[ebolablue]

So, with an army of 60 000, why are we still only sending in 2000 at a time? What's to stop us from sending in both the Van Doos, and the PPCLI, for example, for twice the security capability and thus a quicker and better mission?

Maybe I'm missing some obvious facts, but what's stopping us?

[biggie]

[FascistLibertarian]

Is 60,000 not the size of our entire military (as we do not have an army/navy/airforce just the Canadian forces) of which the army element would only be a part of?
There’s something called a tooth to tail ratio, the number of people required logistically to support one person in combat.
During Korea we started the rotation idea. Basically our troops are supposed to spend 1/3rd of their time resting 1/3rd overseas and 1/3rd training. We MIGHT be able to send something like 6,000 people for a rotation but it would be a disaster.
Most other rich countries besides the US are similar to us in that many of their troops are not deployable.

It is much cheaper for us to pay for Afghan troops than Canadian troops.

[ebolablue]

So we have a total capability of sending out 6 000 combat-ready troops at any time?

that's sortoff pathetic....

the logistical ratio can't be 9:1, even with training

[FascistLibertarian]

Well we have 9 regular force infantry battalions (three weak brigades making a weak division). With a 6 month rotation each of them will have been in Afghanistan once (by the end of this rotation I think....). Since we do not plan to send them again we might have to start calling up reserves.
Other people on the force are people doing reconstruction (hearts and minds are important), engineers, artillery, drivers, and people who do not leave the base (potato peelers).
How often these different types of troops can be rotated, how many of them we have, how long it takes to train them, and the amount of PTSD Canada will have to deal with varies.
Being in combat is very stressful and what the US (for example) is asking of its troops is very demanding.
Note that the UK and US troop strength was highest during the invasion of Iraq but dropped off in both cases almost right away.

[ebolablue]

why wouldn't we send them in again, troops with experience?

Hah, sorry for all the questions, I'm fairly ignorant about the makeup of the Canadian forces. Good to know these things, I suppose.

The Liberal says we can't send in more troops because they're all IN OUR CITIES, SOLDIERS, WITH GUNS, IN OUR CITIES

[FascistLibertarian]

We should send them again if they want to go. The idea is (to the best of my understanding) that it would stress them out to much. It seems obvious to me that when you send troops into a combat zone the best thing for them to have is at least some troops and officers who have combat experince! In ww1 some of our people had been in the Boer war, in ww2 many of our leaders had experince in ww1, in Korea we had ww2 vets etc. Some kind of interview with a Psychologist to ensure the person is mentally balanced and they should be allowed to stay as long as they want (I feel).
In ww1 and 2 we did not really rotate our troops and the major emphasis when people broke down was to get them back fighting (which we did pretty well).
Korea changed all that as it was not a 'total war'.
One thing that does happen is people who get back and want to go again will transfer to a battalion that just started training for the mission.

[FF_Canuck]

Good points so far. The decision to avoid sending troops back looks to have been a political one... American experience seems to demonstrate that the 'veteran' units - the ones returning for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th tours in Iraq - are the most effective and suffer least casualties in combat. Such a deployment model does require intensive therapuetic resources, however.

The current standard deployment in 6 months. I understand they're looking at extending that for units that are not 'combat arms' and deployed to high risk areas...

Edit:

[FascistLibertarian]

We also have maybe 45 reserve infantry battalions (I could be way off in that number). I think all of them are under-strength to some extent but that how under strength they are varies greatly. The idea is in a time of war where we needed a large army they would mobilize and get up to strength. These troops can volunteer to go on the missions if they want which is why someone from the Black Watch gave their life.
Sending reserves who do not want to go is something I would be against. The poor Americans in the National Guard who are over there are pretty much conscripts.

[biggie]

[FF_Canuck]

I'm not sure that any of our reserve Infantry batts are self-sufficient and capable of deploying as a whole - this hasn't been the intent for quite some time. However,

[FascistLibertarian]

What the US gov has been doing with rotating people quickly and not letting some people leave is not a model I would like to follow. Many people I know who joined the reserves have been told that they will not get sent overseas unless they volunteers despite what officially we could do. Getting green lighted to serve overseas if you’re a reservist was very hard a year ago and now it is very easy, this smacks of not thinking ahead (ie we sent our best reservists first instead of spacing them out)
None of our reserve battalions (well maybe the RRC I’m not sure) could deploy as a full battalion on its own.
If the government is serious about not sending people twice then very soon we are going to have to send a battalion that is largely reserves and new recruits.

[FF_Canuck]

I think the government will, within a year, seriously reconsider their current 'one deployment only' policy. As you've said, the only way to avoid it is sending forces composed entirely of fresh recruits and volunteers from the reserves.