The Torch

Rebuilding capabilities!

2008-07-24T12:59:00.002-04:00

June 26, 2008 - Cold Lake, Alberta

The Air Force will soon have strategic air-to-air refuelling (SAAR) capability View of a modified CC-150 Polaris (or Airbus A-310) refuelling a CF-18 Hornet. The CC-150T (tanker) aircraft is being tested and evaluated at 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta for this purpose.

Canada’s Air Force has not had this capability since it retired its fleet of CC-137 (Boeing 707) aircraft in 1997.

Photo : Master Corporal Paul Green

It's complicated...

2008-07-24T11:52:00.002-04:00

A better story about Natynczyk's views, and a better editorial position about those views.

It is both refreshing and encouraging to see print journalism that acknowledges complexity and doesn't simply play 'gotcha!' with its subject.

Nanook of the North

2008-07-24T09:47:00.002-04:00

The exercise, that is:

The 5,000-ton Canadian warship that fought piracy while cruising around the entire continent of Africa last year may be ill-equipped for its own Arctic waters.

Ice chunks, oil spills and mechanical problems due to cold, slushy water are just some of the worries of HMCS Toronto naval captains when the ship heads to the Arctic next month for a sovereignty mission.

"I don't expect I'll sleep a lot when we're operating in the Arctic," Commander Alex Grant said yesterday while making a presentation to about 20 academics at the Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies.

The ship may be loaded with modern missiles, guns and first-rate surveillance technology, but it has no ice capabilities.

So when the 235-member crew goes north, they'll be completely reliant on the Canadian Coast Guard's icebreakers, Grant said.

The naval ship will participate in Operation Nanook, a joint mission starting Aug. 11 with the Canadian navy, army and air forces, in close co-operation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Coast Guard [more details at this link].

"We'll be recording all the information about the activity that's going on around us," said Angus Topshee, executive officer of HMCS Toronto.

The operation will also involve exercises to practise a full-scale search and rescue mission, a fuel spill and a hostage-taking.

"We'll pretend to be a cruise ship and provide a hostage," Topshee said.

He said the operation is part of a broader strategy to establish a larger military presence in Canada's north.

"There is a presence, and it's a presence I think needs to grow."..

Afstan: Slow US surge?

2008-07-24T09:32:00.004-04:00

I'd still like to know when that American battalion will be assigned to Regional Command South:

Top Pentagon leaders are expected to recommend soon that Defense Secretary Robert Gates order hundreds of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan over the next month or so, according to a senior military official.

The units are likely to be small and could include engineers, ordnance disposal troops and other support forces needed to shore up fighting needs and the training of Afghan forces. Officials have not ruled out identifying a larger, brigade-sized unit before the end of the year that could either be shifted to Afghanistan from a planned deployment to Iraq or moved from some other location.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have been asking for three combat brigades, or roughly 10,000 more troops, to help quash rising violence there.

The senior official, who requested anonymity because the proposals are not public, said the recommendations have not yet been approved by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or delivered to Gates. The Joint Chiefs and military commanders are reviewing a number of options.

Last week Gates said he is hoping to address some of those requirements sooner rather than later.

On Wednesday [July 23], Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said that any sizable increase in troop levels in Afghanistan may not come until the new administration takes over next year [emphasis added].

Any decision to shift large units such as combat brigades into Afghanistan after they've been preparing to go to Iraq later this year would take additional training and time, Morrell said...

More (seem to be rather mixed signals):

...
The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan had in many ways failed to recognize that the violence amounted to an insurgency, and it has struggled to get its arms around the fight. Now, recognition is increasing that the violence must be countered with a proper counterinsurgency strategy, but there are no simple solutions. Mounting such a strategy will be challenging in Afghanistan, where the NATO-led mission has a labyrinthine command structure made up of 40 countries with divergent political and military views. In Iraq, one top American commander essentially calls the shots.

Pentagon officials are considering significant changes to the command structure in the NATO-led mission. In the coming weeks, the US four-star general who leads the NATO command, Gen. David McKiernan, will probably be given a new command relationship with US Central Command in Florida [emphasis added]. The aim is to give a more cohesive, if not American, influence on the mission.

"With everything that we face, I think that has to happen. It's going to streamline," says one senior military officer who didn't want his name used because he was commenting on an active proposal.

And in a sign that the United States is still pushing for more control of the troubled southern sector of the country, where the fight against the Taliban and other "anticoalition militias" is the most violent, the US is considering installing a new deputy commander to work under the NATO commanders there [emphasis added--more on command issues here] to help focus efforts. These and other proposed changes to the command structure would help "clean up the spaghetti sandwich," as one retired officer put it...

Still, in the end, more troops will be necessary in Afghanistan, military experts and analysts say. The first of those three brigades, possibly amounting to more than 10,000 troops, could be deployed by the end of this year [emphasis added], defense officials say.

But the senior military officer says no decision on troops will probably be made until October [emphasis added], when Gen. David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq, will make a final assessment, before leaving that post, about the number of troops necessary for Iraq. That assessment will largely determine what size force can be deployed to Afghanistan, where there are now about 63,000 troops – about half American...

Greater restrictions on air strikes in Afstan

2008-07-23T14:55:00.002-04:00

Will the anti-combat types notice? Our media? And note who's killing most of the civilians:

Dawn was breaking over Afghanistan one day this month as Air Force surveillance planes locked in on a top-ranking insurgent commander as he traveled in secret around Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban.

But as attack aircraft were summoned overhead to strike, according to a recounting of the mission by Air Force commanders, the Taliban leader entered a building. Intelligence specialists scrambled to determine whether civilians were inside. Weapons experts calculated what bomb could destroy the structure with the least damage.

It had taken the American military many days to identify, track and target the senior Taliban officer. But the risk of civilian deaths was deemed too high. Air Force commanders, working with military lawyers, aborted the mission. The Taliban leader escaped.

“We miss the opportunity, but the beauty of what we do is we will get them eventually,” said Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, commander of American and allied air forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia. “We will continue to track them. Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve — within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under — and we will get them.”

In interviews at the air operations headquarters in Southwest Asia, American and allied commanders said that even as orders for air attacks in Afghanistan had increased significantly this year, their ability to strike top insurgent leaders from the air was severely restricted by rules intended to minimize civilian casualties.

The rules that govern dropping bombs and firing missiles are far more restrictive now in Afghanistan than in Iraq, senior Pentagon and military officials say.

The rules of engagement were reviewed and tightened in 2007 after a spate of civilian casualties, under Gen. Dan K. McNeill, then the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, and reviewed and revised again in April, officials said [emphasis added].

American commanders acknowledge that civilian casualties undermine support for the NATO-led stability mission exactly at a time when the Taliban is experiencing a potent resurgence across the country. They say Afghan officials, including President Hamid Karzai, routinely complain about civilian deaths in meetings with Americans.

Military officers also acknowledge that their control over airstrikes is reduced when crews scramble to help NATO contingents under attack.

But air commanders say they have a commitment to support ground forces in trouble. Only last weekend, nine Afghan police officers were killed in western Afghanistan when Afghan and United States forces called in airstrikes on the officers, thinking they were militants.

According to the United Nations, 698 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year, compared with 430 in the same period last year. The United Nations report said nearly two-thirds of the deaths this year resulted from actions by the Taliban and other insurgents [emphasis added]. The remainder were attributed to actions by Afghan government, American or allied forces...

Note also that if fatalities continue at the current rate there will be some 1,400 for the whole year. In Iraq, with a smaller population, there were 27,538 civilian deaths in 2006 according to Iraq Body Count (see "Monthly table")--and even this year, after the surge, there have been 4,875 there.

So, when you see media stories saying civilian deaths in Afstan are up 50%, take the context into consideration.

Bomb, bomb, bomb--bomb Pakistan!

2008-07-23T09:28:00.002-04:00

I wonder what the great majority of Canadians who say they support Barack Obama think about this:

...Well, what I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaida targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should...

And, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why a surge in Iraq was not a Good Thing but a surge in Afstan is a Good Thing:

...I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase. And I for at least a year now have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three...

Afstan: The Globe and Mail manufactures a story undercutting our mission

2008-07-22T15:25:00.008-04:00

A front-page (why?) non-story created to suit the paper's agenda:

Canada's once-lofty Afghan goals downgraded, defence files show

The Globe manufactured the story by comparing a February 2007 memo from then-CDS Gen. Hillier's office, obtained under Access to Information, with broad government priorities outlined in June 2008. Though the story purports to discover telling discrepancies between the two, it's really an apples and oranges thing--unless the story is also maintaining that the CDS's office set government policy as a whole. As Alain Pellerin, Colonel (Ret'd), Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations, writes:

...this February 2007 CDS directive was meant to “provide overarching military strategic guidance for the conduct of operations in Afghanistan” to the Canadian Forces, while the goals set out in the government website links above describe the Canadian government’s stated goals for the mission in Kandahar until 2011. Furthermore, in February 2007 the Canadian Forces had just participated in Operation Medusa in fall 2006, and the Canadian government’s goals in Afghanistan were not fully articulated...

Moreover the story makes much of this:

...
Now, a key focus of the Harper government's strategy in Kandahar is turning over responsibilities for maintaining order and fighting insurgents to local army and police. The Tories said in their June statement of priorities that they plan to "maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police."..

Some "now". That was the announced policy exactly a year ago. No change there. Funny that the story doesn't mention that. What's the blinking big deal? Unless one is trying to give the impression that there has been some great and recent policy shift that shows weaknesses in the mission.

And how come the Globe reporter didn't remember that his paper (along with much of the media) made a huge stink last year about fabricated differences between Gen. Hillier and then-MND O'Connor over how rapidly the Afghans could assume that greater combat role?

Globe really has its guns out
Media create fake war: Hillier et al. vs. O'Connor

The Globe and Mail, committing "journalism" yet again.

Meanwhile, the Toronto Star (!?!) cuts CDS Gen. Natynczyk some slack in an editorial. Go figure.

Update: Yet the next day the Globe publishes a reasonable editorial; really go figure:

CANADA IN AFGHANISTAN
Staying the course with realistic goals

Plus an excellent letter:

Afghan aspirations

ERIC MORSE
July 23, 2008

Toronto -- A question for James Laxer (It's Time To Recalibrate Canada's Mission - July 22): Since when are identical values, legal or otherwise, a prerequisite for military alliance? The Karzai government is no worse (by our standards) than most Afghan regimes have been in terms of values and is considerably better than the Taliban one it replaced.

The assumption that Canada is in Afghanistan to impose our value system on a society that does not accept it is both false and pernicious. We are there to ensure that a political and strategic vacuum is not once again filled by a regime that is a dedicated enemy of the West and its values. Progress in other directions is a necessary part of that process, but it is not the strategic objective.

Values cannot be imposed by any outside force, though local values can be temporarily suppressed by force and fear. As for withdrawing because Afghan values are not ours, if perfection is your only standard, you will be forever disappointed. Indeed, you might as well go home.

Air Force speakers available

2008-07-22T15:17:00.001-04:00

From their Speakers Bureau:

Looking for a speaker to enhance your next event?

"A'stan: shifting messages, messaging shifts"

2008-07-22T15:14:00.001-04:00

Media round-up from Conference of Defence Associations.

Looks like Strategic Advisory Team in Kabul being demilitarized

2008-07-21T16:01:00.002-04:00

Pity. Excerpt from an article (p.26, Conference of Defence Associations Institute ON TRACK magazine - summer 2008) by Dr. Nipa Banerjee, who headed Canada’s development and aid program in Kabul (2003-06)--currently teaching international development at the University of Ottawa with frequent travel to Kabul:

...mention [must be made] of the contribution made by Canada through the work in Kabul of the Strategic Advisory Team (SAT) from the Department of National Defence (DND). Members of this team were placed within operational program units of the Government of Afghanistan to provide very basic organizational, management, and planning advice on day-to-day activities at the working level. This enabled Afghan government offi cials at operational levels to learn by doing. Through the provision of demand-driven services and the adoption of a low-key approach, SAT had earned a fair amount of success.

Before SAT could prove if it would leave a permanent imprint on the building of sustainable capacity, its life was cut short as the Canadian government took the decision to replace the DND SAT with a civilian crew. While there is the potential of the inclusion of a few of our CF colleagues in the new team, the strength of a well-disciplined commander-led team will be missed. The value added of a DND team lay in the deployment of disciplined teams, well-trained and supervised to deliver at the operational levels. Based on my personal experience, such high standards are not expected from civil servants or contracted civilian personnel, and even less encouraged. In addition, the reality is that CF personnel, for obvious reasons, are less reticent to being deployed in posts with difficult security. It has not been easy for CIDA to recruit seasoned and experienced staff for Afghanistan. On the other hand, SAT has not had a dearth of experienced officers for placement.

While acknowledging the differences in cultures of the three departments – diplomacy, defence and development – and the difficulties of coordinating a single Canadian national mission that this might cause, in the interest of best impact, more time and effort could have been devoted to the provision of assistance at the working levels of the Afghan government through the SAT. When we work in the context of enormous and unprecedented constraints, only unprecedented efforts can help us to build on our successes, however limited they are...

Air Force news

2008-07-21T15:10:00.004-04:00

Some information from a good authority:

Afghan commitment: By the end of the year there will likely by some 700 Air Force personnel (vice 350 now) committed to the mission, at Camp Mirage and in Afghanistan. Air Force engineers are currently overseeing some of the road building being done by Afghans as Army engineers are stretched.

Chinooks: CH-47Ds will be put into service direct from the US Army in Afstan; they'll be flying early next year. Our personnel are now training on them in the US and will continue training with the US Army in Afstan. The Ds are only an interim acquisition, not an addition the Fs we will get later. The Ds will be sold, or traded back to the US.

C-130Js: We have managed with US cooperation to arrange for early delivery, with the first aircraft scheduled to arrive in early 2010 (an improvement from very late 2010) and more in the fall. Completion of deliveries should take around two years.

Fixed-wing SAR aircraft: Specifications for bidding are being solidified. H Hercules will take over aerial SAR in most of Canada from Es as the latter are retired; there will be no gap in the capability.

Northern Utility Aircraft: The Twotters at Yellowknife will be in service until 2015; replacement for them is not linked to the fixed-wing SAR aircraft acquisition.

Snowbirds: It's planned to keep the Tutors flying until 2015.

UAV piloting: This will be done by Air Combat Systems Officers, the new designation for navigators, not pilots. ACSOs will also manage UAV missions.

More on the Integrated Soldier System Project

2008-07-21T11:17:00.002-04:00

You'll recall that just over a month ago we pointed our readers to a story about the ISSP by the Canadian Press, and added our own contribution by way of a MERX Opportunity Abstract.

In today's Ottawa Citizen, David Pugliese provides some additional detail:

The $310-million program would provide equipment not only to allow troops to track each other as they move throughout the battlefield, but feed communications and targeting information into their helmets or to a small personal data device they would each carry.

The Integrated Soldier System Project has received approval from Defence Minister Peter MacKay and will now proceed to Treasury Board to get the OK for initial funding. The project is expected to unfold over the next 10 years with various changes in the gear being brought in as technology improves.

...

Mr. Walsh said the technological needs of the project may require a number of companies to join forces to meet the military's requirements.

He said the Canadian Forces is not looking to get locked into one type of technology, but will be introducing the equipment in cycles so it can take advantage of developments as they come. For instance, new technology might provide a lightweight fuel cell troops could carry to power their equipment.

That ability to deal with retrofits and expansion in a modular way is just smart planning. Good on the CF for pushing it in that direction.

This is going to be interesting to watch as it develops.

Slowly, slowly

2008-07-21T10:03:00.002-04:00

This story isn't strictly relevant to the CF, but it illustrates some concepts central to the coalition effort in Afghanistan. It's about the rescue of a kidnap victim - an ordinary Afghan farmer:

A young Afghan man’s prayers were finally answered July 17 when a team of Afghan National Army Commandos and U.S. Special Operations forces freed him from captivity after discovering him shackled near a Taliban jail in the village of Parmakan in Western Afghanistan’s Herat province.

The Commandos, with assistance from the SOF troops, were searching a compound where Taliban commander Nangialia Khan was known to have been when they discovered a building the Taliban had been using as a jail. Locals say that Khan and his men routinely take hostages from the villages and then demand a ransom for their release.

...

Freedom finally came when the Commandos and USSOF troops came bursting through the door of the Taliban jail and discovered Mohammad and 15 other Afghan men who were being held in deplorable conditions.

...

Mohammad said he was infuriated to know that his money would have paid for a cause he did not believe in. “The Taliban use the ransom money to pay for their fighting,” he said. “I wouldn’t have wanted my money to pay for the destruction of my country and the killing of my people.”

After their rescue, the hostages were taken to a nearby ANA Commando base where they received food, water and medical attention. They were then set free to go home and reunite with their families.

“I am extremely happy that that my country came to rescue me from that jail. It was horrible there with sixteen men crammed into one tiny room with no food and water, just pain,” Mohammad said. “Now I can go see my wife and get back to my farm.”

One Commando who participated in the operation was honored to be a part of mission that so clearly benefited his people. “We went in to destroy some Taliban and we were successful at that,” he said. “Not only did we rid this area of many bad men, but we saved the lives of many good.” [Babbler's emphasis]

Note that the foreign special forces (U.S. in this case) were supporting the Afghan commandos. Capacity-building with the ANSF like our OMLT and POMLT teams are doing works. It's not quick, but it's the long-term solution to Afghan security problems.

Note that the rescued Afghan understood that it was his countrymen coming to rescue him. When you build capacity that works, it gives ordinary Afghans confidence in their government and institutions. That helps promote good governance, because it solidifies the covenant between the government and the people. Consent to be governed is an essential thing in a stable country.

Note that the rescued Afghan would have been pissed off to see any money go to the insurgents trying to stunt his country's progress. When you're getting good governance, you tend not to want someone else screwing that up.

I'd say it's two steps forward and one step back, but as the good folks at OPFOR have said in the past, it's more like ten steps forward and nine steps back at a time.

Slowly, slowly...

Afstan: New CDS tries to square the circle

2008-07-21T08:03:00.003-04:00

General Walter Natynczyk attempts to deal with the fallout from what he recently said in Kandahar:

Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff has acknowledged that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse and more troops are required in the face of mounting Taliban attacks aimed at derailing next year's Afghan election.

General Walter Natynczyk faced criticism last week when he dismissed the growing violence in the Kandahar region as “insignificant” during a tour of the country, in spite of claims to the contrary by observers and other NATO countries.

But he's now offering a far more sombre analysis, stepping back from his previously upbeat picture of security in the country.

“We have two contrasting pictures here. On the one hand, what I got from the people in Kabul is a worsening security situation across the country. That is really clear,” Gen. Natynczyk said in an interview broadcast yesterday on CTV's Question Period. Specifically, he said, the situation is getting worse in Kabul, in eastern Afghanistan where U.S. forces have the lead and in southern Afghanistan where Canadian troops are based.

“On the other hand, when I was in Kandahar from the soldiers' perspective, what they see are localized fragile signs of success. Very, very localized,” he said...

...the general said that a U.S. battalion is on its way to help in the south [emphasis added--I'd like to see the details about the battalion - MC], he noted that a surge in military strength in Iraq had “a significant, positive effect.”

The comments from Canada's top military leader come as military observers have been questioning why recent Canadian analysis of the Afghan situation has been relatively upbeat compared with increasingly dire reports from Americans.

Canadian officials had suggested that recent incidents of violence were to be expected because of the time of year. But the general now says the spate of attacks is part of a larger Taliban campaign aimed at next year's election in Afghanistan.

“There's a sense the Taliban are throwing everything against the Afghan government and ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] in the work up to the election which will take place next year,” he said.

Western officials say Kandahar province has not been an exception to the general trend of deteriorating security in southern Afghanistan.

But the general's comments about localized improvements within the province reflect the views of Canadian military officers who say they have reduced Taliban activity in a limited number of locations such as Pashmul, a cluster of villages 15 kilometres west of Kandahar city.

Such zones of relative security are geographically limited, however; another group of villages known as Ashokay, only a few kilometres east of Pashmul, has become a notorious hideout for insurgents.

Nor has the Canadian military effort of the past two years pushed the insurgents farther away from Kandahar city, since some of the air strikes against suspected Taliban positions in the past few days have targeted locations near Zala Khan, only 10 kilometres south of the city limits...

Video of the CTV interview is here. Bit of a shaky start, I'd say.

Afstan: Not too Fighting French

2008-07-20T16:57:00.006-04:00

The expectation of a commitment to a combat role seems rather less than what one might have hoped for:

...
Defence Minister Herve Morin visited Karzai after arriving on a surprise two-day trip to meet French reinforcements deploying to a base near Kabul as part of a NATO-led force battling Taliban and other insurgents.

In their talks, Morin "assured his government stands by the people of Afghanistan," Kazai's office said in a statement...

Morin later flew to Kapisa, northeast of Kabul, to meet soldiers from an extra battalion of about 700 soldiers deploying at a base there that also has Afghan and US troops, an AFP reporter said.

France announced reinforcements to NATO's 40-nation International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in April and the soldiers started arriving this month, taking to about 2,000 the number of French soldiers in Afghanistan.

They are due to be in place by the end of next month. Kapisa province, which adjoins Kabul, does not suffer the regular insurgent violence plaguing southern Afghanistan [emphasis added], but has seen some attacks...

About half of the French soldiers in ISAF are in Kabul. Some 170 are in the southern city of Kandahar, where France has stationed six fighter aircraft for air support in efforts against the Taliban.

The French military is also helping to train Afghan army officers and their special forces...

Most of the French troops will come from the 8th Regiment of Marine Infantry Paratroops. More here and here.

Note this from the first "here" link:

A ce jour, 2 cargos ont été affrétés ainsi qu’une cinquantaine de vols d’avions très gros porteurs Antonov 124 (via le contrat SALIS de l’OTAN [yet, amazingly, NATO is also acquiring C-17s--must be a reason]) et C5 Galaxy.

That oh so useful USAF strategic lift. Then there were the good old days:

...
Charles De Gaulle set a plan to bring together the different groups under his leadership. He changed the name of his movement to Forces Françaises Combattantes (Fighting French Forces)...

Northern problems with UAVS

2008-07-18T15:58:00.003-04:00

I have been suggesting UAVs could be very useful for Arctic surveillance (see end of this post). I have however become aware of three key problems that substantially restrict their usefulness in the north:

*poor communications via satellite north of 60
* icing issues
*poor instrument landing capability (visibility is an obvious constraint in the north).

Babbler's Update: In the comments, Freelance Writer points to an article in Vanguard magazine a few years ago that lays out some of the conflicting issues in an all-too-short piece that nonetheless covers quite a bit of intellectual ground. Worth reading, IMO.

Pilot program at Portage

2008-07-17T16:57:00.009-04:00

I have learned that the Air Force is experimenting with a new approach to pilot training to supplement what is done at Moose Jaw. Primary training remains at Portage la Prairie using the Grob 120A (there's a new training factility at Portage with extensive private sector involvement, as at the NATO Flying Training Centre at Moose Jaw).

In the past all who passed primary training then went on to Moose Jaw to train on Harvards IIs; after that a selection was made between those who would go back to Portage (multi-engine, helicopters) and those who would go to fighters--further Harvard and Hawk training at Moose Jaw and then to Cold Lake for yet more Hawk and then Hornet training.

Now some pilots will not go on to Moose Jaw after primary training but will do further Grob training and then move directly on to multis or helos (when courses are available) at Portage. In other words, those who do not move to Moose Jaw have been eliminated as possible fighter pilots after primary training, with a further selection made amongst the rest at Moose Jaw.

I presume eliminating the Harvard phase for some pilots will speed up their training appreciably. And it would seem that the advanced new facilities at Portage will make it easier for those who do not go to Moose Jaw nonetheless to develop their flying skills:

...
With six classrooms, 42 briefing rooms, two boardrooms, a theatre, flight planning centre, fitness centere, reference library, ceremonies hall, several flight simulators positioned throughout, and top-notch flight training, the facility is already earning international respect. The complex is also wired for interactive training and distance learning...
The facility will offer 36 different courses, including primary flying training, multi-engine training, helicopter training, and refresher courses. Under its contract, Allied Wings, which includes a consortium of Canadian companies, will provide 22 years of flight training and the aircraft required for the training-including nine Grob G120A aircraft for primary flying training and seven Raytheon King Air C-90Bs for multi-engine flying training. It will also convert seven Bell 206 Jet Rangers and de-militarize nine Bell 412 Griffon helicopters from the CF for helicopter training.
"The type of training will involve a lot more advanced training than we've been able to do in the past, especially working with larger, more complex aircraft," said LCol Palmer. "Developing new courseware for the new technologies has been our biggest challenge but other than that it's been a smooth ride."..

And it's worth noting that some pilots, after serving on multis, helos or fighters, are later able to switch communities.

More here:

Air Force pilot problems

Update: Thanks to the "Comments" I should clarify that some students simply choose themselves to continue on at Portage directly to multis or helos. Did not intend to give the impression that fighters were more important or that any majority of students were aiming for them.

RIMPAC 2008: Navy fires torpedoes and missiles

2008-07-17T15:31:00.004-04:00

Looks like an interesting exercise (more info here); some of the action, via David Pulgiese's blog:

These two items came in from the Navy regarding the ongoing Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises:

An Australian sub was on the receiving end of several Canadian Mark 46 torpedoes [couldn't find a Canadian link - MC] during the RIMPAC exercises earlier this week. Canadian sailors and air crews on Her Majesty's Canadian ships Ottawa and Regina prepped their Mark 46 exercise torpedoes and on Tuesday, each ship and a CH-124 Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopter fired a total of four exercise torpedoes against the sub.

The Australian diesel submarine was operating within a specific depth range, and the torpedoes were fired at a different depth to avoid physical contact. The different depths ensured the safety of the crewmembers of the target submarine.

The firings took place in Barstur Range within the Pacific Missile Firing Range (PMFR) in Hawaiian waters. Barstur Range has hydrophones strategically placed within its 12 by 14 nautical mile area to "hear" where the torpedoes go, thereby allowing PMFR analysts to calculate whether each shot was a "hit" or "miss."

Canadian ships have conducted similar firings at Barstur Range in the past against U.S. Navy nuclear submarines. This year's event was unique in that it not only involved firing on a different nation's submarine, which evaded detection using unique tactics and procedures, but the event was against a diesel submarine, which is a quieter and consequently harder to find, especially closer to shore where such boats have the greatest advantage.

Anti-submarine warfare is a focus for RIMPAC, the world's largest maritime exercise taking place in the waters off Hawaii. During the final week, six submarines will join other warships and aircraft to form the "opposing force", whose mission is to breach the defensive perimeter of the friendly forces. At specified periods and under pre-scripted conditions, the two forces will hunt for each other by sea and air over vast ocean areas, simulating complex, multi-threat "kinetic engagements" upon discovery.

THIS ALSO IN FROM RIMPAC:

NAVY CO-ORDINATES HARPOON MISSILE LAUNCHES AGAINST SHIP

Canadian sailors in Her Majesty's Canadian ships Ottawa and Regina have taken their place in Canadian Navy history. Yesterday, Halifax-class frigates Ottawa and Regina each fired two Harpoon anti-ship missiles at a decommissioned Navy ship under controlled conditions at the Pacific Missile Firing Range off Hawaii. The coordinated Harpoon launch is a first for the Canadian Navy.

"The coordinated harpoon fire marks the most advanced firing of its kind by the Canadian Navy," said Canadian Lieut-Cmdr. Steven Thorton of the Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre (CFMWC), who was "front and centre" for the test fire on board HMCS Ottawa. "CFMWC will use the results of both ship's test fires to better understand Halifax-class capability to cooperate in anti-surface warfare."

Harpoon missiles would be used against surface combatants who pose an imminent threat to a naval task group. Two missiles coming at a hostile ship from two different directions simultaneously introduces an increased level of difficulty for the enemy ship to defend against. The ship must choose which missile to intercept, which increases the chance of at least one missile getting through the ship's defensive perimeter. The importance of a coordinated fire is to overwhelm the hostile ship's defenses, thereby disabling the hostile ship's ability to maneuver and return fire.

"At the moment of firing, it was very stressful. The firing of a live weapon is different than in training mode as it fires two to three seconds slower than in training, so I was thinking that there was a problem," said Petty Officer, First Class Keith Macfarlane, HMCS Ottawa's Above Water Warfare Director. "I was glad when it launched."

Canadian naval ships have had Harpoon missiles for more than a decade, and have fired them before, but never a coordinated live firing, where two or more ships fire simultaneously, as happened with HMC ships Ottawa and Regina.

Here's an image gallery of a frigate's weapons systems.

Update: Guns too (from an e-mail with the Maritime Forces Pacific Media Release:)

July 18, 2008
Release 06-08

CANADIAN SAILORS FIRE AT FAKE ISLAND

AT SEA, PACIFIC OCEAN - After Monday's historic coordinated harpoon firing and Tuesday's torpedo fire against an Australian submarine, Canadian sailors will find today's live fire event a bit different. Her Majesty's Canadian ship Ottawa and Regina, with warships from five other navies, will take their turn shooting at "Fake Island", a virtual, three-dimensional landmass at an instrumented range off of Hawaii. Each of the six navies' shots will be judged for accuracy, and a winner declared. The winner of today's live fire event will receive the coveted RIMPAC Naval Surface Fire Support Trophy.

"Adding a competitive twist to today's live fire event helps keep our sailors on track and their morale high after a busy week," said Canadian Commodore Nigel Greenwood, Sea Combat Commander, from the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. "Today's live fire event will be icing on the cake before we move to the final week of the exercise, where we test multi-national participants to ensure we have collectively learned from the operational phase what we need to execute our mission at sea."

Ships will be given a bearing, distance and altitude for the virtual target, a fake fuel depot. Specialized software on board will convert the information to aim at a specific point in the water. After the ship fires, the range's hydrophones, will "hear" where the shot lands. The resulting information is fed back through the software to judge whether the ship had "hit" or "missed" the fuel depot.

"Live fire exercises such as this one provide the most realistic training possible in peacetime," said Commodore Greenwood. "Sailors come to understand the effectiveness of - and gain confidence in - the employment of modern naval weapons and technology."

HMC ships Ottawa and Regina each have a 57 mm gun, a rapid fire defensive weapon normally used for anti-air or anti-surface engagements. In a littoral environment, the 57 mm gun allows Halifax Class frigates to defend against a shore based threat, thereby allowing them to stay on station and complete their mission. This is the first time a Halifax Class frigate has participated in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise's longstanding tradition.

Live fire exercises have been a focus during the operational phase of the multi-national Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), the world's largest maritime exercise [emphasis added], taking place in the waters off Hawaii. During the final week, six submarines will join other warships and aircraft to form the "opposing force", whose mission is to breach the defensive perimeter of the friendly forces. At specified periods and under pre-scripted conditions, the two forces will hunt for each other by sea and air over vast ocean areas, simulating complex, multi-threat "kinetic engagements" upon discovery. Multi-national exercises such as RIMPAC further Canadian Forces participants' combat and operational skills, continually enhancing Canada's contribution to global maritime security.

Canada has participated in every RIMPAC exercise since the first in 1971. This year's exercise involves ten nations, 35 ships, six submarines, over 150 aircraft and 20,000 military personnel. During the five-week event, RIMPAC participants will be put to the test in an intense series of drills and training that include live missile firings, torpedo firings, gunnery exercises, air defence, surface and undersea warfare, maritime interception operations, boardings, mine warfare, diving, and amphibious operations.

Upperdate: Photos, courtesy of Dave:

1. Lt. Josh Hall [aboard USS Kitty Hawk] gives a tour to pilots and enlisted personnel assigned to Canadian 409 Tactical Fighter Squadron.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61407

2. The executive officer of the Canadian frigate HMCS Regina (FFH 334) gives instructions to the crew before firing a missile.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61573

3. Sailors assigned to Her Majesty's Canadian frigate HMCS Regina (FF 334) perform a replenishment at sea.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61572

4. Soldiers assigned to the "Red Devils" of 1st Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry conduct physical training on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2008.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61567

5. The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina (FFH 334) steams off the coast of Hawaii during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2008.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61566

6. Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) The Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter and Canadian Navy Commodore Nigel Greenwood, center-right, the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise sea combat commander...

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61559

7. Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) The Honorable Dr. Donald C. Winter, left, and Canadian Navy Commodore Nigel Greenwood, the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise sea combat commander, discuss the surface warfare tactics used during RIMPAC...

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61558

8. THE MONEY SHOT! The Canadian frigate HMCS Regina (FFH 334) fires a Harpoon anti-ship missile during a Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) sinking exercise...

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61558

9. Canadian soldiers assigned to the "Red Devils" of A Co., 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, board the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) at Naval Station Pearl Harbor.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61213

10. The Canadian Halifax-class frigate HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341) transits the channel at Pearl Harbor to participate in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2008.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61134

11. The Canadian Halifax-class frigate HMCS Regina (FFH 334) leaves Pearl Harbor to participate in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2008.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61136

12. Canadian Sailors aboard the Canadian Halifax-class frigate HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341) handle mooring lines.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=61133

13. The Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Ottawa (FF 341) arrives at Naval Station Pearl Harbor for the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2008 exercise.

http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=60824

The right approach to Arctic "sovereignty"

2008-07-17T15:16:00.002-04:00

It's mainly a civilian issue with the Canadian Coast Guard having a major role; the military role is distinctly subsidiary:

...
Nobody disputes Canada's control over land [emphasis added] in the Arctic, where Inuit have lived for countless generations, or over our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone. As for the seabed beyond the EEZ, claims go through an international process.

Under the Law of the Sea, if a nation's continental shelf reaches out beyond 200 miles, it can take control of seabed resources in that area. But first it requires scientific evidence. Canada, Russia, Denmark, and other Arctic nations are now carrying out seismic studies and sea-bottom charting to delineate their continental shelves.

...The key question is control of shipping in the Northwest Passage.

As oil and mineral development increases and climate change reduces ice, more vessels will use the passage. That brings the potential for environmental damage and security risks.

Canada considers the Northwest Passage to be internal waters, under our control as the land is. The United States and European Union [emphasis added--it's not just those nasty Yanks, it's also those cuddly Euros] consider it an international strait.

If Canada believes the passage to be ours, how do we demonstrate our control? The obvious answers would seem to be regulation and enforcement. And Canada does have rules in place, but only to a degree.

The Marine Transportation Security Regulations oblige vessels over 100 gross tons to get clearance from Canada 96 hours before entering our territorial sea (a strip reaching out 12 miles from land).

On the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Canadian Coast Guard also operates mandatory reporting and monitoring systems. The Atlantic system, known as ECAREG, obliges incoming vessels over 500 gross tons to provide detailed safety and security information and to report in at certain checkpoints.

But a similar system in the Arctic, NORDREG, is only voluntary, not mandatory. Most larger vessels do report through NORDREG. But some don't.

They are still supposed to follow safety rules set under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. But enforcement or search and rescue becomes difficult if tracking is poor. And smaller vessels? Remember that the marine transportation regulations requiring clearance to enter our waters only apply to vessels over 100 tons.

In other words, larger vessels can enter the Northwest Passage with no obligation to report to NORDREG, and smaller vessels from abroad can come there with no requirement to report to anybody. There have been cases where foreign vessel operators tried to make their presence known and could find no one to report to.

This is far from being a clear demonstration of sovereignty.

Donat Pharand, emeritus professor of international law at the University of Ottawa, a renowned expert on such questions, told the Senate committee that Canada at present had a good claim to the Northwest Passage as internal waters. But he cautioned that increased use by foreign vessels could nudge the passage into the legal category of international strait.

Canada needs to exercise its control, he said, starting by making NORDREG compulsory.

Some may fear that doing so would strain relations with the United States. But in the past, the two countries have taken different views in the Arctic without serious friction.

Knowledgeable witnesses told the Senate committee that the U.S. may be less worried about Canada taking too much control in the Northwest Passage than taking too little: claiming jurisdiction without backing it up with proper regulation and enforcement...

The Senate committee, in an interim report on the Canadian Coast Guard in the Arctic, has now recommended that Canada make NORDREG compulsory. It also says that Coast Guard capability for shipping safety, pollution prevention, search and rescue, and other duties in the north needs a major build-up [the Conservative government at least plans one new large icebreaker].

[..]

Senator Bill Rompkey [a Liberal] is chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Here's a key recommendation of the Senate committee's report (p.46):

8. The Committee recommends the deployment of multi-mission polar icebreakers operated by the Coast Guard as a cost-effective solution to Canada’s surveillance and sovereignty patrol needs in the Arctic. Such vessels could serve as platforms in support of all at-sea Government of Canada programs and missions in the Arctic (e.g., security and enforcement, search and rescue, environmental, icebreaking, re-supply), including platform support for the RCMP and Canadian Forces.

Afstan: More US troops "sooner rather than later"?

2008-07-17T14:19:00.002-04:00

Things seem to be moving forward, especially with increasing success in Iraq:

Pentagon leaders have signaled a buildup in U.S. forces in Afghanistan "sooner rather than later" - a shift that could come this year as they prepare to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, U.S. defense officials said yesterday that they expect sending more troops to have a significant impact on the violence.

"I think that we are clearly working very hard to see if there are opportunities to send additional forces sooner rather than later," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Pentagon reporters.

He added that no final decisions or recommendations have been made.

His comments suggested an acceleration in what had been plans to shift forces there early next year.

And they came as the political discourse on Afghanistan as a key military priority escalated on both Capitol Hill and in the presidential campaign.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from meetings with commanders in Afghanistan, said they clearly want more troops now.

"It's a tougher fight, it's a more complex fight, and they need more troops to have the long-term impact that we all want to have there," said Mullen, who also met last week with Pakistani leaders.

Pentagon officials have been wrestling with how to provide what they say is a much-needed military buildup in Afghanistan while they still have 150,000 troops in Iraq...

Mullen, who was in Iraq last week, told reporters he is likely to recommend further troop reductions there this fall. He said he found that conditions in Iraq had improved more than he expected.

"I won't go so far as to say that progress in Iraq from a military perspective has reached a tipping point or is irreversible - it has not and it is not," Mullen said during the Pentagon news conference.

"But security is unquestionably and remarkably better. Indeed, if these trends continue, I expect to be able early this fall to recommend to the secretary and the president further troop reductions."..

Gates said commanders are looking at moving forces around to take advantage of a small boost in French troops expected in Afghanistan. But he ruled out rolling back some of the promises the Pentagon made to soldiers about limiting their deployments to 12 months.

"I think we're looking at a variety of options on how to respond here," Gates said. "I will tell you that I have sought assurances that there will be no return to longer than 12-month deployments, so that's not something we're considering."..

Gates and Mullen also had strong words for Pakistan, saying that Islamabad must do a better job of preventing Taliban and other insurgents from crossing the border into Afghanistan to wage attacks.

The absence of pressure from the Pakistanis, Gates said, is giving militants a greater opportunity to penetrate the porous mountain border. He said the key is to convince the Pakistani government that its country is also at great risk from the insurgents.

Gates said it is an exaggeration to say the border problems have escalated into a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And he dismissed as untrue suggestions that the U.S. is massing troops along the border and preparing to launch attacks into Pakistan.

His comments came as U.S. troops abandoned a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan where militants killed nine of them this week in a large, coordinated attack. Elsewhere in the frontier region, NATO launched artillery and helicopter strikes in Pakistan after coming under insurgent rocket fire, officials said...

Our 'fair share' versus the U.S.

2008-07-17T12:42:00.006-04:00

A Globe and Mail editorial today makes the following assertion:

Coupled with the timidity of other NATO partners, American distraction has led to Canada and a select few other countries carrying far more than their fair share in Afghanistan - and making less progress than greater U.S. resources would permit.

I agree that American distraction over Iraq has slowed progress in Afghanistan, and that more American resources would reinvigorate the Afghan project. I don't agree that Canada is "carrying far more than [its] fair share in Afghanistan" due to that American distraction.

The Canadian economy is approximately one tenth the size of U.S. GDP ($1.4 trillion to $14 trillion, give or take a couple of points). Our population is approaching 1/9th of theirs (33 million to 303 million). But while the U.S. is currently fielding approximately 36,000 troops in Afghanistan (17,000 with ISAF and 19,000 with Operation Enduring Freedom), Canada has deployed only 2,500 or so (click map below for more detail).

I mean this as no slight to the CF members who are doing the job over there and supporting it back home, but Canada is severely straining to pull its weight in Afghanistan. And compared to the U.S. we're not even keeping up on a GDP or a population proportion. Only when comparing ourselves to other NATO nations do we come off favourably, since much of Europe isn't even bothering to try to pull its 'fair share'.

Canada is not contributing more than it should to the Afghan mission to make up for an American shortfall. If the Americans were to gauge their military commitment to Afghanistan based upon the contributions of other ISAF nations, they'd have far less than the 36,000 troops they do in the country.

No, the truth of the matter is that much of the world - including the editorial board at the Globe & Mail, apparently - while despising and resenting America as the world's sole superpower, expects that country to pick up a disproportionate amount of the world's security needs on the U.S. taxpayer's dime. It's the age-old whine of 'somebody should do something' taken to geopolitical levels.

And it's truly sad that it's what passes for intelligent commentary in Canada.

Update: Just to be clear, the U.S. and the rest of the allies in Afghanistan aren't doing enough. The mission is indeed under-resourced. But blaming the Americans for that state of affairs is ludicrous.

Look at the list of NATO nations. Then look closely at the troop deployments listed in the map in my post above.

Ask yourself first if a country with the wealth and position that Canada enjoys shouldn't be able to contribute more than 2,500 troops without putting an unbearable strain upon our military. Because right now, we can't. We're living in a glass house, heaving rhetorical stones over our fences.

Then ask which other nations could be doing more to make sure Afghanistan joins the community of responsible nations in the world. I'd say every single one of them could.

But some have further to catch up than others, and despite what the Globe & Mail says, the U.S. isn't one of those suffering by the comparison.

The Rae dogpile continues

2008-07-17T11:37:00.002-04:00

It's not that a Liberal said something stupid about military affairs - Liberals have been doing that for years. It's that it was Bob Rae. You know, the guy who ran a surprisingly successful campaign to lead the Natural Governing Party, the guy Jack Granatstein questionably calls "knowledgeable" in an otherwise decent piece in today's Globe & Mail, the guy who had the international chops to be chosen as a constitutional adviser to the Iraqi parliament. A supposed heavy-hitter.

That's one of the reasons we've been so very critical of Rae's recent idiocy around here. Well, today one of the most well-respected military observers in the country, Douglas Bland, piles on:

In a comment published in the Toronto Star (Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada, 11 July 2008), Bob Rae pleads for Canada to accept any member of the United States armed forces who decides to desert his comrades and country and seek sanctuary in Canada. He argues that because a solider might believe that the war in Iraq is unpopular he or she therefore “faces a conflict of values and loyalties” and thus has a right to desert. Further, Canadians ought to honour this assumed right without question. Mr. Rae puts the "all-volunteer army" in a whole new light — volunteer to enlist and volunteer to leave at any time and on any whim.

If this concept is sound enough for the US armed forces, is Mr. Rae recommending it for the Canadian Forces too?

It's a neat little problem for someone who would be expected to hold an important ministerial portfolio in any future Liberal government.

But I'm afraid liberals and Liberals of Mr. Rae's vintage might not put much store in consistency, principle, or logic on such an emotional issue for them. The stark, if unintentionally revealing honesty in this Toronto Star editorial seems to sum up the prevailing mindset among Rae's political crowd:

It is time to reverse this process and recapture the spirit of the 1960s, when we welcomed those fleeing from a previous unjust war. [Babbler's emphasis]

It looks like nostalgia trumps all other considerations here. What a shame that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is reduced to this - a shame for Canadians relying on them to hold our government to serious account on serious matters of national defence.

Afstan and the true special relationship

2008-07-16T21:56:00.004-04:00

Can you imagine MND MacKay making a speech like this (do remember the UK government is Labour, in theory left of our Conservative government)? Excerpts:

I have no doubt that it will be a longer haul in Afghanistan. We are – after all – reconstructing a country after over three decades of conflict. That is why it is vital for the international community to remain committed to Afghanistan – something of which I know no American audience will ever need persuading.

There are few clearer illustrations of the central tenet of our foreign and security policy – that wherever possible, we must tackle security challenges early and at source, that wherever possible we should bring to bear political, diplomatic and economic tools to prevent threats developing, but the realities are that we must be ready to use force if necessary.

Military force was and is necessary to address the threats that had safe haven inside Afghanistan. And to create the conditions in which the non-military – and ultimately decisive - elements of our strategy can deliver mission success in Afghanistan.

Over the last 7 years Afghanistan has transformed from a failing state to an embryonic democracy.

Our mission there has the strongest moral justification and strategic rationale, which perhaps explains why, in both of our countries, there is no serious political opposition to our commitment and why 40 other countries, including all 24 other NATO Members, are operating alongside us.

By all means let us acknowledge that this is a long term and challenging enterprise. But let us also recognise that it is not discretionary – we cannot responsibly ignore the threat posed by an Afghanistan "governed" by a regime like the Taliban.

And let us recognise too that, whilst our mission in Afghanistan is fraught with challenges, our progress there is in the right direction.

Every soldier who has served in Afghanistan knows that this is a campaign that cannot be won by military means alone...

I want to see all NATO members contributing fairly and without caveats on the use of their troops. That is why I want us to reform NATO's decision making processes to ensure that it works more effectively...

In Afghanistan this gives us two challenges. The first is that, because we are currently trying to create "Order" (a Police force) where there is relatively little "Law" (an effective justice system) it is inevitable that elements of the Afghan Police will become corrupt and self serving.

The second is the very challenge of creating an effective justice system in Afghanistan. In a country with pitifully few trained lawyers and judges and a literacy rate of 23% there are no quick fixes.

Moreover we, the International Community, also need to have an honest debate about the type of legal system that a country called the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" needs. A Western model would be inappropriate and unsustainable.

But unless we address these challenges our efforts to create an effective Police force will continue to be seriously undermined.

We should not fear the requirement for "Afghanization" as it is sometimes called. And, provided we do not harbour illusions about imposing a Jeffersonian style Liberal Democracy onto Afghanistan overnight – solutions to these challenges do exist. To get to them we just need to discuss the issues honestly and be prepared to help the Afghans to create structures that may not sit easily with our culture and norms but do so with theirs...

And what does our government say, when it bothers to say anything? Find me a recent speech.

AP stringer does video of Taliban killing women

2008-07-16T15:56:00.003-04:00

The murderers of course are described as "militants". Hurl (h/t to Small Dead Animals).

"Unconquerable Afghans": What the Globe and Mail publishes and does not

2008-07-16T15:09:00.002-04:00

Post done at Babbling's urging (from a comment here). A letter sent to the Globe July 13 and not published:

Afghans not unconquerable

The story 'It's impossible to conquer the Afghans' (July 12) is accompanied by a box [at bottom here] that states "Many foreign forces have attempted to conquer Afghanistan and its predecessor states. Few have succeeded." The box however gives a very selective reflection of Afghan history, as it deals with only five examples over some 2,500 years.

Indeed, during just the last millenium or so Afghanistan has been conquered several times. Some examples (all Turkic peoples except the Iranians): the Ghaznavids (962 - 1186), the Timurids (1369 - 1506--Tamerlane et al.), then the Moghuls followed by Iranians (1504 - 1709).

Perhaps the most noteworthy thing about Afghan history is that a recognizably Afghan independent state did not arise until one was formed by Ahmad Shah Durrani in 1747. The remarkable fact, contrary to popular myth, is actually how often Afghanistan has been under foreign rule.

References:

http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/ghaznavids.htm
http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/timorids.htm
http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/moghuls.htm
http://www.afghanan.net/afghanistan/durrani.htm
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index2.html
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm

But they did just publish this:

Superpower messiah syndrome

ANDREY SHAKHMETOV

July 16, 2008

The Hague -- Re 'It's Impossible To Conquer The Afghans' (July 12): I had two tours of duty in Afghanistan, 1982 and 1984-1986, as an intelligence officer. For an ordinary Afghan person, any foreign interference is an attempt to "conquer," be it under communist or democratic slogans. That's why free elections (even if they were to be so) won't change the situation.

Superpower messiah syndrome is a very dangerous thing for both "conqueror" and "conquered"!

Draw your own conclusions.