Canadians in Afghanistan six times more likely to die than Americans in Iraq

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
It's all well and good saying the death rate amongst Canadian soldiers is higher than for other nationalities in Afghanistan but the article doesn't even begin to address why. Is it the nature of the tasks assigned to Canadian troops? Shortcomings in equipment or training? Inadequate support from other NATO and US forces?

Without knowing why there is no way of knowing whether the problem is with the Canadian troops or with simply being in Afghanistan (as the "analysts" quoted imply). The whole article smacks of spin by those politically opposed to the current Canadian government rather than any meaningful analysis.

Actually, it does touch on why.

She emphasized that the risk Canadians face in Kandahar is "absolutely" riskier than what Americans face in Iraq.

What the Canadians are confronting is "as dangerous as what the Russians were facing 20 years ago." The Russians left Afghanistan in defeat in 1989 after a nine-year campaign.

Her numbers, Bird said, "underscore what the (NATO) commanders and the soldiers have said about the ferocity that they're facing."

The Canadian military asked for a risky assignment in the worst part of Afghanistan and the Liberal and then Conservative governments allowed them to proceed.

The reason for this coming up and being important may have something to do with the lack of response to recent NATO requests for reinforcements from alliance members.

[SlowwHand]

If I ever see it, I'll let you know.

[Arrian]

Sloww,

Do you or do you not believe there are Canadian troops in Iraq?

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asher
The citizens of Iraq are largely passive compared to the Taliban loyalists in Kandahar.

Yes, there's suicide bombers and resistance, but it's not nearly as openly hostile as the Kandahar region where the people are still mostly passionately loyal to the Taliban.

It really depends on where you go in Iraq and where you go in Afghanistan. There are indeed pitched battles in Iraq though the US and UK have used overwelming force to mostly force the insurgents underground. In Afghanistan NATO just hasn't ever sent enough troops to occupy the whole country. Canada does indeed have a hot spot in Afghanistan but I would like to point out that from 2001-2005 the US held the exact same spot, using 50%-70% reservists, and had a lower death rate. That lower deathrate was largely a result of the US using more troops then Canada currently is (resulting in better control) and the fact that the US really does train and equip their soldiers to fight wars while Canada (I'm judging based upon articles posted on another website) still trains its military more for a peace keeping role.

The skills needed in peace keeping and war time are just different and the soldiers need to be trained to react differently. The good news is Canada does have experience from WW1, WW2, and Korea which it can draw upon but the bad news is virtually all of the old time Canadian war time vets are dead and gone so the current military guys can't draw upon their wisdom. I'm sure Canada will get up to speed and change its tactics but in any large organization this will take time.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The reason for this coming up and being important may have something to do with the lack of response to recent NATO requests for reinforcements from alliance members.

I believe Poland was the only country to offer to increase it's troop levels and even then only by 1000. That's something but the NATO commanders were estimating an increase of several tens of thousands would be needed to keep the situation from getting worse.

That basically means only the US, UK, or Germany could come up with that many combat ready reenforcements but the US and UK are busy in Iraq while Germany's government most certainly doesn't want to send 25,000 additional soldiers.

[SlowwHand]

Arrian, I know the situation. I don't need a mere Canadian to tell me.
What I have a problem believing is that y'all have dedusions of being the glue that holds the whole effort in place. FYI, U.S. troops are still in Afganistan too.
As are many nations.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your newly discovered Nationalism. I didn't think Canadians were capable of it, in other than in hockey. Maybe there's hope. Maybe not. Dallas is undefeated in the fresh hockey season.

[Dinner]

Canada is doing an important job. They've upped their troop levels so that the US and UK could draw down theirs in Afghanistan and redirect their forces to Iraq.

[SlowwHand]

Damn it, Oerdin.

Don't boost them. It's my day to harrass Canadians. I haven't in a while.

[Az]

Btw, death by suicide bombers isn't "bad luck". It's either the lack of proper procedure or a lack of it's implementation.

[Asher]

How else does one provide humanitarian aid without getting close with people?

"Proper procedure" to avoid suicide bombers is to stay the hell away from people, which isn't an option for humanitarian missions. I realize Israel has a big problem comprehending the "humanitarian missions" part, so I'll excuse you for that.

[Arrian]

Proper procedure can also include blazing away at anything that comes close. It will protect your soldiers, but it will also kill a bunch of (sometimes dumb) civilians. How many such checkpoint tragedies have there been in Iraq? Quite a few, if my memory serves me.

-Arrian

[Dis]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Maybe if Bush hadn't got distracted by Iraq, Afghanistan would be well on its way to peace by now...?

Please. Afghanistan is unwinnable.

[SlowwHand]

Dawning on you that it's hard to fight an enemy that looks like a civilian?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Did you know, that americans in America have roughly 100% chance of dying? It's a quagmire!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Arrian
Sample size and bad lucky. I'm sorry Canadians are dying in Afganistan. I'm particularly sorry about the ones killed by American "friendly fire." But the OP is pretty much meaningless, isn't it?

edit: Sloww - one could argue the training in question is the training of US reservists (who bombed a bunch of Canadians in Afganistan not too long back).

No, I think it's just sample size/luck.

-Arrian

I can agree about reservists. Reserves have no place in a war zone (unless it's a all hell breaks loose war).