- Reaction score
- 3,949
- Points
- 1,260
(FULL DISCLOSURE: This is from an e-zine I edit and distribute, written by one of the subscribers.)
Interesting question posed: If U.S. fast air collateral damage is causing too much hostility among Afghan civvies, why not bring in Canadian air to support our troops in a way that won't antagonize those facing Canadians?
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/13309
"Time to change the Piper: How U.S. Air Power is Hurting Canadian Efforts in Afghanistan"
Lorne Warawa
Highlights:
"When Taliban fighters retreated from open warfare in the region, they took shelter and used civilians as human shields to ward off the pressure, a tactic perfected against Western Forces by the insurgents in Iraq to great effect. The predictable result was a wholesale bombing of a town and the loss of innocent civilian lives."
(...)
"I'm going to add that if the whole thing there blows up into a full bore insurgency on the unremitting scale of the Sunni Triangle, Canadian support for the mission will crumble. Harper will face a disaster in policy directly because US firepower caused anti-Western sentiment to grow to an extent that sustained an increased number of Insurgents. Even though closer American ties will not be to blame for this, they will none the less be seen as a factor in Harper's Afghanistan policy. The opposition will pounce on the fact US firepower caused our credibility as peace-makers there to crumble. There will be a real linkage of the two factors and Harper will face a Lyndon Johnson dilemma."
(...)
"So far, Canada has had success in convincing Afghans that we are fair and there to develop the rightful Afghan government, not take their country over. That success was jeopardised by wholesale destruction. What I fear is more Canadians will have to die to kill the recruits this mess has garnished the Taliban and those Afghans who are opposed to the Government."
(...)
"First off, until we can implement change, all U.S. airpower and any other large scale support weaponry for any sector ISAF is working inmust be placed under fire control of ISAF fire controllers only - regardless of U.S. activity. That means ISAF and NATO rules of engagement are the only ones in effect. Those who are risking their lives on the ground should be the ones calling the shots - that’s fair enough for anyone ... ISAF nations should supply their own airpower as soon as possible. The Canadian, British and Dutch forces have the capability, and therefore will supply all such support. "
(...)
"They can allow US warplanes to decimate our credibility and cause more Canadian soldiers to die, or they can withdraw our forces. Or they can take a bold lead and elevate a key problem in establishing trust in that war torn country. "
Interesting question posed: If U.S. fast air collateral damage is causing too much hostility among Afghan civvies, why not bring in Canadian air to support our troops in a way that won't antagonize those facing Canadians?
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/13309
"Time to change the Piper: How U.S. Air Power is Hurting Canadian Efforts in Afghanistan"
Lorne Warawa
Highlights:
"When Taliban fighters retreated from open warfare in the region, they took shelter and used civilians as human shields to ward off the pressure, a tactic perfected against Western Forces by the insurgents in Iraq to great effect. The predictable result was a wholesale bombing of a town and the loss of innocent civilian lives."
(...)
"I'm going to add that if the whole thing there blows up into a full bore insurgency on the unremitting scale of the Sunni Triangle, Canadian support for the mission will crumble. Harper will face a disaster in policy directly because US firepower caused anti-Western sentiment to grow to an extent that sustained an increased number of Insurgents. Even though closer American ties will not be to blame for this, they will none the less be seen as a factor in Harper's Afghanistan policy. The opposition will pounce on the fact US firepower caused our credibility as peace-makers there to crumble. There will be a real linkage of the two factors and Harper will face a Lyndon Johnson dilemma."
(...)
"So far, Canada has had success in convincing Afghans that we are fair and there to develop the rightful Afghan government, not take their country over. That success was jeopardised by wholesale destruction. What I fear is more Canadians will have to die to kill the recruits this mess has garnished the Taliban and those Afghans who are opposed to the Government."
(...)
"First off, until we can implement change, all U.S. airpower and any other large scale support weaponry for any sector ISAF is working inmust be placed under fire control of ISAF fire controllers only - regardless of U.S. activity. That means ISAF and NATO rules of engagement are the only ones in effect. Those who are risking their lives on the ground should be the ones calling the shots - that’s fair enough for anyone ... ISAF nations should supply their own airpower as soon as possible. The Canadian, British and Dutch forces have the capability, and therefore will supply all such support. "
(...)
"They can allow US warplanes to decimate our credibility and cause more Canadian soldiers to die, or they can withdraw our forces. Or they can take a bold lead and elevate a key problem in establishing trust in that war torn country. "