Terrorized by 'War on Terror'

[GostHacked]

Because Canada doesn't have a military budget as large as the American's.

America also has much more manpower than the Canadian Forces if you didn't know.

Nice try....but regardless of force size, why didn't Canada commit more of it to Afghanistan if so important compared to Iraq? Where were the tactical aircraft (CF-18s)? Why ony 2,000 - 2,500 troops, and only after NATO rotation, from a force structure of about 62,000 active and 27,000 reserve?

If one uses such logic, be prepared for hard questions.

One difference, Canada did not enter the war with Iraq. Canada stayed home. So your argument dies right here. Comparing how many troops Canada sent to Iraq? None.

[bush_cheney2004]

One difference, Canada did not enter the war with Iraq. Canada stayed home. So your argument dies right here. Comparing how many troops Canada sent to Iraq? None.

No...you have actually bolstered my argument. Thank you.

[Canadian Blue]

Force levels have fluctuated with mission and rotation...from early JTF2 to ISAF to forward engagements in the south. More criticism is due NATO partners that won't permit combat missions for their deployed forces or have very limiting ROE's. Easier to just blame the Americans and their adventure in Iraq.

Thats because America focused most of their resources on Iraq instead of Afghanistan where OBL and Al Quieda was actually in. I still find it funny how a country who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 somehow is worth more effort than the terrorists who actually did it.

Nice try....but regardless of force size, why didn't Canada commit more of it to Afghanistan if so important compared to Iraq? Where were the tactical aircraft (CF-18s)? Why ony 2,000 - 2,500 troops, and only after NATO rotation, from a force structure of about 62,000 active and 27,000 reserve?

If one uses such logic, be prepared for hard questions.

Because not all of our equipment is suited to Afghanistan, a perfect example of this is the Leopard tanks.

As for why only 2,000-2,500 troops, easy enough, because thats the most we can offer. That is unless we extend tours for our soldiers. As well before going on tour troops need to be trained, and there is currently a shortage of training staff in the CF.

Reserve doesn't really count, since they are a volunteer force and in this current conflict can't be forced to go overseas.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because not all of our equipment is suited to Afghanistan, a perfect example of this is the Leopard tanks.

As for why only 2,000-2,500 troops, easy enough, because thats the most we can offer. That is unless we extend tours for our soldiers. As well before going on tour troops need to be trained, and there is currently a shortage of training staff in the CF.

Reserve doesn't really count, since they are a volunteer force and in this current conflict can't be forced to go overseas.

OK..I'll play along. Do you think all US forces are "suited" for Afghanistan. Are you aware that a portion of US forces were already deployed for many other missions around the world before the invasion of Iraq?

US reserves and National Guard were deployed and extended....why not Canadian Forces if the mission was so important compared to Iraq? Why was the force level not at 2,000 from the 'git go?

[ScottSA]

So then you agree that in the last 5 years with the current budget and resources we couldn't have done much else correct?

Here we find CB stumbling around attempting to see just how much egg his face will accomodate. Let's see, 19,500 reg forces and 16,000 reserves for a total of 35,500. Given that sharp end forces amount to 10% or so in most theatres, that means we have around 250 sharp end forces in Afghanistan at the moment, although maybe a tad more since the US is doing most of the supply tail stuff that we can't do. Sounds like we're stretched to the max. I wonder how we ever managed to raise 1.1 million to fight in WW II, when we had about a third of the population, eh wot?

Then, CB attempts to perch a couple more eggs atop his nose by citing the Leopards as "unsuited" to Afghanistan. The Leopards are unsuited to the battlefield, not Afghanistan. They double as ovens in Afghanistan, just as they'd double as iceboxes in the "brutal Afghan winter", but in point of fact they are suited for nothing more than progressing in stately fashion with spiked guns down Portage Avenue in a military parade on a suitably mild day, if we every had those kinds of things anymore, or sitting outside some forgotten armoury with their guns pointed skyward in remembrance of the Beatles, who were just becoming famous as they rolled off the assembly line. The Leopards are prime examples of how previous governments have so degraded the Canadian forces that we are the laughing stock of Nato. The people standing under our helicopters in flight are in more danger than the enemy, what with a 50/50 chance of them accidentally landing terminally fast. Our submarines manage to defy physics and burn down, our planes are asked politely to sit out Nato exercizes since they are a couple generations behind everyone else, our ships should be mothballed or turned into reefs, which they often are by accident, and now our tanks are producing well done crews, but little else.

[M.Dancer]

So then you agree that in the last 5 years with the current budget and resources we couldn't have done much else correct?

Here we find CB stumbling around attempting to see just how much egg his face will accomodate. Let's see, 19,500 reg forces and 16,000 reserves for a total of 35,500.

Are you rerering to land forces only?

either way, in afghanistan the 10% rule doesn't apply like it used to...many non conmabtant roles are no out sourced to private sectors so things like kitchens and latrines (my uncle was in a combat latrine unit in italy during the war, no shit, he was an engineer....)

If we have 2000 in afghanistan, perhaps 50% might take the field at any given time....

[ScottSA]

So then you agree that in the last 5 years with the current budget and resources we couldn't have done much else correct?

Here we find CB stumbling around attempting to see just how much egg his face will accomodate. Let's see, 19,500 reg forces and 16,000 reserves for a total of 35,500.

Are you rerering to land forces only?

either way, in afghanistan the 10% rule doesn't apply like it used to...many non conmabtant roles are no out sourced to private sectors so things like kitchens and latrines (my uncle was in a combat latrine unit in italy during the war, no shit, he was an engineer....)

If we have 2000 in afghanistan, perhaps 50% might take the field at any given time....

If that's true, it simply makes CB's argument the more farcical. Although I have a hard time imagining a 50% sharp end... They outsource kitchens?

[M.Dancer]

If that's true, it simply makes CB's argument the more farcical. Although I have a hard time imagining a 50% sharp end... They outsource kitchens?

Absolutely. Why spend tens of thousands of dollars training a soldier....to be a cook, or a latrine maintenance worker? Halliburton may be more expensive in the short view, but no one joins the PPCLI to sling hash......