# NATO wanted more troops - CP



## Strike (22 Aug 2010)

Haven't seen this one yet...

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n4278842

NATO keeps asking for more troops for Afghan mission; Ottawa keeps saying: No.

August 22, 2010 - 20:40

Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Canada turned down a direct plea from NATO to send more troops into southern Afghanistan in the run-up to last year's Afghan presidential election, federal documents say.

It was among the most specific requests Ottawa has received over the years and provides a keen illustration of the pitfalls the Conservative government faces both at home and abroad as it slowly untangles the country from the costly war.

Continued Below

A briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay showed that both NATO and the U.S. expected Canada to ante up the extra troops needed to secure Kandahar from an anticipated wave of Taliban violence prior to the vote.

The plea was turned down cold.

There was a hint of exasperation in the comments category of the note, suggesting that the allies seem oblivious to both the strain that four years of fighting has placed on Canada's small army and the bruising political debate that has battered the minority government.

"The U.S. and NATO had hoped that Canada, as one of the lead nations in (Regional Command) South, would generate the required supplementary forces for south," said the Jan. 23, 2009 briefing document.

"It will be important to communicate to allies — and perhaps the Canadian public — that Canada is already contributing significant military resources to the region where the threat of election-related violence is the highest. While the CF will review and assess future NATO requests for supplementary election forces, allies should understand that Canada is already contributing to the maximum extent possible."

Last winter, NATO asked for more military trainers and Canada sent 90 soldiers. But it was underlined — once again — that they go home when the rest of the army leaves next July.

That the requests keep coming even though Ottawa has formally signalled its withdrawal plans speaks volumes, not only about allied perceptions of the country's military capacity, but the international expectations built up by the Conservative government's tough-sounding rhetoric of not cutting and running.

Douglas Bland, of Queens University's defence management studies centre, said the Afghan mission may be over next year, but the perception that Canada can be counted on to carry the heavy load will likely remain for years to come.

The briefing note urged MacKay to turn the tables on NATO allies and press those already in Afghanistan to remove restrictions that prevent them from fighting in the south.

MacKay, in a recent interview, conceded NATO had come to expect a lot of Canada because the country has "contributed so mightily" to the campaign.

"I would argue that we've done more than most for a military of our size," he said. "Without opening up the whole issue of burden-sharing, I do think we have to continually remind, in some cases, many who follow the mission closely Canada that has been and remains a major contributor to the mission in Afghanistan."

What MacKay didn't address was how you ratchet back those expectations at a time when the U.S. is consumed with Afghanistan and redoubling efforts to batter the Taliban into submission.

Bland said it's up to the government to say 'no' more forcefully.

The fact Canada cannot — or is unwilling — to produce even a few hundred extra soldiers at such critical junctures as the election and the planned offensive in Kandahar mystifies some NATO commanders in Kabul.

NATO sources in Kabul said U.S. commanders in particular don't understand how their northern neighbour could have produced over 4,000 troops for peacekeeping in the Balkans in the 1990s — a time of budget restraint — and yet claim the well is dry while fighting a war. They question Canada's short rotation system of six-month deployments and nearly year-long training programs for each battle group.

The Canadian army did examine the request for extra soldiers for the 2009 Afghan election and developed two options. One involved overlapping the tours of incoming and outgoing battle groups, which would have temporarily doubled the number of soldiers on the ground.

The second option was censored in the documents, but ultimately both suggestions were rejected.

Bland said he doesn't see much lasting political damage with NATO, but said the United States is another matter.

"The American military officers can be pretty aggressive and not understand our politics because they don't understand our country and method of government," Bland said.

"They have their own expectations of what we would be able to do and if they were running our Armed Forces they would do it differently. We used to get that all the time from the Brits. They tell us exactly the same kind of crap, but that's what you get when you're small nation."


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2010)

Lets deploy 3 Infantry battalions at once.

We could even stand up entire reserve regiments for a 6 month deployments for the LOL factor.


----------



## Strike (22 Aug 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> Lets deploy 3 Infantry battalions at once.
> 
> We could even stand up entire reserve regiments for a 6 month deployments for the LOL factor.



So I see I'm not the only one who thought this was written because there was nothing else to write about?


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> So I see I'm not the only one who thought this was written because there was nothing else to write about?



3 x Battalions = 1 Bde. Why not?


----------



## belka (22 Aug 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> They question Canada's short rotation system of six-month deployments and nearly year-long training programs for each battle group.



This has to be a joke. Why would they even ask this? I guess sending recruits fresh from basic - more or less - into combat isn't SOP for every country.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2010)

While this sounds like American "Tin Ear" for other people's political and economic situations, there is also a note of realism as well; who else were they going to ask?

Most NATO contingents are hunkered down in static FOBs with heavy restrictions on what they can do, the home nations being unwilling to risk any cansualties at all. More contingents or troops of this type would not add anything, and the added logistical burden might even be counterproductive. The UK is already heavily committed in Iraq and Helmand province, and Australia also has a small army with similar issues to ours in terms of sustainment. India _could_ provide a large contingent, but the reaction of Pakistan would probably outweigh any benefit the Indian troops could bring. The NDP destroyed any possibility moderate Arab nations might contribute against extremeists.

"New Europe" might be able to contribute, and the Romanians did lots of patrolling in their AO with old Soviet era equipment while the Polish contingent offered us their MiL helicopters when the Manley report came out (true friends indeed), but most of these nations would have to be convinced why they should devote very scarce resources far from areas they see as their national interest.

Providing any number of troops to play "whack a mole" would not really gain much unless a similar amount of resources could be devoted to the KPRT, SAT, OMLT and so on at the same time. We were right to say no.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2010)

I agree we should stay there until the job is done.


JUST FOR SHIGGLES (shits and giggles)

On the other hand, with Karzai kicking out our only real ( private) security, saying we are not giving proper respect to what we call bandits (his brother) or employment to the proper political parties (his), that we are furthering Al Quedia's performance by our actions?

Pull everyone out and don't let him leave. Let him stand face to face with his own country and the enemy. No political asylum, no preferred status. Stay home and face the music.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2010)

belka said:
			
		

> This has to be a joke. Why would they even ask this? I guess sending recruits fresh from basic - more or less - into combat isn't SOP for every country.


We aren't sending recruits, fresh from basic, more or less, onto our multi month "high readiness" training.  In many cases, those soldiers going through that meatgrinder have years in, have done multiple tours and so forth.  
You see, in our individual training system, we provide our soldiers with the knowledge and skills to be able to perform their job fully on day one of showing up to work.  That applies to new privates in an infantry battalion, new platoon commanders, every rank level.  So, I would offer that a three month period for collective training at level 5 and above (combat team and higher) to put all the pieces together is more than sufficient.  

And don't get me started on our HLTA policy...


----------



## Pencil Tech (26 Aug 2010)

"The NDP destroyed any possibility moderate Arab nations might contribute against extremeists."

OK, is "NDP" an acronym for something other than, you know, the NDP, and I'm just too ignorant to know what it is, or google it properly? Or does "Taliban Jack" have some kind of amazing international influence that I am also too ignorant to know about?


----------



## LineJumper (28 Aug 2010)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> "The NDP destroyed any possibility moderate Arab nations might contribute against extremeists."
> 
> OK, is "NDP" an acronym for something other than, you know, the NDP, and I'm just too ignorant to know what it is, or google it properly? Or does "Taliban Jack" have some kind of amazing international influence that I am also too ignorant to know about?



You tell me whaT NDP is and I'll fathom a guess.


----------

