# 3 PPCLI Joins the Fray



## towhey (14 Nov 2001)

FYI... 

DND News release crossed my desk about an hour ago:

NOVEMBER 14, 2001 - 20:28 EST

National Defence: Canada Preparing to Deploy Additional
Forces on Operation Apollo

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--The Right Honourable Jean Chretien and the 
Honourable Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, announced 
today that Canada is preparing to commit additional forces in 
support of Operation Apollo. 

The Immediate Reaction Force (Land) (IRF(L)), comprised of members
of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry 
based out of Edmonton, is at 48 hours notice to deploy. 

It includes a 1000-strong unit comprised of three infantry rifle 
companies, one small engineer squadron, a headquarters, a combat 
support company and an administrative company.  The elements that 
could be deployed on this mission are part of the IRF(L), a 
standing-NATO task for Canada‘s Army to provide a high readiness 
combat capable land force designed to respond quickly to overseas 
missions. 

"The coalition of nations participating in this campaign has 
clearly stated our intent to provide a safe and secure environment
for the Afghan people as soon as possible," stated Prime Minister 
Jean Chretien.  "Canada stands by this commitment." 

"Operations being considered would provide short-term 
stabilization in certain areas, allowing for the entry of 
humanitarian assistance," said Minister Eggleton.  "These 
operations are meant to complement future possibilities for a 
longer-term international peacekeeping force that would help 
provide the tools to re-establish stability and civil society." 

As part of Canada‘s original commitment announced on October 8th, 
an Air Force Strategic Airlift Detachment will soon be leaving 8 
Wing Trenton for Germany.  The detachment will comprise one CC-150
Polaris aircraft (Airbus A310) and approximately 40 Air Force 
personnel made up of three flying crews and one air cargo-handling
team.  They are expected to leave Canada on Friday, November 16th.


"The CC-150 Polaris mission may include aero-medical evacuation, 
logistic and personnel sustainment and re-supply, rapid delivery 
of operationally required items, and movement of personnel into 
theatre of operations." said Minister Eggleton. 

Canada is also deploying three CC-130 Hercules to this mission.  
The Hercules aircraft will be operating in the current theatre of 
operations.  The Canadian Forces are in consultation with allies 
to determine where these transport aircraft will be located.  
Their mission may include airlift of humanitarian aid and support 
to allied nations. 

-30-


----------



## enfield (14 Nov 2001)

That‘s great news - good luck 3 VP. This is a real commitment, and i‘m damn proud we‘re doing it. 

Does 3 VP actually have that many troops on the ground? (obviously some of the 1000 will be support trades/units)

Does is going to make things very interesting for everyone in the army, even the Mo. An expanded CRIC perhaps to pic up the slack?

I‘ve heard no other news about UN peacekeepers being orgainzed - where exactly are they going in the next 10 days and what kind of force are they joining?


----------



## King (14 Nov 2001)

Well I‘ll be damned... good luck to them.


----------



## fortuncookie5084 (14 Nov 2001)

There was a big smile on my face when I read the news on cbc.ca today.  Not only is this (by recent standards) uncharacteristic for us peacenik Canucks, but 3VP‘s Para Coy is my destination of choice upon university graduation and Commission.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Nov 2001)

> "The coalition of nations participating in this campaign has clearly stated our intent to provide a safe and secure environment for the Afghan people as soon as possible," stated Prime Minister Jean Chretien. "Canada stands by this commitment."
> "Operations being considered would provide *short-term stabilization in certain areas*, allowing for the entry of humanitarian assistance," said Minister Eggleton"


Well, you know what this means; this is going to be very dangerous as this war is still hot.  Lets hope it goes off better than UNPROFOR.  God speed to our fellow soldiers.
As for the Mo, there is no way we are going to be left out of this.  Unlike Kosovo, this Operation is going to have to be sustained.  We are needed more than ever.  Keep your ears open and your weapons ready.


----------



## the patriot (14 Nov 2001)

This is the largest deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces in a very longtime.  Good luck to them all.  Just as everyone has said, the Reserves will be called upon more than ever to sustain existing commitments to national sovereignity.

-the patriot-


----------



## John Nayduk (15 Nov 2001)

This takes alot of troops out of the rotation to Bosnia, I wonder if they will use reserves to fill the gap.  Who is due to rotate to Bosnia next?


----------



## Disturbance (15 Nov 2001)

3vp was suppose to going to bosnia next and the CRIC was going to be attached to it.  So until I get sorted out tonight I do not know what is going to happen with the CRIC or if another bat. is going to cover for 3rd.


----------



## Jungle (15 Nov 2001)

A.R.G.,  Roto 9 is now in Bosnia, comprised of the 3 R22R Battle Group (Remember A coy 3 R22R came back from East Timor just 18 months ago) and roto 10 (Due to deploy in March 2002) will be comprised of the 2 R22R BG.


----------



## Gunner (15 Nov 2001)

Gents, 3VP never was slated to go to Bosnia in the near future as it has had the IRF(L) task since it arrived back in Canada in Sep 00 from Roto 6.

Roto schedule as follows

Roto 9 - 3 R22R BG
Roto 10 - 2 R22R BG
Roto 11 - 1 PPCLI BG (incl the Reserve CRIC as D Coy)
Roto 12 - 2 PPCLI BG (incl some type of CRIC possibly a amalgamated coy from LFWA/LFCA/LFAA)
Roto 13 - 1 RCR BG
Roto 13 - 1 R22R BG
Roto 15 - 3 PPCLI BG

As always this is subject to change due to  unforseen operational taskings!


----------



## enfield (16 Nov 2001)

I thought CRIC was with 1 PPCLI. The CRIC kit list I just got was from 1st. 

With this new commitmet to Afghanistan the roto scheduled is gonna be changed. I‘d look for more CRIC/reserve components in rotos.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2001)

The CRIC has been set to form D COY of the 1st PPCLI all along.  Disturbance was just mixed up.  Third was never set to go on ROTO 11.


----------



## enfield (16 Nov 2001)

Yeah, 3rd just came back last year from Bosnia.
National post said today that 900 troops are coming from 3rd, but 120 are also coming from 2nd, and that the commitment is for 6 months.
...which will really play havoc wih rotation schedules. But it‘s defintlye worth it.

We got a notice last night to not call 3 PPCLI directly. Apparently some reservists have called the batt. and tried arrange "backdoor deals" to go over with them.


----------



## Yard Ape (17 Nov 2001)

Looks like to Northrn Alliance is cooling toward Western support now that they dominate the battle field.

Northern Alliance tells British forces to leave Kabul 
Saturday, 17 November, 2001, 15:54 GMT 
BBC

The Ministry of Defence insists there are no plans to pull British troops out of Afghanistan after a faction of the Northern Alliance demanded the withdrawal of troops near Kabul. 

A Tajik grouping of the Northern Alliance had complained they were not consulted before British special forces soldiers landed at Bagram airbase. 

Jamiat-e-Islami are demanding that most of the 85 Special Boat Squadron men pull out leaving only a small party to carry out humanitarian tasks, according to Reuters news agency. 

. . . 


You can read the story on the BBC site, but the message is pretty clear.  They are not going to be as welcoming as some have tried to suggest to us.  

Good luck 3 PPCLI.


----------



## towhey (17 Nov 2001)

In fact, the US was trying very hard on the diplomatic front to prevent the Northern Alliance from capturing Kabul.  This threatens their support in neighbouring Pakistan and is unlikely to yield even short-term stability for Afghanistan or, perhaps more importantly, a PR victory for the US.

The US must now dislodge the Northern Alliance from power and install a more "acceptable" government.  Unfortunately, such a beast does not yet exist.  The US has been trying to build a coalition government, but couldn‘t do it before the Northern Alliance took Kabul.

There‘s more fighting to come.  Who‘s going to be doing it, and whether they wait until Spring is the big question.


----------



## the patriot (19 Nov 2001)

WARNING ORDER: Article to Follow

Canadian troops may not head for Afghanistan 
Last Updated: Mon Nov 19 18:33:24 2001 

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has indicated ground troops from Canada may not go into Afghanistan, after all. 

In the House of Commons on Monday, Chrétien and Defence Minister Art Eggleton said last week‘s commitment to send 1,000 infantry troops to act as part of a stabilization force isn‘t definite. 
Eggleton says the troops are ready, but no decision has been made to deploy them. 

The prime minister was the first to indicate that members of the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry may not be sent to Afghanistan after all. 

"We don‘t want to have a big fight there. We want to bring peace and happiness as much as possible," said Chrétien. 

Opposition leader Stockwell Day accused Chrétien of failing to give Canadians a clear picture of what kind of ground troop involvement there will be. Day also appeared concerned that Canada not back out of any commitments made to the international coalition. 

But Eggleton says Canadian troops may not be needed to secure the passage of humanitarian aid. "This is a very fluid situation, it‘s in a state of flux because of the quick retreat of the Taliban," he said. 

On Tuesday, Eggleton travels to Washington to discuss the role for Canadian troops, if any, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 

Written by CBC News Online staff 
**************************************************************************

I‘m sensing that this is more doublespeak as usual.  I hope that they can finally make up their minds.  On one hand, the Defence Minister is saying that the troops "might have to fight", just to get trumped by the PM.  Just old fashioned games as usual.  I think the public is intelligent enough to understand that casualties would be a reality.

-the patriot-


----------



## King (19 Nov 2001)

It seems a big reason for this might be that the Northern Alliance doesn‘t want any western troops on the ground in any significant numbers, they don‘t want to share power. I don‘t think it‘ll matter too much in the end, the U.S. will negotiate with these fools but evetually will do whatever they want which means putting lots of soldiers on the ground. Canada will get there eventually, especially if it becomes a (U.N.) peacekeeping/humanitarian aid mission. Eggleton says the situation on the ground is in a "state of flux," which is a nice way of saying the risks are too high for the PPCLI, but appearently not for the Americans, Brits, Germans, or Italians since they have people either already on the ground, or on their way.


----------



## Paul Gagnon (20 Nov 2001)

> Originally posted by King:
> [qb] Canada will get there eventually, especially if it becomes a (U.N.) peacekeeping/humanitarian aid mission. [/qb]




This is not the time for another feel good peacekeeping mission. This is the time for Canada play a position on the field other than waterboy. If we as Canadians are not prepared to do that then we should dissolve our alliances and sit at home on our hands hoping that everyone will leave us alone because we were once good peacekeepers. It‘s time for Chretien and Eggleton to **** or get off the pot. Our boys need to get in there and get their hands dirty.


----------



## enfield (21 Nov 2001)

This, coupled with Eggleton‘s statement that if fighting starts the PPCLI will pull out, makes me want to cry. 
Oh.. and Eggleton made up for his statement by saying that they would pull out because they didn‘t have the AFV‘s or artillery to fight. For me, that raised the question.... "why the hell don‘t we send them there with all that then?" The idea that the governmnet will happily send 1000 soldiers into AFGHANISTAN all of all places... with only enough firepower to stop a few random bandits is horrible. Somehow I don‘t think the most warlike region on Earth is the place to relearn the lessons of UNPROFOR and Rwanda.

again, the address you want are:
www.army.mod.uk
www.royal-navy.mod.uk
1-800-MARINES


----------



## the patriot (25 Nov 2001)

Another address you can add would be:

The French Foreign Legion

-the patriot-


----------



## the patriot (25 Nov 2001)

.....or you could help the Gurkhas out in Kashmir with some real anti-terrorist work against the Taliban.

Bharat Rakshak (The Consortium of Indian Military Websites)

The Official Website of Indian Armed Forces

-the patriot-


----------



## Yard Ape (26 Nov 2001)

Canada takes forces off 48-hour alert 
Mon Nov 26 14:14:33 2001 
CBC

LONDON - Canadian troops who have been waiting to be sent to Afghanistan have been taken off 48-hour alert, and put on five-day standby instead. 

A government source told Canadian Press the Canadian forces have had their orders relaxed. 

...

Earlier on Monday, several thousand British troops were told to relax, they likely won‘t be going to Afghanistan, after all. 

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon took the soldiers off their 48-hour alert on Monday, saying the situation on the ground in Afghanistan was improving, and the troops wouldn‘t likely be needed. 
Two units remain ready to go within two days, but Hoon relaxed the alert for the bulk of the 6,000 troops put on alert in mid-November. 

...

Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands have also offered troops, but none have been used.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Nov 2001)

It was irresponsible for the MND to place troops on 48-hour alert, then have them stand-down to a 5-day stand-by some weeks later.

Our politicians should make up their minds, and stop squeezing the fence between their buttocks.

We know there are inherent risks in Afghanistan.  We know that our people may be killed.  We know that this is a region of the world that must be stabilized without delay, before it embroils big players on other fronts (Iran/Iraq, Pakistan/India, for example).

The government must decide a role and stick to its guns, not give its soldiers orders merely to ‘psyche‘ them out into thinking they may be risking their lives at any moment.


----------



## starlight_745 (28 Nov 2001)

I think it is interesting that the only US troops on the ground are Marines. From what I‘ve seen on CNN footage, the force looks pretty much like like infantry. It‘s certainly not a heavy mechanized force.
They are supposed to be reinforced my elements of the 101st Airborne Division-more light infantry.  I think it kind of deflates our governments arguments that 3 PPCLI can‘t go over because they are lacking the necessary mechanized firepower to survive.


----------



## King (29 Nov 2001)

And now there are Russians on the ground in Kabul.

That‘s one of the problems with international coalitions, too many countries think they can let America (in this case) do the dirty work while they offer "moral support" (or token forces...). Then when things have calmed down, they swoop in and want a say in peacekeeping and reconstruction. That‘s kind of the basis for Canadian involvement in anything. 

If I remember correctly didn‘t the same thing 
happen during the Kosovo bombing?

My other comment is, why do we need to rebuild Afghanistan the way it was? Why not divide it up among the two (?) major ethnic groups? Why do they need the idea of a multi-ethnic nation imposed on them? Just because it works in Canada...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (29 Nov 2001)

> Originally posted by King:
> [qb]And now there are Russians on the ground in Kabul.
> 
> That‘s one of the problems with international coalitions, too many countries think they can let America (in this case) do the dirty work while they offer "moral support" (or token forces...). Then when things have calmed down, they swoop in and want a say in peacekeeping and reconstruction. That‘s kind of the basis for Canadian involvement in anything.
> ...



The Russians in Kabul - I thought they were not soldiers, but workers from the mInistry of Emergencies.

Who ever said "multi-ethnicity" is "working" in Canada, btw?


----------



## King (30 Nov 2001)

They‘re soldiers with guns. They refuse to tell anyone what they are doing, so far the speculations have been that they‘re setting up an embassy or handing out humanitarian aid. Unlike us they just kinda went in and did it. We weren‘t invited so we snubbed their tacky party.

Our problems with multi-ethnicity in Canada are much less significant then those if Afghanistan. In Canada we had proper institutions before true multi-ethnicity, in Afghanistan they don‘t. Multi-ethnicity works very well here in Canada by international standards, but by our own it‘s a load of ****.


----------



## Yard Ape (30 Nov 2001)

U.S. says ‘not yet‘ to peacekeepers
3:49 AM EST    Friday, November 30
Globe and Mail
Reuters News Agency

Washington — U.S. military commanders have put the brakes on the deployment of international peacekeepers in areas of Afghanistan freed from Taliban control due to concerns they could encumber U.S. military operations, the Washington Post reported on Friday. 

Citing Bush administration officials, the Post said Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the U.S. military campaign, decided it would be premature to accept offers of assistance from several nations while he is occupied with military operations. 

The decision left a number of governments, including those of Britain, France, Canada, Turkey and Jordan, in limbo after they readied their troops for duty this month, the Post said. 

...

American officials and foreign diplomats said allied governments were told by the Bush administration to slow down, the Post said. 

"General Franks is very much in charge of everything and he doesn‘t want to worry about a multinational force," the paper quoted a diplomat representing a U.S. ally as saying. "The United States has one goal: attack al-Qaeda and get the job done. And they‘re not too worried about the rest of it right now."


----------



## Meditations in Green (30 Nov 2001)

Considering that Afghanistan is made up of a multitude of ethnic/tribal groups and factions within each ethnic group, I honestly have no idea what should be done with the country. Given the cultural/tribal mess, I‘m starting to wonder if/when a peacekeeping force is put into Afghanistan, if it should be made up primarily of soldiers from Muslim countries. 

 If Bush and his administration keep to their word, there is more to come, maybe sooner, maybe later. Perhaps we should look elsewhere?


----------



## the patriot (18 Dec 2001)

Warning Order: Article to Follow
**************************************************************************

POSTED AT 12:03 PM EST
Tuesday, December 18

Canadian peacekeepers may be in Kabul soon

CTV News.com Staff

Canadian peacekeepers could soon be on the ground in Afghanistan to create an international peacekeeping force in the war-torn region. Advance troops could be in position within days. 

The third battalion of the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian light infantry could be in Afghanistan early in the new year. They‘re currently on seven-day standby in Edmonton.

When they arrive, the peacekeepers will guard the peace in Kabul and possibly other locations. British Prime Minister Tony Blair says Britain is prepared to lead the multinational peacekeeping force and will contribute about 1,500 troops. But he added that his troops would only remain in Afghanistan for a few months.

Canada is expected to contribute up to 1,000 personnel, on top of the 1,300 personnel already on five ships patrolling the arabian sea.

The force was a key part of the peace deal signed in Germany this month which paved the way for the new post-Taliban interim administration to take power.

London hopes the UN Security Council will approve the deployment of the force by the end of the week.

With the Canadian Forces active in the conflict, Defence Minister Art Eggleton says it‘s time to define just what Canada‘s military can manage. The last formal statement of policy for the military -- called a white paper -- was written in 1994.

Eggleton says that chronic under-funding means changes are needed. The minister says September 11 has made a review even more important.

The new federal budget gave the military an extra $300 million for capital spending as well as $210 million for the fight against terrorism. The budget also put $119-million towards bolstering JTF-2, the anti-terror unit.
**************************************************************************

Well, it looks like that there may be some political movement afterall to put a Light Infantry Battalion to ground over the holidays.

-the patriot-


----------



## Yard Ape (18 Dec 2001)

*Peacekeeping plan takes shape* 
Talks at UN aim to clear way for force of thousands that could include Canadian troops
By PAUL KNOX 
18 December 2001
Globe and Mail

Crucial talks at the United Nations today are expected to outline the mandate of a British-led peacekeeping force for Afghanistan that could include several hundred Canadians.

James Dobbins, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, told reporters in Kabul yesterday that an "advance element" of the force would arrive there by the weekend.

But sharp differences remain over the size of the force and its duties after Afghanistan‘s interim government takes office.

The Northern Alliance, the dominant element in the new government, has said it wants a maximum of 1,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. But UN-based diplomats in New York said in an interview that a force of between 4,000 and 5,000 is being planned. German Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping called for a force at least 8,000 strong.

Those offering to contribute troops say the mission must be large enough to assure its own safety in a country where U.S.-led forces are still battling al-Qaeda militants and independent warlords‘ sympathies are unclear.

...

In Ottawa, a Defence Department official said the 1,000-mem- ber 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, was on notice for possible deployment to Afghanistan. 

About 150 soldiers are on 48-hour notice and 850 are on seven-day notice, the official said. But Randy Mylyk, a spokesman for Defence Minister Art Eggleton, said no Canadians are expected to be sent to Afghanistan before next year.

Although the Afghanistan force would have UN sanction, it would not be a blue-helmet mission under UN direction. Such forces, paid for out of UN peacekeeping levies, are notoriously hard and time-consuming to pull together.

Instead, most of the force‘s members will probably be drawn initially from wealthy countries able to bear the cost of participation. Besides Canada, countries discussing troop contributions include Spain, Germany, Italy, Australia, Argentina and the Czech Republic.

...

Still under discussion was whether the foreign troops would operate under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which authorizes the use of force, or the more limited Chapter 6.

...


----------



## bossi (20 Dec 2001)

(under the heading of "armchair quarterback ...")
December 20, 2001 
Canada may send specialists, not infantry to join Afghan force
OTTAWA (CP) -- Canada has about 1,000 infantry soldiers standing by to join an Afghan security force, but sources say now they might not be needed. 
 Canada could be asked instead to contribute military specialists, such as communications officers or engineers, a source said.

 Prime Minister Jean Chretien had earlier this week suggested the Canadian contribution might not hit 1,000 people. 
 A half dozen countries, including the Czech Republic, Greece, France, Spain and Turkey have offered soldiers for a force that may only total 3,000. 
 The UN Security Council authorized a 3,000- to 5,000-member multi-national security force for Afghanistan with a resolution Thursday, but many details still must be worked out before any Canadian soldiers join it. 
 Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault, the Canadian commander of what is known as the joint task force, southwest Asia, said much remains to be done before the troops get their marching orders. 
 He said planners are still working out the shape of the British-led International Security Assistance Force. 
 "We‘re still in the process of working out the plans and awaiting an outcome of the discussions that are underway right now," Thiffault said in a phone interview from Tampa, Fla., where he and other Canadians are working with the American Central Command, headquarters for the Afghan campaign. 
 "We‘re watching developments very carefully." 
 A spokesman for Defence Minister Art Eggleton said the size and composition of the force has yet to be determined. 
 "There‘s a lot of discussions still going on about ... the actual makeup of the mission itself, in terms of what their operational needs are going to be." 
 Canada has the Edmonton-based, 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry, ready to move on a week‘s notice. A small advance party could go on 48 hours notice. 
 "Our offer is on the table to participate, we‘ll have to wait and see how the talks come out," Thiffault said. 
 The security council resolution on Thursday opened the door for British-led force to deploy about 200 British Marines to the streets of Kabul by Saturday, when a 30-member interim government is supposed to take power. 
 British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has said Britain will supply up to 1,500 troops for the force, which will number 3,000 to 5,000. 
 The council authorized the use of military force, if necessary, a critical point for Britain and other countries who wanted the force to have teeth. 
 Britain has said it will lead the force until April 30 and has asked Secretary General Kofi Annan to identify a successor lead nation. 
 Turkey has been suggested as a replacement. 
 Canada already has about 40 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Members of the JTF-2 anti-terrorist unit, they are working with other special forces in Kandahar, Eggleton said earlier this week. 
 There are also five Canadian ships in the Arabian Sea, escorting American aircraft carriers and keeping an eye on sea traffic to ensure that al-Qaida terrorists don‘t escape by ship. 
 Eggleton flew to the region Thursday to visit the ships and the sailors. 
 - 30 -


----------



## Yard Ape (7 Jan 2002)

*Canadian troops could face combat, minister says* 
By JEFF GRAY
Globe and Mail Update 
Monday, 07 January 02

After weeks of delay and speculation, Defence Minister Art Eggleton confirmed Monday that Ottawa will send 750 troops to assist U.S. forces in Afghanistan — and that the Canadians could face "potential combat" situations.

The Canadian contingent is set to be in place by the middle of February at the latest, and could face "potential combat operations to destroy residual Taliban and al-Qaeda pockets," Mr. Eggleton said.

The deployment of the light infantry troops, which have been on standby since November at an Edmonton base, could last as long as six months. The move will bring the total Canadian personnel in the region — including about 40 members of the elite JTF-2 special force that is on the ground inside Afghanistan — to 2,500.

"The mission is not without its risks," Mr. Eggleton told a news conference at the Department of National Defence‘s headquarters in Ottawa. "But our troops are trained, equipped and they‘re ready to carry out these important tasks."

With the government sensitive to criticism that it has chronically underfunded Canada‘s military, Mr. Eggleton emphasized that the United States believes the Canadian Forces can do the job.

"The Americans recognized this, when they asked the Canadian Forces, and only the Canadian Forces, to operate alongside their troops," Mr. Eggleton said.

The troops will consist of two infantry companies of the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry, as well as a reconnaisance squadron from Lord Strathcona‘s Horse (Royal Canadians) that will use Canadian-made Coyote armoured vehicles, which Mr. Eggleton said were specifically requested by Washington. A logistics group from the No. 1 Service Battalion, will also be deployed, he said.

Mr. Eggleton said the Canadians will be under the day-to-day command of U.S. forces, and will assist in the weeding out of remaining pockets of Taliban and al-Qaeda forces, as well as provide security for the Kandahar airport.

The troops will also help explore "sensitive" sites such as former terrorist training camps, and assist in removing landmines and securing humanitarian aid for the local Afghan population, he added.

Canadians had been expected to participate in 4,500-strong UN-sanctioned and British-led peacekeeping force to be sent to Kabul. But when the mission was announced Canada‘s name was not on the 12-nation list. There had been discussions about a possible role for Canada, defence officials said last week.

The troops announced Monday are being sent under the original U.S. Afghan operation, authorized by the United Nations when it gave the United States the right to respond to the Sept. 11 attacks in self-defence, Mr. Eggleton said.

And this mission, according to some experts, is likely to be more demanding, and more dangerous than Canada‘s traditional peacekeeping roles.

Military experts and the opposition Canadian Alliance have charged that the Canadians were not invited to the British-led peacekeeping mission because the government has starved the military of funds.

But Mr. Eggleton said such criticisms were "irresponsible," noting that Canada was the fourth-largest contributor to international efforts in Afghanistan.

"We‘re good at peacekeeping, but if we have to be involved in combat we can do that too," Mr. Eggleton said.

Other Canadians already in the region include more than 1,300 naval personnel on ships in the Arabian Sea, as well as members of the secretive JTF-2 unit.


----------



## Yard Ape (7 Jan 2002)

We are going, but it seems that we don‘t yet know how we are going to get the troops there . . . 

*750 Canadian troops to join American-led anti-terror war in Afghanistan* 
JOHN WARD  
Canadian Press 
Monday, January 07, 2002

OTTAWA (CP) - A 750-member Canadian battle group will join American forces hunting al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, Defence Minister Art Eggleton announced Monday. 

It‘s a hazardous mission which could see Canadians in combat, said Gen. Ray Henault, chief of the defence staff. This goes well beyond traditional peacekeeping, the minister said. "We‘re good at peacekeeping, but . . . Canadians know how to fight if they have to," he said. 

The first advance parties and a reconnaissance mission will head for Afghanistan within a week to 10 days, Henault said. The plan is to have the group full there by Feb. 15, although the general said the Americans would like them sooner if possible. 

...

Lt.-Col. Pat Stogvan, commander of the battalion, will lead the battle group. 

Their duties will include: 

-Rooting out pockets of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. 
-Securing the airport at Kandahar. 
-Clearing mines. 
-Supporting humanitarian efforts. 

The Canadians will work under the day-to-day command of an American brigade, although overall command and control will remain with National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa. 

This operation does not fall under the umbrella of the British-led, United Nations-authorized stabilization force now moving into Kabul. 

The Canadian-American mission comes under Chapter 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for self-defence and doesn‘t require Security Council approval. 

Henault said the Canadians will follow robust rules of engagement, not limited to self-defence. There are a number of dangers, he added. 

"There are still pockets of al-Qaida and Taliban in the country, obviously and those . . . remain a threat," he said. "There are also the landmine threats that are very real, landmines all over the country." 

Add to that rugged terrain and a bitter winter. 

He and Eggleton both said the battle group is up to the challenge. 

"These troops are trained, equipped and ready," said Eggleton. 

He said the Americans specifically asked that the Canadians bring some of their new Coyote reconnaissance vehicles. 

These high-tech, armoured snoops were first deployed in harm‘s way in Kosovo in the spring of 1999. They carry radar, TV and infra-red sensors to survey the battlefront. 

Getting the troops and their dozen Coyotes and other equipment - including rifles, pistols, machine-guns, mortars and other weapons - to Afghanistan will be half the problem. 

Canada‘s small fleet of C-130 transport planes isn‘t capable of doing the job. 

Eggleton said the Americans may help out with their huge C-17 transports. Canada may also charter transport planes. 

Previously the military has rented immense, Russian-built Antonov transports from Ukraine to carry heavy or bulky cargo overseas.


----------



## Yard Ape (21 Jan 2002)

Seems that they still havent sorted out this problem yet.

*Snags delay Canadian deployment* 
By MARK MACKINNON AND SHAWN MCCARTHY
Monday, January 21, 2002 – Page A1
Globe and Mail 

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN and OTTAWA -- The deployment of Canadian troops to Afghanistan is being held up by a lack of transport planes and a lack of security at the Kandahar airport, defence officials said yesterday.

One defence critic said the delay is one more example of a military that is poorly equipped for the missions assigned to it by its political masters.

Members of the advance team in Kandahar said yesterday that the exact date of the arrival of the rest of the 750 soldiers is uncertain because the military‘s aging fleet of C-130 Hercules planes cannot handle a task of this size.

While there were initially plans to bring a few hundred Canadian soldiers in as early as Feb. 1, Major Peter Dawe said it‘s now expected that the deployment won‘t begin until mid-February.

...

Major Dawe said defence planners are considering leasing one or more commercial aircraft to get the troops into the area.

...

Canada is dispatching three Hercules from CFB Trenton at the end of the week to provide supply support for the allied operation in Afghanistan, Mr. Mylyk said.

But Progressive Conservative defence critic Elsie Wayne said the transportation problem is indicative of the underfunded state of the Canadian military.

"We don‘t have the airlift capacity we should have," Ms. Wayne said yesterday. "We shouldn‘t have to rely on Great Britain or the United States. We shouldn‘t even consider sending them unless we have the capacity to get them in and out."

Ms. Wayne said that it is clear from the lack of planning that has gone into the mission that it was a political decision to send a battalion as part of a fighting force, rather than join the peacekeeping mission.

Even more worrying, she said, is that the Canadian troops still don‘t have the rules of engagement under which they‘ll be operating. The Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry troops should be thoroughly familiarized with those rules before they are deployed to Afghanistan, she said.


----------



## rceme_rat (21 Jan 2002)

Consider how long it took to plan the logisitical support for the deployment of 5 Bde to Norway.  Think about why we didn‘t send troops to the Gulf.  I certainly thought we might be going when I was one of the arty regts -- I was later told that we didn‘t have the means to move a brigade to the Gulf.

As a favourite old boss used to tell me, higher headquarters staff have to "get out of the trenches".

Maybe we need to buy some heavy airlfit, then rent it to private sector with an "instant recall" provision.


----------



## Spr Earl (22 Jan 2002)

> Originally posted by rceme_rat:
> [qb]Consider how long it took to plan the logisitical support for the deployment of 5 Bde to Norway.  Think about why we didn‘t send troops to the Gulf.  I certainly thought we might be going when I was one of the arty regts -- I was later told that we didn‘t have the means to move a brigade to the Gulf.
> 
> As a favourite old boss used to tell me, higher headquarters staff have to "get out of the trenches".
> ...


Was your old boss refering to the puzzle palace?
Those of us who have been in for 15yrs. or more have known that all‘s we can do is a road move if we are lucky with out break down‘s or shortage of fuel.

 The government want‘s to drive a Mercede‘s on a beer budget but you can‘t do that now ,it‘s either pay up or scrap the whole lot and it look‘s like this may happen!


----------



## rceme_rat (22 Jan 2002)

I think his comment referred to all HQ higher than brigade.  We weren‘t at NDHQ.  Specifically, he wanted me to stop worrying about the picky details of implementation and start worrying more about the wider effects of the plan.

 :warstory:  We never had gas problems on the long road moves - but there were a lot of all-night gas bars on the way to Wainwright.  As for breakdowns, I never had to leave any of the regt‘s vehicles behind, but I did come close one year -- every vehicle that could tow something into camp did so.  And a good thing, too - otherwise, I would have had nothing for the boys to do after six weeks of exercise.


----------



## Yard Ape (23 Jan 2002)

Seems Eggleton is going to blame our inability to transport ourselves on the US.  It is thier fault that they have not provided it to us!     I think our Minister should strongly consider the comments by Progressive Conservative defence critic Elsie Wayne. "We shouldn‘t have to rely on Great Britain or the United States. We shouldn‘t even consider sending them unless we have the capacity to get them in and out."

*Transport woes blamed on U.S.* 
By DANIEL LEBLANC
With a report from The Guardian
Wednesday, January 23, 2002 
Globe and Mail – Page A9 

OTTAWA -- The United States is to blame if Canada‘s contingent of 750 troops does not reach Kandahar by mid-February as promised, Defence Minister Art Eggleton said yesterday.

The Canadian government has faced opposition criticism in the past week for its difficulties in getting the soldiers and about 100 vehicles into Afghanistan.

Mr. Eggleton said that it was always expected that the United States‘ huge transport planes would help bring everything over. He said the U.S. slowdown might have been caused by airport-security threats or an investigation into a helicopter crash.

"But whatever the reason, it is the Americans who are slowing up at the moment getting their own people in.

"It was always envisioned that they would get their people in and then we would get our people in," he said in Mexico, where he was attending meetings with Mexican officials.

...


----------

