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

[daftandbarmy]

I don't think that should happen.

Me neither... the national equalization payment plan requires us to award points equally across time zones, I believe

 

[beachdown]

So, Op Frequence has lift off then

 

[Jarnhamar]

Me neither... the national equalization payment plan requires us to award points equally across time zones, I believe

I'm not giving the milpoints back. I'm saving them up for when I start playing the Army.ca Afghan Ops game again.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So, Op Frequence has lift off then

Yup, couple of weeks ago now...

Attention: Update

On November 20, 2016, the CAF conducted its first flight under Operation FREQUENCE. A CC-177 Globemaster aircraft transported personnel and equipment from France to West Africa and the Sahel region.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-frequence.page

 

[larry Strong]

I'm not giving the milpoints back. I'm saving them up for when I start playing the Army.ca Afghan Ops game again.

 

[beachdown]

Why can't the country/ies just be named? West Africa is large area just like North America

Yup, couple of weeks ago now...

Attention: Update

On November 20, 2016, the CAF conducted its first flight under Operation FREQUENCE. A CC-177 Globemaster aircraft transported personnel and equipment from France to West Africa and the Sahel region.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-frequence.page

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Why can't the country/ies just be named? West Africa is large area just like North America

Most likely OPSEC.  The French are very secretive about their operations and are one of the few that don't allow media embeds with their forces.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Three of Army's nine infantry battalions needed to sustain NATO Latvia mission--how many will be needed for UN peace ops mission in (likely) Mali?  What effect on regulars and reserves of two major simultaneous commitments?  Scroll down at link:

...Latvia’s preparing its bases to welcome three of Canada’s nine deployable battalions, “one of which will soon spend its time on the ground, one for standby support, and one to switch during regular rotations,” according to Canadian military spokesman Evan Koronewski. The federal government has earmarked $348.6 million for the three-year deployment...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-feel-wonderful-about-russia-as-canada-prepares-to-send-troops-to-latvia-not-everybody-is-ready-to-welcome-them

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Retired AF Guy]

An article from the TorStar about how the Dutch government is explaining its rational for deploying troops to Mali. Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.

Dutch letter spurs calls for Canadian transparency ahead of military deployment

By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH Ottawa Bureau
Sun., Dec. 11, 2016

OTTAWA—As the Dutch government prepared to deploy its military to Mali in late 2013, parliamentarians in that country were given an extraordinary document.

In a 14-page letter presented to Parliament, the ministers of defence, foreign affairs, security and justice set out in detail the risks, costs and strategy for the mission.

It acknowledged the challenges, offered a blunt assessment of its partners — concluding the Malian military was barely capable and that some regional security partnerships were “relatively ineffective” — and laid out the strategy for what it called a “comprehensive” approach to help resolve the conflict.

Now, as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government prepares to announce the deployment of up to 600 Canadian soldiers on a peace mission, there are calls for cabinet ministers to be equally upfront with politicians and Canadians.

“There’s no more serious decision of a government than to put the lives of our brave women and men in uniform on the line,” NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said last week.

“They have the obligation to bring that into Parliament with full disclosure and have a debate and allow people to vote,” Mulcair said.

“It’s extremely dangerous, and we have to know that it’s not window dressing, that it has an objective, it has a beginning, it has an end and what’s going to be done exactly by those Canadian troops,” he said.

The Senate committee on national security and defence reproduced the Dutch letter in its recent report that examined UN deployments, saying it was revealing for its “clarity and transparency.”

“The clarity of the letter and the willingness to define the challenges, including the end date for the mission, contributed to the government earning the trust of all parties in support of the deployment on the most dangerous of all UN missions to Mali,” the defence committee said in its report.

The Star has reported that the deployment is likely headed to Mali though cabinet has yet to make a final decision.

With such a sizable troop deployment, Sen. Daniel Lang, chair of the Senate defence committee, said the Liberal government has an obligation to bring it before Parliament for a full discussion.

He said the government must be “open and transparent” on the mission’s objectives, the scope of the commitment and the time frame. “Unlike Afghanistan, where we just kind of slid into a situation that we were not prepared for and became involved in the longest war that Canada has ever gotten involved with,” Lang said.

The Senate committee report recommended that the federal government table a “statement of justification” outlining the size of the mission, its goals, risks, costs and rules of engagement and its term.

The Dutch letter set out the “national interest” in deploying the force to Mali, something Lang said the Liberals must make clear with their coming announcement.

“What is the objective . . . We better fully understand why we’re there,” Lang said.

“When they send those men and women over there, the sons and the daughters, they better do it in the context (of) would they do it to their own son or daughter,” Lang said.

The Dutch letter is remarkable for the details it provided about the mission. And it was more than a courtesy. Such notification about military deployments is required under that country’s constitution.

It set out the rationale for the deployment, outlining the strategic interests of the Netherlands to deploy to the African nation. Under the title “grounds for participation,” the letter notes how regions of Mali are a “breeding ground” for extremism and a sanctuary for terrorist training camps. Mali is also an important staging post for human trafficking

It did not sugar-coat the challenges. For example, it offered this damning assessment of the Malian military — “its combat capacity is minimal; morale and discipline are wanting; leadership is poor and in some cases the command structure has broken down.”

It offered the same damning assessment of the police and justice sector, concluding that “corruption and nepotism are rife.”

It set out Dutch ambitions for the mission, to “help tackle the root cases of the conflict,” an ambition that required a “comprehensive approach.” It explained how the Dutch would work with the United Nations mission, along with the French who are also active in Mali.

It provided a breakdown of the troop commitment and said the size of the contingent was determined “by the wish to make a coherent contribution and the proper robustness for self-protection,” the letter stated.

Surprisingly, it described in detail the responsibilities of various elements of the mission. The letter highlighted, for example, how helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and the work of 90 special forces soldiers doing long-range patrols would come together to provide intelligence.

It explained, too, how senior Dutch officers would retain command of troops, a procedure “adopted in part as a result of lessons learned from previous missions.”

It judged improvised explosive devices to only a moderate threat, warned that health risks were high and said if Dutch units came under attack, they would be able to protect themselves and, if needed, could call on UN or French forces for backup.

“Operations will be co-ordinated daily to take account of the latest threat assessment,” the letter states.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said last week that his government will be upfront to explain its reasoning around the upcoming Canadian deployment.

“It’s about informing Canadians to making sure that they understand why we’re making a decision and then how we’re also looking to do it as well,” Sajjan said.

“Any time we send our troops, it’s extremely important to me and to the prime minister . . . we will thoroughly explain this,” he said.

Article Link

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Three of Army's nine infantry battalions needed to sustain NATO Latvia mission--how many will be needed for UN peace ops mission in (likely) Mali?  What effect on regulars and reserves of two major simultaneous commitments?  Scroll down at link:

Mark
Ottawa

Don't forget IMPACT; while the cbt arms are not involved there, there is still the HQ,  CSS, Int etc deployed plus the  ongoing logistical and transport support from Canada to theatre that is required for support to the ATF,  Field hospital and SOF folks.

 

[Journeyman]

Now, as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government prepares to announce the deployment of up to 600 Canadian soldiers on a peace mission, there are calls for cabinet ministers to be equally upfront with politicians and Canadians.

Stand-up comedy at its finest. 


(For clarity, my disbelief in government explaining deployments in any terms close to what the Dutch have done is not limited to any party)

 

[beachdown]

Update......

Ottawa delays decision on overseas military deployment

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/13/ottawa-delays-decision-on-overseas-military-deployment.html

 

[Loachman]

Update......

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/13/ottawa-delays-decision-on-overseas-military-deployment.html

"An announcement on the deployment of Canadian soldiers on a peace support mission overseas has been postponed until after the holidays as Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the government wants to take the time to "get this right."

Or time to "find a way to uphold a promise that we didn't think that we'd have to keep and still can't figure out where or how to do so"?

 

[beachdown]

Watch and shoot.....I guess

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't forget IMPACT; while the cbt arms are not involved there, there is still the HQ,  CSS, Int etc deployed plus the  ongoing logistical and transport support from Canada to theatre that is required for support to the ATF,  Field hospital and SOF folks.

Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......

 

[The Bread Guy]

Or time to "find a way to uphold a promise that we didn't think that we'd have to keep and still can't figure out where or how to do so"?

All while, 1)  being able to call it anything other than "combat" or "fighting", and 2) ensuring minimal risk of injury/death that could have an impact on public opinion.

 

[Half Full]

Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......

So what do you mean by "NDHQ types"?  Seems a little flippant and dismissive...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Send NDHQ types and move the training centre closer to the frontlines......

There's already enough HQ there now, trust me.  Tooth to tail is embarrassing.  Supporters supporting supporters, some of whom have no idea what the actual mission really is.  Garrison Kuwait with *hours of operation* signs galore.

People are for the most part located where they should be in theatre.  Front lines can be fluid.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So what do you mean by "NDHQ types"?  Seems a little flippant and dismissive...

Bus riding chair commandos with Sentinelle patches  :facepalm: who never come close to the battlespace but go home with *tour stories*.

 

[Old Sweat]

Am I being cynical, or maybe realistic, and did somebody over-guesstimate the number of bodies required for what we are doing? Rather than be open to criticism for reducing numbers, and heaven forbid we would increase the teeth, the decision is to maintain the status quo.

Hope I'm wrong.