Canada's options: fight in Afghanistan or secure 2010 Olympics ?

[Signalman150]

I was one of the Olympians back in '76...i.e. a reservist volunteering to serve as security.

Based on what I remember of that, there will be A LOT of res people who might  be unable to commit to the 9-12 mos required for Afghanistan, but who would easily manage the 3-4 mos required for the Olympics in Whistler.  When I was with 2RCR in Montreal, the entire Regimental Police platoon wound up being res except for the sec cdrs and Pl WO.  The airborne, which is where I first wound up (in an ersatz Cdo comprised of the Eng Tp and the Arty Bty) had about a quarter of its strength fm reserves.

More scare mongering by ex-soldiers who should know better, and media to quick to pick up on a non-story.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was 8 months to young to do this, they hired lots of reserves for the 76 to deal with this, although I am not sure how good most of them would been. However planning a "surge" in the reserves to ensure decently trained reservists were available for 2010 would not be hard to do.

 

[KevinB]

Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security field.

Deploying troops - specifically reservists - w/o a large weapon refresher (todays climate is much different than 76) is a potential accident in a DOMOP.
And for what avail?

I consider this a method the Anti-afghan contingent is using to mobilize the pulbic -- fearmonger the public to demand the CF to "protect" the Olympics.

Remember the CF has JTF-2 for CT/AT roles
What could a "surge" do other than form a outer cordon - for what an open event?
G8 was doable since it involved closed Red and Blue zones enclosing the site - with a restricted list of visitors.

The Olympics is none of those...

 

[Signalman150]

Infidel,

I'm not interested in getting into a contest with you: you seem to have some reasons to want to keep the security at the Winter Olympics primarily in civ hands, and that's fine by me.  However...just to clear things up there's a couple of comments here (one by you) that are B.S.

I was 8 months to young to do this, they hired lots of reserves for the 76 to deal with this, although I am not sure how good most of them would been. However planning a "surge" in the reserves to ensure decently trained reservists were available for 2010 would not be hard to do.

The reserves that were in Montreal in 76 were just fine thank you very much.  During my first few weeks w/ 4Cdo we trained hard alongside the members of the regiment, and there was not a single incident that I'm aware of to indicate we weren't up to the job. When I went to 2RCR, we were put on the unglamorous job of walking perimeters around the practice soccer fields and the building where gymnastics practices were being held.  Again, things went smoothly, and the res people there did their jobs well.

Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security Deploying troops - specifically reservists - w/o a large weapon refresher (todays climate is much different than 76) is a potential accident in a DOMOP

Yeah the climate was so much better then back in '76....4 years after the entire Israeli team was wiped out by terrorists.  How's that again?  Our weapon's drills worked, they were adhered to and their were no weapons accidents involving Res Pers the entire time...(note: I specify PRes, because there WAS an accident during the Olympics, but not involving a Militia Plug). I guess what I want to say is...

quit talking out of your hat.  I don't mind if you object to CF providing the security, but don't create non-existent reasoning to do it.

Thanks.

 

[armyvern]

Well, '76 did also occur in Montreal shortly after the FLQ crisis as well on that note. It wasn't exactly a peaceful climate.

 

[eurowing]

If my memory serves me right we had about 120,000 regular forces in 1976. Army,Navy Air force combined.  I joined in 75 as a Gunner and happily spent 76-80 in Lahr.  Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I think Lahr and Baden combined was about 3000.

The numbers today are much tighter when it come to doing more.  It has been said that the numbers could come from other trades instead of Combat Arms.  A lot of those other trades are "one deep", especially in flying units and the Air force will be full into it's lowest numbers of qualified personnel by 2010.  I think the Navy is in a similar boat.(sorry for the pun)

Of course aircraft can be tasked to support the mission, but the Air Force would have very limited personnel assets to offer as "boots on the ground" for general duties etc

 

[KevinB]

Signalman150 -- how often did you "roll" with a round chambered? --
72 Munich nor the 70's FLQ issue where not specific issues to the 76 Montreal Oylmpics.
Regardless IF something had happened it would not have been a CF only issue.

Realsitically - a hostage taking is a NLI incident and JTF-2's elelments will deal with it.
WMD - The NBC unit out of trenton.

either are already on call for anythign else in Canada

My point with keep the CF out of it is the CF - conventional side - is not equipt nor trained to deal with this sort of issue - PERIOD.

 

[wannabe SF member]

Pardon the other sidetrack but do they make extensive use of vehicles and/or aircrafts in this kind of context.

 

[aesop081]

Pardon the other sidetrack but do they make extensive use of vehicles and/or aircrafts in this kind of context.

I'm sure that whatever is used, vehicules, aircraft or otherwise, for security or any plans DND may have isnt for public consumption.

 

[Darth_Hamel]

I think that this thread is overlooking a lot about the security needs for 2010. APEC was protecting 50 people in a remote location, 2010 is protecting several thousand people spread out over 3 urban centres. The Montreal Olympics were undertaken with a much larger army and in a culture which demanded far less security than today's [arguably paranoid] post 911 mindset.

The current planned CF contingent for 2010 is somewhere in the area of 5,000-10,000 troops, and 39 Bde would be hard pressed to supply 500 pers for a  month contract. According to their web site they may have around 2,000 soldiers on paper, but we all know how many boots on the ground that translates into in a reserve org.

The reality is that they will have to pull reservists from all across Canada and mobilize just about every available reg force pers that is in a field unit not deployed to have enough people. Then there are the enormous problems of feeding, housing and transporing a force that big.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Where do I sign up for TD for this?  ;D

 

[Michael OLeary]

Mike O'L -- Staff College 20 years ago does not give Col D credibility into current CF Operations -- nor has he any sort of credible security field.

Neither of which limitation are a direct result of his being a "Logistics officer", which the original critic used to decry his lack of current expertise.

Outdated, misinformed, misquoted, or all three perhaps he may be, but it was not because he was Logistics, or because he was an officer.

 

[Cronicbny]

I think we're also overlooking the Marine Security aspect of all this. I'm not by any means a security expert, but one would think you'd want to be pretty sure what cargoes were on the dozens of container ships/bulk carriers coming in and out of Vancouver. While I won't speak to the ACTUAL requirement for us to do all sorts of boardings (or what have you), guaranteed someone is already looking at that as an option. Furthermore, there may be a small requirement for some Mine Warfare stuff?!

Just a thought.

 

[KevinB]

The Navy and Airforce already patrols our seas and skies.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As usual, the "critics" are only telling part of the story and are taking things out of context.

A number of posters have alluded to the number of service personnel in the CF and comparing them to the number deployed in Afghanistan in an attempt to address the critics.

The actual answer isn't quite that simple.

Domestic operations, which the Olympics would be an example of, are not normally constrained by deployment considerations.  The amount of workup training is typically less, and operational waivers are not required.  Moreover, a much wider group of personnel can be used on domestic operations than could be employed on combat operations in Afghanistan - a theatre requiring very specific skillsets.  In other words, the "pool" of available personnel is much greater for the Olympics than for Kandahar.

Personally, I have little doubt that the Olympics will be a challenge.  However, it will be a "full court press", much as the G-8 was a few years ago.  Everyone will be "deployable" and everyone will be utilized - operational pace be damned.

I-6 is correct:  there are specialist elements that deal with specialized situations.  However, other posters have alluded to additional tasks, from logistics support, to port security, to air defence, to (as was done during the G*) manning of observation posts.  I have no doubt that the bill will be significant and that the entire CF will - in the end - be involved, despite attempts to manage expectations.

Frankly, without knowing exactly what the civilian authorities will (or have) requested, none of the commentators - Col (retd) Drapeau included - have the slightest idea what the impact on the military will be.  Besides, as was pointed out, is not our mission in Afghanistan to end in 2009?  :

 

[John Nayduk]

Maybe there is another plan here.  Could it be that the military and government are talking like things are very bad, manning wise, because they are looking at doing something outside the box and need the population to believe the move is necessary?  There is 15,000 reservists that no one seems to mention.  Please, no childish flame war over reg/reserve crap, we heard too much of that.  Why mention civilian contractors or mercenaries, but never a "call up" of the reserves?  Why take noncombat trade recruits and make theminto infantry when they already have a bunch of infantry trained reservists?  Conspiracy theory, perhaps.

 

[TCBF]

The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.

 

[rmacqueen]

The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.

+1

 

[Cronicbny]

The TCBF solution:  Cancel The Olympics.

+100000 LOL

 

[pbi]

I have to agree with Teddy. Force generation for a domestic op is much easier than for a deployed op, especially a combat op in difficult environment like Afghanistan. An Op like the Games, where the military is usually very clearly in support, not the primary security provider, can use all kinds of CF resources, many of which we would think of as "non-deployable". Training requirements vary from no special trraining for some to moderate for most folks. As well, force employment periods for a domestic op like this are usually quite short, which makes it ideal for Res of all components. As long as this op is truly "joint", and we don't waste uniforms where LEA or competent contractors can be used, IMHO we should be able to generate the needed force.

Cheers