Canadian Body count

As the war in Afghanistan rages on, and coalition forces fall, I see daily accounts of Canadians who pay the ultimate price.

This is not to belittled other nations sacrifices for the war effort, USA of course has the highest death toll based on their contribution and this is not to take away from the loss of life from any other country.

I have been seeing more deaths occur ( Canadian ) since the moving of troops to Kandahar, then when they were in Kabul.

The following study contains many interesting facts, as well as projections pertaining to the death of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.


policyalternatives.ca

I did not know...

- Since February 2006, when our troops began operations in Kandahar, Canada sustained 43% of all the military deaths among US allies in the coalition.

Again, I did not know...

- A Canadian soldier in Kandahar is still nearly six times more likely to die in hostilities than a US soldier serving in Iraq.

Something else I did not know, but should of, is that DND supplies estimates to the government on how many troops may die before they enter into a war or mission.

My question, as also stated in the study, is why are Canadian troops in Kandahar displaying a higher number of deaths, in relation to involvement, than any of the other NATO allies?

Its a very good read none the less, even if your not Canadian. ( but want to be
)

Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.



[edit on 7-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Interesting article Grail. It really makes you wonder exactly what, if any, progress is being made in Afghanistan. I just heard that another one of our boys was killed in an explosion today.

www.citynews.ca...

That brings the total to 40 soldiers and one diplomat. If you look at the list of casualties at the end of the above article you can see that the vast majority of the casualties have taken place in the last year. That certainly bears out the analysis in the link you provided.

As for the why, it seems to me (from my admittedly bisased Canadian viewpoint) that our soldiers have bourn the greater burden of combat since moving to Kandahar province last year. Recent combat patrols in the volatile Panjwai area and large scale offensives like the recent operation Medusa have been carried out mainly by Canadian forces (With NATO and U.S. support of course) and the casualty figures reflect this. In comparison, other than the U.S. and U.K, no other allied contingent has had nearly as much contact with the enemy.

I sure hope it's all worth it. Five years, no end in sight and, if anything, the Taliban and their cohorts appear stronger than ever. I can't help but wonder if incursions into northern Pakistan and Eastern Iran would prevent the Taliban from simply melting away when confronted. Of course this would likely lead to much wider war and ultimately, more death. Much like Iraq, the only palatable option remaining is redoubling efforts to train and equip a massive indigenous army as quickly as possible. But I digress, somehow, it's just not that simple and it looks like we'll be there for some time yet. Let's just hope for everyone involved that it doesn't get worse before it gets better.

Bump! Anyone else have an opinion on the matter??? Are no Canucks around? Any American or British opinions? Afghani? Who likes cheese?

Just came across this article on CBC's website:

www.cbc.ca...

Our esteemed defence minister has urged NATO allies to do more in Afghanistan, saying that Canada, the USA and Britain are doing most of the dirty work in the south of the country. Apparently, allied troops from other nations are under restrictions from their respective governments limiting them to operations in the least dangerous areas and, in at least one case, preventing them from operating at night.

So is this actually a NATO operaton or just a get together of WW2's western allies, reliving dreams of past glory? Normandy is a long way from Kandahar, so what gives? If Canada can fight the Taliban, why not the other NATO forces? Why not let the Germans take a crack at 'em? If they can't put the fear into the Taliban then it's a lost cause anyhow. How 'bout the French? They seem to have an opinion about everything.

Now I am not a supporter of this so called "War On Terror", but since our troops are there they should play to win, cause I'm pretty sure that's what the enemy intends to do. I intend no offence or disrespect towards our allies and I appreciate the sacrafices they are making but put out or get out, end of story.

[edit on 8-10-2006 by Orwells Ghost]

www.cbc.ca...

Is anybody else in Canada concerned about this?

What can you say? I personally don't buy into this "war on terror", so the thought of any Canadian over there is hard for me to accept. Harder when a poll I saw(I didn't see the source, so take with grain of salt) was that only 38% aproved of the afgan mission.

That said, I think there is a chance of changing something there. That said, I also read somewhere where one general warned that the population could turn on us in a second and side with the taliban - if that become the case we'd be facing another Iraq. It is no wonder, IMO, many would like to see the troops come home.

We're racking up the body bags too

40 to 06/09/06 and a few more since. Proportionally I know Canada has fewer troops out there so statistically they're probably taking the biggest hit

www.mod.uk...

Basically NATO are taking on the Taliban in areas the US hasn't had the forces to tackle / different tactics / resurgent Taliban. The fact that NATO (ie UK/Canada) are taking the Taliban on in an infantry war rather than just bombing from 30k' means we both have more men in harms' way.

It also has to be said that UK/Canada troops are more aggressive (and effective) than other NATO countries who have shied away from any real fighting / stuck to safe areas / ineffective tactics / support roles. Thus we pay the blood price for getting the job done.

Some would argue this is a NATO op due to the attack on the US & the mutual defence clause within NATO.

Seems to me this is someone else's political war and both our PBI's are paying the price of the US Neo-Con's desires.

Until the route causes (ie Pakistan etc) are dealt with this is an unwinnable mission and without other NATO countries willing to do the job the toll will just continue until our Govts / populations get sick of it.

So true.

Not sure how it is being played out in the UK, but here I see approval ratings in the 38% range for this war, and many long standing natural conservatives(Myself included) are questioning Harpers reasons for doing something that clearly the majority of Canadian's don't want to happen, when he has a minority govern, It is on one side political suicide, but it keeps him close to Bush and the other chickenhawks.

Maybe a solution where by the Taliban get some area, and Afganistan get some area, with some DMZ zone between? Let negociations happen and see what they want. Maybe, comman sense can create an environment where the Afgani people see the benifit of a democracy, because as it stands now we have not brought too much different to these people than what exsisted before. Our ends might be different than the Talibans, but if it isn't what the Afgani people want we are just as bad as any other "conquerors".

Hey, i support what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're building roads, schools, infrastructure that hasn't existed since before the Soviet invasion. We're helping people out. They can do things they couldn't before, like go to a barber's.

In fact, four Canadians have been killed building the road into Panjwai.

The reason people don't support the mission is because all the media does is show the deaths of Canadian soldiers, and associate everything they do with Bush. This is, in fact, a NATO mission from the start. Another issue to point out- Canada really doesn't have any air assets worth mentioning.

Waiting, you cannot negotiate with Islamic fundemetalists. What are you gonna bargain? "Hey, we'll let you depeople our women if you don't execute us for not being muslims?"

The problem is actually mostly Pakistan, but it's on the verge of a civil war anyways.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Hey, i support what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're building roads, schools, infrastructure that hasn't existed since before the Soviet invasion. We're helping people out. They can do things they couldn't before, like go to a barber's.

- That is why I say I can see some good coming from it. However, there have been reports of the actual citizens being "on the fence" to whom they support. Regardless on how many good things they do, if they aren't wanted there it is all a moot point isn't it?

Originally posted by DeusEx
The reason people don't support the mission is because all the media does is show the deaths of Canadian soldiers, and associate everything they do with Bush. This is, in fact, a NATO mission from the start. Another issue to point out- Canada really doesn't have any air assets worth mentioning.

- This could really be a valid point. The press has been slightly less than happy with Harper right from the beginning - but it is worth to point out the feeling was mutual right from the start. The thing is though, many people find some serious problems with the whole reason we got into this mess. Agreed it was a NATO mission, but one stemmed from 911 - and that sadly will forever be tied to Bush. Not that that invalidates you point though. Let me ask you, if Harper had allowed the press corps to show the draped coffins from the start do you think the media would be kinder to his perspective? Or is this more a case of conflicting political idealogies?

Originally posted by DeusEx
Waiting, you cannot negotiate with Islamic fundemetalists. What are you gonna bargain? "Hey, we'll let you depeople our women if you don't execute us for not being muslims?"

- This is blatently false my friend. A these islamic militant fanatics, are just humans. Sure I know there are a few that are just insane, but they are the exception(The ones that are the charamastic, "leaders", the rest are just sheeple like the ones here), within the exception of militant fanatics(Those that beleive their book so severly they are willing to take up arms, and if so ordered to kill in battle), within the exception of the religious fanatics(Those that beleive their book and only their book is true). Then there is the other 80% of Islam, who are in every respect just like us. Wishing the same as us. It is through them, by treating them justly that we disarm those who are more fanatical. They no longer have the reason for hate, and no talking points to start with their fellow Muslims. It is in this way, working our way up the ladder that we can obtain peace. How do you negotiate with an Islamic fundemetalist? Offer them an Islam state of their own - which we will never interfer with as long as they never interfere with Afganistan or surrounding countries? Allow trade to be open if they wish, and allow free exchange of people, again if they wish. Doing this, we give the appareance of them getting all the power, while Afganistan still gets their own decomcratic state so we get what we want. I know it wouldn't be that easy, but I'd bet you it isn't as hard to do as we are lead to beleive.

Originally posted by DeusEx
The problem is actually mostly Pakistan, but it's on the verge of a civil war anyways.

- Very true, but what can be done about it? Short of closing the Border? But that would require more troops and I am not sure any country is ready or willing to do that yet.

Originally posted by Waiting2awake
- That is why I say I can see some good coming from it. However, there have been reports of the actual citizens being "on the fence" to whom they support. Regardless on how many good things they do, if they aren't wanted there it is all a moot point isn't it?

Well, they don't want us around, sure. Having tens of thousands of foreign troops in your country is bound to make anyone a might bit ornery. But they want the taliban back even less. They're stuck in a no-win situation.

This could really be a valid point. The press has been slightly less than happy with Harper right from the beginning - but it is worth to point out the feeling was mutual right from the start. The thing is though, many people find some serious problems with the whole reason we got into this mess. Agreed it was a NATO mission, but one stemmed from 911 - and that sadly will forever be tied to Bush. Not that that invalidates you point though. Let me ask you, if Harper had allowed the press corps to show the draped coffins from the start do you think the media would be kinder to his perspective? Or is this more a case of conflicting political idealogies?

We invented the liberal media. They will slander Harper at every turn, and he knows it, and he came out swinging. I admire that, even if it's not bright. It's a case of the owners of the media, even the Ceeb, being blatantly liberal and it being reflected in their programming.

This is blatently false my friend. A these islamic militant fanatics, are just humans. Sure I know there are a few that are just insane, but they are the exception(The ones that are the charamastic, "leaders", the rest are just sheeple like the ones here), within the exception of militant fanatics(Those that beleive their book so severly they are willing to take up arms, and if so ordered to kill in battle), within the exception of the religious fanatics(Those that beleive their book and only their book is true). Then there is the other 80% of Islam, who are in every respect just like us. Wishing the same as us. It is through them, by treating them justly that we disarm those who are more fanatical. They no longer have the reason for hate, and no talking points to start with their fellow Muslims. It is in this way, working our way up the ladder that we can obtain peace. How do you negotiate with an Islamic fundemetalist? Offer them an Islam state of their own - which we will never interfer with as long as they never interfere with Afganistan or surrounding countries? Allow trade to be open if they wish, and allow free exchange of people, again if they wish. Doing this, we give the appareance of them getting all the power, while Afganistan still gets their own decomcratic state so we get what we want. I know it wouldn't be that easy, but I'd bet you it isn't as hard to do as we are lead to beleive.

See, the 80% moderates living in Afghanistan are the ones not in the Taliban. The taliban are, by their nature and creed, the religious fanatics and militants. They took the country by force, and if we let them, they'll do it again. You cannot argue with fanatacism. If the moderates want an Islamic state, they'll put it in their constitution eventually. Hell, if they want an Islamic state, I'm sure Saudi Arabia - who indoctrinated most of the Taliban in extremist Islam- would be happy to take them back. And your almost Stalinist plan of just randomly assigning someone else's land to teh Taliban is appalling. You're ASKING for a civil war. Just ask the Chechens.

- Very true, but what can be done about it? Short of closing the Border? But that would require more troops and I am not sure any country is ready or willing to do that yet.

Gotta do something. The taliban gets 60%+ of its war materiel from Pakistan, and probably 40% of its manpower.

DE

Thought some of you would find this interesting:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Report on UK 3PARA's combat tour in Afghanistan, not sure how close this is to Canadian forces' experience but it does explain why the fighting is being described as the most intense / sustained since Korea.

Pretty compelling read, Stangerous.

I try putting myself in the soldiers positions, being in the dark, just waiting for something to happen.

Don't think I could handle it. The thought of being in a snipers scope while nothing else is going on, everythings quiet, would push me over the edge.

Kudos to the Armed Forces, I don't think many people could do what they do on a daily basis.

Good Article