 Troops to stay in Afghanistan after 2011: PMO The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the mission, CBC News has learned. The admission follows weeks of confusion and speculation about a future role for Canadian troops in Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
This is nothing less then a "I'll do what I please" mandate.
He promised the troops would be coming home and our participation in a major combat role was ending.
That last part is true, and the first part is mostly true. No different than some troops sticking around in Germany after the war making sure everything is all good.
He promised the troops would be coming home and our participation in a major combat role was ending.
Did you even read the article??????
"Whether there's 20 or 60 or 80 or 100, they will not be conducting combat operations."
Soudas said the government would shift focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.
The military's training mission will continue, but it will take place in the safety of protected facilities, he said.
The combat-mentoring role currently undertaken by Canadian troops would end, according to the plan.
He promised the troops would be coming home and our participation in a major combat role was ending.
That last part is true, and the first part is mostly true. No different than some troops sticking around in Germany after the war making sure everything is all good.
Except that Germany surrendered.
There will be more protesters then there will be troops...
Exactly. This is going to be tiny and they won't be anywhere near anythign that resembles combat. Instead it will be exactly what a lot of people wanted us to be doing all along. But it seems certain people can't get that through their heads.
There will be more protesters then there will be troops...
Exactly. This is going to be tiny and they won't be anywhere near anythign that resembles combat. Instead it will be exactly what a lot of people wanted us to be doing all along. But it seems certain people can't get that through their heads.
What will you say if the troop levels do not decrease?
There will be more protesters then there will be troops...
Exactly. This is going to be tiny and they won't be anywhere near anythign that resembles combat. Instead it will be exactly what a lot of people wanted us to be doing all along. But it seems certain people can't get that through their heads.
What will you say if the troop levels do not decrease?
Well my first gut reaction to that is there is no way they can't due to an operational tempo that is too high and needs to ease. Not too mention that certain elements will automatically disappear, (ie the Air Wing for the most part except for transports, veh techs since we dont have mined vehicles coming in anymore etc) as they are no longer needed giving you an automatic cut in troops.
Secondly, there is no way that 2 900 people are needed to train ANA and ANP. If this goes above 150 people I will be surprised. You would be looking at a handful of officers, some NCMs to do the actual instructing, plus a few support personnel and voila you have a training cell.
If by some miracle they did put 2900 boots on the ground to do this, I would say that it is a waste resources as we can accomplish the same thing with fewer people and most of them there would spend their days on permanent smoke breaks. Would it break the deadline for pullout? That is a bit in the grey area as the mission has complety changed, but at the same time you aren't giving the CF the slow down it is also demanding. So to sum up I would disagree with it more on the basis that it would be a waste and is draining the CF, rather than from the side of "but they said...".
Before I'm mistaken, I'm against further Canadian involvement in Afghanistan...
Fair enough. Though your first statement still holds true.