PJ D-Dog said:
I really don’t think that attacking someone because of his or her ignorance (through no fault of their own) is going to be conducive to having an intelligent exchange.
I most certainly agree. The flaming dog pile was in appropriate (that is why the thread was locked). However, when someone is told through first hand sources that his facts are wrong (such as the case with the armour), then that someone accept that he is wrong.
PJ D-Dog said:
Those of us involved in debating fez did not really care about his background. So far, his posts have not lived up to the standard your praise should have us expect. His posts are how we will judge him (and there are other NDP leaners on this site that manage to get by in the debates).
PJ D-Dog said:
2. Five Rounds for Qual
I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force. Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual. I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated. I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification. He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints. It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.
We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over. Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.
Your friend has failed to meet the standard to deploy. All soldiers going into the country must do at least PWT 2. Anyone that will leave the camp must be PWT 3. If all he has been given is five rounds then he has not even completed PWT 1. If this is true, someone is being negligent in their duties.
PJ D-Dog said:
4. How Many Magazines does it take….
A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear. He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa. He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle. The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs. Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand. After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.
? Who is your buddy? Who did he speak to; someone in DLR, ADM(MAT), clothe the soldier? I don’t understand this procurement process you’ve presented. It does not sound like how we do business.
PJ D-Dog said:
5. Gunny Says…..
My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan. He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand. Again, the doctrinal shift. Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them. He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them. His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.
As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.
When did your Gunny work with Canadians? Was it APOLLO? Kabul? Except for a few Marines in HQ & comms dets, I only saw Army and Air Force in Kandahar.
How did your Gunny come to these conclusions? What did he see? Why/How do we lack aggression?
What were the training deficiencies?
Your comments are so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment in most cases.
. . . btw, if you have the JIED Defeat handbook, you have the first draft of our book.
PJ D-Dog said:
He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing. He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre. He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc…
The Hellmund River: my BG had to deal with it. His BG may have to do the same.
PJ D-Dog said:
He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training.
Well, considering the level of night observation within the Taliban, this does not actually sound that bad a tactic if one were expecting an attack. Far better than a Mad Minute.
Your friend has a lot of ideas on what he does not want to do. Are there no comments on what he thinks is missing?
PJ D-Dog said:
Another issue is that of leadership. He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior. He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with. Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.
What is wrong with the leadership? This statement is so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment.
PJ D-Dog said:
In an attempt to validate this information, I spoke with a Captain friend of mine who went over and asked him some of these questions. I also read some reports on CF casualties on CBC and spoke with Marines who have served in Afghanistan with Canadians Soldiers.
and what did the Capt say to that validated any of the training or leadership concerns? I notice nothing in your CBC links is related/relevant.
PJ D-Dog said:
6. The NDP-the party you love to hate…..
The NDP is not a monolithic organization.
I will agree that we see anything from the NDP or the left attacked with ad hominem. Indeed, attaching the label of “left” or “NDP” is often an attack in itself. We try to do our part in raising above this, and counter ad hominem is not the solution. You can help with the “report to moderator” feature where you feel there is a problem.
PJ D-Dog said:
If the politicians in this country would listen to the actual CF members before making policy, then you would all be ahead of the game. Remember that it is the politicians who decide where you will deploy, for how long and what gear you will use.
You don’t think they are listening to the CDS?