Last week, General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, stepped out of his role as a military officer to make two astonishing assertions. He made it clear that it’s up to the soldiers, not the politicians, to define the nature of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. "Without the pro-active operations necessary to precisely track them [the Taliban], locate them and attack them, they, with their forces, would still be trying to kill us."
In other words, the top soldier was saying that the Liberal approach to the mission---stay in Kandahar to train the Afghans, but don’t engage in offensive action against the insurgency---is unworkable.
Hillier’s view that Dion’s supposed compromise is out to lunch got backing from a top U.S. commander. Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command, the officer responsible for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, said on CTV Question Period that there’s no way to separate the combat side of the mission from the rest.
"You can't say, 'We're going to do this and not this.' You need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to this problem," said the Admiral.
So much for Stephane Dion’s attempt to square the circle by saying that Canada should change the nature of the mission in Afghanistan, while conceding that it will be up to the military to decide what level of combat is needed.
Hillier’s second assertion, that debate itself endangers the lives of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan was even more astonishing.
"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not,” Hillier told the Conference of Defence Associations.
In the mind of our top general, debate on the Afghan mission has become unpatriotic. There’s been a great effort on the part of supporters of the military mission in Afghanistan to try to get Canadians who oppose the mission to shut up. One haranguer who is fond of promoting the righteousness of the Afghan mission is Don Cherry,
In the summer of 2007, the Royal Canadian Legion saluted Cherry by making him an honorary life member. Interviewed about the award, Cherry said: “What gets me is whether you feel the mission is right or wrong, to put it down only puts our troops down. If you don’t support the mission, that only encourages the enemy and makes it want to turn it on all the more.”
It’s one thing for the star of Coach’s Corner to say this sort of thing, but entirely another when the Chief of the Defence Staff says it.
This isn’t the first time the general has over stepped the bounds of his role. In the spring of 2007, Hillier told reporters in Kandahar that Canadian soldiers are mighty disgruntled that their mission in Afghanistan has been eclipsed by allegations that prisoners handed over to the Afghans by Canadians have been tortured. “Let me just come out and say very frankly here that I’ve met a variety of soldiers who are pissed off,” the general declared.
We get the point. The general wants to be a politician. And he has every right to take up that honourable calling. First though, he needs to hang up his uniform. It’s past time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Suppose the good general says we need to start drafting young citizens to help fight the noble Afghan cause. Will the politicians put up with that too? Come to think of it, I see lots of potential first class soldiers sitting on both the Conservative and Liberal benches in the House of Commons. Join now! Your country and the Afghan Government need you.
Hillier sayeth:
I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not,” Hillier told the Conference of Defence Associations.
That sounds like an excellent political waffle. Maybe he should retire and run for office. The Conference of Defence Associations is supposed to be an independent think tank but is financed by the Defence Dept. and sounds like a propaganda mouthpiece for the military.
Hillier wants to support the troops by leaving them in harms way
and sacrificing Canadian lives for the goals of U.S. imperialism. If he really were interested in supporting them he would argue that the mission should be scrubbed and the troops come home to safety.
Here is an excerpt from a post of mine on point:
48. In the interests of accountability, our Chief of Defence Staff, General Hillier, must go. He pushed for this war to play with the big boys and, in his own haunting words, to “kill scumbags.” He put our soldiers in harm’s way for nothing. He is not fit to lead.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11803
You've interpreted Hillier's remarks in the most biased manner possible.
He's an expert on Afghanistan - if he believes that a certain proposed policy is unworkable, I as a Canadian citizen want to hear about it. Too many times our military has been put in impossible positions by the government, and I don't want to see it happen again. It's perverse to interpret this as usurping the role of government.
Regarding the second point...
"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not,”
Hillier didn't actually say anything here, did he? I interpret this as poorly worded way of saying he didn't know. How you go from that to claiming that Hillier is saying debate is unpatriotic I'll never know.
Dear rabbit:
If General Hillier is an expert on Afghanistan, I'm a monkey's uncle. That war is illegal, unjust, genocidal, wasteful and unwinnable. It is blowing our standing in the world as an honest broker. In which particular category would you like to debate. Let's get down to it.
Richard:
So your debating position is that General Hillier is NOT an expert in Afghanistan?
Well good luck with that.
I shall be charitable and assume that you are confusing someone who is not an expert with someone who's views you disagree with.
A general is nothing more than a civil servant. He is to be seen but not heard. There is no exception. When General Rick Hillier strode into a room filled with journalists and defence contractors, otherwise known as Merchants of Death, and told them what he expected of Parliament – a short debate and a sizable majority in favour of extending Canada’s war in Afghanistan and that all else would be aiding and abetting the enemy – he exceeded his authority.
As expected the reaction from the Prime Minister, for whom Hillier serves as a kind of Rottweiler, snarling at critics of the Mission, was approving silence. Expected as well was the reaction Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion who muttered something about the right to debate the issue.
Why should Dion disapprove? The Liberals hired Hillier and the Liberal leader, afraid to stand up to the Prime Minister even on an issue of principal, was off to approve an escalation of Canada’s war effort.
But most upsetting, nay infuriating, was the performance of Jack Layton who parroted Dion’s remarks. There was a time when Ed Broadbent stood up to Pierre Trudeau and opposed the imposition of the War Measures Act. But that was then. Perhaps, Layton’s lackluster performance explains why the NDP languishes at 14% in the polls.
War may be the proper venue for generals; politics are not. Harry Truman made that clear when he sacked General Douglas MacArthur for daring to publicly recommend using nuclear weapons in Korea. Despite the general’s popularity and howls from the opposition, Truman did what he had to do. That Canadian politicians lacked the courage of the little haberdasher from Missouri makes this a very sad time for Canada.
Amen.
Thanks anonymous.
Post a Comment