http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/18/report-soldiers.html
What the hell?
How is it that the Canadian troops are suffering disproportionately more casualties in Iraq (six times) and in Afghanistan? (four and a half times)
vroom: Does poutine attract evildoers?
From the article:
“As we examined the troubling data, the question arose as to whether the Liberals misjudged the danger, and if the Conservatives ignored it,”
Now, where did we see that happen before? Let me see… Oh, wait… Yap!
Must be a North American thing, I guess!
[quote]hspder wrote:
From the article:
“As we examined the troubling data, the question arose as to whether the Liberals misjudged the danger, and if the Conservatives ignored it,”
Now, where did we see that happen before? Let me see… Oh, wait… Yap!
Must be a North American thing, I guess![/quote]
Okay pal, but why are Canadian troops six times more likely to die per capita than Americans?
Is it because they are doing disproportionately more dangerous duty? Does loving to play hockey make you a more visible target or something?
This isn’t some freak occurrence, right? So there’s got to be some kind of explanation for why the canucks are getting hit more often. Maybe there’s even a solution to this like “no combining french fries with gravy while on duty.”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/09/18/report-soldiers.html
What the hell?
How is it that the Canadian troops are suffering disproportionately more casualties in Iraq (six times) and in Afghanistan? (four and a half times)
vroom: Does poutine attract evildoers?[/quote]
No Canadians in Iraq, AFAIK. In Afghanistan, it is probably the case that it is the US that (in addition) provides the support services, which carries a lower risk, particularly in a situation where enemy mainly operates as a rural guerilla, rather than as an urban one.
Canadian troops are well trained professional soldiers.
If they are dying at a higher ratio over time it is because they executing more combat missions.
It’s a small consolation, but the Taliban are dying at a much higher ratio when they face Canadian and coalition troops.
We’re not talking about big numbers of casualties here, so it could easily be a statistical fluke. But the Canadians are also down south with the rest of the NATO contingent I think, which is where some of the heaviest fighting is going on. British casualties are also up.
Afghanistan is turning into a dangerous place again.
I think the language reflects the lower numbers involved which increases the odds per soldier when it comes to adverse events.
I’ve always felt that Afghanistan was an appropriate move and I hope it continues to be so. It is possible that over time things will change so that it isn’t possible to achieve any meaningful objectives…
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Maybe there’s even a solution to this like “no combining french fries with gravy while on duty.”[/quote]
By the way, would you like it if I were making stupid jokes about why American soldiers were getting killed or wounded?
I seriously doubt our soldiers are adequately equipped with all the best and newest equipment…
I think there are two big reasons why so many canadians are dying.
Their mission is Kandahar is extremely dangerous against an enemy who know the terrain very well.
A large part of their mission involves humanitarian efforts, which often required them to leave the safety of their armored vehicles, making them targets for suicide bombers.
Another factor is that the troops are stretched too thin.
NATO has asked repeatedly for an additional 2,500 troups to be deployed in the Afghan theater, and as of yet, no country has been willing to commit.
It’s one reason I wish Harper had a majority government, he could commit the additionnal troops without having to worry about being toppled in chambers; we could then do the mission right and reduce loss of life for everyone.
[quote]vroom wrote:
By the way, would you like it if I were making stupid jokes about why American soldiers were getting killed or wounded?[/quote]
Lothario appears determined to make a poutine joke. We might have to endure until he finally comes up with a funny one.
'Til then, here’s one:
Q: What’s the difference between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier?
A: None. Welcome to the US Army.
Hmmm, there have been a few reports in Belgium papers that during an argument between Afghani civilians and coalition troops over some donkey getting killed in an trafic accident, both parties duck for cover when the Yanks arrive on the scene.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Hmmm, there have been a few reports in Belgium papers that during an argument between Afghani civilians and coalition troops over some donkey getting killed in an trafic accident, both parties duck for cover when the Yanks arrive on the scene.[/quote]
Did your folks or grandparent’s duck for cover when the Yanks arrived or just the Germans?
I’m glad they’re actually helping us out. Shows that the NATO countries still got each others back 10 years after their main threat died. By the way isn’t France part of NATO?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Q: What’s the difference between a Taliban and a Canadian soldier?
A: None. Welcome to the US Army.
[/quote]
Yeah, I was just going to comment that from the news reports I’ve seen, Canadian soldiers are much more likely to die from US “friendly” fire than from Taliban. Who’s got yer back, eh?
[quote]tme wrote:
Yeah, I was just going to comment that from the news reports I’ve seen, Canadian soldiers are much more likely to die from US “friendly” fire than from Taliban. Who’s got yer back, eh? [/quote]
Not “much more likely,” but the ratio is something like 5:1… for every 5 soldier we lose to the Talibans, we lose 1 to the US. I understand that they provide air support. When you mess up with an F-16, you tend to kill a lot of people very quickly.
The first incident was made worse by the fact that the pilot asked for permission to bomb, HAD THE PERMISSION DENIED, and still bombed anyway because he thought he was attacked. http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/04/18/cdndeaths020418.html
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
I’m glad they’re actually helping us out. Shows that the NATO countries still got each others back 10 years after their main threat died. By the way isn’t France part of NATO?[/quote]
Yes. And France currently has about 1,900 troops serving in Afghanistan with other NATO members.
[quote]semper_fi wrote:
I’m glad they’re actually helping us out. Shows that the NATO countries still got each others back 10 years after their main threat died. By the way isn’t France part of NATO?[/quote]
France dropped out of NATO years ago but they do have troops in Afghanistan.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
I’m glad they’re actually helping us out. Shows that the NATO countries still got each others back 10 years after their main threat died. By the way isn’t France part of NATO?
France dropped out of NATO years ago but they do have troops in Afghanistan.[/quote]
No, they’re still a member, but dropped out of most joint military planning under De Gaulle.
They shifted from reconstruction work to COIN operations in a different AO. It’s a different mind set with new dangers that are rapidly evolving. I am IN NO WAY saying that Canadian Soldiers can’t cope. It’s just a big change in OPTEMPO and I’m sure they’ll adjust soon & casualty rates will go down.
I hate hearing these statistics and I’m sorry to hear of the losses. God bless the Canadian troops for all they do.