Canada in Iraq: U.S. General sad to see CF-18s leave Mideast

Written by Matthew Fisher, National Post 

US General would welcome back Canadian fighter jets if they returned.

"IDEALLY, I WOULD LIKE THE CANADIANS TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT."
— U.S. LT.-GEN. CHARLES BROWN

The American general running the coalition air campaign against ISIL jihadists in Iraq and Syria says Canada’s CF-18s, which the Trudeau government ordered home last week, are welcome to return to the fight at any time.

Photo: Getty Images / Don Mackinnon

While Belgium and Denmark brought their fighter jets home, they did so for financial reasons, Matthew Fisher writes. Canada pulled its jets because of a campaign pledge.

“Ideally, I would like the Canadians to come back at some point, but I know that there are local decisions that have to be made in Canada for that to happen,” Lt.-Gen. Charles Brown told the National Post from his headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

“It is kind of sad to see them go. I realize that for your operators who fly the F18s, your pilots, I think they are a little disappointed because I know if I was one of them at the squadron level and much younger, I would probably be feeling the same way.”

The three- star U. S. air force general, who commands several hundred attack aircraft, spy planes and in-air refuellers spread across half a dozen countries in the Middle East, found out Canada’s new government intended to withdraw its jets from Kuwait while watching CNN.

“It was kind of news to me. I wasn’t watching the campaign to understand all the dynamics,” the former F-16 fighter pilot said. “But I understand. We welcome them back if the opportunity presents itself, if the minds there change and the political leadership changes its mind.”

Judging by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent statements, there is virtually no chance of that happening. But Brown noted Canada was not the first country to bring its fighter jets home. Other countries, such as Belgium and Denmark, had done so because of the size of their air forces or for financial reasons.

While it was not “a foregone coalition” that they would return, “it was their intent to come back,” he said.

Canada’s decision to withdraw its fighters was not based on financial considerations. Rather, it was to honour a Liberal campaign pledge to end the combat mission. But having fighter jets drop precision-guided high-tech weapons is a hugely expensive undertaking.

Without saying which countries he was talking about, Ashton Carter, the U. S. secretary of defence, said in January some U.S. allies were “free-riders” in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant because of their unwillingness to commit combat forces to the fight against Islamic extremism.

But he might as well also have been speaking about how deeply disappointed the U.S., Britain and France are at how little Canada spends on defence.

NATO’s target for defence spending is two per cent of gross domestic product. Canada spends less than half that, the least of any major nation in the 28-country alliance. With a budget deficit that will likely grow from nearly zero to as much as $30 billion this year, it is highly unlikely Canada will increase what it spends on defence any time soon.

Nonetheless, the Royal Canadian Air Force’s modest contribution of six CF-18 Hornets has been useful because Canada was “one of a handful of countries” to allow its aircraft to launch airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria, Brown said. “Because of their flexibility ... we were able to act on specific targets and in specific areas.”

It was good for the coalition Canada was keeping two spy planes (CP-140 Auroras) and an in-air refueller (a CC-150 Polaris) in the Middle East and increasing the number of its trainers in Iraq.

“With time we understand this adversary (ISIL) more and more,” Brown said.

“We have gone very hard against them here the past several months at their ability to resource themselves, hitting some of their oil facilities as well as some of their bank facilities and cash collection points. I know for a fact from the ‘intel’ that this is hurting them. When they have difficulty paying their fighters, their morale gets lower.”

Canadian and other coalition aircraft have been “pounding these guys so hard,” ISIL has been unable to launch any major offensives since last spring and is slowly losing territory in Iraq, he said, adding as a result resistance on the ground has been less than had been expected.

Current Liberal Advisory on Iraq Criticized Tories on "Non-Combat"

Written by: LEE BERTHIAUME Ottawa Citizen

The Current Liberal Foreign Affairs Advisory also backed airstrikes against the Islamic State.

Less than a year before becoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy guru, Roland Paris blasted the Conservative government for not being upfront about the fact that Canadian troops in northern Iraq were indeed engaged in combat.

The comments were made in a January 2015 blog post written for the University of Ottawa’s Centre for International Policy Studies, where Paris was director. They came after the Tories revealed that Canadian soldiers had been operating on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they were advising and assisting.

The Conservatives as well as senior military officers maintained the mission was non-combat, even though Canadian troops were calling in airstrikes and had engaged in firefights with Islamic State fighters. But Paris accused the government of “redefining” combat, and said Canadians deserved the truth.

“Our national government — regardless of the political party in power — must be forthright with Canadians about something as serious as putting Canadian soldiers into combat situations,” Paris wrote.

“Wars, especially long wars (as this one is likely to be), must be rooted in public trust. A lack of forthrightness erodes that trust.”

The Trudeau government is now presiding over the exact same type of mission. And like the Conservatives before them, they insist Canadians are not engaged in combat.

The fact the Liberals have followed the Conservatives in also using the term non-combat, even though Canadian soldiers are doing the same thing as before, has emerged as a political headache for the government after it promised during the election to end combat operations.

In his blog post, Paris raised and then answered nine questions about the Iraq mission. The first: “Is Canada engaged in ground combat?” His answer: “Yes.” Paris went on to accuse prime minister Stephen Harper and defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson of “walking a tightrope” in trying to explain why it isn’t combat.

Paris, who was appointed Trudeau’s foreign policy adviser in November, wrote that the Iraq mission had become a victim of “mission creep,” in which a small military operation slowly drags a country deeper into war.

“It became clear last week that the terms of Canada’s operation had changed,” Paris said. “Canada’s new front-line role — as well as our leaders’ redefinition of what counts as combat — unquestionably represent mission creep.”

As part of its new mission in Iraq and Syria, the Liberal government has ended Canadian airstrikes against Islamic State. But it has also tripled the number of soldiers assigned to work with Kurdish forces to 200, and will deploy helicopters to help move the troops and ferry equipment and supplies.

Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, has said there will be no change to what Canadian troops are doing there. This includes accompanying Kurdish forces to the front lines, calling in airstrikes and fighting Islamic State forces when necessary.

But the government and Vance insist the mission is non-combat. Vance rejected suggestions Friday that he was tailoring the definition of combat to suit the Liberal government’s needs, saying he was the “expert on what is combat,” and telling those who don’t like his definition: “Too bad.”

In his blog post, Paris said Canada was the first country to “tinker with the definition of ‘ combat’ and move ‘advisers’ into a front-line role.” And he said having Canadian soldiers on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they are “advising and assisting” was unnecessary.

“In the final years of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, for instance, our troops trained Afghan forces in military facilities behind the wire and did not accompany Afghan forces on tactical operations,” he wrote.

“Indeed, the U.S. military indicated last week that American troops currently in Iraq are not being deployed with Iraqi units to front-line positions. Rather, they are training Iraqis behind the wire at four major military bases.

“The assertion that deploying Canadian troops to the front lines is an inevitable element of advising and assisting is, therefore, misleading.”

Paris did support expanding Canada’s mission in northern Iraq, noting that Australia had about 200 soldiers on the ground. But he said such an increase in the number of Canadian trainers should be done “while simultaneously clarifying and tightening guidelines on the deployment of these forces to front-line positions.”

He also called for a redoubling of non-military assistance to address the root causes of instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and offered qualified support for Canada continuing to bomb Islamic State in Iraq.

“As long as Canada’s CF18s can play a useful role,” he wrote, “it is reasonable to continue this deployment, provided we remain convinced that the overall mission is achievable, and that there are not more compelling demands for the CF-18s when we have to make this decision.”

Canadian warplanes conducted their last airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last week.

256 RCAF ISIS Airstrikes: A Breakdown

By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen, 

Did the 606 bombs dropped make a difference in the war against ISIL?

Defence analysts claim Canada was punching above its weight in the bombing campaign against ISIL, and that the withdrawal of the CF-18 fighter jets is a major blow to the coalition’s efforts.

Conservative MP Kellie Leitch has said the pullout makes Canadian military personnel look like “cowards” on the world stage. Other Conservative MPs argue the end of Canada’s contribution to the bombing means the country is no longer being taken seriously by allies.

But with more than 32,000 bombs dropped on Islamic State forces so far, most of those by U.S. aircraft, did Canada’s 606 bombs make a difference?

Canada’s six CF-18s stopped airstrikes in Iraq and Syria on Monday, ending their involvement in that part of the war, which began in the fall of 2014.

Outside this country the response to the mission’s end has been muted, if noticed at all.

Canadian military officers privately acknowledge Canada’s impact on the bombing campaign in Syria has been almost nil.

Since Canada joined that operation in April 2015, CF-18s conducted only five raids on targets in Syria. The U.S. has dropped around 11,000 bombs on targets in Syria. Canada’s contribution in Syria was to drop 27 bombs total.

Iraq, military officers argue, is a different matter. They note that U.S. officers have lauded Canada’s contribution to the air campaign in that country.

But not everyone in the U.S. has been won over. Republican congressman Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, characterized the removal of the six Canadian jets as largely inconsequential. “Canada’s withdrawal from the bombing campaign won’t have a large effect on our military operations” against ISIL, he told the Guardian newspaper in late October.

The Liberal government has cited the low number of bombing raids as part of its reason for the withdrawal.

“There are a lot of things where Canada may be a great supporter, instead of delivering two per cent of the airstrikes,” Global Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion explained during a recent tour of NATO headquarters.

Military sources say the increase in Canadian special forces in northern Iraq has been particularly welcomed by the Pentagon, because the U.S. has more than enough fighter jets for the airstrike campaign and what has been lacking is the capacity to train and advise local forces.

For the air campaign, the U.S. was particularly interested in keeping Canada’s two Aurora reconnaissance aircraft because it needs more of that type of surveillance capability. The same went for Canada’s Polaris refuelling aircraft. The Liberals agreed to both those requests.

In Canada the debate continues. Defence analysts and pundits still point to the recent exclusion of Canada from a coalition war strategy meeting as proof the removal of the CF-18s was a blow to the country’s international reputation.

Behind the scenes, the RCAF is moving to ensure its contribution is recognized. It has briefed “stakeholders” — those defence analysts and retired military officers who appear on TV and are quoted in the news media. The RCAF message is that the CF-18s were used by the U.S. to attack ISIL leaders in moving vehicles or on other more difficult missions.

Although these claims can’t be verified independently, the stakeholders are now starting to repeat them in media interviews.

Ultimately, it may not be the bombing of armoured vehicles and fighting positions that speeds up ISIL’s demise.

World economic events have recently started to hinder the group’s operations by damaging its finances. ISIL earns an estimated $50 million per month by selling oil on the black market — money it needs to keep its combat operations going. But the significant drop in the price of oil has started to cut into that funding.

Reports coming from ISIL strongholds indicate that salaries for troops and support staff have been significantly cut or stopped altogether, and that rations have dwindled.

Canada’s CF-18s, however, did not take part in the attacks on oil convoys and infrastructure, because the U.S. determined they were not needed.

Canadian Forces spokesman Capt. Kirk Sullivan said a number of factors determined the frequency and location of Canadian airstrikes. “The U.S.-led coalition assigns tasks to coalition nations in consideration of operational capabilities, the provision of support to Iraqi security forces’ operations, the tactical level situation, and the availability of ISIL targets,” he added.

Canada in Iraq: RCAF Ends Airstrikes

Written by David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

Published February 17, 2016

Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets stopped their bombing in Iraq and Syria on Monday, days before MPs started debating the value of the new military mission against the Islamic State.

The debate in the House of Commons on the Liberal government’s new Iraq mission started Wednesday. But the six fighter aircraft had finished their mission two days before.

“In accordance with Government of Canada direction, the Chief of the Defence Staff ordered the Canadian Armed Forces to cease airstrike operations in Iraq and Syria on February 15, 2016,” Canadian Forces spokesman Capt. Kirk Sullivan confirmed late Wednesday.

“The Hornets will depart the region in a phased approach in the coming weeks,” he added.

The Liberals unveiled Feb. 8 their revamped “non-combat” mission to battle ISIL in Iraq, including their plan to triple the number of Canadian special forces in the north of the country and withdraw the six fighter jets.

The Liberals had said the fighter jet mission would end by Feb. 22. The last bombing runs took place on the weekend in Iraq.

On Feb. 14, two CF-18 Hornets bombed an ISIL fighting position in the vicinity of Fallujah using precision-guided munitions. Four days earlier, two CF-18s attacked an ISIL weapons cache in the vicinity of Al Habbaniyah. The same day, two CF-18s bombed an Islamic State fighting position north of Ramadi.

The CF-18s flew their first mission on Oct. 30, 2014. They conducted 251 airstrikes, dropping 606 bombs, Sullivan noted. Only five of the bombing runs were in Syria, the rest were in Iraq.

Military officials said Wednesday night that the bombs destroyed 267 ISIL fighting positions, 102 vehicles or other pieces of equipment, and 30 improvised explosive device factories or storage facilities.

Canada will leave an aerial refueling tanker and two CP-140 surveillance aircraft assigned to the coalition bombing mission.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has faced criticism in the Commons for ending the fighter jet combat mission.

But Trudeau has insisted that Canada can make a more meaningful contribution through providing humanitarian aid and training Kurdish security forces fighting the Islamic State. That training will include directing airstrikes and if necessary eliminating enemy positions using other weapons.

That part of the mission hasn’t changed from when the Conservatives committed special forces to northern Iraq in the fall of 2014. But the Liberals have expanded in size of the commitment, increasing the number of commandos from 69 to a little more than 200.

The Canadian military is also looking at sending helicopters to Iraq to help with transport.

In the Commons Wednesday, Trudeau acknowledged the criticism from the Conservatives, who don’t believe the Liberal plan is doing enough to fight ISIL, and the NDP, who are worried Canada could be drawn into a war on the ground.

“We have one party that wants us to do much more in the fight against the so-called Islamic State, and the other party who wants us to do much less against ISIL,” Trudeau said.

But he noted Canada’s allies are happy with the Liberal government’s plan. That plan would see the number of Canadian military personnel increase from 650 to 830.

The Conservative’s interim leader Rona Ambrose said the Liberal plan falls significantly short. “The prime minister is wrong when he says his plan to deal with ISIS reflects Canadian values,” she said in the Commons. “Canadians value standing with our traditional allies, Canadians value helping the vulnerable and the threatened, and Canadians value showing true resolve against a brutal enemy.”

The revamped mission has earned kudos from coalition allies. The Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Peter Cook, praised the mission, describing it as the kind of response U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter had been looking for from coalition members. “The secretary sees these as significant contributions,” Cook told reporters, “and he appreciates the decision by the Trudeau government to step up Canada’s role in the campaign at this critical time.”