Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Retired AF Guy]

What's everyone so shocked about?  We've been at war since 2001 633 A.D. ... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign in this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign.  People have such short memories!

There... fixed that for you.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

There... fixed that for you.

HAHAHAHA, Originally I considered putting something like this down.  Thunder officially stolen!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This is the "new" Canadian way; if someone on the playground punches you, you don't hit them back, you say sorry and then talk about it.

It worries me that so many Canadians are content to sit on the sidelines and let nasty crap happen in the world, as long as they still get their new iPhones on time and they 'get down south' in the winter.

 

[MilEME09]

This is the "new" Canadian way; if someone on the playground punches you, you don't hit them back, you say sorry and then talk about it.

It worries me that so many Canadians are content to sit on the sidelines and let nasty crap happen in the world, as long as they still get their new iPhones on time and they 'get down south' in the winter.

I've been saying this for years, people will cry out that we should do something, but when it actually comes time to do something suddenly they are against it for what ever reason

 

[OldSolduer]

I've been saying this for years, people will cry out that we should do something, but when it actually comes time to do something suddenly they are against it for what ever reason

Aren't we sending parkas and winter boots? :facepalm:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What!?!?!?!...we have winter boots?  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

What!?!?!?!...we have winter boots?  ;D

No, didn't we send them all away?

 

[McG]

I suppose the opposition would also have claimed mission creep if Op ATTENTION guys would have got in a gun fight in Kabul.  What do they expect when soldiers are sent into a war.  Our guys could hide the whole time they are there, but that does not change that the enemy gets a vote.  This is just a sign of convenient, willful ignorance.

Stephen Harper 'did not tell truth' on ISIS combat mission: opposition
Canadian Forces trainers returning ground fire has 'appearance of mission creep'
JANYCE MCGREGOR, CBC NEWS
20 Jan 2015

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau's Liberals are accusing the Harper government of misleading Parliament after Monday's revelation that Canadian Forces advisers exchanged gunfire with ISIS in what may be the first confirmed ground battle involving Western forces in northern Iraq.

"I asked the prime minister straight up in September whether this was a combat mission, whether Canadian troops would be involved in combat. I got a categorical answer, and the answer was no," Mulcair told reporters during an event at a Toronto child-care centre Tuesday.

"I specifically asked him in the House of Commons whether or not Canadian Forces would be targeting troops on the other side," Mulcair said. "He did not tell the truth."

During a briefing in Ottawa on Monday, Brig.-Gen. Michael Rouleau, the commander of the Canadian special operations forces command, revealed that Canadian Forces trainers working with Iraqi troops came under "immediate and effective mortar fire" from ISIS and responded with sniper fire, "neutralizing the mortar and the machine-gun position."

The troops had been in a planning session several kilometres behind the front lines, Rouleau said, but had moved up for a better view of what they had discussed.

He characterized the exchange of gunfire as consistent with the inherent right of self-defence and suggested an incident like this wouldn't have been unusual even in past Canadian peacekeeping missions.
​
"We have always been clear that while this is a low-risk mission, it is not without risk and our forces on the ground will protect themselves if fired on in the course of carrying out their mission," Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman Jason MacDonald said in a statement Monday.

'Mission creep'

Liberal MPs gathered in London, Ont., for a caucus retreat this week echoed Mulcair's concern that the government needed to clarify the exact role Canadian troops were playing on the ground.

"The prime minister made assurances to Canadians and to the House that, as we found out yesterday, were not exactly the truth," Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau told reporters Tuesday.

"The prime minister needs to come clean with Canadians on what's going on and why he was lacking in forthrightness with Canadians."

"The government is going to argue obviously that this is not a combat mission in the sense of Canadian soldiers going on the offensive," said foreign affairs critic Marc Garneau.

"They are clearly on the lines, in some cases directing airstrikes, and this is something I think many Canadians did not realize," he said. "I think for some people yesterday that was a surprise."

In September, during a House of Commons foreign affairs committee hearing, Garneau specifically asked Defence Minister Rob Nicholson if he would confirm "that no Canadian soldiers will be in the trenches on the front lines, or taking part on the ground in any offensive or defensive operations."

Nicholson responded: "I've indicated they are not taking a combat role. Their role will be strictly advice and technical assistance."

When Parliament voted last fall on the deployment of aircraft for a bombing mission, Liberals were not supportive, suggesting the appropriate Canadian role to counter the ISIS threat would focus more on humanitarian assistance, training and logistics support.

"It has the appearance of mission creep," said defence critic Joyce Murray. "There appears to be a change."

No front-line role?

While information from Kurdish forces early on suggested Canadian trainers may call in airstrikes, Harper specifically said ground troops would not be accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat.
Now they've exchanged fire.

"The fact that it led so many newscasts indicates that Canadians were surprised — that we thought we were sending aircraft on a combat mission, on a bombing mission, and we suddenly find our ground forces are exchanging fire," said Liberal House leader Dominic LeBlanc.

"The government asked Parliament for a mandate for one sort of mission, and if they've decided now to do a different kind of mission, they should at least have the decency to come back and force their own MPs to vote in favour of the change of the mission," LeBlanc said.

Not every Liberal was surprised by Monday's revelation.

"Everyone expects that the Canadian military, even though they're there for the express purpose of training, if fired upon, they have to defend themselves. And it wasn't an aggressive stance, it was a defensive stance when fired upon and I think the public would be onside with that," said public safety critic Wayne Easter.

"We've asked for a review [of the mission] in six months," he said, adding that since Parliament made its decision, Liberals have supported the troops.

"We will see where we go at that point of time."
​
In a statement circulated by the Conservative Party, Infrastructure Minister Denis Lebel said that over the past few weeks, jihadists have been shooting at Canadian soldiers. Because the soldiers fired back, the media now "pretends" that the Canadian mission has turned into a ground combat mission, he said.

"Canadian special operation forces must sometimes get close [to] or at the front lines. However, they spend 80 per cent of their time well back of them. This is not a ground combat mission," he said.
"When our soldiers are facing fire from [ISIS] jihadists, they must be able to respond," said Harper's senior Quebec minister.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-did-not-tell-truth-on-isis-combat-mission-opposition-1.2919630

 

[acen]

No, didn't we send them all away?

We sent away OD IECS gear as well as cold wet weather boots from what I've seen. Seems more like a gift to the enemy than anything else, though the Ukrainians will surely be adopting the prone position, whether by choice or by virtue of their footwear. 

 

[vonGarvin]

#HashtagWarrior
#Slacktivist
#GimmeMyiPhone

 

[The Bread Guy]

According to this CP story published on the NationalNewswatch.com site, members of CANSOFCOM returned fire in Iraq. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Canadian soldiers forced to defend themselves in firefight in Iraq: general ....

Interestingly, in this longer version of this article, we have a "definition" of a combat mission from the PMO:

.... "A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,"said Jason MacDonald. "That is not the case with this mission.

"This mission is one in which they are providing advice and assistance to Iraqi forces only and as the general indicated, the bulk of their work takes place well behind the front lines. That said, we have always been clear that while this is a low-risk mission, it is not without risk and our forces on the ground will protect themselves if fired on in the course of carrying out their mission."

I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....

 

[Jed]

Interestingly, in this longer version of this article, we have a "definition" of a combat mission from the PMO:I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....

Whatever happened to 'Close with and destroy the Enemy' ?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Whatever happened to 'Close with and destroy the Enemy' ?

I think one is a military definition of a specific role (yours), while the other is a political definition of "combat mission" (PMO's) - related, but in a lot of ways pretty different.

 

[Jed]

I know, just being a smart a$$. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I hope the Liberals aching to get in on a U.N. mission in the Congo remember that bit in yellow when they consider "returning to our legacy of peacekeeping" ....

They are probably hoping more for an image of UN Peacekeepers as shown below, as opposed to attach helicopters; its' not appropriate for us to "whip out our armed forces', after all...

 

[McG]

For all the new articles on combat vs non-combat missions, it is the accompanying photo that I find most interesting.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why?

 

[dapaterson]

Div patch on CADPAT AR, I think is what he's referring to.

We have well and truly jumped the shark - first with High Vis ranks and nametags for a uniform that's supposed to be camouflage, now folks are adding other accoutrements to camouflage uniforms.

What's next - abandoning rank insignia that were in service for two generations?  Oops, already did that...

 

[dimsum]

Div patch on CADPAT AR, I think is what he's referring to.

We have well and truly jumped the shark - first with High Vis ranks and nametags for a uniform that's supposed to be camouflage, now folks are adding other accoutrements to camouflage uniforms.

It (like the full-colour Canadian flag above it) is backed in velcro, no?  Same with the nametapes, and the rank slides - all of that stuff can be taken off if/when needed. 

Of course, *someone* can then argue that if he's wearing a big red rectangle on operational uniform, why can't the RCAF have full-colour badges and crests (also velcro-backed) on flying clothing? 

 

[McG]

Why?

The National Post has identified the wearer of the patch as MGen Milner, Comd 1 Cdn Div.  I'm just pondering the potential implications of Comd 1 Div being in Kuwait when there is not (yet?) an Army mission.