Canada's NATO allies let down Canadian troops: British MP

[Lost_Warrior]

Canada's NATO allies let down Canadian troops: British MP


Kevin Dougherty, Montreal Gazette
Published: Wednesday, November 15, 2006
QUEBEC -- A British Labour MP praised Canadian troops yesterday for their “superb gallantry and valour” in Afghanistan, but said they were let down by their NATO allies.

Frank Cook is one of 340 parliamentarians from countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who have gathered here this week for the NATO parliamentary assembly.

He recalled the wave of shock that went through a NATO delegation in Kabul last May on news that Capt. Nicola Goddard, of the 1st Royal Canadian Horse, had been killed early in the Panjway campaign.

Goddard is the senior Canadian officer killed to date in Afghanistan and the first Canadian woman to die in combat since World War II.

After the Canadians drove the Taliban from safe havens in Panjway, killing about 200 of the enemy, Cook said, Canada sought help from its NATO allies with troops already in Afghanistan to consolidate the gain.

“Five NATO countries refused,” he said, explaining they invoked “national caveats,” defined by their legislators to limit the scope of their commitment to the Afghan mission.

Canada took 12 of its 42 fatal casualties in Afghanistan to date in the Panjway campaign, Cook noted.
Canadian Maj.-Gen. Joe Hincke said the issue of “national caveats” is the subject of ongoing discussions within NATO.

“I can’t say much more,” Hincke said, adding that it was an issue of national sovereignty involving “nations’ blood and treasure.”

“That is the reality of operations in a NATO environment.”

Laurie Hawn, a Conservative MP from Alberta, agreed with Cook.

“It is profoundly disappointing when something like this happens,” Hawn said.

Hincke said training Afghan National Army troops to relieve NATO would be a better way to use resources.

Ran Cohen, a Meretz member of the Israeli Knesset, asked Hincke how NATO troops can distinguish between the Taliban and the civilian population.

Hincke said the task is difficult and will take time, but what Canada is trying to do in Afghanistan is to offer civilians an alternative, so the Taliban will be isolated.

And that means showing NATO is committed and will not leave in the short term, he added.

“It takes time and there will be setbacks, but that’s the way to go,” Hincke said.

He reminded delegates that Afghanistan has been devastated by nearly 30 years of war, leaving the country will little infrastructure.

The country is also divided by tribal loyalties, making it difficult for the central government to establish its authority.

“It’s going to take a long time to put it back together,” he said and the first step is establishing hope by creating a stable environment.

In the absence of economic alternatives, the Afghans are turning to drugs as a cash crop, growing marijuana and poppies used to make heroin and opium.

“There needs to be an alternate economy,” Hincke said, suggesting vineyards.

http://canadaka.net/link.php?id=15928

 

[Mike Baker]

Long time comming, but words will not do it. Other nations need to step it up in A-Stan, fight more. Help us more in the fight againts the Taliban. Im not saying that other countries there are not fighting, but they need to do more in my opinion.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Just a question, but when the CF deployment was mandated to Kabul during the initial ISAF deployment, had the US asked for our help in the fight, do you think our government would have said yes and send troops south?

 

[youravatar]

I think they would have. Canada is always there to come to the aid of out allies in theatre.

 

[dglad]

Just a question, but when the CF deployment was mandated to Kabul during the initial ISAF deployment, had the US asked for our help in the fight, do you think our government would have said yes and send troops south?

Not really the point.  This is a NATO mission and, theoretically at least, all NATO partners have a vested interest in its success. 

The situation was quite different during our OP ATHENA.

 

[3rd Horseman]

It is a UN mission being executed by NATO at the current time. Yes they (NATO) would have a vested interest in the outcome. NATO has always been a difficult animal. I would suspect some are in the club only due to the fact that back in the day they were looking down the barrel of a Russian army. Now that those days have passed I would suggest some Nations are slowly moving towards other beliefs.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Interesting point.

 

[youravatar]

I concur. Are they moving farther left, anti-western? Or just don't have ANY vested interest in Afgahnistan.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I think it is a combination of left and no vested interest in A Stan. Some of those nations don't have a vested interest in anything other than a hedonistic lifestyle which appears to be left leaning. Just look closely on how easily they gave up their own countries in the big one and you have your answer. In the case of the Dutch I think they are still feeling nationally guilty and indebted to the west for helping them in WW2. That will ware off soon.

 

[dglad]

Hence my using the term "theoretically".  NATO, like most international institutions today, is evolving even as we speak.

 

[Journeyman]

.....all of which, particularly the comment "Canada is always there to come to the aid of our allies," ignores the number of times, on a number of missions, where Canada has opted out - - citing "national interests."

After having negotiated mindless details prior to deploying, Canada has found it quite acceptable to opt out of further taskings on these same grounds that we're now bad-mouthing NATO allies over.

In one instance that comes readily to mind (NATO in Bosnia), Canada was asked if we could temporarily cover off a bordering sub-unit AO for 36 hours while they redeployed for a particular Op. We weren't even asked to go in harm's way, but allow another nation the flexibility to redeploy into the beaten zone. With merely SIX hours remaining before our allies commenced their op, Canada got back to them with a, "No - sorry; national caveats." We looked pretty lame.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Journeyman hit the nail on the head with what I wanted to know.  I just wasn't sure. 

 

[peaches]

Just some late night radical thinking, NATO was formed to protect Western Europe from the red hoards which no longer exist.  Presently NATO has been "sub-contracted" by the UN to conduct international operations as the UN is incapable of conducting them.  Perhaps the whole idea of NATO has run it's course.  Perhaps it's time we rethink the whole idea.  Perhaps a new alliance, Canada, US, Britian & Australia.  Perhaps Western Europe NATO could form an EU defence alliance.  Just thinking out loud, please don't jump me.  

 

[Journeyman]

Perhaps a new alliance, Canada, US, Britian & Australia.  Perhaps Western Europe NATO could form an EU defence alliance.

ABCA (and NZ) is already around as a doctrinal/technical standardization forum. France, and to a lesser extent Germany, keep trying to cobble together a non-US inclusive EuroCorps (think Dilbert meets NATO).

As I've mentioned elsewhere (but I'm too lazy to search)....while NATO remains the only alliance capable of providing coherent combat troops to most situations (there will always be a "coalition of the willing"), it has become too unwieldy to think & adapt quickly. More and more, nations are turning to ABCA and saying "what are they doing?"

All that to say.....Canada's in a good place militarily. Don't sell your stock just yet

 

[peaches]

Not selling my stock yet.  Just doing some radiacl thinking.  I currently work in North Bay involved with NORAD.  NORAD has its problems but because it's only Canada & US there are fewer folks with their fingers in the pie, easier to get things done.  I would like to see NORAD expand to include continental ground & sea defence also, and it is headed in that direction. 

I also spent time as a crewman on USAF AWACS, and we primariliy worked with US, Canadian, British and Australia forces.  We did work with other countries, but they were more interested in defensive actions only.  "We will repel an enemy attack, we will not go out and bomb the emeny airfeild before their bombers take off" sort of thinking.  The best a defensive only military can hope for is a tie game!! 

I am starting to see that ACBA are the world primary "go to" countries to get things done. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Not selling my stock yet.  Just doing some radiacl thinking.  I currently work in North Bay involved with NORAD.  NORAD has its problems but because it's only Canada & US there are fewer folks with their fingers in the pie, easier to get things done.  I would like to see NORAD expand to include continental ground & sea defence also, and it is headed in that direction.

NORTHCOM and CanadaCOM do this for the continental collective defence co-ordination for surface operations. 

ABCA is predominantly Army-focused and its Air Force equivalent is the ASIC.

 

[peaches]

NORAD is now under CANCOM & NORCOM, I know.  Does not make sense to divide the effort, army, air, & navy.  Should all be pulling together.  I am just saying, maybe it's time to set a new course, new collective defence alliances.  Nothing says we could not work with an EU alliance, we work now outside NATO with the Australians, Singapore etc...  I just think perhaps NATO days may be numbered.  :warstory: 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

.....all of which, particularly the comment "Canada is always there to come to the aid of our allies," ignores the number of times, on a number of missions, where Canada has opted out - - citing "national interests."

After having negotiated mindless details prior to deploying, Canada has found it quite acceptable to opt out of further taskings on these same grounds that we're now bad-mouthing NATO allies over.

In one instance that comes readily to mind (NATO in Bosnia), Canada was asked if we could temporarily cover off a bordering sub-unit AO for 36 hours while they redeployed for a particular Op. We weren't even asked to go in harm's way, but allow another nation the flexibility to redeploy into the beaten zone. With merely SIX hours remaining before our allies commenced their op, Canada got back to them with a, "No - sorry; national caveats." We looked pretty lame.

Very true, but that was partially driven by a lack of trust in NATO command and control and decision-making.  We were, on a number of occasions, asked to do monumentally stupid things by NATO, and it was our caveats that enabled Canada to weasel out.  Unfortunately, the leadership decided that the Army needed a short leash, and many of the caveat-related decisions had to be made personally by the CDS.  On my tour, this wasn't an issue; the DCDS or the CDS were available on very short notice.  We once turned around a caveat-related request in 15 minutes (although it was an interesting phone call).

As many here know, I loathe Eurocorps and the associated Eurotrash on operations.  If you look the world over, you won't find a more petrified, vacillating, tentative, politically-motivated organization anywhere.  "Dilbert meets NATO" is very kind indeed.  Needless to say, I'm hardly surprised that they've refused to deploy to KAF.  Armies that can't put together an effective QRF or operations centre (but that are more than equipped to set up a nice bar) can hardly be expected to undertake combat operations.

 

[Good2Golf]

...Needless to say, I'm hardly surprised that they've refused to deploy to KAF.  Armies that can't put together an effective QRF or operations centre (but that are more than equipped to set up a nice bar) can hardly be expected to undertake combat operations.

...or build a nice terazzo patio/garden in front of KMNBHQ... 

 

[Journeyman]

ABCA is predominantly Army-focused and its Air Force equivalent is the ASIC.

Don't let the pretty colours fool you (I don't think he's getting enough sleep, or vitamins, or something  ); those are actually links to their websites - have a look if you're interested.

On my tour, this wasn't an issue; the DCDS or the CDS were available on very short notice.  We once turned around a caveat-related request in 15 minutes (although it was an interesting phone call).

Ack, and concur. I just wanted to add some reality to the "Canada's always been there" crew.