I agree that clarification of the mission is required, but don't underestimate the amount of autonomy each national contingent has within Coalition operations.
3PPCLI conducted themselves very differently from the their American counterparts in Op Apollo, for example.
Damian: Interesting point about autonomy. However if our battle group continues with a more robust (as they say) mission and rules of engagement than the Brits in the same Canadian-commanded brigade, do we then end up in the bizarre situation where the Canadians report through brigade HQ to US Enduring Freedom, while the Brits report through brigade HQ to NATO ISAF, Kabul?
Talk about our brigade commander being double-hatted!
Mark
Ottawa
Actually meant that our battle group might have to report to Enduring Freedom for combat operations, with our troops, Brits and any others reporting to ISAF, Kabul for other roles.
Still weird. And different rules of engagement/missions (with Canadians having the most dangerous) for different national contingents in the brigade could well be bad for morale and brigade cohesion.
Mark
Ottawa
I agree that if the different elements of the brigade are to have radically different ROE and operational objectives, it'd be best that they not be under the same unified command.
I suppose if this is the best that NATO can manage the Russians must be smacking themselves on their foreheads right now.
"Boris, were we really worried about fighting these people, or was that just the vodka talking?"
I suspect that the Brits, while avoiding the counter-terror role will find themselves defending agressively because they happened to run into unfriendlies, again and again.
Things just happen that way.
Cheers
JMH
J.M. Heinrichs: I suspect your point is implicit in the first story.
Brit Army officer on their role in Afstan:
[External Link]
Harrier help from Kandahar, which will include Canadian Forces (and there are Dutch special forces there!)
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa