Oh, come on...
How much bunk can you fit into one article?
Unwinnable war? According to an attention-seeking writer who's looking to sell more copies of his magazine, maybe. But not according to the professionals. Heavy casualties? In the context of uninformed public opinion, perhaps, but not in any sort of military or historical sense. Taylor, you're an embarrassment.
Barely-controlled public spats? Name one. Go on, name a single one. But don't bother me with contrived controversies designed to sell more advertising, because that doesn't wash around here.
O'Connor and Hillier may not have been the bestest of buddies, but they were both professional enough to work well together for the eighteen months they had to. There may have been disagreements behind closed doors, but I didn't see a single instance where the two leaders publicly struggled with each other on opposite sides of an issue.
The military doesn't resent civilian oversight, they welcome it; nobody in the CF wants to run the country via some sort of junta. To suggest that they do is not only idiotic, it's insulting. No, what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen resent is weak, incompetent, and shortsighted oversight, which is largely what they've gotten for at least the past thirty years.
And bamboozling ministers? Name me one in the past thirty years who was wrapped around the military's finger, rubber-stamping all their requests. Name me one who was dazzled by the bright lights, enthralled by the gadgets and equipment to the point where the CF was able to run things exactly the way they wanted to. If that was the case, how did our Canadian Forces reach the state it was in when Hillier took over as CDS?
Bunk, complete and utter bunk. Surely the Ottawa Citizen can do better than this.
O'Connor got a bad rap," said Scott Taylor, publisher of the military affairs magazine Esprit de Corps. "The military was already committed to an unwinnable war in Afghanistan and instead of questioning the commitment when they came in, they took heavy casualties and Harper flew over there and said 'we don't cut and run.' They came in on an election platform of Arctic first and suddenly it was Afghanistan now. Those were O'Connor's marching orders."
Unwinnable war? According to an attention-seeking writer who's looking to sell more copies of his magazine, maybe. But not according to the professionals. Heavy casualties? In the context of uninformed public opinion, perhaps, but not in any sort of military or historical sense. Taylor, you're an embarrassment.
Mr. O'Connor's high profile political missteps -- notably his apology for misleading the House of Commons on the fate of Afghan detainees, confusion over funeral expenses for soldiers killed in action and barely-controlled public spats with Mr. Hillier -- overshadowed what might become his longer-term achievements.
Barely-controlled public spats? Name one. Go on, name a single one. But don't bother me with contrived controversies designed to sell more advertising, because that doesn't wash around here.
O'Connor and Hillier may not have been the bestest of buddies, but they were both professional enough to work well together for the eighteen months they had to. There may have been disagreements behind closed doors, but I didn't see a single instance where the two leaders publicly struggled with each other on opposite sides of an issue.
But it's some indication of the daunting task facing new Defence Minister Peter MacKay that Mr. O'Connor had the unarguable advantage of a military background. The military resents any kind of civilian oversight, said Mr. Taylor.
"It runs counter to the way they want to operate," he said. "In the past, they have been able to bamboozle defence ministers. They give them flight suits with their names on them and fly them around to all the bases. While they're being whisked around learning the job, they are also neglecting the job and the military is happily doing its own thing. O'Connor was different. At least he had a vision and he didn't need to go for an F-18 ride or a trip in the back of a truck because he had done all that. He just got stuck in."
The military doesn't resent civilian oversight, they welcome it; nobody in the CF wants to run the country via some sort of junta. To suggest that they do is not only idiotic, it's insulting. No, what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen resent is weak, incompetent, and shortsighted oversight, which is largely what they've gotten for at least the past thirty years.
And bamboozling ministers? Name me one in the past thirty years who was wrapped around the military's finger, rubber-stamping all their requests. Name me one who was dazzled by the bright lights, enthralled by the gadgets and equipment to the point where the CF was able to run things exactly the way they wanted to. If that was the case, how did our Canadian Forces reach the state it was in when Hillier took over as CDS?
Bunk, complete and utter bunk. Surely the Ottawa Citizen can do better than this.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 9:22 a.m.
1 Comments:
This Scott Taylor is really a puzzle, I must say...
He was a soldier once, but afterward became, essentially, a shill for the regime of Saddam Hussein, as he admits in his book `Iraqi End Game'? Is that it?
Post a Comment
<< Home