UN pushing Canada not to cut Kabul troops

[Yard Ape]

UN pushing Canada not to cut Kabul troops
CanWest News Service (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=de49e93b-1ffa-48de-8a76-12bfeba52867)

May 28, 2004

UNITED NATIONS - Canada came under increased pressure to reverse its plans for a major troop reduction in Afghanistan on Thursday after the United Nations warned preparations for elections are seriously behind schedule amid deteriorating security.

UN special representative Jean Arnault said safeguarding the September ballot requires a "robust international military presence.

"The persistent woes of Afghanistan -- terrorism, factionalism and criminal networks -- are as much at work today as they were two years ago," he told the UN Security Council. "International security assistance (will) make the difference between success and failure."

Canada currently leads a 6,500-member, mainly NATO, security force in and around Kabul, the capital, but is expected to hand over command to another country when Canadian troop strength is reduced in August.
© The Edmonton Journal 2004 (http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/index.html)

I think this is something we should do.

With out a question we could continue to keep an infantry battle group there for at least another half year (if not indefinatly when Bosnia scales back). Our limiting factor in international missions are support, engineer, and armour recce. However, these are exactly the elements that we are not cutting back. Our politicians are telling us that this will give the army a rest so that it will be more capable of later missions. However, the only elements getting a rest will be the Infantry battalions (which are the least stressed of all our elements).

We could also keep a brigade HQ in country for atleast another half year (we have only deployed 2 of our 3 Bde HQs).

[memphiz]

I thought the PPCLI were going back in august for a year and a half?

[scm77]

This is a sticky situation. The army is stretched like the goatsex guy.

There's a couple things they can do.
1. Say forget it to the UN and reduce the force as planned giving a well needed rest to our soldiers.
2. Answer the UNs call, and keep our present force.
3. Increase the number of troops so we will be able to fulfill our requirements. This won't help immediately because it takes time to get soldiers fully trained to go to afghanistan.
4. Cut the numbers in Bosnia. Already planned/being done.

[FRO]

I thought the PPCLI were going back in august for a year and a half?

The buzz I heard is that they are gearing up to go somewhere, but they aren't saying where. This is just ground level rumblings, so take it with a few barrels of salt.

[scm77]

I've heard second battallion could be going back. But it would only be for six months not a year and a half.

[pAt]

the problem is MONEY in witch we dont have than u very much Prime minister!

[Yard Ape]

I thought the PPCLI were going back in august for a year and a half?
Here it is:
The LdSH Recce Sqn is going.
3 rifle platoons from 1 PPCLI are going (but no Coy structure)
a Fd Sqn from 1 CER
and all the support elements that you could typically expect to find in the NCE/NSE.

This "reduced" force still requires the same high level of participation from those trades which are our limiting factors (there are not enough loggies, thumper heads, or zipper heads) and gives the "break" to those who least need it (the infantry). If we can aford this mission, then we can afford a full battle group. If sending a full battle group is too much for us, then the organisation we are sendinig is too much for us.

[Germaine]

Only 1 coy is going to Afganistan and thats just for security (1 VP)

[Yard Ape]

A full Coy is training, but last I heard was that the Coy HQ would be staying home. Each Pl will have a different role (QRF, base defence, and one plugged into Recce Sqn) and report to a different boss.

[Yard Ape]

Politics, not a lack of skills, is why our troops are leaving Kabul
Training isn't the problem

MGen (retired) Lewis MacKenzie
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, June 25, 2004

Canada turned down a U.S. request last week to extend the tour of our 2,000 soldiers in Kabul until the fall so they could provide a rapid-reaction force during the Afghan elections in September. It's necessary to have such a force on standby to move throughout Afghanistan to deal with the inevitable attempts by terrorists and certain warlords to interfere with the democratic process.

Unfortunately, it was left to a junior Defence department spokesman to explain why Canada would not agree to the U.S. request: "What the Americans are looking for is not exactly what our troops are trained for."

This need not have been such a highly embarrassing admission, as it is blatantly untrue. There are reasons why our contingent is incapable of taking on such a role, but it has nothing to do with a lack of training. On the contrary, they are the best-trained troops for such a mission in the multinational force.

In 2001, immediately following the 9/11 attacks, then-prime minister Jean Chretien pledged that we would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our U.S. friends in the war on terror, starting with the dispatch of the 3rd battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to join the U.S. brigade operating out of Kandahar.

Unfortunately, he neglected to tell President George W. Bush that we would only be with them for six months. As the alarm went off indicating the six months were up, he brought the battalion home, indicating that we did not have the resources to replace or extend the 800 soldiers.

Yet a few months later, when it looked like the U.S. was going to intervene in Iraq and Canada would be asked to participate, Mr. Chretien ordered 4,000 soldiers (2,000 per six-month mission) to serve with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul for a year. Magically, the soldiers were found (and conveniently the shelves were emptied for any potential Canadian contribution to Iraq).

Canada would not be directly involved in the war on terror, but would contribute to the establishment of some degree of security in and around Kabul. This would help Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government survive, at least in the capital, as his movements outside of Kabul are few and far between due to the risks involved.

Regrettably, a considerable degree of inflexibility was built into the organization of the Canadian contingent and a very un-Canadian solution was chosen. It was decided that the soldiers would live in a large encampment with creature comforts previously unknown and deemed unnecessary on other missions -- Internet cafe, exercise tents, individual living compartments, a sewer and water system, extensive air-conditioning, etc.

Despite the fact that Afghani-stan qualified as an operational theatre, civilian contractors were brought in to run the logistics support system for the soldiers. Meals, accommodation, ammunition control, overall maintenance of vehicles and equipment were all centralized in a static civilian component that could not deploy outside of Kabul.

Erroneously assuming that the Canadian mission to Afghanistan would not change and that the umbilical cord to the civilian supply system would always be available, the infantry battalion was required to leave behind in Canada its own internal supply capability provided by its service support company -- which normally provides the services offered by the civilian contractors in a more austere manner, but is considerably more flexible and mobile and can deploy into high-risk areas.

I can appreciate that our government might not want to respond positively to the recent U.S. request. To do so would mean that we would take on an expanded role that would see our soldiers move throughout Afghanistan during the election process to confront any attempts to interfere with the democratic process. Any increased support for the United States during the current election would be seen as a negative for the government, given its anti-U.S. Iraq policy rhetoric.

When National Defence was told to come up with an excuse for our not agreeing to the U.S. request for us to rejoin the war against terror, the response should not have been that our troops were not trained for such a role. An honest -- but politically unacceptable -- response would have gone something like this:

"Sorry, the need to find more savings in our defence budget forced us to contract out the logistics support for our soldiers to a static civilian organization and that restricts them to operations less than 70 kilometres from Kabul. We also have a massive administration and security overhead in Kabul, which means that out of our 2,000 personnel, only about 300 are available for taking any potential fight to the enemy. That reality is extremely unfortunate because the 3rd Battalion Royal 22 Regiment soldiers in their light infantry role would be as good as any elite unit in the world at tracking down and eliminating the terrorists who would threaten the election process and the security of Afghanistan. They spend most of their time training for such a task and would prefer it to patrolling the streets of Kabul."

The lessons we can learn from this are: (1) we should think of our soldiers' morale and pride when politically correct excuses are made for all the world to see; and, (2) we should not fool around with the well-proven organization of an infantry battalion on the assumption that a particular role in a particular mission area will not change. It will, as it should but can't in Afghanistan.

[Mongrel]

Very interesting thanx for posting!

Also would there ever be a chance that the US could pick up a bit of the tab so we could stay there abit longer? And with better support.

Cheers!
M.

[SFontaine]

The US has about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. I think they're picking up enough of the tab.

[Lone Predator]

The US has about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. I think they're picking up enough of the tab.

thats not part of the nato security force though

[SFontaine]

Oh so they should just send more troops? They're doing their damn part, no matter what little force they're under. Canada needs to pick up the tab by rotating the Vandoos out when the time comes and rotating another unit in and to stick it out through the long haul.

[Mongrel]

I was talking about Cash..not manpower.
Pointless anyway..the Librals are still in...money would just go into someones pocket, and not into e-quipment, bases or training.

Also I'm not their with them so I don't know how our troops feel about hanging around for another X amount of months in A'stan.

Cheers!
M.

[Yard Ape]

I still belive Canada could put another rotation into Afghanistan before we hit our limit (and need 6 months off). I don't know that we could take on the expanded roll that the US has asked of us.