Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34589250
So the message I see is "we don't like ISIS but we aren't willing to actually do anything about it".
So the message I see is "we don't like ISIS but we aren't willing to actually do anything about it".
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 1,260
:nod:PPCLI Guy said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Eye In The Sky said:
here is a quote from your BBC link:
With all due respect for your service, I want to ask you a question. You have always said that the GoI is the driver of the bus in this operation. If so, why don't you train, arm and fund them and get the hell out of there? Why do you want to die for someone else battle?
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Tuan said:
Ref the quote from BBC; the tan beret folks are there and doing their business, but myself and many others (some, at least) hold the opinion that success in Iraq against ISIS is dependent on (1) establishing and defending the border in Anbar (2) eliminating ISIS between Bagdad and the border and (3) maintaining the deep fight on the Syrian side of the boarder, denying FOM throughout. There is much more detail but that's the coles notes version and would be more complicated than this simple versionr. Our SOF folks are...part of that larger geopraphical battlespace.
BUT the real trigger pulling in this one, targets being engaged, enemy losing freedom of movement are our CF18s. The SOF guys are doing their thing, and well but they have a different mission and ROE. 18 drivers are engaging ISIS across the battlespace.
As for why would I put myself in a position to die? Horrible shit is happening to innocent people who only want to live their lives. People are being tortured, executed, thrown off buildings. There is also the idea of fighting this there where it is contained ( in a global sense ) and the farther it is from my wife, and my retired parents and in laws, and the kids I see getting onto buses to go to school, the better. I much prefer to fight the enemy in his backyard than mine. I can focus then and not wonder if my door locks are good enough, kind of thing.
Germany was not a direct threat to Canadian soil, nor Korea, or Afghanistan yet we fought those fights. For ideals, freedom, human suffering to be minimized, and many other reasons, not only for us but for those being denied what we enjoy everyday.
I am also not a coward or a war monger, I simply accept the fact it is part of our world and some people deserve an early exit from life. People pay me to crew an airplane that was designed to kill or help kill targets. Firefighters run into burning buildings, right? Same concept. It's the job and I do it to help keep the sheep safe from the wolves.
Canada can hand out blankets and parkas all it wants; does it make sense to do that if you haven't stopped the people who took the ones people had away in the first place?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Tuan said:
Why do I want to fight and die for someone else's battle?
I believe in defending those who can't defend themselves. So if that means fighting someone else's battle then that's what I will do. I know it was a long time ago, but World War II was someone else's battle. frig even bleeding heart peacekeeping missions are someone else's battle.
Now back to your comment about the GOI. They are driving the bus. That's a fact. Now to your training comment, did the GOI ask Canada to help them train? That is a question you need answered. We don't just show up uninvited and setup a training school. It doesn't work like that.
After I posted I see ETIS pretty much said the same thing. Tuan I don't think you will ever understand how guys like ETIS and many others on here operate. We all pretty much feel the same way. We sacrifice our time to help others, we miss births, holidays, anniversaries, and much much more. Sure we go because we were ordered to go, but no one ordered us into the recruiting center.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I hear y’all and understand that you are all noble soldiers. However, I guess, our new government wants to do the job differently. IMO, we have come a long way since WWII, the Korean War and even the war on terror in Afghanistan began 14 years ago, whereas the contemporary “Hybrid Warfare” that we are fighting today contains many different facets and thus, I believe, the Canadian Armed Forces could engage itself in many different roles other than just bombing missions.
- Reaction score
- 13,997
- Points
- 1,260
Tuan said:
We are not just doing bombing missions - and this is something I'm interested to see when the new PM finally sets a date for the "combat mission" withdrawal. What about the air-to-air refuellers, since those assets aren't limited to fuelling planes from their own country? What about the CP-140s conducting Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance for the entire coalition? Are those considered "combat" or not?
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Tuan said:
we are airmen, not soldiers. 8)
You can't conduct humanitarian aide in an area you do not control. You need to eliminate the wolves from the area first. There is no peace to be had there and there won't be if people start leaving the coalition. Take the gloves off and fight bare knuckles if you truly want to win. Mr Trudeau is sending what global message with this act?
I am not comparing the conflicts of WWII, Korea or Afghanistan I am saying to fight this one for similar reasons summed up as "it is the right thing to do against the current bunch of shit heads".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Eye In The Sky said:
I read otherwise though! According to military analysts, as hybrid war combines elements of an insurgency, nation-building, sectarian strife, and domestic terrorism; it is more likely to pose the Alliance a strategic dilemma because our presence is likely to exacerbate rather than improve the situation.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Groovy. Now give me an example where this worked as well as these analysts suggest it does. Iraq? Afghanistan perhaps? Walk away without the enemy eliminated and hope?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-police-ghormach.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-police-ghormach.html
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Tuan said:
There, FTFY. ^-^
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Okay I did. Now, do you have a single example of anywhere this theory has actually worked?
Here are 2 examples of stuff that actually worked.
Here are 2 examples of stuff that actually worked.
- Reaction score
- 339
- Points
- 780
Comparing World War II to what we are doing now is disingenuous at best.
Like it or not, Air Power is presented to governments as a way of doing something with very little risk; it does not have a good history being used by itself. Air power alone did not win World War II. Until the Russians entered it didn't look to be winning against ISIS. What the Russians have done looks very much like supporting ground forces.
The National question is are we in this fight to do something, or to look to be doing something. Other countries, especially the US, are having that discussion. Why can't we?
Like it or not, Air Power is presented to governments as a way of doing something with very little risk; it does not have a good history being used by itself. Air power alone did not win World War II. Until the Russians entered it didn't look to be winning against ISIS. What the Russians have done looks very much like supporting ground forces.
The National question is are we in this fight to do something, or to look to be doing something. Other countries, especially the US, are having that discussion. Why can't we?
- Reaction score
- 2,585
- Points
- 1,260
Very good questions, still unanswered. I guess the reporters haven't asked yet - maybe because they don't remember/know about the rest of Canada's complement in theatre?Dimsum said:
Meanwhile, on the ground ....
On the other hand ....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Eye In The Sky said:
Yes, there is one such case in point: the complete annihilation of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), simply known as the Tamil Tigers.
During early 1980s at the height of cold war, India had to break the US-Sri Lanka nexus. Sri Lanka was aligned with the US and Pakistan. India was at that time aligned with USSR (and it is rumoured that USSR's KGB had a high level of control over Indian bureaucracy: ('KGB moles infiltrated the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s PMO'). The LTTE proved to be an ideal folly for India. Thus India’s foreign intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) armed, trained and funded the LTTE and engaged them as proxies against the Sri Lankan armed forces just like the CIA engaged Afghan Mujahedeen against the USSR.
At late 1980s, India and Sri Lanka signed a mutual agreement to cooperate and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (Indira Gandhi’s son) made an inexplicable move to cozy up with the Lankans through the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. Under the terms of that accord, India was to deploy 100,000 troops to Sri Lanka to disarm the very same LTTE terrorists they had created. That’s when things got out of hand and the Indian troops ended up fighting with the LTTE and not only India lost more than 1200 soldiers, but also the LTTE assassinated both Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Sri Lankan President Ranasingha Premadasa.
Eventually, India was forced to withdraw its troops from Sri Lanka and made a u-turn and armed, trained and funded the Sri Lankan military to fight against LTTE. The Sri Lankan government also got support from the USA, the UK, Canada, Russia and China in order to arm and train its military and obliterated the LTTE in May 2009.
As such, the Sri Lankan civil war had a complex dynamics and resembled modern hybrid warfare in recent times that was fought and won by the local forces who were aided by the international alliances.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Baz said:
I am not comparing the 2, I am comparing the reasons we were in WWII to the reasons we should stay in this one and every other conflict we've sent forces to between them. I am not trying to compare apples and oranges, I am trying to compare old apples and their similarities to new apples.
Fortunately, I am not the only person who holds the view we should be part of the mission, as shown in the article below (emphasis mine). It's old but has value to this thread, IMO. Have a read with an open mind is all I ask.
Article Link
National Post View: Canada’s fight against ISIS is a mission worth extending
March 24, 2015
When Canada went to war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) six months ago, the limited commitment of Canadian jets and a small number of special forces advisers to Iraq was more than justified. ISIS, which emerged from the power vacuum created by Syria’s long-running civil war, had poured over the border in northern Iraq. After easily overcoming ineffective Iraqi military units, ISIS established a so-called caliphate in Iraq, with a population of millions.
The list of crimes ISIS’s barbaric thugs then embarked on is well known, but bears repeating: Ethnic cleansing of minority groups, mass murder, rape on a horrifying scale, public execution of homosexuals and “adulterers,” and the enslavement of women and girls into forced marriages with ISIS fighters (or anyone with enough cash to buy one on the open market).
If anything, ISIS has become even more barbaric and threatening since. But preventing a humanitarian catastrophe was only part of the case for military action. Left unchecked, there can be little doubt it would have spread over much of the Middle East, destabilizing those parts it did not control, using the oil revenues thus acquired to purchase weapons, hire manpower and rally to its side disaffected Muslim youth from around the globe.
The international community had to act, and as a member of that community, Canada was right to do its part. The mission proposed last fall was reasonable in scale and scope: Six CF-18 jets, two surveillance aircraft and an airborne refueler, with associated ground support personnel, joined the 69 commandos providing (mostly) non-combat assistance to Iraqi units and Kurdish militias. Moreover, it was limited to six months, allowing for some stock-taking before we decided whether the mission was worth continuing.
Six months on, the mission can be judged a success, on its own modest terms. It has stopped the advance of ISIS, giving the beleaguered Iraqi army time to regroup, without significant loss of life, either to our forces or civilians. But the battle is not yet won. Hence Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s address to the House of Commons on Tuesday, proposing to extend the mission for 12 months. There would, however, be one important change: Canada’s combat aircraft would no longer be confined to Iraqi territory. Our planes would now be authorized to seek out ISIS targets across the border in Syria, in areas outside the control of Bashar Al-Assad’s murderous regime.
This strikes us as entirely reasonable. While the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition has contained ISIS in Iraq, it has been frustrated by the group’s ability to seek refuge in Syria. There is no reason why Canada should seek to destroy ISIS targets in Iraq while politely abstaining from hitting them in Syria. Nor are we “aiding” the Assad regime by mounting limited strikes in parts of his country that he has effectively abandoned to ISIS rule. The risk to Canada’s pilots is real, but given the stakes, acceptable. This is what they joined the Air Force to do, and what they have spent their lives preparing for.
In the House on Tuesday, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau vowed to oppose the proposed extension and expansion of the mission. They seemed to agree that ISIS is awful and that the threat is real, but would prefer that Canada limit its role to humanitarian aid. As before, the only difference seemed to be that, while the NDP oppose any military action against ISIS, the Liberals agree ISIS must be fought. Just not by us.
Leaving the fighting to others is not what we do; it is not who we are
What nonsense. Humanitarian aid is certainly needed; Canada has been contributing much, and should continue to do so. But the best way to help the threatened civilians of Iraq is to stop the barbarians who would kill, rape and enslave them. Security is the basic building block of any society. Until Iraqis are safe, they cannot be effectively helped.
It is true that other nations, such as Ireland or Poland, have contributed to the mission in non-military ways. But, well, Canada is not Ireland. Leaving the fighting to others is not what we do; it is not who we are. When the cause is just, this country answers the call — as we will and must in the current conflict. There is hard work to be done in Iraq and Syria, but it is work worth doing.
National Post
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Baz said:
Agree, but will add that there are ground forces involved that the air assets are supporting; they just aren't 'our' ground forces. Perhaps this point needs to emphasized more often.
A very important question. Are we 'asking that question' though? Or is Mr Trudeau taking action 'on his own' and against even the majority of Liberal supporters?
A second article on this point for consideration. Again, read with an open mind and ask yourself some honest questions...emphasis mine again.
Article Link
Trudeau’s first move doesn’t bode well
Justin Trudeau’s first move as prime minister is to take Canada out of the fight against the Islamic State.
We will no longer be fighting the terrorist group that burns people alive in cages, is partially responsible for the refugee crisis, and has identified Canada as a target for attacks.
While the incoming prime minister has the authority to pull Canada out of the mission right away, it’s poor optics to do so for a number of reasons.
Late Tuesday afternoon we learned Trudeau told U.S. President Barack Obama over the phone that sooner rather than later our CF-18 fighter jets will no longer be engaged in sorties over Iraq and Syria.
We will still “engage in a responsible way” -- presumably meaning we’d continue some version of advising and assistance -- but, Trudeau said, Obama “understands the commitments I’ve made around ending the combat mission.”
This is a very big decision for Trudeau to have already announced as a fait accompli before he has even moved into 24 Sussex Dr.
It’s no surprise that Trudeau wanted to do this. It’s on the record. But it’s important to note it wasn’t one of the key parts of his platform.
It wasn’t something he repeated on every occasion as he did with his infrastructure spending plan.
Did voters give him a majority predominantly because of this position? No. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Canadians support Canada’s role against the Islamic State.
An Ipsos Reid poll earlier this year showed 67% of identified Liberal supporters were in favour of extending Canada’s mission in Iraq and Syria.
Trudeau is offside from his own party.
But perhaps more important is the question of teamwork. One of the ways in which we were told Trudeau would be different than Harper is that he would be less of a one-man show. Less dictatorial, more of a team player and consensus builder.
In fact, whenever someone criticized Trudeau’s credentials -- as I frequently did in election columns -- the main response was that what matters more in a leader is that they listen to those around him.
Yet this first move of Trudeau’s was made without listening to the team that was elected to join him in Ottawa. It was made from the top down.
There hasn’t been a caucus meeting yet. No defence minister has been announced. There is no cabinet.
This first move by Trudeau is as equally single-minded as decisions made by Harper that prompted the outgoing PM’s detractors to label him a “dictator”.
The Sun’s Tarek Fatah wrote a column just before the news broke about Obama’s call to Trudeau, hoping that the incoming PM would listen to those around him:
“Men such as former Toronto Police chief Bill Blair, Toronto Centre MP Bill Morneau and Canada’s first-ever Somali-Canadian MP, Ahmad Hussen from York-South Weston, are just three who give me hope some Liberals MPs will resist moves to pull Canada out of the war against ISIS.”
It looks like that didn’t happen. This should be cause for concern for those who thought Trudeau would “do politics differently.”
Before the mechanisms of government were even in place, before the Governor General has even sworn him in, he spoke to the leader of the free world and withdrew Canada from a coalition committed to tackling the world’s worst human rights abusers. All by himself.
A sign of things to come?
Similar threads
