O'Connor on the Afghan War

[madmax]

We did not go into Iraq because of the state of the Canadian Forces.

That didn't factor into the decision to increase deployment in Afghanistan.

The former Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien rejected the advice of military commanders by deciding in early 2003 to send 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, CBC News has learned.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Canada had sent several hundred soldiers to assist U.S. troops in tracking down al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. When that mission ended, senior military officers recommended that Canada send only 500 soldiers in a very limited role — but Ottawa chose instead to deploy 2,000 troops.

Lt.-Gen. Mike Jeffrey, who was commander of Canada's army, says he told the chief of defence staff that his forces weren't ready for a significant mission overseas.

The commander of the army at the time, Lt.-Gen. Mike Jeffrey, said he told the chief of defence staff that his forces weren't ready for a significant mission overseas.

"We did not have strategic lift, we lacked certain strategic enablers, certain types of intelligence, certain types of communications," Jeffrey told CBC senior correspondent Brian Stewart. "Our logistics capability was weak."

He said the announcement of Canada's plans to send a battle group to Afghanistan — made in the House of Commons on Feb. 12, 2003 — took him completely by surprise.

"I did not know when that announcement was made that the decision had been made to go," he said.

Jeffrey said there were concerns about Canada's role and the command structure of the international force that was to stabilize Afghanistan.

"I could see Canadian soldiers dying," he said, "because they weren't properly prepared. It wasn't that we weren't prepared at some level to go. It's that the risks were too high."

'Governments decide where the military goes, the military doesn't decide where it goes.'

-Eddie Goldenberg, a top aide to Jean ChrétienBut a former senior official in the Prime Minister's Office, Eddie Goldenberg, said the decision to send soldiers to Afghanistan was the right one, whatever senior officers might say.

"Governments decide where the military goes, the military doesn't decide where it goes," Goldenberg told the CBC.

[jdobbin]

Understood, but Canada took a decidedly different position on the Iraq invasion than Germany, France, or Russia. PM Chretien deftly sat on the fence by claiming Canada would follow the UN, and even proposed a compromise plan that would have resulted in war anyway after a few more weeks of inspections. Canada continued to support US/UK operations by:

1) Maintaining frigates on station (Task Force 151)

2) Leaving Canadian personnel embedded in US/UK theatre units

3) Leaving Canadian personnel at CENTCOM

4) Continuing overflight and refueling rights for US tankers and cargo airlift

5) Backfilling for US units in Afghanistan

Prior to March 2003, Canada supported sanctions and approved of Operation Desert Fox in 1998 as well as no-fly zone enforcement without UN approval.

Canada was still in support of the the U.N. mission with the frigates and CENTCOM. The country also said it would remain an ally and allow overflights.

Afghanistan was in support of a separate U.N. mission.

Canadian Forces embedded remained so as part of being an ally. Chretien said he wouldn't participate without that U.N. support but that he supported the U.S. nevertheless and wished them well.

The no fly zone, in Canada's opinion, was U.N. sanctioned.

[madmax]

I still have faith in Iraq truning out for the better. Why, because I am crazy, no, one word Bosnia!! I did 2 tours there, if that civil war could be turned around, anything is possible....

The Balkans have been a trouble zone since time began. It certainly is an accomplishment that there has been a lasting peace there. I would agree that there are similarities to compare. Both dealing with the collapse of a strong totalitarian leader. Both having Mujahideen running around cutting off heads.

Iraq is going to need more than faith. I really don't know how much more to compare it to the Balkans, but certainly the ethnic rivalries were/are prominant in both Civil Wars. I guess the difference is the method of learning how to deal with collapsing states engaged in ethnic cleansing.

Bosnia collapsed on its own accord internally with the fall of YugoSlavia. It was not touched off by external forces, such as the USSR, as happened in Afghanistan.

Iraq was touched off by external forces, whom are being blamed for invading on a lie, not fullfilling their promise of a better life for Iraqis, and are now held as the Cause of all the internal problems that face Iraq. Econonic, Political and Ethnic whether deserved or not.

I don't believe in Bosnia, that foreign forces were seen as the problem to such a degree that various factions set up a concerted effort to expell the foreign forces in daily attacks.

[madmax]

I recieved my orders to go this morning. Leave in Apr........

I know you were excited to go over again. Get all your drinking in now.

[bush_cheney2004]

The no fly zone, in Canada's opinion, was U.N. sanctioned.

OK...but clearly Desert Fox was not (military strikes with cruise missiles and aircraft at 100 sites). Nevertheless, Chretien was onboard anyway:

In Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said he supported the strike. Chretien cited Saddam's deliberate strategy, at a great cost to his country, of obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors in order to maintain the basis of a weapons of mass destruction program.

[jdobbin]

OK...but clearly Desert Fox was not (military strikes with cruise missiles and aircraft at 100 sites). Nevertheless, Chretien was onboard anyway:

In Canada, Prime Minister Jean Chretien said he supported the strike. Chretien cited Saddam's deliberate strategy, at a great cost to his country, of obstructing the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors in order to maintain the basis of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Canada still supported the air strikes under the provisions of Security Council Resolution 688 adopted on 5 April 1991.

[madmax]

However, I have said before, there's no way we could have or would have gone to Iraq. Our military simpley could not stand up toa head-on with RG div.

Our aircraft are old & outdated, they lack the modern secure radios & data link sytems. Our tanks are too old to go up against modern Russian tanks (Iraq had over 1000).

I know you are interested in this stuff. So FYI I typed this out. To flesh out above.

Trumping Saddam 1999

Any reasonable analysis of Saddams Iraq today would find that while it maintains a big bark, it has little bite. … in 1999 Iraq is all bluster with nothing to back it up.

The Iraqi army is in total disarray, capable of little more than manning security pickets along the Iran-Iraq border, in Northern Iraq (Kurdestan) and in Southern Iraq. I have visited numerous Iraqi military Barracks and have seen soldiers in tattered uniforms and bare feet. Military training is without substance, barely sufficient to convert recruits into simple soldiers, let alone provide skills in the intricacies of modern combined-arms combat……

Reduced to 5 corps the army today relies on an armored force whose centerpiece is the T-55 tank. A relic of the 1950s. The bulk of the Armored Personell carriers are likewise vintage 1950s. The few T 62 tanks and BMP armored fighting vehicles are only 1 generation newer……I have seen Iraqi transport vehicles on blocks without wheels, hoods up, and engines stripped for spare parts….This is an army that poses a threat to no one ....however the same shortfalls also Plague the Republican Guard.. enough to put down internal unrest, but not enough to match the armed forces of any of its neighbors.

Although the T 72 tank is a powerful machine, the RG suffers from the same lack of training as the reg army. Any international threat from todays RG is imaginary.

The air force has aircraft, but the shortage of spare parts … most training is taking off circling and landing, This does nothing to impart combat skills. Saddams air force could be shot out of the sky by any of the modern air forces of its neighbors.

Saddam is a uniquely Iraqi Leader. A product of regional forces… nevertheless, certain forces shaped Saddam and Iraq that to some extent would shape any Iraqi ruler….pan-Arabism, Tribalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, anti-Zionism…. While doing business with Saddam is not an attractive idea, when contrasted with the Horrors of War…, it does represent a lesser evil.

The current policy of the US to overthrow Saddam is misguided. The underlying problems will continue to exist. Saddam did not create the animosity between Iraq./Iran nor did he fabricate the Iraqi-kuwaiti border issue. He is not the source of the Arab/Israeli conflict, His Extreme positions and irresponsible actions have exacerbated these problems, but they would have arisen without him and his disappearance would solve none of them. Similarly his removal would not change the nature of Iraq…

Any military action ……is fraught with obstacles. An expanded version of the Arnold Plan would work today. If the US deployed ground troops in Iraq for the purpose of overthrowing Saddam the Number of Soldiers required would be 250,000. Such large number would guarantee victory as well as reduce casualties. The United States must be prepared to go it alone. But going it alone means just that. There is a real possibility that the United States in embarking on a major military action against Iraq might not attract any allies to its cause….The actual military campaign would be relatively short-lived.. battle for Iraq over in less than a month……

Endgame=Military Occupation, Military Government, Nation Building. All difficult… role of organized opposition would become crucial now….. The thought of American Troops putting down Civil Unrest in Tikrit is not a pleasant one. The new government would establish its own police force and its own military.

Excerpts of Scott Ritters Endgame

Murphys Law

[madmax]

I do know, from reading about the Taliban, that the US helped them come to power and also decided to take them out just like they did

If you read about the Taliban, you would know that the US didn't help them come to power.

[madmax]

The US has stopped reporting when an American soldier is killed by only saying a NATO soldier was killed.

This is not an intentional way of trying to hide something. Often you will read that a Nato convoy was attack, a Nato Soldier injured or killed. Eventually when the details are known, they are filtered to the country of origin. This has occurred with Canada as well. You may read of an attack on a NATO convoy and then in the following days news read about a Canadian Injured or Killed in an Attack in Kabul, Kandahar etc.

[madmax]

.....I did not believe Saddam was a terrorist.

Guess that depends on if you lived in Iraq or not

[tml12]

.....I did not believe Saddam was a terrorist.

Guess that depends on if you lived in Iraq or not

Well yes madmax, I like most other believers in freedom, are happy to see Saddam gone.

That being said, I believe that as long as the U.S. defends Canada, Canada has an obligation to follow, to some extent, U.S. foreign policy. Those who disagree with that must, logically in my opinion, support a complete strengthening of the Canadian military.

The Liberals surrendered Canadian sovereignty when they cut funding to our military and said to the Americans "look just defend us, we're trying to create a peacekeeping myth here!" Harper understands this and is trying to increase Canadian sovereignty by rebuilding our armed forces.

[madmax]

Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

No, it had more to do with this, and I will put it in terms that people that know Chretianise can relate to.

The proof is in the proof, and if you got good proof, its proven.

Or the US wouldn't show us anything, which was unusual for a Government looking for other Coalition partners.

The presentation by Colin Powell drove those in the Know, more away from the cause then towards it, because the evidence contained cheap frauds, and nothing substantive that Iraq had WMD.

Hardly an Argument today. It is proven.

[Wilber]

I'm afraid you are wrong.

Our frontline troops were committed to Yugoslavia. The Canadian Air Force did fly bombing missions in Iraq.

They flew 56 bombing runs in Iraq.

Wrong about the airforce, right about the rest. Weaponeer was right about us not being equipped to go up against an up to date force. Still aren't. Sending our troops to Yugoslavia freed up other capable nations to send troops to Iraq. Aside from the CF-18's we didn't have an offensive capability on an even basis. We didn't even start to get LAV-3's till 99, In Yugoslavia our M113's which date back to the 60's and 70's needed armour upgrades to do the job there. We were still using the Iltis in Afghanistan until enough people got killed in them for it to become a scandal back home.

One other reason we couldn't have gone to Iraq in 2002. The CAF had shrunk from around 80,000 trained personnel in 1991 to about 54,000 in 2001.

[tml12]

Chretien portrayed it as moral superiority and you and I both know it.

No, it had more to do with this, and I will put it in terms that people that know Chretianise can relate to.

The proof is in the proof, and if you got good proof, its proven.

Or the US wouldn't show us anything, which was unusual for a Government looking for other Coalition partners.

The presentation by Colin Powell drove those in the Know, more away from the cause then towards it, because the evidence contained cheap frauds, and nothing substantive that Iraq had WMD.

Hardly an Argument today. It is proven.

Fair enough, although I do not think that justifies Canada saying "we're not participating."

[madmax]

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

The reprocussions of PM Chretiens team calling BUSH an Moron, had little effect in Canada/US relations short of selling newspapers for an hour in the states and a week in Canada. The repercussions of Parrish, that it had less effect on her career then her challenging Martin. Both now Has Beens.

The repercussions of Harpers "Good Diplomacy" would have resulted in Canada being in Iraq. Hardly a comparison.

[tml12]

This demonstrates good diplomacy, unlike PM Chretien's team calling the Americans "assholes" and Carolyn Parrish stepping on Bush dolls.

The reprocussions of PM Chretiens team calling BUSH an Moron, had little effect in Canada/US relations short of selling newspapers for an hour in the states and a week in Canada. The repercussions of Parrish, that it had less effect on her career then her challenging Martin. Both now Has Beens.

The repercussions of Harpers "Good Diplomacy" would have resulted in Canada being in Iraq. Hardly a comparison.

It would be one thing for Canada to challenge the U.S. if Canada didn't rely on the U.S. to defend Canada. Basically, Canada is like a 14 year-old child telling its parents it knows what is best for them. While in the case of Iraq, the child was right, that does not mean the child suddenly becomes the adult.

If Canada really wants to challenge the U.S., it should build an armed forces like it had at the end of World War II...the fouth largest in the world. Until then, the U.S. will just laugh at its "junior partner."

[madmax]

Funny how you ignore Diefenbaker and Mulroney. Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?

What do you mean, " Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?."

[jdobbin]

What do you mean, " Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?."

The Chinooks were sold to the Dutch. The Dutch are using them in Afghanistan. Mulroney sold them.

[tml12]

What do you mean, " Didn't Mulroney sell Canada's helicopters?."

The Chinooks were sold to the Dutch. The Dutch are using them in Afghanistan. Mulroney sold them.

I am no Mulroney apologist, although his actions against the military in no way paralleled the Liberals.

Are you playing the lesser of two eils jdobbin?

[jdobbin]

Wrong about the airforce, right about the rest. Weaponeer was right about us not being equipped to go up against an up to date force. Still aren't. Sending our troops to Yugoslavia freed up other capable nations to send troops to Iraq. Aside from the CF-18's we didn't have an offensive capability on an even basis. We didn't even start to get LAV-3's till 99, In Yugoslavia our M113's which date back to the 60's and 70's needed armour upgrades to do the job there. We were still using the Iltis in Afghanistan until enough people got killed in them for it to become a scandal back home.

One other reason we couldn't have gone to Iraq in 2002. The CAF had shrunk from around 80,000 trained personnel in 1991 to about 54,000 in 2001.

Canada was still expected to send 2000 troops to Iraq for the second Gulf War. No one including Harper has ever said the reason that Canada didn't go to Iraq was because we couldn't spare the troops. This is a re-writing of history. People here keep saying that Chretien's decision to not send troops was because they were incapable of participating. There is no such claim out there that I know about.

As far as the Iltis, the military believed they had the right vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul. That proved to be wrong. Thankfully, once the military indicated they needed heavier vehicles, Martin go the G-Wagons sent out.

The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence.

[jdobbin]

I am no Mulroney apologist, although his actions against the military in no way paralleled the Liberals.

Are you playing the lesser of two eils jdobbin?

I'm saying that your highlighting of only Liberals in Defence cuts is telling. Mulroney famously cut many programs and misspent on others.

[tml12]

Wrong about the airforce, right about the rest. Weaponeer was right about us not being equipped to go up against an up to date force. Still aren't. Sending our troops to Yugoslavia freed up other capable nations to send troops to Iraq. Aside from the CF-18's we didn't have an offensive capability on an even basis. We didn't even start to get LAV-3's till 99, In Yugoslavia our M113's which date back to the 60's and 70's needed armour upgrades to do the job there. We were still using the Iltis in Afghanistan until enough people got killed in them for it to become a scandal back home.

One other reason we couldn't have gone to Iraq in 2002. The CAF had shrunk from around 80,000 trained personnel in 1991 to about 54,000 in 2001.

Canada was still expected to send 2000 troops to Iraq for the second Gulf War. No one including Harper has ever said the reason that Canada didn't go to Iraq was because we couldn't spare the troops. This is a re-writing of history. People here keep saying that Chretien's decision to not send troops was because they were incapable of participating. There is no such claim out there that I know about.

As far as the Iltis, the military believed they had the right vehicle for the narrow streets of Kabul. That proved to be wrong. Thankfully, once the military indicated they needed heavier vehicles, Martin go the G-Wagons sent out.

The Liberals are guilty of many things when it comes to starving the military for people and equipment but this willful re-writing of history indicating that Chretien didn't participate in Iraq was because the military was incapable of going is just not supported by any evidence.

I am not in the military but because the person who made that claim was I am willing to take his claim over yours.

[madmax]

It would be one thing for Canada to challenge the U.S. if Canada didn't rely on the U.S. to defend Canada.

The United States defends it's "interests".

If Canada really wants to challenge the U.S., it should build an armed forces like it had at the end of World War II...the fouth largest in the world. Until then, the U.S. will just laugh at its "junior partner."

I am with you on the "Build up our armed forces".

The US should laugh at its junior partner. Infact, I doubt we are even that.

So when the US is seeking our "support" in order to lend a voice of credibility to their actions, it is just as important for us not to waste that credibility by simply signing the dotted line.

If you are suggesting that if we had a larger military, then we would have "just cause" to openly challenge the US, then I disagree.

France has a larger military than us, with nuclear weapons. They were completely opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, and where neither listened too, nor laughed at.

Let them laugh at us, but after that, build up our military. Go forward with actions that will make the Military and Canada Proud, and continue to pick our foreign engagements with as much wisdom, information and knowledge as possible to set goals that are achievable.

[jdobbin]

I am not in the military but because the person who made that claim was I am willing to take his claim over yours.

And I asked for his citations as well and he didn't give any either. What he gave was his opinion.

[tml12]

I am no Mulroney apologist, although his actions against the military in no way paralleled the Liberals.

Are you playing the lesser of two eils jdobbin?

I'm saying that your highlighting of only Liberals in Defence cuts is telling. Mulroney famously cut many programs and misspent on others.

Mulroney was, in many ways, "Liberal lite." He was great on free trade but bad in others areas.

Yet, while he may have made cuts to the military, his cuts were nowhere near as bad as the Liberals who seemed to indicate that they did not even believe this country should have a military...at the very least, they certainly discouraged ordinary Canadians from signing up.