Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[PuckChaser]

I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.

 

[McG]

... 600 CANADIAN SOLDIERS ...

It is nice that military requirements always come to such easy rounded numbers.
I suspect this will be an opportunity to validate the AEW through a deployment?

 

[cupper]

I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.

and yet they don't wear an RCN uniform. >

 

[GR66]

I may not think it's the wise choice to deploy in this case but good hunting and safe return to all those deploying. 

 

[MilEME09]

and yet they don't wear an RCN uniform. >

Can we get a carrier to match this new found naval air capability?

 

[Furniture]

I didn't know CF-18s flew in fleets. Learn something new everyday.

Fleet is an appropriate term to use when referring to aircraft, just as squadron, port, starboard, and nautical mile are also appropriate in the realm of aircraft.

Almost all terminology used in aviation comes from the nautical world, oddly enough having squadrons of armoured troopers is more out of place in modern military terminology than fleets of aircraft.

 

[jollyjacktar]

6 aircraft is hardly a fleet.  It's rather embarrassing.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

1 to spontaneously combust on the taxiway
2 to actually participate in the sorties
and the other three for spare parts

 

[s2184]

I read this article in Alzaheera.  :

Why is Canada joining the anti-ISIL coalition?
Canada's move to join the anti-ISIL coalition is the right decision but made for a lot of the wrong reasons.

In many ways, Canada's decision to take part in international air strikes against ISIL in Iraq was a foregone conclusion. Stephen Harper, the country's prime minister, announced his intention to go to war the week before lawmakers actually debated it. He deployed military reconnaissance teams to the region days ahead of any vote. Not that there was ever any shred of doubt as to whether his motion to deploy Canadian fighter jets into combat over Iraq would carry.

Harper's Conservative Party holds a majority of seats in the House of Commons. It would have been politically significant and hugely symbolic if the opposition parties had backed this mission. They didn't and it didn't matter. In the end, Harper got the mandate he and nearly two thirds of Canadians wanted for air strikes against ISIL. On October 7, members of Parliament voted 157 to 134 in favour of the motion. It was the right decision - but it was made for a lot of the wrong reasons.

For starters, Harper relied on the spurious argument that Canada should go to war in the interest of self-defence. ISIL, he argued, presents a direct danger to Canadian "families". He raised the spectre of "terrorist attacks outside the region, including against Canada". But he did so without offering any concrete proof. ISIL's reach certainly stretches through the Middle East and Europe. However, Canadian authorities have yet to make the case that it poses any kind of an equivalent threat to Canada. The most recent report from Ottawa shows more than 130 Canadians have joined the ranks of foreign jihadist groups, and another 80 have returned. What's questionable is whether any of these would-be jihadists have the desire or the capacity to carry out an attack on Canada itself on ISIL's behalf.

Canadian authorities have yet to make the case that it poses any kind of an equivalent threat to Canada. The most recent report from Ottawa shows more than 130 Canadians have joined the ranks of foreign jihadist groups, and another 80 have returned.


A secondary, but equally misguided fantasy is that Canada's decision to join the international coalition against ISIL will make any real difference at all. The country's military contribution to the international coalition pales in comparison to that of its more powerful allies. Held up against Canada's previous military efforts in Afghanistan, the deployment against ISIL is trifling: half-a-dozen CF-18 fighter jets, two Aurora Surveillance aircraft, an air-to-air refuelling CC-150 Polaris.

Misguided fantasy

In the end, it amounts to a roughly 700-strong deployment. There are no ground troops. No boots on the ground. And, the entire mission comes with a six-month expiry date. On balance, this amounts to a footnote in the fight. Militarily, it is quite literally the least Canada could do. There is no use pretending this rather modest effort will turn the tide against the menace of ISIL but it was the most the government could muster in the face of political opposition that would have rather had Canada limit its mission to a humanitarian one.

In truth, the only thing worse than watching the government overstate the threat ISIL poses to Canadians and their families and exaggerate the impact a handful of Canadian fighter jets would have in dismantling the so-called Islamic Caliphate was hearing the opposition's arguments against the government's modest proposal.

Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP and the country's official opposition, suggested Canada's military engagement would result in the mathematically impossible: "Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans". Liberal leader Justin Trudeau resorted to tasteless, nonsensical jokes. He denounced Harper's offer of Canadian air support against ISIL as the Conservatives "trying to whip out [their] CF-18s and show how big they are".

Canada's participation in the international coalition against ISIL deserved more high-minded debate. There are compelling reasons for Canada to join the international coalition against ISIL, not the least of which is the country's historic and moral duty to stand by its allies, in whatever small way it can. Military action has the potential to slow the momentum of ISIL's territorial gains, but is hardly a panacea to the threat it poses.

Canada's opposition should have focused on larger strategic questions: How will Canada limit civilian casualties in airstrikes? How can Canada assist the Iraqi government in building institutional capabilities to combat ISIL? How can Canada exert meaningful diplomatic pressure in the region to stem the flow of weapons and money to ISIL. Another valid question is whether Canada should make a more robust, long-term military commitment to the international military effort against ISIL.

In the end, Canada's decision to participate in international air strikes was the right one. Sending humanitarian assistance to the region is important, but it's not enough. In Canada, the debate will surely continue - because there is no point in pretending six months of air sorties will solve anything. 

Sonia Verma is a Canadian journalist based in the Gulf. She has written for The Globe And Mail, The Times of London and New York Newsday.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/10/why-canada-joining-anti-isil-co-201410873014849618.html

 

[Journeyman]

I read this article in Alzaheera.  :

Why the " : " ?

Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"?

I certainly hope you're not taking issue with "Canada's participation in the international coalition against ISIL deserved more high-minded debate," because that is most assuredly true.



ps - They transcribe their own name from Arabic as "Al Jazeera," and as they note with all publications in their Opinion pages: "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy."

 

[Kirkhill]

Why the " : " ?

Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"?

I certainly hope you're not taking issue with "Canada's participation in the international coalition against ISIL deserved more high-minded debate," because that is most assuredly true.



ps - They transcribe their own name from Arabic as "Al Jazeera," and as they note with all publications in their Opinion pages: "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy."

I'm with Journeyman on this one.  I can't find anything to object to in the article.

Actually, I am starting to see Al Jazeera in a new light.  It seems to be supplying more attempts to be "even-handed".  At least as much as any heirs of the pamphleteers are even-handed.

 

[Remius]

I have to agree.  The article makes some very very valid points.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

6 aircraft is hardly a fleet.  It's rather embarrassing.

It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.

The crews going into this one might not like the thought of their own fellow service personnel referring to what they are doing as "embarrassing", no matter how 'small' the force there may be/seem to be.

:2c:

 

[Remius]

It is 6 more than we have there now.  Plus the other assets going.  Comparably, what % of the Army (F Ech types) were deployed to the sandbox at any one time?  Certainly not all, but our contribution there wasn't seen as "embarrassing" right? What % of the Army does the current SOF contribution equal?    While this op will go, there is still the other "stuff" these units do day to day that still must be done.

The crews going into this one might not like the thought of their own fellow service personnel referring to what they are doing as "embarrassing", no matter how 'small' the force there may be/seem to be.

:2c:

I don't think anyone here thinks what they are doing is embarrassing.  Just that the some people including myself don't think that it's anywhere near what's needed.  And I'm not just refering to our contribution either. 

 

[s2184]

Why the " : " ?

Are you disagreeing with Mulcair suggesting "the mathematically impossible: 'Thousands or tens of thousands of [Canadian] veterans' "?  Or is it the bit about Trudeau resorting to "tasteless, nonsensical jokes"?

I certainly hope you're not taking issue with "Canada's participation in the international coalition against ISIL deserved more high-minded debate," because that is most assuredly true.

ps - They transcribe their own name from Arabic as "Al Jazeera," and as they note with all publications in their Opinion pages: "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy."

I was not sure about how others were interpreting this article. That is why I put Roll Eyes, expecting some comments.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Foreign Minister's office has posted of photo of him with personnel in Camp Canada in Kuwait.

Grip and grin ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Now that the overall "fight against ISIS/ISIL" is called Op Inherent Resolve, the CF has an op name, too - from the Info-machine Fact Sheet:

Operation IMPACT is the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) contribution to coalition assistance to security forces in the Republic of Iraq who are fighting against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

The Government of Canada has extended the CAF mission for up to six months ....

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Foreign Minister's office has posted of photo of him with personnel in Camp Canada in Kuwait.

Grip and grin ...

Tfc Tech MCpl had one too many coffee at breakfast...

 

[OldSolduer]

Tfc Tech MCpl had one too many coffee at breakfast...

And he should stand closer to the f$$kin razor when he shaves.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien provides his assessment of what Canada is and should be doing in Iraq/the 'war' against IS** in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-true-role-in-the-mideast-conflict/article21138349/#dashboard/follows/

Canada’s true role in the Mideast conflict

JEAN CHRÉTIEN
Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Oct. 17 2014

When I travel to any corner of Canada, complete strangers from every walk of life come up to me on street corners, in restaurants, in airports, to take a moment to talk to me. Sometimes, they thank me for my service during my long career in public life.

There is one sentence that I hear over and over again: “Mr. Chrétien, thank you for keeping us out of the war in Iraq.” It is gratifying to hear, because that decision, more than 10 years ago, was not easy. The country was divided. Many columnists, pundits and editorialists were in favour of participating. Some within my own party disagreed with me, the business community opposed me, and no one was a louder critic than Stephen Harper, then leader of the Official Opposition. He even went on U.S. television and wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Canadian government’s policy.

Today, there is almost universal recognition that we made the right decision. And so, in recent weeks, many people have asked me what I would do about the current situation in Iraq and Syria. Do I agree with Mr. Harper’s position or Mr. Trudeau’s? What should Canada do?

Here is my answer. ‎

There is no more serious decision for an elected official than sending men and women into conflict. The consequences, at home and abroad, are enormous. A wrong decision, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003, can have disastrous results that reverberate for years. The current rise of the Islamic State is in large part a result of that war.

I know what it is like to send Canadians into combat. The government I led participated in multilateral combat missions in both Kosovo and Afghanistan because we determined that it was the best contribution Canada could make in those very difficult circumstances. ‎So I am not always opposed to sending Canadians into combat. But these are decisions that must be made with utmost seriousness and consideration. In general, it should also be done with a clear mandate and under the umbrella of the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is clearly not the case here.

We have an obligation to proceed with the utmost caution, and to weigh all the potential consequences before joining a combat mission.

For example, all the war in Iraq did was to make the region and the world a much more dangerous place. The legacy of colonialism in the Middle East had not been forgotten and was only exacerbated by the Western military intervention in Iraq in 2003, with the consequences we face today. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper did not understand that history in 2003, and he does not understand it today.

The current situation is in some ways very different from 2003. The Islamic State’s atrocities must be stopped. But Western countries must be cognizant of the region’s history in deciding how to act.

There are two components to the crisis – one military and one humanitarian. Both must be addressed.

The Iraqi government has asked for U.S. assistance and President Barack Obama has responded with air strikes. But given the history of the region and the sensitivities to Western military interventions, I believe that any U.S.-led military coalition should be composed mainly of Arab countries, with minimal participation by other Western countries.

I have enormous‎ admiration for the men and women of the Canadian armed forces. But the reality is that the military contribution Mr. Harper’s government has authorized will be very marginal.

What it really does is to add Canada to a list of contributing Western countries. The history of the Middle East tells us that this list should be very short, not long.

‎No one underestimates the Islamic State. But the issues are the best ways to combat it and the best contributions Canada can make. ‎If the region sees military intervention as just another knee-jerk Western show of force, we all know what the long-term consequences will be.

This is why I believe the best ‎contribution Canada can make is by engaging in massive, not token, humanitarian assistance. It is why in answer to the questions asked of me, I support Mr. Trudeau’s position.

The Islamic State has created a massive humanitarian crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. Neighbouring countries are dealing with floods of refugees. The World Food Program is almost out of funds and winter is approaching.

The Prime Minister may believe that not participating in the combat mission means Canada will be sitting on the sidelines. He is absolutely wrong – Canada should be on the front line, addressing the humanitarian crisis.

‎For well over 50 years, it has been the Canadian way to open our hearts, our doors and our wallets to victims of great upheavals – Hungarians in the 1950s, Ugandans in the 1970s, Vietnamese boat people in the 1980s, refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. And I am always thrilled by the great contribution they make after arriving.

Here are two concrete initiatives I would recommend for Mr. Harper to put Canada on the front lines of the humanitarian crisis while a U.S.-led, primarily Arab coalition focuses on the military crisis.

First, Canada should offer to immediately take 50,000 refugees fleeing the Islamic State. I hope the government will move on this quickly.

Second, the government should immediately allocate $100-million‎ for the World Food Program, to help feed refugees facing a harsh winter.

I understand that faced with the barbarism of the Islamic State, many Canadians want their leaders to respond swiftly. It is a natural reaction and is praiseworthy. It’s exactly what I am proposing as a natural extension of Mr. Trudeau’s decision and Canada’s long-standing tradition.

As usual Prime Minister Chrétien tells half truths and gets things half right, albeit for the wrong reasons.

Why didn't we join the USA, in some way, in 2003? They were asking for 'moral support,' political and diplomatic support, not "boots the ground." The reason is simple, Prime Minister Chrétien, unlike Mr Harper and even then Minister of Everything John Manley and most of the punditry, correctly 'read' the Canadian mood: it was anti-American. Indeed, he, M. Chrétien, had helped organize that resurgent anti-Americanism when four Canadian soldiers were killed by "friendly fire" during our first Afghan mission in April of 2002. The national "outpouring of grief" was orchestrated (sometimes in poor taste) from Ottawa and it was heavily tinged with an anti-American bias. Did M.Chrétien know that he would want to use that anti-Americanism (which is never far below the surface in Canada) in the near future? No. He just knew that's it's almost always good politics and Prime Minister Harper has not been above using it himself ~ think about his first comments (after being elected in 2006) about the Arctic. It wasn't principle that kept us out of Iraq; it wasn't good, clear strategic vision; it was low, partisan, political calculation.

As to his prescriptions, he's half right:

    1. We should "immediately allocate $100-million‎ for the World Food Program, to help feed refugees facing a harsh winter." That's a good idea; but, and it's a Big BUT

    2. We should accept zero refugees from the region. We should rarely, and only in the most dire of circumstances, accept any refugees from  anywhere. We should help care for refugees - maybe another $100 Million - in or every near their homelands but bringing
        refugees to Canada is almost always a mistake. A refugee is, by definition, a person who needs temporary refuge because (s)he and her/his family have fled their homes in fear for life and limb. Settling them, permanently, in Canada is not the right
        thing to do - it often makes matters worse for them.