Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[The Bread Guy]

So I guess delivering gifts from the belly of a CF-18 isn't considered combat..

Here's what the PM said in September (also attached if link doesn't work):

It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany .... Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat ....

Unless there were no Iraqi troops with the Canadians painting the targets, some people think that means  "accompaniment".

Do I agree with what's happening now?  I have no problem seeing Canadian troops killing truly bad guys.

Is it what the PM said it would be?  Not according to the wording he used in September.

Has the mission changed without taxpayers being told?  It looks like it.

Should taxpayers know what its military is up to?  I'll let those smarter than me wrestle with the OPSEC vs. transparency balance  ;D

 

[3rd Horseman]

So much for "Deeds not Words"
Larson is a no buddy, Roulue was weak in the Regiment at best other then hockey and being an CMR keener, did he not quiet the CF at one point?
Combat is combat. The PM is lying as have they all lately, so is Larson.
  This very argument about what is combat what is not has been used as a defense at the War Crimes in the Hague for Yugo. Canadian government know that the use of air power in any form be it recce, target acquisition, directing targeting or delivering the bomb......its all considered a hostile act under the rules of war. So the CF-18 is involved in combat....the Tracker from Greenwood acquiring targets is involved in combat, and last but not least the advisers who train and follow there trainees to the front line and assist them are in combat.

So lets hope the so called leaders of our country and Army get there crap together and start doing what they have authority to do or stop doing what they dont have authority to do. And if that included combat then get on with it and tell the country they are in combat and tell the politicians to tell it like it is.

Lets hope this does not go the way all battles have gone for the last 20 years, lies and misinformation which disrespects those who are doing the fighting and risking life for the good of the world.

Rags
3rd Horseman   

 

[The Bread Guy]

So lets hope the so called leaders of our country and Army get there crap together and start doing what they have authority to do or stop doing what they dont have authority to do.

It's not so much doing the job, there appears to be some hesitancy about how the job is described/talked about.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Roulue was weak in the Regiment at best other then hockey and being an CMR keener, did he not quiet the CF at one point?

A "weak in the regiment" and "CMR Keener" who was good enough to pass JTF2 selection and also serve numerous years with JTF2 and CANSOFCOM?  What does that make you?

You call people out for having an agenda but it sounds like you have one yourself.  Hate the mission but don't discredit good soldiers like General Rouleau.

 

[George Wallace]

This argument only shows the naivete of the Canadian Public.  Seriously.  It is a WAR ZONE.  We have people on the ground instructing Iraqi and allied forces in a Region with no defined Front Lines, where the war-fighting is that of an asymmetric war.  There is no guarantee that they will be safe in the rear teaching in classrooms.  At the same time there is no guarantee that one of our fighters or other aircraft will NOT be shoot down.  There is a risk when you send any CAF personnel into a WAR ZONE.  It is insane for anyone to think that they should not be allowed to defend themselves.   

 

[krimynal]

Like I said in a previous post , as a mentor and a trainer .... you HAVE to be on the ground to see how they act , why they lose , what happens , etc. etc. etc. 

I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.  But they want to elect Muclair and Trudeau ?? when they both said they would rather send in humanitarian aid over forces.

On paper this sound fantastic ... what happens once you drop humanitarian aid in a war zone that isn't controlled by any type of security ? they either get killed , capture or the "bad guy" take control of the aid , and use them to their advantage.  Now how would the Canadian Public reply to that ? We should have send in Troops to ensure security.

Basically , do everything to help them , as long as it doesn't involve any type of Canadian involvement !

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Well the debate hasn't really been about whether Canadian Soldiers are allowed to shoot back or not, even the NDP have stated that if Canadian Soldiers are fired on they of course should shoot back.  The debate has been about whether Stephen Harper misled the Canadian public WRT the scope of the mission.

I believe the opposition parties are starting to sense that Canadians aren't going to bite on this one as they seem to be putting a check fire on some of their rhetoric. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.

The debate has been about whether Stephen Harper misled the Canadian public WRT the scope of the mission.

:nod:  I think those doing the bashing are unhappy with the PM/Government saying in September, "no, Canadian troops won't be going with Iraqi troops into battle" and now saying, "of course Canadian troops are moving toward the fight and painting things to get blown up/sniping bad guys".

To be fair, though, we're hearing a bit more of how things unfolded ....

.... Lawson told the committee he “had not anticipated” Canadian special forces would be in a position to safely direct airstrikes when he ruled them out last October.

“What I had not anticipated at that time in October was that those tactical air controllers would be able to develop techniques that would allow them, in the relative safety of their advise and assist positions, to be able to help the . . . Iraqi security forces bring weaponry of coalition bombers to bear,” Lawson explained his reversal.

“In fact I provided them, within the advise and assist mission, the authority to go ahead with that, well within the mandate given to us by the government.” ....

Sounds like someone's now able to paint targets by "advising and assisting" but without "accompanying" 

I believe the opposition parties are starting to sense that Canadians aren't going to bite on this one as they seem to be putting a check fire on some of their rhetoric. 

:nod:  I still think this from Sun Media nails it ....

"On the technical point of what PM said or didn’t say about the mission last fall compared to what’s happening: Opposition wins .... But on the political point — Do Canadians really care about that technical point compared to the current mission? — government prevails."

 

[krimynal]

same principles apply .... at the beginning they were there to instruct and mentor , but when it comes down to actually make it happen , you need to follow them , that's a pretty basic and simple fact ... Yet the opposition is trying as hard as they can to make it sound SO bad , to me they just look completely stupid , but that's my personal opinion !

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Like I said in a previous post , as a mentor and a trainer .... you HAVE to be on the ground to see how they act , why they lose , what happens , etc. etc. etc. 

I don't even understand why the Canadian Public makes a big deal out of that , here they are all bashing against Harper sending in troops and having the troops defend itself.  But they want to elect Muclair and Trudeau ?? when they both said they would rather send in humanitarian aid over forces.

On paper this sound fantastic ... what happens once you drop humanitarian aid in a war zone that isn't controlled by any type of security ? they either get killed , capture or the "bad guy" take control of the aid , and use them to their advantage.  Now how would the Canadian Public reply to that ? We should have send in Troops to ensure security.

Basically , do everything to help them , as long as it doesn't involve any type of Canadian involvement !

It's not the Canadian Public making a big deal out of it, it's politicians pandering to their base, in this case latte sippers and Unicorn herders.

 

[Old Sweat]

This story from the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act indicates the Canadian public supports the mission.

Support for airstrikes in Iraq at 63 per cent: Forum

Mission has strong support in Prairies and Alberta while those in Quebec are least likely to approve, poll finds.

A new poll by Forum Research found that support for CF-18 airstrikes in Iraq remains largely unchanged since November.

By: Alex Boutilier Staff Reporter, Published on Fri Jan 30 2015

OTTAWA—As parliament continues to debate the role of Canadian Forces in the fight against the Islamic State group, a new poll shows support remains strong for CF-18 airstrikes in Iraq.
The poll, released by Forum Research, found that 63 per cent of Canadians somewhat or strongly approve the Conservatives’ decision to send six CF-18 fighter jets for airstrikes in Iraq.
The support, largely unchanged since November, was strongest among Conservative voters (82 per cent). Regionally, Forum found more support in the Prairies and Alberta (70 per cent and 67 per cent), while Quebec respondents were least likely to support the mission (39 per cent disapproved).
When Forum pointed out that Canadian troops were fired on multiple times — and have returned fire — a slight majority (60 per cent) of Canadians approved of Canadian ground troops engaging Islamic State group fighters on the ground in Iraq.
A strong majority of Conservative voters (82 per cent) approved ground combat, while support was more muted among opposition voters (59 per cent of identified Liberals approved, while 43 per cent of New Democrat voters approved).
The poll also found that almost three in four Canadians (73 per cent) believed that the Canadian Forces will suffer casualties in the fight against the Islamic State group. As many as 69 special forces members are on the ground, although Parliament has approved a non-combat aid and assist role only.
The automated phone survey of 1,382 voting-aged Canadians was conducted on Jan. 27 and 28. Results are considered accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think both the opposition and the members of this site are basically in agreement: The problem (if any) is a political one - on what the government said or did not say the mission would entail - not on the actual actions of the military.

However, considering the fact that most SMA's on this site seem pretty clear that assisting would likely lead to accompanying trained forces near combat areas to solidify their training in designating targets, I must say that I have lost some confidence in the competence of our fearless leader (4 maple-leaves) when he states that he could not foresee such development.

I am less than impressed also with at least one of his responses: That "he" authorized this going along (I won't say "accompanying") with the trainees near the front. Either he missed the part where he should have indicated at the same time that doing so was within the terms he was given for the operation, or else, if the terms changed, indicate that they were modified by the government along the way.

This may seem minor but it isn't. It is the very fundamental of civilian control of the military. It is for the government to decide what we are or are not to do, then for us to decide how we are going to do it within those limits. But we cannot change the limits ourselves.

If those limits were changed along the way (there is no information to that effect one way or the other), then it was up to the government to explain it to Parliament and to Canadians; if these limits were unchanged from the beginning, then (1) from a political point of view the government should communicate that fact clearly and (2) the military leadership should make it clear that it is acting within the terms it was given.

And BTW, it is perfectly fine for the opposition to try and get those very facts to the Canadians. It is their job to do so and hold the government accountable for either bad communications of changes made in secret.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So the CF-18 is involved in combat....the Tracker from Greenwood acquiring targets is involved in combat, and last but not least the advisers who train and follow there trainees to the front line and assist them are in combat.

I think any Tracker is on cement pads.  And none of those will be found at ZX.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I think any Tracker is on cement pads.  And none of those will be found at ZX.

Yes you are correct I stand corrected the Aurora is what Im talking about. Didnt think anyone one would confuse a 1950s Bonaventure launched air craft with the "Tracker" being employed for surveillance in the desert in 2015, I just used the army slang for it Tracker. Cause thats what it does. I figured it was obvious when I said greenwood.

3rd Horsman 

 

[Loachman]

3rd Horsman

I have never, in forty-two years in uniform, heard anybody refer to an Aurora as a "Tracker".

You even got your own name wrong.

Credibility, Credibility - wherefor art thou, Credibility?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I have never, in forty-two years in uniform, heard anybody refer to an Aurora as a "Tracker".

You even got your own name wrong.

Credibility, Credibility - wherefor art thou, Credibility?

My thoughts exactly, I was skeptical the minute he called out General Rouleau who is probably one of the smartest GO's we have and a soldier through and through.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This story from the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act indicates the Canadian public supports the mission.

Support for airstrikes in Iraq at 63 per cent: Forum

Excellent. Now let's put a brigade in there to launch some fairly large raids and take some scalps in proper fashion, which will do more than a few airstrikes to convince ISIS that they are on a losing ticket.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Didnt think anyone one would confuse a 1950s Bonaventure launched air craft with the "Tracker" being employed for surveillance in the desert in 2015, I just used the army slang for it Tracker. Cause thats what it does. I figured it was obvious when I said greenwood.

3rd Horsman

Not to those of us who actually crew Auroras - I have a fairly good idea what they do  .  I'm ex-army, and I never heard an Argus or Aurora called a tracker...because there was a Tracker flying the same time those did (at one point). 

Cheers

Tracker

Argus

Aurora

 

[3rd Horseman]

Yawn,

To make it clear to Royal Drew I did not call Mike out. Mike is a nice guy he was fun to have around as a young officer. That does not change the facts as a Gunner officer he was weak at best. Had a lot to do with too much hockey no field time and he departed the Regt early in his career after being in Germany where ya learn almost nothing as a young officer on a good day add hockey ya learn zero.

As for the Argus and Auroura.......They track things dont they? Ah ya they do.

3rd Horseman
   

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No they don't.

Take it from someone who has spent a career at sea, greatly benefiting from the services of those angels over head (all of them, Trackers, Auroras, Argus and Arcturus'). And you always have to be very specific in identifying them because they don't all do the same thing the same way.

To go back to the point, they don't "track" things. They locate, identify … and do the hard kill, at least at sea. I gather they do the same thing over land, just without the kill capacity at the end, but also collate the intel picture and serve as communication hub. I would not call all that  "tracking" and I am not even in the Air Force. I bet that if I were, I would know all sorts of other things they can do as they are marvellous multipurpose platforms.