The emotional legacy
Yesterday, I tried to explain to a mostly American audience why the loss of General Hillier to retirement was such a big deal for the Canadian Forces.
Today, at the same site, I was directed to an article that crystallized my feelings on the matter: Rick Hillier can take much of the credit for turning the tide of contempt in this country for those who serve us in uniform.
But the work is not done. The level of creeping contempt that Cassandra observes in her poignant piece about American public discourse is still far less than what the CF faces even now (follow that link at your own peril). The effect of decades of neglect and condescension cannot be repealed in a short three years. That's why I'm so incensed about the clamp-down on DND public communication from the bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa: now is the time to consolidate our gains in the hearts and minds of Canadians, by continuing to let them get to know Canadian soldiers. Because once you know them, you can't help but support them, even if you don't support the government of the day.
And, what's more, once you know and like them, you can't ever turn away and pretend you don't notice when they're starved and neglected, as they were for decades previous to the Martin and Harper governments.
That's why the choice of the next CDS is so important. Because we need to build on Hillier's legacy of pride, of connection with the Canadian people.
So, to the politicians, bureaucrats, and staffers I know read this blog: choose the next CDS wisely, and with an eye not only to the next election, not only to your own power and influence, but to the best interests of this country.
Today, at the same site, I was directed to an article that crystallized my feelings on the matter: Rick Hillier can take much of the credit for turning the tide of contempt in this country for those who serve us in uniform.
But the work is not done. The level of creeping contempt that Cassandra observes in her poignant piece about American public discourse is still far less than what the CF faces even now (follow that link at your own peril). The effect of decades of neglect and condescension cannot be repealed in a short three years. That's why I'm so incensed about the clamp-down on DND public communication from the bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa: now is the time to consolidate our gains in the hearts and minds of Canadians, by continuing to let them get to know Canadian soldiers. Because once you know them, you can't help but support them, even if you don't support the government of the day.
And, what's more, once you know and like them, you can't ever turn away and pretend you don't notice when they're starved and neglected, as they were for decades previous to the Martin and Harper governments.
That's why the choice of the next CDS is so important. Because we need to build on Hillier's legacy of pride, of connection with the Canadian people.
So, to the politicians, bureaucrats, and staffers I know read this blog: choose the next CDS wisely, and with an eye not only to the next election, not only to your own power and influence, but to the best interests of this country.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 12:45 p.m.
10 Comments:
What is your problem with my post about Hillier? How I feel about him has nothing to do with what I think of the troops in general - whom I have always been supported. Hillier made a spectacle of himself by crossing the boundary into political posturing one too many times. That is not his job.
Hillier made a spectacle of himself by crossing the boundary into political posturing one too many times. That is not his job.
So you say. I disagree, here and here.
Neither of those articles you cited relate to my past criticism of Hillier.
And the larger point here, as I stated, is the inference that if I don't support Hillier, I don't support the troops. That's flawed logic and it's simply not true.
So where, exactly, did he cross "the boundary into political posturing" as you put it?
Here's just one example. And note the link to "Dave" (retired military and outspoken critic of Hillier) at the bottom of that post as well.
More Dave:
The Chief of Defence Staff has publicly criticized elected members of parliament engaged in a debate in the House of Commons.
That is not the province of a serving Canadian general, regardless of his appointment. If the troops are complaining to him it is his responsibility to explain to those troops that it is an essential element of a parliamentary democracy that the government be scrutinized in anything and everything they do. It is the job of the opposition to probe the behaviour of government.
It is not the job of the Chief of Defence Staff to criticize that opposition. The Chief of Defence Staff has a responsibility to be seen to be totally and impeccably apolitical. Hillier has once again failed in that responsibility.
I don't know how anybody can dispute that.
I guess you didn't actually read my second link, Catnip, which deals precisely with the issue you've raised about Hillier supposedly telling MP's to extend the mission. Short version: he didn't.
As far as Dave's opinions are concerned, I've tried giving him a fair opportunity to air his opinions - he was a contributor here for a very short time. We parted company over his recommendation that Canadian troops shoot down allied air support, and I don't have much time for him any longer. The fact that he thinks the general is a political mouthpiece doesn't surprise me: the hyper-partisan tend to project.
Hillier's task is to provide advice to the government, carry out their directives within the law, and advocate for the CF and its members. None of what he has said falls outside of that mandate.
I suspect that you and others of your ilk don't like Hillier because he's TOO honest, TOO committed to the CF and his people. If he were a lapdog like so many of those who came before him, if he let the CF get starved and ignored or casually abused and belittled like others have in the past, I'm guessing you wouldn't have much problem with him.
But there's a damned good reason the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who serve under his command adore the man: he's on their side, and they know it.
Given that, whose side does that put you on?
Babbling: Not Timor Jack's (see last sentence).
From the unprincipled jackass's mouth:
'Even NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party opposes Canada's military mission in Afghanistan and has called for the immediately withdrawal of the country's 2,500 troops there, had praise for Hillier.
"There's no question that he was very controversial and direct at times," Layton said. "I always felt it came from the heart and we might not have agreed with absolutely everything he recommended but I never doubted this man's sincerity or his commitment to the country and I think all Canadians thank him for his service. It's certainly not an easy job that he's performed."'
What Timor Jack said in 2005 about Gen. Hillier's "scumbags" statement:
"Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.
"A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."
catnip's kind of guy? But then she's a Liberal, which may mean even less honesty.
They were for the war (2005), then were against it (2007), now are for it except if it's actually war (2008).
By the way, here's a marvelous example of Liberal knowledge of facts.
Mark
Ottawa
I suspect that you and others of your ilk don't like Hillier because he's TOO honest, TOO committed to the CF and his people.
My "ilk"? And what "ilk" would that be? Further, why do you feel it's necessary to attack me personally?
I've already stated why I disagreed with Hillier's public stance based on things he's said and it certainly isn't for any of the reasons you listed above.
Saying you "support the troops" and then tearing down the one individual who has been their prime champion these past few years, the one who has done more to promote the CF than any other, rings hollow to me.
It sounds to me as though your "support" is contingent upon them allowing themselves to be used as a political doormat by whichever party is in power, instead of - what's that popular phrase? - "speaking truth to power."
As far as me picking on you particularly, don't give it another thought: you were simply the first to pop up in a Technorati search for an example of the contemptuous attitudes towards the CF that I deplore.
Catnip, I must agree with Babbling on this issue. The foundation of your criticism of General Hillier is based on the media and opposition party's criticism and analysis which can hardly be counted as accurate and objective.
Gen Hillier is criticized most often for failings not his own, nature abhors a vacuum, therefore, Gen Hillier has often needed to step into the void left by politicians who were unwilling to demonstrate the leadership so necessary to a country at war. Your critique is one such example of this, Hillier urged politicians to do their job because frankly, they needed that reminder.
The most telling example of the point I am making is that it was Gen Hillier's signature on the first detainee transfer agreement, not the MND's or the Ambassadors. This was unacceptable in my view as the document represented the inerests of the Canadian government at large, however, I suspect the highly developed survival instinct of the career bureaucrat and the politician led Minister O'connor and Amb. Sproule to deftly dodge that bullet and place the brave General squarely in front of an oncoming bus.
The relationship between cabinet and the CDS and senior military officers in this country is seriously flawed, not because the Gnerals meddle in the political realm as you, Janice Stein and Eugene Levy suggest, but because they are not allowed to give frank and honest military advice and analysis publicly if it will be considered politically damaging to the PMO. If you require proof of this, speak with retired General Lewis MacKenzie and he will tell you how he was told what to say by government to a commons committee in order to minimize political damage. He was retired at the time and had the luxury of easily laughing that direction off. In the U.S. senior officers are allowed to disagree with their political masters with much less fear of retribtion.
The most political aspect of General Hillier was that he knew that soldiering was above politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home