Thread: Canadian to assume leading role in Iraq war

Canada is keen on some 'hands on' training in guerilla warfare? Good for them.

To my mind, they should have stuck around in Afghanistan and got some effective conclusion there instead.

Sir,

BGen Natynczyk is only one man. I don't know how much anti-guerrilla experience he would get being stuck at III Corp's HQ.

Canada is committed to the ISAF in Afghanistan for at least one year. Frankly, Sir, we are not the best army for this type of operation. We lack the counter-insurgency expertise, let alone the experience for this type of operation. It's not even peacekeeping as much as Ottawa would like to tell the Canadian public. I have severe reservations in trying to impose a Peacekeeping mandate on an insurgency operation. That's one of the reasons why we lost two soldiers because of this woefully lack of competence in judgement and execution.

Afghanistan, Sir, needs a Stalin or a Hitler or even a Saddam to first unite the country and drag it forward into the 20th Century, most likely kicking and screaming. Until someone destroys the warlords, the country will forever be in dire straits. The Taliban were not the people to do this. Their vision was not progress.

Colonel,

I have not been to Afghanistan, but I understand the tribal psyche. Its a hell hole to be there to apply western standards of what you call 'civilisation'.

Their 'civilisation' is tribal loyalties like the Omerta. Now see what you have landed yourself into!

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Afghanistan, Sir, needs a Stalin or a Hitler or even a Saddam to first unite the country and drag it forward into the 20th Century, most likely kicking and screaming. Until someone destroys the warlords, the country will forever be in dire straits. The Taliban were not the people to do this. Their vision was not progress.

You know what happens when you have a Stalin or a Hitler? You have a war, which means that we'd just be giving back all the gains in Afghanistan. So, we can invade it again in ten years. I say we stick it out and fight now. Defeating the terrorist in Afghanistan isn't going to be any easier in ten years.

Leader,

We have been fighting the terrorists for a long, long time. Its a long haul. The US and the West does not have the patience to last it out nor the stoic to take all the deaths that is inevitable.

You can't use hi tech weapons either to kill guerillas who are there and yet one doesn't know his/ her presence.

Further, fighting terrorist for one's OWN land is different than fighting and dying for somebody else's land.

Securing Afghanistan will cost NATO billions, top general warns
Vice-commander wants to stay until terrorists are routed

Cristin Schmitz
The Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press


November 24, 2003

Canadian Forces Pte. Frederic Sabourin, left, and Pte. Jason Legros search for mines yesterday on the road near Kabul where two Canadian soldiers were killed Oct. 2. 'We all feel, quite frankly, emotional about what happened to Sgt. (Robert) Short and Cpl. (Robbie) Beerenfenger," said Maj.-Gen. Leslie. 'But there's a time for icy cold logic ... and the battalion has to be able to patrol down there.'
CREDIT: Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press

KABUL -- Canada's top soldier in Afghanistan says NATO nations must be prepared to send thousands more soldiers and spend billions more over the next decade if Afghanistan is to be put on a secure and stable footing.

In a wide-ranging interview the day before he left Kabul for his mid-tour home leave, Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, vice-commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul, also threw his strong support behind comments made last Friday by NATO Secretary General George Lord Robertson.

Lord Robertson suggested the military alliance must first succeed in routing terrorism in Afghanistan before responding to heavy U.S. pressure to send troops to Iraq. To cave in to American demands, Lord Robertson warned, would result in "two half-baked operations."

Acknowledging that as a soldier he is not supposed to wade into the political arena, "but what the hell," Maj.-Gen. Leslie stressed his own conviction that Canada and NATO "made the right choice in coming to Afghanistan."

"For the entirety of the 19 members in NATO it doesn't mean that they all have to focus exclusively on Afghanistan -- whether or not they want to send some of their troops and assets to Iraq, that's their business," Maj.-Gen. Leslie said Saturday.

"But I would hope to see NATO in Afghanistan for as long as the Afghan Transitional Authority wants us, and I would suspect that will be anywhere between five and 10 years."

Fielding a reporter's questions from the turret of a LAVIII on a mission high into the Afghan hills near Kabul to blow up an abandoned Soviet T55 tank packed with artillery shells and rocket-propelled grenades, a relaxed Maj.-Gen. Leslie revealed for the first time the potential contours of Canada's role in Afghanistan after Operation Athena, its current one-year, 2,000-soldier mission within ISAF, ends next August.

Asked to describe his own personal best-case scenario, Maj.-Gen. Leslie responded: "I would say we should continue to focus some effort in Kabul, but after August I think strong consideration should be given towards supporting the NATO mandate outside of Kabul."

As part of an expanded ISAF next year, the alliance is looking at creating provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs, that consist of between 50 and 450 infantry soldiers, combat engineers and civilian experts to restore roads, water, electricity and other essential infrastructure in the 31 provinces outside the capital.

Maj.-Gen. Leslie called one or more PRTs a "good" option for Canada's future participation in the war-devastated country.

"We were sent here to make a difference and in the absence of any other coherent strategy, I think provincial reconstruction teams are definitely something that we should be thinking about really hard."

There will soon be a dozen PRTs in Afghanistan. Most are American-sponsored, but Germany, Britain, and New Zealand have also fielded teams.

Although the United States has emphasized that the main aim of its teams is to promote stability via small-scale, local development work, Maj.-Gen. Leslie says he personally favours a more robust mandate for a future PRT, should Canada decide to send one.

"There are two philosophies and the philosophies are not necessarily mutually exclusive," he explained. "The first philosophy is that the provincial reconstruction team should do just that -- it should provide a certain degree of reconstruction, a certain amount of aid money administered by military officers or civil affairs experts.

"The other philosophy is that the provincial reconstruction team is maybe misnamed," he said.

"It's more a provincial 'security' team -- and you send in well-trained soldiers and they provide an umbrella of security to allow a certain amount of reconstruction to occur." He said that would give international organizations, or non-governmental organizations "a safe umbrella under which they can operate."

"I would see the optimum model more security-heavy than reconstruction-heavy, and try to use the typical Canadian art of compromise and getting along with people to bring in international organizations, NGOs and other organizations to do the actual reconstruction."

Maj.-Gen. Leslie said the most difficult moment for him personally since NATO took over command of the UN-authorized peace-support operation in Kabul Aug. 11 was the death of two Canadian soldiers when their vehicle hit a mine in October.

"Like any commander I want to bring all my people home safe in mind and body," he said.

Using remote-controlled vehicles, prodding sticks and sometimes their bare hands, combat engineers began the painstakingly slow process yesterday of "clearing" the road near Kabul where Sgt. Robert Short and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger died.

"We all feel, quite frankly, emotional about what happened to Sgt. Short and Cpl. Beerenfenger," said Maj.-Gen. Leslie.

"But there's a time for icy cold logic ... and the battalion has to be able to patrol down there."

Is Canada still willing to pay the price of its soldiers' blood in Afghanistan? "I suspect it is," he answered, "because if Canadian soldiers weren't here, a whole bunch of innocent people would die and we are a helping nation, so arguably, this is what we do."

Maj.-Gen. Leslie lauded his soldiers' accomplishment of "keeping tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people alive. If they weren't here, I submit that the situation would devolve down into chaos ... almost overnight."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2003

Copyright © 2003 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.

As part of an expanded ISAF next year, the alliance is looking at creating provincial reconstruction teams, or PRTs, that consist of between 50 and 450 infantry soldiers, combat engineers and civilian experts to restore roads, water, electricity and other essential infrastructure in the 31 provinces outside the capital.

Maj.-Gen. Leslie called one or more PRTs a "good" option for Canada's future participation in the war-devastated country.

"We were sent here to make a difference and in the absence of any other coherent strategy, I think provincial reconstruction teams are definitely something that we should be thinking about really hard."

There will soon be a dozen PRTs in Afghanistan. Most are American-sponsored, but Germany, Britain, and New Zealand have also fielded teams.

Although the United States has emphasized that the main aim of its teams is to promote stability via small-scale, local development work, Maj.-Gen. Leslie says he personally favours a more robust mandate for a future PRT, should Canada decide to send one.

"There are two philosophies and the philosophies are not necessarily mutually exclusive," he explained. "The first philosophy is that the provincial reconstruction team should do just that -- it should provide a certain degree of reconstruction, a certain amount of aid money administered by military officers or civil affairs experts.

"The other philosophy is that the provincial reconstruction team is maybe misnamed," he said.

"It's more a provincial 'security' team -- and you send in well-trained soldiers and they provide an umbrella of security to allow a certain amount of reconstruction to occur." He said that would give international organizations, or non-governmental organizations "a safe umbrella under which they can operate."

"I would see the optimum model more security-heavy than reconstruction-heavy, and try to use the typical Canadian art of compromise and getting along with people to bring in international organizations, NGOs and other organizations to do the actual reconstruction."

Translation: small isolated garrisons. Echoes of those wiped out Soviet garrisons. And LGen Leslie thinks these current PRTs are too lightly armed? Why don't we just tell the Taliban and Al Qeida where's the best place to slit our throats?!?!?!

Have we not learned from the Soviet and British (and Persain and Turkic and Mongol) experiences? I am more and more frustrated at seeing mistakes being repeated!

These Taliban and Al Quada Forces in Afghanistan have to be one of the most incompitant forces on the planet. They can't even take on something the size of a Platoon let a lone be destructive enough to throw us out.

OE I think you give the bad guys too much credit.

Originally posted by Leader
You know what happens when you have a Stalin or a Hitler? You have a war, which means that we'd just be giving back all the gains in Afghanistan. So, we can invade it again in ten years. I say we stick it out and fight now. Defeating the terrorist in Afghanistan isn't going to be any easier in ten years.

The Soviets have been trying to civilize Afghanistan for 10 years, our soldiers were building schools, kindergardens and trying to aid the people. But the Afghans didn't care, they are warrior people, they are more or less born to fight. Ever heard of the British campaigns in Afghanistan? probably no, since you found out the meaning of what a "foreign country" is after Sept. 11th.

Lost count of his personal attacks --Moderator

Originally posted by Praxus
These Taliban and Al Quada Forces in Afghanistan have to be one of the most incompitant forces on the planet. They can't even take on something the size of a Platoon let a lone be destructive enough to throw us out.

OE I think you give the bad guys too much credit.

There is not enough information coming out of Afghanistan to inform us on what exactly is happening there. There is still a war going on there, and there are still Americans dying.
Luckily the warlords are not pissed off yet, because they are allowed to grow their drugs in peace, if they would raise their armies, then Afghanistan would heat up.

We know that the casulties coming from Afghanistan are military insignificant and aren't even close to being enough to change American people's minds.

Originally posted by Praxus
These Taliban and Al Quada Forces in Afghanistan have to be one of the most incompitant forces on the planet. They can't even take on something the size of a Platoon let a lone be destructive enough to throw us out.

OE I think you give the bad guys too much credit.

Praxus,
Afghanistan has never been ruled by outsiders...period! You cannot subdue them! ther is no single entity in Afghanistan, so defeating them is not possbile, unless you nuke them and push them to oblivion.

Khandahar Airport when the Taliban forced a Ranger coy to withdraw, the casualties sufferred at Operation Annaconda, the current battalion size ops launched by the Americans and the Afghan National Army says pretty well that the Taliban and Al Qeida are pretty effective at the coy level.

Afghan history has never been one of throwing the occupier out. They just make the cost of staying more than any benefit they could reaped from the place.

Thus far, both the Americans and the ISAF are sufficently massed that the Taliban and Al Qeida are forced to attack the small patrols, ex the minestrike that killed two Canadians.

These PRTs, however, have insufficent mass and would be tempting targets for superior numbers.

This is all too familiar. The Soviet answer was a heloborned RRF which was pretty effective in relieving garrisons under seige. This worked for them until the Mujahadeen acquired Stingers and SA-7s (from the Chinese).

The Taliban and Al Qeida don't have MANPADs. Yet.

Once they do, then these PRTs are going to suffer the same fates as those Soviet garrisons.

First of good ridens to bad rubbish, all Cretien did was talk out of the side of his mouth and his @ss at the same time. All the while he was preaching "anti-Iraq war" propaganda for his U.N. buddy's Canadians were clandestinely fighting in Iraq aside from those in Afganistan. Clearly he screwed up, because our troops could have benifited from the action in Iraq in large numbers and we would be reaping the benifits afterwords in healthy contracts in Iraq that could help pay for badly needed improvements to air army, airforce and navy chopper replcement program. Instead we get a hand shake fro Chirac a snub from bush and Cretien hoping to be the next noble peace prize winner. Thats maybe the moral highground but not exactly in Canada's best interest as all Cretien managed to do was snub a close longtime freind to get a slap on the back from France, a country that desperately wants to be as relevant as they were 200 years ago. I for one am glad to see a canadian general getting a crack in Iraq. I only hope Paul Martin is just 10 times as competent as Cretien and restores Canada's relationship with the U.S. A lot of Canadians helped stranded Americans on sept. 11th and Cretien has managed to erase that good deed by selling out to the France.