The Canadian Peacekeeping Myth (Merged Topics)

[Good2Golf]

I actually never argued that at all. I used the term "in force" and didn't say anything about SOF.

Funny thing about the internet, that...you know, having things recorded/retained for posterity...

You indeed did mention SOF, and not just in passing, but as a capability that doesn't fit into your work of meaningful (I'm assuming you mean 'large enough') contributions, to wit this very specific statement by you which,as you can see, inconveniently places your keyboard in the same space as the word 'SOF'...

A final point for Good2Golf- I don't consider 200 SOF, helicopters and LCMR dets (since they're there too) to be us being there "in force".

Which then led to your soliloquy about all things linear and contiguous:

You hadn't defined "in force" yet.  So are you going by "linear, contiguous" as characteristics of being "in force?"  So Force-in-Place? Our troops on one side of the FEBA?  Something more "effective" than FID/embedded-training/ISR/STA?

So how many of these conventional linear/contiguous CAF members do we need to be "in force?" ???

G2G

Not that it matters at all to this conversation, but yes, I defined "in force" for that particular example as being a linear, contiguous force. You're reading too much into a basic statement that our force in Syria/Iraq isn't numerically large. If you want to have a conversation about force packaging than fine, but you should probably start a different thread. Than we can discuss LOO's, force packages, and how ISIS in a level three insurgency vice level two insurgency requires different capabilities.

Aside from that, take it as a basic statement.

The important issue for most here is the interest in relevance and effect that a Canadian contribution has, no matter the numerical size, nor quantity of assigned personnel to the force. 

Some people, myself included, are okay with a Canadian force package not being "linear and contiguous..."  Some of us thing the SOF and Air Task Force ISR/targeting and re-fueling assets are pretty darned effective.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Funny thing about the internet, that...you know, having things recorded/retained for posterity...

You indeed did mention SOF, and not just in passing, but as a capability that doesn't fit into your work of meaningful (I'm assuming you mean 'large enough') contributions, to wit this very specific statement by you which,as you can see, inconveniently places your keyboard in the same space as the word 'SOF'...

Which then led to your soliloquy about all things linear and contiguous:

Not that it matters at all to this conversation, but yes, I defined "in force" for that particular example as being a linear, contiguous force. You're reading too much into a basic statement that our force in Syria/Iraq isn't numerically large. If you want to have a conversation about force packaging than fine, but you should probably start a different thread. Than we can discuss LOO's, force packages, and how ISIS in a level three insurgency vice level two insurgency requires different capabilities.

Aside from that, take it as a basic statement.




The important issue for most here is the interest in relevance and effect that a Canadian contribution has, no matter the numerical size, nor quantity of assigned personnel to the force. 

Some people, myself included, are okay with a Canadian force package not being "linear and contiguous..."  Some of us thing the SOF and Air Task Force ISR/targeting and re-fueling assets are pretty darned effective.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Funny thing is if you read it you'll note that I never discussed anything about who should/should not be in Syria nor the effectiveness of those who are there. I used a term, "in force", and noted that it was referenced to a larger force package. At no point was there any reference at all to the efficacy of Op IMPACT or any other current mission.

I'm glad it's an important issue to you and that you believe that the current force package is effective. However, don't put words in my mouth- I never once argued about 200 SOF being a significant or insignificant contribution. I simply noted that based on how I intended "in force" was meant for a larger force structure.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Discussing the force size/effectiveness of the CAF contribution to the MESF, isn't our 'peacekeeping' force going to be similar in size and tooth to tail ratio?  Can it make a meaningful contribution if we are not participating in force?

 

[Good2Golf]

Discussing the force size/effectiveness of the CAF contribution to the MESF, isn't our 'peacekeeping' force going to be similar in size and tooth to tail ratio?  Can it make a meaningful contribution if we are not participating in force?

Crazy talk, EITS!!! While numerically similar, potentially, everyone knows that hard-core combat, combat-support and combat service-support is real force, not that ISR/STA stuff you guys do. 

Cheers
G2G

 

[Journeyman]

Funny thing is if you read it you'll note that I never discussed anything about who should/should not be in Syria nor the effectiveness of those who are there.

Actually, you said:

When I say "in force" I meant a BG-Bde level force with artillery, armour, etc ad nauseum to conduct linear contiguous operations.

This says several things:

1)  Using "BG-Bde" says you don't actually know what size "in force" the mission (in your mind) actually requires, just that you want a 'large' conventional force deployed.  Hopefully, you at least know that Battle-Group and Brigade are not synonymous terms;  and

2)  Repeating "linear contiguous operations" over and over and over says you learned some cool buzzwords on AOC, but demonstrates absolutely no understanding of counter-insurgency operations.  Quoting the CIA's Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency (2012),  "Insurgent warfare is characterized by a lack of front lines, sequenced battles, or campaigns; a protracted strategy, often lasting more than a decade; and unconventional military tactics, including guerrilla warfare, terrorism, or ethnic cleansing."  As such, the only way your 'linear contiguous operations' would be particularly effective is if the CAF conducted a scorched earth policy; I suspect there would be some heartache from the 'Sunny Days' crowd.


No, what your repetitious but justification-absent posts suggest  is nothing more than a thinly veiled desire to deploy on an operation where only the SOF and RCAF cool kids get to play.
    :boring:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Crazy talk, EITS!!! While numerically similar, potentially, everyone knows that hard-core combat, combat-support and combat service-support is real force, not that ISR/STA stuff you guys do. 

Cheers
G2G

You forgot carpet bombing back into the stone age as part of the 'real force' package. As you are an Air Force guy, I find that slightly disappointing

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Actually, you said:This says several things:

1)  Using "BG-Bde" says you don't actually know what size "in force" the mission (in your mind) actually requires, just that you want a 'large' conventional force deployed.  Hopefully, you at least know that Battle-Group and Brigade are not synonymous terms;  and

2)  Repeating "linear contiguous operations" over and over and over says you learned some cool buzzwords on AOC, but demonstrates absolutely no understanding of counter-insurgency operations.  Quoting the CIA's Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency (2012),  "Insurgent warfare is characterized by a lack of front lines, sequenced battles, or campaigns; a protracted strategy, often lasting more than a decade; and unconventional military tactics, including guerrilla warfare, terrorism, or ethnic cleansing."  As such, the only way your 'linear contiguous operations' would be particularly effective is if the CAF conducted a scorched earth policy; I suspect there would be some heartache from the 'Sunny Days' crowd.


No, what your repetitious but justification-absent posts suggest  is nothing more than a thinly veiled desire to deploy on an operation where only the SOF and RCAF cool kids get to play.
    :boring:

Except I never discussed what force structure should go into Syria. I stated that my use of "in force" was more in line with conventional warfare. I also offered that if people wanted to discuss force structures for Op IMPACT that it could be done in a different forum. That people have taken this out of context and out of proportion is unfortunate.

Finally, fortuitously for me I'm deploying into a CTAT for Op IMPACT (not Kuwait) shortly, so thank you for your reasoned, researched, and intelligent comments on my desire to deploy.

Unjustified posts indeed.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

What's CTAT?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Finally, fortuitously for me I'm deploying into a CTAT for Op IMPACT (not Kuwait) shortly,

It would be odd to be in Kuwait on a CTAT, but thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Crazy talk, EITS!!! While numerically similar, potentially, everyone knows that hard-core combat, combat-support and combat service-support is real force, not that ISR/STA stuff you guys do. 

Cheers
G2G

I have a simple job; turn expensive gas into noise while watching an ever-changing TV show.  I just don't get to pick the channel.  But, as a former combat arms SNCO, I can happily say that I am an indoor cat now that I put the wedge on.  :nod:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

RCAF cool kids
 

I can't believe someone finally recognized that we are cool! 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You forgot carpet bombing back into the stone age as part of the 'real force' package. As you are an Air Force guy, I find that slightly disappointing

The only thing that has the word carpet attached to it these days in the LRP community is related to 'vacuuming it' once we go OFFSTA.  ;D

 

[dimsum]

The only thing that has the word carpet attached to it these days in the LRP community is related to 'vacuuming it' once we go OFFSTA.  ;D

*sigh*  What could have been...

Imagine an Aurora with a bomb bay full of Small Diameter Bombs and Hellfires on the wing pylons. 

 

[Kirkhill]

*sigh*  What could have been...

Imagine an Aurora with a bomb bay full of Small Diameter Bombs and Hellfires on the wing pylons.

What on earth do you want to do?  Kill people?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

*sigh*  What could have been...

Imagine an Aurora with a bomb bay full of Small Diameter Bombs and Hellfires on the wing pylons.

Except, it hasn't been, for anyone.

That Orion you show in the pictures is carrying Harpoon anti-ship missiles under wing, and the bay, which is open is meant for torpedoes or "special' depth charges only.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

*sigh*  What could have been...

Imagine an Aurora with a bomb bay full of Small Diameter Bombs and Hellfires on the wing pylons.

Block 15?  >

 

[Good2Golf]

Oh look...Kiwis a few week ago!

Photo Credit:  Chris Skelton - Fairfax, NZ, via Stuff.co.nz

I wonder if they take 9-liners in addition to hunting Ivan?

G2G

 

[dimsum]

Except, it hasn't been, for anyone.

That Orion you show in the pictures is carrying Harpoon anti-ship missiles under wing, and the bay, which is open is meant for torpedoes or "special' depth charges only.

OGBD, I think you mis-interpreted the pic for what I hoped for as an ISR platform with teeth.  The bomb bay was designed for torps and "special" depth charges, but there's no reason why other things can't be put there.  I mean, they can chuck AGM-176 Griffins off a cargo ramp of a C-130 (first image) or off a paratroop door (second image); I'd be surprised if they didn't look at a version sized for the external sonobuoy tubes on a P-3.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Oh look...Kiwis a few week ago!

Photo Credit:  Chris Skelton - Fairfax, NZ, via Stuff.co.nz

I wonder if they take 9-liners in addition to hunting Ivan?

G2G

:ignore:    ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

The only thing that has the word carpet attached to it these days in the LRP community is related to 'vacuuming it' once we go OFFSTA.  ;D

But what about the fleets of drones you will command, during future wars, from your Argus like position over the battle space? Nothing like slaughtering the unjust while hunting Pokeman and enjoying a nice cuppa.