CAN Enhanced (Permanent?) Fwd Presence in Latvia

[PPCLI Guy]

You know... I may not be the world's biggest optimist, but listening to some of this discussion is like Marvin talking to Eeyore about the the prospects for supper.

Jus' sayin'.

[

I agree completely.  This is a strong response to a clear requirement in accordance with our obligations to NATO.....and to our key Allies.  It also does not rule out continued engagement in the fight against Da'esh in Iraq and Syria (or more importantly, the stabilisation effort upon their defeat), contributing to the effort in Columbia, or even in the Sahel. 

It is difficult to pick your spots with a small but competent and respected military, because the opportunity cost of any commitment is so high.  It is also difficult to meet all ones obligations (treaty and otherwise, including political) with a small military.  How about we hear what the plan is before we all jump up from our armchairs to call it down?  Or we could just continue with knee-jerk bashing of our own military, indulging our predilection for auto-flagellation.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There was nothing to gain by supporting and helping the Donetsk separatists or even in Georgia. The Western public was more than willing to concede Crimea, particularly considering how well they orchestrated it. Don't apply pure logic or your way of thinking to your opposition political decisions, because chances are you be wrong.

 

[sandyson]

My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw. 

 

[tomahawk6]

My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw.

It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.

 

[PuckChaser]

It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.

And his buddy Obama asked him to do it. If anyone else asked, we'd thumb our noses at it.

 

[tomahawk6]

Rotating a battalion every 6 months to Latvia is doable ?

 

[The Bread Guy]

If anyone else asked, we'd thumb our noses at it.

Just like some might say it was the greatest thing since sliced bread if anyone else sent the same contingent to the same place?

 

[PuckChaser]

Rotating a battalion every 6 months to Latvia is doable ?

Afghanistan was "doable", but all those trucks we blew up didn't get replaced. At least the guys on high readiness have something to train for now.

 

[George Wallace]

It has zero to do with the US election.Its all about NATO and sending a signal to Russia.For Trudeau defense is his weakness,so sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk and he is seen to be strong on defense,which he is not.

Shades of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  NATO forced his hand and pushed him to increase Canada's involvement in Europe.

Seems History is repeating itself, in a way.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... sending a unit to serve in an NATO brigade has zero risk ...

One hopes, anyway ...

 

[MilEME09]

My guess is that sending over the troops has more to do with the US election and the US defence budgetary cuts than a need by NATO.  A 'European threat' will be an American excuse to acquire military  equipment and therefore industrial profit in congressional districts.  It will allow  politicians--presidential and congressional to beat their chests.  It will be with a reliable enemy who can always use a foreign bad guy to maintain support at home but knows how to avoid serious casualties.  I suspect this will all fade considerably in late 2017 after politicians are in place and budgets have been awarded.  Like the Mark One who had to buy tanks, the Mark Two is being compelled to 'reinforce' NATO (or Canadian trade relations will be in serious trouble.) If Trudeau for one minute  thinks he is reinforcing NATO we have a serious national defence flaw.

Ill agree with the part of the US defense budget, a US on claw backs should be a wake up to NATO that the free ride the past two decades is coming to a close and weight must be pulled

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[brihard]

On the whole medals issue- if there si gnashing of teeth over a medal for this (of course there is), any compelling reason not to simply begin a new window of eligible service for the SSM-NATO bar? It seems that that particular medal/bar was created for essentially the same thing.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sounds about right, or authorize the wear of whatever medal NATO awards (they gave out the Art5 medal for Afghan I believe). No need to reinvent the wheel, although we're real good at it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I agree completely.  This is a strong response to a clear requirement in accordance with our obligations to NATO.....and to our key Allies.  It also does not rule out continued engagement in the fight against Da'esh in Iraq and Syria (or more importantly, the stabilisation effort upon their defeat), contributing to the effort in Columbia, or even in the Sahel. 

It is difficult to pick your spots with a small but competent and respected military, because the opportunity cost of any commitment is so high.  It is also difficult to meet all ones obligations (treaty and otherwise, including political) with a small military.  How about we hear what the plan is before we all jump up from our armchairs to call it down?  Or we could just continue with knee-jerk bashing of our own military, indulging our predilection for auto-flagellation.

A strong response? It's quite literally the least we could do to support a mission. That said, I think that "auto-flagellation", discussion on the validity of policies/missions, and professional discussion is a critical element of our development as a force. I'd much prefer people discussion issues such as why we need to have a shield force against russia, or bomb Daesh, or go on any other mission than 60,000 yes men.

To each their own though.

 

[dimsum]

On the whole medals issue- if there si gnashing of teeth over a medal for this (of course there is), any compelling reason not to simply begin a new window of eligible service for the SSM-NATO bar? It seems that that particular medal/bar was created for essentially the same thing.

Because people need to immediately know that you've been on OP XYZ, not "some NATO mission that can be seen as OP XYZ when you look real close".

:sarcasm:

 

[brihard]

Alright. Well, we'll just name it Op Superfly and make sure the medal is suitably phallic.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We need to answer the important question; will clerks get the same danger pay as infantry?

 

[PuckChaser]

We need to answer the important question; will clerks get the same danger pay as infantry?

And how long will the line at Tim Horton's will be?!

 

[medicineman]

You don't get a gong for Maple Resolve, so why would you get one for NATO Resolve - I mean, really, six month working vacation away from Pet, Edmonton, The Traz or Kingston.

MM

 

[Infanteer]

I suspect the Operational Service Medal (Expedition) will be retroactively issued for all Op REASSURANCE deployments as well as for the upcoming participation in this NATO Brigade.  It fits the criteria of the award and, with the 30 day threshold, will be better applicable than the 6 month requirement for the SSM(NATO).

I think it is entirely fair and worthwhile in issuing this.  Operational service decorations are not issued for any specific degree of risk - I'd venture that a majority of the UN/NATO medals worn by service members involve tours without getting shot at (I have one myself).  This deployment represents fulfilling an important service in support of our national policies, just as much as a Cyprus or 4 CMBG tour (both which were appropriately recognized with medals).  As well, I think it is good for morale and recognition for our soldiers in light of the lack of deployments since 2014 - as a buddy of mine said, we're better off without a whole bunch of guys looking like bus drivers in nice suits.  The way some of you talk, you'd only be happy if nobody had a medal unless they were shot at or blown up.

As well, I think this mission will be a good opportunity for the Army.  I can speak from a position of authority in saying that a good percentage of soldiers releasing in the last few years is due to lack of opportunity to deploy somewhere and see something beyond Wainwright or Petawawa.  A six month deployment allowing soldiers to participate in some excellent NATO training opportunities while also seeing a different part of the world will be good for our troops.