• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

Eye In The Sky said:
I wonder how many people will go  :tempertantrum: about the CDS comments about 'marking targets', because that is bad, without considering what ISR assets, Int and targeting folks do for a living.  :blotto:

62949448.jpg

But your meme covers that.

They will confuse "marking targets" as not meaning actually "shooting at targets"    [:D
 
US DoD take on this:  .#BREAKING via @Pentagonpressec: #Canada is tripling training in N. Iraq, doubling intel efforts & expanding humanitarian contributions

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/696762378810056705?p=v
 
dapaterson said:
US DoD take on this:  .#BREAKING via @Pentagonpressec: #Canada is tripling training in N. Iraq, doubling intel efforts & expanding humanitarian contributions

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeptofDefense/status/696762378810056705?p=v

Well, I may not agree with the decision, but, at least it doesn't appear the Americans are too unhappy about it.

I mean, we are putting more Canadian lives at risk my putting the additional troops into theatre.
 
I guess it is all good.

We're not killing people.  We're just spotting them for other people to kill.

Kind of like the good people of the Inquisition.  They never spilled blood either. They just pointed out the miscreants and handed them over to the secular authorities to do the necessary.
 
Pentagon praises Canada for boosting training troops in Iraq
Reuters
WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Monday praised Canada's decision to triple the number of troops training Kurdish forces in Iraq.
Canada will end its bombing missions by Feb. 22 but keep two surveillance planes in the region as well as refueling aircraft, and triple the number of soldiers training Kurdish troops in northern Iraq to about 200 from about 70 currently, the government said on Monday.
Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said the decision by Canada added "momentum to the effort" ahead of key talks among defense ministers in Brussels to be held this week on ways to accelerate the campaign against Islamic State. (Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Eric Walsh)
© 2016 Reuters World General News. All rights reserved.

It seems our Allies are satisfied.
 
The NDP:  mission STILL too military/risky - this, from the Foreign Affairs Critic ...
“The NDP believes Canada has an important role to play in addressing the threat that ISIS poses to the global community and in alleviating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict. Instead of playing a military combat role, we have long argued that Canada should focus on stopping the flow of arms, funds and foreign fighters – including improving anti-radicalization efforts here at home.

“We are concerned that the Liberal government has chosen to place Canadian Forces personnel deeper into an open-ended combat military mission in Iraq – a mission that fails to even define what success would look like. And while we welcome the government’s announcement today of increased humanitarian assistance to the region, we are concerned that this aid is being linked to the military mission.

“The Trudeau Liberals promised to end the Conservative government’s mission and said we need a clearer line between combat and non-combat. Today’s announcement actually blurs these lines even more.

“Liberals are tripling the size of so-called advisors to the Iraqi military, with some forces working in a ‘battlefield context’ and others working to ‘enhance in-theatre tactical transport.’ Additionally, our forces will still be directly supporting the bombings through refueling and targeting support.

“With so many unanswered questions, it is crucial that Canadians get better answers than we heard today. We expect the government to have a full debate and vote in the House of Commons.”
 
I know I'm repeating myself,  :bla-bla:  but this is nothing more (nor less) than very, very good politics ~ making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Justin Trudeau make a silly, downright juvenile remark, over a year ago, in a TV interview, when criticizing Stephen Harper because he, the PM, had decided to "whip out our CF-18s to show how big they are." He, M Trudeau, was, rightfully, excoriated, in even the Liberal friendly media, for both the tone and substance of the remark ... and it wouldn't go away. The campaign team, now the PMO, decided to neutralize it by building a policy around the notion that we could "do better" than bombing. The promise to withdraw the CF-18s was a good one ... for a campaign. It was, also, easy enough to keep.

There are, in my opinion, both a strategic and a moral case to be made for not bombing ISIL, but neither Prime Minister Trudeau nor anyone in his camp has made them.

This policy decision is a direct result of an immature quip tossed off by a poorly prepared candidate ... but he's now our prime minister and getting him to that high office required the quip to be made into a promise which has, now, been translated into policy. That's all there is; there was no need for policy or diplomatic or military input; this was done, entirely, within the domain of the "spin doctors."
 
PPCLI Guy said:
It seems our Allies are satisfied.

I would be curious if this will impact the CoS position currently filled by a Canadian BG.

Will also like to see what the reaction is to the impact on the number of support positions once the fighters leave. In a completely non-cynical way I am guessing it is non-porportional.

Will CANSOF be able to sustain this op tempo?

If nothing else it is a hell of recruiting tool.
 
little jim said:
I would be curious if this will impact the CoS position currently filled by a Canadian BG.

Will also like to see what the reaction is to the impact on the number of support positions once the fighters leave. In a completely non-cynical way I am guessing it is non-porportional.

Will CANSOF be able to sustain this op tempo?

If nothing else it is a hell of recruiting tool.

I'm willing to bet they were properly briefed on all aspects, and likely why it took so long to make a decision. When you don't have a clue, but have to fulfill a campaign promise, you have to start from 0 to learn capabilities and limitations of their plans.
 
From the White House info-machine ...
The President spoke by phone today with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada to discuss Canadian contributions to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.  The leaders noted recent gains on the ground against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and agreed that recent ISIL attacks outside of the Middle East have only heightened the need to keep pressure on ISIL in order to degrade and ultimately destroy it.  The President welcomed Canada’s current and new contributions to Coalition efforts and highlighted Canada’s leadership in the Coalition.  President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau both reaffirmed the importance of all aspects of the bilateral relationship.
 
a mission that fails to even define what success would look like.

How about "less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings" as a start...and go from there.  :2c:

Or hey, even this...

halt and degrade the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

If I hear or see the term 'exit strategy', I am going to lose my effin' Smarties.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
How about "less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings" as a start...and go from there.  :2c:

Or hey, even this...

If I hear or see the term 'exit strategy', I am going to lose my effin' Smarties.

Why do we even put an end date on these things?

Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."

Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!
 
Lumber said:
We do we even put an end date on these things?

Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."

Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!

We have entered well into the century of "Fast Food".  No more sitting down to a five course meal.  People want to get in, place their order and get out as fast as possible.  No one cares about the decor, the place settings, the atmosphere; just get served fast and be on their way. 
 
Lumber said:
Why do we even put an end date on these things?

Did Canada declare war on Germany with an expiry date? "If Germany isn't conquered by March 31st, 1945, we're all just packing up and going home."

Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain amount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!

:goodpost:

And perhaps a better analogy on the fast food front is that it is not the service that matters, but the purpose of the food in the first place.  Food is to fill you up.... until you need the next fill up.  There is no end to the requirement for food.
 
Lumber said:
Why not make it an indefinite affair? Earmark a certain  mount of money for every year in perpetuity until such time as parliament gets back together and votes to end the mission, because the missions has been a success (or complete failure, I suppose), not because some silly, arbitrary deadline has passed!
And what's the indicator of success?  "Less people having their heads cut off, less people being thrown off buildings"?  "Halt and degrade the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant"?  How much less/degraded?  Until there's no more attacks in Canada?  Or until no attacks in Canada for x years? 

As long as you can't describe & measure goals specifically and objectively, politics will colour what "success" means, no matter who's in government.  And as long as the bit in yellow holds true, politicians can vote "mission accomplished" on anything.

Also, our democracy is built on periodic elections where the party may change, thus changing the "success goggles".  Only the Chinese, these days, can be sure of which party's going to be in power more than four years down the road - one reason for their long-sightedness.  Then again, their system comes with problems, too - great if you like it, sucks if you want to complain tooooooo loudly (let's not forget which country is second in the "where do refugees to Canada come from?" list) - so be careful what you wish for.
 
milnews.ca said:
And what's the indicator of success? 

ISIL is militarily defeated, their revenue generating ability destroyed, their credibility amongst those who 'follow' them non-existent, and the GoI is able to look after its own back yard again, can secure it's border and not start the crap Maliki did that he said he wouldn't do.  (the last one...maybe, maybe not).

Short version. 

I don't, personally, link "beating ISIL" to 'solving the REAL problem in the ME'.  But it is one fight that has to happen and decisively IMO.  The 'decisively' part is up to the Iraqi people, not the MESF ones.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
ISIL is militarily defeated, their revenue generating ability destroyed, their credibility amongst those who 'follow' them non-existent, and the GoI is able to look after its own back yard again, can secure it's border and not start the crap Maliki did that he said he wouldn't do.  (the last one...maybe, maybe not).

Short version. 
And although some bits would be harder to do than others, that's more clearly expressed than I've heard from government so far.

Eye In The Sky said:
I don't, personally, link "beating ISIL" to 'solving the REAL problem in the ME'.  But it is one fight that has to happen and decisively IMO.  The 'decisively' part is up to the Iraqi people, not the MESF ones.
And it's those orange bits that are out of our control that make it hard to come up with firm "measurables".
 
Did Vance not mention the possibility of sending helicopters to Iraq as part of the revisions?
 
GAP said:
Did Vance not mention the possibility of sending helicopters to Iraq as part of the revisions?

News is coming out now that four Griffon helicopters are being sent to Iraq
 
Back
Top