Private site on US military has something nice to say

Thanks, Canada

On April 22, 2006 four Canadian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by a roadside bomb. Respects and heartfelt sadness go to the families of those heroes who stand alongside the U.S. in the Long War half a world away. While we focus on the war in Iraq, the fighting continues in Afghanistan where side-by-side the U.S. and one of its most loyal allies, Canada, engage the re-emergence of the Taliban.

Canada is like a close uncle who constantly argues, badgers, and complains about what you are doing, but when help is truly needed, you can't keep him away: he's right there alongside you. We have a unique relationship with Canada. We have different political positions on many issues, but our unique friendship has weathered world wars, global crises, and the ever-so-often neighborhood disagreement...

I was at the Pentagon on 9/11, stationed on the Joint Staff. During the early hours after the attack, the United States closed its air space and ordered every aircraft within our borders to land immediately at the nearest airfield. Canada immediately stood up an Operations Support Post.

With civil aviation grounded, aircraft destined for the United States were forced elsewhere. Most landed in Canada. Re-routed travelers and flight crews were hosted at Canadian Forces facilities in Goose Bay, Gander, and Stephenville, Newfoundland; Halifax, Shearwater, and Aldershot, Novia Scotia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; and, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.

Canada rapidly mobilized its forces. Within hours, the Canadian Navy was on alert with ships preparing to cast off immediately for any U.S. port to help victims of the 9/11 attacks. Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team prepared to deploy from Trenton, Ontario. Canada dispersed CF-18 fighter aircraft to strategic locations throughout Canada. No politics. No negotiating. No questions. They were just there. Canada would have fought any adversary that approached the United States that day.

Canada has been such an integral partner with the United States in the Global War on Terrorism that on December 7, 2004 when President Bush awarded the Presidential Unit Citation to Commander Joint Force South for combat success in Afghanistan, he was also recognizing the secretive Canadian Joint Task Force 2 commando counter-terrorism unit...

How many Canadians remember that citation and how much coverage did our media give the story--not a "peacekeeping" one? Indeed our media, public and politicians have almost all forgotten that the Canadian Forces' first mission in Afstan was a combat one.

I fear this article has a rather Pollyanish view of how a great many Canadians--and MPs in three parties--now view their American nephews and nieces. There is a discussion thread following the article.

Update: More at Captain's Quarters.

H/t to Army.ca.

I wonder when this unit will be moved to Trenton

The Army's new airborne-capable unit is up and running.

Canada's newest special forces unit began training its first soldiers this week, gearing up at a breakneck pace to prepare for a first mission that could come as early as August and send the Canadian Special Operations Regiment to a hot spot anywhere in the world with only a few hours' notice.

The National Post was given an exclusive look at the first soldiers of this elite unit, the first new regiment formed by the Canadian army since the ill-fated Airborne Regiment was created in the 1960s...

Lt.-Col. Hammond insists that his new unit is much more than just a battalion of paratroopers. The regiment will all be trained to parachute into action, but he says with a shrug: "That's just another way to get to work."

He wants his soldiers to be more of a cross between elite infantry regiments such as the U.S. Army's vaunted Ranger battalions and special forces units such as Britain's SAS, switching between operating almost as conventional infantry and like special forces commandos depending on their mission...

The first 175 soldiers of the regiment, selected from among hundreds of applicants from across the Canadian Forces, are being put through an intense, 16-week training course to earn the right to wear the regiment's tan beret. They will form the first "Direct Action Company" of what will eventually be a 750-strong regiment, including sniper detachments, combat engineers, heavy weapons squads and teams of commandos...

But Stephen Harper made a silly promise during the election to station a new airborne battalion at CFB Trenton--does he really intend to keep it?

Tuesday’s federal budget will show the Conservatives are on track with their plans for CFB Trenton, Prince Edward-Hastings MP Daryl Kramp says.

“Everything is planned to go exactly as we said it would, so we will be looking at fulfilling our election commitments to the military, in which Trenton is going to play a significant role,” Kramp told The Intelligencer Friday afternoon.

In a pre-election stop at the base last December, then-Opposition Leader Stephen Harper said a Conservative government would increase military spending significantly...

Harper also promised a new airborne battalion of 650 regular-force soldiers would be stationed at the base, and the Disaster Assistance Response Team’s staff would double.

“I’ve been assured by my caucus and party officials that the long-term plans for Trenton are going ahead as scheduled,” Kramp said in a telephone interview from Ottawa.

“There is a structured plan for that,” he said, adding the changes will come in the next three budgets...

Update: A comment at Army.ca:
...
I was in Trenton last week (more "having relations with the puppy" than actually accomplishing any work), and the TimHortons-Int was speculating on construction/expansion of the CF Detachment in Mountain View, (Prince Edward County, 10km south of Belleville). Since we occasionally had to take buses down to Trenton to jump back into Petawawa....or subsequently bus back to Pet because the plane was broken...I thought it Divine retribution that they would put an infantry unit in Trenton/Mountain View, since they'd have to regularly bus up to Pet just to find useable training space. Having a unit in Trenton whose role is solely to parachute makes sense (oh, I know, let's call them The Skyhawks Roll Eyes ), but as mentioned, parachuting is just how an airborne unit gets to work. The key terrain (pun) is their ability to conduct combat operations once at the DZ. Nothing around Trenton provides an adequate training venue...

Afstan update: British general to command all foreign troops--including US

I wonder when the Canadian media will report this interesting development.
...
Tomorrow comes a less-heralded but no less significant British military commitment to the country. With the beginning of May, the British-led Nato command structure known as the ARRC (Allied Rapid Reaction Corps) starts operating from Kabul. It is the first phase in a gradual integration of the entire foreign military presence in Afghanistan under Nato leadership.

By early next year, 14,000 American troops will have been incorporated into the Nato force. A British lieutenant-general, David Richards, will command, the first time US forces have served under the theatre-wide leadership of a foreign general since 1945...

See also:
Afstan: More inaccurate and misleading drivel from our major media (April 9)
Afstan: Canadian officers take command at Kandahar and of Regional Command (South) (Feb. 28)

H/t to Norman's Spectator.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Afstan: Jack Granatstein takes a dim view of the media and the politicians

Quite rightly too.

Hypocrisy seen on all sides in flag flap

The controversy over lowering the flag to honour fallen soldiers and the ban on media coverage of their return to Canada exposes hypocrisy on all sides, says Canada’s pre-eminent war historian.

Jack Granatstein says the government changed the rules to avoid unpopularity as the death toll mounts in the war in Afghanistan and “hurts the government’s chances of re-election.”

But the Opposition is using the issue for its own political ends in a manner he describes as “stomach churning.”

And the media are using veiled threats against the new Conservative government to try to get their way, he adds.

“Is there no limit? Is there nothing politicians will not do to capitalize on the misery of others and to obscure their own role in that misery?” he asks in an essay written for the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century.

The Harper government has decided to no longer lower the flags to half-mast when soldiers die in military action and to ban the media from covering and taking photographs of the return of their caskets to CFB Trenton.

Granatstein, a military historian and former director of the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, says families of the war casualties have been dragged into an “unseemly squabble” in Parliament.

“What is important in this unseemly affair is the hypocrisy of the politicians, all the politicians, and the media,” he writes. “The press have seized on the government’s decision to treat the arrival of the servicemen’s coffins at CFB Trenton as a family matter as a way of chastising Prime Minister Harper for his general attitude to the media. No journalist says this is the reason, but let us be very clear: it is. Give us more access, Prime Minister, the implicit message is, or we the media will make your life unbearable.”

But he also scolds the government for changing the policy without consulting the families.

“Then there is the real reason for the government’s press ban — the all too obvious concern that the attention paid the casualties will impact on the already shaky support for the Afghan War and, perhaps, hurt the government’s chances of re-election,” he says.

But he saves most of his ire for the Opposition parties, particularly the Liberals.

“The Chretien government for a decade and more starved the military of funds and failed to replace its obsolescent equipment,” he says. “The latest casualties near Kandahar died in a G-Wagon, one of the vehicles hastily secured when the wretched Iltis jeeps proved too vulnerable even for the Liberals who had unhesitatingly sent our soldiers into harm’s way in unarmoured, ancient equipment.”

But blasts the NDP as well.

“To have the New Democratic Party’s spokesmen calling for the lowering of the flag on government buildings might be barely tolerable if the NDP had ever called for more money to be spent on the Canadian Forces. The blatant hypocrisy here is, frankly, stomach-turning.”

He sees much of the criticism of Harper over the war as an attempt to tie him to the unpopularity of U.S. President George W. Bush.

“Anti-Americanism is always the last refuge of Canadian scoundrels,” he says.

and Dosanjh’s hypocrisy stands high even in a crowded field. He shamefully seeks to profit politically from the dead. No one in Ottawa comes out of this sorry affair with credit.

To read the full essay on the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century website, click here.

NORAD continued indefinitely and expanded

Good news that this is over with and, with any luck, should not be terribly controversial. After all the terms were basically negotiated under the Liberals. But trust the Toronto Star to search for sinister angles.

Stephen Harper's government has quietly committed Canada to "indefinite" participation in NORAD and agreed to give the military alliance new responsibilities to watch for a terror attack by sea.

Fresh off his softwood lumber truce, Harper's government yesterday gave another boost to Canada-U.S. relations when it signed off on the renewal of the landmark North American Aerospace Defence Command treaty.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador in Canada, signed the new pact at a "ceremony in Ottawa," according to Janelle Hironimus, a spokesperson with the U.S. State Department.

Yet in Ottawa, officials with the Harper government tried to keep word of the renewal under wraps...

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal.

"The new agreement expands NORAD's mission by adding maritime warning to NORAD's aerospace defence mission," Hironimus said.

This will be a first for the joint Canada-United States defence agency, which in the past has been responsible only for guarding the skies over North America.

The new responsibility involves watching the coasts for suspicious vessels that could be used for a terror attack, a serious threat that has been a concern to both countries. But the vigilance also includes watching for drug traffickers and human smugglers too.

Unlike the current agreement, which will expire on May 12, this new deal will run indefinitely, "acknowledging the mature nature of the U.S.-Canadian defence partnership," Hironimus said...

While the Conservatives are sure to trumpet the deal as yet further proof of improving relations with the U.S., negotiations for the renewal were "largely completed" before they took office in February, Hironimus said...

In Canada, opposition politicians will get their own briefing on Monday in advance of a debate on the new pact on Wednesday.

And the Conservative government has relented and will allow a vote on the agreement on Thursday, Parliament Hill sources say...

Clearly the Star got a scoop here and no other major papers that I can find have run the story.

Yesterday the Star, as is its wont, ran a piece of paranoid fantasy, by one of the usual academic suspects, about the US essentially taking over Canadian national security. One hopes the reality of the NORAD renewal will quell such nonsense--at least amongst those who care for facts.

Continental integration by stealth

As Ottawa prepares to renew NORAD agreement, a bi-national panel suggests nothing less than the complete integration of Canada's military, security and foreign policy into the decision-making and operating systems of the U.S., writes Michael Byers...

Read on, if you have the stomach for it.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Whyever did we buy these submarines (or any subs at all)?

This really is becoming absurd.

The Defence Department has decided to delay repairing a fire-ravaged submarine until 2010, leaving the navy short by one vessel and raising concerns about whether the damaged boat will ever return to service...

"This will improve our ability to get Victoria and Corner Brook back into service and better position the navy to have two boats fully operational in 2009," the department said in a one-page statement released late Thursday.

Victoria and Corner Brook are also currently out of commission...

The Defence Department... said the repairs are expected to take two years to complete, putting the sub back in service by 2012...

The Toronto Star prints a relevant letter

Hope springs eternal.

Canada not alone in Afghanistan

Apr. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM

---

Canadians in Afghanistan

---

April 25.In reading and listening to media reports, one would think Canada is the only country, other than the United States, that has placed troops in harm's way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Twelve NATO countries currently have a total of 15,000 troops deployed, of which Canada has supplied 2,300. Regrettably, 15 Canadians have lost their lives. But so, too, have many brave soldiers from other countries — all of which deserve mention, honour and our gratitude: Germany 18, Spain, 17, U.K. 7, France 4, Italy 3, Romania 3, Denmark 3, Sweden 2, Australia 1, Norway 1, Portugal 1. We stand together.

---

Don Mustill, Unionville

Good on you, Don.

The unknown soldiers and those who neglected them

The Globe's Christie Blatchford (bless her) describes the Canadian media's years of neglect of the Canadian Forces, and the hypocrisy of their sudden concern for our troops (full text not online).

This ignoble fight about the fallen, as it might be called, is not about denying the Canadian media, despite all that has been said and written to the contrary.

Even if that were the issue, my colleagues and I would be arguing from our usual quarters on the low moral ground. The press of this country is in no position to quarrel with whatever limits that might be put upon our collective access to the Canadian Forces and its members -- dead or alive, and whether those limits are imposed by political or military leadership.

For the longest time, access was the last thing we wanted.

For decades, the press remained resolutely uninterested in the nation's military, and in this sense, operated hand-in-glove with the government of the day, which, regardless of political stripe and with few exceptions over my lifetime, has generally behaved as though there was something a little distasteful and embarrassing about soldiers...

This collective failure might be less important if the military had not been, through much of this time, systematically also being subjected to massive cuts in both budget and presence in Canadian towns and cities and increasingly treated by Ottawa as just another federal department (like the environment or culture ministries) and increasingly seen that way by the press.

So there's that: We have no moral authority to complain, whether the order to close off Canadian Forces Base Trenton this week as the bodies of four fallen soldiers killed in last weekend's roadside bombing were repatriated, came from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor or Prime Minister Stephen Harper...

The Sun papers' Lorrie Goldstein takes a similar view about Liberals and New Democrats. Let us hope the Conservatives really do better.
...
As military historian Jack Granatstein wrote in Who Killed the Canadian Military?: "There is, unfortunately, a soft-headedness about Canadians and their politicians. An unwillingness to focus on the essentials."

And that's all this flag flap is. A non-essential, with the chorus of "support" for our soldiers being led by hypocritical Liberal and New Democrat MPs -- all of whom should be ashamed of their parties' records when it comes to our military.

Anyone can make nice speeches about fallen soldiers in the Commons.

Anyone can shed crocodile tears. Anyone can pretend that the recent Liberal "innovation" of honouring some soldiers by lowering the Canadian flag on Parliament Hill when they are killed in action, but not others, represents "respect."

After all, it's so very Liberal. It's easy, it looks nice and it doesn't cost us a cent...

...Why do these types only seem to care about our soldiers when they're (a) dead or (b) "peacekeepers" -- a concept that's 15 years out of date in the real world?..

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Gen. Fraser at Security Meeting with Afghanistan's Governors

Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, Afghanistan

25 Apr 2006

Source: Combat Camera

Five Governors of Afghanistan’s southern provinces held a meeting at the Governor’s Palace in Kandahar City to discuss security, reconstruction and unity of effort.

Left to Right: 2nd Mr. Jan Muhamad Akbari (Daikundi Province), 4th Brigadier General David Fraser (Regional Command South Commander), 5th Mr. Dilbar Jan Arman (Zabul Province), 6th Mr. Abdul Hakim Munib (Uruzgan Province), 7th Major General Benjamin Freakly (Commander of Combined Joint Task Force-76), 8th Mr. Asadullah Khalid (Kandahar Province), and 10th Mr. Daud (Helmand Province).

The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) located at Camp Nathan Smith in the heart of Kandahar City is comprised of approximately 250 soldiers, drawn largely from Land Forces Western Area (LFWA) and 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1 CMBG) based in Shilo, Manitoba and Edmonton, Alberta.

Task Force Afghanistan is part of Canada’s contribution to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Canadians and their international partners are helping Afghan people to rebuild their lives, their families, their communities and their nation. The mission is to improve the quality of life of Afghan people by providing a secure environment in which Afghan society can recover from more than 25 years of conflict.

Photo by Sergeant Carole Morissette
Task Force Afghanistan Roto 1
Imagery Technician

Maj. Gen. (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie on flags and coffins

Audio of interview on CFRA, Ottawa, Tuesday morning: while he supports the flag decision, he doubts the wisdom of banning the media's covering the coffins' return at Trenton.

And from his Globe and Mail column today (full text not online):
...
...it was the right decision...

The federal government's return to the flag protocol that saw this nation through two world wars, Korea, and more than 120 fatalities on numerous peacekeeping missions will once again result in the Canadian flag being lowered at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa and at each base across the country where a deceased soldier was stationed...

The Canadian military has begun a long overdue rebuilding process. There is no guarantee that process will succeed. Sympathy for the fallen is gratefully appreciated, but our young men and women abroad and at home need the public behind them in more ways than one.

I leave it to a Canadian soldier to have the final word. Having served in Afghanistan, he called in to a Toronto talk show on Sunday just after I had finished my interview. I wish I had recorded his name. To paraphrase, he said, "We wear the Canadian flag on the sleeve of our uniform, we salute it every day in theatre and if we are killed, it drapes our coffin. That is how the flag respects us. If the public wants to show its respect for us, give us the funding, the equipment, the training and the support to do the job you order us to do."

I wish I had said it that well.

The Globe's editorial also gets it right (full text not online).
...
To make a national show of mourning over each soldier who dies -- lowering the flag on Parliament's Peace Tower and other public buildings; sending the Prime Minister to meet the bodies when they are brought home to Canada -- almost suggests that the country has been shaken to its roots. That is not the message that Ottawa wants to send at a time when our soldiers are facing a ruthless foe in foreign fields. Far better to mourn in quiet dignity, marking the loss and then moving on. This is what soldiers do when they lose one of their comrades. This is what we at home should learn to do, too.

Ottawa should not sanitize what is going on in Afghanistan or try to play down the fact that our soldiers are dying, but neither should it let grief undermine resolve. It is a thin line to walk. Deaths like this weekend's are a tragedy but they are not a crisis. We have seen their kind before in our history and we will see them again. They are the cost of defending freedom.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Maybe the Air Force will get both strategic and tactical airlift

Jim Travers thinks the Conservative budget will accomodate both National Defence Minister O'Connor and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier. That would be nice, if true. And nice also that Navy icebreakers will be abandoned.
...
Hillier will get the tactical aircraft required by an operations-oriented military and O'Connor will get the heavy-lift transporters needed to wave the flag.

It's not yet clear that either will get everything they want. Purchase orders for Hillier's 16 short-haul Lockheed-Martin Hercules and O'Connor's six Boeing Globemasters would effortlessly exceed the additional $5.3 billion that Harper promised during the winter election to make the military more muscular.

Something has to fall off the shopping list and that's almost certain to be another O'Connor priority. Fading fast is the slow-witted proposal to build and deploy armed icebreakers in the Arctic to defend Canada's suspect sovereignty...
Like Liberals before them, Conservatives will continue to loudly bang the sovereignty drum while the icebreaker project begins to slide quietly below the waves.

That's not a bad thing — there are better, less expensive ways to stake Canada's claim — and the icebreakers are certainly not the most important consideration in the Hillier vs. O'Connor power struggle.

What's far more significant is that the soldier and his civilian boss are finding ways to make procurement draw them together instead of driving them apart...

There's no doubt Hillier's tactical aircraft replacements are overdue.

And the compelling argument that Canada would be better — if less glamorously — served by renting aircraft is being effectively muted by interest groups and those willing to pay about $250 million each to paint the Maple Leaf on C-17 tails...

Moreover, the Canadian Forces now will have a fair degree of access to Antonov strategic airlifters via NATO. Hmm.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Afstan: Canadian media coverage of our casualties

Seems something less than, shall we say, disinterested reporting. Two comments from a thread at Army.ca (an unofficial site):

1) All day I saw pictures of the coffins in transit and then I get to hear CTV proclaiming Harper is Bush lite and he's trying to hide the coffins.

they actually used the phrase "Canada's Iraq"........

2) Rant on:

Once again, I'm fed up and disgusted with the media and their "spinning" of non-issues into something more. Yet again, TV tonight is awash with "Conservatives won't lower the flag" stories - presented with no background and with plenty of people saying what an "insult" it is to soldiers. They have no idea what soldiers think of this issue, yet are ready to jump to conclusions in an effort to speak for us.

To the media reading this (and I have no doubt you are): how much is enough? You have plenty of coverage of the coffins being put on the plane and I have no doubt you'll have plenty of the funerals - invited or not. Get a grip. We are the Army; it is a sad reality that part of our job is to take casualties on behalf of Canadians and our elected political masters - of whatever stripe. Don't denegrate that sacrifice with an unseemly and politically motivated display of spin designed to promote controversy and generate ratings. "Canada's Iraq" indeed...

Rant off.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Time for reporters to start listening

Can we please let this be the last word on armoured vehicles and IED's?

Question: Kathleen Harris, Sun Media. General Hillier, this particular type of vehicle, the G-Wagon, is it a safe enough vehicle for this mission and is it possible that these lives could have been saved if they had been in a more heavily armoured vehicle?
...
General Rick Hillier: First of all, let me say the G-Wagon, armoured G-Wagon is a very good vehicle and we have Canadian soldiers alive today who would not be without the vehicle and the protection that it offers, without question. And in fact, yesterday I spoke to one of them, Master Corporal Franklin, of course, who is recovering back in Edmonton, Alberta himself. But you heard what I said. The explosion today was of considerable power. What exactly caused that explosion we’re in the process of determining and we will determine, but it was huge. I’ve seen a picture of the crater. It was deep. It was significant.

In short, any armoured vehicle can be defeated if you pile enough explosive into one location and, and manage to detonate it at the appropriate and specific point in time here. The G-Wagon is a good vehicle. We have a whole combination of armoured vehicles in Afghanistan to equip those soldiers and those men and women for every single mission. Our commanders judge the use of those vehicles based on the mission and the threat and we believe all that judgement was done today. But as I said, a) you cannot reduce the risk to zero, and b) if you put enough explosives, you can defeat any armoured fighting vehicle in the world. (Babbler's bold)

In case any of the journalists out there missed that, I'll restate the good general's point with even less words for you: a big enough bomb can blow any vehicle up, and Afghanistan's not exactly short on explosives.

The Iltis was crap on wheels, the G-Wagen's a good bit better, the LAVIII is excellent, but not a single one of them will protect every soldier from every explosive device he could possibly encounter in Afghanistan.

People who expect armoured vehicles to be a magic talisman against death or injury need to revise their expectations.

Morgan Kacheh

Kate McMillan has an e-mail and pictures up from a soldier serving in Afghanistan right now. It's worth a visit.

This mission must be surreal for the Canadians. You're doing counter-insurgency operations - from active hunting to CIMIC work - which means mixing and mingling with those who could potentially be mortal enemies. You just don't know. And while you're keeping your guard up, you're passing pencils out to smiling kids. It's gotta be a bit of a mind-f***.

Good on those folks who can keep their balance in such a difficult world.

Afstan update: UK government not coming clean; now it is

It appears there is more economy with the truth under Tony Blair than under Stephen Harper.
...
...Officers have also warned that unless restrictions are relaxed on when soldiers can open fire the Taliban may inflict major losses.

Commanders complain that John Reid, the defence secretary, has tried to prevent news of attacks coming out and that they cannot make even the most minor military decision without referring it to his office for approval. So far, actions in southern Afghanistan have left at least five soldiers wounded, two seriously.

“The government is hiding the truth from the public,” one senior officer said last week. “I am sure they believe that if Afghanistan turns sour it will bring down the prime minister.

“If they don’t send more troops than the single battle-group that is going now, and allow them to do their job properly by giving them robust rules of engagement, then I can pretty much guarantee it will turn sour.”..

And are UK soldiers there to fight or not?

The Army and the Royal Marines are planning "search and destroy operations" against insurgent forces, The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week, despite assurances from John Reid, the Defence Secretary, that this would not happen.

Officers believe that such offensive operations are vital if British troops are to defend themselves safely from attacks and form a recognised part of the Army's "counter-insurgency" doctrine.

Mr Reid, however, had told the House of Commons that British troops were not going to Afghanistan "to wage war or carry out seek and destroy", operations that the Americans had been mounting.

The Government has repeatedly stated that Britain will take part only in counter-insurgency operations and not counter-terrorist operations...

Update: Defence Secretary Reid comes clean after all.

John Reid, the Defence Secretary, conceded yesterday that British troops in Afghanistan may launch offensive missions that involve hunting down and killing Taliban insurgents.

The statement came after months of uncertainty following the announcement that 3,300 troops would be sent to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan.

The Government had insisted that Nato troops would not move beyond peace-keeping duties and helping reconstruction efforts, despite American pressure for them to take on a combat role...

H/t to Norman's Spectator.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Beige, brown, and olive drab

An interesting discussion has shaped up over at Occam's Carbuncle on the issue of racial diversity in the CF - see the comments thread for the meat of it.

This particualar quote from Gen Hillier a couple of weeks back seems to have sparked the debate:

"Those men and women [the CF] do not, however, reflect the demographics of our country to nearly the degree that we want," said Hillier.

"And in short, let me just tell you quite frankly, they don't reflect your community in the numbers that we need, or that we want, or that are healthy for our country."

Are race, religion, and culture valid recruiting considerations for the Canadian Forces?

The fix appears in for C-17s for the Air Force

Interesting that Minister of National Defence O'Connor thinks he knows better that the Canadian Forces what sort of transport aircraft they need. Stephen Harper has to keep those campaign promises though--but what about the promise the relace the C-130 Hercules?

The Harper government is strongly considering buying up to six Boeing C-17 long-range military transport planes at a cost of more than $1.2-billion, a move that would overturn the plans of both the previous Liberal government and the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.

The purchase, which defence industry sources say could be announced in the coming federal budget...

It would also likely rule out, for the time being, Gen. Hillier's proposal -- announced in the dying days of the previous Liberal government -- to spend $4.6-billion on 16 short-haul tactical transport planes, most likely Lockheed Martin C-130Js.

"If they go with six, that means they'll delay tactical lift [good grief!]," a source close to the Defence Department said. "Hillier will react to that."..

The prices quoted are comparing apples to oranges in a deliberate effort to low-ball the cost of C-17s. The price of the C-17s is just for the aircraft themselves and does not include life-cycle costs such as training, maintenance, spare parts, etc. The C-130J costs about $80-million out of the factory so the cost for sixteen would be $1.28-billion (about the same for the C-17s). Yet the story gives the full $4.6-billion life cycle costs of the Hercules--a very different thing indeed.

There is clear effort by the "defence industry sources" (could they be from Boeing?) quoted in the story to mislead the public, and the Globe's reporter, Michael den Tandt, is too dim to note the discrepancy in the pricings.

Sources say the government would announce it plans to buy a fixed number of strategic aircraft by a certain date, possibly as early as a year from now.

The requirements would state that the aircraft must also have tactical or short-haul capability, which the C-17 does, to ease pressure on the badly outdated Hercules fleet.

That requirement would rule out the Russian-built Antonov, which the Canadian military has rented to deploy its Disaster Assistance Response Team.

Unlike the C-17, which can land on rough runways as short as 900 metres, the Antonov requires 3,000 metres of paved strip...

So the competition will be set such that just one plane can win---just the sort of process defence critic O'Connor opposed last December when criticizing the Liberals' tactical airlifter plan with its clear favouring of the C-130J. Maudit hypocrite.

Senior officials in the Defence Department met last week to discuss procurement priorities, known internally as the defence capabilities plan, sources familiar with the meeting say.

During the meeting, department officials were told the new government intends to buy strategic lift, new fixed-wing search-and-rescue craft [how much longer will this "priority" take--long enough to give Bombardier the contract for its Q Series?], support ships and helicopters -- in that order...

But at least the Navy icebreakers seem to be slipping beneath the waves.

Update: From an August 2005 Fraser Institute study, The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift (which is also not keen on the Navy's Joint Support Ship as now configured) (second paragraph out of sequence for flow):
...
To get where they are needed in theatres overseas, strategic lift is needed. Tactical lift--mostly by air--refers to the ability to move around in a given theatre...

For airlift, using large airlifters for small cargo loads in inefficient. Rather, it may well be in the interest of the Air Force to have a mixed fleet of larger, medium, and small transport aircraft [e.g. C-27Js or C-295s also doubling as fixed-wing SAR]...

A well-rounded airlift fleet for Canada, therefore, would entail six to eight C-17s or equivalent number of other aircraft to provide strategic airlift needs, and 15 to 20 C-130Js to replace the older model Hercules in the current fleet...

H/t to Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs.

You will note that the Globe story above does not list a Hercules replacement amongst the equipment acquisition priorities. Maybe by the time, if re-elected, the Conservatives get around to that the C-130J will be out of production and only the A-400M well remain.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Why leadership is an art, not a science

"We constantly balance the risks to our soldiers with the tasks that must be accomplished."

In the private sector, I measure risk against reward. In Capt Adair's line of work, it's more often risk against duty.

Gen. Hillier presents an award to Lowell Green (audio)

The Chief of Defence Staff pays a surprise visit to CFRA, Ottawa, and gives Lowell a CDS Coin to honour his fifty years in broadcasting and his support of the Canadian military.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

The limits on a Chief of Defence Staff's speaking publicly

Angry in the Great White North writes:
...
Should the General's [Hillier] comments be vetted through the PMO? Just because this hasn't been the custom in the past doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Consider it instead a recognition of the importance of the CDS as a means of delivering signals. Frankly, that the Liberals have always ignored the CDS and his speeches is the real insult. Instead, the CDS is recognized now as a a person whose comments on national and international issues carry real weight. As such, those comments need to reflect government policy, and to have people skilled in understanding how words can be represented and misrepresented by the media look over a speech doesn't sound like a bad thing...

If Stephen Harper and his people allow other people to start driving the agenda every which way, it is the surest means of making sure nothing gets accomplished. General Hillier is no fool -- I'm sure he gets it, even if the media seems eager to spin this in a bad way ("reeled in"?). He might want to talk about some issues important to the military, but now is not the time...

At which post I commented:

It is certainly not the role of the CDS (or officers generally) to comment on foreign policy or the broad outlines of government defence policy.

But it is the CDS's role to speak frankly in public about the military consequences of policy specifics, and about the equipment and numbers he thinks the CF need to carry out the government's policies. In this he is only giving the expert advice that he is being paid for.

If he is not allowed to give it publicly (to a government of any colour) this allows the government to mislead the public about the state of the CF and its ability to do the government's bidding--which it must do, even if not properly equipped and even if not having sufficient numbers.

And once the government has taken a decision--for whatever reason, say on what type of transport aircraft to purchase--the military must carry out that decision without any further public discussion.

One should note that Hillier has not spoken publicly about the Conservatives' ridiculous campaign promises to put battalions (now non-existent) in these silly places: Goose Bay, Bagotville, Trenton and Comox, or to buy armed icebreakers for the Navy when in fact the Canadian Coast Guard operates our icebreakers and badly needs new ones itself.

I suspect it was General Hillier's saying the Air Force needs new heavy-lift helicopters in Afghanistan by September that caused Prime Minister Harper to act.

Update: Hillier denies PMO office vets speeches.

But perhaps the General has been given a hint.

See also:
Oh dear: Conservatives re-assessing military equipment procurement

When will the Conservatives start putting money behind their defence promises?

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Bringing the Canadian Forces up to speed

Some ideas from Douglas Bland, Professor and Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program at the School of Policy Studies, Queen's University:

Mobilizing defence capabilities in perilous times is a lost art in Canada. It is, however, an art the government must restore promptly if Prime Minister Stephen Harper is to achieve the national defence objective of a stronger military, as promised in the Throne Speech. Without significant reforms to defence management procedures, much money could be wasted, and Mr. Harper's goal of building a better, more capable military will likely fail.

Canada's last great defence mobilization effort began in 1950, at the beginning of the Cold War. In less than seven years, Canadian governments transformed the then tiny 30,000-man, poorly equipped armed forces into a 120,000-person, "high-tech" combat force with thousands of troops deployed in Europe, in the Atlantic, in North America and on peacekeeping missions in the Middle East and elsewhere. It was an impressive accomplishment made possible mainly because Ottawa was filled with scores of politicians and bureaucrats who had learned to manage wartime policies and to produce military capabilities quickly during the Second World War.

In 1993, Jean Chretien's government assumed that the "demand for armed forces" would decline, and he allowed the Canadian Forces to wither away. Significantly, as national defence and realistic attention to foreign policy dropped off the Cabinet table, public service skills and attention in these areas wasted away, as well. When Paul Martin became prime minister, he realized suddenly that the nation would soon become a country without armed forces or a say on the international stage. His plan to redress this crisis, nevertheless, was doomed by Ottawa's needlessly complex system of competing departmental policies, regulations, procedures and responsibilities for the production of defence capabilities.

General Rick Hillier, Canada's Chief of Defence, was in Toronto last Tuesday, where he laid out today's crisis starkly: "We need an acquisition process... that can deliver [major new equipment] in time. Not in 10 years or five years - [that's] not good enough." Unfortunately for the Canadian Forces and for Prime Minister Harper, there are very few experienced leaders in Ottawa today who could shape such a national mobilization strategy, and there is no credible system to manage such a strategy if one were discovered.

This largely explains the government-wide confusion in critical areas of defence procurement, personnel management, budgeting, defence industrial strategies and military base infrastructure. Overtop this muddle sits a parliament, suddenly eager to debate Canada's national defence, but ill-structured even to begin to do so in any meaningful way.

Three concerted, Cabinet-led initiatives must urgently be set in motion to change this.

- First, the Prime Minister should direct senior officials to present in the next months a comprehensive whole-government plan to rebuild and transform the Canadian Forces within the next five years. He should make plain that any policies, bureaucratic procedures or regulations that might impede this project are to be amended, modernized or discarded.

- Second, he should place the direction and implementation of this national plan in the hands of a single minister.

- Finally, the Prime Minister should engage Parliament in this (one would hope) non-partisan national effort to garner public support for a rapid rebuilding of the Canadian Forces. To this end, the Cabinet should convene a senior Cabinet committee on defence production chaired by the prime minster. The House of Commons should call together a well-funded committee, separate from the already over-tasked Standing Committee on National Defence, to oversee the rebuilding program. The Prime Minister might encourage the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence to join in this responsibility.

Prime Minister Harper expressed an essential truth when, surrounded by the boots on the ground in Afghanistan, he declared that Canada cannot play a meaningful role in our own interest or in aid of the international community "from the bleachers." The race now is between an armed force in steady decline and General Hillier's vision of an armed force "effective ... relevant ... and responsive" to a predictably violent world.

But let there be no doubt. The race will be lost if sensible military reforms remain burdened with the present government-wide, unresponsive system of defence management. Canada in the 1950s built from very feeble roots an effective, relevant and responsive military force in under seven years. Surely we can do the same or even better in these perilous times.

I don't believe anything like the above will happen. Sad.

And THIS is why we're in Afghanistan

Frustration is a part of any contingency operation.

Contingency. That's what any operation is called that isn't actually fighting a declared war. Whether it's peacekeeping, UN interdiction, sanction enforcement, government protection or even ceasefire observervation, all of it is contingency operations.

Regrettably, all of those operations, in which Canada has been involved for the past 40 years have been erroniously labelled "peacekeeping".

From personal experience, I can tell you that "peace" was a seldom seen part of the equation. I can attest to the fact that since the truce was reached in the Korean war, Canadians have fought in the Belgian Congo, Cyprus, the Sinai, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cambodia and any other theatre which was a contingency operation. In Haiti, we lost a ship to a boiler explosion, not to action, but to overwork and an operational tempo that was unequalled by any other navy.

On Friday, 14 April, 2006, Canadian troops did what they always do on contingency operations. They aquitted themselves with the professionalism and skill which comes from superior training, dedication and just plain guts. As usual, there was no peace. As usual, Canada's professional army, small as it may be, proved that the tradition of Vimy Ridge, Ortona, Rimini, Juno Beach, The Scheldt, Falaise, Kapyong and the Medak Pocket were not abberations. On the 14th of April, the PPCLI proved that having a war-fighting army is an absolute necessity.

They saved the Afghanis.

And by the time Canadian combat troops were finally called in to help on Friday afternoon — after a firefight had raged for several hours — half a dozen Afghan troops were already dead or dying and an equal number were wounded.

A high-level coalition source told the Toronto Star yesterday that Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid had informed senior brigade officials that national troops would be dispatched to challenge suspected Taliban militants who had amassed in villages just west of Kandahar city, allegedly plotting strikes against the provincial capital.

It is unclear whether Khalid asked coalition commanders for assistance in the brash operation. But he was certainly not dissuaded from the undertaking, even though the commanders knew instinctively that all hell was likely to break loose, and that Canadian troops from the Provincial Reconstruction Team satellite base would have to be deployed as a cavalry unit to the rescue.

"We can't always be rescuing these guys," the source observed, even as he professed some admiration for Afghan forces going on the offensive against Taliban without coalition chaperones.
Nor was it clear whether Canadian battle group commanders were ever made aware, prior to Friday's fierce engagement, that they likely would be called upon to help restore order and extract the Afghans from their predicament.

Instead, several Bravo Company platoons — they had been involved in an unrelated but collaborative search-and-cordon assignment not very distant from the area along Highway 1 where the shooting clash occurred — were summoned to the scene as circumstances became most dire.

Unable to travel directly as the crow flies, which would have been about 15 kilometres, the Canadian troops had to zig and zag to reach the battle site, arriving only after the brunt of fighting had happened and the Afghan casualties were absorbed.

Bravo Company helped establish a cordon perimeter and one armoured vehicle exchanged fire with the enemy after it was hit with a rocket that demolished one of the vehicle's eight tires.
It was largely Afghan troops who pursued the Taliban into the warren of compounds as civilians, inured now to violence after nearly three decades of war, watched.

Included among the top-hierarchy Afghan dead were the Zherai police commander and the senior police officer from the province. The Zherai district leader was also wounded.

"It was a difficult struggle for Afghan National Police forces and their leadership," a subdued Lt.-Col. Ian Hope, battalion group commander, said last night.

Earlier, the Kandahar governor declared that 41 Taliban were killed in a fight that migrated along a flat-terrain highway but was waged most intensely in a cluster of villages around Sangisar — the one-time spiritual headquarters of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — about 40 kilometres southwest of Kandahar city.

"Acting on intelligence reports that Taliban have gathered in Sangisar to plan an attack in Kandahar, we launched this operation Friday and the fighting continued from morning to evening," Khalid told a news conference.

Hope could not confirm the number of Taliban killed but took no issue with the figure.
His men gave first aid to two injured Afghan police officers at the scene and arranged for them to be airlifted by helicopter to the multinational hospital at Kandahar Airfield.

The Canadian commander — who came upon the scene with his tactical headquarter unit just as attack helicopters had delivered strikes against a labyrinthine compound into which scores of Taliban fighters had fled — praised the willingness of the Afghans to take the fight to their enemy, pointing out that their forces have faced repeated deadly assaults over the past month.
"It shows an awful lot of grit and determination ... to take the fight to the Taliban when required.
"They actually organized this operation. They planned it, they executed it and they called us for support late in the game.

"I applaud their bravery — they're very, very brave — and their determination not to put up with these continuing attacks from the Taliban."

Yet Hope acknowledged regret, even anguish, that the Afghans had not sought assistance or tactically synchronized with a superior Canadian force, before launching their mission. The Afghan forces are, after all, poorly equipped, lacking body armour, armoured vehicles, automatic weapons, rockets, even sufficient ammunition.

"Am I dismayed? I would have preferred that we had had the time to organize a little better, where we could have brought the combat power of our LAVs and our professionalism and our dismounted infantry to bear. We may have saved them some lives."

And, further: "There was no planning involved here. It was a reaction on our part to a call."
However, as Hope also emphasized, the Afghans were under no obligation to share their plans or seek flanking cover for their mission.

"It's a sovereign country and they have national institutions. They do not require our approval to do robust police operations or military operations."

In the aftermath of the protracted battle, though, Hope sequestered himself with the governor and chiefs of police to review what had happened and discuss "how we can do quick-reaction procedures better.

"This is going to be an ongoing effort for myself and my subordinate commanders in the next few months."

Argue with that if you will.

All I have to say is Bravo Zulu. Well done, people.

The whole report is here.

Afstan: Brits will after all "hunt down and kill insurgents"

Just like the Canadians (see Lisa LaFlamme's W5 story) and contrary to what the UK Defence Secretary Reid was saying in late January.

British troops will be ordered to conduct "seek and destroy" operations in southern Afghanistan, according to documents seen by the Sunday Telegraph.

The plans, which form part of a briefing document for senior officers, have revealed that troops will take part in missions to hunt down and kill insurgents, despite an explicit government assurance that this would not happen...

Under the heading "Deep Manoeuvre Effects", the document states that the troops will "find and track insurgents, interdict and disrupt opposition sanctuaries and locations and defeat (eventually)", which, according to one source, is an accurate description of a "seek and destroy" operation...

This is what Minister of National Defence O'Connor was maintaining on February 26:

"We're not in Afghanistan to conduct combat operations," Mr. O'Connor said...

Perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to be a bit less economical with the truth--as should the UK Defence Secretary.

At least both the UK forces (which will under the Canadian-commanded Multi-National Brigade HQ at Kandahar) and our soldiers seem to have similar "robust" rules of engagement. But one wonders if the Dutch contigent of the Brigade (the Dutch will be ready for operations in August) will also have similar rules of engagement.

Indeed the UK Commons Defence Committee has raised the issue:
...
The committee said it was concerned that so-called national caveats from NATO rules of engagement might impair the effectiveness of the mission in the southern provinces...

On other hand the Dutch will have their own AH-64 attack helicopters and F-16 fighters to work with their soldiers (the Brits will also have their own helicopter support).

H/t to Norman's Spectator.

Update: Several W5 video clips, courtesy Blue Blogging Soapbox.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Afstan: With the Princess Pats of Task Force Orion

Feature by Chris Wattie of the Post.

Photo gallery by Silvia Pecota.

Oh dear: Conservatives re-assessing equipment procurement

One wonders: how long will this take?
...
The big-ticket equipment projects, many put into motion last year by the Liberal government's defence policy paper, appear to now be in limbo, defence industry and military officials privately say.

In some cases, military planners are looking at rearranging the order of the purchases. Just before the election, the Liberal government announced it would spend $5 billion on buying replacements for the air force's aging Hercules transport planes. Now officers are re-examining that and looking at the likelihood of moving ahead first with the purchase of larger long-range transport planes [C-17s], a program favoured by the Harper government...

Defence industry officials say there have been discussions on whether to scale down the project to spend $2.1 billion on a Joint Support Ship, a combination troop and supply vessel. The Liberals had wanted to buy a fleet of those ships as well as an amphibious assault ship, a project estimated to cost around $1 billion.

But one scenario that has been discussed in the Defence Department is the purchase of less expensive commercial tankers to refuel navy ships at sea. Under that scheme, the amphibious assault ship would take on some of the roles that would have been filled by the Joint Support Ship...

[New vessels in French service that might fit the amphibious assault ship bill, and we should have two; I agree with ditching the JSS.]

The Conservatives have promised to buy some of the same gear as the Liberals. But the Harper government is also committed to building a fleet of armed icebreakers as well as a deep water port in the Arctic, projects that analysts say will cost billions.

The lack of direction on procurement programs was highlighted at the recent CANSEC defence equipment show in Ottawa. There, some industry officials expressed frustration that much-needed projects were being delayed.

In particular, they pointed to the Defence Department's decision to "fast-track" the purchase of fixed-wing search-and-rescue planes. That program, to replace aging Buffalo aircraft mainly based on the West Coast, was announced with great fanfare in 2003 and was considered a priority program. But industry officials say they have seen little movement on the project...

Adjectives that always go with certain nouns: "Vote-rich" Ontario and "aging" (Canadian Air Force) aircraft.

The Conservative promise to acquire armed icebreakers for the Navy is simply silly. Our Navy has not operated an icebreaker since 1957; there would be a rather steep and terribly inefficient learning curve getting back in the business.

Moreover the promise is completely unnecessary. Our icebreakers are operated by the Canadian Coast Guard which badly needs new ones. Civilian Coast Guard vessels are perfectly capable of asserting sovereignty in northern waters. An armed Navy icebreaker would be a ridiculous vessel for attempting to deal with US, UK, Russian or French submarines (should one be mad enough to try to).

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

When will the Conservatives start putting money behind their defence promises?

In the forthcoming budget, I hope. But Gen. Hillier will not get those heavy-lift helicopters anything like as soon as he wishes.
...
[Minister of National Defence] O'Connor also told chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier that troops in Afghanistan will have to wait for much-needed new helicopters because buying big-ticket military hardware takes a long time. Gen. Hillier had made a public plea for the choppers two days ago...

Mr. O'Connor said he expects Canada will stay in Afghanistan beyond its current February 2007 commitment, but he said the Forces also need officers and rank-and-file soldiers to train the 13,000 new full-time recruits and 10,000 reservists the Conservatives promised during the federal election.

He said the Forces are having no problem attracting new members, but there remain unacceptable delays, of as long as 12 to 18 months, to process and train them...

Guess who the real enemy is? The Minister of Finance:

Mr. O'Connor said he will be pushing for more defence spending in the first Tory budget, but hinted his government may be hard pressed to live up to its lavish military spending campaign promise.

"As I told the troops in Afghanistan, their opposition are the terrorists; my opposition is the finance minister. I have to try to make sure that from the finance minister I get as much money as I can possibly get. Our cabinet is aware of the needs of the military and what we have to have to achieve our plans -- so is the prime minister. Our overall plan is a five-year plan, but we have to start it this year," Mr. O'Connor said...

I wonder how long it will take Prime Minister Harper to ensure that real money follows on this pledge?
...
Harper said he wants to send a message to the military that what he called "years of neglect" by previous governments is over.

He acknowledged the Afghanistan mission has put a significant strain on the military but pledged that the state of the Canadian Forces will improve as it is built up over the next few years.

Part of that plan will include winding down smaller military deployments around the world to focus on bigger missions such as Afghanistan, he said [good!].

"Rather than placing a handful of soldiers here and a handful of soldiers there, we will concentrate our efforts in ways that we can show leadership . . . and make a real, notable contribution."

That could include both United Nations peacekeeping and other kinds of missions, such as the NATO operation in Afghanistan...

Meanwhile the Ottawa Citizen's reporters, Mike Blanchfield and Avi Saper (could they have, gasp, an agenda?), gratuitously regurgitate nonsense about Darfur in their story.

Mr. O'Connor's remarks mean that the Harper government likely will not be in any position to answer a United Nations call for troops to bolster the floundering and ineffective African Union military monitoring mission in Sudan's war-torn Darfur region.

An all-party group of MPs last week urged the government to lead an international charge at the UN to come to the aid of a three-year crisis in Darfur that has claimed 200,000 lives and displaced millions.

Please read this updated guest-post (at Daimnation!), Darfur update: Somebody please tell Jack Layton about this, for the real story on Darfur.

Update: Gen Hillier may have been muzzled.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Afstan: Things are getting better

Listen to this interview on CFRA, Ottawa, with Chris Wattie of the National Post, just returned from an extensive stay with Canadian soldiers. And be sure to read his report in the Post this Saturday.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

The silver-tongued devil

Just watching Gen. Rick Hillier give a speech at the Empire Club, Toronto. The best speaker amongst Canadian public figures--as one might expect from a man from Newfoundland. And one actually believes him, as he clearly believes what he is saying.

Canada's top soldier wants more money for the military.

Canadian Forces Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, says he's not ashamed to push the government for funding he says still hasn't returned to 1991 levels.

In a speech to a Toronto business audience, Hillier says military aircraft, ships, land vehicles and major systems have all deteriorated in recent years.

He says the Canadian Forces shouldn't have to wait 15 years for a new helicopter when he wants one by September [now that would be hypersonic].

Hillier also defended Canada's mission in Afghanistan, saying it is helping families rebuild their lives after years of peril.

He also encouraged Canadian youth to join the military, saying the forces need recruits [he did point out that in the last fiscal year the Canadian Forces had exceeded their recruiting targets--CP does not mention that; maybe in a later version].

A man who knows what he wants--and says it very well. Refreshing and inspiring.

Update: A favourable review from an unusual suspect.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Canadians and Hurricanes in the Burma campaign

A letter drawing attention to often forgotten Canadian pilots.

Re: Plane buff pays $3M for piece of history, April 4.

As a former Hurricane pilot, I found this article very interesting, but missing a very important part of its history: that which took place in the Second World War's Southeast Asia campaign, commonly referred to as the Burma War, under the command of Lord Louis Mountbatten. I am referring specifically to Hurricane Marks 2C and 2D, which were Hurricanes modified for ground-attack operations. Even an excellent recently published book on the Burma war, For Your Tomorrow by Robert H. Farquharson, completely neglects the work of these aircraft (it does discuss the rather limited successes of the Hurricane Marks A and B, the air-to-air fighters).

The Hurricane 2Cs were equipped with 20-millimetre cannons, as opposed to .303s in the pure fighters, and the 2Ds were equipped with 40-millimetre cannons for tank-busting. Both were given additional armour plate for protection from ground fire, bomb racks for carrying 250-pound bombs, and long-range tanks to allow for operation far into enemy territory.

Many squadrons of these Hurricanes during 1944 and 1945 were positioned close to the front-line ground fighting to provide close support to the troops on the ground. During heavy fighting, the troops only moved forward after the way ahead was softened up by Hurricane bombardment. During the epic battle of Kohima, where the enemy was finally stopped in its thrust to take India, the Hurricanes were lined up in cab-rank formation just outside the battle area, ready to be called in to attack targets that were threatening our troops. In addition, these Hurricanes ranged just a few feet above the trees, from the front line to areas far behind the front, following jungle trails, roads, rivers and railways to locate and destroy enemy troops, vehicles, tanks, fuel, ammunition, food and other supply dumps to keep them from ever reaching the enemy at the front. Without the Hurricane 2Cs and 2Ds, the battle for Burma would not have progressed nearly as well as it did.

I made 187 flights in support of these military operations and I was only one of several thousand Canadians who fought in the Burma air war under British command and in British squadrons whose efforts received little recognition in Canada.

H.E. Holland,

Gloucester,

DFC, Colonel (Ret'd)

And a book that recounts the stories of also often forgotten Canadian (amongst others) Beaufighter flyers in the Burma campaign (including my brother-in-law's father): Silently into the midst of things: 177 Squadron Royal Air Force in Burma, 1943-1945 : history and personal narratives.

A three-team trade, plus cash

If this scheme is actually executable, it should be given urgent high-level consideration. Our surplus Griffons for someone else's surplus Chinooks is just about as much bang for our buck as the CF could hope for.

Birth of a Nation

"It was Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific on parade. I thought then that in those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation."
- Brigadier-General Alexander Ross, DSO



Today marks the 89^th anniversary of the initial attack in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. After three weeks of punishing artillery barrages, Canadian troops launched a dawn attack on German defenses at 5:30am on April 9, 1917. By the afternoon of the first day Canadians had taken the crest of the ridge, but it would require three more days of fierce fighting and bloodshed before they could claim total victory.

The War Museum website describes the Canadian exploits like this:

More than 15,000 Canadian infantry overran the Germans all along the front. Incredible bravery and discipline allowed the infantry to continue moving forward under heavy fire, even when their officers were killed. There were countless acts of sacrifice, as Canadians single-handedly charged machine-gun nests or forced the surrender of Germans in protective dugouts. Hill 145, the highest and most important feature of the Ridge, and where the Vimy monument now stands, was captured in a frontal bayonet charge against machine-gun positions.

In total 3,598 Canadians were killed and 10,602 were wounded - a horrific price to pay, but one that made the world sit up and take notice. No longer was Canada a simple British colony - she was now a country to be reckoned with on the world stage.

---

Further reading:
1. Vimy Ridge operations maps
2. Letter from Private Percy Winthrop McClare
3. Silent news reel footage

Blondes prefer gentlemen

The Globe's Christie Blatchford prefers soldiers to certain journalists: good thinking, Christie (full text not online). Ms Blatchford is brave enough to single out her egregious colleague, Lawrence Martin, in her article.

Among the first things I read on my way back to Canada -- this in the sweltering web café of an airless transit lounge at New Delhi airport -- was a column in this paper about embedded journalism by my tall friend Lawrence Martin...

Mr. Martin's column first. It annoyed the hell out of me, not because the subject isn't worthy of discussion but rather because it was written, as these things so often are, by one of those ensconced in the bosom of the national press corps.

Dear God, you want to talk about embedding, honey?

Now Laurie is more of an independent crank than most, but Ottawa-centric reporting, where journalists, bureaucrats, mandarins, lobbyists and MPs share small and oft-overlapping social circles -- not to mention the guiding belief that a fart from one of their own is inherently more interesting and important than, oh, a flood in the dreary Prairies -- is a more insidious form of embedding than what my colleagues and I were doing in Afghanistan.

And for what it's worth, they in the nation's capital, as I understand it, also fairly frequently actually have it off with one another, whereas fraternization between Canadian soldiers and journalists is, alas and alack, verboten...

I was en route back to the real Canadian world, where people pontificate from comfortable places, spout big thoughts from small knowledge bases, Monday-morning quarterback the way most of us breathe.

Four weeks I had with the smart, thoughtful , often courageous men and the few good women of our military. I got used to plain talk, followed by action; people who are patient with one another and cover one another's backs; Canucks who actually speak from a position of strength, by which I mean our soldiers, from the lowest rank to the highest, are so much better-informed than their civilian counterparts.

I'm going to miss that. And I'm going to miss them.

Never felt like this, leaving Ottawa.

Why we're in Afghanistan, and who should answer the question

I've just come from a wonderful lunch at the Albany Club, where I was privileged to hear MGen Andrew Leslie speak (with thanks to my Irish Embassy Correspondent for inviting me).

We had a fairly good crowd for the luncheon - probably six dozen suits or so, a number of whom were current or former politicians, and an equal number of whom were current or former serving officers. So as you might imagine, there were some serious questions at the end of his presentation, and some serious grandstanding. Never give a politician the floor unless you're prepared to wrest it from their white-knuckled grip, was my lesson for today.

The general spoke clearly and passionately about Afghanistan and the Canadian mission there, much as you might expect. But a few times he stepped away from common wisdom, and I'd like to highlight those here.

MGen Leslie said that the single biggest problem facing Afghans is warlords. He placed this risk above terrorists, which he laid out as a class of enemy distinct from the warlords. He placed it above narcotics, about which he said the finest minds in the world were at a complete loss as to how to deal with effectively. He said they were almost entirely greedy and ruthless older men who wanted nothing more than to control wealth, land and women. Leslie was particularly disgusted with the treatment of women by fundamentalist elements in the country, and proud of Canadian work that allowed girls to attend school in some areas at long last.

Having said that, however, he also spoke about the need to deal with the warlords - and not just by making their heart stop beating, although that was always an option. He made thinly veiled reference to the de-Baathification of Iraq as a mistake, given his experience in Afghanistan where changing sides is as common as breathing, since loyalty is first to family, then clan, then village, valley, province and finally nation. Cutting out one warlord with the targeted application of deadly force simply gives rise to a number of junior warlords, since the system that breeds them is millenia old and highly refined. Sometimes it was worth creating the junior replacements, if the warlord was sufficiently dangerous, but most of the time, it was better to bring the warlord at least nominally onside. In fact, he showed a picture of two former warlords at a government ceremony - one was now the Afghan Defence Minister, and the other was his Chief of Staff or some such arrangement. One a Tajik, the other a Pashtun, they had been trying to kill each other for fifteen years prior to this, and were now working to pull the country together. Incremental progress, and seeing reality in its true shades.

The general was predictably circumspect when asked about the upcoming take-note debate on the Afghan mission in the House of Commons. But I found his non-answer original: "It's not me that should be telling you why we're in Afghanistan; you're the ones who sent me there to risk my life. You tell me why you sent me, and all the other Canadians you've put in harm's way with your vote" (or words to that effect - I'm not a stenographer). He's right of course.

But he left no doubt as to his own personal feelings about the mission - it's the sort of task that made him join the CF and make soldiering his career. Protecting the helpless and innocent in situations where no other group has the resources, the training, or the will to do so is what keeps him putting on the uniform every day. As he said, soldiers certainly don't do it just for the money.

After a question about the Canadian public's fixation on traditional peacekeeping ("I sat through 3000 shells hitting my town in the Balkans in a 'traditional peacekeeping' mission, and then took my troops out and killed a great many of those attacking the town - if Canadians think peacekeeping is anything different, they haven't been paying attention" - again paraphrased), I asked him whether he thought Canadian journalists were giving the public an accurate picture of our work in Afghanistan, and particularly for his opinion on embedded journalists. He said he really appreciated the embeds he'd met, even when they were a pain in the backside, because he said the vast majority of them called things as they saw them, and as such were an accurate reflection of how the average citizen would see the same events. To my mind, that's not a particularly strong point, since I'd expect journalists to expand their audience's knowledge rather than simply reflect its attitudes, prejudices and misconceptions. But Leslie was trying to be complimentary. In fact, he singled out Stephen Thorne and Chris Wattie as particularly good examples of professional journalism in Canada.

It was a pleasure and an honour to hear him speak, to shake his hand, and to learn from his first-hand experiences. I sincerely hope our government allows uniformed service personnel such as him to speak publicly more often, so that Canadians can get a more profound understanding of what our military does and why it does it.

Portrait of a Canadian soldier

Please read this story about a 43 year-old British immigrant (ex-RN) preparing to serve in Afstan as an engineer private. And congratulations to The Brick for being truly a brick.

Stand up and applaud Pte. Jed Stone, serial number N88103401, 3rd Field Engineers Squadron, Canadian Army Reserves...

Jed Stone, 43, furniture consultant at The Brick store on Cyrville Rd. [Ottawa], and while you're applauding Jed Stone, applaud The Brick for promising Jed Stone that while he'll lose his salary for the times he's away, his full-time job will be waiting for him when he gets back from the ultimate fulfilment of his mission in life: Combat duty in Afghanistan with his fellow Canadian soldiers.

But don't, in front of Jed Stone, applaud the misguided feckless fools in Canadian society who say we need to debate our military role in Afghanistan, who say we have no right to be there, who say bring the poor soldiers home before more of them get killed. Don't, in front of Jed Stone, applaud the self-righteous whose understanding of freedom's worth, freedom's sacrifices, soldiering's necessity, soldier pride, is shamefully abysmal, a discredit to our nation...

His late father fought in World War II in the Royal Navy. Born in London, one of six siblings, Stone says: "I always wanted to follow my dad's footsteps."

He did. He was studying electrical engineering when the Gulf War broke out in 1991 and he quit to join the Navy, assigned to the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and then the destroyer HMS Gloucester. In 1999, after leaving the service, he emigrated to Canada.

"Canada's been great for me, and this is my way of giving back. The people of Afghanistan are a society of oppression under the Taliban, the denial of basic human rights. The Taliban's not only bad for Afghanistan, but for all of us. The people want us there to help them in the fight.

"The problem in Canada is that, except for the veterans who fought, we don't really know what freedom is because there's never been a war for freedom on our soil. We take it for granted, we've nothing to compare it against. Lose the desire to fight for freedom, you will lose freedom."..

That's why Jed Stone, who asked the army for at least one tour of front-line duty in Afghanistan, will get that opportunity after 30 more weeks of intense training this summer at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick...

The soldiers and government are keeping their part of the bargain

Jack Granatstein says it's time that Canadians--and journalists in particular-- keep their part by realizing what armies do.
...
...It's Kandahar, Afghanistan, and the casualties, still few in number, are beginning to mount. Are Canadians ready for this war?

To ask the question, unfortunately, is to answer it. They're not. The military reporter for one big newspaper recently asked me if Canadians could cope with such casualties. "Is this our Vietnam?" he wondered. Opposition MPs, columnists, letter writers and bloggers all bemoan Canada's turn away from "traditional" peacekeeping, and blame this fact for the dead and wounded in what they perceive as just another of George W. Bush's wars.

You would almost believe that Canadians had never fought a war before, that they had not sustained 60,000 dead in the Great War, 42,000 in the Second World War, more than 500 in Korea, and an additional hundred in "traditional" peacekeeping operations. When a Syrian missile shot down a Canadian Buffalo aircraft on United Nations service in August 1974, there were nine servicemen killed, but there was scarcely any official or public attention paid to this terrible incident. But now, in Afghanistan, where 11 Canadians have been killed since 2002, Canadians notice.

Why? Why are the media, the politicians and the public so fixated on the Afghan mission? There are many reasons, including Canadians' unhealthy obsession with a mythic concept of "traditional peacekeeping." Of course, it is right and proper to be concerned with our men and women overseas, but a fuller understanding of why the Canadian Forces do what they do might help those at home: What no one discusses is the bargain soldiers strike with their government...

... When he enlists, the soldier accepts an arrangement of unlimited liability. He recognizes that his commitment to military service requires him to go where his government says and to do what it wants. It demands that he obey the orders of his military superiors, even if those orders put him into a situation where he might be killed or wounded. The soldier's job, willingly accepted, is to do his duty to his comrades and to serve his nation's interests.

But this is not a one-sided bargain. The national government implicitly undertakes not to put its sons and daughters into impossible situations. It pledges to equip them adequately, to train them for the challenges they will face, and to sustain them in operations with reinforcements of men and materiel. It also promises to care for them in perpetuity if they are wounded, to assist their family members, and to hallow their memory if they are killed...

Although the Canadians in Kandahar lack their own helicopters, National Defence Headquarters has demonstrated a willingness to buy critically needed equipment (German-made G-Wagons and South African-produced anti-mine vehicles, for example). And the Canadians' light armoured vehicles are top-of-the-line. The troops on the ground are also highly trained and very professional volunteers, possibly the best troops Canada has ever deployed. The government's side of the bargain in Kandahar has been met...

... there will be more killed and wounded.

Our governments know this. The Liberals who originally accepted the Afghan commitment and the Conservatives who have pledged to honour it understand what is at stake. In their considered judgment, the benefits to be gained by putting Canadian troops into Kandahar, the achievement of Canadian national interests, outweigh the risks. That is a hard calculation, and if the voters in Montreal and Musquedobit decide that the government got it wrong, the political price can be electoral defeat. It's up to ministers and MPs to explain that what the troops are doing in Kandahar matters, and if they fail in that task, they will pay the political price. But that is why we elect our leaders to make the tough judgment calls, to defend Canada, and to share the burdens of democracy with other free nations.

Many soldiers may not be politically sophisticated. But they clearly understand the basic equation: They will do Canada's dirty work and accept the blood and pain if their government and people back them up. If only our sophisticated Opposition politicians and media columnists had as much sense.

Gordon O'Connor is not the right Minister of National Defence

Jim Travers of the Toronto Star gets to the nub of the issues.
...
Officially, defence isn't one of the five priorities defining the Prime Minister's agenda. So, instead of speaking openly about the direction of a department preparing to absorb billions more taxpayer dollars, Stephen Harper's say-nothing administration is the first casualty of a whisper war between Hillier, Canada's top soldier, and former brigadier general, arms industry lobbyist and now Defence Minister Gordon O' Connor.

Those on Hillier's side — and that's almost everyone wearing a uniform or watching the bottom line — slag O'Connor as a relic who hasn't accepted that the Cold War is over, the Berlin Wall down, and asymmetrical threats rising...

At a time when Hillier is moving fast toward a lighter, more flexible, operations-oriented military able to deliver more bang-for-the buck internationally, O'Connor is retreating toward big-ticket, high-profile, low-efficiency purchases that wave the flag most vigorously at home [like the mad promises to scatter now non-existent battalions from Goose Bay to Bagotville to Trenton to Comox]...

O'Connor also wants to wave the Maple Leaf in the Arctic by spending $2 billion-plus on icebreakers and deepwater docking. Defending sovereignty is important but, like the heavy aircraft option, there are better ways to do the job...

Abandoning O'Connor would be another vote of non-confidence in a cabinet damaged by the David Emerson and Michael Fortier appointments and embarrassed by Harper's stay-mum order. But if Harper lets O'Connor buy what will delight the arms industry rather than what works best, he risks losing the best-known defence chief in decades and stalling the military's overdue transition...

One just hopes Travers is not trying to undermine both Gen. Hillier and the Conservative government at the same time.

See also at Daimnation!:

Conservatives' defence promises not good enough (Feb. 23)
Arctic sovereignty: the Navy is not the answer (Feb. 22)
A Herculean task (Feb. 20)
Defence policy: Conservatives the new Liberals (Dec. 5)

Cross-posted to Daimnation!