22 dead in Iraq, 72 wounded

[aesop081]

You don't get the point.

It doesn't matter how they would even view it in their own culture. What matters is how what we have them do is something that we would prefer not to do. You can be as PC as you want, but how much would we have to pay for Canadian civilian contractors to go over to Iraq and empty garbage, sanitary unites, etc. There is a reason why people refer to it as menial labour.

We pay our sanitation engineers quite a bit of money to combat the very stigma associated with their job. I KNOW people who are "garbagemen", and they are not entirely prooud of what they do, but they sure are happy about their paycheques.

And you are missing the point as well....

Employement is gold for these people........trust me , i have dealt with enough local employees.  We are providing them employement which in turn helps them provide for their families.  But you are forgetting that its not all "menial" jobs...we hire interpreters, skilled construction labour as well.  And for the record, they get paid pretty well.  It is part of establishing good relations with the local population by contributing to the reconstruction of theire economy.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Employement is gold for these people........trust me , i have dealt with enough local employees.   We are providing them employement which in turn helps them provide for their families.   But you are forgetting that its not all "menial" jobs...we hire interpreters, skilled construction labour as well.   And for the record, they get paid pretty well.   It is part of establishing good relations with the local population by contributing to the reconstruction of theire economy.

I agree, but ...

I think, for Canadians and especially for Canadian planners in NDHQ, the issue is: how do we balance critically limited resources with the government's taskings, taskings which, too often, are expressed (prior to consultation) in terms like â Å“largest contingentâ ??

The solution has been to deploy as many operational people as possible (stretching our own, internal training system past the breaking point, if I understand what I am hearing) and contracting out admin and base support functions.

We must now ask ourselves about the risks.

Can we, should we say: â Å“no local hires on baseâ ?? Can we, should we insist upon Canadians only â “ what about landed immigrants?   Can we manage without some locals?   'Canadians' may be somewhere between inept and incapable in some jobs which require local knowledge.

I think I understand some of the pressures and realities which drive our planners in Ottawa; that's one of the reasons I continue to support contractors for many (most) admin and base support functions.   I also suspect that â ?No Locals!â ? is an impossible policy.

How, then, do we 'secure' our bases?

 

[Infanteer]

How, then, do we 'secure' our bases?

Do our best to eliminate bases.

The only reason I seen for having permanent bases was to have a place to put the 3 barracks boxes full of unneccesary junk we shipped over (See Marshal - The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation) with and to have pies and cereal, DVD theaters, and a pool table.

As far as I'm concerned, a Kifaru EMR is a good enough base for me.

 

[48Highlander]

  Doing away with bases might be a good idea, but it's unlikely to happen.  Instead, why allow locals into the bases?  Yeah, you need locals for different jobs, but everything inside the base should be able to be handled by the soldiers, and for coordinating work outside the base you can meet with locals pretty much anywhere.  You don't need them inside the base.

 

[George Wallace]

It is called "Winning their hearts and minds".

GW

 

[48Highlander]

You win hearts and minds by showing them that you're there to help protect them and aid them in rebuilding their country and their lives.  You don't need to open your bases to them in order to achieve that.

 

[Marauder]

Not to sound the asshole, but there's at least one Iraqi who decided his heart and mind splattered amongst "the invader's" broken bodies was preferable to making a decent wage and living in something resembling peace. So far as I'm concerned, locals inside the wire is nothing but a free intel and operational bonanza to the enemy.

 

[Infanteer]

I remember our translators in BiH saying that they were approached at least once a week by people offering to pay them for information.

 

[George Wallace]

Well then Marauder and 48Highlander, Canada has been conducting all its' NATO and UN Peacekeeping and Peacemaking Operations wrong since the days of the originator of all this; Lester B. Pearson.  We have been hiring civilians since then to do menial jobs and free up our soldiers for other duties.  We have allowed access to our facilities by 'friendly' Contingents.  

How Paranoid do you want to be?  Infanteer has put forth a point to that effect.

It is all part of trying to instill 'our values' on others in a peaceful and non threatening way.

GW

 

[48Highlander]

    How trusting do you want to be?  Do we stop searching people on their way into camp?  After all, we want to win their hearts and minds, so we can't very well show them that we think they might be dangerous.  Hell, let's do away with the gate guards entirely.  An open base policy works here in Canada, so why not in Afghanistan or Iraq, right?

    I'm being sarcastic obviously.  I understand what you're saying, but there really is no need whatsoever for locals inside the camp.  What menial tasks are we talking about here?  Preparing food?  I might not much like CBO, but I'd rather have them doing that.  Handling garbage?  Have them pick it up at the front gate.  Construction?  If you want to hire locals for that, have them build the main camp, and our engineers can do whatever maintanance and upgrades become neccesary after.  We can use locals to do some of the menial jobs without having to allow them access to the bases.

 

[George Wallace]

I see we want to go to the extreeme here.  Okey, let's put wheels on all those Blue Rockets and wheel them out to the front gate twice a day so the Sh tSucker can empty them....... ;D

GW

 

[48Highlander]

Alright maybe you have a point  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

However, on that point....During the UNEF deployment to the Sinai in 1956, it was discovered that equipment and food were going missing in the 56 Reconnaissance Sqn camp.  When the 'compost' in the wheel barrows of the 'Sh tSucker' details were 'inspected', food and equipment were found.

Just to back up your point, if you like.

GW

 

[48Highlander]

    Thanks for the thought   Obviously the shit sucker could pose a big threat.  Wouldn't be very hard to hide a couple hundred pound of explosive underneath sewage on the way into the camp.  I'm just willing to admit that maybe barring all locals from the camp would be overly paranoid.  So I don't know, maybe do some sort of security checks on the workers you allow on base, and limit those allowed in to only the ones whom we REALLY need to allow in.  I don't know, I'm not even sure exactly how it's being handled now, let alone exactly how to improve it.

 

[George Wallace]

To be truthful, I agree with you.  There is only one way to maintain a high degree of security and that is to keep all nonmilitary personnel out of your camp.  Yes, that would mean that soldiers would have to revert back 100 years and do ALL tasks within the camp, including the Sh t jobs.  It is the only life you have and the only way to ensure it is not cut short by some fanatic.

Gw

 

[jmackenzie_15]

suicide bomber running/infiltrating camps... the viet cong did that alot in vietnam.. which reminds me, I think the casualty count so far would be.. a LOT higher if it werent for body armor.Thats what I hear from alot of guys anyway.Kindof reassuring about its effectiveness I guess.

If the states cant even keep their own military bases secure, how do you secure airports and borders , or anything else really. This 'fortress america' idea is an illusion.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

KevinB I had a friend over on Roto 0 who caught one to the locals slip up and speak fluent English when before all he knew was hello and thank you.  He also found someone pacing in the lines.  I see know problem with having locals work at your camp if it is a some what secure environment.  Iraq is not.  There is also the problem of having the populace become dependent on NATO, UN etc as employment.  When they invariably leave there is a vacuum.

 

[Marauder]

Kevin brings up a good distinction. The commanders will have to decide if the security environment is appropriate to allow locals inside the camp. I don't think A'stan and Iraq are secure enough to allow them in. Particularly when it has been shown that the locals in either location are not beyond sending themselves high order if it means killing Western troops. (RIP CPL Murphy)
I think in the traditional sense of peacekeeping allowing the locals on base has some value to free up troops for other taskings, but this self detonation thing has changed the paradigm, IMO.
Just my opinion, maybe not necessarily the right one, but there it is.

 

[Meridian]

KevinB I had a friend over on Roto 0 who caught one to the locals slip up and speak fluent English when before all he knew was hello and thank you.  He also found someone pacing in the lines.

Out of curiosity, what happens then? Are these people "watched". Does it get ignored? are they removed from the camp immediately?
Is someone (MPs?) tasked to watching these people/monitoring them?