Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

[Kirkhill]

Yes - that. 

Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?

My.  You have honed your excision skills to a fine edge.  Haven't you?

 

[Kirkhill]

:bravo:

Yes - that. 

Why is it so hard to understand what he meant?


Really?

Look at that again.

Decisions were efficiently made.
Actions were efficiently taken.
Cities were efficiently built.

Building Ghost Towns Cities is not efficient.  It is not efficient spending of money.  It is not efficient use of materials.  It is not efficient use of land. 

I am sorry that you missed the sarcasm in that post.  It was to make light of the inefficiencies and incompetence of those who make those decisions, take those actions and create something that is neither needed nor useful.  It reeks of the incompetence we are currently seeing in handling of our refugee program; but more importantly in the handling of the subject that this thread is discussing:.....Deploying Canadian Troops overseas with the proper equipment, ROEs, etc.

 

[a_majoor]

After reading the last two pages of posts, I am now awaiting the peacekeeping contingent from Mali to arrive on Canada's shores.... ;D

Things are seriously screwed up, however. The last O group at my unit the word was "we will deploy in the near future, but no mission location has been selected as of yet" (or words to that effect).

When I was teaching at the Battleschool, this sort of "efficiency" was usually cause to issue a red chit or "failed" assessment on a leadership course, since the candidate had situated the estimate and was now trying to bend reality to fit their preconceived notions (with notable lack of success).

Going back to my favourite flogging horse; What is the mission? What purpose are we trying to achieve? What resources are necessary to achieve these results? So far the answer the Government has given amount to "Canada's Back!" and "650 men".

The red chit is being mailed to 24 Sussex Drive.

 

[Altair]

After reading the last two pages of posts, I am now awaiting the peacekeeping contingent from Mali to arrive on Canada's shores.... ;D

Things are seriously screwed up, however. The last O group at my unit the word was "we will deploy in the near future, but no mission location has been selected as of yet" (or words to that effect).

When I was teaching at the Battleschool, this sort of "efficiency" was usually cause to issue a red chit or "failed" assessment on a leadership course, since the candidate had situated the estimate and was now trying to bend reality to fit their preconceived notions (with notable lack of success).

Going back to my favourite flogging horse; What is the mission? What purpose are we trying to achieve? What resources are necessary to achieve these results? So far the answer the Government has given amount to "Canada's Back!" and "650 men".

The red chit is being mailed to 24 Sussex Drive.

Two things.

Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.

Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.

 

[a_majoor]

Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.

We have been given exactly two pieces of information, one of which is relevant (650 men), without knowing what they apply to. The proper course of action is for the government to look at the questions (in fact, look at the primary question of Canada's national interest, and then see if other developments support or hinder the National Interest) before saying "We're sending 650 people to Africa for "peacekeeping", because 2016!

The Minister, and more appropriately the CDS and his staff were handed an "outcome" and told to make it happen. While this might be the way of things in more "efficient" governments, I think even you should see there are some issues in running the process in reverse. So of course *we* are now subjected to rampant speculation by the press and outsiders (I've been asked multiple times about where we're going and what are we going to do in Africa. To which I respond, the Government should be coming out with an announcement at some point), not to mention the rumour mill inside is spinning at warp speed.

Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.

The unintentionally hilarity  of this remark is worth Midpoints!

Edit to add: lets hope there is someone home after 2019

 

[Good2Golf]

Two things.

Do you not believe that the CDS and MND are working on your questions, so that they can be presented as a whole, and not leaked out bit by bit? I would much rather have the whole plan than have them give us, the public, this plan piece by piece, on the hour.

Secondly, nobody is living at 24 Sussex.

Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?

...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[daftandbarmy]

Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?

...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:

Regards
G2G

Now, now... we all know if we throw our hats in the ring of the 'Coalition of the Neo-Willing', Uncle Sam will kit us out with all the good toys... right?

 

[Altair]

Of course, whatever the outcome of final destination is, Mr. Altair, your clear course of action is 2 x INMARSAT B-sets and a Mini-M for good measure....easy peasy!  See how easy peacekeeping is?

...ooops, I forgot to add a PRC-117G....just because...well, it's 2016.  :nod:

Regards
G2G

make sure to email that to the CDS.

You make it seem so easy, wonder why he's taking so long. [lol:

 

[Altair]

We have been given exactly two pieces of information, one of which is relevant (650 men), without knowing what they apply to. The proper course of action is for the government to look at the questions (in fact, look at the primary question of Canada's national interest, and then see if other developments support or hinder the National Interest) before saying "We're sending 650 people to Africa for "peacekeeping", because 2016!

The Minister, and more appropriately the CDS and his staff were handed an "outcome" and told to make it happen. While this might be the way of things in more "efficient" governments, I think even you should see there are some issues in running the process in reverse. So of course *we* are now subjected to rampant speculation by the press and outsiders (I've been asked multiple times about where we're going and what are we going to do in Africa. To which I respond, the Government should be coming out with an announcement at some point), not to mention the rumour mill inside is spinning at warp speed.

The unintentionally hilarity  of this remark is worth Milpoints!

The announcement of 650 was simply to get into that UN peacekeeping conference. Nothing more, nothing less.

If they didn't need to make a commitment of forces to get in on that timeline I sincerely doubt they would have told the public even that tidbit of information.

As for being handed a outcome, we'll,  I'm no military genius but even I could tell we couldn't commit more than 6 or 7 hundred boots with all the other commitments currently on the go.

Ukraine

Iraq

Latvia

Kuwait

Ya, that 600 is pretty much all we can send especially if we aren't piggybacking off uncle Sam on a joint OP.

So they say what they are sending, get in on the peacekeeping conference and they fill us in on the mission in full when it's finalized.

As for 24 sussex, I have no idea how long the renovations are going to take. Probably going to cost about 20 million though.

Just direct your red chit to Rideau hall, addressed to the PM not the GG.

 

[a_majoor]

You are either deliberately being evasive or actually do not understand the point.

Problem: we need to do "X". Here are the constraints and restraints.
Solution: In order to do "x" we need to take the following actions using the following resources

Yes, 600 may be a real life constraint, so it isn't given in the opening statement as "we are preparing 650 men for a mission".

It comes at the end of the process: "After careful deliberation, in order to achieve these following aims, the GoC is prepared to commit "x" personnel to the mission".

The 650 figure was obviously chosen because it represents the lower boundary of a battlegroup and sounds big enough to be impressive to the Canadian Public when dusting off the peacekeeping myth. There is no particular reason to think 650 is too large, too small or sufficient since there hasn't been the analysis needed to determine what is actually to be done.

I'm so enthralled by this, in fact, that despite the fact I could volunteer and have a better than even chance to go on an African mission because of my specialty, I have preferred to put my name forward for OP IMPACT and OP REASSURANCE, since my time away from family and friends and possible sacrifice will at least be in support of the National Interest, and not for an apparent vanity project.

 

[Altair]

You are either deliberately being evasive or actually do not understand the point.

Problem: we need to do "X". Here are the constraints and restraints.
Solution: In order to do "x" we need to take the following actions using the following resources

Yes, 600 may be a real life constraint, so it isn't given in the opening statement as "we are preparing 650 men for a mission".

It comes at the end of the process: "After careful deliberation, in order to achieve these following aims, the GoC is prepared to commit "x" personnel to the mission".

The 650 figure was obviously chosen because it represents the lower boundary of a battlegroup and sounds big enough to be impressive to the Canadian Public when dusting off the peacekeeping myth. There is no particular reason to think 650 is too large, too small or sufficient since there hasn't been the analysis needed to determine what is actually to be done.

I'm so enthralled by this, in fact, that despite the fact I could volunteer and have a better than even chance to go on an African mission because of my specialty, I have preferred to put my name forward for OP IMPACT and OP REASSURANCE, since my time away from family and friends and possible sacrifice will at least be in support of the National Interest, and not for an apparent vanity project.

So really quickly, just so we are clear.

You would prefer that the government had said nothing, committed nothing, and missed out on the peacekeeping conference while preparing to send Canadian men and women on a peacekeeping mission?

That's what you're trying to say?

Because that's cool, I get that,proper procedure and all.

I just dont see the harm in committing a number in order to to be able to attend a conference on peacekeeping while preparing to send forces on a peacekeeping missing while hammering out the details for a full disclosure later on. The 600 was a given, I don't see the issue in just saying it.

You're entitled to your opinion though, and best of luck wherever you end up.

 

[ArmyRick]

Altair,

Your entitled to your opinion as well.

Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE"

We are supposed to do the opposite.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sending 600.

Cooks?

Mechanics?

Sanitary orderlies?

 

[ModlrMike]

Answering the question before it's been asked is a recipe for failure. Where people's lives are at stake, it's courting disaster.

 

[Altair]

Sending 600.

Cooks?

Mechanics?

Sanitary orderlies?

Answering the question before it's been asked is a recipe for failure. Where people's lives are at stake, it's courting disaster.

Altair,

Your entitled to your opinion as well.

Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE"

We are supposed to do the opposite.

So the question I ask all of you is would you rather they said nothing, and didn't get included in the peacekeeping conference while preparing to send Canadian men and women on a peacekeeping mission?

 

[ModlrMike]

At its most basic it should have gone like this:

Where are we needed?

What would you like us to do?

Analyzing......

Right, we can provide "this many" troops for "this task" in "this place".

Signaling a desire to participate would have gotten them to the conference. They didn't have to make a commitment without sufficient knowledge and forethought.

 

[Altair]

At its most basic it should have gone like this:

Where are we needed?

What would you like us to do?

Analyzing......

Right, we can provide "this many" troops for "this task" in "this place".

Signaling a desire to participate would have gotten them to the conference. They didn't have to make a commitment without sufficient knowledge and forethought.

I'm not sure that's true.

The announcement seemed rushed, they had very few to no details and in general the whole thing challenged Dions coalition video in terms of sloppiness.

Say what you want of this government but they usually have their media game on point.

The way they announced it signals to me they were under some pressure to get it done and quickly at that.

The only pressure they could have been feeling is not taking part in that conference on peacekeeping.

So if committing 650 soldiers for peacekeeping in a hastily planned announcement is what it took to punch their ticket to this conference then I don't see the harm. Especially if everyone and their mother knew Canada couldn't afford to send much more than that in the first place.

Meanwhile the planning just continues on as planned the way you described.

 

[McG]

Bottom line we don't "SITUATE THE ESTIMATE"

But, it seems that is all anyone with an opinion wants to do.

We don't know where we are going or what we will do, but we can defend that the force package will be 600 to 650.  The ROE are not written, but we know the undefined mission will fail because of them.

 

[Altair]

But, it seems that is all anyone with an opinion wants to do.

We don't know where we are going or what we will do, but we can defend that the force package will be 600 to 650.  The ROE are not written, but we know the undefined mission will fail because of them.

We don't know.

Do you think the CDS and MND don't know?

I'm pretty sure they know. All we have been hearing are leaks from unnamed sources and we may be giving to much weight to that.

And when the plan is finalized, we will know, the public will know and then, maybe then, will be good time to judge whether the mission will fail?

For all we know 650 is support staff. How does that fail?

Those 650 could be combat troops guarding a single village. Hard to see that failing.

But we just don't know. So how can you say with confidence that we shall fail?

 

[a_majoor]

I'll put it to you differently. Canada was excluded from a conference by the major players fighting ISIS because the same government so eager to get into a "peacekeeping conference" withdrew the CF-18's from the fight. I have scrolled through the thread and somehow missed your outraged posts on how we were missing out because of that.

So what this mission really is "virtue signalling" on a grand scale. No actual reason has been given from the Grand Strategic level as to why we should be interested in traditional peacekeeping at all (and you can always scroll through the peacekeeping myth thread to see the catalogue of failure), much less a national interest perspective as to why "this" particular mission is in our National Interest. It has been constantly pointed out that the conditions for "peacekeeping" don't exist, resulting in a minor semantic change by government spokespeople.

Listen to the very experienced members on this board: this is the recipe for disaster.