US commits to 1000 troops for Canada in Kandahar Province

[kj_gully]

Sorry if someone else has posted, I'd be surprised if not, but didn't find it, CTV broke this story on the late news last night.

Article link: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080401/nato_afghanistan_AM_080401/20080401?hub=TopStories

U.S. to provide 1,000 more troops in S. Afghanistan
Updated Tue. Apr. 1 2008 11:08 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Washington has made an iron-clad commitment to provide 1,000 combat troops to bolster the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV that Canada will also lease aerial drones from the U.S. at a cost of $165 million, and procure between four to six Chinook helicopters and an unspecified number of light-armoured vehicles from the U.S. army.

"The 1,000-troop commitment was a personal commitment made by President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Stephen Harper," CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Tuesday night.

"U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made similar pledges to their Canadian counterparts."

The news comes on the day France signaled its intention to send more soldiers to bolster the NATO effort in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Francois Fillon, speaking in Paris, said several hundred more French troops can be expected, though he left it up to President Nicholas Sarkozy to provide the details.

Sarkozy is expected to announce exactly how many troops will be provided, and how and where they can be used, during a NATO summit on Thursday and Friday in Bucharest, Romania.

Harper will be at the summit, as will Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier.

Canada has said it requires an additional 1,000 NATO troops in Kandahar province, as well as equipment, if it is to extend its commitment beyond February 2009.

France had been expected to ante up the lion's share of those troops. But the U.S. commitment to provide troops to southern Afghanistan likely means a French contribution would be concentrated elsewhere.

Earlier reports had suggested a French announcement of 1,000 troops headed to Afghanistan to be a done deal.

But as he travelled to Bucharest for the summit on Tuesday, MacKay suggested Canadians shouldn't count on an announcement of extra French troops to help out in Afghanistan.

He told reporters "anything is possible," but added that there's lots of time to secure the troops.

"We've done everything humanly possible to set up those conditions that we would get results," MacKay said.

"Keep in mind we have until February '09 to fulfill those commitments. The sooner the better; the more the better. That's what we've been saying all along.

"As far as getting those commitments for every single piece of equipment and personnel -- that remains to be seen."

Many observers had expected France to use this meeting to announce it would answer the call, but MacKay's comments, which follow similar statements from Bernier and Harper, seem to suggest that may not be the case, said CTV's Graham Richardson after arriving in Bucharest.

"I think it's fair to say the signal coming from Defence Minister Peter MacKay is if we don't have what we require as set out in the Manley report this week here at NATO we have until February 2009 to get those troops."

Richardson said that Ottawa has taken a wait-and-see approach to a troop announcement, "(but) I would characterize Mr. Harper's people as optimistic that something is going to happen here in Bucharest."

MacKay pointed out that troop numbers have gone up significantly since the last NATO summit, including increased numbers in the volatile southern region, where Canada is doing much of the heavy lifting.

Richardson said there may be some behind the scenes politicking going on.

"What's unclear in this from Mr. MacKay's comments -- was he really lowering expectations for a real reason, or in a couple of days when the decision is made are they going to be able to say that despite our concerns heading in, we got what we needed, we got our 1,000 troops."

A surprise suitor

Georgia, the eastern European country that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union, has offered 500 troops for Afghanistan.

But one small caveat -- Georgia is not a NATO member -- and its wish to join the alliance is at the heart of this week's meetings. Straddled between Turkey and Russia, the country is in a key strategic location for both Russia and the U.S.

Russia does not want Georgia or Ukraine, the two countries that NATO is pondering adding to their membership this week, to join the alliance.

However, U.S. President George Bush stirred things up on Tuesday by backing the two countries request to join NATO.

But it's far from a done deal.

"Is Georgia's offer of 500 contingent on membership into NATO or is it an offer to get them into NATO?" Richardson said. "Those things are all possibilities."

Downplaying expectations

Bernier said this week's meeting may not produce the partner Canada needs to extend the mission.

He also said there is plenty of time to secure the extra troop commitments ahead of the 2009 deadline.

Critics, however, suggest Bernier is changing his tune after receiving Commons support for the extension, and that Canada's troops need an exit strategy.

"The opposition is already saying back in Canada we need some hard answers now, that we can't continue to wait for this," Richardson said.

While at the summit, Harper will also be at the meeting, taking part in a panel that will include Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Richardson said Canadian officials see Harper's presence on the panel as proof Canada's profile is rising in NATO and is responsible for making Afghanistan a priority within the group.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Garett]

The key thing in that article is that the Marines are committed for use in SOUTHERN Afghanistan, meaning multiple provinces.  There are not any more soldiers in Afghanistan specifically dedicated to Kandahar yet.

 

[Carbon-14]

Sources told CTV that Canada will also lease aerial drones from the U.S. at a cost of $165 million, and procure between four to six Chinook helicopters and an unspecified number of light-armoured vehicles from the U.S. army.

Have those vehicles been announced before?  Which vehicles are they?

 

[geo]

Washington has made an iron-clad commitment to provide 1,000 combat troops to bolster the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV that Canada will also lease aerial drones from the U.S. at a cost of $165 million, and procure between four to six Chinook helicopters and an unspecified number of light-armoured vehicles from the U.S. army.

"The 1,000-troop commitment was a personal commitment made by President George W. Bush to Prime Minister Stephen Harper," CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported Tuesday night.

from my perspective all this means is that US troops will operate in the south - possibly extending the US AOR further south and thus, decreasing the size of the Cdn AOR.  This certainly does not signify that the US will be placing US troops under Cdn command.

WRT the Chinooks - old news
WRT drones - Predators?
WRT US LAVs - M113 / TLAVs?

 

[Red 6]

I wonder if the armored vehicles will be MRAPs?

 

[geo]

I wonder if the armored vehicles will be MRAPs?

I would believe that if there are vehicles to be had ASAP, then these vehicles already exist BUT are not being used.... which leads me to believe that they probably aren't.

If they are, FANTASTIC.... please PROVE ME WRONG

 

[westie47]

Aren't those the Route Clearance vehicles, I forget the name. Isn't one of them called a Grizzly???

Maybe that's what MRAP is.............

 

[geo]

MRAP is just an acronym to describe a vehicle that is Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP).
The Nyala and the RG31 are some early examples of MRAP vehicles designed and built by South Africa & acquired by Canada.  We used the Nyala in Bosnia and bought the RG31 at the very begining of the Afghanistan campaign. 
Since then, many US manufacturers have associated themselves with the South Africans or gone and developed their own.

While the Engineers certainly used em as Route Clearance vehicles, they are used for all aspects of war fighting these days.

here is a link for the wiki page on MRAP... enjoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_(armored_vehicle)

 

[Mourning]

What would be great would be that both those French and US troops would be airborne/air-mobile troops with helicopters that would form the strategic reserve or the elements with which offensive operations can be carried out that NATO has repeatedly asked for.

The Georgians I suspect are less capeable I would guess for those missions, not because they wouldn't fight but because I doubt their equipment is all that modern and though they are US-trained (from what I understood) I have some doubts if they are well enough prepared and have the means to effectively carry out risky offensive operations with other countries. How's the english of their average officer for example? Could it lead to miscommunication with detachments/elements from other countries, etc? For defensive and other operations I would see the Georgians as very welcome additions.

Regards,

Mourning  8)

 

[geo]

Ummm - the Taliban are in the mountains & foothills.  An area where mobility becomes very reduced.
I would fathom a guess that, based on Georgia's geography, they have plenty of experience with mountain fighting.

Given that, as you have said, they have received US training, they should be able to operate in English.  If they are unable to operate in an Anglo environment, they won't be able to operate within NATO... and they want "in" to NATO.

 

[a_majoor]

The Poles and Romanians are doing a fine job, and other Partnership for Peace nations like Bulgaria are in theater (although I have no personal knowledge of how they are doing), so I have few doubts that the Georgians will do a fine job as well. As for equipment, the ANA make due with pickup trucks and HMMVW's (lacking mechanics and infrastructure needed to maintain a fleet of AFV's) and no-one doubts they are ferocious fighters.

Once you can get a force into the AOR that is not hamstrung by caveats and is able to function in a multi-national environment the scales will tip farther in our direction.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Here's the BBC report outlining the force swap:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7327603.stm

As anticipated, France will take up combat operations in Eastern Afghanistan (under US command - for domestic reasons) and the US will cascade troops to RC (South).

I have few doubts that the Georgians will do a fine job as well.

If they're anything like the "hand picked", "Presidentially-selected", German-trained platoon I worked with in theatre quite some time ago, they'll concentrate more on shopping in the various PXs than actually conducting operations.  Shocking, really.

Bulgaria was another flag-hoister:  a imited contribution with very limited impact.

 

[Haggis]

Most Georgian officers have passable English.  Many are US trained (GTEP) and they have a mix of former Soviet and modern US weapons.

Having worked with (and trained) Georgians, all I can say is lock up any shiny stuff you may have.

 

[James]

Reading some of the articles on CTV's website, it sounds like Canada will get what it wanted, right? They wanted the addition troops and the drones.

 

[Col.Steiner]

They are going to lease the Yank's aerial drones, I guess they finally were embarassed to fly those ugly flying lawnmowers we had before?

 

[Red 6]

Here's the intel on the MRAP from Defense Link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2008/0108_mrap/

 

[geo]

They are going to lease the Yank's aerial drones, I guess they finally were embarassed to fly those ugly flying lawnmowers we had before?

Always with the positive comments Unteroffiizier Steiner?

The Sperwer drones we are currently using are similar to drones used by the Brits and the French
The Brits are retiring theirs as of the end of march 2008.

There is nothing particularly wrong with our drones - other than they are getting a little long in the tooth and newer technology has become available in the meantime.

 

[tomahawk6]

Based on the terminolgy in the article light armored vehicles would preclude MRAPs and lead me to believe that what may be on offer are uparmored Humvee's. Tactical UAV's in the mix might be the Shadow and or Hunter.

This article was in the army times today.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_afghanistan_040408/

U.S. commits to adding troops to Afghanistan

By Robert Burns - The Associated Press
Posted : Friday Apr 4, 2008 11:37:50 EDT

ABOARD A MILITARY AIRCRAFT — The U.S. intends to send many more combat forces to Afghanistan next year, regardless of whether troop levels in Iraq are cut further this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

It is the first time the Bush administration has made such a commitment for 2009.

Gates, speaking to reporters on his way to Muscat, Oman, from a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, said President Bush made the pledge at the summit Thursday.

Bush was not specific about the number of additional troops that would go to Afghanistan in 2009, Gates said. The U.S. now has about 31,000 troops there — the most since the war began in October 2001 — and has been pressing the allies to contribute more.

Until now, the heavy commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq has been a constraint on the ability to increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. But Gates said he did not believe that would be the case in 2009.

Gates said he advised Bush to make the pledge to allied leaders in Bucharest even though the movement of the unspecified additional troops would ultimately be a decision for the next president, who will take office in January.

“The question arises, how can we say that about 2009?” Gates said. “All I would say is, I believe ... this is one area where there is very broad bipartisan support in the United States for being successful” in Afghanistan, where, by many accounts, progress against the Taliban resistance has stalled.

“I think that no matter who is elected president, they would want to be successful in Afghanistan. So I think this was a very safe thing for him to say,” the Pentagon chief added.

Gates said he believed it was too early to decide how many additional combat forces the U.S. should plan on sending in 2009. He said it would depend on several things, including the extent of U.S. and NATO success on the battlefield this year, as well as the impact of a new senior U.S. commander taking over in coming months. Army Gen. David McKiernan is due to replace Army Gen. Dan McNeill this spring as the top overall commander in Afghanistan.

McNeill has said he believes he needs another three brigades — two for combat and one for training. That translates to roughly 7,500 to 10,000 additional troops. The Bush administration has no realistic hope of getting the NATO allies to send such large numbers.

In remarks to reporters after Bush made the statement at the summit Thursday, the president’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said any extra U.S. combat troop deployments would be in southern Afghanistan, where fighting is heaviest.

Gates said he believed that was a logical possibility but that it was too early to say they would go to the south.

“I put this in front of the president as a possibility, as something that I thought we ought to be willing to say and do,” Gates said, adding that part of his reasoning was that such a pledge by Bush would have extra effect at a summit meeting where France announced that it will send several hundred combat troops to Afghanistan this year, a decision that Bush explicitly praised.

It is widely agreed within the Bush administration and between the U.S. and its key allies in Afghanistan that they have too few troops on the ground to effectively fight the Taliban resistance — especially in the volatile south — and to accelerate the training of Afghan soldiers and police.

The question that has been contemplated for many months is how to find additional troops.

The administration initially pushed hard for other NATO countries to fill the gap. Having largely failed in that effort, the U.S. military now seems convinced that it will have to bear more of the load.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has made clear his view that the enormous commitment of U.S. forces and resources in Iraq has made Afghanistan, by necessity an “economy-of-force campaign.” In other words it has been a secondary priority amid fear of collapse in Iraq.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some all-too-typical Canadian punditry--a post at The Torch:

Spinning their brains out
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/04/spinning-their-brains-out.html

Mark
Ottawa