Expanding our naval Anglosphere

With the Indian Navy (and the USN):

Karl von Clausewitz once said, “...war is the continuation of politics by other means.” Deployed on Operation Altair since Sept. 10 as Canada’s maritime contribution to the campaign against terrorism, HMCS Ottawa has discharged all facets of the famous dictum.

The ship's participation in the Indian Navy-hosted Exercise Malabar, during the deployment phase of the operation, was such a case in point. It demonstrated the flexibility and range of opportunities the navy can bring to the Canadian Government. Ottawa participated in Exercise Malabar 06, taking place off the west coast of India from Oct. 24 to Nov. 5.

This was the ninth annual Exercise Malabar, which traditionally involves the U.S. Navy, though it is hosted and directed by the Indian Navy.

Ottawa’s presence marked the first ever participation by a Canadian ship [emphasis added]. It was also the first time a third nation has participated in what was previously a series of bi-lateral events.

The Halifax-class frigate was involved in the exercise as an integrated element of the San-Diego-based USS Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group (BOXESG), which Ottawa joined in Hawaii Sept. 25 prior to the ships’ passage across the Pacific to the theatre of operation.

Thirteen warships took part in Exercise Malabar 06. U.S. participants included Wasp Class helicopter carrier and group flagship USS Boxer; the cruiser USS Bunker Hill; destroyers USS Benfold and Howard; and United States Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Midgett. Although not an integral part of the BOXESG, the submarine USS Providence also joined the action for the duration of the exercise.

Indian participants included the destroyer INS Mysore, flagship of the group; the frigates INS Beas and INS Ganga; the supply vessel INS Shakti; the Type 209 submarine INS Shankush; and the Indian Coast Guard vessel CGS Samar...

Afstan: NATO shirkers

These Canadian headlines and excerpts say it all; if combat does not lessen over the next year in the south (and east), and if others don't cough up some fighting troops, the Alliance will be pretty close to bust. Maybe time to think of an Anglosphere coalition, plus any others like the Dutch and some central/east Europeans willing to help.

"Germany dodges call for troops" (full text subscriber only)

Canada's anger before the summit has mostly been directed at Germany.

The reason may be partially explained by a story published yesterday on Der Spiegel's website.

The German news magazine reported that Berlin had refused several requests for its forces to come to the aid of NATO's embattled warriors in the south during the Canadian-led Operation Medusa in late August and early September. The missions Germany wanted no part of included deploying a medevac aircraft to the base where Canadians were located in Kandahar, allowing a drone aircraft to be used for reconnaissance of the area and having its special forces commandos deployed as forward air controllers to direct airstrikes against the Taliban across the south, the weekly said...

"NATO needs more soldiers in Afghanistan, former general says"

Earlier Wednesday, NATO leaders meeting in Europe agreed that more support would be provided to the soldiers on the ground, and some of the troops already there who are restricted in their operations would be allowed to be sent into danger zones.

The additional support includes fighter planes, helicopters, several infantry companies and training teams, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said...

Soldiers from NATO members such as France, Germany and Italy, who are already on the ground but deployed in the calmer north and often under restrictions which keep them away from the fighting, will be able to move in emergencies...

"Canadians still will do `heavy lifting' in Afghanistan, Hillier says"

"Limited success convincing NATO to help in southern Afghanistan"

Yesterday in Riga, reporters were told that three of the NATO members would be stepping up their efforts in Afghanistan. but which three were not named.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said his country would add 75 more soldiers next year, reaching a total of 225...

"More words than help from NATO"

"Canada can't fight alone"

...countries with modern, well-equipped militaries, such as France and Germany and Italy, are not only restricting their troops to working in the relatively peaceable north of Afghanistan, they're tut-tutting about our warlike insistence on shooting back at insurgents who are shooting at us.

At a two-day summit in Riga, Latvia, this week, Canada insisted that our allies need to help. Little good it did. The closest they'll come is agreeing to support us in emergencies: If we're about to be overrun by Taliban, they'll come help. They'll stop us from obviously losing, in other words. If we want to win, we're pretty much on our own...

Why Canadians don't know the trivia that's not trivial

Quickly now - no Googling: can you name three projects Canada's Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) has undertaken in the past year? The first wiseguy to spout off that "they dug a well" gets a slap in the head for his trouble.

If you couldn't think of one specific thing, you're not alone - I couldn't either, until I did a bit of digging. The truth is that the KPRT has almost a hundred projects either on the go or completed right now, put together by CF, Civilian Police (CivPol), DFAIT, or CIDA personnel with the team. Following are some highlights that I found particularly interesting.

• More than 2000 Afghans in the remotest areas of Kandahar province have received basic medical care because of the KPRT's Village Medical Outreach (VMO) visits. You know who provided that care? Afghan doctors and dentists - we paid and provided security, but it was Afghans helping Afghans. Beyond the actual hands-on care, the VMOs also gave out medication, tools, school supplies, food, blankets, toys, carpets, and radios. This is basic stuff, but a blanket can make the difference between a child making it through the winter or not.


• CivPol officers provided more than 1000 uniforms for Afghan National Police (ANP) officers they are helping to train, including winter coats, boots, belts, gloves, and flashlights. Imagine a police force without uniforms - how would you know the difference between lawful authority and a thug with a gun? Now think of it from the ANP side - how much more difficult is it to take pride in your work as a law enforcement profesional when you're shivering in a thin civilian cloak at a vehicle checkpoint? Not only that, but the KPRT CivPol officers also donated 470 sets of body armour to the ANP on Afghan Freedom Day (national holiday) this year, and improved living conditions at six ANP sub-stations where the renovated premises will eventually be used to train more ANP.


• Betcha didn't know the ANP is responsible for fire-fighting as well. CivPol officers have provided a pile of fire-fighting gear to the ANP recently. Some of it was bought by DND, and some was actually donated by the Langford B.C. Volunteer Fire Department. BZ to Langford for stepping up like that.


• Speaking of stepping up, you'd expect the CivPol folks to be RCMP, right? Four of them are, but one guy is from the Charlottetown City Police. There's a bit of culture shock for you: PEI to Kandahar. Not too many RPG's, or fields of marijuana, or police officers without boots to wear in Charlottetown, I'd bet. Good on him.


• The KPRT donated 100 bicycles to the Afghan Ministry of Education for end-of-year school awards for kids. Oh, and 6000 school kits all over the province as well.


• The KPRT are working on more than one side of the development equation with their Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul program that supports the ANP. Not only are they making sure the ANP have functional vehicles with which to patrol and provide security, they're training local Afghan civilians to do the maintenance, and they're donating vehicles as well - twelve brand new Toyota pickups at last count.


• Kandahar University has computers, a water distribution system, and an electrical generator that allows them to hold courses even when the rest of Kandahar City is without power thanks to the KPRT.


• On my birthday this year, the KPRT delivered school supplies donated by Girl Guides in Maple Ridge, B.C. and hand-knit stuffed animals donated by a knitting circle in Dartmouth, N.S. to the Mir Wais Hospital pediatric ward. Need another reason to by Girl Guide cookies this year? Well done to the ladies in Dartmouth as well. The KPRT also chipped in with baby bottles and the formula to fill them. A month later, the KPRT also donated 100 sets of diagnostic equipment to the nursing school at the same hospital.


• As you can see, the KPRT helps distribute privately donated aid, above and beyond what our government spends. John Race deserves a great deal of credit for this, since his significant donation started the ball rolling. On September 14th of this year, part of his donation was used to purchase $10,000 worth of school furniture for the Dand District School. People like Mr. Race make my jaw drop and my heart swell.

I've only scratched the surface here, as you might have guessed.

Why don't ordinary Canadians know much about this intensely valuable and important work? Well, partly because the government has done a lacklustre job telling the public about it, as the MND recently admitted. Luckily, they're now working to correct that course of action.

But you can't put it all on the government, either. Here's a stat that might surprise you as well: since January 16th of this year, 175 journalists from 37 different media outlets have embedded with the CF in Afghanistan. How many stories have you seen about the KPRT - other than from the BBC? Now, how many ramp ceremonies have you seen?

Mourning the deaths of our soldiers is important, let there be no doubt. But even a couple of folks within the media think that the balance of coverage has swung too far in that particular direction.

So, is this a deathwatch? It sure seems so.

The journalist's role is to transmit a snapshot of events, along with the history and context, to viewers, listeners and readers back home. During a military conflict, that inevitably involves telling stories of injury and death.
...
The technology we need to broadcast back to Canada is on the base and is not particularly mobile. As a result, many journalists and their bosses fear that if you leave the base with Canadian soldiers on one of their many multi-day missions, and "big news" happens while you are away elsewhere, you are simply unable to cover it.

That big news, tragically, often means the death of a soldier. So, journalists in Afghanistan for Canada's bigger media outlets (print, television and radio) are reluctant to leave the base with the soldiers for anything more than a day trip. Not surprisingly, many soldiers feel we journalists are conducting a deathwatch.

There is no question we, as journalists, must do better.

The entire reason The Torch was set up was to provide better information to the Canadian public about the CF - past, present, and future - than it was getting through the traditional sources. But we're just one small outpost in the great online world, and like it or not, we rely on the press almost as much as the general public does. So Canadians are still only getting glimpses of the entire picture.

First of all, it's easy to forget that the picture Canucks get from our media is of CF operations in Kandahar, not all of Afghanistan. Six provinces in the south - of which Kandahar is the most dangerous - form a part of the overall picture, but not all of it. Afghanistan as a whole is doing much better than one would think from watching news reports focused on the Canadian area of operations.

Within that narrow view, the scope of reporting tightens even more with what the press chooses to report. Journalists are willing to cover what the military calls 'kinetic ops' - and what the rest of us call combat - because it makes for exciting stories. And they're willing to cover the deaths of Canadian soldiers because death is always considered a newsworthy topic - "if it bleeds, it leads."

What impression does that provide to the Canadian public? That Afghanistan is a much more dangerous place than it really is, and that Canadian soldiers spend their time either killing insurgents or being killed by them.

No wonder support for the mission goes up and down like a toilet seat.

To counter that, I'll continue to put posts like this one about our PRT together as I have time to do the research and put it together. The CF is conducting a full spectrum of operations in Afghanistan right now, and we at The Torch hope to tell you about it.

Wouldn't it be nice if the folks who collect a paycheque for informing the Canadian public would see fit to follow suit?

Update: Check out what the good folks from the Lawrencetown, N.S. fire department did to put smiles on the faces of ANP firefighters. Tell me that doesn't make the Maple Leaf look good to the locals.

Up-the-flagpole-date: VW at The Phantom Observer does a great job pointing out some additonal projects I didn't mention. Go give them a read.

Bomber Pilot

[cross-posted to bound by gravity

Alastair Sweeny has recently had the pleasure of interviewing Captain Donald Macintosh, an RAF pilot who flew a lancaster bomber in 1944. What follows in an excerpt from that interview:

So the Tirpitz now... Just explain to everyone what... the Tirpitz was a ship like the Bismarck, wasn't it?

It was the sister ship to the Bismarck which was a threat to the whole of the North Atlantic convoys. They lost... because it was a threat actually, they had to escort all the ships and materials up to Russia because it... they sent it up to Norway. It was a threat all the time. They used to take it out for a bit and back in again. Everybody had a go at it. I think there were 30 or 40 attacks on it by the Navy and from carriers and so forth.

They couldn't sink it?

I think it was about 60,000 tonnes, something like that. It was an enormous bloody ship. Anyhow, they invented... the Americans invented this bomb called the Tallboy (Editor: Don is mistaken here - it was a British man named Sir Barnes Wallis) which was a 12,000 pounder, a 6 tonne bomb, singe bomb, and they reckoned that would do the trick. We did... the first one we went on.. we went from Russia, as I said, that was a total disaster. They put up a smoke screen so nothing happened there.

The Tirpitz was based in Norway. Why Norway though?

Well... two reasons. One they wanted to put it out of reach of the bombers from... it would have been much closer to the bombers from England. And the other thing, it was even more of a threat out in the North Sea. It could whip out there. If it got out there it could probably pick off about 20 ships. That's what they were afraid of all the time during the war that this thing would get out there. In fact, it went out once, a couple of times, it went out once actually, and even the fact that it was out there, they scattered the convoy and they were picked off one by one. Not by the Tirpitz, by aircraft and so forth. So even an appearance of this thing caused tremendous losses.

So the Tirpitz then. It just rattled the cages and for them to be picked off. It was more of a deterrent. It was in the water and they were very scared of it.

Oh yeah, and the other thing, it could... if it got unopposed into the Atlantic it could have probably, especially in 1943, it could have stopped everything coming into Britain.

Could it really have done that?

That was what they were afraid of. It had the capacity to do that.

But it only got out once...

It went out once and back again I think.

So was it built in 1942, 43 was it or...

It was built at the beginning of the war I think actually because it took a hell of a long while to build these things. Hitler wasn't very keen on the navy anyhow. He was probably quite right. They could have built 1000 tanks with all the metal that they used.

So, did you actually bomb the Tirpitz yourself?

Oh yeah. We had 3 goes and eventually sank it. There were 2 squadrons. There was 617, they were the dambusters, and ourselves actually, their sister squadron.. and eventually instead of going to Russia, what we did was we.. as I said they took out the mid-upper turret there where they fitted long-range tanks. They fitted them inside the aircraft. We were then able to go from the north of Scotland - bomb - and come back again. Only just, I hasten to add.

But one time you said you went to Russia?

yeah, we went to Russia because that.. there were 3 trips altogether. The first one, we went to Russia, landed there to refuel, then come back from Russia and come home. That was before they fitted long-range tanks, you see. A question of endurance.

So you could actually make it and fly over.

Yeah.

So, did you actually see the Tirpitz roll over?

I was last off it actually because the bomb sight went U.S. We had to bomb manually. I was also windfinding. We used to do windfinding.

What does that mean?

Windfinding was that you went ahead of the main force there. Did a circuit.. a little bit technical.. over the spot on the ground and came back and find a wind for bombing, which was extremely important because if you got the wrong wind there, you missed the target.

Oh I see, it's wind speed and..

It's wind speed and direction, yeah. Anyhow, we went round again, and we were... we were second last off it because, you see, the camera crew were last off there. As I went over there, the rear gunner said, "Oh she's turning over..." and all the rest of it. I wasn't sure if that was true, but it was in fact true.

Do you think it was your bomb that got them?

No. Oh no it wasn't actually (chuckle). I would like to think so, but that wasn't true actually. We dropped it alright and probably helped to make a bit of a splash and so forth. But I believe it was dropped by the first lot of chaps of 617; three bombs, one by one of our lot actually. But one of the things that happened was that it blew one of these turrets wing (an enormous weight, right up in the air) and so forth like that. I think nobody expected it to turn over. I think one of the bombs hit its side and it rolled there... they thought it would just sink, but there you are.

Captain MacIntosh has recently published a book recounting his experiences: Bomber Pilot Donald MacIntosh: A Veteran's First-hand Account of Surviving World War Two as a RAF Bomber Pilot.

"The Need for a Defence Advocacy Group"

Jack Granatstein of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century makes the case:

The condition of the Canadian Forces looks to be on the upswing. The previous Liberal government pledged to repair the damage of decades with a five-year plan of equipment purchases and a small increase in personnel strength. The present Harper government accepted those pledges and added its own billions of dollars and thousands of additional regulars and reservists to the recruitment plans. The first C-17 long-range air transport is expected to be in the air force’s hands before the end of 2007, and a host of additional purchases are in train. And, the Canadian Forces say, recruiting is proceeding on track.

So what is there to worry about? Too much, unfortunately. The war in Afghanistan is a major bone of contention in the media and in Parliament, and there are many who call for Canada to get out of Kandahar now, no matter what that might do to Canada’s reputation with its allies (not to mention those Afghanis who might have worked with us and who would be left to the mercies of the Taliban). There is substantial support for the troops as individuals and even as a collectivity, but there is not much enthusiasm for the idea that soldiers sometimes must kill people. To Canadians, the preferred role for their men and women in uniform is as blue beret peacekeepers and agents of social development. Peacekeepers, not war fighters, in other words. Moreover, there is an overriding domestic concern with social programmes—improvements to the environment, medicare and childcare, to name only three, rank much higher on the public and parliamentary agenda than do the equipment needs of the military.

In other words, the political support for the Canadian Forces is tenuous at best and subject to change. Stephen Harper is not a prime minister devoid of principle, far from it, but his present enthusiasm for rebuilding the CF might need to be sacrificed to more palatable policy measures perhaps not today, but possibly tomorrow. And given the attitudes to defence of the single issue Greens, the pacifist Bloc Québécois, the timid New Democrats, and the opportunistic Liberals, all trying to secure power by appealing to anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghan War sentiment, no one can easily assume that a minority Conservative government is secure or certain of re-election.
So what is to be done? How can public opinion be changed enough to understand and accept that Canada will always require a well-equipped, well-trained military able to undertake operations ranging from aid to the civil power in Canada through benign peacekeeping and up to and including participation in war?

First, all those who care about defence issues need to recognize that they are small players in an off-Broadway show. The constituency for defence today is small, spread out, linguistically divided, and hampered by the reality that its ranks are made up mostly of ex-military men and representatives of defence industries. That is not a strength. To get a public hearing and to secure results, those who support defence need to advance their case in the same manner as other interests and groups in the pluralistic reality of present-day Canadian politics. Agricultural groups advocate; industry associations advocate; so too must those who are in favour of the Canadian Forces. Creating an independent, civilian, well-financed advocacy group is the only way to help build a broad national constituency for defence issues. Certainly, advocacy has worked for many issues much less important to the future of our democracy.

Such a group must not become the agent for those who are trying to sell the Canadian Forces a particular aircraft or light armoured vehicle. A proper defence advocacy group will support a strong CF, not one with a particular brand of arms. Only in this way can it become the media’s public sounding board for comment on defence issues. The existence of such a policy-driven body that can harness existing expertise while growing its own internal ability to influence the process has been long overdue and is uniquely absent from the Canadian political landscape.

This new defence advocacy group must begin digging into the political structure of all parties in Parliament, making the case for defence issues and educating M.P.s and Senators about the issues. Only a handful of Members of Parliament have served in the military and the number with genuine expertise in military matters can be counted on two hands. Parliament needs to be educated on defence, and the House and Senate need a defence caucus that cuts across party lines.

The new advocacy group must also build a strong degree of support across Canada in every region and every federal riding to put a human face on the complex issues that it will defend and promote. Its aim must be to create a strong and enduring national network that can reach out, advocate, and educate.

There is much at stake. Canada faces an uncertain future, the challenges to our sovereignty are increasing, and the world is as dangerous as it has ever been. A strong, competent Canadian Forces is desperately needed, and those Canadians concerned with defence and security, and all who believe that their country should play a creditable role in the world, need to be ready to persuade and convince their compatriots. A real defence advocacy organization can play a critical role in this effort.

"Our soldiers aren't trying to 'kill everybody'"

The Globe's Christie Blatchford replies to yesterday's headline in her own paper:

The identification came so late that as I write this, I know almost nothing about the two Canadian soldiers killed in a suicide bombing in Kandahar yesterday, except that they were with the 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment from Petawawa, Ont...

But I know one thing.

I know that whatever else these two Canadians were doing in Afghanistan, or what their fellows are still doing, they weren't and aren't out trying to “kill everybody.”..

That was in a story that started on the front page of The Globe and Mail yesterday...

That is so outrageously untrue, and demonstrably untrue, that it should require no answer. Yet there is so much conflicting information in the public domain about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan that the dialogue is confused, as a perusal of comments on globeandmail.com yesterday confirmed. Left unchallenged, even such transparent nonsense acquires a sheen of truth...

...I know the young men and women (and let's put aside the gender correctness for the moment, the majority of our troops are men) who wear the Maple Leaf well, and the one bloody thing I am sure of is that they are not indiscriminate killers.

In truth, they are precisely the opposite. They are highly discriminating killers. There is a sizable segment of the Canadian public that apparently reels at the notion that our soldiers should ever kill, or that any soldiers ever do, but they do. Canadians are among the best soldiers on the planet at the moment, and that means that they have fired their weapons with predictable results.

But they have done so with in the main what amounts to exquisite care. Indeed, the combination of their careful training, the decisions of their commanders and the detailed rules of engagement that govern them has sometimes seen Canadians, and our allies in combat there, choose a course of action that sees them suffer casualties rather than the easier one, which might cause civilian deaths...

It isn't Canadian soldiers who have killed scores of ordinary Afghan civilians, women and children, in suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices on the gutted roads of that country, who bomb schools and threaten teachers with death. It isn't Canadian generals who sit in briefing rooms and plan devastating attacks in busy markets; it is the men like those my colleague interviewed, with their soft hands and hennaed nails, who do [emphasis added], and who send in as cannon fodder any sufficiently poor, illiterate, desperate young Afghan men they can find...

God bless Christie once again.

Early warning

When this blog started receiving a fair bit of traffic yesterday from Google searches for CWO Robert Girouard, I figured there was only one possible reason. I hoped I was wrong, but that hope has now been extinguished.

“Two professional, dedicated Canadian soldiers, Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard and Corporal Albert Storm, made the ultimate sacrifice yesterday in Afghanistan. Our hearts and thoughts go out to their families and friends during this difficult time.

Chief Warrant Officer Girouard and Corporal Storm were killed when their armoured vehicle was attacked by a suicide bomber as they traveled on the highway to the Panjwayi area of Afghanistan. Chief Warrant Officer Girouard was a very senior Non-Commissioned Officer and a proven leader. Corporal Storm was a brave, dedicated and professional soldier. Both served valiantly against an enemy that uses arbitrary attacks to thwart any progress for the Afghan people to achieve their freedom and stability.

There are risks involved in this selfless work. However, the sacrifice of these soldiers will not be forgotten and this event will not deter us from helping Afghans reclaim their lives and build a free and democratic society.”

My condolences to CWO Girouard's family, especially his daughter Jocelyn, who dropped by and commented at this site when her father was mentioned in a previous post. Although I cannot fathom her grief, I hope she may take some solace in the admiration, respect, and pride many of us feel for her father. Their sacrifice will be remembered.

Also killed in the blast was Cpl Albert Storm, and the sacrifices made by him and his family are no less significant. He too will be remembered.

Note: Much as this information was all over the media yesterday, I have held off with this post until the names were released officially. There's a damned good reason that convention is in place, and I wish it would be respected.

I don't see the point of publishing names before their official release. Those who didn't know the deceased don't particularly care about the names, and those who do deserve to learn of their loss from a source other than the media. If the entire point of publishing early is to sell more online ads or push more pounds of newsprint out the door...well, a man's dignity and his family's feelings should be worth a lot more than that. That includes his military family, not just the blood relations who get a visit from the padre.

I won't tar all journalists with the same brush, since some are obviously better than others, but I wish as an industry they would show a bit more class than rushing to see who can blurt a dead man's name out to the world the fastest, all other considerations be damned.

'The Canadians try to kill everybody'

The Globe and Mail's headline writers--front page--must want the Afstan war crimes trials to start, based on a quote from an obviously unimpeachable Taliban source.

In a rare meeting marked by unusually straight talk, the men described how they manipulate Afghan tribes [emphasis added--and they certainly are manipulating some others], turn local officials against their own government and channel the frustrations of ordinary people to drive foreigners away from their ancient lands.

They spoke from personal experience. The two, relaxing at a private home in a secret location in the infamously lawless Pakistani province of Baluchistan, are foot soldiers in the Taliban insurgency...

...the two insurgents gave fake names: Mullah Azizullah, 34, and Mullah Manan, 37.

"There is a big difference between Canada and the United States," Mr. Azizullah said, tapping his fingertips together in a pensive gesture.

"If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything in the area. The U.S. only tried to kill the Taliban. The Canadians try to kill everybody."..

"Hillier Youth" in action, I guess. I wonder why the reporter, Graeme Smith, fails to mention that no aircraft doing the bombing are Canadian. There's journalism and then there's propaganda. I'm still waiting for the headline: "Americans work hard to avoid civilian casualties".

Update: From the Army.ca discussion:

The reporter was interviewed on CFRA this morning about his story. He said that the statement about Canadians trying to kill everybody was probably aimed at Canadian public opinion, and should not be taken as the truth.

Perhaps the headline writers might just have taken that into consideration; but no, there really is an agenda.

Upperdate: 'The Muslims try to kill everybody'.

Jumping the gun

David Akin's piece - the one Mark pointed out here - is misleading.

CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.

Submitted to whom? By placing this information directly ahead of the speculation about potential equipment purchases to be put before cabinet, the implication is that the plan has been submitted to cabinet too.

That's just plain wrong. DND's defence capabilities plan is in fact still being worked upon. In fact, it will be awhile before it's complete and ready for final submission to anyone with the power to act upon it.

My guess is that some staffer saw a memo on his bosses desk or at most a draft copy, and decided to share that information with Akin. But I'll call that what it is - a guess on my part.

You'll note I don't qualify my statement above the same way.

Check your sources, Dave.

Making tracks to Afstan

More M-113 armoured personnel carriers are on the way.

The Canadian Forces will ship more armoured vehicles to Afghanistan to help ease the wear and tear on the military's combat fleet in Kandahar.

About 40 tracked M113 armoured personnel carriers will be shipped early in the New Year, a move that will give commanders another type of vehicle to use when the wheeled LAV-3, as well as Bison armoured carriers, are undergoing maintenance, said army spokesperson Capt. Sylvain Chalifour.

In addition, some of the Bisons now in Afghanistan will have to be returned to Canada for refi t work, so the M113s will make up for that shortfall, he said.

There are already several M113s in Kandahar, Chalifour added.

Afghanistan's terrain is exceptionally hard on vehicles and equipment of all types, according to military officials.

Army officers privately say the M113s are also needed to roll over some of the obstacles that have stopped or slowed down the wheeled LAV-3s. While the LAV-3 is well regarded by the troops, it has had difficulty driving over some of irrigation ditches during fi ghting in the Afghan countryside.

Tracked vehicles, such as the M113, will be able to negotiate such obstacles better. Officers also say the M113 can keep up to the Leopard tank already in Kandahar.

In September, the military announced it was sending Leopards to Afghanistan in a bid to boost firepower and protection for its soldiers.

Earlier this week, one of the Leopards hit a mine during a training exercise outside Kandahar. The explosion blew off one of the tank's tracks, but it was repaired later that day. No soldiers were injured in the incident.

The future strategy of Canada's army is to switch to a predominantly wheeled vehicle fleet [maybe not--see link]which, according to senior officers, would be more easily transportable overseas [but C-17s will lessen that problem, and land-locked Afstan with no rail access either is a bit of an anomaly in terms of operations].

More equipment for Canadian Forces?

All the major pieces will have fallen into place if Cabinet gives the go-ahead. Only the amphibious ship, aka "Big Honking Ship" will remain (almost certainly not before the election).

The federal cabinet is poised to sign off on a new master plan for the Canadian Forces that will include billions more for new military equipment.

CTV News has learned that the Department of National Defence has submitted its "Canada First Defence Strategy", a so-called defence capabilities plan that sketches out the sorts of missions the military should be prepared to carry out and what kind of role it ought to play over the next several decades in support of Canadian foreign policy and Canadian domestic policy.

At the same time, cabinet is considering four different procurement projects that are being pushed by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor...

Cabinet is being asked to sign off on four procurement projects:

* Fixed-wing Search-and-Rescue Aircaft. Cabinet is being asked to approve a $3.4-billion package for planes to replace Canada's fleet of C-115 Buffalo aircraft. Industry experts the favourites to win this contract are Alenia North America Inc.'s C-27J Spartan or the C-295 from EADS/CASA, a consortium of European manufacturers. Canada's Bombardier may also compete for this contract with its Dash-8 [actually Q Series now] although few give it much of a chance of winning [thank goodness: see preceding link].

* Utility Transport Aircraft. Bombardier is the favourite to win this contract, valued at about $380-million, with its Dash-8 contract [sic]. [Bombardier had to get something. These planes are supposed to replace the Twin Otters that operate out of Yellowknife. Q Series would be fine for most missions but don't have the STOL capability for some--how will this gap be filled?]

* An Arctic Patrol Vessel. The Conservatives had promised to put an armed navy icebreaker into service in the North but that plan is prohibitively expensive. Instead, the military is proposing to put an armed frigate with a reinforced hull that can operate in what is known as "fresh ice" that is less than a year-old. It's not clear what the costs for this project would be...[Thank goodness the silly armed Navy icebreakers promise has been broken, although I still doubt the real defence--as opposed to political--need for these ships. See the Predate here for info on the type of vessel involved, based on a Norwegian class.]

* Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): These drones can hover above a battlefield acting as the eyes for the troops and artillery on the ground. Some drones can also be outfitted with missiles to attack targets on the ground...In a peacetime role, unmanned aerial vehicles could also play a role doing surveillance work in the Arctic.

Despite my earlier carping and doubts, I am amazed at the speed with which the Conservative government has moved massively to re-equip the Canadian Forces with the right equipment they so desperately need. More here and here. Good on the government if these final procurements are approved.

The one scandal will be if the Arctic ships are built in Canada at excessive cost and time--it's almost certain the JSS vessels will be built here with the same penalties, but let's not add to the problem. But then politics with ship acquisitions rules all.

In any event, contracts for the C-130Js, the Joint Supply Ships and the equipment listed in the story above are still some way down the road; if the Conservatives lose a new election before next fall much could go "poof" in the night.

Follow the discussion at Army.ca.

Now that's a machine gun

The Navy is testing an Oto Melara remotely-controlled .50 calibre turret (check the "Gallery").

A growing need to upgrade the close defence capabilities of Canadian warships has led to the trial of a remote controlled heavy machine gun...

After two weeks of physical installs, which saw the ship’s 40mm Bofors deck gun replaced with the new RCHMG turret, an operator console installed on the bridge, and countless hours of tweaking and rehearsing the drill for the new gun, the ship and gunnery crew were ready to take the gun to sea.

From Oct. 16 to 26, Summerside operated south of Halifax conducting trials of the weapon system, firing thousands of rounds against towed targets...

Staff at CFMWC [Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre] is now conducting ashore analysis of the data gathered during the trial to determine the effectiveness of the weapon. If deemed effective, the remote controlled heavy machine gun could be slated for installation throughout the fleet including the Halifax and Kingston class vessels.

Let's just hope no-one tries test-firing on the Great Lakes.

Veteran's bus pass

Congratulations to Transit Windsor for this initiative. I know that this has been in the works for a while and I'm happy to see it finally implemented.

War vet bus pass given approval
BY NATALIE TAYLOR SPECIAL TO THE STAR

The Transit Windsor board of directors has approved a War Veterans Transit Pass program as a gesture of respect and acknowledgement of their personal sacrifice and commitment to the community and to Canada through their service in the Armed Services.

War veterans, residing in Windsor, are eligible to receive a lifetime Transit Windsor pass for unlimited use on the conventional city service in the City of Windsor (excluding tunnel bus service).

Those eligible include Canadian or allied veterans who participated in active service during the Second World War, Canadian or Allied veterans who participated in active service during the Korean War and Canadian or Allied veterans who participated in active service during the Vietnam War.

Application forms are available at Legion, Air Force and Naval associations.
Or visit the Transit Windsor website, www.citywindsor.ca/transitwindsor. Mail, fax (to 519-944-5121) or drop off your completed application form to War Veteran Transit Pass Program, c/o Transit Windsor, 3700 North Service Rd. E., Windsor, Ont., N8W 5X2.

CF recruiting going well/70,000 members by 2010

One sure hopes all this keeps rolling along.

The military's top human resources manager says the Canadian Forces will hit its recruiting targets, despite a high number of medical discharges.

The military will have 70,000 full-time members by 2010, Rear-Admiral Tyrone Pile, chief of military personnel, told the Senate veterans affairs committee on Wednesday.

"We are going to meet our growth targets and we're on track at the moment,'' said Pile.

Last year more than 25,000 recruiting applications were filled out and the military enrolled over 10,500 men and women into full- and part-time service.

The full-time figure of over 5,800 recruits is in line with the Defence Department's plan to enlist a total of 13,000 new regular soldiers, sailors and aircrew. In addition, the Forces wants to add 10,000 members to reserve units...

On Monday, the head of the army, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, said the military is going to have to rely more on civilian contractors and ex-Forces members to train new recruits because many senior non-commissioned officers are busy serving in Afghanistan...

Afstan: Peace in the valley/Star news coverage

The Globe and Mail finally finds some good news--read the whole story:

Battle-weary troops welcome relative calm
In southern Afghanistan, attacks are down and acceptance is up

And even the Toronto Star reports some good news (at the end of the story, and note the headline):

Two Afghan journalists who visited Toronto this week agreed it was vital for Canadian and other troops to stay to prevent a Taliban resurgence.

"People in Afghanistan want them to stay," said Najiba Ayubi, manager of Radio Killid in Kabul. "We've been through years of war, and we can't change things overnight by ourselves. If the troops left Afghanistan, it would send a very bad message. People would be saying: `If they go, why should we stay?'"

Ayubi said it would be wrong to ignore progress made since the Taliban was ousted in 2001. Schools have reopened, media have surged, and there is new freedom of expression. "Now there are about 200 media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations," Ayubi said, adding women have found careers as journalists, filmmakers and media technicians.

Ayubi is in Canada with Mehria Azizi, Afghanistan's first camerawoman, at the invitation of Reporters Without Borders Canada and the Ottawa-based International Development Research Centre, to commemorate Jailed Journalists Support Day, today.

In Afghanistan, Ayubi said, mobile phone networks now connect people once isolated, and new private banks and financial services serve businesses and ordinary people.

"We used to go Pakistan when somebody sent money from abroad. Now we have banks and Western Union."

But the gap between city and village lifestyles is still too wide. "You can go just 10 kilometres outside of Kabul, Herat or (Mazar-e-Sharif) ... Women are veiled, and you won't see them on the street. There's no electricity, hospitals, schools or roads."

I would have thought the journalists' visit would have merited its own story but one gets what one gets.

Now this is what the Star considers worthy of a story on its own:

Canada's strategy is failing, MPs warned
...
Locked in an "unwinnable" war in Afghanistan, Canada must now look seriously at alternate strategies that could include an accommodation for the Taliban in the Kandahar region, the head of a major aid agency says.

Indeed, John Watson, president of Care Canada, attributes a recent lull in hostilities to the fact that high-level talks are already underway involving officials from Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan...

Stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel

Looks like someone else thinks Pugliese's article on the C-130 replacement contract is less than stellar. He's a little more...vehement...about the topic than Mark was:

Yes, those horribly unfair requirements. The ones that said "we need this plane right now. Please limit submissions for actual flying aircraft that can be touched and seen and demonstrated to exist."

Yes, it's a rant. But rants can be such fun. Especially when they mirror my own feelings precisely. Hammer away, sir.

Afstan: Who will provide the troops? Whither NATO?

Maj.-Gen. (ret'd) Lewis Mackenzie says NATO needs to double the strength of ISAF (dream on).

The time has come to be bold. With NATO's future hanging in the balance, fence-sitting NATO partners have to be convinced, coerced, intimidated to live up to their end of the contract they signed when they joined during more peaceful times. Failure to do so will signal the end of a 57-year-old alliance that failed when faced with its first real test in the field.

The US is firmly supporting Canada's demand that our allies do more.

The alliance "shouldn't have countries saying, 'No. We don't do fighting. We don't get our hands dirty,' " Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said at a briefing of defence correspondents ahead of the alliance's summit next week in Riga. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to press European allies to shoulder more of the load...

"We're very pleased to see the way that Canada and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom have acquitted themselves. Each of these three countries has taken a significant number of casualties," said Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs. He said President George W. Bush's administration will press some NATO members to lift bans on their troops going into combat...

But the Germans still don't want to kill.

Chancellor Angela Merkel vowed on Wednesday to keep German peacekeepers in northern Afghanistan and resist attempts to transfer them to the more violent south.

With roughly 2,900 troops in Afghanistan, Germany is one of the largest contributors to a peacekeeping force in place since shortly after the 2001 U.S.- and British-led invasion to oust the radical Taliban regime.

Merkel has come under increasing pressure from the United States and NATO to move German soldiers from the north to the south where Taliban fighters are staging a violent insurgency.

The German mandate as agreed by parliament stipulates that its troops be stationed in the north and help out in the south only on an ad-hoc emergency basis.

"The German army will continue to assume its responsibilities under its current mandate, but I can envision no additional military responsibilities that go beyond the current mandate and I'd like to make that clear right here," Merkel said in a speech to parliament...

This would certainly help if it can be done--and this is the only true "exit strategy".

The US military has proposed doubling the size of Afghanistan's army as US President George W Bush prepares to urge NATO members to send in more troops to contain increasing violence...

He [Lt.-Gen. Karl Eikenberry, commander US forces in Afghanistan outside ISAF] said the plan to double the size of the army was drawn up by the US military and Afghan defence and interior ministries, but had not yet received approval from their respective governments...

The plan calls for fielding a 70,000-member Afghan army by October 2008 instead of by 2011, as originally planned. That would double the size of the current force, which officials said now numbers 35,000.

The police would grow from 50,000 to 62,000, the officials said...

C-130J selected for Air Force

Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese still tries to tout the A400M. One notes that he manages to avoid using the word "Airbus", the name of the company actually making the A400M. Why?

The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin's C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military's aging Hercules transport planes.

The U.S. aerospace giant was informed of the government's decision on Monday, although there has been no official government announcement about the selection of the C-130J for the project.

Despite the government secrecy, the choice of the C-130J as the military's new tactical transport aircraft doesn't come as a surprise to those in the aerospace industry. Although the Conservative government maintained that the competition was open to all bidders and fair, the project requirements automatically eliminated the European-built A400M aircraft, the main competition to the C-130J.

The recently issued statement of qualification for the new aircraft called for a test flight sometime this year. The A400M is now being built and won't be able to fly until 2008.

Defence Department officials also declined several invitations from A400M manufacturer EADS to visit the aircraft's production line as well as view the high-tech flight simulator that has been built for the plane. The same officials did, however, spend extensive time test flying the C-130J last month [well, they would wouldn't they as it actually is flying - MC]...

The Canadian government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and another $1.7 billion for a 20-year service contract for the planes. Lockheed, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for the maintenance contract as well.

The contract for the planes is expected to be signed by the summer of 2007. The first aircraft will be required to be delivered three years after that [seems a bit long to me - MC]...

Supporters of the A400M argue that the C-130J is older technology and the EADS aircraft is a new generation plane that will be operated in the future by a large number of Canada's allies.

But military officials counter that the aging Hercules planes needed to be replaced as soon as possible and they had concerns about whether the A400M could meet delivery schedules...

So we're getting the new Hercs, C-17s and Ch-47s; now what about the fixed-wing SAR aircraft replacement?

Update: In Question Period today MND O'Connor denied any final choice has been made.

Upperdate: As commenter Gary correctly pointed out (full text subscriber only):

James Moore, the parliamentary secretary to the public works minister [not MND O'Connor], responded that no deal has yet been signed and the contract will not be awarded until August 2007.

My mistake. I was watching Question Period (it was not a "debate") and my memory was wrong. Meanwhile Lockheed Martin says it will try to speed up delivery (old Hercs are failing fast but let's consider the A400M anyway) and DND confirms that the J has been selected. What remains are formal contract negotiations. Why they will take until next summer is quite beyond me.

Lockheed Martin is hoping to speed up delivery of its C-130J transport aircraft to the Canadian Forces to help deal with military concerns that some of its aging Hercules planes will have to be pulled from service sooner than anticipated.

The Canadian Forces is estimating that up to 14 Hercules may be grounded early because of excessive wear. The aircraft were scheduled to be withdrawn from service in 2010...

But Jack Crisler, a Lockheed Martin vice-president, said the firm is going to try to see if it can start deliveries earlier than that.

"We're giving them a range of ideas that would take it anywhere, maybe even down to 24 months, depending on what they want to do," he said...

...military officials yesterday confirmed the information in Tuesday's Citizen article that the C-130J had been selected as the only plane that can meet the Canadian Forces tactical airlift needs.

"We can now confirm that Lockheed Martin is the successful respondent of the solicitation of interest and qualification," said military spokesman Lieut. Adam Thomson. "It is now a matter of entering into negotiations with Lockheed for the acquisition of the C-130J aircraft."

Government officials expect a contract to be signed by the summer of 2007...

As to Gary's other comments, I refer readers to Babbling's post above. I would just note that my original post did say "One does wish the government were rather more straightforward." I hardly gave the government a free pass. As to Mr Pugliese's reporting on this and other matters, I suggest readers type in "Pugliese" in the "SEARCH THIS BLOG" box and check out the results.

Army wants more reservists to go full time/Retaining JTF 2 members

In order to meet the demands of Afstan (and some training is being outsourced):

Canada's mission in Afghanistan has put the Canadian army under so much strain that it is relying increasingly on reservists to sign on as full-time soldiers, the head of the army told a parliamentary committee on Monday.

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, commander of the Canadian army, told the House of Commons defence committee that to complete the mission in Kandahar, which is slated to run until February 2009, the army will have to draw on reservists...

Leslie said the army is trying to persuade about 1,500 of them to sign on for two to three years of full-time duty. About 300 reservists are currently serving in Kandahar. By February 2008, he said he expects that number to double.

Leslie said he hopes the strain that is being put on the army because of Afghanistan will ease as more recruits become fully trained and join units in the regular force. But he said it takes about 18 months to train a new soldier for combat duty...

According to the Canadian Press, Leslie also told the defence committee that the Canadian Forces is relying on civilian help to prepare recruits for war.

That means civilians are training recruits, including in such areas as learning to drive armoured vehicles. Junior officers and non-commissioned officers, who do most of the training of the army, are in short supply and therefore training has had to be outsourced...

Incentives for JTF 2:

Some of Canada's most elite and best-trained soldiers have abandoned the secretive Joint Task Force 2 unit for the promise of fat paycheques offered by private security firms working in Iraq and other hotspots, a top commander has confirmed.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, private contractors were dangling the promise of $1,000-a-day deals to poach JTF2 soldiers, said Col. David Barr, head of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

"We were a targeted source for that type of employment," Barr told the Senate defence committee yesterday.

He would not disclose how many soldiers he has lost to lucrative private trade "but it was enough that it was certainly catching the interest...

...Barr cited the loss of top troops as a key reason for the "significant allowance package" endorsed by Ottawa for JTF2 soldiers earlier this year.

The "Special Operations Assaulter Allowance" can boost salary by $15,000 for those with less than two year's service to $39,576 for those with 14 years or more of service. Pay hikes of up to $16,356 were awarded to support personnel...

Barr said there's no problem finding recruits although just 20 per cent of the carefully screened candidates make it through the initial course. Those who do then face a year of training before they're considered able to be deployed.

In his first ever appearance before a parliamentary committee, Barr confirmed that in addition to operations in Afghanistan, special forces units have been put on alert here in Canada several times to "be there at the right time at the right place with the right capability in case something goes wrong."..

Update: Gen. Hillier says recruiting going great guns. Thanks to David Akin for his post--when will this positive news hit the media at large?

State Funeral: It's Unanimous

Not a crank in the House. You could say this is a rare day in the history of our country's politics. Needless to declare, I salute all members of parliament for doing the honourable thing:

The House of Commons has voted unanimously in favour of having a state funeral when the last Canadian veteran of the First World War dies.

The motion, introduced by the NDP, asked the government to honour all who served in the First World War by sponsoring a state funeral.

Of the 619,636 Canadians who served between 1914 and 1918, only three are still alive: Percy Wilson, 105, and Lloyd Clemett and John Babcock, both 106.

A state funeral is one of the highest honours a country can bestow on a person, but they're traditionally reserved for prime ministers and governors general.

The motion was prompted by an online petition launched by the Dominion Institute, a national organization that promotes Canadian history.

"We want to thank the tens of thousands of Canadians who signed our petition in support of state funeral," Rudyard Griffiths, the director of the Dominion Institute, said in a statement.

"By passing a motion to offer a full state funeral today the Parliament of Canada will allow a grateful nation to pay proper tribute to our last Great War veteran on his passing and honour the over 600,000 Canadians he served with under arms from 1914-1918."

The Institute said that since Nov. 6, around 100,000 Canadians had signed the petition.

Coming late to the party

OK, so it's already done and put to bed, I know. But better late than never: Seamus O'Regan's six-days-in-Kandahar blog over at CTV.ca is good reading.

Here's a standout sampling for you, from his time in Kabul, before he even made it down to Kandahar:

We set out by armoured vehicles (modified SUVs) through the streets of Kabul. Dusty, crowded, and more chaos - no one pays attention to traffic lights or signs because there are none. Some cars have steering on the right, others on the left - the Afghans are happy to drive whatever manages to get into the country.

People look anxious but they all seem to be going about their business, working, going to school, doing what they need to do. This is a living, functioning city, with millions of people who have more on their minds than suicide bombers and insurgents' strikes. Sean read my thoughts as we drove on, right by a very crowded "Afghan Bodybuilding Club."

"Naturally, everyone back home concentrates on the bad news. But most people here are moving on, just trying to make do," he said.

It's good to keep things in context. There is a lot of good happening here. [Babbler's bold]

Unfortunately CTV hasn't yet figured out the concept of permalinks, so you have to start at the bottom and read your way up to the top without the normal pit-stops of each day's post. The piece I quoted above is from Seamus' Nov 5th entry.

Afstan: Leopards in theatre

Video, here and here, reminds one of another war. 'Twould be nice if those types engaged this time.

Plus the return of the Vikings et al.

Update: More on the Leopards from the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) (via SDA--just giving credit, Cameron!).

Accelerated acquisition of C-17s, CH-47s?

Asking the US military to give us a break:

National Defence wants to jump the queue to get faster delivery of new helicopters and planes from Boeing Aircraft, and so has asked the Pentagon if it can butt in line ahead of the U.S. military.

"It's being given serious consideration," a Defence Department source said, because the new aircraft would make the Canadian military more self-sufficient in Afghanistan.

Like the Canadian Forces, the Pentagon is also expecting delivery of new C-17 Globemaster transports and CH-47 Chinook helicopters, both manufactured by the Chicago, Ill.-based Boeing Aircraft Corp...

Preparations for operating the new aircraft are underway, even though the Conservative government has yet to sign formal contracts with Boeing Corp...

Defence sources say one or two C-17s could be in Canadian hands by June of next year rather than late 2008, as had been originally planned.

The advanced timeline for new helicopters was less clear, but it would likely be well ahead of the 2012 delivery initially cited...

Hutcheson [spokesman for the Canadian air force] confirmed that two Canadian pilots are currently being trained on the four-engine C-17 cargo plane, which can haul 77,500 kilograms of equipment, including battle tanks, or carry as many as 100 troops.

They're expected to be fully qualified by next month, when two more Canadians will take up the training, he said.

Talks are also underway with the Americans "about giving our pilots some Chinook training," Hutcheson said in an interview...

The Cammo Cup

The CF's Operation Connection at the Grey Cup:

The Canadian military put on a spectacle to rival the Grey Cup itself yesterday, as a 46-tonne tank crushed a car, parachutists fell from the sky and field guns shook the earth outside Winnipeg's Canad Inns Stadium.

All week, the Canadian Forces have been prominent at Grey Cup events. They greeted the players at the airport with a Navy band, drove them to their hotels in armoured fighting vehicles, and carried the Grey Cup around on a Griffon helicopter.

It was all in the name of raising the profile of the Canadian Forces and connecting with the public, but it was not, the military insisted, a recruiting campaign.

And yet, recruiters were on hand all day outside the stadium, where a small military village was set up to attract the crowds as they headed to the game. Officers and enlisted men chatted with the public, handed out toy footballs and encouraged anyone interested in a military career to visit the Winnipeg recruiting office...

It's part of Operation Connection, a $1.5-million initiative driven by Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier. The Grey Cup is this year's seventh and final major public event with a significant Canadian Forces presence. The others were Quebec City's Carnival, the Nova Scotia International Tattoo, Canada Day in Ottawa, the Calgary Stampede, Vancouver's Pacific National Exhibition and Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition...

Ebb and flow

Bruce Rolston at flit has an interesting set of posts up about U.S. and allied casualties in Iraq, where he attempts to draw some conclusions from the raw data (see here, here, here, and here). Bruce has probably forgotten more about statistics than I'll ever know, so bear with me here. Because I'm going to ask more questions about the allied experience in Afghanistan than I'm going to answer.

It seems fairly widely accepted that armed conflict in Afghanistan is a seasonal beast that largely hibernates in the winter months. I know plotting allied military fatalities against time is a rough tool with which to examine that idea, but absent decent data on overall casualties (which the CF won't release - I asked) or allied op tempo in the country, it's really all we have to work with. Here's how it graphs out:



The bold red-brown line is an average. You'll note that it doesn't rise and fall cleanly along with a seasonal cycle. The worst four months, in descending order, are August (14.4), June (13.2), September (11.4), and March (9.6). The best are December (3.6), November (4.8), July (5.0), and January (5.6).

In fact, the increase in violence of 2005 and 2006 has an overwhelming effect on the overall numbers. Which makes me wonder a few things.

First, does the intensity of warfare in Afghanistan correspond more closely with the season or with the actions of allied forces? If BGen Fraser hadn't taken such an aggressive line on finding and engaging with Taliban forces in the south - especially with Op Medusa - would the overall numbers trend even less towards a seasonal interpretation? Correspondingly, if Major General Van Loon were to push over the winter months, would mortal casualties jump accordingly? Or would our soldiers find the enemy has abandoned the field to hunker down for the winter?

My guess is that it's a combination of at least those two factors. Our pattern of engaging insurgent forces probably follows their willingness to fight, which may well be seasonal. But it also undoubtedly follows our aggressiveness. How much of each factor should weigh into the analysis? I'll leave that to the statisticians.

Afstan: MND says government must do better explaining mission

Quite:

Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said NATO allies "must prove themselves" by sharing the burden.

"We need to ensure that troops can be deployed in areas where they are needed most," he said in a speech to the assembly [NATO Parliamentary Assembly].

While the assembly has no formal relationship with NATO, it does provide advice and can influence the military policy of individual nations.

Faced with tough questions from European delegates about the tenuous public support for the mission here at home, O'Connor conceded his government has its own challenges.

"We haven't been as aggressive in this as we should have, but we will continue to explain on a daily basis to Canadians," said O'Connor. He said that sales job will soon include soldiers just back from Afghanistan who will be speaking in "villages and towns" to explain the mission...

It's a pity that, as the MND is finally making a real effort to explain the mission in a series of public appearences, this is the headline the Globe and Mail produced: "O'Connor on blitz [my emphasis - MC] to sell Afghan mission".

And some frankness along these lines would be welcome.

Afstan: MND hopes for one tour for most troops

Some trades and officers may have to do more.

To avoid wearing out his troops, Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan, if possible.

Gordon O'Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that with a little luck and good planning, the army won't have to ask soldiers to return again and again to battle Taliban insurgents.

"There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said...

There will be some exceptions to the one-deployment rule, most notably for command assignments, Hillier said.

"You can't have a rapidly changing face if you're going to develop a relationship with the governor of Kandahar, the governor of Helmand," he said...

Canadian Navy ships to Northwest Pacific?

To help enforce the UN Security Council-mandated embargo on North Korea.

The United States wants the Canadian Navy's help patrolling the high seas and searching cargo vessels for illicit nuclear material going to or from North Korea.

In talks here this week, senior U.S. and Canadian officials discussed naval co-operation as part of the global effort to counter North Korea's nuclear program.

U.S. officials noted that Canada has more than a dozen modern frigates and other warships that could help track cargo vessels suspected of carrying illegal weapons.

Canadian officials say the government agrees in principle with the nuclear-policing project. But Ottawa is not yet ready to announce details of any deployment of ships...

The United States wants the Canadian Navy's help patrolling the high seas and searching cargo vessels for illicit nuclear material going to or from North Korea.

In talks here this week, senior U.S. and Canadian officials discussed naval co-operation as part of the global effort to counter North Korea's nuclear program.

U.S. officials noted that Canada has more than a dozen modern frigates and other warships that could help track cargo vessels suspected of carrying illegal weapons.

Canadian officials say the government agrees in principle with the nuclear-policing project. But Ottawa is not yet ready to announce details of any deployment of ships...

But no blockade is intended:

Ms. Silverberg [U.S. assistant secretary of state] stressed that the North Korean counterproliferation project "is not meant to be a blockade." A U.S. naval blockade of Cuba to keep Soviet missiles off the island brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962.

Ms. Silverberg stressed that ships would not be searched at random, but only on the basis of reliable intelligence indicating a cargo of illegal weapons and material.

She called the searches "voluntary," although it is unclear what practical option a ship's captain might have if stopped for a search...

Update: South Korea won't intercept ships.

Upperdate: Would be a three-ship commitment:

The government would have to be certain it could keep warships at sea for extended periods if it joins U.S. naval patrols to intercept North Korean nuclear material, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday.

The cabinet has not yet formally received a U.S. request, but Mr. O'Connor said Canada would have to consider the issue of sustainability. A ship's crew usually is not expected to serve more than six months at sea, so replacement ships and crews have to be available.

Mr. O'Connor said it takes three separate crews and ships to sustain a mission that would see only one ship at sea at all times...

Uppestdate: Misleading Globe headline: "PM rules out navy ships to help U.S. over N. Korea". What the story actually reports:

The Canadian government has no plans to join the United States in naval operations to search ships suspected of transporting nuclear weapons material to or from North Korea...

When asked by reporters whether Canada might join the U.S. in intercepting and searching North Korean cargo vessels, both [Harper, MacKay] said there are no plans to do so.

"We have no plans to pursue that," Mr. Harper said.

"There has been no 'ask' from the United States or any of the allies" for Canadian navy ships, Mr. MacKay said...

Still some wiggle-room there, though I suspect this idea will sink quietly under the waves of likely domestic political problems.

Afstan: US airstrikes way up/B-1Bs helping Canadians

Another reflection of the increasing scale of combat:

The Air Force has conducted more than 2,000 airstrikes in Afghanistan over the past six months, a sharp increase in bombing that reflects the growing demand for American air cover since NATO has assumed a larger ground combat role, Air Force officials said.

The intensifying air campaign has focused on southern Afghanistan, where NATO units, primarily from Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, as well as American Special Forces [and a National Guard brigade in Regional Command (South)] have been engaging in the heaviest and most frequent ground combat with Taliban rebels since the invasion five years ago.

The NATO forces are mostly operating without heavy armor or artillery support [Canada is working on these too], and as Taliban resistance has continued, more air support has been used to compensate for the lightness of the units, Air Force officials said. Most of the strikes have come during “close air support” missions, where the bombers patrol the area and respond to calls from ground units in combat rather than performing planned strikes.

On a recent 11-hour mission that included a reporter for The New York Times, a B-1 bomber orbited at 20,000 feet, responding to radio calls from American and Canadian troops who asked the plane to use its radar to watch for insurgent forces and to be prepared to drop bombs...

The 2,095 attacks by American aircraft since June is many times greater than the number of airstrikes in Iraq, where the terrain and nature of the conflict are less susceptible to bombing campaigns. There have been only 88 attacks by American aircraft in Iraq since June, according to Air Force figures. Unlike in Afghanistan, insurgents in Iraq are largely in urban areas and do not often mass in groups large enough to warrant use of airstrikes, Air Force commanders said.

The increase in total munitions dropped has also been substantial. This year in Afghanistan, American aircraft have dropped 987 bombs and fired more than 146,000 cannon rounds and bullets in strafing runs, more than was expended in both categories from the beginning of the American-led invasion in 2001 through 2004, the Air Force said. During those years, a total of 848 bombs and just over 119,000 bullets were used by aircraft, according to Air Force figures.

On the B-1 flight last week that included a reporter, Colonel Schepper and his two-man crew received a radio call from a Canadian soldier at an isolated base near the town of Tarin Kowt, who asked the aircraft to stand by for potential attacks on insurgent forces. A few hours later, the bomber crew received a similar radio message from an American Special Forces soldier, who warned that Taliban attacks on his position had been frequent. “We’ve had contact every day this week,” said the soldier, who could not be identified under military rules. “As sure as the day is long, we’ll have more.”..

And don't forget the British and Dutch aircraft providing close air support.

The shell game, part 2

Apparently the $150,000 price tag on Excalibur rounds is expected to drop to somewhere around $30,000 (ht:Army.ca):

When Excalibur production is scaled up by 2010, the munitions are expected to cost $30,000 each, compared with about $1,000 for an unguided artillery shell, Cawood said.

But that doesn't mean the Excalibur can't be cost-effective. One Army study showed it would take 147 shots with unguided shells to take out a target that could be dispatched with three Excalibur rounds, Cawood said.

While some critics have questioned the cost of guided projectiles, an analyst who is a frequent critic of military programs said the Excalibur's accuracy would make it worth the cost.

"It's an outstanding bullet," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank.

"The cost of the munition may be comparable to a satellite-guided bomb, but the cost of manning a firebase is a lot less than the cost of an air base," Pike said.

147 conventional shells at about $1,000 a pop - pardon the pun - versus three shells at $30,000 a pop makes Excalibur very cost-effective indeed, assuming it can perform within those parameters and on that budget. Some say the $30,000 figure might climb because of a fix required to keep the shell's guidance system battery operational in cold temperatures - right now the troops are simply instructed to keep the shells warm.

Part of the upgraded artillery plan that interested politicians and journalists haven't twigged to yet is the Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS) that propels shells a greater distance than a conventional charge could.

MACS is two different solid propellant charges which provide a complete zoning solution for 155mm artillery applications by using multiples of a basic module.

I've been reliably informed that "MACS is mostly just a new way of packaging and handling powder - and a new powder composition/shape which allows you to get more push from the same volume of powder increment." Apparently it's also more environmentally stable, so gunners don't have to adjust their variables as much. My correspondent goes on to state:

While MACS does help Excalibur go out as far as it does - it's a combination of how much powder (limits of the gun and projectile, structurally), length of the barrel (as impacted by the previous limits) and the engineering of the extended range projectiles, whether they use base-bleed (gas bleeds from a burning composition in the base of the round, filling the partial vacuum behind the base), RAP (rocket assist - which is base-bleed on steroids with the added *benny* of reducing accuracy...), or, like Excalibur, which adds gliding to base-bleed.

Not being a gunner, it took reading through that packed sentence a few times before I understood it at all. Not the brightest bulb on the porch, I know.

But the biggest surprise for me was learning that MACS can be used with conventional shells to increase range. In fact, the CF backgrounder on the M777's states that "The high-tech M777 gun is capable of firing a 155-mm shell at a rate of two to five rounds per minute while achieving high levels of accuracy with targets up to 30 km away." I find that 30km number quoted by the CF interesting given the fact that the maximum unassisted range of the gun is 24.7kms, and the 30km range can only be achieved with an assisted round.

Does that mean the CF is operating the M777 in Afghanistan with conventional shells assisted by MACS? I don't know - nobody's saying right now. But I'd be truly suprised if they weren't, given the information that's in the public domain.

Instant update: Well, confirmation didn't take long. Now the question is how much a MACS-assisted shell costs to fire off. Because MACS doesn't appreciably assist accuracy (other than by being more environmentally stable), if it still takes 147 conventional shells to destroy a target that could be taken out with just three Excalibur rounds, but a MACS-assisted conventional round costs, say, $2,000 to fire off, then Excalibur is even more cost-effective than we had assumed. That's without factoring in the 'soft' issues like reduced chance of collateral damage, etc.

Amazing what a little digging can turn up.

HMCS Huron DDH-281, R.I.P.

(Cross-posted from The Phantom Observer.)

It's a little hard to say what, exactly, would constitute a good ending for a Navy ship. Getting turned into a museum would be nice, but impractical for ships that don't have an absolutely impressive battle record. Getting turned into a reef may be politically correct, but you should only do so much for undersea fauna. But at least both beat getting turned into razor blades.

And so does this:

If it gets environmental approval, the navy will tow the decommissioned destroyer to a firing range 100 kilometres out in the Pacific Ocean next May. There the Canadian and U.S. navies will open fire and send the 34-year-old ship to the bottom, Cmdr. Stan Bates says.

"We're currently planning a surface-to-surface missile firing, using a missile fired from one of our frigates as well as strafing runs by aircraft and possibly a submarine firing as well."

The navy says this will be the first time it has used one of its ships for target practice.

One last duty for the senior service. That's as good a way to go as any.

If you're interested in learning more about this DDH, I recommend this web page, where you can not only learn about the Huron, but her two predecessor namesakes and the men who sailed on them. You should also check out this page which gives a brief history of some of her activities since her commissioning in 1972.

And here, you'll find an article about the Huron's decommissioning ceremony last year, as remembered by the B.C. Lieutenant-Governor's office.

Bravo Zulu, old girl, and may the wind be astern of ye.

Afstan: Some NATO members must do more

A Dutch and a British MP slam fellow members of the Alliance.

1) "Lack of NATO help slammed[:] Report blasts member nations not carrying load[;] Finger pointed at France, Germany, Italy and Turkey"

While Canadian, Dutch and British troops have been fighting and dying on the frontlines in southern Afghanistan, other NATO nations have refused to send in reinforcements to assist them, a new report charges [full text at link--well worth a look - MC]].

In a biting commentary, a Dutch parliamentarian takes aim at members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for not providing additional forces to assist in the dangerous mission of combating insurgents.

As well, Bert Koenders slams the rules imposed by some nations on their forces that prevent them from being deployed into action — even as soldiers from other NATO states come under withering attacks...

But note:

The report calls into question Canada's rosy view of the progress that has been made in Afghanistan, warning that few citizens have seen any improvements in their lives, that the insurgency is at its peak and that the drug trade is booming.

"Most Afghans have seen little change in their lives, making it easier for resurgent Taliban to recruit," the report said.

"Failure to bring security or services to rural regions, particularly in the south, has generated deep disappointment among Afghans," it said...

2) "NATO failed Canada in Afghanistan, British MP says"

A British Labour MP [my emphasis - MC] praised Canadian troops Wednesday for their ''superb gallantry and valour'' in Afghanistan, but said they were let down by their NATO allies.

Frank Cook is one of 340 parliamentarians from countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who have gathered here this week for the NATO parliamentary assembly...

After the Canadians drove the Taliban from safe havens in Panjwaii, killing about 200 of the enemy, Cook said, Canada sought help from its NATO allies with troops already in Afghanistan to consolidate the gain.

''Five NATO countries refused,'' he said, explaining they invoked ''national caveats,'' defined by their legislators to limit the scope of their commitment to the Afghan mission. Cook did not identify the countries...

Afstan: US intelligence warns of long, hard slog

Only to be expected, but US officials are certainly franker than ours.

Al-Qaeda's influence and numbers are rapidly growing in Afghanistan, with fighters operating from new havens and mimicking techniques learned on the Iraqi battlefield for use against U.S. and allied troops, the directors of the CIA and defense intelligence told Congress yesterday.

Five years after the United States drove al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that both groups are back, waging a "bloody insurgency" in the south and east of the country. U.S. support for the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai will be needed for "at least a decade" to ensure that the country does not fall again, he said...

...Hayden and Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, painted a stark portrait of a struggling Afghanistan and a successful al-Qaeda capable of operating on two battlefields.

"The direct tissue between Iraq and Afghanistan is al-Qaeda," said Hayden, who visited both countries recently. "The lessons learned in Iraq are being applied to Afghanistan."..

Hayden told the Senate panel that the Taliban, aided by al-Qaeda, "has built momentum this year" in Afghanistan and that "the level of violence associated with the insurgency has increased significantly." He also noted that Karzai's government "is nowhere to be seen" in many rural areas where a lack of security is affecting millions of Afghans for whom the quality of life has not advanced since the U.S. military arrived in October 2001.

Maples said the insurgency "had strengthened its capabilities and influence" with its base among Pashtun communities in the south, as violence this year has almost doubled since 2005...

The two intelligence chiefs said that al-Qaeda, through propaganda and attacks, has been increasingly successful in defining Afghanistan and Iraq as critical battlegrounds against the West.

"We have radical groups like al-Qaeda and its affiliates sponsoring terrorists, insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere that seem to be able to preempt governments and eclipse the moderate actors in the region...

I think the emphasis on al Qaeda is some spinning for the American audience; my impression is that the Taliban can operate and gain support pretty well without much help from al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail continues to play Cassandra (not that the Afghan National Army does not have very serious problems): "Army woefully unready, Afghans say".

Update: Just to add to the confusion, a poll (released Nov. 9) of Afghans from the Asia Foundation that still is positive, but less so than two years ago:

The survey is separated into seven different categories and opens with findings on the overall national mood in Afghanistan in 2006, which states that 44% of Afghans think the country is headed in the right direction, 21% feel it is moving in the wrong direction, 29% had mixed feelings, and 4% were unsure. This is in comparison to The Asia Foundation's 2004 survey, "Democracy in Afghanistan," when 64% of Afghans believed the country was headed in the right direction, 11% felt it was moving in the wrong direction, 8% had mixed feelings, and 16% were unsure...