Globe and Mail - November 21, 2007
By Colin Kenny
What must be particularly galling to Canadian soldiers fighting in Afghanistan is that in recent months their survival hasn’t depended much on whether they are good soldiers or lousy soldiers. It has pretty well depends on luck.
Luck has always played a role on the battlefield. But in most wars more noble elements have often played a big role in whether a soldier makes it through: intelligence, courage, toughness, good training.
Sadly, none of these qualities have mattered much lately in Kandahar. Of the 26 Canadians killed in action there in 2007, 24 have died when their vehicles detonated an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) – a roadside bomb.
So many highly skilled warriors; so many victims of plain, dumb luck. Wrong place, wrong time.
Of course there is another, more useful way of looking at how Canadian troops are dying in Afghanistan: As the great baseball sage Branch Rickey once put it – “Luck is the residue of design.”
The percentage of Canadians troops killed in action was 2.08 percent as of August 25, compared to 0.66 percent for our British allies, 0.47 percent of our American allies, and 0.31 percent for our Dutch allies. (See Globe and Mail, August 25).
The Canadian rate is more than three times higher than the British rate, more than four times higher than the American rate, and more than six times higher than the Dutch rate. The three countries are also operating in highly dangerous areas of Afghanistan. Are these countries luckier than us? Or better equipped than us?
The government has said that it will do everything in its power to ensure that Canadian troops have the equipment they need in Afghanistan. To that end, 16 anti-IED armoured vehicles were scheduled to start being delivered to the Canadian Forces in Kandahar last September: six Husky vehicles (heavily-armoured mine detectors), five Buffalo vehicles (for defusing, disabling or detonating), and five Cougar vehicles (for disposing).
Good start. Canada hasn’t had access to these kinds of vehicles since NATO took over from the United States in leading the Afghanistan mission in October, 2006 and the Americans began focusing on using their anti-IED vehicles for their own troops.
One question here, though. These vehicles were only ordered in May. What took so long? Was the military slow in asking for them? Or was the government slow in approving the purchases? We have lost 24 soldiers to IEDs in 2007 that we might not have lost if these vehicles had been on the scene.
The obvious reason Canadian troops are more vulnerable to IEDs is that they travel more often by road than do the troops of most of our allies, particularly those that have helicopters. Canada once owned a fleet of Chinook medium-to-heavy lift helicopters, but the Mulroney government sold them off to the Dutch in the early ’90s as a cost-saving measure.
The Canadian government is supposedly negotiating to purchase some Chinooks, but there has been no contract announced, and if the normal delivery process is followed they won’t be delivered until 2012. There is a designated pool of NATO helicopters, but they are in short supply in the Kandahar region and the countries that own them naturally take priority.
Canada has a fleet of 85 Griffon helicopters performing a variety of tasks in Canada. All those tasks are worthwhile, but none of them have the urgency attached to them than saving lives in Afghanistan would.
A Chinook helicopter can carry between 33 and 50 soldiers, depending on its configuration. A Griffon helicopter can only carry about five fully-equipped soldiers, but it is the only alternative we have at the moment. What’s wrong with sending six Griffons if 30 soldiers need to be moved?
The Griffons are also capable of providing intelligence and surveillance – keeping an eye on the roads for a start. Because they can be fitted with a Forward Looking Infrared System (FLIR) they can also be used at night, and could even take part in night attacks.
Canada has been using Sagem Sperwer tactical unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct reconnaissance in Afghanistan. The Sperwers have been unreliable and difficult to operate in winds and dust and heat. They also tend to hard landings on return and repairs aren’t always possible.
The government has looking at going through a bidding process to buy modern UAVs – such as the Global Hawk, a high-altitude long endurance vehicle, the Predator, a medium-altitude long endurance vehicle, or the Raptor, a high-altitude high-endurance vehicle.
Any of these would be a huge improvement over the Sperwers, but a bidding process won’t get them to Afghanistan over the next two years. One thinks of a badly wounded man waiting for an ambulance in a country without health care. The ambulance finally arrives. “Wait,” he whispers hoarsely. “I want to get two more bids.”
The government should also consider bringing in the Aurora aircraft that it uses for surveillance on Canada’s coasts. The Auroras have just recently been partially upgraded, and could be outfitted to play a valuable surveillance role in Afghanistan.
Whatever we do, we can’t throw up our hands and wait for the perfect piece of equipment while our troops are being killed in ways we didn’t anticipate. We need to move quickly to provide these people with every bit of protection we can give them.
To quote the Prime Minister of Canada: “The men and women who put on the uniform of Canada must have the tools they need to protect themselves and do their job.”
In the treacherous hell-hole that is Kandahar, our troops need every tool the government can give them. “Whatever it takes” should be the motto for as long as we are there.
Colin Kenny is chair of the National Security and Defence Committee. He can be reached via email at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca