Op PRESENCE/Mali (Cdn mission/s, sitreps, etc. - merged)

[Edward Campbell]

Perhaps I should have used  " "  instead of  " "

Nah ... one of these days I'll master English grammar.  :-\
.
.
.
.
.
But not 'til after I "master" the The Gay Divorcee.  ;D

 

[my72jeep]

Gimme a break! It's the morning after the New Year's Eve party  :subbies:  ... and there was a charming lady (of indeterminate age, but still 25ish years my junior) who wanted me to understand that she's about to divorce her husband, and ...  :nod:

Can any one help sear the image of that statement from my mind?

 

[Good2Golf]

For what it's worth, my experiences with Malian officers have been uniformly positive (I've worked with three at various times). They're all trained at French military academies and the results are obvious - if there's anything approaching an "Western" army (or at least officer corps) in Africa, it's Mali's. I would imagine that the NCM corp is less well-developed, but I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of our being able to work with them.

Concur.

I have worked with both Malians and Senegalese...from my experience, I found both nations' officers to be quite capable, very professional and hard working.


Regards
G2G

 

[PPCLI Guy]

But not 'til after I "master" the The Gay Divorcee.  ;D

You da man!

 

[Armymedic]

http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/1308968

Parliament must debate any military mission in Mali
Published on Tuesday January 01, 2013

Before sending Canadian troops into harm’s way in Mali, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should consult Parliament, and let the public know what the mission involves and the risks it entails. Defence Minister Peter MacKay has been musing about deploying military trainers. But given Mali’s explosive volatility even trainers could face dangers that we should weigh before signing on.

Interim President Dioncounda Traoré presides over a weak regime that is run from the shadows by forces loyal to Capt. Amadou Haya Sanogo, who led a coup in March. Just weeks ago the military also forced out Traoré’s prime minister. That prompted the United Nations Security Council to demand that the army stop meddling.

And that’s arguably the least of Mali’s problems. In the north, Islamists linked to Al Qaeda have carved out a state, imposing a brutal version of Islamic law, destroying shrines and creating an anarchic, Afghan-like haven for foreign extremists. While the Security Council has approved an African-led military force of 3,300 troops to help Mali’s dysfunctional army of 7,000 wrest back control, the African forces have more experience in peacekeeping than waging a counter-insurgency war. So there’s a push on to deploy American, European and Canadian trainers, and to supply equipment.

Our trainers have served in Mali before. But Ottawa abruptly halted aid after the coup. It has demanded “free and fair” elections. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird recently cancelled a visit as too risky. And the African force won’t be combat-ready before September.

Before dispatching troops into a maelstrom that could become a full-blown war the government should come clean about its intentions, and more specifically about how they fit into a larger, credible international plan to restore democracy and stability.

 

[Armymedic]

From Macleans magazine:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/16/al-qaeda-rising/#more-327377

Al-Qaeda rising
A Michael Petrou report: Islamist terrorists spread chaos and fear in Africa while the West dithers

 

[Armymedic]

Today on CBC Power and Politics, Robert Fowler says there should be Canadian military involvement in Mali.

Chris Alexander says the government is not contemplating a military contribution to Mali...opposition MPs do not believe him.

 

[Pte. Jay]

It seems that CSOR did alright in Mali(prior to the coup).

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/03/canadian-special-forces-mentor-malis-military/
http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21855:mali-to-receive-canadian-special-forces-to-fight-al-qaeda&catid=56:diplomacy-a-peace&Itemid=111
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1099761--canadian-commandos-focus-on-foreign-forces

Found this with a quick Youtube search:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1x9gophCXc

 

[PuckChaser]

I love how the media and all the left wingers want us to do more peacekeeping and UN missions, yet when this mission comes up that has the backing of the UN we need to have a discussion in parliament and shouldn't go...  :facepalm:

 

[medicineman]

I love how the media and all the left wingers want us to do more peacekeeping and UN missions, yet when this mission comes up that has the backing of the UN we need to have a discussion in parliament and shouldn't go...  :facepalm:

It's because it's not a Blue Helmet/ "Targets For Peace" mission - it'll likely be green and "combat oriented" as it's allegedly for an advisory/anti-terrorsist role.

Besides, they need something new to snivel about  ;D.

MM

 

[The Bread Guy]

I love how the media and all the left wingers want us to do more peacekeeping and UN missions, yet when this mission comes up that has the backing of the UN we need to have a discussion in parliament and shouldn't go...  :facepalm:

Key question:  is the U.S. good with the idea?  If yes, "usual suspects" say it's bad for Canada.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Key question:  is the U.S. good with the idea?  If yes, "usual suspects" say it's bad for Canada.

Actually, the key question is "how does this mission serve the national interest".  The corollary is "what is the opportunity cost - what will we NOT be able to do because we have committed LOO 4 to this mission".

 

[Journeyman]

Actually, the key question is "how does this mission serve the national interest".  The corollary is "what is the opportunity cost - what will we NOT be able to do because we have committed LOO 4 to this mission".

  Exactly!!

...and I'm not seeing any particular national interest, except maybe way down the shopping list at "maintain international engagement," whereas the opportunity costs seem pretty high on the list, even with a reasonably-scaled, short-term mission.

 

[hagan_91]

Deploy a battle group, our national interest should be to prevent any type of terrorist base set up. These people must never be able to sleep soundly.

 

[OldSolduer]

Well if we DO send a mission there, this Guy - me - would be interested.

Just sayin....

 

[Journeyman]

Deploy a battle group, our national interest should be to prevent any type of terrorist base set up. These people must never be able to sleep soundly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't understand "national interest" (it's not a synonym for "wouldn't it be swell if..." ), or what our various LOOs are, so let's get right to what you believe a Battle Group would accomplish within Mali.

    op:

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't understand "national interest" (it's not a synonym for "wouldn't it be swell if..." ), or what our various LOOs are, so let's get right to what you believe a Battle Group would accomplish within Mali.

    op:

A medals parade, brandy and cigars in the mess to follow.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Actually, the key question is "how does this mission serve the national interest".  The corollary is "what is the opportunity cost - what will we NOT be able to do because we have committed LOO 4 to this mission".

My bad - I should have been more specific re:  the key question from the "usual suspects".

Thanks for bringing up that MAJOR point.

 

[Old Sweat]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't understand "national interest" (it's not a synonym for "wouldn't it be swell if..." ), or what our various LOOs are, so let's get right to what you believe a Battle Group would accomplish within Mali.

    op:

Come on now, JM. All we are talking about is cranking up a battle group with an administrative tail stretching back to Canada. And we are going to plunk it down in hostile territory, perhaps against the wishes of both the national government and the regional consensus, which smells a lot like aggression. And even if it wasn't, we are not sure who all the good guys and the bad guys are, and what are the various tribal and religious factions really want. And we don't have a real vital national interest at stake that might call for more than some advisers or observers. Can you spell Somalia?

And, of course, it probably would be more than a one of deployment, and this would mean we might find ourselves tied down if something really important happens someplace else.

Sounds good to me. What possibly could go wrong with that?  :sarcasm:

 

[hagan_91]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't understand "national interest" (it's not a synonym for "wouldn't it be swell if..." ), or what our various LOOs are, so let's get right to what you believe a Battle Group would accomplish within Mali.

    op:

A national intrest is something the people and government are willing to protect and enforce. As I said that our national intrest "should" be to defeat terrorism. Mali is obviously wanting support, so I say keep the mentors in place or like some of you said maybe India, or other second world countries, and a few battle groups from NATO countries to provide security. Im sure JTF 2/SAS/SEALS etc, would be there taking out key Al Quida members.