Why are our casualties so high in Afghanistan?

[Argus]

Is it not time to ask something I have not seen asked anywhere thus far, including the main media? Why is it our casualties in Afghanistan are so very high compared to everyone else? As a percentage of troops, our casualties are higher than the US, UK, or anyone in Afghanistan. I've also heard they are higher than the US casualty rate in Iraq. I recognize that the Kandahar area is dangerous, but more dangerous than Baghdad?

Is there something wrong with the way we're operating, or is there a lack of equipment which can be remedied? Is it just helicopters? Because transport helicopters are not going to help with patrol casualties of the sort we've had in the last few weeks. So what is it?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canada is at war, and the citizens of this nation don't know what that means. War is no more than failed diplomacy that results in the death of citizens. Canada needs to wake up and take the bull by the horns and make every effort to end this war in victory. We have accepted the responsibility and we have been paying for it with the lives of our citizens in the Armed Forces.

What needs to be done to win? Start from the location of our headquarters and expand a circle of influence building schools and hospitals, roads and power plants, water treatment plants, market places and homes that are all safe and secure. How do we do that? By finding and destroying every weapon and every person in possession of a weapon within that sphere of influence. Design an expanding perimeter and leave a core at the centre governed by the people living there.

[jdobbin]

Is it not time to ask something I have not seen asked anywhere thus far, including the main media? Why is it our casualties in Afghanistan are so very high compared to everyone else? As a percentage of troops, our casualties are higher than the US, UK, or anyone in Afghanistan. I've also heard they are higher than the US casualty rate in Iraq. I recognize that the Kandahar area is dangerous, but more dangerous than Baghdad?

A few analysts commenting on U.S. and Canadian new shows repeatedly say that the area around Kandahar continues to be the most dangerous in part because there are so few troops in the area.

Is there something wrong with the way we're operating, or is there a lack of equipment which can be remedied? Is it just helicopters? Because transport helicopters are not going to help with patrol casualties of the sort we've had in the last few weeks. So what is it?

The Soviets used helicopters in the last war and just ended up getting shot down.

A surge of troops might help reduce the losses as it did in Iraq.

However, what can you do in an area where tribalism can lead to violence regardless of how many troops are in place? Even in Iraq, the issue of whether Iraq won't quickly devolve has not been settled. Foreign troops cannot stop a country itching to fight with itself in the long run.

[Wild Bill]

Canada is at war, and the citizens of this nation don't know what that means. War is no more than failed diplomacy that results in the death of citizens. Canada needs to wake up and take the bull by the horns and make every effort to end this war in victory. We have accepted the responsibility and we have been paying for it with the lives of our citizens in the Armed Forces.

What needs to be done to win? Start from the location of our headquarters and expand a circle of influence building schools and hospitals, roads and power plants, water treatment plants, market places and homes that are all safe and secure. How do we do that? By finding and destroying every weapon and every person in possession of a weapon within that sphere of influence. Design an expanding perimeter and leave a core at the centre governed by the people living there.

Out of curiousity, are you implying that Canada has the resources to accomplish the task you've stated? Or that we have any chance of developing them in a useful timeframe?

Frankly, you sound like you're running on blue sky and wishes with this one...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Out of curiousity, are you implying that Canada has the resources to accomplish the task you've stated? Or that we have any chance of developing them in a useful timeframe?

Frankly, you sound like you're running on blue sky and wishes with this one...

I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory.

We are at war, our soldiers are experiencing death and dismemberment in our names as Canadian citizens. The only moral option is to bring the conflict to a victorious end as quickly as possible to prevent as much harm as possible to our own soldiers.

Do you see another viable solution?

[Smallc]

Is there something wrong with the way we're operating, or is there a lack of equipment which can be remedied? Is it just helicopters? Because transport helicopters are not going to help with patrol casualties of the sort we've had in the last few weeks. So what is it?

I'm nut sure what the problem is. For the most part, the troops are being killed by bombs in the road. We fly over the roads, we x ray the roads, we visually inspect the roads, we use secretive and top notch mine and bomb sweeping systems, yet they still get us. I'm not sure what that is....they just seem to be really good.

[eyeball]

I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory.

We are at war, our soldiers are experiencing death and dismemberment in our names as Canadian citizens. The only moral option is to bring the conflict to a victorious end as quickly as possible to prevent as much harm as possible to our own soldiers.

Do you see another viable solution?

We could bring the conflict to a negotiated end or we could just give up and bring our soldiers home.

A victorious end still sounds as un-likely to me as it did when we first decided to get involved.

[Smallc]

We could bring the conflict to a negotiated end or we could just give up and bring our soldiers home.

Or, we could stay until 2011 as we agreed to, and then allow someone else to take over the lifting in Kandahar.

[eyeball]

Or, we could stay until 2011 as we agreed to,

Yes that's when Canadians or Ottawa I should say, agreed that we should give up.

[Smallc]

Yes that's when Canadians or Ottawa I should say, agreed that we should give up.

Its not giving up, its letting someone else take over. The CF needs a rest.

[NanaimoConservative]

We could bring the conflict to a negotiated end or we could just give up and bring our soldiers home.

A victorious end still sounds as un-likely to me as it did when we first decided to get involved.

You can't negotiate with Islamic people as we have seen. Why aren't the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq turning on the fighters and helping us get rid of them? They obviously support them to some extend.

The reason they are so tricky to deal with is because you can't tell the bad from the good. They also fight dirty and sneaky which you would expect since it's a war and all and there aren't really rules on how you can fight. So they are a hard target to find.

The allies are fighting over there like it's peace time. We need to be in there destroying the bad guys as if it was the first couple weeks of the war. Hunt them viciously. If the citizens don't want that to continue then they can support us or be hunted. The citizens can help us in surveillance and turning in anyone that is against us.

[Wild Bill]

I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory.

We are at war, our soldiers are experiencing death and dismemberment in our names as Canadian citizens. The only moral option is to bring the conflict to a victorious end as quickly as possible to prevent as much harm as possible to our own soldiers.

Do you see another viable solution?

Well, I'm afraid I don't see your solution as viable!

How can it be, when we send our men out (both of them!) with bows and arrows against the lightning? Even if we adopted your suggestion, we don't have the resources to do it! Our entire armed forces would not quite fill SkyDome in Toronto. That includes every clerk, cook and bottle washer. There are only a few thousand actual combat ready and equipped soldiers.

That's what I meant when I said "blue sky and wishes".

If by 'viable' you meant if SOMEBODY were to do it then I would agree with you. I just can't agree that it could be done by Canada. No matter how much grit Custer had, he had just too few troops and there were too many Indians.

[eyeball]

You can't negotiate with Islamic people as we have seen.

Okay, give up and get out if that's how you feel.

[NanaimoConservative]

Okay, give up and get out if that's how you feel.

No. Since they can't be negotiated with they need won't give up. It is not us that needs to give up. Here is more from my post that you quoted from.

The allies are fighting over there like it's peace time. We need to be in there destroying the bad guys as if it was the first couple weeks of the war. Hunt them viciously. If the citizens don't want that to continue then they can support us or be hunted. The citizens can help us in surveillance and turning in anyone that is against us.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The fact remains that this nation is committed to military action in that country. The fact remains that our soldiers are being killed in military actions in that country. The fact remains that our government was responsible for sending them there and is responsible for the security and well being in that country.

Those are the facts, dispute them as you will.

The reality is that our soldiers are in harms way, fighting under the flag of our nation. This country has a responsibility to these men and women and that is specifically to protect them to the best of our ability. Now having said that, we can choose to let them die by the numbers or start doing everything we possible can to protect them. In that sense, this government has chosen to spend billions of dollars to support private enterprise at the expense of the lives of our soldiers. There is a very clear question of priorities here, and in my veteran fathers name I state without fear, that the lives of those soldiers is of greater importance than the profits of corporations or the employment of those citizens.

Lets leave the choice up to you then my fellow citizen, bailout the auto industry or spend more Canadian lives in Afganistan. We have had choices to make. and you as well as the government have made them.

Three and a half billion dollars would buy a lot of hardware and pay for a lot of troops, but go ahead and put those lives at risk for the political value of staying in power.

Get a grip people, war is no freaking holiday, people die. When nations put their citizens lives at risk they should do so with very special care. This nation can do more for those soldiers then they have, and that is the responsibility of the government.

[eyeball]

Lets leave the choice up to you then my fellow citizen...

...that is the responsibility of the government.

I'm sorry, but which one is it?

I suggested we put the question to a referendum but that got shot down in flames by people who don't trust democracy...they don't mind that Canadians fight and die for it, they just don't want Canadians excersizing it.

Weird isn't it?

[eyeball]

We need to be in there destroying the bad guys as if it was the first couple weeks of the war. Hunt them viciously. If the citizens don't want that to continue then they can support us or be hunted. The citizens can help us in surveillance and turning in anyone that is against us.

As if that's going to happen.

Get a grip.

[Rue]

Is it not time to ask something I have not seen asked anywhere thus far, including the main media? Why is it our casualties in Afghanistan are so very high compared to everyone else? As a percentage of troops, our casualties are higher than the US, UK, or anyone in Afghanistan. I've also heard they are higher than the US casualty rate in Iraq. I recognize that the Kandahar area is dangerous, but more dangerous than Baghdad?

Is there something wrong with the way we're operating, or is there a lack of equipment which can be remedied? Is it just helicopters? Because transport helicopters are not going to help with patrol casualties of the sort we've had in the last few weeks. So what is it?

Because quite simply Canada is in the most dangerous sector doing the most dangerous of exercises. With the exception of the Dutch, British and Americans, all other NATO forces have simply stayed in posts and not moved about and have little if any interaction.

Canada is a sitting duck in its operations because when it patrols any place it patrols can be booby trapped to blow up as they travel along. They are literally sitting ducks when they patrol in their armed carriers or in convoys.

[Rue]

I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory.

We are at war, our soldiers are experiencing death and dismemberment in our names as Canadian citizens. The only moral option is to bring the conflict to a victorious end as quickly as possible to prevent as much harm as possible to our own soldiers.

Do you see another viable solution?

Can't happen for several reasons;

1-Canada does not have the military strength or capacity to engage in such a war;

2-the physical geography of Afghanistan makes it impossible to conquer or control;

3-Canada has sent in a conventional army to try address guerilla warfare and so necessarily can not win and at best can engage in a temporary series of battles or a temporary occupation with limited theatres of confrontation.

Afghanistan can not be physically controlled by a conventional military occupation force. All that happens is the soldiers stay isolated and locked in their forts.

When a conventional army such as Canada's then engages in hit and run missions by temporarily leaving its fort is no different then what happened to the US Army in Vietnam or Iraq or the Russians in Afghanistan or Chechyna or East Europe or the British in India, French in Indochina, Duch in Indonesia or Beglians in the Congo etc., the occupying nation can not financially maintain the occupation and supply lines without eventually going bankrupt.

The attempt to secure Afghanistan to build a pipeline that can travel through it has proved physically impossible. Pipelines are not defensible by conventional armies. They are too long, too isolated and too out in the open not to mention too easy to blow up.

The only way to fight terrorists is with quick moving, specially trained commando units that do not have a known site of residence and who are continuously on the move and can strike from anywhere at anytime and whose movements can not be watched and predicted as is the current case.

To properly combat terrorists would require a united nations force of many nations willing to commit to these commando units and be willing to travel to many nations and follow the terrorists wherever they go.

That will not happen.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Rue

[capricorn]

Yes that's when Canadians or Ottawa I should say, agreed that we should give up.

IMO, this idea that Canada is "giving up" in 2011 is a notion shared by people, Canadians and foreigners, who didn't agree with the mission in the first place. They abhor war regardless of fact that military action is "just" in some situations. Those minds will not change regardless of decisions taken by our Parliament on our involvement in that land. It is their right to oppose and I respect that.

Then there are those Canadians and foreigners observing developments in Afghanistan who realize that Canada, a sparsely populated country in relation to its geographic size, has consistently punched above its weight throughout our short history. These are the people who don't see Canada's scheduled pullout as dishonourable and who praise our accomplishments while mourning the loss of our finest. These minds will not change because they believe in the quest to bring a better life to an oppressed people. They marry this goal with the wider objective of keeping us safe from those plotting against us and who would bring their fight to our homeland.

This division of opinion is not surprising. Human nature is what it is and we must accept it.

I am saddened to the core for our losses. Every time I hear of casualties, I'm thinking 2011 seems so very, very far away. I don't want an extension of our involvement in this mission under any circumstances. We have given much and sadly will give more before it is over. Let our troops come home in 2011 with their heads held high. They answered our country's call and did their best under the worst of conditions against formidable odds.

As a final thought, we must not let them down when they come home. Let's see some action about providing them with the necessary support and services to attend to their wounds, physical and emotional that they and their families so desperately need now and in the future. I would hope this is one objective that Canadians for and against the Afghan mission could agree on.

[Progressive Tory]

"I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory."

Stephen Harper was so eager to please George Bush that he allowed our troops to enter into combat without weighing the consequences. He and he alone 'accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil'. Canadians were blind sided and only realized what he had done when the casualities increased. The initial invasion was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and we thought we were going after Bin Laden.

We don't have the soldiers, equipment or experience to anhilate any army. Like any country that has been invaded, the Resistance is strong and just as patriotic as the French Resistance who helped drive out the Nazis. We have to accept that.

Most Canadians have no idea what the hell we're doing there. We can't set a realistic date for withdrawal, but have to resume our Peacekeeper role and let the US and Afghan Governments negotiate peace; or get out.

The only winners are the War Profiteers and drug dealers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Stephen Harper was so eager to please George Bush that he allowed our troops to enter into combat without weighing the consequences. He and he alone 'accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil'. Canadians were blind sided and only realized what he had done when the casualities increased. The initial invasion was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and we thought we were going after Bin Laden.

..that would be Chretien...then Martin.

We don't have the soldiers, equipment or experience to anhilate any army. Like any country that has been invaded, the Resistance is strong and just as patriotic as the French Resistance who helped drive out the Nazis. We have to accept that.

The French Resistance had a lot more help from the very same Allies.

Most Canadians have no idea what the hell we're doing there. We can't set a realistic date for withdrawal, but have to resume our Peacekeeper role and let the US and Afghan Governments negotiate peace; or get out.

Ah yes....."peacekilling" with Canadians equally not knowing what the hell is going on.

[capricorn]

Our casualties in Afghanistan are high because no amount of training can prepare Canadian troops to deal with the realities on the ground in Afghanistan. Our soldiers learn as they go and this learning sometimes ends in tragedy.

This War is About Afghans

On the morning of April 17, the Haji Beach crew geared up just after dawn and went out on a foot patrol of the local villages. The basic idea was to stop and talk to whomever they could find in an attempt to gather information on the local situation.

Tagging along with the patrol was Sergeant Ole Frederiksen, a tactical CIMIC operator from the Provincial Reconstruction Team. CIMIC, which stands for civil-military co-operation, are the guys on the front lines of the hearts and minds effort and are charged with kick-starting the local economy through small projects. “We go out and initiate projects, basically try to help the locals,” said Frederiksen. “Here (in Haji Beach), more than anything, you’re just trying to get the people on board. What I was taught in (Canada), and what I’m doing in reality, is different. This is not a permissive environment at all. If I could just hire some locals to help out on some projects around the PSS, sort of bring them into the fold, pay them, let them see that we’re not bad guys, then hopefully they’ll get on board. And quite honestly we will gain information from them. If you look at eastern Panjwai, that’s what’s happening. I mean, it’s not any safer, there’s still Taliban there, but there’s a lot of locals there who can sing the benefits of what we bring. In eastern Panjwai, there’s a high school that’s operational. We’re working on building a clinic there. There are all these things, people are able to live there. Here, it’s just not happening right yet.

“The people really don’t trust us. And why would they? The last time they saw Canadian soldiers come through here they were shooting and blowing things up, that’s a reality. It took a long time for eastern Panjwai to get to the point it is now, and it’s going to take a long time for this area. They have to see us on a daily basis, talk to us. Right now they have no real reason to trust us. And there are a lot of rumours. The other day when we were out we heard the rumour that ISAF was bombing innocent farmers. The insurgents love that sort of stuff. It’s not true, but they will take an actual event and twist it. That’s part of the job, to make sure they know we’re here to help and that we’re not an occupying force. They have to be told that we’re not going to shoot them.”

During the patrol, Frederiksen did his best to talk to everybody he encountered. He talked to farmers and children and women and he heard the same story again and again. The Taliban are here at night, they don’t like us helping you, they burn the schools, they plant bombs and then they run back north of the river. “They are thieves,” said one man.

At PSS Haji, the Canadians are paired up with Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP), a group of theoretically well-trained Afghan police from outside of Kandahar province. While co-operation is developing, mistrust and even outright hostility still exists. Several of the Canadian soldiers expressed the belief that many Afghan forces, both police and army, made local agreements with enemy fighters which consisted basically of: ‘if you don’t attack us, we won’t attack you.’

However, not all the problems are merely rumours. In one potentially dangerous incident at Haji Beach, a Bravo Company soldier made a fart joke that proved so offensive to the ANCOP that the aggrieved Afghan reached for his weapon and, for a few brief moments, it actually looked like armed violence was going to break out.

http://www.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php...tan-haji-beach/

This is not a conventional war. In this sense, soldiers and indeed military leaders are learning its intricacies daily. Imagine trying to work with ethnic police that could turn against you at a moment's notice. Imagine not being able to tell friendlies from enemies. Our soldiers are like birds on a wire. One false move (or word) and they all fall down.

[ToadBrother]

"I am suggesting that we have accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil and it is the duty of the government to now prosecute that conflict to victory."

Stephen Harper was so eager to please George Bush that he allowed our troops to enter into combat without weighing the consequences.

I can see someone getting wrong who our third Prime Minister was, or what the capital of the Yukon Territory, but come on, to screw this up is beyond idiotic.

It was the Liberals who put the troops in Afghanistan.

He and he alone 'accepted the responsibility of conducting an aggressive military operations on foreign soil'.

You mean toppling a pack of religious fanatics that were only recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by two or three nations.

Canadians were blind sided and only realized what he had done when the casualities increased. The initial invasion was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and we thought we were going after Bin Laden.

We were, because that's where he was, and probably still is, except when he jumps over into Pakistan.

We don't have the soldiers, equipment or experience to anhilate any army.

Which is pretty sad, when you think that half a century ago we were among the best trained and renowned armies in the world, before that most worthless of exercises; "peacekeeping".

Like any country that has been invaded, the Resistance is strong and just as patriotic as the French Resistance who helped drive out the Nazis. We have to accept that.

If you think the Taliban are a resistance movement then it's little wonder you're so thoroughly confused about who got us in there.

Most Canadians have no idea what the hell we're doing there. We can't set a realistic date for withdrawal, but have to resume our Peacekeeper role and let the US and Afghan Governments negotiate peace; or get out.

The only winners are the War Profiteers and drug dealers.

And the rest of the world, which is keeping what was essentially one big terrorist training camp from vomiting any more fanatics into the wider world.

[eyeball]

IMO, this idea that Canada is "giving up" in 2011 is a notion shared by people, Canadians and foreigners, who didn't agree with the mission in the first place. They abhor war regardless of fact that military action is "just" in some situations. Those minds will not change regardless of decisions taken by our Parliament on our involvement in that land. It is their right to oppose and I respect that.

IMO this idea that we're engaged in a just action is repulsive. We're engaged in imperialism and I have zero respect for anyone who says otherwise.

Then there are those Canadians and foreigners observing developments in Afghanistan who realize that Canada, a sparsely populated country in relation to its geographic size, has consistently punched above its weight throughout our short history. These are the people who don't see Canada's scheduled pullout as dishonourable and who praise our accomplishments while mourning the loss of our finest. These minds will not change because they believe in the quest to bring a better life to an oppressed people. They marry this goal with the wider objective of keeping us safe from those plotting against us and who would bring their fight to our homeland.

These people must also think western meddling in the affairs of other countries, the root cause of this confict, is a noble honourable thing to do. They should be deeply ashamed of themselves but instead they're proud.

This division of opinion is not surprising. Human nature is what it is and we must accept it.

I refuse to accept this division of opinion in the absence of a referendum, especially when this shameful action is being perpetrated in my name.

I am saddened to the core for our losses. Every time I hear of casualties, I'm thinking 2011 seems so very, very far away. I don't want an extension of our involvement in this mission under any circumstances. We have given much and sadly will give more before it is over. Let our troops come home in 2011 with their heads held high. They answered our country's call and did their best under the worst of conditions against formidable odds.

Perhaps they should stay in their barracks like our allies do so they don't get hurt.

As a final thought, we must not let them down when they come home. Let's see some action about providing them with the necessary support and services to attend to their wounds, physical and emotional that they and their families so desperately need now and in the future. I would hope this is one objective that Canadians for and against the Afghan mission could agree on.

I'd agree if we were talking about conscripts but in the case of volunteers for this travesty, I suggest they do some deep soul searching myself.