Canadians In Hot Seat - Afghanistan



Cdns bearing brunt of Afghan coalition casualties
Updated Mon. Sep. 18 2006 10:21 AM ET
Sarah Challands, News

A Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar is six times more likely to be killed by a hostile attack than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq, a report released Monday suggests.

The study, published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says Canadian soldiers are incurring a "disproportionately heavy burden of casualties" among coalition troops in Afghanistan.

Canadians have accounted for 43 per cent of all coalition military deaths in Afghanistan since February, the report, entitled 'Canada's Fallen,' says.

It finds that, after the United States, Canada has suffered more casualties from hostile action in Afghanistan than any other U.S. ally -- 27 of 71 casualties, or two in five of non-U.S. deaths.

The study says when that figure is adjusted to take into account the relative size of each country's troop commitments, a Canadian soldier in Kandahar is nearly three times more likely to be killed in hostile action than a British soldier, and more than four times more likely than an American soldier in Afghanistan.

Defence researchers Bill Robinson and Steven Staples, who wrote the report, say a Canadian soldier in Kandahar is six times more likely to die than a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq.

Staples said the report raised serious questions about why Canada is taking such heavy losses, and whether the government expected such a high number of soldiers to be killed.

"As we examined the troubling data, the question arose as to whether the Liberals misjudged the danger, and if the Conservatives ignored it," Staples, said, adding that the Department of National Defence had provided the government with accurate pre-mission casualty estimates in previous missions.

The report by the left-leaning CCPA uses data available up to Sept. 8, 2006 and does not include the four Canadian soldiers killed in a suicide bombing in Kandahar on Sept. 18.

The report also does not include the number of Canadians (five) who have died in accidents in Afghanistan.

Reluctant European troops

Meanwhile, another study says Canada, Britain and the U.S. have shouldered the brunt of the heavy fighting because most European forces are lightly armed, trained for garrison duty and reluctant to go into harm's way.

The U.S. Congressional report, entitled NATO in Afghanistan: A Test of the Transatlantic Alliance, says most European countries, with the exception of France, send their troops to the war-torn country without proper equipment and with little funds for reconstruction efforts.

"These restrictions, for example, may prohibit forces from engaging in combat operations, or from patrolling at night due to a lack of night-vision equipment," says the report, which was published by the Congressional Research Service on Aug. 22 and made available in Canada last week.

"These governments tend to be reluctant to send their forces out into the field to confront the Taliban and control warlords and their militias. The result, in this view, has been that British and Canadian and U.S. forces bear a disproportionate share of the most dangerous tasks."

Gee - this is news? It's been going on for years.
Thats because Europe is Full of lazy care-nots. Big Surprise, Most Eurpoean Nations Durning World War 2 were huge push overs for the Nazis because of their stunning passiveness, in which they seem to be proud of. Europeans are to busy taking days off from work to care about anyone else but themselves.

Id also like to point out, Canada is the aggressor in this war, our troops are leading and doing most of the ground work right now, along side the ANA, we are a threat to the Taliban, we are better fighters, better equipped and we dont plan on going anywhere.

The Taliban hopes to set us off course at home, by attacking our resolve and targetting Canadians more so than other Nato Allies because we are Natos Combat Unit.

No surprise ethier, In every Magor war we have fought along side the British and Yanks, we are always the premier fighting force, World War One we were the Army that made the Differance Our soldiers were knowen as tought Fighters never turned back, and always complete the most important Objectives, regardless of how badly it went for us. Look at Vimiy Ridge we on that Battle Made the name for our selves as a very Stratigic and well trained fighting Machine, we still live up to that.

World war 2 we Liberaited Holland, which before Drove out the British and Americans durning Operation Market Garden, we took the Shelt and evrything else, in Holland when a Canadian Visits they are treated as still liberaters and Heros, they learn about us in their schools, and are thaugh our Ideals as a Result.

We are the Got guy of Armys, and we allways prove ourselves time and time again, which is what we will do in Afagnistan, lost cause or not Canad will elave an Impression on the People and the Taliban as a Country that does not back down and fights because it can and it will for anyone who needs the help.

We lost more Soldiers, but still we fight evryday, the sodliers go abck to the same plaes and continue and make progress by proving we are their for a reason, for the Afgan People and will not be detured by death or the Taliban, Like alwaas and forever. We will always be a True Warrior Nation. Not war mongers because we always have a real reason to fight, and we do it well.
We're becoming a true patsy nation. Why are we in Afghanistan? The country is backward and not even remotely related culturally or politically. It's a hopeless cause. Canadian soldiers should not be involved in a conflict where they have no chance of emerging the victor.
We may be brave but we're also increasingly stupid.
We are in Afghanistan because the UN asked us to be. We are not invaders, we were asked to send a Nato Force. Canada did as she was asked, we are there and the Afghan people have repeatly asked us to stay. We are not there as Peace Keepers, we are an Intervention Force. Canadian Troops are trying to stabilize the country ergo the Afghan "Elected" Government can take over. Will peace ever take place, that is not our mandate, it never was.

Regarding the article, hello it's a war zone our Military's Lads/lasses know the risk going in. Whilst the debate of Pro versus cons rallies on why do both sides ignore what our Troops on the ground are telling us??
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarin

We're becoming a true patsy nation. Why are we in Afghanistan? The country is backward and not even remotely related culturally or politically. It's a hopeless cause. Canadian soldiers should not be involved in a conflict where they have no chance of emerging the victor.
We may be brave but we're also increasingly stupid.

Yea the stupidty meter usally goes up a few notches when nobs like you post, on Forums actting like they know whats up..... read the post above mine. Then go back to hitting yourself in the head with a pan, like iam sure you were doing before making your ignorant non infromed garbage post.
This thread was started based on a story full of holes. These "facts" about our casualities are a clear manipulation of statistics. Why has thier research not been questioned,or thier impartiality? Steve Sharples shows up on the news every so often,ALWAYS condemning our role overseas and linking Harper to Bush, Sound familiar.His research covers the worst time for our troops.He conveniently leaves out the American casualities but then compares our losses to American casualities in Iraq.A higher percentage of Canadians in Afgh.are front line compared to U.S. Troops on Iraq.Is that taken into account? Think about statistics. If I have had 2 auto accidents in the past 5 years and you have only had 1 in the past 20 years,statitiscally I am 8 times more likely to have an accident next time I drive. It is very telling that the media accepted the CCPA's findings without questioning thier validity. There's lies,damn lies and then there's stastistics.
Eastside, you're a typical nonthinking, yes-man Canadian. The word's been out on Afghanistan for quite awhile. Time you caught up on some newspapers and put some substance into your opinions. The initial post offers absolutely nothing of relevance to the current conflict. If you're familiar with the Canadian presence in past major war arenas you'd know that.
What Canada needs more than additional troops on the ground is sustained international pressure on countries like Pakistan who are making the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan possible. This is turning into a vicious guerrila war. Something that the Afghans are, with experience to back them, very good at. We are sustaining high casualties. We need to be more than just good fighters. We need political heft and international pressure to support our role there.
Tamarin,you are right. We also need politicians like Layton to quit undermining the troops support. This just makes the Taliban more eager to attack them in the hopes that domestic outcry will make them pull-out. It is like being in a snowball fight and you know that the best fighter on the other side has parents that will call him home if he gets a bloody nose. Of course,you will then target him,give him a bloody nose,and have his wimpy parents call him home.Your fight has just got a lot easier.The Taliban understand this simple concept.
When I see parents pushing a kid into a situation they don't belong in I'm remiss if I don't say anything.

there's more than one way to skin a cat.
NATO is made up of 26 member countries.

link (external - login to view)

Canada's contribution and the number of Canadians killed seems a lot more than our share. We should be demanding that all member countries carry a fair share of the load.
We should maybe first be more interested in knowing exactly why it is they don't want to get involved.
Who is "They" BitWhys?

Canada can't commit to Africa, we are over extended as it is. How many rotations can the Army do before they crash from over work. It's time for other countries to step up to the plate and pony up soldiers. I'm tired of the UN talking about Africa but doing very little. The money they spent talking about Africa could of saved thousands of lives. Dithering useless organization.
Quote: Originally Posted by Sassylassie

Who is "They" BitWhys?

excuse me? we're talking about NATO. you're the one badmouthing the holdouts. why don't you tell me?
I guess it is a bit ludicrous for NATO to be involved in this turkey shoot anyway. North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't sound like an outfit that would be in a war in the middle east. Nato is, however, an organization that the U.S. has great influence over. They should be using that influence to get some more troops into Afghanistan. The need is for enough troops to shut down the Pakistan border. That leaky border is the root of most of the problems in Afghanistan. I don't agree with this stupid war, but our government has made promises that we have to keep, so we may as well do it right.
Africa, why cant we commint to Africa, I hav a feeling we will be. 500 troops or so, but atleast something. Once again wouldnt be surprised if there would be some Combat in Darfur that we would be involved in.

500 troops is decent amount to star with, but I think Canada, needs to have a Millitary role in Darfur.

Similar Threads

5 Canadians Killed In Afghanistan
by JBeee | Dec 31st, 2009
Two More Canadians killed in Afghanistan by IED
by earth_as_one | Apr 11th, 2007
US Praise for Canadians in Afghanistan
by Curiosity | Jan 20th, 2007
no new posts