Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[The Bread Guy]

Bumped with the latest about Canada's "eye in the sky's" contribution ...

A senior military officer says Canadian military aircraft are providing vital intelligence to allies for their own airstrikes and other operations against Daesh, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

A Canadian air-to-air refuelling plane and two surveillance aircraft have continued to fly hundreds of missions in support of the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria since the Liberal government withdrew six CF-18s from the region in February.

Brig.-Gen. Shane Brennan, commander of Canada’s Joint Task Force-Iraq, says the information gathered by the surveillance planes has been used by allies to conduct bombing missions and ground operations against Daesh.

U.S. and other coalition officials have credited the air campaign with helping to push Daesh back, but there have been concerns about civilian casualties after a series of U.S. strikes around the Syrian city of Manbij in July.

Brennan says the Canadian planes were not involved in identifying targets in Manbij and have instead been flying over northern Iraq in support of the upcoming battle for the Iraqi city of Mosul ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from The Canadian Press:

The Liberal government’s plan to provide weapons to Kurdish forces in Iraq is being held up by concerns the military equipment won’t be used for purposes other than fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The revelation comes amid growing calls in some Kurdish circles for an independent state separate from the rest of Iraq, and allegations – which the Kurds deny – that they are committing war crimes.

The government said in February that Canada would provide small arms, ammunition and optical sights to the Kurds as part of its revamped mission to fight ISIL. It also expanded the number of special forces in Iraq to about 200 and withdrew Canadian fighter jets from the U.S.-led bombing campaign.

Nearly eight months later, however, none of that so-called lethal aid has been delivered.

The government still intends to provide weapons to the Kurds, National Defence spokeswoman Ashley Lemire said in an email. But first, she said Canada needs to get “Iraqi diplomatic assurances” that the equipment will be used in accordance with international laws.

“This requires time to allow for a co-ordinated interdepartmental effort to ensure good governance and accountability in the delivery of equipment,” Lemire said. “Planning is currently ongoing.”

The government has otherwise said little about the weapons, including how many or what type Canada is planning to send to Iraq ...

So, it sounds like IRQ will get weapons to give to the Kurds.  Sounds pretty simple - NOT!

 

[Kirkhill]

By God but we're good.

We have this planning thing down to a science.  There is no end to the number of plans that we can create for any given scenario.

We should have a Royal Commission to determine what makes us so great at planning.

 

[McG]

Sounds like Daesh is about to get a beating in Mosul, but Iraq and its supporters may be in for a tougher fight moving forward from that victory.

Canadian general warns Islamic State fight will get harder after Mosul
Robert Burns
WASHINGTON — The Associated Press
Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2016 2:21PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 05, 2016 2:25PM EDT

The widely anticipated ousting of the Islamic State group from its stronghold of Mosul in northern Iraq is likely to transform the extremist group into an even more dangerous force, a Canadian general who directs training of Iraqi security forces said Wednesday.

Brig. Gen. Dave Anderson told reporters at the Pentagon he is certain the Iraqis will prevail in Mosul.

“But the fall of Mosul does not mean that Daesh is defeated by any stretch of the imagination,” Anderson said, using an alternative acronym for IS. “It just means it’s defeated in its current format.”

Anderson said he is confident that in defeating IS in Mosul, the militants will be stripped of their capacity to conduct conventional military operations. Then, however, the group’s remaining fighters are likely to melt into the civilian population and morph into an insurgency.

“So it’s definitely not over” after Mosul, Anderson said. “If anything, it’s gonna be more difficult.”

Anderson was speaking from a U.S.-led coalition military facility in Iraq.

The Iraqi government is preparing to launch a major military operation, with air support from the U.S.-led coalition, to retake Mosul this year.

The period between the fall of Mosul and the ultimate defeat of IS “is probably when it’s most dangerous,” he said. He did not say how long he thought it would take to fully defeat IS after it loses control of Mosul, but he said intensive planning is underway to help Iraqi forces prepare to fight IS in its post-Mosul form.

“Literally what we’ve been talking about is how do we position police forces and minister of interior forces in order to be able to fight the enemy the day after Mosul and its new metastasized form,” Anderson said. “We’re working on that pretty hard right now.”

Anderson said that once Mosul is declared secure, some Iraqi security forces will be pulled out of the city and retrained and re-equipped to conduct counter-insurgency fights.

He said it is expected to take 30,000 to 45,000 Iraqi security forces to hold Mosul once it has been retaken, “employing local police who will serve as the face of security for Iraq.” 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-general-warns-islamic-state-fight-will-get-harder-after-mosul/article32262768/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Could be a long winter...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Maybe big changes coming for the mission next year.

Canadian troops spending more time at front lines in Iraq as future of mission is unclear
'We are more engaged at the line.... and by extension the risk has increased,' says Canadian general

Canadian special forces troops are spending more time at the front lines of northern Iraq and have been involved in several firefights with Islamic State extremists, but new figures suggest their involvement could come to an abrupt halt next year.

National Defence estimates it will spend $305.8 million on the military campaign up to the end of the next budget year, CBC News has learned.

But the majority of the cash will go out the door in the current fiscal year, with only $41.9 million set aside for 2017-18, something a defence expert says is an indication the Liberals are considering pulling the plug on the mission.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/iraq-canada-troops-1.3794722

 

[dimsum]

Could be a long winter...

I'm just gonna leave this here. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

And if you want to watch the whole media briefing @ the Pentagon w/BGEN Anderson (~44 minutes), the Pentagonis Info-machine's already got it online here.

Transcript of news conference also attached.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And a few more headlines:

• "Military drops cone of silence on firefights with ISIS militants" (ipolitics.ca)
• "Mission now more dangerous for Canadian soldiers in Iraq, military says as it defends increased secrecy" (Globe & Mail)
• "Canadians ready to play small but critical role as ISIL’s days in power appear to be finally coming to an end" (National Post)
• "Canadian special forces have been in gunfights with ISIS, general says" (The Canadian Press, via CTV.ca)
• "430 Squadron supports Operation Impact" (RCAF Info-machine)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And, because they've become forgotten by the media and CAF press releases, I'll mention the Aurora folks are still doing what they've been doing in Iraq for approaching 2 years now; finding and fixing the enemy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would seem the CDS is caught out contradicting himself, or was required to provide covering fire for a cabinet that is regrouping from a reality check.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.

I have worried, for many years, about the whole "public affairs" business. I have commented, probably more than once, here, about it ~ but I'm too lazy to go look for the link(s). It has long been my belief that admirals and generals, like small children, should be seen ~ when all cleaned up and dressed up by their nannies ~ but not heard. In our, Westminster, parliamentary form of democracy it is the executive, the Queen in Council, in reality the prime minister and cabinet, that makes war and that makes ALL the really big, important military decisions ... ALL of them, without exception. Admirals and generals get on with their assigned tasks, with the available (voted by parliament) resources and try their (quiet) best to win. Now and again, Kitchener and Andrew McNaughton come to mind, they are dragged into the higher levels of war ...

   

          .... Kitchener was vastly more popular than Lloyd George and it as perceived, although the voters disagreed, that McNaughton was a Canadian Kitchener. But, normally, even the ablest Canadian commanders from Currie to Murray did their work in relative obscurity ... the credit (and blame) was, mostly and properly borne by the politicians.

Our American friends have a different system. the military "belongs" to the people through the Congress, whereas our belongs to the people through the Governor General. The different is not subtle and it matters. The US Congress has both a right and a duty to delve deeply into military matters, something that our parliament does not have ~ except when it is time to vote "supply." In our system the people, through parliament, constrain the executive by controlling the pursestrings; in the US system the congress has more, and more direct control and the executive, the president has, or should have, proportionately less. Thus, in the US, admirals and generals have traditionally (and correctly) answered to the Congress and, since the 1860s, more directly to the people through the media. There's nothing wrong with the US system, except that it might not be appropriate for us.
But we adopted the US system ... perhaps we couldn't avoid it because we, people and media, are quite uncritical and unthinking adopters of all things Americans just as, in Victorian times, we and the Americans were unthinking adopters of all things British.

So, nor our generals are surrounded by a phalanx of public affairs and public relations and communications and, now and again, but in tiny numbers, even public information officers ~ some of whom are pursuing the military's agenda but many of whom are pursuing partisan political agendas.

Admirals and generals have, explicitly, put themselves (and a generation ago long retired generals but Jon Vance) in the position where silence can, reasonably, be "heard" as equalling opposition to the elected government of the day, and admirals and generals ought not to oppose the government before they resign. Gen Vance is, as the bard described (Hamlet) for sorry engineers, "hoist with his own petard," or, at least, with a "petard" left there by his predecessors.

 

[jollyjacktar]

well that's just petarded...

 

[medicineman]

I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.

Chickens and the current CDS both in the same sentence ER??!! 

;D

MM

 

[dimsum]

I have considerable sympathy for the CDS. Chickens that were hatched back in the 1980s and '90s are coming home to roost.

...

Our American friends have a different system. the military "belongs" to the people through the Congress, whereas our belongs to the people through the Governor General. The different is not subtle and it matters. The US Congress has both a right and a duty to delve deeply into military matters, something that our parliament does not have ~ except when it is time to vote "supply." In our system the people, through parliament, constrain the executive by controlling the pursestrings; in the US system the congress has more, and more direct control and the executive, the president has, or should have, proportionately less. Thus, in the US, admirals and generals have traditionally (and correctly) answered to the Congress and, since the 1860s, more directly to the people through the media. There's nothing wrong with the US system, except that it might not be appropriate for us.
But we adopted the US system ... perhaps we couldn't avoid it because we, people and media, are quite uncritical and unthinking adopters of all things Americans just as, in Victorian times, we and the Americans were unthinking adopters of all things British.

So, nor our generals are surrounded by a phalanx of public affairs and public relations and communications and, now and again, but in tiny numbers, even public information officers ~ some of whom are pursuing the military's agenda but many of whom are pursuing partisan political agendas.

Admirals and generals have, explicitly, put themselves (and a generation ago long retired generals but Jon Vance) in the position where silence can, reasonably, be "heard" as equalling opposition to the elected government of the day, and admirals and generals ought not to oppose the government before they resign. Gen Vance is, as the bard described (Hamlet) for sorry engineers, "hoist with his own petard," or, at least, with a "petard" left there by his predecessors.

:goodpost:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Chickens and the current CDS both in the same sentence ER??!! 

;D

MM

:nod:  Well, to be picky, in a "never pass a fault" sort of pickiness, it was in two sentences ...  :-*

 

[Old Sweat]

:nod:  Well, to be picky, in a "never pass a fault" sort of pickiness, it was in two sentences ...  :-*

You always were a tad subtle!  :facepalm:

 

[PuckChaser]

And, because they've become forgotten by the media and CAF press releases, I'll mention the Aurora folks are still doing what they've been doing in Iraq for approaching 2 years now; finding and fixing the enemy.

So much for quiet professionals, right?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have no sympathy for the CDS and other senior decision makers, and make no apologies for that. It is never too late to do the right thing, which is something's Ng that has not been done enough by our most senior leaders in the recent past IMHO.

 

[McG]

What is the right thing?