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

[Altair]

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.

I must be naive in wanting to see what our actual mission is and how we plan to achieve it before writing it off as a failure.

What we do know.

650 soldiers going to Africa.

What we don't know

Where they are going.

Who is going.

What the mission is once they get there.

What the ROEs will be.

Who we will be working with.

Somehow with all that we don't know, the experienced members on this board have deemed this mission a failure?

BTW (and in know this will cost me at least a 1000 very important milpoints) experience =/= being right.

 

[ModlrMike]

Somehow with all that we don't know, the experienced members on this board have deemed this mission a failure?

Most of us are saying that it's a failure of planning. It's far too early to judge mission success.

That being said... fail to plan, plan to fail.

BTW (and in know this will cost me at least a 1000 very important milpoints) experience =/= being right.

Perhaps, but lack of experience =/= being right is more often true.

 

[Altair]

Most of us are saying that it's a failure of planning. It's far too early to judge mission success.

That being said... fail to plan, plan to fail.

I'm not sure why people are assuming that there is a lack of planning going on by the CDS and MND. In fact, I was of the opinion the longer we don't hear about the plan the better because they are planning on getting this right

Perhaps, but lack of experience =/= being right is more often true.

You will notice I don't go around saying listen the inexperienced members,this mission will be a success.

 

[PuckChaser]

You keep trotting out the CDS and MND as scapegoats to the government's situated estimate. I'm willing to bet the CDS has multiple plans, for multiple AOs, because even he doesn't know where we're going yet. His planners probably pulled together numbers on what we could contribute to a random mission, hence the 650 figure. Now they know its somewhere in Africa, and that the government is very risk adverse. So they plan around that.

Its glaringly obvious you've never had to plan something remotely complex before, and don't understand how its supposed to work. The Wng O is supposed to contain probable mission and location. We have neither other than "go peacekeep somewhere in Africa". Rumint is that they've even narrowed it down to a handful of countries, great. The CAF still can't do jack squat until we have an assigned mission and location. All we're doing by prolonging these little tidbits of info here and there, is employing staff officers at NDHQ to create tons of contingency plans, and change them over and over as more info gets released. 2 Bde is starting their R2HR, and they have no idea where and what they're supposed to train for because the government hasn't made up its mind. I'm sure the CDS and MND would love to have them mission focused, with tailored-training to ensure highest probability of mission success.

Seems like the government is a big fan of "if you wait to the last minute, it only takes a minute."

 

[Altair]

You keep trotting out the CDS and MND as scapegoats to the government's situated estimate. I'm willing to bet the CDS has multiple plans, for multiple AOs, because even he doesn't know where we're going yet. His planners probably pulled together numbers on what we could contribute to a random mission, hence the 650 figure. Now they know its somewhere in Africa, and that the government is very risk adverse. So they plan around that.

Its glaringly obvious you've never had to plan something remotely complex before, and don't understand how its supposed to work. The Wng O is supposed to contain probable mission and location. We have neither other than "go peacekeep somewhere in Africa". Rumint is that they've even narrowed it down to a handful of countries, great. The CAF still can't do jack squat until we have an assigned mission and location. All we're doing by prolonging these little tidbits of info here and there, is employing staff officers at NDHQ to create tons of contingency plans, and change them over and over as more info gets released. 2 Bde is starting their R2HR, and they have no idea where and what they're supposed to train for because the government hasn't made up its mind. I'm sure the CDS and MND would love to have them mission focused, with tailored-training to ensure highest probability of mission success.

Seems like the government is a big fan of "if you wait to the last minute, it only takes a minute."

I'm not willing to judge a mission without  knowing for sure more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.

Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry Altair but there is more to be said.

You say that you know that the government has committed 650 "soldiers".  I asked what trades would be required. 

PRESUMABLY - big word that - presumably the 650 number came from some sense of what the government was willing/able to commit.

But how do you define ability?

Is it based on dollars? Because 650 Lt Colonels are going to cost a lot more than 650 Privates.

It it based on bodies? If so what type of bodies with what capabilities?  A single skill set? A combination?  A trained team?  Trained for what?  Do we already have some teams, with some training, that we can leverage?

Where will they be used?  How will they be used?  For how long?  What allies? What support from those allies?  Where are we in their priority of supply?  How reliable are they?

I sincerely hope that you are correct and that the MND has clearly informed the CDS of the Government's intentions.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm not willing to judge a mission with know for sure nothing more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.

Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?

Well, you're coming close to identifying a couple of factors (650 & Africa), the missing (at least unacknowledged by the GoC, if there indeed is an actual mission defined militarily, even if withheld) information that would help.  Perhaps, Altair, you may be involved in the future in supporting planning activity and appreciate how much the lack of a defined clear objective, even if selected from a UN 'drop-down' list of missions, makes it extremely difficult for the military to focus on a well- (or at least reasonably-) defined mission.  Kind of makes the following Estimate of the Situation process turn into a bit of a branch-planning free-for-all with no clearly and explicitly defined direction and guidance from Government.

1.b, 1.c and 2.f are pretty hard to do in this case and make steps 3., 4. and 5. of the Estimate rather challenging...

1. Mission Analysis
    a. Assumptions
    b. Superior Commander's Intent
    c. Higher Commander's Mission and CONOPS
    d. Assigned Tasks
    e. Implied Tasks
    f. Limitions (Constraints and Restraints)
    g. Changes to the Situation
    h. Mission Statement (Essential Task, Unifying Purpose, Time Constraints)
    i. Points for Clarification
2. Consideration of the Factors
    a. Environment
    b. Enemy
    c. Own Troops
    d. Surprise and Security
    e. Time and Space
    f. Assessment of Tasks
3. Course of Action Development
    a. Enemy - Most likely, most dangerous
    b. Friendly
4. Decision
    a. COA decision and justification
5. Outline Plan
    a. Overlay
    b. Mission Statement
    c. CONOPS
    d. Groupings and Tasks
    e. Coordinating Instructions
    f. Service Support
    g. Command and Signals

As always, the military will do its best, then take the heat for when Team Sunny WaysTM says "Go!.....oh yeah, here..."

:2c:

G2G

 

[a_majoor]

I'm not willing to judge a mission without  knowing for sure more than 650 soldiers are going to Africa and a few tidbits of rumint.

Like with the ROEs,  how about we wait and see what it's going to be before passing judgement?

You actually admit there still is no mission and ROE's, but you still fail to see the point we are raising? There is literally nothing to judge, yet the Armed Forces must devote precious time and resources making contingency plans for....what, exactly....and for what purpose, exactly?

Look again at the planing process and tell me that based on the information you have (which is about the same people at all levels seem to have) what exactly we are going to do?

Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, since it is setting expectations in multiple places. Do you think the GoC is going to let the media, the UN or the voting public jump on them for discovering they only needed to send 200 men? Or what about the realization that in order to achieve anything they need a 1500 man battlegroup, but only "budgeted" for 650? So now the Minister and CDS have the additional constraint to ensure the GoC's lack of thought is not exposed. And don't believe for a second that Dion or the PM are going to take any blame if things go south (see planning process above). I sincerely hope your parents (or anyone elses) do not receive a memorial cross because of this; no one deserves to pay that high of a cost for "virtue signalling".

 

[George Wallace]

Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, ........

A very NAIVE statement in fact.

 

[Altair]

You actually admit there still is no mission and ROE's, but you still fail to see the point we are raising? There is literally nothing to judge, yet the Armed Forces must devote precious time and resources making contingency plans for....what, exactly....and for what purpose, exactly?

Look again at the planing process and tell me that based on the information you have (which is about the same people at all levels seem to have) what exactly we are going to do?

Announcing 650 up front was a big mistake, since it is setting expectations in multiple places. Do you think the GoC is going to let the media, the UN or the voting public jump on them for discovering they only needed to send 200 men? Or what about the realization that in order to achieve anything they need a 1500 man battlegroup, but only "budgeted" for 650? So now the Minister and CDS have the additional constraint to ensure the GoC's lack of thought is not exposed. And don't believe for a second that Dion or the PM are going to take any blame if things go south (see planning process above). I sincerely hope your parents (or anyone elses) do not receive a memorial cross because of this; no one deserves to pay that high of a cost for "virtue signalling".

I doubt we as a country could support a battlegroup of 1500 soldiers on top of the operations in Iraq, Kuwait,  Ukraine, and the upcoming deployment to Latvia. Not without breaking the entire logistics system anyways.

But this conversation is going in circles. I don't agree, you don't agree. Shall we move on?

 

[OldSolduer]

I doubt we as a country could support a battlegroup of 1500 soldiers on top of the operations in Iraq, Kuwait,  Ukraine, and the upcoming deployment to Latvia. Not without breaking the entire logistics system anyways.

But this conversation is going in circles. I don't agree, you don't agree. Shall we move on?

I've read your profile. You are in no position to demand that people "move on".

Maybe if you read some of the posts some of our more senior members have written you'd learn something. Like humility.

And as the esteemed Thuycides said.....I hope that any NOK does not receive a Memorial Cross from this yet to be determined mission. I have one....and what you have to go through to receive one is pure hell.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To be fair to Altair, I doubt his profile is up to date. He is not "just out of basic" anymore: That was in September 2010, so he now has six years under his belt.

I think that what he hasn't experienced yet, however, is politicians and NDHQ screwing him and his friends over to achieve their political (in all senses of the word) agenda. He may still believe that NDHQ means it when they say "We are here to help".

Youthful exuberance is a good thing, but in time, operational experience will knock in a few dents - or more - and he will transition to being a soldier. Let's just hope this experience doesn't come at too high a price.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I've read your profile. You are in no position to demand that people "move on".

Maybe if you read some of the posts some of our more senior members have written you'd learn something. Like humility.

And as the esteemed Thuycides said.....I hope that any NOK does not receive a Memorial Cross from this yet to be determined mission. I have one....and what you have to go through to receive one is pure hell.

I think the underlying issue here is that Altruism is never a good reason for us to "do something".  This is especially true when it comes to the use of military force.  What are Canada's interests in pursuing military operations in Africa? 

Is it securing a seat on the United Nations Security Council?  Is it some form of resource concessions?  Are we fighting the spread of Islamic Extremism?  What exactly are we gaining from going to Africa in the first place?

The first question is most certainly not a good reason to use the military, the second and third are better reasons.  Using the military for altruistic purposes in order to support some sort of self-righteous agenda is a poor use of military resources.  Women's Rights, Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, Child Soldiers, etc... all terrible things but not worth stopping if the sole reason we are doing so is because of altruism.

The only thing such an operation will lead to is mission fatigue, poor morale within the ranks and ultimately, mission failure.  Wherever we send the military, we need to choose a side and have clearly defined objectives to ensure the side we choose comes out on top.

 

[daftandbarmy]

To be fair to Altair, I doubt his profile is up to date. He is not "just out of basic" anymore: That was in September 2010, so he now has six years under his belt.

I think that what he hasn't experienced yet, however, is politicians and NDHQ screwing him and his friends over to achieve their political (in all senses of the word) agenda. He may still believe that NDHQ means it when they say "We are here to help".

Youthful exuberance is a good thing, but in time, operational experience will knock in a few dents - or more - and he will transition to being a soldier. Let's just hope this experience doesn't come at too high a price.

Altair is therefore likely a great example of the perfect 'cannon fodder', which all of us were at one time or another. Which is exactly why the average age of front line troops should be around 25 years, with COs and RSMs - and their equivalent in other arms and services - topping out at the grand old age of about 30. Older, married, less fit, less fanatical (and more cynical) combat soldiers generally make for less effective combat formations, in one way or another.

 

[Journeyman]

For a possible change from the circular arguments... I recently attended two academic/practitioner events: the CDAI Graduate student Symposium and the Peace First workshop. 

The first was particularly interesting because one of the speakers was BGen Carignan, Army COS Ops.*  A recurring theme in her talk, as well as by thoughtful personnel involved with both events, kept coming back to justification -- for Canada's citizens and soldiers.

Yes, the more blatant justification appears little more than 'a UNSC seat,' which our CDS has already been obligated to refute and attempt to provide our government with some intellectual credibility, saying  "I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm's way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force" [sub-headline reads: "Jonathan Vance says he would never put troops in harms way to win UN Security Council seat"].

Sacrificing soldiers for 'it'll help with our next election' may be too crass for even die-hard Liberal supporters.

So the actual justification, which the government or people here may wish to debate, is 'to what ends' -- what effect  do we hope to achieve?  Since, in the absence of any official details it's all hypothetical, what could  Canada contribute to some potential mission that could support those effects/justifications?


I was busy typing while Humphrey Bogart was posting, but I actually think altruism may  be a valid reason for involvement; I'd like to see some evidence that it's an honestly-held rationale.


* Small words here for those who need them: she will be very  much involved with any deployment of army personnel.

[for some, tl;dr -- got it  :cheers:]

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

For a possible change from the circular arguments... I recently attended two academic/practitioner events: the CDAI Graduate student Symposium and the Peace First workshop. 

The first was particularly interesting because one of the speakers was BGen Carignan, Army COS Ops.*  A recurring theme in her talk, as well as by thoughtful personnel involved with both events, kept coming back to justification -- for Canada's citizens and soldiers.

Yes, the more blatant justification appears little more than 'a UNSC seat,' which our CDS has already been obligated to refute and attempt to provide our government with some intellectual credibility, saying  "I reject the notion that this is done simply for political reasons and putting troops in harm's way into risky areas for anything other than the true merits of the value of the use of military force" [sub-headline reads: "Jonathan Vance says he would never put troops in harms way to win UN Security Council seat"].

Sacrificing soldiers for 'it'll help with our next election' may be too crass for even die-hard Liberal supporters.

So the actual justification, which the government or people here may wish to debate, is 'to what ends' -- what effect  do we hope to achieve?  Since, in the absence of any official details it's all hypothetical, what could  Canada contribute to some potential mission that could support those effects/justifications?


I was busy typing while Humphrey Bogart was posting, but I actually think altruism may  be a valid reason for involvement; I'd like to see some evidence that it's an honestly-held rationale.


* Small words here for those who need them: she will be very  much involved with any deployment of army personnel.

[for some, tl;dr -- got it  :cheers:]

My problem with altruism Journeyman is that there is always another underlying motive, usually self-righteousness driven by religion or ideology. 

We, as privileged white Westerners think that the Africans can't govern themselves so we'll "go in there and show them how it's done!"

It's an inherently flawed way of doing business, our cultures are incompatible in many ways and like a teenage girl, no matter how many times we tell them they're stupid they will continue to repeat the same behaviours until they figure it out on their own. 

 

[Journeyman]

So let's pass on patrolling anywhere in Africa.  Let's provide SA technology; let's train police and judiciary; let's provide airlift or other forms of logistics support.  :dunno:

 

[Kirkhill]

A problem that I have is simply the logistics of providing a unit of 650 bodies of any type on an ongoing basis.

If we accept a normal cycle then we need 5 units of 650 to maintain the pace indefinitely.

The only units we have 5 of are the infantry units and none of them have 650 effectives.

At best we only have three of most other units (armoured, combat support and service support) all of which operate with less then 650 effectives.

And for the really specialized stuff, like sigs, we have one.

Is this one unit, one time for one show?  Or is this intended to be an ongoing commitment?

 

[Old Sweat]

I suggest the 650 is going to be a composite unit, or a collection of units, including an headquarters, a logistics element, a medical element and from whatever is left over, some troops to do whatever the role is. And of course, we will need people to run the Canadian element of the airhead.

 

[Kirkhill]

Even at that, are we in a position to maintain a consistently staffed composite unit indefinitely?