Story states a new book claims Canadian efforts fell short in Kandahar

[ModlrMike]

Am I starting to make too much sense that it hurts to hear? Sorry

I believe it hurts to hear for quite the opposite reason.

 

[Popurhedoff]

I was in SOTF-58 Roto 0, and now work as a PSD and Security Manager in Afghanistan and have approx 18 months on the ground here, and I can tell you I am not impressed by the Americans...

The Taliban have not won this war, but rather that America have lost it... The endless press of burning the Quran, video's of American troops posing over dead Taiban, urinating on dead taliban, Hunting civilians for sport, going on shooting rampages against defenceless civilians... and the list goes on and on.  They are the poster children of how "Not to win a Coin", and "how to lose a war."

For the most advance military in the world, the machine is so large that it cannot control themselves... they have lost the war and are not making it any easier on the other countries. It is only natural that they lash out at others rather than face the reality of where they have failed. Their arrogance is their achilles heel.

Most know that not many other armies can stand up to them head to head, so the enemy is playing by their rules and making America/NATO/ISAF pay dearly.

The Afganistan locals who I talk to daily admit that they admired the Canadian Military, they say that we are professional, fair, and helpfull, and say that the Canadians have made a difference where ever they have been. For them to admit that they actually respect the Canadian Military is a positive sign. Sure we have our short comings, but we also have the ability to succeed against the odds.

For all the might, the firepower that the Americans have, they cannot compare with the compassion, dedication and professionalism of the Canadian soldiers in the field when dealing with the local populations. I spend a lot of time directly interacting with the Afghanistan people, their Guard force, local villagers, merchants and elders. I have earned their respect and they get it right back.

Yes sir, I am not impressed with the Americans on some issues either.

Cheers
Pop

 

[George Wallace]

:goodpost:



I think you hit many important points squarely on the head with that concise post. 

 

[dimsum]

Exactly.  As I usually tell people, we are a small force so we can't do a lot, but what we do, we do well.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Support staff dont win wars or hold ground.  Combat troops do. 
I never meant to slag supprt staff/logistics.  Every military needs them...and I mean that, we NEED them.  But they will not "win" the war.

As for the figures and where I got them, the figures are drawn from that article/book.  If the figures are skewed and I am incorrect I apologize.

You sound really stupid right now and your credibility is pretty shot.

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

You sound really stupid right now and your credibility is pretty shot.
[/quote

I love how instead of refuting my point you choose to personally attack. Did I strike a sensitive nerve?

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

...and my figures were correct.

 

[fraserdw]

Regardless of who won or who lost, this war will soon be another Hollywood war to be won and won and won over and over again.  I agree with Pop's assessment of the Yanks.  They are too much of an inward looking people to practice COIN doctrine.  According to my staff college training, we are light on the ground in terms of support but we were definitely light on the ground in terms of combat troops.  Our TF should have been brigade sized with 2 even 3 battlegroups.  We should mobilized the P Res and sent 3 50-50 battlegroups and kept them there until every Pasto in Kandahar could sing O Canada in French and English!  Heck, if we mobilized the P Res and kept them there, the war would be over because those guys would know there is only one way home.  Hindsight is always 20-20.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Regardless of who won or who lost, this war will soon be another Hollywood war to be won and won and won over and over again.  I agree with Pop's assessment of the Yanks.  They are too much of an inward looking people to practice COIN doctrine.  According to my staff college training, we are light on the ground in terms of support but we were definitely light on the ground in terms of combat troops.  Our TF should have been brigade sized with 2 even 3 battlegroups.  We should mobilized the P Res and sent 3 50-50 battlegroups and kept them there until every Pasto in Kandahar could sing O Canada in French and English!  Heck, if we mobilized the P Res and kept them there, the war would be over because those guys would know there is only one way home.  Hindsight is always 20-20.

You know, we have a sarcasm smilie.
:sarcasm:

 

[Infanteer]

Our TF should have been brigade sized with 2 even 3 battlegroups.  We should mobilized the P Res and sent 3 50-50 battlegroups and kept them there until every Pasto in Kandahar could sing O Canada in French and English! 

Or maybe it should have consisted of 5-6 OMLTs, letting the Afghan government worry about Battle Grouping and Provincial Reconstruction....

 

[Jarnhamar]

I love how instead of refuting my point you choose to personally attack. Did I strike a sensitive nerve?

I didn't feel your point was even worthy of debating. If we were in the mess right now I would shush you.  Most people here have already begun ignoring you, I feel bad for you and am responding in the hopes that you pull your head out of your butt and your posting style changes because I think you could really be a decent contributor.

Trying to get a response out of me, or anyone else, with your childish "did I strike a nerve" approach isn't going to get you anywhere. All the CF members on this forum have proven themselves, trust me when I tell you getting smart or lipping off over the internet isn't going to strike a nerve with anyone.  It's just childish dude.
Start reading about the Romans and logistics then reevaluate your comment.

 

[fake penguin]

LieutenantPrivate you said your figures were correct.But like old sweat pointed out there is 4 infantry companies in afghanistan at one time.Plus correct me if i'am wrong but also a recce platoon.Is that not atleast 600 men alone?. That is only counting infantry what about CLP's and other men outside the wire.Just really curious how your figures are correct?.

 

[Infanteer]

I think the beatdown of LieutenantPrivate is done.  Anyone care to change the subject.

The Staff.

 

[fraserdw]

That 600 number comes from that Yankee reporter that had a hate on for the way Canada was running the war in Kandahar...Micheal something or other often used 600 combat troops in his reports.

 

[slayer/raptor]

While I don't agree with the comments from the American book.  I think it is time that the CF starts being critical about its efforts in Kandahar.  Yeah I think it's great that Generals go from base to base saying to all the soldiers how great of a job we did...cause its true we did great over there on the tactical level...maybe even on the operational level.  I for one saw great change in our small battle space of mushan/zangabad/bazzare-e-panjway.  But on a strategic level did Canada hold its own?  Could it be that we were too optimistic in thinking that we could hold and control Kandahar province by ourselves?  I just think that we should start being more critical of ourselves if we are to get better for next time.

As for the Americans, well many US soldiers told us on our RIP that they could never match what we did, and that in general our soldiers were much more competent and professional than they were.

 

[LieutenantPrivate]

I didn't feel your point was even worthy of debating. If we were in the mess right now I would shush you.  Most people here have already begun ignoring you, I feel bad for you and am responding in the hopes that you pull your head out of your butt and your posting style changes because I think you could really be a decent contributor.

Trying to get a response out of me, or anyone else, with your childish "did I strike a nerve" approach isn't going to get you anywhere. All the CF members on this forum have proven themselves, trust me when I tell you getting smart or lipping off over the internet isn't going to strike a nerve with anyone.  It's just childish dude.
Start reading about the Romans and logistics then reevaluate your comment.

Fair enough. Point taken mate

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was in SOTF-58 Roto 0, and now work as a PSD and Security Manager in Afghanistan and have approx 18 months on the ground here, and I can tell you I am not impressed by the Americans...

The Taliban have not won this war, but rather that America have lost it... The endless press of burning the Quran, video's of American troops posing over dead Taiban, urinating on dead taliban, Hunting civilians for sport, going on shooting rampages against defenceless civilians... and the list goes on and on.  They are the poster children of how "Not to win a Coin", and "how to lose a war."

For the most advance military in the world, the machine is so large that it cannot control themselves... they have lost the war and are not making it any easier on the other countries. It is only natural that they lash out at others rather than face the reality of where they have failed. Their arrogance is their achilles heel.

Most know that not many other armies can stand up to them head to head, so the enemy is playing by their rules and making America/NATO/ISAF pay dearly.

The Afganistan locals who I talk to daily admit that they admired the Canadian Military, they say that we are professional, fair, and helpfull, and say that the Canadians have made a difference where ever they have been. For them to admit that they actually respect the Canadian Military is a positive sign. Sure we have our short comings, but we also have the ability to succeed against the odds.

For all the might, the firepower that the Americans have, they cannot compare with the compassion, dedication and professionalism of the Canadian soldiers in the field when dealing with the local populations. I spend a lot of time directly interacting with the Afghanistan people, their Guard force, local villagers, merchants and elders. I have earned their respect and they get it right back.

Yes sir, I am not impressed with the Americans on some issues either.

Cheers
Pop

I rememebr trying to explain our operations Northern Ireland to some USMC Officers in the mid-80s. They just shook thier heads and laughed and said something like 'There is no way we could do anything like that successfully'. There are many others who agree with you, including this US Army Lt Col:

FIGHTING INSURGENTS--NO SHORTCUTS TO SUCCESS

"The good thing about Kitson’s approach to waging a counterinsurgency campaign
strictly within the rule of law is that it generally works. The downside is that such an
approach to counterinsurgency and intelligence takes a long time, and success is
measured not in any dramatic terms but in small, local, and incremental victories. It
should be no surprise that some of our intelligence personnel and leaders might
instinctively opt for the Trinquier approach with its promise of quick and decisive
results, when our military doctrine is filled with adjectives such as “rapid” and
“decisive” to describe the American mode of warfare. Yet the traditionally successful
counterinsurgency doctrines are peppered with adjectives such as “methodical,”
“systematic,” and “long-term.”

The core of the problem is that few in the U.S. armed forces have a real
understanding of insurgencies, what motivates insurgency or how to successfully
combat insurgencies. One of the primary effects of the Vietnam War upon the U.S.
military was a corporate attempt to cut the study of counterinsurgency and small wars
from the mainstream U.S. military education and training. From the late 1970s to the
1990s, the U.S. Army dealt with the failure of Vietnam by not dealing with it. For the
Army and the Air Force, the post-Vietnam doctrinal reforms consisted of a singleminded
emphasis on fighting the big conventional war."

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub666.pdf

 

[CombatDoc]

While I don't agree with the comments from the American book.  I think it is time that the CF starts being critical about its efforts in Kandahar.  Yeah I think it's great that Generals go from base to base saying to all the soldiers how great of a job we did...cause its true we did great over there on the tactical level...maybe even on the operational level.  I for one saw great change in our small battle space of mushan/zangabad/bazzare-e-panjway.  But on a strategic level did Canada hold its own?  Could it be that we were too optimistic in thinking that we could hold and control Kandahar province by ourselves?  I just think that we should start being more critical of ourselves if we are to get better for next time.

As for the Americans, well many US soldiers told us on our RIP that they could never match what we did, and that in general our soldiers were much more competent and professional than they were.

If we are discussing "strategic level", the endemic corruption within the Afghan governance and ANSF is THE major problem.  Until that is fixed, nothing that is done within the military domain is going to have a lasting effect.  Corruption and lack of improvement in the common citizens' lives is the major reason why the Taliban still have influence within AfPak.

As for your suggestion that US soldiers during the RIP stated that they "could never match what we did" and that Cdn troops were "more competent and professional than they were", that certainly does not sound like any US soldier that I have met.  One of the drawbacks of being the sole remaining superpower is that you begin to believe your own press.  While I agree that our soldiers are amongst the most competent and professional, it would be out of character for our US counterparts to state/admit that.

 

[dimsum]

If we are discussing "strategic level", the endemic corruption within the Afghan governance and ANSF is THE major problem.  Until that is fixed, nothing that is done within the military domain is going to have a lasting effect.  Corruption and lack of improvement in the common citizens' lives is the major reason why the Taliban still have influence within AfPak.

Exactly.  The more I read into it (I wasn't really "ground level" so I didn't exp it first-hand), it seems like the situation with the Taliban isn't too far unlike the Mafia, except with the added religious aspect.  Essentially, the situation was/is so crap that they "fix" things faster than the authorities can/do.

As for your suggestion that US soldiers during the RIP stated that they "could never match what we did" and that Cdn troops were "more competent and professional than they were", that certainly does not sound like any US soldier that I have met.  One of the drawbacks of being the sole remaining superpower is that you begin to believe your own press.  While I agree that our soldiers are amongst the most competent and professional, it would be out of character for our US counterparts to state/admit that.

I'd agree if the RIP was purely a line US-only unit.  However, I've met some US folks who've had exchange experience (or working in an int'l HQ) and in many cases, they hold the Canadians in high regard.

 

[Journeyman]

While I agree that our soldiers are amongst the most competent and professional, it would be out of character for our US counterparts to state/admit that.

......I've met some US folks who've had exchange experience (or working in an int'l HQ) and in many cases, they hold the Canadians in high regard.

I too have heard more than a few US military leaders speak highly of Canadian capabilities, and from knowing the particular officers, it didn't come from "the polite/political thing to say" to coalition partners.


Mind you, in a couple of instances of having seen the sausage-making process from the inside, I wasn't sure how anyone could compliment us on the final result.  ;D