Canadians are discussing mission creep in Iraq theater. What is really going on?

My friend, why are you so engree?
Do not you know USA politics based on expansionism? How do you think US of A have become monetary power after WW2?
How do you think US of A have become to prosper on the bones of the rest of us?

Thanks.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc
"Mission creep" is a frequent issue with any operation and organization, military and civilian. You start out with one goal in mind and gradually, as things come up, stray off that goal. Sometimes it is necessary and helpful and evolving the mission to fit the situation is beneficial and sometimes it gets you so off mission or off task that it negates the task in the first place.

It is definatley something that leadership must be aware of and address.

Mission creep is what got the US into # in vietnam.

Lot of Americans lost thefe lifes needlessly cause some monkeys in suites back home did not know when to say stop.

If thry had just kept at military advisors and low level support it would likely be all but forgotton.


I see the UK doing it in Iraq.

Months ago a MP in our MOD was sent on TV and promised no mission creep, only recon drones were to be used.
Now we are actively bombing targets in Iraq and our SF are delployed.

I have no issue in bombing ISIS but it pisses me off when our politicians lie about it,

Well, yes, which is why mission creep can be a bad thing and must be watched and monitored.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thank you for that. Harper and the others are now in pre-election mode too, so while he is really playing the tough on crime ticket, we know that his regime has been anything but transparent. I'm guessing all the discussions that are going on about mission creep could reflect our collective fear of being drawn into a war without our knowledge or consent. If the mission changes though, are citizens not entitled to be told?

Certainly the citizens should be informed of their government's decisions--with the caveat that such release of information does not jeopardize the lives of the soldiers or their mission. For example, the US was told of D-Day after it was done, not before, for reasons I would hope would be obvious.

Well eveyone new a large scale landing was going to happen.
Just not exactly when or were.

Everyone knew Americans, brits and canadians were actively training and gearing for a big landing that year. Just not the fine details.

Well, yes. Everyone knew that an invasion would happen at some point, however, a NY Times article about the planned invasion at Normandy on June 6th would have been disastrous. Some secrets have to be kept secret.

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: crazyewok

You make a good point. I remember when the French military advisors left Vietnam and the US went in. What a nightmare to have watched that napalm and its effects on the population. There's no doubt in my mind that the war machine want things to escalate.

I dont even know if its deliberate.


Its a problem of to many politicians, many with no military experiance have to much power to dictate military policy,
Compounded with shifting prioritys when goverments change over.

Not a US only problem by any strecth but a problem that plagues most of the west.

Half of the British Empire was formed on mission creep!

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: crazyewok

You make a good point. I remember when the French military advisors left Vietnam and the US went in. What a nightmare to have watched that napalm and its effects on the population. There's no doubt in my mind that the war machine want things to escalate.

it is better for an army or military force to be involved in conflict. It's the best kind of training you can get. A soldier is at his best when he is on actual operations and not crawling around bushes with a magazine of blanks. It creates hardened and experienced professionals.

It's a pity that's not the real motivation though. The people behind the scenes that have been making money off the back of young men dying since before world war 1 are the real driving force. We see going to war as a noble thing to do (which it still is if you honestly believe in your heart that you are risking your life for the greater good) when in reality we are fools. Would you jump in a meat grinder because you thought it was a noble and fitting thing to do? Because that is all war is.

a reply to: darkorange

Excuse me? Please share with us this "expansionism"? What territory did the U.S. gain? What imperialism? Where? When?

There were European companies in North America long before the U.S. or Canada ever existed. Imperialism was long perfected by Euros long before the U.S..

I'd expect even "bones" to have more intelligent posts than that.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Got it... except it was the military that revealed they had been engaged and successfully defended themselves in the first place. So why would that be, unless someone somewhere wants to deliberately further engage the public in a general escalation perhaps?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: NavyDoc

Thank you for that. Harper and the others are now in pre-election mode too, so while he is really playing the tough on crime ticket, we know that his regime has been anything but transparent. I'm guessing all the discussions that are going on about mission creep could reflect our collective fear of being drawn into a war without our knowledge or consent. If the mission changes though, are citizens not entitled to be told?

Certainly the citizens should be informed of their government's decisions--with the caveat that such release of information does not jeopardize the lives of the soldiers or their mission. For example, the US was told of D-Day after it was done, not before, for reasons I would hope would be obvious.

Well eveyone new a large scale landing was going to happen.
Just not exactly when or were.

Everyone knew Americans, brits and canadians were actively training and gearing for a big landing that year. Just not the fine details.

Well, yes. Everyone knew that an invasion would happen at some point, however, a NY Times article about the planned invasion at Normandy on June 6th would have been disastrous. Some secrets have to be kept secret.

I agree.

I think the point is although exact details were never givin there was no mission creep as everyone knew exactly what the end game was even if the public did not know the fine details

There was a firm goal from the start between all the allies, beat hitler then finnish japan off.


If the US military had had the freedom it did in WW2 in vietnam it likely would have gone down diffrently.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: crazyewok

You make a good point. I remember when the French military advisors left Vietnam and the US went in. What a nightmare to have watched that napalm and its effects on the population. There's no doubt in my mind that the war machine want things to escalate.

it is better for an army or military force to be involved in conflict. It's the best kind of training you can get. A soldier is at his best when he is on actual operations and not crawling around bushes with a magazine of blanks. It creates hardened and experienced professionals.

It's a pity that's not the real motivation though. The people behind the scenes that have been making money off the back of young men dying since before world war 1 are the real driving force. We see going to war as a noble thing to do (which it still is if you honestly believe in your heart that you are risking your life for the greater good) when in reality we are fools. Would you jump in a meat grinder because you thought it was a noble and fitting thing to do? Because that is all war is.

Just throwing your army into a warzone without a clear goal should be a crime even if "just to train them".

a reply to: aboutface

Creep leaves options available. Not locked in to an 'Exit plan' or some such politically damaging scenario if one is forced to change from what was previously stated. ( Damned if you do and damned if you don't.)

"Creep" has more possibilities than just a secret agenda. (Not saying there isn't one...just saying.)

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: aboutface

Creep leaves options available. Not locked in to an 'Exit plan' or some such politically damaging scenario if one is forced to change from what was previously stated. ( Damned if you do and damned if you don't.)

"Creep" has more possibilities than just a secret agenda. (Not saying there isn't one...just saying.)

Creep though more often than not turns into a disorginised mess.

At the very least politicians should not make promises they dont keep just to get a foot in the door.
They should least make it clear options are open.
Not swear to the public there role will be limited then expand it the next day.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: crazyewok

You make a good point. I remember when the French military advisors left Vietnam and the US went in. What a nightmare to have watched that napalm and its effects on the population. There's no doubt in my mind that the war machine want things to escalate.

it is better for an army or military force to be involved in conflict. It's the best kind of training you can get. A soldier is at his best when he is on actual operations and not crawling around bushes with a magazine of blanks. It creates hardened and experienced professionals.

It's a pity that's not the real motivation though. The people behind the scenes that have been making money off the back of young men dying since before world war 1 are the real driving force. We see going to war as a noble thing to do (which it still is if you honestly believe in your heart that you are risking your life for the greater good) when in reality we are fools. Would you jump in a meat grinder because you thought it was a noble and fitting thing to do? Because that is all war is.

Just throwing your army into a warzone without a clear goal should be a crime even if "just to train them".

It is a crime. But nobody will ever be held accountable.

Nobody does war anymore. It's religious genocide or "police actions". In a real war, with real winners and losers, everyone is in danger of dying. Now we invade, then tell our troops, well you can kill this group, but not this group. That is war? You canadians are as stupid as we americans if you let mission creep go on and on. It will be one leg at at a time, then two legs, then arms, then your brains. But you will come back to your wives, husbands and kids that way. That is fine if that is what canadian citizens want.

a reply to: crazyewok

Your right. Can't argue it.

a reply to: intunewithmyself

No #. I thought we
exercise freedom of speech.

Think again.

You know, I have a creepy feeling about all of this. When it comes to discussing the military mission, Gen Lawson will not comment to the media. Harper clearly controls the message and when Gen Lawson speaks it is usually brief, and his comments back the Harper message.

So why would the military Special Forces release that info to the press, unless it had been cleared though Harper? Politically he wants to be seen as supporting the troops and enjoys denigrating the opposition members as being unsupportive. After all there's an election coming in October. Could this all be politically motivated?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Nobody does war anymore. It's religious genocide or "police actions". In a real war, with real winners and losers, everyone is in danger of dying. Now we invade, then tell our troops, well you can kill this group, but not this group. That is war? You canadians are as stupid as we americans if you let mission creep go on and on. It will be one leg at at a time, then two legs, then arms, then your brains. But you will come back to your wives, husbands and kids that way. That is fine if that is what canadian citizens want.

Its not new.

Its exactly how the UK took india.

Most of the land we took was through slow mission creep and police actions on behalf of vassel states.