Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Good2Golf]

I've mentioned this before, but I'm surprised (or some staffer really hasn't done his/her homework) that there is no explicit mention of the tanker and Auroras when anyone in the Liberal Govt mentions the Canadian contribution.  Putting on a bit of tinfoil headdress, it's either because:

a)  They don't know
b)  They don't care to report the facts
c)  They're purposely not publicizing it so that when the CF-18s get pulled out, people will forget while we still maintain some ISR and tanker support in theatre for others.

Likely C) [modified], i.e. high value of "eyes and gas" to all...and they never promised to pull out tankers and ISR, nothing nefarious.

:2c:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Or perhaps our Allies have signalled that the tanker and the ISR birds are substantially more useful than additional strike aircraft, and the government is following the best military advice that has been offered....

But you guys stick with your interpretation that the PM is a fool, and that the CDS cannot offer coherent advice.  That is easier to swallow than the prospect of a nuanced position based on sage advice

There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:

 

[dimsum]

Or perhaps our Allies have signalled that the tanker and the ISR birds are substantially more useful than additional strike aircraft, and the government is following the best military advice that has been offered....

But you guys stick with your interpretation that the PM is a fool, and that the CDS cannot offer coherent advice.  That is easier to swallow than the prospect of a nuanced position based on sage advice

Fair, and I agree with that. 

But, it's just puzzling to me that after the first few months, when there was media publicity (at least on the National Post) about the tanker and Auroras, that the MSM and government have essentially shut up about them and focused exclusively on the CF-18s, to the point that the PM has stated (from previous posts on this thread) that the 600 members are providing support to the 6 CF-18s. 

I'd think that the original reporters (the folks who worked on the Aurora piece, at least) would be thinking "hey...wait a minute...I was doing a piece on the Auroras and now no one talks about them?"

 

[PPCLI Guy]

There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:

If you are talking about the uniformed fool who let him put on a piece of PPE incorrectly in a war zone, and the countless uniformed fools who lacked the guts to say anything about incorrectly worn PPE, then I agree with you.

 

[Good2Golf]

There is a precedent leading us to believe this is indeed the case though:

The "Decade of Darkness" would not been nearly as dark, if Canada's fairly-elected political leader had been corrected respectfully on how to wear the helmet. 

To call this moment a "turning point" for DND of the day, would be a gross understatement... 

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Fair, and I agree with that. 

But, it's just puzzling to me that after the first few months, when there was media publicity (at least on the National Post) about the tanker and Auroras, that the MSM and government have essentially shut up about them and focused exclusively on the CF-18s, to the point that the PM has stated (from previous posts on this thread) that the 600 members are providing support to the 6 CF-18s. 

I'd think that the original reporters (the folks who worked on the Aurora piece, at least) would be thinking "hey...wait a minute...I was doing a piece on the Auroras and now no one talks about them?"

To be fair, I think that some of this might just be in semantics... IMO, it may not be so much that the government doesn't know that there are aurora's and other aircraft in the area (and logistics, targeteers, etc) it's just that it knows that the average Canada a) doesn't know what aurora's and the other ISR aircraft/logisticians/targetting personnel do and/or b) doesn't care. Saying CF-18 without adding every single airframe type is likely more of a "They get the point" thing than an actual lack of knowledge or a slight.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

CF-18s 'drop bombs'.  (1) Bombs kill people. (2) Sometimes the wrong people. (3) Sometimes you are accused of killing the wrong people, even if you didn't. 

If you are a politician, you probably aren't initially concerned too much about (1) and likely very concerned about (2) and (3).  What's that saying about an ounce of prevention is worth something or other?

Question; how well does it bode for Canada and the CAF to suggest we are not militarily capable of a sustained operation of 600 pers?  Isn't that a good indicator that we need to injection some $ and resources into the CAF?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Question; how well does it bode for Canada and the CAF to suggest we are not militarily capable of a sustained operation of 600 pers?  Isn't that a good indicator that we need to injection some $ and resources into the CAF?

Or a good indicator that we need to change our Force Employment paradigm so that we don't a) keep offering a 1500 BG to complete a 100 man task, or b) keep all of our powder dry for the "next big thing".

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But that is not what was said though.  It said we have a finite amount of military resources and that the 600 pers TF might be stretching things too thin.  Example, maintaining all 600 pers for JTF-I (which actually encompasses ALL the support, ground techs and aircrew for 3 Detachments in the mission element sub-unit, the Air Task Force which is 9 planes and their crews), we are not likely able to expand the number of military advisors from our SOF community for the training mission. 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/116553/post-1403324.html#msg1403324

You can view the entire article and even watch the video of the interview.  PM Trudeau clearly answers the question asked "why can't we do both"? (it's at the 0:42 second mark).

Canada can’t afford to bomb and train, says Trudeau

I don't see anyone saying anything about 'keeping our powder dry'.  So which is it?  It gets confusing to get different messages as to the reasons.

Agree with the 1500 for 100 part; we inject way too much tail per tooth and suffer the self licking lollipop SC on the mission end.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 24 November 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1784 sorties:

•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 1143 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 308 sorties, delivering some 18,182,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 333 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing.

More information on the work our CF-18 are actually doing found here.  For November 2015, to date:

25 Nov 2015

On 25 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes to increase Iraqi security forces' freedom of movement in the region, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

19 Nov 2015

On 19 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes to increase Iraqi security forces' freedom of movement in the region, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS weapons production facility in the vicinity of Mosul using precision guided munitions.

18 Nov 2015

On 18 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces offensive operations, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three separate ISIS fighting positions, one south of Kirkuk and two others northwest of Mosul, using precision guided munitions.

17 Nov 2015

On 17 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck three ISIS fighting positions during two separate airstrikes in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

15 Nov 2015

On 15 November, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces offensive operations, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position southeast of Haditha using precision guided munitions.

13 Nov 2015

On 13 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Ramadi, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS compound and two separate ISIS fighting positions in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

12 Nov 2015

On 12 November 2015, while taking part in coalition airstrikes in support of Iraqi security forces operations to clear ISIS from Sinjar and seize portions of a significant ISIS supply route between Ar Raqqah, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS ammunition cache in the vicinity of Sinjar and an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Tal Afar using precision guided munitions.

7 Nov 2015

On 7 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position southeast of Mosul using precision guided munitions.

On 7 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position south of Sinjar using precision guided munitions.

6 Nov 2015

On 6 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck an ISIS fighting position in the vicinity of Ramadi using precision guided munitions.

On 6 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIS fighting positions north of Fallujah using precision guided munitions.

5 Nov 2015

On 5 November 2015, while taking part in coalition operations in support of Iraqi security forces, two CF-18 Hornets successfully struck two ISIS compounds southwest of Sinjar using precision guided munitions.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Or a good indicator that we need to change our Force Employment paradigm so that we don't a) keep offering a 1500 BG to complete a 100 man task, or b) keep all of our powder dry for the "next big thing".

Perhaps PMJT understands that the military actually has the equipment and human resources to do many things, and probably even the money, but only if only DND HQ could get it's act together and stop squandering.  Maybe the MND has advised him of same and has requested time to sort it out, radically. I hope that is the case. 

BTW, I have not seen anything in these threads where the government has ordered the aircraft home? Have they only expressed an intention to do so? 

 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What I see is 'situating the estimate' stuff. 

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The "Decade of Darkness" would not been nearly as dark, if Canada's fairly-elected political leader had been corrected respectfully on how to wear the helmet. 

To call this moment a "turning point" for DND of the day, would be a gross understatement...

But it makes for very good trolling material though  [

 

[Edward Campbell]

Look, a new government is in the process of enunciating a new foreign policy. They gave us some of the parameters during the campaign; the bulk will be worked out by the ministers concerned, including, above all the prime minister, and their political advisors, and by officials in PCO and Global Affairs Canada. What we have heard is that the government wants to change from "bombing" to "training." When and how they want to make that change remains to be seen.

No one is arguing that the RCAF has done anything except a first rate job ... that's not the point. The point is that a new government wants to "turn that particular page" and "change the emphasis" the RCAF May still play a role, or Canada's contribution might change, entirely, in form. If it's the latter then it will be because some other form better suits the national interest as defined by the democratically elected government of the day.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau differed with the former government on the bombing campaign from the very start. It should not surprise anyone that he wants to follow through and change what Canada is doing. He is not "dissing" the RCAF or the CF; he is, as he should must, shaping a foreign policy, including what sorts of military contributions we make here and there in the world, that is consistent with his broad, strategic vision of Canada in the world.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That is fine, ERC.  I don't suspect the crews would moan and groan about spending more time at home with their families.

However, the message delivered in the interview is that we are stretched thin and can't maintain the JFT-I and 'advisors' mission.  We have finite resources and have to decide; we cannot militarily do both.

Is that not the message that was conveyed?  Am I reading something incorrectly?  These are the PMs words in an interview.

Canada has a finite number of military resources, and it must be careful not to overstretch those resources in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday.

In an exclusive interview with The West Block‘s Tom Clark in London, Trudeau explained that Canada may not have the ability to increase its training initiatives in the fight against the terrorist group while also continuing to participate in a coalition bombing campaign.

“For six planes we’re talking about 600 people to support those planes in various terms,” Trudeau said. “It’s important to look at how best Canada can be helpful in the fight against ISIL.”

This marks the first time Trudeau has referred to finite resources in response to questions about his government’s decision to end the Canadian bombing mission. In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, critics had been asking why Canada could not simply continue to participate while also beefing up training in northern Iraq, something Trudeau pledged to do in the lead-up to the federal election.

Again, these are not my words.  I am simply saying that I had no idea that we were being stretched so thin by a 600 pers JTF and 69 advisors.  Under 700 pers commitment and it appears the PM has been briefed that this is stretching us too thin.  This should be cause for alarm.

Curiously our PM is saying we just don't have the resources, but other credible members here are saying it has to do more with keeping our powder dry, and changing foreign policy and not pointing to 'finite resources' being the reason.  So this is also somewhat confusing for a poor addle-brained operator type such as myself.

*I remember something my dad said to me years ago; 'say what you mean, and mean what you say'. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

EITS: my personal impression of prime Minister Justin Trudeau is that he is not at his best when he forgets the script, and, now that he is the prime minister, the script is much longer, harder and far more complex than anything he has ever encountered in his life ... I have no idea what he "meant to say" but I would guess that it might have been something like, 'we have finite military resources and we must not stretch them too far on just one mission when we may be called upon to do others. We are, now, examining how to make the best possible, the most helpful contribution to the fight against ISIL while, at the same time, being ready to do a share when, not if, the next crisis comes up.' I doubt that anyone in DND or PMO or PCO told him that <700 is our "limit," but, as i said, I doubt he has the capacity, yet, to sort through all the information that has been dumped on him. You're heard the expression, I'm sure, about being force-fed information with a fire hose. I am pretty sure that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau feels that way right now and I suspect he is struggling mightily to make some sort of sense of it all.

I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though some of his answers make me wince.

 

[GR66]

"Resources" are more than boots, aircraft, bombs and fuel.  He could be talking about money.  The Liberals promised a number of things in the election and said they would do it while capping the deficit (was it $10 billion?).  DND is a big chunk of that budget and it's facing many financial pressures. 

There will be expenses in transporting, housing and feeding the refugees.  A new fighter (of whatever type) will have to be purchased.  There are reports of huge cost overruns in the ship building program.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

I doubt that deploying 600 personnel to support a mission is leaving the CF "stretched thin" from a capabilities point of view, but perhaps maintaining an air taskforce in combat is leaving the operating budget for the CF "stretched thin".  I'm guessing that the training mission is less costly per person than the air mission.

I don't take that quote by the PM as suggesting that the CF is incapable of such a deployment, more that it can't afford to pay for (or more properly isn't WILLING to pay for) that particular mission.  Given enough money we have the capability for a much, much larger deployment, but the political will would have to be there to pay for it.  Without that will...the "resources" (cash) is stretched thin.

:2c:

 

[dimsum]

From the CBC - guess this answers some of the questions/thoughts bandied about before.

The Liberal government will withdraw Canada's fighter jets from the fight against ISIS, but CBC News has learned that not all military aircraft will be pulled from the mission in Iraq and Syria.

The Department of National Defence said Thursday that while the CF-18s will be withdrawn from the U.S.-led coalition combat mission, other planes — two Auroras, which are surveillance aircraft, two transport planes and a Polaris in-flight refuelling plane — will still fly alongside our allies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-position-fighter-jets-1.3338186http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-position-fighter-jets-1.3338186

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And still no word on tax free status.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[George Wallace]

And still no word on tax free status.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

FFS
: