Electoral Member
Posts: 705 
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
October 24th, 2006, 02:27 AM
Here is what I had to say on another board...
It's one thing to be in Afghanistan because as a NATO member we think to throw in our support with allies and that in itself, as to a mission in Afghanistan, wasn't well thought out by the Liberals. However, unlike an Iraq commitment, it would have looked really bad of Canada to opt out of helping the USA after the twin towers came down.
But it is a complete other thing to then put our military on an apparently ill informed extension and command over what is turning out to be a meat grinder for Canadian lives where even our other NATO allies won't touch the areas we now patrol or offer more support due to the obvious reasons.
Ideology over reality, a even greater lack of understanding of the dynamics we would face on the ground, over stretching our military to the point we begin straining our military institutions and the forces who are at great risk serving us, and undoubtedly then leaving us vulnerable should another crisis occur that would require the immediate attention of our armed forces for Canada or to commit to an urgent International Initiative...
...This type foolishness, and this type poor leadership, this is something Harper owns all by himself.
Here is what I had to say on another board...
Quote:
I posted this on the 22nd of October. Yesterday on the 23rd the Globe and Mail had this to say... http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...apology-4.html
"If you follow the news that could mean extended tours which might not be a problem to a soldier who doesn’t have a family he/she wants to get home to. There is even talk about looking into people who don’t even have the trades required for infantry duty. That could mean looking at the navy, truck drivers, etc. and having to re-train them for being on the front line. Personally I think something is going wrong in the planning of military policy if you start having to put the guy who trade it was to drive military trucks to do patrolling. At worst, having the cook cover your back.
Moreover, depending on how desperate the Canadian Military becomes in having to fill those numbers you could end up seeing a lot of people in the reserves (should have said reg force) putting in a release which will hurt the numbers even more."
"If you follow the news that could mean extended tours which might not be a problem to a soldier who doesn’t have a family he/she wants to get home to. There is even talk about looking into people who don’t even have the trades required for infantry duty. That could mean looking at the navy, truck drivers, etc. and having to re-train them for being on the front line. Personally I think something is going wrong in the planning of military policy if you start having to put the guy who trade it was to drive military trucks to do patrolling. At worst, having the cook cover your back.
Moreover, depending on how desperate the Canadian Military becomes in having to fill those numbers you could end up seeing a lot of people in the reserves (should have said reg force) putting in a release which will hurt the numbers even more."
Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ghanistan/home
Critics slam Afghan naval mission
Throwing sailors and air force members into ground combat a mistake, experts say
ALEX DOBROTA
From Monday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Throwing sailors or air force members into ground combat in Afghanistan would be a colossal mistake, military experts said yesterday.
The proposal from the Department of National Defence is an option offered to avoid sending major army units back to Kandahar for a second time. But the plan encountered nothing but hostile fire yesterday.
It could lower troops' morale, would take too long to implement, place too great a strain on navy and air force ranks and generally makes no sense, a variety of critics said.
"I just can't see how you turn a sailor into a soldier without taking as long to do it as it would take for you to take a recruit off the street," said David Bercuson, the University of Calgary professor who is one of Canada's leading military analysts.
"It's an act of desperation, there's no question about that," echoed Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps military magazine. "It's a whole different mentality, a different role, different everything from being a sailor to a combat arms soldier."
Canada has 2,300 army personnel on the ground in Afghanistan and has made a commitment to keep that presence until 2009. But the army is too small to fulfill that mission without calling some units for a second tour of duty, said Capt. Richard Langlois, a spokesman with DND.
(cont.)...
Critics slam Afghan naval mission
Throwing sailors and air force members into ground combat a mistake, experts say
ALEX DOBROTA
From Monday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Throwing sailors or air force members into ground combat in Afghanistan would be a colossal mistake, military experts said yesterday.
The proposal from the Department of National Defence is an option offered to avoid sending major army units back to Kandahar for a second time. But the plan encountered nothing but hostile fire yesterday.
It could lower troops' morale, would take too long to implement, place too great a strain on navy and air force ranks and generally makes no sense, a variety of critics said.
"I just can't see how you turn a sailor into a soldier without taking as long to do it as it would take for you to take a recruit off the street," said David Bercuson, the University of Calgary professor who is one of Canada's leading military analysts.
"It's an act of desperation, there's no question about that," echoed Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps military magazine. "It's a whole different mentality, a different role, different everything from being a sailor to a combat arms soldier."
Canada has 2,300 army personnel on the ground in Afghanistan and has made a commitment to keep that presence until 2009. But the army is too small to fulfill that mission without calling some units for a second tour of duty, said Capt. Richard Langlois, a spokesman with DND.
(cont.)...
It's one thing to be in Afghanistan because as a NATO member we think to throw in our support with allies and that in itself, as to a mission in Afghanistan, wasn't well thought out by the Liberals. However, unlike an Iraq commitment, it would have looked really bad of Canada to opt out of helping the USA after the twin towers came down.
But it is a complete other thing to then put our military on an apparently ill informed extension and command over what is turning out to be a meat grinder for Canadian lives where even our other NATO allies won't touch the areas we now patrol or offer more support due to the obvious reasons.
Ideology over reality, a even greater lack of understanding of the dynamics we would face on the ground, over stretching our military to the point we begin straining our military institutions and the forces who are at great risk serving us, and undoubtedly then leaving us vulnerable should another crisis occur that would require the immediate attention of our armed forces for Canada or to commit to an urgent International Initiative...
...This type foolishness, and this type poor leadership, this is something Harper owns all by himself.
