NATO just got a whole lot stronger!

[UKFlamesfan]

Originally Posted by driveway

I'll take your Napolean and raise you a...

[FlamesAddiction]

A little while ago, I was listening to CBC radio and they were interviewing someone who was saying that some NATO countries are actually upset with Canada. Apparently, a few NATO countries basically told Canada not to send a lot of troops or go into high combat areas. They told Chretien that Canada did not have the power or means to go in, do the job, and get out. Now they look at us as a country that didn't heed their warnings and that eventually they will have to bail us out.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A little while ago, I was listening to CBC radio and they were interviewing someone who was saying that some NATO countries are actually upset with Canada. Apparently, a few NATO countries basically told Canada not to send a lot of troops or go into high combat areas. They told Chretien that Canada did not have the power or means to go in, do the job, and get out. Now they look at us as a country that didn't heed their warnings and that eventually they will have to bail us out.

Everything that I've read points to the opposite, that we are one of the most well-equipped forces in Afghanistan. Maybe numbers are a problem.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A little while ago, I was listening to CBC radio and they were interviewing someone who was saying that some NATO countries are actually upset with Canada. Apparently, a few NATO countries basically told Canada not to send a lot of troops or go into high combat areas. They told Chretien that Canada did not have the power or means to go in, do the job, and get out. Now they look at us as a country that didn't heed their warnings and that eventually they will have to bail us out.

I agree with that in a way, they were right, under Chretien and his anti armed forces rule the military was not equipped to fight a war of any kind. They were using obsolete vehicles or just terrible ones that filled his crony's and families pockets (Iltis jeeps), the troops didn't have the right cammo or body armour and while they were decently trained no thanks to the Liberal governments continual slashing of their budget, they didn't have the espirit de corp to go on a long term deployment. Harper and his government have done an very good job of getting decent equipment and kit to the troops but there's still a long way to go. After this deployment ends in 2011 the armed forces is going to have to go into an extended stand down from any international deployment to rearm rest and recruit. They're still facing some extreme equipment failures in the next 20 years especially in the air force and the navy.

We were fortunate that the Liberal's didn't plant a lot more bodies when they sent our military over there completely unprepared for what they were going to face.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A little while ago, I was listening to CBC radio and they were interviewing someone who was saying that some NATO countries are actually upset with Canada. Apparently, a few NATO countries basically told Canada not to send a lot of troops or go into high combat areas. They told Chretien that Canada did not have the power or means to go in, do the job, and get out. Now they look at us as a country that didn't heed their warnings and that eventually they will have to bail us out.

I'd believe it, and here's why:

What Canada has in manpower is very well-trained, no doubt about it. However, that is relatively few in number.

Our first choice aircraft is over 25 years old (CF-18) and has no Northern jumping point, our first choice armored vehicles are on loan from Europe, or again, over 25 years old. We have no submarines capable of patrolling the arctic, nor capable of evading "My First Sonar" by Fisher Price. Our navy is maybe in the top 25. Our transports are a mix of new and old. As of recently, I was under the impression we lacked the ability to transport significant amounts of troops/equipment without allied help. While there's some new equipment, there are still very outdated equipment in active use in Afghanistan, or so I'm told. Scary thing is, this is AFTER Harper invested a significant amount into boosting the army. Imagine how sad it was before.

I remember from Strategic Studies (in 2004) that if someone hypothetically invaded Canada from Halifax, they would get to somewhere between Montreal and Quebec City before the army could mobilize a defensive. Even so, unless there was significant American assistance, odds are that battle would be a failure due to outdated equipment and sheer lack of numbers. Clearly, this isn't a big issue since we're not at war with anyone capable of attacking our shores, but most nations with economies and populations comparable to Canada's have armed forces designed to be able to defend the homeland to a respectable standard, as well as be able to project respectable (per capita) power abroad.

Now bear in mind that the troop deployment in Afghanistan, as well as other hotspots abroad, constitutes a large percentage of our active troops, and a good amount of our newer equipment... now what happens if there's an offensive made on the country? or realistically, a natural disaster or terror attack? These are things that we laugh off as fantasy. However, these are things that the Defense Ministry, Military Leaders and yes, even our Allies must take into consideration and have an active contingency plan for.

That is why I don't doubt this story being true.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'd believe it, and here's why:

What Canada has in manpower is very well-trained, no doubt about it. However, that is relatively few in number.

Our first choice aircraft is over 25 years old (CF-18) and has no Northern jumping point, our first choice armored vehicles are on loan from Europe, or again, over 25 years old. We have no submarines capable of patrolling the arctic, nor capable of evading "My First Sonar" by Fisher Price. Our navy is maybe in the top 25. Our transports are a mix of new and old. As of recently, I was under the impression we lacked the ability to transport significant amounts of troops/equipment without allied help. Scary thing is, this is AFTER Harper invested a significant amount into boosting the army. Imagine how sad it was before.

I remember from Strategic Studies (in 2004) that if someone hypothetically invaded Canada from Halifax, they would get to somewhere between Montreal and Quebec City before the army could mobilize a defensive. Even so, unless there was significant American assistance, odds are that battle would be a failure due to outdated equipment and sheer lack of numbers. Clearly, this isn't a big issue since we're not at war with anyone capable of attacking our shores, but most nations with economies and populations comparable to Canada's have armed forces designed to be able to defend the homeland to a respectable standard, as well as be able to project respectable (per capita) power abroad.

Now bear in mind that the troop deployment in Afghanistan, as well as other hotspots abroad, constitutes a large percentage of our active troops, and a good amount of our newer equipment... now what happens if there's an offensive made on the country? or realistically, a natural disaster or terror attack? These are things that we laugh off as fantasy. However, these are things that the Defense Ministry, Military Leaders and yes, even our Allies must take into consideration and have an active contingency plan for.

That is why I don't doubt this story being true.

Ever read any of Jack Granatstein's books

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ever read any of Jack Granatstein's books

I'm afraid I haven't. Are they worth looking in to?

[CaptainCrunch]

Yup

There's three books that I've really enjoyed.

Who's war is it anyways? (About Afghanistan"
Who killed the Canadian Military (About the governments destruction of the armed forces since the end of WWII)
And there's a third thats a complete history of the Canadian forces from its start


Theres also an excellent book at chapters called Checkpoint Charlie which focuses on a 90 day running battle between the Canadian Forces and the Taliban.

[Azure]

Its fun to make fun of France....and I love to do it too.....but truthfully, they have some of the best trained/equipped troops in the world.

Its too bad their politicians don't have the backbone that their military does. They could seriously make a difference in Afghanistan.

[MarchHare]

Harper and his government have done an very good job of getting decent equipment and kit to the troops

What equipment, specifically?

I don't mean to doubt you, but I'd like to know exactly what equipment was ordered by the Harper government and is now in operational use in Afghanistan. The only major equipment change I can recall is the Iltis jeeps, and those were replaced by G-Wagons under Chretien's government.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its fun to make fun of France....and I love to do it too.....but truthfully, they have some of the best trained/equipped troops in the world.

You do know that the French Foreign Legion isnt made up of French people right?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its fun to make fun of France....and I love to do it too.....but truthfully, they have some of the best trained/equipped troops in the world.

Its too bad their politicians don't have the backbone that their military does. They could seriously make a difference in Afghanistan.

A Canadian making fun of the French, and thinking it is fun no less, it rather humorous in and of itself.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

A Canadian making fun of the French, and thinking it is fun no less, it rather humorous in and of itself.

Can to explain?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Can to explain?

98% of us have some French blood (exaggeration) and France is one of the reasons we are even here at all. The French "surrender" that everyone speaks of was a surrender only by the cowardly government, it was not a surrender from the French people, the French Freedom Fighters or general De Gaulle. So what are we making fun of? The country that helped found our nation was sold out by a cowardly government in this worlds greatest time of need.......hahaha what a laugher!! I would never make fun of the French; pity them, maybe. Respect them, definitely.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

Can to explain?

If you go to some foreign countries, the words "Canadian" and "military" would be chuckled about. We're largely seen as the U.S.'s lap dog in that regard. We might know that is not true, but that is the reputation.

So here we are making fun of France - a country that built an empire, still has holdings around the globe, and is probably one of the top 5-7 military powers in the world. Some people might think we're a little pretentious.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If you go to some foreign countries, the words "Canadian" and "military" would be chuckled about. We're largely seen as the U.S.'s lap dog in that regard. We might know that is not true, but that is the reputation.

So here we are making fun of France - a country that built an empire, still has holdings around the globe, and is probably one of the top 5-7 military powers in the world. Some people might think we're a little pretentious.

Not where I was going, but great point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

98% of us have some French blood (exaggeration) and France is one of the reasons we are even here at all. The French "surrender" that everyone speaks of was a surrender only by the cowardly government, it was not a surrender from the French people, the French Freedom Fighters or general De Gaulle. So what are we making fun of? The country that helped found our nation was sold out by a cowardly government in this worlds greatest time of need.......hahaha what a laugher!! I would never make fun of the French; pity them, maybe. Respect them, definitely.

The French Resistance was crucial to allies during World War II. They fought very hard and against incredible odds.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Itse

There's widespread belief in Europe that the fighting in Afghanistan has long since turned into yet another US crusade for nothing, and nobody really likes to send people to die in wars they don't believe in.

Also, there's a big difference in mentality. The US keeps talking about how they are sending men to war. The Europeans like to talk about trying to bring about peace. That little semantical issue makes a great deal of difference in the kind of operations each country likes to do.

Also, many European countries like to point out that maybe it's not that they go where there's less trouble, maybe there's less trouble because they're there. (This is very propably true, because if I was an islamist militant, I'd go for Americans first.)

I'm not saying the Europeans are necessarily right, I'm just saying that you can't just add up bodybags and come to conclusions.

That said, yeah, I wouldn't trust the French with a loaded gun either

I didn't. If you are able to check out the rules of operation for the German forces for example, they only went to Afghanistan on the condition that they are deployed in a less hostile area.
I will have to look it up but I think the Spanish and Italians had the same deal before committing.
This is information I recieved from europeans. No more valid than if I just made it up of course! I read of this arrangment somewhere also, but I have no idea of where to look for it.

Maybe Canada bit off more than we can chew, obviously so; I mean how many combat troops do we have? Maybe C. Crunch has a good number, but I'd guess at only 10-15 thousand.
Something like 70% of our army vehicles are in such need of repair as to be useless, and as stated above the head of all forces says we need to stand down for a full year.

My thought is that this is a NATO mission, and if so then all of NATO should pitch in. If one country is overburdened, what are our allies for?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

I didn't. If you are able to check out the rules of operation for the German forces for example, they only went to Afghanistan on the condition that they are deployed in a less hostile area.
I will have to look it up but I think the Spanish and Italians had the same deal before committing.
This is information I recieved from europeans. No more valid than if I just made it up of course! I read of this arrangment somewhere also, but I have no idea of where to look for it.

Maybe Canada bit off more than we can chew, obviously so; I mean how many combat troops do we have? Maybe C. Crunch has a good number, but I'd guess at only 10-15 thousand.
Something like 70% of our army vehicles are in such need of repair as to be useless, and as stated above the head of all forces says we need to stand down for a full year.

My thought is that this is a NATO mission, and if so then all of NATO should pitch in. If one country is overburdened, what are our allies for?

Approximately 18000 Canadian troops have passed through Afghanistan since the start of the mission.

If you consider that out of our entire armed forces, about 15000 are sharp edge or combat roles.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What equipment, specifically?

I don't mean to doubt you, but I'd like to know exactly what equipment was ordered by the Harper government and is now in operational use in Afghanistan. The only major equipment change I can recall is the Iltis jeeps, and those were replaced by G-Wagons under Chretien's government.

The RG-31 Patrol vehicles, G wagons, m777 howitzers, new Heron uav's refurbed leopard 2 tanks that there now and the 40 advanced Leopard 2A6M's waiting for refits to replace our Leopard 1's, upgraded airlift capabilities both fixed and rotary wing, improved body armour and communications equipment, 6 new chinook helicopters + more heavily armed griffins that just arrived in theatre