Canada joins "The Coalition of the Willing"

MacCaulay

Banned
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.

The Canadian air force did CAP missions at the beginning of Operation Southern Watch, had naval assets on station in Gulf, and put a mobile hospital in place by the end of ground war for possible chemical weapons casualties.
You put OSW CAP experience together with the air to ground missions they flew over Yugoslavia in '99, and you've basically got a recipe for everything needed for a modern air war.
Short of pressing the trigger on their AIM-9s, they did everything the USAF, RAF, and Armee de l'Air did, they just didn't do as much of it. Though if you go by amount of airframes, they might have done more per capita.
 

Hyperion

Banned
After doing some looking, I'm inclined to agree that aside from say a dozen CF-18s, Canadian troops would be of better use in Afghanistan as as opposed to Iraq for a major deployment. I think it is possible however that a small noncombat unit could be sent, say a 100-200 person medical detachment, something that isn't going to eat up massive amounts of equipment time like armored or artillery or infantry would, and something that the PM can use to tote humanitarian aid as the primary objectives of the deployment.

After doing some looking, I really don't see now Italy, Netherlands, or S. Korea sending any additional troops sooner, especially during the invasion.

I do think however that if the US and possibly UK would be willing to fit some of the extra costs and provide some extra transport services with aircraft, you might see a token increase in the number of Spanish troops and Polish troops in the invasion. From what I've seen Spain had around 1,300 troops that operated with the US Army, and the Poles had a 200 strong commando unit with the British, Australian, and the Danes. Both of those countries, while not necessarily in possession of major logistics, do actually have fairly good sized armies, not counting reserve units and such, that sending a token increase of a few hundred might be somewhat feasable.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
After doing some looking, I'm inclined to agree that aside from say a dozen CF-18s, Canadian troops would be of better use in Afghanistan as as opposed to Iraq for a major deployment. I think it is possible however that a small noncombat unit could be sent, say a 100-200 person medical detachment, something that isn't going to eat up massive amounts of equipment time like armored or artillery or infantry would, and something that the PM can use to tote humanitarian aid as the primary objectives of the deployment.

DART team. Disaster Assistance Response Team.

The Canadian military's gift to the world. The CF fucking invented civil affairs. Between Les Pearson and DART, no one does it better than the CF.


I do think however that if the US and possibly UK would be willing to fit some of the extra costs and provide some extra transport services with aircraft, you might see a token increase in the number of Spanish troops and Polish troops in the invasion. From what I've seen Spain had around 1,300 troops that operated with the US Army, and the Poles had a 200 strong commando unit with the British, Australian, and the Danes. Both of those countries, while not necessarily in possession of major logistics, do actually have fairly good sized armies, not counting reserve units and such, that sending a token increase of a few hundred might be somewhat feasable.

You just hit on my whole theory of peacekeeping: the US shouldn't send troops places for peackeeping unless it's absolutely necessary: normally people are more than willing to send troops places for peacekeeping (Rwanda, Bosnia, etc.) but they don't have the lift or logistics capacity, which is something the US has in spades.
If the US promised to foot the bill for UN peacekeeping missions and provide the C-5s and C-130s, then they wouldn't have to move more than half the troops out for peacekeeping missions that they do now.
 
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.

More than a few opinion polls run at the time showed this. That kind of support for the war didn't last much past the summer of 2003. The support mentioned in the Liberal Party was from the faction that supported Paul Martin. Who at this point had already forced Chretien to announce that he (Chretien) was retiring by the spring of 2004. Had Martin been able to force Chretien to out and out retire in the fall of 2002, Canada would have gone to Iraq. Martin was in favour of joining in until it turned into a Charlie-Foxtrot.

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.

It also strengthens the NDP, at the expense of the Liberals, which could give the suddenly united Conservatives a boost in places where they aren't the strongest. This would also force Martin to delay a federal election right up until 2005, when he'd have to call it. Because majority or minority, the next government would not be Liberal. There would be no Martin minority in 2004/5, instead there would be a Liberal majority until the election, followed by a government composed of whoever won in 2005. Probably Tory (Or Alliance, the Conservatives might not reunite. They may not need to...) with the opposition split three ways and very weak.

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.

If it was the Air Force, they would do about the same as they did in Kosovo. Which is that they would punch far above their weight. And Iraq in 2003 would have been a good field test for the upgrades that the CF-18s got following the action in Kosovo. Depending on how it went, the result could well have been the Air Force getting new planes, rather than the life extension program for the ones we already have.

The Air Force going is what my father thought was going to happen. However, he wouldn't have got to go. (He was in Borden at the time, and that isn't a fighter base.) But the again, he missed the first war by about three days. The rotation he was part of (which would have sent 421 Sqn over) was packed and ready to go when the war suddenly ended.

If ground troops were used, that would mean that the expansion of the Afghanistan mission that occurred in 2002 never happened, so there would be small numbers of troops there while the bulk went to Iraq, rather than a small (about 100-120) number of troops went to Iraq (Why do people even deny this, it raised quite the shitstorm at the time, and it is one of the reasons that that asshole Chretien should have at least given the mission upport rather than public condemnation.) while the huge number went to Afghanistan.

The Navy actually did participate in Irqai Freedom, as part of the escort for one of the US carrier groups in the Arabian Sea. It was touted as being part of the Afghanistan mission, but what they were escorting was bombing the shit out of Iraq too. That doesn't get mentioned by people who say that we weren't involved in the war. F***ing two faced lying bastards.
 

Hyperion

Banned
If it was the Air Force, they would do about the same as they did in Kosovo. Which is that they would punch far above their weight. And Iraq in 2003 would have been a good field test for the upgrades that the CF-18s got following the action in Kosovo. Depending on how it went, the result could well have been the Air Force getting new planes, rather than the life extension program for the ones we already have.

The Air Force going is what my father thought was going to happen. However, he wouldn't have got to go. (He was in Borden at the time, and that isn't a fighter base.) But the again, he missed the first war by about three days. The rotation he was part of (which would have sent 421 Sqn over) was packed and ready to go when the war suddenly ended.

If ground troops were used, that would mean that the expansion of the Afghanistan mission that occurred in 2002 never happened, so there would be small numbers of troops there while the bulk went to Iraq, rather than a small (about 100-120) number of troops went to Iraq (Why do people even deny this, it raised quite the shitstorm at the time, and it is one of the reasons that that asshole Chretien should have at least given the mission upport rather than public condemnation.) while the huge number went to Afghanistan.

The Navy actually did participate in Irqai Freedom, as part of the escort for one of the US carrier groups in the Arabian Sea. It was touted as being part of the Afghanistan mission, but what they were escorting was bombing the shit out of Iraq too. That doesn't get mentioned by people who say that we weren't involved in the war. F***ing two faced lying bastards.

Sounds about right. Say 12 CF-18s, a 200 person DART unit. Maybe Throw in another 100 personnel for a mixed bag of support(EOD, Hazmat Cleanup, engineers) nothing actually for combat purposed though. Nothing tha will require tanks, or even a lot of APCs or anything. That makes a grand total of 300 tops, none of which will be of much use for actual combat or street patrols or anything. Most of them will sit either in rear areas with everyone elses rear area units. More of a PR and humanitarian thing than anything else. Something that can also be easily transfered over to control of the US, Iraqis, or someone else later on without much of an issue. In fact, even with such a token force, the PM could still declare that beyond initially going in, he might set a mandate for keeping them in country for one year. After that, its been real folks, but we've got places to go, people to see.

As for another country like Poland sending more troops as I mentioned earlier, Poland had 194 special ops troops on the ground with the British and Australians. Post invasion, they deployed a 2,500 strong force for peacekeeping purposes, and remained in somewhat smaller numbers through the end of 2008, the final count that I've heard being around 900.

I've also read from some sites, including wikipedia, that in addition to the 200 troops Poland already had available on the ground, a 53 man antichemical team was to be sent to Turkey, but because of the speed of the invasion, was stopped one day from leaving. So it is possible that if Canada where to make such a move as to sending a token humanitarian assistance team, a country like Poland that was already committed to fight from the beginning might be willing to get more involved.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Sounds about right. Say 12 CF-18s, a 200 person DART unit. Maybe Throw in another 100 personnel for a mixed bag of support(EOD, Hazmat Cleanup, engineers) nothing actually for combat purposed though. Nothing tha will require tanks, or even a lot of APCs or anything. That makes a grand total of 300 tops, none of which will be of much use for actual combat or street patrols or anything. Most of them will sit either in rear areas with everyone elses rear area units. More of a PR and humanitarian thing than anything else. Something that can also be easily transfered over to control of the US, Iraqis, or someone else later on without much of an issue. In fact, even with such a token force, the PM could still declare that beyond initially going in, he might set a mandate for keeping them in country for one year. After that, its been real folks, but we've got places to go, people to see.

As for another country like Poland sending more troops as I mentioned earlier, Poland had 194 special ops troops on the ground with the British and Australians. Post invasion, they deployed a 2,500 strong force for peacekeeping purposes, and remained in somewhat smaller numbers through the end of 2008, the final count that I've heard being around 900.

I've also read from some sites, including wikipedia, that in addition to the 200 troops Poland already had available on the ground, a 53 man antichemical team was to be sent to Turkey, but because of the speed of the invasion, was stopped one day from leaving. So it is possible that if Canada where to make such a move as to sending a token humanitarian assistance team, a country like Poland that was already committed to fight from the beginning might be willing to get more involved.

It's interesting that you're looking at Poland as a close pattern. I was actually looking at Australia or the USMC. They've got the closest models in terms of equipment and force size. (In my opinion.)

Though the USMC actually has a larger navy. And slightly larger air force.

The DART team, though, would probably be transported out around 2005, when that earthquake hit in Qum, Iran. Then the earthquake hit in '07 in Pakistan. So probably once the DART team leaves in '05, it's never coming back.
 

Hyperion

Banned
It's interesting that you're looking at Poland as a close pattern. I was actually looking at Australia or the USMC. They've got the closest models in terms of equipment and force size. (In my opinion.)

Though the USMC actually has a larger navy. And slightly larger air force.

The DART team, though, would probably be transported out around 2005, when that earthquake hit in Qum, Iran. Then the earthquake hit in '07 in Pakistan. So probably once the DART team leaves in '05, it's never coming back.

I mainly look at the Poles as possibly someone who would be willing to commit additional ground combat units, as they initially did historically after the initial invasion. Having Canada onboard could see them send at least a few hundred additional troops prior to their main post invasion deployment.

For equipment, Spain would seem a possible candidate actually. As they where involved originally, and Spain was one of the few members of the UN Security Council that publicly supported the US and UK, they would probably be the other most likely candidate to commit additional resources, if Canada brought assets, money, and political support to the table.

As mentioned with the CF-18s being able to operate with the RAAF and USMC squadrons, the Spanish Air Force flies the F-18 as one of their main strike aircraft currently, and going back to previous examples, they participated in the Kosovo campaign dropping some of the first bombs of the operation. They are also one of few countries that in OTL sent more than a token force of ground troops above the 1K mark, that might be willing to commit additional ground assets, if only noncombat oriented units like medical or EOD or antichemical or engineering units.
 
While many people thought that WMDs existed in Iraq, most Canadians and many others wanted to wait until the UN inspection force found them.

Going in without evidence would have been tough, and the government would look like total doofuses when WMDs weren't found. Unlike Bush and Blair who, somehow, managed to survive the s**tstorm, any Canadian government would have been turfed out of office.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
While many people thought that WMDs existed in Iraq, most Canadians and many others wanted to wait until the UN inspection force found them.

Going in without evidence would have been tough, and the government would look like total doofuses when WMDs weren't found. Unlike Bush and Blair who, somehow, managed to survive the s**tstorm, any Canadian government would have been turfed out of office.

Scott Taylor, the editor for Esprit de Corps magazine (a Canadian military magazine and actually fairly right-wing for Canada) was on the ground in the country at the time of the invasion, and he was calling bullshit the whole time.
After Colin Powell's speech where he showed those photos, the Iraqis actually drove them out to these sites and Taylor compared the UN-photos with photos he took on the ground and outright stated over and over that the Bush Administration photos were doctored.
 
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.

There's a good reason why Québecers were so against joining the invasion of Iraq: a large portion of the CF troops who've died in Afghanistan were stationed at Valcartier. Since Radio-Canada is broadcast from Montréal, their coverage of each fallen soldier tends to be much more personal than the CBC's, since they have more troops on the ground, so to speak :eek:

As to what might happen in the '04 elections, if Chrétien throws his hat in with Bush, the Tories may well win a minority gov't (let's say 119 (C), 103(L), 58 (BQ, which its probably their best possible showing), and 38 (NDP)) but it's the NDP who will shine in this scenario. Layton sees an opening, but refuses Martin's offer of a coalition gov't. Since Harper won't pull the CF out of {Najaf or Al-Kut} (since the Brits have Basra, those are the cities most likely to become the main base of operations), his gov't will fall in a years' time, and Layton has spent that time working to build bridges with the BQ and the Grits. I know that this is anathema to most English Canadians, but the NDP and the BQ share the same views on almost all issues outside of sovereignty. If Gilles Duceppe weren't a sovereigntist, he'd probably be the most popular pol in all of Canada.

Could this scenario create a NDP-Bloquiste gov't? PM Jack Layton and FM Gilles Duceppe?!? Maybe if the Grits are involved, then Paul Martin becomes Minister of the Interior?!? If the BQ agreed to table the sovereignty question until 2020 or 2030, as well as giving up a few seats in MTL and Gatineau to the NDP, this wouldn't be that hard to swallow. It might even finally put the whole sovereignty question to bed, if an all-Québec party is seen as having that much power on Parliament Hill... who knows? Even OTL, if the NDP and the BQ joined forces, they'd be the Loyal Opposition, not the Grits...

Though I'm a sovereigntist at heart, I still love Canada, and I see this as the best way to meld the separatist Social-Democratic BQ back into the greater Canadian body politic...
 

MacCaulay

Banned
There's a good reason why Québecers were so against joining the invasion of Iraq: a large portion of the CF troops who've died in Afghanistan were stationed at Valcartier. Since Radio-Canada is broadcast from Montréal, their coverage of each fallen soldier tends to be much more personal than the CBC's, since they have more troops on the ground, so to speak :eek:

I don't know about the rest, but the Vandoos are hard asses. I never understood a single word they said because they normally spoke English like I spoke French, but they drank like fish.

Though what you're talking about is the 22r Battle Group, along with the ancillary Vandoos which were there all the rest of the time.
 
I don't know about the rest, but the Vandoos are hard asses. I never understood a single word they said because they normally spoke English like I spoke French, but they drank like fish.

Though what you're talking about is the 22r Battle Group, along with the ancillary Vandoos which were there all the rest of the time.

Yes they are, God bless their souls, and along with the Brits they're shouldering the brunt of the fighting in southern Afghanistan right now. And all Québécois drink like fish, it's a genetic imperative, calisse!!:D:p
 
There's a good reason why Québecers were so against joining the invasion of Iraq: a large portion of the CF troops who've died in Afghanistan were stationed at Valcartier. Since Radio-Canada is broadcast from Montréal, their coverage of each fallen soldier tends to be much more personal than the CBC's, since they have more troops on the ground, so to speak :eek:

That is because the Vandoos are in the current rotation. They actually should be coming home soon. Usually the troops come from Edmonton, Shilo, or Petawawa. IIRC the force that went to Afghanistan in 2002 was mostly from Edmonton. The majority of personnel in the CF come from outside of Quebec, with a disproportionate number coming from Newfoundland and the Maritimes.

As to what might happen in the '04 elections, if Chrétien throws his hat in with Bush, the Tories may well win a minority gov't (let's say 119 (C), 103(L), 58 (BQ, which its probably their best possible showing), and 38 (NDP)) but it's the NDP who will shine in this scenario. Layton sees an opening, but refuses Martin's offer of a coalition gov't. Since Harper won't pull the CF out of {Najaf or Al-Kut} (since the Brits have Basra, those are the cities most likely to become the main base of operations), his gov't will fall in a years' time, and Layton has spent that time working to build bridges with the BQ and the Grits. I know that this is anathema to most English Canadians, but the NDP and the BQ share the same views on almost all issues outside of sovereignty. If Gilles Duceppe weren't a sovereigntist, he'd probably be the most popular pol in all of Canada.

If Tory minority in 2004, liberals will prop it up to avoid annihilation in a subsequent election. However, if the Liberals split over Iraq, the Tories (or the Alliance/Tory coalition) win big. Yes the NDP will be the 'loyal' opposition, and the Bloc will rule much of Quebec. (Some ridings might go Tory/Alliance. Especially with the Liberal party in tatters.)

Could this scenario create a NDP-Bloquiste gov't? PM Jack Layton and FM Gilles Duceppe?!? Maybe if the Grits are involved, then Paul Martin becomes Minister of the Interior?!? If the BQ agreed to table the sovereignty question until 2020 or 2030, as well as giving up a few seats in MTL and Gatineau to the NDP, this wouldn't be that hard to swallow. It might even finally put the whole sovereignty question to bed, if an all-Québec party is seen as having that much power on Parliament Hill... who knows? Even OTL, if the NDP and the BQ joined forces, they'd be the Loyal Opposition, not the Grits...

Okay, I've quit laughing. Whatever you are smoking, it is good stuff, please share.

Now, an NDP government would also be an unstable minority. And would also fall within the year. An that would also lead to a more reasonable and stable center left or center right government forming out of the ashes. Probably even a Liberal-Tory grand coalition similar to the one that ran Canada during WWI...

And you are right about the NDP/Bloc outnumbering the Liberals. They've also been the real opposition, which I respect even if I do strongly disagree with them.

Though I'm a sovereigntist at heart, I still love Canada, and I see this as the best way to meld the separatist Social-Democratic BQ back into the greater Canadian body politic...

For that to happen you'd need two or three things to occur.

1. An end to the publice financing of political parties. The NDP and the tories have a sufficiently large donor base to survive this. The Bloc and the Liberlas would both be crippled and would both have to reform or die.

2. The Liberal party has to suffer in the wat that the old Progressive Conservatives did following the 1993 election. They have to lose really bad, coming in behing both the Bloc and the NDP. The NDP would gain the most from this, followed by the Tories.

3. The Bloc needs to renounce separatism. Or at least to decide that separatism is a sure loser and quietly drop the issue. And then they need to focus on what their party stands for other that separatism.

For the NDP to come to power, they need to start taking more realistic positions on issues such as national defence, law and order, social programs, taxes, the environment and so on. They don't have to shift to the right, they have to be reasonable and explain what they would do and why. And explain how they are going to pay for it. And do so in way that ordinary people understand or connect with.

Populism got the NDP into power in the Prairies. Pragmatism has kept them there and got them back into power. It (populism) got the current government into power. They are still in power because the are pragmatic. Populism can get the NDP into power if they are able to understand and go for what the people really want. And if they are pragmatic and willing to dump blind ideology, they can stay in power for quite some time.
 
Would a fighter squadron be that useful in Iraq? I don't know much about the US commitment of combat aircraft, so I can't say if an additional squadron would make a difference. I have a hunch that additional in theater transport aircraft would be helpful.

Additional ground forces would have been a big help. Even rear area units would help. And where is the rear area in Iraq? Garrison units are needed. Truck units too, filled with armed soldiers instead of civilians.

A Canadian regiment or two (or are they battalions?) taking part in the Iraqi invasion, that would have been great. Every little bit helps.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Would a fighter squadron be that useful in Iraq? I don't know much about the US commitment of combat aircraft, so I can't say if an additional squadron would make a difference. I have a hunch that additional in theater transport aircraft would be helpful.

Additional ground forces would have been a big help. Even rear area units would help. And where is the rear area in Iraq? Garrison units are needed. Truck units too, filled with armed soldiers instead of civilians.

A Canadian regiment or two (or are they battalions?) taking part in the Iraqi invasion, that would have been great. Every little bit helps.

With Canada, it's not "what's useful." It's: "what can we give?"

By 2003, Canada had already had a battlegroup in place in Kandahar for a year, and was generating for another one. They just plain didn't have the troops in the rotation to spare to send a whole regiment to Iraq.

Aircraft for CAP or ground strike would help, though.
 
Top