http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/06/25/514186-cp.html

Canada to reduce global military role

By STEPHEN THORNE

KABUL (CP) - Canada will reduce it's overseas military deployments to just 1,200 personnel by fall, down from 4,500 a year ago, the chief of defence staff said on a stopover Friday in advance of next week's NATO summit in Turkey.

Gen. Ray Henault said deep cuts in troop commitments to its two biggest NATO missions - Afghanistan and Bosnia - and the withdrawal of naval ships from the Persian Gulf, will give the country's armed forces a much-needed respite. "It's all with the view to allowing the force to renew itself, to regenerate and be ready for whatever comes next," said Henault, who was visiting Canadian members of the International Security Assistance Force. "It will put us on a solid footing for future international commitments."

In a wide-ranging interview, Henault said the number of troops in Bosnia is currently down to 650 from 1,250 and will be fewer than 100 observers and surveillance troops supporting a European Union mission by September. There will continue to be nominal deployments in Africa, the Middle East and Haiti, where an infantry company will be reduced to a couple of UN staff officers by September. The biggest immediate change will come in Kabul, where the current contingent of 2,300 infantry and mechanized soldiers - the city's largest foreign troop presence - will be replaced by two successive rotations of about 900 troops, most of them armoured reconnaissance soldiers.

The back-to-back, six-month rotations will mark a big change for the Canadians, who currently have two generals deployed, one of them leading the entire NATO mission in Afghanistan and the other heading its 35-country brigade element. Canada turns over the reins to Eurocorps in mid-August. But, as the only country making year-long commitments to ISAF, it is widely expected it won't be the last time Canadians lead the multinational security mission. Henault said he expects Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan "for years" to come, likely expanding their numbers again in 13-months' time. Canada's overall role will probably evolve into non-military areas like judicial reconstruction, police training and re-establishing self-sufficient security systems, he said.

Meanwhile, Canadian troops won't necessarily be limited to the capital and neighbouring areas. They will likely venture beyond in the form of a provincial reconstruction team - a small contingent, with big logistical demands, deployed as a security and training force in smaller cities, probably late next year. And NATO needs the help.

Over the last year, the number of countries participating in ISAF has fluctuated from 34 about a year ago down to 23 and back up to 35. That has confounded efforts to plan expansion of the 6,000-plus ISAF force and expand its mandate outside of the Kabul area. At the summit, NATO is expecting member countries to pony up support for the Afghan mission while U.S. forces spearhead the battle against Taliban-led rebels whose resurgence could threaten the country with a return to chaos.

http://www.canada.com/owensound/story.html?id=c117a114-de31-4024-b511-e1f4cbc9b421

Training isn't the problem

Politics, not a lack of skills, is why our troops are leaving Kabul

Lewis MacKenzie

The Ottawa Citizen

June 25, 2004

Canada turned down a U.S. request last week to extend the tour of our 2,000 soldiers in Kabul until the fall so they could provide a rapid-reaction force during the Afghan elections in September. It's necessary to have such a force on standby to move throughout Afghanistan to deal with the inevitable attempts by terrorists and certain warlords to interfere with the democratic process.

Unfortunately, it was left to a junior Defence department spokesman to explain why Canada would not agree to the U.S. request: "What the Americans are looking for is not exactly what our troops are trained for."

This need not have been such a highly embarrassing admission, as it is blatantly untrue. There are reasons why our contingent is incapable of taking on such a role, but it has nothing to do with a lack of training. On the contrary, they are the best-trained troops for such a mission in the multinational force.

In 2001, immediately following the 9/11 attacks, then-prime minister Jean Chretien pledged that we would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our U.S. friends in the war on terror, starting with the dispatch of the 3rd battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to join the U.S. brigade operating out of Kandahar.

Unfortunately, he neglected to tell President George W. Bush that we would only be with them for six months. As the alarm went off indicating the six months were up, he brought the battalion home, indicating that we did not have the resources to replace or extend the 800 soldiers.

Yet a few months later, when it looked like the U.S. was going to intervene in Iraq and Canada would be asked to participate, Mr. Chretien ordered 4,000 soldiers (2,000 per six-month mission) to serve with the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul for a year. Magically, the soldiers were found (and conveniently the shelves were emptied for any potential Canadian contribution to Iraq).

Canada would not be directly involved in the war on terror, but would contribute to the establishment of some degree of security in and around Kabul. This would help Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government survive, at least in the capital, as his movements outside of Kabul are few and far between due to the risks involved.

Regrettably, a considerable degree of inflexibility was built into the organization of the Canadian contingent and a very un-Canadian solution was chosen. It was decided that the soldiers would live in a large encampment with creature comforts previously unknown and deemed unnecessary on other missions -- Internet cafe, exercise tents, individual living compartments, a sewer and water system, extensive air-conditioning, etc.

Despite the fact that Afghanistan qualified as an operational theatre, civilian contractors were brought in to run the logistics support system for the soldiers. Meals, accommodation, ammunition control, overall maintenance of vehicles and equipment were all centralized in a static civilian component that could not deploy outside of Kabul.

Erroneously assuming that the Canadian mission to Afghanistan would not change and that the umbilical cord to the civilian supply system would always be available, the infantry battalion was required to leave behind in Canada its own internal supply capability provided by its service support company -- which normally provides the services offered by the civilian contractors in a more austere manner, but is considerably more flexible and mobile and can deploy into high-risk areas.

I can appreciate that our government might not want to respond positively to the recent U.S. request. To do so would mean that we would take on an expanded role that would see our soldiers move throughout Afghanistan during the election process to confront any attempts to interfere with the democratic process. Any increased support for the United States during the current election would be seen as a negative for the government, given its anti-U.S. Iraq policy rhetoric.

When National Defence was told to come up with an excuse for our not agreeing to the U.S. request for us to rejoin the war against terror, the response should not have been that our troops were not trained for such a role. An honest -- but politically unacceptable -- response would have gone something like this:

"Sorry, the need to find more savings in our defence budget forced us to contract out the logistics support for our soldiers to a static civilian organization and that restricts them to operations less than 70 kilometres from Kabul. We also have a massive administration and security overhead in Kabul, which means that out of our 2,000 personnel, only about 300 are available for taking any potential fight to the enemy. That reality is extremely unfortunate because the 3rd Battalion Royal 22 Regiment soldiers in their light infantry role would be as good as any elite unit in the world at tracking down and eliminating the terrorists who would threaten the election process and the security of Afghanistan. They spend most of their time training for such a task and would prefer it to patrolling the streets of Kabul."

The lessons we can learn from this are: (1) we should think of our soldiers' morale and pride when politically correct excuses are made for all the world to see; and, (2) we should not fool around with the well-proven organization of an infantry battalion on the assumption that a particular role in a particular mission area will not change. It will, as it should but can't in Afghanistan.

Lewis MacKenzie is a retired major-general in the Canadian Forces.

The effects of Political correctness on Canada's military

"Do you know against what type of men you'll have to fight? We who dine on sharpened swords and drink down blazing tourches as our wine. Then for dessert they bring us broken Cretan darts and splintered pike shafts. Our pillows are shields and breastplates and beside our feet  lie bows and slings. We crown ourselves with catapult wreaths."  - Mnesimachus, Macedonian playwrite- 350 BC.  

Hardly alone:

"countries are contributing to the mission in Afghanistan: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey"

despite what the media and Hollywood projects, the US very seldom goes to war alone. Off the top of my head, I'd say Panama would be it. Even Operation Urgent Fury was done with the agreement and support of allies in the Carribbean. Operation Just Cause is the only unilateral military engagement involving ground troops the U.S. has launched.

"Do you know against what type of men you'll have to fight? We who dine on sharpened swords and drink down blazing tourches as our wine. Then for dessert they bring us broken Cretan darts and splintered pike shafts. Our pillows are shields and breastplates and beside our feet  lie bows and slings. We crown ourselves with catapult wreaths."  - Mnesimachus, Macedonian playwrite- 350 BC.  

which is why I agree with this: "Time for form a new alliance based on a different premise with NEW partners. To hell with any country that doesn't have the moral clarity to see right from wrong and defend what is right."

But, I wanted to remind you and the other members that, despite what the media would like you to believe, America has never been, and will never be, alone.  She never will be. There will always be those who see Right from Wrong, and they will stand by her. Those who don't will either be dragged down by their own enemies within and without their borders, or will unfortunately, profit indirectly.

That's a nice sentiment, and I know there are people all over the world who love America. But just as 9/11 forced a new era upon us, it brought with it a new sense of hatred for my country. Granted, not everything we have done has been good. But name a country who has done ONLY good. Nothing we did as a nation deserved that. Nothing.

The people who live in Normandy, France are very nice people and generally sympathetic to the U.S. Their Gov't on the other hand, hates us with a passion,as do most frenchmen. TRANSLATION: No help. The same maybe true of Canada. Even if most Canadians don't hate us, the Canadian Gov't is the one calling the shots. THEY don't like the U.S. right now. TRANSLATION: Dwindling help. If the equivalent of 9/11 happened to Canada, or England or hell, even FRANCE, there would be several million people ready to head north to help out, with arms, if need be. Thats just who we are. We believe in fighting for what is right, even if we're wrong about the situation. We are generous with our money and our might. I guess I'm just frustrated others aren't willing to do the same to the same extent.

"Do you know against what type of men you'll have to fight? We who dine on sharpened swords and drink down blazing tourches as our wine. Then for dessert they bring us broken Cretan darts and splintered pike shafts. Our pillows are shields and breastplates and beside our feet  lie bows and slings. We crown ourselves with catapult wreaths."  - Mnesimachus, Macedonian playwrite- 350 BC.