• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Sniper Sets Longest Shot Record

And the interim leader of the NDP takes issue with the Liberal promise that our troops would not engage in combat in this CP story reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the copyright act.

Mulcair raises red flags after Canadian sniper breaks record in Iraq
By The Canadian Press — Jun 23 2017

OTTAWA — NDP leader Tom Mulcair is forgoing the celebration and raising red flags after reports a Canadian sniper in Iraq broke the world record for the longest confirmed kill.

National Defence says the sniper is a member of the ultra-secret Joint Task Force 2 unit deployed as part of Canada's mission against ISIL, and that his target was more 3.5 kilometres away.

That is more than a kilometre farther than the previous record, which was held by a British sniper who shot a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan in 2009.

But while news of the shot is spreading around the world like wildfire, Mulcair has written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau raising concerns about what the shot means for Canada's mission in Iraq.

In particular, Mulcair says the incident raises fresh questions about the Liberals' promise that Canadian soldiers would not be involved in combat with ISIL.

The government has long maintained that Canadians soldiers in Iraq are not in combat, even though their so-called "advise and assist" mission allows them to shoot and kill ISIL fighters.
 
A fantastic feat of marksmanship, however, should the sniper be married, how will he explain to his spouse his inability to be equally on target when said target is the toilet bowl.
 
jollyjacktar said:
Taliban Tom?

After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening. 

Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.

 
Dimsum said:
After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening. 

Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.

The snipers were simply making use of the "assist" part of advise and assist.  Eliminating opfor is assisting friendlies isn't it?
 
Dimsum said:
After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening. 

Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.

This is the double edged sword of releasing details about activities done by our special ops.

Their mandate and scope is beyond any publicly known missions.

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.
 
Blackadder1916 said:
A fantastic feat of marksmanship, however, should the sniper be married, how will he explain to his spouse his inability to be equally on target when said target is the toilet bowl.

Easy, if she is so concerned she can be his spotter each and every time he has to go do his duty.
 
gryphonv said:
This is the double edged sword of releasing details about activities done by our special ops.

Their mandate and scope is beyond any publicly known missions.

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.

Well, the difference I noticed this time around was that the NDP did *not* suggest it should stop.  So that's something.
 
Dimsum said:
After reading the letter (and, surprisingly, agreeing with it), I wouldn't say he's being Taliban Tom.  He's asking why, considering the official stance is "advise and assist", why it's not changing to "combat" if things like this are happening. 

Essentially, he's asking for the current government to be honest about the mission mandate.
"Training mission" is the same as "Peacekeeping mission". Government seems happen to manipulate the public perception and approval.


 
Dimsum said:
Well, the difference I noticed this time around was that the NDP did *not* suggest it should stop.  So that's something.

....wait for it...

Along with demands for an apology to the family and financial compensation.
 
[quote author=gryphonv]

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.
[/quote]

I did find it strange too, but, have you considered the liberal government made sure this was released  on purpose?

With the US busting our balls because of our military spending and activities,  a 3500 meter kill shot against ISIS in Iraq by special forces makes it harder to say we're not contributing. 
Some icing (ISISing ha) on the budget cake.
Canada's tiny underfunded underequipped military looks like rockstars again all for the price of a. 50match round. Pretty smart.
 
The National Post, in this editorial reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, raises the same issue as Tom Mulcair, but provides rationale for its position in support of the shot.

National Post View: The Liberals say we're not 'combating' ISIL, yet our snipers are being lauded for record-setting kill shots
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/national-post-view-the-liberals-say-were-not-combatting-isil-yet-our-snipers-are-being-lauded-for-record-setting-kill-shots/wcm/18d8f92c-7e70-4b99-b769-647da3a39025

A Canadian sniper successfully engaged an ISIL soldier, setting a new world record for longest-ever confirmed kill. Sounds like combat, no?
National Post View
June 23, 2017
7:26 PM EDT

The Canadian military got some well-deserved positive publicity this week with the announcement that a Canadian sniper team serving in Iraq set a new world record for the longest-ever confirmed kill. According to Canadian Special Operations Command, the two-man team (which was serving with the special operations unit Joint Task Force 2) successfully engaged an ISIL soldier at a range of 3,540 metres. That’s 3.5 kilometres. More than two miles. This shatters the previous world record held by a British army sniper by more than a kilometre.

It’s a good news story, and further confirmation that Canada’s snipers are the best in the world (three of the top five long-range kill shots were obtained by Canadian troops, with an American and Briton rounding out the list). It’s also likely that the shot saved the lives of friendly Iraqi forces and civilians who may otherwise have been endangered by an airstrike.

So bravo. Well done. But doesn’t that sound an awful lot like, you know, combat?

Canadian military forces have been involved in the fight against the Islamic State for years. But in early 2016, the then-newly elected Liberal government decided to end Canada’s combat role in Syria and Iraq. CF-18 jets that had been bombing ISIL targets in these two countries were withdrawn; two refuelling aircraft and a reconnaissance plane stayed behind. Meanwhile, the Liberals rebuffed suggestions that Canada was doing less to stop ISIL, noting that it was dispatching additional ground forces to Iraq to provide training, leadership and other forms of non-combat support to Iraqi and Kurdish units. The government was emphatic: these troops would not seek to engage the enemy, but would defend themselves if it became necessary (which it did, on more than one occasion). These occasional defensive skirmishes aside, however, the role of the Canadian forces was clear: advise and assist, but do not seek to engage.

Or so the public was told at the time. If the government has amended its policy, it hasn’t said so. Which is what makes this week’s reports of incredible marksmanship by a Canadian commando so interesting. A 3.5 kilometre sniper shot is many things: a tremendous feat of arms, first and foremost. And if it saved the lives of allied troops and innocent civilians, it’s also a blessing. But there are two things it most certainly is not: training assistance or urgent defensive fire.

If Canadian troops are now actively engaging ISIL forces, helping speed the collapse of its odious caliphate, we would be delighted. We opposed the Liberals’ decision to end our combat mission and would welcome a reversal of it. Some media reports claim military sources have told them that Canadian sniper teams are actively involved against ISIL beyond this single sniper incident. If so, good.

But the government should not have kept this reversal a secret from the public.

On Thursday, the military implied that there had been no reversal. “As stated multiple times in the past, members of the Canadian Special Operations Task Force do not accompany leading combat elements, but enable the Iraqi security forces who are in a tough combat mission,” a military spokesperson said. That’s fair, but in the context of snipers, also meaningless. Snipers are not typically members of leading combat elements. That’s the whole point of snipers; they’re required to be effective over long ranges precisely because they’re not usually deployed at the front. Hypothetically speaking, the military could deploy a thousand sniper teams to Iraq and set them loose on ISIL from miles away. The resulting devastation to the enemy would not technically require the deployment of Canadian troops to the front. But it would, of course, be absurd to then argue that combat was not occurring.

Similarly, artillery and tank rounds can kill over even longer ranges, also well back from the front. So can our CF-18s, which engage targets from such distances the pilots often never see their targets. But if the Canadian military sent artillery, tanks and CF-18 jets to Iraq and set them loose on the enemy, we would not pretend we were engaged in anything other than combat. As these examples make clear, there is no logical basis for treating sniper teams any differently. Combat is binary: you’re either in it or you’re not. And if we’re actively choosing to get involved (and not just in defensive action), we’re engaged in a combat mission.

And so we should be. Canada clearly has some of the world’s best snipers, and in ISIL, we have an enemy deserving of total destruction. The Liberals have recently spoken of Canada’s need to wield hard power, and this is exactly that. Let’s use it, but use it honestly. The public supported military action against ISIL before. It likely would again. The government simply needs to be honest about the good and necessary work our soldiers are already doing.

-- mod edit to add link --
 
Jarnhamar said:
[quote author=gryphonv]

I wish they kept this 'genie' under a lid to be honest, congratulated the guy in private(which I'm sure was already done) instead of making it public knowledge. Because stuff like Mr. Mulcair questioning it publicly will and should happen.

Imagine the political firestorm if all details on missions done by special ops guys became public.


I did find it strange too, but, have you considered the liberal government made sure this was released  on purpose?

With the US busting our balls because of our military spending and activities,  a 3500 meter kill shot against ISIS in Iraq by special forces makes it harder to say we're not contributing. 
Some icing (ISISing ha) on the budget cake.
Canada's tiny underfunded underequipped military looks like rockstars again all for the price of a. 50match round. Pretty smart.
[/quote]

Good points, and very valid. 

Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.
 
George Wallace said:
Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.

I'm all for OPSEC.  But I for one think that we consistently overdo OPSEC in the CAF.  This of course includes announcing to the public just how good we are. 

Consider this for a second.  If only 1/10 of the successful submarine operations were released to the press in the past 10 years we might not have as many problems explaining to the public why submarines are so important.  The recently released information on how a Canadian sub on exercise was rapidly retasked to track suddenly active russians was a good news story that was a middle ground between OPSEC and giving the RCN submariners their due.

This story is similar.  A record breaking shot fighting the good fight is something too crow about.  Where, when, how are not in the briefing and I think this is a good balance.  The public needs to know what their troops are doing, especially when they are doing things right.

 
Underway said:
The recently released information on how a Canadian sub on exercise was rapidly retasked to track suddenly active russians was a good news story that was a middle ground between OPSEC and giving the RCN submariners their due.

Wait, what released info  ???
 
George Wallace said:
Those concerned with security will agree that these matters really are not, and should not, be Public knowledge for OPSEC reasons; yet a 'failing' Government would like to use whatever it can to prop up its credibility.

You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.  :boring:
 
PPCLI Guy said:
You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.  :boring:

Zing!!  :rofl:
 
PPCLI Guy said:
You actually broke the sound barrier there with your rush to confirm your believe that the Liberals are evil.  :boring:

I don't think they are smart enough to be 'evil'.

Perhaps you can do me a great favour though; WTF exactly is this "Escalator Tax" on beer they dreamt up?  Will we soon see a 200% Tax on beer?
 
Back
Top