Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[McG]

The NDP has already been asking for another debate in the House of Commons. 

NDP calls for debate on military role in Iraq
Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
26 Jan 2015

The Official Opposition NDP plans to call for an emergency debate on the war against the Islamic State after revelations Canadian military personnel have been on the front lines in Iraq.

Senior military officials said this week that Canadian soldiers on the ground have directed 13 bombing attacks against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) since November. They have also "neutralized" other enemy forces with sniper fire after being shot at.

Opposition parties accuse the Conservative government of misleading Parliament and Canadians about the fight against ISIL, saying the government promised Canadian troops would not be involved in combat on the ground.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris says he'll ask House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer for an emergency debate on Iraq when MPs return from the Christmas break on Monday, because the government needs to answer to Canadians and Parliament. It will be up to Scheer to decide whether to grant the request.

"We've got a situation here where the people of Canada and Parliament have been misled about the nature of the operation," Harris said. "Canadian ground troops were actually engaged in calling for airstrikes and spending 20 per cent of their time on the front lines, which is not what people expected, and is contrary to so many of the (government's) statements."

The government has said calling in airstrikes does not constitute combat, and that Canadian troops have a right to defend themselves if shot at. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that he was proud of the work the commandos are doing in Iraq.

But defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson said in an interview in October that the 69 special forces troops in Iraq would not be calling in bombing strikes.

Lawson now says the situation "evolved" after he made those comments, and that calling in airstrikes and putting troops within shooting distance of ISIL forces is "entirely consistent with the advise-andassist mandate given to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government."

Harris said the entire mission has been shrouded in secrecy and confusion. Parliamentarians have had only one briefing from the military or government about Canada's combat mission in Iraq since October, and the NDP critic said it's time to shine some light on what's happening.

 

[The Bread Guy]

For reference, here's a round-up of how the Government has described the mission over time:

5 Sept 2014, CTV.ca:

....  “This is not a combat mission and our role is clearly defined. Canada is joining our allies in providing critical advice to forces in northern Iraq as they continue to hold back the terrorist advance,” (PM Stephen) Harper told reporters.  “But while this mission is low risk, it’s not without risk. Our men and women in uniform are ready to answer this call, and I thank them for always being prepared to defend Canadian values and interests in a dangerous world.” ....

24 Sept 2014, Parliamentary Secretary for NatDef, in the House of Commons:

.... I can confirm that we have committed 69 members of the Canadian special armed forces to be in Iraq to provide tactical and strategic advice in a non-combat role .... we have committed to 69 members being deployed to northern Iraq to fight—to be in an advisory role with the Peshmerga, helping it out, along with the invitation of the Iraqi government. We are there strictly in an advisory role, non-combat, and it is very clear what we are trying to do there ....

30 Sept 2014, Question Period, House of Commons:

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that the rules of engagement are to advise and assist the Iraqis, but the question is, assist them how? For instance, are Canadian soldiers currently going on patrols with Iraqis or Kurds?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I said “ advise and assist the Iraqis”.  [English]  If I could just use the terminology in English, it is quite precise. It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany. I think that was laid out before the parliamentary committee.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, are they going into combat zones?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I just said that Canadian soldiers are not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, have Canadian Forces assisted in targeting ISIS troops?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, once again, as I have said, the purpose of Canadian Forces in Iraq is to assist and to advise the Iraqi forces as they have been resisting, particularly in the north, a force bent on the genocide of the people who live there. These are the actions they are undertaking. While there is some risk, there is not a direct combat role.  I say once again, we are very proud of people who do this work on our behalf and keep all of us, not just in that part of the world but all of us here in Canada, safe.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, is targeting or coordinating attacks by others a combat role, yes or no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions of military operations here.  As I have said repeatedly, the Canadian Forces involved in Iraq are not involved in combat. They are there to assist Iraqi and Peshmerga forces in undertaking combat against a brutal enemy that is intent on their slaughter. We will go there and we will assist them and make sure we stop that kind of problem there and not at our own shores.

3 Oct 2014, PM statement, in the House of Commons:

.... On September 5th, I announced that members of the Canadian Army, in a non-combat role, would advise and assist security forces in Iraq battling the terrorists .... we are extending the deployment in a non-combat role of the up to 69 members of the Canadian Army advising and assisting security forces in Iraq.  “There will however be no ground combat mission, which is explicitly ruled out in the resolution ....

3 Oct 2014, from the motion passed by the House of Commons:

.... the Government of Canada will not deploy troops in ground combat operations ....

17 Oct 2014, Toronto Star:

.... Brig.-Gen Michael Rouleau, commander of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, said the soldiers are helping teach local forces on the tactics that go into a successful attack.  “We’re helping train them in elements like shoot, move, communicate. How you manoeuvre elements around the battle space, how you can most effectively bring your various weapon systems to bear,” Rouleau said.  And he suggested those lessons are happening in the heart of the action on a battlefield where the frontline is hard to define, rather than in the relative safety of a distant training centre.  “We’re getting with these forces where they are,” he said.  “What we’re dealing with in Iraq is a very hybrid battle space, where it’s difficult to define discernible front lines, friendly people, bad people.”  But while their mission is to “advise,” they’re not authorized to “accompany” the Iraqi forces on their combat missions, though Lawson said that is a “difficult line to define.” ....

late October 2014, CDS:

.... Last October, Lawson told CTV's Question Period host Robert Fife that Canadian troops sent to advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling ISIS "would have nothing to do" with pinpointing targets for airstrikes.  "All coalition troops on the ground in Iraq are being used in the same role — advise and assist, but not accompany, and not engage in direct combat," Lawson said last October. "It's very important that it's Iraqi soldiers who do that."  He also agreed that helping out with laser targeting would be a "semi-combat role." ....

22 Dec 2014, Major-General Hood, Director of Strategic Joint Staff:

.... CANSOFCOM’s role in Iraq is to provide training, military advice and assistance teams. Members in Iraq are working within a well-defined mission that was passed in the House of Commons. We have been clear that this mission does not involve ground troops in a combat role.  “CANSOFCOM is helping to provide Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) with military training such as shooting, movement, communications, and mission planning, as well as how to effectively employ their various weapons systems against ISIL ....

19 Jan 2015, PMO spokesperson:

.... "A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,"said Jason MacDonald. "That is not the case with this mission.  "This mission is one in which they are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi forces only and as the general indicated, the bulk of their work takes place well behind the front lines. That said, we have always been clear that while this is a low-risk mission, it is not without risk and our forces on the ground will protect themselves if fired on in the course of carrying out their mission."

20 Jan 2015, MP web page posting (French - Google English)

.... Les forces d'opération spéciales canadiennes doivent parfois se rapprocher des lignes de front. Or, elles passent 80% de leur temps bien en retrait de celles-ci. Ce n'est donc pas une mission de combat terrestre. Ceci étant dit, lorsque nos soldats sont sous les tirs des djihadistes de l'ÉIIL, ils doivent pouvoir répondre.

.... Canadian special operations forces may have to move closer to the front lines . However, they spend 80 % of their time well back from them. This is not a ground combat mission. That said, when our soldiers are under fire from (ISIL) jihadists , they must be able to respond.

22 Jan 2015, CDS statement:

.... I understand that there may be some questions about my comments on Oct. 19th about the nature of activities being undertaken by Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq. To be clear, the situation on the ground has evolved since I offered those remarks, and we have increased our assistance with respect to targeting air strikes in direct correlation with an increased threat encountered by the ISF.  Our SOF Personnel are not seeking to directly engage the enemy, but we are providing assistance to forces that are in combat. The activities of Canada’s Special Operations Forces in Iraq, as described by Generals Vance and Rouleau on January 19th, are entirely consistent with the advise and assist mandate given to the Canadian Armed Forces by the government ....

 

[krimynal]

theres a time where you need to stop making things up , and actually go try something. 

I mean yeah you train the people there to do the job , but sometimes you actually need to get in a shitty situation to know if they are doing it right or not.  Would you let them call in an airstrike ?? honestly , you would probably go there , be next to them make sure they don't screw it up.  Then sadly yeah , you are on the frontline.

chances are , you are in a battlefield shit is gonna happen.  Are we suppose to just be there , get shot at , and be like "oh no , what are the Canadians think about us if we shoot back ???" .... Jesus heck sometimes the regular people ( and mostly politicians ) are completely lost.

 

[upandatom]

theres a time where you need to stop making things up , and actually go try something. 

I mean yeah you train the people there to do the job , but sometimes you actually need to get in a shitty situation to know if they are doing it right or not.  Would you let them call in an airstrike ?? honestly , you would probably go there , be next to them make sure they don't screw it up.  Then sadly yeah , you are on the frontline.

I was thinking this. Would you trust them with laser guided weapons and target tagging equipment. I wouldn't. I realise that the ISF is better trained the ANP and ANA and are a much more independent force, they still need guidance and direction.
Part of being mentors and assistant providers is watching them, directing them in live scenarios. They go to the front and lose multiple times, your going to want to see why they are losing, having issues. In turn, you go to the front, watch and learn. At the front, of course you are going to get shot at, or near, and in turn your going to shoot back.

This is just another excuse for politicians to run their mouths.

 

[OldSolduer]

I, for one, agree with our guys shooting back. Good on them.

The GOC could make political hay out of this by stating the troops are there to assist and train, and if necessary engage the enemy. After all.....isn't that what the Libs and Dippers all about? Protecting those who can't protect themselves?

 

[The Bread Guy]

The GOC could make political hay out of this by stating the troops are there to assist and train, and if necessary engage the enemy. After all.....isn't that what the Libs and Dippers all about? Protecting those who can't protect themselves?

But we also remember the last time a government official was so clear and unequivocal, right?  If there was political hay to be made saying "we're going to help kill people," it would have been said that clearly.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From Canada's public safety minister ....

Today, the Honourable Steven Blaney, Canada's Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, made the following statement in response to the online posting of an ISIL audio message calling for attacks in Canada:

"The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies.

That's why our Government committed the Canadian Armed Forces to the broad international coalition against the so-called Islamic State. No Canadian government should ever stand on the side-lines while our allies act to deny terrorists a safe haven - an international base - from which they would plot violence against us.

There is work to be done here at home as well. This Friday we will put legislation before Parliament that will help authorities stop planned attacks, get threats off our streets, criminalize the promotion of terrorism, and prevent terrorists from travelling and recruiting others."

 

[Old Sweat]

According to the Globe and Mail in this story reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act, General Lawson has met with senior Kurdish leaders in Iraq.

Top Canadian general holds undisclosed talks with Kurds in Iraq

STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jan. 27 2015, 12:56 PM EST

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 27 2015, 1:12 PM EST

Canada’s top general held undisclosed meetings with top Kurdistan officials this week in northern Iraq, the same region where this country’s special forces are helping Kurds take on Islamic State fighters.

General Tom Lawson, Chief of Canada’s Defence Staff, met with Masrour Barzani, chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council on Sunday, according to BasNews, a news agency in Erbil, Iraq.

The leadership of the independent-minded Kurds, who want to retain autonomy in Iraq, pressed Gen. Lawson for greater military support from the West in order to advance their battle against Islamic State militants.

Nearly 70 Canadian special forces soldiers are acting as military advisers to the Kurds in the Erbil region and have ended up shooting and killing Islamic State fighters in the course of their duties.

The military had not notified media about Gen. Lawson’s trip, or the meeting, and declined immediately comment on the matter Tuesday morning, citing security concerns.

It’s infrequent but not unprecedented for a Canadian military official to meet civilian leadership in another country instead of, say, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird taking the lead.

According to BasNews, Mr. Barzani told Gen. Lawson that Kurdish peshmerga have taken control of the “strategically vital area of Kasike” that connects cities such as Mosul, still held by the Islamic State, to the Syrian border.

The agency said the Kurdish leader emphasized the need for further military support from the U.S.-led international coalition that is supporting the fight to beat back Islamic State extremists.

Mr. Barzani reportedly said that without additional help, the peshmerga will not only be thwarted in their advance, but risk losing territorial gains they’ve already made.

One request is for armored vehicles to help Kurdish fighters and other Iraqi security forces navigate a battlefront where jihadists have planted bombs, also known as improved explosive devices.

The Erbil news agency said Gen. Lawson told his host that “Canada understands the importance of the peshmerga forces in the conflict, and is impressed by the Kurds’ military ability.”

The sides agreed to maintain and develop the military relationship they share, BasNews reported.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here's the original BasNews piece in German - Google English translation below:

BasNews (editorial) - KRG security chief Masrour Barzani met on Sunday with the Canadian Chief of Staff Tom Lawson in Erbil. Lawson praised the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters for their military achievements against "Islamic state" (IS).

Talks between Masrour Barzani and Tom Lawson acted in the first line on the extension of the military supports the Peshmerga forces by the Canadian Forces.

Barzani said the Kurdish forces with the large-scale military offensives in recent days on the Dschihadistenmiliz in the municipality Wanke in Mosul had brought strategically important routes to Mosul, Tal Afar and Sinjar under their control. By killing of 27 IS-emirs by peshmerga fighters the terror group have also come in for heavy losses, as Barzani.

The security chief of the Kurdistan region thanked the Canadian government for military support of the Peshmerga forces and drew attention to the increasing demand for military equipment, which are necessary to combat the terrorist organization. Masrour Barzani recalled the explosives on the possessed, the Islamists, and called for the deployment of armored vehicles.

"Our Kurdish Peshmerga forces are the only power that have achieved the success of this magnitude against the terrorist organization," added KRG security chief Masrour Barzani.

Tom Lawson, however, assured further support for the fight against terrorism and said, "The Canadian government attaches great importance to the fight against terrorism. For this reason, we have important relationships with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). With great fascination we pursue the military successes of the Peshmerga forces. "

The delegation, led by the Canadian Chiefs of Lawson brought the Peshmerga fighters a fully loaded military transport aircraft of the type C-17 in military goods.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sun Media's Parliamentary Bureau Chief (and army.ca member) David Akin seems to sum up the mission debate quite well via Twitter:

"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."

Meanwhile ....

Here's the original BasNews piece in German - Google English translation below:

The English-language version of the article seems to focus more on the Kurdish need for mo' AFVs:

The Kurdistan Region Security Council has emphasized the need for more armored vehicles in order to protect recent gains and continue advancing the frontlines against Islamic State (IS) militants.

Chanceler of Kurdistan Region Security Council, Masrour Barzani, on Sunday met with the Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed ForcesGeneral Thomas J. Lawson and Canadian military delegation in Erbil.

During the meeting, Barzani told Lawson that the Peshmerga have taken control of the strategically vital area of Kasike that connects Mosul and Tel Afar to the Syrian border.

Hundreds of IS militants were killed during the clashes, including 27 IS leaders.

He detailed the need for further military support from coalition countries.

Without more support, the Peshmerga will not only not be able to advance, there is a risk that they will be unable to defend recent gains effectively, claimed Barzani.

Armored vehicles are need for use on the frontline, as Islamic State have planted IEDs throughout the areas in which the Peshmerga are advancing.

(....)

Canada is a significant supporter of the Kurdistan Region, taking part in the shelling of IS targets in Iraq and delivered a C17 of arms on Sunday.

Lawson reassured Barzani that Canada understands the importance of the Peshmerga forces in the conflict, and is impressed by the Kurds’ military ability.

The military relationship between Canada and the Peshmerga forces remains strong, he said ....

 

[upandatom]

If anyone hasnt seen it, There is a frontline documentary on Netflix right now about Iraq, and how and why things have ended up the way they have become, also one about Syria too, I think its called Losing Iraq.

It was pretty informative for someone who didnt know much of the history in Iraq as I was more occupied with learning more about Afghanistan.

 

[Old Sweat]

This CBC story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, claims that Canadian JTACs are controlling air strikes, a role Americans are not allowed to do.

ISIS fight: Canadian advisers guiding airstrikes but U.S. barred from doing same

Some say Canadians are taking on combat role in Iraq that U.S. advisers are prohibited from doing

CBC News Posted: Jan 27, 2015 8:25 PM ET Last Updated: Jan 28, 2015 8:16 AM ET

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

U.S. soldiers are not allowed to direct airstrikes on ISIS positions in Iraq, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, a practice that their Canadian military allies have been engaged in despite it being seen by some as a combat manoeuvre.

The Canadian government has acknowledged that Canadian advisers have been acting as forward observers, calling in airstrikes on ISIS positions and marking the targets with lasers.

But those roles are seen as combat roles. U.S. military Cmdr. Elissa Smith at the Pentagon told CBC News that that particular role — sometimes called JTAC or joint terminal attack controller — is one U.S. advisers on the ground in Iraq are barred from doing.

"The advisers are assisting with planning ground operations, intelligence sharing, integrating air support into their operations, not as JTACs, but as planners," Smith said. "Their movements are carefully planned in advance in order to ensure that they are not inadvertently put into combat situations.

"We've been very clear that U.S. advisers are removed from actual or expected combat situations as part of our advise and assist mission in Iraq."

Last week, Brig.-Gen. Mike Rouleau, the commander of Canadian special forces, said his soldiers have directed 13 strikes.

Walter Dorn, who teaches defence studies to Canadian officers at Royal Military College, said what the JTACs are engaged in is "definitely combat."

"It's not just self-defence. It's actually engaging in combat and making a difference on the ground, in the field. And we originally said we are not going in there to engage in combat," he said.

When it comes to airstrikes, Steve Day, the former commander of Canada's elite JTF2 unit, said Western air forces always prefer to have their own trained soldiers guiding those attacks.

"The gold standard is to always receive intelligence from your own Western sources. So, it's always best, especially in built-up areas, to have a Western set of eyes looking at the target."

This is another case where Canadian forces seem to be going further than their coalition allies — at least publicly.

Although the U.S. is leading the coalition, officials say American military advisers aren't accompanying Iraqi forces on the frontlines. But Canadians have gone close to the frontlines. At one point, the military estimated Canadian advisers spent 20 per cent of the time there. And those advisers have now been involved in three firefights.

In response to a question from CBC News on Monday, a spokeswoman for the Combined Joint Task Force, which is co-ordinating the international coalition's mission in Iraq, said, "Canada is the only coalition member whose soldiers have been involved in firefights."

The spokeswoman said she couldn't explain why, but when asked again on Tuesday by CBC News, she added:

"I can only respond on incidents that have been confirmed and reported to the high headquarters. The incidents with the Canadians are the only incidents that [have] been reported."

However, Britain's Mail on Sunday, citing sources, reported that the U.K.'s elite SAS troops, who were officially in Iraq in a reconnaissance role, were conducting raids against ISIS fighters last November.

David Perry, a senior security and defence analyst for the CDA Institute, said countries often don't want to talk about what their special forces are up to.

"We've seen it before in Libya and Afghanistan," he said. "Different governments for different reasons have been very reluctant and sensitive to discuss what their special operations forces do when they're out there on the ground."

Asked about the rules of engagement back in September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canadian troops were in Iraq "to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany."

But Harper was hammered in question period Tuesday about whether the government misled Canadians about the mission in Iraq,

He said that Canadian troops are executing the mission that Canadians and Parliament have given them.

"They are advising, they are assisting," he said. "Guess what, if fired upon, they are going to shoot back; and if they kill some of the ISIL terrorists, Canadians are going to support that, no matter what the New Democrats think."

An Iraqi news agency, BasNews, reported Tuesday that Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson was in Erbil over the weekend to meet with Kurdish officials, including Masrour Barzani, the chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council.

Canada's Defence Department confirmed Lawson's travel to the region later in the day, saying the purpose of the meetings was to "exchange information, and to update them on Canada’s ongoing contributions to the advise and assist mission."

The CDS also delivered a new shipment of non-lethal military gear from Canada, including clothing to equip the Iraqis for cold weather.

Canada's combat mission is up for renewal in April.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If anyone hasnt seen it, There is a frontline documentary on Netflix right now about Iraq, and how and why things have ended up the way they have become, also one about Syria too, I think its called Losing Iraq.

It was pretty informative for someone who didnt know much of the history in Iraq as I was more occupied with learning more about Afghanistan.

For those who don't have Netflix:

PBS Frontline - Losing Iraq  29 Jul 2014

PBS Frontline - Syria's Second Front 11 Feb 2014

PBS Frontline - Children of Aleppo  11 feb 2014

 

[dimsum]

From the National Post.

This bit jumped out for me since Bill Shorten (leader of the Opposition in Australia) recently returned from a trip to Iraq where he publicly stated his bi-partisan support for the Australian operation there. 

The ensuing hullabaloo is a reminder of the childish, uninformed level of debate in Canada about military issues. We are so different in this regard from our allies. One need only look at the Australians — who have three times as many special forces in Iraq as Canada does — and the more mature way they discuss defence matters.

There is a broad national consensus on defence Down Under instead of our deep chasm between handwringers and realists. Our elites want Canada to be heroic in some touchy-feely way but at the same time to remain boy scouts, unbloodstained, to let others carry the fight for us. They want to play armchair quarterback in a game they not only despise but do not understand.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/matthew-fisher-openness-over-combat-with-isis-bites-harper-government/

 

[McG]

"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."

That is about how I see it too.  If you want to nit-pick symantics, then the government words do not match actions (specifically with respect to the topic of accompanying and not so much on the topic of combat ops), but our actions would appear to be the right thing to do.  So, let's get on with it.

If the press can be called reliable on the topic, the RoE have not changed since the mission started.  Does that mitigate against the accusations of mission creep?

Canadian snipers kill IS militants
Analyst says troops' actions cannot be considered a dramatic shift in role, and rules of engagement have not changed
GLOBE AND MAIL
STEVEN CHASE
27 Jan 2015

STEVEN CHASE OTTAWA Canadian snipers on the front lines in Iraq have once again killed Islamic State militants during what was supposed to be a non-combat mission advising Kurdish forces - part of an evolving role for this country's soldiers as the battle accelerates to win back the northern city of Mosul.

On Monday, the Canadian Armed Forces announced this country's special forces soldiers had twice exchanged fire with the enemy in Iraq in the last week, bringing the total number of such clashes with Islamic State extremists to three.

The military says in the latest two instances Canada's troops were "examining the terrain" near the battlefront as part of their work as military advisers to Kurdish peshmerga when they came under attack and fought back in self-defence. It's similar to the explanation given for the first incident in mid-January.

In all cases, Defence officials say, it was Canadian snipers who returned fire and "neutralized the threat," a phrase sources say means they killed enemy fighters. The military would not say how close Canada's soldiers came to Islamic State forces, but the effective range of the C-14 Timberwolf sniper rifle, one of those used by this country's troops, is 1,500 metres.

These encounters with Islamic State forces, as well as last week's revelations that special forces soldiers have directing air strikes against ground targets in 13 cases, represent an expansion of Canada's ground activities in the conflict and pose a challenge for a Conservative government that sent troops on the understanding their actions would be limited to advice and training.

The Conservatives struggled Monday to paper over contradictions in what Canadians have been told about the mission facing nearly 70 special forces soldiers and to allay concerns raised by rivals that this country's troops may be drawn deeper into the conflict and risk casualties.

The military now says Canada's troops spend about 20 per cent of their time near the front lines as part of advising and training the Kurds.

In September, Prime Minister Stephen Harper defined the military advisory mission quite narrowly.

"If I could just use the terminology in English, it is quite precise.

It is to advise and to assist. It is not to accompany," Mr. Harper told the Commons.

On Monday, however, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson offered a more expansive definition of Canada's ground role.

"I am not sure we could train troops without accompanying them.

We have been very clear that we would be in the business of assisting and training these individuals." NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called on the Conservatives to concede Canada is now in ground combat.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said he supports the right of Canadian soldiers to defend themselves when under fire but adds it's unexpected to hear these military advisers are now "routinely on the front lines." Mr. Nicholson said the Conservatives don't believe in leaving the "heavy lifting" to others.

"That has never been the Canadian way for 200 years." David Perry, a Conference of Defence Associations Institute analyst, said what's happening to date cannot be considered a dramatic shift in role, pointing out the rules of engagement for Canadian troops have not changed.

He said the forces that Canada is advising are heading toward Mosul to help liberate the Iraqi city and as they reclaim territory, they and their advisers are encountering tougher fights.

"If this is ground combat, then how come we are hardly ever doing it? I would imagine it would be a hell of a lot more than three firefights and 13 involvements in air strikes." Roland Paris, director of the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa, said mission creep is under way.

"The U.S. military indicated last week that American troops currently in Iraq are not being deployed with Iraqi units to front-line positions.

Rather, they are training Iraqis behind the wire at four major military bases.

The assertion that deploying Canadian troops to the front lines is an inevitable element of advising and assisting is, therefore, misleading," he said. 

... and I may have found a use for the TAPV that will please the vehicle's detractors. 

Kurds ask for armoured vehicles
The Toronto Sun
29 Jan 2015

OTTAWA--Kurdish forces have asked Canada for weapons, including armoured vehicles, to battle Islamic State terrorists, but the Harper government declined to say Wednesday whether it would grant the request.

The Kurds are preparing for a spring offensive that will include trying to retake Mosul, a city in northern Iraq that fell to Islamic State in June. They apparently made the request this week to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson, who was in Iraq.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson avoided the question in the House Wednesday.

"We have special forces on the ground and we have provided lethal weapons on behalf of other countries to Iraq and we have provided non-lethal weapons as well," Nicholson said during question period.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was equally reluctant to say whether Canada should send the weapons.

Trudeau said only that Canada should "continue to be a strong member of the coalition" and that Canadian troops should "be able to push back" if Islamic State militants shoot at them.

The New Democrats -- who prefer to focus on what they see as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lack of honesty about the mission-- said they're not surprised the Kurds have requested weapons.

"Soldiers want weapons to fight -- that's a given," NDP defence critic Jack Harris said. "The question is what's the role for Canada."

In September, the feds insisted Canadian soldiers wouldn't be in a combat mission or on the frontlines, but Canadian troops have returned fire on Islamic State militants three times since their mission began.

 

[Rifleman62]

You can bet your bottom dollar, if ISIS massacred a bunch of women (after they had finished with them)/children, then staged a bomb blast with civilian casualties and said it was the Cdns, the would be an uproar. It has been done before.

I think the Government is prudent to have our own troops light up targets.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If you want to nit-pick symantics, then the government words do not match actions (specifically with respect to the topic of accompanying and not so much on the topic of combat ops), but our actions would appear to be the right thing to do.  So, let's get on with it.

You've described the political fight, zackly!

That said, let's see how people respond if the Liberals get in and "adjust their wording" just a bit, in "peacekeeping" in Congo, as some on that side seem so enamoured about doing.

You can bet your bottom dollar, if ISIS massacred a bunch of women (after they had finished with them)/children, then staged a bomb blast with civilian casualties and said it was the Cdns, the would be an uproar. It has been done before.

I think the Government is prudent to have our own troops light up targets.

True - but keep in mind that if the yellow bit happened, the orange bit wouldn't matter in the public-info fight.

 

[upandatom]

I may be wrong in this-

This ISIL/ISIS war, is it not more traditional warfare. Enemies more clearly marked, for the most part, clear and definitive lines drawn?

If we start handing Armoured vehicles over, the Iraqis/Kurds start to take ground back at even faster rate with our vehicles (needless to say who is going to train them on the vehicle systems), does logic not dictate they will start to use Insurgency methods and IEDs become more prevalent on the battlefield, and lines start to dissapear.

The only way I do not see this happening is if the locals truly hate ISIS/ISIL and what they stand for as extremists. The locals then take cause and point out the Extremists and the IEDs.


What about the more legal matter of the Iraqis lighting up targets, that could be incorrect/misdirected targets, and the Canadian pilots dropping bombs on innocents, If I was a pilot, id prefer to have SOFCOM directing me then the Iraqis.

 

[McG]

Looks like the CDS may have taken the heat off the government, but depending on which source you read he put it out or he put it onto himself.

Defence chief denies Canada in combat mission
CTV News
29 Jan 2015

Canada's top general acknowledged Thursday that the country's military mission in Iraq has “evolved,” but continued to deny that Canadian soldiers are engaged in a combat mission against Islamic State militants.

Gen. Tom Lawson came under heavy questioning from opposition MPs during an appearance before a House of Commons committee Thursday, saying that certain actions "can appear in any mission" to appear to be combat.

Senior military officials revealed earlier this month that Canadian special forces have come under fire from ISIS militants three times and have returned fire. Commandos are also identifying targets for coalition airstrikes, even though Lawson told CTV's Question Period October that special ops would do no such thing.

On Thursday, Lawson took responsibility for the decision to allow Canadian commandos to identify targets for airstrikes, telling the committee that he did not foresee the need for such action when he made his comments on Question Period.

The special forces' advise and assist training mission was going so well, however, that they were able to move on to teaching how to identify airstrike targets.

"So, in fact I provided them, within the advise-and-assist mission, the authority to go ahead with that," Lawson said.

The military only revealed earlier this month that Canadian commandos have been guiding in airstrikes since late November.

Lawson told the committee that a combat mission "is very different" than what special forces have been doing on the ground.

"It would use us directing our fire power against ISIS, which is not what we have the mandate to do," Lawson said, noting that special ops have defended themselves when they have come under enemy fire.

There are approximately 69 Canadian special forces in northern Iraq, training Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS militants.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson told the committee Thursday that "it has been an evolutionary process" assisting Iraqi forces with "strategic and tactical planning."

But the fact remains, he said: "This is not a combat mission."

Conservative MP Laurie Hawn asked Lawson whether a sniper's individual rounds would not fall under the definition of a firefight.

Lawson responded that while he is "not sure of that," it does not fall into the definition of combat.

The opposition was incensed at the seeming parsing of words.

"When you have soldiers on the ground, on the front line, whether you call it a combat mission or not, it is combat," NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said at committee.

Meanwhile, the opposition also demanded to know the cost of the Iraq mission. The Pentagon estimates that the cost of the U.S. contribution to the coalition will top $1 billion.

Nicholson said the cost remains a moving target, but MPs can expect to see the figures in public accounts records to be released later this year.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/defence-chief-denies-canada-in-combat-mission-1.2211760

ISIS fight: Tom Lawson reassures MPs about risk to special forces
Foreign affairs, defence ministers face opposition at committee, along with top soldier Tom Lawson
By Laura Payton, CBC News
29 Jan 2015

Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson says Canada's special forces aren't put into places where they expect to come under fire.

Speaking to MPs at the House foreign affairs committee, Lawson said despite spending 20 per cent of their time near the front lines, the special forces have had to return fire only three times.

"So although the risk is low, and we continue to think it is low in that role, it is not zero," Lawson said.


"We in no way put our special operations troops anywhere near where we believe they will come under fire."

Lawson was at committee to brief MPs on the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Defence Minister Rob Nicholson.

MPs questioned Lawson, Baird and Nicholson on the scope of the mission and whether Canadian soldiers are involved in ground combat, leading at times to some testy exchanges. Government MPs accused the opposition of not supporting the Canadian Armed Forces and NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar at one point heckled Nicholson when he didn't feel Nicholson was answering his questions.

Defence officials recently revealed that special forces operators who had been described as working in an "advise and assist" role have actually exchanged fire with ISIS forces three times.

Not combat, top soldier says

On Thursday, NDP defence critic Jack Harris lodged a formal complaint against Prime Minister Stephen Harper for providing "misleading information" to the House of Commons on the scope of Canada's military efforts in Iraq.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau read the Canadian Armed Forces' definition of a combat operation, which includes the necessity of lethal force, and asked whether that is what the military is doing in Iraq.

"It is not," Lawson said.  The Canadian special forces operators, he said, are providing Peshmerga, the Kurdish forces with whom the Canadians are working, the ability to "heighten the accuracy of the weapons" used.

Accompanying troops has a different meaning in military doctrine than in normal language, Lawson added.

"In military terms, as you are quoting doctrine, it has a very clear other meaning. And that is that you are now up front, with the troops that you have been assigned to, with your weapons being used to compel the enemy. So there is no confusion with our special operators on that accompany role."

Calling in targets

Canadian officials have said the special forces are calling in, or painting, targets for the Iraqi forces, though Nicholson wouldn't say when that happened.

"This has been an evolutionary process, working with them right from the start," Nicholson said.  "They're moving forward and that's what we are very, very proud [of]."

Harris said the real issue is whether Canadians were misinformed by the prime minister.  "Canadians have to be able to trust what they're told by the prime minister. If we see evolution, what we call mission creep and potential escalation, the question is what's next and what's this going to lead to. That's very concerning here when we don't really trust what this government is telling Canadians and telling Parliament."

The House of Commons voted in support of a six-month air bombing mission in October (the government doesn't need parliamentary approval to deploy the military).

The government committed 600 troops, one CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refuelling aircraft, two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft, and the necessary air crews and support personnel. Canada also sent six CF-18 fighter jets and one dedicated airlift plane to enhance the refuelling, air surveillance and transportation capacity of coalition members.

Those are in addition to a commitment of up to 69 special forces troops who work on the ground with Iraqi forces.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-fight-tom-lawson-reassures-mps-about-risk-to-special-forces-1.2936134

 

[Sub_Guy]

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