1. Why don't Canadians sweep for mines and IEDs before going for a Sunday drive?

2. How did a Canadian soldier lose his life in a "virtually indestructible" South African-built Nyala?

I'm looking for views from those more versed in military affairs than I. I'm hoping my conclusion - that the Canadian armed forces, its training program, and its choice of matériel are a bad joke - is the wrong one.

Just last week, the South Africans who sold Canada this vehicle were boasting about its supposed invincibility. Didn't last long:

Made in S.A. - Nyala shrugs off suicide blast

quote:

---

The armoured personnel vehicle is designed to withstand mine attacks and has been described in the Canadian press as "virtually indestructible" and thoroughly "combat-proven". [...]

"As a firm, we are very proud of producing this vehicle, a South African product. We realise it was made to withstand a certain type of attack but you do not know what happens when there is an enormous explosion... and it comes out literally unscathed.

"Obviously we are in a business but when it does what it's supposed to do... that's such a nice feeling."

---

I hope this helps some. I will write back later when I have more time.

The equipment works good, the soldiers skills are the best I have seen in years, just sometimes the enemy gets a good hit on a vehicle and people die.

Each vehicle has good and bad points.

I would like to talk more about this later.

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

The former Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien rejected the advice of military commanders by deciding in early 2003 to send 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, CBC News has learned.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Canada had sent several hundred soldiers to assist U.S. troops in tracking down al-Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. When that mission ended, senior military officers recommended that Canada send only 500 soldiers in a very limited role — but Ottawa chose instead to deploy 2,000 troops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
The former Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien rejected the advice of military commanders by deciding in early 2003 to send 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, CBC News has learned....

---

[ 19 October 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Today's 40th fatality of a Canadian soldier raises at least two questions:

1. Why don't Canadians sweep for mines and IEDs before going for a Sunday drive?

2. How did a Canadian soldier lose his life in a "virtually indestructible" South African-built Nyala?

I'm looking for views from those more versed in military affairs than I. I'm hoping my conclusion - that the Canadian armed forces, its training program, and its choice of matériel are a bad

---

You are not going to get many,if any answers to technical questions that will aid the Taliban in targeting Canadian troops.Not saying that this is your motive

I've posted previously that escalating the use of ever more sophisticated armoured vehicles will eventually result in the Taliban's Pakistani handlers to up the anti by providing more sophisticated anti-armour weaponry.

The disadvantage to this tactic is that at some point,the Pakistani handlers may be confronted by the same weaponry they have supplied and that if the weaponry can be traced back to them,it will escalate geopolitical strains.

quote:

---

jester wrote:I've posted previously that escalating the use of ever more sophisticated armoured vehicles will eventually result in the Taliban's Pakistani handlers to up the anti by providing more sophisticated anti-armour weaponry.

The disadvantage to this tactic is that at some point,the Pakistani handlers may be confronted by the same weaponry they have supplied and that if the weaponry can be traced back to them,it will escalate geopolitical strains.

---

There are problems with the book's approach and analysis, I think, but one of the interesting things about it is its account of how the problems you mention were addressed during the 1980s, when the US, together with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, was backing the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

According to the book, measures included back-channel deals with Israel to ship captured PLO weaponry to the mujahideen. Since some of this was Soviet in origin, it couldn't easily be traced to Pakistan or those working with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Maybe we should be talking about Jean Chretien's incompetence: CBC story here.

---

I saw that coverage on last night's National. But you omit a major portion of the story, sgm. Chretien was responding to Bush's enthusiasm for Canadians "kicking some ass" in Iraq, similar to the ass kicking in Afghanistan (and can't you just hear Bush using that terminology?). Chretien didn't want troops in Iraq so he beefed up the deployment to Afghanistan to ward off American demands re. Iraq.

That's not the conclusion I drew from the report, but I admit I may have misinterpreted it.

Further to the separate question of how weapons might flow from Pakistan to Afghanistan, I draw attention to this Sonya Fatah story in the Globe and Mail:

quote:

---

Studded with hashish bars, the town of 15,000 [DARRA ADAM KHEIL, PAKISTAN] is the headquarters of the region's illegal firearms market.

Here, small, storefront operations churn out knockoff versions of weapons at cut-rate prices, providing a key source of hardware for the Taliban, who are locked in an increasingly deadly battle with North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces across the border in Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

jester, have you read George Crile's book, Charlie Wilson's War?

---

No,presently,I'm reading General Sir Rupert Smith's "Utility of Force".

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Thanks for the mention of George Criles. My reading list is probably longer than my life span.

---

As is mine.

unionist mentioned in another thread that the military officers in charge of combat operations will go on to greater reward in the military when,in fact,the opposite is true.

The CF has for so long been dominated by military careerists who look upon command of a fighting unit as a pennance to be endured on the road to a plum National Defense Headquarters appointment that the services are dominated by chairborne paper pushers who look upon anyone with actual military experience as a threat to the dominance of the process driven system which rewards lethargy and incompetence.

I give as an example,Col. Pat Storgan,former CO of the PPCLI battle group in Kabul.He is appointed liason officer to the Pearson School of Peacekeeping while good papershuffling apparatchiks in the CF get the defense attache appointments to foreign embassies.

The problems with CF incompetence begin with a careerist mindset that disparages results in favour of process.

Who cares? The taxpayers should because the $4,000 toilet seat is a reality in the present CF.

Take the example of tactical air support for convoys. The airforce haS the capability to send Griffon helos to Afghanistan for convoy protection but choose to lobby for Apache gunships instead.

The airforce brasshats say the Griffon(bell412,USMC HueyII) is underpowered for hot and high conditions but the USMC uses a variant that has less power in Afghanistan.

Take the example of CH47 Chinooks. Boeing has a program to supply rebuilt CH47s on a priority basis but the CF airforce brasshats are holding out for new Chinooks that WILL NOT BE OPERATIONAL UNTIL 2012.

The majority of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan are from attacks on convoys that could be mitigated by either rotary air force protection utilising existing Griffon gunships or aerial resupply utilising acquired CH47 Chinook heavy rotary lift.

The airforce chooses to do neither,preferring future empirebuilding and papershuffling on its own behalf to protecting the lives of our troops.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:

As is mine.

Ahmed Rashid is also well worth reading on Afghanistan and Central Asia generally, in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Welcome to Kandahar, Afghanistan's second most important city. It's the closest town to the Kandahar Airfield where most of 2,300 Canadian soldiers in the country are based.

Despite their best efforts and those of 21,000 other coalition troops, security isn't improving here. It's getting worse.

Hardened soldiers increasingly dread travelling Kandahar's teeming roads, especially the bomb-prone stretch dubbed Suicide Alley.

The main drag through town is sporadically pockmarked and gouged where the most ardent anti-government militants have blown themselves up - taking dozens of troops and civilians with them. There are attacks at least once a week and rising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
Sue Bailey paints a grim picture of circumstances in Kandahar:
Link.

---

While disagreeing with the Kandahar mission,I did have some optimism that Canada's long commitment to peacekeeping could make a difference.

Sadly,Canada's military has not capitalised on their experience and Canada's government has not stood firm in supporting the provision of aid and reconstruction as the primary objective of the mission.

Both prefer American style aggression over defensive force protection for reconstruction.Coupled with the Afghan government's lack of interest in halting corruption and its rejection of the Senlis Council's proposal to direct the Afghan poppy crop toward the manufacture of legal drugs,it is time for Canada to get out.

It is not a matter of cutting and running,it is a matter of admitting we tried and failed to make a difference.Losing any furthur lives is futile and any furthur expense will only line the pockets of both corrupt Afghans and Canadian profiteers.

The US is only interested in its narrow policy objectives,namely continuing this debacle until the next administration is forced to deal with the mess while the genius walks away.

NATO is fractured and dysfunctional and been found a toothless hollow shell.Which,to me, is a good result.

Canada has always claimed that expensive assets such as strategic airlift and heavy/tactical rotary air support are not required by Canada because others NATO members would supply them.In reality,others did not and Canada lost most of its citizen's lives in supply convoy missions because of this reality.

I do believe that Harper and company are too blind to ever admit that they are shovelling sand against the tide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Reluctantly, I agree with much of what you say Jester. I was an early and persistent (but cautious) supporter of the Afghanistan mission and have come to have grave doubts about the project because of lack of will, resources and sincerity on the part of NATO when it comes to serious re-construction. A Marshall Plan might well work, but it is clear that the US was never serious about nation-building in Afghanistan. And America is the sole nation with the resources and responsibility to undertake real nation building there.

Perhaps the only thing NATO can look to is the establishment of a permanently protected enclave/province around Kabul where Afghans who wish to live more modern, secular lives can reside. But wise Canadian foreign policy would seek to extract every inch of leverage and influence we can reshape NATO and the international agenda to something more consonant with Canadian values - ie: not dictated to by one nation.

---

Well,Brett,I doubt that a secular capital region could survive for long.Didn't the Russian-installed government try that?

Perhaps NATO could name it OPERATION: KHARTOUM

The possibility of redirecting Afghan poppy production into the manufacture of legal drugs as suggested by the Senlis Council is not warmly received by the Karzai government.I doubt Big Pharma is eager to see world access to low priced generic painkillers either.

Since Afghan corruption hinges upon both narco trade and scamming reconstruction funds out of gullible governments like Canada,it is in the interests of those in Afghanistan who fill their pockets with illicit loot to keep the quagmire going.

Creating a legal drug industry does nothing to add to the instability that makes it possible to scam reconstruction funds from PRTs whos governments are too craven to actually inspect projects and merely invite Afghan proponents of aid projects to their guarded enclaves for prefunctory meetings.

In order to meet political objectives showing project success and not allowed out of their enclaves "behind the wire" due to safety concerns (read: political repercussions of civilian deaths),the only choice the PRT's have is the blind disbursement of funding to the smiling miscreants of mayhem.

Creating mayhem in order to exact tribute is an age old tribal custom of the area and it appears to be the only bright spot in the Afghanistan economy aside from dope dealing.

GWB wishes to prolong both the Iraq and Afghanistan disputes long enough to safely get out of office in 2008 and leave his mess on someone else's doorstep. In the case of Afghanistan,the clans,tribes and various other malfeasants wish to prolong the party as long as possible in order to profit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Perhaps the only thing NATO can look to is the establishment of a permanently protected enclave/province around Kabul where Afghans who wish to live more modern, secular lives can reside. But wise Canadian foreign policy would seek to extract every inch of leverage and influence we can reshape NATO and the international agenda to something more consonant with Canadian values - ie: not dictated to by one nation.

---

The first paragraph was a great admission. The second pure lunacy.

Zardoz:

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 12 February 2008: Message edited by: sgm ]

At the same time, Minister Josee makes a 2 day trip to Afghanistan to highlight the fact that it is a waste of time because she cannot go anywhere, talk to anyone or see any results. What a stupid waste of time.

Also,while MacKay is talking of a long mission,respected military analysts state that the CDS's brainburp to use navy and airforce personnel as ground troops is a non-starter.

Then,NDHQ admits that the next roto to Afghanistan will not be an existing battle group but cobbled together from various units.

The R22e battlegroup assigned to the August/07 roto is the last available formation CF has.It will require multiple tours for army members after that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I don't understand, Cueball. Are you in favour of NATO as it is currently structured? You don't agree that eliminating the domination of one nation would be a good thing?

---

No. I am talking about your sci fi idea about creating some kind of protected enclave of western "civililization."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

No. I am talking about your sci fi idea about creating some kind of protected enclave of western "civililization."

My view is that we should leave those people "over there" alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
It isn't the troops that are incompetent or the equipment faulty as insinuated by the resident Taliban enabler, it is incompetent leadership and faulty planning.

---

I asked the questions in the opening post, looking sincerely for answers. Your inability to give answers without spewing ad hominem slanderous bile reflects on the quality of your answers as well. For example, if you have no opinion on the alleged indestructibility of the Nyala and the wisdom of such a purchase, why don't you just say something like:

"I have no clue whatsoever?"

quote:

---

Whether they want us to or not, I guess, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I asked the questions in the opening post, looking sincerely for answers. Your inability to give answers without spewing ad hominem slanderous bile reflects on the quality of your answers as well. For example, if you have no opinion on the alleged indestructibility of the Nyala and the wisdom of such a purchase, why don't you just say something like:

"I have no clue whatsoever?"

Try it. It's highly recommended by leading physicians as a cure for arrogance.

---

Oh boo hoo.If you want to pitch learn how to catch and quit snivelling.

So you want a debate on the relative merits of Canada's armour do you?

Heres a clue for you: Force protection requires armour and close air support.

There is no armour protection that is not vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated anti-armour projectiles.

Aside from RPGs,the anti-armour capability that the Taliban do have is heavy and not easily transportable while sophisticated weaponry requires advanced training to operate.

If Canada had its own helicopter close air support and a heavy lift capability,the casualties suffered from ground resupply could be mitigated.

Is no secret that the Taliban target the weakest link in force protection to wreak havoc.That weak link is the lack of air support to keep IED installers and direct fire ambushes,the cause the most casualties,at bay.

[ 23 October 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Whether they want us to or not, I guess, eh?

---

Uhh, well yes, if the Childrens Aid can't get it straight when dealing with cultural and social problems in this society, where we all speak the same language, and have a common understanding of social norms, I have very little hope that we can involve ourselves in a productive way in a society which we have little inate understanding.

For example, your suggestion that Kabul and the region should be somehow established as some sort of autonomous city state, not only speaks volumes about common understandings of Afghan society, but also examples a complete seperation between reality and many peoples understanding of how a city functions as an essential center of social congress between the urban and the rural.

How would Kabul function as the center of social, cultrural, legal and adminstrative center, if it did not represent the social, cultural, legal and administrative normes and practices of the society around it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
What I was thinking of, Cueball, was more something like this : we make peace treaties with the Taliban, one group at a time if necessary, to agree to withdraw NATO forces if the Taliban agree to deny al Qaeda and related groups use of their territory. The Taliban remain free to establish Sharia law in the south and those Afghans living there have the option to remain or move to Kabul and outskirts, where moderate, modern, secular aspiring Afghans live in security provided by the Afghan army with support from the international community as needed. This way, we don't betray our word as a nation and abandon those we have promised to protect. Just an idea.

---

Well, then you had better take all that up Karazai, as the very first thing when imposed was assert the authority of the Sharia in Afghanistan. Sharia is not questioned by any of the leadership (male) of any of the leading factions of any of the Afghan tribes opposes it.

I just don't see how this can work.

What may be in question is Pashtunwhalji, which it the specific tradition of Sharia espoused by the Pasthun people, but there is no debate about the imposition of Sharia by any of the authorities, so this point is moot.

Perhaps, rather than buying into a lot of the western claptrap that is being bandied about as moral justification for the invasion, and imposition of western rule in Afghanistan, perhaps you should look into the real basis of the dispute between the Pashtuns and the Tadjik-Uzbek alliance and the USA.

I assure you that Sharia, of one form or another, has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute.

You still haven't explained how it would be possible to adminstrate this enclave in connection with its rural base, or did you just miss the point?

One law in the city, and another in the country which it serves? Imagine that in Toronto! Say if Sharia was imposed there, but not in Barrie. Brilliant!

You could be convicted of a crime by one authority, but would take your appeal to a higher court operating on different principles of law. This of course would not happen.

Herein, lies the crux of the problem with your thinking her, the city would cease to function in its role as centralized center of adminstration of law, and cease to have a function in the greater society as a centralizer of social discourse.

[ 24 October 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

When I said "sharia" law I was referring to the ultra-strict extremist/fascist brand of sharia practiced by the Taliban.

---

However, underestimating the enemy is always a fatal flaw and as NATO equipment became more armoured, opposition fire power simply increased. When the Leopard tanks arrive, "Taliban" backers will provide them with mortar to destroy the tanks.

The problem it seems to me is the understanding of the conflict by military generals -- in all nations. Oh, and the corruption of the Karzai/Bush government in determining aid beneficiaries.

quote:

---

Travelling with the Taleban

The BBC's David Loyn has had exclusive access to Taleban forces mobilised against the British army in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan.

......................

The failure of aid policies to make a difference in southern Afghanistan and increasing corruption in the government and the national army, are spreading the power base of the Taleban.

The trucking companies, who backed them first in 1994 when they emerged to clear illegal checkpoints on the roads, are now backing them again.

This time the checkpoints are manned by Afghan government soldiers, who demand money at gunpoint from every driver.

The failure of the international community to stop this makes the military task of the British-led Nato force in the south much harder.

The Taleban official spokesman, Mohammed Anif, explained, 'When the Islamic movement of the Taliban started in the first place, the main reason was because of concern among people about corruption.

"People were fed up with having to bribe governors, and other authorities.

"We rose up and saved almost the whole country from the evils of corruption and corrupt commanders. That's why people are supporting the Taleban again now."

...........................

One man, Nazar Mohammed, now squatting with his family in a building site in Kandahar, said the Taleban have most to gain in the continuing conflict.

Taleban fighters are highly mobile

"It's very obvious. Right now we see foreigners with tanks driving through our vineyards. They destroy people's orchards.

"They break through the walls and just drive across. When they take up positions in the village like this, nobody can cooperate with them.'

There is one other factor that increases Taleban morale.

Few have any education beyond years spent in the madrassas, the fundamentalist religious schools in Pakistan that have produced an endless supply of Taleban for more than a decade.

But all know the story of Afghanistan's past victories over the British.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
When I said "sharia" law I was referring to the ultra-strict extremist/fascist brand of sharia practiced by the Taliban.

Regarding a Kabul enclave, yes, this would be tantamount to admitting that Afghanistan is no longer a functioning nation state, but that seems to be only admitting the obvious, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Three children were killed when a mortar test-fired by NATO troops fell short of its target and hit a home in Afghanistan, police said.

The police chief of the eastern province of Kunar, Abduljalal Jalal, said three children died and two others were hurt in the incident.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it knew of one dead and two seven-year-old girls wounded. The girls were being treated in a NATO hospital, spokesman Major Luke Knittig said.

---