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

Canadian Military involvment in Iraq, and Canadian political support. - The Canadian Forces going to Iraq?

HollywoodHitman said:
Even if we wanted to contribute troops to Iraq, I submit that we simply couldn't manage it without a large scale callout of the Reserves, and even then it would be difficult once we started to sustain casualties. Any small scale effort would seem token to the rest of the countries participating there and it would be a disservice to the Canadian military members who would go. If we were to commit to any effort in Iraq, our troops would deserve the full combat capabilities of our military, not just one or 2 companies from here and there. One could argue though whether or not Canada could manage a long term, sustained combat operation. As much as I believe in and support our soldiers, I don't think we're capable of it with the current situation in the CF. :salute: :cdn:

Then what the hell good are we? :-[
 
Aaron,

My point exactly. Frustrating to know that even if we wanted to send troops, I'm not sure we could.
 
Even if we wanted to contribute troops to Iraq, I submit that we simply couldn't manage it without a large scale callout of the Reserves, and even then it would be difficult once we started to sustain casualties. Any small scale effort would seem token to the rest of the countries participating there and it would be a disservice to the Canadian military members who would go. If we were to commit to any effort in Iraq, our troops would deserve the full combat capabilities of our military, not just one or 2 companies from here and there. One could argue though whether or not Canada could manage a long term, sustained combat operation. As much as I believe in and support our soldiers, I don't think we're capable of it with the current situation in the CF

As it stands, even though we don't offically support the war, we are doing more than most of the countries in the "coalition of the willing"



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20030331%2FCOSANDERS%2FTPComment%2FTopStories&ord=1095339254459&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true

Last week, in the midst of his rebuke for our "non-involvement," U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted: "Ironically, the Canadians indirectly provide more support for us in Iraq than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us." In fact, Canada's military contribution puts us right after Britain and Australia in the "coalition of the willing." In some important ways we contribute more than Australia.

ALSO:
Providing War Planners:


Canadian military â Å“war plannersâ ? have been working with US Central Command for months. Canada had planners working with US Central Command when it was located at MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. USCENTCOM is masterminding the entire war against Iraq. Then, on February 11, 2003, Canada disclosed that it had transferred about 25 of our â Å“military plannersâ ? from MacDill to the U.S. Military's forward command post in Qatar, in the Persian Gulf. This is now the â Å“command-and-control headquartersâ ? for the war. Having Canadian war planners helping to set up, prepare and organize this war for months leading up to its launch is a far more significant role than having a few soldiers fighting on the ground. Canada has helped to determine the whole strategy for fighting this war. We are continuing to help run this war from the inside. Canada is part of the brains behind the whole operation. It is unlikely that very many of the nations that are officially recognized as part of the â Å“Coalition of the Willingâ ? are part of the strategic and logistical planning effort coordinated by CENTCOM that has created the schedule for this war and is now pulling all the strings from behind the scenes.
Exchange Troops:
Canada admits having 31 â Å“exchange troopsâ ? engaged in the war against Iraq
These Canadian â Å“exchange troopsâ ? under the command of US and British armed forces are serving with combat troops on the ground in Iraq. This â Å“exchange programâ ? with the US and UK has been going on for many decades. It has allowed Canadian navy, air force and army personnel to engage in foreign wars that are not officially sanctioned by the Canadian government.

Airborne Warning and Control System:

Canadian Forces members are also part of crews on Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft. These state of the art aircraft are essential to modern air war battles. They are the nerve centers that â Å“safelyâ ? guide fighter jets and bombers into battle so that they can â Å“deliverâ ? their destructive â Å“payloads.â ? Chrétien rationalized that the Canadians are on AWACS that oversee more than just Iraq or any single
country. "The people who are involved in flying in AWACS claim they are covering many countries in their surveillance, not only one country." he said. (Daniel Leblanc, March 27, 2003)

Providing Billions in Weapons and Military Equipment:

Canada is selling billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the US. US orders for Canadian military equipment are guaranteed to increase because of the war. Knowing, as we do, that the US is Canada's biggest military customer and that Canadian military production is thoroughly integrated into the US war machine, we can assume that virtually every major US weapons system, and weapons delivery system, includes at least some Canadian components. Many major components, like aircraft engines for warplanes, are made in Canada. Although Canada claims to have one of the world's strictest sets of guidelines to stop the export of our military goods, Canada has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on any of our military exports to the US. No Canadian government permits are required. Canada's guidelines state that military exports to countries
at war, or preparing for war, are "closely controlled." However, in the case of the US-led war against Iraq, Canada's military exports will show a
â Å“closely controlledâ ? increase. No doubt, officials in Industry Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and Export development Canada will be working overtime these days to help Canadian military-related corporations keep up with the increased demand for products that are required for this war..

Overflights of US Air Force:

Many US warplanes en route to Iraq are flying through Canadian air space. This may not seem significant but its is one of the things that the US has specifically requested from members to be counted among the
â Å“Coalition of the Willing.â ? Some countries have gained entry into the gang merely for letting the US to fly over.
Refueling US Military Aircraft:
US aircraft carrying many thousands troops to Iraq are being allowed to stop in St. John's and Stephenville, Newfoundland for refueling and crew changes. â Å“In recent weeks, as the U.S. has used Newfoundland as a refueling stop for military flights en route to the Middle East. 'We've been getting roughly 2 or 3 U.S. flights a day, with probably 1000 troops coming
through each day,' said Gary Vey, CEO of the Gander Airport Authorityâ ? (Ottawa Citizen, March 22).



Remember this?

The Liberals made Iraq their big hit in the election campaign. In television "attack" ads and during this week's leaders debates, Paul Martin has persistently charged that if Conservative Leader Stephen Harper had been prime minister a year ago, Canadian soldiers would have been sent to Iraq. But the attempts to link the Tories to the increasingly unpopular (even in the United States) occupation of Iraq, and the unstated implication that the Liberals "kept our boys out of the war," must be setting teeth grinding and heads shaking in the Canadian military. Because the Canadian military was already there!




 
Thats some great information. I knew we had people on exchange postings ets with the UK and US.
While that is a contribution, my interpretation of sending Canadian Troops into Iraq is sending organized fighting units as opposed to pieces of equipt. and pers. here and there. While it's good to know we're making a contribution in some way, I am still not convinced that we have the capability to wage sustained combat operations in Iraq if we were to be called on to do so.

TM
 
I would have to agree with that. Logistically and manning wise, there isn't a chance we could go to Iraq right now. Perhaps if we fully pulled out of Afghanistan to do so it would be possible, but how would the Canadian Public take it? I can only imagine that it wouldn't be good. Think about what you would see on T.V after the first Canadian convoy was ambushed with casualties. The country would go nuts, throwing the terms, 'peaceful nation', 'peacekeepers' not 'peacemakers'. The general canadian public wouldn't support it and without support from home it won't happen. For example; look at the anti-americanism on this board alone with such phrases as 'yanks' being used. How many people in Canada dislike Americans(i'm not sure why), let alone support their cause.  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to go for sure, I just don't see it happening.
 
Dr. Rajaa Khuzai
Thank for your patronage at the international do good services inc. (formerly known as the CF). At this time we are unable to contribute any forces to your country. please sign up on the waiting list and check back every six months for possible service.
Due to finacial restraints in the services we could only afford to send the PAT division out of Borden or  CBO. However we would like to actually succeed at our missions.
If you are not looking for a full BG, perhaps we can offer a CIMIC or MOST team for the man power conscious individuals.
If you would like we can refer your country-in-shambles to the funny-looking-but-effective Peacekeepers Inc. located in the Netherlands (also known as the dutch army).
Thank your interest.
 
Matt Fisher
I had happen to read it in a paper, and also on a web site. I'm trying to hunt them down. It had some info as, the Strker Bges are very transport dependent. It takes 2/3 Hercs to get a full Strker to Iraq. Parts to supply these Bges are required alot more than a track Bge. And due to this, the US Military is renting cargo space on civie flights.
 
Recce41,

I guess on that subject, you could say that the US is 'renting' the majority of its airlift to get its forces in theatre, considering that the majority of troops enroute to or from Iraq are flown on chartered commercial airliners.

 
All wars are dirty.
We can't afford it but we can afford "free" childcare?  ::)
 
At the present time, i cant see us sending troops to iraq, however, when our commitment is over, we could send troops to iraq. the troops must receive in theatre experience in order to gain valuable knowledge that can only be learnt first hand. i know the forces are strecthed pretty thin right now but if they dont continue to deploy overseas, then if we do have to fight in a major conflict or any for that matter, the troops may not have the insight to engage in combat operations.
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Recce41,

I guess on that subject, you could say that the US is 'renting' the majority of its airlift to get its forces in theatre, considering that the majority of troops enroute to or from Iraq are flown on chartered commercial airliners.

Interesting observation: I was speaking with a US Col here at Bagram the other day who told me that because the Clinton Govt failed to make an adequate and timely investment in strategic airlift, the US no longer has what it needs to meet its needs. He specifically described, as you have, a heavy reliance on rental and leased civilian A/C. Maybe we should look into a "subvention" scheme like the British Army used for motor transport in the 1920s and 30s. Cheers.
 
pbi,

that commentary is pretty much right on the money, although the blame cannot be solely put on the shoulders of the former Clinton White House.   Currently the US Army seems to be going in one direction with its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and desire to have a 'medium' division in theatre within 96 hours by strategic airlift, yet the airlift necessary to make such this happen doesn't exist.   Whereas the US Air Force is seemingly going in another opposite direction by putting massive amounts of money into missile defense research as well as fighter programs such as the F-22 while investing relatively small amounts of money into upgrading their strategic airlift capabilities.

Now with that said, the US maintains industry regulations that allow for the use of emergency charter of US airliners in case of war, which was used quite extensively during the deployment of troops into Saudi for Operation Desert Shield in 1990.   For the present troop deployment schedule to Iraq, it seems that the US DOD isn't having much problem chartering the necessary civilian aircraft to do the job.

Personally, I can say that I enjoyed the flight back to the US in the business class cabin aboard a chartered United Airlines 747 rather than the flight over to Kuwait on the troop deck of a US Air Force C-5 (which incidentally the head aboard looks like something NASA designed for the Apollo program during the early 60's).   The fact that we were coming back home from our deployment and my platoon sergeant had smuggled aboard a footlocker of bourbon might also be contributing factors.    ;D
 
Ahh, yes; business class. I can happily confess to flying that exactly once in 30 years. How the Other Half lives..... Cheers.
 
120 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III tactical airlift aircraft with 54 more on order and you call that inadequate. That's a fleet the world can only dream about...
 
He was banned for something else after that post.  Banned members posts still remain in place unless deemed necessary to disappear.
 
Back
Top