• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Canadian troops leaving Afghanistan?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Harper Gives Bush Ultimatum on Canadian Troops in Afghanistan By Alexandre Deslongchamps

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush by telephone today he'll pull Canada's troops from Afghanistan next year if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't provide more help.

Harper told Bush NATO must provide about 1,000 more troops in the Kandahar region as well as additional military equipment, according to Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for the prime minister. The conditions were first recommended by a government-commissioned panel on Jan. 22.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aKdRGC7WDSY0&refer=canada
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
ff said:
Harper Gives Bush Ultimatum on Canadian Troops in Afghanistan By Alexandre Deslongchamps

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush by telephone today he'll pull Canada's troops from Afghanistan next year if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't provide more help.

Harper told Bush NATO must provide about 1,000 more troops in the Kandahar region as well as additional military equipment, according to Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for the prime minister. The conditions were first recommended by a government-commissioned panel on Jan. 22.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aKdRGC7WDSY0&refer=canada

Not quite as bad as it sounds.

The Manley report has told the tale as it should have.

The problem is that Canada is a tiny nation - militarily speaking. Basically Canada is punching well above its weight and taking a bit of a pounding. Meantime, those european left leaning light weights are refusing for the most part to get involved in the actual fighting.

You need to understand that the new York City police department is larger than the entire Canadian military - Army, Navy and Air Force included. And those Canadian soldiers are doing the heavy lifting for the limp dicks from countries in NATO.

Other than the Brits and the Dutch, there are no real combat troops in this part of the mid east doing anything other than peace patrols. God Bless the Yanks for their contribution - Canada has no more than a 2500 troops and support personnel in Afghanistan - and they are doing the heavy combat.

I am in Winnipeg as I write - here to plan the new UAV system that is going to go to Kandahar.

I will be in the middle east this summer for another year if all goes according to plan - but the government is fickle and nothing is guaranteed at this time.

Basically the Canuckleheads have a point. If NATO wants to be there and to do the job, they need to help those who are doing the heavy lifting. And at present the Euro govs are simply going through the motions. Waiting - as per usual - for those from the western world - you and us - to bail them out.

You may understand from my writing I do not have a very high opinion of most Euro countries. Basically blood suckers looking for the easy way out.

BC
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I watched todays Senate hearings on Afghanistan tonight on C-SPAN-- and things don't look to shiny there either... Taliban and Al Quaeda rebuilding and regaining strength in the country....Too short of troops-too many "uncoordinated" world groups all having splintered fractioned tasks....NATO, UN, WTO, World Bank, etc etc (some initials I'd never heard of) - Italians in charge of sitting up courts (failure). Germany in charge of sitting up Police (failure). UK in charge of sitting up something else (failure)...They did say there were a couple of bright points- one was setting up and training the Afghan military which was left to the US and has been done quite well...

They are having big problems with the drug eradication...Buying up all the drugs with US taxpayer money just gets the farmers to grow twice as much next year...Just destroying the crops and the labs - just makes the Taliban more warriors from the upset farmers and drug dealers....No real answer in near future...

Number one problem- no one person in charge of all these organizations...
Number two problem is that the Bush administration will not recognize that the country is now heading backwards- and admit that more effort needs to be concentrated on the country- or it is still very possible to lose it....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Broke Cowboy said:
ff said:
Harper Gives Bush Ultimatum on Canadian Troops in Afghanistan By Alexandre Deslongchamps

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. President George W. Bush by telephone today he'll pull Canada's troops from Afghanistan next year if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization doesn't provide more help.

Harper told Bush NATO must provide about 1,000 more troops in the Kandahar region as well as additional military equipment, according to Sandra Buckler, a spokeswoman for the prime minister. The conditions were first recommended by a government-commissioned panel on Jan. 22.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aKdRGC7WDSY0&refer=canada

Not quite as bad as it sounds.

The Manley report has told the tale as it should have.

The problem is that Canada is a tiny nation - militarily speaking. Basically Canada is punching well above its weight and taking a bit of a pounding. Meantime, those european left leaning light weights are refusing for the most part to get involved in the actual fighting.

You need to understand that the new York City police department is larger than the entire Canadian military - Army, Navy and Air Force included. And those Canadian soldiers are doing the heavy lifting for the limp dicks from countries in NATO.

Other than the Brits and the Dutch, there are no real combat troops in this part of the mid east doing anything other than peace patrols. God Bless the Yanks for their contribution - Canada has no more than a 2500 troops and support personnel in Afghanistan - and they are doing the heavy combat.

I am in Winnipeg as I write - here to plan the new UAV system that is going to go to Kandahar.

I will be in the middle east this summer for another year if all goes according to plan - but the government is fickle and nothing is guaranteed at this time.

Basically the Canuckleheads have a point. If NATO wants to be there and to do the job, they need to help those who are doing the heavy lifting. And at present the Euro govs are simply going through the motions. Waiting - as per usual - for those from the western world - you and us - to bail them out.

You may understand from my writing I do not have a very high opinion of most Euro countries. Basically blood suckers looking for the easy way out.

BC

I think all of us in the US should be grateful to Canada and other NATO nations for sending troops to Afghanistan. After all, they weren't attacked. It's costing them lots of money and in most countries the citizens are against it. But it is a requirement of NATO members to support each other if one is attacked.

On the other hand, the US doesn't have nearly the troop numbers in Afghanistan as Iraq, a country that did absolutely nothing to us. I will understand if NATO countries decide to pull out, since the Bush Administration is obviously more interested in the oil resources of Iraq than actually catching Bin Laden or doing something about the breeding ground for extremists in Afghanistan.
 

Mike

Well-known member
On the other hand, the US doesn't have nearly the troop numbers in Afghanistan as Iraq, a country that did absolutely nothing to us. I will understand if NATO countries decide to pull out, since the Bush Administration is obviously more interested in the oil resources of Iraq than actually catching Bin Laden or doing something about the breeding ground for extremists in Afghanistan.

This must rate the honors as being the stupidest thing ever written on the forum.

1-A country that did absolutely nothing to us? Does anyone remember the Iraq Army locking on the radar of our planes on numerous occasions after the Gulf War? Does anyone remember when Clinton bombed Iraq?
Does anyone remember Iraq invading Kuwait and threatening to march into Saudi Arabia? Does anyone remember Saddam kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq? The list goes on...........

2-Sure Bush is concerned of the oil reserves in Iraq, just as he is with the oil reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and every other country that supplies us. Without an oil supply we will be on our knees within days because the liberals won't even let us drill our OWN oil!

3-Bush not worried about the breeding ground in Afghanistan? Didn't he employ troops there and help put together a somewhat democratic system of goverment? Aren't the Taliban pretty much ineffective today?


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I become more amazed of the liberal train of thought each day. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
On the other hand, the US doesn't have nearly the troop numbers in Afghanistan as Iraq, a country that did absolutely nothing to us. I will understand if NATO countries decide to pull out, since the Bush Administration is obviously more interested in the oil resources of Iraq than actually catching Bin Laden or doing something about the breeding ground for extremists in Afghanistan.

This must rate the honors as being the stupidest thing ever written on the forum.

1-A country that did absolutely nothing to us? Does anyone remember the Iraq Army locking on the radar of our planes on numerous occasions after the Gulf War? Does anyone remember when Clinton bombed Iraq?
Does anyone remember Iraq invading Kuwait and threatening to march into Saudi Arabia? Does anyone remember Saddam kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq? The list goes on...........

Exactly how did any of these things harm the USA?

2-Sure Bush is concerned of the oil reserves in Iraq, just as he is with the oil reserves in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and every other country that supplies us. Without an oil supply we will be on our knees within days because the liberals won't even let us drill our OWN oil!

Not interested enough in the other middle eastern oil to attack the country. Not even the Saudis who are sending 40% of the foreigh fighters to Iraq. Yet he continually complains about Iran sending foreign fighters into Iraq. What oil won't liberals allow "us" to drill. Don't say ANWAR because I can link an article showing the oil companies don't want to drill there unless the US government pays their way. And that ain't going to happen with EXXON reporting the highest profit of any American company EVER.

3-Bush not worried about the breeding ground in Afghanistan? Didn't he employ troops there and help put together a somewhat democratic system of goverment? Aren't the Taliban pretty much ineffective today?

The "somewhat democratic system" you speak of pretty much dies outside of the capital city. The tribal warlords have taken control of much of the country back and they're supporting the Taliban. I'm not going to hunt up articles for you, but there are more and more of them about the strengthtening of the Taliban. Bush chose to send our military/financial resources to Iraq instead of Afghanistan and the Taliban have regrouped, grown, and taking back Afghanistan.


I become more amazed of the liberal train of thought each day. :mad:

I gave up being amazed at the "conservative" train of thought a long time ago. Anyone who can look at the lies Bush told, the blunders in Iraq, the failing of our government during Katrina and Rita, the policial aspects of the Justice Department, and still support Bush isn't worth talking to.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is one of the main points that came out at the Senate Hearings the other day--Mass Confusion...Another war micromanaged in national capitols- with no one leader in charge of everything to organize it...I guess someone was nominated (Paddy Ashdown) to be in charge- but international politics flaired up- and that fell by the wayside so far.....

A split country-with each NATO country having a geographic area or expertise area to take care of - with no real consolidated effort...

A failed policy to win the hearts and souls of the public-- even with $Billions of US taxpayer dollars being poured in (much of it to buy drugs to keep them out of the Taliban druglords hands)...

And from what I'm gathering they are expecting a major push by the Taliban in Afghanistan very soon- and that they may not have the resources "available" to handle it......


Germany stays in northern Afghanistan despite pleas to join battle in south3 hours ago

BERLIN - German troops are staying in the calmer northern regions of Afghanistan, the defence minister said Friday, despite pleas from Canada and the United States for more military muscle to help fight insurgents in the south.

"I have a clear mandate from the German parliament," German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told reporters Friday.

"It consists of 3,500 soldiers serving along the northern border and only helping out in the south for a limited period of time, as needed."

Jung made the remarks in response to a letter from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates seeking more substantial help in the volatile south of Afghanistan.

Troops from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have borne the brunt of fighting the Taliban in the south, with support from Denmark, Romania, Estonia and non-NATO nation Australia.

Ottawa is looking to allies for 1,000 more troops and additional equipment for southern Afghanistan as Parliament debates whether to extend the Canadian military mission beyond February 2009.

Washington said it had no plans to send more U.S. troops beyond the decision last month to deploy 3,200 additional marines to Afghanistan, but promised to help Canada lobby other countries for reinforcements.

Gates has been trying to persuade NATO allies to contribute more to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, without much success.

According to Germany's Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily newspaper, the letter from Gates is 1 1/2 pages long and specifically asks Germany for helicopter units, infantry and paratroopers that could join the fight against Taliban militants in the south.

The refusal of Germany, along with France, Turkey and Italy, to send significantly more troops to the southern front lines has opened a rift within NATO. The issue is expected to feature prominently at a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Vilnius, Lithuania, next week.

In Ottawa, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said NATO has plenty of troops in Afghanistan but there just aren't enough deployed in the south where the need is greatest.

"There is no job outside of the south where you actually need extra troops right now," Hillier told reporters. "In fact, there is contemplation all the time in military circles of 'Can you move troops from the rest of the country into the south where the need is most definite?"'

Most of Canada's 2,500 troops on the Afghan mission are in Kandahar province, birthplace of the extremist Taliban movement.

Hillier said Afghan President Hamid Karzai "has said Kandahar is the centre of gravity: as Kandahar goes, the rest of the country will go."

"And therefore that's where the need is right now - and the need is not in the north or the west or the northeast."

But Germany has shown little inclination to reallocate its troops.

"If friends need help, then we will respond with support for a limited time - as stipulated in our mandate," Jung said.

"But I think that our emphasis needs to remain in the north."

There was a positive response Friday from another NATO ally.

The Belgian government approved the deployment of four F-16 warplanes to join NATO's force in Afghanistan. The planes would be sent in September to work with Dutch F-16s already in Afghanistan.

The deployment will increase the number of Belgian troops serving with the NATO force to 480, up from the current level of 360.

Belgium is also scheduled to send a training team to work with the Afghan army in October. However, the total number of Belgian troops in Afghanistan is due to fall to 260 by the end of the year as it withdraws other units, including troops helping to manage Kabul airport.

The Dutch are also scheduled to bring home two of their six F-16 fighter jets from Afghanistan later this year.

"It's going to be up to the individual states to make decisions about allocation of resources," U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington.

"I won't make a secret of the fact that we are encouraging all of our NATO allies to do everything they can in terms of contributing resources."


Senators challenge White House approach on Afghanistan
Foreign Relations Committee hearing comes a day after the release of two critical reports.
By Arthur Bright
posted February 01, 2008 at 10:30 am EST



As new reports offer dire predictions about Afghanistan's future, US senators aired their criticisms of the White House's approach to that conflict on Thursday.


Reuters writes that members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, during a hearing with White House officials, expressed their fears that the US strategy in Afghanistan was failing. Democrats focused in particular on Afghanistan's relationship with the war in Iraq.

"The question here, in my view, is whether or not we've neglected Pakistan and Afghanistan because of our overemphasis on Iraq," said Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.

That point was raised by the Atlantic Council in a report on Wednesday that called Afghanistan a "dangerously neglected conflict" that needed more U.S. and NATO troops.

"If we should be surging forces anywhere, it's in Afghanistan, not Iraq," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat.

Reuters adds that Republicans were no less critical of the Bush administration.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said he saw an "astounding number of contradictions about how much progress we're making" in the administration's presentation.

"If we are making so much progress, then why are we putting in 3,200 more Marines? Why are we to a breaking point in NATO on this issue?"
he asked.

The committee hearing comes just a day after the release of two independent reports on the Afghanistan conflict, one by the Atlantic Council of the United States and the other by the Afghanistan Study Group. CQPolitics writes that, "Taken together, the reports painted a grim portrait of Afghanistan as a failing state six years after the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government and urgently called for a new NATO strategy before the expected Taliban offensive."

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," the report by the Atlantic Council said. "Unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."

But Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, disputed the reports' findings and offered the Senate hearing a more optimistic assessment, reports the Financial Times.

Mr Boucher said the strategy in Afghanistan was to improve government services at the local and provincial level, and that the increase in suicide bombings was the Taliban's response to its failure to win or hold territory in conventional military clashes.

"We have had many successes but we have not yet enjoyed success and that's what we have to focus on," he said, arguing against focusing too much on a "snapshot" view of Afghanistan's weak government, increasing drugs trade and insurgency. Nato officials and their civilian counterparts have worried for over a year about the supposed lack of an overarching strategy.

But to date many attempts to craft such a strategy have failed, including French president Jacques Chirac's 2006 proposal for a "contact group" on Afghanistan and this year's attempt to install Paddy Ashdown, the former United Nations high representative to Bosnia, as international envoy to the country. Nato's formal mandate of bolstering the authority of the government of President Hamid Karzai is often problematic, because he appears to lack authority in areas outside Kabul.

But Mr. Boucher's words were tempered by those of one of the former leaders of the NATO campaign in Afghanistan, retired Marine General James Jones, who also appeared before the committee. Time Magazine reports that General Jones, who participated in both of the critical reports, "offered the panel a grim assessment."

There is a "loss of momentum" in Afghanistan that could lead to "backsliding" if not soon regained, he said. Jones warned that the failure to curb opium production and stand up a government with functioning police and courts remain major problems. "The safe havens for the insurgents are more numerous now than they were one or two or three years ago," Jones added. "If we are correct and there's a spiraling situation in an unfavorable direction, the ultimate solution is not a military problem, but it could become one."

The hearing comes amid concerns that the NATO forces in Afghanistan need reinforcements to fulfill their mission. The Associated Press reports that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent a letter to Germany requesting that another 3,200 German troops be sent to Afghanistan.

According to the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily, the one-and-a-half-page-long, undated letter to Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung arrived last week. In it, Gates specifically asks Germany to drop caveats limiting its troops to the north of Afghanistan and to send helicopter units, infantry and paratroopers that could join the fight against Taliban militants in the south, the paper reported without citing the letter. ...

...such a direct request from Washington is sure to spark fierce debate in Germany, which already has some 3,000 troops serving in the relatively peaceful north, amid growing public skepticism about the mission.

Bloomberg reports that German officials said they "have no plans" to fulfill Gates' request.

Meanwhile, Canwest News Service writes that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Britain and the US that Canada would withdraw its 2,500 soldiers from the NATO mission in Kandahar unless another 1,000 soldiers were committed to the operation. "Without that, Canada's mission will end in a year's time," warned a Canadian official.

And in an editorial page essay for the Washington Post, Victoria Nuland, the US ambassador to NATO, writes that in Afghanistan, NATO "is facing the greatest challenge in its 59-year history."

The alliance that never fired a shot in the Cold War is learning on the job. Just as the Iraq war forced adaptation in American military and development tactics and strategy, the Afghanistan mission is forcing changes in NATO. With each passing month, Canadians, Germans, Poles, Spaniards, Latvians and our other allies learn more about what it takes to wage a 21st-century counterinsurgency -- a combined civil-military effort that puts warriors side by side with development workers, diplomats and police trainers. Whether flying helicopters across the desert, embedding trainers with the Afghans, conducting tribal shuras with village elders or running joint civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams, most of our allies are reinventing the way they do business. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear last month, this requires new training, new equipment, a new doctrine and new flexibility in combining civil and military efforts in a truly comprehensive approach to security.

The next three to five years will be crucial for the people of Afghanistan, for the NATO alliance and for the community of democracies. The Afghanistan mission is an investment in our collective security; it is also the catalyst for the 21st-century transformation of our democratic alliance. If we can get it right in the Hindu Kush, we will also be stronger the next time we are called to defend our security and values so far from home.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The United States intensified Friday its diplomatic drive to recruit more coalition troops for Afghanistan amid fears its allies could abandon a cornerstone of the US-led "war on terror."

Officials revealed that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has written letters to all the NATO allies to ask for more support while announcing that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would fly to Britain to discuss the stakes there.

The news came as Canada warned it could withdraw its 2,500 troops from Afghanistan if NATO fails to send reinforcements to the battle-ravaged south, a risk that appeared higher with Germany's refusal to deploy its forces there.

"NATO as an alliance has been looking at what it needs to do and what more needs to be done to fight the Taliban, to permit the Afghan people to have security so that reconstruction can take place," Rice told reporters.

"We look forward to continued conversations with Poland and with all members of NATO," Rice said during a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland, which has increased its troop commitment in Afghanistan.

The talks with Sikorski came a day after Rice discussed Afghanistan -- for which last year was the bloodiest since the ousting of the Taliban in 2001 -- with French Defense Minister Herve Morin.

Rice said North Atlantic Treaty Organization foreign and defense ministers would be meeting over the next few weeks in the runup to a NATO summit in Bucharest in April.

Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack said Afghanistan will figure high on the agenda in Britain, the United States' staunchest ally in Afghanistan.

He masked the tension that reportedly exists behind the scenes when he did not give a direct reply on Germany's rejection of an urgent US call to deploy combat troops against a resurgent Taliban in the southern Kandahar region.

Nor would he comment directly on a report that Gates sent an "unusually stern" letter to his German counterpart last month demanding combat troops, helicopters and paratroopers for Afghanistan and charging that some NATO states were not pulling their weight.

But McCormack said: "I won't make a secret of the fact that we are encouraging all of our NATO allies to do everything they can in terms of contributing resources."

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said Gates informed his counterparts of US plans to deploy 3,200 Marines in Afghanistan for six months, and asked them if their forces could replace the Marines when they come out.

Whitman declined to comment on the specifics of the letters, but indicated that they were not the same for each country.

General James Conway, the commander of the US Marine Corps, warned that as conditions improve in Iraq the US military should begin thinking about when to shift its focus to Afghanistan. Britain has already made a similar case.

Commanders in Afghanistan have been calling for around 7,500 extra troops to be deployed in the south. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) comprises some 42,000 troops from 39 countries.

In the last year, Britain has increased its presence in Afghanistan. There are about 7,700 British soldiers there, most of them in the restive southern region.

Belgium announced Friday that it would send four F-16 fighter-bombers and around a hundred soldiers from September 1 in Kandahar. Belgium currently has 418 troops in Afghanistan.

McCormack conceded there is "a risk the clock could be turned back on the gains" made since the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were toppled after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Richard Boucher, the State Department's pointman for Afghanistan, told a Senate hearing on Thursday that "the greatest threat to Afghanistan's future is abandonment by the international community."

US experts warned in reports earlier this week that Afghanistan will become a failed state unless urgent steps are taken to tackle worsening security.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080202/wl_asia_afp/usbritainnatoafghanistan
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
And the Taliban are spreading into Pakistan.

Islamic militants known as the Pakistani Taliban have extended their reach across all seven of Pakistan's frontier tribal regions and have infiltrated Peshawar, the provincial capital, heightening U.S. concerns that an insurrection may be broadening in the nuclear-armed nation.

Fighting over the weekend spilled into previously peaceful parts of the tribal belt that borders Afghanistan and intensified in South Waziristan, Bajour and Mohmand. In Bannu, southwest of Peshawar, gunmen fleeing police took dozens of schoolchildren hostage for several hours Monday before tribal elders brokered a deal offering them safe passage, state-run television reported.

"It's worsening day by day," said Safraz Khan, a political scientist at the University of Peshawar. "People feel vulnerable. People feel scared."

A disparate group of tribal armed militant groups, some of them linked to al Qaida, announced the formation of an alliance last month called The Taliban Movement of Pakistan. The 40-man leadership is from seven tribal agencies and eight bordering districts, underscoring the movement's reach. The group is thought to have 5,000 to 10,000 fighters and is growing steadily as it gains momentum.

U.S. officials are deeply concerned that the insurgency is becoming bolder and expanding faster than had been anticipated, a State Department official said.

"The feeling is that we are not dealing with a terrorist group here, but an insurrectionist movement," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. "That's an elevation without question from what we've been dealing with."

He noted the broad scale of fighting across the tribal agencies, which together form the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and in settled parts to the east.

"These are not groups of Pashtun brigands popping potshots at army patrols," he said. "This looks like there is clearly coordination going on. This looks like an effort that appears to have been planned."

Some U.S. officials think that al Qaida is providing the coordination, but others say it's too early to reach that conclusion, he said.

Traffic finally returned to normal Monday along the key Indus Highway, which connects Peshawar to the port of Karachi, after soldiers backed by helicopter gunships regained control of a 1.2-mile-long tunnel that militants had captured late last week while seizing four army ammunition trucks.

Skirmishes around the Kohat Tunnel and in Darra Adamkhel, 25 miles south of Peshawar, heightened the sense that Peshawar, the garrison city of 2 million residents, faces peril from the spreading violence.

The increased fighting also has U.S. officials worried about possible threats to supply lines to U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan, which stretch from Karachi through the tribal territories, the State Department official said.

The State Department official also said that there were indications of a flow into Pakistan of fighters from Afghanistan who apparently sensed that there was "an opportunity to achieve a significant victory in Pakistan."

Momentum by the Pakistani Taliban has thrown President Pervez Musharraf on the defensive over the army's ability to fight radicalization of his country.

"We haven't failed," Musharraf said Monday, bristling in response to a question in London, where he was traveling. "We are going around fighting al Qaida, fighting the Taliban . . . and fighting extremism in some parts of Pakistan society."

Mahmood Shah, a retired brigadier general based in Peshawar, said government forces had been "sleeping" as the militants strengthened, gaining new adherents.

"As they become more successful, many criminals also join them," Shah said. "They grow beards and they become 'pure.' "

Shah said he hoped that Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the recently installed army chief, and the army's vigorous engagement of militants in South Waziristan, the most conflictive tribal agency, would signal more concerted action.

But senior army officers are clearly uneasy about fighting fellow Pakistanis.

"These people are not our enemies. ... These people have been misguided," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in an interview.

In many tribal areas, Taliban militants establish checkpoints, collect fees, shut down or blow up video stores with racy films, hector women to wear veils and order wives to ride only in the back seats of vehicles.

Such radical influence now is seeping into Peshawar, especially at the university.

"They say I should have a beard and my hair down to here," said Khan, the political scientist, putting his hand at shoulder level. "They want me to be praying five times a day. They want me not to watch television."

Khan, whose family has fled the embattled Swat Valley, north of Peshawar, said he feared that radicals entering the university might take his life.

"I almost don't go anywhere now, just to my office and my home," he said.

A few weeks ago, Taliban sympathizers briefly set up a booth at the school to collect money. The group is illegal, but police didn't stop them.

"People are afraid to confront them," said Ijaz Khan, another scholar at the university.

Although rockets occasionally rain down on Peshawar — there were 11 on Jan. 6 and another Saturday on Hayatabad, a prosperous residential area — some analysts don't think the city will come under direct siege.

"I don't think the Taliban, at this stage, have any plans to capture Peshawar," said Rahimullah Yusufzai, the editor of the Peshawar bureau of The News, a national daily newspaper.

He said the Taliban actions over a broader area were intended to take heat off South Waziristan, where soldiers have used helicopter-borne aerial bombardments and long-range artillery. Mountainous South Waziristan is the base of Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.

"The militants are trying to put pressure on the Pakistani army so the military campaign in Waziristan is either called off or the attention is diverted," Yusufzai said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/25619.html[/quote]
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Dignitaries, politicians, and military officials attended a handover ceremony in Afghanistan Saturday where a Canadian has taken command of NATO troops in the country's southern region.


CTV.ca News Staff

.
Canadian Maj.-Gen. Marc Lessard will lead 12,000 NATO soldiers that are part of the Regional Command South, which covers six Afghan provinces.

Lessard will be in charge of the Taliban stronghold for the next nine months. The general admits the insurgents are gaining in strength.

"The truth is there has been a 50 per cent increase in incidents," Lessard said.

He's calling for aggressive war-fighting to combat the rising tide of violence.

"In every occasion the Taliban were blocked, they didn't achieve any real success. So, what we are doing? We blocked in 2007. In 2008, we are going on the offensive," he said.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay issued a statement saying that Lessard's new command "clearly demonstrates Canada's leadership role within NATO and the international community in bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan."

Battling the Taliban, however, will likely lead to more Canadian and NATO casualties. That could make things difficult for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is lobbying NATO leaders to dispatch another 1,000 combat troops to the frontlines.

There's support from some allies, but others appear unwilling to significantly increase their efforts. Germany, France, Turkey and Italy have soldiers in relatively safe regions of Afghanistan. They've flatly refused to send troops to the violent south, fearing a political backlash at home.

"Political will is the problem," said James Townsend, the director of the Atlantic Council of the United States, a Washington-based think tank.

"Many allies either did not prepare their populations for the fact that the alliance has a mission to do in Afghanistan and that they need to do their part."

Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States have borne the brunt of a resurgence of Taliban violence.

"We're very much sympathetic with Canada's wish to have more support for its operations in Kandahar and my prime minister said he would work within NATO to achieve the outcome," said Anthony Cary, the British High Commissioner to Canada.

Canadian officials are frustrated with NATO's attitude. The alliance has two million soldiers and close to 1,000 helicopters under its command. But it has yet to come up with the troops and equipment that Canada has asked for.

The Liberal opposition says there may be some fundamental problems if other countries don't step in to help.

"If only four countries are prepared to carry the military weight, then I think there are real problems in the alliance," said Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae.

Harper has said that Canada will pull out of Afghanistan next year if NATO can't provide more troops and equipment.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Hey Broke Cowboy, I did some checking to see if what you say is true about the size of our military / size of NYPD..... Heres what I get from the NYPD website: about 38,000. Canada's dept. Defense site: 62,000 regulars + 25000 reservists.
So while the comparison isn't totally inaccurate...... wait a minute, it's pretty inaccurate. :D
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Silver said:
Hey Broke Cowboy, I did some checking to see if what you say is true about the size of our military / size of NYPD..... Heres what I get from the NYPD website: about 38,000. Canada's dept. Defense site: 62,000 regulars + 25000 reservists.
So while the comparison isn't totally inaccurate...... wait a minute, it's pretty inaccurate. :D

If you talk total bodies and manning you are correct.

My point was probably misleading as I re-read. I was talking (poorly it appears) about combat effectives. Specific numbers are discussed below.

What you are not aware of as you probably do not have access to DWAN - Defense Wide Area Network - is the shortages.

The numbers you read about are the TARGET numbers. I can assure you there are not 25K reservists actually in-situ. As for the 60+ K personnel? Not there yet - but planning to be.

As an example we are tying up ships. We are short riflemen. We have a huge shortage of doctors - $250K signing bonus for qualified docs of all types.

My trade - pilot - is +/- 20% short at present. Want to fly - please apply.

Despite numerous recruiting and retention efforts, a number of military occupations remain critically short of personnel. These include professional occupations such as: doctors and pharmacists, and operator occupations such as: naval electronics technicians, signal operators, fire control systems technicians, airborne electronic sensor operators, naval weapons technicians and intelligence operators. Indications are that intake estimates will not be sufficient to recover to the preferred manning level within two years.

The reason Canada does not have more troops in the field is because they simply do not have any additional combat effective troops available.

Period.

There are so many empty slots you could get a job tomorrow. Literally! If you are healthy and under - I think - 50 - you can take the Queen's shilling and wear the uniform of your choice. Absolutely no reason to be unemployed in this country.

Check out Workopolis and Monster - the Canuck military is hiring in EVERY trade - big time.

If there were truly 25K reservists and 60K serving members - do you not think we could field more than the following (info gleaned from army.forces.gc.ca search)?
----------------------------------------------------------

Q24. Is Army regeneration on target with the upcoming Defence Review?

A24. Understanding the impact of the Defence Statement, the Army is very confident that the Army Regeneration plan meets the objectives of the statement and sets the conditions for an effective Army Managed Readiness System. (My comment - very PC answer here)

Q25. How long will the Army be able to sustain its missions if new positions announced by the Government Speech of the Throne do no get filled by recruits? Or do not get filled as quickly as you would wish?

A25. The Army held a Structure Working Group, early in October 2004, and created its task forces. Those task forces will be sustainable for an indefinite period, although this will leave the Army with little flexibility. The structures arrived at did not take into consideration the new positions announced by the Government. Any additional positions will however be welcomed to relieve the anticipated pressures created after the regeneration period.


Q26. Are we moving away from the Regimental system by using “building blocks” for task force generation?

A26. The Army is not moving away from the Regimental system by using a “building blocks” approach to task force generation. In garrison, as in domestic operations, there will not be any change to the designation and make-up of our units. What may change is the origin of some of the task force elements, notably sub-units, to be deployed outside of country.
Depending on the operational requirement, a task force, based for example on 1 R22eR, may end up being made-up of sub-units (building blocks) coming from other units. The unit HQ and two infantry coys would come from 1R22eR for sure, however other capabilities would come from elsewhere: EW from LFDTS, direct fire capability from LFWA, PsyOps from SQFT, etc.
Under the Army’s new structures, it is possible, though not probable, that a Task Force deploying under one of our current unit’s name, for example RCD, may include more assets coming from other units than from RCD. In fact, in the most extreme scenario, depending on the operational requirement, it may occur that a RCD Task Force, only includes the Battalion HQ from that unit.


Q27. Why are we calling the deploying units “task forces” instead of battle groups as we used to?

A27. Task Force better reflects the reality in terms of various capabilities and capacity. The main element will consist of approximately 700-750 soldiers and the support elements will consist of approximately 250-300 soldiers, for a total of 1,000 soldiers.


Q28. Why are task forces based on 750 personnel and not more?

A28. One of the principles of the Managed Readiness plan is that, after the regeneration period, the task forces that the Army will field as part of its High-Readiness commitments, must be sustainable indefinitely. In the past, the Army fielded units of such size that they proved to be unsustainable. This lead to personnel shortages, to a rapid decline of Army equipment and stocks and to a reduction of the Army’s overall readiness. Fielding of smaller task forces, that are sustainable, will ensure that the Army’s efficiency and readiness levels are maintained while remaining relevant and decisive on operations.

Q29. Can the Army deploy more than two (2) task forces?

A29. On top of the two task forces that the Army will train every six months, the Army may be called upon to deploy a Brigade HQ and a Headquarters and Signal squadron during a one-year period. As well, a strategic reserve / surge capability will be identified that could be deployed for six months up to one year, in and out of rotations.


Q30. Can the support trades deploy enough troops to support the task force on a sustainable basis in deployed Operations?

A30. The Army will be able to field and sustain two National Support Elements (NSE) and National Command Elements (NCE) consisting of 250-300 personnel each. Each task force will deploy with an NSE. Should an additional task requiring the deployment of a Headquarters and Signal squadron or the strategic reserve / surge capability come up, a tailored NSE and NCE would also deploy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those are the folks I was talking about. Combat effectives. Not the support guys. Sorry if I sounded misleading.

I still believe I am correct in stating the NYC can field more street officers than the Canuck military can field combat soldiers for a sustained effort.

So you can refute me if you chose to do so - it will simply pull the thread even further off topic. Bottom line is the Canucks are - as I previously stated - punching well above their weight - and in danger of not being able to sustain the pace. THAT is why they need help.

Question 24 is a PC answer - behind the scenes things do not appear rosey at all.

The Canucks can and do come into contact on a daily basis - but are unable to hold the ground due to manning levels - so must retake it on a regular basis.

So unless the EuroTrash get off thier asses things are going south - and knowing my luck - probably with me there as well.

Task forces are simply folks who are rotated into theatre and then out - worked up for another trip to theatre and so on. A task force is not "new money" - it is re-cycled people. Lots of guys are on their 4/5 or 6'th trip to the sand box.

All of the above - including some additional - my opinion - is open source and not classified at all.

Have a good one,

BC
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
BC...THX to you and all to the guys out there,you have our support.

Yesterday we got a questionare in the mail from our MP Leon Benoit asking "Do you support the Harper government investing in the Canadian Forces and giving them the tools they need." We checked YES and greg made his second 14 mile trip to town just to make sure that hit the mail as soon as possible.
 
Top