Deadly Day: 4 Canadian Soldiers Killed

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you think sending 300,000 troops to Afghanistan would solve the problem?

How many troops did the Soviets try to send there? How many did the US send to Vietnam?

Simply sending more troops isn't going to solve anything.

But hey, put me on your ignore list for disagreeing that sending more troops would solve the problem. Nice to see that people are willing to hear a different opinion.

I don't think its 'crazy' to assume that more soldiers can = more security. I'm sure if the US was able to throw another 100,000 troops into Iraq easily, it would do it in a heartbeat.

As for ignoring you, people aren't doing it due to your political opinions; there are dozens of right-wing conservative commentators on this board who garner a lot of respect. You don't though. You're more concerned with changing the direction and angle of the debate so that you can't get pinned down. You ask questions rather than provide answers. I'd add you to my ignore list, but I think just letting you lay your 'crap' out there does a disservice to the Board, not to mention your fellow conservatives.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think its 'crazy' to assume that more soldiers can = more security. I'm sure if the US was able to throw another 100,000 troops into Iraq easily, it would do it in a heartbeat.

As for ignoring you, people aren't doing it due to your political opinions; there are dozens of right-wing conservative commentators on this board who garner a lot of respect. You don't though. You're more concerned with changing the direction and angle of the debate so that you can't get pinned down. You ask questions rather than provide answers. I'd add you to my ignore list, but I think just letting you lay your 'crap' out there does a disservice to the Board, not to mention your fellow conservatives.

Hilarious. Where exactly did I derail this thread?

Flash Walkan was the one who stated more troops = more security, and I disagreed. So its wrong to disagree on this board, simply because it may derail the thread?

The double standard that exists on this board is pathetic. Just about every thread that has a political motive gets derailed many times. But I'm always the one at fault? Nice.

[CaptainCrunch]

More troops = less security based on training levels and objectives. When you have a lot of troops in one area you actually curtail its mobility due to logistics difficulty, ie availability of transportation, food, water, artillary and air support. If I have 300,000 in an area for example, I might not have enough artillary if multiple formations get into trouble.

If I have one or two formations that are in trouble I can concentrate my assets with those one or two formations better then I can if I have 30 groups all engaged.

Just my 2 cents.

[White Doors]

You're 2 cents are always appreciated, Captain.

[Azure]

I guess suddenly all the accusations of me derailing this thread will be pulled back, considering that CC actually 'agreed' with me.

I say again, the double standard on this board is flat out ridiculous.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess suddenly all the accusations of me derailing this thread will be pulled back, considering that CC actually 'agreed' with me.

I say again, the double standard on this board is flat out ridiculous.

you're doing it again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

you're doing it again.

Fine, fine.

We'll just get back on topic then...

I would have responded, but you're forcing me to derail the thread even more...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

More troops = less security based on training levels and objectives. When you have a lot of troops in one area you actually curtail its mobility due to logistics difficulty, ie availability of transportation, food, water, artillary and air support. If I have 300,000 in an area for example, I might not have enough artillary if multiple formations get into trouble.

If I have one or two formations that are in trouble I can concentrate my assets with those one or two formations better then I can if I have 30 groups all engaged.

Just my 2 cents.

Your 2 cents seem simplistic, maybe you need to add more. Your statement reads that, if I follow correctly, more troops = less security. Is this a flat out law? Cause without qualification, it seems to say that a dozen US soldiers in an Iraqi town is better than 100, due to logistics and air/artillery support?

You honestly believe that states like Afghanistan and Iraq have enough troops, and that lack of troops is not contributing to these state's continued upheaval? I don't know... from what I hear from US administration officials (and actions in extending troops tours in Iraq) they'd love to put another 50,000 boots on the ground.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its tough to explain but I'll try.

Where the shortfall in security comes into play is that the more front line troops that you have, the larger the logistical train, and more fractured the logistical train is, and it becomes more difficult it is to protect those non combat type of units. Your sending out more convoys for example which can fall under attack by small lightly armed goups that are difficult to stamp out.

Also the more front line troops that you have, the more reactionary assets that you have to have in place (ie artillary, air units on reponse, engineering corps to clear minefields) because these reactionary assets are specialized and highly trained units, they don't have as much availability as the average infantry unit, which without artillary and airstrikes and engineers at immediate call are extremely vulnerable.

The more troops that you have in a theatre of action, the more tempting it is to spread them out and deploy them, especially when you are fighting a small unorganized insurgancy movement. You for example don't send a division of troops all to one place for a piecemeal battle, and its not about holding hills and territory, the battle field becomes somewhat fluid and chaotic.

One of the big failures in Vietnam was the unavailability of artillary and airstrikes when individual units got into trouble en-masse.

So if I put 300,000 troops onto a battlefield against hundreds of small pockets of resistance, I have to concentrate of securing my own logistics trail for each company thats out in the field, and try to coordinate unit movements and support, meanwhile because of this it becomes easier for small groups of roving insurgents to slip through the holes created by this undertaking.

There is also a public relations issue with this whole scenario. If I have 300,000 troops in place and the enemy is still having success, if harms moral both in the field and back home.

Unfortunately, the American's are falling back to the same failure points now that they ran into in Vietnam, where the Army became content with small battles against against small armed groups of fanatics while never really gaining the support of the population, and never having enough backend support. Its very similar to whats happening now especially around Baghdad, its almost like fighting the Hydra, where you cut off the head and another 10 grows back.

The American's if they want to win this war, need to gain better intelligence, and find a way to go after the soft underbelly of the insurgence movements, and thats to find and exterminate the recruiting and leadership elements where ever they are, whether its Iraq, Pakistan. whatever, they need to continually kill as many senior leaders as they can find, forcing these movements to replace them with inexperienced leaders, so that mistakes can then be made that puts this war more into American's favor.

You can't use tanks, and artillary against an enemy that blends in with a civillian population and dosen't fight peacemeal battles.

The smart thing at this point for the Americans would be for them to hand over security to the Iraqi army, and noisily exit Iraq, and infiltrate Iraq with 100's of special forces operations groups whose jobs are intelligence gathering, and assasination, and let them rove the country side without being encumbered with orders groups and logistical trails. Less troops that can work more fluidly, and more spontaneously is the better way to go.

Just my 2 cents.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Personally, I think canada should withdraw if the necessary support can't be mustered. There's no use in fighting a losing battle if you don't have to. A full-scale force of diverse nations is needed on the ground to establish order, real, sustainable order. Not buying off warlords to help fight the taliban.

That's actually a good and fair point. There does need to be a large force coming entirely from nations with good democratic track records. And you're right, power needs to be taken completely from the warlords hands.

So do you support more funding being diverted to the military?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's actually a good and fair point. There does need to be a large force coming entirely from nations with good democratic track records. And you're right, power needs to be taken completely from the warlords hands.

So do you support more funding being diverted to the military?

Absolutely.

Canada should have a military expeditionary force capable of responding to crisis' all over the world in a timely fashion.

Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper shouldn't be abandoned, and with that comes the need for adequately armed, trained, and prepared forces who will be able to 'keep' the peace.

A prime example of this utilizing aircraft that our prime minister would not be willing to use. That's a travesty that we send troops to their deaths because we can't get our acts together as a nation to give them equipment that won't kill them.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Absolutely.

Canada should have a military expeditionary force capable of responding to crisis' all over the world in a timely fashion.

Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper shouldn't be abandoned, and with that comes the need for adequately armed, trained, and prepared forces who will be able to 'keep' the peace.

A prime example of this utilizing aircraft that our prime minister would not be willing to use. That's a travesty that we send troops to their deaths because we can't get our acts together as a nation to give them equipment that won't kill them.

I personally believe that peacekeeping in its traditional form is completely outmoded and to a large extent should be abandoned. There just aren't alot of wars nowadays with two clear cut sides. Instead we have ethnical and religious morasses like Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq.

But you're absolutely right.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Absolutely.

Canada should have a military expeditionary force capable of responding to crisis' all over the world in a timely fashion.

Canada's traditional role as peacekeeper shouldn't be abandoned, and with that comes the need for adequately armed, trained, and prepared forces who will be able to 'keep' the peace.

A prime example of this utilizing aircraft that our prime minister would not be willing to use. That's a travesty that we send troops to their deaths because we can't get our acts together as a nation to give them equipment that won't kill them.

Crap, I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but I am on this. Which aircraft are you talking about? The C-130's that are being replaced with the C-17s and the C-130Js. Replacements should be on line within two years as well as medium to heavy lift helicopters.

The ideal thing that we still need tho are the helicopter support ships that the Conservatives put on the table in the election that they lost to the Liberals

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

I personally believe that peacekeeping in its traditional form is completely outmoded and to a large extent should be abandoned. There just aren't alot of wars nowadays with two clear cut sides. Instead we have ethnical and religious morasses like Afghanistan, Bosnia and Iraq.

But you're absolutely right.

Peace Keeping dosen't work unless you have the teeth and rules of engagements to enforce UN mandates, in the current system of peacekeeping your basically employing living breathing targets that can't fight back effectively.

The UN's greatest failures in the field always seem to come down to an overwhelming case of indecision, and conflicted interests.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Crap, I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but I am on this. Which aircraft are you talking about? The C-130's that are being replaced with the C-17s and the C-130Js. Replacements should be on line within two years as well as medium to heavy lift helicopters.

The ideal thing that we still need tho are the helicopter support ships that the Conservatives put on the table in the election that they lost to the Liberals

Well, I was refering specifically to the aging sea-king fleet. I'm personally embarassed as a Canadian that our soldiers die within kilometres of our coastline because the political will to save their lives isn't there, while fatcat backbenchers go on to be industry 'consultants' at fatcat banquets in Ottawa.

The same could be applied to canada's heavy lift capacity as well as our inability to patrol our own coastline.