Talk:Canadian special forces/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

article is plagiarized

85% of the article is plagiarized from the offical government of Canada website. The material should be deleted and a link given. Wikipedia requires ORIGINAL WORK.

The website is here:

Here is a quote"

Unit History

Canadians served with distinction in several types of Allied Special Forces units during the Second World War. One such unit was the legendary U.S. and Canadian combined 1st Special Service Force or, as it was commonly known, "the Devil's Brigade." It achieved a sterling combat record despite overwhelming odds. While tactics, weapons and technology have changed, today's JTF 2 soldiers are perpetuating the basic qualities that define such units.

JTF 2 was created on April 1, 1993, when the Canadian Forces (CF) accepted responsibility for federal counter-terrorism operations from the RCMP. Since its inception, the unit has continuously evolved to meet modern-day threats. As the events of 11 September 2001 have shown, the threat of terrorism comes from an elusive, sophisticated and determined enemy. In order to maintain an edge in this operational environment, JTF 2 is continuously developing new capabilities, technologies, and tactics.

The year 2001 marked an important milestone in the history of JTF 2. The unit was committed to the international Special Operations Forces coalition in Afghanistan, completing its operations there in November 2002. This deployment was the first time JTF 2 was used in a major combat role outside Canada. The unit played a critical role in coalition Special Operations Forces and earned the respect of Canada’s allies for its professionalism.

Back to Top

Unit Accountability

JTF 2 is a unit of the CF and is subject to exactly the same code of conduct, military discipline and overriding Criminal Code statutes as any other military unit. Due to the strategic nature of its operations, the unit answers directly to the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff in the chain of command. This allows for very timely command and control, access to strategic intelligence, and the oversight considered essential for military operations undertaken to meet national objectives. The Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff is accountable to the Chief of the Defence Staff who, in turn, is responsible to the Minister of National Defence.

Like other units of the CF, JTF 2 follows Rules Of Engagements (ROE) authorized by the Chief of the Defence Staff. Its members are entitled to the same support and health services as other service members, they are accountable to the military and civilian justice systems, and they must follow the same regulations and orders as the rest of the CF. Like any other CF unit, internal oversight bodies such as the Chief of Review Services, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the Pay and Allowances Review Board, the Access to Information Office and the CF Ombudsman all have access to JTF 2, if required, to carry out their duties.

Back to Top


JTF 2 is comprised of CF members employed in assaulter and supporter roles. All members are carefully screened for service in the unit but it is the assaulters who undergo a selection and training regime for eventual service in the fighting arm of the unit. Any Regular Force member of the CF can apply to become a member of JTF 2 after completing 2 years of service and meeting other initial entry requirements. Members of JTF 2 are highly motivated, dedicated, mature, mentally robust and physically fit. Potential assaulters are carefully screened to ensure that they meet these criteria and are the type of team-oriented and highly-skilled professional soldier, sailor or airman that can effectively function in this high stress environment. The CF's strongest asset is the people that fill its ranks across the country. Many of these service members have tried out for the JTF 2 selection process but, on average, only two in ten candidates that arrive at the unit for final selection will actually become a JTF 2 assaulter.

The standards established for selection and employment with the unit are scientifically designed and validated at the CF Dwyer Hill Training Centre in order to ensure that the members selected will be capable of accomplishing all tasks assigned to the unit. These standards are not just limited to physical abilities. High standards are also required for professionalism, integrity, psychological profile, mental aptitude, discipline, and maturity. These standards are required of all unit members, are tested regularly, and are an integral part of the JTF 2 ethos.

Back to Top


JTF 2 is subject to very stringent security procedures in order to protect the unit and its mission. Indeed, the type of operations assigned to JTF 2 naturally captures the interest of the public but there are many risks involved with information disclosure. The CF recognize the need to inform Canadians about the measures put in place by their Government to protect them against the threat of terrorism. Since its creation, JTF 2 has conducted numerous capability demonstrations for appropriate authorities that need to be aware of unit capabilities as part of their position or appointment. Such audiences include the CF chain of command, Members of Parliament, government officials and police authorities. The Government has also informed Canadians about JTF 2 by notifying the public about its creation in 1992, its expansion following 11 September 2001, and the JTF 2 commitment to Afghanistan in 2001, as well as by responding to media questions about the unit within the limits of the security policy. However, being open and transparent about certain aspects of the unit could seriously compromise the effectiveness of Canada’s counter-terrorism capability. History has shown only too clearly that terrorist organizations will use information about a unit’s personnel, weapons, tactics and procedures to great effect by modifying their methodologies to counter the very forces designed to defeat them.

JTF 2 has established itself as a well-regarded Special Operations Forces unit. It has done so over its short history because of the outstanding quality and ability of its members, its proven operational effectiveness and its stringent operational security policy. This reputation has allowed the unit to develop strong relationships with its allied Special Operations Forces counterparts, relationships built on trust and confidence. These relationships assist JTF 2 in providing the best possible counter-terrorism defence for Canada. The CF security policy for JTF 2 is primarily based on Canada’s situation, and is designed to safeguard information sharing and most importantly to protect Canada’s counter-terrorist capability.

Back to Top

The Future

The Federal Budget of December 2001 allocated approximately $120 million over six years to expand unit capabilities, as part of the Government of Canada’s overall plan to enhance security for Canadians following the attacks of 11 September 2001. Since then the unit has embarked on a program of expansion and capability enhancement while at the same time maintaining its high operational and training standards.

JTF 2 must be ready to respond immediately to any task assigned by the chain of command at home or abroad. The unit maintains the highest operational readiness standards in order to defend Canada against terrorism. On land, at sea and in the air JTF 2 challenges itself to ensure it's ready to defeat a multitude of potential threats. Canadians can take great comfort in the knowledge that this Special Operations Force is standing on guard 24 hours a day to defend Canadians, and Canadian interests at home and abroad.


"line troops"?

Is there an article that explains what "line troops" are? --Krupo 03:51, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I would assume that the statement actually refers to "front line troops" --Lucky13pjn 00:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, sort of makes sense - as in the ones that 'hold the line' in conventional trench/front warfare. Krupo 02:03, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Er, no, that would not make sense. The article is referring to an actual trade; "Linemen", which are responsible for the laying of communications cables on the battlefield. Remember the movie "Enemy at the Gates"? There was a particular scene, where a cable was destroyed. The soldier that crawled out to fix it, with a spindle of wire on his back - that was a German Lineman.
  • Actually the term "line troop" refers to Troops of the Line, or Infantry soldiers.
    • More specifically I believe that, in English at least, "line troops" would refer to infantry soldiers who aren't specialists, who don't have special training or duties. -- Geo Swan 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm, well there is parlance in the military for "line serials" and "staff serials" being that "line" serials are field jobs involving being part of a traditional military formation like a platoon, company or battalion. Staff jobs entail duties that would not take place in operations like training, or writing manuals, or working a desk in Ottawa or something. As I understand it, for officers, and to some degree senior NCOs, being moved to a staff job is a kind of demotion and it takes you out of the running for promtion to the highest jobs. For example the Chief of Defence Staff is almost always a Combat Arms Officer, or at least served in the Infantry/Armoured/Artillery/Engineers. The use here of "line troops" is slightly vague.--FNV 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Special Forces or Parachutists?

There seems to be some confusion between parachuting and "special forces" here.

This article talks about Special Forces which are well defined elsewhere in the enclopedia and consist of small groups for counter-terrorism, both domestically or overseas. SAS, Delta Force and Canada's JTF2 are legitimate examples.

However, parachute units, designed for conventional combat, are NOT considered to be "special foces". The U.S. 82nd Airborne Division and 101st Airborne Division, the British Parachute Regiment the German Fallshirmjaeger battalions, the French and Belgian parachute regiments etc are NOT treated as "special forces", nor should they.

Thus this article on Canadian Special Forces should not include either the Canadian Airborne Regiment or the parachute battalions of World War 2. They were parachute troops designed for, or at least used,in conventional combat. Moreover, there is already a detailed article on the Canadian Airborne Regiment in the encyclopedia.


I agree with your assessment: those two sections should be merged into The Canadian Airborne Regiment, with a link thereto from this article. The section on 1st Special Service Force, however, probably should remain in this article. Indefatigable 03:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Further to above concurrence and further research on JTF2 website that shows its lineage to 1st Special Service Force, but NOT to any of Canada's more conventional parachute units, I have gone ahead and made the agreed/suggested changes

I think the Airborne does deserve a mention on this page as a Canadian Special Forces unit, as in the period from its inception to the creation of JTF-2, for all intents and purposes it was the special forces of the CF. The regiment was never strictly intended to fulfill a classical parachute role such as the US 101st or 82nd, The Airborne was trained in special force applications such as counter-terrorism and behind the lines reconnaisance in addition to fulfilling a traditional Airborne infantry roles as a fast reaction force. American experience in Vietnam and the 1972 Munich hostage crisis only confirmed the need for a unit trained in special warfare and CT, and the Airborne filled it. Indeed, my father was a member of the Airborne in the mid '70s (performing CT duties at the '76 olympics) and was trained in counter-terrorism and special forces combat in the pattern of the SAS in addition to a more conventional combat operations in the manner of a normal parachute regiment. And while the Airborne may not be considered a special force when compared to specialized groups such as JTF-2 and Delta, the Airborne was the special force of the Canadian Military when it was operational, and as my father can attest, was referred to as such.mhunter 22:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The confusion here seems to come from a misunderstanding of the difference between "Special Forces" and "Special Operations Forces." In the US the 75th Ranger Regiment is not considered Special Forces. They are considered Special Operations Forces and as such come under the Special Operations Command, along with the actual Army Special Forces. Again, in the US, when people refer to the Special Forces they mean the Army Special Forces aka "Green Berets." All other "special" troops are actually Special Operations Forces, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, and Air Force PJs. Intersetingly enough, the Marines Force Recon, Recon, any MEUSOC, and the 4th MEB do not come under Special Operations Command (SOCOM) but are Special Operations Capable; this is a whole other can of worms that isn't worth opening here.

Bottom line, this section should be titled "Canadian Special Operations Forces," then all the "special" units can be listed. Otherwise, the Canadian Airborne Regiment should be removed and reside in its own section. I hope these US examples help straighten out the terminology. --SFjarhead 00:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes Made

I made some changes to the article, such as merging the two JTF Sections and Removing the Devils Brigade section. I believe that it is less confusing this way. We already have an article on the Devil's Brigade in the Wikipedia, so it doesn't make sense to me to have another part of an article about it. Looking over the 1st SSF section, I saw no information that is not in the Main Devils Brigade Article. So, I removed the section on Devil's Brigade and replaced it with a link to the Devil's Brigade Article.

Also, I merged the two JTF2 sections, and reorganized them somewhat. I think it's more readable this way.

If anyone has any problems with the changes I made, feel free to roll them back - They just, in my opinion, make the article better and avoid duplicating information on Wikipedia. Andrew Morritt 01:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


Recently aquired equipment. I have no idea but I read a newspaper article critizing how they bought rockets that were some how similar to mines.--Vancouver123 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Spliting JTF2

I think the JTF2 portion of the article should be split off into its own article. Its certainly is large enough to warrent it.--Kross | Talk 01:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Though there would be little else left in the article. Maybe if at some point in the future there was a lot of information about other special forces units. Nfitz 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be a JTF2 article--in fact, i made it, but someone reverted it Theonlyedge 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


I updated some of this article to reflect new information released to the Public about JTF2 in Iraq. Ive also cleaned it up and fixed some mistakes. User:samr

Military Jargon and insider terminology

It's clear that current and ex members of the CF (Canadian Forces) are doing a lot of editing here. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a lot of terms the general public of Canada, never mind the whole world will not understand. e.g.:

  • Category 1 special operations regiment operators and Category 2 specialists and support trades. Most of the unit at start-up is being formed through volunteers from 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, in Petawawa, where the unit will be based. Details and info on the application process were promulgated in December 2005 in CANFORGEN 195/05.

I'm ex CF and I don't know the definition of a "Category 1 special operations regiment operator" if indeed such a redundant term is part of a CF glossary somewhere. Further, I know what a CANFORGEN is, but no one outside the CF will. If the contents of that order are relevant and linkable they should be linked.

Further "operational capabilities of the CAR are now perpetuated" "CAR" is probably a guessable acronym, but isn't all that obvious to non military readers and it isn't noted when the term "Canadian Airborne Regiment" is introduced.

I can fix some of these, so I'm not just writing to gripe, but to point out to mil types that civies have no clue what this stuff means.

I'd also say the whole article needs a strong dose of NPOV as it is a little too glowing in terms of uncited praise. I got to do an Ex with the JTF2 guys and I think they're great, but WP shouldn't be the one proclaiming how cool these guys are. Let's cite more of this stuff and find quotes that back the assertions. --FNV 18:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone include more images ?

Can someone please include more images of is a link of the images

I tried myself to insert more images but for some reason it won't let me.....Please include more images in this article...

Thanks !

Citation Needed

For the Citation Needed tags in the "Operations" section, I do remember the Ottawa Citizen mentionning that the governement had released something either about an operation in afghanistan or the rescue operation in Iraq. I'm not sure which one or where to find it, as I do not have access to archives of that news paper. --Dandin1 00:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


We need more images in the JTF2 article ! Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanJ-P (talkcontribs)

We has some images, they where taken down from commons because they had no source information, so then I uploaded the images from the JTF2 website, witch states that the images can be used. By anyone, as stated in Canada Crown Copyright. So I uploaded them to the commons, with the source info, and they to where taken down. There are numerous images on the commons with the crown copyright status. But these particular ones of JTF2 are always taken down. I give up. --Turbinator 19:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Changes Made

This article was just a JTF 2 article, and so I have moved it to a JTF 2 page. There was a paragraph on the CSOR that I used to start a CSOR page. Regardless, if the intent it to create an umbrella article of all such CF units, then it belongs on the CANSOFCOM page. If this page is recreated, it should be the history of special forces in Canada and it should include information on the Devils Bde and the Canadian SAS (both of which were not mentioned). - MCG 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)