Canada's role in Kandahar: Analysis

[Gpig]

Hey all,

Interesting piece on the CBC website:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/10/f-vp-stewart-kandahar.html

I'm dissapointed that there wasn't more over-arching command and control in the NATO mission that could have rectified shortcomings in Kandahar. Even if that meant swapping forces in Kandahar province. And it's really sad that the mission (and lives) hinges on something as simple as a desire for "prestige." Damnable ego.

Gpig

[JonS]

it's really sad that the mission (and lives) hinges on something as simple as a desire for "prestige." Damnable ego.

I wouldn't put it quite that negatively.

Most countries require sufficient public support to carry on with wars of no national importance in third-world sh!tholes. Part of that is generated and sustained by the impression (real or manufactured) that what "our boys" are doing is significant, worthwhile, and meaningful. Guarding the ramp at Bagram airfield doesn't really tick any of those boxes. So people want to get involved in high-profile 'prestigious' operations so they can, ah, generate public support to stay in the third-world sh!thole and continue to get involved in high-profile 'prestigious' operations.

But, yes, there is also a certain amount of "well, hell, we got all these tos, let's go blow something up!"

[Affentitten]

I wouldn't put it quite that negatively.

Most countries require sufficient public support to carry on with wars of no national importance in third-world sh!tholes. Part of that is generated and sustained by the impression (real or manufactured) that what "our boys" are doing is significant, worthwhile, and meaningful. Guarding the ramp at Bagram airfield doesn't really tick any of those boxes. So people want to get involved in high-profile 'prestigious' operations so they can, ah, generate public support to stay in the third-world sh!thole and continue to get involved in high-profile 'prestigious' operations.

But, yes, there is also a certain amount of "well, hell, we got all these tos, let's go blow something up!"

Things were so much easier when you could just send out the Queen's Own Light Philanderers on a "punitive expedition" and be assured that the public would support it on the grounds of "civilising influence".

[Pak_43]

Just finished

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cables-Kabul-Inside-Afghanistan-Campaign/dp/0007432011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342194821&sr=8-1

A really good read with many eyebrow raising details in it, a lot of references to the UK armies rotation policy and the desire of new brigade leaders to indulge in high profile "kinetic" operations since it was their one chance to put their training into play...

[MG TOW]

Hey all,

Interesting piece on the CBC website:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/10/f-vp-stewart-kandahar.html

I'm dissapointed that there wasn't more over-arching command and control in the NATO mission that could have rectified shortcomings in Kandahar. Even if that meant swapping forces in Kandahar province. And it's really sad that the mission (and lives) hinges on something as simple as a desire for "prestige." Damnable ego.

Gpig

Sounds a little like Canada was setup. Hard to fight that war without any helicopters, transports and gunships. Canada had none, zip. Relied on heavy tanks and armor sweeps...who does that sound like? They did have good artillery, the best, and spared no expense with guided rounds which probably saved their bacon. Still they lost alot of troops for such a small fighting force.