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

Gates hints Canada should extend mission. 11 Dec 08

  • Thread starter Thread starter jollyjacktar
  • Start date Start date
regulator12 said:
I disagree, We do need a break. Our troops are getting worn out, we are going through our equipment at an alarming rate. We don't have all the proper parts for vehicle repairs, We are going through Lavs do to damage that don't make back to the front lines. Our AO is big for the size of force we have, we have lived up to our part of the deal if not more. We are stretched out and need a break. There are other countries that can step in a take over from us. The US and UK CAN afford to stay there for the long haul due to the size of there forces. We have done an amazing job and the world recognizes that, but to what cost to our soldiers and families. That country needs more soldiers especially in the south and they need to come from some other countries. We have done our part.

1.  We don't need a break: Obsolete MHR is forcing us to send the same people over-and-over while many in Canada can't/won't deploy.  Share the load.  If the CF has 56,000 in uniform, lets see 56,000 with Afghanistan medals.
2.  Lived up to our part? I suppose we could have pulled out of WW2 after Hong Kong using that logic.
3.  Cost to our soldiers and families?  Yup.  Everything has a cost.  Give returning multi-tour vets choice of posting.  Goody courses.  Priority career-wise over the can't/won't deploys.  After that? Well, if they can't take the heat...
4.  LAV fleet.  Buy more LAVs.  Buy something. 
 
1.  We don't need a break: Obsolete MHR is forcing us to send the same people over-and-over while many in Canada can't/won't deploy.  Share the load.  If the CF has 56,000 in uniform, lets see 56,000 with Afghanistan medals.
2.  Lived up to our part? I suppose we could have pulled out of WW2 after Hong Kong using that logic.
3.  Cost to our soldiers and families?  Yup.  Everything has a cost.  Give returning multi-tour vets choice of posting.  Goody courses.  Priority career-wise over the can't/won't deploys.  After that? Well, if they can't take the heat...
4.  LAV fleet.  Buy more LAVs.  Buy something. 

I agree with you that more in our forces need to do there part and go over and let guys have a break. That is a problem that our organization needs to sort out and a lot of it is do to the high turnover of new soldiers. We get guys coming in there out after 3 years and the burden falls on guys who may have stuck around. This is especially true in the infantry. Our military needs to solve the attrition problem. However that does not mean that we need to send over every person we have in uniform just so everyone can say they where there. A lot of our military supports the guys and girls that are outside the wire over there. We dont have a huge fighting force thats my point here. We dont have the man power to sustain a war like this we just dont. This is not WW2 or WW1 or even WW3 its Afghanistan and its a contained war to that region. Our soldiers have done there job however there are other countries that need to step up to the plate not the rest of our armed forces but other countries. And we would buy more LAVs if we could however we dont have the money or ability to get those LAVs in a timely manner. They need to be built or fixed from the factories. Why do you think the battalions are always transferring there LAVs to the next battle group for training? Because we dont have enough EVEN in Canada!!! Why do we always have to give up our weapons, or NVGs or Vehicles to the training battle group? Yes cause we dont have enough in Canada. This is not as easy as saying just get more. It does not work like that. We are not at WW2, we have done our part time to scale back and let someone else take the fight, we need to lick our wounds and get ready for the future.
 
TCBF said:
1.  We don't need a break: Obsolete MHR is forcing us to send the same people over-and-over while many in Canada can't/won't deploy.  Share the load.  If the CF has 56,000 in uniform, lets see 56,000 with Afghanistan medals.
2.  Lived up to our part? I suppose we could have pulled out of WW2 after Hong Kong using that logic.
3.  Cost to our soldiers and families?  Yup.  Everything has a cost.  Give returning multi-tour vets choice of posting.  Goody courses.  Priority career-wise over the can't/won't deploys.  After that? Well, if they can't take the heat...
4.  LAV fleet.  Buy more LAVs.  Buy something. 

I would like to agree, but cannot.  'In uniform' doesnt mean having they training and potential for doing the work that the infantry already do.  It also implies that they are all sitting around not doing anything important, which is a common attitude already expressed by others before.  Its forgotten that there's a whole system in Canada focused on national defence of and assistance to the country's territory, which is far more important than operations in any foreign country.  They've alreay stripped the system clean of bodies by deploying them in ones and twos to support ongoing operations.

The most important part, as you point out, is the money.  A lot of these problems could be made to go away if we had enough of it, and the lack of it demonstrates how much lip service is being given instead of dedicated support... 

 
Greymatters said:
I would like to agree, but cannot.  'In uniform' doesnt mean having they training and potential for doing the work that the infantry already do.  It also implies that they are all sitting around not doing anything important, which is a common attitude already expressed by others before.  Its forgotten that there's a whole system in Canada focused on national defence of and assistance to the country's territory, which is far more important than operations in any foreign country.  They've alreay stripped the system clean of bodies by deploying them in ones and twos to support ongoing operations.

The most important part, as you point out, is the money.  A lot of these problems could be made to go away if we had enough of it, and the lack of it demonstrates how much lip service is being given instead of dedicated support... 

- We still have a lot of people who have the ability to serve overseas who have not.  Mostly not their fault: their bosses won't let them go. 
- Money? The way we burn through the stuff?  Lots of money.  We lack imagination more than we lack money.
- Infantry?  Understood.  Trained and experienced infantry are the most precious commodity in the CF.  We have to look at retention.  What are the factors effecting? 
 
regulator12 said:
I agree with you that more in our forces need to do there part and go over and let guys have a break. That is a problem that our organization needs to sort out and a lot of it is do to the high turnover of new soldiers. We get guys coming in there out after 3 years and the burden falls on guys who may have stuck around. This is especially true in the infantry. Our military needs to solve the attrition problem. However that does not mean that we need to send over every person we have in uniform just so everyone can say they where there. A lot of our military supports the guys and girls that are outside the wire over there. We dont have a huge fighting force thats my point here. We dont have the man power to sustain a war like this we just dont. This is not WW2 or WW1 or even WW3 its Afghanistan and its a contained war to that region. Our soldiers have done there job however there are other countries that need to step up to the plate not the rest of our armed forces but other countries. And we would buy more LAVs if we could however we dont have the money or ability to get those LAVs in a timely manner. They need to be built or fixed from the factories. Why do you think the battalions are always transferring there LAVs to the next battle group for training? Because we dont have enough EVEN in Canada!!! Why do we always have to give up our weapons, or NVGs or Vehicles to the training battle group? Yes cause we dont have enough in Canada. This is not as easy as saying just get more. It does not work like that. We are not at WW2, we have done our part time to scale back and let someone else take the fight, we need to lick our wounds and get ready for the future.

- Good points.
- The biggest problem is retention.  Ideas?
 
Agree with most of your points apart from -

regulator12 said:
This is not WW2 or WW1 or even WW3 its Afghanistan and its a contained war to that region.

This war certainly has the potential to inflame the entire region. Look to Afghanistan's western and eastern neighbours and tell me you see stable, secure democracies.

[quote author=regulator12]
Our soldiers have done there job however there are other countries that need to step up to the plate not the rest of our armed forces but other countries. 
[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree, but who can step up to the plate and perform as we have? The europeans? Hamstrung by liberals governments and casualty shy populations, nevermind militaries lacking in the 'get er done' attitude that, to me, seems prevalent and common amongst the brits, yanks and us. So who will replace us? Yanks for sure, but asking other countries to step up to the plate is like a grade 8 kid asking a grade 4 kid to carry on his fight for him, against a grade 7. Crap analogy but best I can do.
 
A lot of guys simply dont want to sign a 20 year contract. There contract system is garbage and needs to go back to having more choice to signing a contract. The military should put a certain amount of money into a locked in education fund for members who full fill there first 3 year contract then every year after that a bonus education fund for up to a certain amount of money which can be used after they get out the military. We should put more money into certain bases. For example lots of guys dont enjoy there life in Shilo, or Pet. Other bases i cant speak for. They should put more stores or restaurants or entertainment venues on these places so soldiers have something to do and so they feel like there base is home not work all the time. Signing bonuses are good and should be handed out but one of the biggest things is the old school mindset that is still prevalent in the infantry. Guys who are educated and have life experience get in then get treated like garbage and hate it then get out. We have leaders that need to act more professional and get there old school thought process out of the way.
 
The recruiting and training system has over time turned into a monstrous laviathan that moves at a snails pace compared to the rest of the CF.  Fix the system, you fix the problem.  Unfortunately very few of us are in a position where we can identify actual problems and not causes and effects that look like the problems... 
 
Agree with most of your points apart from -

Quote from: regulator12 on Today at 17:35:40
This is not WW2 or WW1 or even WW3 its Afghanistan and its a contained war to that region.

This war certainly has the potential to inflame the entire region. Look to Afghanistan's western and eastern neighbours and tell me you see stable, secure democracies.


I have to agree the area could blow up at any time. Pakistan is a mess and Iran is extremely dangerous. I agree.
 
regulator12 said:
I have to agree the area could blow up at any time. Pakistan is a mess and Iran is extremely dangerous. I agree.

Also agree.

Can't say i'd like to see Canada leave the Middle East and then see some of the other countries in that region get a little trigger happy a few years down the road. :/
 
Marshall said:
Also agree.

Can't say i'd like to see Canada leave the Middle East and then see some of the other countries in that region get a little trigger happy a few years down the road. :/

Something that bugs me. Afghanistan is NOT in my mind in the Middle East. Afghanistan is in South-West Asia
 
Beadwindow 7 said:
Something that bugs me. Afghanistan is NOT in my mind in the Middle East. Afghanistan is in South-West Asia

A common misconception...
 
Greymatters said:
A common misconception...

I know, but whenever I hear someone start talking about "pulling out of the middle east", I start thinking about the Golan!
 
Beadwindow 7 said:
Something that bugs me. Afghanistan is NOT in my mind in the Middle East. Afghanistan is in South-West Asia

Its funny cause I actually know the difference but whenever I am talking about it I always want to say Middle East. Honors in Geography during HS, it really shows. Sorry for the error.  :brickwall:
 
Some people also think they all dress the same and talk the same language, but it cant be helped, not everyone is as aware of countries and cultures as they should be...

I.e: Without cheating, where's Copenhagen?



 
Greymatters said:
Some people also think they all dress the same and talk the same language, but it cant be helped, not everyone is as aware of countries and cultures as they should be...

I.e: Without cheating, where's Copenhagen?
Right beside the Skoal, above the rolling papers.

8)
 
Greymatters said:
Some people also think they all dress the same and talk the same language, but it cant be helped, not everyone is as aware of countries and cultures as they should be...

I.e: Without cheating, where's Copenhagen?

Denmark, and I cheated. Had an idea but did not want to make another mistake  ;D
FoverF said:
Right beside the Skoal, above the rolling papers.

8)

Is it bad that this tobacco came into mind before the city? I work too much at a store I think.

 
Here's another spin to CAN extending the mission - it'll get the USA pres-elect on our side.  Links to policy papers mentioned here, all shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Blueprint for getting Obama's ear: Keep our troops in Afghanistan
Supporting U.S. in spreading global democracy will be a key to a better relationship, a policy paper says

Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, 13 Dec 08
Article link

Canada's laundry list for Barack Obama's arrival in the White House next month is ambitious: boosting trade across a dysfunctional border, a continental energy and climate-change accord, and halting the economic meltdown.

But if Ottawa has any hope of getting the ear of the world's most popular politician, it will have to think big and act even bigger. And that means dumping plans for the large-scale withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Afghanistan in 2011.

That was the underlying message this past week when dozens of senior bureaucrats, diplomats and analysts from Canada and the U.S. met in Ottawa to discuss a "blueprint" for getting the Canadian government on the radar of the incoming Obama administration.

The message couldn't be any more timely, given the musings last week by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates about keeping Canadian troops in Kandahar past their 2011 pullout date.

Carleton University's Canada-U.S. Project will forward its sweeping policy paper to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in an attempt to advance an ambitious new agenda in Washington.

Bold and daring needed

Canada's overtures to Obama will have to be as big as the larger-than-life U.S. president-elect himself, and will only grab his attention if they are bold and daring, and promise to take the Canada-U.S. relationship to new highs.

That means playing the Afghanistan card.

Against the backdrop of recession, Obama comes to power facing weighty world problems with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a provocative and nuclear-minded Iran, and carnage in Haiti and Sudan's Darfur region.

"It's not wait times at the Ambassador Bridge," a senior Bush administration official said.

The official was referring to the bottleneck at the two countries' busiest land crossing at Detroit and Windsor -- a major focal point of Canada's irritation with its "thickening" border with the U.S., which it believes slows trade and is economically harmful.

What the U.S. wants from its northern neighbour, the official said, is help on the world stage to help solve big world problems.

"You did that with Afghanistan," the official said, and that translated into face time for Canada with the U.S. to solve bilateral irritants, such as the softwood lumber dispute.

Bruce Jentleson, a Duke University political scientist and a foreign policy adviser to former Democratic vice-president Al Gore, said Canada should extend the Afghanistan mission beyond the withdrawal date set by Parliament.

"The nature of the U.S. presidential transition makes engaging a new administration on anything other than a crisis or a top priority inherently difficult well into its first year in office," wrote Jentleson in one of the 17 policy papers submitted to the Carleton project.

"A constructive scenario would be for Canada to reaffirm its commitment beyond the current 2011 time frame."

David Bercuson, the director of the Calgary-based Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, said the U.S. does not expect Canada to behave like a superpower, but it does want it to contribute to the defence of democratic values on the world stage....

More on link
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail¸is the Good Grey Globe's editorial board`s position on extending the Afghanistan Mission:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081213.EAFGHANISTAN13/TPStory/Opinion/editorials

CANADA IN AFGHANISTAN
Once more, dear friends?

December 13, 2008

Canadian efforts in Afghanistan have often appeared to be taken for granted by our NATO allies, particularly the United States. The appreciative words this week from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who acknowledged that "proportionally, none have worked harder or sacrificed more than the Canadians," were therefore gratifying. But with them came a distinct message: Exiting Afghanistan will not be so simple a matter for Canada as our parliamentarians have made it out to be.

In response to a seemingly pointed remark by Mr. Gates that "the longer we can have Canadian soldiers as our partners, the better it is," government representatives were quick to emphasize that Canada will not deviate from its plan to end combat operations in Kandahar in 2011. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has previously gone further, appearing during the election campaign to suggest that Canadian troops would exit Afghanistan entirely - not just Kandahar - when the current commitment ends.

Such firm promises of withdrawal may be politically popular. But they are potentially at odds with the interests of both Afghanistan and Canada.

Canada has invested a great deal in Afghanistan, especially since taking command of Kandahar combat operations nearly three years ago. It has done so with little support from our allies, in large part because the United States has been distracted by Iraq. It is a relief that a shift in American focus back to Afghanistan will now lighten Canada's burden. But if there remains a role for Canada to play at a pivotal moment in a war against Taliban insurgents that is far from won, a refusal to work in tandem with the U.S. could negate many of our past efforts.

There are practical considerations, as well. In a perfect world, defence and industrial policies would be entirely separate. In the real world, they are not. As Canada attempts to navigate its way through a global economic crisis, and in particular to stem job losses in the auto sector, the federal government must consider its relations with Barack Obama's incoming administration. To rigidly dismiss a plea from Mr. Gates - who will retain his current job after Mr. Obama's inauguration - risks sending the wrong message.

The 100th Canadian military death in Afghanistan recently underscored the immense sacrifices we have already made there. The escalation of operations under the new U.S. presence may result in an even higher casualty rate to come. That is a reality Canadians must brace themselves for. Making the public case to maintain any combat role in Afghanistan beyond 2011 would not be easy. But the government should be prepared to make it, if it is the right thing to do.

--------------------


The Globe appears to be pretty much in line with the majority opinion here on Army.ca.

 
Back
Top