Gordon O'Connor is not the right Minister of National Defence
Jim Travers of the Toronto Star gets to the nub of the issues.
...
Officially, defence isn't one of the five priorities defining the Prime Minister's agenda. So, instead of speaking openly about the direction of a department preparing to absorb billions more taxpayer dollars, Stephen Harper's say-nothing administration is the first casualty of a whisper war between Hillier, Canada's top soldier, and former brigadier general, arms industry lobbyist and now Defence Minister Gordon O' Connor.
Those on Hillier's side — and that's almost everyone wearing a uniform or watching the bottom line — slag O'Connor as a relic who hasn't accepted that the Cold War is over, the Berlin Wall down, and asymmetrical threats rising...
At a time when Hillier is moving fast toward a lighter, more flexible, operations-oriented military able to deliver more bang-for-the buck internationally, O'Connor is retreating toward big-ticket, high-profile, low-efficiency purchases that wave the flag most vigorously at home [like the mad promises to scatter now non-existent battalions from Goose Bay to Bagotville to Trenton to Comox]...
O'Connor also wants to wave the Maple Leaf in the Arctic by spending $2 billion-plus on icebreakers and deepwater docking. Defending sovereignty is important but, like the heavy aircraft option, there are better ways to do the job...
Abandoning O'Connor would be another vote of non-confidence in a cabinet damaged by the David Emerson and Michael Fortier appointments and embarrassed by Harper's stay-mum order. But if Harper lets O'Connor buy what will delight the arms industry rather than what works best, he risks losing the best-known defence chief in decades and stalling the military's overdue transition...
One just hopes Travers is not trying to undermine both Gen. Hillier and the Conservative government at the same time.
See also at Daimnation!:
Conservatives' defence promises not good enough (Feb. 23)
Arctic sovereignty: the Navy is not the answer (Feb. 22)
A Herculean task (Feb. 20)
Defence policy: Conservatives the new Liberals (Dec. 5)
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
...
Officially, defence isn't one of the five priorities defining the Prime Minister's agenda. So, instead of speaking openly about the direction of a department preparing to absorb billions more taxpayer dollars, Stephen Harper's say-nothing administration is the first casualty of a whisper war between Hillier, Canada's top soldier, and former brigadier general, arms industry lobbyist and now Defence Minister Gordon O' Connor.
Those on Hillier's side — and that's almost everyone wearing a uniform or watching the bottom line — slag O'Connor as a relic who hasn't accepted that the Cold War is over, the Berlin Wall down, and asymmetrical threats rising...
At a time when Hillier is moving fast toward a lighter, more flexible, operations-oriented military able to deliver more bang-for-the buck internationally, O'Connor is retreating toward big-ticket, high-profile, low-efficiency purchases that wave the flag most vigorously at home [like the mad promises to scatter now non-existent battalions from Goose Bay to Bagotville to Trenton to Comox]...
O'Connor also wants to wave the Maple Leaf in the Arctic by spending $2 billion-plus on icebreakers and deepwater docking. Defending sovereignty is important but, like the heavy aircraft option, there are better ways to do the job...
Abandoning O'Connor would be another vote of non-confidence in a cabinet damaged by the David Emerson and Michael Fortier appointments and embarrassed by Harper's stay-mum order. But if Harper lets O'Connor buy what will delight the arms industry rather than what works best, he risks losing the best-known defence chief in decades and stalling the military's overdue transition...
One just hopes Travers is not trying to undermine both Gen. Hillier and the Conservative government at the same time.
See also at Daimnation!:
Conservatives' defence promises not good enough (Feb. 23)
Arctic sovereignty: the Navy is not the answer (Feb. 22)
A Herculean task (Feb. 20)
Defence policy: Conservatives the new Liberals (Dec. 5)
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 10:27 a.m.
1 Comments:
I question O'Connor's ability as well. Sometimes ex Generals are not the best choice, as they carry alot of baggage from their previous service. By baggage I mean primairly intellectual. The world has changed, the military is not like it was 30 years ago.
One of the things I feel highlights this point was OConnor's comments a few weeks ago after the story came out that troops were buying their own kit and some of the kit issued sucked.
He made some attempt to defend the Dept and say the stuff the troops get was acceptable.
Better to keep your mouth shut or agree to look into it. Troops will always complain about their kit and the food they get. Its a fact of life.
You don't win friends by calling a guy who's life depends on a piece of equipment a liar when he says it isn't good enough.
Post a Comment
<< Home