Afstan: Ottawa Citizen's bad reporting

Mike Blanchfield either has not done his research, or else he has an "agenda" (just like David Pugliese?).

After delays and controversy, Aug. 1 has been set as the day Canadian troops in Afghanistan will finally transfer to a NATO-led command after almost a year under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign.

"The handover will be a very smooth one. I'm hoping to be present (in Kandahar)," David Sproule, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, said in an interview yesterday at Foreign Affairs headquarters.

Mr. Sproule said he has spent "a fair bit of time" recently discussing the change of command with Lt.-Gen. David Richards, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, as well as Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's chief of Defence staff.

The expansion of the NATO mission into southern Afghanistan has been fraught with delays and was expected to come much sooner this year.

Canada will take command of the newly expanded NATO presence in southern Afghanistan, and will contribute about 2,200 troops to a 6,000-strong southern force that will comprise more than 3,000 British military personnel and about 1,400 from The Netherlands.

In all, the southern mission will expand NATO's total force in Afghanistan to about 16,000 troops.

Since Canada redeployed its military to the south last August, it has been under the banner of Enduring Freedom, which some critics claim has hampered the Forces' ability to conduct non-combat reconstruction missions. Enduring Freedom operates separate from NATO forces and is, for the most part, leading the anti-terror combat operations against the Taliban insurgency that has swept through southern Afghanistan in the last year...

Lots of nonsense here. This is what Col. James Yonts, spokesman of the US-led Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, said on February 20 this year:

...at the end of the day when this transition [to NATO in the South] happens in late July...

I do not see any significant delay from "late July" to August 1. Mr Blanchfield is creating the impression that there are problems with our mission in southern Afghanistan--where Canada will continue in command when control there shifts from US Operation Enduring Freedom to NATO--that simply do not exist.

Moreover, the bulk of our forces were not redeployed to Kandahar in August last year. A Provincial Reconstruction Team of some 200 soldiers was deployed then which--contrary to the impression in the story--has been doing reconstruction work. Most of our troops remained in Kabul with NATO ISAF. Some moved later to Kandahar (under Operation Enduring Freedom) and their base in Kabul, Camp Julien closed on November 29. Our battle group at Kandahar only started arriving in mid-January this year.

Toronto Star supports Conservatives' military procurement plans

The wonders at the Star's editorial page continue. First they bash Bob Rae for opposing our Afstan mission, now they fully support the government's massive (because the Liberals never bought what they promised in a timely fashion) military procurement plans. Plans that the Star's reporters (like those at the CBC) nonetheless insist on calling a spending "spree". Plus the Star seems to support buying firepower too!

For a decade, the Canadian Forces have been hobbled by a lack of air- and sealift, at a time when the United Nations and allies such as the United States have looked to us for speedy military assistance to deal with 9/11-style threats, natural disasters, failed states and threatened genocide.

So Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government has taken steps to beef up Canada's military presence by rolling out $17 billion in programs this week to improve its ability to get from here to there. The programs follow on similar, but much more limited, initiatives taken by the former Liberal government...

Lest anyone forget, Canada has been named as a target by Al Qaeda. At the UN, we have pushed the "responsibility to protect" civilians who face genocide. That requires more firepower than traditional low-risk peacekeeping. Even at that, we remain committed to peacekeeping in the Middle East and other places. For all this, we need more troops, more weapons, the means to get to hot spots and the ability to resupply our forces.

Yesterday's announcement of $8.3 billion to buy and maintain four Boeing C-17 Globemaster strategic lift cargo jets or ones like them to replace the Antonovs, plus 17 smaller tactical lift aircraft to replace our aging Hercules transports, caps a week of much-needed mobility fixes. The military will also get three new supply ships ($2.9 billion), 16 heavy Chinook-type helicopters ($4.7 billion), and 2,300 trucks ($1.2 billion). This equipment will begin to be deployed in the 2008-2012 period.

All this will "put spine back in the Canadian Forces' ability to help people," Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says. It is an investment at a time when we have 2,300 troops in Afghanistan risking their lives defending democracy and thwarting terror, and when we face new challenges policing our three oceans and preserving stability elsewhere...

The idea being promoted by the new Conservative government is to better configure the Canadian Forces to project force, as well as humanitarian aid, far from our shores. And now that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has addressed the mobility issue, he is focusing on buying [amphibious] assault ships, Stryker mobile gun systems and attack helicopters [firepower: one can only hope the government listens to Mr O'Connor - MC]...

...the harsh reality is that Canada needs to spend billions if it is to play any continuing role in the world — in peacekeeping and peacemaking.

And no Dosanjh-style carping about what in some cases may amount to sole-sourcing!

The Star does however rather over-sell the JSS:

They will be able to carry combat troops and armour...

Yep. but not a lot.

Update: Then there is this silliness from the Vancouver Sun:

The need for the new hardware is clear. The government will be replacing assets that are worn out, obsolete or simply non-existent [thank goodness that is conceded - MC]...

But we have also seen how our needs change as the world changes around us and we adjust the way we want to respond.

Our combatant role in Afghanistan requires different tools than we needed in decades past for peacekeeping...

Nuts. CF equipment has always been bought in the context of potential combat. Semi-pointy-stuff for Afstan, LAV IIIs--including for "peacekeeping" in Kabul, was actually bought by the Liberals. CF-18s sure did a lot of peacekeeping in Kosovo and Serbia. Just like the PPCLI in Afstan in 2002. The "traditional peacekeeping" myth that will not die. In any case almost all Army equipment required is essentially the same.

Afstan: Conference of Defence Associations on Senlis Council report

Text of CDA statement received by e-mail:

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) would like to bring your attention to a report released yesterday by the Senlis Council. The report, entitled Canada in Kandahar: No Peace to Keep – A Case Study of the Military Coalitions in Southern Afghanistan (see link below), states that Canadian troops support narcotics eradication programs and military responses in southern Afghanistan at the expense of development initiatives. The Senlis Council believes that this “American” approach has increased support for the Taliban, decreased security, stymied development, and is ultimately endangering Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. The report also says that Canadian troops have accidentally killed Afghan civilians.

To present other points of view about the situation in Afghanistan, the CDA would like to bring comments from Colonel Mike Capstick, Brigadier General David Fraser, Lieutenant-Colonel Ian Hope, and Brian Calver to your attention. Colonel Mike Capstick, who has been in Kabul for the last year advising the Karzai government, has forwarded the following comment to the CDA regarding the Senlis Council: “Senlis is an organization with a very specific agenda. They are the lead advocates of poppy legalization and they are known around Kabul for ‘skewing’ their research to support their ends. In addition they are not known for rigour in their research methods. Recently the [Afghan] Government has threatened them with expulsion because their advocacy has under-mined Afghan and international poppy control efforts.”

During a recent conference at Queen’s University (for a summary of BGen Fraser’s presentation, please see below [this text not included - MC]), BGen David Fraser said that the Canadian Forces is employing an “effects based” operational process in Afghanistan that focuses on both “kinetic” (use of military force) and “non-kinetic” means. This process attempts to identify effects which are needed to succeed in Afghanistan and determine which measures (whether kinetic or non-kinetic) will best bring about the desired outcomes. In order to work effectively, the effects-based approach requires the Canadian military to work closely with other government actors (such as the RCMP and CIDA), local Afghan leaders, non-governmental organisations, international organisations, and coalition members.

LCol Ian Hope, commanding officer of the PPCLI battle group in Kandahar, has made several comments regarding the Senlis report (see link to CBC and Canwest articles below). He stated that no Afghan civilians have been killed in firefights with Canadian troops in Afghanistan (see link to CBC article below). He also said that poppy eradication does not involve Canadians and has not had the negative impact described in the Senlis report. LCol Hope called the report a highly anti-American document developed for political purposes.

In an article appearing in the Christian Science Monitor (see link below), Brian Calver highlights the vital link between security and development in Afghanistan. It notes that development “is practically impossible without security from insurgents who target aid efforts.” The article also states that Afghan villagers are reluctant to provide information about the Taliban to coalition and Afghan National Army forces without security.

The CDA believes that Canada’s mission in southern Afghanistan is an honourable undertaking and is being conducted with utmost professionalism by the Canadian Forces. In order to ensure that Afghanistan becomes increasingly stable, prosperous, and democratic, Canada must continue to promote a mix of military operations and development initiatives in Afghanistan. However, development cannot proceed without stability, and providing stability requires robust military force. That being said, the establishment of stability and security in southern Afghanistan, after some twenty-five years of conflict, will not happen overnight. For more on the subject, please see General Paul Manson’s article entitled “A Rational Exit Strategy for Afghanistan.”

Alain Pellerin

Executive Director CDA

613-236-1252

Links:

The Senlis Council Security and Development Policy Group. Canada in Kandahar: No Peace to Keep – A Case Study of the Military Coalitions in Southern Afghanistan (June 2006)...

Calvert, Brian. “Afghan Tell Troops: ‘No Security, No Help.’” Christian Science Monitor (June 28, 2006)...

Weber, Bob. “U.S. Policy on Afghan Mission Costing Canadian Lives, Think-Tank Says.” CBC (June 28, 2006)...

General (Ret’d) Paul Manson, “A Rational Exit Strategy for Afghanistan.” Conference of Defence Associations...

CanWest News Service. "Canadian Commander Dismisses Report Criticizing Mission in Afghanistan." (June 28, 2006)...

“Defence, Development, and Diplomacy: The Canadian and US Military Perspectives”

22-23 June 2006

Queen's University/US Army War College/LFDTS, Kingston, Ont.

Airbus' last gasp for the A400M

They sure have some gall (see end of post).

The $4-billion program to buy replacements for the military's aging Hercules transport planes, to be announced today, appears designed to ensure that a U.S.-built aircraft will ultimately win the contest.

Aerospace industry representatives say government procurement officials are considering having competitors test fly their planes over the next six months, a move that would eliminate the European A400M aircraft, which is only now being built.

That requirement would leave the C-130J, built by U.S. giant Lockheed Martin, as the only real contender...

Bruce Johnston, the Canadian representative of the European consortium building the A400M, said he would not be surprised if the procurement process is designed to favour the C-130J. He noted a similar program announced last fall by the Liberals also contained a "fly off", ensuring the A400M, scheduled to take to the air in 2008 [good bloody luck], would be knocked out of the competition...

Mr. Johnston said the firm can deliver the first aircraft to Canada by 2010 [and pigs will fly alongside]. Lockheed officials have said if Canada ordered C-130Js by October, the first aircraft could be delivered in 2008...

Meanwhile, this might affect one's confidence that the A400M will be on schedule.

Scandal-hit EADS co-chief Noel Forgeard has told a committee of French MPs he will not resign...

Pressure for him to quit mounted as regulators raided EADS's Paris offices amid accusations of insider dealing.

Tuesday's raid on the Airbus parent firm's headquarters, on Tuesday was part of an investigation into whether Mr Forgeard and others knew about the delays in building the A380 before they sold EADS shares in mid-March.

Mr Forgeard has denied knowing about any problems with the A380, or about plans by other EADS shareholders to cut their stakes..."

Update (July 2): "EADS and Airbus bosses both quit". Enough said.

With the Brits on the road to Kandahar

An interesting article in The Observer, well worth reading.

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

Dieppe Propaganda

On August 19, 1942 Canadians took part in a failed raid against German defenders in Dieppe, France. The four hour raid numbers amongst the largest military blunders in the second world war, and was certainly Canada's darkest moment. Green troops launching an ill-advised amphibious assault without adequate naval and air support is a recipe for disaster; 4,384 out of 6,086 participants in the raid were casualties (killed/captured/wounded) and no tangible objective was met.

Fast-forward to September 1944. In support of Operation Market Garden, Canada was tasked with securing the Scheldt (Belgium / Netherlands). One of the cities that had to be liberated before this could be accomplished was Dieppe. In advance of their invasion, the Germans bombarded the Canadians with the following pamphlets:

Hello Boys of 2nd Canadian Division!

Here you are again, after those nasty hours at Dieppe where out of 5,000 brave lads of the Royal Regt., the Essex Scottish, the Mont Royal Fusiliers, the Camerons, the South Sasks, the Black Watch and the tank gunners of the Calgary Regt., only 1,5000 escaped death or capture.

Now your division is in for the second time.

First your pals - and now you.

It was a lousy trick they played on you that time, wasn't it?

Why exactly were you forced to do it?

Every child know now that the whole Dieppe affair was nothing but a big bluff.

First the Bolshies had to have their Second Front for which they so urgently clamoured.

Secondly the Brass Hats needed "Invasion-Experience" and quite naturally they wouldn't think of sacrificing any Limeys in a job like that. Surely you understand...

Now joking aside - this thing is much too serious. We haven't the slightest intention of poking our noses in your affairs. But we Germans honestly despise the idea of having to fight against decent fellows like you, inasmuch as we know you're not fighting for yours truly or for Canada.

You know that only a few old scraps of paper bind you to England, an England that in its entire history has never done a damn thing for Canada that would help its future. Canada's sole purpose has always been to fight and bleed for England.

In the next few days this God damn slaughter will start again. WE can't help it, since we are, after all is said and done, fighting for our very existence.

But WE WARN YOU Hitler didn't give up France for the fun of it.

Let those who gain fight their own bloody battles.

Crossposted to Bound by Gravity

"Tories OK Liberal military buys"

"$2B fleet of ships among purchases planned by Grits". The headline and the sub-head of a story in which reporter David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen desperately defends the Liberals.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's announcement that the Harper government was going to spend more than $2 billion on a fleet of new supply transport ships for the navy is a case of deja vu of the first order.

In April 2004, then-prime minister Paul Martin launched the same program, with Liberal defence minister David Pratt announcing the exact details Mr. O'Connor outlined yesterday in Halifax...

...now, in a savvy public relations move, the Conservative government has embraced the Joint Support Ship program as its own, highlighting it as evidence of its commitment to rebuild the Canadian Forces...

Several of the military equipment announcements by the Conservative government over the next few days may be equally familiar.

Today in Valcartier, Que., it will announce the purchase of a new fleet of trucks, also originally outlined in the Liberals' defence policy paper last April, albeit with few details. The same goes for the plan to buy new medium-lift helicopters, an acquisition process the Harper government is to release tomorrow in Edmonton.

On Thursday, the Conservatives will announce the procurement of tactical airlift planes. Last fall, the Martin Liberals announced the same $5-billion program to buy a replacement for the aging Hercules aircraft, but didn't get far into the project before losing the January federal election.

The Harper government differs from its Liberal predecessor when it comes to long-range military transport planes. The Liberals decided those were too expensive to buy, especially since such aircraft could be quickly leased or obtained from NATO when needed...

Fine and good. This is what the military has said it needed, not the Liberals. And the Liberals never actually bought one thing on the list.

Defence procurement: Jim Travers drags Bush into it

Facts, research, who cares when one can bring Bush into an issue in order to discredit the government? The Toronto Star's Mr Travesty gets things very, very wrong.

Among those Harper is pleasing are O'Connor, the arms industry that until recently paid his lobbying fees, Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, George W. Bush and, of course, Boeing. In buying everything from the [C-17] Globemasters to helicopters, ships and trucks, Harper ends a nasty dispute between O'Connor and Hillier and sends another strong signal south that, more than a friend, Canada is an ally.

That's important to an increasingly isolated Bush administration. And it's a help to both the Pentagon and Boeing as they try to extend the slowing Globemaster production run as far as possible...

That is nonsense. The administration has been trying to stop C-17 procurement; it is Congress that is trying to extend it. From Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, April 5:

Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008...

The administration requested none of the above, as it is looking to halt production at 180 aircraft and spend the money elsewhere (DAILY, March 30). But Senate appropriators added their voices to the expected chorus of lawmakers who are concerned with the administration's plan...

Yet another demonstration of the utter ignorance of the Canadian media about defence issues. Pitiful.

CF procurement and expansion: Interview with National Defence Minister O'Connor

Steve Madely of CFRA, Ottawa, speaks with Gordon O'Connor. Note the larger plan supposed to go to Cabinet this fall, and the limits on increase in CF numbers caused by lack of trainers. Anyone have a plane to propose for the Hercules replacement and for the strategic lift requirement?

One hopes the bride was wearing...

...a Leopard skin pillbox hat.

Duhh: Afstan reality/"Allies stunned Canadian troops lack helicopters"

QED.

A relevant post. And another.

Joint Supply Ship announcement

The JSSs announced today are being rather oversold. Their main role is still supply of ships at sea (auxiliary oiler replenishment--AOR) with an additional, limited capability to support things on land.

Relevant DND sites:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1958
http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmojss/index_e.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=182
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

See this from the last URL:

'-A support ship with some intrinsic fighting capability.

-Provides fuel, supplies, food and ammunition for ships in order to keep them at sea.

-Can carry up to 155 people in addition to the ship's crew.

-Can disembark equipment and personnel relatively slowly and methodically using Roll-On Roll-Off (RO-RO) and Lift-On Lift-Off (LO-LO) capabilities.

-Can offload equipment and personnel in a "permissive," or peaceful, environment.'

In other words, it cannot transport a significant number of troops such as a battalion and could not launch an amphibious assault. One really wonders if we might not be better off buying less complicated AORs and one or two Amphibious Ships (also described at this URL):

'-A fighting ship with some intrinsic support capability.

-Consumes fuel, supplies, food and ammunition in order to project Canadian Forces ashore.

-Can carry a significantly larger military force with equipment and vehicles in 'fighting order,' enabling Canadian Forces to face armed opposition ashore.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Can rapidly disembark personnel and equipment in 'waves' using 'connector systems' such as landing craft and/or helicopters.

-Project in early stages. Initial Concept of Operations under development.'

Moreover, there is a lot of doubt how capable Canadian shipyards (Davie in Quebec may be the only one) are of building a ship as complex as the JSS--especially on time and on budget. It might well make a lot more sense to build less complex AORs here and simply have Amphibious Ship(s) built abroad. See:

"Military procurement: Here's really hoping"

And also a 2005 Fraser Institute paper:

"The Need for Canadian Strategic Lift"

Torch Button

For anyone who’s interested in helping promote The Torch , a blog dedicated to the Canadian military, here’s a quick button that I whipped up (200px x 45px). When I have a litte more time I’ll create one thats 150 wide.

C/P the code below for easy integration with your blog or website.

<a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3413/523/320/torchbutton200.jpg" /></a></img>

Honest, sir, it's just for the thin air

What's the altitude of your bedroom? The jokes write themselves.

Afstan: Globe and Mail slideshow

See it here, with audio, from reporter Graeme Smith.

Senate Committee: Conservative defence plans "too timid"

The Committee on National Security and Defence is really gung ho.

The Conservative government is heading in the right direction when it comes to defence, but needs to move farther and faster, a Senate committee says.

The senators say the government needs to pump billions more into defence and recruit thousands of more people if it wants to meet what they call its No. 1 responsibility: the protection of Canadians.

Senator Colin Kenny, the Liberal chairman of the defence committee, says the annual defence budget - which is projected to hit $20.3 billion by 2010-11 - should be $25 billion to $35 billion. "Probably closer to $35 billion."

The committee says the military should be beefed up to 90,000 people from the present authorized level of about 64,000. The government has promised to bring the Forces up to 75,000.

The senators also recommend a multi-billion-dollar military shopping list, ranging from trucks and artillery pieces to heavy, long-range transport planes, attack and transport helicopters, new ships and, eventually, new fighter planes.

They say the government's plans are too timid...

The report admits that selling a bigger defence budget is a political challenge, but the senators say it can be done.

"We see a lot of other countries that manage to do it," Kenny said.

He said Canada currently spends $343 per capita on the military compared with $648 for Australians, $658 for the Dutch and $903 for Britons...

I like the double Dutch. With their CH-47 Chinook transport (that we sold them) and AH-64 attack helos in Afstan.

Afstan: God bless the Toronto Star

If only Buffalo Bob Rae and most other Liberal leadership candidates knew as much and analyzed as well. And Darfur is not even mentioned.

In two recent leadership debates, Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison came under fire from their rivals for voting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives to extend our role until 2009.

Ignatieff, in particular, has drawn fierce criticism. Bob Rae says Canadians don't need a "Harper lite" leading the official opposition. Joe Volpe claims Ignatieff embraces a "Made in Washington" foreign policy. And Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign minister who is not in the race, says Ignatieff reflexively supports "American military adventures" instead of assuming a "responsibility to protect" civilians.

While Canadian opinion is split on the Afghan mission, these criticisms are simplistic. Liberal candidates who seek to differentiate themselves by proposing that Canada quit any active military role and instead volunteer only for lighter peacekeeping-style duties, or who fear we are "losing our way" or becoming an "occupying" force, do our country no service.

Three prime ministers now, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Harper, have agreed that a stable Afghanistan is in our interest. Chrétien, no fan of foreign entanglements, did the right thing when our American neighbours were attacked on 9/11. He sent commandos [actually, mostly regular infantry: 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI) Battle Group - MC] to help oust the terror-friendly Taliban. He also offered Afghans aid to restore democracy under President Hamid Karzai and to set up a new central government and rebuild. Later, Martin agreed Canada should play a lead role disrupting Taliban insurgents who pose a serious threat to the new government...

Canadians must remember that our 2,300 troops and $800 million in aid are in Afghanistan at Karzai's express request, under a United Nations mandate and with 37 countries, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners. The legitimacy of this mission is beyond criticism. Ignatieff and Brison deserve credit, not censure, for their defence of it.

True, the mission has evolved over time. Canadian forces were initially [secondly - MC: even the Star ain't perfect, see two paras above] in relatively safe Kabul, the capital. They are now in dangerous Kandahar, part of the U.S.-led Enduring Freedom counterinsurgency campaign. They are fighting Taliban instead of doing an easier job under NATO in a calmer region. But NATO expects to take over even this mission soon...

Strange days.

The New York Review of Books has a pessimistic, but I think honest, article on Afstan that should be read.

Military procurement update: Announcements soon/Why helos needed

One hopes the competitions for the helos and for the Herc replacements don't drag on like the one for the Sea King.

On Monday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is set to announce in Halifax that the Conservative government will fund the building of three new supply ships at an expected cost of about $2.1 billion.

On Tuesday, the announcement will be to give the army new trucks. That promise, worth about $1.1 billion, will be made in Quebec.

On Wednesday, in Edmonton, will come the official announcement about helicopters. The prime minister will issue an invitation to tender for 15 new helicopters at a cost of about $4.2 billion.

Finally, on Thursday at CFB Trenton in Ontario, Harper will announce a competition worth $4.6 billion to replace Canada's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft, some of which date back to the 1960s.

Harper will also promise to buy at least four C-17 transport planes, which are massive heavy-lift aircraft, at a cost of $3 billion....

Remember, all these cost are life-cycle (spares, training, maintenance, etc.) and spread over God knows how many years. The actual purchase prices are much lower.

As for why the helos are needed:

Soldiers would be less likely to be killed or maimed by insurgents if helicopters were used to supply bases instead of increasingly dangerous convoys through hostile territory, a Canadian military spokesman said yesterday after a series of bloody attacks in Afghanistan.

"If we are going to be using vehicles on the ground to bring goods, to bring supplies to our forward operating bases, yes, it's problematic, because you're more exposed to IEDs as opposed to using a Chinook," Major Mario Couture said yesterday.

"No doubt, it would be a nice piece of equipment to have."..

Darfur update: Sudanese president says no UN force

This is rather as expected. I wonder if Jack Layton, Senator Dallaire, Keith Martin, David Kilgour and all the other Canadian do-gooders who want Canada to "do something" now favour our joining in an invasion of Sudan. But who else would join us in the invading? Or maybe our "diplomatic muscle" will persuade the president to change his mind. Bets?

President Omar al-Bashir vowed on Tuesday that he will never allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur, his strongest rejection yet of the United Nations' plan to try to halt violence in the war-torn region.

"This shall never take place," al-Bashir said of the U.N. deployment. "These are colonial forces, and we will not accept colonial forces coming into the country."

"They want to colonize Africa, starting with the first sub-Saharan country to gain its independence. If they want to start colonization in Africa, let them chose a different place," he told reporters at a press conference alongside South African President Thabo Mbeki...

Update: It's all a Jewish plot. Of course.

Canadian Air Force procurement: Euro lobbying/A400M problems?

The most informative reporting is, as usual, non-Canadian. Don't our journalists ever do a Google search?

Two European aerospace groups have launched vigorous lobbying campaigns to thwart alleged plans by the Canadian government to shut them out of three of Ottawa’s biggest military equipment orders in recent years.

EADS submitted an unsolicited bid to the department of national defence last week for 16 Airbus A400M military transport planes after reports that the Canadians were about to order four C-17 Globemaster aircraft from Boeing of the US without calling for competitive tenders. The Globemaster order would be worth about C$2.5bn ($2.2bn).

Speculation is also rife that Ottawa will favour another US group, Lockheed-Martin, to replace its ageing fleet of smaller C-130 Hercules transport aircraft.

Meanwhile, AgustaWestland, the helicopter group, is worried that Ottawa is set to give Boeing’s Chinook heavy-lift helicopters a head-start over Agusta’s Cormorant Mark II [Canada flys the Cormorant for search and rescue as the CH-149 - MC].

“We’re slightly concerned that we’re being frozen out of a competitive process that is open, fair and where the playing field would be level”, said Richard Thompson, senior vice-president at EADS’s military division.

Agusta-Westland is currently claiming C$1bn in damages from the Canadian defence department relating to a big helicopter contract awarded to US-based Sikorsky in 2004. The European group contends that the tender requirements were written in such a way to exclude rival bidders...

Here's the kicker:

The European groups also maintain that Canada is depriving itself of valuable industrial benefits by opting out of a competitive bidding process.

I hope our government realizes that it's not about jobs and votes; it's about giving our military what they need to do the dangerous work the government orders them to do.

Update: The foreign press has its limits too. From Rescue Randy at Army.ca:

The reality is that the reporter has mixed up the A400M proposal for the airlift competition with the helicopter competition. EADS represents Eurocopter, not Agusta-Westland - that company is a direct competitor to EADS. If Richard Thompson was promoting a helicopter for the Chinook competition, it would have been either the Eurocopter Cougar EC 725 or the NH-90. Once again, you can't believe anything you read, very little of what you hear, and only half of what you see.....

Airbus, for its part, is denying that the troubles of the A380 will have any effect of the schedule for the A400M.

Funding for the planned Airbus...A400M military transport plane is completely secure and will not be affected by problems surrounding the company's flagship A380 airliner, a top official said on Thursday [June 15].

Airbus, which says nine countries have placed orders for a total of 192 A400Ms, is trying to sell the plane to Canada. The aircraft is due to receive its full certification in 2009.

Richard Thompson, a senior vice-president at the military wing of Airbus, dismissed the idea that the A400M program could be jeopardized by delivery delays with the A380 superjumbo airliner, which are set to cost Airbus parent EADS billions of euros...

Thompson said there were far fewer variants of the A400M than the A380, which meant the transport craft would not be affected by engineering delays.

"The industrial ramp-up that is planned for the A400M is far more conservative than for the A380 program and therefore we do not foresee any similar type of problems for the A400M program," he said...

I'm not so sure there will be no engineering delays. This is from "Weight Watchers" in the June 5 issue [text only for subscribers] of Aviation Week and Space Technology (to which all Canadian journalists covering the military should subscribe, but I doubt that even one does).

Airbus is striving to cut weight on its A400M military transport while increasing the aircraft's maximum takeoff figure by almost six tons to accommodate fuel.

The aim is to drive down structural weight, in what industry executives describe as an "aggressive" effort. "We have a robust weight-reduction program, and it is on target," one Airbus Military executive says. Range and payload are contractually guaranteed, but this is not the case for aircraft weight, he notes...

First flight is also slipping [emphasis added - MC]. Initially anticipated for January 2008, this is now foreseen as taking place slightly later in the first quarter. Overall, the development and production schedule remains tight, with little slack for any further delay if initial deliveries are not to be affected. Delivery of the first aircraft is due to France in 2009, 77 months after the May 31, 2003, contract award.

Maximum takeoff weight for the A400M has risen to 136.5 tons from 130, according to the Airbus executive. This is driven partly by redesign work to meet fuel payload requirements...

The A400M is now projected as being able to carry a 30-ton payload 2,400 naut. mi., down 150 naut. mi. from previous range estimates, says the Airbus executive. For a 20-ton payload this figure is now 3,450 naut. mi., a 100-naut.-mi. reduction. Its ferry range is also reduced by 150 naut. mi. to 4,750 naut. mi...[and Canada needs all the trans-oceanic range we can get - MC].

One also wonders how the all-new engine's development program is proceeding.

Single, serving and second class

The relatives of Private Scott Woodfield found out the hard way that the Department of Veterans Affairs doesn't believe single service members are the entitled to the same benefits as married or common-law members.

Media reports last month said relatives of Pte. Braun Scott Woodfield, who died in a military vehicle accident in November, would be sharing a $250,000 tax-free payment specially authorized by cabinet to compensate for his death while on duty.

At the time, a family member said the money was welcome and that they "appreciate the thought."

But records released under the Access to Information Act indicate Woodfield's family was excluded from the cabinet order, which gave a total of $1 million to four other families grieving over military deaths.

The cabinet order had been made after it was discovered that members of the CF who were killed in action before April 1st, 2006 but after May 13th, 2005 were not covered by the death benefit provided in the Veterans Charter. While there was no legal requirement to provide the one-time payment, to not have done so would have been grossly unfair. The government made payments based on the language in the Veterans Charter, which means single service members with no dependents are not entitled to the VAC death benefit.

The problem is not the cabinet order; the problem is the Veterans Charter and the decision not to recognize single serving members as equal.

The death benefit is a tax-free, lump sum payment of $250,000. It is paid to a spouse or common-law partner, and dependent children, if a CF member is:

- killed while in service; or

- injured while in service and dies within 30 days of the injury.

So, why is the single serving member not entitled to this benefit? Nobody seems to know, except that this gross inequality made it through committee and into law without being seriously challenged.

There was a time in the services when single members suffered considerable inequalities. They were paid less than married members, they endured worse periods of duty and they were denied annual leave during prime periods when married members received precedence. There was even a time when single members were required to pay for rations and quarters whether they lived in barracks or not. And in the days when the services had apprentice soldiers and sailors, young single men were required to allot a portion of their pay to their parents.

All of that ended in the early 1970s and single CF personnel saw their pay increase as their basic levels came up to those of married members. Leave was still a problem but many single members fought and won the right to be included in summer leave schedules. Rations and quarters charges were discontinued if a single member chose not to live in barracks. In short, the inequalities were done away with. Until now.

The assumption that a single serving member of the CF is not providing support to members of his family is not only erronious, but outside the province of the Canadian government. To have written legislation which denies the families of a killed-in-action son or daughter the financial benefit provided married or common-law members should never have been written into law.

National Defence spokesman John Knoll said the Forces also pay supplementary death benefits - two years of salary, tax-free - to the estate of the member or to his or her designated beneficiary. The military will also provide severance pay to the estate or designated beneficiary, seven days' pay for each year of service.

Don't get too excited about this. It's life insurance and the member pays a premium for it. The severance and superannuation payout is the member's money.

This legislation is just plain wrong and I have doubts that it would survive a Supreme Court challenge.

On the other hand, don't expect it to change too quickly.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

Rubberizing the military

A little tidbit in the news has been the fact that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are suddenly increasing the use of condoms. From CBC:

The number of taxpayer-funded condoms handed out to Canadian soldiers is on the rise again after an unexplained low four years ago.

Soldiers at home and abroad snapped up 306,522 condoms from January 2005 to March 2006, said the Canadian Press, citing figures obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Canadian Forces members are supplied with free condoms, paid for by the government and handed out through military dispensaries.

I'm not sure whether that was intended to raise the hackles of the civilian community or not, but the way it is written would certainly indicate that the reporter has a problem with the fact that condoms are supplied at no cost to the users.

Too bad.

A practice that dates back to the First World War, free condoms help defray medical costs by preventing soldiers from getting sexually transmitted diseases, the military says.

The military says?! It's a simple fact. And since the the CF medical system is required to treat any and all ailments CF personnel contract, a condom is a cheap, shall we say, prophylactic action.

While sex between the 2,300 soldiers is forbidden on the Kandahar air base in Afghanistan, the military does supply condoms there. Officials wouldn't speculate what the condoms were being used for, said the report.

OK. Let's chew on this for a bit.

First, it isn't just soldiers who are using condoms. Sailors and air force personnel use them too. In fact, I would reckon that sailors, in past years, have been the primary consumers of condoms.

Second, speculating on the use of a condom in Kandahar is not difficult. That's sort of like "no comment". Breaking regulations in the service is not illegal. Getting caught is an offence.

Third, the primary use of condoms by members of the armed forces is for safe sex. Is that a hard one to understand?

When I joined the navy there were condoms available at the gangway when proceeding ashore. They were there when I went to the British forces too. They were there when I retired. No one ever wrote a national news piece about them. And yes, they have always been available at no charge. You don't expect that people serve in the armed forces for the money, I hope? (If you do, we need to have a long talk - you're buying.)

Using purely naval vernacular, condoms have one primary purpose: prevent the user from developing a "stinger", something which usually appears about a week after the ship has left its last port and only remains a source of humour until the sickbay tiffy jams a needle armed with 1 million units of penicillin into the ailing sailor's butt.

That's if it's a common and curable STD. Sometimes the diagnosis is accompanied by the word "incurable". That only has to happen once in a ship and the use of condoms skyrockets.

But condoms have a lot of other really great uses in military service.

They make great small arms muzzle protectors. In a dirty, gritty environment they fit nicely over the barrel of a rifle and, held in place by an elastic band, they keep the dirt out of the business end of a weapon. Hey, if they can hold back bacteria they work even better keeping out sand. Further, they don't have to be removed when the weapon has to be fired. Just aim and shoot; the bullet just goes right throught the tip. Magic.

They make exceptional water bombs. On those days when boredom overtakes excitement, (believe me, it happens), the occasional practical joke is a great tension reliever. Nothing is finer than having the executive officer splattered with a well placed condom booby-trap.

There is a distinct shortage of party balloons in ships, tactical air units and infantry battalions. Particularly in combat zones. Condoms actually make superb balloons and with a little spray paint, no one can tell they weren't designed for that purpose. (The lubricated ones have proved to be something of an issue, but believe it or not, some enterprizing young servicemen actually solved that problem too.)

Targets. Condoms, inflated to the proper size actually make terrific small arms targets. In one particular mine clearance training procedure my ship went through a gross of condoms. On another occasion, filling a few condoms with a shot of helium gave the .50 cal machine gunners a full afternoon of practice.

First aid is another use. You'll find a lot of use for condoms in stopping bleeding and covering a bandage to prevent dirt, sand and slime getting into a wound.

There are at least 1001 uses for a condom, but the primary purpose is sex. Safe sex.

Glad to see the troops are listening to those lectures given by the medical officer in basic training.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

Taking 'the strong, silent type' too far

Who knew?

Sunday, June 4th, marks the fifth annual Canadian Forces Day, a day when Canadians have the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the Canadian Forces.

I had no idea this even existed, and unlike most Canadians, I have a deep and abiding interest in the Canadian military. Public Resources needs to either push this or forget about it. Hell, hire a PR agency if your own departmental staff aren't up to the job and you feel strongly enough about it to justify the expense.

But do it or don't. Having an officially sanctioned celebratory day with absolutely no celebration is pathetic.

Afstan: General observations

A summary of the situation by Bill Roggio, embedded blogger with the Canadian Forces.

- Pakistan's lawless tribal belts are a major source of Taliban support, including indoctrinating, funding, arming and training Pakistani and Afghan Taliban recruits...

- The Taliban is unable to stand up against the Western militaries when they attempt to mass in large formations (100 to 300 fighters, equivalent to company or battalion sized units). Their advantage is they know the local terrain far better than the Coalition forces. The solution is to get the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police trained, equipped and on the front lines in southeastern Afghanistan.

- The levels of effectiveness of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police varies from unit to unit. The Canadian soldiers trust the army units, but are very wary of police units...

- The Taliban's weapons are not as sophisticated as the media reports would lead you to believe. Their primary weapons are AK-47 assault rifles and RPG-7s (the old variant of the RPG). Rarely are mortars brought to bear on the battlefield...

- The strength of the Taliban lies in their ability to blend in with the local population, and intimidate or coerce the local population when they must. There are small pockets of Taliban safe havens in southeastern Afghanistan...

- The poppy fields provide a major source of income for the farmers in southeastern Afghanistan. The Coalition and Afghan government made a serous mistake in its implementation of a poppy crop eradication program without providing an alternate source of income. The destruction of crops turned the local population to seek protection from the Taliban. A senior coalition officer indicated a major shift in the policy dealing with the poppy crops is in the works...

The perils of an elite that does not serve

Excerpts from a review of AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes From Military Service -- and How It Hurts Our Country, by Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer.

In 1956, 400 of Princeton's 750 graduates served in uniform. By 2004, only nine members of the university's graduating class entered the military. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia and many other schools do not even allow ROTC on their campuses. The gulf is growing in Congress, too. In 1971, three-quarters of our representatives had military experience. Now, fewer than a third do, and that number drops with each passing year. Some citizens see no problem with this. We are indeed fortunate not to live in a militarized society, and our hyper-capable armed forces enjoy, at least superficially, broad support from the American people.

But Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer, who've written the book in alternating sections, unite to argue convincingly that there are at least three dangerous consequences of a civil-military divide. First, it hurts the nation's ability to make sound military choices. Uniformed service is not a prerequisite for individual expertise in the conduct of war. Abraham Lincoln -- arguably America's greatest wartime president -- never served in uniform (although he spent three months in an Illinois militia). In the aggregate, however, we benefit from having veterans in every corner of our decision-making apparatus: as presidential advisers, members of Congress and active citizens. Without them, our civilian leaders embody less and less of that visceral wisdom forged in harm's way, and the problem perpetuates itself: If young people don't serve today, then we won't have older veterans in leadership positions tomorrow.

Second, a schism between the military and the rest of us weakens the armed forces. Absent broad and deep ties throughout society, the military becomes "them" instead of "us." Roth-Douquet and Schaeffer fear that such a force "will be overused and underled and that support will run out fast for any project that becomes a political liability." Consider that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, unlike most political leaders today, both had children in uniform in the Second World War. Whether such personal connections actually affect policy is almost impossible to say, but common sense supports the authors' assertion that "the grunt on the ground is best equipped, best trained, and best served when the opinion makers have a personal stake in his or her well-being."

The greatest problem with an isolated military, however, is even less tangible. "When those who benefit most from living in a country contribute the least to its defense and those who benefit least are asked to pay the ultimate price, something happens to the soul of that country," write the authors. That argument makes for the most powerful reading in the book: "We are shortchanging a generation of smart, motivated Americans who have been prejudiced against service by parents and teachers. Their parents may think they are protecting their children. Their teachers may think they are enlightening them. But perhaps what these young people are being protected from is maturity, selflessness, and the kind of ownership of their country that can give it a better future."..

I would argue that the schism is much deeper in Canada and has even more deleterious effects. The percentage of University graduates that ever serves in the Canadian Forces must be miniscule. I doubt that even five percent of our 308 MPs have ever served in the military, and that Cabinet ministers have any real clue about what they commit our forces to. And certainly the soul of this country has been largely cut off from the ideals of selflessness.

Another telling indicator of the disconnect: the Liberals' disgraceful commercials last election about troops in the streets of our cities, as if those troops were some sort of alien menace--rather than Canadians who perform a great duty and service for our country.

Afstan: Some Brits just never get over their imperialist attitudes

A letter just sent to TheSunday Times:

Simon Jenkins, in his column, "Under the Afghan sun, a dark new reality is taking shape" (June 18), writes that British troops are working with "some reluctant Canadians". That is an insult to the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. I doubt very much that Mr Jenkins has bothered to talk to them. They now number some 2,300 personnel; they are carrying out their mission with the utmost professionalism, with dedication, and with enthusiasm. There may be considerable reluctance about the mission amongst the populace in Canada but there is not amongst the troops in the field.

I might moreover point out that Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser is now the Commander of Regional Command South in Afghanistan. Brigadier-General Fraser is in fact in operational command [Combined Task Force Aegis] of the UK forces engaged in Operation Mountain Thrust, a fact not mentioned by Mr Jenkins.

Indeed Mr Jenkins' ignorance of what is actually going on is further demonstrated in this phrase of his purporting to describe what will happen after the operation is finished: "When the troops return to the security of Kabul..." That is nonsense as the troops with be returning to their bases in Regional Command South, not to Kabul where they are not stationed.

Update: "Paras strike deep into the Taliban heartland".

Afstan: Lloyd "Softy" Axworthy doesn't want to fight/French do

The former Liberal foreign affairs minister and true believer in "soft power" doesn't like what we are doing in Afstan (full text not online).

...Led by Michael Ignatieff, Liberals ended up giving Stephen Harper enough votes to have free rein in a war-fighting effort that precludes other potentially more effective efforts to protect the people of Afghanistan and takes Canada out of the new peace-building strategy being developed at the United Nations...

Somehow this is not precluded and has escaped the Softy's gaze:

Since August 2005, a Canadian PRT [Provincial Reconstruction Team] has operated in Kandahar, where it is expected to remain until February 2007. The PRT brings together elements from the Canadian Forces (CF), Foreign Affairs Canada (FAC), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in an integrated Canadian effort, also known as the All of Government approach...

Lloyd issues further vapourous piffle:

...Canada should begin to apply the principle of "responsibility to protect" to our mission in Afghanistan...To utilize this Canadian-sponsored R2P principle in Afghanistan would mean recalibrating our strategy away from simply adopting the counterinsurgency followed by U.S. forces and developing one that focuses much more on the protection of civilians. After all, while NATO troops are off chasing the Taliban in the hills, hundreds of schools and mosques are being attacked and their teachers and moderate imams being kidnapped or killed....

Hundreds? Precisely when NATO is in the hills? Source? In any event, if those Taliban aren't hunted from time to time they will be able cause even more damage, injury and death.

This is what UK General David Richards, in command of NATO ISAF said recently (translation):

My military forces will not only be used to defeat the Taliban, but also to assure the future of villages and communities...

That should sound good to Lloyd but he won't care in his anti-US fixation.

Update: Liberal Ted at Cerberus says it even better.

Guess who has been chasing the Taliban as part of US counterinsurgency actions for three years? French special forces, operating as an integral part of US Operation Enduring Freedom. Why are they doing this (translation)?

It is a very political decision taken directly by the president. As seen from Paris the presence of French special forces in Afghanistan is primarily considered a strong signal to the US, demonstrating France's commitment at their side in the struggle against terrorism.

An idea that would never occur to Lloyd, ever more Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc. The French have a phrase for it: raison d'état. It is also doing one's duty.

And, of course Lloyd says Canada should

reallocate resources now dedicated to war-fighting in Afghanistan to other peace-building initiatives that cry out for attention and leadership. Darfur leads the list.

H/t to Norman's Spectator for the French stories.

Military procurement: Here's really hoping

If these proposals go through the Canadian Forces will finally start getting a lot of the kit they desperately need. The $15 billion (life-cycle) cost is nothing to get excited about; last November Liberal Minister of National Defence Bill Graham put forward a $12.1 billion procurement plan. That failed to fly and was replaced by a $4.6 billion plan for a Hercules replacement.

With Canada's military stretched thin in its largest overseas combat deployment since the Korean War, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has approached Cabinet with a $15-billion wish list for badly-needed equipment...

...the military is asking for:

· More than a dozen new Lockheed-Martin Hercules short-haul tactical aircraft;

· Up to five Boeing C-17 Globe Masters -- long-haul strategic transport planes currently being used by the U.S. military;

· Two naval supply ships, to replace vessels that have been in service for 40 years; and

· Boeing-built heavy-lift Chinook helicopters -- a staple of the U.S. and British armies...

But while Cabinet isn't likely to turn down the requests from two generals, it isn't quite a done deal...

The main differences from the big November 2005 proposal are the addition of the C-17s and supply ships, and the deletion of a fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft replacement.

The Navy has been asking for three joint supply ships (JSS) with a much wider range of capabilities than the two aging auxiliary oiler replenishment (AOR) ships they are to replace, plus an amphibious ship.

Now the amphibious ship is rather like the "hybrid" aircraft carriers proposed by the Conservatives in the 2004 election--a proposal that the Liberals attacked mercilessly and maliciously. I wonder if the fact that only two supply ships are mentioned is a hint that these may be much more bare-bones than the JSS, that is just better AORs.

That might free up money down the road for the amphibious ship (ships?). The Dutch have a nifty example but there are several other possible sources (France, UK, US, Spain and Italy).

Of course Airbus is bleating hard.

Meanwhile, French plane manufacturer Airbus has issued a plea to the Tory government to ensure that a fair, competitive process is in place when it makes its multi-billion dollar purchase for long-range military transports.

Richard Thompson, commercial director of Airbus Military, told reporters in Ottawa Thursday that a contract with Boeing would cost almost twice as much as a comparable one with his company.

Instead of buying two separate fleets, said Thompson, Canada would satisfy most of its tactical and strategic airlift requirements and save up to $2 billion with the A400M -- a four-engine turboprop military airlifter...

And Airbus is lobbying furiously. And promising jobs for Quebec.

The A400M has not flown yet and it will have an all-new engine (PWC should have won the competition for this on merit but the Euros gave it to a Euro consortium--why should we reward this behaviour?). In any case the A400M simply does not have the trans-oceanic range and payload to be a good strategic lifter for Canada. Airbus has said first delivery to Canada would be in 2011 but it's unlikely that date could be met (denial from Airbus here). And the Hercules replacement in needed urgently.

Admiral expects Joint Supply Ship announcement soon

Lots of jobs; first delivery 2113.

The navy is expecting an announcement about replacements for its aging supply ships by the end of the month, says the region’s top sailor.

Irving is part of a consortium vying to bring the $2.1-billion contract to build and maintain the three 28,000-tonne joint support ships to Halifax. If it wins the bid, Irving estimates the project would employ about 400 workers at the Halifax Shipyard during the peak building phase.

"It will definitely be announced before the Parliament recesses for the summer," said Rear Admiral Dan McNeil, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

"My guess is they all want to go home to the beach in July and August. So my guess is by the end of June."..

"It’s about time we built some more ships, and I’m not just talking about joint support ships," said Rear Admiral McNeil.

"I’m talking about recapitalization of the coast guard. . . . We need some shipbuilding around here. It’s not for the navy. It’s not for the coast guard. It’s for the country. Because what we’re doing is stupid."..

"So we need a shipbuilding program."

Two groups, Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships and BAE Systems Inc., are seeking to build the three joint support ships in Newfoundland and Labrador. The final bidder, SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc., wants to construct the vessels in Victoria...

Delays may be tied to Tory plans to spend more than $8 billion on military equipment, including new transport aircraft, helicopters and logistics trucks.

"The hold-up is political announcements," said Frank Smith, business development director for Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., which is working with Canadian North Atlantic Marine Partnerships. "They want to announce all the . . . stuff at the same time. And the aircraft one is the directed purchase (of four C-17 Globemaster long-range cargo planes from Boeing for $2.5 billion). So I think there’s some political flak going on."

The final contract for the joint support ships is slated to be awarded in 2008 with the delivery of the first of three ships scheduled for 2013...

Now, what about the amphibious ship?

As for the Coast Guard, it desperately needs new vessels (full text not online). It should get any new arctic icebreakers (the Navy has not operated them for 49 years), which would be perfectly adequate in Coast Guard service for asserting arctic sovereignty. The Conservative election promise of armed Navy icebreakers was simply silly.

Canada should replace its fleet of rusted-out coast guard ships before buying armed icebreakers for Arctic patrols, internal government documents obtained by CanWest News Service suggest.

A briefing book prepared for Conservative Fisheries and Oceans Minister Loyola Hearn, who is also responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard, says the current fleet is "experiencing significant rust-out," making it less reliable due to breakdowns and more costly to run.

"Further, meeting demand for year-round winter navigation in all Arctic waters will require a type of icebreaker that currently does not exist," bureaucrats warned in February.

"To design and build an icebreaker that could operate efficiently in winter Arctic ice conditions is considered possible, but this could take up to 10 years and could cost in excess of $1 billion."

Protecting Arctic sovereignty with armed icebreakers was a major plank in the Conservative election platform, but the current 25-year plan to update the coast guard fleet doesn't call for development of replacement icebreakers until 2017 [but they're need much sooner--see below]. The project, slated for completion in 2037, has an estimated cost of $1.8 billion...

Although the Department of National Defence would own and operate the ships under the Tory plan, critics have said the responsibility should remain with the coast guard.

That it would take at least 10 years to develop new, high-tech icebreakers makes pursuing the plan all the more difficult. Russia is the only country in the world with surface navigation capacity in the Arctic winter...

Predate: A May 30 National Post story(full text not online) says the Navy may be looking at a vessel for the icebreaking role. Question, given the slow speed and the fact that they would not needed in the north most of the time, what other roles would they be good at? And why waste money by building them in Canada?

The Conservative government is considering buying a fleet of new "ice-capable" corvettes [not really a "corvette"--see last para.] to allow our navy to patrol Canada's vast Arctic waters and abandoning, at least for now, a campaign pledge to build new armed icebreakers for the Canadian Forces.

Defence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said senior admirals have proposed instead that Ottawa buy as many as eight warships with reinforced hulls that could sail through all but the thickest Arctic ice.

And Gordon O'Connor, the Tory Defence Minister, is looking favourably at the idea, according to one senior officer, in part because of the prohibitive cost and emerging difficulties in building and operating the armed icebreakers promised by the Conservatives in the last election campaign.

The navy's plan would instead order six to eight new patrol vessels based on the Royal Norwegian Navy's Svalbard class, a 6,100-tonne, 100-metre-long warship with a crew of 50, a 57-millimetre deck gun, missile launching tubes and a helicopter pad.

The Norwegian ships, almost as large as the Canadian navy's workhorse frigates, have reinforced hulls that allow them to sail through most ice conditions in the North. They cannot break through "multi-year ice" however, the permanent ice cover over the most northern parts of the Arctic Ocean...

...However, a bid to build the ships -- which would cost between $200-million and $300-million apiece -- could be ready for a second presentation to Cabinet planned for the fall, the source said...

Rob Huebert, of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the corvettes would be useful in many situations in Arctic waters but not all and not year-round.

"They're a possible solution for the navy, but they're not a permanent solution to the Canadian problem ... of protecting our northern sovereignty," he said. "They are not going to be able to go into areas with multi-year ice ... that's the stuff that's extremely hard: it's the ice that sinks ships."

Prof. Huebert said the Coast Guard's tiny fleet of icebreakers are ageing and urgently need to be replaced, no matter what the navy ends up buying. "We're going to have a resource gold rush in our North in the next five to 10 years," he said...

The Norwegian vessels really are light icebreakers. A comment at Army.ca gives details. Why not just buy new icebreakers for the Coast Guard, which knows how to use them, and speedier blue water vessels to supplement our inadequate coastal defence vessels? Are we really planning to fight anyone (i.e. the US, UK, France or Russia) in the Arctic?

Afstan: Operation Mountain Thrust

Coalition forces are launching a major offensive in southern Afstan (full text not online). Wish them all well.

The U.S.-led coalition is drawing on more than 11,000 troops at its disposal -- including 2,200 Canadians -- for the biggest offensive against insurgents since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

The push by American, Canadian, British and Afghan troops aims to squeeze Taliban fighters in the southern mountains of Afghanistan extending over four volatile provinces...

Operation Mountain Thrust will involve about 2,300 U.S. conventional and special forces, 3,300 British troops, 2,200 Canadians, about 3,500 Afghan soldiers and air support troops, said U.S. Maj.-Gen. Benjamin Freakley. There will also be coalition air support...

The offensive began on a smaller scale on May 15 with attacks on Taliban command and control and support networks. According to U.S. military and Afghan figures, about 550 people, mostly militants, have been killed since mid-May.

Another goal of Operation Mountain Thrust is to set the conditions for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, which takes command in Afghanistan from the U.S.-led coalition in late July or early August...

Update: Detailed report by embedded blogger Bill Roggio.

Afstan: Quagmire update

The inimitable Ibbitson, of the quagmire-loving Globe, raises the spectre without actually using the "Q" word (full text not online). Just like his colleague Geoffrey York .

Bob Rae...is...presenting himself as the candidate who has all Michael Ignatieff's smarts, eloquence and bilingual fluency, but who, unlike Mr. Ignatieff, isn't prepared to risk turning Afghanistan into Canada's own little Vietnam, which many Liberals now fear that engagement could become...

Funny, I haven't seen any news stories of Liberals linking Afstan with Vietnam (yet). A Google News search doesn't turn up anything either. Now some Liberals may indeed be thinking quagmire, but why is Mr Ibbitson highlighting this so strikingly?

And it wouldn't just be "Canada's own little Vietnam". It would be the US's, NATO's, indeed that of the coalition of 37 countries. Funny also that the Canadian media so rarely mention the breadth of the international military commitment; they seem intent on creating the impression that basically it's just us and the Americans. Hmm.

Afstan: Pity the Canadian Forces have no helicopters

Not that Gen. Hillier has not been trying. But they're on the shopping list. Matthew Fisher reports (full text not online):

...halfway through the first rotation of combat troops to southern Afghanistan, the army is grappling with the reality that lives are sometimes put at risk when convoys set out to resupply troops fighting the Taliban because Canada has no helicopters capable of carrying out such sustainment missions.

"It is quite possible it has cost limbs, if not more, because we have had to sustain on the ground," said Lt.-Col. Ian Hope, who commands the Canadian battle group. "That has produced a risk that would be reduced if we could take helicopter flights...

Lt.-Col. John Conrad, Canada's senior logistician in Kandahar, is responsible for the resupply convoys, which set out from the Kandahar Airfield for remote forward-operating bases. They're located along roads and dirt tracks where the Taliban often sends suicide bombers, or places mines and other explosives because American, British and Dutch Chinook transport helicopters are seldom available for such missions.

"The convoys are now in harm's way almost daily because ... supplies have to follow the infantry and we have had to send those supplies by land," Lt.-Col. Conrad said.

"We bid on air, but it is like coming to a potluck. Everyone brings a dish and instead of potato salad we come with a jug of water. They (the coalition) help us when they can, but we are at the end of the list."

However, both colonels stressed that when Canadian troops require close air support for combat operations or have wounded who need to be taken to hospital, coalition fighter jets, bombers, assault and medevac helicopters are always on call to help them.

"We can rely on our allies to come to our aid if we are in trouble," Lt.-Col. Hope said. "There is no question. They come as soon as possible."

The Harper government has been urgently reviewing the helicopter question...

Afstan update: Canadians now favour the mission/Perils of polls

Pity the Globe did not put this poll with a headline on the front page. This was their screaming May 6 headine: "SUPPORT PLUMMETS FOR AFGHAN MISSION".

...Canadians are also more supportive of the mission, with 48 per cent saying they back sending the troops, compared with 44 per cent who oppose the move. Support now outweighs opposition by four percentage points, compared with earlier this month when opposition outweighed support by 14 points.

Mr. Gregg [chairman of the Strategic Counsel, the firm that conducted the poll for The Globe and Mail/CTV News] says the figures show that Canadians are not prepared to use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to get out of Afghanistan. Interestingly, support for the mission has increased the most in the province of Quebec [emphasis added - MC], where 39 per cent support the move, up from 27 per cent last month...

Another interesting poll:

In the end, only a minority of Canadians (31%) offer the opinion that "terrorist threats like this one have everything to do with the fact that Canada's troops are involved in combat in Afghanistan" - most (61%) say "that even if Canadian troops weren't in Afghanistan we'd still be a target for terrorism because we are a Western Country".

These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest / Global News from June 6-8th, 2006...

This is what Mr Gregg's poll found:

Canadians also appear to be convinced that Canada will be a target of terrorism because of its presence in Afghanistan. Fifty-six per cent say the Canadian presence there makes an attack more likely, up a substantial 18 percentage points from last year...

Note that these answers are not contradictory. They simply give very different impresssions as a result of different questions. It is actually quite reasonable to believe that our current mission in Afstan makes terrorist attacks more likely in the future (Strategic Counsel) while at the same time believing we would be a target even without our military presence (Ipsos Reid).

But the former poll produces much more negative-seeming results than the latter.

H/t to Army.ca.

Afstan update: It's not just "George Bush's War on Terror"

For some reason major Canadian newspapers did not cover this story. As far as I can see only the Globe gave any coverage: a one paragraph news brief, that did not mention Canada, in the Ottawa print edition. No wonder so many of our politicians and pundits are ignorant of what is going on. The story (from the CBC website):

NATO is expanding its force from 9,700 to 16,000 by late July, doubling international troop numbers in the southern region, which was the Taliban's heartland.

The deployment of more troops into former Taliban strongholds in the south has been met by a wave of attacks, including suicide bombings against international forces, including 2,300 Canadians, and their Afghan allies...

The alliance hopes to complete its expansion across the whole of Afghanistan by November by taking on the eastern sector, bringing its total numbers in the country to up to 25,000, although Rumsfeld said the exact timing was not yet certain...

The United States has said it will take command of the NATO force in Afghanistan through 2007, replacing the current British general.

The Pentagon said the United States has at least 21,000 troops in Afghanistan but there has been talk of a cut of as much as 20 per cent. Many of those who remain will be incorporated into the NATO force as it moves south and east. However, the United States will also maintain a combat force independent of NATO to hunt down Taliban and al-Qaida militants...

One of the Globe's most irritating pundits, Rick Salutin, writes today about Canada and Afstan that (full text not online):

...it may be more useful to go the painstaking routes of aid and diplomacy, while letting local forces sort themselves out, rather than trying to militarily impose a plan.It also may mean cutting loose from the U.S. agenda, which has its own aims. The United States invaded because it wanted to attack someone after 9/11, and in pursuit of geopolitical goals that do not coincide with ours...

Some observations on this nonsense:

1) If the local forces are left to "sort themselves out" then it will be rather difficult to provide aid in the south and east. Moreover, the Taliban might eventually win again. Does Mr Salutin want that? And with whom are we to conduct diplomacy? The Taliban?

2) We would not be just "cutting loose from the U.S. agenda". We would be cutting loose from the NATO (see above) and UN Security Council agendas. Why does Mr Salutin not mention those facts?

3) The US did not "invade" Afstan. The Northern Alliance received air support and assistance from special forces (both US and British); that however is not an invasion. Substantial foreign ground combat forces--including Canadian--only entered the country after the Taliban regime had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces in November 2001, and those foreign troops entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance. It is important to remember in this connection that the Alliance had kept Afghanistan's UN seat, so the US and others were actually supporting an internationally-recognized government.

4) The action against the Taliban was not just because the US "wanted to attack someone". It was because the Taliban had allowed al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to run extensive terrorist training camps and to plan terrorist acts, including 9/11, in Afstan. The US demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden for trial; the Taliban refused. Military action followed. At that time the US's "geopolitical goals" coincided completely with Canada's. Indeed in February 2002 the Liberal government sent Canadian troops to Kandahar for a combat mission fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Yet Mr Salutin's mythic and anti-American version of reality is widely believed.

REGIMENTS.ORG

“Land Forces of Britain, the Empire and Commonwealth ...the oldest and largest website of its kind, presenting a degree of detail rarely found elsewhere”…is, in my opinion, the single best military and military history site anywhere on the Net today. This piece of work by its creator, T.F. Mills, is breathtaking in its audacity, both in its scope and detail; a lifetime undertaking, really, which has been ongoing since 1995, starting as one page of links, and evolving into a 3,000 page regimental encyclopedia - yet much of it is still under construction. I am inspired by its passion.

A word of caution for enthusiasts like myself: be prepared to spend countless hours navigating through the Queen’s old regiments. The site is highly addictive. Be advised that you may run the risk of forsaking family for fun.

CROSS-POSTED to THE MONARCHIST

The Canadian media's "Death Watch"

It didn't happen.

Meanwhile, blogger Bill Roggio (embedded with the Canadian Forces) tells how the "Death Watch" goes into action.

Tonight I had the displeasure of witnessing the Death Watch in action. An Al Jazeera report, based on an unsubstantiated claim from an unnamed Taliban source, indicated a Canadian soldier was kidnapped in Afghanistan. Reuters repeated the unsubstantiated claim, which later morphed into an unspecified number of Coalition troops. Canada's Globe and Mail, in a rush to press, misidentified the lead Canadian Public Affairs Officer, Major Scott Lundy, as the "spokesman for NATO Special Forces" (the webmaster later corrected this and removed the reference to Major Lundy altogether.)

The Canadian media rushes into action, trying to get to the bottom of the story which very likely is a Taliban information operation. Cell phones are buzzing, reporters are pressing the public affairs officers for quotes. The Death Watch is in full news-gathering mode. Media outlets in Canadian are requesting live interviews and quick columns from their reporters at the airfield. The Canadian forces are in turn conducting a headcount but discount the reports, as this has happened in the past. If this is a false report, as it likely is, the propaganda machine of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has succeeded yet again in manipulating the Western media into doing their bidding. The DeathWatch continues as I submit this post, and Al Jazeera is downplaying the reports of the kidnapping...

H/t to small dead animals.

Read on for a description of what the various militaries are actually doing.

Elsewhere in southeastern Afghanistan, there is real news to report, and it is the Taliban that is taking the brunt of the casualties. As the hot and dusty Afghan summer begins, NATO is increasing its presence in Afghanistan, particularly in the Southeastern provinces of Helmand, Uruzgan, Kandahar and Zabul. NATO forces are expected to surge from 9,000 to 17,000 troops by the end of the summer. The U.S. commitment of troops in Afghanistan is expected to decrease by one bridage, as forces are decreased from 23,000 to 20,000 troops. This results in a net gain of 5,000 NATO troops during the summer.

Kandahar Airfield plays an important role in the buildup of NATO forces in the southeastern portion of the country. NATO forces surge into Kandahar Airfield prior to the deployment to the provinces, swelling the base population to over 8,000 at times.

The U.S. Army is patrolling the Arghandab Valley in Zabul province, where the Taliban has . Zabul remains a major focus of Taliban efforts to dismantle the local police forces. Five police were killed and four kidnapped in the provincial capitol of Qalat. Earlier in the week, five police are said to have murdered seven of their brethren and then joined the Taliban. Based on the brutality of the incident, the police were likely Taliban infiltrators rather than defectors.

British forces engaged in their first round of combat in the Naz Zad district of Helmand province, killing five Taliban. Coalition forces (a generalization used when referring to Special Operations units) killed three Taliban. France, Britain, Holland, Canada, America, Australia and a host of other nations have special operations forces operating from Kandahar Airfield.

The Afghan National Army and Police, along with U.S. Army, killed thirteen Taliban while retaking the southern district of Chora in Uruzgan. In the northeastern province of Kunar, two U.S. soldiers were killed during a Taliban suicide attack. Taliban leader Mullah Omar has called for the Taliban to leave the tribal lands and take the fight into Afghanistan.

Hello?

Would someone at the Department of National Defence, Media Affairs please contact the Legal department and assist them in removing their head from their ass.

Cross posted to Blue Blogging Soapbox

Update from Mark: DND seems to have relented.

Afstan: US offers to take command of NATO ISAF next year

I wonder how this will play out in certain Canadian political and media circles.

The United States has offered to take command of the NATO force in Afghanistan next year following the current British stint in charge of the expanding peacekeeping mission, diplomats said Tuesday.

The handover to a U.S. general is expected to take place in February as part of an overhaul of the NATO mission. The changes will include introducing a more flexible, multinational headquarters to replace the system of rotating national commands which has been in place since the start of the operation in August 2003...

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his country would like to take command in 2008.

NATO is scheduled to expand its peacekeeping mission from 9,000 to 16,000 by late July when it is scheduled to take on security in the dangerous southern region. Later this year, it hopes to complete its expansion by moving into the eastern sector, which will likely take its total numbers to 21,000.

The U.S. is hoping to reduce its troops numbers this year from 19,000 to 16,000. Many of the remaining U.S. troops will be incorporated into the NATO force, notably in the eastern region, where Americans will be the lead nation under the NATO command. Britain is taking command in the south [presumably around the end of this year when Canada's command of the Multi-National Brigade Headquarters ends], Germany commands the north, and Italy the west.

However, the U.S. will also maintain a smaller combat force independent of NATO with the aim of hunting down Taliban and al-Qaida remnants...

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