Hmmm... getting mixed signals from the Generals in NDHQ (think Pentagon) and from the Minister of Defense O'Connor (think Rummy).
Quote:
Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
Mon Oct 23, 8:50 PM
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.
"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."
more at:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/23102006/...anistan-o.html
|
Basically what is happening is that the Chief of Defense is saying: because enough trained Infantry troops aren't available, and because we aren't getting the recruitment numbers - we will grab the Ground Crew, Cooks, etc. hand them a rifle and say "congratulations your in the Infantry now" and send them off to Afghanistan.
What makes this sooooo very interesting is the politics going on behind the scenes - see O'Connor is a retired General, but one that didn't rise too high because of his overt political asperations (think Penatgon politician); in fact Hillier (Chief of Defense) and him butted heads a couple of times over military budgets, training, and future roles over a decade ago. Now one is the political "leader" of the military, while the other is the military "leader" of the military... and surprisingly even with the rumbling about re-roling and such, the troops seem to be siding with Hillier... or at least that's the image one gets when the from the actions of the troops: refusing to salute O'Connor on a number of occasions (sure they don't have to, but it's a sign of respect to his retired rank and his political office - to refuse to is sending a blunt message).