warpig,
Wow quite a stir for your third post, glad to see you're not some nameless troll though.
To address your suggestion that Canada take over the AOR with OUR ROE's and make it all OUR responsibility, my response would be to simply question whether or not Canada actually has this capability?
It is my understanding that before deployment on Archer the CDS considered sending CF-18's to the region. The argument at the time I believe went that if we want to have air support whenever we need it, we need to have our own.
While this is indeed true, and I should mention that I am in fact I am very in support of Canada having it's very own AOR, I would like to point out a few things..
The planned deployment of the CF-18's was scrapped due to, from my understanding at least, a virtual inability to sustain their operations in theater. If something has significantly changed to alter this and make it a distinct possibility, then I am all ears.
As well Canada would also need to send a much larger groundforce in if we were to completely remove other NATO partners from the AOR, as we rely on them for a variety of services as it is.
Canada would also need to pull out of the CJTF-76 and establish our own "sovereign" command over the AOR free from any higher authority - the reason being it is my understanding that the decision to launch the support mission in question was made above the local commanders. This brings into question the stability of our supply line, IMO.
Finally, though I agree that causing civilian casualties is a very bad thing, and have in fact vehemently argued on these very forums that even the simple action of killing insurgents can lead to the creation of more insurgents, and that if civilians are a part of these casualties, and their brethren see their death as an example of an abuse of power by the western nations, then that in particular will create even more insurgents.
However, at the same time we have some undeniable facts. They are the enemy. They will and at that particular instance were trying to kill the men on the ground. The only reasonable option at this point is to kill or capture them in the most expedient manor. Yes indeed considerations need to made for collateral damage, and quite possibly the deaths of these civilians and the resulting uproar did not justify that particular action .
However that should not lead us, both as allies and active participants on the ground, to blindly say "we would not have done the same thing, our fast air should be there instead." - it is very possible that given the situation that was emerging (from the reports it seems like a SF group found itself faced with an unexpectedly large and aggressive enemy) we would in fact have ordered that bombing.
As well take into consideration that, at least from what the Commanders are telling the media, we believe the local insurgency to be a fairly small group - taking out this many at one time could represent a major victory that overshadows even the resulting mess.
