Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Old Sweat]

According to this story from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act details of the plan will be announced next week. The story is fairly specific about details including the addition of a battalion to a training mission outside the actual combat zone.

Canada to expand military mission against Islamic State

ROBERT FIFE - OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 6:00AM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 7:21AM EST

The Liberal government will lay out its new role in the U.S.-led war against Islamic State next week that will include additional Special Forces, a non-combat air component and participation in an enlarged training mission, sources say.

The long-awaited announcement will be made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday, where the battle to defeat Islamic State militants will be a key topic.

“We’re talking about days,” International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said in a telephone conference call with reporters from London on Thursday, where she was attending a donor conference on Syria. “We really want to announce a holistic approach, and this includes all our contributions in terms of military, in terms of diplomacy and in terms of humanitarian assistance and development.”

The federal cabinet met Tuesday with General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff, to put the final touches on the government’s military and diplomatic response, which will include a substantial humanitarian package for the region.

Sources say Canadian Special Forces are expected to continue training Kurdish militia, and the number of trainers will more than double to about 150. CF-18s will be pulled out, but two CP-140 Aurora reconnaissance aircraft and a CC-150 aerial refuelling plane are expected to stay in place.

Canada is also expected to participate in a proposed NATO-led training mission that will set up shop in military camps in Jordan, Turkey and possibly Lebanon.

One proposal was for Canada to provide an army battalion.

“How they structure that battalion will determine the size. It could be anywhere between 500 to 1,000, but it is a pretty wide window,” a military source said. “It is not like going into Syria or Iraq and it is very, very low-risk for the government.”

As part of the humanitarian package, the Liberals are expected to provide $15-million in annual funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency – set up in 1950 to help Palestinian refugees – after the former Conservative government cut all $30-million in annual funding in 2009.

Canada’s current mission, which expires March 31, includes six CF-18 fighter jets bombing Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria, as well as 69 Special Forces soldiers offering military training to Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq.

The Americans privately pressed the Liberals to keep the fighter jets in the air campaign, citing their high regard for the skills of Canadian pilots, sources say.

But Mr. Trudeau would not relent on his election pledge to end Canada’s bombing mission.

The Conservatives and other critics have panned the Liberals’ pledge to end the bombing mission, particularly after six Canadians were killed in mid-January by a terror group linked to al-Qaeda.

A survey conducted for The Globe and Mail found that a comfortable majority of Canadians want Canada to stay in the U.S.-led coalition and to participate in the ground-troops training of Iraqi Kurds and the air combat mission.

“There is no appetite to withdraw politically out of the fight” against Islamic State, according to pollster Nik Nanos, who surveyed Canadians on the series of options under consideration by the Liberal cabinet. “It is pretty clear that continuing the fighter-jet mission is comparatively the more popular option at this point in time.”

The random survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 1 by Nanos Research Group, found that 29 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa should provide fighter jets to the air war, and 20 per cent favoured military training of local Kurdish forces. Only 14 per cent supported ground training outside Iraq. Nine per cent said Canada should provide surveillance and refuelling aircraft.

“Only a very small minority of Canadians of less than one out of every 10 believe that we should get out of there and do nothing,” Mr. Nanos said.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to this story from the Globe and Mail reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act details of the plan will be announced next week. The story is fairly specific about details including the addition of a battalion to a training mission outside the actual combat zone.

Canada to expand military mission against Islamic State

ROBERT FIFE - OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 6:00AM EST
Last updated Friday, Feb. 05, 2016 7:21AM EST

The Liberal government will lay out its new role in the U.S.-led war against Islamic State next week that will include additional Special Forces, a non-combat air component and participation in an enlarged training mission, sources say.

The long-awaited announcement will be made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan attends a NATO ministerial meeting in Brussels next Wednesday and Thursday, where the battle to defeat Islamic State militants will be a key topic.

...

“There is no appetite to withdraw politically out of the fight” against Islamic State, according to pollster Nik Nanos, who surveyed Canadians on the series of options under consideration by the Liberal cabinet. “It is pretty clear that continuing the fighter-jet mission is comparatively the more popular option at this point in time.”

The random survey of 1,000 Canadians, conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 1 by Nanos Research Group, found that 29 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa should provide fighter jets to the air war, and 20 per cent favoured military training of local Kurdish forces. Only 14 per cent supported ground training outside Iraq. Nine per cent said Canada should provide surveillance and refuelling aircraft.

“Only a very small minority of Canadians of less than one out of every 10 believe that we should get out of there and do nothing,” Mr. Nanos said.

Indeed, but that 1 in 10 is very active, politically, and it voted Liberal ... the Liberals got 40% of the 70% of eligible voters that bothered to come to the polls at all: 28% in other words. If 7 of that 10% came out to vote then it really, really mattered.

The decision to make withdrawing the CF-18s was, at first, a defensive reaction to the media attention given to Justin Trudeau's "whip out our CF-18s" quip, but it proved to be a very smart campaign move and the Liberals ran with it. I believe (guess) that Jean Chrétien is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and one piece of advice he is giving is: "keep the simple, clear, easy promises, like withdrawing the CF-18s and not buying the F-35, because  you're going to have to break some other, important ones and you want a"cushion" of 'promise made, promise kept' upon which to fall back when the media attacks. Cuts to the military type promises are easy to keep because they, the military, don't have a "cheering section" out in the voting public.

 

[FSTO]

Indeed, but that 1 in 10 is very active, politically, and it voted Liberal ... the Liberals got 40% of the 70% of eligible voters that bothered to come to the polls at all: 28% in other words. If 7 of that 10% came out to vote then it really, really mattered.

The decision to make withdrawing the CF-18s was, at first, a defensive reaction to the media attention given to Justin Trudeau's "whip out our CF-18s" quip, but it proved to be a very smart campaign move and the Liberals ran with it. I believe (guess) that Jean Chrétien is advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and one piece of advice he is giving is: "keep the simple, clear, easy promises, like withdrawing the CF-18s and not buying the F-35, because  you're going to have to break some other, important ones and you want a"cushion" of 'promise made, promise kept' upon which to fall back when the media attacks. Cuts to the military type promises are easy to keep because they, the military, don't have a "cheering section" out in the voting public.

So god damn sad that this is the truth.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This ^

I for one have changed my opinion on the value of the bombing mission as it pertains to the mission from a tactical perspective based on information provided here.

Just curious; changed in a way that makes you think the air campaign is worth it, or not worth it?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That said, thanks for sharing (more than just) a bit more than what we read in the media to give us the REST of the story of the mission underway.

It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective. 

The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing. 

It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.  :2c:

 

[cavalryman]

It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective. 

The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing. 

It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.  :2c:

:goodpost: x100

 

[The Bread Guy]

Angus Reid pipes in ...

With Canada’s participation in the military mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) scheduled to end next month, a new poll from the Angus Reid Institute finds Canadians are concerned about the effect withdrawing CF-18 jets from the fight would have on Canada’s international reputation and on the mission itself.

This concern may be rooted in a growing fear of ISIS itself – two-in-three Canadians say the threat posed by the terrorist group has been growing in recent months.

Further, nearly two-thirds of Canadians (63%) say they would either like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at its current rate or go further and increase the number of bombing missions it conducts. This support for bombing is consistent with a November ARI poll on the subject.

Key Findings:

    47 per cent say withdrawing CF-18s from the mission will have a negative effect Canada’s international reputation, while fewer than one-in-five (18%) say it will have a positive one

    Nearly two-in-five Canadians (37%) say Canada should keep conducting its current number of bombing missions against ISIS, and another one-quarter (26%) say the country should increase them

    At the same time – though they don’t support withdrawing the planes – most Canadians (54%) say they’re confident in the Trudeau government’s ability to manage Canada’s involvement in the ISIS mission.

(...)

The Angus Reid Institute conducted an online survey from January 27-31, 2016, among a representative randomized sample of 1,503 Canadian adults who are members of the Angus Reid Forum.  For comparison purposes only, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.  Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding.  The survey was self-commissioned and paid for by ARI ...

Some charts attached, including one saying most respondents still trust the Young Prince even if he pulls the CF-18's.

 

[FSTO]

It's hard at times;  you know something isn't quite right as stated in some article or whatever, you know the difference but can't say why because of OPSEC etc.  But it is worth trying to speak in general terms and hope people have enough faith in your credibility from a BTDT perspective. 

The CAF folks who are operating over The Badlands are doing their best and have a good name in the coalition.  Whatever mission the government gives the ATF-I, those folks will continue to do the work they are doing. 

It's common for fighter types to get razzed by...well, everyone who isn't a fighter driver, but the they are really in the fight on this one.  I always hope people can see past their 'thoughts' on fighter types and take a minute to hope they make it back to homeplate everytime they go up.  Same goes for our SOF folks who are brushing the sand off their kit every day.  They are doing Canada proud, whether the average Canadian even knows they exist, let alone are putting their meat on the line every day.  :2c:

Good post!
That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.

Also keep in mind that they go by what they're told (or, in some cases, choose to listen to) - and the current gov't isn't going to be spewing messaging about the effectiveness of something that's a pretty clear platform promise.

And while the Info-machine has been sharing a bit of the story of the folks keeping the F-18s flying, and the "eye in the sky" folks, not to mention stats, not much I've found about the fighter flyers* (PERSEC & OPSEC notwithstanding).  Just like under previous management, methinks that type of editorial management comes from faaaaaaaaaaar above ...

* - The Liberty Bell March Info-machine IS sharing stories of F-18 sorties past, though (here and here) - are we becoming like the old Soviet Info-machine where we have to read between the lines while the machine writes in allegory?  >

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Milnews, the article you quote is about the "eyes on the sky" folks: The land based air traffic controllers guys, not the "eyes in the sky" people, who would be onboard the Auroras ... and do work that is definitely OPSEC and doing a damn good job at it too.

 

[ArmyRick]

Increasing SOF troops and sending surveillance aircraft? Still technically taking actions against ISIS yet makes it look like we are being "less aggressive" (appeases Canadian far left crowd).

Its kind of half getting involved....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Increasing SOF troops and sending surveillance aircraft? Still technically taking actions against ISIS yet makes it look like we are being "less aggressive" (appeases Canadian far left crowd).

Its kind of half getting involved....

At this early stage in their mandate the most important thing for the Liberals to do is to NOT look like the Harper government at home, even if it means damaging some international relationships.

The fight against ISIS is a good example of how that is playing out right now.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

This is just a gut feeling I have here, but I get the feeling that the delays in implementing PM JT's plan to cease the bombing mission but provide more trainers instead has to do with the fact that nobody is asking for more trainers.

I mean, SOF trainers on the ground are soldiers, they can't just show up in another country and say "We're here to help training you" if they are not invited. I suspect that when talking with other coalition partners, Canada is being told "we don't want more trainers, we are doing well enough on that aspect - thank you. What we want is for you to continue with the bombing mission and intel support in the air that goes with it."

If there is no call for more Canadian boots on the ground from the warring factions themselves, it would put the PM JT's plan in a bit of a self-painted corner, wouldn't it?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

and the "eye in the sky" folks,

Just so there is no confusion, AC Ops (Aerospace Control Operators) work on the ground monitoring what's in the airspace.  Some of them fly on AWACS, but they are not an 'aircrew' trade [and some AECs and AC Ops moan that they can't wear flight suits even though they are posted to North Bay... :'(]  So while they are also scope dopes, they perform a different function.

AES Ops/AESOPs [you may see it written both ways] (Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators) are aircrew who are part of the CP-140 Aurora aircrew.

Here are a few links to some IMPACT Aurora crews from the Combat Camera site.  The first and third pics are AESOPs (not me).

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

And, one of the flight deck folks.

An article some people may not have seen before.  Tracking ISIL

The Aurora’s role within the coalition is to provide an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capability; the Aurora gathers accurate information that informs any decision to engage a target. This effort is supported by the members of the Long Range Patrol Detachment team, along with the Weapon System Management team and key enablers in Canada.

The Aurora’s ability to gather video and still images over an extended period of time allows intelligence personnel to build a picture of the tactical level situation at a potential strike location.  The footage and imagery attained is reviewed to determine the movement of ISIL fighters.

One of the Aurora’s tasks is to maintain awareness of ISIL positions and determine if there is any civilian activity in the area. This information allows planners and coalition partners to assess the impact an airstrike may have on a given area. The Aurora is a key component in the targeting process and assists leaders in determining the risks associated with an operation and minimizing the risk to the local population.


LRP crews can't function without techs and an op center.  Here is a good article on the LRP Det DMSC.

not much I've found about the fighter flyers* (PERSEC & OPSEC notwithstanding).  Just like under previous management, methinks that type of editorial management comes from faaaaaaaaaaar above ...

Operation IMPACT – Air Task Force-Iraq airstrikes

This is about all you will find I think.  Jan was a good month and they've hit the s**theads as recently as yesterday. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

sending surveillance aircraft?

The ISR aircraft (or "spy plane"  :rofl has been in theatre since Oct 2014 and has flown just shy of 400 missions to date. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That is why I want to reach into the TV and throttle the likes of Susan Riley (Ottawa Citizen I think) and Jerry Kaplan who say week after week that our contribution is minuscule and useless. They dismisses everything the CAF does and it just makes my blood boil when the CBC never challenges their misinformed rhetoric.

I guess they know more than say, then the General who speaks in the article Canada punching above its weight in fight against ISIL forces, U.S. military commander says.

A Base Somewhere in Southwest Asia — A senior planner closely involved in directing the U.S.-led coalition’s air war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant says that Canada had contributed far more to the campaign than the relatively small number of Canadian Special Forces personnel and aircraft might suggest.

Canada’s deployment of approximately 70 Special Forces advisers with Peshmerga forces in northern Iraq and of 9 RCAF aircraft that have been flying missions out of Kuwait were significant force multipliers, said the general,...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just so there is no confusion, AC Ops (Aerospace Control Operators) work on the ground monitoring what's in the airspace.  Some of them fly on AWACS, but they are not an 'aircrew' trade [and some AECs and AC Ops moan that they can't wear flight suits even though they are posted to North Bay... :'(]  So while they are also scope dopes, they perform a different function ...

And that's why many voices here are available to correct dummies like myself  ;D  Thanks for the continued value-added.

I guess they know more than say, then the General who speaks in the article Canada punching above its weight in fight against ISIL forces, U.S. military commander says ...

That article is approaching a year old from someone who wants to keep Canada in the fight - very different motivation than the current "management".

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That article is approaching a year old from someone who wants to keep Canada in the fight - very different motivation than the current "management".

But the article was from 17 April, 2 weeks and change after the vote to extent and expand OP IMPACT had passed in the House of Commons.  The US and other coalition partners knew then Canada was in for another year, so motivation to the article is not likely to keep us in the fight; we were already going to stay.  :nod:

 

[The Bread Guy]

But the article was from 17 April, 2 weeks and change after the vote to extent and expand OP IMPACT had passed in the House of Commons.  The US and other coalition partners knew then Canada was in for another year, so motivation to the article is not likely to keep us in the fight; we were already going to stay.  :nod:

Touché - always good to hear good things from colleagues/allies, but still a very different hand of cards being played now.

 

[GRACE OMALLEY]

That's the Breaking News headline- What's everyone's best guess about this- with Dion, Sajjat and the PM making the announcement together tomorrow...