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

Op PRESENCE/Mali (Cdn mission/s, sitreps, etc. - merged)

milnews.ca said:
And here's a YouTube link to what's said to be drone video of the jumpers jumping....
First off, yes it's a cool vid.

But if there'd been a couple of machine gun teams moving towards the high-ground over-looking the DZ, it would be nice to pick them up and engage before their opening fire is the first indicator. We'd occasionally see scarce ISR assets used for 'tourism video'....watching our own insertions, etc,....rather than scanning for bad guys or something that can actually effect the mission -- usually if the LO was weak.

Just sayin'
 
The National Post is reporting JTF2 is in Bamako to protect the embassy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/28/canadian-special-forces-on-the-ground-in-mali/

Did anyone catch this in the CBC article:

Sources also told CBC News Canadian special forces conducting a training exercise in the neighbouring country of Niger passed along tactical information about the Malian Islamist rebels to the French.

Canada is not involved in any fighting on the ground in Mali, but after skirmishes close to the Niger-Malian border, Niger's military passed along information to the Canadian trainers who in turn, passed it along to French forces.

The Canadians were worried apparently that if the fighting spread they might be mistaken as targets — a source said passing the information to the French was simply "prudent."

.........

I am sure they were not worried about being targets.

But the bigger question is: who is the source that has no issue making that team a target now?




 
SEVARE, Mali - Tuareg fighters in northern Mali say they have seized control of the strategic city of Kidal and seven other northern towns from Islamist extremists.

The website of the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad — the Tuaregs' name for northern Mali — made the claim Tuesday.

It was not possible to independently verify the Tuareg movement's claim. The Tuaregs' statement comes as French and Malian forces say they control the fabled desert city of Timbuktu.

The Tuareg group said it is "fully subscribed to the fight against terrorist organizations" and will work with French troops.

But it "categorically refuses" to allow the return to the north of the Malian army, which it accuses of summary executions of civilians.

A fourth party in the conflict makes their resurgence.
Wonder what will France do?
Are they really independent of or opposed to the Islamists or is this a ploy for AQ to hide among the Tuareg? is that possible?
Here, from AP via Yahoo News
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/tuareg-rebels-seized-kidal-other-northern-mali-towns-093901851.html
 
Perhaps they are hedging their bets. Since they were kicked out of Libya after the fall of Khaddafi, there are a lot of former trained mercenaries sitting in the northern desert with nothing to do.
 
cupper said:
Perhaps they are hedging their bets. Since they some of them were kicked out of Libya after the fall of Khaddafi, there are a lot of former trained mercenaries sitting in the northern desert with nothing to do.
just a note, the Tuareg ppl are spread across the Sahara, not just Libya. Their struggle with the southern gov in Bamako goes back years and has been, until recently and except from Libyan support, mostly an internal issue (but Qaddafi saw this as an opportunity to expand his influence southward and fomented discontent in the whole Sahara region - he was stopped by the French in Chad ). It wasn't until several years ago, after pressure from the Algerian gov, that the Islamist infiltrated further south and slowly built their numbers to the point where they took over.

Are the French going to let them be or let the Malian army attack them?  Are they going to stay neutral and just go after the Islamist?
I suspect the later. We'll see.
 
Rider Pride said:
.... But the bigger question is: who is the source that has no issue making that team a target now?
Maybe or some group that seems to have no trouble sharing such tidbits with more than one outlet, or doesn't realize how bad this is, apparently ....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/28/pol-mali-monday.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-special-forces-soldiers-on-the-ground-in-mali/article7930840/
.... so I'm sure they'll be tracked down and punished because people in government are not supposed to share such information.
:sarcasm:
 
Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p5W9PKR6FdU
 
ProtectAndServe said:
I see the point of that video. Is there even a point in that video?

You can always tell 2 REP from a distance at night: the Gitanes spark up after a notional deployment count. ;D
 
ProtectAndServe said:
I see the point of that video. Is there even a point in that video?

Some people like to see what a combat jump looks like. Although with no one shooting at you it might seem to be a hollywood jump. 8)
 
Wall Street Journal
Why France Can't Fight:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324624404578257672194671036.html

I can think of a few other reasons too!  ;D
 
ProtectAndServe said:
I see the point of that video. Is there even a point in that video?

Simple,
We of the Brotherhood like this stuff. :nod:
 
57Chevy said:
Simple,
We of the Brotherhood like this stuff. :nod:

Yep...

Because until you've stepped off an airplane in flight, from 800 ft in complete darkness, wearing 50 lbs of parachutes and 70 lbs of kit...

You just haven't lived !!
 
daftandbarmy said:
Wall Street Journal
Why France Can't Fight:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324624404578257672194671036.html

I can think of a few other reasons too!  ;D

Interesting... the Telegraph seems to think otherwise:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/qi/8080884/Quite-Interesting-the-QI-cabinet-of-curiosity.html

HISTORY

Which country is the most successful military power in European history?

France. According to the historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in 50 – more than Austria (47) and England (43). Out of 168 battles fought since 387BC, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

The British tend to be rather selective about the battles they remember. Every English schoolboy was once able to recite the roll call of our glorious wins at Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356) and Agincourt (1415), but no one’s ever heard of the French victories at Patay (1429) and (especially) at Castillon (1453), where French cannons tore the English apart, winning the Hundred Years War and confirming France as the most powerful military nation in Europe.

And what about the Duke of Enghien thrashing the Spanish at Rocroi late on in the Thirty Years War in 1643, ending a century of Spanish dominance? Or the siege of Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781, when General Comte de Rochambeau and American forces prevailed? The British always prided themselves on superiority at sea, but knew they could never win a land war on the Continent.

France’s achievements help to explain another French “military victory”. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is French.

;)
 
Don't worry, folks, the blue berets/helmets'll sort it all out once the big guns leave and the bad guys can seep back in....
France's defence minister has said he backs the idea of sending a UN peacekeeping force to Mali.

Jean-Yves Le Drian's comments come as the French troops continue to secure the most northerly town of Kidal.

France has deployed some 4,500 troops during the three-week offensive against militant Islamists in the north of Mali - an area the size of France.

But is now preparing to hand over the towns it has captured to an African force, expected to number 7,700.

So far about 2,000 African soldiers, mainly from Chad and Niger, are thought to be on the ground in Mali.

It will be the job of the African Union-backed force, the International Support Mission to Mali (Afisma), to root out the al-Qaeda-linked insurgents that have fled into the desert further north.

The BBC's Christian Fraser in Paris says the UN Security Council had previously been uncomfortable about deploying a force under a UN mandate, but support is growing.

Envoys believe it would easier to monitor and prevent human rights abuses if the UN could pick and choose which national contingents to use, he says ....
 
"France’s achievements help to explain another French “military victory”. Whether it is ranks (general, captain, corporal, lieutenant); equipment (lance, mine, bayonet, epaulette, trench); organisation (volunteer, regiment, soldier, barracks) or strategy (army, camouflage, combat, esprit de corps, reconnaissance), the language of warfare is French."

It's funny that during Second Language Training, I was taught that the (admittedly Quebecois) French word for "leadership" is.....leadership. 

 
Dimsum said:
It's funny that during Second Language Training, I was taught that the (admittedly Quebecois) French word for "leadership" is.....leadership.

The word "leadership" does not translate in one simple word in french, and all Francophonie countries use the english term, not only Québec.

The word "watermanship" also does not translate directly into french, yet I can swim and ride a canoe...
 
Jungle said:
The word "leadership" does not translate in one simple word in french, and all Francophonie countries use the english term, not only Québec.

Actually it does

direction or/ou commandement
however 'leadership' is the more accepted terminology.
 
daftandbarmy said:
Wall Street Journal
Why France Can't Fight:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324624404578257672194671036.html

I can think of a few other reasons too!  ;D


See my comments, and how they relate to Canada, here. Whether the French are good soldiers (my opinion: generally, yes, albeit too often very badly led) and whether French strategy is good (my opinion: generally, no, for the last 560 years, since about 1453) are matters for debate but what is not debatable is that France spends about 2.3% of its GDP on defence while Canada spends only 1.4%. The outcome is that France can have a foreign policy worth the name because it has the military means to act; but Canada(?) ... not so much. 
 
Back
Top