# No Security Without Combat



## ruxted (21 Jan 2008)

Link to original article on ruxted.ca


No Security Without Combat

The debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan rages on.  Ruxted would be prepared to accept arguments that Canada needs to wind down its battle group between November 2009 and August 2010 in order to ensure forces are available for the February Olympics. So far, we have not heard that.  Sadly, it still seems the debate revolves around fantastic misconceptions about the provision of security and the reality of the threat in Afghanistan.

"The military forces of Canada have a role to play after February 2009 — even though it's not combat, it will be for security," Dion told reporters Sunday the 13th of January 2008.  Ruxted finds this position particularly worrisome as it suggests a continued naivety despite Mr. Dion's visit to Afghanistan.  Even the classical peacekeeping, of which Canadians take as a source of pride, required Canadian troops to engage in combat in places such as Cyprus and Bosnia.  Combat aversion is the sort of half-measure that was responsible for the atrocity of Rwanda.

Fortunately, Mr. Dion may be on to the right idea but it is not what he thinks.  Three days after his first comment, Mr. Dion observed, "The war against terrorism is mainly a police matter."  Here in Canada, people would not accept if police only arrested criminals that they caught in the act.  There is an expectation that, in the provision of public security, the police will conduct investigations and go after the "evil doers."  At the same time, police have tactical units capable of responding to the armed and aggressive threat.  So, how do we provide security in Afghanistan without doing the same?

Here in Canada, organized crime does not make a business of hunting the police but in Afghanistan that is what the threat does.  In Canada, organized crime does not attempt to seize political control (even local control of municipalities) by armed force but the threat in Afghanistan does.  In Afghanistan, the armed and aggressive threat is insurgent militias.  In this environment, the “typical police patrol car” might look like an infantry platoon and the emergency response team may resemble a combat team or special forces. 

The combat mission is essential to the success of Afghanistan.  In its absence, everything else is only a half measure.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jan 2008)

Truer words have never been spoken. Perhaps some of our more left leaning politicians who preach "reconstruction, not combat" should get over to Afghanistan and sort it out.


----------



## McG (24 Jan 2008)

I see there is some disagreement on the Ruxted site itself: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/104-No-Security-Without-Combat.html#comments


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I see there is some disagreement on the Ruxted site itself: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/104-No-Security-Without-Combat.html#comments



It looks like J MacLean flew off the handle and misinterpreted the words he quoted.  Ruxted wasn't saying that Canadian Troops "in Cyprus or Bosnia were actively seeking combat".  Ruxted stated that even in places like Cyprus and Bosnia Canadian Troops have engaged in combat.  Two different nuances.   Yes, as J Maclean says, Canadian troops are actively seeking combat in Afghanistan, but that is not what Ruxted stated they were doing elsewhere.  They were 'engaged' in combat, is not the same as actively seeking combat.  So, in the end J MacLean just flew off the handle in a rant over something he did not read correctly in the first place.  Perhaps J MacLean will read it again with a clear mind and realize the error that he made.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2008)

> Here in Canada, people would not accept if police only arrested criminals that they caught in the act.  There is an expectation that, in the provision of public security, the police will conduct investigations and go after the "evil doers."  At the same time, police have tactical units capable of responding to the armed and aggressive threat.  So, how do we provide security in Afghanistan without doing the same?



Very well said.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (1 Feb 2008)

Gen Hillier is a wonderful communicator - we are very lucky 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/02/01/4806386-cp.html


----------



## Marshall (25 Feb 2008)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Gen Hillier is a wonderful communicator - we are very lucky
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/02/01/4806386-cp.html



I agree with his statements and im glad he 'stepped over the line' to say it as the liberals put it.

Without a definite combat role (or at least a combat role for a segment of our troops) how is the mission ever going to truely work?

R. Group i love reading your articles and i almost always 100% agree


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (4 Mar 2008)

Years this debate has been going on and I just can't understand that how by this point, the folks at home particularly the politicians (after having it explained many many times) cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that IF THE TALIBAN ARE NOT DESTROYED, SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT EXIST.

To quote just about everybody in the military over the last 3 years "what's the sense in doing reconstruction like building a school if as soon as we turn around and leave the Taliban burn it down?"

The Taliban cannot be negotiated with and will always only seek whatever means necessary to accomplish their goals which happen to be almost the direct polar opposite of ours. Bullets and rockets started flying years ago, the Taliban have declared war on Canada outright, so why are we still having this discussion?

They will continually seek out and destroy as many coalition and Canadian soldiers as possible as long as they exist, so please Canada, for the love of the fallen, do not strip us any of our ability to defend ourselves.Let us do what we do best - finding and destroying enemy combatants.

The Taliban are NOT countless, they will NOT keep coming forever, the problem is NOT poor training or equipment - the problem is manpower. I drove and walked all over Kandahar for 6.5 months playing whack-a-mole, cleaning up and clearing out some spot or town or village center, only to have to move to another one to deal with that problem and have the one we just cleared out suffer from a repeated Taliban-infestation.

Giving us more NATO troops so we can use our soldiers for non-combat roles is pointless and having been there to see it first hand, I fear will have little effect. Keep our combat troops where they are, re-inforce them with even more numbers so we can HOLD THE GROUND THAT WE TAKE, and peice by peice we can force these ****ers back to Pakistan or Iran or wherever they came from and close the gate behind them.

Maybe I can put this in a way the ordinary person in Canada can understand;

Soldiering in Kandahar with the infantry felt like trying to leave someones home after a visit with the kids, chasing them around the house trying to get them dressed and into the car, except you only have two hands and 5 kids - as soon as one is ready to go and you move onto the next, the first is already back to tearing around the place eating candy and writing on the walls again while you're left knowing this would be ALOT EASIER AND FASTER IF MY WIFE WERE HERE.

Catch my drift Canada?


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2008)

Most politicians in the "liberal/socialist" mode think that aggressors can be stopped by having a talk over a cup of tea. Neville Chamberlain thought he could stop Hitler in such a fashion. Look where that got us.
Some people will not accept the fact that sometimes the bully has to be punched in the nose to get him to stop. I know this is a simplistic analogy, howeverif per chance a politician is reading this, he might understand!! :


----------



## 54/102 CEF (4 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Most politicians in the "liberal/socialist" mode think that aggressors can be stopped by having a talk over a cup of tea. Neville Chamberlain thought he could stop Hitler in such a fashion. Look where that got us.
> Some people will not accept the fact that sometimes the bully has to be punched in the nose to get him to stop. I know this is a simplistic analogy, howeverif per chance a politician is reading this, he might understand!! :



Your argument is not simplistic - 

See a primer on your reference to Chamberlin - http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/15599482.html?showAll=y&c=y

See a primer on Dunkirk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk

Validation - when Gen Alan Brooke came across off the Dunkirk Beaches (he was later the Chief of Staff to Churchill throughout the war) - he found no sense of urgency at Dover - peacetime conditions reined. See Turn of the Tide by Arthur Bryant http://www.amazon.com/Turn-Tide-1939-43-Alanbrooke-Diaries/dp/0586068341

Note the ref to Churchill above saying he has to control everything

What's my point? A few actually

The political base in Canada is mushy - no party has a lead or a clue. Doing nothing prior to the arrival of Gen Hillier equates to appeasement of the worst kind.

The Crisis has not yet hit

The LEADER has not yet emerged.

NTF - even current leadership at all levels may be vulnerable to a LEADER


----------



## Greymatters (5 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It looks like J MacLean flew off the handle and misinterpreted the words he quoted.  Ruxted wasn't saying that Canadian Troops "in Cyprus or Bosnia were actively seeking combat".  Ruxted stated that even in places like Cyprus and Bosnia Canadian Troops have engaged in combat.  Two different nuances.   Yes, as J Maclean says, Canadian troops are actively seeking combat in Afghanistan, but that is not what Ruxted stated they were doing elsewhere.  They were 'engaged' in combat, is not the same as actively seeking combat.  So, in the end J MacLean just flew off the handle in a rant over something he did not read correctly in the first place.  Perhaps J MacLean will read it again with a clear mind and realize the error that he made.



Just to track back a bit, why do so many people lump Cyprus and Bosnia into the same fruit bowl all the time?  I see little similarity between the situation and what we did in Cyprus and what we did in Bosnia.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Mar 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Just to track back a bit, why do so many people lump Cyprus and Bosnia into the same fruit bowl all the time?  I see little similarity between the situation and what we did in Cyprus and what we did in Bosnia.



 ???

OK?  You quoted me.  Why?

Canadian Troops were on Peacekeeping missions in both Cyprus and Bosnia.  Yes they were different Missions.  Yes they had different ROEs, as do all like missions.  The point being made is that in both Cyprus and Bosnia, Canadian Peacekeepers were called upon to enter into combat with an enemy force.  In 1974 the CAR were in combat on the Island of Cyprus when the Turks invaded.  We have already discussed in many topics on these forums the Medak Pocket where the PPCLI found themselves in combat in Bosnia.  So, I find your above comments rather ............. discombobulated.


----------



## MdB (5 Mar 2008)

In my mind, the goal is winning this war in Afghanistan. How is it to be achieved?

Not only in destroying the enemy. The goal is not only infantry's: to close with and destroy the enemy. To fix the enemy (as we're kind of a playing hide-and-seek over there) is achievable only in winning the Afghan population and empowering them to reach their goal: ie develop the country after ca 30 years of war (infrastructures the population can use), provide security (not achieved in the South and East), provide better form of government, develop law and order (police and armed forces).

The Afghan population will side with the most poweful authority (and not only legitimate) as it's been the conditions in our civilisations for most of history. Even more in societies that are not democracies, like Afghan politics that work mostly in terms of clans.

The other side of this is to provide legitimacy to the intervention at international- and national-level. I think the international part of it is more than legitimate to explain it here. The national part though is not that clear. We can only win there if we win the Canadian support for this intervention and I think that the job hasn't been done thoroughly yet. Explain the very nature of our role there, seek humanity in what we're doing, have the soldiers take a bigger part at the media coverage, politicians explain it in no-non sense words, etc.

Having just read Blatchford's Fifteen Days, I think this book is a very good start, as is some of CBC's soldier reports and many reporters doing an awesome job at try to seize the very essence of what is really going on. Like it's been said in the book, we lost Rwanda, we lost Darfour, let's not lose Afghanistan.

The reason why we need to seek active combat is to keep the initiative. It's as hard to keep it without asking people to remain targets.

As for Dion stating that Hillier isn't in charge of the country's foreign policy, I think that lacking a spine leads to such despicable acts as giving Hillier some political intents.


Updated for minor typos.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In 1974 the CAR were in combat on the Island of Cyprus when the Turks invaded.  We have already discussed in many topics on these forums the Medak Pocket where the PPCLI found themselves in combat in Bosnia.



Fair enough.  Never mind...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (5 Mar 2008)

A comparison to the idea that you need someone controlling everything vs. the dreaded "collegial risk averse approach"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/news/companies/elkind_jobs.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

History, of course, is littered with tales of combustible geniuses. What's astounding is how well Jobs has performed atop a large public company - by its nature a collaborative enterprise. Pondering this issue, Stanford management science professor Robert Sutton discussed Jobs in his bestselling 2007 book, "The No A$$hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't." "As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story," says Sutton. "The degree to which people in Silicon Valley are afraid of Jobs is unbelievable. He made people feel terrible; he made people cry. But he was almost always right, and even when he was wrong, it was so creative it was still amazing." Says Palo Alto venture capitalist Jean-Louis Gasse, a former Apple executive who once worked with Jobs: *"Democracies don't make great products. You need a competent tyrant."  * 

That`s a Churchill in action. We need the Churchillian vs the Political Reptilian


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (6 Mar 2008)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> We need the Churchillian vs the Political Reptilian



Any ideas?


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (12 Mar 2008)

MdB said:
			
		

> The reason why we need to seek active combat is to keep the initiative. It's as hard to keep it without asking people to remain targets.
> 
> As for Dion stating that Hillier isn't in charge of the country's foreign policy, I think that lacking a spine leads to such despicable acts as giving Hillier some political intents.



I wish more people would understand this fact. I also really support Hillier (more than I am obligated to  ;D). He isn't in charge but he run's this military and want's to see it's best interests served and standing around not fighting back is definately NOT in our best interests, if anything, it could increase the coalition death toll.
Ceasing operations to hunt down Taliban fighters and bomb makers is only going to give them more breathing room and planning time to enact more IED strikes on our Convoys and guys running around the province trying to "administer aid and reconstruction".

Some members of the gov't just (IMO) are not living in reality and don't seem to grasp the concept that as long as the Taliban (al qaeda or whatever you want to call them) exist, there is no security and effective reconstruction cannot take place.

I just finished reading an article on CTV detailing how 1/10th of Afghanistan is literally unpassable to foreign aid workers because it basically means certain death to go there - Taliban controlled territory. 

Maybe Dion and his crew would like to get into an SUV full of water and medicine and drive into Zhari or Maywand by themselves ? 
Or even suppose say they fully understand the security problem, are we all of a sudden content to let other nato nations bleed and die and do the fighting while we focus on reconstruction? That would personally and im sure nationally for alot of CF members be a tough pill to swallow considering the gains we've made and the comrades we've lost along the way.

Go all the way or stay home.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2008)

Mack:

Well said!!


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2008)

Professor Douglas Bland looks at the possible outcomes of the opposition parties ideas:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=3b2d0a02-862b-4029-b433-40899b7ed3d0



> *Back to Srebrenica*
> 
> Douglas Bland
> Citizen Special
> ...


----------



## AirCanuck (20 Mar 2008)

The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Link to original article on ruxted.ca
> 
> 
> No Security Without Combat
> ...



I couldn't agree more.  Too often people who are uninformed (particularly I find at the University campus) preach about returning to our 'roots' as peacekeepers, and that that is what we should be doing in Afghanistan as well - they just don't understand the reality of it.  Reconstruction not war is just not a statement that works in real life right now.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Mar 2008)

If any of these left wing fools would take the time to read "VIMY"  or "Marching as to War" by Pierre Berton they would soon realize that this great nation are not "peacekeepers", but peacemakers.
The Canadian Army does not wage wars of conquest, but liberation. The left wing ideologues seem to conveniently forget that.
Now am I making sense or what?


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If any of these left wing fools would take the time to read "VIMY"  or "Marching as to War" by Pierre Berton they would soon realize that this great nation are not "peacekeepers", but peacemakers.
> The Canadian Army does not wage wars of conquest, but liberation. The left wing ideologues seem to conveniently forget that.
> Now am I making sense or what?



absolutely, I think.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer, you are making to much sense - I recommend that you are sent to Berkley tied to a chair and remain there until you stop making so much sense.

Leftists can never admit to the fact of Canadian soldiers being peace_makers_, that would cause them (leftists) to spontaneously combust if they did.


----------



## AirCanuck (21 Mar 2008)

it reminds me of a speech I recently heard from Romeo Dallaire at the University campus - where he said that we've never been a peacekeeping nation.  Even during the eighties/nineties while the world saw us in peackeeping missions, he claims that I think it was around 80% of our forces were involved in combat operations, either training here in Canada for the Cold war to get hot, or waiting in Europe for the same, or in different countries around the world with various other less publicized missions.


----------

