCAF Facebook page:  video on link

Article Link

"The Aurora is an incredible asset. The sensor package allows us to locate ISIL in the battlespace." (Colonel Shayne Elder, Commander of Air Task Force-Iraq)

The Air Task Force-Iraq mission transition parade was held in Kuwait on March 5, 2016.

CP-140 Aurora aircraft continue to conduct aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions in support of coalition air operations during Operation IMPACT.

More info on the CP-140 Aurora: http://bit.ly/XG7hZm


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2016)

The Globe and Mail, in this story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, reports that Canadian troops in Iraq can "shoot first."

*Canadian soldiers can shoot first against Islamic State threats: General*

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2016 11:48AM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Mar. 08, 2016 11:53AM EST

Canadian soldiers are allowed to shoot first in Iraq to ward off a potential Islamic State threat, MPs were told Tuesday as the House of Commons prepares to vote on the Trudeau government’s enlarged and more dangerous ground deployment there.

These rules of engagement are fuelling more controversy among critics who argue this operation does not sound like the “non-combat” role pledged by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Liberals, who made a campaign promise to “withdraw from a combat role” in Iraq, are determined to frame the enlarged commitment of 220 special forces soldiers as a “non-combat” mission.

General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, was asked Tuesday to explain what rules Canada’s elite troops are operating under in Iraq.

These soldiers are providing leadership to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters battling Islamic State forces and this includes spending time on the front lines with troops.

Canadian soldiers will also be authorized to call down air strikes by sending location information to the U.S.-led air campaign, which commands the skies over Iraq.

“The rules of engagement allow Canadian Forces to defend themselves, [to] anticipate their defence so that they can engage a hostile act or ... intent before it materializes,” Gen. Vance told the Commons defence committee.

“In other words … we can anticipate to protect ourselves.”

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons is set to vote Tuesday afternoon on the revised commitment to the fight against Islamic State. The government holds a clear majority, and the vote approving the mission is expected to easily pass.

The government has withdrawn CF-18 fighters from the aerial war against the jihadists and expanded Canada’s ground commitment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Mar 2016)

Via CBC.ca:


> The Liberal government's motion to adopt Canada's refocused mission against ISIS passed a House of Commons vote today by a margin of 178-147.
> 
> The NDP and the Conservative parties voted against the motion in a poll that saw former prime minister Stephen Harper among the first MPs to cast a nay vote ...


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2016)

Lee Berthiaume has a new article on our continued contribution.  We are going to train a Kurd SOF Bn or a conventional Kurd Bn or maybe both.  I am not sure.  The article states SOF Bn and then provides qoutes that describe something more of a conventional force ... but I think both comments refenrece the same thing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/canadian+military+train+kurdish+special+forces+battalion+general/11768859/story.html

... and we will also be training Kurdish civilians to rotate into combat.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Mar 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Via CBC.ca:



I see the CBC still hasn't been able to shed its "screw Stephen harper every time you can" attitude.

As if he was the one deciding when he is going to cast his vote in Parliament: Votes are called either by alphabetical order of ridings, which means as MP for Calgary Heritage, Harper would be the seventh to cast a vote in any events, or the more usual way, they are called in order of seat position, back row farthest from the President  to front row closest to the president on the Government side first (usually all "yeahs" for a Government motion), then on to the opposition side, again back row furthest from the president to front row closest to him/her. Since Harper sits in the back row and far from the president, he obviously would be amongst the first "nay" voters, by necessity.

So question: What was the point of even bothering to report such an insignificant fact, other than to make Mr. Harper look bad?


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So question: What was the point of even bothering to report such an insignificant fact, other than to make Mr. Harper look bad?



For the same reason I like to get some folks goats about the Liberals, just for the sheer enjoyment of it all...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... So question: What was the point of even bothering to report such an insignificant fact, other than to make Mr. Harper look bad?


I'm about as cynical about some news coverage as you and many here are, but I don't see as much a dig as a "lookit what the former PM's doing in this vote" - he's an important, prominent person that still draws attention.  If he wasn't deciding when he was going to vote, you add "peculiarity" or "unusualness" to the story - what are the odds?

BTW, thanks for the education re:  how MP's vote.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So question: What was the point of even bothering to report such an insignificant fact, other than to make Mr. Harper look bad?


If they were a *credible* Canadian news source, they may have reported how Rona Ambrose and even Tom Mulcair voted.

If they were a shill for the Liberal Party they may have reported ....well, exactly as they did.


Does anyone honestly have different expectations of the CBC?   No crisis, just weight their 'journalism' accordingly, and move on.


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2016)

More details on the evolving Iraq mission are out.  Looks like there will be something similar to the SAT (from early in our Afghan mission) or the MAG (from the end of our Afghan mission) to work with security ministries in Baghdad, some senior pers plugged into a US intelligence organization, helicopters (already announced) and more SOF (already announced).  If any conventional force guys were hoping to get in on a training mission, it reads like that is not in the cards.


> *Canadian general to command coalition team working with Iraqi security before ISIL battle*
> Matthew Fisher
> National Post
> 14 Mar 2016
> ...


Follow link for source article and video:  http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-to-command-coalition-team-working-with-iraqi-security-before-isil-battle


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Mar 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-to-command-coalition-team-working-with-iraqi-security-before-isil-battle


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2016)

A photo of BGen Anderson from 2014.


----------



## MJP (15 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A photo of BGen Anderson from 2014.



Picture from 2014

'Stache from 1814


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Mar 2016)

And what about those CAF members supposed to be going to Lebanon (and Jordan)?

Saudi Arabia targets Hezbollah, and Lebanon will pay the price 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/SOMNIA/article29252724/

Feb. 8:



> Canada’s new approach to addressing the ongoing crises in Iraq and Syria and impacts on the region: promoting security and stability
> …
> Military efforts
> …
> ...



Are the government and military clear about what they may be getting into?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2016)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Are the government and military clear about what they may be getting into?


It'll be a lot of plates to keep spinning when you throw those places in with Syria and Iraq ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Mar 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We'll be UNing it for sure within 12 months....in Africa.


So thinks Matthew Fisher, too ...


> There is no clear consensus in the military community about how the biggest spending ministry in the federal government — the Department of National Defence — will fare Tuesday when the Trudeau government unveils it first budget.
> 
> But there is agreement that Ottawa soon will commit the armed forces to a hazardous UN peacemaking mission in Africa. It is unlikely that funding for such an undertaking would be included in any calculations announced in the budget. If such a project is announced during the next 12 months, it probably will be taken, to use military parlance, “out of hide.” That is, from existing military spending.
> 
> The mission almost certainly will involve a country in French West Africa that many Canadians will never have had heard of, let alone know where it is on a map. It will be regarded in New York as the opening shot in Canada’s declared bid for a seat on the UN Security Council in 2021 ...


Maybe even someplace we've already been?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Apr 2016)

Via the RCAF Info-machine:


> Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the maintainers of Canada’s CP-140 Aurora fleet deployed on Operation IMPACT, the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) contribution to the Middle East Stabilization Force (MESF), are at work to keep their airplanes ready to fly.
> 
> Under Operation IMPACT, the Aurora flies missions that gather essential intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data and information. As of March 22, 2016, the Aurora has flown 437 sorties, with the technicians achieving an incredible 97.6 per cent mission launch rate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Apr 2016)

I don't know if the first paragraph has to be read as an endorsement of the dedication of the Aurora's maintainers, or an indictment of the state of the airplanes being used.  [

Anyhow, well done to all and keep up the good work. Some well deserved recognition was clearly in order here.


----------



## Canuck_Jock (27 Apr 2016)

So, air power, amongst other effects, is making a discernible contribution after all, as reported in the BBC.

"Up to $800m (£550m) in cash held by so-called Islamic State (IS) has been destroyed in air strikes, a US military official says."   :jet:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36145301


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Apr 2016)

I'd hazard a guess the 'slow pace' isn't based on or related the abilities of the _air_ power in theatre...


----------



## Canuck_Jock (28 Apr 2016)

Indeed. Or _lack_ thereof.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Apr 2016)

Daesh is doomed, Canada's top general says during dramatic visit to Iraq

Gen. Jonathan Vance asks for Canadians to “put their shoulder behind” military forces in Iraq in an exclusive interview on the front lines with the Toronto Star and CTV News.

By: Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau,  Published on Thu Apr 28 2016 

Gen. Jonathan Vance, chief of the defence staff, was in northern Iraq on Wednesday to visit the area where peshmerga soldiers, aided by Canadian forces, have been fighting Daesh.

ERBIL, IRAQ—Abandoned villages, a shattered bridge, hidden bombs and a steady stream of fighters headed to the front line.

That’s the scene that greeted Canada’s top general as he paid a dramatic visit to northern Iraq Thursday to the area where Canadian special operations forces soldiers are aiding peshmerga fighters in their battle against Daesh.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said Daesh (also known as ISIS and ISIL) is doomed to defeat and predicted that Canadian forces and their peshmerga allies will play a key role in the coming battle for Mosul, the Iraqi city that remains a key extremist stronghold.

“We are on key terrain with a key partner as what is being billed as the final coup de grâce of ISIL in Iraq occurs on Mosul,” Vance said.

The Toronto Star and CTV News had exclusive access as Vance came to take stock of Canada’s military mission, to “get eyes on as we contemplate next steps in the campaign.”

For more than a year, a small group of Canadian special operations forces soldiers have been working here, teaching peshmerga troops skills that range from the basics — map reading and shooting — to calling in airstrikes.

That mission will get bigger in the coming months with the Liberals’ decision to end airstrikes and instead triple the number of troops on the ground to act as advisers.

The United States has also committed Apache attack helicopters, more cash and more troops as western nations lay the groundwork for a final push to defeat Daesh, which has wreaked havoc across Iraq and Syria since 2014.

With the extra personnel, Canada will stretch its reach in this area west of Erbil, assisting peshmerga along a line more than 100 km long.

All of it is key terrain, some within sight of Mosul.

Vance predicts the battle for the Iraqi city will unfold over the coming year, a battle delayed as Iraqi forces first seek to oust Islamic extremists from other sites across the country.

“There’s no question that Iraq and the coalition, they all want to get on with it, but there’s other things that have to get done,” said Vance, who was making his first visit to Iraq since taking over as chief of defence staff in 2015.

“For a battle that must be started correctly and finished correctly, you don’t want to necessarily rush it,” Vance said.


But when that battle comes, Iraqi forces will squeeze Mosul from the south and it will be up to the peshmerga soldiers, mentored by Canadian special operations forces troops, to protect the northern flank — and block Daesh’s path of escape.


“At some point, the coalition and Iraqi security forces will deal with Mosul and our forces will be on vital ground, key to the containment of ISIL,” Vance said.


Vance stressed that the peshmerga — not Canadians — will be on the frontline to hold Daesh fighters in place. “We are responsible to train and support them. They’re responsible to hold,” Vance said.


Canadian forces and their peshmerga allies are already eroding Daesh’s capabilities in Mosul, thanks to their proximity to the city, which enables intelligence collection and targeting, said Col. Andrew Milburn, of the U.S. Marine Corps, who commands coalition special operations forces.

“It’s very careful targeting. Your guys are not causing civilian casualties here. I can affirm that,” Milburn told the Star in an interview earlier this week.

“That’s a hard claim to make, but these guys are doing this very well. They’re deliberately going after what we call key nodes in ISIS infrastructure, leadership, (command and control) nodes,” he said.

It was Vance’s first visit to Iraq since taking over as top general last summer and he saw firsthand the devastation caused by Daesh and the ongoing disruption caused by the conflict.

Vance visited a key stretch of the highway linking Erbil and Mosul where it crosses the Khazir River.

In 2014, this territory was all held by Daesh. With Erbil at risk, peshmerga forces counterattacked, pushing Daesh back. In their retreat, the militants blew up the bridge to stall the peshmerga counterattack.

Today, two spans of the bridge are nothing more than smashed concrete and twisted metal, resting in the river.

An improvised single-lane, steel-girder bridge has been erected in its place. On Thursday afternoon, a steady stream of cars carrying peshmerga fighters headed to and from the front, just a short distance to the west. Lacking military transport, they are forced to rely on their personal vehicles to move about.

Three villages, all within eyesight, have been largely abandoned and the buildings and terrain remain littered with explosive devices.

“Anything in the bushes, avoid it. The last thing I want is for you guys is to step on something that goes boom,” a Canadian special operations sergeant cautioned journalists as they awaited Vance’s arrival.

Indeed, the general’s visit — done under a tight cordon of security provided by Canadian special operations forces troops — was not without risk. Daesh militants are just a few kilometres away and their rockets and mortars land on the riverside villages every day, the sergeant said.

Vance cast an expert eye on the demolished bridge and said it highlights the capabilities of Daesh. “That’s a professional military act to drop that bridge,” he said.

But while still dangerous, Vance painted a picture of Daesh as a faltering force, starved of financing, losing terrain and forced to put inexperienced personnel into battle as “cannon fodder.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind — and I don’t want to overplay this — they will lose militarily in Iraq. It’s inevitable,” Vance said.

“But between now and the time they lose militarily they still have the power to generate big events that can cause a lot of problems.”

That’s why local commanders like Maj.-Gen. Aziz Waisi, commander of the Zeravani forces, express gratitude for the work of Canadian soldiers — and appeal for more.

“The Canadian people should be proud of their forces on the ground. They’re doing excellent work with us,” said Waisi, who accompanied Vance.

But like others here, he pressed home their need for better weapons to replace decades-old military gear, equipment like vehicles, anti-tank weapons, night-vision goggles, robots to help defuse improvised explosive devices, and drones.

“We are hoping that Canada can assist us more,” Waisi said.

As part of its retooled mission, Canada has committed to providing arms for a new Zeravani commando force. “As we form it and train it, they’ll have the weapons necessary to do the job,” Vance said.

But he quickly adds, “We are not doing a wholesale re-equipping of the peshmerga.”

Canadian commanders have conceded that more troops on the ground means more risk.

But Vance is hoping Canadians get behind the expanded mission.

“Just because it’s hard and dangerous doesn’t mean it’s bad,” Vance said.

“We do danger. That’s what a military force is for. Canada’s military goes to dangerous places all the time. It’s always for a good cause. I’d like very much for Canadians to put their shoulder behind what we’re doing here,” Vance said.

“Despite the dangers, it is for a good cause.”
---------------------------------------------------

BZ to Mrs Laflamme for having the 'nads to get some sand on her boots.


----------



## CBH99 (30 Apr 2016)

It always impresses me how the Kurdish forces seem to hold themselves to a respectable level of professionalism.

By in large, compared to other groups of forces in the Middle East, the Kurdish have acted quite professionally.  They look professional.  Uniforms are clean.  Berets are formed & worn.  

It's a shame the collective western countries haven't spent the resources to arm & equip the Peshmerga.  Compared to the ANA. ANP, and Iraqi Army - that money would have been money well spent, with much more bang for our buck.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Apr 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It always impresses me how the Kurdish forces seem to hold themselves to a respectable level of professionalism.
> 
> By in large, compared to other groups of forces in the Middle East, the Kurdish have acted quite professionally.  They look professional.  Uniforms are clean.  Berets are formed & worn.
> 
> It's a shame the collective western countries haven't spent the resources to arm & equip the Peshmerga.  Compared to the ANA. ANP, and Iraqi Army - that money would have been money well spent, with much more bang for our buck.



Imagine what they could do with a few LAV's instead of selling them to the Saudi's


----------



## Altair (30 Apr 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It always impresses me how the Kurdish forces seem to hold themselves to a respectable level of professionalism.
> 
> By in large, compared to other groups of forces in the Middle East, the Kurdish have acted quite professionally.  They look professional.  Uniforms are clean.  Berets are formed & worn.
> 
> It's a shame the collective western countries haven't spent the resources to arm & equip the Peshmerga.  Compared to the ANA. ANP, and Iraqi Army - that money would have been money well spent, with much more bang for our buck.


I can only imagine it's because the Kurds are going to press for separation one day and the forces trained by us will be going up against American trained and supplied iraqi forces.


----------



## Dissident (30 Apr 2016)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It's a shame the collective western countries haven't spent the resources to arm & equip the Peshmerga.  Compared to the ANA. ANP, and Iraqi Army - that money would have been money well spent, with much more bang for our buck.



I suspect that supporting the Kurds is not popular with any of the surrounding countries. Kurds don't have a country and lots of people around them seem to want to keep it that way...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I can only imagine it's because the Kurds are going to press for separation one day and the forces trained by us will be going up against American trained and supplied iraqi forces.


Yup ...


			
				NinerSix said:
			
		

> I suspect that supporting the Kurds is not popular with any of the surrounding countries. Kurds don't have a country and lots of people around them seem to want to keep it that way...


... and yup.

Meanwhile, the CDS also dropped by to chat up the Kurds while in the neighbourhood - from one of the Kurdish info-machines ...


> Salahadin, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, (Krp.org)- President Masoud Barzani received a Canadian military delegation headed by General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defense Staff. During the meeting President Barzani and General Vance reviewed the events concerning the state of war against the terrorists of the islamic State and Canada's role in providing support to the Peshmerga forces.
> 
> President Barzani reiterated his gratitude to the government of Canada for its support since the start of the operations against the terrorists of the Islamic State and added that such support is of enormous effectiveness as the Peshmerga forces fight to completely eradicate the terrorists of this Region and Iraq. On his part General Vance stated that the government of Canada will continue to support the Kurdistan Region and that the terrorists of the Islamic State pose a threat to the entirety of the free world.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Apr 2016)

And more on the Special Forces involvement in this story reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Exclusive: Canada's elite soldiers train Kurdish troops in fight against ISIS

Canada's top soldier paid a visit to Northern Iraq, where he spoke to Lisa LaFlamme about the dangerous mission against ISIS.

Gen. Jonathan Vance tells Lisa LaFlamme in Iraq that Canada's training efforts in fight against ISIS are paying off.

Bruce Campion-Smith, Ottawa Bureau Chief for The Toronto Star 
Published Friday, April 29, 2016 9:30PM EDT 

ERBIL, Iraq -- A swirl of smoke, then the screams.
Two men drop to the ground, “blood” squirting from wounds. Orders are barked in Kurdish as           Peshmerga soldiers rush to the aid of the fallen.
At this military outpost in Northern Iraq, it’s all a drill run by Canadians, a mock mortar attack to test Peshmerga on their battlefield medicine.

A Canadian soldier helps train Peshmerga troops in Northern Iraq on Friday, April 29, 2016.
Still, it’s realistic enough, thanks to smoke grenades and special-effects blood that splashes on the would-be rescuers.
Two Canadian special forces soldiers hover over the Peshmerga troops like a watchful teacher, appraising the treatment. “You’re in danger right now,” the Canadian medic warns, urging them to move themselves and the casualties to safer ground, as they’d have to do if this was a real attack.
The exercise drill wraps up and the special forces medic gathers the Peshmerga soldiers around him for a debrief. “Everything went really well. You brought your patients to a safe area. You did the treatments you were supposed to,” he tells them.
This is the face of Canada’s military mission in Northern Iraq where Canadian special operations forces soldiers have been advising and assisting Peshmerga soldiers in their battle against ISIS, also known as ISIL.
CTV News and The Toronto Star were granted unprecedented access to that mission this week. It’s the first time that journalists have ever been allowed to join special operations forces soldiers on an active operation.
The visit found soldiers keen to talk about their training, about their mission and about their membership in an elite command of the Canadian Armed Forces. It revealed the respect they command from their allies. And it underscored the close working ties between Canadian soldiers and Peshmerga forces battling to reclaim their homeland.
“We are uniquely adapted to this,” says the man who heads up Canada’s special operations forces soldiers.
Mike Rouleau, who just this week was promoted to the rank of major general, knows well the world of special forces.
He is a former assaulter with Joint Task Force 2 and past commander of unit, which is the tip of the spear within the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command. He left the military in 1999 and served as a police officer in Ottawa before rejoining the military after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
He commands Canada’s shadowy soldiers, trained to handle worst-case scenarios at home and abroad.
And as experts in the craft of warfare, they are exceptionally good at passing along those skills to other militaries, a task they do here in Iraq and in other places around the globe.
From its start as a small, highly skilled team known as Joint Task Force 2, Canada’s special forces capabilities have grown into a separate branch of the military -- Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, or CANSOFCOM for short.
It boasts some 2,000 personnel, from JTF2 assaulters to operators with the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, to ace helicopter pilots, and experts trained to handle chemical and biological threats.
Canada’s special operations forces rank as among the best in the world, experts say.
“They are very, very good,” Col. Andrew Milburn, of the U.S. Marines, who commands coalition special operations forces in Iraq, told the Star.
And here in the rolling green hills of Northern Iraq, the Canadians are mentoring local Peshmerga troops on the fighting skills and military tactics needed first to contain the Islamic extremists and now to squeeze them out of existence.
It’s a mission tailor-made for special operations forces and their expertise working in small teams in complex environments with often tangled political interests and across cultural lines.
“This was classic irregular warfare in the sense that it was establishing immediately with an indigenous force, helping them achieve military objectives through our assistance. So we were well-suited to the mission,” Rouleau said.
A special operations forces sergeant sums up the mission, “In our military ethos, we have a term ‘warrior diplomats’ and that’s what we’re doing here.”
The Canadians work from several sites in Northern Iraq. Patrol Base Cirillo -- named in honour of Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, killed while standing sentry at Ottawa’s National War Memorial in 2014 -- is located on the outskirts out Erbil. It serves as the logistics hub, headquarters and a place where operators from the field come to recharge.
A tactical headquarters is located further west, closer to ISIS-held Mosul, and the heart of the territory where Canadians are working alongside Peshmerga troops.
Driving there, the special forces operators move quickly through the chaotic Erbil traffic -- speed is safety, they say -- and at times the speedometer needle tops 120 km/h. The city gives way to countryside and the sights of flocks of sheep and their herders in the fields and roadside stalls selling mounds of watermelons.
In the early days, the Canadians worked out of a former border post. Since then, they've made improvements, adding modular units that house sleeping quarters, washroom and showers, an operations centre and a combined kitchen and living area, with a large TV.
During their downtime, operators make use of an open-air gym, sheltered from the hot sun by a tarp. In the ranks of special forces, rank doesn’t count here. Everyone is on a first name basis.
The training mission has changed since the Canadians first arrived back in the fall of 2014. Back then, the special forces soldiers were more active in helping hold the line. And they were busy schooling Peshmerga in military skills such as shooting, countering explosive devices, map and compass work and lessons in the laws of armed conflict. It’s estimated 2,000 Peshmerga have been trained so far.
“Since we’ve been working here in Northern Iraq, we’ve seen outstanding progress. They are very capable fighters. They will absolutely fight to the last man to protect their homes,” a major with special operations forces told the Star. (The soldiers asked to be identified by their rank only).
These days, Canadians are teaching the Peshmerga more advanced skills, like how to direct airstrikes.
“When we first got here, we were much more material to the defence of the frontline. In some cases we were calling in airstrikes using on our own resources,” Rouleau said.
“Now I feel the Kurds are in a stronger position in many ways to defend the line . . . They know how to use the global positioning systems, the radios, they know the techniques for employing air power,” he told the Star.
But the Canadians are more than just military teachers. They are a welcome reassurance, a morale booster in what has been a difficult fight against the extremists. One Pesh general estimated that his forces have lost 1,500 men since the fighting began.
“As Peshmerga we gained a lot from the Canadians, from training to help during major attacks. We thank them for all this,” one Pesh soldier told Canadian journalists as he stood watch in an observation post.
This mission has risks for Canadians too, a reality driven home by the March, 2015 death of Sgt. Andrew Doiron, who was accidentally shot by Peshmerga troops in a friendly fire incident. Three other Canadians were wounded.
The loss hit the tight-knit group hard, said a corporal who knew Doiron as a good friend and mentor. “It’s something in the community we accept might happen. But when it does happen, it’s a hard situation to deal with,” he said. In honour of his friend, the corporal has a tattoo on his left arm of Doiron’s initials and a raven, a link between this world and the afterworld.
But the Pesh, backed by the Canadians, are making gains. ISIS has been pushed back – in early days the frontline was just hundreds of metres away -- and territory recaptured.
Peshmerga fighters say they are on a mission to stem ISIS here and prevent it from spreading further. But this fight is also a deeply personal one for them, a battle to reclaim their homes and homelands, a reality understood by the Canadians.
“Sometimes I’m on the line staring at a building which has ISIS activity and one my Pesh partners will identify that building as his home,” the sergeant said.
“This is one of the fronts that is in place to protect everyone else. This is a global matter,” the sergeant said.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> With Canada helping the Kurds and the Iraqis, it looks like some lines are being drawn (or maybe, new lines on maps NOT being drawn?) early on ...
> 
> 
> > Canada has told the Kurds that it wants to see Iraq remain united and not broken into different parts that would include an independent Kurdish state. But experts say it is only a matter of time before the Kurds, strengthened by Canadian military assistance, try to declare independence.
> ...


I know the author of this next piece can be a bit ... polarizing, but in light of the above, he brings up an interesting point ...


> ... Why are the soldiers of CSOR wearing the distinctive flag of the Kurdistan flag on their uniforms? The red, white, and green striped flag with a yellow sunburst in the middle is evident everywhere throughout Iraqi Kurdistan and it is definitely not the red, white, and black striped flag with Arabic letters in the middle that is the recognized flag of Iraq.
> 
> Canada’s position is that we are in support of a unified Iraq, under a central Baghdad authority. The Kurdistan flag — flown above all Kurdish government buildings, many private homes, military checkpoints, and on the uniforms of the peshmerga fighters — symbolizes the Kurds’ quest for their own state ...


Frame grab from CTV.ca video attached for reference.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 May 2016)

If looked at not as a flag (with its basis for argumentation of political statement), but a positive identification with friend in the theatre (think PID), it could make sense.  :dunno:

G2G


----------



## George Wallace (2 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If looked at not as a flag (with its basis for argumentation of political statement), but a positive identification with friend in the theatre (think PID), it could make sense.  :dunno:
> 
> G2G



That is my interpretation of this matter; especially after a member of CSOR was killed by 'friendly' Peshmerga fighters last year.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2016)

Or they are wearing it because the Kurds wear it, and it shows solidarity with the private soldier. I've seen Americans posted to Canada wearing a small Canadian flag on their uniforms, and for the trainers on Op ATTENTION typically wore whatever Afghan school badge we were assigned to. It creates an instant connection.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If looked at not as a flag (with its basis for argumentation of political statement), but *a positive identification with friend in the theatre (think PID)*, it could make sense.  :dunno:


Good point.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... I've seen Americans posted to Canada wearing a small Canadian flag on their uniforms ...


First I've heard of this practice - cool.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... and for the trainers on Op ATTENTION typically wore whatever Afghan school badge we were assigned to. It creates an instant connection.


I'm sure it would.  The AFG case is a bit different than the Kurdish case, though, because the school would still be associated with one government we're helping out, not a group wanting to be its _own_ government versus another government we're helping out.

I'm still a little nervous about potentially bad wishbone end-states re:  helping the separatists while helping the central government, but I appreciate the further education.  I'm guessing someone's got the contingency plan in place in case the Kurds we're training decide to punch it up against the Iraqis we're advising, or vice versa.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or they are wearing it because the Kurds wear it, and it shows solidarity with the private soldier. I've seen Americans posted to Canada wearing a small Canadian flag on their uniforms, and for the trainers on Op ATTENTION typically wore whatever Afghan school badge we were assigned to. It creates an instant connection.



I've seen foreign military personnel here in Kingston doing the same thing.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 May 2016)

I just finished watching the interview of Lcol Moar on the CBC's National.

I think kudos are in order: Did a very nice job of talking up the Iraq/Syria mission of the CF-18's he commanded over there, all the while avoiding the traps that Peter Mansbridge tried to set him up for. An excellent demonstration of how operators can be your best PR people.

And our thanks should also go to him and all of his pilots for a job very well done over there.  

Just one small question from an ignoramus such as I: After he came back from giving a little back seat ride to Mansbridge (without, apparently giving him a taste of the "G"s) the plane is parked on the tarmac with wings folded. Is that a common practice on an airbase, even though you have all the room in the world to park aircrafts?


----------



## Scoobs (3 May 2016)

I don't have a fighter background (I'm Tactical Helicopter), but I suspect that it is because the aircraft (a/c), i.e. the F-18s, are parked in the hangars with the wings folded in order to save space and fit more a/c into each hangar. 

We sometimes do this in the Tac Hel world as well with the Griffon, but rarely.  We can "fold" in two of the four blades so that all blades are running length wise to the fuselage.  This enables us to squeeze more helos into a hangar.  

Update:  yup, as per SuperSonicMax's post.


----------



## SupersonicMax (3 May 2016)

LCol Moar is one of the best commanders I had the pleasure to serve for.  I have tremendous respect for him as a military officer, a fighter pilot and as a person.

Wing Fold: if you put all the jets in the hangars at night, you need to fold wings if you want them all to fit.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I just finished watching the interview of Lcol Moar on the CBC's National.


If you missed it live on TV, you can watch it online here (~20 minute CBC video) or here (YouTube of same int'view) - enjoy!


----------



## Good2Golf (4 May 2016)

Concur, LCol Moar was an excellent CAF/RCAF representative, and spoke well and was indeed adept at refusing to play along with Peter Mansbridge's relatively obvious traps.



Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69 (4 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I just finished watching the interview of Lcol Moar on the CBC's National.
> 
> I think kudos are in order: Did a very nice job of talking up the Iraq/Syria mission of the CF-18's he commanded over there, all the while avoiding the traps that Peter Mansbridge tried to set him up for. An excellent demonstration of how operators can be your best PR people.
> 
> ...



Saw the back seat ride interview. Very strange and awkward situation to my eye.
Guy in the back seat continuously babbling at you as you are flying the aircraft, keeping situational awareness and trying to respond to questions with an appropriate answer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2016)

I'll echo the comments ref the 'video game' question; when you're on the stick it doesn't feel like Xbox.  

BZ to the '18 skipper, pilots and crews.


----------



## Quirky (4 May 2016)

Peters flight lasted probably 20min from chalk out to touchdown. Doubt they did any hard manouvers as Peter looked very frail and old in person.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (4 May 2016)

They're finally awarding the roto 0 medals to individuals. Most of us are getting ours next week in Winnipeg. Better late than never...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2016)

Hey, nice.  I know a few folks who've done 3 roto's...no ninja star yet.


----------



## Zoomie (4 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know a few folks who've done 3 roto's...no ninja star yet.


Sounds like a Squadron failure.  JTF/ATF is awarding GSMs in country to those deployed - flying dets are most probably on their own to nominate and award.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 May 2016)

The whole of ROTO 0 sort of got 'forgotten' about...there was a CANFORGEN out this year about them/us.  It is easier for the GSM; no log book to submit copies of.

AFAIK, the direction was put out to the Sqn(s) late Nov/early Dec from the WOR for log book requests, etc.


----------



## Quirky (5 May 2016)

At this point I could care less about my GSM as I'll most likely get my monies first. Medals don't pay the mgt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 May 2016)

No amended T4 yet for 2014 or 2015?

I signed my 'form I can't remember the name of' for the amended 2015 T4 in late March.  I got my paper copy in the mail a week ago...taxes filed and return will be in the bank in a day or 2    :cheers:


----------



## smale436 (5 May 2016)

Same here. Not sure if it's different for those waiting on 2014 T4s but I was deployed there from Oct 15 - Mar 16 with the jets. Amended T4 for 2015 was released on EMAA mid-Apr therefore I re-filed a few weeks ago and refund came a week after that. Also had a negative income tax deduction on the mid-April pay statement of about -2000 which resulted in that pay being almost triple what it usually is. I never went to the WOR to sign any kind of form as there was no direction to do so in Cold Lake. (At least none that I'm aware of)

I did find some of the young guys who are not familiar with emaa did have their amended t4s despite being under the impression they did not. When they clicked on the "my income statement" tab all they correctly saw was an attachment labelled 2015 T4 and, expecting there to be both a 2015 and "2015 Amended" attachment,  assumed it was the original t4. Had they opened the link they would have seen the old T4 gone and a new T4 labelled "Amended" with the extra amount in Box 46. (Most of them knew nothing about taxes beyond handing them to HR Block. In fact, some were looking for an amount of Zero in the "Income Tax Deducted" box.)


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 May 2016)

I don't have access to EMAA but the CRA website still only shows the original T4s for 2014 and 2015...  And the OR here is being less than helpful in finding information...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2016)

What about calling back 'home' and seeing if anyone in your old stompin' grounds can help?


----------



## DonaldMcL (6 May 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't have access to EMAA but the CRA website still only shows the original T4s for 2014 and 2015...  And the OR here is being less than helpful in finding information...



Max,

I just checked CRA and still no updated T4 posted there either for me. Having said that, received it on EMAA and in the mail in early-mid March. I've long since filed and had the funds deposited into my account.

Get onto EMAA =D


----------



## SupersonicMax (6 May 2016)

EITS:  I did, they don't have acces to my pay anymore...

BobSlob:  I am with the US Navy, I don't have DWAN access anymore.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 May 2016)

Learning how to CAT and TRAP with your CF-18?  [


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If looked at not as a flag (with its basis for argumentation of political statement), but a positive identification with friend in the theatre (think PID), it could make sense.  :dunno:





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or they are wearing it because the Kurds wear it, and it shows solidarity with the private soldier ...


Yes, and yes, according to the Info-machine's answer to Al Jazeera ...


> ... A spokesperson for the Department of National Defence told Al Jazeera the Kurdish flag is being used to ensure troop safety.
> 
> "Our members are wearing the flag of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region to enhance cohesion with partner forces and to ensure easy visual identification, which contributes to force protection," Daniel Lebouthillier said in an email.
> 
> "Canada remains committed to a unified, stable and secure Iraq." ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> EITS:  I did, they don't have acces to my pay anymore...



There must be an Admin O somewhere near you who's ear you could bend?  How about talking directly to the C Clk where you are at?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 May 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> EITS:  I did, they don't have acces to my pay anymore...
> 
> BobSlob:  I am with the US Navy, I don't have DWAN access anymore.



Max,

Leverage the CDLS(W) Air Attache Staff.  If they can't fix it, let me know by PM.  I have just left the States, but I likely still have some influence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 May 2016)

Buried in this BBC piece today, the latest  ...


> ... (Kurdistan Region) President Barzani said the drive for independence was very serious, and that preparations were going ahead "full steam".
> 
> He said the first step should be "serious negotiations" with the central government in Baghdad to reach an understanding and a solution, towards what Kurdish leaders are optimistically calling an "amicable separation".
> 
> ...


That's the Barzani the CDS had a chat with a couple of weeks back, and Canada's Defence Minister a few months back -- see pix attached.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 May 2016)

The Iraqi Government may pragmatically decide to have a collaborative approach to the effort.  It would be a bigger headache for Turkey... op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2016)

Some updates:
1)  Canada's at the SYR peace discussion table (good luck with that) ...
2)  ... offering to help drop aid to Syrians if a ceasefire doesn't hold or spread (offering parachutes, not military planes to drop the aid from).


----------



## Jed (18 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some updates:
> 1)  Canada's at the SYR peace discussion table (good luck with that) ...
> 2)  ... offering to help drop aid to Syrians if a ceasefire doesn't hold or spread (offering parachutes, not military planes to drop the aid from).



Oh Great.  Maybe someone can pick off another aircraft with the seats full of blue beret wearing soldiers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 May 2016)

Latest from the Info-machine ...


> As part of the Government of Canada’s expanded contribution to multinational efforts to degrade and defeat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), *the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) recently added three CH-146 Griffon helicopters, an all-source intelligence centre, and additional trainers to Operation IMPACT.*
> 
> The three CH-146 Griffon helicopters will enhance in-theatre tactical transport, including medical evacuations if required. The Griffons and their crews excel in the tactical transportation of troops and materiel. A variety of self-defence weapons are fitted to the aircraft for the deployment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 May 2016)

Coming close to 500 missions now for the '140.  That's a lot of @#*@(* ONSTA pizzas and combat chips!!   ^-^

T:


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If looked at not as a flag (with its basis for argumentation of political statement), but a positive identification with friend in the theatre (think PID), it could make sense.  :dunno:
> 
> G2G


In a similar (but not identical) vein ...


> Photos have emerged of American special operations troops in Syria wearing uniform insignia affiliated with a Kurdish rebel group known as the YPG, whose connection to Turkish terrorists could could fuel tension between the U.S. and a key ally in the Islamic State fight.
> 
> The images were taken in a village about 40 miles north of the Islamic State group’s self-declared capital of Raqqa, which is the target of a newly announced offensive being led by a disparate group of Kurdish and Arab fighters, and backed by American military advisers and air support. They highlight the complicated network of alliances the U.S. is trying to forge in Syria, and the ethnic and sectarian tensions that could tear apart this fragile coalition.
> 
> Speaking Thursday, a top Pentagon official said it's fairly common for Green Berets and other operators to wear allies' patches ...


More on the YPG (usual Wikipedia caveats apply) here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In a similar (but not identical) vein ...
> 
> 
> > Photos have emerged of American special operations troops in Syria wearing uniform insignia affiliated with a Kurdish rebel group known as the YPG, whose connection to Turkish terrorists could could fuel tension between the U.S. and a key ally in the Islamic State fight ...
> ...


Well, THAT didn't last long ...

_"Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday condemned the United States for giving support to Syrian Kurdish fighters in the YPG (People's Protection Units) and PYD (Kurdish Democratic Union Party - Syria) ..."_
_"The US special forces in Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava) who were wearing People’s Protection Units (YPG) patches have been ordered to remove them due to “political sensitivity.”   The US military spokesperson for the US-led global coalition against IS, Steve Warren, said on Friday that wearing the YPG patches was “unauthorized” and it was inappropriate, and corective action has been taken ..."_


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2016)

I just found this DND photograph in the public domain showing a couple of Canadian SF types "training" an Iraqi in the use of a mortar on the front lines.







Apparently "training" includes calculating, fuse-setting and "bubble-up" by the "instructors".  All the Iraqi needs do is drop the bomb down the tube.  (And probably carry the tube).


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 May 2016)

What a barren wasteland...


----------



## YZT580 (30 May 2016)

It may look it now but after a rain it is alive with colour and if it wasn't for the war you would see flocks of sheep/goats and camel herds.  There is lots of grazing in between those rocks


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2016)

Depending on where you are looking.  There's lots of bleak areas...


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2016)

Latest in the "Kurdish flag as PID device" saga, via Kurdish media ...


> Canadian military advisors in the Kurdistan Region may have to remove the Kurdish flag patch they wear on their uniforms, only days after US forces in Syria were ordered to remove Kurdish insignia from their uniforms.
> 
> "We'll have to re-examine that and we may well take them off too," the commander of Canada's forces in the Kurdistan Region, Mike Rouleau, told Canada's CTV News on Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Latest in the "Kurdish flag as PID device" saga, via Kurdish media ...



....and from CTV:



> *Canadian soldiers in northern Iraq may stop wearing Kurdish flag on uniforms*
> CTVNews.ca Staff
> Published Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:13PM EDT
> Last Updated Thursday, June 2, 2016 7:20AM EDT
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ....and from CTV:



Elbow-gate and now flag-gate.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Jun 2016)

Well, at least the Peshmerga recaptured a reasonable amount of territory.

That's much better than most WWI assaults:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZT-wVnFn60

 [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2016)

This is what we focus on as a nation that is sending troops and aircrews against a group who slaughters people?  Flags?   :

Morons.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2016)

>

I am sure, that there was no requirement for you, or any of your comrades, to get involved in this silliness flying at your altitudes....... [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2016)

Unfortunately, the obsession with 'all things patches', who can wear what (we can't wear our Sqn Heraldic crests, as an example...even though others were) is beyond ridiculous in theatre.  Everyone wants 'bling' these days...

The other common 'bling' seems to be the zipper lights.  Very useful and practical on an aircraft that is rigged for night and you need to see something quickly, or when you are digging thru Pelican cases - hands free and pointing right where you need it without screwing someone's eyes up.

Seeing 'day walkers' sporting them on the arid CADPAT when they worked in offices...now its just the LCF crap.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Elbow-gate and now flag-gate.


I'd rate it as more of a flag-mini-fracas than a "gate", compared to rock-em-sock-em-Justin.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'd rate it as more of a flag-mini-fracas than a "gate", compared to rock-em-sock-em-Justin.



Gotta call it something catchy.  Flag-flap, howzthat?


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jun 2016)

how about @DUMB@


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2016)

From the Info-machine:


> Brigadier-General Shane Brennan assumed command of Joint Task Force-Iraq (JTF-I) from Brigadier-General James Irvine in a ceremony today at Camp Canada in Kuwait. Lieutenant-General Stephen Bowes, Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command, presided over the ceremony.
> 
> As Commander of JTF-I, Brigadier-General Brennan will command Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel deployed on Operation IMPACT -- Canada’s military contribution to the Global Coalition against the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
> 
> CAF members continue to play a significant role alongside Coalition partners by supporting Iraqi security forces, conducting air operations, and providing strategic military support to the Government of Iraq ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2016)

BEWs are definitely a requirement on a parade in a building!   8)  You never know when someone's pen will explode!!!!

http://forcesimages.ca/default.aspx?moid=63988

CP01 Tiffin didn't get any favours from the Image Tech in this pic;  the angle etc makes it look like he has half a "rolly" left to smoke.

http://forcesimages.ca/default.aspx?moid=63988 Pic #5

I haven't spent much time around the Chief, but the time I did I thought he was a straight shooter and wish him well where ever he ends up next.


----------



## Zoomie (5 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> BEWs are definitely a requirement on a parade in a building!


BEWs are dress of the day when carrying C7s.

Same goes for those zipper-lights - those "daywalkers" don't have the luxury of crew rest and days off - they need to crawl into their darkened tent at all hours (since their tent-mate works nights).

I would give my left nut to go and deploy as aircrew - much easier living conditions than those working 7 days a week, 14 hours a day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (5 Jun 2016)

The vampire shift drags on you too, crew rest or no.  The crews work but their day starts when most people are going to rack.  That's where the name day walkers sprung from (its not meant as a put down).  

But the LSA isn`t much to call home, for sure.  But...the DFAC and USAF side is decent!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jun 2016)

Why the fight must go on, despite all the people who say otherwise.

Article Link

Isis burns 19 Yazidi women to death in Mosul for 'refusing to have sex with fighters'

The women were reportedly burned to death in iron cages because they refused to have sex with Isis fighters

ISIS militants have publicly executed 19 Yazidi women by burning them alive in Mosul, Iraq, local activists report.

The women were burned to death in iron cages because they refused to have sex with Isis fighters, the Kurdish ARA News agency reported.

“They were punished for refusing to have sex with Isis militants,” Abdullah al-Malla, a local media activist, told the agency.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jun 2016)

A bit of Peshmerga tea leaf reading ...

_"*Baghdad Owes Peshmerga 5,000 Tons of International Military Aids* -- The family of the Iraqi Defense Minister enjoys safety in Erbil while Obaidi refuses to send weapons to Peshmerga ..."_
_"*Masrour Barzani: Peshmerga Equipped to Hold Frontline, Not to Outgun Enemy* -- Barzani reiterates that IS is a “global” threat ..."_


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2016)

Canada's defence minister drops by ...


> Canada’s Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan arrived in Iraq Monday coinciding with the visit of US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to Iraq.
> 
> Upon arrival, Sajjan met with his Iraqi counterpart Khaled Al-Obaidi discussing Canadian support to Iraqi army in the field of military engineering and increasing military trainers, source at the defense ministry told KUNA.


... as the U.S. Def Sec vists as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2016)

A (maybe not so) little tidbit from the NATO summit:  _"NATO summit ends with pledge of more Canadian trainers for Iraq"_:


> The Trudeau government ended the NATO leaders summit in Warsaw on Saturday by pledging to contribute additional military trainers to Iraq for the alliance's program to improve the ability of security forces in that country to detect and defuse roadside bombs ...


Meanwhile, over in UKR:  _"Trudeau won't commit to extend Ukraine training mission beyond 2017"_

So, which way will _this_ tug-of-war end up going?
op:


----------



## Castus (14 Jul 2016)

I'm normally not one to comment on the sleeve "bling" in CADPAT, as I think it can be done quite tastefully (see - UK). However, did anyone else notice that for these pictures, all the troops are wearing the massive Canadian flag on their right arm with another, small one on their left? 

Is this going to be the new fashion now? Will people suddenly forget that we're Canadian troops if they don't see it on both arms? And more importantly, whose idea was it for such an enormous, gaudy flag?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jul 2016)

It's 'the thing' nowadays.  Wait until you see (like I did) Snr Officer walking around with the big Canadian flag under the small one, or 2 big ones (one on each arm).

What is even worse?  The Canadian "Sentienelle" patch, shaped like the ranger tab.  Not enough face palms in the effin world for me when I saw that and found out what it was for...

 ;D


----------



## dimsum (14 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is even worse?  The Canadian "Sentienelle" patch, shaped like the ranger tab.  Not enough face palms in the effin world for me when I saw that and found out what it was for...



?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ?



http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=sentinels-on-duty-in-army-wide-mental-health-peer-support-program/ijpbosj4


----------



## dimsum (14 Jul 2016)

Side note:  I've seen USN folks with a big badge on their working uniform, about where a police badge would go.  I thought that he was an MP but when I looked at it closely, it was a USN Recruiter badge.

At least now I know right off the bat who would be feeding me BS.   >

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Service_Recruiter_Badges_(United_States)#U.S._Navy


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=sentinels-on-duty-in-army-wide-mental-health-peer-support-program/ijpbosj4



Wow....not that there isn't a place for peer support.  There most certainly is....but, wow...a Ranger-like tab?   :facepalm:

If you provide a tab, why not at least make it say "PEER SUPPORT"...yet I still question the value of the tab.  Do people think that someone suffering a mental injury/illness is going to grab the first SENTINEL tab-wearing dude they see?  ???


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Jul 2016)

Maybe I can get different Ranger style tabs made to identify what stage of the release process I'm at. And then a pin for my DEU for out clearance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2016)

Canada’s Eyes in the Skies over Iraq Get Sharper

When CP-140 Aurora aircrew flying over Iraq share points of interest with their Coalition partners, they now have a tool that allows the coalition to engage those points of interest with even greater accuracy.

Members of the Long Range Patrol (LRP) Detachment of the Air Task Force (ATF) say this added accuracy allows Coalition aircraft to engage ISIL targets more quickly, more effectively and in a way where safety is optimized for both friendly forces and non-combatants alike.

“We can share highly accurate and timely information regarding points of interest with our Coalition partners,” said a member of the LRP Detachment. “It helps keep friendly troops safe while minimizing the possibility of collateral damage, which is something of the greatest concern to the Government of Iraq and the Coalition.”

The CP-140 Aurora aircraft deployed on Operation IMPACT have conducted over 500 surveillance missions since they started flying on October 30, 2014 in support of the Global Coalition fighting ISIL. With their array of sensors and skilled aircrew, the LRP Detachment has helped the Coalition find, develop and deliberately engage targets which have had a strategic effect on ISIL. CP-140s flying over Iraq have also found targets on the battlefield for other Coalition aircraft to strike in order to provide air support to Iraqi Security Forces – a process called ‘dynamic targeting’.

Up until now, making sure that everyone was looking at the same thing the aircrew had identified took time, skill and intense coordination. One aircrew likened it to looking at the ground through a straw and trying to guide other coalition assets towards the target, who themselves were looking at the ground through their own straws.

“It was more difficult because you had to provide qualitative information to get people onto what you were looking at,” said a member of the ATF headquarters. “You really had to ‘talk’ people onto the target in cities because so many buildings look alike.”

Enter the Precision Strike Suite – Special Operations Forces (PSS-SOF) software. PSS-SOF is already in use by the Royal Canadian Artillery among their Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to guide indirect fire onto targets with significant accuracy. It works with sensory data and provides accurate Global Positioning System coordinates to what the operator sees on the screen.

Identified as an urgent requirement by the ATF last January, PSS-SOF was tested, approved, installed and aircrew were trained to operate it in a little over four months. One CP-140 aircrew noted how they can do their job more quickly and with greater confidence.

“What used to take minutes is now a matter of seconds,” he said. “When I give somebody the coordinates of what I’m looking at, I know they will be looking at the same thing. More accurate means safer for friendly forces and civilians – you hit only what you want to hit.”

The CP-140 Aurora is historically a maritime surveillance aircraft that worked jointly with the Royal Canadian Navy. While CP-140s were used as surveillance platforms over primarily coastal areas of Libya during Operation MOBILE in 2011, Operation IMPACT is the first environment where it has been used in a purely overland surveillance role. The integration of PSS-SOF into the aircraft’s sensory toolbox continues the improvement of overland surveillance capabilities of the CP-140.

“From a combined arms point of view, having that kind of capability on an airborne surveillance platform is very valuable to Canadian joint operations,” said one of the Royal Canadian Artillery instructors deployed to Operation IMPACT to conduct in-theatre training on PSS-SOF. “The more accurate the information provided the better.”

 The integration of the PSS-SOF software is one of a number of new capabilities being integrated as part of the LRP Roadmap devised for the CP-140. Future software and hardware capabilities will be integrated in the near future as the aircraft evolves in its overland role and increases its overall mission effectiveness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If only people would now push for a turret with a LD and config the bomb bay for...


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (16 Jul 2016)

When I was there in 2014, someone asked that same question to the visiting 1 CAD general during the townhall. It got squashed immediately, but again, who knows what the future lies ahead for the fleet.


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If only people would now push for a turret with a LD and config the bomb bay for...



But, ya know, that would make it, like, warlike or something.   

Incidentally, of all the P-3/P-8 flying nations in RIMPAC, the Canadians are the only ones that aren't configured for Harpoon/SLAM-ER/bombs/anything not torpedo-related.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2016)

The turret question was asked again late last winter at the tail of Roto 2; the answer given was about the Dri-Fire t-shirts...not turrets.  I actually laughed out loud a little at that after seeing the look on the face of the person who posed the question (an AESOP).  I guess everyone's a politician these days!   AFIAK, the Dri-fire tshirts aren't avail yet either.   ;D

The T question was asked during Roto 0 when I was there as well...I don't remember the answer but recall thinking the word "waffling!".   ;D  Wonder what the answer will be for Round #3 when it happens.  

We can always drop a strongly worded letter out the GP chute...who needs kill stores??   8)


----------



## Zoomie (17 Jul 2016)

Dri-Fire UOR is progressing.

Turrets are not even being considered.

50C is a new kind of hot.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2016)

Well, "turrets" and "T-shirts" sound sort of similar....   :-\


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Dri-Fire UOR is progressing.



Good 'ol Canadian procurement system;  I first heard word of the tshirt issue before going in for R2.  How long does it take to order a frickin' tshirt, ESPECIALLY after identifying the issue with the other one.  



> Turrets are not even being considered.



Of course not, it's not like they are the key sensor or anything.   :rofl:       



> 50C is a new kind of hot.



Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ya.   8)   I remember not being able to touch steering wheels for 10 minutes and 2 chill carts 'barely keeping up'.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Well, "turrets" and "T-shirts" sound sort of similar....   :-\



That was an interesting afternoon at the HAS!  Lots of  :blah: that was seen by all who had to attend as exactly that.

Flush Brush Flush!!   :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2016)

Sad EITS...    We were talking about Dri-Fire in 2005, when UnderArmor HeatTM was prohibited to us in AFG.  A number of folks I know ordered Dri-Fire directly to an APO and had FR undergarments a couple of weeks later.  Having lived the relatively thankless life of an ALSEO from unit through to Group-level, it seems that ALSEwas ( is still?) only truly cared about (for a while) after an incident.  Only in a few case I know of did leaders truly grab a pair and make a common sense call...like flying Hueys in t-shirts only in Somalia because it was 50°+.

«Le plus que ça change...»

G2G


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jul 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> 50C is a new kind of hot.



I have decided that 50C is not a thing.  It is not real.  It is just fucken idiotic.

My decision has, sadly, had no impact (pun intended) on the heat.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jul 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I have decided that 50C is not a thing.  It is not real.  It is just fucken idiotic.
> 
> My decision has, sadly, had no impact (pun intended) on the heat.



I bet you it's a dry heat....


----------



## dimsum (17 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sad EITS...    We were talking about Dri-Fire in 2005, when UnderArmor HeatTM was prohibited to us in AFG.  A number of folks I know ordered Dri-Fire directly to an APO and had FR undergarments a couple of weeks later.  Having lived the relatively thankless life of an ALSEO from unit through to Group-level, it seems that ALSEwas ( is still?) only truly cared about (for a while) after an incident.  Only in a few case I know of did leaders truly grab a pair and make a common sense call...like flying Hueys in t-shirts only in Somalia because it was 50°+.
> 
> «Le plus que ça change...»
> 
> G2G



Simple.  Martyr up and go get 3rd degree burns, or die from heat stroke.  That'll show 'em.   :nod:

ETA:  Sarcasm, obviously.

ETA:  "Sarcasm, obviously" not sarcastic.


----------



## Castus (18 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Sad EITS...    We were talking about Dri-Fire in 2005, when UnderArmor HeatTM was prohibited to us in AFG.  A number of folks I know ordered Dri-Fire directly to an APO and had FR undergarments a couple of weeks later.  Having lived the relatively thankless life of an ALSEO from unit through to Group-level, it seems that ALSEwas ( is still?) only truly cared about (for a while) after an incident.  Only in a few case I know of did leaders truly grab a pair and make a common sense call...like flying Hueys in t-shirts only in Somalia because it was 50°+.
> 
> «Le plus que ça change...»
> 
> G2G



Are these the same as the Outside The Wire shirts that were issued towards the tail end of Afghan? Op Attention?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jul 2016)

Same material. Might be a common sense solution, but has RCAF looked at having those OTW shirts approved for aircrew? In the system, unless they emptied stock post Afghanistan, because we'll never fight in a desert again....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Same material. Might be a common sense solution, but has RCAF looked at having those OTW shirts approved for aircrew? In the system, unless they emptied stock post Afghanistan, because we'll never fight in a desert again....



If you mean the SF-looking one designed for under vests, etc then yes they're approved for aircrew.  Getting them is a different story though, the last I heard they weren't on the deployed aircrew SOI.  The only people I saw wearing them was the MPs.

Those won't work for the aircrew who wear 1 piece flying suit though.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jul 2016)

A post from February (quite a bit on CSE),



> Fighting ISIS: Boosting Canadian Intelligence in-Theatre
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/?s=Fighting+ISIS%3A+Boosting+Canadian+Intelligence+in-Theatre



and now:



> ISIS Fight: Canadian Army Intelligence Team Going to Iraq
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/mark-collins-isis-fight-canadian-army-intelligence-team-going-to-iraq/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jul 2016)

In fact the ASIC team will probably be at “Camp Canada” in Kuwait–and it seems one is already in-theatre:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=joint-task-force-iraq-expands-camp-canada/im7ao3rq

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jul 2016)

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=75300&site=combatcamera


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jul 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=75300&site=combatcamera



Don't stand near a camera if you aren't supposed to have your face on camera....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jul 2016)

Might not have had much choice for the official opening of Castle Grayskull.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't stand near a camera if you aren't supposed to have your face on camera....


One of the four faces in that photo appears to have been "softened", probably for that reason.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One of the four faces in that photo appears to have been "softened".....


No, she's a woman; they moisturize.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No, she's a woman; they moisturize.   ;D


That's some moisturizing cream, then, given that the sunglasses have been softened as well - anybody remember the old "bug juice" of the 1970's/80's and what IT did to plastic?  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's some moisturizing cream, then, given that the sunglasses have been softened as well - anybody remember the old "bug juice" of the 1970's/80's and what IT did to plastic?  ;D



99.9% pure DEET....great for spreading those friction' hard cam sticks. :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> 99.9% pure DEET....great for spreading those friction' hard cam sticks. :nod:


Zackly!


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's some moisturizing cream, then, given that the sunglasses have been softened as well - anybody remember the old "bug juice" of the 1970's/80's and what IT did to plastic?  ;D



I remember it eating the paint off of my pencil over the time it took to do a fire mission in the CP.  And yeah, it was good for making it easier to put on the cam paint, now that I think about it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2016)

"Canada to take part in Iraqi city of Mosul's liberation from ISIS with field hospital."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/field-hospital-mosul-iraq-liberation-isis-1.3687740

Mission creep?


----------



## YZT580 (20 Jul 2016)

Sounds like it but it is a good one.  It is an asset that will definitely be needed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2016)

And reminiscent of Gulf War 1 as well...

_1 Canadian Field Hospital

On January 16, 1991, Canada announced that it would send a field hospital to the Gulf. As a result, 1 Canadian Field Hospital from Petawawa, Ontario, joined the British land forces and was deployed in the Saudi Arabian desert behind 1 (UK) Armoured Division. The hospital became fully operational on February 25, 1991, only a few days before the hostilities ceased; it stopped operating on March 4, 1991.
_

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=the-canadian-forces-in-the-gulf-war-1990-1991/hnmx17y3

My personal prediction;  JTF-I will go on for the next few years, but minus the LRP Det around next spring/after Mosul is 'secured'.

ATF-I will become ATF-*insert Africa mission here*.  

Just a WAG but...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Mission creep?



Responsible amendment to commitments based on an evolving theatre and a looming need?


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jul 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Responsible amendment to commitments based on an evolving theatre and a looming need?



:nod:

Imagine that, where one poses the question in reviewing their Estimate, "has the situation changed?" then adjusts accordingly.  It's as though someone is actually using continuous mission analysis to assess how the mission is unfolding.

I'd rather have that, than the Government rigidly sticking with the mission as initiated.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> PPCLI Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There you guys go, making sense again - how'll the haters keep on hating if THAT keeps happening?

In other news ...


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Latest in the "Kurdish flag as PID device" saga, via Kurdish media ...


The latest, from the CDS:  keep 'em on ...


> Canada's top soldier has decided special forces troops in Iraq will continue to wear the Kurdish flag on their uniforms in addition to the Maple Leaf, despite questions about the practice.
> 
> National Defence says Gen. Jonathan Vance recently approved the flag patches in part to show solidarity with "a region facing existential threats," but that they should not be construed as support for an independent Iraqi Kurdistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2016)

Common sense prevails.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Common sense prevails.


Don't type that so loud - you might jinx it ...


			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> So...SOF wearing full-colour patches in theatre, while Canadian aircrew can't wear full-colour patches even when all other forces do so and take them off before going on deployments.
> 
> :
> 
> And yes, it's a :deadhorse: but "common sense" should prevail there as well.


Ah, another starry-eyed dreamer seeking consistency and uniformity.

_Man, am I every bitchy-cynical-ornery tonight - probably some recent nights of sub-par sleep ..._


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2016)

I would say that's 2 completely different things. RCAF Unit patches = bling. CANSOF Kurd Flag = IFF/Relationship building with partner nations.


----------



## dimsum (23 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would say that's 2 completely different things. RCAF Unit patches = bling. CANSOF Kurd Flag = IFF/Relationship building with partner nations.



I totally agree that it's "bling", but it's something that each member has to pay for when they join the unit so it's not a burden $-wise on the RCAF.  Of course, no one really "forces" you to wear the sqn and airframe patch, and the other two (name and wings) will be pretty much half-white anyway, so the idea of not making them full-colour because of camouflage reasons is faulty at best.  Besides, they're velcro-backed.

Going with this tangent, there really shouldn't be much staffing required since we sell full-colour Sqn patches in the Kit Shop already (to whom, I don't know).  The "other" patch can be easily made into full colour and it shouldn't cost any more than what we get charged for the current green patch.

*And yes, I still haven't got all of the starry-eyed-ness beaten out of me by the RCN and RCAF.  :nod:

Back to the original thread....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jul 2016)

Sqn heraldic crests aren't bling anymore than a unit slip-on is.  But I have no issue with the guys up north wearing the flag they are.  However, maybe aircrew  should have this flag the SOF are wearing then, if we are using it for IFF and the like, when they over the Badlands.  Planes don't always make it back to where they came from...

Flush Brush Flush !   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2016)

Aircrew will probably get the Kurdish flag to wear once one of the crew is killed in a Green on Blue incident crossing the front lines. Highly likely the flag is a result of Sgt Doiron's death by the Kurds.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jul 2016)

Having a really good understanding of the op area, the point would be so no one is killed if they are trying to make it to an eastern location; they would have the same flag as the SOF guys for the same reason.

Can't say much more, but it would make sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2016)

A longer piece to show a bit of detail about how the U.S. is working with the Peshmerga, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> On July 12, the United States signed a memorandum of understanding with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) regarding US-Kurdish military cooperation in the next stage of the war against the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).
> 
> On the Kurdish side, the agreement was signed by acting Minister of Peshmerga Affairs Karim Sinjari, and the US side was represented by Elissa Slotkin, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> "Canada to take part in Iraqi city of Mosul's liberation from ISIS with field hospital."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/field-hospital-mosul-iraq-liberation-isis-1.3687740


The latest via The Canadian Press ...


> Canadian-trained Kurdish forces in Iraq are expected to watch the upcoming fight for the city of Mosul from the sidelines, underlying the ethnic and religious divisions that persist within the country.
> 
> Preparations to liberate Mosul from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have been underway for months, with the Kurdish peshmerga, Iraqi military and Shia militia groups closing on the city. A humanitarian response is also being prepared to help the city’s 1 million people once the fighting starts.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2016)

Bumped with the latest about Canada's "eye in the sky's" contribution ...


> A senior military officer says Canadian military aircraft are providing vital intelligence to allies for their own airstrikes and other operations against Daesh, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
> 
> A Canadian air-to-air refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft have continued to fly hundreds of missions in support of the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria since the Liberal government withdrew six CF-18s from the region in February.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2016)

This from The Canadian Press:


> The Liberal government’s plan to provide weapons to Kurdish forces in Iraq is being held up by concerns the military equipment won’t be used for purposes other than fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
> 
> The revelation comes amid growing calls in some Kurdish circles for an independent state separate from the rest of Iraq, and allegations – which the Kurds deny – that they are committing war crimes.
> 
> ...


So, it sounds like IRQ will get weapons to give to the Kurds.  Sounds pretty simple - NOT!


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2016)

By God but we're good.

We have this planning thing down to a science.  There is no end to the number of plans that we can create for any given scenario.

We should have a Royal Commission to determine what makes us so great at planning.


----------



## McG (5 Oct 2016)

Sounds like Daesh is about to get a beating in Mosul, but Iraq and its supporters may be in for a tougher fight moving forward from that victory.


> *Canadian general warns Islamic State fight will get harder after Mosul*
> Robert Burns
> WASHINGTON — The Associated Press
> Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-general-warns-islamic-state-fight-will-get-harder-after-mosul/article32262768/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Oct 2016)

Could be a long winter...


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2016)

Maybe big changes coming for the mission next year.



> Canadian troops spending more time at front lines in Iraq as future of mission is unclear
> 'We are more engaged at the line.... and by extension the risk has increased,' says Canadian general
> 
> Canadian special forces troops are spending more time at the front lines of northern Iraq and have been involved in several firefights with Islamic State extremists, but new figures suggest their involvement could come to an abrupt halt next year.
> ...


----------



## dimsum (6 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Could be a long winter...



I'm just gonna leave this here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2016)

And if you want to watch the whole media briefing @ the Pentagon w/BGEN Anderson (~44 minutes), the Pentagonis Info-machine's already got it online here.

Transcript of news conference also attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2016)

And a few more headlines:

_*"Military drops cone of silence on firefights with ISIS militants"*_ (ipolitics.ca)
_*"Mission now more dangerous for Canadian soldiers in Iraq, military says as it defends increased secrecy"*_ (_Globe & Mail_)
_*"Canadians ready to play small but critical role as ISIL’s days in power appear to be finally coming to an end"*_ (_National Post_)
_*"Canadian special forces have been in gunfights with ISIS, general says"*_ (The Canadian Press, via CTV.ca)
_*"430 Squadron supports Operation Impact"*_ (RCAF Info-machine)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Oct 2016)

And, because they've become forgotten by the media and CAF press releases, I'll mention the Aurora folks are still doing what they've been doing in Iraq for approaching 2 years now; finding and fixing the enemy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Oct 2016)

It would seem the CDS is caught out contradicting himself, or was required to provide covering fire for a cabinet that is regrouping from a reality check.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2016)

I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.

I have worried, for many years, about the whole "public affairs" business. I have commented, probably more than once, here, about it ~ but I'm too lazy to go look for the link(s). It has long been my _belief_ that admirals and generals, like small children, should be seen ~ when all cleaned up and dressed up by their nannies ~ but not heard. In our, Westminster, parliamentary form of democracy it is the executive, the Queen in Council, in reality the prime minister and cabinet, that makes war and that makes ALL the really big, important military decisions ... ALL of them, without exception. Admirals and generals get on with their assigned tasks, with the available (voted by parliament) resources and try their (quiet) best to win. Now and again, Kitchener and Andrew McNaughton come to mind, they are dragged into the higher levels of war ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







          .... Kitchener was vastly more popular than Lloyd George and it as perceived, although the voters disagreed, that McNaughton was a Canadian Kitchener. But, normally, even the ablest Canadian commanders from Currie to Murray did their work in relative obscurity ... the credit (and blame) was, mostly and properly borne by the politicians.

Our American friends have a different system. the military "belongs" to the people through the Congress, whereas our belongs to the people through the Governor General. The different is not subtle and it matters. The US Congress has both a right and a duty to delve deeply into military matters, something that our parliament does not have ~ except when it is time to vote "supply." In our system the people, through parliament, constrain the executive by controlling the pursestrings; in the US system the congress has more, and more direct control and the executive, the president has, or should have, proportionately less. Thus, in the US, admirals and generals have traditionally (and correctly) answered to the Congress and, since the 1860s, more directly to the people through the media. There's nothing wrong with the US system, except that it might not be appropriate for us.
But we adopted the US system ... perhaps we couldn't avoid it because we, people and media, are quite uncritical and unthinking adopters of all things Americans just as, in Victorian times, we and the Americans were unthinking adopters of all things British.

So, nor our generals are surrounded by a phalanx of public affairs and public relations and communications and, now and again, but in tiny numbers, even public information officers ~ some of whom are pursuing the military's agenda but many of whom are pursuing partisan political agendas. 

Admirals and generals have, explicitly, put themselves (and a generation ago long retired generals but Jon Vance) in the position where silence can, reasonably, be "heard" as equalling opposition to the elected government of the day, and admirals and generals ought not to oppose the government before they resign. Gen Vance is, as the bard described (Hamlet) for sorry engineers, "hoist with his own petard," or, at least, with a "petard" left there by his predecessors.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2016)

well that's just petarded...


----------



## medicineman (8 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.



Chickens and the current CDS both in the same sentence ER??!!  

;D

MM


----------



## dimsum (8 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



:goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Chickens and the current CDS both in the same sentence ER??!!
> 
> ;D
> 
> MM



 :nod:  Well, to be picky, in a "never pass a fault" sort of pickiness, it was in two sentences ...  :-*


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :nod:  Well, to be picky, in a "never pass a fault" sort of pickiness, it was in two sentences ...  :-*



You always were a tad subtle!  :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And, because they've become forgotten by the media and CAF press releases, I'll mention the Aurora folks are still doing what they've been doing in Iraq for approaching 2 years now; finding and fixing the enemy.



So much for quiet professionals, right?


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Oct 2016)

I have no sympathy for the CDS and other senior decision makers, and make no apologies for that. It is never too late to do the right thing, which is something's Ng that has not been done enough by our most senior leaders in the recent past IMHO.


----------



## McG (8 Oct 2016)

What is the right thing?


----------



## rnkelly (8 Oct 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for quiet professionals, right?



Burn from the guy with 7000 quiet posts.


----------



## medicineman (8 Oct 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :nod:  Well, to be picky, in a "never pass a fault" sort of pickiness, it was in two sentences ...  :-*



True enough...  ;D

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Oct 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for quiet professionals, right?



To be fair, it is not only the ATF and LRP Det that are out of the news, social media, etc by the CAF.  It is pretty much IMPACT in its entirety it seems.  How odd.  It's almost like there was direction to leave OP IMPACT out of the spotlight...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Interesting the phrasing of this headline, eh?
_*"Are UK special forces preparing for chemical warfare ahead of assault on Mosul, Iraq?"*_
You need to go all the way to paragraph 10 to see this:


> ... The issuing of chemical warfare equipment – including masks and suits – appears to have been informed by *a warning from the Pentagon in September that US troops in the area had been attacked with mustard gas* ...


One of the ways the RUS Info-machine is _hinting_ the Coalition may be _using_ chemical weapons?  #WelcomeBackDezinformatsia


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Oct 2016)

I don't think so.  It runs in line with some other stories;  ISIS may have used mustard gas, vice a unit in the MESF used it against ISIS.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/26/pentagon-now-expects-isis-to-use-mustard-gas-in-mosul-fight.html

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/ISIS-Threat/Did-ISIS-use-chemical-weapons-in-rocket-strike-near-US-troops-in-Iraq-468374

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739434/Gory-pictures-blisters-suffered-Kurdish-fighters-evidence-ISIS-jihadis-deploying-MUSTARD-GAS-Iraq.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/22/pentagon-confirms-isil-chemical-attack-near-us-troops-iraq/90841824/

ISIS has used chemical in the past;  mustard was suspected, chlorine confirmed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3443721/ISIS-used-chemical-weapons-make-mustard-gas-chlorine-warns-CIA-director.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't think so.  It runs in line with some other stories;  ISIS may have used mustard gas, vice a unit in the MESF used it against ISIS ...


150% agreed -- I wasn't trying to deny reports of the bad guys using chemical weapons, just pointing out one of the ways that some (maybe  :Tin-Foil-Hat: ?) people can "read" stuff on the internet and see nothing but "it's the WEST that's doing that chemical stuff", or how some headlines would feed that view.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Oct 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for quiet professionals, right?



Sure.

I think our guys are quiet professionals. I see guys and gals go back over for their 3rd and 4th rotation and what recognition do they get?  Nothing.

They see admin folks receiving their before they leave theatre.   Want to guess how many aircrew have received their GCS?  Zero.  None.

I know none of us do it for the bling, but it is demoralizing when you have young guys flying over 100 missions over Iraq and leave theatre for the 3rd time with nothing more than a pat on the back.   Yet the non-fliers get seen off with their recognition.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2016)

Sounds like an admin failure with the air det chain. But we're not taking about medals, the quote was related to media recognition, which should rank below a nice pair of socks in the hierarchy of wants.


----------



## eliminator (10 Oct 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Sure.
> 
> I think our guys are quiet professionals. I see guys and gals go back over for their 3rd and 4th rotation and what recognition do they get?  Nothing.
> 
> ...



You forgot to add the detail where the aircrew "rotos" are less than 3 months (some considerably less than that) which isn't even enough time for the GSM-EXP to be ordered and delivered before they leave theatre. Add the fact that to qualify for the GCS-EXP one needs 30 days over the badlands, most aircrew require multiple rotos to reach the required number of days. And it gets even more messy if they are "upgrading" their GSM to a GCS. 

The non aircrew forks who are doing 6+ months tours (some folks in the JTF doing 12 months) get their recognition while still in theatre simply due to the fact that they are stuck there long enough for the medals to make it to them before they leave.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Three months. None are considerably less. 

Every Aurora aircrew member will get their 30 flights in three months.  I wasn't making shit up when I said some folks have eclipsed the 100 mission mark.

Most will qualify for both the GSM and GCS, as long as they have 6 months between rotations.


----------



## eliminator (10 Oct 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Three months. None are considerably less.
> 
> Every Aurora aircrew member will get their 30 flights in three months.  I wasn't making crap up when I said some folks have eclipsed the 100 mission mark.
> 
> Most will qualify for both the GSM and GCS, as long as they have 6 months between rotations.



How long are the AAR and TacAvn rotos? I'd be surprised if they were as long as 3-months? 

As for the double medal qual, true but it only works as long as they are using time from a 180 day period for one medal at a time. 

But still, if the crews aren't getting their medals within a few months of getting back home, there's something slowing the process down. (My guess is someone has to verify logbook entries for each mission...?)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Oct 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sounds like an admin failure with the air det chain. But we're not taking about medals, the quote was related to media recognition, which should rank below a nice pair of socks in the hierarchy of wants.



It's not the LRP Det, or even the ATF-I level where the fuck up is.  It wasn't limited to RCAF types, it was the entire ROTO 0.  There is a CANFORGEN out re: Roto 0.  Short version, ROTO 0 got forgotten, now every ROTO in theatre is a higher priority than the folks who are already back home and did their time.

The GCS is another, different level of fuck-up.  

LRP should get the same media recognition as everyone else...


----------



## Sub_Guy (11 Oct 2016)

eliminator said:
			
		

> How long are the AAR and TacAvn rotos? I'd be surprised if they were as long as 3-months?
> 
> As for the double medal qual, true but it only works as long as they are using time from a 180 day period for one medal at a time.
> 
> But still, if the crews aren't getting their medals within a few months of getting back home, there's something slowing the process down. (My guess is someone has to verify logbook entries for each mission...?)



The GSM/GCS qualification works as long as there are 180 days between rotations.   Since most will qualify for the GCS on their first Roto, then on their second they qualify for the GSM (assuming a 180 break).   But even this was a bit of a battle.

The awards process (for us) is beyond fucked up.  I have had to submit my log book twice in the last year.  I annotated my log book as I was directed, but now I have heard that they are having issues verifying that I actually flew over Iraq.   I don't write where I fly in my book.   Anyway I read an email from CAS and it mentioned that it is taking a long time because they have to ensure the integrity of the awards process.   Sounds good enough, but it is unacceptable.  Where the fuck else would I have flown?    This sounds like a good topic of discussion for the upcoming town hall here at 14 Wing.

My cynical gut instinct tells me they are hold off handing out anything until after the deployment ends so they can have a big parade and award them all at once.

I have no idea how long the rotations for the AAR/Tac folks are.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2016)

It's not just you guys, ETIS, DH, the whole system is royally fucked.  All awards take too long to deliver to those who have earned them, even the routine things like CD's (that should be almost automatic and on time).  After my first time in the sandbox, it was up to me and the guys I was there with to submit the paperwork through out individual unit OR's after we rotated home.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Oct 2016)

Oh its not even just that simple.

ROTO 0 went in Oct 2014.  Right?  LRP was boots on the ground Oct 2014, with the first crew rotating out in Jan/Feb 2015 (not because we are whiners...we max out the amount of hours we are allowed to fly [and then some...we have extensions permitted by the appropriate authority in the RCAF);  this is why we do shorter roto's (but we are also back very frequently, where most people won't be there more than once, if at all for some).

So, the first folks to get 30+ missions over Iraq...no GCS yet.  Nodda one for LRP.







THIS picture was taken on 21 Dec 2015.  Notice the GCS being presented (as far as I can tell).  So, why is it they are giving it to some before they leave theatre, and others...not at all.  So...the Liberals were elected Oct 2015...in power Nov 2015.  The new MND can present some GCS to people who are about to leave theatre, while others who are probably back on their 2nd roto from LRP...sorry, fuck you zoomie types.

LRP is and has been putting their bacon on the line, over every shithole you can imagine.  It's not like we're flying orbits around the airfield looking for stray dogs and speeders.  The guys and gals deserve a throwing star every bit as much as the SOF folks in the pic above.


----------



## dimsum (11 Oct 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> My cynical gut instinct tells me they are hold off handing out anything until after the deployment ends so they can have a big parade and award them all at once.



That sounds so ridiculous that it seems plausible.


----------



## Zoomie (12 Oct 2016)

The system is changing - we have changed policy with DHH and are now able to order all tour medals in theatre and have delivered to home units.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Oct 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> The system is changing - we have changed policy with DHH and are now able to order all tour medals in theatre and have delivered to home units.



That's good news.  But, the way it was explained to me, folks like me who were ROTO 0 are a lower priority than those currently in theatre when it comes to "applications" in MAPS. 

Certainly not the end of the world, but this is something we can do better.  The clusterfuck I went thru seems fairly common for almost everyone I was over with; uncertainty over what medal, medals, who is doing it, when it should be done, etc.  It took months to get it sorted out and I shook my head as it seemed I was the one who understood things more than the Medals Clerk - Dolphin_Hunter provided me with a very clear, concise email from a Medals Clerks at DH & R that laid it all out.  I forwarded that on and...it still went off the rails.

Flush Brush Flush!!  ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That's good news.  But, the way it was explained to me, folks like me who were ROTO 0 are a lower priority than those currently in theatre when it comes to "applications" in MAPS.
> 
> Certainly not the end of the world, but this is something we can do better.  The clusterfuck I went thru seems fairly common for almost everyone I was over with; uncertainty over what medal, medals, who is doing it, when it should be done, etc.  It took months to get it sorted out and I shook my head as it seemed I was the one who understood things more than the Medals Clerk - Dolphin_Hunter provided me with a very clear, concise email from a Medals Clerks at DH & R that laid it all out.  I forwarded that on and...it still went off the rails.
> 
> Flush Brush Flush!!  ;D



Your unit leadership should be looking after this, or at least rocking the boat for the ladies and gents to receive their just due!  Sounds like someone needs to have their head pulled out of their 5th point of contact.


----------



## Lumber (12 Oct 2016)

Completely aside, I just had a mid-shower kind of thought:

Why do we start with Roto 0 and not Roto 1? Shouldn't the _first_ roto be roto 1?


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Completely aside, I just had a mid-shower kind of thought:
> 
> Why do we start with Roto 0 and not Roto 1? Shouldn't the _first_ roto be roto 1?



No.  Roto 1 is the first true "rotation"....the first deployment is not a rotation but an initial deployment of troops...although, that said, it picked up the mathematical nomenclature of something to the 0th power (x[sup]0[/su]=1) equals one...first.  I saw "R0" pop up some the mid-to-late 90s...

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Oct 2016)

Article Link

Battle for Mosul: Operation to retake Iraqi city from IS begins

An Iraqi operation to recapture the city of Mosul, the last major stronghold of the so-called Islamic State (IS) in the country, has started.

Artillery began firing on the city early on Monday, in a long-awaited assault from Kurdish peshmerga, Iraqi government and allied forces.

Tanks are now moving towards the city, which has been held by IS since 2014. 

The UN has expressed "extreme concern" for the safety of up to 1.5 million people in the area.

The BBC's Orla Guerin, who is with Kurdish forces east of Mosul, says tanks are advancing on the city, throwing up clouds of dust.  

As the operation began, one Kurdish general told our correspondent: "If I am killed today I will die happy because I have done something for my people." 

Kurdish forces say they have retaken a number of villages in their advance.

Meanwhile pro-government forces are attacking from an airbase in Qayyarah, about 60km (37 miles) to the south, which was recaptured in August.

The US-led coalition fighting IS is backing the assault with air strikes, The operation is complex and analysts say it could last for weeks, if not months.

The start of the operation was announced by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in a televised address in the early hours of Monday (local time). "The hour of victory has come," he said.

"God willing we will meet in Mosul to celebrate the liberation and your salvation from Isis (IS) so we can live together once again, all religions united and together we shall defeat Daesh to rebuild this dear city of Mosul," Mr Abadi said.

Who is fighting?

About 30,000 pro-government troops are involved in the operation. The main assault is being led by Iraqi army troops based south of Mosul.

About 4,000 Kurdish peshmerga militia have begun clearing villages in the east.

Sunni tribal fighters and Shia-led paramilitary forces are also due to take part. Planes from the US-led coalition against IS are providing air support

How will battle unfold? By Michael Knights, Washington Institute for Near East Policy

What can be said with certainty is that the liberation of Mosul will be a multi-phased operation.

First the logistical base for the operation must be established at Qayyarah airbase. This is also the collecting point for the Iraqi forces that will liberate Mosul. 

The next phase will be a multi-pronged advance on the outskirts of Mosul. This phase will unfold in fits and spurts: one day 10 miles will be gained easily, another day there will be tough fighting at an IS strongpoint or a pause to bring up supplies.

During November and December the main battle will probably begin. But for the Iraqi and coalition forces, the issue of civilians will be a tricky factor.

Why Mosul matters

Mosul, the oil-rich capital of Nineveh province, was Iraq's second-largest city before IS militants overran it in June 2014.

Its capture became a symbol of the group's rise as a major force and its ability to control territory. It was there that IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed a "caliphate" in parts of Iraq and neighbouring Syria.

The city was one of Iraq's most diverse, comprising ethnic Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, as well as a variety of religious minorities. 

While members of those minorities largely fled the onslaught by IS, many local Sunni Arabs initially welcomed the militants, angered by the sectarian policies of the previous Shia Arab-led central government. 

But after two years of brutal IS rule, opposition has reportedly grown inside Mosul. 

One major concern for those still there is the involvement of Shia militiamen in the offensive, after they were accused of sectarian abuses in other cities that have been recaptured.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has sought to reassure them by saying only Iraqi security forces would be allowed to enter Mosul.

Even if IS is driven out of Mosul, the group will still control areas of northern and eastern Iraq.

The UN's under-secretary for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Stephen O'Brien, asked for civilians to be protected and be given access to assistance "they are entitled to and deserve".

"I am extremely concerned for the safety of up to 1.5 million people living in Mosul who may be impacted," he said in statement.

As many as a million people could be forced to flee their homes because of the operation, he added. 

There are no firm figures on how many people remain in Mosul, but there were more than two million there when IS took the city more than two years ago.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Battle for Mosul: Operation to retake Iraqi city from IS begins



Putin says hopes U.S. will seek to avoid civilian casualties in Mosul

This, from the guy who dusted off his Chechnya playbook to turn Aleppo into Grozny 2.0    :


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Putin says hopes U.S. will seek to avoid civilian casualties in Mosul
> 
> This, from the guy who dusted off his Chechnya playbook to turn Aleppo into Grozny 2.0    :


Hey, hey, hey -- Russia's "trying it's best" to avoid CIVCAS in Aleppo, adding _"if they were caused by his country's bombing it would be a heavy burden on Russia's psyche and soul"_ -- after all, <BorisBadinovAccent>“we can’t allow terrorists to use people as human shields and blackmail the entire world”</BorisBadinovAccent>, can we?  ;D


----------



## Armymedic (18 Oct 2016)

Info from Globe and mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-forces-providing-crucial-support-in-battle-to-recapture-mosul/article32403507/

Who was whining about being talked about in the media?:

"Overhead, two Canadian spy planes, the CP-140 Auroras, are gathering intelligence that will be used by coalition planners to generate lists of Islamic State targets to be bombed. As well, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s Polaris tanker is refuelling coalition warplanes conducting the bombing raids."

Also, newly disclosed in the news brief a couple weeks ago:

"Not far from the front line – but not so close as to be in harm’s way – up to 60 Canadians will be operating a field hospital to treat the wounded Kurds, Iraqi government forces or their allies. The Role 2 facility will not be big but will triage, resuscitate, treat and care for injured soldiers until they return to duty or are evacuated.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2016)

Ya who was _that_ guy.   8)

Be safe out there guys and gals.


----------



## KrUsTyX (26 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That's good news.  But, the way it was explained to me, folks like me who were ROTO 0 are a lower priority than those currently in theatre when it comes to "applications" in MAPS.
> 
> Certainly not the end of the world, but this is something we can do better.  The clusterfuck I went thru seems fairly common for almost everyone I was over with; uncertainty over what medal, medals, who is doing it, when it should be done, etc.  It took months to get it sorted out and I shook my head as it seemed I was the one who understood things more than the Medals Clerk - Dolphin_Hunter provided me with a very clear, concise email from a Medals Clerks at DH & R that laid it all out.  I forwarded that on and...it still went off the rails.
> 
> Flush Brush Flush!!  ;D



Roto 0, people that were in Akrotiri?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2016)

Post-Paris meeting coverage ....

*“New Video Appears to Show Canadian Special Forces in Battle Against ISIS Near Mosul”* (VICE News)
*“Defence minister stays mum on role of Canadian soldiers in Mosul offensive”* (_Toronto Star_)
*“Sajjan not ruling out ISIS mission expansion to Syria”* (ipolitics.ca)
*“Iraqi government delayed deployment of Canadian military hospital: Sajjan”* (The Canadian Press)
*“Defence Minister Sajjan attends Paris Counter-ISIL Defense Ministerial” * (DND Info-machine)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Oct 2016)

KrUsTyX said:
			
		

> Roto 0, people that were in Akrotiri?



Sure.


----------



## KrUsTyX (31 Oct 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sure.



Are they eligible for any medal?  The General Campaign Star – EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)?

Could you forward me that email you are talking about if possible? 

Thanks


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Oct 2016)

I don't have access to the email account it is stored in right now, and I didn't forward it to my civie email.

Maybe Dolphin_Hunter can PM it or post it... ;D


----------



## Zoomie (1 Nov 2016)

KrUsTyX said:
			
		

> Are they eligible for any medal?  The General Campaign Star – EXPEDITION (GCS-EXP)?



GCS-EXP
 Iraq 2014-08-28 to Present                       OP IMPACT              Service by CAF members inside the theatre of operations consisting of the political boundaries of Iraq and its airspace. 

If they flew inside Iraq airspace within that timeframe - they might be eligible.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Nov 2016)

KrUsTyX said:
			
		

> Roto 0, people that were in Akrotiri?



SSM-EXP

See CANFORGEN 170/16


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2016)

Some of the latest ...

_*"Canada’s Kurdish allies accused of war crimes by unlawfully destroying Arab homes as Islamic State retreats "*_
_*"Iraqi Kurdistan: Arab Homes Destroyed After ISIS Battles"*_ (Human Rights Watch)
*Report:  "Marked With An ‘X’: Iraqi Kurdish Forces’ Destruction of Villages, Homes in Conflict with ISIS"* (HRW)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2016)

Article Link

Canadian troops watching for human rights abuses as battle for Mosul rages

*About 40,000 anti-ISIS forces are fighting for the Iraqi city — uneasy allies who could quickly turn enemies*

Canadian special forces troops have been told to keep an eye out for possible human rights abuses and sectarian score-settling as the battle to liberate Iraq's second largest city from the Islamic State continues to unfold.

The assertion came on the same day a leading U.S.-based rights group accused Kurdish forces of practising a scorched earth policy — routinely destroying Arab homes, but leaving Kurdish ones intact, in areas cleared of ISIS control.

Mosul is the last ISIS stronghold in Iraq and the extremists there have been waging a deliberate campaign of terror meant to incite sectarian tensions.

A coalition of some 40,000 anti-ISIS forces is fighting for the city — a medley of fighters that includes Iraqi army units, militarized police, special forces, Kurdish troops and Iranian-backed Shia militias.

That means the campaign to evict ISIS from Mosul — which has been going on for almost a month — is being waged by uneasy allies who could quickly turn into enemies.

*Keeping an eye on allies

*There's concern that the Iranian-backed Shia militias — operating west of the mostly Sunni city, with the consent of the Iraqi government — could take revenge on suspected Sunni collaborators.

Kurdish forces, whom Canadians have been training for the past two years, are also wary.

There were reports over the last week that some Sunnis who have fled the fighting were expelled from Kirkuk, a city further south, by Kurdish security, over fears they might be sleeper agents.

It is something the U.S.-led coalition has been keeping a wary eye on, Canadian officials said Sunday.

"It is a concern," said Christina Marcotte, a civilian policy adviser with the Canadian task force headquartered in Kuwait.

*Canadian role to advise*

"Certainly from the point of view of the government of Canada, we expect our military members who are up there right now to report any incidents. To date there have been no reports of such incidents."

It was revealed last month that Canadian troops were spending more time at the front lines as the anti-ISIS campaign shifted from defence to offence. There are approximately 200 Canadian special forces members in Iraq, mostly advising the Kurds and assisting by observing the battles and helping call in airstrikes.

The mission has been billed as "non-combat," though the government says they can shoot in self-defence.

A senior Canadian representative with the multinational coalition said the Iraqi government will not tolerate the kind of sectarian blood-letting that has been a horrific feature of life in that country since the U.S. occupation.

Brig.-Gen Greg Smith, who serves as the chief of staff to the coalition land headquarters, said Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi made it clear that those committing atrocities will be held accountable under the laws of armed conflict.

"This is not a group of fighters going around waging war against the population," Smith said via video conference from Baghdad. 

He paraphrased an old quote, saying the cleanliness of the war will determine the cleanliness of the peace that follows.

"In a multi-ethnic country with a lot of history, like Iraq, they're very sensitive to that in particular,"  Smith said.

*Battle could take a long time*

He wouldn't, however, speculate on how long it will take for the Iraqis and Kurds to recapture the city, which fell to the Islamic State in 2014. Coalition commanders have previously predicted the Mosul campaign could last months.

The battle is slow going. In many cases, it's now going street by street, block by block.

The Kurds have made strong progress in the east and have entered the outskirts of the city. The Shia militias just recently began their push in the west. 

Some analysts suggest the campaign is being held up by the inexperience of Iraqi troops, who are pushing in from the south. 

The commander of the Canadian task force urged patience.

"I don't necessarily agree with the words 'held up.' What we have got underway right now is a complex battle in urban terrain," said Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan. "In the urban battleground, everything is slow, i.e. it's close."

The Iraqis and Kurds have suffered roughly 200 dead and over 1,000 wounded in the campaign thus far — casualties that will put further strain on already frayed relationships.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2016)

Latest stats for ATF-I

Attention: Latest news

Aircraft sorties

As of November 5, 2016, Air Task Force-Iraq has conducted 2,606 sorties*:
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 602 sorties, delivering some 35,200,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 626 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: in air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

*This total includes 1378 sorties conducted by CF-18 Hornets between October 30, 2014 and February 15, 2016.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2016)

R.I.P. -- this, from the Info-machine ...


> A Canadian Armed Forces member, Major Scott Foote, died today from non-combat related circumstances in Amman, Jordan. He was found unconscious in a military gym and was later pronounced dead after efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. As with any death of a Canadian Armed Forces member, an investigation into the circumstances of Major Foote’s death is currently underway. Until the investigation has been completed, only limited details will be made available.
> 
> Our thoughts are with the family and friends of our fallen soldier during this difficult time. The Canadian Armed Forces will support Major Foote’s loved ones to provide them assistance. We will not forget his sacrifice as we continue on our mission in Jordan.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Nov 2016)

-- More from MSM on Major Foote's death here via Google News
-- Problems within the Kurds Canada's helping out?


> Kurdistan Region President has strongly criticized “some parties” for planning a coup in the Kurdistan Region while the Peshmerga forces are making sacrifices in the battle against Islamic State (IS).
> 
> “Kurdistan [Region] has been in a bloody war against the most barbaric group for the past two years, I understood that people and intellectuals of a country will be united in such threatening situation to ward off the threat… but we saw some [parties] created such an internal situation,” Barzani said during a speech in the newly-liberated Bashiq town in north of Mosul.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2016)

RIP sir


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2016)

From the Info-machine ...


> Media are invited to attend the repatriation ceremony for Major Scott Foote, member of 1st Canadian Division Kingston, at 8 Wing Trenton on Sunday. Major Foote died recently in Amman, Jordan from circumstances not directly related to military operations.
> 
> When: 2 p.m., Sunday, November 20, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Nov 2016)

Indeed ...


> The senior envoy for northern Iraq’s Kurds is calling on the Trudeau government to boost military assistance and help the ethnically distinct group build up its democratic institutions even as it makes plans to start negotiating independence from Baghdad.
> 
> These requests put Canada in an awkward position. It has spent two years providing military assistance to the Kurdish peshmerga fighters – training and advice that have helped sharpen fighting skills that could one day be turned against Baghdad if an amicable separation cannot be reached.
> 
> The head of foreign relations for the Kurdistan Regional Government told the Halifax International Security Forum, an annual defence and security forum in part sponsored by Canada, that his people plan to start talks on a separate state as soon as the Islamic State stronghold of Mosul is retaken ...


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Nov 2016)

Such a potential result is even less expected than the Spanish Inquisition...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Nov 2016)

ISIS SVBIED Rams M1 Abrams Tank, Drone Footage

A look from the air of some of the stuff going on in HappyLand.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Such a potential result is even less expected than the Spanish Inquisition...


 :nod:

Meanwhile, Go Team (dark) Blue!


> For five months in 2016, anyone who looked up in northern Iraq might have caught a glimpse of three odd, dark blue helicopters flying around. From a distance, these choppers would have looked a lot like civilian aircraft, but they were actually part of a unique Royal Canadian Air Force squadron.
> 
> Canada’s military is especially tight-lipped about its elite units and the 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron is no exception. The deployment to Iraq between May and October 2016 offered an uncommon glimpse of the unit in action.
> 
> “A detachment of three helicopters from 427 Special Operations Aviation … provide essential tactical helicopter transportation,” reads the caption from what appears to be the only official photo from Iraq to mention the squadron by name ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2016)

More on those "Kurds within Kurds" ...

_*"Kurdish Seams Threaten Anti-ISIS Coalition in Iraq and Syria"*_


> The U.S. Anti-ISIS Campaign has inadvertently emboldened select factions of Kurds in Iraq and Syria in a manner that threatens to exacerbate preexisting political and ethnic divisions, stoke regional conflict, and disrupt current momentum against ISIS. The U.S. has provided extensive military assistance to both the Syrian Kurdish YPG and the Iraqi Kurdish Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) as indispensable partners in the Anti-ISIS Campaign, enabling both groups to consolidate their control over large swaths of terrain outside of the regions traditionally held by Kurds in Iraq and Syria. The empowerment of these factions in turn revitalized nationalist aspirations within Kurdistan. The Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) – a political coalition led by the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) – declared the establishment of an autonomous Federation of Northern Syria - Rojava in March 2016. Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Masoud Barzani has become increasingly vocal regarding the possibility of formal independence from Iraq. This wave of nationalism has also reinvigorated insurgencies against the state among the sizeable populations of Kurds in Turkey and Iran ...


Map attached.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Meanwhile, Go Team (dark) Blue!



So much for 'covert operations' if they can identify your sneaky peeky choppers by the colour from miles away  :


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2016)

This from Kurdish media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> The Canadian Defense Minister arrived at the Kurdistan Region and promised further military assistance to the Peshmerga forces.
> 
> On Wednesday, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani and other KRG officials received a Canadian military delegation headed by the Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan.
> 
> ...


Another take from Kurdish media ...


> Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani met with Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan to discuss the Islamic State (ISIS) fight, Mosul liberation, and investment in the Kurdistan Region.
> 
> The KRG PM received a Canadian delegation headed by the Defense Minister in Erbil on Wednesday (December 21), the KRG official website stated.
> 
> ...


Aaaaand one more ...


> Canadian Minister of National Defense said on Wednesday that the stability in the Kurdistan Region is a good incentive for the foreign investors and Canada is ready to persuade its businessmen to invest in Kurdistan.
> 
> Harjit Singh Sajjan's comment was made today in his meeting with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)'s Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani in Erbil.
> 
> ...


Nothing noted at the Kurdistan Regional Government page English version as of this post - and Google Translate doesn't seem to work for the Kurdish version of the page


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jan 2017)

From The Canadian Press:


> National Defence is refusing to disclose details about several Canadian soldiers treated at a military hospital in northern Iraq in recent weeks, including whether any of them were wounded on the battlefield.
> 
> The soldiers were among 120 patients who were seen at the medical facility since it began operating near the Kurdish city of Erbil at the end of November, according to figures provided to The Canadian Press.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jan 2017)

Statements from yesterday's technical briefing (via the Info-machine) ...


> _*Brigadier-General Shane Brennan, Commander JTF-I*_
> 
> Thank you Mark, and thanks to all of you for taking part in this update. I am Brigadier-General Shane Brennan, Commander of the Canadian Armed Forces’ Joint Task Force – Iraq.
> 
> ...


... and headlines from the media:

_*"Torture 'counter to our values,' say Canadian military commanders"*_ (CBC)
_*"Iraq mission commanders warn Canadians will not use torture"*_ (ipolitics.ca)
_*"Canada military raises torture objections"*_ (Agence France-Presse)


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2017)

This from three Kurdish media outlets ...

_*"Canadian Defense Ministry stated on Sunday that Canada was ready to ship arms to the Kurdistan Region Peshmerga forces after the Iraqi central government approved the delivery.*__  The Canadian Defense Ministry’s Communications Advisor Dominique Tessie told a local Kurdish media outlet that Iraqi government has officially approved Canadian request to directly arm the Kurdish forces.  “Canada had requested the Iraqi government to send an official endorsement on the arms delivery to the Kurdish forces and we have received Baghdad’s official endorsement, signed in December of last year,” Tessie told Xendan.  According to the Canadian Defense Ministry official, the weapons planned to be delivered to the Peshmerga forces are light weapons such as rifles, pistols, anti-tank rockets and some military equipment ...
[*]*"Within a month, Canada is expected to follow through with a promise to assist a battalion of Kurdish Peshmerga forces by acquiring for them enough weapons and equipment for their fight against ISIS within the international coalition.*  “It should include weapons, military equipment and devices for the size of a battalion — everything, not including vehicles,” Brigadier General Hajar Ismail, director of coordination and relations at the Kurdish Ministry of Peshmerga told Rudaw English on Wednesday. “The paperwork is done, Baghdad has signed off.”  The acquisition of the equipment was reported earlier this week.  “Canada will also provide the Kurdish Peshmerga forces with personal protective equipment, communications systems, medical supplies and optics, such as cameras, sights and scopes,” Sputnik News reported on a statement by the Canadian Ministry of Defence. “The intent remains to deliver the items as quickly as possible, in line with suppliers’ ability to provide the quantities sought.” ..."
[*]*"Canada will deliver military assistance to Peshmerga forces fighting Islamic State (ISIS) militants when the bids for provision of the equipment are completed.*  The head of Media Relations at the National Defence Department for the Canadian Government, Daniel Le Bouthillier, told NRT on Tuesday (February 7) that bids for the provision of the equipment will be evaluated and assessed before any acquisition contracts are published.  Bouthillier said the exact time of the shipment is still unknown but the intent remains to deliver the items as quickly as possible.  “Material and equipment planned for the provision to the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraqi include personal small arms (carbines, pistols) and light support weapons (mortars); personal protective equipment; communication systems; optics (cameras, sights, scopes) and medical supplies,” Bouthillier said in a statement to NRT.  The Iraqi government provided consent to the Canadian government for the provision of the equipment to Kurdish forces through a “diplomatic note” signed in December 2016, according to the official Canadian statement.  “The administrative arrangements to ensure that adequate controls are in place to govern the use of the equipment are being refined by GAC and DND/CAF,” Bouthillier said ..."_


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Statements from yesterday's technical briefing (via the Info-machine) ......



I know the PAO types and media LOs like to keep a 'positive message' but...jesus.  That was a little too rosy.



> When deployed, we always work to ensure that each of our members are kept safe, healthy and well equipped to carry out their mission. In these capacities we have logisticians, engineers, medical personnel and other specialized professionals who work on a 24/7 basis to deal with all of these special requirements.  Without their support and tireless effort   :rofl: the mission could not be successful.



Oh man!  Part of that makes me laugh and part of that makes me kinda angry.  There are more "_Hours of Operation_" signs around Camp Canada than most bases and garrison's in Canada.  JTFSC, the self-licking icecream cone!   :facepalm:   Most people there don't even know what _The Mission _is;  seriously.  

JTF-I is like 99% of our HQ; lots of fat, little teeth, 'huge tail.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know the PAO types and media LOs like to keep a 'positive message' but...jesus.  That was a little too rosy.


Alternative narrative?  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2017)

If I could...I would...


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2017)

Do those places have a duty cell number to call? You cannot realistically expect places to be 100% manned 24/7, otherwise you'd have 3 times the people there. It only becomes an issue when people are unable to be at their core function because they're too busy playing ball hockey.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Feb 2017)

It's hard to explain without saying details I can't on here.  But, I've witnessed enough to be comfortable saying what I say and knowing I can defend it.  It's not a matter of 3 times the people, there are too many now IMO.  It is having the right people do the job that needs done, at the right time, and should be in a manner that supports the mission types, first and foremost.   However, it is more Tail wagging the dog, like it is all to commonly these days.  CC wasn't called _Garrison Kuwait _by some people who are on the 'mission' side for no reason, or as a compliment.

 :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Feb 2017)

Same thing happened in Kandahar. Longer the mission goes, the more staff positions are created so people are able to work less and less hours in the day and still accomplish their tasks. I saw it in my former employment where we went from having 2 crews covering a very large AOR to 4 crews a few rotos later even though the Canadian AOR was reduced from the Maiwand/Zhari/Panjiway/KCity/SWK/SB monstrosity we worked in.


----------



## Quirky (8 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :facepalm:   Most people there don't even know what _The Mission _is;  seriously.
> 
> JTF-I is like 99% of our HQ; lots of fat, little teeth, 'huge tail.



The HQ folk at AJAB didn't even know where the flight line was nor did they know what the jets did every mission. Biggest kicker was them complaining about maintenance runs being too loud at 2 am disturbing their sleep. :facepalm:


----------



## Ping Monkey (8 Feb 2017)

Morale must have gotten too high in Kuwait...   [Xp 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/soldiers-serving-in-kuwait-lose-major-tax-exemption-1.3277313



> *Soldiers serving in Kuwait lose major tax exemption
> *
> Canadian troops critical to the fight against ISIS have lost a major tax break that had saved them more than $9,000 each over the course of a six-month tour.
> 
> ...


----------



## dimsum (9 Feb 2017)

duffman said:
			
		

> Morale must have gotten too high in Kuwait...   [Xp
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/soldiers-serving-in-kuwait-lose-major-tax-exemption-1.3277313



"The Pentagon confirmed to CTV News that all American soldiers deployed to Iraq receive tax exemption status."

Which has nothing to do with Kuwait.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2017)

I heard this was coming as far back as last October.  I'm not there now (and have zero intention of going back again), but I don't think this is right if the folks *up north* are getting tax free as well, because of a line in the sand.  I think this is a kick in the nads to everyone serving over there, meanwhile our government is quite happy to hand those tax dollars away outside our borders.

Having said that, now the question for LRP and AAR types is will they get tax free for mission days, as they will cross that line?  At the very least, they should.  But, knowing the attitude some have towards the actual mission types over there and the real mission, I suspect the aircrew who are stuck at CC will get fucked over while dobbers up north continue to get tax free.  BZ.  

At least there is a good coin for this op.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Same thing happened in Kandahar. Longer the mission goes, the more staff positions are created so people are able to work less and less hours in the day and still accomplish their tasks. I saw it in my former employment where we went from having 2 crews covering a very large AOR to 4 crews a few rotos later even though the Canadian AOR was reduced from the Maiwand/Zhari/Panjiway/KCity/SWK/SB monstrosity we worked in.



Which emphasizes the point this is something we (the CAF we) do, that shouldn't happen yet it does time and time again.  We end up looking like a provincial paving crew; everyone driving by sees not much really happening, 4 guys working with 10 more standing around leaning on shovels with the 1 token dude talking on a cell phone with a clipboard in his hand.



			
				Quirky said:
			
		

> The HQ folk at AJAB didn't even know where the flight line was nor did they know what the jets did every mission. Biggest kicker was them complaining about maintenance runs being too loud at 2 am disturbing their sleep. :facepalm:



I'd bet most of them couldn't point out a RCAF airframe on the ramp or taking off, either.  I don't know what AJ was like, but the AS maintainers were fucked around some with joe jobs and BS, mostly because they worked where most people aren't allowed to go, so people don't actually see them working or get what they are actually there to do.  Example, a CofC ceremony for the JTF Comd, the LRP maint crew just coming off the night shift (12 hours, with aircraft launching and stuff going on) was tasked by JTFSC assclowns to go help set up chairs early in the morning right after their shift on the line.  WTF were all the JTFSC types doing while our maintainers were working?  

Sleeping.   :

Those techs were directly involved with the conduct of ops, keeping airframes ready for missions.  They should have been in bed, not setting up chairs and then having to sit at a ceremony because someone said 'max attendance'.  They actually had jobs that were extremely pertinent to ops, day to day, week to week.  They weren't just there as DFAC Techs.

How easy it would be to write 5 pages on why that coin is so accurate...


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Which emphasizes the point this is something we (the CAF we) do, that shouldn't happen yet it does time and time again.  We end up looking like a provincial paving crew; everyone driving by sees not much really happening, 4 guys working with 10 more standing around leaning on shovels with the 1 token dude talking on a cell phone with a clipboard in his hand.
> 
> I'd bet most of them couldn't point out a RCAF airframe on the ramp or taking off, either.  I don't know what AJ was like, but the AS maintainers were ****ed around some with joe jobs.  Example, a CofC ceremony for the JTF Comd, the LRP maint crew just coming off the night shift (12 hours, with aircraft launching and stuff going on) was tasked by JTFSC assclowns to go help set up chairs early in the morning right after their shift on the line.  WTF were all the JTFSC types doing while our maintainers were working?
> 
> ...



No argument we have to watch "mission creep" and positions need to be justified.  Also that CoC scenario just sounds like weak and/or poor leadership on a few different levels. 

BUT, there is always a but...

What those at the pointy end need to remember is it takes many more people to ensure the effectiveness of the Supply Chain that enables your combat ability.  Remember, that chain reaches back to many different establishments in North America and it crosses oceans and many other countries.  That goes with out even mentioning HR, Pay and Food Services.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2017)

Food services; non-issue, DFAC is in place.  Never saw a single CAF members working there.  Pay;  your allowance and PDP calculations are done by the mounting unit/DAG.  Supply, not sure if they are too small there, but the Det has its own dedicated Supply Techs and we never had an issue with Supply.  I know one person who was in charge of a specific CFOC task (CE Officer in charge of a build) who was very frustrated when he went in at 1545hrs on a Saturday for something he needed fairly quickly, and was told he would have to come back at 0800 Monday morning as they closed from 1600 Sat until 0800 Monday.  There's an example of the _Garrison Kuwait _stuff, and that was about a year ago or so.  I know what you're saying, but in this case, the tail is way to friggin big in theatre.

The fact is there is too much 'fat' allowed to happen when we do Ops.  There was a Camp parade at one point, with a hollow square formed with approx. the same frontage for the Officers, WOs and Sgts and Jnr Ranks formations.  The Officers, on the right flank, were about 7 ranks deep.  The WOs and Sgts on the left flank, we were 4 ranks with a few blank files.  The Jnr Ranks were about 4 ranks as well.  

A few of us (WOs and Sgts) were talking shortly after in the smoke pit after about how many Officers there were on parade, and the Camp Sgt-Maj told us they actually moved some of the Jnr Officers into the files of the Jnr Ranks "so it wouldn't look like there were so many".   :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar (9 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Food services; non-issue, DFAC is in place.  Never saw a single CAF members working there.  Pay;  your allowance and PDP calculations are done by the mounting unit/DAG.  Supply, not sure if they are too small there, but the Det has its own dedicated Supply Techs and we never had an issue with Supply.  I know one person who was in charge of a specific CFOC task (CE Officer in charge of a build) who was very frustrated when he went in at 1545hrs on a Saturday for something he needed fairly quickly, and was told he would have to come back at 0800 Monday morning as they closed from 1600 Sat until 0800 Monday.  There's an example of the _Garrison Kuwait _stuff, and that was about a year ago or so.  I know what you're saying, but in this case, the tail is way to friggin big in theatre.
> 
> The fact is there is too much 'fat' allowed to happen when we do Ops.  There was a Camp parade at one point, with a hollow square formed with approx. the same frontage for the Officers, WOs and Sgts and Jnr Ranks formations.  The Officers, on the right flank, were about 7 ranks deep.  The WOs and Sgts on the left flank, we were 4 ranks with a few blank files.  The Jnr Ranks were about 4 ranks as well.
> 
> A few of us (WOs and Sgts) were talking shortly after in the smoke pit after about how many Officers there were on parade, and the Camp Sgt-Maj told us they actually moved some of the Jnr Officers into the files of the Jnr Ranks "so it wouldn't look like there were so many".   :facepalm:



Ya I am not arguing that mission creep doesn't happen.  I would agree it does.  I have some funny anecdotal stories of coming into KAF from the PDC where we didn't have laundry or bath, we were living pioneer style.  More than 1 SM made a point of letting me know I looked like crap, which I did. 

My concern is that those of us in Logistics (read Supply, Tfc and TN) often get grouped into the statements you make and I think that can be incorrect and frankly unfair, at times, is all. 

I know our Supply crew on KAF work 7 days a week with a rotational Duty Staff on after 2000hrs.  That doesn't help you on Op Impact I know.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> My concern is that those of us in Logistics (read Supply, Tfc and TN) often get grouped into the statements you make and I think that can be incorrect and frankly unfair, at times, is all.



Point taken and for the record, I personally had no grief with any of the ones you mentioned.  The Det supply folks worked the same hours as we did, as there was certain stuff they had to give to us right before each mission.  We didn't work Mon-Fri, 8-4 hours either.


----------



## Sub_Guy (9 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Having said that, now the question for LRP and AAR types is will they get tax free for mission days, as they will cross that line?  At the very least, they should.  But, knowing the attitude some have towards the actual mission types over there and the real mission, I suspect the aircrew who are stuck at CC will get ****ed over while dobbers up north continue to get tax free.  BZ.



The rectal plugs that make these decisions need a tune up.

1.  Stop lumping everyone together.  So the Op gets assigned a lower risk for whatever reason (I assume below 2.5 now) which takes it out of the tax free zone(with approval from the tool shed in Ottawa).   But in all honesty what risk are the folks facing in ASAB?  That place is like a f@cking resort.

2.  Assign it based on the job, the LRP det and AAR det are flying over hostile turf, hence they are exposed to higher risk while they are flying.  So pay those f@ckers accordingly! 

LRP Supply Det kicked ass when I was there, I have nothing but nice things to say about them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

The answer I got about why everyone gets lumped into the same RA, etc is "it is easier to administer that way".  Well, that's the way to do things.  It is _easier _for me to do my job if we just don't launch and I can sit outside the HAS smokin' and jokin'.  Prepare to save some YFR!   ;D

IMO, there is a concerted effort to not mention the _mission_ side of the...OP IMPACT mission (irony?) around ASAB.  Even during townhalls, all that stuff.  My (pretty informed) opinion is ''time to shut 'er down", at least the part our community is involved in.   :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Feb 2017)

Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?  Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Feb 2017)

The CAF should do away with all hardship pay and hazard pay.  The only thing people should get is tax free and that should be based on service in a foreigner country.  Not in Canada, pay no income tax, simple.

HLTA should also go away.  What a profoundly stupid policy.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (10 Feb 2017)

IMO the government should simply allow tax break on all outcan ops. For the amount of soldiers deployed, the overall tax the government receive is penny change and would save big time on man hours. It would also be a political gain by supporting the troops.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Feb 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> IMO the government should simply allow tax break on all outcan ops. For the amount of soldiers deployed, the overall tax the government receive is penny change and would save big time on man hours. It would also be a political gain by supporting the troops.



Absolutely, they would look like heroes for what is essentially chump change.  

Hazard pay and hardship pay are ridiculous.  We are compensated incredibly well, you eat for free and sleep for free for 9 months, food and accommodations being trade dependent.  One of the best compensated armed forces in the world. Tax free should be sufficient.

We're a volunteer military, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything they don't want to do.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Feb 2017)

Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!


----------



## brihard (10 Feb 2017)

I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.

What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.

Maj 100,632 annual salary (25,478 tax payable)
Taxable income with six months tax free = 50,316 (8,499 tax payable) 
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 16,979 (2,829/month while deployed)

Cpl 56,568 annual salary (10,352 annual tax payable) 
Taxable income with six months tax free = 28,284 (3,444 tax payable)
Tax savings from a six month deployment = 6,908 (1,151/month while deployed)

So- the system of tax relief for deployed operations basically rewards risk different based on rank. A major receives approx 250% the benefit of a corporal from the tax relief. If we're compensating risk, and presumably the risk does not recognize variances in rank, maybe we're doing it wrong? Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back?

Just a thought...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2017)

Good points, Brihard.


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ... Should an infantry company commander and his LAV driver not get the same *net* benefit for risk? Or the pilot versus the AESop in the back? ...


Methinks that word I added in yellow might make it harder to do, but one would _hope_ not impossible.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Feb 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.
> 
> What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.
> 
> ...



Your first point is an interesting argument and one that I hadn't considered but believe it's probably a better way to go  .  

On the issue of risk and hardship, what you're really looking at is a trade specific allowance.  We already have numerous allowances (Jump Pay, Dive Pay, Aircrew Allowance, Sea Pay, Land Duty Allowance, SOF Allowances, Risk & Hardship, etc...)

My question is, when does it stop?  Does someone get a specific allowance because they're in the infantry?  Do Artillery members get an allowance because we are destroying their hearing?  

What we probably need is a very specific allowance, call it Operational Allowance or a Tiered Land Duty Allowance (Deployed/Non-Deployed) but the whole "my trade is more dangerous than your trade so I should get paid more" is a road to nowhere, pick a different trade if you're upset about the lot you've been given.  I don't think anyone joins the infantry for the benefits.


----------



## brihard (10 Feb 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good points, Brihard.Methinks that word I added in yellow might make it harder to do, but one would _hope_ not impossible.



Oh, it's certainly going to take a bit more mathemagic to achieve my intent here- but I think I'm on, generally, the right track. It's simplified if it's ensured that risk and hardship are non-taxable (I don't know offhand if they are at the lower levels where tax relief doesn't apply).


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?  Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?



Check it out on the high side.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!



 :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just playing devils advocate; has the threat level facing aircrews changed or down graded over time ?



Changed...somewhat, but not in relation to RA.  Aircrews are flying out of locations in Kuwait (no secret) into the JOA, but only get the RA for IMPACT-KUWAIT.  Even though they spend XX days in Iraq/JOA, they don't get the associated IMPACT-IRAQ RA.

The risk to aircrew is very hard to associate to a geo location that they take off/land at.  Where they take off and land is nothing like the areas they are operating over.  That is the Badlands and the last place in the world you want to be on the ground and running on.

The actual threat level can be very location and/or mission specific.  I'd say, if anything, it would be higher now that before (can't explain more, so hoping you'll take my word for it).



> Do the enemy still reach out and launch ordnance again you guys ?



I am not aware of the CAF or GoC officially confirming or denying if RCAF crews have been shot at, so I'll have to say _'no comment'_.

But hey, here's some open source reporting that _might_ be relevant to your question...

“There have been instances where the coalition has received surface-to-air fire. We have the ability to plot it with pinpoint precision — and then we strike back.”

ISIS has capability to shoot down civilian airliners   Shoulder-fired missile systems in ISIS control include the Russian-made SA-7 Grail, SA-14 Gremlin, SA-18 Grouse, and SA-24 Grinch 

These are the weapons Islamic State fighters are using to terrify the Middle East  *note the picture of the Type 59-1 Field Gun, there is a S-60 57mm AA Gun in the picture as well.  

S-60s


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Of course none of this matters anyway, our mission ends 31 Mar 2017!



Hopefully there'll be update on that soon...there's a few balls in the air, just waiting to see which ones lands.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Hazard pay and hardship pay are ridiculous.



I don't know...using aircrew and clerks, or MPs deployed to OP IMPACT, are they all facing the same *risk*??

Before anyone answers, here's a quick reminder to what ISIS do to aircrew they capture.  






RIP Capt Moaz al-Kasasbeh 



> Tax free should be sufficient.



Well seeing as that just got axed, it is not likely a good baseline/benchmark for deployed ops benefits/compensation.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> On the issue of risk and hardship, what you're really looking at is a trade specific allowance.  We already have numerous allowances (Jump Pay, Dive Pay, Aircrew Allowance, Sea Pay, Land Duty Allowance, SOF Allowances, Risk & Hardship, etc...)
> 
> My question is, when does it stop?  Does someone get a specific allowance because they're in the infantry?  Do Artillery members get an allowance because we are destroying their hearing?
> 
> What we probably need is a very specific allowance, call it Operational Allowance or a Tiered Land Duty Allowance (Deployed/Non-Deployed) but the whole "my trade is more dangerous than your trade so I should get paid more" is a road to nowhere, pick a different trade if you're upset about the lot you've been given.  I don't think anyone joins the infantry for the benefits.



Operational Allowance, Risk Allowance...name it what you want but the key is to properly identify who gets it and when.  Again using IMPACT as an example, the SOR staff aren't at the same risk as aircrew, yet both receive the same RA.  Aircrew are *5 minutes away* from the fate of Moaz al-Kasasbeh over the JOA.  Anyone who has been to Camp Canada knows what the risk of that happening there is.

It's not about picking a different trade or whining, its about fairly administering benefits for conducting op's, or supporting op's.  Let's be honest, not everyone ends up putting their meat on the line.  That's why some folks going to deployments like IMPACT qualify for a GCS and some qualify for a GSM.

The General Campaign Star (GCS) is awarded to members of the Canadian Forces and members of allied forces working with the Canadian Forces who deploy into a defined theatre of operations* to take part in operations in the presence of an armed enemy*.


The General Service Medal (GSM) is awarded to members of the CF and members of allied forces serving with the CF _who deploy outside of Canada - but not necessarily into a theatre of operations - to provide direct support, on a full-time basis, to operations in the presence of an armed enemy.
_   :2c: 

Awarding of different medals for the same Op isn't debated, not everyone is F Echelon, right?  Why would allowances not be approached the same?  Conducting operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level A, Supporting Operations = Risk/Operational Allowance Level B.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Feb 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I look at it the other way. Ditch the tax free, but significantly increase hardship and risk allowances.
> 
> What we have now results in people of different ranks receiving vastly different advantage from being on a risky mission. I got curious, and I crunched the numbers using a simple online tax calculator for an IPC 0 Cpl and IPC 0 Major, each Ontario residents, each on a six month tour to a tax relieved op.
> 
> ...



Nope.  Tax free against the maximum salary of a CWO, after that, one's salary is taxed....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't know...using aircrew and clerks, or MPs deployed to OP IMPACT, are they all facing the same *risk*??
> 
> Before anyone answers, here's a quick reminder to what ISIS do to aircrew they capture.
> 
> ...



Do you get aircrew allowance?  The purpose of aircrew allowance is to acknowledge the inherent danger associated with flying or regularly being in an aircraft.  Whether you're shot down or have a mechanical failure is irrelevant.

It's the same with paratroop allowance, parachuting is inherently dangerous so we give a special allowance for it.  

You're paid to do a job in the military, why should you be paid yet more money to actually do your job?  The concept makes no sense and is a gigantic waste of money.

Imagine a conflict on the scale of WWII with every Tom, Dick and Harry that is anywhere near the FEBA getting a danger allowance, the concept is ridiculous.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (10 Feb 2017)

To be clear, when we get Risk allowance, we cease to receive aircrew allowance.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Feb 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> To be clear, when we get Risk allowance, we cease to receive aircrew allowance.



Negative.  We got it because we were in a CDS designated flying position.

205.32 (3) (Limitation) A member who is paid an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance) is not entitled to be paid Aircrew Allowance under this instruction unless the member occupies a position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with CBI 10.3.08 (Environmental Allowances).


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (10 Feb 2017)

Hmm if I remember correctly we lost it during Op Mobile. Not sure about Op Impact, since I was with Ops.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Do you get aircrew allowance?  The purpose of aircrew allowance is to acknowledge the inherent danger associated with flying or regularly being in an aircraft.  Whether you're shot down or have a mechanical failure is irrelevant.



I think the difference in *risk* is quite substantial, and relevant, between going down off the coast of Nfld on a SURPAT and going down IVO western Mosul.  There isn't much chance of taking a hit from a SAM off Nfld, the chances of going down *controlled* are increased, and there aren't people looking to put me in orange jammies and roast me in a cage. 

So ya...pretty different circumstances and pretty relevant IMO.  

I also note you didn't comment on the aspect of aircrew, operating over ISIS territory and being the furthest into the JOA of any CAF personnel, getting the same RA as *anyone who is support and never leaves the safety of Camp Canada*.  This seems *ok* to you?  Is Pte Bloggin in the Infantry on sentry in Wainwright on Ex at the same risk as Pte Smith, patrolling in "insert African country UN mission name"?  

*10.3.07 - Risk Allowance

10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.
*


* I agree, we are paid well.  I think we can administer things like RA better though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Hmm if I remember correctly we lost it during Op Mobile. Not sure about Op Impact, since I was with Ops.



IMPACT, we keep it if we are in Designated Flying Positions, which should be part of the CFTPO details IIRC.  I've kept mine each time.

Maybe time for a thread split between the IMPACT and Ops compensation stuff?


----------



## brihard (11 Feb 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Nope.  Tax free against the maximum salary of a CWO, after that, one's salary is taxed....



Same fundamental flaw. If what's being compensated is *risk*, there's no logical inherent connection between that and rank, but that's what the tax break does. Does the RSM face greater risk than his driver? If not, why does a financial benefit tied to risk benefit him or her so much more than the subordinate?

I'm just thinking out loud here, obviously I'll never be turned to for solutions. But it seems straightforward to do a bottom up analysis of what exactly it is that's being compensated and to ensure the compensation and benefits achieve that intent. We compensate differently for increased responsibility, authority, and experience. Totally fair. Compensation for risk and hardship should be as much as possible objectively and empirically based on what they're compensating.


----------



## Harris (11 Feb 2017)

I agree but we already break that model by having "points" that increase the amount based on time.  I'd be OK with a flat rate that increases the more you are "exposed" to the risk and/or hardship.


----------



## dimsum (18 Feb 2017)

CTV's been running with this for a little while now, and looks like the CDS has ordered a review of tax-free status for deployments.  There's a little line in the video (but not in the print) that mentions that an option is for all deployments to be tax-free.



> Chief of the Defence Staff Jonathan Vance has launched a wide-ranging review of the rules around tax-free status for military personnel, after troops in Kuwait lost a tax break because officials said they didn’t face a high enough risk.nnAt the top of Vance’s list is making sure no more troops lose their tax exemption partway through deployment.
> 
> “My intent at this juncture is to try and avoid anyone losing this tax break while they’re actually on operations,” he said Friday.
> 
> ...



http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vance-launches-review-of-tax-free-status-for-deployed-troops-1.3291195


----------



## MJP (18 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> CTV's been running with this for a little while now, and looks like the CDS has ordered a review of tax-free status for deployments.  There's a little line in the video (but not in the print) that mentions that an option is for all deployments to be tax-free.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vance-launches-review-of-tax-free-status-for-deployed-troops-1.3291195



I have said it elsewhere but the right solution is for Kuwait only folks to pay tax and do whatever they did for pilots that flew over Kosovo or the TAL guys into Afghanistan in terms of risk/hazard/taxfree status. Apply that logic to those that meet the criteria either by virtue of flying in support of or going to any of the other areas involved in the mission.

Or make us all tax free   >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Feb 2017)

If there is no risk in Kuwait, why aren't CAF members allowed off Camp Canada when they aren't working?  Hmmmmm...anything open source about that?  

Kuwait arrests suspected Islamist after truck attack on Americans

*Sat Oct 8, 2016*

*Kuwaiti security forces have detained a suspected Islamist militant who rammed a truck believed to be carrying explosives into a car carrying five Americans, state news agency KUNA reported on Saturday.*

The agency quoted an interior ministry statement as saying the Americans were unhurt, but the assailant, identified as Egyptian national Ibrahim Suleiman, was injured and was taken to a hospital under security escort.

"After an initial investigation of the suspect Suleiman, who was born in 1988, by specialized security apparatus, a hand-written note was found indicating that he had adopted the terrorist Daesh ideology and pledged allegiance to this organization," KUNA said, referring to Islamic State.

The agency published a photo of a bearded man. It said a belt and materials believed to be explosives were also found in the vehicle, "suggesting he was plotting a terrorist act".

It was the second time in three months that Western-allied Kuwait had announced it had captured suspected militants. 

In July, the OPEC oil exporter and home to U.S. military bases said it had foiled three planned Islamic State attacks on the country, including a plot to blow up a Shi'ite mosque.

Kuwait suffered its deadliest militant attack in decades in June last year when a Saudi suicide bomber blew himself up inside a packed Shi'ite mosque, killing 27 people. Islamic State claimed responsibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, 2 announcements about captured suspected militants in 3 months.  And how many unannounced?  ^-^ 


Kuwait 'foils three planned IS attacks'

*4 July 2016
*
The authorities in Kuwait say they have thwarted three planned attacks by so-called Islamic State (IS), including a plot to blow up a Shia mosque.

An interior ministry statement said security agencies had arrested five Kuwaitis and an Asian in a series of raids inside Kuwait and abroad.

Those held include a woman and her son, who were living between Syria and Iraq.

Last year, a Saudi suicide bomber killed 27 people when he blew himself up inside a Shia mosque in Kuwait City.

At least one man has been sentenced to death in connection with the attack, which IS said it was behind.

Gulf national 'at large'

The interior ministry statement, which was published overnight, did not mention when the raids to foil the alleged plots took place.

One of those held was named as Talal Naif Raja, an 18-year-old who the statement said was planning to bomb a Shia mosque and an interior ministry facility.

He allegedly told investigators that he had received instructions from a leading IS figure abroad, and that he had planned to carry out the attacks at the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan on Tuesday or during the festival of Eid al-Fitr.

The second cell comprised 52-year-old Hessa Abdullah Mohammad and her 28-year-old son, Ali Mohammed Omar, who were arrested near the Syria-Iraq border and brought back to Kuwait, according to the statement.

The third cell was made up of four men, three of whom were seized along with two rifles, ammunition and an IS flag, it added. 

The statement said one of the suspects - Abdullah Mubarak Mohammed, 24 - worked for the interior ministry and that another was a citizen of an Asian country. 

The fourth member of the cell, a Gulf national, is still at large.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Feb 2017)

So, like people who work in St Jean, or Washington, or Boston??


----------



## dimsum (20 Feb 2017)

Cat is out of the bag regarding Syria:



> It has been one year since Canadian CF-18 fighter jets flew their last mission over Syria after the Liberals withdrew the planes in favour of a mission to train local forces and help rebuild areas affected by fighting.
> 
> While the revamped mission against ISIL includes a mandate to operate over Syria, military officials have been reluctant to confirm whether Canada's surveillance and refuelling planes are operating over the country.
> 
> ...



http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/02/19/trump-may-influence-the-work-of-canadians-involved-in-fight-against-isil.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

I am shocked !!  Syria?

 :blotto:

Seriously though, now the questions of why didn't this become common knowledge etc are likely to start.  I wonder why it took this long.


----------



## dimsum (20 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I am shocked !!  Syria?
> 
> :blotto:
> 
> Seriously though, now the questions of why didn't this become common knowledge etc are likely to start.  I wonder why it took this long.



I'd say "Good OPSEC" but more likely "nobody cares but us".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

The OPSEC is _so_ good, people deployed to IMPACT didn't know RCAF planes and people were flying over Iraq.   :rofl:

Joint Task Force - Iraq.  Air Task Force - Iraq.  Maybe it was a little too obvious?   ;D

I wouldn't be surprised to hear some political ramblings etc over "Canadians not being informed we were operating over Syria"... :blah:

Latest Information on RCAF Sorties

Attention: Latest news

Aircraft sorties

As of February 18, 2017, Air Task Force-Iraq has conducted 2,777 sorties*:

•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 680 sorties, delivering some 39,900,000 pounds of fuel to Coalition aircraft; and

•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 719 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: in air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

*This total includes 1378 sorties conducted by CF-18 Hornets between October 30, 2014 and February 15, 2016.

Air Task Force- Iraq

As part of Joint Task Force-Iraq, Air Task Force-Iraq contributes to Coalition air operations, including:
•one CC-150 Polaris aerial refueller to support Coalition air operations;
•up to two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft to contribute to Coalition intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities;
•a tactical aviation detachment of up to four CH-146 Griffon helicopters to provide in-theatre tactical transport of Canadian troops, equipment, and supplies near Erbil. The Griffons are capable of providing casualty evacuations if required.  A variety of self-defence weapons are fitted to the aircraft for the deployment; and
•associated aircrew and support personnel.

These aircraft represent an important part of the Canadian contribution to the Global Coalition.


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd say "Good OPSEC" but more likely "nobody cares but us".



We care as it is so cute when the fixed wing side of the RCAF makes it to a real fight, plus they never stop letting you know they are there so it is a double bonus.  Winning for everyone!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

Spoken like a true Dobber.  How awesome.

Try not to get hurt with that stapler again!  






*Sir*  ^-^


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Says the Logistics Officer who won't likely see Syria (or Iraq, or ISIS) other than from Google Earth or Youtube.  Your post demonstrates the true DOBBER attitude, thanks for that!   :subbies:
> 
> Oh, and, try not to get hurt with that stapler again!  ^-^
> 
> ...



Your post is ignorant beyond belief and insulting to the Logistics folks that kept the Canadian War Machine in Kandahar, well-oiled, fed and topped up with ammunition, some of whom paid the ultimate price.  

You should read more and speak less.  Here is a good book to start with:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Your post is ignorant beyond belief and insulting to the Logistics folks that kept the Canadian War Machine in Kandahar, well-oiled, fed and topped up with ammunition, some of whom paid the ultimate price.



Like the one MJP said was fuckin' flattering to crews that are putting it on the line in the JOA day after day, week after week in Iraq and (now you all know) Syria?  Please.  No one likes a double standard, so if you want to dish it out, you'd better be fuckin' able to take it back.  What does my comment back to a Log O about a comment about RCAF crews in Iraq and Syria have to do with Afghanistan exactly?  Let me answer that for you.  NOTHING.  What did I say about Afghanistan?  NOTHING.  Why are you trying to link them together; so you can be _so oh-so-offended_?   :

You gotta problem with that, or do you need to find a safe space?  I thought better of the post afterward, and reworded it before your post, but I got the same message for you; shove your double standard up your ass.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Like the one MJP said was ******' flattering to crews that are putting it on the line in the JOA day after day, week after week in Iraq and (now you all know) Syria?  Please.  No one likes a double standard, so if you want to dish it out, you'd better be ******' able to take it back.
> 
> You gotta problem with that, or do you need to find a safe space?  I thought better of the post afterward, and reworded it before your post, but I got the same message for you; shove your double standard up your ***.



There is no double standard, I'm an infantry officer, I accept risk as part and parcel of the job.  Do you think you should be compensated additionally because your job is "dangerous", on top of the Spec Pay, Aircrew Allowance, yadayadayada that you already receive?  Are you a ******* mercenary or a professional soldier?  

If you're the latter start acting like it. I don't think anyone should get any compensation overseas, why pay someone more to actually do their job?  If you're jealous of all the rear echelon folks hoarding all the cookies, go be one, it's a volunteer military nobody is stopping you.


----------



## McG (20 Feb 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> IMO the government should simply allow tax break on all outcan ops.


We have had pers on named missions in Naples, Brussels and Florida.  How long could we have a blanket tax exemption for international operations, compensating guys these jammy places, before the me-too envy starts demanding tax free at home?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is no double standard, I'm an infantry officer, I accept risk as part and parcel of the job.  Do you think you should be compensated additionally because your job is dangerous, on top of the Spec Pay, Aircrew Allowance, yadayadayada that you already receive?



What the hell does this have to do with Dimsum and I commenting on the Syria piece being made public, and MJPs shitbrain comment directed at RCAF FW/LRP aircrew?



> Are you a fucking mercenary or a professional soldier? If you're the latter start acting like it. I don't think anyone should get any compensation overseas, why pay someone more to actually do their job?  If you're jealous of all the rear echelon folks hoarding all the cookies, go be one, it's a volunteer military nobody is stopping you.



I am neither;  if you weren't so myopic about what I'll call the fighting MOCs in the entire CAF, you'd realize I am actually an *Airmen*.  I am jealous of no one;  I was Cbt Arms and then a support trade before going aircrew.  Via VOTP.  

I _am_ tired of all the people who think the aircrew have it made, they're whiny, they don't actually face any danger or threat, and all that crap.  Like in OUP, the LRP crews are deep into the bad guy territory.  Do we have it the same as you crunchies when you are operating in Badlands?  Nope, and I've never said we do and I would correct any aircrew who was naïve enough to think and voice tha opinion.  But the fact is, the C Army is sitting this one out.  LRP crews are in it, and have been since the get go.  The least _you_ could do, as an infantry officer who understands risk, is give them the respect they are due.  The respect you'd expect your own troops to get, if they were deep into the JOA doing their job.  No?  Or, does it only matter if soldiers risk their lives doing their jobs to the Infantry Officer corps. 

To answer your question about my professionalism.  I had deployed, returned to Canada with enough missions for a throwing star in my log book long before they announced the HA, RA rates for Impact - Kuwait and long before they announced the whole tax free gig.  I hope that answers your questions about mine, or other, LRP aircrew 'dedication vs money money money' stuff.

Don't think I will sit back and have some Log O (or anyone, for that matter) who isn't operating over/in Iraq (not Erbil...the battlespace Iraq.  Mosul.  *Anbar Province* Iraq) or Syria make smartass comments from the bench about folks on the team that are out with their sticks on the ice.


----------



## Quirky (20 Feb 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> We have had pers on named missions in Naples, Brussels and Florida.  How long could we have a blanket tax exemption for international operations, compensating guys these jammy places, before the me-too envy starts demanding tax free at home?



Why stop with deployments, lets make all excersises out of country tax-free.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (20 Feb 2017)

MCG


> We have had pers on named missions in Naples, Brussels and Florida.  How long could we have a blanket tax exemption for international operations, compensating guys these jammy places, before the me-too envy starts demanding tax free at home



I say if it's an OUTCAN CFTPO deployment it should be tax free, regardless of location. If it's an OUTCAN posting, then yes it can be taxed. A simple change like this would boost morale massively and wouldn't cost much the government.


----------



## McG (20 Feb 2017)

So it is CFTPO vs posting?  We had guys posted into Afghanistan as part of the named missions during our years there, and we have guys posted onto Iraq on IMPACT now.  You would not extend tax free to such pers?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (20 Feb 2017)

You bring an interesting point. I didn't know folks were posted to Afghanistan. My approach was based on wether your family is with you or not. For example being deployed away from family = tax free. Posted OUTCAN with family = not tax free. Again if the government want to tax free all OUTCAN then I say do it. It'll make a lot of people happy.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> You bring an interesting point. I didn't know folks were posted to Afghanistan. My approach was based on wether your family is with you or not. For example being deployed away from family = tax free. Posted OUTCAN with family = not tax free. Again if the government want to tax free all OUTCAN then I say do it. It'll make a lot of people happy.



What's the public policy imperative to do so?  There's already numerous allowances to compensate; the "military factor" on every paycheque also acknowledges that time away is an integral part of the job.  Why should six months doing what you're paid to do trigger additional benefits, absent a compelling factor such as increased risk to life and limb?


----------



## McG (20 Feb 2017)

And if you make it tax free for all out of Canada employment, it won't be long for the Canadian public to turn on the benefit.  Why should we be getting government funded trip to tour Europe for three years at a time with our families and be exempt taxes?


----------



## MJP (20 Feb 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I _am_ tired of all the people who think the aircrew have it made, they're whiny, they don't actually face any danger or threat, and all that crap.  Like in OUP, the LRP crews are deep into the bad guy territory.  The least _you_ could do, as an infantry officer who understands risk, is give them the respect they are due.  The respect you'd expect your own troops to get, if they were deep into the JOA doing their job.  No?  Or, does it only matter if soldiers risk their lives doing their jobs to the Infantry Officer corps.
> 
> Don't think I will sit back and have some Log O (or anyone, for that matter) who isn't operating over/in Iraq (not Erbil...the battlespace Iraq.  Mosul.  *Anbar Province* Iraq) or Syria make smartass comments from the bench about folks on the team that are out with their sticks on the ice.



Son, I may be a Log O but have been in combat and don't have to justify myself to anyone nor do I care what you think.  But I only mention that because that is your problem, you have been running your mouth off like you're the only game in town and you got called on it with a bit of tongue and cheek.  Clearly that triggered you.  Respect is a two way street, you want to call down all those in the battlespace around ya regardless of where they are, then go ahead but please have your hissy fit elsewhere after you get a slap down.  Maybe go complain in the SNCO mess about that big bad MJP and his darn smartass comments.  


I respect the job that is done by all soldiers/airmen/sailors out there regardless of where they are, clearly that isn't the same for you.  No need to respond as you are on ignore and I don't want to derail the, LRP Op IMPACT thread anymore than it already is.  PMs are always welcome


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (20 Feb 2017)

IMO the tax free issue would greatly benefit our members plus it would be a win for the government wrt support the troops. In the end all I'm saying is if the government is willing and it bring great benefit to our troops, let's do it! we so used to get screwed over that when something good could be provided, we turn our back on it. It truly baffles me sometimes.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Feb 2017)

I think anytime someone deploys in support or as part of an operation where there is some shooting involved (or where there is no shooting but the risk for your life is elevated by external threat, like it could be for some INT) it should be tax free.  No difference if you are supporting or operating. Hardship and risk pay should be role-dependant (ie: aircrew flying over AD would get more than guy loading bombs and missiles on the aircraft which would get more than the logistic officer back at the camp), but compared to what the tax free benefits bring, it is relatively small.

Anything that is outside of what can normally be expected in peace time should be compensated: our salary and peacetime allowances do not compensate for that, despite the "military factor".


----------



## dimsum (20 Feb 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> There is no double standard, I'm an infantry officer, I accept risk as part and parcel of the job.  Do you think you should be compensated additionally because your job is "dangerous", on top of the Spec Pay, Aircrew Allowance, yadayadayada that you already receive?  Are you a ******* mercenary or a professional soldier?



Far be it from me to disrupt a good ol' argument, but any CF member that goes on a flight (aside from being ferried from one place to another) can apply for it as Casual Aircrew Allowance - I've had Navy folks come to Comox to see what it's like in an Aurora and got their $28/day and a whole heap of airsickness on a 10-hour patrol.

Now back to the regularly-scheduled bitchfest.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

MJP said:
			
		

> Son,



 : Buddy, at 39 you were likely just finishing Grade 6 when I was doing Basic.  Save your "_son/lad_" stuff for the no-hook Pte's in the smoke pit or the OCdts in the mess you're hoping to impress.



> you have been running your mouth off like you're the only game in town and you got called on it with a bit of tongue and cheek.



This is the IMPACT thread.    LRP is the only CAF ISR players in the MESF.  Who are the JOA players conducting operations;  AAR (none of them on here posting), LRP (a few of us on here who post that have been on Det there), TacHel (none of them posting on here) and CANSOF (none of them posting on here that I know of).  LRP and AAR are going the deepest, farthest into the JOA.  That is just fact, so what is the problem exactly with LRP folks posting the opinions here, in the IMPACT thread?  As far as ISR assets, LRP is the only CAF one in the game.  Running my mouth of?  Its just a fact.  It seems that, for some reason, is a sore spot for you at least.       



> Clearly that triggered you.



What triggers me are people sitting on the sidelines, yapping at the air force when they talk about the shit they're doing.  So ya, fucktards like you trigger me.  That's not because of IMPACT, or because I'm air force, its more related to how I react to people I see as fucktards.  That's not limited to you, or Log Os.



> Respect is a two way street, you want to call down all those in the battlespace around ya regardless of where they are, then go ahead but please have your hissy fit elsewhere after you get a slap down.  Maybe go complain in the SNCO mess about that big bad MJP and his darn smartass comments



I call it like I see it or like I've seen it on this op;  I've been there a few times eh?.  If you don't like my opinion, sweet, I could really care less.  If you're one of those JTSFC types I've chucked it at some...you guessed it, I could really care less again.  

For your Jnr Officer PD, its a WOs and Sgt's Mess.  



> I respect the job that is done by all soldiers/airmen/sailors out there regardless of where they are



Clearly, that is the always the case.  What was I thinking...



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> We care as it is so cute when the fixed wing side of the RCAF makes it to a real fight, plus they never stop letting you know they are there so it is a double bonus.  Winning for everyone!


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Feb 2017)

Just so I can understand what you just said eye, can someone tell me what LRP, MESF, JOA, and AAR are?


----------



## rnkelly (20 Feb 2017)

Long range patrol
Middle East stabilization force
Air to air refuelling
Joint operations area I think


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Feb 2017)

rnkelly said:
			
		

> Joint operations area I think



Yup.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Feb 2017)

Thanks gents, clear as mud now  :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2017)

Some of the latest, shared under the Fair Dealings bit of the Copyright Act ...


> Canadian special forces have shifted their operations in northern Iraq to put pressure on ISIL in places outside Mosul, including along the border with Syria.
> 
> When the first Canadian soldiers arrived in the country in September 2014, their mission was to help train the peshmerga to stop and hold back a confident and, until then, undefeated ISIL hoard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Feb 2017)

Well, that's a pretty awesome picture of the TacHel folks at the dam (Mosul dam is...call it 40km or so NW of Mosul).  BZ to the SOF and TacHel folks pushing west.


----------



## rnkelly (22 Feb 2017)

If you liked that picture, check out this video;

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2017/02/20/canadian-special-forces-shift-focus-put-pressure-on-daesh-outside-mosul.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2017)

Ya that looks like some cool flying for sure.  Very different perspective and it's gotta be nice to get air on your face that isn't from a gasper.   

I've done a small bit of flying like TacHel folks do...it felt pretty low and slow down there (although 100' over water at 250 kts *feels like home* to me....).  Lots of weird vibrations and noise and stuff.   8)


----------



## MilEME09 (23 Feb 2017)

Is there a purpose in that one photo of buddy wearing Woodland CADPAT pants, and everything else is Arid? or was it just laundry day on camp?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Feb 2017)

Which picture is that exactly?


----------



## Zoomie (23 Feb 2017)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Is there a purpose in that one photo of buddy wearing Woodland CADPAT pants, and everything else is Arid? or was it just laundry day on camp?


It's cold in the AOR - those are his winter flying gear.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Feb 2017)

According to Matthew Fisher, in this column in the National Post reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, we are exploring various options for a role in Syria.

Matthew Fisher: Canadian Forces studying options for potential Syrian operation


Matthew Fisher | February 27, 2017 5:12 PM ET

The Canadian military has begun to study options for an operation in Syria, for the Liberal government to consider as U.S. president Donald Trump hints he may expand the 16-year-old war on terrorism by sending more troops to that country after the offensive to liberate the Iraqi city of Mosul from ISIL concludes.

Officers familiar with how the military does long-range planning said that offering such choices — as well as examining ways Canada might continue to contribute to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq after the war there ends — was standard procedure. It is prudent to constantly prepare and update options regarding potential overseas deployment to hot spots in case the government of the day asks for them, they said.

What comes next for Canada and its allies is an obvious question, with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant holding only a sliver of land in Iraq and a much larger swathe of territory in Syria. Lt.-Gen. Steve Townsend, the U.S. ground commander for the wars in Iraq and Syria, expects ISIL to be defeated in both countries within six months. But nobody expects that ISIL, or its rivals, Al Qaeda, will be entirely eradicated for a very long time. There are fears the terrorist groups will go underground in those countries, increase their activities in Somalia or northern and central Africa or take their war global, launching more terrorist attacks on soft civilian targets, particularly in Europe.

It is not publicly known whether the Trump government has asked Ottawa to contribute troops or assist in other ways in the war against ISIL in Syria, or to take on other roles in the war on terror. But if there is anything to be taken from the example of the war in neighbouring Iraq, where Canada has been a participant since August, 2014, such a request is possible.

Canada is one of 17 countries currently assisting Iraqi and Kurdish forces in Iraq. About Canadian 800 troops now involved in what the Canadian Forces calls Operation Impact. About 70 are elite Special Forces from the Ontario-based JTF2. They train, advise and assist Kurdish fighters and when at risk themselves, have occasionally joined the fight.


Other Canadians are targeting experts, based in Kuwait and Qatar, or work with Kuwait-based reconnaissance aircraft which help identify ISIL targets. A small team of Canadian doctors, nurses and technicians also runs a military hospital in the Kurdish city of Erbil, about 70 kilometres east of the front lines around Mosul.

The U.S. already has 500 Special Forces soldiers in Syria and has been preparing the American public for the possibility that more troops may soon be headed there. Gen. Joseph Votel, the U.S. commander responsible for overseeing military operations in the Middle East and South Asia, took journalists with him on a secretive tour of northern Syria last week. At an undisclosed location he told his media entourage that “take-no-prisoners fighting” was in the offing to capture ISIL’s Syrian hub, Raqqa, and that more troops may be needed to accelerate the war against ISIL there.

Any expansion of the coalition war in Syria is complicated by Russia’s political and military support for the government of Syrian President Bashir Assad. There remains confusion over to what extent Trump’s professed admiration for Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, will play a role in decisions made in Washington, particularly as the U.S. president’s top security advisers regard the Kremlin with deep suspicion. Turkey, which is a member of NATO that has improving ties with Moscow, also does not want Syrian Kurdish forces allied with the U.S. to become more powerful.

Canada is already indirectly involved in the war in Syria. Since December, JTF2 has been advising Iraqi Kurds deployed near the Syrian border in northwestern Iraq, in an attempt to prevent ISIL forces escaping from Mosul and reaching Syria. It had been involved in the air war in Syria until the Liberals ordered home the RCAF’s F-18s.

If Canada were to become involved militarily in Syria again it could send a small number of JTF2 troops there in an advisory role. Another possibility is that Canada could be asked to provide “boots on the ground” to help protect civilians from violence in safe zones that Trump has said he intends to establish to prevent the Syrian refugee crisis from worsening.

Canadian Brig.-Gen. Dave Anderson, who heads the coalition’s strategic advisory team in Iraq, told Postmedia in an interview late last year that discussions were already taking place then about how “we — that is, the Iraqi security forces — can not only take Mosul but hold it afterwards.” According to Trump’s most senior general, Joseph Dunford, the U.S. and NATO are considering a long-term military commitment to assist Iraqi and Kurdish forces who will be responsible for trying to prevent ISIL or other terrorist groups from regrouping. Canada’s Iraq mission could be extended indefinitely as part of that effort. 

The potential ask for Canada to extend or expand its role in the region comes as Ottawa undertakes an open-ended commitment to lead a NATO battalion in Latvia from this June, and continue training missions in Poland and Ukraine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Mar 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to Matthew Fisher, in this column in the National Post reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, we are exploring various options for a role in Syria.
> 
> Matthew Fisher: Canadian Forces studying options for potential Syrian operation
> 
> ...



Some might see this as splitting hairs, but even after the CF-18s were pulled out, there was a CAF presence in the MESF in Syria; most recently, the JTF Commander has confirmed the ISR piece has been happening in Syria as well  with the Aurora.  

Unless I'm missing something, the CAF has continued to be involved inside the Syrian battlespace, with the SOF piece now shifting closer to there as well.  That's militarily involved isn't it?  Targetting ISIS and supporting fighter ops with tankers?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2017)

Via the info-machine ...


> Brigadier-General Daniel MacIsaac assumed command of Joint Task Force-Iraq (JTF-I) at a ceremony today at Camp Canada in Kuwait. Rear-Admiral Bob Auchterlonie, Deputy Commander Canadian Joint Operations Command, presided over the ceremony.
> 
> Taking over as Commander of JTF-I from Brigadier-General Shane Brennan, Brigadier-General MacIsaac will command Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel deployed on Operation IMPACT, Canada’s military contribution to the Global Coalition against Daesh.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Mar 2017)

Also, from the CJTF-OIR Facebook page, _Notes_ section; Joint Task Force - Iraq welcomes new commander.  

Confirmation of the mission construct, mandate, etc into 2017 should be coming soon.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Confirmation of the mission construct, mandate, etc into 2017 should be coming soon.



Less than 30 days before the end date of the mission. Why plan when you can react? (not that its the CAF's lack of planning at fault here...)


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2017)

We could just leave ISIS alone in Syria and let the Iranians and Russians deal with it. All we would need to do ins monitor the border and ensure there are no ISIS leakers slipping back into Iraq.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2017)

More on those Kurds ...


> The threat of political chaos looms over the imminent defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Mosul, fuelling fear of a dramatically different -- and deadly -- use for Canada's military support for Kurdish peshmerga forces.
> 
> Much of the potential upheaval revolves around whether Iraq's disparate Sunni and Shia populations can finally set aside their differences and come together in some sort of reconciliation.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Mar 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Also, from the CJTF-OIR Facebook page, _Notes_ section; Joint Task Force - Iraq welcomes new commander.
> 
> Confirmation of the mission construct, mandate, etc into 2017 should be coming soon.


A _bit_ more on that ...


> The Liberal government is expected to extend Canada's mission in Iraq in the coming days as it waits for the battle of Mosul to end.
> 
> The current mission, launched last year, saw the government withdraw Canadian fighter jets from the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but triple the number of special forces soldiers in northern Iraq.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2017)

While the mission construct is yet to be released, the LRP Det carries on with what is now Ops Normal in theatre.  I know, they are not the only folks serving there, but the air and ground crews, HQ etc are somewhat rare because many of them will rotate in and out on a regular basis (aircrew max out on the amount of hours they are allowed to fly, so are rotated in/out as required and do shorter ROTO lengths because of that restriction).  3 ROTOs have been completed by a number of people since Oct 2014; the names on the _Centurion Club _list (crewmembers who have completed 100+ missions) will continue to grow.  

Article Link

Operation IMPACT Long Range Patrol surpasses 700 missions

By: Major Paul Doucette, Joint Task Force- Iraq Public Affairs Officer

Joint Task Force Iraq’s Long Range Patrol Detachment reached a major milestone last month when it carried out its 700th mission since beginning operations in the region in late 2014.

The detachment has two CP-140 Aurora long range patrol aircraft that conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions over points of interest in Iraq and Syria. A point of interest is a specific location that may be assessed as useful or of interest in the identification of a potential legitimate military target and which may or not become a target itself.

While all possible measures to mitigate risk are taken, any mission over enemy territory is not without risks. For the CP-140 crews, their missions take them over a variety of potential Daesh targets. The work is meticulous and can be painstaking with each mission lasting for hours as information on particular points of interest is collected for further analysis. The end state comes when an enemy target is clearly identified and, after all due process is followed, then engaged by coalition assets.

“These flights show the resilience and versatility of the CP-140 and its crews,” said Colonel Luc Guillette, Commander of Operation IMPACT’s Air Task Force. “By flying these demanding missions on a daily basis, we have denied Daesh freedom of movement and helped to wear them down to the point where they are today.”

Since October 30, 2014, the coalition has employed two CP-140 Aurora aircraft. Flying within the area of operations, the aircraft employs Electro Optic sensors, as well as various other sensors to provide ISR imagery for coalition strike assets and target development. The CP-140 aircraft and crews generally fly six or seven days a week.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2017)

Article Link  contains maps and images

Battle for Mosul: The story so far

Tens of thousands of civilians are fleeing the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as government security forces continue their military offensive to reclaim the city from the so-called Islamic State (IS).

After taking the airport, Iraqi forces have made key gains in the west of the city, recapturing several bridges, as well as government buildings. 

They are closing in on the densely-populated old city of Mosul, and the Great Mosque of al-Nuri, where IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the creation of a "caliphate" in July 2014. 

Iraqi security forces, Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, Sunni Arab tribesmen and Shia militiamen, assisted by US-led coalition warplanes and military advisers, are involved in the operation, launched on 17 October 2016. 

IS jihadists overran Mosul as they spread across much of northern and western Iraq two years earlier in 2014.

Government forces announced the full "liberation" of eastern Mosul in January 2017. But the west of the city presents a more difficult challenge, with its narrow, winding streets. IS has launched multiple suicide attacks against Iraqi forces in western neighbourhoods. 

More than 180,000 civilians have fled the city since the latest assault on west Mosul began on 19 February, according to the Iraqi government. Most have taken refuge in nearby camps and reception centres. Others have gone to stay with relatives and friends.

There is also deep concern for the hundreds of thousands of people who remain in western Mosul. Food supplies are running very low, and some families say they cannot find any food at all. Clean drinking water is also in very short supply.

The UN said in late January that almost half of all the casualties in Mosul were civilians. At least 1,494 have been killed and 1,219 injured across Nineveh province since the start of October.

Lt Gen Stephen Townsend, the coalition's task force commander, described the recapture of eastern Mosul as a "monumental achievement" for the Iraqi people, but warned there was "still a long way to go" before IS was eliminated from Iraq.

It took from mid-October until 8 January 2017 for Iraqi forces to advance as far as the River Tigris and another two weeks to gain full control of the eastern side of Mosul.

Elsewhere in the region, the Shia-dominated, paramilitary Popular Mobilisation force has been advancing westwards towards the town of Tal Afar, another IS bastion, and the border with Syria. 

Contradictory reports mean it is difficult to know exactly how much territory has been regained. 

The maps shown here are based on expert analysis from two different sources, the Institute for the Study of War (for the recent advances) and IHS Conflict Monitor for territory.

According to analysis by IHS Conflict Monitor, IS fighters have been losing territory since the offensive began. However, gains slowed when Iraqi government forces met stiff resistance in the city of Mosul.

Satellite images have revealed extensive damage to Mosul's infrastructure, buildings and archaeological sites - in particular to the city's airport and bridges.

Mosul airport

Imagery, released by US geopolitical intelligence company Stratfor in October 2016, showed how IS fighters sabotaged much of the city's airport, with wide trenches carved into it and rubble placed along their lengths.

The images also show how coalition airstrikes, aimed at destroying key IS positions and assets, caused damage to Mosul's sugar factory - a facility kept in action by the militants.

Imagery also revealed how the jihadists constructed multiple barricades across key routes into the city, including north of the airport.

The barriers have been made out of concrete blocks and other rubble, Stratfor's analysis says, possibly from the walls of destroyed buildings. 

Mosul's bridges

All bridges linking the east and west of the city, across the Tigris river, were also destroyed.

In the centre of the city, four of the five main bridges were put out of action in October and November by coalition air strikes, with the aim of limiting the jihadists' ability to resupply or reinforce their positions in the east.

The Old Bridge - the only remaining route open to vehicles in the centre of the city - was disabled in a US-led coalition air strike at the end of December.

Iraqi forces have since recaptured two of the bridges, the Fourth bridge and al-Hurriya, also known as the al-Jamhuriya. They will either have to repair them or install floating bridges to reconnect east and west Mosul.

Stratfor images show how the bridges were damaged. 

Al-Hurriya Bridge

A US air strike damaged the al-Hurriya Bridge at the eastern end last October, but IS then set up a barrier on the western side

Fourth Bridge

In November 2016, a US air strike damaged the bridge, but more recently it was rendered impassable by further damage,

Humanitarian crisis

The UN has warned that the offensive to retake western Mosul could displace up to 400,000 civilians and involve a siege in the densely-populated old city.

More than 355,000 people have fled their homes in and around Mosul as a result of the conflict - more than 180,000 of them have fled since the campaign began to retake the west of the city on 19 February. 

More than 195,000 displaced Iraqis are now living in the 21 camps built by the UN and other agencies around Mosul. More camps are planned to cope with the sudden spike in refugees caused by the offensive against western Mosul. 

The organisation says many of those who have fled Mosul and ended up in the camps have witnessed the deaths of relatives, friends and neighbours. Children are showing severe signs of trauma - such as excessive crying, mutism, bed-wetting and fear of leaving their parents.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Mar 2017)

This from the Info-machine ...


> The Government of Canada remains strongly committed to defeating Da’esh and responding to the needs of people who have been displaced or devastated by war in Iraq, Syria, and the region.
> 
> Today, Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan announced that the Government of Canada is extending Canada’s current military contribution to the fight against Da’esh until June 30, 2017.
> 
> ...


... and this via CTV.ca:


> Canada is extending its anti-ISIS mission in Iraq until June 30, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced Friday.
> 
> Sajjan says Canada's contribution to the mission will remain the same, "with a few adjustments."
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Mar 2017)

And from CBC.  Article Link

Canada extends mission against ISIS in northern Iraq to June 30

'Advise and assist' mission was set to expire, extension 'provides time to assess evolving nature of fight'

With operations against ISIS at a critical stage in northern Iraq, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced Friday that Canada will extend its training mission there by three months.

The Canadian Forces will continue operations until June 30, providing "the time required to assess the evolving nature of the fight."

Canada is part of a coalition working with Iraqi troops to recapture territory taken over by the Islamist group, also known as Daesh, restore basic government services and enable citizens who fled to return to their homes.

A news release said the scope and mission of Canada's contribution, often characterized as an "advise and assist" operation, will remain the same this spring, "with a few adjustments."

"As a result of recent successes in the campaign, some elements of the Canadian Special Operations Task Force have recently been operating in eastern Mosul, providing advice and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces," it read.

Canadian troops remain behind the forward line of troops, and are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi Forces," the government said.

Canadian troops had been stationed around Erbil, where its operations had included a military hospital.

But the fighting in and around Mosul has been intense recently, as the fight to retake control over the strategically important city continues. 

"While the geography and partners have expanded, the mandate of training, advising, assisting, and equipping remains unchanged," a statement from the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Jonathan Vance, said.

"The mission may change further as the situation evolves and Canadians should expect further adjustments as the situation warrants."

"It is clear that coalition efforts are having a real impact on the ground," Sajjan said in the release.

The military said Friday that 3,600 personnel have been part of rotations for the mission so far. As of March 28, Canadian aircraft who remained in theatre after Canada's CF-18s returned home have conducted 695 aerial refuelling sorties and 753 reconnaissance missions.

In addition to the special forces soldiers acting as intelligence officers and training Iraqi soldiers on the ground, Canada has also contributed tactical helicopters to the coalition mission.


And...

U.S. urges more support from coalition partners in fight against ISIS   March 22nd, 2017

Declaring the Islamic State group's destruction its top Middle East priority, the Trump administration on Wednesday urged coalition partners to contribute more to forces who are retaking Iraq's second largest city and readying an assault on the extremists' self-declared Syrian capital. There was no apparent announcement of a new overall strategy, however.

Addressing top diplomats of the 68-nation coalition, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for new ideas to expand the fight against ISIS in the Iraqi city of Mosul and accelerate the campaign to chase militants from Raqqa, Syria, while preparing for the complex humanitarian and political consequences of both efforts.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Mar 2017)

Wasn't the mission set to expire today? Talk about cutting it close.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2017)

If gov't wants to save big bucks could withdraw CC-150 and CP-140s plus support personnel.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Apr 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If gov't wants to save big bucks could withdraw CC-150 and CP-140s plus support personnel.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



You have it half right.  The Coalition would miss the airframes, especially the refueller.  No one, including Canadians, would miss the support staff in Kuwait, and the White Elephant in Erbil is a national embarassment


----------



## MJP (1 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You have it half right.  The Coalition would miss the airframes, especially the refueller.  No one, including Canadians, would miss the support staff in Kuwait, and the White Elephant in Erbil is a national embarassment



Fuck yea...I would gladly go on the closeout team for Kuwait tomorrow.  It is a huge waste of resources and there are better ways to support the folks giving real effects on the ground (air & ground folks) than what we currently have in place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Apr 2017)

Article Link

Iraqis tried to convince Canada to keep CF-18s bombing ISIS, documents show

Documents show the Iraqis repeatedly tried during a meeting in December 2015 to keep Canada's CF-18 fighters in the coalition bombing campaign against ISIS. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said after that meeting he hadn't heard complaints from allies about the plan to pull the fighters. (Lars Hagberg/Canadian Press) 

_Conservatives accuse Harjit Sajjan of lying about allies' reaction to CF-18 withdrawal_

Despite assurances to the contrary, the Iraqis did not quietly, nor happily, accept Canada's withdrawal of CF-18 jet fighters from combat against the Islamic State, new documents reveal.

In fact, Khalid Obaidi, the country's defence minister, argued for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government to change its mind in a high-level meeting prior to the suspension of the bombing campaign.

The meeting took place on Dec. 20, 2015, in Baghdad, as Canada's newly appointed defence minister made his first fact-finding trip to the region.

The red carpet — replete with an honour guard — was rolled out for Sajjan, a former soldier with a distinguished career in Afghanistan.

"The ensuing discussion touched on a range of issues, but the Iraqi Minister of Defence was clearly focused on Canada's decision to withdraw its CF18 fighter jets from the coalition air strikes, asking Minister Sajjan to reconsider this decision on numerous occasions," said a Global Affairs Canada summary of the meeting, dated Dec. 22, 2015.

The report, obtained by Conservative Party researchers and shared with CBC News, was written by the chargé d'affaires at the Baghdad mission and sent to a senior Global Affairs official in Ottawa who is responsible for Middle Eastern issues in the Gulf states.

The narrative the Liberal government promoted — both before and after Sajjan's meeting — was that Canada's allies understood and respected the decision to call a halt to the air force's participation in the campaign, which started under former prime minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

Following the Baghdad meeting, Sajjan flew to the Iraqi city of Erbil, where he had further sessions with Kurdish political and military leaders. Later, during a conference call with reporters back in Canada, he was asked how the withdrawal plan was going over.

"'The irony is, I haven't had one discussion about the CF-18s or discussing our contribution from the humanitarian side of things," Sajjan responded when asked how the Kurds, whom Canada had been working with directly, viewed the plan.

'A blatant lie:' Conservative MP

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the Liberal government, and Sajjan in particular, deliberately misled Canadians about the fallout among allies.

"He did lie. This is proof that he lied," Bezan said in an interview with CBC News. "When he said there was no request to keep our CF-18s there, that is a blatant lie."

A spokeswoman for Sajjan said the context of the question specifically related to how the Kurds felt about the issue and the minister did not say anything misleading.

Jordan Owens told CBC News the issue was not brought up in Erbil and the revamped mission has since proven its worth to allies.

"Since February 2016, when the government of Canada announced the expansion of our whole-of-government approach to the conflict in Iraq and the region, Canada has received praise from allies, including the governments of Iraq, the Kurdish Regional Government and the United States," Owens said in a statement on Monday.

"We value the feedback we receive from our allies and the occasions we have to discuss the opportunities and challenges our nations face as we make policy decisions that impact the international community."

In an interview with CBC's The House, which aired in early January 2016, Sajjan did concede the allies had mixed feelings about Canada's plan.

"Of course they want to keep our CF-18s there," he said.

But sticking with the airstrike mission wouldn't be the "responsible" thing to do, he added.

"The responsible thing, in my opinion, is to make sure we as a coalition partner look at the current situation, the needs of the coalition," he said. "When you look at the current situation, the conversation is [...] 'How do we target more?'"

Election promise

The end of combat operations by the jets fulfilled a Liberal 2015 election pledge, and it was a decision supported by the country's top military commander.

It paved the way for the tripling of the number of special forces troops advising Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and the introduction of higher-level intelligence capabilities to help with the liberation of the northern city of Mosul.

When the Liberals announced the revamped mission on Feb. 8, 2016, Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, said it was the "absolutely correct moment" to end air combat operations.

"The success of Iraq is going to be through its forces on the ground and for us to provide them with training and the expertise to be able to do that, to defend themselves and be able to conduct operations to defeat [ISIS] is exactly where we need to be," Vance said.

But Bezan said the narrative that allies were not fussed by the decision continued past the end of the bombing campaign, which formally wrapped up less than two weeks after the government announced the retooling.

Sajjan was the point man and the December 2015 comments represented, according to Bezan, the beginning of a series of "alternative fact" statements by the minister, which now includes the existence of a "capability gap" in the jet fighter fleet.

The Conservatives say the notion that Canada does not have enough CF-18s to meet its NORAD and NATO commitments simultaneously is political fiction, dreamed up by Liberals intent on not buying the F-35 stealth fighter, another of the Liberals' campaign promises.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Apr 2017)

It's official: we have now joined the 'Axis of Weasels'....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Article Link
> 
> Iraqis tried to convince Canada to keep CF-18s bombing ISIS, documents show
> 
> ...



The more I see of General Vance's support for the Liberals the more I wonder about his political aspirations... the article that did it for me was the one where he stated that we had enough money to meet all of our requirements and could afford to defer to 2030.. there's no way he can really believe that


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Apr 2017)

Both the MND and CDS are probably receiving informal Developing PERs from people who lace the boots up for a living.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2017)

Just noticed this from the info-machine:


> The Government of Canada approved on April 11, 2017, the Minister of National Defense’s request to grandfather the hardship and risk levels for the locations of Arifjan and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait for Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members currently deployed on Operation IMPACT.
> 
> Last year, the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee (DHRC), responsible for assessing hardship and risk on our deployed operations, determined that the levels were lower for Arifjan and Ali Al Salem as a result of a lower risk to CAF members.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Apr 2017)

The flaw in the whole RA and HA methodology is the assumption people remain in those specific locations, and that's not the case.

However, this is still good financial news for those deployed.  As has been said before, IF there's no risk in Kuwait, why are Canadians confined to camp?   ^-^


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Apr 2017)

There's no reason why the levels can't change over time, just not in the middle. There's also no reason why someone's risk level (not hardship) shouldn't go up for a day when they fly a sortie into dangerous airspace. I don't think our pay system is able to handle all that manual inputs though. 

Much like PLD, our benefits/compensation systems are a mess.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2017)

Not the impression one gets from Western gov'ts and media:


> Study Shows Islamic State’s Primary Opponent in Syria Is Government Forces, IHS Markit Says
> _Weakening Syrian government would extend life of the Islamic State’s caliphate_
> 
> The Islamic State fought Syrian government forces more than any other opponent over the past 12 months, according to new analysis from Conflict Monitor by IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO), a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Apr 2017)

Nice summary of events the past few years...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The flaw in the whole RA and HA methodology is the assumption people remain in those specific locations, and that's not the case.
> 
> However, this is still good financial news for those deployed.  As has been said before, IF there's no risk in Kuwait, why are Canadians confined to camp?   ^-^



Mostly to justify their tax free from what I could tell. Proteus (no tax free), Jordan (no tax free), and lebanon (no tax free) are infinitely more "dangerous" than to anyone not flying a plane in kuwait. Even that is arguable tbh


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> As has been said before, IF there's no risk in Kuwait, why are Canadians confined to camp?   ^-^



To qualify for RA and HA.....


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's no reason why the levels can't change over time, just not in the middle. There's also no reason why someone's risk level (not hardship) shouldn't go up for a day when they fly a sortie into dangerous airspace. I don't think our pay system is able to handle all that manual inputs though.
> 
> Much like PLD, our benefits/compensation systems are a mess.



Try sitting in a small cockpit with no food, limited water, can't move for 10-12 hours at a time and tell if hardship (or living conditions) is different from being on the camp 24/7.  Compensating for those days you endure this is only appropriate since the airplane is where you live for a significant amount of time on those days.


----------



## dimsum (20 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Try sitting in a small cockpit with no food, limited water, can't move for 10-12 hours at a time and tell if hardship (or living conditions) is different from being on the camp 24/7.



I'll take "things the recruiters don't tell you about fighter planes" for $400, Alex.   ^-^


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Try sitting in a small cockpit with no food, limited water, can't move for 10-12 hours at a time and tell if hardship (or living conditions) is different from being on the camp 24/7.  Compensating for those days you endure this is only appropriate since the airplane is where you live for a significant amount of time on those days.


Probably why you get aircrew pay, right? And a different pay scale for pilots over and above a general service officer?


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably why you get aircrew pay, right? And a different pay scale for pilots over and above a general service officer?



But that has sweet fuck all to do with HA/RA and I do believe the higher pay scale is for retention. 

Of note aircrew allowance, SDA, and LDA all start at the same amount but the SDA and LDA amounts increase by a higher amount at each incentive level.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably why you get aircrew pay, right? And a different pay scale for pilots over and above a general service officer?



Nope.  We never do this on a regular  basis at home.  This is exceptional and due to being deployed on operation.

FWIW, we received increased HA/RA for days we were flying during MOBILE.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Try sitting in a small cockpit with no food, limited water, can't move for 10-12 hours at a time and tell if hardship (or living conditions) is different from being on the camp 24/7.  Compensating for those days you endure this is only appropriate since the airplane is where you live for a significant amount of time on those days.



You did your job, same as anyone else who deploys.....

As for HA/RA, your being in a plane has nothing to do with the analysis since it's done by operation. Kuwait, particularly the OS Hub, has far lower actual risk than every other part of Op IMPACT (including Jordan and Lebanon before they moved to TF ME). The "camp inside a camp inside a camp" is basically just a smaller, more depressing, and less operational version of KAF


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> But that has sweet frig all to do with HA/RA and I do believe the higher pay scale is for retention.
> 
> Of note aircrew allowance, SDA, and LDA all start at the same amount but the SDA and LDA amounts increase by a higher amount at each incentive level.



LDA stops when you start getting HA, although the points still accumulate. Willing to turn off aircrew pay to get hardship? I lose money going from my LDA to hardship 4.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Apr 2017)

We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.

DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.
> 
> DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.



Wait a second.  You got HA/RA, Foreign Service ? and Aircrew pay ?  Why does the Navy lose SDA and the Army LDA when they deploy ?


----------



## Lightguns (20 Apr 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Wait a second.  You got HA/RA, Foreign Service ? and Aircrew pay ?  Why does the Navy lose SDA and the Army LDA when they deploy ?



Because the army and the navy decide to use their S/LDA envelopes that way.  The air force decides to do it the other way.  Got look after the troops, right?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Apr 2017)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.
> 
> DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.



As has been stated, RA and HA are based on operation, not individual experience, so the infantryman in your scenario gets the exact same RA/HA as the clerk at the camp. That's not even getting into the comparison of how you define the risk to someone flying a plane in a light AD AO vice someone driving without weapons to Hebron in the west bank.  

So, no, you shouldn't be compensated above and beyond the fact that you get paid more to be a pilot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Apr 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Because the army and the navy decide to use their S/LDA envelopes that way.  The air force decides to do it the other way.  Got look after the troops, right?



You have to be kidding me.  :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2017)

I've seen a chart on all the headings that need to be explained to justify HA/RA levels. I'll see if I can find it again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To qualify for RA and HA.....



So, there is zero threat outside the gate.  Anywhere.  I guess the briefing I got in the bldg close to the small cardio shack close to castle greyskull was just made up.   ???


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So, there is zero threat outside the gate.  Anywhere.  I guess the briefing I got in the bldg close to the small cardio shack close to castle greyskull was just made up.   ???



No one said no risk, there's a general risk because its the Middle East and we're a predominately white, western-looking CAF, which makes all of us targets. I'll also add this, for those complaining about conditions in their aircraft:

Military Foreign Service Instructions:



> 10.3.05 - Hardship Allowance
> 
> 10.3.05(1) (Intent) The intent of the Hardship Allowance (HA) is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably why you get aircrew pay, right? And a different pay scale for pilots over and above a general service officer?



No.  Despite what people may think, I get my AIRCRA for the hazards of normal flying, in a non-threat area.  Because there's a risk to flying any day of the week/month/year.  Same as diving; those guys take on risk above and beyond the normal level most CAF mbrs do, they get diving allowance for that.  Or RESCUE allowance for SAR Techs.  My specialist pay is because of the technical and operator skills etc for the MOSID I am in.  Not everyone gets AIRCRA, just the flyers, but everyone in the trade QL5 quald and up gets SPEC (that's another discussion IMO...)

RISK allowance is for the risk that comes with an operation, or post.  So, when I am flying up north on patrol, lets say, my AIRCRA covers the risk involved with flying up north and all that.  That's normal risk associated flying duties.  I also get that risk when I fly over the in the Med, or Atlantic, North sea, etc.

RA info:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-10-foreign-service-instructions.page

10.3.07 - Risk Allowance

10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

AIRCRA (Aircrew Allowance)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page

This is an environmental allowance, like LDA is.  

205.32 (2) (Eligibility) A member of the Regular Force or of the Reserve Force on Class B or C Reserve Service is, unless the member is receiving an allowance under CBI 205.30 (Paratroop Allowance), CBI 205.31 (Rescue Specialist Allowance), CBI 205.325 (Casual Aircrew Allowance) or 205.385 (Special Operations Allowance), entitled, if the member is a pilot or qualified in the operation of aircraft or airborne equipment to the standard established in orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff *and is employed in a flying position *designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff – or by an officer designated by the Chief of the Defense Staff - for the purpose of this instruction, to Aircrew Allowance at the appropriate monthly rate set out in the Table to this instruction for the member's accumulated eligible service.

205.32 (3) (Limitation) A member who is paid an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance) is not entitled to be paid Aircrew Allowance under this instruction unless the member occupies a position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with CBI 10.3.08 (Environmental Allowances).

10.3.08 - Environmental Allowances

10.3.08(1) (Allowances for designated positions) A member who is entitled to an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance), unless the member occupies a specific position on the operation designated by the CDS, is not entitled to the allowances under the following instructions:
a.CBI 205.30 - Paratroop Allowance;
b.CBI 205.31 - Rescue Specialist Allowance;
c.CBI 205.32 - Aircrew Allowance; and
d.CBI 205.33 - Land Duty Allowance; and
e.CBI 205.335 - Casual Land Duty Allowance; and
f.CBI 205.34 - Diving Allowance.

10.3.08(2) (Repealed)

(TB, effective 1 April 2007)

So, simple version...when I deployed in a designated flying position, indicated on the CFTPO as a flying position, I kept my AIRCRA.  if I went into a ground billet, I'd drop AIRCRA for the deployment.


Ref the HA stuff...HA should be the same for everyone in Kuwait, no arguments there from me or any other flyer I know.  We all bed down at the same grid square, eat at the same place and all that jazz.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No one said no risk, there's a general risk because its the Middle East and we're a predominately white, western-looking CAF, which makes all of us targets. I'll also add this, for those complaining about conditions in their aircraft:
> 
> Military Foreign Service Instructions:



Must have been tired.  Point was already said above.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ref the HA stuff...HA should be the same for everyone in Kuwait, no arguments there from me or any other flyer I know.  We all bed down at the same grid square, eat at the same place and all that jazz.



Then we're on the same page. I stated earlier that aircrew flying a sortie into a more dangerous area should be getting the RA assigned to that area on a "that day" basis. I believe the GCS-SWA was awarded this way, aircrew only needed 30 accumulated days in country, and a CC-177 milk run to KAF on ground for 3 hours and gone counted as 1 day. SSM implied his flying office rated more hardship pay than the ground crew that keeps that office flying, even though they bed down in the same accommodations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Apr 2017)

Having a rough idea how the fighter guys operat over there and comparing it to how I do, I say give it to them.  I am comfy and can go for a piss and walk around when I am not scope locked.  I have a galley.  They have none of that and have a much harder mission to accomplish. 

I know army folks get the big hate on for fighter types sometimes.  Top gun and all that.  But they have a difficult job and our guys were taking out the bad guys before they got yanked out.  

Light guns, you like to throw out light AD environment.  2 MANPADs confirmed in the hands of bad guys are all it takes to make that a nice theory for legs on the ground.  You see it differently when you are the guy fighting gravity over people who want to torch you.  How many hours have you spent in the air over ISIS in Iraq and Syria?


----------



## bradley247 (21 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Then we're on the same page. I stated earlier that aircrew flying a sortie into a more dangerous area should be getting the RA assigned to that area on a "that day" basis.



That's how it works for transient aircrew (C-17s, Js etc...), Kuwait days for days in Kuwait, Iraq days for days in Iraq. Do The Aurora and Tanker guys on CFTPOs not operate that way?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Having a rough idea how the fighter guys operat over there and comparing it to how I do, I say give it to them.  I am comfy and can go for a piss and walk around when I am not scope locked.  I have a galley.  They have none of that and have a much harder mission to accomplish.
> 
> I know army folks get the big hate on for fighter types sometimes.  Top gun and all that.  But they have a difficult job and our guys were taking out the bad guys before they got yanked out.
> 
> Light guns, you like to throw out light AD environment.  2 MANPADs confirmed in the hands of bad guys are all it takes to make that a nice theory for legs on the ground.  You see it differently when you are the one guy gravity over people who want to torch you.  How many hours have you spent in the air over ISIS in Iraq and Syria?



To play devil's advocate, in the case of MANPADs your aircraft would be safe at an altitude of 20,000 feet in the scenario that the threat was from a SA-24, a newer Russian MANPAD (which is higher end of the MANPAD threat). So, this threat is entirely mitigated with proper intelligence on said threat.

Also, no one said that fighter pilots don't have a hard job, etc etc. The point was that HA/RA is assessed by mission, not task.

Finally... zero time flying over ISIS, but I did get to drive around Jordan, Lebanon, and the west bank in an unarmoured SUV without a weapon in areas with active ISIS elements working (and in the case of Jordan in a country with 2 x recent terrorist attacks on westerners).... without the tax free the fin clerk in Camp Canada gets


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> To play devil's advocate, in the case of MANPADs your aircraft would be safe at an altitude of 20,000 feet in the scenario that the threat was from a SA-24, a newer Russian MANPAD (which is higher end of the MANPAD threat). So, this threat is entirely mitigated with proper intelligence on said threat.
> 
> Also, no one said that fighter pilots don't have a hard job, etc etc. The point was that HA/RA is assessed by mission, not task.



Sorry, I was on my phone with small screen earlier...I thought Light Guns said the part you did.

I can't talk about operating altitudes, etc of course.  Or if there are/aren't any Grinch systems in the JOA.  However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that FL200 is completely safe.  I go by what I can source from the stuff we source it from and I know different people have different numbers from different sources/methods.  

Flying in that JOA, I'll compare it to going to someone's house you don't really know for a party or get together.  Just before you go in, the doorman stops you and says "_there are 50 other guests here.  There may be 4 or 6 of them who are armed, with perhaps a knife or mini-crossbow that we think can fire up to 20 to 30 feet.  We don't really know what rooms they are in or floors they are on, but we think there are here_".

You can decide how you would think once entering that house.  Me, I like to plan for the worst, hope for the best.

All this stuff about HA, RA.  I know, us whiney aircrew and our  :'( crybaby tears over money.  Its pretty simple, really.  There is HA/RA levels for IMPACT - Iraq and ones for IMPACT - Kuwait.  Crews flying into Iraq/Syria should get the Iraq one for each day they are in the JOA, and the Kuwait one for the days they don't.  Pretty simple math, I could do it.  lets say you did a 100 day ROTO, and flew 35 missions.  35 days at the IRAQ HA/RA and 65 days at the Kuwait one.  Why is that such a big deal?

The folks who are static in Erbil (to me, anyone not TacHel or CANSOF, in general) , how close are they to the meat grinder and at what risk (from what I've been told and can see, they are living more comfy than the CC LSA folks).  No one seems to mind they are getting the higher HA/RA.  But, when a flyer mentions it everyone is "oh stop bitching" and  :.  Is there potentially more risk to being in Erbil to CC?  Sure.  I can buy that.

Is there more risk to operating in the airspace over ISIS held territory?  Sure there is.  People need to remember that planes break, just like cars.  Sometimes that means you will have to put down NOW.  Sometimes it means you can't maintain your altitude and will have to fly lower over some of the Badlands to get to a spot you can land.  Has that happened...perhaps not.  Does that mean it won't happen?  Definitely not.  There is a risk that something will go wrong and when it does, it can be fast and put you down in places you don't want to go, or you go BOOM or you fall out of the sky.  _If those things weren't likely or possible to happen, we wouldn't practice, prepare and be kitted out for those situations_.  Anyone who has had any kind of airborne emergency (Mayday, Pan-Pan kinda of stuff) will likely agree things tend to go bad fast and you start worrying about things like gravity and altitude and *distance to a safe spot* really really fast.  Nothing will wake you up like hearing "_Smoke in the cockpit.  CLIMB_" (300' over the deck XXX miles from a runway, feet wet in late November and your brain is trying to remember those "survival time in the water numbers PDQ).  

AIRCRA covers that normal risk associated with flying, in Canada, or anywhere outside the JOA wrt IMPACT in this instance.  If I go down 900nm south of Iceland, there is the risk of biting it on the ditching, or before you can get picked up, or whatever.  In the IMPACT JOA, you risk being burned alive, or put in a cage and dunked in a lake, or whatever other inventive way they will come up with for your wife to get her SISIP cheque.

I remember when I was a green DEU guy in Halifax years ago, seeing an Aurora flying overhead and thinking "man those guys have it easy".  Now I do that job, and while some parts are easier, some are lots harder.  I had 2.5 *no-fly* months in 2016, I still logged 750 hours flying.  We max out at 1000 per year.   I dunno, maybe I've just gotten soft since I switched the green DEU for the blue one.  

For some perspective, my busiest month in theatre, my AIRCRA equalled $2.76/hour (monthly rate divided by hours flown).  Obviously I wasn't doing the job for the money, right?  So when I am making a cool $2.76/hour more for flying over the mobile BBQ party in Iraq & Syria.  Can that be a piss off factor at times, when you do the math and realize how much extra you are making, knowing the risk you are taking (worst case scenario) every second the wheels are in the well?  Yup.

Change it to RA for Iraq the days you are in Iraq, and Kuwait the days you are in Kuwait.  Seems to make sense to me.  It ain't all about money, but that is the ONLY perk I can show, give to my wife for being away.  Money doesn't make the world turn, but it helps pay for nice things and trips when you are on your post-D leave...anyone who goes away (hopefully) understands the equally important *marriage maintenance* stuff.  Coins and certificates for the I LOVE ME wall don't mean much to a spouse.  A trip to Cuba sure does.



> Finally... zero time flying over ISIS, but I did get to drive around Jordan, Lebanon, and the west bank in an unarmoured SUV without a weapon in areas with active ISIS elements working (and in the case of Jordan in a country with 2 x recent terrorist attacks on westerners).... without the tax free the fin clerk in Camp Canada gets



And I don't agree with that one single bit.  It isn't up to me, but if it was, you'd be getting the proper RA for that, and the tax free gig too.

As I said last page, I think...the whole methodology is messed up.  Whatever the RA is I was getting, I'd be telling anyone who'd listen guys like you should be getting more.  I advocate a lot of the *flying is dangerous and aircrew don't have it as easy as it may seem* stuff, but I also don't think we have it the hardest or most dangerous.  Being over them isn't the same shit as being that up close and personal.  Hats off to ya and your crew.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2017)

bradley247 said:
			
		

> That's how it works for transient aircrew (C-17s, Js etc...), Kuwait days for days in Kuwait, Iraq days for days in Iraq. Do The Aurora and Tanker guys on CFTPOs not operate that way?



Nope.  Kuwait days for all days.  Not sure about the AAR folks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Apr 2017)

Article Link

Supporting Coalition Forces in Iraq with Tactical Aviation

Article / April 20, 2017 

By: Captain Matt Zalot, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Task Force – Iraq, Detachment Erbil (JTF-I Erbil)

Up to four CH-146 Griffon helicopters are supporting Canadian and Coalition forces in northern Iraq. These helicopters belong to the Tactical Aviation Detachment based in Erbil. Their work is one aspect of Operation IMPACT, Canada’s contribution to the Coalition fight against Daesh.

The detachment, part of Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I), provides in-theatre tactical transportation for Canadian and Coalition troops, equipment, and supplies in northern Iraq. The battle captain—the officer primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of the detachment –explains how the Griffons assist with troop mobility throughout the area of operations.

“In Iraq, we receive helicopter requests straight from the units we support. We prioritize them based on our mandate and our helicopter and aircrew capacity for that day,” said the battle captain, who cannot be named for operational security reasons. “We succeed in our mission through meticulous planning and execution in line with the Detachment Commander’s intent, and with support and oversight from the ATF-I Commander in Kuwait.”

Broadly speaking, the squadron’s operations officer provides mission instructions and the battle captain makes sure these instructions are properly carried out. The battle captain confirms details such as the preferred route and the fuel requirements. While a mission is being planned, he or she works with the mission commander, who is a pilot.

The Griffons are capable of providing casualty evacuations if required. However, their main role is tactical mobility. They quickly move soldiers and equipment to key areas by air, instead of moving by road through dangerous areas.

“We will often be tasked to bring elements from our base in the vicinity of Erbil out to tactical locations to support ground forces in the fight against Daesh. To accomplish this task in theatre, we apply the same tactics and procedures that we routinely practice at home in Canada.”

While perhaps less well-known than their fixed-wing brethren, the Tactical Aviation Detachment and its CH-146 Griffon helicopters are busy flying every day in support of the Global Coalition. They offer flexibility and mobility to Canadian and Coalition troops, and contribute to the fight to dismantle and ultimately defeat Daesh.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Apr 2017)

These guys are flat out rock stars, and have a great reputation in the Coalition.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Apr 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry, I was on my phone with small screen earlier...I thought Light Guns said the part you did.
> 
> I can't talk about operating altitudes, etc of course.  Or if there are/aren't any Grinch systems in the JOA.  However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that FL200 is completely safe.  I go by what I can source from the stuff we source it from and I know different people have different numbers from different sources/methods.
> 
> ...



Good post. For the record, I dont begrudge the air force anything or think that you guys are whiners. What I DO begrudge in JTF-I is that, unlike in Afghanistan, the support staff in Camp Canada have zero risk and have basically made it their life's mission to keep their HA/RA (including rolling the OS hub into Impact for that sole purpose). If I were king for a day, the Air crew would be seperated by mission name from the support staff/self licking lollipop that is the majority of JTF-I so that you guys got tax free and they didn't.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Apr 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Good post. For the record, I dont begrudge the air force anything or think that you guys are whiners. What I DO begrudge in JTF-I is that, unlike in Afghanistan, the support staff in Camp Canada have zero risk and have basically made it their life's mission to keep their HA/RA (including rolling the OS hub into Impact for that sole purpose). If I were king for a day, the Air crew would be seperated by mission name from the support staff/self licking lollipop that is the majority of JTF-I so that you guys got tax free and they didn't.



The biggest problem is that we've been forced by TB to link a specific HA/RA level to tax-free status. If we really wanted to fairly compensate troops for being deployed, and stop the over-inflating of RA/HA numbers, any operation entitled to at least RA1 and HA1 should be automatically tax-free. Aircrew should also be getting the RA level for the day they're in the airspace in a higher RA AOR, like EITS said. Its just common sense, which is probably why NDHQ hasn't sorted it out yet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Good post. For the record, I dont begrudge the air force anything or think that you guys are whiners.



Oh...I wouldn't go that far.  We have some whiners.   >



> What I DO begrudge in JTF-I is that, unlike in Afghanistan, the support staff in Camp Canada have zero risk and have basically made it their life's mission to keep their HA/RA (including rolling the OS hub into Impact for that sole purpose). If I were king for a day, the Air crew would be seperated by mission name from the support staff/self licking lollipop that is the majority of JTF-I so that you guys got tax free and they didn't.



CDS Townhall at the Camp Canada patio last December just before Christmas, he told the townhall "make no mistake, the ONLY reason you people here are getting Risk and tax free is because of what the aircrew are doing."  

I and others had hope that the...mentality...would change when the JTF Command went from a wedge to a green beret.  It might have actually gotten worse.  Change of command parades galore, Hours of operations signs all over the place, and a *garrison* attitude.  People concerned about aircrew badges and zipper lights, not about mission success.  Fuck me senseless, it was hard to ignore the folks who cared about the wrong stuff.  

JTF-I, more specifically the JTFSC, the mentality I saw there, for me it was embarrassing to be a part of that.  We distanced ourselves from it as best we could, kept to ourselves as a Det and a crew and did the job.  I could write 2 pages of the problems I saw from my low view as a sub-unit Snr NCO...without thinking about it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The biggest problem is that we've been forced by TB to link a specific HA/RA level to tax-free status. If we really wanted to fairly compensate troops for being deployed, and stop the over-inflating of RA/HA numbers, any operation entitled to at least RA1 and HA1 should be automatically tax-free. Aircrew should also be getting the RA level for the day they're in the airspace in a higher RA AOR, like EITS said. Its just common sense, which is probably why NDHQ hasn't sorted it out yet.



I think its done the way it is to make it easier to administer, which is a poor excuse, if you ask me.  What do I personally think the risk is on CC?  Uhhhhhhh.  Nothing?  Eating too much ice cream maybe...or wearing sandals at night.  My last roto, you want to know what REALLY worried me over there?  The prick who was stealing my friggin Under Armor t shirts out of the damn laundry on me.     I lost 3 of them on ROTO 4.  3 !!!  Mother-fu$$ker, I wish I would have caught that person in the act.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> These guys are flat out rock stars, and have a great reputation in the Coalition.



I have a lot of respect for those guys and how they do the low and slow stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2017)

Is any of this linked to Government of Canada Travel Advisories?

Iraq	        Avoid all travel (with regional advisories)	2017-04-11 09:00:42
Syria  	Avoid all travel	2016-09-07 10:29:37

Turkey	Exercise a high degree of caution (with regional advisories)	2017-04-18 10:44:14
Jordan	Exercise a high degree of caution (with regional advisories)	2017-03-30 14:00:47
Ukraine	Exercise a high degree of caution (with regional advisories)	2017-01-11 12:26:48
India	        Exercise a high degree of caution (with regional advisories)	2017-03-30 13:54:30
Mexico	Exercise a high degree of caution (with regional advisories)	2017-03-16 12:57:20

Kuwait	Exercise a high degree of caution	2017-03-30 14:00:47
Bahamas	Exercise a high degree of caution	2017-04-11 11:18:25
Jamaica	Exercise a high degree of caution	2017-03-16 12:57:20
France	Exercise a high degree of caution	2017-04-21 11:54:18

Latvia	Exercise normal security precautions	2017-01-11 11:46:38
Romania	Exercise normal security precautions	2017-02-01 12:58:44

Just curious.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Apr 2017)

I wonder what Mr. Sunshine and Butterflies will say/do if any of our troops became casualties from Turkish, Syrian or Russian actions?

More than a dozen US-backed Kurdish fighters killed in airstrikes from Turkish jets in Syria and Iraq, two US defense officials confirm, with one outraged official calling it 'very serious.' 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/25/turkish-jets-bomb-us-backed-forces-in-iraq-syria-us-officials-say.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I wonder what Mr. Sunshine and Butterflies will say/do if any of our troops became casualties from Turkish, Syrian or Russian actions?


And yet, you expressed no concerns that I remember about a previous government committing to supporting some elements of the Kurds, even though there was some ... political uncertainty visible down the road.  Or did I miss that?


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I wonder what Mr. Sunshine and Butterflies will say/do if any of our troops became casualties from Turkish, Syrian or Russian actions?


I don't think that I would so glibly use the deaths of Canadian troops (even hypothetical deaths because the dangers may be real and the troops themselves are very real people) to take cheap political shots.  Maybe instead we can hope there are mechanisms in place to ensure our troops are never in the beaten zone of Turkish or Russian forces.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Apr 2017)

> And yet, you expressed no concerns that I remember about a previous government committing to supporting some elements of the Kurds, even though there was some ... political uncertainty visible down the road.  Or did I miss that?



You missed everything. I have NO problems supporting the Kurds. None. My question was: What would be the reaction of the PM if we took casualties from Turkish, Syrian or Russian actions? Our forces are fighting ISIS. Throw in a NATO ally and two other counties possibly shooting at them.

I don't get your comment other than you want to take a contrary viewpoint to my post(s).


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... I don't get your comment other than you want to take a contrary viewpoint to my post(s).


I guess I read more partisan intent in your statement than you claim - my mistake, I guess.


----------



## Ping Monkey (5 May 2017)

Posted with the caveat that I've never before heard of this guy's blog, nor do I recognize it as a *legitimate* news source.
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/05/04/sickening-government-punishing-troops-spoke-benefit-cuts/
_
*Government Punishing Troops Who Spoke Out Against Benefit Cuts*

_


> The Trudeau government is punishing Canadian soldiers for exercising the same freedom of speech they fight to defend for all of us.
> Canadian troops serving in Kuwait – _participating in the fight against Islamic State_ – used to get tax free incomes for serving in a danger zone.
> 
> Last year however, the Trudeau government shamefully took those benefits away.
> ...


----------



## dangerboy (5 May 2017)

Saying the Prime Minister is not allowing troops to have "Freedom of Speech" is a bit of a stretch.  No matter what political party is in power all CAF Members are subject to QR&O 19.36



> 19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
> 
> (1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (5 May 2017)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Saying the Prime Minister is not allowing troops to have "Freedom of Speech" is a bit of a stretch.


I skimmed a couple of his blog entries and it's apparent that he cares more about bashing Trudeau than getting facts straight.  

Noted, and dismissed.   :boring:


----------



## dimsum (5 May 2017)

.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I skimmed a couple of his blog entries and it's apparent that he cares more about bashing Trudeau than getting facts straight.
> 
> Noted, and dismissed.   :boring:



According to this CBC report,  Spencer Fernando was the chief-of-staff for the Manitoba Liberal party until 07 May 2016, when he resigned. Just a couple days later his girlfriend, Stephanie Danyluk (Liberal candidate for Fort Whyte) also resigned. No real details for the resignations.

Prior to that (2006-2015), he worked for both the federal and provincial Conservative parties. In Aug 2014, he got booted from the provincial PC party for writing an article supporting an inquiry into the missing/murdered aboriginal women.

His articles have appeared (2010 - 2013) in  the Manitoban (Official students newspaper for the University of Manitoba), the Mytoba.ca, and the Easton Spectator.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 May 2017)

Tax free status is linked to a combination of Risk and Hardship.

Those 15 soldiers live in hard accommodations on a base with a pool, a number of food courts, and 3 different PXs where their US counterparts head downtown to rent jet skis.  They never leave the Base.

They are not being punished.  

The other Canadians live in tents on a base without a pool, only 2 PXs, an outdoor food court, and where their US counterparts go jet skiing.  All but those that fly never leave the Base.

Obviously they face much greater dangers and deprivation and so are worthy of tax free status....................

Those that fly on the other hand face significant danger every day....that they leave the Base and fly over hostile territory.  They are completely worthy of tax free status.


----------



## BlueJays1985 (20 May 2017)

Is there a specific place to find recommendations and suggestions on how to be best prepared for a tour to Baghdad? 
From what to expect with geographic details, to 'must haves' for packing gucci kit/sniffle kit.
I'm sure any experienced member willing to chat would be helpful.
Thanks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2017)

Our folks just passed stuff word of mouth from crew to crew, so if I were you I'd try to find out who is in your slot now and ask them directly.   :2c:


----------



## dimsum (24 May 2017)

Confirmation from CBC that one of the two Auroras are back home.  



> Canada brings home 1 of 2 Aurora surveillance planes from anti-ISIS mission
> 
> One of the Canadian air force spy planes assigned to the campaign against the Islamic State has been quietly withdrawn and brought home, CBC News has learned.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sajjan-iraq-isis-cp-140-1.4129219


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2017)

For the love of all things sane and normal, do not read the story comments.   8)


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2017)

Soon, our foreign policy will be characterized as "Words, not deeds."

That being said, we must be burning lots of hours into those already old airframes. I would hope that this is because someone recommended we cut sorties so we're not without the Auroras when a replacement shows up in 30 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2017)

The decision was the right one, for the right reasons and at the right time.   :2c:


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (24 May 2017)

The amount of burn out was getting high. If nothing was done there would be no more aircrew to fly them.


----------



## dimsum (25 May 2017)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> The amount of burn out was getting high. If nothing was done there would be no more aircrew to fly them.



Exactly.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 May 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Exactly.



I'm convinced that a good portion of that burn out rate is based our inability to produce high numbers of qualified aircrew and our mismanagement of personnel.

I am glad they scaled this back, it's what we need.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 May 2017)

I wonder if they will scale back any of the 350 support staff there to support the planes.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2017)

I had assumed that the aircraft had reached a flight hour limit that required a higher level of maintenance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2017)

I just want to throw this in;  everyone needs to consider that the LRP fleet was doing its normal stuff concurrent to IMPACT.  It takes a considerable amount of resources to support a deployed Det in a sustained op, and IMPACT had a 2 aircraft Det in play since Oct 2014.  It's not just the aircrew that takes the hit;  maintainers, mission support, Det HQ all place their own demands on personnel and IMPACT wasn't the only OUTCAN tasking happening.  There's the requirement to keep people at the LRP Training and Force Development Sqns (404 and 415) to keep those wheels turning.  The Transport fleet also plays a major support role, bringing people and parts in/out of theatre.  All those people need to be supported at their home units and the JTF.  Lots of effort right across the board.

As I said, the information was provided to the decision makers, and the decision was made to scale back the Det.  IMO (I consider my opinion relatively informed on this subj), the right decision was made at the right time.  OPSEC would prevent me from going further on the subj than that, but the LRP fleet can be proud of the work done on a 2 aircraft Det from Oct 2014 til now and into the future with the 1 tail left in theatre to continue doing the work being done.  Its been a busy, demanding 2.5+ years.  Not only when the folks are deployed, but maintaining the other tasks done by our fleet day to week to month when not deployed to IMPACT when they are/were between ROTOs.  

It was likely the same for fighter folks before they left, and the AAR and TacHel fleets are still there doing their business too.  Sticks on the ice, hope everyone gets back to homeplate after every launch.


----------



## Quirky (25 May 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I'm convinced that a good portion of that burn out rate is based our inability to produce high numbers of qualified aircrew and our mismanagement of personnel.
> 
> I am glad they scaled this back, it's what we need.



On another note, doesn't this seem kind of ridiculous that we can't sustain TWO CP140's deployed for an extended amount of time before our aircrew, maintainers and airframes are burnt out. Our political leadership needs a swift kick to the teeth.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 May 2017)

Well, we *did* sustain a 2 tail Det for 2.5+ years.  Comparing to keeping say, an Inf Coy deployed for 2.5 years...we have less crews than the Army has Inf Coys, and they have the big Res Inf pool to draw on if needed.  Aircrew...not so much.  

Like any fleet, airframes were rotated in/out as needed for maint.  The big effect, IMO, was the combined sustained op and *all the other stuff* the fleet does.  Only so much juice in a battery, then you need to charge it or replace it.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 May 2017)

Quirky said:
			
		

> On another note, doesn't this seem kind of ridiculous that we can't sustain TWO CP140's deployed for an extended amount of time before our aircrew, maintainers and airframes are burnt out. Our political leadership needs a swift kick to the teeth.



Yes, we have issues.  

Knee jerk reactions have only worsened our situation.

With no solid plan in place to fix it, I think it's going to be at least 4-5 years before we are where we want to be in terms of manning.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yes, we have issues.
> 
> Knee jerk reactions have only worsened our situation.
> 
> With no solid plan in place to fix it, I think it's going to be at least 4-5 years before we are where we want to be in terms of manning.



Well, you know the plan now!      http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-artemis.page


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2017)

The latest tea-leaf reading via The Canadian Press...


> The commander of the Canadian Forces mission in Iraq and Syria says he expects the government to extend the operation past its scheduled expiry date at the end of the month.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Dan MacIsaac told The Canadian Press that he’s looking forward to seeing a renewed commitment of more than 800 military personnel in the international anti-terror coalition as part of Wednesday’s long-awaited defence policy review.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jun 2017)

And this today on the post-Review circuit ...


> Operation IMPACT, Canada’s contribution to the fight against the so-called Islamic State, will be renewed by the end of this month, the defence minister has confirmed.
> 
> In an interview with The West Block‘s Vassy Kapelos, Harjit Sajjan said the Canadian effort will continue into its fourth consecutive year in Iraq and Syria, but added that the shape of the mission may change.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2017)

MOAR tea leaves ...


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has ruled out sending Canadian troops into Syria as the clock ticks down on Canada's current mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
> 
> Military planners have been drawing up options for the next phase of the fight against ISIL, after the Trudeau government extended the current mission for another three months in March.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jun 2017)

By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member*.  I've heard Gen Lawson referred to (incorrectly) as Canada's top soldier in the past.  SO wondering if by troops its meant the way we mean it in the military (soldiers) or the way the media uses the word.

If the latter...I hope someone reminds our MPs that Canadian aircrews have been doing the Syria thing for some time now.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member* ...


Hence, the tea leaf reading needed ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jun 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> By *troops* does he mean (literally) *troops* or is this the common media term for *military member*.  I've heard Gen Lawson referred to (incorrectly) as Canada's top soldier in the past.  SO wondering if by troops its meant the way we mean it in the military (soldiers) or the way the media uses the word.
> 
> If the latter...I hope someone reminds our MPs that Canadian aircrews have been doing the Syria thing for some time now.   ;D



We have aircrew flying in Syria?  Why didn't you tell us sooner.... 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2017)

Meanwhile ...


> There are fears Canadian military aircraft operating over Syria could be caught in the middle of a new and potentially explosive dispute between the U.S. and Russia.
> 
> Moscow is warning that it will target allied aircraft operating west of the Euphrates River in Syria in retaliation for the U.S. shooting down a Syrian government warplane on Sunday.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Jun 2017)

Note the lack of source for the alleged "fears".  So who exactly is fearing?


----------



## medicineman (20 Jun 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Note the lack of source for the alleged "fears".  So who exactly is fearing?



The media on an otherwise slow new day?

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2017)

medicineman said:
			
		

> PPCLI Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The goat needs to be fed ...

Good question, though -- this from a longer version of the story ...


> ... While former Canadian diplomat Ferry de Kerckhove said it was unlikely Russia would risk shooting down a coalition aircraft, Canadian or otherwise, he worried about the increasing rhetoric and tension in Syria.
> 
> "This is very dangerous," he said. "And if it rises, they could certainly be caught in the middle. If we're talking about an escalation in the tension, there could be some concern for the Canadians, absolutely." ...


So if it's "fears", this guy must be facing more than one fear.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jun 2017)

Aussies worried:



> Syria conflict: Australia [temporarily] suspends anti-IS raids
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40339101



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We have aircrew flying in Syria?  Why didn't you tell us sooner.... 8)



Hmmm...good point.  I'll keep the thread updated more often.   ^-^


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jun 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Note the lack of source for the alleged "fears".  So who exactly is fearing?



The folks who _really_ like the ice cream machine at the DFAC...'cause it _did_ break a few times.


----------



## Swingline1984 (21 Jun 2017)

Not sure where to put this story (this is the closest I could find), but it appears the record has not just been beaten, but handily destroyed...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadian-elite-special-forces-sniper-sets-record-breaking-kill-shot-in-iraq/article35415651/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Jun 2017)

Article Link

Canadian elite special forces sniper makes record-breaking kill shot in Iraq

A sniper with Canada's elite special forces in Iraq has shattered the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot in military history at a staggering distance of *3,450 metres*.

Sources say a member of Joint Task Force 2 killed an Islamic State insurgent with a McMillan TAC-50 sniper rifle while firing from a high-rise during an operation that took place within the last month in Iraq. It took under 10 seconds to hit the target.

"The shot in question actually disrupted a Daesh [Islamic State] attack on Iraqi security forces," said a military source, who stressed the operation fell within the strictures of the government's advise and assist mission. "Instead of dropping a bomb that could potentially kill civilians in the area, it is a very precise application of force and because it was so far way, the bad guys didn't have a clue what was happening."

The kill was independently verified by video camera and other data, The Globe and Mail has learned.

"Hard data on this. It isn't an opinion. It isn't an approximation. There is a second location with eyes on with all the right equipment to capture exactly what the shot was," another military source said.

A military insider told The Globe: "This is an incredible feat. It is a world record that might never be equalled."

The world record was previously held by British sniper Craig Harrison, who shot a Taliban gunner with a 338 Lapua Magnum rifle from 2,475 metres away in 2009.

Previously, Canadian Corporal Rob Furlong had set the world record in 2002 at 2,430 metres when he gunned down an Afghan insurgent carrying an RPK machine gun during Operation Anaconda.

Weeks before, Canadian Master Cpl. Arron Perry briefly held the world's best sniper record after he fatally shot an insurgent at 2,310 metres during the same operation. Both soldiers were members of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

JTF2 special forces are primarily tasked with counterterrorism, sniper operations and hostage rescue. Much of the information about this elite organization is classified and not commented on by the government. The unit's snipers and members of Canadian Special Operations Regiment, who are carrying out the main task of training Kurdish forces, have been operating in tough conditions in Iraq.

The Trudeau government pulled CF-18 fighter jets out of Iraq in 2016 but expanded the military mission, which will see the number of Canadian special forces trainers climb to 207 from 69 in an assist, train and advise mission. Canadian commandos are not supposed to be involved in direct combat, but are authorized to go up to the front lines on training missions with Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and to paint targets for coalition air strikes.

For operational security reasons, sources would not reveal the names of the elite Canadian sniper and his partner, nor the location where the action took place.

A sniper and his observer partner are often sent to remote and dangerous locations to hunt down insurgents while having to carry heavy equipment. Once they have located the target, snipers follow the same methodical approach before each shot. Breathe in, out, in, out, find a natural pause and then squeeze the trigger.

Canada has a reputation among Western military forces for the quality of its snipers, despite the small size of the Canadian Armed Forces compared to the United States and Britain.

"Canada has a world-class sniper system. It is not just a sniper. They work in pairs. There is an observer," a military source said. "This is a skill set that only a very few people have."

The skill of the JTF2 sniper in taking down an insurgent at 3,450 metres required math skills, great eyesight, precision of ammunition and firearms, and superb training.

"It is at the distance where you have to account not just for the ballistics of the round, which change over time and distance, you have to adjust for wind, and the wind would be swirling," said a source with expertise in training Canadian special forces.

"You have to adjust for him firing from a higher location downward and as the round drops you have to account for that. And from that distance you actually have to account for the curvature of the Earth."

U.S. Sergeant Bryan Kremer has the longest confirmed sniper kill shot by a U.S. soldier. He killed an Iraqi insurgent with his Barrett M82A1 rifle at 2,300 metres in 2004.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2017)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Aussies worried:
> 
> 
> > Syria conflict: Australia [temporarily] suspends anti-IS raids
> ...


Aaaand, they're back at 'er ...


> Australia has said it will resume its military air operations over Syria.
> 
> A temporary suspension was declared on Tuesday after Russia warned it would treat aircraft from the US-led coalition as potential targets.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2017)

Sniper story getting coverage in blogs as varied as Instapundit and NextBigFuture. It certainly is a large jump in distance compared to the previous "records". I wonder if it would be worthwhile to radically increase the number of snipers and really make getting around dangerous for people like the Taliban and ISIS? The ability to kill from such a distance with no way for the enemy of really knowing where the shot came from (at that range you would be hard pressed to see or hear the shot being fired, and the time between the "crack" and the "thump" would be pretty hard to determine when scrambling for cover) would be a very potent psychological tool in the toolbox.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jun 2017)

Something from the broader radar screen ...


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> With Canada helping the Kurds and the Iraqis, it looks like some lines are being drawn (or maybe, new lines on maps NOT being drawn?) early on ...
> 
> 
> > Canada has told the Kurds that it wants to see Iraq remain united and not broken into different parts that would include an independent Kurdish state. But experts say it is only a matter of time before the Kurds, strengthened by Canadian military assistance, try to declare independence.
> ...


The latest on that ...


> While the federal government considers whether to renew Canada's mission against Islamic State militants, a different sort of battle is brewing inside Iraq.
> 
> Iraq's Kurdish people are gearing up for a long-awaited referendum in September on whether to seek independence from the rest of the country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2017)

So Liberal led Canada supports Neo-Imperialist, Colonist, racially motivated imposed Sykes-Picot accords over the democratic will of oppressed minorities who have suffered for generations under brutal dictatorships? Oh that's gold......... [


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So Liberal led Canada supports Neo-Imperialist, Colonist, racially motivated imposed Sykes-Picot accords over the democratic will of oppressed minorities who have suffered for generations under brutal dictatorships? Oh that's gold......... [


If the World Socialists or rabble.ca are looking for part-time writers, you're just what they'd need  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2017)

Thanks for reminding me, have to go stir the pot....


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jun 2017)

Two more years (also attached if link doesn't work) - *highlights* mine ...


> Daesh’s atrocities have led to countless tragedies, not only because of the impact on their immediate victims, but because of the subsequent humanitarian crises and increased forced migration that has affected millions of innocent lives throughout the region. The world has united against Daesh and Canada will defend its interests alongside our allies while working with local partners to establish more stable and secure conditions.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland today announced that *Canada is renewing its military contribution to the Global Coalition against Daesh until March 31, 2019.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Jul 2017)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-mosul-idUSKBN19K0YZArticle Link

Iraq declares end of caliphate after capture of Mosul mosque

By Khaled al-Ramahi and Maher Chmaytelli | MOSUL/ERBIL, Iraq 

After eight months of grinding urban warfare, Iraqi government troops on Thursday captured the ruined mosque at the heart of Islamic State's de facto capital Mosul, and the prime minister declared the group's self-styled caliphate at an end.

Iraqi authorities expect the long battle for Mosul to end in coming days as remaining Islamic State fighters are bottled up in just a handful of neighborhoods of the Old City.

The seizure of the nearly 850-year-old Grand al-Nuri Mosque -- from where Islamic State proclaimed the caliphate nearly three years ago to the day -- is a huge symbolic victory.

"The return of al-Nuri Mosque and al-Hadba minaret to the fold of the nation marks the end of the Daesh state of falsehood," Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in a statement, referring to the hardline Sunni Mulsim group by an Arabic acronym.

The fall of Mosul would in effect mark the end of the Iraqi half of the IS caliphate, although the group still controls territory west and south of the city, ruling over hundreds of thousands of people. 

Its stronghold in Syria, Raqqa, is also close to falling.

A U.S.-backed Kurdish-led coalition besieging Raqqa on Thursday fully encircled it after closing the militants' last way out from the south, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group said.

These setbacks have reduced Islamic State's territory by 60 percent from its peak two years ago and its revenue by 80 percent, to just $16 million a month, said IHS Markit. 

"Their fictitious state has fallen," an Iraqi military spokesman, Brigadier General Yahya Rasool, told state TV.

However, it still occupies an area as big as Belgium, across Iraq and Syria, according to IHS Markit, an analytics firm. 

Islamic State fighters blew up the medieval mosque and its famed leaning minaret a week ago as U.S.-backed Iraqi forces started a push in its direction. Their black flag had been flying from al-Hadba (The Hunchback) minaret since June 2014.

Much of the mosque and brickwork minaret was reduced to rubble, said a Reuters TV reporter who went to the site with the elite units that captured it.

Only the stump of the Hunchback remained, and a green dome of the mosque supported by a few pillars which resisted the blast, he said.

The mosque grounds were off limits as the insurgents are suspected to have planted booby traps. 

Abadi "issued instructions to bring the battle to its conclusion," by capturing the remaining parts of the Old City, his office said.

The cost of the fighting has been enormous. In addition to military casualties, thousands of civilians are estimated to have been killed.

About 900,000 people, nearly half the pre-war population of the northern city, have fled, mostly taking refuge in camps or with relatives and friends, according to aid groups.

Those trapped in the city suffered hunger, deprivation and IS oppression as well as death or injury, and many buildings have been ruined.


ARDUOUS TASK

Counter Terrorism Service (CTS) troops captured the al-Nuri Mosque's ground in a "lightning operation" on Thursday, a commander of the U.S.-trained elite units told state TV. 

CTS units are now in control of the mosque area and the al-Hadba and Sirjkhana neighborhoods and they are still advancing, a military statement said.

Other government units, from the army and police, were closing in from other directions. 

An elite Interior Ministry unit said it freed about 20 children believed to belong to Yazidi and other minorities persecuted by the jihadists in a quarter north of the Old City which houses Mosul's main hospitals. 

A U.S.-led international coalition is providing air and ground support to the Iraqi forces fighting through the Old City's maze of narrow alleyways. 

But the advance remains arduous as IS fighters are dug in the middle of civilians, using mortar fire, snipers, booby traps and suicide bombers to defend their last redoubt.

The military estimated up to 350 militants were still in the Old City last week but many have been killed since. 

They are besieged in one sq km (0.4 square mile) making up less than 40 percent of the Old City and less than one percent of the total area of Mosul, the largest urban center over which they held sway in both Iraq and Syria.

Those residents who have escaped the Old City say many of the civilians trapped behind IS lines -- put last week at 50,000 by the Iraqi military -- are in a desperate situation with little food, water or medicines.

"Boys and girls who have managed to escape show signs of moderate malnutrition and carry psychosocial scars," the United Nations Children's Fund UNICEF said in a statement.

Thousands of children remain at risk in Mosul, it said.

IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed himself ruler of all Muslims from the Grand al-Nuri Mosque's pulpit on July 4, 2014, after the insurgents overran swathes of Iraq and Syria.

His speech from the mosque was the first time he revealed himself to the world and the footage broadcast then is to this day the only video recording of him as "caliph".

He has left the fighting in Mosul to local commanders and is believed to be hiding in the border area between Iraq and Syria, according to U.S. and Iraqi military sources.

The mosque was named after Nuruddin al‑Zanki, a noble who fought the early Crusaders from a fiefdom that covered territory in modern-day Turkey, Syria and Iraq. It was built in 1172-73, shortly before his death, and housed an Islamic school.

The Old City's stone buildings date mostly from the medieval period. They include market stalls, a few mosques and churches, and small houses built and rebuilt on top of each other over the ages.


(Additional reporting by Stephen Kalin in Erbil. Writing by Maher Chmaytelli, Editing by Angus MacSwan)


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2017)

From Kurdish media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> *Canadian special forces tasked with buying weapons for Kurds *
> 
> ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—Canadian special forces have taken over the process of purchasing weapons for the Peshmerga forces of the Kurdistan Region in line with a promise made by Canadian prime minister last year to assist the Kurdish troops.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Jul 2017)

If only we could do that for ourselves....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2017)

Certain items can be purchased quicker *than normal*.  Things that are deemed UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement) is one example.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2017)

A couple of updates ...


> *Surveillance plane crews strained after three years flying over Iraq, Syria*
> By: Lee Berthiaume The Canadian Press Published on Thu Jul 27 2017
> 
> The Canadian military is hoping the recent withdrawal of one of its Aurora surveillance planes from the fight against the Islamic State will help ease what had become a serious strain on the fleet's aircrews.
> ...





> *Canadian troops help secure Mosul as future battles loom*
> _The acting commander of the Canadian forces admits that despite these advances, there is still much work to be done to eliminate Daesh._
> Bruce Campion-Smith, _Toronto Star_ Ottawa Bureau
> Sat., July 29, 2017
> ...


More @ links


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2017)

I remember, last October, hearing *Mosul should be secure by the New Year*... :blotto:


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember, last October, hearing *Mosul should be secure by the New Year*... :blotto:


Something about plans surviving contact (or not) comes to mind ...


----------



## dimsum (30 Jul 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember, last October, hearing *Mosul should be secure by the New Year*... :blotto:



Like "the war will be over by Christmas"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Like "the war will be over by Christmas"?



Or...*this is a one-of-a-kind ISR asset and...*


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jul 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Something about plans surviving contact (or not) comes to mind ...



But that never happens....its an urban myth!!   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But that never happens....its an urban myth!!   ;D


You wild-eyed optimist, you ... 

Meanwhile ...


> *Canadian weapons destined for Peshmerga still a no show: Spokesperson*
> _G.H. Renaud, kurdistan24.net
> August 13-2017     10:00 AM_
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2017)

And the latest about our folks on the ground ...


> Canadian special forces have left the city of Mosul and are now backing up Iraqi forces as they prepare to assault one of the Islamic State group's last strongholds in the country.
> 
> The move comes amid growing friction between the various local groups facing off against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and warnings that despite its battlefield victories, the international community has a lot more work to do in Iraq.
> 
> ...


... as well as some recent news about Hawija & the Kurds ...

_*"Baghdad cannot start Hawija offensive without Peshmerga: Kurdish official"*_
_*"Peshmerga won't participate in Hawija operation without clear agreement with Baghdad: Kurdish official"*_ (7 Sept)
_*"The Peshmerga troops have denied conflicts with the federal government in Baghdad over liberation of Hawija, southwest of Kirkuk, a Kurdish official said, expressing astonishment for not involving the troops in the liberation plans ..."*_
_*"Peshmerga, Iraqi forces will launch Hawija operation soon: Abadi "*_ (6 Sept)
... and, this from the White House earlier today:


> *Statement by the Press Secretary on the Kurdistan Regional Government’s Proposed Referendum*
> 
> The United States does not support the Kurdistan Regional Government’s intention to hold a referendum later this month. The United States has repeatedly emphasized to the leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government that the referendum is distracting from efforts to defeat ISIS and stabilize the liberated areas. Holding the referendum in disputed areas is particularly provocative and destabilizing. We therefore call on the Kurdistan Regional Government to call off the referendum and enter into serious and sustained dialogue with Baghdad, which the United States has repeatedly indicated it is prepared to facilitate.


op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2017)

On the fight around Hawija ...

_*"IS Governor of Hawija Killed"*_ (Basnews, Kurdish media))
_*"Abadi: Operation launched to retake Hawija from ISIL"*_ (Al Jazeera English)
_*"Iraq launches offensive on Hawija, an Islamic State-held region near oil city Kirkuk"*_ (Reuters)
_*"Iraqi PM Announces First Stage of Hawija Assault"*_ (Basnews)
_*"Iraqi forces launch Hawija offensive without Peshmerga* ... Jabar Yawar, the secretary general of the Peshmerga ministry, told Rudaw on Thursday that they do not take part in the operation. He said that they will only keep their defense lines strong, and will not allow the ISIS militants to infiltrate Peshmerga lines.  He explained they will not allow any units of the Iraqi forces to cross the front lines of Peshmerga-controlled areas ..."_ (Rudaw, Kurdish media)


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2017)

From the DND info-machine ...


> As part of Canada’s whole-of-government strategy in response to the crises in Iraq and Syria, and following the liberation of Mosul by Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the Canadian Armed Forces are now providing advice and assistance to ISF in the area around Hawija, Iraq.
> 
> Canada has also sent a small team of Canadian Army engineers to observe ongoing explosive threat training that the ISF are receiving under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Training and Capacity Building – Iraq mandate. This is the first step in plans for highly-skilled Canadian combat engineers to provide this training to ISF later this fall.
> 
> ...


... and from CBC.ca:


> A handful of Canadian army combat engineers will soon be in Iraq to train local security forces in the finer points of detecting and defusing roadside bombs, the Liberal government announced Thursday.
> 
> An advance team has already been sent to observe the kind of instruction being given under a NATO program that was announced at the Warsaw Summit in the summer of 2016, but only established in earlier this year.
> 
> A media release by National Defence provided few specifics, saying only a dozen engineers would be involved in the new endeavour and that they would deploy "later this fall." ...


*More @ links*


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2017)

Latest on Kurds-IRQ forces in Hawija ...

_*"Iraqi military, Kurdish Peshmerga reach 5-point agreement for Hawija ops"*_ (Rudaw, Kurdish media)
_*"Peshmerga, Iraqi Army Reach Agreement on Hawija Battle"*_ (Bas News, Kurdish media)


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2017)

This via Kurdish media ...


> *Canada Still Planning to Arm Kurds Even After Independence Vote*
> _Basnews English 28/09/2017 - 10:02 _
> 
> Military assistance deliveries are still expected to proceed even after Kurdistan Region held an independence referendum on September 25, the Canadian Forces said on Wednesday.
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Sep 2017)

Call me cynical, but whoever is giving themselves a pat on the back on this one might want to cut it short.  Despite the words in the article, this isn't what I call a success.  This started as a clusterfuck,  took way to long to fix and it doesn't address one of the biggest issues with the iBLOS (which I won't state on here, sorry).  The aircrew didn't call this I-BLOWS for no reason.  This *fix* is way too long coming - the problems existed back on R0 when I was there and still existed when I left after my 3rd kick at that cat (after the _successful Oct 16 TAV_).  I won't even give this one a golf clap, sorry "_folks who think you did a good job_".  I think even the ISRD folks would say 'day late, dollar short'.  Foresight of engineering staff and outstanding contributions, my ass.   :

Article Link

iBLOS paints clearer picture for CAF and allies

The interim Beyond-Line-of-Sight (iBLOS) capability, initially fielded in 2014 on several CP-140M aircraft when the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed for Operation IMPACT, was intended to deliver an immediate operational effect. Its fielding accelerated the implementation of a complex onboard satellite-based Beyond-Line-of-Sight (BLOS) capability that was to be delivered as part of the Aurora Incremental Modernization Project. Design. To expedite the delivery of this crucial capability for the limited quantity of aircraft deploying, support decisions for iBLOS had to be made quickly.

The initial architecture supporting the BLOS capability on the ground used domestic and centralized classified networks to bear the CP-140M full-motion video feed to the coalition, as this was the most flexible option for a quick implementation. However, over the course of a few Op IMPACT rotations, it proved to be less efficient than expected. The traffic travelled from the aircraft in the area of operations, across the Atlantic Ocean to different networks in Ottawa, and back to reach decision-makers at the Combined Aerospace Operations Centre (CAOC) in theatre. This complex architecture and loopback had a negative impact on the quality of the video where it mattered most.

As Canada redefined its mission role in 2016 with the removal of the fighter detachment, the Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) raised the requirement to the RCAF to enhance the quality of the video feed. Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) was becoming one of our primary contributions to the Coalition against Deash. As a result, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) was tasked in April 2016 to re-engineer part of the iBLOS capability with the goal of providing a better quality video to the war fighter.

In only a few months, a team from Director General Aerospace Equipment Program Management(DGAEPM) – Radar and Communication Systems worked with theatre personnel and the Weapon System Manager CP-140 team to design and obtain approval for a transformational network architecture. The initiative resulted in the ground segment of the iBLOS capability moving from Ottawa to the Deployed Mission Support Centre (DMSC) within the CP-140 detachment in theatre. This ensured an optimal path was being used to transmit the video feed directly to deployed users alongside the detachment. A technical assistance visit was conducted in theatre in October 2016 to implement the new solution.

As theatre personnel now had direct access to the video source, further enhancements were made over the following months to inject the feed into the coalition’s network. This milestone defines the current and final state for the iBLOS capability in theatre. Crisper and enhanced video has brought the CP-140M back into the list of high-priority ISR assets used for intelligence gathering, as well as dynamic targeting within the coalition. This achievement was highlighted by the satisfaction of the Canadian Liaison Officer in Qatar when presenting the result to coalition commanders.

As the RCAF and ADM(Mat) work on the implementation of the BLOS capability across the remainder of the fleet, lessons learned from the iBLOS experience in theatre have been captured and were considered in the final network architecture. The foresight of engineering staff within DGAEPM and the outstanding contribution of multiple L1s during this endeavour will ensure that the joint BLOS capability delivers high quality video to future end-users domestically and abroad, and will benefit the Canadian Armed Forces for years to come.


----------



## dimsum (28 Sep 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Call me cynical, but whoever is giving themselves a pat on the back on this one might want to cut it short.  Despite the words in the article, this isn't what I call a success.  This started as a clusterfuck,  took way to long to fix and it doesn't address one of the biggest issues with the iBLOS (which I won't state on here, sorry).  The aircrew didn't call this I-BLOWS for no reason.  This *fix* is way too long coming - the problems existed back on R0 when I was there and still existed when I left after my 3rd kick at that cat (after the _successful Oct 16 TAV_).  I won't even give this one a golf clap, sorry "_folks who think you did a good job_".  I think even the ISRD folks would say 'day late, dollar short'.  Foresight of engineering staff and outstanding contributions, my ass.   :



Man, I'm glad I didn't read this while drinking.


----------



## Sub_Guy (28 Sep 2017)

ETIS nailed it.

I spent many nights on the phone with tech support troubleshooting that piece of shit.

https://youtu.be/N9wsjroVlu8


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Sep 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Man, I'm glad I didn't read this while drinking.



My thoughts or the article?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Sep 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> ETIS nailed it.
> 
> I spent many nights on the phone with tech support troubleshooting that piece of shit.
> 
> https://youtu.be/N9wsjroVlu8



That video made me LOL...mostly because I could picture that happening at the HAS if we ever got the go-ahead to rip that POS out of Stbd fwd.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2017)

So far, according to French-language media, the CF info-machine says IRQ's flight ban isn't affecting Op IMPACT ...


> Les liaisons aériennes entre le Kurdistan irakien et l’étranger ont été coupées vendredi sur ordre de Bagdad qui veut forcer cette région autonome à annuler son récent référendum sur l’indépendance, mais ce blocus aérien devrait pas affecter les opérations des Forces canadiennes dans la région pour l’instant.
> 
> Cette interdiction ne concerne pas les vols humanitaires, militaires et diplomatiques, a affirmé Talar Faiq Saleh, la directrice de l’aéroport international d’Erbil.
> 
> ...


Google English version:


> Iraqi Kurdistan and foreign air links were cut off on Friday by Baghdad's order to force the autonomous region to cancel its recent referendum on independence, but this air blockade should not affect Canadian Forces operations in the region for the moment.
> 
> This prohibition does not apply to humanitarian, military and diplomatic flights, said Talar Faiq Saleh, the director of Erbil International Airport.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2017)

Via globalnews.ca ...


> *Canada’s new role in helping Iraqi forces: Remove thousands of ISIS booby-traps*
> 
> The Canadian military is expanding its operation in Iraq to focus on rebuilding the war-ravaged country.
> 
> ...





> *Kurdish independence vote leaves Canadian Forces in a bind*
> 
> Canadian Forces in northern Iraq are facing new uncertainty about their ongoing military operation against the so-called Islamic State following the Kurdish independence referendum.
> 
> ...


*More @ links*


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2017)

This from Kurdish media, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> *Canada to expand role in Iraq, begin ‘rebuilding’ initiative*
> Karzan Sulaivany, Kurdistan 24, 2 Oct 2017
> 
> Canadian forces on Monday said they would expand their operation in Iraq and help rebuild areas of the war-torn country, including the safe removal of landmines.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Oct 2017)

According to this story from the Globe & Mail, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, elements of the Joint Incident Response Unit are operating in Iraq disarming chemical weapons.

Canadian special-forces team hunts down and dismantles chemical weapons in Iraq

ROBERT FIFE
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF


Canadian special forces have played a central role in hunting down, detecting and dismantling stockpiles of chemical weapons used by Islamic State militants in Iraq, according to sources with knowledge of the top-secret operations.

Some of these highly trained soldiers have advanced scientific degrees and used their specialized skills to decontaminate Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Iraqi soldiers affected by mustard gas.

Canada's special forces are made up of the elite JTF-2 counterterrorism force, regular commandos, a special helicopter detachment and the Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit (CJIRU), which is responsible for responding to nuclear, chemical and biological attacks.

Soldiers with the CJIRU are among about 200 Canadian special forces deployed in northern Iraq focused mainly on training Kurdish fighters. Some of them recently helped in the battle to reclaim the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State, including a small number of CJIRU soldiers whose job was to search for and destroy chemical weapons.

Mosul was at the centre of the Islamic State's chemical-weapons production, mostly small batches of low-quality chlorine and sulphur mustard agents, but the hardline Sunni militants also had control over radioactive material at the city's university.

Sources, with knowledge of the activities of Canada's special forces in Iraq, but who were not authorized to speak on the record, have told The Globe and Mail that CJIRU soldiers detected and dismantled weaponized chemical components and hazardous material in Mosul between March and August of this year.

"It is a very, very highly capable organization that deals with very, very ugly situations," said retired lieutenant-colonel Steve Day, the former head of Canada's secret JTF-2 special-operations unit who worked alongside CJIRU soldiers.

"They have got both tactical training, so they can operate alongside special forces, but they also have technical training in their ability to handle biological, chemical or radioactive agents."

For security reasons, the sources would not discuss the exact nature of the operations that were conducted in eastern and western Mosul.

Major Alexandre Cadieux, who speaks for Canadian Special Operations Task Force (SOTF) in Iraq, said the military has a policy of not commenting on its special-forces activities and the role of CJIRU soldiers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Oct 2017)

The  CAF training mission in Iraq has been suspended in light of recent events between Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/iraq-canadian-special-forces-suspended-1.4376244


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Oct 2017)

The main areas in Western Anbar along/close to the border (Rawah, Anah, Al Qaim). 

*The Iraqi armed forces are making significant progress in their operation to liberate #AlQaem and surrounding areas in western #Anbar
*

CANSOF mission "suspended", ISF established well NW of the Haditha area of the ERV.  Wonder what's next for JTF-I, ATF-I....


----------



## dimsum (30 Oct 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The main areas in Western Anbar along/close to the border (Rawah, Anah, Al Qaim).
> 
> *The Iraqi armed forces are making significant progress in their operation to liberate #AlQaem and surrounding areas in western #Anbar
> *
> ...



Close-out parade?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Oct 2017)

They could have done that for 75% of the JTF about...oh, 3 years ago.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Nov 2017)

The US, UK, France, Australia have sensibly decided to try and kill their citizens who have joined Daesh in order that they don't return home and commit further atrocities.  We on the other hand are going to sing Kumbyah (and no doubt with our Sunny Ways PM in charge, give them $10.5M too boot, so the cynic in me thinks).  We're also pulling back assets on one hand while sending Combat Engineers to train Iraqi forces how to de-mine and remove booby traps.



> While Western nations mark their ISIS fighters for death, Canada offers 'reintegration support'
> 
> Only way to deal with homegrown jihadis 'will be, in almost every case, to kill them': U.K. minister
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2017)

Not sure that what happens to Cadadian citizens is in the scope of Op Impact. But this is:
http://www.cbc.ca/1.4405964

The Aurora will be coming home next month, and Combat Engineers will deploy into Iraq to train EOD.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Nov 2017)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not sure that what happens to Cadadian citizens is in the scope of Op Impact. But this is:
> http://www.cbc.ca/1.4405964
> 
> The Aurora will be coming home next month, and Combat Engineers will deploy into Iraq to train EOD.



Additional info here:   https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/11/canadian_armed_forcesbeginexplosivethreattraininginiraqadjusting.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2017)

The last IMPACT Aurora crew landed today in Greenwood.  Welcome home to the guys on the last of many sorties over 3+ years in support of the mission and BZ to all the folks who served the Det over the deployment.

Article Link - Dec 13th  

After 881 sorties and approximately 7,500 hours flown, and nearly 6,000 points of interest observed; 14 Wing Greenwood's CP140 Aurora air and ground crews are wrapping up their contributions to the international coalition to defeat Daesh. Their work in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions have made a difference since October 2014.   The first of the last deployed personnel return to Greenwood December 16.

Article Link - Dec 16th   Nice to see the Div Commander there to welcome the guys home.

They’re back! 14 Wing’s Aurora landed home this afternoon, with the first of the last deployed long range patrol air and ground crews through with their role with Operation Impact. Welcome home!

Video of the crew taking off for the last leg home from EHRD   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_b9mu2ginM


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2017)

Merry Christmas guys, welcome home.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Dec 2017)

BZ to the men and women of the CP-140 Air Det!


----------



## McG (23 Dec 2017)

I have read an article that the government plans to revisit both the continued role of Op IMPACT and the decision to provide arms to the Kurds. It will be interesting to see what the future brings for this mission.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Dec 2017)

It has been over 3 years.  With western Anbar being called secure isn’t out mandate fulfilled?  Free Iraq from ISIS.


----------



## McG (24 Dec 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It has been over 3 years.  With western Anbar being called secure isn’t out mandate fulfilled?


Maybe. Maybe there is more work to ensure the progress is irreversible. Either way, it is a government/political decision. So they are looking at it.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (24 Dec 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It has been over 3 years.  With western Anbar being called secure isn’t out mandate fulfilled?  Free Iraq from ISIS.



Except they extended to 2019 and sent an Engineering contingent to assist the Iraqi Forces in Demining and Counter-Explosive Operations in the country.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Dec 2017)

And?  They can keep that contingent going and stand down the Garrison that the Kuwait location became with its hours of operation signs all over the place.   Reduce the footprint and save the taxpayers some cash.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Dec 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It has been over 3 years.  With western Anbar being called secure isn’t out mandate fulfilled?  Free Iraq from ISIS.



Iraq is free of ISIL 1.0.  ISIL 2.0 is the next task - we will have to see how Canada plans to contribute to that part of the mission, although I sense that it will not be insignificant


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Dec 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And?  They can keep that contingent going and stand down the Garrison that the Kuwait location became with its hours of operation signs all over the place.   Reduce the footprint and save the taxpayers some cash.



ASAB- the textbook definition of a self licking lollipop.... 5 log organizations within 500 metres


----------



## MJP (25 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ASAB- the textbook definition of a self licing lollipop.... 5 log organizations within 500 metres



I would love to take a blow torch to them all and recreate something that is sustainable.  The entire support structure with every org there is ridiculous.


----------



## Zoomie (25 Dec 2017)

Should have just been OSH-K supporting ATF-I.   No need for JTF or JTFSC.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2017)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Should have just been OSH-K supporting ATF-I.   No need for JTF or JTFSC.



How else do we get a bunch of Cols/Majs who missed Afg an operational tour?


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How else do we get a bunch of Cols/Majs who missed Afg an operational tour?



We have VR on our side now, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Dec 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Iraq is free of ISIL 1.0.  ISIL 2.0 is the next task - we will have to see how Canada plans to contribute to that part of the mission, although I sense that it will not be insignificant



Any thoughts on what changes to the current mission, ORBAT, might look like?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ASAB- the textbook definition of a self licking lollipop.... 5 log organizations within 500 metres





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> I would love to take a blow torch to them all and recreate something that is sustainable.  The entire support structure with every org there is ridiculous.





			
				Ditch said:
			
		

> Should have just been OSH-K supporting ATF-I.   No need for JTF or JTFSC.



It warms my heart to see others outside the ATF LRP Det say these things.  The question now is...why did it become so 'fat' and why was it not scaled back? 

I hope it was not solely because of this...



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How else do we get a bunch of Cols/Majs who missed Afg an operational tour?


----------



## dimsum (29 Dec 2017)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ASAB- the textbook definition of a self licking lollipop ice cream dispenser.... 5 log organizations within 500 metres



FTFY.  Considering the DFAC there, it's much more appropriate.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2019)

Two more years - more from the info-machine ...


> *Canada renews its military contribution to support stability in the Middle East*
> From: National Defence
> News release
> March 18, 2019 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> ...


Bit more @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jun 2019)

This from the NATO Association of Canada, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act_ ...


> *Operation IMPACT: A Sit-Down with Brigadier-General Colin Keiver*
> 
> Operation IMPACT is currently the largest deployed operation in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). The operation consists of Canada’s contribution to global efforts to defeat the threat of Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. It consists of two phases. The first entailed reversing the territorial gain of Daesh, while the second involves increasing regional security. Alongside international allies, the operation started in 2014 and has been renewed by the Canadian Government until March 2021. Brigadier-General Colin Keiver, former Commander of Joint Task-Force IMPACT, was in charge of the Canadian contribution to the U.S.-led Global Coalition. Operation IMPACT is Canada’s capacity building operation in the Middle East. Canada’s military is working hand-in-hand with Coalition, NATO, and partner nations to train, advise, and assist the military forces of Iraq, as well as Jordan and Lebanon. Security is an important pillar of post-conflict reconstruction and helping partner nations improve their military capabilities in one of the critical means by which the CAF are helping defeat violent extremist groups, like Daesh, and increase the security and stability of the Middle East.  Two program editors, Basel Ammane and Farzin Bakhtiar, from the NATO Association of Canada, had the opportunity to conduct an interview with the Brigadier-General at the Denison Armoury.
> 
> ...


Text also attached in case link doesn't work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jun 2019)

Kurds:  Canada, you in?


> Canada is being invited to once again provide training to Iraq‘s Kurdish security forces, who worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Canadian soldiers in the war against the Islamic State group before being frozen out in 2017.
> 
> Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, Iraqi Kurdistan’s top diplomat in Washington, insisted her people don’t harbour any ill will toward Canada for suspending and later ending years of military assistance to the Kurdish military, called the peshmerga.
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jun 2019)

Canada's lead continues, with a new boss - highlights mine …


> Canada remains steadfast in our support to NATO. We have demonstrated a readiness to provide leadership where it is needed and are committed to strengthening the transatlantic bond. As a result, we are now leading three NATO efforts globally, including NATO Mission Iraq, where we are working to support stability and security in the Middle East.
> 
> Defence Minister Harjit S. Sajjan today announced that *Canada will continue command of NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) for a second year until November 2020. Major-General Dany Fortin, who took command in November 2018, will transfer command in the fall of 2019 to Brigadier-General Jennie Carignan, who will be promoted to the rank of Major-General. *Brigadier-General Carignan is currently the Commander of 2nd Canadian Division and Joint Task Force East based in Quebec.
> 
> ...


Carignan bio attached - more @ link, or in attached text if link doesn't work.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2019)

It's nice to see deployments _other _than Mali get mentioned in the news.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's nice to see deployments _other _than Mali get mentioned in the news.



Sheesh.... more proof that you're just anti-5 Div  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2019)

One of the bosses drops by - via the NATO info-machine ...


> NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg arrived in Baghdad on Monday (16 September 2019) for talks with the Iraqi government and the leadership of the Alliance’s new training mission in the country. Mr. Stoltenberg is being accompanied by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Tod Wolters.
> 
> The Secretary General began his trip with a visit to the Iraqi School of Military Communications at Taji, one of the educational institutions being supported by NATO. The School trains personnel from the Ministry of Defence. At Taji, Mr Stoltenberg also visited the Tactical Aviation Detachment. The Detachment houses Canadian CH-146 Griffon helicopters providing essential support to NATO’s training and advisory efforts in the country.
> 
> ...


Pix of SecGen w/various Canadians attached from the NATO info machine as well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Sep 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One of the bosses drops by - via the NATO info-machine ...Pix of SecGen w/various Canadians attached from the NATO info machine as well.



What are those bloody stars on that General Officer's collar!?


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What are those bloody stars on that General Officer's collar!?


Good catch!

Maybe they're the "rank subtitles" to translate his Canadian rank - in case they don't get that 2 leaves = 2 stars?


----------



## dimsum (17 Sep 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good catch!
> 
> Maybe they're the "rank subtitles" to translate his Canadian rank - in case they don't get that 2 leaves = 2 stars?



I think the Brits did (do?) that when working with US forces too.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2019)

Nothing new in Combined Joint Ops...

#moveonnothingtoseehere


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2019)

Why is it not everyone then?   Why not just go with the US equivalent ranks while deployed...wouldn't want anyone to be confused.

Canadian uniform should = Canadian rank.  I'm not a fan of the "I'm special!" Club...


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2019)

From what I saw in coalition theatre it was not as much an I’m special as a WTF are you?  Just take a look at NATO rank insignia charts it’ll be evident that there could be confusion (look at Norway for example and see how a LCol could look like a MGen, etc.).  No doubt there is the spectrum of “Meh...” to “Preposterous!!!”

:2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Sep 2019)

I don't disagree that there is a huge variance in equal ranks in coalitions, but my own time in the IMPACT theatre was spent on a coalition base as well with Canadian, US, Kuwait, British, Spanish, and other countries all occupying a (somewhat small) shared space.  None of the Canadian GOFOs (I served under several JTF-I Commanders), Senior Officers Task Force CWOs, etc sported non-Canadian ranks.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Sep 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nothing new in Combined Joint Ops...
> 
> #moveonnothingtoseehere



It just hurt my RCR eyes is all.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It just hurt my ex-RCR eyes is all.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Sep 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nothing new in Combined Joint Ops...
> 
> #moveonnothingtoseehere


Just imagine if some people had nothing to whine about...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just imagine if some people had nothing to whine about...



Just imagine if the CAF most senior leadership followed the orders, regs, policies they expect their subordinates to abide by and enforce... 

American ranks, sleeves neither rolled/not rolled up, GOFOs who aren't aircrew wearing flying suits (more so when there is a severe shortage), wearing berets vice wedge in No 1 order of dress...I could go on.  If all of these things are okay, make the changes in the Dress Instr's for the CAF.  Not just the I'm Special Club.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2019)

Do we know that MGen Fortin’s ‘stars’ aren’t covered in a relevant instruction (be it OP-specific, amendment to a Standing Order, etc.)?


----------



## dimsum (18 Sep 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> GOFOs who aren't aircrew wearing flying suits (more so when there is a severe shortage)



Wait what?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Sep 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wait what?



Hard to stop people when the _example_ is being set at the top, isn't it?  It's even worse when there are known shortages and people who aren't even aircrew and are so far removed from a flight line are wearing them...."because".  It's hard to understand in your head why there are "no flight suits in the system" when you see all the office commando's and HCol's in them, and they're not wearing shabby, falling apart ones...meanwhile, some flyers don't have 2 good ones.  I've got nothing against HCol's but...they don't need flight suits, sorry.  CADPAT would do just fine.

If anyone is thinking "hey, maybe MGen Harris was in a flying position at one time...", you can read her service history here.   I don't see any indication she was ever badged as air or flight crew, and she doesn't wear the AWAC flight crew badge on her DEU.

Show up at the next parade in No 1 with a beret on...nothing should be said, right?  Because...https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/09/19297

If there is a *_rank and file people who are tired of the high paid help failing in their "lead by example" duties_*...this should be moved to that thread.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2019)

An update via the _National Post_ ...


> ... Since 2014, Canada and other allies have partnered with local groups like the Kurds to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Canada began working to train and equip the Peshmerga in Iraq, while its fighter jets supported the YPG in Syria. Under the then-Conservative government, Canadian military aircraft carried equipment into Iraq, while private companies began exporting arms, mostly to the Peshmerga — nearly $2 million worth in 2015, and $1.3 million in 2016.
> 
> With the Liberals in power, that help ground to a halt, even as the Kurds were waging a costly fight against ISIL’s strongholds in the area. Trudeau immediately halted Canada’s bombing campaign in Syria. And while special forces had been training Kurdish fighters in Erbil, the Trudeau government put a halt to that mission in 2018 and diverted the resources towards the central Iraqi government in Baghdad.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Oct 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't disagree that there is a huge variance in equal ranks in coalitions, but my own time in the IMPACT theatre was spent on a coalition base as well with Canadian, US, Kuwait, British, Spanish, and other countries all occupying a (somewhat small) shared space.  None of the Canadian GOFOs (I served under several JTF-I Commanders), Senior Officers Task Force CWOs, etc sported non-Canadian ranks.



The stars are not for the other members of the coalition, or those who command ops in Iraq from Kuwait.  They do however matter to the Iraqis, which is where the actual operations occur.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The stars are not for the other members of the coalition, or those who command ops in Iraq from Kuwait.  They do however matter to the Iraqis, which is where the actual operations occur.



Is there a reason that not all CAF Generals do this then that are deployed to Impact?  Is it because the MGen is with the NATO mission specifically vice the JTF?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Oct 2019)

From what I have seen, some do it, and some do not.  The Brits are the same way.  I sense that the decision NOT to wear US rank is a personal one, or rooted in a statement that this position is definitely Canadian (ie not American).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2019)

Copy that.  You'd almost think you were well within your lane on this specific topic.  






 :whiteflag:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2019)

New NATO mission boss coming around month's end -- this update via Kuwaiti media ....


> (MENAFN*** - Kuwait News Agency (KUNA)) BRUSSELS, Nov 7 (KUNA) -- One of the main objectives of NATO's training mission in Iraq is to establish a long-term partnership with the Arab country, according to Major General Dany Fortin, outgoing Commander of the NATO Mission Iraq.
> 
> Addressing a press conference at NATO headquarters Thursday, he said setting the conditions for long-term partnership between NATO and Iraq is considered to be among the successes of the mission in Iraq launched in October 2018.
> 
> ...


*** - Jordan-based Middle East North Africa Financial Network.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jan 2020)

The latest ...


> The targeted killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, could lead to the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Iraq and the Middle East, according to national security experts, as the threat level in the region has escalated rapidly.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


More @ link

More on the bad guy hit ongoing at the thread here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2020)

955 troops asking if their danger pay is going up.

200 troops pissed off because people who's guns are locked up for 6 months are getting the same danger pay as ones who are carrying them 24/7.

Leadership holding town halls pointing fingers the treasure board  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2020)

NATO Mission Iraq firing alright, mission STOPS ....


> NATO has suspended Canadian-led training of Iraqi security and armed forces to ensure the safety of several hundred mission members after a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad killed a top Iranian general, an alliance spokesman said on Saturday.
> 
> "The safety of our personnel in Iraq is paramount," acting NATO spokesman Dylan White said in a statement. "We continue to take all precautions necessary. NATO's mission is continuing, but training activities are temporarily suspended."
> 
> ...


Nothing yet on Canada's Op IMPACT page.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2020)

And, we're back ...


> The Canadian military is resuming some operations in Iraq following a temporary suspension of activities last week.
> 
> Brig.-Gen. Michel-Henri St-Louis says the military is again flying transport aircraft in and out of Iraq to supply troops there.
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2020)

Some of the latest ...

_*“NATO moves to expand Canadian-led military training mission in Iraq”*_ (CBC)
_*“Defence Ministers to address NATO’s ongoing support for Iraq”*_ (NATO info-machine)
_*“NATO eyes boosting Iraq army training, still needs Iraq’s OK”* (Associated Press)_
https://apnews.com/06c2712412df3ed7141d2c03e73637f7


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2020)

And no new/extra troops from us ...


> Canada already has deployed a "significant contribution" to the NATO mission in Iraq and likely will only make  adjustments within its current allocation of troops going forward, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said Thursday.
> 
> Sajjan was responding to the western military alliance's proposal to expand its military contribution in the war-torn country.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2020)

I guess....they're asking for more than we can give right now??


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I guess....they're asking for more than we can give right now??



Well, I'm pretty sure they asked everyone to leave, and we collectively said no.

So I'm guessing they're going to ask for more money and equipment.


----------



## CBH99 (13 Feb 2020)

On the Army side, I'm guessing we've hit our limit of what we can deploy without overly stretching ourselves to the breaking point.

Anywhere from 800 to 1000 troops in Iraq, 650 in Latvia, 250 in Ukraine, sounds about right when pre-deployment & post-deployment are taking into consideration.  

Reserve units contribute also, but we need them more & more locally, especially during fire season.



I stand to be corrected and will google the info later, but I'm guessing there's a few countries in the EU that could each contribute a few hundred each, and make up for a shortfall.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> On the Army side, I'm guessing we've hit our limit of what we can deploy without overly stretching ourselves to the breaking point.
> 
> Anywhere from 800 to 1000 troops in Iraq, 650 in Latvia, 250 in Ukraine, sounds about right when pre-deployment & post-deployment are taking into consideration.
> 
> ...



Crikies.  2000 troops 'taps us out'.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2020)

I would be very curious to see how that 800-1000 troops. I'm Iraq breaks down.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Feb 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Crikies.  2000 troops 'taps us out'.



Can you imagine the complexity of coordinating the leave, alone?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Feb 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the complexity of coordinating the leave, alone?



Name tags!   It would take years!!!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Feb 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Reserve units contribute also, but we need them more & more locally, especially during fire season.



Devil's Advocate: Shouldn't local communities start developing their own fire response capacity as opposed to having to rely on the Army every year?

Just sayin'...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2020)

Not everyone's headed back, apparently ...


> Canada’s war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has quietly entered a new phase, resulting in plans to keep fewer troops in the Middle East even after the COVID-19 pandemic passes.
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces has had up to 850 troops in the region in recent years, including hundreds of military trainers who have been teaching the basics of soldiering to Iraqi forces as part of the global fight against ISIL.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jul 2020)

As always...there are differing opinions.

Article Link

Under cover of COVID, ISIS is seeking a comeback

The Islamic State is eyeing a comeback on the battlefield and the world stage, testing a fragile global community that is combating the coronavirus and distracted from its fight against extremism.

ISIS is taking advantage of the pandemic’s burden on local governments and world powers’ inward focus to step up attacks and pitch to new recruits, the United Nations and experts warn, and reemerge from the hinterlands to strike in the Arab world and Africa.

The reawakening of ISIS exposes not only the fragility of the status quo, but the extremist group’s evolution as a movement.  

Three years after the destruction of its so-called caliphate and the dismantling of its organizational leadership by an American-led coalition, ISIS has since March shown renewed strength, staging dozens of attacks in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and West Africa.

“From approximately March 2020, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic became a factor in ISIL operational, propaganda, and fundraising activities,” the U.N. Security Council was warned last week.  

ISIS is “consolidating in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic,” said a U.N. report to the Council, “and showing confidence in its ability to increasingly operate in a brazen manner in its core area.”

Alarming experts is ISIS’s ability to move freely between eastern Syria and western Iraq – territory that once fell under its “caliphate” – entering towns and villages with relative ease. Its ranks boast around 10,000 fighters, according to U.N. and analysts’ estimates.

“The pandemic came at a time with preexisting conditions on the ground in Iraq and Syria that allowed ISIS to benefit,” says Hassan Hassan, director of the Non-State Actors and Geopolitics program at the Washington-based Center for Global Policy.

“Namely, the pandemic came amid already existing political and security issues in Iraq and Syria and a vacuum left behind by the Trump administration,” he adds. “Add to this the fact that with the pandemic, the last thing on people’s minds was ISIS.”

COVID as catalyst

Iraq has struggled with a surge in coronavirus cases. And across Syria, despite government statistics claiming the contrary, the virus is ravaging communities, according to citizens, the U.N., and health officials in neighboring states.

Syria and Lebanon are also witnessing economic collapse, and in much of the Arab world, populations are struggling under lockdown-imposed economic costs and rising joblessness.

With health sectors and economies crumbling, experts are highlighting what they call a “symmetry” between the militant group and the vicious virus.

COVID-19 amplifies, they say, what ISIS attempts to achieve through its attacks and propaganda, exposing inequality, communities’ disenfranchisement, and the failures of the state.

“ISIS focuses on exposing the same failures in a country that the coronavirus is now exposing: collapse of the nation-state, weak security, and deep economic, political, cultural, and sectarian crises,” says Hassan Abu Haniya, an Amman-based Jordanian expert in Islamist and extremist movements.

“Although the U.S.-led coalition focused on containing and dismantling ISIS, they never addressed the root grievances in Arab countries that allowed its rise in the first place,” he says. “Coronavirus is now laying these bare once again and exacerbating them.”

Divisions in Iraq

In Iraq, political and security setbacks are lowering the resistance to ISIS.

Sectarian infighting among and between Shiite, Kurdish, and Sunni militias has created local power vacuums, allowing ISIS to fill back in, including north of Baghdad and in the disputed areas near Iraqi Kurdistan, experts and analysts say.

And the Iraqi government, under a new prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, is consumed with an uphill battle against powerful Shiite militias unwilling to lay down their arms or accept central government authority.

In Baghdad, protests against corruption and militias’ influence continue.

Meanwhile, joint operations against ISIS with U.S. forces have largely come to a standstill amid the tensions with Iran-backed militias following the January assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.

Not only did the U.S. strike disrupt America’s fragile common cause with Shiite militias against ISIS, but it triggered a wave of revenge attacks that prompted U.S. forces to retreat to non-frontline bases, crucially forcing a halt to U.S.-Iraqi and U.S.-Kurdish operations. The U.S. expertise in counter-insurgency operations is needed now to stem ISIS’s resurgence and is especially missed, analysts note.

“The fact that ISIS can operate almost freely in a massive and expansive space in Iraq and Syria without popular support says a lot about how Iraq cannot secure itself … without current American involvement,” says Mr. Hassan at the Center for Global Policy.

Mr. Abu Haniya, the Jordanian expert, takes a longer view.

“The West and the world shouldn’t forget that ISIS has gone through this phase and metamorphosis before,” he says.

“In 2009, after the U.S. surge and the Sunni ‘Sahwa’ awakening movements drove Al Qaeda in Iraq to the desert in the hinterlands, it reorganized, adapted and waited to stage a comeback as ISIS in 2014,” he notes.

“This is history repeating itself.”


More on the story at link, including the "Africa Push" segment.


Ref the "ISIS can move freely between eastern Syria/western Iraq.  Personally, having spent a decent amount of time working *over* western Anbar, I've always had the opinion that it was a requirement to shut the border down.  Start at Al Qaim/Al Bukamal, secure there and then deliberately spread west/east.  Put assets in/over the gaps, strike those trying to make it thru.

6 years...how many times has 'victory' been declared?


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2021)

A public reminder that they're still at it in this part of the world ....


> Some Canadian soldiers supported a major military offensive last month that U.S. and Iraqi officials say killed dozens of fighters loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, according to the commander of the country's military elite special forces.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Maj.-Gen. Peter Dawe said his troops helped plan the two-week operation codenamed Ready Lion, which involved using airstrikes and Iraqi snipers to root ISIL forces from mountain hideouts.
> 
> ...


Well done, all!


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Apr 2021)

Well done, CANSOF.


----------



## MilEME09 (12 Jun 2021)

Feds face calls for inquiry into military’s handling of Iraq war crime reports - National | Globalnews.ca
					

The federal Liberal government is facing calls for an independent inquiry following allegations the military failed to respond to a complaint three years ago.




					globalnews.ca
				





2021 is the year of scandal and investigation


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jun 2021)

Interesting article.  I have a few initial thoughts -- curious to hear from you guys.  What are your thoughts?

Anybody deploy on IMPACT that might be able to comment?


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jul 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Interesting article.  I have a few initial thoughts -- curious to hear from you guys.  What are your thoughts?
> 
> Anybody deploy on IMPACT that might be able to comment?



My guess is that their lawyers have advised them not to....


----------



## dimsum (12 Jul 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Interesting article.  I have a few initial thoughts -- curious to hear from you guys.  What are your thoughts?
> 
> Anybody deploy on IMPACT that might be able to comment?


Nice try, G&M...


----------



## CBH99 (12 Jul 2021)

Once I posted that response, I chatted with some of my buddies who are still in, who gave me a general idea of what it was about.

I wasn't hunting for anything incriminating or specific, and I'll admit I was COMPLETELY wrong in my initial assumptions.  

I honestly hadn't heard a peep about that situation until I read that article, hence my post asking for some comments or insights into it.  By all means, disregard!


----------

