News   May 09, 2024
 23     0 
News   May 09, 2024
 360     1 
News   May 08, 2024
 1.6K     4 

Afghanistan: Canadian JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda

1

1Voltaire1

Guest
JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda
Canada's top soldier announces mission to root out 'murderers' in Afghanistan

By DANIEL LEBLANC

Friday, July 15, 2005 Page A1

OTTAWA -- Canada's elite JTF2 soldiers are heading to Afghanistan as part of a 2,000-troop deployment that will target the "detestable murderers and scumbags" behind the rise in international terrorism, General Rick Hillier said yesterday.

In a blunt briefing that signalled a new aggressiveness at the top of the Canadian Forces, the Chief of the Defence Staff said the impending operations are risky but necessary in light of last week's bombings in the British public-transit system.

"The London attack actually tells us once more: We can't let up," Gen. Hillier told reporters.

He said terrorists are ready to target Canada as much as any other Western country and that Canadians have to be aware that their soldiers are in for some "risky business" as they head out to Afghanistan.

It was the first time Gen. Hillier has confirmed that members of the Joint Task Force 2 -- the country's secretive commando team -- will be involved in combat missions against the remnants of the former Taliban regime and supporters of al-Qaeda.

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties," Gen. Hillier said.

He stressed the new face of the Canadian Forces, which he said are now focused on the first job at hand: protecting Canadian interests at home and abroad.

"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

Previous Canadian missions in Afghanistan have provided security in Kabul, the capital. But the next three missions, involving 2,000 troops, will be heavily centred in the southern mountains, where soldiers will be called upon to hunt down and fight the insurgents.

Gen. Hillier said Canada is already in the crosshairs of the terrorists, and he does not believe it becomes a bigger target by participating in military operations that give hope to the Afghans.

"We're not going to let those radical murderers and killers rob from others and certainly we're not going to let them rob from Canada," he said.

He pointed out that during the Second World War, Canadian soldiers did not shy away from fighting the Nazis.

"Did they say, 'No we might be attacked over here if we actually stand up against those despicable murderers and bastards?' No, they did not," Gen. Hillier said.

The native of Newfoundland has been the top soldier in Canada for five months. Bolstered by a growing budget, he is promising a "radical transformation" of the forces to make them more effective in their daily operations.

With his straight-talking style, Gen. Hillier has already effected a major change at the top of the military hierarchy in comparison with his blander predecessor, General Ray Henault.

Gen. Hillier is a popular figure among the troops, and he has impressed his political bosses with his vision for the forces.

His goal now is to rally Canadians behind the military and convince young talent to join the expanding forces.

He would not speak about the number of potential casualties among Canadian troops in Afghanistan, while stating there is no such thing as a safe mission.

"You can't reduce the risk to zero," he said.

The recent Canadian rotations in Afghanistan have been centred at Camp Julien in Kabul.

Gen. Hillier said that the coming missions will "shift the centre of gravity to Kandahar," the area of southern Afghanistan that saw the rise of the Taliban.

The goal is to bring stability and democracy to the area, he said, adding that this is "the exact opposite of what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want."

Later this month, 250 Edmonton-based soldiers will head out to southern Afghanistan to form what is known as a Provincial Reconstruction Team.

The soldiers will be accompanied by officials from the RCMP and the Canadian International Development Agency, the federal aid agency, to develop ties with local officials and help with the reconstruction of the war-torn area.

In addition, 700 soldiers from Petawawa, Ont., are heading to Kabul to help the Afghan authority conduct a general election, planned for September.

After the vote, a large portion of the forces will move down south to join the PRT and prepare for the arrival of the biggest deployment in Kandahar.

In February of next year, about 1,100 soldiers will set up a new camp in the area, heading up a new multinational brigade that will eventually operate under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, alongside American troops already in the area.

Gen. Hillier also said the army is sending at least 100 armoured vehicles to Sudan.

The Grizzlys are military surplus and several will be sent later this month, with the remainder to follow, he said.

Canada's role in Afghanistan

The Canadian Forces are entering a new stage in their operations as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in coming months, with a renewed focus on the more volatile southern region of the country.

Three distinct deployments involving more than 2,000 soldiers are in the works, culminating with the presence early next year of a combat force in Kandahar, the birthplace of the terrorist-supporting Taliban regime.
 
"These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties," Gen. Hillier said.

He stressed the new face of the Canadian Forces, which he said are now focused on the first job at hand: protecting Canadian interests at home and abroad.

"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

I don't have any issue with deploying the JTF-2 (and our involvement in Afghanistan, specifically re: Taliban) - I have an issue with the alpha-male BS put forth here.

"Our job is to be able to kill people"?! WTF? Your job is to protect Canada as per the civilian government see fit, not to kill per se. Pride is a good thing, but don't get it get to your head.

This is exactly the sort of crap that lead to things like the debacle in Somalia re: the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

GB
 
"Our job is to be able to kill people"?!
I've got no problem with that. If Delaire had the right tools, enough men and authority for the job in Rwanda, Canadians could have saved thousands of lives by killing a whole lot of bad guys.

The sole reason we have armies and military is to kill other people in the name of protecting our people, those in our care and our allies. Canadians have been killing folks in the name of these ideals since before confederation. What is shocking is that such a straight talking, commonsense soldier made in to the top position. Most CODS in the past were political animals, and had the dodge and weave manner of speaking that was always so frustrating.
 
Fighting Madd:

It's a matter of rationale. The military is empowered to protect Canada, up to and including the use of lethal force. It doesn't mean killing should be taken in such a flippant manner, nor should one beams with pride when talking about how it isn't "just another branch of government" because it has the power to kill (last time I checked, the police also have such an authority). Nothing to do with straight talking, all to do with common sense.

GB
 
It's a matter of rationale.

I suppose thats true, but which rationale do you refer to?

The military is empowered to protect Canada, up to and including the use of lethal force.

I think you've missed the point. The CF IS different from the rest of the government. When it comes down to it, the military is sent in to kill people and break their things. That capability does lead to other capabilities, but the root of all of them is that they're killers. Personally, I hope The Unit Which Shall Not Be Mentioned piles 'em up like cordwood.

It doesn't mean killing should be taken in such a flippant manner, nor should one beams with pride when talking about how it isn't "just another branch of government" because it has the power to kill (last time I checked, the police also have such an authority).

Your attitude is EXACTLY why we had Somalia and the Airborne Regiment discipline problems. They were deployed into a situation that they were unsuited to perform, because people had fuzzy ideas over the military's function.

Kevin
 
drunken:

I think you've missed the point. The CF IS different from the rest of the government. When it comes down to it, the military is sent in to kill people and break their things. That capability does lead to other capabilities, but the root of all of them is that they're killers. Personally, I hope The Unit Which Shall Not Be Mentioned piles 'em up like cordwood.

That point is implicitly understood, by definition. As to the statement "piles 'em up like cordwood", well, if such visages strikes your fancy...

Your attitude is EXACTLY why we had Somalia and the Airborne Regiment discipline problems. They were deployed into a situation that they were unsuited to perform, because people had fuzzy ideas over the military's function.

That statement represents a critical issue - inability to take responsiblity. The government at the time may very well be wrong to send in units that aren't right for the situtation (and I agree), but that cannot be used to justify transgressions at the unit/individual level. To blame those discipline problems on the government or "our attitude" negates personal responsiblity. It's like saying someone who committed murder does so only because society didn't (educate, have more policemen on duty, have morals). Where is the self-disclipine?

GB
 
IIRC, one of Hillier's initiatives is to remove the CUPE workers and bureaucrats who occupy DND offices from the military payroll/budget. Some of the reasoning was that a true soldier can not complain publically to the media or go on strike or slow-down for more cash or overtime pay. This is one reason I agree with Hillier that the CAF are not the same as any other government department.

I wouldn't take the "killing" comment too seriously. He's a straight talking soldier, not a politician, well liked by his men, our government and well respected in NATO. What more could you want?

BTW, here's a good site on current deployments www.forces.gc.ca/site/ope..._ops_e.asp
 
That statement represents a critical issue - inability to take responsiblity. The government at the time may very well be wrong to send in units that aren't right for the situtation (and I agree), but that cannot be used to justify transgressions at the unit/individual level.

There's no excuse for what a few soldiers in the Airborne did. However, the command climate that made it possible can be traced back to the politicians who appointed the senior CF leadership, and the public that voted them in. PC commanders are rarely effective.

Kevin
 
We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.

I don't have a problem with the mission but this quote made me cringe. The job is not about killing... the job is about achieving an objective and having the equipment, training, and authority to use all means necessary to achieve that objective with minimal loss of life. If you can get everyone to hold up a white flag and walk out of the mountains then that is better, if you can stun them all and cart them off to jail then that is better... making the goal "to kill" only leads to a force that shoots everything that breathes, threat or not. Hopefully he meant to say "we need to be able to kill if they are trying to kill us" or "the job requires being ready to kill if necessary" or something along those lines. If the job was simply to kill then why wouldn't they have dropped some mini-nukes in the mountains?
 
the job is about achieving an objective and having the equipment, training, and authority to use all means necessary to achieve that objective with minimal loss of life.

That's the RCMP. The CF's job is to kill people and break their things, until they act in a way that our government would like them to act...or they're all dead.

If you can get everyone to hold up a white flag and walk out of the mountains then that is better.

Agreed.

if you can stun them all and cart them off to jail then that is better.

No, that's the RCMP again. If you send in the CF, the enemy is either killed or surrenders.

making the goal "to kill" only leads to a force that shoots everything that breathes, threat or not.

No, it leads to a military that shoots everything that's a legitimate target. There's nothing in the CDS' comments that indicate he'd condone attacks on non-combatants.

Hopefully he meant to say "we need to be able to kill if they are trying to kill us" or "the job requires being ready to kill if necessary" or something along those lines.

I certainly hope not. That's the RCMP's job.

If the job was simply to kill then why wouldn't they have dropped some mini-nukes in the mountains?

We don't have nukes. Finding something worth nuking without causing unacceptable collateral damage would also be a problem.

Kevin
 
General's talk of terrorist 'scumbags' praised
Politicians, defence analysts back Hillier

By DANIEL LEBLANC

Saturday, July 16, 2005 Page A4

OTTAWA -- Canada's blunt-talking top soldier won praise yesterday for his clear and sometimes brutal description of the coming military effort against terrorist "scumbags" in Afghanistan.

Defence analysts and politicians from the NDP and the Conservative Party said it is time for a military leader like General Rick Hillier, who speaks from the heart about the role of the Canadian Forces in the war on terror.

"Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.

"A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."

Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor said Gen. Hillier "speaks like a soldier, not a diplomat."

"He's starting to give the public an idea that the troops are about to go in a dangerous area and he's trying to explain why they're going there in the pursuit of terrorists," Mr. O'Connor said.

However, Gen. Hillier's vow to hunt down terrorists did ruffle some feathers. Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, said Canada should retain a more level-headed approach to events such as last week's terrorist attacks in London.

"I'm feeling it's time for people to be as calm as possible. . . . I would love Canada to play a thoughtful, moderating position in this," she said, denouncing Gen. Hillier's comments as "very aggressive." [I'm a lot more concerned about rational and calculating in action than I am about "moderating" per se]

In a media briefing two days ago, Gen. Hillier laid out the mission for the more than 2,000 troops who are headed to Afghanistan in the coming year: provide security in the country and, more importantly, go on the hunt for terrorists.

As part of the deployment, the Canadian Forces are sending commando soldiers from Joint Task Force 2 with the expectation that they will be involved in combat.

"We are going to Afghanistan to actually take down the folks that are trying to blow up men and women," Gen. Hillier said.

He also gave a blunt assessment of the role of the Canadian Forces, which he said are designed to protect Canadian interests at home and abroad.

"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," Gen. Hillier said.

The chairman of the Conference of Defence Associations, retired lieutenant-general Richard Evraire, praised the comments, although he said he was slightly taken aback by Gen. Hillier's statement that the Forces are designed to "kill people."

Mr. Evraire said the comments are evidence of a new style in the Canadian Forces, which he accused of camouflaging the truth about military operations in the past.

"It's true that it can be a bit surprising if we're not used to it," Mr. Evraire said. "I don't remember anyone else speaking like that. I think it's time to say things like they are."

Jocelyn Coulon, a military expert, said the Canadian Forces strived in recent decades to pretend they were only involved in peacekeeping operations.

"They never said in the past that people could actually die," said Mr. Coulon, a visiting professor at the University of Montreal's Centre for International Studies. "We need a military leader who is frank, even somewhat brutally so."

But Stephen Staples, a military analyst at the Ottawa-based, left-leaning Polaris Institute, said he found Gen. Hillier's comments "rather alarming."

"Are we seeing an Americanization of the Canadian Forces?" Mr. Staples asked.
 
While I was surprised to hear his comments, I am pleased that most of the Canadian elite didn't react with mock horror at such politically incorrect comments.
 
We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.

This might have been mentioned already, but to be fair to the general, he didn't actually say our job IS to kill people - although substantial parts of this mission might necessarily entail this. He said our job is to BE ABLE TO kill people. In other words, what gives the military credibility in the eyes of adversaries is its capacity to kill people. If the CF's capacity to kill people is not deterent enough, then they may actually have to kill people.
 
There's no excuse for what a few soldiers in the Airborne did. However, the command climate that made it possible can be traced back to the politicians who appointed the senior CF leadership, and the public that voted them in. PC commanders are rarely effective

If there is no excuse for what a few soldiers did, then why are you providing one? I was not aware that torturing and murdering prisoners was part of government policy. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure no such policy ever existed, so it would seem these soldiers took it upon themselves to do what they did. I, for one, was a voter at that period in time. I do not at all feel responsible for the actions of "a few soldiers in the Airborne." What they did, they chose to do themselves.
 
We don't have nukes. Finding something worth nuking without causing unacceptable collateral damage would also be a problem.

The US has nukes... and if "the job is to kill" then collateral damage would be good. The sentence doesn't even say "the job is to kill the enemy" so killing civilians would be within that mandate. I am saying it is a poor choice of wording to not use "job" and "kill" in a sentence without qualifiers.
 

Back
Top