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.