• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghan Interpreters, Others Fast-tracking to Canada

Whatever happened to "don't negotiate with terrorists"?
Reality.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an identity. Simplistically defining them as ‘terrorists’ and then writing off all other elements of tactics, strategy, or diplomacy is ceding the initiative, because you’re letting them dictate terms, even if those dictated terms are total conflict. But, in actuality, you’re still dealing with actors who are generally rational within their own interests and according to their own perspectives. If you actually possess the power and will to achieve your ends completely on your own terms, great. But that’s rare. More likely there are overlaps between interests, and total conflict will not necessarily achieve what you need. Killing people and breaking their shit isn’t that hard- but that goes both ways. How willing are we to see our shit broken, our people killed? What happens if a half dozen MGs sited west of the airfield open up on a C17

In this fact set, Timmy’s got us by the balls. NATO has a brigade or so completely surrounded within half of a single strip airfield, which they can close at will and render unusable. No amount of air power would likely save those troops- though they could make it a very expensive proposition for the enemy. Still, that would be one of those Pyrrhic victories that make for great books but horrible memories.

So sometimes you negotiate with terrorists. This isn’t a child having a tantrum in a grocery store. It’s a heavily armed and highly motivated political actor that’s well positioned to give us our worst military drubbing since Pearl Harbour. Once our people and planes are out, then we can go back to our old games of figuring out who’s the enemy of our enemy and throwing some help their way.
 
That was a joke. Hence, the Simpsons clip of Marge imagining Homer being shot for refusing to negotiate.
 
Would it be fair to say that the Trudeau government did it's very best under difficult circumstances, but the Afghans needing our help are asking for more than Trudeau is able to give right now?

I don’t think so. I think it would be fair to say that they were focused on other things (shaping an election majority) and really weren’t interested in helping, that is until the public polling made it clear they had to act, and then they did so making things about as difficult as you could for people in an impending genocidal sweep, and only after repeated shaming publicly do they eventually ease on the extreme requirements of filling out four separate online document and pre-registering their biometrics at the Canadian embassy in person, but all before the Canadian Embassy staff taking biometrics egressed the country while the Taliban were still on the advance down south, and then only returning to the country with military extraction assets after Canada fell entirely off the “here’s what each country is doing to help” list and public polling once again indicated that Canadians expected the Government to act…to where we are today…the Government clearly seized on the issue of…securing a majority in the election. 😠
 
I think its sad the government is praising the first mew flight out had 180ish people on it, when the British and the French are packing them into C17s like sardines to get 600+ out per flight. This is embarrassing, and a lot of it is our own bureaucracy.
 
Would it be fair to say that the Trudeau government did it's very best under difficult circumstances, but the Afghans needing our help are asking for more than Trudeau is able to give right now?
Hasan Minhaj Yes GIF by Patriot Act
 
Mercedes Stephenson had a good explaination. The BLUF is that our CC-177s are just as capable to conduct Air to Air refueling, but we've never trained the capability (we also don't have boom tankers). Thus, our aircraft need to carry the full load of fuel to fly back to Kuwait (4 hours if I remember right from 2012 trip home), which significantly reduces how many people you can cram in. UK and US aircraft are tanking almost immediately on takeoff, so they can max out the cargo bay.

 
I think its sad the government is praising the first mew flight out had 180ish people on it, when the British and the French are packing them into C17s like sardines to get 600+ out per flight. This is embarrassing, and a lot of it is our own bureaucracy.
Was there another flight besides RCH871 that had that many? That's the one famous for 823 pax.
 
Mercedes Stephenson had a good explaination. The BLUF is that our CC-177s are just as capable to conduct Air to Air refueling, but we've never trained the capability (we also don't have boom tankers). Thus, our aircraft need to carry the full load of fuel to fly back to Kuwait (4 hours if I remember right from 2012 trip home), which significantly reduces how many people you can cram in. UK and US aircraft are tanking almost immediately on takeoff, so they can max out the cargo bay.

I will also add that (my guess) part of the reason they don't train on that is because we don't currently have boom-receptacle tankers, which the USAF uses. We only have probe and drogue, which the USN uses.
 
Almost as if getting new tankers which can support both modes will enhance our strat lift capabilities as well as sustain our fighter capabilities...
 
Almost as if getting new tankers which can support both modes will enhance our strat lift capabilities as well as sustain our fighter capabilities...
You mean to replace the multi-decade old aircraft that we share ownership of with only one other nation, Iran? 🤔
 
Back
Top