Rotation of units through 2011?

[Infantry_wannabe]

I apologize if this is in the wrong place and/or a waste of time for you guys, but I can't find the answer to this after some searching and thought others might be curious.

I was wondering if it is public knowledge yet what the rotation of units will be to Afghanistan through 2011 (the supposed end date of the mission). I realize that each tour is a mix of different units, but, for example task force 3-09 is "primarily based on" 1 PPCLI. Does anyone know who will form the basis for task forces 3-10 and 1-11?

If indeed the mission ends its current form in 2011, who would the last unit be to deploy?

 

[Good2Golf]

If the rotation plan is not on DND's public internet site, then no, it is not public knowledge.

 

[Love793]

Keep in mind, never once has the Govt of Canada said that 2011 will be the end of operations. All 2011 is, is the end of the Parliamentary mandate.

 

[firm_believer]

I'm by no means "in the know", but to even a civilian, the odds of leaving that soon seem suspect. Then again, I'm not over there witnessing the progress being made. I would imagine SOME troops would still be there to oversee the handover and to track the outcome over time...Otherwise, why leave in the first place, knowing the Taliban will simply return due to the ideology being impossible to destroy?

 

[pbi]

If indeed the mission ends its current form in 2011, who would the last unit be to deploy?

This information is known to Army planners and to the Areas and Brigades involved. While it isn't technically "classified", it's probably best regarded as "Restricted": there's no real need to publicize it, and it could be useful information for baddies. These days, if you're not sure whether somethin should be public knowledge, it's best to check first before posting anything. Intelligence pictures are built from hundreds of tiny pieces, often open source.

Cheers

 

[Xiang]

Any government that chooses to remain in country (whether it be combat operations or non combat operations, ie: Training the ANA) would be committing political suicide.

The public can't properly tell the difference between the two and would be upset if the troops remained there regardless of what we are doing.

 

[George Wallace]

Any government that chooses to remain in country (whether it be combat operations or non combat operations, ie: Training the ANA) would be committing political suicide.

The public can't properly tell the difference between the two and would be upset if the troops remained there regardless of what we are doing.

Wow!

Political suicide!

I am not sure how politically astute you are, but I find that rather naive.  I would rather find any country that doesn't remain there in some capacity, as being "Defeatist" and "Immoral".  Are you insinuating that the Canadian and Western public are morally corrupt; who give up in the face of adversity?  Do you support the spread of Radical Islam and terrorism world wide?  I didn't think that this was what Canada stood for.

 

[Journeyman]

George, you make it sound like you believe Canadian voters are a rational species

At the risk of speaking for someone who's here speaking for himself....
Perhaps Xiang meant simply that the population, which cannot differentiate between combat ops and OMLT tasks (many of which can't be considered "non-combat"), are the same Canadian voters who are more than happy to buy into the political grandstanding we see daily:

- it's now forgotten that the Liberals sent us to Afghanistan; anything negative about the mission is clearly the Conservatives fault.

- as pbi noted in another thread, the people who extol "the phony 'tradition' of UN peacekeeping that was marketed for public consumption, and was really only based on about a decade or less in which our major force deployments were under the UN."

- the dim-witted who don't even pretend to read/think/understand, but are content to blame everything on others -- in this case, Harper and the ghost of Bush.

This demographic is the electorate, for those politicians 'governing' from one opinion poll to the next, who make Afghanistan casualties past 2011 seem like "political suicide."


Personally, now that Liberals have a marketable leader, I believe they're only waiting to stock-up their campaign funds again before they use any issue, cynically including post-2011 casualties, for a power grab. While I don't think it's political suicide, extending the mission in whatever form will require better government salesmanship than we've seen to date.

 

[Xiang]

Perhaps Xiang meant simply that the population, which cannot differentiate between combat ops and OMLT tasks (many of which can't be considered "non-combat"), are the same Canadian voters who are more than happy to buy into the political grandstanding we see daily:

Bingo.

NOTE: I had another response to George that seems to have disappeared..

 

[George Wallace]

George, you make it sound like you believe Canadian voters are a rational species ;

The Cynic in me agrees..... ;D

The Optimist in me disagrees..... :nod:

I am sooooooo torn....  :'(

 

[Journeyman]

The Cynic in me agrees..... ;D

The Optimist in me disagrees..... :nod:

I am sooooooo torn....  :'(

At least when you're schizophrenic, you're never alone  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

NOTE: I had another response to George that seems to have disappeared..

You may have refreshed your page before the post was completely loaded/posted and lost it.  There is no record of another post by you.

 

[Xiang]

The fact is, with mounting casualties, most Canadians now see Afghanistan as an "American war", regardless of the reason we are there.  They lost sight of the goal.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Xiang, I checked, ......none of your post "disappeared".
Bruce

 

[Xiang]

Thanks.  Was probably a browser issue as was mentioned.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The fact is, with mounting casualties, most Canadians now see Afghanistan as an "American war", regardless of the reason we are there.  They lost sight of the goal.

It is nothing of a fact. Simply a broad brush general opinion put forth by yourself. You can try prove it as fact though, by researcing your opinion and posting your links and findings. Otherwise it's just rumour, innuendo and personal opinion.

 

[Xiang]

I'm interested to know what you feel accounts for the loss of support for the mission within Canada recceguy.

 

[Xiang]

However, the fact still remains.  Thee mounting casualties, lack of a clear plan, lack of solid progression, among other things are some of the main reasons most Canadians have lost support for the war.

The government is unfortunately doing VERY little in letting Canadians know just how important this mission is.  Harper's rhetoric is starting to sound like an answering machine.  He needs a more effective PR person to sell this war to Canadians.  His mono-tone, uninspiring speeches just aren't enough if Canada is to remain committed to this war.

 

[len173]

However, the fact still remains.  Thee mounting casualties, lack of a clear plan, lack of solid progression, among other things are some of the main reasons most Canadians have lost support for the war.

The government is unfortunately doing VERY little in letting Canadians know just how important this mission is.  Harper's rhetoric is starting to sound like an answering machine.  He needs a more effective PR person to sell this war to Canadians.  His mono-tone, uninspiring speeches just aren't enough if Canada is to remain committed to this war.

I do agree that they should've worked harder to try and sell the mission to Canadians. I know many, many people who have no clue what's going on over there. I've debated it in many classes, with supposedly "educated" people, who should know a thing or two about world affairs. Many actually think Afghanistan is Iraq, I kid you not, they don't know the difference. They repeatedly refer to is as "Bush's oil war" . . . it's very sad.

With the mission being boosted right now, by the Brits and Yanks, it would be nice to be as involved in that as we can. But it's not like our soldiers haven't done a huge share. They've given everything they've had, and pulling out the battle group in 2011 doesn't take anything away from those people.

I've also heard people say that this time is needed to recharge the CF batteries, because they've been going so hard. I couldn't say if its necessary or not. That's way out of my league, but considering how much they've given, I could see it being true.

So it's hard to say how much is public outcry, and how much is militray necessity.

 

[PuckChaser]

However, the fact still remains.  Thee mounting casualties, lack of a clear plan, lack of solid progression, among other things are some of the main reasons most Canadians have lost support for the war.

The government is unfortunately doing VERY little in letting Canadians know just how important this mission is.  Harper's rhetoric is starting to sound like an answering machine.  He needs a more effective PR person to sell this war to Canadians.  His mono-tone, uninspiring speeches just aren't enough if Canada is to remain committed to this war.

Do you think Canadians will start to warm up to Afghanistan now that their posterboy Obama has said that is his focus? Everyone in Canada rejoiced when he took office, as if he was the saviour of the free-world, yet he's stated that we need to stay in Afghanistan to finish the job, which basically the government has been saying for the last 6 years. I personally believe the information is out there on how important the mission is, but its lost behind the MSM curtain of "it bleeds, it leads" and most people's inability to understand anything other than their own blind Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq rhetoric.

If you're against Harper, then who else would you want in there? Ignatieff rides the polls like Dalton McGuinty, and uses that for his policy arguments, and Layton+May.... I don't think I even need to explain what would happen if they got a taste of anything close to 24 Sussex Dr.