Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
That part, I would have some concerns about.
Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
George Wallace said:
Do you have a media source?
What's the concern with helicopters, EITS? If we're doubling or tripling the advisor contingent from CANSOF (assuming they are all CANSOF, release wasn't specific), should we not give them an ability to move around the AOR, and perhaps call for help if required? Also gives another set of eyes, and a way to use those shiny Dillon Aero Miniguns.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
http://cafdispatch.blogspot.ca/2016/02/canada-in-iraq-caf-looking-to-deploy.html
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Canada in Iraq: CAF Looking to Deploy Griffons to Iraq
Written by: JDM, Canadian Forces Dispatch author
Last Updated: February 9, 2016 - 1:44 pm
With the dramatic shift in the Government of Canada's policy towards ISIS, and the change to Canada's contributions to the US-led Coalition against ISIS, Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance provided some details in a technical briefing.
The total number of military personnel deployed will increase from the currently authorized 600, to 850. This adjustment will be seen in the required ground crew required for the CF-18s, which will be returning home, and the increase in the number of Special Forces trainers in Iraq.
While specific numbers of Special Forces have not been released, it is assumed that close to 200 Canadian Special Forces members will be in Norther Iraq working with the Kurdish Peshmerga within the coming months, as both Prime Minister Trudeau, and Minister of Defence Sajjan said clearly that the training commitment would triple.
For the Special Forces in Iraq, reporters asked the Prime Minister if the CAF will still be on the front lines of the fight against ISIS, and if they would still be marking targets for the remaining coalition partners in the air campaign. General Vance responded, "I want Canadians to know that we will be involved in engagements as we defend ourselves or those partners who we are working with.” Vance also indicated that Special Forces will continue to "mark ISIS targets" for the coalition. This is something that the US Special Forces members in Iraq are not currently able to do.
Minister Sajjan echoed Vance's statement, when he told CTV's Canada AM program, " This is a conflict zone - it comes with risks."
In yesterday's Press briefing the Prime Minister said that as part of Canada's new advise and assist role, Canada would be sending small arms and ammunition to Iraq. Vance indicated that Canada would be supplying machine guns and riffles to Iraqi forces, but did not specify who in particular. He also could not indicate how the arms will be sent legally to Iraq; as Iraq is not approved for arms export under the Automatic Weapons Country Control List.
A CAF Door Gunner mans his machine gun aboard a CH-146 Griffon over the desserts of Afghanistan (Undated DND Photo)
To help mitigate some of the risks, the DND Spokesman was quoted as indicating that, the CAF is looking at deploying 4 CH-146 Griffon Helicopters to Iraq. Daniel Le Bouthier, was quoted to Defence Watch as saying, "options are being explored to enhance in-theatre tactical transport, further analysis, coordination and discussions with our coalition partners is required before details regarding the deployment of Griffon helicopters can be finalized, though the current plan calls for 4 airframes."
No specifics as to what the Griffons would be used for. CANSOFCOM has their own Griffon Helicopters, but there is no public information as to what vehicles CANSOFCOM has deployed in theater already. The Griffons are expected to be used for Troop Transport, as well as Medi-Vac Capabilities within Norther Iraq.
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
Good link, thanks. Also a much needed capability with that many people running around in the battlespace.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
PuckChaser said:
Article Link [I know how old the article is]
Video Link
Article Link
Article Link
As I've said more than once in this thread, anyone who believes coalition aircrews are risk-free in this one is uninformed and incorrect.
- Reaction score
- 2,080
- Points
- 1,160
Just a note on that one link from Mr. Charles Lister, Syria does not have Sidewinder missiles, and they never did. From the images those missiles look like AA2 Atoll, with some sort of red protective cap over the IR glassware.
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
It's absolutely a risky proposition, but so is a small team miles away from support, and that support gets there by road or we ask politely for someone else to help. Who's more valuable? Do we keep aircrews at home because of a manpad threat, and then expose those advisors to suicide bombers, ambush, etc? How do we balance it all out?Eye In The Sky said:
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 717
- Points
- 1,110
Funny thing about the middle east. Even if you win, you don't win.Eye In The Sky said:
For arguments sake,should isil be defeated, who is left to fight assad?
On the flip side, should assad be defeated who is left to fight isil?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- Reaction score
- 2,080
- Points
- 1,160
For the foreseeable future, Assad isn't going anywhere and he isn't going to be defeated militarily as long as the Russians have anything to say or do about it. It might be a case of which is the lesser evil, or the devil you know...
He will eventually go by way of the assassins bullet ( or a cup of spiked tea) but only when Putin has selected a suitable replacement, and after ISIL is erased. For now he serves a purpose.
He will eventually go by way of the assassins bullet ( or a cup of spiked tea) but only when Putin has selected a suitable replacement, and after ISIL is erased. For now he serves a purpose.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
PuckChaser said:
I don't suspect the new folks going in will be in FOBs a la Afghanistan, I would make a WAG their work will be done 'behind a FLOT' type location more than in/around it. That is a complete WAG but I think one that lines up with the political goals. The AO is different from the last one the TH folks were in, so I expect their employment will be different as well. In Afghanistan, the mission was (partial) to engage in direct contact with the enemy. I suspect there will be a different Mission Statement and ROE than what Afghanistan had. Again, a WAG at this point, but (perhaps?) an educated one. :2c:
Keep in mind, the different AO and mandate. We are not going into direct contact with the enemy, that part is out of the picture eff 22 Feb.
WRT threats, no aircrews aren't staying home because of a MANPAD threat, the ATF has flown over 2000 sorties over The Badlands so far.
I just caution, urge people to not transfer "how Afghanistan was" to equal "how Iraq is now". :2c:
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Altair said:
Agree, which is why I said "defeating ISIL doesn't equal peace in the ME". That task is for people how make more money and score higher on IQ tests than I do to figure out.
Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,780
- Points
- 1,160
Article Link
Andrew Coyne: Now a word from our prime minister on Canada’s new role in Iraq and Syria
Good morning. I am here, 20 minutes late and with Members of Parliament out of town, to announce our new policy with regard to Canada’s involvement in the crisis in Iraq and Syria — one that will better reflect what Canada is all about.
I would first like to thank the brave and talented members of the Royal Canadian Air Force whose mission I am abruptly cancelling. In suggesting that what they have been doing the past 15 months is not “what Canada is all about,” I do not mean to imply there is anything unworthy or unCanadian about whipping out our CF-18s. Rather, I am suggesting, without quite saying, that it was a futile waste of time.
After all, airstrikes on their own do not achieve long-term stability. They may have proved useful for halting ISIL’s previously runaway expansion, they may have driven it from territory, denied it refuge, degraded its military capacity and destroyed more and more of the oil resources without which it cannot finance its activities, but they cannot, on their own, do something that no one has claimed they can. Maybe there are some who would prefer that we engage in airstrikes, on their own, and shut down all training, humanitarian and diplomatic efforts in the region, but this government rejects that ludicrous caricature of an alternative.
Still, in any mission, you need to make choices, even false ones. We can’t do everything. Rather, in the fight against ISIL we have chosen to do everything except the one thing our allies have asked us to do: fight ISIL. While Canadians have always been prepared to fight, we believe that in this campaign there are better ways we can contribute that build upon our uniquely Canadian expertise. Thus, rather than actually fly the planes ourselves, we will rely on our uniquely Canadian expertise in refuelling planes for others to fly.
Let me be clear. There is a role for bombing — just not by Canadian pilots. After all, combat is not what Canada is all about. Rather, what Canada is all about is standing by while others engage in combat on our behalf. Think of the consequences, if in the course of an airstrike aimed at ISIL one of our brave and talented Canadian pilots were to inadvertently kill a great number of innocent civilians. Whereas merely providing the fuel for the plane that does — along with aerial surveillance, and of course the essential work of identifying targets by our special forces, er, training advisers working on the ground — leaves us wholly uninvolved.
A word about those trainers. It is true that we are tripling their number, while increasing the total number of our military personnel in the region by a fifth. Here again I would caution people not to think this meant we were somehow engaged in combat. Yes, it is true that they will be installed near the front line, and yes, training will often involve taking Iraqi and Kurdish troops out on patrol, and yes, this will sometimes mean that our troops are fired upon, and yes, they will sometimes be obliged to fire back. But merely because our troops will be firing upon the enemy in a war zone or calling in airstrikes from above does not mean they will be in combat. I mean, it says right there in the platform: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.”
Likewise, just because I am increasing the number of personnel on the ground while extending their deployment for at least two years does not mean I am, as I accused the previous government of doing in a speech in the House a year ago, “steadily drawing Canada deeper into a combat role.” I am simply performing the time-honoured role of Canadian prime ministers: to do just enough to avoid being publicly rebuked by our allies abroad without doing enough to be exposed to any political risk at home.
Last, let me just position this decision in light of our ongoing efforts to recreate a role for Canada as some kind of “honest broker” in the Middle East, in the grand tradition of Pearson in ’56 and, er, Pearson in ’56. Some have expressed alarm at a sequence of events that in recent weeks has seen us issue statements critical of Israel for its settlement policy while at the same time dropping sanctions against Iran, even talking of restoring diplomatic relations.
But this should not be taken as indicating any weakening in our enduring friendship with Israel. As we like to say in this government, sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend facing existential threats on all sides is to single it out for public criticism while cozying up to its mortal enemy. And besides, it’s not as if we’re not also selling arms to Saudi Arabia.
----------------------------------------------
Sniper round?
Andrew Coyne: Now a word from our prime minister on Canada’s new role in Iraq and Syria
Good morning. I am here, 20 minutes late and with Members of Parliament out of town, to announce our new policy with regard to Canada’s involvement in the crisis in Iraq and Syria — one that will better reflect what Canada is all about.
I would first like to thank the brave and talented members of the Royal Canadian Air Force whose mission I am abruptly cancelling. In suggesting that what they have been doing the past 15 months is not “what Canada is all about,” I do not mean to imply there is anything unworthy or unCanadian about whipping out our CF-18s. Rather, I am suggesting, without quite saying, that it was a futile waste of time.
After all, airstrikes on their own do not achieve long-term stability. They may have proved useful for halting ISIL’s previously runaway expansion, they may have driven it from territory, denied it refuge, degraded its military capacity and destroyed more and more of the oil resources without which it cannot finance its activities, but they cannot, on their own, do something that no one has claimed they can. Maybe there are some who would prefer that we engage in airstrikes, on their own, and shut down all training, humanitarian and diplomatic efforts in the region, but this government rejects that ludicrous caricature of an alternative.
Still, in any mission, you need to make choices, even false ones. We can’t do everything. Rather, in the fight against ISIL we have chosen to do everything except the one thing our allies have asked us to do: fight ISIL. While Canadians have always been prepared to fight, we believe that in this campaign there are better ways we can contribute that build upon our uniquely Canadian expertise. Thus, rather than actually fly the planes ourselves, we will rely on our uniquely Canadian expertise in refuelling planes for others to fly.
Let me be clear. There is a role for bombing — just not by Canadian pilots. After all, combat is not what Canada is all about. Rather, what Canada is all about is standing by while others engage in combat on our behalf. Think of the consequences, if in the course of an airstrike aimed at ISIL one of our brave and talented Canadian pilots were to inadvertently kill a great number of innocent civilians. Whereas merely providing the fuel for the plane that does — along with aerial surveillance, and of course the essential work of identifying targets by our special forces, er, training advisers working on the ground — leaves us wholly uninvolved.
A word about those trainers. It is true that we are tripling their number, while increasing the total number of our military personnel in the region by a fifth. Here again I would caution people not to think this meant we were somehow engaged in combat. Yes, it is true that they will be installed near the front line, and yes, training will often involve taking Iraqi and Kurdish troops out on patrol, and yes, this will sometimes mean that our troops are fired upon, and yes, they will sometimes be obliged to fire back. But merely because our troops will be firing upon the enemy in a war zone or calling in airstrikes from above does not mean they will be in combat. I mean, it says right there in the platform: “We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq.”
Likewise, just because I am increasing the number of personnel on the ground while extending their deployment for at least two years does not mean I am, as I accused the previous government of doing in a speech in the House a year ago, “steadily drawing Canada deeper into a combat role.” I am simply performing the time-honoured role of Canadian prime ministers: to do just enough to avoid being publicly rebuked by our allies abroad without doing enough to be exposed to any political risk at home.
Last, let me just position this decision in light of our ongoing efforts to recreate a role for Canada as some kind of “honest broker” in the Middle East, in the grand tradition of Pearson in ’56 and, er, Pearson in ’56. Some have expressed alarm at a sequence of events that in recent weeks has seen us issue statements critical of Israel for its settlement policy while at the same time dropping sanctions against Iran, even talking of restoring diplomatic relations.
But this should not be taken as indicating any weakening in our enduring friendship with Israel. As we like to say in this government, sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend facing existential threats on all sides is to single it out for public criticism while cozying up to its mortal enemy. And besides, it’s not as if we’re not also selling arms to Saudi Arabia.
----------------------------------------------
Sniper round?
- Reaction score
- 4,708
- Points
- 1,160
By "homes" I think he means "shacks", and although people were moved (with no notice), they were rehoused elsewhere in the base, pretty sure.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
As for Syria, neo-colonialism anyone? Iran already has Iraq--and perhaps Russia in Syria as a comment suggests:
As for Canada (Andrew Coyne did it better, noted in "Comments"):
Mark
Ottawa
As for Canada (Andrew Coyne did it better, noted in "Comments"):
Mark
Ottawa
Similar threads
