Larenxis Takes You On: Canadian Military Presence In Afghanistan

[cleverlymadeup]

The idea that Peacekeepers should not actually engage the bad guys, but should be some sort of neutral, impotent human shields, really gets on my last nerve. But it was wrong of me to attack you for holding that view, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

one of the guys i know who was in the military, he was a communications officer. he went on a few UN peacekeeping missions and thought what they had to do was stupid and frankly life threatening.

an engagement went like this

enemy fires
take cover, don't return fire
radio for orders
wait for orders
possibly wait longer
when orders are received hope they say "you may engage the enemy", if not then repeat that you are being fired on and need to protect yourself

he said there was more than once they were told "you will not return fire" and they had to take cover and pray they didn't get shot. he was rather pissed that he had to do that.

 

[werepossum]

Edit: To Fondant: The USA didn't remove the Shah of Iran from power or aid in his removal in anyway. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 resulted in his removal, the same revolution that placed the current government in power which is headed by the Ayatollah, certainly not friends of ours. It was in fact the Shah who was a friend to the west and was very disliked for it.

He wasn't just a friend of the west, he was placed in power by the west. The reason the US doesn't like Iran is because the Iranians overthrew a government they themselves had installed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran
The Shah assumed the throne when his father was forced to abdicate due to his neutrality in WW2. Please note that this was in September 1941 (when the USA was not even in the war) and that he would have become Shah in any case - it was a hereditary monarchy. He was forced out largely because of Jimmy Carter and Congress cutting off support - he had American armaments and suddenly had no way to buy replacement parts or even ammunition. He was a friend to the USA, but was not in any form or fashion placed in power by the USA.

 

[_Serendipity_]

The UN seem to be taking a lot of stick that I'm not really sure they deserve.
Those who feel that they should stride into every nation, confiscate all the guns, protect all the innocents are... really not thinking.

Many US media agencies view the UN as weak, simply because the UN is, for some bizzare reason, somewhat opposed to stiriding into peoples countries and shooting everyone they don't like. Is this really what you would want? A dictotorial world army, enforcing it's ideas on everyone?

No, I'm not saying that they should sit by whilst innocent people get massacared, but its insanely hard to stop that kind of stuff without inciting a massacare yourself.

Using Rwanda as an example, yes, it was a horiffic thing, a shining example of UN 'incompatence', but the situation wasn't as simple as the media portrayed.
The majority of the (admittadly immense) screw-ups of the UN in Rwanda were caused by powerful states putting their own interests above that of the people. For example, the French objected to international intervention for fears that the US and UK would use the troubles as an excuse to expand their influence, whilst the US refused to intervene in a 'local conflict'.

Whilst the UN can indeed be seen as being ineffectual, at least they're trying, and sadly many people don't seem to care about this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Whilst the UN can indeed be seen as being ineffectual, at least they're trying, and sadly many people don't seem to care about this.

They're still fighting for peace, and whilst that's indeed a noble cause, people fighting for war will always be stronger.

Take the Kyoto 'agreement' for example.

 

[_Serendipity_]

Sadly, this is true. The UN does seem to occasionally take the 'ok, now everyone will play nicely, won't you?' approach to international relations...

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Oh Wiseone- the 1979 revolution was a CIA orchestrated coup-d'etat! Any buffoon who can read history knows that! (No offence, but your being fucking thick for somebody I'd previously assumed to be intelligent) As was the 1953 coup'd'etat! GOOD GOD! Are all Americans so blind to their own nation's mistakes!

Sorry for that. But the fact remains that the CIA orchestrated both the 1953 and 1979 overthrowal of the goverment once these goverments became too liberal and powerful. You can't change that simply by sticking your head in the sand and crying out 'no, it's all lies!', no matter how much you may want to believe it to be.

Secondly, peacekeeping is a neccesity. But the Afghanistan conflict is by no means 'peacekeeping'. It may be right (I believe it is), it may be neccesary, but it is not peacekeeping. No matter how you lookat it, the coalition went in and trashed that country's established authorities. That is not peacekeeping.

 

[Zombie_King]

Canada has a military!? Woah woah woah, slow down bud. Haha, I kid. I think the whole situation over there is a mistake. We can't pull out, and staying in is hurting us. I'm not very informed on Canada's military presence there, so I'll be on my way now...

 

[werepossum]

Third, Iran hates the West, especially the USA. The roadside bombs that can take out Strykers and even Abrams tanks are not made in some disgruntled Iraqi's garage; they are advanced, precisely machined shaped charge mines, many remotely triggered, designed to take out modern tanks and IFVs. Iran is furnishing those for a reason, and that reason is to stop democratization of Islamic countries. It's a cause about which Iran feels strongly enough to risk war with the West.

Your argument is a little flawed here - stating something without substantiating it doesn't make it so (just like your 'most warlike nation' assertions in your first post). You talk about disgruntled Iraqi's garages as if to imply (using nothing but your statement as basis) that that's the only option for creating IEDs and to further imply that this makes them primitive. You then use this as a basis for blaming Iran (as a nation, rather than Iranians).

I went and did a bit of reading and found a report to Congress on the IED issue [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf] (production, source and countermeasures), which among other things provided arguments for and against Iran backing Iraqi insurgents. It mentions one source of munitions to be materials stockpiled before the war, as well as evidence of specialized bomb-making terrorist cells being involved. While there are obvious limits to what you can make in the field, the idea that an expensive tank (and whatever you call the new 'not quite tanks' - military scholar I am not can't be blown up by something that isn't proportionately expensive is a bit fanciful.

(I like this thread, it makes me go learn new things.)

Edit: I'd also like to have a bit of a giggle at Fondant's mention of the media and the word 'neutral' in the same sentence You can't escape bias.

Here are some entries discussing this. There used to be a lot of soldiers' blogs which sometimes mentioned finding explosives with Farsi markings or capturing Iranian nationals. Most of these however have dried up as the military has cracked down on soldiers' blogs, especially mentions of Iran and Iranian influence, to combat intelligence leaks and accusations that the Pentagon is advocating war with Iran. Note that these stories are mostly from Iraq, as most of the US soldiers in Afghanistan are special forces and not so talkative.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/08/us_iraqi_forces_kill.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/world/middleeast/08military.html?_r=1&ei=5065&en=75efbc6c7439e7bd&ex=1187150400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/08/us.iran.weapons/index.html

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4424

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/30/iran.taliban/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500803.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0601/p99s01-duts.html

Here's an interesting article showing the toughness of Strykers against normal IED (improvised explosive devices.) This one was hit by two very large IED, culverts packed with explosives, that would have turned a HMMWV into unrecognized wreckage. None of the soldiers died and the Stryker was badly damaged, but not penetrated. They are extremely tough. They will not however stand up to modern EFPs.
http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/klw/winners/cata/NWG%207-20-07%20A3.pdf

Here's a couple of links about Strykers. They are basically heavily armored trucks, not really fighting vehicles for high-intensity combat.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m113-iav.htm

Here's a link on shaped charges in general. Basically a shaped charge is dishing out the charge to focus its blast effects. Lining the concave face with a thin layer of copper turns the copper into a jet of plasma or molten copper (the physics are poorly understood and not all physicists agree) which moves at extremely high speed and penetrates through its momentum like a conventional solid penetrator, or at least that's the prevailing theory. The concept is very old and well understood, but optimum design is very difficult and takes a lot of computer power and design savvy. Nonetheless, these can be built with minimal machine equipment, although the efficiency will vary with the skill of the designer and the accuracy of the construction (think ten-thousandths of an inch for American versions.) A large, well designed, conical shaped charge (like current Russian models) can penetrate a Stryker anywhere or an Abrams in a very few places. A homemade version by anyone who understands the concept can penetrate an armored HMMWV, but not a Stryker, at least in critical areas (crew and passenger compartments, fuel, engine compartment to a lesser degree.)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/bullets2-shaped-charge.htm

Note toward the end of the article the EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator.) In the EFP the penetrator metal is stronger than copper and is not made molten or plasma, but is shaped by the explosion into a solid penetrator moving at high speed. These fall into two very rough categories, enhanced effects and enhanced penetration. The first is a fairly flat shape or even multiple projectiles; its purpose is to inflict enhanced damage on a soft or lightly armored target. A shaped charge's plasma jet can easily penetrate an up-armored Hummer, it can just as easily pass completely through it, hitting no one and nothing critical. This kind of EFP aims to increase damage inside the target.

The second type of EFP is formed into a teardrop or other aerodynamic shape, and is designed to overcome some of the armor techniques (Chobham, DU mesh, active capacitor) that severely degrade a plasma jet's penetration. This type of EFP, if well-designed, can penetrate any armored vehicle in the world with a small (2 to 5 kg) device. The only countries capable of designing this kind of EFP are the USA, Russia, Israel, probably France and the UK, and possibly China. Iran's are relatively crude copies of Russian devices from what I've read, but Russia's are arguably the best in the world. With luck, an Iranian copy can penetrate an Abrams main battle tank, especially through the bottom or top armor. My point is that Afghan, Iraqi, or foreign terrorists cannot make these on their own. There wasn't sufficient computer power and modeling software in Iraq before the war to create such devices, and certainly not in Afghanistan.

If you wish to assert with some authority what can and cannot penetrate armor, you really need to learn more about armor and the things designed to defeat it. I'm glad to see you are at least trying to educate yourself about these things, which are really fascinating from an engineering standpoint.

 

[werepossum]

Oh Wiseone- the 1979 revolution was a CIA orchestrated coup-d'etat! Any buffoon who can read history knows that! (No offence, but your being fucking thick for somebody I'd previously assumed to be intelligent) As was the 1953 coup'd'etat! GOOD GOD! Are all Americans so blind to their own nation's mistakes!

Sorry for that. But the fact remains that the CIA orchestrated both the 1953 and 1979 overthrowal of the goverment once these goverments became too liberal and powerful. You can't change that simply by sticking your head in the sand and crying out 'no, it's all lies!', no matter how much you may want to believe it to be.

Fondant, you need to put down the bong, stop drinking the bong water, and spend some time adjusting your field-expedient Faraday cage. The idea that the CIA orchestrated the 1979 revolution is as ludicrous as saying that the Shah became too liberal for the USA. The 1953 event is arguable - although I could point out that this was only alleged by the Democrats after Jimmy Carter cost them twelve years of Republican presidents - but that was not an overthrow of the government - it was a purge of anti-Western clerics who were becoming too powerful for the Shah's (and quite possibly the US') comfort. It was not a change in government, but a preemptive strike to avoid a change in government. The idea that the CIA overthrow the Shah, a great friend to the USA, in favor of the radical Islamic revolutionaries who hated America second only to Israel - even Jimmy Carter wasn't that stupid.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I have no bong, I refrain from drinking bong water and I personally you should stop agreeing to every explanation that the US goverment throws at you. While your argument that the CIA would not install an unfriendly, dangerous regime in Iran is, in part, logical, it is also sadly flawed from a historical perspective. In both afghanistan and Iraq they installed (or helped to install through their removal of the previous goverment) highly unfriendly and evil goverments that they hve subsequently removed, and are paying the blood price. The CIA did orchestrate that revolt- and got screwed because it turned out they got an even less cooperative bastard than the last time. The Shah was removed because he demanded a bigger piece of the slice from the Angle/American/Iranian oil production for his social reforms.

This made him dangerous. How else can you explain the sudden refusal to aid his goverment, the sudden upsurgance, organising and support for what had been previously a minor insurgency in a relatively stable, affluent and prosperous nation?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

While your argument that the CIA would not install an unfriendly, dangerous regime in Iran is, in part, logical, it is also sadly flawed from a historical perspective. In both afghanistan and Iraq they installed (or helped to install through their removal of the previous goverment) highly unfriendly and evil goverments that they hve subsequently removed, and are paying the blood price. The CIA did orchestrate that revolt- and got screwed because it turned out they got an even less cooperative bastard than the last time. The Shah was removed because he demanded a bigger piece of the slice from the Angle/American/Iranian oil production for his social reforms.

ok so the CIA and the american government created a revolution with a guy, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was very anti-american because iran was becoming more westernized and percieved as american friendly.

the Shah was very friendly towards america, after all they helped put him there. so why would they try to depose him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

it has a ton of different references, probly the most i've seen for a wikipedia article.

 

[werepossum]

I have no bong, I refrain from drinking bong water and I personally you should stop agreeing to every explanation that the US goverment throws at you. While your argument that the CIA would not install an unfriendly, dangerous regime in Iran is, in part, logical, it is also sadly flawed from a historical perspective. In both afghanistan and Iraq they installed (or helped to install through their removal of the previous goverment) highly unfriendly and evil goverments that they hve subsequently removed, and are paying the blood price. The CIA did orchestrate that revolt- and got screwed because it turned out they got an even less cooperative bastard than the last time. The Shah was removed because he demanded a bigger piece of the slice from the Angle/American/Iranian oil production for his social reforms.

This made him dangerous. How else can you explain the sudden refusal to aid his goverment, the sudden upsurgance, organising and support for what had been previously a minor insurgency in a relatively stable, affluent and prosperous nation?

Jimmy Carter. He reformed US policy to ban all support for countries which did not support human rights. The Shah was in many ways a son of a *****, as ruthless in maintaining power as Saddam Hussein although not given to torture, rape rooms, and personal vendettas. The Soviets supported the revolution, which had majority support within Iran because the Shah ran an iron-tight, heavy-handed regime with lots of secret police. (There's a reason why Iran used US and British equipment before the revolution, and Soviet and Chinese knock-offs of Soviet equipment after the revolution.) Political opponents who looked to become too powerful disappeared or were murdered. When we stopped support for the Shah, he could no longer get ammunition and spare parts to keep his American weapons and equipment running. His armor still worked - Great Britain did not cut him off - but his small arms, trucks, and artillery was cut off. He was caught by surprise because he had an excellent relationship with the US military, DIA, and CIA, having taken the Western side when his father maintained neutrality but traded with the Nazis. This led to both West (Britain and France) and East (Soviet Union) supporting his move into power more quickly than would have otherwise happened. The USA in '41 was still fat, dumb and happy, supplying arms and aid to the UK and the Soviet Union but not yet a major player in world affairs. Remember, the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), predecessor of the CIA, wasn't even established until June '42 and was always a joke compared to the sophisticated British MI6. The predecessor of the OSS (I forget the name) was established a year earlier, but was worse than useless, supplying mostly rumors and having no trained agents whatsoever. SO the USA had absolutely nothing to do with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi assuming power.

As to the Shah's ouster, I lived through that time and remember it well. Carter's motivation was ostensibly to force the Shah to adopt even more liberal policies, widening human rights and ending imprisonment and murder of political opponents. With the USA cutting off his armaments and the Soviets arming the revolutionaries, his fall was inevitable. No one who followed the events (except possibly Carter) was at all surprised when he fell, but it was not a CIA plot.

Hell, just the fact that the revolution succeeded should convince you it wasn't a CIA plot. These are the people who attempted to kill Castro using poison in his flowers.

Our problem in Afghanistan was in many ways the opposite. We aided the mujahideen with advanced weapons (mostly Redeye and later Stinger missiles, but also some Dragons if I remember correctly) and training, shared satellite intelligence with them, and otherwise aided them indirectly the same way that the Soviet Union aided the Iranian revolutionary movement (and the North Vietnamese, among others) to thwart us. Our problem was when the mujahideen won and the Soviet Union pulled out, we stopped paying attention to Afghanistan. The Pakistani-backed hardliners (Taliban) defeated the other factions for control of the country when we weren't paying attention since our ally, Pakistan, was now safe from the Soviets. (The USA befriended Pakistan to counter the importance of Indian, drifting toward the Soviet Union after independence. The Soviets wanted a warm water port; Afghanistan was the first step, and Pakistan would have been the second. At that point the United States either would have been drawn into war to protect our ally, Pakistan, or else have been seen by other countries as unwilling or unable to protect them from the Soviet Union.)

I paid VERY close attention to, and did a lot of research into, these events at the time because I was of military age and registered with the draft. I had a savvy friend in the military who explained the intricate connection of events to me, and he frankly expected war between the USA and the Soviet Union in the seventies or early eighties. If you've ever wondered why the Soviet Union would invade a tiny dirt-poor country with no significant resources and a warlike population that constantly fought amongst themselves but united to throw out every invader, it becomes very obvious when you study military operations and the restrictions and limitations to Russia's naval operations due to its borders.

 

[Nugoo]

And I apologize for calling you a moron. The idea that Peacekeepers should not actually engage the bad guys, but should be some sort of neutral, impotent human shields, really gets on my last nerve. But it was wrong of me to attack you for holding that view, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

See, this is what makes The Escapist so great.

The difference between Rwanda and Afghanistan is that the UN went into Rwanda in order to prevent the genocide. They failed, and I suspect authorization to use more force would have been more effective. The reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power and keep them out. Yes, there was oppression under their rule, but that's not why we went in. We went in because they attacked the US. This is very much a counter-attack, and I'm not comfortable with my country taking such an offensive role in it. (Keep in mind I really do mean "not comfortable", not "completely opposed to". I realize we have obligations to NATO.)

By the way, cleverlymadeup, how is going into a country, taking down the government, and staying to make sure they don't regain power not occupation?

 

[werepossum]

And I apologize for calling you a moron. The idea that Peacekeepers should not actually engage the bad guys, but should be some sort of neutral, impotent human shields, really gets on my last nerve. But it was wrong of me to attack you for holding that view, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

See, this is what makes The Escapist so great.

The difference between Rwanda and Afghanistan is that the UN went into Rwanda in order to prevent the genocide. They failed, and I suspect authorization to use more force would have been more effective. The reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power and keep them out. Yes, there was oppression under their rule, but that's not why we went in. We went in because they attacked the US. This is very much a counter-attack, and I'm not comfortable with my country taking such an offensive role in it. (Keep in mind I really do mean "not comfortable", not "completely opposed to". I realize we have obligations to NATO.)

Agreed and agreed.

 

[CanadianWolverine]

And I apologize for calling you a moron. The idea that Peacekeepers should not actually engage the bad guys, but should be some sort of neutral, impotent human shields, really gets on my last nerve. But it was wrong of me to attack you for holding that view, as you are entitled to your own opinion.

See, this is what makes The Escapist so great.

The difference between Rwanda and Afghanistan is that the UN went into Rwanda in order to prevent the genocide. They failed, and I suspect authorization to use more force would have been more effective. The reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power and keep them out. Yes, there was oppression under their rule, but that's not why we went in. We went in because they attacked the US. This is very much a counter-attack, and I'm not comfortable with my country taking such an offensive role in it. (Keep in mind I really do mean "not comfortable", not "completely opposed to". I realize we have obligations to NATO.)

Agreed and agreed.

Agreed here as well. "Not comfortable" is a good way of putting it. Oh well, no one ever said it would be easy...

 

[werepossum]

Agreed here as well. "Not comfortable" is a good way of putting it. Oh well, no one ever said it would be easy...

Actually, "not comfortable" is probably not a bad reaction to any war, as long as it doesn't interfere with support for the troops. You can for example send books, magazines, CDs, or other comfort items to your troops even if you aren't sure they should have been sent there. (Which reminds me I haven't done that in awhile...)

 

[Oh-Wiseone]

Oh Wiseone- the 1979 revolution was a CIA orchestrated coup-d'etat! Any buffoon who can read history knows that! (No offence, but your being fucking thick for somebody I'd previously assumed to be intelligent) As was the 1953 coup'd'etat! GOOD GOD! Are all Americans so blind to their own nation's mistakes!

Sorry for that. But the fact remains that the CIA orchestrated both the 1953 and 1979 overthrowal of the goverment once these goverments became too liberal and powerful. You can't change that simply by sticking your head in the sand and crying out 'no, it's all lies!', no matter how much you may want to believe it to be.

Secondly, peacekeeping is a neccesity. But the Afghanistan conflict is by no means 'peacekeeping'. It may be right (I believe it is), it may be neccesary, but it is not peacekeeping. No matter how you lookat it, the coalition went in and trashed that country's established authorities. That is not peacekeeping.

You could have admited to making a mistake and it would have never been talked about again, but instead you planted your feet firmly on the ground and got ran over by an 18 wheeler of truth. Show me something to support your claim that the CIA conducted an operation to place the Ayatollah in power, and I'll give it a look. Otherwise don't claim that a CIA operation placed one of the most Anti-American governments in power in Iran.

 

[lanostos]

Guys, what about we go back to the original subject: Canada's presence in Afghanistan.

I will go ahead and give my opinion on the current state of things:

Our country isn't there because it wants to please the US, we're there because the democratically elected government of Afghanistan has asked us (along with the other NATO countries) to help them in the effort to rebuild the country. We cannot rebuild the country while the Talibans are there.

All those who say that negotiation is possible are fooling themselves. The taliban is a determined and fanatical enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve it's objectives. As a government they ruled in an opressive and inhumane manner and that is why we cannot leave.

Before any signficant progress can be made in this country we must first deal with this threat.

So no, we're not here to instill fear in the populace, to exclusively fight al-qaeda or to pursue some dark conspiravy agenda from the US, we're here to curtail terrorist activities in the region, an objective that can be achieved by helping the Afghan people. This would consequently lessen terrorist threats for us at home.

CHIMO