Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bomber kills Canadian in Kabul

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    My condolences :cry
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • #17
      Gentlemen,

      I can convey your well thought words to the family and to the regt. Please let me know how you wish your message to be signed. PM if you wish.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ChrisF202
        dident the Canadians abolish their airborne troops after Somalia?

        8 April 1968 - The Canadian Airborne Regiment
        formed at CFB Edmonton, perpetuating the traditions and battle honours of 1st Canadian Airborne Battalion. Moved 1977 to CFB Petawawa

        - 1er Commando Aéroporté. Formed 1968 at Valcartier. Moved to Edmonton 1970. Affiliated 1979 with Le Royal 22e Régiment. Disbanded 1995. Successor para company formed 1996 in 3rd Battalion, Le Royal 22e Régiment.

        - 2nd Airborne Commando. Formed 1968. Affiliated 1979 with Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Disbanded 1995. Successor para company formed 1996 in 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry.

        - 3rd Mechanised Commando. Formed 1979, affiliated with The Royal Canadian Regiment. Disbanded 1995. Successor para company formed 1996 in 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment.

        1 Sept 1995 regiment disbanded (final parade 5 Mar. 1995)

        Comment


        • #19
          The loss of one good man is a loss to us all. My prayers are for you Jamie, the ones who love you and a future where you will be sorely missed.

          My condolences,
          Rob Conrad
          No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
          I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
          even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
          He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

          Comment


          • #20
            Rob,

            I've forwarded your message to the regt's support echelon with instructions to to pass onto the family through the chaplin.

            Your words do help.

            I would thank you on behalf of the regiment.

            Comment


            • #21
              Thank you for forwarding it.
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment


              • #22
                Time to go on the offensive in Afghanistan

                by Lewis MacKenzie

                Last week in Kabul, the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment took over from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment and commenced six months of helping to secure the Afghanistan capital, thereby keeping the interim government of Hamed Karzi in control – at least in Kabul, if not in the rest of the country. Their tour of duty will end in August of this year, at which time Canada will have fulfilled Chrétien’s promise to provide the bulk of ISAF’s combat power in Kabul for a year.

                Last year NATO was persuaded to take command of the ISAF mission when it was determined that Canada was unable to fulfil the previous PM’s grandiose commitment that, “Canada would take over and run the mission for a year!” Displaying an appalling naivety of things military, Chrétien failed to realize that “running” the mission, meant providing the majority of the personnel and infrastructure, including the communications, for a large headquarters, including the operation of the airport and medical facilities. When he was so advised, he sent out feelers for help and, fortunately for our international reputation, NATO came to the rescue.

                Afghanistan aspires to run its first democratic election in June of this year. Much international effort has been dedicated to making such an achievement possible. Unfortunately, things are not looking good. Karzi’s interim government is pretty well confined to Kabul, and the war lords still rule the hinterland, some with the support of the Kandahar-based, US-led coalition still tracking down the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida throughout the country. The illegal drug trade has flourished since the removal of the Taliban regime, and Afghanistan’s poppy fields have re-established themselves as the world’s number one supplier of opium and heroin (ironically, with another “liberated” part of the world, Kosovo, playing a major role in the drug’s distribution). There are strong indications that the defeated elements of the Taliban and al-Qaida, along with some new indigenous resistance elements, are joining forces in an attempt to destabilize Afghanistan even more and to disrupt preparations for the proposed election. Recent suicide attacks on members of ISAF, including the one that took the life of Canadian Corporal Jamie Murphy give some credibility to this speculation.

                NATO was keen to take on ISAF’s leadership; however, its member nations have not been lining up to take over the job of patrolling Kabul’s streets from the Canadians in six months' time. Enter the dreaded mission creep. What was announced to the Canadian electorate by Chrétien as a one-year commitment and not a day more is now morphing into a five- to ten-year Canadian military presence, if the collective opinions of those involved in the decision-making process are to be taken at their word. Major-General Andrew Leslie, the outgoing deputy commander of ISAF, has speculated that it will take up to ten years to create a safe and secure Afghanistan. Prime Minister Martin, in a surprisingly candid admission suggested we might well maintain a military strength of 500 in the post-August 2004 period.

                Much to his credit, the Minister of National Defence, David Pratt, while visiting Afghanistan last week, indicated that it was too early to speculate on the role Canada would assume post-August. A wise statement, indeed, as all too often in the past, a cap on the number of troops to be deployed to a particular mission was determined long before their role was confirmed – a common shortcoming of the UN, I hasten to add.

                There are a number of options.

                We could continue to serve with the ISAF security force in Kabul, patrolling the streets and the immediate surrounding areas. A cap of 500 would only permit a couple of hundred-man companies, plus headquarters and administration support. NATO would probably be pleased and President Karzi would be somewhat satisfied.

                We could create a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) – get used to the acronym as you will be hearing it a lot over the next few months. The plan is that PRTs, consisting of around 300 personnel and made up of engineers, medical personnel, logisticians, etc., along with a modest security element, would venture into some of the more stable outlying areas, with the support or at least the tolerance of the local war lord and help with the reconstruction of the country. There is much talk about the need for such teams, and the government will be tempted to volunteer us for such a role, as it matches the false image of ourselves as “peacekeepers” – surely the most abused and misunderstood term in the Canadian lexicon this past decade.

                We should do neither. The Rules of Engagement for both roles would lock us into a relatively passive and defensive posture. With the first option, we would continue to actively patrol in and around Kabul, and with the second, defend the folks doing the reconstruction, but in both cases, the enemy will have the initiative and come to us.

                There is a third option that I much prefer. Leave the ISAF force and move South to rejoin, yes rejoin, the US-led multinational force that we were an important part of in the period following Sept. 11, 2001. This force is conducting the war against terror in the rugged areas of Afghanistan and tracking down the cowards on their own terms. There is little risk of becoming a victim to suicide bombers out there. If someone suspiciously runs towards you in the mountains of Afghanistan, you don’t have to hesitate killing him, as you would on security patrol in downtown Kabul, thinking that perhaps he is just a young urban kid wanting some food or to say hello.

                Canada became involved with ISAF in Kabul to ease the friction with the US regarding the PM’s decision to not support their liberation of Iraq. Thanks to the quality of our leaders and our soldiers, we have done good work there. Now we have an opportunity to put our soldiers where they should be and where they like to be – on the offensive. Lets take it!

                This article appears here with the kind permission of Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie (Ret'd). It also appears in the 21 February 2004 issue of the National Post.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sir,
                  Apologize me for asking that dumb question. :doh!

                  I read the troop movement in a news article, so I thought the info is in public domain.
                  Last edited by Jay; 24 Feb 04,, 06:06.
                  A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Jay,

                    I have a self-imposed OPSEC policy not to discuss troop movements nor projections of possible operations when an actual operation may or may not be taking place.

                    The only place I would feel comfortable discussing these issues is a close room with people with high enough clearance and enough brains to keep our conclusions to ourselves.

                    While I do not have access to operational data, I may know enough to deduce the real op and revealling that can be dangerous to our people on the ground.

                    If you will forgive me, I will decline to answer your question. I will discuss the issue after the op has been completed and no further possible damage that I might do.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Colonel,
                      I was talking about this report,

                      U.S. search for bin Laden intensifies
                      By Rowan Scarborough
                      THE WASHINGTON TIMES

                      The Pentagon is moving elements of a supersecret commando unit from Iraq to the Afghanistan theater to step up the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
                      A Defense Department official said there are two reasons for repositioning parts of Task Force 121: First, most high-value human targets in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, have been caught or killed. Second, intelligence reports are increasing on the whereabouts of bin Laden, the terror leader behind the September 11 attacks.

                      .....Task Force 121 is a mix of Army Delta Force soldiers and Navy SEALs, transported on helicopters from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. The SEALs and soldiers are based at Joint Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, N.C.

                      http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2312-3087r.htm

                      Sir, I'm posting this for info purpose only, I dont seek any other info than whats presented in this report! :)
                      A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Jay,

                        My policy is absolute. While other news organization and even the Pentagon itself may release details, I will not discuss them when something even feels like pending. I will discuss them after the fact but not before and not during.

                        Even identifying a unit has its dangers to the people on the ground.

                        The most perfect example that I can think of was CNN's idiotic broadcast on where and when the 3-7Cav was when it reached its OPOBJ. CNN told the Medina Division where, when, and how many American troops were.

                        My self-imposed policy did not and will not allow me to make that mistake. If you will forgive me and please indulge this dinosaur's ancient thinking.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Colonel,
                          I understand and value your concern.
                          Also, I very much appreciate the way you denied, its a good piece of education for non-service personnel like me.
                          Last edited by Jay; 24 Feb 04,, 06:23.
                          A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It also has the added benefit of always not being wrong beforehand. :evil:

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X