Afghan SNAFU

Further to this post,

On Track: Spring 2009 number from the Conference of Defence Associations

I've just re-read this article by Colonel George Petrolekas and would most strongly urge you to read it (starts bottom of p.20):

It Didn’t Have to be This Way

More from the colonel here.

More details on US forces for RC South/Black Watch at KAF

Further to the posts here and here, more learned from someone informed. The US Army's 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (more on 5th SBCT here, overall page for these brigades here) that is deploying to Kandahar, likely in August, will have five battalions. One will be deployed alongside the Romanian battalion in Zabul province, the rest at Kandahar.

Of those, one will be based at KAF and three will be deployed in an arc from north of Kandahar southeast down to and along the Pak border--one essentially at the border itself, around the key crossing point to Quetta in Pakistan, Spin Boldak (Taliban leader Mullah Omar is supposed to have his HQ in the Quetta area). The 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, arriving any time, will have its helicopters mostly at KAF but some will be stationed at forward operating bases near the border.

Helicopters in the south, US Army and Marine, will roughly triple in the next few weeks (more on aviation increases generally here, note A-10s shifting from Bagram to KAF).

More on the Marines coming to Helmand, probably arriving in a month or so. One of the battalions in the 8,000-strong 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade (some 2,000 Marines are already there) will number around 1,400. The battalion will have four M1 Abrams tanks and four MV-22 Ospreys (arriving by "the end of the year").

In 2010 (November, I assume) the US will take over command of RC South permanently, likely with a Brit as number two; a multinational division or corps headquarters is planned. In fact an American division HQ, appropriate for the forces the US has in train, seems in the works now--see end of this article. A corps HQ could well fit the whole ISAF (read mainly...) RC South force by 2010.

Then there is the British battalion at Kandahar, the quick reaction force for RC South as a whole [preceding link gone, see here and here]:

The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland (3 SCOTS), took over as the Regional Battle Group (South) on 10 April.

3 SCOTS took over from 42 Commando Royal Marines as the battalion responsible for supporting a variety of operations across the whole of southern Afghanistan, not just those of the main UK Task Force in Helmand province.

The saltire is raised watched by troops from The Black Watch and their Dutch colleagues from ISAF

In steady Afghan drizzle, the flag of 42 Commando was lowered at Kandahar Airfield, 3 SCOTS's home for the next six months, before being replaced by the saltire of the Inverness-based battalion, raised by Regimental Sergeant Major (Warrant Officer Class 1) Lawrie McDougall, and to the sound of a lone piper, Corporal Rab Lindsay...

Update: Looks like Osprey acceleration (via GAP):

In a briefing yesterday [April 30] at the Pentagon, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said the controversial V-22 Osprey will soon be deployed to Afghanistan.

The Osprey, Conway said, “is purposefully headed towards Afghanistan.”..

Some Germans wondering about their Afghan role

From Spiegel Online:

'The German Military is in Afghanistan to Secure the Country'
In the wake of Wednesday's Taliban attack on German forces, commentators are losing patience with Berlin's unwillingness to commit more soldiers to Afghanistan. The Taliban's advance in Pakistan also has them worried.

A few hours after German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier landed in Kabul on Wednesday [April 29] for a surprise visit, Taliban militants in northern Afghanistan killed one German soldier and wounded nine others in two separate attacks. Steinmeier is in the Afghan capital for two days to talk with President Hamid Karzai and Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta, mainly about Germany's controversial involvement in the NATO mission to quell the Taliban.

REUTERS
German soldiers in Kunduz:

The first attack, using machine guns and rocket launchers, killed one soldier and wounded four others in a firefight with a German convoy near Kunduz, about 300 kilometers (186 miles) north of Kabul. A few hours later a suicide bomber lightly injured five soldiers elsewhere in the Kunduz province, where the Germans maintain a base.

The first and fatal attack occurred around 7pm on Wednesday evening. Half an hour later a Taliban spokesman said it was meant to disrupt Steinmeier's visit. The spokesman boasted about the attack to SPIEGEL ONLINE by satellite telephone. "We knew about the visit," he said, "and the attack is a message to the German foreign minister." As on other occasions, though, the spokesman exaggerated the damage caused by the militants.

The Foreign Ministry said there was no evidence the militants had known about Steinmeier's visit. "These events fill me with sadness," Steinmeier himself said, according to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE. "We condemn the attacks in the highest degree. It's a cowardly, malicious attack and it shows that Afghanistan's enemies won't shy away from such cruelty. But these attacks won't keep us from standing with the oppressed people of Afghanistan."

US President Barack Obama has announced a new and more aggressive strategy to stabilize both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. He won some help for this project from European allies, including Germany, during a NATO summit in early April, but sending soldiers on combat missions to Afghanistan is still deeply unpopular among German voters.

At the moment Germany has 3,800 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan -- all in the generally peaceful north -- but Berlin plans to boost the number to about 4,500. A total of 32 German soldiers have died since the NATO mission started in 2002. [Emphasis added--when will the extra troops get there? More from October 2008.]

On Thursday morning, German commentators fretted about the casualties in Afghanistan and also the steady deterioration of government control in Pakistan, where Taliban militants have mounted an offensive to control towns beyond the so-called tribal areas.

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The Taliban fighters know that military engagement in Afghanistan is especially controversial in Germany. They also know that the political leadership in Berlin has done little to prepare its own country for an ugly mission with more injuries and deaths. German politicians, to speak in general terms, are afraid of Afghanistan -- and of (this fall's) German election. Taliban fighters know all this, which makes Germany a ripe target. Now the government's insistence on a two-tiered Afghan mission has come back to haunt it. There are no two tiers in Afghanistan -- no safe, good-hearted mission in the north as opposed to the mean mission in the south. The German military is in Afghanistan to secure the country. To achieve this goal it will need the full support of Germany's politicians."..

Afghan Lessons Learned for Soldiers

A new American milblog (their individual blogs listed at preceding link), from these authors:

We are four Afghan Veterans who, in response to a query for information from SGT Danger, have decided to create a place for Soldiers to find information about deploying to Afghanistan. We are three Senior NCO's and one Major, and we have served in both line units and as embedded advisors in Afghanistan. We were filled full of bullshit by those who trained us, and so we are trying to help tell it like it really is. We hope that this information helps you to get acclimated more quickly, and to have a better understanding of the environment that you are headed into. If you have any questions, email us and we will try to answer them. If you have something to contribute, email it in Word format to the blog address, and we will review it for publication.

Update: An interesting American post, with further links, about working with Afghans generally at Ghosts of Alexander--- a real interest in problem solving in order to achieve results. One is constantly struck by the American commitment to freedom of expression, even from the military.

Another Alexandrian post, with a Canadian basis:

Warriors and Nation Builders

Embedded US Marine trainers in Afstan

How the Corps is doing things:

President Obama recently announced his new strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan, the centerpiece of which is sending additional troops to fight the Taliban and train the Afghan forces. Yet a successful strategy has been in place in Afghanistan for more than a year - it is Muscular Mentoring, and it has been practiced by the Marines.

Last year, Marine Col. Jeffrey Haynes commanded Embedded Training Team (ETT) 3-5, a part of the Regional Corps Advisory Command-Central (RCAC-C) [more here, with photos]. Based east of Kabul, ETT 3-5 was drawn primarily from 3rd Marine Division's III Marine Expeditionary Force from Okinawa along with Army, Navy and Air Force personnel and individuals of the Montana, Utah and New York National Guard. They arrived in February 2008 with a mission to "mentor the 201st Corps of the Afghan National Army (ANA) by providing military advice and training guidance" to its officers and staff noncommissioned officers [here's a blog from an embedded ETT trainer, an infantry major with the Nevada National Guard, in eastern Afstan].

The 201st Corps is responsible for 11 provinces in the east, northeast and center of the country, including Kabul. This is a key part of the country; it is where the fertile river valleys that supply much of Afghanistan's food and produce are located. Hence, support from the locals is of paramount importance to success in Afghanistan. "The Afghan people need to see the ANA and their government are protecting and developing the river valleys," Col. Haynes said, "not the U.S. or NATO. When the locals see that the ANA can protect them, they'll be more inclined to believe in their government."

To accomplish this, Col. Haynes and his Marines and soldiers took to the field with the ANA. NATO forces can "train" from a classroom, but it was "mentoring" when ETT 3-5 went out in the field with their Afghan counterparts. Virtually every Marine and soldier above the rank of sergeant spent several hours a day mentoring; Col. Haynes mentored the 201st Corps commander, Brig. Gen. Mohammed Wardak, while his executive officer mentored Gen. Wardak's executive officer. The key is to lead by example and not by lecturing. This is how the skills necessary for successful soldiering get transmitted.

"The 201st Corps is very good," Col. Haynes said. "When the Taliban attacked the prison in Kandahar last summer, they spearheaded the ANA effort into Anghardab and recaptured that strategic valley. [The ANA] handled their own logistics and their own intelligence."

Col. Haynes continued the policy of assigning small groups of Marines and soldiers to the remote forward operating bases and combat outposts in the eastern provinces [emphasis added]. The energy and professionalism of the Americans rubbed off on the 201st Corps troops stationed with them.

"The Afghan army is tailor-made for mentoring by the Marines," said Marine Sgt. Maj. Patrick Dougherty of ETT 3-5. "They respect strength and strong leadership, and they come from a society built on the cohesion of small groups - all of which makes the Marine Corps the most appropriate service for training them."

A recent Marine-ANA-French [emphasis added] operation demonstrated that the 201st Corps learned its lessons well. In Operation Nan-e-Shab Berun, coalition and ANA forces cleared the Alah Say Valley of insurgents and then provided security and stability for the locals when they built and occupied two new combat outposts. The insurgents then conceded the valley because the ANA is now stationed there permanently. Success came with casualties: One French and four ANA soldiers were killed; also, 37 opponents were killed in action [more on the French fatality and the operation here, with video--note the air support].

A key element of Mr. Obama's policy in Afghanistan is demonstrating that cooperation with America brings security, jobs and a future, whereas the Taliban and al Qaeda bring only death. This is the decision Sheik Sattar Abu Risha made in 2006 when he persuaded the Iraqi Sunnis to work with the Marines and drive the insurgents out of Anbar province; the Marines and the Afghans' 201st Corps can do the same in Afghanistan.

Getting the Afghan army and police trained and motivated will be at the heart of Afghanistan's ability to rebuild itself. The country is the world's third-poorest and has a 76 percent illiteracy rate and a weak central government (often lambasted for its incompetence and corruption and for failing to stop a drug trade that supplies 90 percent of the world's opium). There is no purely military solution; the answers and effort to succeed permanently must come from the Afghans themselves.

Andrew Lubin is the author of "Charlie Battery: A Marine Artillery Battery in Iraq." He was embedded with Marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 and 2007.

Earlier post here on a US Army regular brigade training before deploying to Afstan as trainers. A post here on Canadian mentors, and one here on them in the field with the Afghan police. This will be the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team for the next CF roto, arriving late this summer:

...
About 150 soldiers with the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT) [emphasis added - MC] [primarily from 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI) – Edmonton, AB]

Update: Excerpt from another NY Times story on embedded Marine trainers:

A Young Marine’s Dream Job

Corporal Conroy at Firebase Vimoto. In Corporal Conroy's war, two Marines train Afghans in weapons, tactics, first aid, hygiene and leadership. They keep the firebase supplied with ammunition, water, batteries and food. More Photos >

The corporal [Sean P. Conroy, of Carmel, N.Y., 25 years old] has tied a flea collar through his belt loops; he needs it like a dog. He served two tours in Iraq. His four-year enlistment ended last month, but he extended for nine months when promised he would be assigned to a combat outpost in Afghanistan.

He hopes to attend college later. For now, he represents a class of Marine and soldier that has quietly populated the ranks since 2003. He enlisted not to pick up job skills or to travel the world at government expense. He enlisted to fight. “We’re the new generation,” he said. “I’ll tell you what — there are a lot of young Marines who’ve seen more combat than all of the guys up top who joined in the ’90s.”

He is supremely cocky, but unpretentious. When he met two journalists from The New York Times he asked what news agency they represented. Hearing the answer, he replied with one extended syllable: “Boooooo.” He prefers a good tabloid, he said.

He does not hide that he likes his life here: the senior man in an isolated post, surrounded by the Taliban, waking to a new patrol every day and drilling what he calls the Alamo Plan, to be executed if the firebase is overrun.

“This is the sweetest deal ever,” he said one evening between firefights. “There is no other place I could get a job like this — not at this rank.”..

He said...he said

Who to believe?

Murray Brewster of CP:

NATO has imposed tough new restrictions on foreign journalists covering the war in southern Afghanistan, changes that could affect how much Canadians see and hear from war-torn Kandahar.

The new measures, imposed in early March, mirror the way the U.S. military manages reporters in Iraq.

The restrictions make it virtually impossible for Canadian journalists to leave Kandahar Airfield on their own to interview local Afghans and return unimpeded to the safety of NATO's principal base.

Last month, Canadian soldiers were required to escort newly arrived journalists everywhere on the airfield, including to the dining hall and showers. A photographer from the Reuters news agency and a handful of Canadian journalists were escorted between buildings and confined to their sleeping quarters when not working.

The practice has been temporarily suspended under pressure from the Canadian military, which has tried unsuccessfully to have the overall policy reversed.

Some of the new rules do not apply to American journalists because the measures would violate their rights under the U.S. constitution.

A Canadian defence critic and an organization that represents journalists condemned the new rules, accusing the U.S. of trying to shut down Canadian coverage.

"The media is not the enemy and this is a form of censorship — and it is unacceptable," Liberal MP Denis Coderre said Tuesday. "There is a public interest to know what's going on in the field."

The new rules came as Washington prepared to deliver an additional 21,000 combat soldiers and trainers to the country to confront the revived Taliban insurgency.

Security officials at Kandahar Airfield, including the base commander, declined to comment on the measures. Officials at the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command in Ottawa would not comment on the record, but suggested NATO headquarters in Kabul was looking at the matter.

Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, called on the Harper government to put pressure on the Pentagon to reverse the policy.

"You can make the argument that this is exactly one of the reasons that we're in Afghanistan — that the press have free and unfettered access to as much of the story as they can reasonably get to," she said from Winnipeg.

The Canadian military has presented NATO's southern commander with proposals to end the dispute, but none has been accepted.

Welch said the "radical shift" in policy takes away the Canadian media's ability to cover the conflict independently.

"It sounds like the more control they have over journalists, where they go, who they talk to, they'll be able to shape the story in a much effective way," she said.

"That ultimately is not effective for Canadians' understanding of what's really going on."

The new U.S. security team at Kandahar Airfield stopped issuing International Security Assistance Force accreditation to journalists in late February. Instead it gives them temporary base visitor passes, which restrict movements and require them to be closely monitored.

The reporters are also compelled to forfeit their passports to the military for the duration of their stay.

Canadian news organizations, which use the airfield as a base to cover the country's 2,850 troops and aircrew, are the most affected. Other NATO countries have sent small teams of reporters through Kandahar on a short-term basis.

Journalists routinely leave the airfield to pursue the Afghan side of the story, chronicling among other things allegations of torture among Taliban prisoners and the plight of refugees bombed out of their homes.

Early in the winter, NATO officials in Kandahar began demanding that Canadian journalists be given a full federal government security screening, involving background checks, before they would issue accreditation. It was a step up from the previous criminal-record check. Informally reporters were told the request was made because some U.S. private contractors had been accused of theft. [my emphasis]

(Instead of my normal excerpting, I've copied the entire piece here in an effort to make sure it doesn't disappear down the memory hole.)

Or Brian Hutchinson of Canwest:

Canadian Press has moved a misleading story from Ottawa that says “tough new restrictions” imposed on reporters embedded with Canadian Forces at Kandahar Airfield “make it virtually impossible” for us to leave the base on our own and report goings-on outside the wire. Stories about Afghans.

This comes as a complete surprise, because I had no trouble leaving the base on my own the other day, meeting with my local Afghan “fixer,” and traveling into town to report a story about Afghans that appeared Tuesday in the National Post and on canada.com.

I also blogged about my brief encounter with local kids at a Kandahar city swimming hole.

Canadian military personnel were aware that I was leaving KAF. In fact, a member of their public affairs staff drove me to a gate where I met my fixer. The same soldier picked me up on my return to KAF. More of an effort for him than me.

The CP story goes on to claim that “reporters are also compelled to forfeit their passports to the military for the duration of their stay.”

I am currently inside Canada’s provincial reconstruction team (PRT) headquarters in Kandahar city, a 30-minute drive from KAF. My passport is sitting beside me on my desk.

Perhaps the worst line in the CP piece is this quote, from Liberal MP Denis Coderre: “The media is not the enemy and this is a form of censorship — and it is unacceptable.”

The story does correctly inform that Canadian reporters are no longer being issued standard, all access International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) passes when they arrive at KAF to begin their embeds. Instead, thanks to a U.S. directive, we receive temporary base visitor cards to carry with us. Canadian public affairs officers at KAF have told us that they and other Canadian military brass are working to have this new policy rescinded. That would be great. It is slightly irritating and a bit deflating not to have a real ISAF pass.

But this: “[The guest passes] restrict movements and require [reporters] to be closely monitored” is just wrong. Or so it is in my experience. I arrived in Kandahar last week to start a six-week embed, my third. I haven’t heard any of the other Canadian reporters currently at KAF complaining about being tailed, watched, shadowed, or whatever “closely monitored” is meant to suggest.

It’s true that most embedded Canadian reporters are now restricted from leaving KAF on their own. But this is the result of strict prohibitions placed on them by their own news organizations back in Canada, a result of heightened anxiety after CBC TV reporter Mellissa Fung was kidnapped outside Kabul last October.

Ms. Fung was eventually released and is back in Canada.

I was told today by a Canadian civilian working at the PRT that, in his opinion at least, the dangers reporters face while traveling outside wire on their own is considerable, but no more so since the Fung kidnapping.

He may or may not be right. Going outside the wire — with or without troops in armoured vehicles — involves different levels of risk. Personally, I think reporters here on the ground are best able to assess what that level of risk is, with input from the military and from Afghan sources, of course.

There’s no mention in the CP story of travel restrictions placed on reporters by their bosses back in Canada. Rather, the story paints a false portrayal of Canadian Forces attempting to censor us. This is strange.

There are rules that all reporters in the embed program voluntarily agree to follow. We agree not to describe troop movements before they take place, for example. Among other things, these rules are designed to prevent insurgents from getting advance notice of Canadian convoys, then planting improvised explosive devices along their routes and killing Canadian soldiers, their Afghan army counterparts, and yes, embedded reporters.

As far as I know, no one inside the embed program has called these rules an attempt to “censor.” Sure, we have issues with some of the more arcane requirements, but I’d bet that every reporter who has worked at KAF would call the broad stroke embed restrictions understandable, workable, and, above all, common sense.

Including, I would wager, the reporter who wrote the disingenuous CP piece. This is the strangest part of it all: Murray Brewster is a highly regarded and reliable reporter who has embedded at KAF many times, most recently in March. [my emphasis]

Look, I'm not on the ground at KAF myself, so I have no idea which of these guys is right. Perhaps the powers that be simply haven't caught up with Brian yet. Perhaps they're cutting him a special deal because he's in their back pocket, and the rules are different for him than for anybody else. Perhaps there was another shooter on the grassy knoll.

But after his recent performance at a Carleton University forum, I'm wondering what's gotten into Murray Brewster, who by all accounts I've heard has been a decent war correspondent until now:

Murray Brewster:

- Maintained that the longer the mission went on, the more heavily politicized it has become (yet it was barely mentioned it the 2008 federal election).

- He has been stunned--yea made "aghast"--by many politicians' ignorance of Afghan issues (he's not the only one).

- Our politicians are unaware that Canadian political divisions over Afstan get considerable media coverage in the region, especially Pakistan.

- There is incredible political pressure to show progress for the mission, esp. in development.

- There are many roadblocks even to covering development projects, very hard to interview civilians.

He was particularly critical of the government's and CF's dealing with the media:

- The CF don't understand the elements that make up a good story, gave poor briefings on significant incidents when he was in-theatre.

- He was angry at the government and CF for lousy media relations--not even telling some good stories well; most military, diplomatic and aid people in Afstan are "hopelessly inarticulate".

- "Do I tell you how to plan a battle? Don't tell me how to cover a war."

- He was scathing about an article critical of our media in On Track, published by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, by the Institute's president John Scott Cowan: “War and National Interest” (p. 11 at link).

As with most such disputes, I suspect the truth will lie somewhere in the middle: there are likely some differences in the way media is being treated at KAF as the American influence continues to grow, but I sincerely doubt they're nearly as draconian as Brewster is suggesting.

In the meantime, he's stirred up quite the little political tempest, correct information or not.

Update: Oh, and not that I always see eye to eye with Scott Taylor, but I suspect he's sitting at his computer somewhere, reading Brewster and saying to himself "So what? You don't like the rules at KAF, stop embedding! It's not like the only way to report in Afghanistan is with coalition troops..."

Put another way, what did journalists do before there was an embedding program?

Having said that, it's in the CF's and the GofC's best interest to make sure Canadians are getting the best information they can out of Kandahar. And, like it or not, that means working with journalists.

Upperdate: I'm getting e-mails which support the Hutchinson version. Not from the military, mind you, but from Brewster's own clan. His colleagues seem to genuinely like Murray, but they're just as confused about why he chose to write this non-story as I am.

Anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic

To be commemorated May 3:

Battle of the Atlantic [more here] Commemoration

Date: May 03, 2009 Time: 13:30
End date: May 03, 2009

Details: Veterans and serving members of the military gather to commemorate the 66th Anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Location:
The Anchorage
Marina Park
Thunder Bay ON

Contacts:
Lieutenant Marshall Erickson - Erickson.B1@forces.gc.ca

Battle of the Atlantic

Date: May 03, 2009 Time: 10:30
End date: May 03, 2009

Details: Traditional parade and ceremony. Event starts at Confederation Square with a parade to the National War Memorial.

Location:
National War Memorial, Confederation Square
Ottawa ON

Sponsors:
DND/CF

Contacts:
CPO CLeroux - cleroux.JAR@forces.gc.ca

Battle of the Atlantic Ceremony

Date: May 03, 2009 Time: 09:45
Topic: Battle of the Atlantic; Second World War; Navy

Details: Annual commemorative ceremony to honour lives and ships lost during the Battle of the Atlantic from 1939-1945.

Location:
HMCS CHIPPAWA
1 Navy Way
Winnipeg MB

Contacts:
HMCS CHIPPAWA Ship's Office - -

Battle of the Atlantic Ceremony

Date: May 03, 2009 Time: 13:00
Topic: navy, Battle of the Atlantic, SWW

Details: Annual commemorative ceremony to honour lives and ships lost during the Battle of the Atlantic from 1939-1945.

Location:
HMCS QUEEN
100 Navy Way
Regina SK

Contacts:
HMCS QUEEN's Ship's Office - -

Battle of Atlantic Ceremony

Date: May 03, 2009 Time: 14:00
Topic: Event

Details: The Battle of Atlantic Parade & Ceremony will be held at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch #480. Event will include Army,Navy,Air Cadets,Armed Forces Members and Legionnaires. Other dignitaries will also be present.

Location:
Royal Canadian Legion Branch # 480
389 Richmond Road
Westboro ON

Contacts:
David Lewis - rcl480@rogers.com

At Halifax, from David Pugliese's Ottawa Citizen blog:

The Canadian Navy is preparing for the upcoming Battle of the Atlantic and Victory at Sea commerative events in Halifax. This will be the 66th anniversary.

The events and ceremonies are dedicated to the 4,234 Canadian sailors, airmen and Merchant Navy who lost their lives between September 1939 and May 1945 keeping open the shipping routes linking North America with Europe during the longest single campaign of the Second World War, according to the Navy.

Throughout the week, the naval white ensign, in honour of the Battle of the Atlantic, will be flown from flagstaffs at Province House, City Hall, Pier 21, Camp Hill Veterans Hospital and the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.

As the Canadian Navy commemorates the sacrifices and historic accomplishments of Canada and her allies during BOA services across Canada this year, it also recognizes the fact that the ninety-ninth anniversary of the founding of the Canadian Navy on the following Monday, May 4, 2009 marks the one-year countdown to the celebration of the Canadian Naval Centennial (CNC) on May 4, 2010.

In addition to BOA events, other commemorative events taking place in the HRM during the week include a full military honours memorial service for Rear-Admiral William Moss Landymore on Friday, May 1st at 10:30 a.m. at Canadian Forces Base Halifax Faith Centre and the Annual Liberation of Holland ceremony at Pier 21 on Monday, May 4th at 6 p.m.

The following is a list of the local activities that are being held:

Wed, April 29 7 p.m. 11TH ANNUAL BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC MUSICAL GALA at Pier 21

This year’s concert is dedicated to the 65th Anniversary of the loss of HMCS Athabaskan on April 29, 1944. The concert features the Stadacona Band of Maritime Forces Atlantic, with singers Liz Rigney and CPO1 Keith Davidson, the Nova Voce Provincial Men’s’ Choir and the 12 Wing Shearwater Pipes and Drums. The event is a Queen Elizabeth II (QE11) Foundation fundraiser for the Camp Hill Veterans’ Hospital.

Fri, May 1 10:30 a.m. MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR REAR-ADMIRAL LANDYMORE
St. Brendan’s Chapel

Following the memorial service, the ashes of RAdm Landymore will be embarked in HMCS Toronto for an at-sea committal.

Sat, May 2 11 a.m. MERCHANT NAVY AND NORWEIGIAN CEREMONY
MARITIME MUSEUM OF THE ATLANTIC

Wreath laying and commemorative ceremony at the small boats gallery in the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.

Sun, May 3 9 a.m. departure HMC Dockyard BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC-AT SEA CEREMONY IN HMCS SACKVILLE

Following the ceremony, the ashes of twenty veterans will be committed to the sea.

Sun, May 3 11 a.m. BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC CEREMONY
Point Pleasant Park – Sailors Memorial

And something often overlooked:

...
Battle of the Atlantic Ceremonies

The second most sacred day of the year for Canada's Air Force is one we share with Canada's Navy - the Battle of the Atlantic Parade. For six long, arduous years during the Second World War the sailors and airmen from the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, RCAF and United States Navy battled the U-Boat menace in the North Atlantic. On the first Sunday of May this long fight for oceanic supremacy is celebrated at cenotaphs across Canada with Navy and Air Force, serving and retired, commemorating the battle. Air Force personnel were responsible for destroying more than one-quarter of U-Boats sunk in the battle (212 out of 800).

Update: More from Maritime Forces Pacific [links added]:

Epic Battle Of The Atlantic Commemorated On Sunday

At 10:30 a.m. Sunday, May 3, serving military personnel and veterans of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Canadian Merchant Navy and others will participate in a remembrance service at the Victoria Cenotaph [emphasis added] marking the end of the longest battle of the Second World War.

More than 200 men and women from CFB Esquimalt, ships of the Pacific Fleet and Naval Reserve Division HMCS Malahat will follow veterans and the Naden Band of Maritime Forces Pacific from Ship Point below Wharf Street to the Legislature. Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps “Rainbow” of Victoria, “Beacon Hill” of Colwood, and “Admiral Budge” of Sidney will represent Victoria’s youth. The service begins with an address by Rear Admiral Tyrone Pile, Commander, Maritime Forces Pacific and includes representatives of area veteran’s groups.

The event also marks the last year of the Canadian Navy’s first centennial. From now through 2010 the Navy will celebrate a century of service to Canada.

It was the epic battle for the Atlantic Sea Lanes during the Second World War that secured the supply lines from North American to Great Britain and ultimately made the allied D-Day invasion possible. Escorting over 25,000 ships to Europe and fighting the Battle of the Atlantic was the mission of the Canadian Navy from 1939 to 1945. German submarines attacked 22 ships in the St. Lawrence River, some within miles of Quebec City. Of the 24 Canadian warships lost, eight went down in coastal waters, including the last, HMCS Esquimalt, on April 16, 1945. The Navy lost 2,300 sailors. Seventy-one Canadian or Newfoundland merchant ships were sunk and over 2,200 men and women died. The RCAF lost 700 air crew.

While Canadians seldom pause to consider it, sea-borne exports account for 40 percent of our gross domestic product. The security of the world’s oceans is vital to global stability and Canadian prosperity. This year’s ceremony occurs as HMC ships Winnipeg and Protecteur are deployed on operations. The Canadian Navy’s contribution to international maritime security signals to the world Canada’s resolve to act when necessary. On Sunday HMC Ships in harbour will “dress overall” from sunrise to sunset to mark the anniversary.

Upperdate: More on the Ottawa ceremonies, via David Pugliese's blog:

Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies will also be held in Ottawa (I had a previous post about those in Halifax). Here is the latest on the Ottawa events from DND:

OTTAWA, ONTARIO- - Canadians will attend ceremonies across the country Sunday, May 3rd to mark the sacrifices made by the many who fought on their behalf in the epic Second World War Battle of the Atlantic.

In Ottawa, there will be a parade from the Government Conference Centre to the National War Memorial at 10:25 a.m., followed by a ceremony at the National War Memorial, which will include Chief of the Maritime Staff Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson, veterans, serving members of the Canadian Forces, cadets, and other guests. Following the ceremony, there will be a reception for parade participants at the Government Conference Centre beginning at noon.

The Battle of the Atlantic, the fight for supremacy of the North Atlantic, was waged from 1939 until 1945 and pitted Allied naval and air forces against German U-boats, whose primary targets were the convoys of merchant ships carrying vital life-sustaining cargo from North America to Europe.

Much of the burden of fighting the Battle of the Atlantic fell to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). At the outbreak of war, the RCN was comprised of only six destroyers and a handful of smaller vessels. By the end of the war, the RCN was the third largest navy in the world. The Battle of the Atlantic ended with V-E Day on May 8th, 1945.

As the Canadian Navy commemorates the sacrifices and historic accomplishments of Canada and her allies during Battle of the Atlantic Sunday services across Canada this year it also recognizes the fact that the ninety-ninth anniversary of the founding of the Canadian Navy on the following Monday, May 4th, 2009 marks the one-year countdown to the Canadian Naval Centennial in 2010.

"Taliban Soldier Song"

Can anyone fairly definitively identify which country's soldiers are singing (i.e. the weapon below and on the left later in the video)?

Babbler's Update: NSFW language warning, and if you're anyplace where the PC police get uppity, you might want to watch it when you get home and the kids are already tucked into bed. Having said that, some of the lyrics are hilarious.

Related.

Update: C9A1 LIGHT MACHINE-GUN (more here)?

Upperdate: Perhaps more likely, C6 GENERAL PURPOSE MACHINE-GUN (see "Comments").

Afstan: Aussies to increase troop strength some 40% (some only temporary)

In the works for some time (current Aussie force composition at end of this post)--focus to be training the Afghans:

Expect more Afghanistan deaths says Kevin Rudd as force boosted to 1550
THE federal Government will boost troop levels in the Afghan conflict from 1100 to 1550 soldiers in a war Kevin Rudd acknowledges is getting more unpopular with Australians and will result in more combat deaths.

Announcing the modest increase yesterday, the Prime Minister said the main focus of Australia's military effort in southern Oruzgan would be training Afghan security forces and not combat operations.

A sharper diplomatic focus would be provided by the appointment of career diplomat and former defence chief Ric Smith as Australia's new special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan mimicking similar diplomatic moves by the US and Britain [and may increase pressure on our government to do something similar].

Canberra would also increase its civil aid program, including the dispatch of an extra 10 Australian Federal Police to help train their Afghan counterparts.

Mr Rudd made the statement flanked by Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon, Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and National Security Adviser Duncan Lewis.

Mr Rudd pointedly did not commit any extra combat troops to a war he admitted was becoming increasingly unpopular with ordinary Australians [emphasis added].

More Diggers would die in the conflict, he warned. "I am acutely conscious of the fact that I am placing more Australians in harm's way. I fear that more Australians will lose their lives in the fight that lies ahead."

Ten Australian soldiers have been killed in action since 2001 and more than 60 wounded.

Canberra's new military plans were discussed with US President Barack Obama during a phone call last week, Mr Rudd said.

But their deployment was not "open-ended". Australian troops were in Afghanistan to ensure the country did not revert to a Taliban terrorist haven, he said.

They were also there because of Australia's ANZUS Treaty obligations to the US, he added.

"We must not allow Afghanistan to once again become the unimpeded training ground and operating base for global terrorist activity [emphasis added, not what our government stresses--see Upperdate here; and remember that Mr Rudd is of the Labour Party, see 2) here]," Mr Rudd told reporters.

The new plan sees a 120-strong infantry company deployed for eight months to help bolster provincial security in the lead-up to August elections [so the ongoing increase will be quite a bit less than 40%].

Britain last night also announced a troop boost, from 8000 to 9000, to help to secure the country during the elections [apparently 700 actually, for a limited time--UK military have plans to send more if politicians agree].

Other Australian reinforcements include about 100 soldiers comprising two additional mentoring teams bringing to three the total number of ADF training teams in Oruzgan. Their main job would be overseeing the training of a 3300-strong Afghan National Army brigade, Mr Rudd said.

Our media, for some reason, do not seem to have reported this development--save for this.

Update: Other Aussie military news, at an Ottawa Citizen blog.

AfPak: US in RC South/US and Paks/Paks vs. Talibs

Regional Command South:

U.S. Sets Fight in the Poppies to Stop Taliban

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times
American troops after a battle with the Taliban. More Photos >

ZANGABAD, Afghanistan — American commanders are planning to cut off the Taliban’s main source of money, the country’s multimillion-dollar opium crop, by pouring thousands of troops into the three provinces that bankroll much of the group’s operations.

The plan to send 20,000 Marines and soldiers into Helmand, Kandahar and Zabul Provinces this summer promises weeks and perhaps months of heavy fighting, since American officers expect the Taliban to vigorously defend what makes up the economic engine for the insurgency. The additional troops, the centerpiece of President Obama’s effort to reverse the course of the seven-year war, will roughly double the number already in southern Afghanistan. The troops already fighting there are universally seen as overwhelmed. In many cases, the Americans will be pushing into areas where few or no troops have been before.

Through extortion and taxation, the Taliban are believed to reap as much as $300 million a year from Afghanistan’s opium trade, which now makes up 90 percent of the world’s total. That is enough, the Americans say, to sustain all of the Taliban’s military operations in southern Afghanistan for an entire year.

“Opium is their financial engine,” said Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, the deputy commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. “That is why we think he will fight for these areas.”

The Americans say that their main goal this summer will be to provide security for the Afghan population, and thereby isolate the insurgents.

But because the opium is tilled in heavily populated areas, and because the Taliban are spread among the people, the Americans say they will have to break the group’s hold on poppy cultivation to be successful.

No one here thinks that is going to be easy.

Only 10 minutes inside the tiny village of Zangabad, 20 miles southwest of Kandahar [emphasis added], a platoon of American soldiers stepped into a poppy field in full bloom on Monday. Taliban fighters opened fire from three sides.

“From the north!” one of the soldiers yelled, spinning and firing.

“West!” another screamed, turning and firing, too.

An hour passed and a thousand bullets whipped through the air. Ammunition was running low. The Taliban were circling.

Then the gunships arrived, swooping in, their bullet casings showering the ground beneath them, their rockets streaking and destroying. Behind a barrage of artillery, the soldiers shot their way out of Zangabad and moved into the cover of the vineyards.

“When are you going to drop the bomb?” Capt. Chris Brawley said into his radio over the clatter of machine-gun fire. “I’m in a grape field.”

The bomb came, and after a time the shooting stopped.

The firefight offered a preview of the Americans’ summer in southern Afghanistan. By all accounts, it is going to be bloody.

Like the guerrillas they are, Taliban fighters often fade away when confronted by a conventional army. But in Afghanistan, as they did in Zangabad, the Taliban will probably stand and fight...

Many of the new American soldiers will fan out along southern Afghanistan’s largely unguarded 550-mile-long border with Pakistan [emphasis added]. Among them will be soldiers deployed in the Stryker, a relatively quick, nimble armored vehicle that can roam across the vast areas that span the frontier.

All of the new troops are supposed to be in place by Aug. 20 [more on deployment schedule here], in order to provide security for Afghanistan’s presidential election.

The presence of poppy and opium here has injected a huge measure of uncertainly into the war. Under NATO rules of engagement, American or other forces are prohibited from attacking targets or people related only to narcotics production. Those people are not considered combatants.

But American and other forces are allowed to attack drug smugglers or facilities that are assisting the Taliban. In an interview, General Nicholson said that opium production and the Taliban are so often intertwined that the rules do not usually inhibit American operations.

“We often come across a compound that has opium and I.E.D. materials side by side, and opium and explosive materials and weapons,” General Nicholson said, referring to improvised explosive devices. “It’s very common — more common than not.”

But the prospect of heavy fighting in populated areas could further alienate the Afghan population [see Update at previous link above]. In the firefight in Zangabad, the Americans covered their exit with a barrage of 20 155 millimeter high-explosive artillery shells — necessary to shield them from the Taliban, but also enough to inflict serious damage on people and property. A local Afghan interviewed by telephone after the firefight said that four homes had been damaged by the artillery strikes...

...the trickiest thing will be winning over the Afghans themselves. The Taliban are entrenched in the villages and river valleys of southern Afghanistan. The locals, caught between the foes, seem, at best, to be waiting to see who prevails [emphasis added]...

US and Paks

1) Taliban Advance in Pakistan Prompts Shift by U.S.

The Pakistani government's inability to stem Taliban advances has forced the Obama administration to recalibrate its Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy a month after unveiling it.

What was planned as a step-by-step process of greater military and economic engagement with Pakistan -- as immediate attention focused on Afghanistan -- has been rapidly overtaken by the worsening situation on the ground. Nearly nonstop discussions over the past two days included a White House meeting Monday between Obama and senior national security officials and a full National Security Council session on Pakistan yesterday.

Pakistani soldiers prepare to fire at suspected hideouts of Taliban insurgents in Lower Dir district during an ongoing operation launched Sunday. (By Mohammad Sajjad -- Associated Press)

A tripartite summit Obama will host here next week with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai will center heavily on the Pakistan problem rather than the balance originally intended, officials said.

New consideration is being given to a long-dormant proposal to allow U.S. counterinsurgency training for Pakistani troops somewhere outside the country, circumventing Pakistan's refusal to allow American "boots on the ground" there. "The issue now is how do you do that, where do you do it, and what money do we have to do it with?" said a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity yesterday [see below].

On Capitol Hill, anxious lawmakers proposed breaking $400 million out of the administration's pending $83 billion supplemental spending request in order to fund immediate counterinsurgency and economic assistance to Pakistan. "We could pass it really quickly, in just a matter of days," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who just returned from Pakistan. Waiting for debate and approval of the entire supplemental, Kyl said, "could be too little, too late."

"Certainly, we are discussing with the administration what is needed, and I think that all of us are very concerned about what's happening in Pakistan," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters...

Beyond this week's combat, officials said they were still looking for Pakistan to begin moving large quantities of its half-million-strong military away from the eastern border with India, its historic adversary, and toward Taliban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the west.

2) U.S. training of Pakistan army to grow
Fearing Islamabad is ill equipped to battle militants, Washington aims to bolster the nation's anti-insurgency efforts.

The Pakistani government has agreed to allow the U.S. a greater role in training its military, part of an accord that will also send counterinsurgency equipment to help Islamabad step up its offensive against militants.

Washington has been watching with growing alarm as Taliban forces have made military gains in Pakistan and U.S. officials have stepped up pressure on Islamabad to do more.

Although the Pakistani military launched an air attack against the Taliban on Tuesday, senior U.S. Defense officials remain deeply worried about Islamabad's ability to beat back the militant advance.

Long shaped by the threat of war with India, the Pakistani military is armed mostly with heavy weaponry and lacks some of the equipment useful in fighting an insurgency. And after months of fighting, the forces that have been hunting militants are exhausted.

"You have a Pakistani military that is battle weary," a senior U.S. Defense official said. "Their equipment is aged and not effective for the fight they are in."

The official, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

On his trip last week to Pakistan, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, continued to press the government to take the militant force more seriously. Pakistani military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani outlined for Mullen a series of steps he was planning, including the offensive in the Buner area.

Mullen emerged from his meetings with Kayani and other Pakistani officials deeply worried, telling aides that the situation had grown far worse than even two weeks before, when he had visited with special U.S. envoy Richard C. Holbrooke. "I have never seen him come back more concerned, deeply bothered by what he saw," a military officer said [more on the situation here].

The Pakistani operation included using heavy artillery, helicopters and fighter jets to strike Taliban positions in the mountains beyond Islamabad. But U.S. officials fear that those tactics will be ineffective or could backfire by inflicting civilian casualties. The U.S. military would like to see Pakistan's military move in light infantry or commando units [emphasis added--and see first story above].

Over the long term, the U.S. military believes training the Pakistanis for that kind of combat is critical for countering the Taliban threat.

But so far Pakistan has only allowed in about 70 U.S. special operations trainers, an effort the American military has long been anxious to expand [some Brits helping with training too].

The new agreement would have the U.S. military train Pakistani officers outside Pakistan [emphasis added]. The Pentagon has offered to train the Pakistanis in the U.S., but a senior Obama administration official said the location of the additional training had not been finalized.

"The issue now is, how do you do it? Where do you do it?" the senior administration official said. "We are responding to the Pakistani military's request."

Until now the U.S. has focused on creating commando forces that can conduct raids and counterinsurgency operations effectively...

The Pentagon intends to pay for an array of new equipment for the Pakistani military, including helicopters, night-vision goggles and better small arms, if Congress approves the administration's request for $400 million for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund...

Paks fighting back

Pakistan wrests control of town from Taliban
But militants have taken over a police station and dozens of officers are hostage. The military actions are an effort to push the Taliban back into its base in the Swat Valley.

Pakistani commandos dropped from helicopters today into an area behind Taliban lines some 80 miles from Islamabad, the capital, and regained control of a key town, the army said. But authorities faced a fresh challenge after militants seized a police station, holding dozens of officers hostage.

Helicopters dropped troops before 8 a.m. near Daggar, the main town in the Buner district, the army said. The area has seen fighting between the military and Taliban forces for several days [more here].

The army said it has killed at least 50 militants in Buner during the last two days of fighting but estimates that 500 fighters remain. The offensive may last another week, the military added, given that troops are running into stiff resistance in mountainous areas.

"We assure the nation that armed forces have the capability to ward off any kind of threat," military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas told reporters at a briefing in the city of Rawalpindi.

In other developments today, officials here say a suspected U.S. missile strike killed five people in Pakistani territory along the Afghan border. The unmanned U.S. missile strikes, or drones, are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, drawing criticism that the nation's sovereignty is being violated.

Abbas said the army had destroyed two ammunition depots that hold arms for the militants but still had not managed to reach several towns in Buner that remain Taliban strongholds, including Pir Baba and Ambela.

Eighteenpolice and paramilitary personnel seized by the Taliban in the Pir Baba police station Tuesday were freed today, but about 50 hostages still remain in the hands of militants...

So far, the fragile and controversial Swat peace deal appears to be holding, officials said, although discussions have broken down.

The Taliban also issued an order to journalists this week to "shun propaganda." Analysts said the statement has a tone of desperation as the militants have watched their once-favorable domestic support fall sharply since they expanded beyond Swat.

"The mood in Pakistan has changed among the middle class and the talk show hosts [emphasis added--more here] , where before it was generally supportive of the Taliban," said Hilaly, the analyst. This veiled threat pressing for favorable coverage "doesn't come from strength," he added, "it comes from weakness."

Map:

Update: From the Economist, nice maps:

Pakistan and the Taliban
A real offensive, or a phoney war?
As the Pakistani army launches a new assault on the Taliban, America hopes it is now more serious about defeating the militants
...

Fowler, Guay, and the enemy

Obviously, I'm pleased that Canadian diplomats Robert Fowler and Louis Guay are free and relatively unharmed by their long kidnapping ordeal. And equally obviously, I don't know all there is to know about the process that freed them.

But I do have some questions and concerns about that process.

Before I get into those concerns, I'd recommend you read this article in the Globe & Mail by Colin Freeze. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to come back...

OK...the Prime Minister states that Canada paid no ransom for their release. Call me cynical and suspicious, but I highly doubt that's the sainted truth. If I had to bet a week's salary on it, I'd hazard that a ransom was paid by a third party government to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and that some sort of quid pro quo was arranged with the Canadian government for this political cover - whether promises of aid, future favours, or outright payment to the other government or agency.

I think the chance that AQIM released Fowler and Guay without any ransom at all is somewhat less than zilch.

Was there another option? I don't know, but I found the bare lip-service paid to a military solution telling:

A rotating team of three dozen Canadians worked tirelessly in West Africa over the past four months to secure freedom for two Canadian diplomats, sources say. Drawn from the ranks of the foreign service, Mounties, spies and other agencies, they ran the most sophisticated rescue operation Canada has ever known.

Using the wizardry of modern surveillance, calling in favours and exerting pressure on African governments, the team considered every option, up to and including a military raid.

Nobody mentions who would carry out that raid, but it's pretty obvious which unit has the mandate, the resources, and the skill set to do it.

The question left unanswered is why the military option was rejected. Did they not know where the hostages were being held? Did they not feel confident the team could carry out the mission successfully? Did the government not feel the political optics would be worthwhile?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions. What I do know, however, is that if Canada paid a ransom, or facilitated a ransom, or allowed a ransom to be paid on our behalf when there was a viable military option on the table, that should be cause for concern.

Because while there are undoubtedly grave risks to sending armed professionals in to take back hostages by force, there are also grave risks to funding an organization like AQIM.

A ransom lends them legitimacy - this was a highly successful operation for them from a PR standpoint. A ransom also provides them with much needed pecuniary resources with which to prosecute their murderous campaign. And a ransom encourages more kidnappings.

I would refer those who doubt this line of reasoning to the situation off the Somali coast, where the world has been paying ransoms to an increasingly well equipped, sophisticated, and burgeoning group of criminals for nigh on three years now.

How has that worked out so far?

My concern, in other words, is that in choosing to ransom Fowler and Guay - assuming we did in one way or another - we've also chosen to fund a branch of Al Qaeda, and encouraged them to continue with such tactics going forward. I wonder if we've unintentionally bankrolled the future deaths of innocents at the hands of known terrorists.

When you think of it like that, the idea of hard and quiet Canadian soldiers employing focused violence on the kidnappers seems a lot less risky, doesn't it?

Exercise UNITAS Gold: Not Juno Beach...

...still (via Castle Argghhh!!!):

...MAYPORT, Fla. (April 25, 2009) Canadian soldiers storm the beach near Mayport during a UNITAS Gold amphibious assault demonstration. Maritime forces from Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay landed on the beach during a UNITAS Gold amphibious landing demonstration. UNITAS Gold is the 50th iteration of the annual multinational maritime exercise known as UNITAS, which provides the opportunity to conduct and integrate joint and combined land, maritime, coast guard and air operations in a realistic training environment. The exercise is taking place April 20-May 5. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alan Gragg/Released)

MAYPORT, Fla. (NNS) -- Maritime Forces from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, the United States and Uruguay practiced an amphibious landing on Mayport beach April 25 during UNITAS Gold.

Participants arrived in four landing craft, air cushioned (LCAC) amphibious hovercrafts to demonstrate an amphibious landing and set up security perimeters for additional troops and vehicles to come ashore. The demonstration was part of the annual multinational partnership-building exercise known as UNITAS.

UNITAS Gold is the commemorative exercise for the 50th iteration and runs April 20 - May 5 off the coast of Florida. UNITAS is designed to foster mutual cooperation between participating militaries and develop their capability to respond in a unified manner to a wide variety of maritime missions. The beach assault was a culmination of more than three months of planning, coordination and training between participating nations...

More:

...
During the two-week exercise lasting from April 20-May 5, the United States and partner nations will train together in a realistic scenario-driven training environment featuring live-fire exercises, undersea warfare, shipboard operations, maritime interdiction operations, air defense and surface warfare, amphibious operations, electronic warfare, and special warfare. More than 30 ships, two submarines and 50 aircraft from the U.S. and participating navies are involved.

"This isn't something we have an opportunity to do quite often," said Canadian Army 1st Lt. Michael Faber of Alpha Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment. "The Canadian forces are very much arranged towards international partnerships and joint operations. UNITAS provides us a chance to practice working on our basic operational skills with people of other countries."..

HMCS Montreal is taking part too--and note this:

...This year marks the first time that both Mexico and Canada have specifically sent assets to take part in the exercise. The ships and crew of the ARM Mina (F-214), ARM Oaxaca (PO-161), HMCS Montreal (336) and HMCS Corner Brook (S 878), all joined UNITAS to share knowledge and capabilities with 11 other countries...

"Why We're Over There"

Excerpt from an excellent post by Brian Platt at his The Canada-Afghanistan Blog--read the whole thing:

...

Recently I was at a talk at the Fraser Institute with Brigadier-General Denis Thompson [commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan until this February, videos of interviews with him since his return available here]. One of the only pompous, smart-ass questions asked that day came from a smirky guy with a British accent. He said "don't tell me we're there for nation-building, because then why aren't we in Zimbabwe?"

Thompson clearly (and understandably) bristled at this question, responding sharply that we have to choose our fights; just because we can't be everywhere all of the time doesn't mean we can't be somewhere some of the time.

The way I respond to the cynics, who smirk like the British guy did when we speak of the importance of nation-building and human rights, is to give a very frank and direct answer: the reason why we're in Afghanistan is because of September 11. Full stop. If it wasn't for September 11, we wouldn't be there. Of course we wouldn't be.

The direct reason our soldiers are in Afghanistan is not women's rights, but because a religious death cult based in that country and supported by its government murdered thousands of civilians in New York and Washington eight years ago.

BUT...the Canadian response to that attack has been guided by the principles of nation-building and women's rights, make no mistake about it. We are there because of September 11, but we understand that the only responsible and respectable policy is to build up a legitimate democracy that respects the basic rights of its citizens.

This is why I've always argued that Afghanistan is both a left-wing and right-wing war: it's in the security interests of our country and in the humanitarian interests of Afghans. It's both things at the same time, and there is no internal contradiction...

Update: Terry Glavin adds his toonie's worth:

Decide: Sanctimonious drivel or progressive feminism. (You can't have it both ways)...

British SAS to be expanded for Afstan/Plans to increase army size

SAS to reach out and touch people, as well as conducting intelligence-driven kinetic operations of a certain sort:

SAS to increase in size to counter Taliban in Afghanistan

Special forces are to be increased in order to meet the growing demands of the conflict in Afghanistan, John Hutton, the Defence Secretary, has said.

But Mr Hutton told the defence select committee that they would not compromise with "quantity over quality" in getting more recruits into the SAS and other elite regiments.

Mr Hutton also did not rule out an increase in the size of the Army in order to create a bigger pool of recruits for special forces.

With the Taliban insurgency increasing in Helmand, defence planners have opted to spread the roles of specialist troops operating covertly on the ground.

In addition to targeting Taliban leaders they will use "soft power" in expanded roles in which they will address medical and other needs of the population in remote locations.

Asked about an increase in the size of special forces Mr Hutton said: "I don't think we should compromise on quality as we look to do this. These are the sort of issues that we have to make decisions on in the future."

Answering a question by the committee chairman James Arbuthnot, MP, on whether it would mean expanding the Army he said: "We are trying to recruit the size of the Armed Forces. We are looking at the details of this."

But special forces had to "avoid the elephant trap in that we increase quantity over quality".

With the SAS now withdrawing from Iraq, where up to two squadrons have operated successfully in Baghdad since 2003, the regiment is expected to rapidly redeploy to Afghanistan to assist the Special Boat Service...

The Army has to meet its current manning shortfall of 4,500 troops before it could consider expanding special forces, defence sources said. Plans are currently being drawn up to increase the size of the Army by 5,000 troops to 106,000. It is hoped that the recession and withdrawal from Iraq will attract extra recruits.

The defence committee also heard that the Armed Forces had not been able to train for all contingencies because "a lot of our people" had been committed to Iraq and Afghanistan [emphasis added].

Mr Hutton said the impending draw down of operations in Iraq would "significantly help things" but admitted that with almost 9,000 troops in Afghanistan the MoD would still be operating above its planning levels.

He added that the military needed a "period of grace" to "replenish our people [emphasis added]"...

Sound familiar?

Afstan: Matthew Fisher lays it on the line

While I think Mr Fisher makes good points, I remain uncomfortable with reporters' writing news stories that are actually op-ed pieces (or ones fitting an agenda):

Punching above Canada's weight
Ambassador in Kabul country's most important

Canada's most influential ambassador does not reside in Washington, New York, London, Tokyo or Beijing.

It is Canada's man in Kabul, Ron Hoffman, who lives behind blast walls and bulletproof glass in a fairly modest house at the end of a street that has swarms of armed guards and several metal barriers that look as if they could stop a tank. Mr. Hoffman's status has been won militarily, diplomatically and with a fat wallet...

...[Our efforts in Afstan] have garnered Hoffman and Canada a privileged place at the same table as U. S. and British ambassadors while the plenipotentiaries of France and Germany have had to watch from a distance.

Douglas Hurd, the former British foreign minister, always liked to boast that the UnitedKingdom "fought above its weight." That is something Ottawa utterly failed to do for decades before Afghanistan although during the long blue beret and blue helmet period in Cyprus, the Balkans [actually from late 1995 on almost all our forces in the Balkans were under NATO, not the UN--not wearing blue on top, see here, here and here] and Africa it sometimes deluded itself and its citizens into thinking that its international reputation was much higher than it actually was.

A key difference now is that Canada has soldiers, diplomats and aid works all closely work the Afghan file together. It is not yet a perfect marriage of hard power and soft power, but Canada is a lot closer to getting the military/civil mix right than ever before [more here and here].

To get to this point the military, which has so many of the necessary logistical tools and leadership skills, has had to become less hidebound. On the civilian side a cadre of smart, dynamic, less traditional, more flexible diplomats and development experts is being assembled who want to be where the action is.

It is not just Hoffman who is influential. A Canadian fighter pilot runs NATO's Afghan air war. A Canadian general is to replace another Canadian as ISAF's chief military spokesman this summer. A fourth Canadian general is to soon oversee the psy ops war in the south [earlier post on the subject here].

They follow, Rick Hillier, the armed force's former chief of staff, who was ISAF's top general in Afghanistan for nearly a year. The army's top general, Andrew Leslie, did a tour here as ISAF's number two. Marc Lessard, who is to assume command of all Canadian troops overseas next month, was ISAF's top commander in the war-torn south last year.

Everything is still to be played for in Afghanistan. But the hard-won reputation that Canada has earned as a respected international player by assuming a leadership role here will inevitably disappear if Ottawa decides to cut and run in 2011.

Since Mr Fisher's current tour in Afstan is ending, I suppose he felt the need to get things off his chest.

The "Century Hornet"

See the end of this post--and now (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

A special Hornet buzzing the Valley

The loud buzzing heard over the Valley this week was the sound of a larger-than-life hornet.

The Century Hornet, a CF-18 jet painted gold to celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight in Canada, joined the Snowbirds and the F-86 Sabre Golden Hawk on Tuesday [April 21].


The Century Hornet will fly with the Snowbirds during air shows this season [emphasis added].

"It's a full-up air display routine that we do, including aerobatics, low-level down to as low as 300 feet (and) up to speeds as fast as 0.90 Mach, which is equivalent to 600 miles per hour," said Capt. Bruce Ehman, the Canadian Forces demonstration teams coordinator from One Canadian Air Division in Winnipeg.

"What that does is it demonstrates our capability as a fighter aircraft to show what we can do."

Besides the usual Snowbird performance, one of their CT-114 Tutor jets will also be painted gold and that aircraft, along with the Century Hornet and Golden Hawk, will fly in formation at air shows this season [emphasis added].

It's all in celebration of the Centennial of Flight, the 100th anniversary of the flight of the Silver Dart, the first powered, heavier-than-air controlled flight in Canada back on Feb. 23, 1909.

"This year, because it is the 100th anniversary of flight and because the CF-18 is our lead fighter aircraft in our air force, we felt it important to show that aircraft flying to commemorate the anniversary," said Ehman.

"The message we want to send across is ... it is something that everybody can aspire to be. We think the air force is a great job and we'd like to see more people join the air force."

The very loud jet, and the slightly quieter Golden Hawk and Tutor jets, will fly their final practice tomorrow (Saturday [April 25]) over the Strait of Georgia next to CFB Comox beginning at 9:30 a.m.

The flight will be followed by an autograph session with the Snowbird crew from 12:30 to 2 near the cadet hangar. Access is through the gates across from Michael and All Angels Chapel on Military Row.

Another photo (Cool Pool):

Guess what? Ceasefire.ca readers oppose Afghan mission

St. Steve Staples wants to make some sort of big deal by treating a nonsense online poll of his own seriously:

“End the War in Afghanistan,” say Ceasefire.ca supporters

Based on our online poll of over 1,800 Ceasefire.ca supporters, it is clear that the majority of respondents do not believe that the current path being taken in Afghanistan is the right one.

In fact, less than two percent of respondents still believe that the best course of action for Canada in Afghanistan is to continue attempts to defeat the Taliban through armed conflict. Rather, 45.4 percent would call for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops, while 45.6 percent would like Canada to support negotiations with insurgent groups such as the Taliban in order to put an end to the conflict.

The inauguration of the Obama Administration raised hopes within the U.S. anti-Iraq war movement, but it appears to have had little effect on the opinion of a large majority of Ceasefire.ca supporters.

Obama is strongly opposed to the war in Iraq [so why are US forces to stay with a combat role until August 2010?], but he has embraced the war in Afghanistan and has committed thousands more troops. Since 69 percent of respondents said that their opinions were unaffected by the change in U.S. administration, there appears to be a desire for a Canadian policy on Afghanistan that is independent from U.S. policy.

The Obama Administration has made no secret that it hopes for increased commitment from allies in Afghanistan, including Canada. Despite Obama’s enthusiastic reception by the peace movement, only 10 percent of our respondents were more likely to support a Canadian military presence beyond the end of the current mission in 2011, while 21 percent were less likely to do so.

Based on our poll, a more peaceful and diplomatic approach seems to be favoured among respondents, as 40 percent believe that Ceasefire.ca’s primary objective should be ending the war in Afghanistan, while 29 percent think that the focus should be placed on supporting the UN and peacekeeping efforts.

Unfortunately, this anti-military activist--he doesn't want the CF actually to fight--will be on a panel discussing the Afghan mission of CBC's The National tonight (April 27). It really is inexcusable that our major media continually give space to this extremist as some sort of "expert" or "analyst" on Afghanistan and things military, especially without noting that he is a committed advocate one particular viewpoint without even a pretense of objectivity.

From an earlier post about the controversy over a Fox News program that mocked the Canadian military:

...
Mr Staples also said this in an Ottawa Sun story:

...
"The dismissal of Canadian efforts in Afghanistan simply rubs salt in the wounds of Canadian families whose sons and daughters have been injured or killed in the war."..

Pity they had to quote St. Steve. What a flaming hypocrite he is, what with having opposed the combat mission--and dismissing our efforts--for years and advocating instead than the CF focus on UN peacekeeping. Just the sort of attitude the Fox fools were mocking. The Stapler wrote this in April, 2006:

...
* Once a top 10 contributor of soldiers to UN peacekeeping, today we can fit all our Blue Helmets onto a single school bus - less than 60, out of more than 60,000 UN peacekeepers worldwide.

* Our 2,300-troop-strong effort in Afghanistan, a counterterrorism mission currently under U.S. command, is a proving ground for the adoption of U.S. war-fighting doctrine and a symbolic end to Canadian/UN peacekeeping...

This is what he wrote in June 2007:

...
In a broader context, Prime Minister Harper's remarks last week may signal that the current military buildup and transformation of the Canadian Forces from peacekeepers to war fighters has reached its zenith...

Then this from February 27 this year:

Why Canadians want their country to be a peacekeeping nation
...
By embracing UN peacekeeping, rightly or wrongly, Canadians are expressing a rejection of aggressive U.S.-led wars. Keep the military with the UN, otherwise, many fear, our forces will simply become an adjunct of the Pentagon, serving U.S. interests.

Sadly, successive Canadian governments have abandoned UN peacekeeping to the point where we have dropped from the first to the 53rd highest contributor, next to Malawi. Today we send so few soldiers, they could all fit on a school bus (62 Canadian soldiers out of 78,000 international troops on UN peacekeeping operations).

And so, while UN involvement plummets, 2750 Canadian troops are stuck in a failing US/NATO-led war in Afghanistan. It seems to me that Canadians actually know the score very well. Now, if only our government would listen.

Now take a look at who's involved at Ceasfire.ca, a website (the name says it all) the Stapler founded and that remains dear to his, er, heart. I'm tempted to sick Gutfeld et al. on him. Really tempted.

Update: St. Steve has bottomless gall; now he's urging Canadians to defend the forces the loves to loathe:

...Such a shameful display shows that no matter how much sacrifice Canadians make in Afghanistan, it will never be enough for some Americans...

The Rideau Institute [take a look at its "Board of Directors" webpage] is suggesting that Canadians write to Fox News asking the program’s host, Greg Gutfeld, to apologize for the segment...

Notwithstanding all his proclaimed devotion to the UN, Mr Staples conveniently never mentions that NATO's Afghan mission is authorized by a continuing series of UN Security Council resolutions and is thus a fully-fledged "UN mission"--just not one managed by the UN Secretariat. Which may be a pretty Good Thing given the poor performance of those UN-run "peacekeeping" missions.

More from Jack Granatstein, writing about Canada's "peace movement", at another post:

...
Then there is Steven Staples. Staples worked for Maude Barlow’s organization and then for the Polaris Institute in Ottawa which, as it says, aims at “retooling citizen movements for democratic social change.” In January, 2007, Staples set up the Rideau Institute for International Affairs, “an independent, research, advocacy and consulting group,” and Byers and Mason are on his board of directors, while Barlow is listed as a senior advisor. As an advocacy group, the Rideau Group cannot provide tax receipts, so it struggles to raise funds and says it supports itself with donations from like-minded groups and by doing writing/consulting/lobbying work for organizations such as — surprise, surprise — the Council of Canadians.

Steven Staples sometimes seems omnipresent in the media, not because he is an expert on peace and security issues, but because journalists want balance. (If I have a pro-war opinion here, I must have an anti-war comment there. Only the Toronto Star’s Tom Walkom appears to believe that quoting Staples and Byers alone provides balance [an example is here--see my post for some facts) His program director, Anthony Salloum, a former NDP staffer on Parliament Hill, “found” some secret Department of National Defence documents in a garbage can (and if you believe this I have a Bloor Street viaduct I can get for you cheaply), and the two have a shrewd sense of what will get attention.

What unites all the new peace groups is their anti-Americanism. Canada is following the Bush agenda; Canada should get out of the American war in Afghanistan; Canada should halt its defence integration with the Yanks. Led by Barlow, Byers and Staples, the refrain is automatic and predictable. If Barack Obama wins the U.S. election, it will be interesting to see how the peace movement changes gears to denounce the new administration...

Since President Obama has proven true to his campaign position as rather a, er, hawk on Afstan, the Stapler has come up with nice bit of spin in his post above:

...there appears to be a desire for a Canadian policy on Afghanistan that is independent from U.S. policy.

And, one might add, from UN Security Council policy.

Update: Have learned that the Afghanistan panel St. Steve was to be on has been pre-empted by a swine flu special. Temporary relief.

Upperdate: A comment at Ceasefire.ca worth a read (via Terry Glavin).