Should Canada Go To Iraq?
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
LeEnfield said:
Namely? The Inuit people in the Nunavut Territory? :sarc:
DefiantCdr
Active member
The Inuit are a part of Canada... they dont want a part of Canada... they ARE a part of Canada. (Same with the French, the aboriginals, ets.)
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
DefiantCdr said:
I'm perfectly aware of that, I was just kidding, since I couldn't figure out what LeEnfield was referring to.
jackehammond
Active member
CanadianCombat said:
Dear Member,
No it would be a bad idea. Not because the US invasion in 2003 was right or wrong, but because the Canadian people do not wish to be involved militarily in Iraq. It is a lot like WW2 in 1940. President Roosevelt knew the right thing to do was for the US to declare war on Germany after the collapse of France (ie France stated it would stay in the war and form a government of exile and keep fighting). But there was no way that the American people would have supported going to war even if FDR could have gotten the votes.
A Vietnam War hero and US Senator, John McCain stated it about best: "It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to perserve through god awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us play." (Senator John McCain writing about Vietnam in the forward to David Hallberstam's book `The Best and the Brightest')
Finally, Canada is doing more than its share in Afghanistan, even standing up to other NATO members [eg France and Germany]who only want to pull guard duty and not in a phrase "patrol outside the wire."
Jack E. Hammond
phoenix80
Banned
I agree with Jack Hammond
Canada is doing a lot in Afghanistan but there is abosultely nothing you can hear about that in the Canadian society
It is like that Canadian people are unwilling to hear about their men and women in uniform serving in distant lands of Afghanistan
It is unfortunate.
However I've to note that Canada will lead NATO forces from March 2006 and US troops will pull out from Afghanistan little by little
Canada is doing a lot in Afghanistan but there is abosultely nothing you can hear about that in the Canadian society
It is like that Canadian people are unwilling to hear about their men and women in uniform serving in distant lands of Afghanistan
It is unfortunate.
However I've to note that Canada will lead NATO forces from March 2006 and US troops will pull out from Afghanistan little by little
Pete031
Active member
I think that it is pretty funny that some people here think that Canada doesn't do much for the world. Did you now that ratio wise, prior to 9/11 Canada had more of its military overseas on deployment then the US did. We were also in Command of ISAF and now we have taken over comand of the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. Now you guys might think that it has nothing on Iraq,but ask your GunDevil how it is over here. I admit I was all ready to go on the invasion, we were supposed to be attached to the 20th UK armored division or something like that to take Basra, and I was dissapointed because I am a soldier being left out of a war. But there would be no sense to go there now, even though the situation there is kind of our specialty. We commited to not going and I think we should stick to our guns. But I will not tolerate kids on this website saying "uh, yeah I think that Canada should play a larger role in international matters" Ask the former Yugoslavia, ask Haiti, ask Sinai, ask Golan, ask Sierra Leone,ask East Timor, ask Afghanistan to mention a few. That is all
phoenix80
Banned
Pete031 said:
Then read this fine book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/077102276X/002-3484495-0445665?v=glance&n=283155
Pete031
Active member
There are all sorts of opinions... I have just shared mine. I have been on 3 operational delpoyments in the past 3 years. If we did nothing in the international community maybe I would have spent more time at home with loved ones instead of wading through garbage on some patrol in soe third world hole.
I think that people are to easy to lay blame on Canada. Just because we didn't support the US on this doesn't make us any different then what we were 10 years ago.
I think that people are to easy to lay blame on Canada. Just because we didn't support the US on this doesn't make us any different then what we were 10 years ago.
jackehammond
Active member
Pete031 said:
Dear Member,
I fear you are wrong. Basically Canada today has a token military. The reason being it can always excuse itself out of a really hard war by stating it does not have the ability to fight it. 10 years ago the state of the military of Canada was bad enough. And now it is far, far worst. For example for all practical reasons it has no strategic airlift, nor strategic sea lift. Its weapons and material are fast wearing out (ie helicopters and fixed wing transports especially). It has put most of its air force in mothballs, etc.
But why? This I can not figure out. Of all of NATO's members Canada spends the least of its GDP on defense, with the exception of Luxembourg (sp?). Offically its military spending is pegged at 1% GDP but actually it is a lot lower. And with such low defense spending why does Canada have such a high personal tax load and national debit? It doesn't make sense.
Jack E. Hammond
PS> None of above takes away the professionalism of the few light infantry regiments that the Canadian Land Forces have today. But they are far to few in numbers and quality of hardware to make any difference in a hard war like a repeat of the Korean War.
Pete031
Active member
Wow... Ok, first off, Canada never shy's away from hard conflicts... Yes I believe that we don't spend enough on the military, but that is the way it goes for free health care and other social programs. I'm not sure what you mean about the few light infantry regiments... are you talking about the reserves? Because if you are going to comment, you should no that of the 3 in the very near future 4 infantry regiments of Canada, the first and second battalions are mechanized and the third battalion of each infantry regiment is light. The 4th new Infantry regiment is going to be a special operations unit, a tier 2 unit like the US Navy Seals. I realise that Canada may not spend enough on its military, but with the exception of Iraq, we are always there. We have over 2000 troops in Aghanistan, plus numerous others all over the world. We have set the standard for peacekeeping, but in terms of war fighting, we are doing it now in Afghanistan, we did a chapter 7 mission to Haiti attached to the 8th Marines, and in Haiti we got more intel and achieved more out of the mission than any other nation. We had a decade long commitment in The former Yugoslavia. In every conflict except Iraq, because we weren't there, the Canadians stood out. In the early days of Afghanistan our snipers went above and beyond and hold the record for the longest shot. We have just finished sorting out Kabul and now have taken over command of the Kandahar AOR. CANSOF Has been operating for the last 5 years here and elswhere. You talk about quality of our Kit, well yes we don't have heavy lift assets, but We have state of the art APC's and recce vehicles. New Rifles, and other Kit. OUr soldiers go through rugged training and our infantry battlschool is known to be one of the hardest and most rugged in the world. OUr soldiers know how to multitask and can do a variety of jobs. I bet you would be hard pressed to find another nation that has worked directly with the Canadian Forces and has anything but praise. In terms of the politics as I said before with our numerous social programs and our free health care, that is why we have taxes the way we do. Saying the things you do comes close to being insulting. I am an infantry soldier and am proud to be one. I am in Afghanistan at the moment, so don't try to tell me that we don't help out the global community.
chinese-canadian
Banned
en...The new prime minister Steven Harper is currently ruling a minority government. He has to be careful on this issue, or dont even talk about it at all.
jackehammond
Active member
Dear Member,
Why is that almost all retired Canadian generals are stating what I have stated. And if it is insulting then you are using the same tactic that those that keep defending Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops to Iraq in the first place -- ie any critisism is insulting the troops on the ground and helping the enemy. And if I am insulting the Canadian military what about al those columnists and anyalists in Canada who have stated the same.
When everyone was sending troops to Somalia Canada had to send them in stages (ie with one rest stop in Egypt because they were worn out from the flight) because of the C-130 was being used as a strategic instead of a tactical transport.
The Sea Knights are so worn out they are killing pilots. And we all know abou the replacement program for it is way behind schedule and for what ever reason the best medium helicopter that was picked for the rescue role was not picked to replace the Sea Knight.
Yes, Canada has a lot of modern weapon systems. But they are way to few in number. Way to few. The C-130s I mentioned are almost worn out.
And for armored forces, yes Canada has some great wheeled vehicles but they are almost totally lacking in heavy armor (ie in an urban warfare envoriment light armor would get chewed to pieces).
Just compare Canada military with what it was. At one time it had the 3rd largest navy in the world. Now there are some Latin American nations that have bigger and better navies - ie Brazil, Peru and maybe Ecader (sp?) and Argentina (ie don't let the Falklands fool you, the Argies learned from that war).
And its Canadian Sabre force in Germany in the 1950s under NATO was considered the one that the Warsaw Pact feared the most. Now Canada has put I believe over half of its CF-18 in mothballs.
But today if a truely hard war (ie all war is hard to the one who is getting shot at but there is wars and wars) for example if the balloon goes up in Korea it would be sucide to send Canadian ground forces in without massive logistic, heavy artillery and armor support from South Korea and the US.
And, unlike most Americans I know what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. And I know that unlike France and Germany and a few other NATO nations Canada is willing to patrol outside the base area and seek out AQ and the Taliban. But be honest. How many heavy lift helicopters does Canada have in Afghanistan that can move Canadian ground units in that high altitude? How many of those helicopters in an emergency when a Canadian patrol gets in trouble can be refueled in flight to go to the rescue? How many armored and heavily armed Canadian attack helicopters will cover those helicopters coming to the rescue? How many super long range 155mm artillery pieces will bring down supression fire in case of bad weather? As the Arabs say "Having a sword and knowing to use it are not the same." Having some excellent ground regimetns (ie and two are of the highest caliber) and being able to support them if push comes to shove are not the same.
Finally, and before you think my only goal is Canada bashing, when that blue on blue disaster happened and those Canadian soldiers got bombed by two USAF F-16 pilots I was one of the very few on the Military Forums in the US calling for them to be severly punished instead of being given a slap on the wrist. Especially when they refused to take responsiblity for their actions. But in warfare to ignore reality is one of the worst things that can be done. And while all the emotional arguements can be given, today's Canadian military is a hollow force or at the best a token force.
Jack E. Hammond
Why is that almost all retired Canadian generals are stating what I have stated. And if it is insulting then you are using the same tactic that those that keep defending Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops to Iraq in the first place -- ie any critisism is insulting the troops on the ground and helping the enemy. And if I am insulting the Canadian military what about al those columnists and anyalists in Canada who have stated the same.
When everyone was sending troops to Somalia Canada had to send them in stages (ie with one rest stop in Egypt because they were worn out from the flight) because of the C-130 was being used as a strategic instead of a tactical transport.
The Sea Knights are so worn out they are killing pilots. And we all know abou the replacement program for it is way behind schedule and for what ever reason the best medium helicopter that was picked for the rescue role was not picked to replace the Sea Knight.
Yes, Canada has a lot of modern weapon systems. But they are way to few in number. Way to few. The C-130s I mentioned are almost worn out.
And for armored forces, yes Canada has some great wheeled vehicles but they are almost totally lacking in heavy armor (ie in an urban warfare envoriment light armor would get chewed to pieces).
Just compare Canada military with what it was. At one time it had the 3rd largest navy in the world. Now there are some Latin American nations that have bigger and better navies - ie Brazil, Peru and maybe Ecader (sp?) and Argentina (ie don't let the Falklands fool you, the Argies learned from that war).
And its Canadian Sabre force in Germany in the 1950s under NATO was considered the one that the Warsaw Pact feared the most. Now Canada has put I believe over half of its CF-18 in mothballs.
But today if a truely hard war (ie all war is hard to the one who is getting shot at but there is wars and wars) for example if the balloon goes up in Korea it would be sucide to send Canadian ground forces in without massive logistic, heavy artillery and armor support from South Korea and the US.
And, unlike most Americans I know what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. And I know that unlike France and Germany and a few other NATO nations Canada is willing to patrol outside the base area and seek out AQ and the Taliban. But be honest. How many heavy lift helicopters does Canada have in Afghanistan that can move Canadian ground units in that high altitude? How many of those helicopters in an emergency when a Canadian patrol gets in trouble can be refueled in flight to go to the rescue? How many armored and heavily armed Canadian attack helicopters will cover those helicopters coming to the rescue? How many super long range 155mm artillery pieces will bring down supression fire in case of bad weather? As the Arabs say "Having a sword and knowing to use it are not the same." Having some excellent ground regimetns (ie and two are of the highest caliber) and being able to support them if push comes to shove are not the same.
Finally, and before you think my only goal is Canada bashing, when that blue on blue disaster happened and those Canadian soldiers got bombed by two USAF F-16 pilots I was one of the very few on the Military Forums in the US calling for them to be severly punished instead of being given a slap on the wrist. Especially when they refused to take responsiblity for their actions. But in warfare to ignore reality is one of the worst things that can be done. And while all the emotional arguements can be given, today's Canadian military is a hollow force or at the best a token force.
Jack E. Hammond
Pete031
Active member
First off you are missing the point... The original question was should Canada go to Iraq. In the early stages of the war, my Regiment was warned off that we may be going and that we would be attached to a UK armored division. Our job would be to do tactical recce bounds ahead of the main unit. We have the capability to do that.
No we don't have any heavy lift choppers or attack choppers. We do have 155 Guns that are in country at the moment. So yes we do have indirect fire support. We do rely on other nations within the coalition here to provide us with some support... Am I happy that the Canadian Forces are lacking in equipment no... Does that mean that we are not a capable fighting force? Absolutly not.
There are some bad things yes, you mentioned Sea Knights? But I think you meant Sea King... But does that mean our Navy is Junk, of course not. Canada has always had to rely on other things, not on techology, thats what makes the calibre of the soldiers so good.
However this is not the point, the point is, is that Canada makes a great contribution to the World. And whoever says they don't because of us not going to Iraq is out of line
No we don't have any heavy lift choppers or attack choppers. We do have 155 Guns that are in country at the moment. So yes we do have indirect fire support. We do rely on other nations within the coalition here to provide us with some support... Am I happy that the Canadian Forces are lacking in equipment no... Does that mean that we are not a capable fighting force? Absolutly not.
There are some bad things yes, you mentioned Sea Knights? But I think you meant Sea King... But does that mean our Navy is Junk, of course not. Canada has always had to rely on other things, not on techology, thats what makes the calibre of the soldiers so good.
However this is not the point, the point is, is that Canada makes a great contribution to the World. And whoever says they don't because of us not going to Iraq is out of line
Dean
Active member
jackehammond said:
Ummm, Canada never used the Sea Knight. We have used the Sea King, and it is that one that is in the advanced stages of being replaced.
jackehammond said:
This is a funny one. The Air Force has asked the Canadian government to buy new planes without having to go through the usual procurement process as it would take too long. The previous government said yes, but it was then turfed out. It appears that the Harper government will also look favourably on the request. Among the proposed aircraft are more C-130 (type) and some heavily modified Airbus for the strategic role.
jackehammond said:
Unfortunately true. However, we do have some heavy armour. The problem is the lack of political will to use it.
jackehammond said:
I don't know about that one
jackehammond said:
Artillery has been procured and modernized. Not enough of them, though.
jackehammond said:
About the same as you do. Both Canada and the US use the Boeing Chinook as their premier heavy lift helicopter. Given the high altitudes of the mountains in Afghanistan, there are very few, if any helicopters that can effectively operate there.
jackehammond said:
It depends on where the contact is. If it is in the mountains, we will have as many as the US forces. None. In other places, we do have armed utility helicopters.
jackehammond said:
3 batteries of six guns.
jackehammond said:
That one still pisses me off.
jackehammond said:
Have to disagree there. In every place where Canadian troops have been deployed in Afghanistan or in the many peacekeeping missions we have done, the accomplishments were neither hollow nor token. Read about the Medak Pocket, the missions in Cyprus, the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia... and on and on and on... In spite of the fact that Canada's forces are often less than well equipped, it has always been surprising what they have been able to pull off.
Jack E. Hammond[/QUOTE]
jackehammond
Active member
Dear Members
Canada does not have any Chinooks in its inventory. The heaviest lift helicopter in its inventory today is a rescue version of the UK/Italian EH101 which with is outstanding power to weight ratio would do great in the high mountains of Afghanistan. But they are strictly for rescue work in Canada.
And yes I did mean the Sea King. It was a type of the Marine helicopter. Been so much discussion of the Sea Knight needing to be replaced and the VM-22 it just slipped in.
It would seem from the first reports that a Canadian Land Forces Lt was critically injured by an axe attack by a sucide attacker during a meeting between tribal elders and Canadian forces. The Lt had left his weapon outside the meeting and taken his helmet off as a sign of respect and manners. What is disturbing is that just minutes before the attack the children observing moved out of the area. That means the elders knew what was coming. With Afghan culture if the Canadian forces had been Moslems it would have caused all the tribes in the area to make war on that Afghan tribe for a sever breach of tribal rules. But Afghans feel no compunction (ie no matter what they tell US or other forces in Afghanistan) to obey the norms of their rules of warfare with nonMoslems (ie the Afghan word for nonMoslems is equal to the N-word for Blacks in the US). The British when they had to take measures to keep the peace in that area usually after such an attack ordered the villagers and their livestock restricted to the village and would machine gun any livestock (ie sheep) found outside the village and destroy any fruit trees and irrigation ditches. This usually brought them around to the light and payment. But today that would be considered a war crime. Something the Afghans have never figured out. As one Afghan tribal leader stated at the turn of the 19th century: The British want to change what is in their enemies heads; where we want to cut our enemies heads off."
Finally, back shortly after the Russians invaded Afghanistan (ie actually they invaded to put a stop to a ruthless Marxists ruler who operated like Pol Pot in Cambodia and was murdering right and left) I was told to write a small column about it. I covered all the bases. But I warned everone that while the US would be right in supporting the Afghans against the Russians, make no mistake we were supporting some pretty ruthless and cruel people, that could put the Japanese military class of preWW2 to shame, who had a well earned reputation with their neighbors -- ie they referred to the Hindus of India as the tethered fatted cow which was by right their to milk when they saw fit.
Jack E. Hammond
BTW. There will be some people who believe in political correctiness who will find the above offensive. But so be it.
Canada does not have any Chinooks in its inventory. The heaviest lift helicopter in its inventory today is a rescue version of the UK/Italian EH101 which with is outstanding power to weight ratio would do great in the high mountains of Afghanistan. But they are strictly for rescue work in Canada.
And yes I did mean the Sea King. It was a type of the Marine helicopter. Been so much discussion of the Sea Knight needing to be replaced and the VM-22 it just slipped in.
It would seem from the first reports that a Canadian Land Forces Lt was critically injured by an axe attack by a sucide attacker during a meeting between tribal elders and Canadian forces. The Lt had left his weapon outside the meeting and taken his helmet off as a sign of respect and manners. What is disturbing is that just minutes before the attack the children observing moved out of the area. That means the elders knew what was coming. With Afghan culture if the Canadian forces had been Moslems it would have caused all the tribes in the area to make war on that Afghan tribe for a sever breach of tribal rules. But Afghans feel no compunction (ie no matter what they tell US or other forces in Afghanistan) to obey the norms of their rules of warfare with nonMoslems (ie the Afghan word for nonMoslems is equal to the N-word for Blacks in the US). The British when they had to take measures to keep the peace in that area usually after such an attack ordered the villagers and their livestock restricted to the village and would machine gun any livestock (ie sheep) found outside the village and destroy any fruit trees and irrigation ditches. This usually brought them around to the light and payment. But today that would be considered a war crime. Something the Afghans have never figured out. As one Afghan tribal leader stated at the turn of the 19th century: The British want to change what is in their enemies heads; where we want to cut our enemies heads off."
Finally, back shortly after the Russians invaded Afghanistan (ie actually they invaded to put a stop to a ruthless Marxists ruler who operated like Pol Pot in Cambodia and was murdering right and left) I was told to write a small column about it. I covered all the bases. But I warned everone that while the US would be right in supporting the Afghans against the Russians, make no mistake we were supporting some pretty ruthless and cruel people, that could put the Japanese military class of preWW2 to shame, who had a well earned reputation with their neighbors -- ie they referred to the Hindus of India as the tethered fatted cow which was by right their to milk when they saw fit.
Jack E. Hammond
BTW. There will be some people who believe in political correctiness who will find the above offensive. But so be it.
Pete031
Active member
You are right about the Chinooks, we sold ours to the Dutch, who matter of fact, will be supporting us in the months to come.
I said that we have no heavy lift capability in an earlier reply. Yes it is tragic how this man got hit with the axe, and thankfully the rest of his section hammered him. No there is a certain tone that I picked up on in your last post regarding that man that makes me want to say, especially from us serving in Afghanistan at the moment, if you are going to comment, why not grab a rifle, your ruck and come out and make some changes... You can right all the papers you want Buds, I wrote my fair share in university aswell. But you are not on the ground here, so watch what you say about our wounded and KIA troops.
I said that we have no heavy lift capability in an earlier reply. Yes it is tragic how this man got hit with the axe, and thankfully the rest of his section hammered him. No there is a certain tone that I picked up on in your last post regarding that man that makes me want to say, especially from us serving in Afghanistan at the moment, if you are going to comment, why not grab a rifle, your ruck and come out and make some changes... You can right all the papers you want Buds, I wrote my fair share in university aswell. But you are not on the ground here, so watch what you say about our wounded and KIA troops.
jackehammond
Active member
Pete031 said:
Dear Member,
The comment was not meant to offend. I apologize if you took it that way. I think it is just awful that that Lt got attacked when he was trying to be considerate of their culture. You will never find in any articles or message I have posted impuning the bravery of the Canadian military (ie in one big debate in the 1990s I had to remind some US readers of the KIA that Canada took in World War One and what the numbers would have been if it had been in ratio to the US population).
But having stated the above I have to remind readers of what Winston Churchill stated when this same issue came up: "There will not be wanting those who will remind men that in this matter my opinion finds no support in age or experience. To such I shall reply that if what is written is false or foolish, niether age nor experience should fortify it; and if true if
needs no such support."
On this issue of US and other NATO forces going into Afghanistan in what many see as naked about the culture and the people I am not alone. And those who are stunned are persons like famous author George MacDonald Fraser (ie who has seen a lot of combat in that region) and a recent article by a former Indian Army officer who fought for three years in Kashmir.
I know you can not accept this (ie in one famous lecture at the US Army War College about those there and those not -- ie the famous "arm chair" generals -- the lecture who was a combat general comment on this attitude in may military organization and as an example of why it can be dangerous told one member to read a page in a book and then held the book right at his nose to show what he meant).
While I can not speak for the Canadian military, today in Iraq many Marine and Army commanders have stated they should have studied the people and culture of both Iraq and Afghanistan before they went. The new brigade commnder in Tal Afar who has at last got control of that city forces all his officers to read a bunch of books for a list. He also forced them to take basic Arabic. Something I think would have been a common sense measure after 9/11??? Also, a handle was gotten on the situation when an embedded reporter warned them one of their translators could not be who he stated he was.
And I know there has to be a reason, but both Canada and the US have thousands of Moslem citizens in their countries who are from Iraq and Afghanistan (ie strangely of all organizations the USMC had a bunch of Afghan-American citizens which were of a big help in 2002). Why either military could not have went to that region with a large number of translators they could trust like in WW2 with the Japanese Americans, is beyond understanding. If he answer is that their loyality is to the nation/religions they came from instead of Canada and the US then both nations have a serious problem. If is that neither military fully trusted them (ie the US got burned bad by Somalia-Americans as translators in 1993) then that is also a serious problem.
And I have no doubt you have written a lot of papers and read a lot. But just out of curiousity have you read RAJ by Lawrence James? I could pick one book to be read by all going to Iraq or Afghanistan it would be that book.
Finally, I know this reply is opening myself up to as they say "getting my brains blown out" but I feel it has to be said. And there are plenty of quotes and examples I know of that you could also use against what I have stated (eg President Roosevelts famous statement about "...the man in the arena.."). But I still firmly believe that everone in all militaries going to Iraq and Afghanistan did not take reading about the people and cultures of that region as serious as they should (ie the US/British/Australians, etc admitted as much by the end of 1942 about Japan) and future historians with that famous hindsight they like to bash everyone concerned with, will bear out.
Jack E. Hammond