O'Connor is Such a Joker

[jdobbin]

Several weeks ago, newspapers and TV news were reporting that the Defence department was contemplating sending CF-18s to Afghanistan. O'Connor flatly lied about it although the media had paperwork to show they were preparing the aircraft to go.

Then we listened here as people went on to say that the Canada could not afford to send the aircraft, could not properly arm them, that they were not capable of doing the job.

Several days ago we heard on the news that Sea Kings (yes, those Sea Kings) were being fitted as troop carriers. O'Connor flatly denied that they were being prepared for Afghanistan. I guess we can assume they are indeed going to Afghanistan.

Certainly Canada's commitments get bigger and bigger in Afghanistan. Support for the mission is barely past a majority whereas support for Canada's foreign policy is in the minority.

It would be nice for some disclosure from Canada's Defence minister rather than blanket denials.

[Black Dog]

linky!

To be fair, O'Conner is only saying that the jets will go if NATO asks for them. And I can't possibly imagine why they would. That said, I expect we'll be paying the $2 million to the U.S. government for "deployment support" regardless of whether or not they go. I wonder how much of that will end up in the RNC's coffers....

[jdobbin]

linky!

To be fair, O'Conner is only saying that the jets will go if NATO asks for them. And I can't possibly imagine why they would. That said, I expect we'll be paying the $2 million to the U.S. government for "deployment support" regardless of whether or not they go. I wonder how much of that will end up in the RNC's coffers....

They also said that tanks would not be going. They said they couldn't imagine why they would.

[jdobbin]

Now O'Connor and Hillier are thinking of buying more tanks.

They both used to be tank commanders.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[Cameron]

I'll pipe up on this one...

Personally, I hope they send 5000 troops, and all the CF 18's, all the leopard tanks and pound the shit out of the Taliban.....With these people you need to strong arm them, there is no negotiating with the taliban. They want us out, and that is that.

The price for those Leopards is ridiculous. In no way are Leopards useless tanks. For the price that they are paying, we can use them for this mission and scrap them. In the article they mentioned a lighter more versatile mobile platform. That platform unfortunantly turned out to be unstable when firing and moving at the same time.

My brother is in the military and he has told me the Leopards are an intimidating sight and sound.

Regardless if they are suited for this mission, they are a nice touch to the troops on the ground. They will provide more firepower than the LAVIII's that are currently there.

On the other hand. The government needs to lay out a clear mission statement on Afghanistan. They need to set a time table and meet it. If that means sending in more troops and equipment to get the job done, do so.

Without security there can't be any progress.

[M.Dancer]

Wonderful news.

Generically, The Stryker Family may be a good system but the news of it's turret problems ain't news at all. The thing has a tendency to flip when it fires a broadside.

Hillier was right though, Tanks would be unnecessary in Kabul. Now that they aren't in Kabul, having a resource that can target direct fire with its massive cannon would make any trooper feel warm all over.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canadians need to make a very important decision. Our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper. We now find ourselves attempting to take on the role of Peace Maker, there is a very large difference in these two roles. There is a completely different set of operational requirements. Different operational requirements translates into different force composition. Our military is being utilized in a manner that it is simply not equiped to undertake. The decision we need to make is a political one in which the military budget is sufficient to operate in a manner that is consistant with political directives. This would represent a vast change that would have a decidedly costly impact to government spending.

Either we are at war and need to spend a great deal of money to properly equip our military or we are not at war and do not need to send our troops into battle.

[M.Dancer]

Canadians need to make a very important decision. Our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper.

That is only partially true.

Lew Mackenzie had an editorial that firmly skewers that myth.........

Peacekeeping between states that went to war and needed an excuse to stop fighting worked relatively well during the Cold War and Canada played a role in each and every mission. Mind you, at the height of our participation in UN missions during the 1970s and '80s we had a maximum of 2,000 soldiers wearing the blue beret deployed abroad in places such as Cyprus and the Golan Heights. At the same time, we had 10,000 personnel serving with NATO on the Central Front in Germany, armed with nuclear weapons, ready and waiting for the Soviet hoards to attack across the East German border. Peacekeeping was a sideline activity. We did it well, along with others such as Sweden, India, Norway, Brazil -- but it was never even close to being our top priority.

http://right-direction.blogspot.com/2006/0...ack-layton.html

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Canadians need to make a very important decision. Our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper.

That is only partially true.

Lew Mackenzie had an editorial that firmly skewers that myth.........

Peacekeeping between states that went to war and needed an excuse to stop fighting worked relatively well during the Cold War and Canada played a role in each and every mission. Mind you, at the height of our participation in UN missions during the 1970s and '80s we had a maximum of 2,000 soldiers wearing the blue beret deployed abroad in places such as Cyprus and the Golan Heights. At the same time, we had 10,000 personnel serving with NATO on the Central Front in Germany, armed with nuclear weapons, ready and waiting for the Soviet hoards to attack across the East German border. Peacekeeping was a sideline activity. We did it well, along with others such as Sweden, India, Norway, Brazil -- but it was never even close to being our top priority.

http://right-direction.blogspot.com/2006/0...ack-layton.html

You neglect to mention that garrison duty is a rather light expenditure on material. We were also an integrated component of a rather equipped superior force who were willing and able to meet our supply needs. This is decidedly different, we are basically on our own now with nobody to hold our hand.

[M.Dancer]

Canadians need to make a very important decision. Our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper.

That is only partially true.

Lew Mackenzie had an editorial that firmly skewers that myth.........

Peacekeeping between states that went to war and needed an excuse to stop fighting worked relatively well during the Cold War and Canada played a role in each and every mission. Mind you, at the height of our participation in UN missions during the 1970s and '80s we had a maximum of 2,000 soldiers wearing the blue beret deployed abroad in places such as Cyprus and the Golan Heights. At the same time, we had 10,000 personnel serving with NATO on the Central Front in Germany, armed with nuclear weapons, ready and waiting for the Soviet hoards to attack across the East German border. Peacekeeping was a sideline activity. We did it well, along with others such as Sweden, India, Norway, Brazil -- but it was never even close to being our top priority.

http://right-direction.blogspot.com/2006/0...ack-layton.html

You neglect to mention that garrison duty is a rather light expenditure on material. We were also an integrated component of a rather equipped superior force who were willing and able to meet our supply needs. This is decidedly different, we are basically on our own now with nobody to hold our hand.

No we are not basically all on our own. That is demonstratably not the case.......

Garrison duty? Is that what you would call Canada's West German Deployment? I'll get back to you...there's coffee all over my computer screen.......

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good for you! While I wait for you please referance those nuclear weapons for me. Tell me what types and means of deployment we had.

Playing war games and conducting offensive operations away from supply lines is not the same thing.

[M.Dancer]

Good for you! While I wait for you please referance those nuclear weapons for me. Tell me what types and means of deployment we had.

Playing war games and conducting offensive operations away from supply lines is not the same thing.

If you want to have a battle of wits with General MAcKenzie, are you sure you want to do this unarmed?

They were tactical battlefield nukes and they are delivered via the 105 and 155 howitzers....

who pray tell is conducting operations away from supply lines? Rommel? When did Rommel have access to NATO Chinooks?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good for you! While I wait for you please referance those nuclear weapons for me. Tell me what types and means of deployment we had.

Playing war games and conducting offensive operations away from supply lines is not the same thing.

If you want to have a battle of wits with General MAcKenzie, are you sure you want to do this unarmed?

With him or with you? You are misunderstanding what he said. You are trying to take his comments out of context to prove your point. I am merely calling you on it.

They were tactical battlefield nukes and they are delivered via the 105 and 155 howitzers....

Let me try this again so that you can understand it. Canada does not and never did posses nuclear weapons of any type. If you can prove we did or do, then go for it , you will be the first to do have ever done so.

who pray tell is conducting operations away from supply lines? Rommel? When did Rommel have access to NATO Chinooks?

Afganistan is at the extreme end of a long supply chain. The terminus of that chain is in Kabul. Our forces are no longer exclusively in Kabul, so consequently we are forced to operate outside of the supply chain. That is normal in aggressive operations, however our ability to resupply is extremely limited. Your referance to Rommel is interesting though. He did in fact operate in the absence of a supply chain for quite sometime, he also lost. Or rather his troops did after he was redeployed to oversee the coastal defenses in France and prepare for the Allied invasion.

[scribblet]

Canada has never been strictly a 'peacekeeper', since the end of the Cold War we have been involved in the 1991 Persian Gulf war; the 1993 battle of the Medek pocket in Croatia; the 1999 invasion of Kosovo; and Afghanistan in 2003.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

you might want to read this, Canada the peacekeeper? A myth that should die

[M.Dancer]

From the early 1960s, Canada provided an important part of this nuclear punch. A protracted dispute with the United States kept Canadian forces from acquiring access to nuclear warheads for several years, but for a decade thereafter Canadian fighter-bombers and surface-to-surface missiles trained to meet the Soviet threat with a storm of nuclear warheads.

http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/disp/dis009_e.html

[M.Dancer]

You are trying to take his comments out of context to prove your point. I am merely calling you on it.

How can you say that I'm taking his comments out of context when you don't understand what he is saying in the first place?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I never said that we were. I said the role that we played was that of peace keeper. Our force composition is sufficient for that role, but I believe it to be insufficient to conduct offensive operations of any scale over any sustained length of time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You are trying to take his comments out of context to prove your point. I am merely calling you on it.

How can you say that I'm taking his comments out of context when you don't understand what he is saying in the first place?

Okay I will bite, what is it that you think he was trying to say?

[M.Dancer]

He is saying that people who say that our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper are unsupported by either facts or history.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That isn't what he said at all. He said that our priority was that of a Nato obligation, and that our UN commitments were 1/5 the size of the Nato ones.

[M.Dancer]

That isn't what he said at all. He said that our priority was that of a Nato obligation, and that our UN commitments were 1/5 the size of the Nato ones.

Sure he did.......

I can only assume Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2007, to pursue more traditional Canadian roles involving mediation and negotiation, is based on a widely held myth that we are better than the rest of the 192 nations in the United Nations at the dated concept of "peacekeeping."

The other Canadian myth that might have influenced Mr. Layton's ill-timed call for our withdrawal is the oft-quoted description of Canada's policies being "even-handed," "neutral" or "impartial." We never take a stand for fear of upsetting someone. But the facts surrounding even our exaggerated peacekeeping role explode this troubling myth. For example, in the approval process preceding the very first UN lightly armed peacekeeping mission -- stick-handled by Lester Pearson through a hesitant Security Council in 1956 -- Canada voted against the British and French and, by default, sided with Egypt. We took a stand.

[Black Dog]

They also said that tanks would not be going. They said they couldn't imagine why they would.

Armor is a different story, as at least tanks would conciveably contribute something on the battlefield. Six CF-18s? Not so much.

Now O'Connor and Hillier are thinking of buying more tanks.

They both used to be tank commanders.

O'Connor also used to be a defense industry lobbiest. Incidentally, that's where many ex-military brass head when their careers wind down, so Hillier is probably thinking ahead when it comes to his procurement priorities...

Hillier was right though, Tanks would be unnecessary in Kabul. Now that they aren't in Kabul, having a resource that can target direct fire with its massive cannon would make any trooper feel warm all over.

Warm and fuzzy is fine, but are they any good for the task at hand? My impression on that tanks are classic second generation warfare weapons, designed to go after other tanks and to provide close support to infantry in operations against fixed positions and other infantry units. But the Taliban aren't fighting that kind of war.

[M.Dancer]

Warm and fuzzy is fine, but are they any good for the task at hand? My impression on that tanks are classic second generation warfare weapons, designed to go after other tanks and to provide close support to infantry in operations against fixed positions and other infantry units. But the Taliban aren't fighting that kind of war.

Surprisingly it seems the Taliban have been figyhting that way. As Napolean was want to say

"Never interupt your enemy when they are making a mistake"

The region apparently is dotted with fortified walled compounds complete with trenches that they use as bunkers. The heavy armour is ideal for approaching under fire and for directing massive concentrated and targeted fire.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That isn't what he said at all. He said that our priority was that of a Nato obligation, and that our UN commitments were 1/5 the size of the Nato ones.

Sure he did.......

I can only assume Mr. Layton's call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2007, to pursue more traditional Canadian roles involving mediation and negotiation, is based on a widely held myth that we are better than the rest of the 192 nations in the United Nations at the dated concept of "peacekeeping."

The other Canadian myth that might have influenced Mr. Layton's ill-timed call for our withdrawal is the oft-quoted description of Canada's policies being "even-handed," "neutral" or "impartial." We never take a stand for fear of upsetting someone. But the facts surrounding even our exaggerated peacekeeping role explode this troubling myth. For example, in the approval process preceding the very first UN lightly armed peacekeeping mission -- stick-handled by Lester Pearson through a hesitant Security Council in 1956 -- Canada voted against the British and French and, by default, sided with Egypt. We took a stand.

Using the available material that you have provided my statement is correct and yours is inaccurate. You seem to now want to increase the referance material good for you. But you still can't take things out of context.

The quotes you have now posted provide more information regarding what in the General's mind is or is not a traditional role for our military. My original point on this subject was the political consequence of creating the Peace Keeper role for Canadian military forces by Pearson. I stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of. In my opinion this force composition is inadequate to our political goals. The point that the General is making is that our TRADITIONAL role is not Peace Keeping but active participation in conflict. He is stating that we do take sides, and have traditionally done so.

Now I have no idea what your strategic point is here, I am not bashing the military or criticizing our military leaders what I am doing is stating that our government needs to make a decision to properly equip our troops to be able to implement our foreign policy. What we have is an underfunded military that is stretched to the limit in simply providing a few thousand troops in an effort to support our allies.

The ongoing foolishness in politics that is trying to make points on the backs of those who serve this nation by risking their lives is pathetic. My family has a long historical relationship with the military dating back more than three hundred years in this nation. I support our troops, I do not support weak kneed politicians who haven't the guts to actually do anything of risk to themselves.

The point I am so unsuccessful in attempting to make is that we need to slow down and take a few breaths and think about what we are doing. If this government wants to take a more active role in international security, then it had better convince the Canadian citizens that they need to spend their hard earned money in order rearm this nation to the extent that the government believes is necessary to provide for the security of the nation.

M.Dancer I mean you no harm, nor do I bear any ill will to you. I respect what you have posted in this forum, but I tend to be a little picky about quotes and contexts. Hell half of the problems this world has experienced have been caused by misunderstandings the other half by stupidity and greed. So when I ask questions I am really trying to understand, not rebuke or dismiss out of hand.

[M.Dancer]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.