Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
You're seriously not comparing death tolls in this war to previous conflicts, are you? In WWI, it was acceptable to lose 1000 lives to advance 100 yards.
Times have changed.
And yes, by modern standards, our soldiers are being killed at an alarming rate in Afghanistan.
|
Not to sound cold or callous, but even by modern standards in a modern battlefield these are not shocking or high casualty rates, and there is an ebb and flow to them.
They seem alarming because as a modern Canadian Society we haven't been raised in war generations (1915-1955, 1965-1973) where we were exposed to actual wars on a daily basis.
Our level of education also gives us a different insight, and maybe a certain amount of arrogance in understanding the actual mechanics of war, and how it works, not how it starts or how you exit but how it works.
The Canadian Military which is a bit better equipted, also has the problem that in terms of field leaders in terms of actual battle skills we have very little real world experience, and because of that your going to see heavier casualties which will eventually trend down if you can build that corp of battle scarred veterans.
We're there now, I don't agree with pulling out because we're taking casualties, but I do think that Hillier needs to review the actual on the ground security measures to make it harder for the Taliban to attack.
We also need more of the UAV's so that we can actually see attacks coming on these projects instead of being surprised by them. I base this on the limited range of an RPG (500 meters), and the ability for the insurgents to get that close.