Canada Too Risk Averse?

[Meridian]

Newsworld just ran a piece about NATO being too risk averse, and that our failures in Kandahar are largely due to our refusal to accept new US counter-insurgency doctrine which demands large amounts of troops out amongst the people; reductions in armoured convoys, etc.  Less force, more risk essentially.

The direct link to Canada was effectively that while our troops are renowned for professionalism throughout NATO, and while we have a rich background of getting out and dealing with disparate civil groups,  we are not doing this at all well enough in Afghanistan.  They even quoted a Manley interview where he too stated we were too "Risk Averse" due to politics back home.

Interesting still is they raised the fact that the vast majority of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan have nothing to do with "combat missions" at all, and that by in large they have been caused by IEDs or accidents.

Seemed surprisingly balanced for the CBC?

Thoughts?

 

[CrazyCanuck]

Saw this last night, was really impressed above par program as far as I was concerned. As to the risk aversion; I've never been there so I can't comment.

 

[Osotogari]

The article had some high points, but it sounded like the usual CBC method of going into a story with a pre-conceived idea (in this case, their view that the mission is un-winnable and that we should leave) and then going after sources that reinforce their slant.  That will never change, unfortunately. 

I have worked with the USMC as well as the US Army, both with mechanized troops and the Rangers.  The Marines are more aggressive, but they have a "do as I say because I said to do it" way of doing things and they don't encourage as much initiative as we do in Canada.  Therefore the assertion that our comparatively light casualties are a sign of risk aversion is false as our corporate culture, for lack of a better term, is somewhat different. 

 

[midget-boyd91]

Interesting still is they raised the fact that the vast majority of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan have nothing to do with "combat missions" at all, and that by in large they have been caused by IEDs or accidents.

Seemed surprisingly balanced for the CBC?

Thoughts?

The Liberals don't want the CF out of Afghanistan in 2009 anymore (for now at least), so why would the CBC still want to sway the public into thinking that the CF should leave then?
Some quacks towards the left call Harper "Bush's puppet," it is my opinion that the CBC and Liberals are each others B*tches.

Midget

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I have worked with the USMC as well as the US Army, both with mechanized troops and the Rangers.  The Marines are more aggressive, but they have a "do as I say because I said to do it" way of doing things and they don't encourage as much initiative as we do in Canada.  Therefore the assertion that our comparatively light casualties are a sign of risk aversion is false as our corporate culture, for lack of a better term, is somewhat different. 

We have actually have comparatively heavy casualties (although stats can be misleading).  Criticism and introspection are good things, but let us also remember that we (the Canadians) are sitting on the Taliban political heartland.  We do have troops out in amongst the locals (and with the ANP etc). 

 

[Osotogari]

Criticism and introspection are good things, but let us also remember that we (the Canadians) are sitting on the Taliban political heartland.  We do have troops out in amongst the locals (and with the ANP etc). 

I agree, of course.  I like the USMC, especially their approach to basic training where everyone is a rifleman first. My point is that my take on the CBC report was that in trying to write the story to suit their agenda, they were somewhat comparing apples to oranges.