RCAF CP-140 Aurora Quietly Recalled from OP IMPACT

By: Murray Brewster, CBC News 

One of the Canadian air force spy planes assigned to the campaign against the Islamic State has been quietly withdrawn and brought home, CBC News has learned.

The CP-140 Aurora, with a suite of high-tech surveillance equipment, was one of two that had been flying missions over northern Iraq and Syria since the fall of 2014.

The decision to bring one of the turboprop aircraft home was not announced by the Liberal government, which recently extended the deployment of the Canadian military, including special forces trainers on the ground, until the end of June.

A single CP-140 and a refuelling tanker remain in Kuwait, where the Canadian Air Task Force has been based, to continue operations alongside the U.S.-led coalition.

But the decision could signal the beginning of the end of Canada's military involvement in the anti-ISIS fight.

A spokesperson for the military's operations command said the Aurora was withdrawn on May 15 and its departure has not impeded the coalition's air campaign.

"The [Canadian Armed Forces] shared its intent to return the aircraft to Canada with our coalition partners well in advance in order to ensure continuity in the coalition's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations against Daesh," said Capt. Vincent Bouchard, referring to ISIS by its Arabic acronym.
Battle for Mosul

Iraqi security forces and Kurdish fighters are close to liberating the northern Iraqi city of Mosul and when the bloody campaign is completed, ISIS will largely have been driven from country.

In an email, Bouchard painted the decision to remove one of the CP-140s as a routine matter, meant "to effectively balance its expeditionary requirements and domestic commitments." He said the aircraft was needed to "deliver on its full range of missions domestically."

The primary mission of the CP-140s in Iraq was to act as spotters, targeting ISIS combat units and buildings for destruction.

In February 2016, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan told the House of Commons that Canada's CF-18 fighter jets had completed their bombing mission in Iraq and Syria. At that time, the Liberal government took pains to underline it was leaving the spy planes and tanker in place. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

When Canada's CF-18 fighter jets were withdrawn from the bombing campaign in February 2016, the Liberal government took pains to underline it was leaving the spy planes and tanker in place to support other coalition members as they continued combat operations.

As of May 20, the Auroras had flown 793 reconnaissance missions.
Special forces in northern Iraq

Canada still has more than 200 special forces troops advising Kurdish and Iraqi forces, as well as a tactical helicopter detachment, a number of intelligence officers and a Role 2 combat hospital deployed in Iraq.

The mission was reviewed in March, but only given a three-month mandate extension, to June 30.

Kurdish Peshmerga commanders have asked that highly trained special forces remain behind once Mosul is freed in order to help with training in counter-insurgency warfare.

Many experts and U.S. commanders have said expelling ISIS from Iraq will not entirely end the fighting and that extremists will likely resort to hit-and-run guerilla tactics.

The Liberal government has been unclear on whether it's prepared to facilitate that kind of training or participate in reconstruction efforts.
Beginning of the end?

The removal of the Aurora, which has been called out by allies for its usefulness, is a signal to defence analysts that the deployment could be coming to an end.

"If this is not the end of the mission, it seems a bit strange they would be pulling out one of these aircraft, which arguably has been one of the most important parts of our contribution," said Richard Cohen, who was an adviser to former defence minister Peter MacKay and served in both the Canadian and British militaries.

Given the deployment of troops to Latvia next month and the Liberal government's plan to return to peacekeeping, he said the military might not have the bodies to sustain an extended commitment in Iraq.

Four Canadian aircrew who fly one of the country's CP-140 surveillance planes leave the flight line at an unidentified coalition airbase in Kuwait on Nov. 13, 2016. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

The question of what Canada is going to do post-Mosul has been met with resounding silence, said Steve Saideman, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University.

The U.S.-led coalition has been organizing the next phase of the anti-ISIS campaign, with a finite number of positions, and Canada has yet to apparently signal interest.

"Canada has no role there," said Saideman. "And what that's going to lead to is dumb politics, shockingly enough."

By not articulating a clear way forward in the fight against ISIS, the Liberals have opened themselves up to criticism from Opposition Conservatives and possibly allies, he said.

The future of the Iraq mission could be made clear with the release of Canada's new long-awaited defence policy on June 7, but Saideman said it's unlikely to change the narrative.

"The fact is Canada may not be needed, and given the tempo of special forces operations, it might be time for them to come home and relax," he said. "But that's not going to be the conversation. The conservation is going to be about [how] Canada doesn't care about Iraq."

Dealing with terrorism, and specifically ISIS, is a top priority for the Trump administration. The U.S. leader recently scored a victory on that front, as NATO commanders moved to endorse a plan to formally join the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and Syria.

RCAF CF-18's Begin Patrolling Iceland's Airspace

The Canadian Press

A pilot positions a CF-18 Hornet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alberta on October 21, 2014. Canadian CF-18 fighter jets will begin patrolling Iceland's airspace today as part of Canada's contribution to NATO. The operation is intended to identify and intercept aircraft that approach NATO airspace in Iceland. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson

RCAF CF-18 fighter jets will begin patrolling Iceland's airspace today as part of Canada's OP IGNITION, a contribution to NATO.

The operation is intended to identify and intercept aircraft that approach NATO airspace in Iceland.

About 180 members of the Canadian Forces will be involved in the roughly month-long operation that involves six CF-18 fighter jets.

The aircraft will operate out of Keflavik Air Base, near Reykjavik.

The campaign is also part of Operation Reassurance, intended to reinforce the defence of NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

Operation Reassurance is also intended to ease concerns of NATO allies in the face of Russian aggression toward Ukraine.

Iceland is the only NATO country that does not have a standing military.

Afghanistan, the sequel. Why would Canada return to a war it would rather forget?

By: Andrew Potter, Special to National Post |

Amber Bracken/PostmediaSoldiers disembark from their plane as they return home from Afghanistan at the Edmonton International Airport in Edmonton, Alta. on Friday, Oct. 11, 2013

The last time Canadians paid any serious attention to Afghanistan was just over three years ago. It was March 2014 when we ended our training mission in Kabul with a quiet flag-lowering ceremony in Kabul.

It wasn’t exactly the Fall of Saigon, but there was a definite sense of Mission Unaccomplished to the proceedings. For all our efforts, first in support of Operation Enduring Freedom to rout out al Qaeda, then as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force that had committed to bring stability, security, good governance and democracy to Afghanistan, the job was far from complete. But many of our close allies, such as the Dutch, had already headed for the exit, and with President Obama determined to end the war on his watch, the Americans were drawing down as well.

Afghanistan was our most ambitious foreign adventure since the Korean War, but it’s an adventure most Canadians, including their government, seem keen to forget. The American journalist Dexter Filkins wasn’t wrong when he called it The Forever War though, which is why the United States is readying a “mini-surge” of potentially 5,000 troops back into Afghanistan. Once again, they will be asking NATO countries to help out. And as Postmedia’s David Pugliese reported last week, Canada will be asked to chip in.

Cpl Keith Wazny / DNDA Ramp Ceremony was held at Kandahar Airfield on 21 July 2010 for Sapper Brian J. Collier, who was killed by an Improvised Explosive Device

If we agree, we’ll be sending troops back to a country we left after 12-year military presence that cost the lives of 158 soldiers as well as those of a diplomat, two aid workers and a journalist. We’ll also be returning to a country where we left behind a great deal of unfinished business.

It’s no surprise Americans are looking to beef up their troop levels in Afghanistan: the place is on the verge of collapse.

The Afghan government in Kabul controls less than 60 per cent of the country, and that number is going in the wrong direction. In the parts of the country that it does control, the government is widely seen as deeply corrupt and barely functional. The Afghan security forces that are doing the bulk of the heavy fighting against the Taliban are suffering jaw-dropping (and unsustainable) casualty rates. In one shocking incident in late April, 140 Afghan troops were killed in a single Taliban attack on a base in the north of the country.

The peace agreement with the Pashtun warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and his “triumphant” return to Kabul earlier this month is a sign of how bad things are going for the government. Meanwhile, ISIL’s franchise in the region is clinging to a foothold with about 800 fighters regularly engaged in terror attacks and assassinations, mostly against Shia targets.

The Americans might have blowed things up real good when they dropped the MOAB onto an ISIL cave complex near the eastern border with Pakistan, but many analysts expect that its most significant effect will be to draw more jihadis to the cause. Right on cue, five ISIL jihadists attacked a television station in Jalalabad this week, killing four journalists and two police officers.

In short, there’s a lot of bad news, and the best predictions are things will get worse.

In the face of all this, the mini-surge of troops will have a pretty modest mission. Strengthen the government and train and assist the Afghan National Security Forces, while trying to stabilize the deteriorating security situation. The aim would be give Afghan president Ashraf Ghani’s government just enough credibility while bombing the Taliban hard enough to force some sort of peace deal.

The problem with this is that it was former Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s strategy for virtually his entire term in office, and it is the same strategy former President Obama pursued with his surge in 2010. Its failure was and always will be overdetermined because, to begin with, you can’t kill enough Taliban to force them to the table. If anything, what this does is play along with the Taliban’s parallel strategy, which is to kill enough western troops and Afghan civilians that we leave and then the Afghan government sues for peace. To ask which side has been more successful is to answer the question.

Related
Canada, other NATO nations being asked to send troops back to Afghanistan
After decades as fugitive, Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar returns with appeal for peace
U.S. general would ‘not refute’ that Russia is arming the Taliban and re-engaging in Afghanistan war

The deep problem here is Pakistan. It isn’t just that Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas have served as the home base for the Taliban since they were chased out of Afghanistan in 2001. The Pakistan military has basically run the Taliban insurgency since then, using it as a proxy force to ensure the ongoing destabilization of Afghanistan. This suits Pakistan’s purposes fine, but it means that there can be no solution to the problem in Afghanistan without a solution to Pakistan. An additional 5,000 troops helping train Afghan soldiers to be Taliban fodder isn’t going to change that.

So where does Canada fit in? Our mission in Afghanistan was beset by confusion on many fronts: Why we were there, how we ended up in Kandahar, and what our ambitions were. Depending on who you ask — politicians, diplomats, soldiers, general public — you’ll get different answers.

As Carleton University professor Steve Saideman argues in his book Adapting in the Dust, Canada went to Afghanistan for the simple reason that it has always gone along with NATO missions. It would have been weird for us not to go in some capacity. We went big because wanted to show our bonafides to the Americans after refusing to get involved in Iraq. And we went to Kandahar because we wanted to make a real contribution that would allow us to have strong say in the campaign.

Manpreet Romana / AFP / Getty ImagesIn this photograph taken on July 2, 2009, US Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade wait for helicopter transport as part of Operation Khanjar at Camp Dwyer in Afghanistan's Helmand Province

As Saideman describes it, by these metrics our mission was a complete success: We earned combat cred with the Americans, we were able to keep the U.S. working within the NATO structure, and we punched above our weight in the alliance itself.

The problem with these metrics is they have nothing to do with Afghanistan or the Afghan people. They are entirely about Canada’s interests in alliance-building, continental politics and generally managing the Americans. They are, at best, only accidentally about fighting the war on terrorism, defending global security, fighting the Taliban or helping Afghan girls go to school.

And so Canada’s ultimate political strategy was always going to be at odds with the execution of the mission, which evolved from a counter-terrorism operation in the early going into a “whole of government” nation-building agenda in Kandahar. Our ambitions on this score can be traced through the quarterly reports to parliament that were issued from 2008 until the end of the combat mission in 2011, listing our priorities and ticking off our achievements.

The unfailingly optimistic tone of those reports held up right till the end, our faith in the strategy surviving our abandonment of it. As the last line of the last quarterly report put it: “As Canada begins to transition from Kandahar to a more nationally focused role in Afghanistan, we will continue to support the hopes and dreams of the Afghan people as they endeavour to rebuild a more peaceful and prosperous nation.”

Master Corporal Matthew McGregor/DNDA foot patrol of Canadian and Afghan soldiers near the village of Haji Baba

Or, to put it more colloquially, good bye and good luck.

Let’s be clear about this: Canadians made a number of profound commitments to helping Afghans, promises that many Afghans took seriously. At least they did until Canada’s political calculations changed and we simply downed tools and left. The Taliban weren’t defeated, the nation wasn’t rebuilt, but we’d done what we set out to do.

Maybe it’s this general sense of unfinished business that has led Canadians to pretty much forget that for 12 years, some of the best and brightest soldiers, diplomats, development officers and public servants this country has to offer risked their careers and their lives in, and more importantly, for Afghanistan. At the height of the troop surge in 2010, a senior Canadian civilian official at Camp Nathan Smith gave a rousing pep talk to the members of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (and to journalists), telling them, “This is the place, now is the time, and we are the ones” to fix Kandahar. It was melodramatic, but it captured the spirit of the Canadian mission.

Corporal Bill Gomm/DND

Today, our interest in the country is pretty much non-existent, the war is rarely mentioned except in the context of wounded warriors.

And that’s an attitude matched by the government. The simple but symbolic Kandahar Airfield Cenotaph remains wrapped up in a packing crate somewhere in Ottawa. The more substantial military memorial to the mission, to be situated down by the Ottawa River east of the Portage Bridge, was scheduled to be opened for the sesquicentennial celebrations on July 1. It has fallen into Ottawa’s version of bureaucratic hell. When, where and whether it will ever see the light of day is anyone’s guess.

Besides, why have a memorial to a war everyone wants to forget?

***

And now we’re being asked to go back. Assuming we’d actually be welcome, what’s in it for Canada? Or more pointedly, what’s in it for Afghans?

Assuming the Americans do ask us to pitch in, and assuming we agree, there’s no way we are going back to our old mission. The heady nation-building ambitions of 2010-2011 are done. We’ll be there as trainers, as part of what the Americans are pitching as an open-ended mission without the artificial deadlines that Obama imposed. Which means we will be there in the service of one of two possible outcomes, neither of which is terribly appealing.

One is that we help the Afghans keep fighting in a more or less perpetual fight against the Taliban.

The other is that we play a part in helping bring about a political solution to the problem. Practically, that means handing over a big chunk of Afghanistan to the Taliban, which in turn means a return to the days of mandatory burkas and beards, Sharia law and the ministry of vice and virtue. No music or movies, no kite flying, no school for girls.

This wouldn’t be the end of the world — we already live with versions of that in other countries. We helped fight North Korea to a stalemate long ago, and have lived ever since with the result. Nothing says that every country’s problem is our problem to solve.

The difficulty we have with Afghanistan is that for a period of time, we made their problems our problems, and we sent the best among us to help solve them. Then we left, and ever since we’ve been trying, and mostly succeeding, at forgetting we were ever there.

If we do return, we might forgive our Afghan hosts if they are so unkind as to remind us.
----
Andrew Potter is the former editor-in-chief of the Ottawa Citizen.

Will the CAF Return to Afghanistan?

By: David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen

Canada will be asked to consider sending troops to Afghanistan once again to deal with the Taliban resurgence in that country.

The request will be on the agenda May 25 at the NATO summit in Brussels to be attended by U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Trump is looking at up to 5,000 more troops. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has already confirmed he has already received a request from NATO for more troops. Germany has rejected the request already.

NATO wants the soldiers to help shore up Afghan forces who are struggling to deal with a Taliban resurgence.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said a request has been received from alliance commanders in Afghanistan for several thousand more soldiers. Additional soldiers would be used for training and advising.

Canada ended its military involvement in Afghanistan in March 2014. Canada’s Afghan war cost the lives of 158 soldiers. In addition, a Canadian diplomat, two civilian contractors and a journalist were also killed. More than 2,000 soldiers were injured.

There are currently a handful of Canadian military personnel currently in the country to provide security at the Canadian embassy in Kabul.

NATO has up to 13,000 personnel, the bulk of those U.S. troops, involved mainly in training. Another 1,500 U.S. special forces are operating in the country as well, conducting combat missions against the Taliban as well as those aligned with the Islamic State.

There is not a lot of interest in the Trudeau government about sending troops to Afghanistan, considering there probably wouldn’t be much support for such a mission among the Canadian public (the attitude seems to be, “Been there, done that, it didn’t work).

There could, however, be a role to play for Canadian special forces.

NATO’s Stoltenberg specifically mentioned the need for special forces training teams. CANSOFCOM has done that role before. A small SOF team might satisfy NATO and Trump and be just enough of a low profile footprint to be acceptable to the public and Liberal government supporters.

Bombardier-Boeing Fight Could Kill Super-Hornet Buy: Freeland

By: Ross Marowits and Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press

The federal government hinted Thursday that Boeing should not take future military contracts with Canada for granted, a veiled threat that coincided with a spat between the aerospace giant and rival Bombardier.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland's comment that it's "reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing" appeared to be a not-so-subtle hint that the government would revisit its purchase of Super Hornets.

The government has said it plans to sole-source 18 Super Hornets as a stop-gap measure before running a full competition to replace its aging CF-18 fleet.

The Liberals say the Super Hornets, which internal estimates suggest could cost as much as $2 billion, are urgently needed.

Military officials and defence industry representatives contacted by The Canadian Press on Thursday were united in assuming that Freeland's warning related to the planned Super Hornet purchase.

Freeland's comments came as the next potential Canada-U.S. trade dispute unfolded Thursday with the aerospace giants clashing at a Washington hearing.

"The U.S. market is the most open in the world, but we must take action if our rules are being broken," U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement after the hearing began into Boeing's claim that Bombardier received subsidies allowing it to sell its CSeries planes at below-market prices.

Aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group said the Canadian government's move was inevitable, putting into question Boeing's strategy in taking on Bombardier.




"If Boeing is smart it'll press the do-over button and walk away," he said in an interview, adding the aeronautics powerhouse has much more to risk from losing military contracts than the tiny gain from a successful trade complaint.

"Boeing values Canada as a customer and supplier-partner for both our commercial and defence businesses," said company spokesman Dan Curran.

"Two of Canada's most recent acquisitions of Boeing military products, the C-17 Globemaster and CH-47 Chinook, were delivered on-time and/or ahead of schedule."

In an emailed statement Boeing also pointed out that it places substantial amounts of commercial and defence work in Canada and has a supply chain that "leverages the breadth and depth of the Canadian aerospace industry."

Lobbyists, lawyers and aerospace executives crowded a room in Washington for a little battle playing out in the broader context of the day's larger trade news: the U.S. announcement that NAFTA renegotiations will start in the next 90 days.

Bombardier has made it clear that its true goal is to grab half the international market share for 100-to-150-seat aircraft, according to Boeing, which argues its rival has received an unfair head start from Canadian taxpayers.

Boeing vice-president Raymond Conner said the sale of cheap, subsidized planes to Delta Air Lines helped build momentum for Bombardier to enter a new market. If Bombardier reaches its stated goal, he said, it would squeeze Boeing from that market and cost the company US$330 million a year in annual sales.

"Today we are at a critical moment," Conner told the seven-member U.S. International Trade Commission. "If you don't fix it now, it will be too late to do anything about it later."

Boeing has petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department and the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate subsidies of Bombardier's CSeries aircraft that it says have allowed the company to export planes at well below cost. A preliminary determination on the petition is expected by June 12.

If the ITC determines there is a threat of injury to the U.S. industry, preliminary countervailing duties could be announced in July, followed in October by preliminary anti-dumping duties, unless the deadlines are extended. Final determinations are scheduled for October and December.

Boeing is calling for countervailing duties of 79.41 per cent and anti-dumping charges of 79.82 per cent.

It complains that Bombardier has received more than US$3 billion in government subsidies so far that have allowed it to engage in "predatory pricing."

Lawyers for the U.S. aerospace giant argued Thursday that Bombardier's own words prove it was rescued financially by multibillion-dollar assistance from the Quebec government, which last year invested US$1 billion in exchange for a 49.5 per cent stake in the CSeries. The company also shored up its finances by selling a 30 per cent stake in its railway division to pension fund manager Caisse de depot for US$1.5 billion.

Bombardier representatives countered that their planes never competed with Boeing in a sale to Delta -- which the American rival describes as a seminal moment.

Bombardier lawyer Peter Lichtenbaum said the plaintiff is a global powerhouse that hasn't lost any sales as a result of Bombardier, has an enviable order backlog and doesn't even compete with Bombardier in the sales campaigns it has complained about because the CSeries is smaller than Boeing's 737-800 and Max 8 planes.

"Boeing's petition in this case is unprecedented in its overreach," he said. "If this is a case of David vs. Goliath, Boeing has cast itself in the wrong role."

Boeing's annual sales were US$94.6 billion last year. That means the US$330 million Conner expressed concern about amounts to one-third of one per cent of its annual sales. Bombardier revenues last year were US$16.3 billion, including US$9.9 billion from aerospace activities.