Is it possible for Chrétien to make up his mind?

[DinoDoc]

OTTAWA - Ottawa now admits that some Canadian soldiers are in Iraq, even though Canada refused to join the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein.

Thirty-one Canadians are with U.S. and British troops in the Gulf as part of a military exchange, and a British army officer told CBC News that some of the Canadians are in combat.

But the prime minister continues to deny any Canadians are directly involved in the fighting.

For days the federal government has refused to disclose any information about the Canadian soldiers in the Gulf.

On Thursday, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe asked the prime minister to finally admit that having soldiers alongside coalition troops is the same thing as formally entering the war against Iraq.

Prime Minister Chrétien says Canada isn't at war with Iraq. But he conceded that some Canadian soldiers could be with U.S. and British troops inside the country. "It's possible," he said, "but they are not in combat roles."

But Lieut.-Col. Ronnie McCourt told CBC News, in an interview at command headquarters in Doha, Qatar, that some Canadians are on the front lines.

"They are in combat," he said, "and there's always a risk there."

Duceppe says five U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq were assigned to maintenance units. He says it's ludicrous to suggest that the Canadian soldiers in the region aren't involved.

"When you are at war, you are at war. If you're in maintenance, or if you're in combat directly."

NDP Leader Jack Layton says having even some soldiers in combat means Canada is at war, in violation of its stated policy. "They've told us that we're not involved. The House of Commons adopted a motion saying we're not to be involved. Now it's clear that we are involved. It's outrageous," he said.

The New Democrats are demanding that Defence Minister John McCallum be held in contempt of Parliament unless he discloses where the soldiers are. McCallum has refused.

The federal government is apparently prepared to accept the risk that some of its soldiers could be killed or captured, in a war that Canada refused to join.

What do you think? Is Gilles Duceppe right and there is no difference between having troops in the field and formally entering the war or is Chrétien holding fast to his principles and keeping Canada out of the war?

[Ben Kenobi]

Another side to this problem is the troops currently serving on spyplanes above Iraq, as part of a joint agreement with the US signed quite some time ago.

I guess my perspective on this issue is that Canada risks insulting the US moreso than already by pulling troops already committed out of Iraq.

[Asher]

Chretien doesn't know what's going on. He's seriously senile and cranky.

[St Leo]

Chretien

There is absolutely no reason to pull those troops out. They are an integral part of the units that they are deployed with and pulling them out would undermine the American war effort.

As Chretien has stated, the Americans are our friends. We may not agree with their war, but we are not going to interfere with their freedom of action.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Another side to this problem is the troops currently serving on spyplanes above Iraq, as part of a joint agreement with the US signed quite some time ago.

We have troops all over that region, so what? We're just honouring previous commitments we've made to other countries. I see nothing hypocritical about it, we're just keeping our word on other matters.

[Kontiki]

From what I understand, it's not as if our troops are in maintenance - as the American quoted said - which would of course put them in combat. AFAIK, they are serving at CentCom in Qatar and most likely on AWACS aircraft patrolling the skies.

Still, I don't think we should have any troops there as long as our stated position is to stay out of the conflict. I would, however, keep our naval assets in the region as part of other commitments.

[notyoueither]

Actually, having people in Iraq wearing Canadian uniforms and insignia is an act of war against Iraq. I seriously doubt they are out of uniform.

We can say we're not at war all we want, and that is exactly the colour of the sky on Jean's planet, but the fact remains that Canadian forces personnel are engaged in hostilities against Iraq. In other words, we are at war, although in a very limited fashion.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Actually, having people in Iraq wearing Canadian uniforms and insignia is an act of war against Iraq. I seriously doubt they are out of uniform.

We can say we're not at war all we want, and that is exactly the colour of the sky on Jean's planet, but the fact remains that Canadian forces personnel are engaged in hostilities against Iraq. In other words, we are at war, although in a very limited fashion.

If Canadian personnel are integrated with and attached to US units under pre-existing treaty or other agreements, IIRC, that does not create a state of war between Canada and Iraq, although those personnel specifically are combatants under the GC. In other words, those personnel don't have neutral party status, but there isn't a state of war between the two nations.

Countries have had observers and staff exchange programs with each other for a long time

[Asher]

Honest question: Why are there exchanges?

Is it so countries like Canada can send soldiers to the US, and take notes of what makes their military more effective (ie, "Mental Note: their soldiers have guns")?

[Kontiki]

I'm sure MtG can answer this more thoroughly, but basically the exchanges tend to be among allied countries (ie: NATO and PfP states) so that there can be better integration of command and control in times of conflict. Also, again among allies, standardized training means that, barring equipment differences, soldiers/officers from one country can theoretically be interchanged with those of another with a minimum of complications.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Asher
(ie, "Mental Note: their soldiers have guns")?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If Canadian personnel are integrated with and attached to US units under pre-existing treaty or other agreements, IIRC, that does not create a state of war between Canada and Iraq, although those personnel specifically are combatants under the GC. In other words, those personnel don't have neutral party status, but there isn't a state of war between the two nations.

Countries have had observers and staff exchange programs with each other for a long time

I suppose it would depend a bit on how the Iraqis viewed it. Observers I could buy, but the Brits seem to be indicating participation in hostilities. Canadian sources are saying logistics though.

I think the bigger point is that the government here has been trying to hide the involvement of these soldiers. I didn't know any went with units on the ground. I would have thought they would have stayed behind on garrison, given the governments position.

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Observers I could buy, but the Brits seem to be indicating participation in hostilities. Canadian sources are saying logistics though.

Right, like the Brits have been extremely reliable regarding their information lately.

[Uncle Sparky]

Because of pre-existing agreements, soldiers from various NATO countries serve from time to time with allied divisions. MtG is correct that, as they are under US or British command Canada is not involved in the war. There are also at least two dozen Canadians with joint Canadian/American or Canadian/British citizenship serving, though I have no idea how many are deployed.

Chretien first mentioned this before the fighting started and at that time stated that they would probably remain with there assigned units. Although I am against the war, I respect his decision.

BTW - Does anyone know how many of the "coalition of the willing" partners' that the US drones on about have soldiers in the field? Any plucky Albanians or Eritreans ? ... and Canada's the villain !

[Kontiki]

AFAIK, only the US, UK and Australia have actual combat assets in Iraq. Bulgaria and the Czech Republic (and maybe some others, not sure) have sent a couple of teams to handle possible chemical warfare scenarios, mainly decontamination. Otherwise, jack squat.

I don't think the US (and the CA) cares about Canada not sending troops, I think they're more up in arms that Canada hasn't said "Go USA! Invade that country!".

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kontiki
AFAIK, only the US, UK and Australia have actual combat assets in Iraq.

I think I've read that there'e a Polish commando unit involved as well, though I'm not positive about that.

[Uncle Sparky]

I think I've read that there'e a Polish commando unit involved as well, though I'm not positive about that.

I've hear that to. I believe there stationed in Paris getting ready for "phase II".

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky


I've hear that to. I believe there stationed in Paris getting ready for "phase II".

Nope. Polish Commandos (WTF?) are indeed on the ground in Iraq, Poland admited so after said Commandos posed for a picture with Reuters outside of Umm Qatah(or whatever the hell it's called)

Incidently, Albania sent it's dreaded "Korsomo" commandos to Iraq.

I suspect they are mildly less threatening than the Crips and Bloods.

[RedFred]

Jean Chretien has never been my favourite kind of guy and I never thought I'd be defending him. But I never thought I'd be agreeing with reasonable Russians over the bias and propaganda of the US media either. These are strange times indeed.

I believe our policy on this war is reasonable. To pull the troops out of our agreed upon exchange program would alienate the US far more than they are already. It is not unreasonable to view the war as a gigantic muslim fundamentalist terrorist recruitment advertisement. But even if our people were pulled, I doubt the terrorists will shake hands and check citizenship before attacking. English speakers of any type will not be popular in the Middle East for a long time. Wish I'd paid more attention at French class.

Yes Hussein is an evil monster Santiago type. Yes he is supporting terrorism. But unlike many Americans I don't believe he was even tangentally responsible for 9/11. And we needed to show our objection to a war that could easily worsen rather than improve the situation in the whole region and could very well result in "regime change" of governments friendly to the West in the area bordering Iraq.

[muppet]

Something the Canadian PM said sometime ago...

Canada’s military spending ranks average or higher when compared in real dollar terms to our allies and global military spending... This was a response to NATO’s Secretary General who was pressuring Canada to increase military spending. From 1980 to 1995 Canada’s share of world military spending nearly doubled and with dramatic increases last year and this year the trend will continue.

Question 1. What's the difference between 'real dollars' and 'GDP'? Does it mean Canadians experience higher opportunity cost in military spending - that it costs Canada more in terms of what it has to give up in social welfare, health care, infrastructure etc. than other NATO countries to field the same units/technology?

Question 2. Could it be Canada just doesn't have the equipment and manpower. I believe Canada had problems keeping 800, or was it 600 troops, in continued operation in Afghanistan. It's apparently been difficult for Canada to send even 1 additional frigate to the area - something about shortage of qualified crew to even man the frigate.

Question 3. What does it really mean for Canada to have observers/logistic people involved, dedicate 100M to post-war Iraq aid, and not formally declare war?

Don't you guys think it would have been harder for the PM to say to Canadians: We declare war on Iraq, BUT our military's current foreign operational capability is worth jack-squat. Canadian planes are still being upgraded to fly with American planes, there aren't enough crew to man Canadian frigates, and Canadian helicopters can only serve as freight choppers. That could have been unnecessary pain for Canadians since Canada has already committed to future military budget increases.

I was under the impression that Canadian forces had to hitch rides with US forces to get to the first Gulf War. Good to see the two working together. Thank you.

And that in Afghanistan, European allies refused to help Canadian forces get to Afghanistan, or something like that - I mean, it's a pretty short trip accross the Mediterranean for Europeans, but a pretty long ride for Canadians to get forces there. It is not exactly in Canada's national security interests to be able to transport an entire army to your side of the world, is it? Thank you for helping anyways. Well, not really, I'm just being diplomatic.

And exactly where are or were the rest of those pesky members of the allied coalition, in Afghanistan? It might not be so bad for other allies to pick up some slack if Canada is having serious economic and staffing problems at the moment. Maybe they just weren't prepared, but they might be next time.

Observations:
1. It seems Canadian government policy has been supportive of America. Chretian, I think, is even on Parliamentary debate records as having flat out said so.

2. Canada's actions have said as much.

3. Canada is an awfully big country for 30 million people. In perspective, France is double Canada's pop with less than half it's territory (I think). Could infrastructure or lack of economy of scale be what's causing this 'real dollar' thing they're talking about - I'm assuming it means it costs Canadians more for the same military output.

Give Canada a break, it's had forces deployed in that area since 1991. Where were the rest of the "allies"? Is it really necessary to humiliate Canadians, force them to declare war in a conflict that they can not possibly participate, numerically, economically, or technologically?

Would the position of the majority of the 'coalition of the willing' make more sense? Something like:

We support you, we fall just short of declaring war, though we have never allied with you, probably never will, have never sent troops to your aid, and probably never will, spend next to nothing on mutual security, have never participated in mutual foreign deployment, and might be willing to formally declare war if you give is a little more money.

If I were American, I'd rather have Canada as my ally, and the Canadian Prime Minister as my neighbour. I think the Canadian Prime Minister is having a tough time between the lack of manpower, and funds, too many past global military, peacekeeping commitments, and keeping Canadian national pride from taking a nose dive.

Just my rant for the day.

[Willem]

Originally posted by muppet


Just my rant for the day.

Well said!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Nope. Polish Commandos (WTF?)

Never, ever underestimate the ability of Polish warfighters. Man for man, they were the bravest, toughest, and most (rationally, not counting kamikaze or Hitler Jugend type nonsense) aggressive fighters in WW2.

Their top end units are exceptionally trained, have the best available personnel, and are up there with the best soldiers in the world.

Asher - Kontiki has the essence of the reason for changes. Another aspect with young officers is that perceived "stars" are often set up with this sort of duty to augment their experience as they become candidates for promotion to higher command. In the US, we also do the same thing between services - one example I remember from the 80's was a Marine aviator major, who'd done a staff tour with an Army armored division's attack helo squadron, had done a flying tour for two years with the USAF in F-15 (air superiority instead of being a mudmover like he was in the Marines), and had done 12 months and two deployments with the Navy on a fleet ballistic missile sub.