Op Attention Danger Pay Reductions?

[DirtyDog]

Even in Kandahar it was a constant fight to fend off 'combat tourists' - both uniformed and civilian - when we were doing convoy ops...

No issues out in a COP, ACP, OP or Laager.

 

[dapaterson]

To me, its a money saving move from people who have never been to Kabul and nothing more.

As previously stated, allowances are not paid out of DND/CF's baseline funding.  They get extra money to pay those costs; any reductions don't result in DND/CF having any extra money.

 

[PuckChaser]

As previously stated, allowances are not paid out of DND/CF's baseline funding.  They get extra money to pay those costs; any reductions don't result in DND/CF having any extra money.

I didn't mean to imply that DND was going to see any savings from this, but the Treasury Board and federal government at large will, in a time where they are scraping to save every penny.

 

[McG]

Tories chafe at call to cut danger pay
Bureaucrats urge reduction to troops in Kabul
Murray Brewster
Calgary Herald
15 Apr 2013

The Harper government is trying to navigate its way out of a political minefield, imploring a joint committee of federal officials to reverse a planned cut to danger pay for troops serving in Afghanistan.

The stipend was reportedly facing a reduction of more than 30 per cent, which would have meant nearly $500 a month less for roughly 920 soldiers based in Kabul, who are training Afghan forces.

The rationale for the initial decision, which was made by a joint committee of bureaucrats from National Defence and Treasury Board, was that Kabul is safer than Afghanistan's volatile south, where Canadian soldiers are no longer serving.

But in an exercise in damage control, officials from the Prime Minister's Office on down called Wednesday for the committee, which meets only four times a year, to convene again "as soon as possible" to reverse the decision.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was unavailable, but Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney made it clear the governing Conservatives were not happy.

"This decision was not appropriate, and we are asking for this decision to be reviewed," he said Wednesday.

It is unclear when the commit-tee will meet, or whether a reversal would come in time before the next pay period.

The decision to cut pay mystified opposition politicians, who said Kabul may not be the killing fields of Kandahar, but troops still face dangers.

The mountains east of Kabul continue to see sporadic fighting with insurgents, while the Afghan capital itself has been the subject of suicide attacks and ambushes led by the Haqqani Network, an ultraviolent terrorist group separate from the Taliban, but loosely affiliated with al-Qaida.

"Canadian soldiers are serving in a dangerous mission, regardless of what this minister thinks," said New Democrat MP Jack Harris.

One Canadian soldier - Master Cpl. Byron Greff - died in Kabul in October 2011 when a suicide bomber attacked a bus carrying NATO troops. Throughout Afghanistan, security remains fragile with western forces on guard against the ever-present danger of so-called insider attacks by disguised Taliban, or disgruntled Afghan troops.

"The Conservative government's decision to cut soldiers' danger pay is ethically wrong, downright mean and disloyal," said Liberal Sen. Romeo Dallaire, a former major-general.

"Our troops left with an agreed-upon salary, including risk benefits for these missions, and now half-way through their deployment this government is making significant reductions to the income on which they and their families depend."

…

There is no “agreed-upon salary, including risk benefits.”  The government tells what it is going to pay and cautions that these allowances may change if the situation changes.  Anyone who depends on operational allowances to look after their family is seriously mismanaging personal finances.

As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?

Level IV risk allowance is for when death or catastrophic injury are probable (more likely than not, someone is going to die) while Level III is for when death or catastrophic injury are possible (we don’t expect anyone to die, but we won’t be surprised if it happens).  If one looks at all the BGs sent to Kandahar, 2002 and 2006 – 2011, all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families.  If one looks at the message being told to troops preparing for Kabul, it has always been quite different.  It is possible that the worst day in Kabul could be as catastrophic as the worst we saw in Kandahar – but that is unlikely.  While the danger is acknowledge in Kabul, the message is that we reasonably hope to bring everybody home safe.  It seems to me that the risk level could have been dropped the moment the last BG element rolled inside the wire of KAF for the last time.  Instead of complaining that the adjustment is happening now, guys should be thanking their luck that they continued to collect the extra money as long as they did.

… and this difference in risk is not the $500 being tossed about by the media; it is about $166.  That is not a bad drop considering the meat grinder for which Level IV compensates.  Arguably, the real shame is that there was not (and is not) a level higher than IV to recognize the attrition we might expect in a more conventional fight.

A similar be thankful argument could be made on the matter of hardship (~ $333 reduction) if one looks at the arrival of TF ORION in Kandahar when whole companies shared common 500 pers tents, there were half the fast food outlets on the boardwalk, no Timmies, no wireless networks, etc; outside of KAF (where most of the BG found itself most of the time) there were no FOBs with laundry, internet, phones or potable water.  Even then there was speculation that the hardship was at the tipping point of going to Level III.  It should not be surprising that the more comfortable Kabul (with all its amenities and nobody living in leaguers) has found its way to Level II.

 

[Jammer]

OK,

Let me enlighten you to a number of things. I'll address them in reply to some of your comments:

"As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?"

Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1), but it was not as you describe. Kabul is still a dangerous place to move around in.
Please elaborate based on your experience in Kabul.

"all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families."

Really?
That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.

Please share where you got that info.

"It is possible that the worst day in Kabul could be as catastrophic as the worst we saw in Kandahar – but that is unlikely."

Based on what?
Having responded to many "events" in Kandahar, I submit that the destruction in Kabul of a Rhino bus with more than 13 ISAF killed due to an SVBIED is a bad day.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and thumb your nose at those deployed and say they don't deserve the allowances, but I can sure as hell tell you based on five tours totalling 1066 days in theater since 2003 they're not getting nearly enough.

 

[George Wallace]

"all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families."

Really?
That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.

Jammer

I can't remember if you were with us in '94 or not, but the CO of the BG caused everyone's jaws to drop when he blurted out those very words to the BG and later that night to their families.  As recceguy can attest, it was just one of the first of many downers for us who served in "Charge Bat".

 

[Jammer]

I remember that pde well. Most of us took it as nonsense considering from who it was coming from...lol.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Jammer

I can't remember if you were with us in '94 or not, but the CO of the BG caused everyone's jaws to drop when he blurted out those very words to the BG and later that night to their families.  As recceguy can attest, it was just one of the first of many downers for us who served in "Charge Bat".

Something to the effect "Take a look around, some of these guys will be coming home in boxes". IIRC, it was during his parade speech when all the families and dignitaries were seated in the bleachers. Yep, set the course for the bad juju that carried on through the entire deployment at CANCHARGEBAT.

 

[OldSolduer]

Something to the effect "Take a look around, some of these guys will be coming home in boxes". IIRC, it was during his parade speech when all the families and dignitaries were seated in the bleachers. Yep, set the course for the bad juju that carried on through the entire deployment at CANCHARGEBAT.

Someone should have smacked him for that....which BG was that?

 

[Towards_the_gap]

OK,

Let me enlighten you to a number of things. I'll address them in reply to some of your comments:

"As much as I think it would be great for guys to keep collecting these allowances, I worry about what precedent might be getting set.  What will happen the next time we launch a BG into a shooting mission where troops are living in mud without access to social media and taking casualties?  How long before someone starts questioning about only making the same bonus as their tour in Casa Kabul?"

Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1), but it was not as you describe. Kabul is still a dangerous place to move around in.
Please elaborate based on your experience in Kabul.

"all levels of leadership were openly, bluntly telling the troops “some of you are going to die.”  The message wasn’t sugar coated, and it was the same message shared with the families."

Really?
That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.

Please share where you got that info.

"It is possible that the worst day in Kabul could be as catastrophic as the worst we saw in Kandahar – but that is unlikely."

Based on what?
Having responded to many "events" in Kandahar, I submit that the destruction in Kabul of a Rhino bus with more than 13 ISAF killed due to an SVBIED is a bad day.

Hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to sit back and thumb your nose at those deployed and say they don't deserve the allowances, but I can sure as hell tell you based on five tours totalling 1066 days in theater since 2003 they're not getting nearly enough.

I think the point people are trying to make in regards to Kabul/the north being a 'less dangerous place' is not the hazard itself (SVBIED's, green on blues etc) but rather the risks, or chance, of those hazards happening to personnel in country.

I think you will find the stats back this up, how many casualties did we sustain in the summer of 2012 vice summer of 2010? How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?

 

[George Wallace]

I think the point people are trying to make in regards to Kabul/the north being a 'less dangerous place' is not the hazard itself (SVBIED's, green on blues etc) but rather the risks, or chance, of those hazards happening to personnel in country.

I think you will find the stats back this up, how many casualties did we sustain in the summer of 2012 vice summer of 2010? How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?

Not really that great an argument.  If fewer are going out, there are fewer chances of someone being "whacked".  That still does not negate the possibilities of someone being there trying to "whack" you to the same extent that they would down South.  The danger is the same.  The statistics are smaller because the numbers of pers there are also smaller. 

 

[PuckChaser]

How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire? How often are Op Attention personnel put in a position where they could be whacked?

First question: Daily basis, Second question: Daily basis. Green on blue is a massive threat that we can't ignore, walking through KMTC with nothing but a pistol is not my idea of safe.

 

[McG]

Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1), but it was not as you describe. Kabul is still a dangerous place to move around in.

I have not denied that the mission in Kabul is a dangerous place. It is less dangerous than the mission in Panjwaii, Kapyong, or Normandy.  Dangerous does not mean benefits should go straight to the level intended for most dangerous.

Also, lets not try the emotionally dishonest argument that full hardship should be paid because there is danger – hardship and danger/risk are two different allowances.  The reduction to the danger/risk allowance was reasonably small.

Casa Kabul: True, I wasn't sleeping in a ditch or under a tarp on my last tour (Op Attention R1) …

So, you would agree that a person who is living under a tarp without modern amenities should be at a higher rate of hardship?

All else being equal, would you not also agree that a mission to seek & engage in close combat should be paid a higher rate of risk than a mission with the intent of avoiding combat?

... I can sure as hell tell you based on five tours totalling 1066 days in theater since 2003 they're not getting nearly enough.

Okay, so I will assume your objection is not the risk level associated with the mission but rather your objection is that the dollar value associated with each respective risk level is inadequate.  Might that be right?

Really?
That message was never communicated by any level of leadership to soldiers or thier families during my tours in '06 and '07, including me as a junior leader at the time. That would have been grossly irresponsible if it had occurred, but I have never heard of it happening.

Please share where you got that info.

I have this info from having deployed in same time as you.  I even recall your TAV in that first half of ‘06.  Maybe Kingston did not talk about it but the BGs heard the message, though it was given with more tact than the above mentioned allusion to boxes.  Grossly irresponsible?  We knew where we were going and the fight that we were looking for.  Grossly irresponsible would have been allowing pers to believe things were better and not preparing them for the inevitable.

Based on what?
Having responded to many "events" in Kandahar, I submit that the destruction in Kabul of a Rhino bus with more than 13 ISAF killed due to an SVBIED is a bad day. 

You are proving my point.  The magnitude of that potential worst case incident matches Kandahar – the probability (or expected frequency) is much less.  Risk pay accounts for both.

How often do Op Attention personnel (less those on FP) actually leave the wire?

There are pers doing daily commutes.

 

[fake penguin]

First question: Daily basis, Second question: Daily basis. Green on blue is a massive threat that we can't ignore, walking through KMTC with nothing but a pistol is not my idea of safe.

I always thought Canadian troops were staying inside the wire in Kabul the whole time while training the ANA. And what's a FP?

 

[ModlrMike]

Force Protection

 

[McG]

Kabul is not one monolithic camp.  There are several locations and pers must move between them.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

I think you'll agree MCG that commuting is one thing, and actively leaving the wire to look for bad guys is another thing, which is where I was going with the Hazard X Risk idea. Is anyone on Attention going out 'to close with and destroy the enemy' as someone wrote earlier?

 

[PuckChaser]

I always thought Canadian troops were staying inside the wire in Kabul the whole time while training the ANA. And what's a FP?

Everyday I had to leave my camp to go into the ANA training center to mentor my counterparts, and I counted that as leaving the wire. It was worse late tour after I left when my coworkers had to move via vehicle convoy on a daily basis to get to their mentees.

 

[little jim]

I think you'll agree MCG that commuting is one thing, and actively leaving the wire to look for bad guys is another thing, which is where I was going with the Hazard X Risk idea. Is anyone on Attention going out 'to close with and destroy the enemy' as someone wrote earlier?

I would offer that no, no one on Op ATTENTION is going out "to close with and destroy the enemy."  The ANSF are doing that now and their casualty figures reflect it.

If someone did some digging into the casualty figures for the last year you will see we still take a lot (well outside of Kabul) of IED causalities and those don't typically care if you are commuting or not.

One of the biggest killers of coalition forces right now is not offensive operations or IEDs.  Its Inside the Wire attacks.  Look at the deaths over the past 12 months.  How many times has the enemy breached the perimeter of a FOB - all through the SW, S and E; in one case blowing away a 60m section of the double stacked hesco that formed the perimeter.  Look at what is happening with inside the wire attacks - an SOF, ANA, ANP and Conventional patrol shot by a vehicle mounted machine gun by a member of the ground force during the patrol briefing, 3x Australians killed in their sleep in their FOB, 4x Americans killed in their OP by the ANSF they were working with, some Brits engaged on their FOB while playing their weekly soccer match.  Just over a week ago we had three soldiers killed along with 2x US civilians (one a Dept of State female) killed in a complex attack when they had just left the PRT on the way to a book donation event at a school.  They were not out to close with and destroy.

The enemy has changed.  They understand the way to hurt us is to not only get the story in the western press through insider attacks but that it also can be seen to drive a wedge between the coalition forces and the ANSF we are supporting.

Think about it - every time you read about one of those bombings at a ministry in Kabul there is more than likely a number of ISAF troops in that building mentoring and advising their Afghan Counterparts.

The environment we are operating in has changed and it does not appear that Ottawa let alone some people on the ground grasp this. 

Vent over.  Thanks for the release.

 

[G11]

Everyday I had to leave my camp to go into the ANA training center to mentor my counterparts, and I counted that as leaving the wire. It was worse late tour after I left when my coworkers had to move via vehicle convoy on a daily basis to get to their mentees.

Just an add on to this:

The KMTC/CFC training area is outside the boundaries of ANA installations (minus some observation posts) and includes three villages in the immediate vicinity. It is not uncommon to have to deal with the local populace during ranges/training events. Obviously this is not the same situation as OP ATHENA however it is important to take into account that Canadian troops train in unsecured (in the sense this is not a FOB/controlled access) areas daily.