Canada joins "The Coalition of the Willing"

WI Canada joined the US invasion force? Chretien opposed the use of force in Gulf I (I kid you not) and got a small popularity boost in Quebec. He's still hated as a vendu for his role in '82. What would be the consequences?
 
Given the Canadian commitment to Afghanistan, and given the extreme likelihood of Canadian casualties in Iraq, two things would happen:
If Harper, Day or another Tory was in charge when, Stefane Dion, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff (unless one of them backed the war) would be PM.
If Martin, Chretien or another Liberal was in charge, Harper or another Tory could be in power, but it's more likely we could see PM Jack Layton.
 
WI Canada joined the US invasion force? Chretien opposed the use of force in Gulf I (I kid you not) and got a small popularity boost in Quebec. He's still hated as a vendu for his role in '82. What would be the consequences?

It actually is quite plausible. Chretien was under a lot of pressure from within his own party to go into Iraq. And the nation was split, with a majority outside of Quebec in favour, and with the opposite being true inside of Quebec.

We didn't have that big of a commitment in Afghanistan at the time. In fact the larger role there was Chretien's alternative to going into Iraq. That and about 100-120 Canadian soldiers did participate in Iraqi Freedom while on exchange with the US and British armies.

The consequences would probably be increased support for the BQ and the NDP. Chretien still leaves in late 2003. Combined with the sponsorship mess, the furor over Iraq is likely enough to sink Martin in 2004. harper becomes PM, and with a split in the vote between the NDP and the Bloc on one side and the Liberals on the other, combined with anti-war Liberals also staying home, the Tories likely sneak up the middle with a majority.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
If that had happened, the Canadian military right now would be in the shitter.

The CF is running itself ragged keeping up the rotation for Kandahar. If we had to do that for Basra or some other city as well, then I don't think the public opinion would bode well for sticking around in either till the present day.

The war in Iraq has already stained the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, and the CF didn't even go.

The Light Armoured Vehicles are already getting run past their "oil change" date. That's why the CF is rolling out up-engined M113s they're calling Tracked-LAVs; so they can fill the void that they'll have in the force structure until the LAVs can be refurbished.

The new Leopards had to be bought for Afghanistan, and that was a lucky break. The Germans already had some there, and the army was used to main battle tanks with that type of equipment on them.
But that kind of Get Out of Jail Free Card doesn't exist in Iraq.

There's the Americans usings the M1s and the British using Challengers.

The Canadian commitment might end up very much like the Australian one: showy at the beginning, but fairly short.
 
Given the small size of the Canadian Army, not to mention well-documented equipment problems, plus that Canada had already sent the largest contingent in NATO, as a percentage of the national army, to Afghanistan just what kind of commitment could Canada even deploy?
 
Given the small size of the Canadian Army, not to mention well-documented equipment problems, plus that Canada had already sent the largest contingent in NATO, as a percentage of the national army, to Afghanistan just what kind of commitment could Canada even deploy?

2 guys with a flag is all that would be needed.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Canada's secret weapon 'Tim Horton's'
Get the Iraq's hooked and threaten to close!;)

It worked in Kandahar.


With what they could send, I really don't think they could send anything. Once I get past my gag reflex towards even doing it, then I suppose the Canadian air force CF-18s could be sent in.

Perhaps 6 to 10 CF-18s co-located with the Australian and USMC Hornets out of Al Udeid in Qatar. (US Marine Corps and RAAF Hornet Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Holmes)

That would alleviate most of the equipment problems, and the CF-18s have the ability to drop the ordnance needed for the missions they were flying. They've been upgraded since Bosnia and Kosovo, and those two missions gave the Canadian Forces a lot of experience in air-to-ground missions.
 
It worked in Kandahar.


With what they could send, I really don't think they could send anything. Once I get past my gag reflex towards even doing it, then I suppose the Canadian air force CF-18s could be sent in.

Perhaps 6 to 10 CF-18s co-located with the Australian and USMC Hornets out of Al Udeid in Qatar. (US Marine Corps and RAAF Hornet Units of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tony Holmes)

That would alleviate most of the equipment problems, and the CF-18s have the ability to drop the ordnance needed for the missions they were flying. They've been upgraded since Bosnia and Kosovo, and those two missions gave the Canadian Forces a lot of experience in air-to-ground missions.

If Bosnia in 1996 or Kosovo in 1999 are an indication, the number of CF-18s sent in 2003 would have been at least a dozen. Probably 18-24. A whole squadron. At the time there were four 12 plane squadrons ( 416 and 441 (Cold Lake), 425 and 433(Bagotville)) plus the training squadron. (410 (Cold Lake)) In 2006 three combat squadrons were stood down and replaced with two 24 plane squadrons, 409 and an expanded 425.

In 2003 it probably would have been 425 Sqn. out of Bagotville as 441 Sqn, out Cold Lake had gone to Kosovo in 1999. It would have been their turn to go somewhere interesting...
 

Hashasheen

Banned
Army units are out of the question it seems, but what about aerial units? Mac said over on another thread concerning Iraqi airpower that they need helicopters instead of Migs and F-16's (At least, I think it was him). Does Canada have any helicopter-based units to be deployed?
 
Given the Canadian commitment to Afghanistan, and given the extreme likelihood of Canadian casualties in Iraq, two things would happen:
If Harper, Day or another Tory was in charge when, Stefane Dion, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff (unless one of them backed the war) would be PM.
If Martin, Chretien or another Liberal was in charge, Harper or another Tory could be in power, but it's more likely we could see PM Jack Layton.

Ignatieff backed the war. (Although he was in America at the time)
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Army units are out of the question it seems, but what about aerial units? Mac said over on another thread concerning Iraqi airpower that they need helicopters instead of Migs and F-16's (At least, I think it was him). Does Canada have any helicopter-based units to be deployed?

I was backing the F-16s. Don't worry though, it's hard to tell who said what when it comes to airpower. It's kind of a niche thing.


As I pointed out and RCAF elaborated on, Canada's probable contribution had it joined the Iraq War could've been in the form of CF-18s.

The Australians and Marines were operating land based ones as well, so that would cut down on the cost of basing them: you could just colocate.

The Canadian Forces and the USMC are already very much on an even footing as far as tactics and force deployment go. They're about the same size and are very similar in regards to integrated force structure.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Okay so lets say that Canada sends forces to fight in Iraq. A squardon of CF-18s two or three navy ships, and a token ground force. Note, sending boots on the ground doesn't mean infantry and armor. Could be something rear area type like a field hospital or an engineering unit. Combat would probably be done by light mobile forces, such as JTF 2 personnel. I don't see any reason to send tanks, though maybe APCs.

So you have a contingent of all three services, naval, air, and ground, amounting to roughly 2,000 troops, the same as the Australia contingent.

Basically once the invasion is over, aside from a very token ground contingent, the Canadians aren't going to do much else, maybe leave a couple hundred troops in theater, and not all of them combat. Maybe medics, engineers, and support personnel.

Getting over having Canada involved, if Canada commits troops, and depending on when they agree to do so, what might this do regarding US and British attempts to gain additional international support for going after Saddam. Quite a few nations actually did send token troops to provide peacekeeping and reconstruction assistance after the invasion, but aside from the US, UK, and Australia, the only other nation that provided any personnel was Poland with a contingent of about 200.

While no other countries might get involved that where not originally involved or willing to send troops either during or after the invasion, might some countries like Italy, Spain, S. Korea, or Poland that originally sent sizeable contingents after the invasion be willing to commit troops to the invasion itself, or in the case of Poland, possibly expand the number of forces it would be willing to send in initially?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
While no other countries might get involved that where not originally involved or willing to send troops either during or after the invasion, might some countries like Italy, Spain, S. Korea, or Poland that originally sent sizeable contingents after the invasion be willing to commit troops to the invasion itself, or in the case of Poland, possibly expand the number of forces it would be willing to send in initially?

I don't think so. It just doesn't seem likely to me. They've got other things to do, and they're more important.

One thing to remember is that if the US had a force size like Canada, it wouldn't be farting around in Iraq right now. Because it couldn't. A lot of the other nations that went into Afghanistan and then didn't go to Iraq said "No" not only because they had a gut feeling that it was wrong, they also didn't have the resources to do it.


That leads me to another butterfly of this whole thing: IFOR and Kandahar.

Let's expand this whole thing. Canada's going in. We'll say a battle group, for shits and giggles. 1RCR, or the 1st or 3rd of the Vandoos, since they were out of the rotation at the time of the invasion.

They'd be going in with the US, but most importantly, they'd be going in with Britain, Australia, and Poland.

Now: IFOR in Afghanistan is in charge of Kandahar and the surrounding area. Basically the powder keg of the country. IFOR is made up of many countries (primarily NATO) but only a few have expansive Rules of Engagement which allow their use as actual troops against the Taliban.
Those countries are: Britain, Australia, France, Poland, Canada, and the Dutch battery.
When the Iraq War started, Canada basically became the top dog in Kandahar by default, because there literally was no one left who could field the soldiers (and most importantly, the heavy armour) to do the job.

With Canada now fielding another battle group in Iraq, IFOR in Kandahar is seriously up the creek without a paddle. You've got the Dutch artillery battery, and what French special forces troops that are rotating through. When Australia and Canada finally decide they've had enough of the BS that is the Iraq War and they devote their full energy to IFOR, they're going to be sending their troops into a thunderstorm.
 
It actually is quite plausible. Chretien was under a lot of pressure from within his own party to go into Iraq. And the nation was split, with a majority outside of Quebec in favour, and with the opposite being true inside of Quebec.

Ummm, sorry wrong. Harper beleived that a majority of Canadians outside Québec supported the war (link), but he also believes that the solution to a recession is negative advertising, so I wouldn't put to much stock in his opinions. In effect both on diplomatic and government levels Canada was strongly opposed to the (illegal) invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As to the consequences, well aside from moral bankruptcy (but then again Chrétien already had that in spades). The liberals would have even less of a chance of winning a seat in Québec, never mind the sponsorship scandal. So a strengthening of the Bloc is most likely (like they needed any help). This screws up the federal elections even more leading to a series of minority governments, even weaker than the ones we have now, no guesses to who comes out with the PM booby prize, but likely the Bloc is in official opposition.

As to our military, well they're running pretty ragged due Kandahar right now, I can't imagine what seeing action in Iraq would do to troup levels and casualty figures. More than likely the Americans would only want us on for PR anyway, so maybe like in the first American Invasion of Iraq only the air force would be committed, what good they could do is beyond my limited knowledge of military capabilities.
 
Last edited:

HJ Tulp

Donor
While no other countries might get involved that where not originally involved or willing to send troops either during or after the invasion, might some countries like Italy, Spain, S. Korea, or Poland that originally sent sizeable contingents after the invasion be willing to commit troops to the invasion itself, or in the case of Poland, possibly expand the number of forces it would be willing to send in initially?


Maybe it will help the Dutch Governments efforts to get the Parlement to allow a Dutch contribution to the invasion. The US asked for a few specific units among which the 1MARNSBAT which is part of the UK/NL Landing Force and parts of the Airmobile Brigade supplemented by KCT Commandos.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Maybe it will help the Dutch Governments efforts to get the Parlement to allow a Dutch contribution to the invasion. The US asked for a few specific units among which the 1MARNSBAT which is part of the UK/NL Landing Force and parts of the Airmobile Brigade supplemented by KCT Commandos.

That still makes me nervous about the state of Afghanistan. This is basically taking out available resources from IFOR.

One of the forces the Afghans still trust more or less on the whole in Afghanistan is IFOR. And that's because they didn't half ass it after mid-2002.


But more directly on the topic: Al Udeid AB in Qatar had more room available. They could've based a dozen more Canadian CF-18s easily, and the Canadian CF-18s are roughly equivalent to F/A-18Cs which would actually make them the most advanced variant of the Hornet that would then be fielded by a non-American air force in the Iraqi theatre.

The RAAF fielded F/A-18As, the USMC and USNs F/A-18Cs (by and large).
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
That still makes me nervous about the state of Afghanistan. This is basically taking out available resources from IFOR.

One of the forces the Afghans still trust more or less on the whole in Afghanistan is IFOR. And that's because they didn't half ass it after mid-2002.

Even though there are no Dutch marines in Uruzgan (except for a handful of trainers) the costs in terms of money and more importantly spare parts would indeed make continued Dutch presence in Southern Afghanistan very hard indeed.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Even though there are no Dutch marines in Uruzgan (except for a handful of trainers) the costs in terms of money and more importantly spare parts would indeed make continued Dutch presence in Southern Afghanistan very hard indeed.

Exactly. Those spare parts are very important. In smaller militaries (and I'm very much putting Canada in this ballpark) logistics is very important. You have to keep a very rigid and balanced replacement schedule.

This whole thing is basically taking the guts out of IFOR.



Though I bet those crazy guys in JTF2 would just get a kick out of terror assing around Anbar and the north. That sounds like crazy stuff they'd like to do.
 
Ummm, sorry wrong. Harper beleived that a majority of Canadians outside Québec supported the war (link), but he also believes that the solution to a recession is negative advertising, so I wouldn't put to much stock in his opinions. In effect both on diplomatic and government levels Canada was strongly opposed to the (illegal) invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As to the consequences, well aside from moral bankruptcy (but then again Chrétien already had that in spades). The liberals would have even less of a chance of winning a seat in Québec, never mind the sponsorship scandal. So a strengthening of the Bloc is most likely (like they needed any help). This screws up the federal elections even more leading to a series of minority governments, even weaker than the ones we have now, no guesses to who comes out with the PM booby prize, but likely the Bloc is in official opposition.

As to our military, well they're running pretty ragged due Kandahar right now, I can't imagine what seeing action in Iraq would do to troup levels and casualty figures. More than likely the Americans would only want us on for PR anyway, so maybe like in the first American Invasion of Iraq only the air force would be committed, what good they could do is beyond my limited knowledge of military capabilities.
They'd Probably Kill a Few People, And Break Some Things ...

Not The Kind of Thing that would Really Affect Anything ...

But it would look REALLY Good, In The Regimental Combat History!

:p
 
Top