Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
What is 'the bait' we're talking about?
personally I would say the bait is bringing in ground troops to Irak ... which I see as a 2 way street .... I am not really looking forward to something like that just because of what happened recently ( Afghanistan war ). But on the other side , I don't like the fact that the only ground force we have over there are special forces , and are not there to actually bring in the hammer , they are there as a training purpose , I do realize I may be completely in the dark. This is the reason why I started with PERSONALLY
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
jollyjacktar said:
This will without a doubt result in whichever party leader/anti military group standing up and shouting very angrily that we should not have any boots on the ground whatsoever (unless they're handing out parkas etc)..
And personally I'd like to hear the MND or CDS respond to these individuals and parties by asking them a question: "Would you prefer we had nobody on the ground to give our air assets an 'eyes on' view that keeps non-combatant women and children from being killed in potential airstrikes? No? Well then stfu."
But that's just me...
- Reaction score
- 3,779
- Points
- 1,160
I'm surprised that no lefty media picked up that Vance told the briefing that ISIL won't be crushed until there is boots on the ground.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
uncle-midget-Oddball said:
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
The parkas and boots are going to Ukraine.
Nothing left to send to Iraq.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
George Wallace said:
...bombs ;D
That's the real reason why the CAF is striking ISIS.... we wanted to send parkas, but since those went to Ukraine all that was left was some bombs.
John Ivison of The National Post engages in some not unrealistic speculation in this piece reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
John Ivison: If firefight with ISIS wasn’t start of combat mission, war may be yet to come
January 19, 2015 7:05 PM ET
OTTAWA — Last October, the House of Commons agreed to send “military assets,” in the form of CF-18 fighters, to Iraq to battle the Islamic State. The resolution presented by the government said Canada would not deploy troops on the ground in combat operations.
Yet in a briefing to media on Monday by Lieutenant-General Jonathan Vance and Brigadier-General Michael Rouleau, it was revealed that Canada’s 69 special forces troops have indeed been involved in combat.
Lt.-Gen. Vance said that special forces troops “neutralized” incoming mortar and machine gun fire, while on the frontlines within the last week. Special operations forces also identified targets with lasers and provided “eyes on” reconnaissance for air strikes.
Brig-Gen. Rouleau said the action was taken in self-defence, and an exchange of fire does not mean Canada has started a combat mission.
But the revelation provoked immediate accusations of mission creep, and claims that Parliament is being misled by the government: “We were told all the work would be away from the front lines but obviously that is not the case,” said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.
Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman, said in an email Monday the bulk of the special forces work is taking place away from the front lines, and that “a combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly. That is not the case with this mission.”
While the October resolution is not legally binding, the government has committed to no troops on the ground. And yet, by the military’s own admission, troops are not only on the ground, they are involved in firefights with the enemy.
The incongruity stems from the shadowy nature of our special forces’ mandate. We knew there were 69 special operations members in Iraq. We didn’t know what they were doing — quite frankly, it’s a shock to be told as much as we have been. But most informed observers assumed they were acting as frontline combat advisors to Kurdish and Iraqi forces, as well as providing reconnaissance for the air mission. This is still a long way from our experience in Afghanistan.
But there are signs that is the direction in which we may be going.
Lt.-Gen. Vance said ISIS’s advance has been halted but not defeated. A “large-scale reversal” has yet to occur, he said, and the unspoken coda is that that won’t happen without the intervention of ground troops.
He said the Forces are prepared, and preparing, to extend the mission, if they are asked to do so by Parliament.
The government has said it will return to the House of Commons to gain its support at the end of the six month period this spring, though it has no legal obligation to do so.
It seems inevitable that will happen, if only to force the Liberals and New Democrats to re-state their opposition to the mission.
But will the mandate be expanded to include ground forces?
In an election year, it would seem counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to deliberately drive up the risks and costs. The public is onside with a low-level war, in which Canada is seen to be making a solid contribution, without risking mass casualties.
But Stephen Harper has said the criteria on extending the mission will be the risk the Islamic State poses to Canada – and he believes the risk is significant.
“This is a movement that has declared war on Canada specifically and it has shown it has the ability to develop the capacity to execute attacks on this soil,” he said in B.C. this month.
Images made public at the weekend showed blindfolded men accused of homosexuality being pushed by ISIS fighters to their deaths off towers, for the amusement of a watching crowd.
They reinforced the sense that this is an evil that must be confronted wherever it rears its head — and made a mockery of the claims made by a letter writer in Monday’s National Post, who argued that if only Canada would acknowledge its participation in the Afghan war was unethical aggression, and that Israel is guilty of monstrous war crimes, it will find radical Islam becomes a “genuine friend and ally.” How ludicrous. There can be no appeasement or accommodation with such a carcinogenic interpretation of Islam.
But how far does our determination to protect our freedoms go?
The Prime Minister is obviously persuaded that we are engaged in a long conflict with militant Islam that will require resolve and more resources.
It suggests that if the special forces’ firefight did not signal the start of a combat mission, it may not be long before we are, incontrovertibly, at war.
John Ivison: If firefight with ISIS wasn’t start of combat mission, war may be yet to come
January 19, 2015 7:05 PM ET
OTTAWA — Last October, the House of Commons agreed to send “military assets,” in the form of CF-18 fighters, to Iraq to battle the Islamic State. The resolution presented by the government said Canada would not deploy troops on the ground in combat operations.
Yet in a briefing to media on Monday by Lieutenant-General Jonathan Vance and Brigadier-General Michael Rouleau, it was revealed that Canada’s 69 special forces troops have indeed been involved in combat.
Lt.-Gen. Vance said that special forces troops “neutralized” incoming mortar and machine gun fire, while on the frontlines within the last week. Special operations forces also identified targets with lasers and provided “eyes on” reconnaissance for air strikes.
Brig-Gen. Rouleau said the action was taken in self-defence, and an exchange of fire does not mean Canada has started a combat mission.
But the revelation provoked immediate accusations of mission creep, and claims that Parliament is being misled by the government: “We were told all the work would be away from the front lines but obviously that is not the case,” said NDP defence critic Jack Harris.
Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman, said in an email Monday the bulk of the special forces work is taking place away from the front lines, and that “a combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly. That is not the case with this mission.”
While the October resolution is not legally binding, the government has committed to no troops on the ground. And yet, by the military’s own admission, troops are not only on the ground, they are involved in firefights with the enemy.
The incongruity stems from the shadowy nature of our special forces’ mandate. We knew there were 69 special operations members in Iraq. We didn’t know what they were doing — quite frankly, it’s a shock to be told as much as we have been. But most informed observers assumed they were acting as frontline combat advisors to Kurdish and Iraqi forces, as well as providing reconnaissance for the air mission. This is still a long way from our experience in Afghanistan.
But there are signs that is the direction in which we may be going.
Lt.-Gen. Vance said ISIS’s advance has been halted but not defeated. A “large-scale reversal” has yet to occur, he said, and the unspoken coda is that that won’t happen without the intervention of ground troops.
He said the Forces are prepared, and preparing, to extend the mission, if they are asked to do so by Parliament.
The government has said it will return to the House of Commons to gain its support at the end of the six month period this spring, though it has no legal obligation to do so.
It seems inevitable that will happen, if only to force the Liberals and New Democrats to re-state their opposition to the mission.
But will the mandate be expanded to include ground forces?
In an election year, it would seem counter-intuitive for the Conservatives to deliberately drive up the risks and costs. The public is onside with a low-level war, in which Canada is seen to be making a solid contribution, without risking mass casualties.
But Stephen Harper has said the criteria on extending the mission will be the risk the Islamic State poses to Canada – and he believes the risk is significant.
“This is a movement that has declared war on Canada specifically and it has shown it has the ability to develop the capacity to execute attacks on this soil,” he said in B.C. this month.
Images made public at the weekend showed blindfolded men accused of homosexuality being pushed by ISIS fighters to their deaths off towers, for the amusement of a watching crowd.
They reinforced the sense that this is an evil that must be confronted wherever it rears its head — and made a mockery of the claims made by a letter writer in Monday’s National Post, who argued that if only Canada would acknowledge its participation in the Afghan war was unethical aggression, and that Israel is guilty of monstrous war crimes, it will find radical Islam becomes a “genuine friend and ally.” How ludicrous. There can be no appeasement or accommodation with such a carcinogenic interpretation of Islam.
But how far does our determination to protect our freedoms go?
The Prime Minister is obviously persuaded that we are engaged in a long conflict with militant Islam that will require resolve and more resources.
It suggests that if the special forces’ firefight did not signal the start of a combat mission, it may not be long before we are, incontrovertibly, at war.
- Reaction score
- 9,207
- Points
- 1,360
uncle-midget-Oddball said:
A most excellent retort it would be!
- Reaction score
- 9,207
- Points
- 1,360
What's everyone so shocked about? We've been at war since 2001... ISIS/Iraq is merely a campaign in this conflict just as the Taliban/Afghanistan was also a campaign. People have such short memories!
- Reaction score
- 3,779
- Points
- 1,160
RoyalDrew said:
Absolutely. Same enemy, new name. The Taliban are even losing recruits to ISIS: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/the-death-knell-for-foreign-fighters-in-pakistan
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
I wouldn't say it's a surprise as much as it a very easy lightning rod for politicians and certain media outlets.
This has gotten so much attention (and negative comments from the opposition) I believe not because of the fact that Canadians are engaged in combat..... but because of where Canadians are engaged in combat. Iraq has been tainted from a political point of view ever since Dubya's 2003 invasion which polarized opinions and political parties in Canada, and helped develop this very prevalent "America is an evil imperialist and so is Harper for standing beside them" rhetoric that we see from so many Canadians and opposition politicians in today's current climate.
- Reaction score
- 9,207
- Points
- 1,360
uncle-midget-Oddball said:
I don't think the opposition gets the fact that the dialogue/political landscape in Canada has significantly changed since then. How sick does this sound? ISIS did Harper and Co a huge favour when they killed those two soldiers because Canadians now realize, these guys don't like us and we shouldn't like them either and it doesn't matter how much the Trudeau's, and Mulcair's try and tell us otherwise. Uncle Steven realizes Foreign Policy is a big weakness for Trudeau and Co and I think he is going to make this an election issue. I think Canadians are firmly on his side in this regard.
- Reaction score
- 4,651
- Points
- 1,160
First: For Liberals, and for the entire anti-American faction in Canada, Iraq is special: 'tit Jean Chrétien stood up to George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, et al, and especially the Great Satan, Richard Perle, an especially dark bête noire for "liberals.
Second: For the government of the day,we you the CF is in combat when it is politically advantageous to be in combat, they just defend themselves when it is not politically expedient to be in combat. It's an election year, boys and girls, and power always trumps policy.
Second: For the government of the day,
It is interesting that the incident was made public at all, and perhaps there is a message there. Remember how incidents in the Balkans such as the Medak Pocket were kept quiet and how casualties were rarely announced.
- Reaction score
- 3,779
- Points
- 1,160
There's a side of me that hopes we're going to be allowed to proactively report incidents like this, so the CAF can control the details about the event and how its spun. If we release what happened, who (within reason) it happened to, and the results/actions taken, the media won't get secondhand info and paint it like a CSOR raid into an ISIS stronghold or something equally ridiculous.
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
After Medak and before now was the Somalia Inquiry. LGen Vance (et al) were senior captains/junior majors back then, and remember all too well the charade that went along with it. They understand that in the long run, it's better to be open about things, than to try to sweep away facts.Old Sweat said:
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
I love how history has been spun to make it look like Saint Jean Chrétien told them "No!", when the facts are this:E.R. Campbell said:
In 2001, he deployed a BG to Kandahar
In 2002, he said that we didn't have troops to replace those in Kandahar, so they came home
In 2003, with war looming in Iraq, he suddenly found ~2000 troops to send to Kabul (including me), complete without proper warning, equipment, training, etc, and then was able to say "We don't have the troops to send to Iraq". Later, as the war in Iraq became unpopular, the note changed from "no troops available" to "No! We won't go, because to go to war, we need UN approval...unless it's in Serbia....and unless...."
[rant]
All modern politicians are of the same stripe: same coin, different sides. They all want the prestige of being in power, and the appeal to the lowest common denominator in order to retain that power.
It's time for an absolute monarchy to rid us of the chains of careerists who have no interest in doing the right thing.
[/rant]
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
General Disorder said:
Your accurate event timeline missed a relevant point;
Preparing for supporting the US and other traditional Allies in Iraq pre Afghanistan after the first go in Kandahar'
You missed why we sent troops to Afghanistan the second time , ie: we can't be getting Canada committed to helping traditional Allies in Iraq; I know! Let's put our toe in the water elsewhere and say we are busy.
I believe some senior people saw the folly in this reasoning and were promptly sorted out.
- Reaction score
- 1,304
- Points
- 1,040
Good points. I was in a battalion that was ramping up, high readiness and all that, so that if the government of the day said "go", we would be ready.Jed said:
That's what I mean about the second mission (Kabul). "Oh, we'd go, but, we're busy...."
Similar threads
