Troop strength/deployment problems for Canada

[RACooper]

Well it looks like a troops shortage for combat deployments will be looming in Canada's future as well:

I posted the whole Yahoo article because I've made numerous comments within it - the stuff in italics is mine

Soldiers to be limited to one combat tour in Afghanistan: minister
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...ghan_cda_tours
By Murray Brewster

OTTAWA (CP) - To avoid wearing out his troops, Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan, if possible.

Gordon O'Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that with a little luck and good planning, the army won't have to ask soldiers to return again and again to battle Taliban insurgents.

"There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said.

"I don't anticipate anybody being there five or six times."

>>This is a common problem for UN deployments actually, I know of a number of soldiers that have been deployed to the former Yugoslavia 4 times now - actually it's rare to find anyone above the rank of Sgt. or Captain that has got at least 3 deployment medals now.<<

Most soldiers on coming deployments will hopefully be going to Afghanistan for the first time, said Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff .

"We aim as much towards that as we can," he said.

Both O'Connor and Hillier were responding to questions and concerns from the all-party committee about how the army will deal with the extended, often dangerous mission and the rising casualty rate.

Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died and more than 168 have been wounded in the bloody struggle to wrestle Afghanistan from Taliban control.

>>As I mentioned in another thread, these numbers actually quite high, particularllly of late after taking over combat operations in the South from the Americans - statistically Canadian military personnel are six times more likely to be killed or wounded than American personnel are in Iraq... and things are bound to heat up now that the Brits have pulled out of combat operations in the South - what the article doesn't mention is also some casualty "firsts": the first senior Canadian diplomat killed, and the first female combat soldier killed<<

Typically, Canadian battle groups - roughly 2,300 front-line soldiers and support elements - are deployed for six-month rotations.

In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling.

When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry.

It's not new concept. In the 1990s, armoured soldiers were retrained to fight as infantry in Bosnia.

>>Like me It was under this program that trained as Infantry, much to my displeasure... Amoured is alot more interesting (and easier on the knees) - besides there was the whole switching of regiments as I was a reservist, which is a huge thing - roughly akin to switching Fraternities (switching regiments within a trade is more akin to transfering to another chapter).<<

The Conservative government is hoping its plan to recruit 13,000 new members of the regular forces will also help swell the ranks.

>>Which so far they aren't meeting... they haven't changed standards yet - but they have "streamlined" the intake process by reducing the level of security checks needed before entering basic training... the more detailed RCMP/CSIS checks now mostly happen while the recruit is still in the first stages of basic training<<

There will be some exceptions to the one-deployment rule, most notably for command assignments, Hillier said.

"You can't have a rapidly changing face if you're going to develop a relationship with the governor of Kandahar, the governor of Helmand," he said.

Several times during the session, O'Connor was called upon to defend the mission in Afghanistan from opposition attacks.

Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs accused him of keeping Canadians in the dark about the progress of the mission by denying the committee's request for regular briefings.

O'Connor said he wasn't about to endanger troops by discussing plans for operations in southern Afghanistan.

But committee members insisted they were not interested in asking questions coming missions, but rather what has already taken place.

O'Connor said he'd reconsider whether to sanction the briefings.

As it stands now, what little information that comes out is through the one or two CBC reporters in Afghanistan - basically what the opposition (and some Conservatives) want is an AAR (After Action Report) summarizing operations that have already taken place... It's a fair arguement, and one that the Conservatives made years ago when Canadian troops (like me) were engaging in combat operations in Yugoslavia in particular the Medak Pocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medak_pocket, but nothing was told to the house or public.

The current political climate amongst the Conservatives up here is remarkably similar to that of the Republicans circa 2003 - any critique or questioning of the military's role or governmental polcies regarding combat operations is decried as "cowardly" or "un-patriotic" or "siding with the terrorists"... such as when Jack Layton (leader of the NDP) dared to suggest that more moderate elements of the former, and present, Taliban must be engaged in the political/diplomatic process if an long term peace is to be achieved.

[Tom Earp]

LOL, welcome to a non communist country when many are trying to decrease the military.

But countrys like N. Korea build theirs to keep the good folks happy with the ass who is running it. They eat good while the rest of the country starves!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by RACooper

The current political climate amongst the Conservatives up here is remarkably similar to that of some Republicans circa 2003 - any critique or questioning of the military's role or governmental polcies regarding combat operations is decried as "cowardly" or "un-patriotic" or "siding with the terrorists

Fixed for you.

Also - you may have posted it before, but where did you find the figure that Canadian troops are 6 times more likely to be killed than U.S. troops? I hadn't heard that figure.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Fixed for you.

Also - you may have posted it before, but where did you find the figure that Canadian troops are 6 times more likely to be killed than U.S. troops? I hadn't heard that figure.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/doc...das_Fallen.pdf

Of course this study doesn't include the October deaths for Iraq and Afghanistan... and yes it's a site opposed to the current Conservative government military policy in Afghanistan - however it also takes shots at the preceding Liberal government, and some Generals at NDHQ. Anyways ignore the politics and policy issues, and just look at the statistics and draw your own conclusions - it's what I have done (and been forced to do since the current and past governments haven't released sh-t to the public).

[texgal]

I checked out your link but didn't really feel the need to read the whole .pdf file. I will, however, say this about the statistic you offered.

1. Statistics can be manipulated. You really do need to consider the source.
2. The following statement is pretty out there:

• A Canadian soldier in Kandahar is still nearly six times more likely to die in hostilities than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.

Comparing Canadian troops in Afghanistan to US troops in Iraq is nonsensical. Apples to oranges. Also, stating that Canadian soldiers are more likely to die is a little iffy - saying that they've had a greater percentage (or numbers, but I think they're talking percentages) of fatalities would be a better statement.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by texgal

I checked out your link but didn't really feel the need to read the whole .pdf file. I will, however, say this about the statistic you offered.

1. Statistics can be manipulated. You really do need to consider the source.

I have considered the source - and to be frank, the source does gloss over or miss numbers that could actually help their arguement - however it's also important to keep in mind that this was written as a quick issue summary for politicians :P

But the numbers they do use are good.

2. The following statement is pretty out there:
• A Canadian soldier in Kandahar is still nearly six times more likely to die in hostilities than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq.

Comparing Canadian troops in Afghanistan to US troops in Iraq is nonsensical. Apples to oranges. Also, stating that Canadian soldiers are more likely to die is a little iffy - saying that they've had a greater percentage (or numbers, but I think they're talking percentages) of fatalities would be a better statement.

How is the comparison nonsensical, or the statment out there?

First most people (and even most politicians) are aware of the dangerous level of violence and insurgency in Iraq - it presents a useful mirror to compare combat operations against an insurgency.

Now to break down the numbers - I'd suggest just looking at page 11 of the report. For example if there are aprox. 20000 US troops and 2000 Canadian troops - if during combat operations the US suffers 40 casualties and Canada suffers 20 - what do those numbers say? Yes the US suffered more loses, but Canada suffered more proportionally... of course the report gets a little more detailed than this. Anyways if say statistically Canada can is experiencing (the military works out loss percentages ahead of any operation estimating a percentage killed and wounded) a loss rate of 18/1000 troops deployed - and the US is experiencing a loss rate of 3/1000 troops deployed... then statistically a Canadian soldier is six times more likely to be a casualty.

However what the report misses is the fact that two "deployment rotations" from now, or early 2008, at least 33% of Infantry and Armour soldiers will be doing their second full tour of Afghanistan (unless there is a sudden influx of soldiers due to recruitment) simply because there is no-one else to send. For example there are more Toronto Police officers than there are Regular Force Infantry soldiers... or Gen. Mackenzies favourite example: if the whole of the Canadian Armed Forces gathered in the Skydome (Toronto Blue Jays field) there would still be thousands of empty seats. Anyways, back to what this means risk-wise for the troops: some are going to be playing the numbers game a second time - something the report could have made a lot of

[RACooper]

Hmmm... getting mixed signals from the Generals in NDHQ (think Pentagon) and from the Minister of Defense O'Connor (think Rummy).

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).