Canadian Parliament authorizes air strikes in Iraq

[Rerun]

Following a request from the US, Canada's Parliament has voted to authorize airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS) militant group in Iraq.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative Party introduced the motion last week and it was debated this week. Harper has a majority of seats in Parliament so the vote was all but assured. The motion passed Tuesday 157-134.

The motion authorizes air strikes in Iraq for up to six months and explicitly states that no ground troops be used in combat operations.

The combat mission includes up to six CF-18 fighter jets, a refueling tanker aircraft, two surveillance planes and one airlift aircraft. About 600 airmen and airwomen will be involved.

Looks like we're heading back to the Middle East.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/44684345.cms

[Northendzone]

Wow, 600 people to support 10 aircraft........I wonder why the us requested help. Are they short on outdated aircraft?

[nik-]

optics

[Rerun]

canada has more than two dozen special forces advisers already in iraq and has plans for up to 69 advisers as part of an effort to advise kurdish forces against islamic militants after a request from president barack obama.]

jtf2 ?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operation...rces/jtf2.page

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah and if you believe they're just advising I'm wearing a dress and changing my name to shelly

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah and if you believe they're just advising I'm wearing a dress and changing my name to shelly

Hi Shelly!

[WilsonFourTwo]

My understanding is that they (the western alliance) are already short on meaningful targets to strike, which has me thinking this is even more about optics than it normally would be.

There is broad international support for the mission, including from the key players in the region, and a local force that is (for now...) willing and able to engage on the ground.

Frankly, I'm cool with the mission. ISIL is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. I'm not entirely sure whay the Libs and NDP are so opposed to a combat role, other than politics.

[Ducay]

Australia already has special forces on the ground (formal), so I would imagine, informally, the US at least has people helping direct strikes.

The biggest problem now, is ya, they're out of the easy sitting targets, so now they need Iraqi troops trained to properly call in strikes as they need them in battle.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Australia already has special forces on the ground (formal), so I would imagine, informally, the US at least has people helping direct strikes.

The biggest problem now, is ya, they're out of the easy sitting targets, so now they need Iraqi troops trained to properly call in strikes as they need them in battle.

Took them 10 years to get inadequately trained, I would say calling in air strikes is the least of their training problems.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Australia already has special forces on the ground (formal), so I would imagine, informally, the US at least has people helping direct strikes.

The biggest problem now, is ya, they're out of the easy sitting targets, so now they need Iraqi troops trained to properly call in strikes as they need them in battle.

That's what advisors are for..........

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Frankly, I'm cool with the mission. ISIL is a cancer that needs to be dealt with. I'm not entirely sure whay the Libs and NDP are so opposed to a combat role, other than politics.

Because Western combat missions and intervention are what created this mess in the first place.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Wow, 600 people to support 10 aircraft........I wonder why the us requested help. Are they short on outdated aircraft?

Well to be fair the airlift aircraft is most likely a very new CC-117 (C-17).

The air to air refueler will be one of the A310 aircraft.

I'm guessing the surveillance aircraft are the Aurora's?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because Western combat missions and intervention are what created this mess in the first place.

Rube, what do you think the approach should/response should be towards ISIS?

[CaptainCrunch]

likely that they are the Aurora's

[Dentoman]

Good

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Australia already has special forces on the ground (formal), so I would imagine, informally, the US at least has people helping direct strikes.

The biggest problem now, is ya, they're out of the easy sitting targets, so now they need Iraqi troops trained to properly call in strikes as they need them in battle.

we knew that was going to happen, these airstrikes are going to be based around close air support more them taking out logistical targets and bases. Frankly once you strip away their oil fields and refineries, take out their fuel and ammo dumps, most of these clowns are living out of a back pack in the field. The only time you're going to get an opportunity is when they're on the offensive and not intermixed with civilians.

The next intelligent thing to do is watch to see if ISIL acquires more advanced man portable SAM hardware, If they do then you start going after their weapons pipelines.

[FlamesAddiction]

I just don't see what we can do in a combat roll that the U.S., UK and France cannot do on their own. I understand the desire to support our allies and to help the victims, but combat missions seem redundant given the history of the area and the capabilities of the countries already actively participating in the airstrikes. Optics is a terrible reason to become actively involved.

Given our military's recent experience in Afghanistan, we are in a position to help secure aid, support refugees and train/advise the locals. I really think that Canada can do more good in those areas. For example, Turkey is in a tedious position right now dealing with refugees and if things keep deteriorating, conflict spill over is not out of the question. Aid convoys leaving Turkey are being jacked almost as soon as they cross the border.

Having said all that, I realize that what I propose does put our personnel is positions of danger and I am not rushing to sign up, but I just don't see how additional airstrikes will help anything.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just don't see what we can do in a combat roll that the U.S., UK and France cannot do on their own. I understand the desire to support our allies and to help the victims, but combat missions seem redundant given the history of the area and the capabilities of the countries already actively participating in the airstrikes. Optics is a terrible reason to become actively involved.

Given our military's recent experience in Afghanistan, we are in a position to help secure aid, support refugees and train/advise the locals. I really think that Canada can do more good in those areas. For example, Turkey is in a tedious position right now dealing with refugees and if things keep deteriorating, conflict spill over is not out of the question. Aid convoys leaving Turkey are being jacked almost as soon as they cross the border.

Having said all that, I realize that what I propose does put our personnel is positions of danger and I am not rushing to sign up, but I just don't see how additional airstrikes will help anything.

Ok, question, how do we do that, secure aid, support refugees and train locals.

I agree those things are things that we should be doing as well as the current military role.

However

Train Locals - It looks like we're doing that, we're sent Special Forces troops in to act as trainers

Secure Aid - "Are you talking in the camps for refugees? Shouldn't that be a UN role? Or are you talking about securing aid to the rebel groups in Syria and Iraq, and how do we secure it? We know that ISIL is specifically targeting humanitarian Groups and Aid convoys, so do we send over some AFV's and troops to secure them, or do we just pray that the Aid and a few hostages don't end up in the tender hands of IS?

Supporting Refugees - "That's something that Turkey should be doing and the UN agencies supporting. So are you saying we do check book diplomacy, here's some cash fix it, we did this part"

I'm am for this mission on paper, I think we need to support this effort, however and as I've said in the past, this mission is based on a flawed premise and a too optimistic belief that IS will wilt under an attack by air power and that there can be a proper coordination by poorly trained ground troops and Allied Aircraft.

I believe that IS as a active force in the region and a threat in terms of inspiring barbarians to lash out in our country needs to individually and as a group eat a lot of ordinance.

But this mission will fail, it will increase IS resolve not shatter it because at the end of the day Air Power won't have much effect on this type of group, it won't degrade their logistics nor their ability to attack and hold ground and cleanse it.

I guess the only thing that would help is if you had good enough intelligence on the ground to pin point and exterminate their leadership and their replacements and their replacements replacements.

Since there is literally no end game or time table to this operation, all we're going to get is a bunch of leaders waving their hands and claiming that they're doing something and gaining some positive press out of it.

In my mind air strikes and cruise missile strikes aren't enough, you don't kill a group like IS unless your willing to go in a dig them out of their rat holes, or train a sufficiently competent and fairly ruthless counter force to do it. The third option is to take groups like JTF2, or the Army Rangers or SAS and other secretive highly trained hunter killer groups and slip the leash off.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just don't see what we can do in a combat roll that the U.S., UK and France cannot do on their own.

Spoiler!

[PIMking]

just dont apologize after giving isis some freedom please