The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread

[SeaKingTacco]

We're on the treadmill now. When the military starts to gain control of the terms of the debate, when the clichés of war start pounding the psyche, an inevitability sets in.

Is Martin trying to imply we are on some sort of road to a military coup in Canada?

As I see it, the Canadian Forces and the Dept of National Defence have been so limp in the advice that they have given to Government over the past 30 years that many politicos and fellow travellers are not used to advice with an edge.  Which is what they are getting.  And by the way Lawrence Martin, it is only advice.  The Government of the day makes the final decisions on what we, the military do, or don't do. 

Don't blame us for laying out how uncomfortably threadbare the equipment and manpower situation has become- which directly affects how many operations we can carry out at the same time.  The Liberals (by virtue of time in Government over the last 30 years) bear much of that responsibility.

Don't blame us for briefing the Government on just how bad the world situation has become...and how few independent options we have.  Lying to your political masters never works over the long haul.

Of course, IVMHO.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Comparing General Hillier to Robert MacNamara is a bit desparate.

Hmmmm. A charismatic individual who weilded great influence in times of conflict - they must be cut of the same cloth.

You mean General Hillier is this generation's Mahatma Gandhi!!!??? 

 

[2 Cdo]

The last time I checked it was the government, not the military, who decided where to send us, for how long, for what mission/ROE's, when to bring us home and provided the people of canada with the "Why we are there" speech. If Paul Martin actually believes that Gen Hillier stepped over his boundaries as CDS then would he not have relieved him of command? If, and it's a big if, Gen Hillier did overstep then thank God that Martin is no longer PM as it would only prove that the man had zero backbone!

Lawerence Martin, isn't he that brutal American comedian?  ??? ;D And why is he writing about Canadian politics? ;D

 

[Weinie]

  Martin is indulging himself in the cheapest of journalistic ploys; attempting to provoke a response. (as opposed to generating a debate). He is not the first journalist to attempt this type of smear campaign, and he will find some backers in both the lib left socialist camp and within government (including DND) itself. Expect more of this, as the whisper campaigns, which are all about getting federal dollars into the right hands, (generally the whisperer) ebb and flow.
  Fortunately, the good general, though cognizant of what is said, stays above this, and worries about the state of the CF and its future. Mr. Martin could only wish for such focus, and such acclaim for doing his job.

 

[rmacqueen]

"Kind of like of Robert McNamara, you mean?"

In journalistic terms, that is known as a leading question.  Lawrence Martin has his own agenda and by asking that question he is able to bring up the spectre of Vietnam and tie it to Afghanistan.  It is a blatant attempt at manipulating the public and yet another sign of the pathetic state of our media.  I am starting to think the National Enquirer is more balanced and truthful than the main stream media

 

[civmick]

McNamara was a pol.  Did he mean MacArthur?  :

 

[OnTrack]

"General Hillier (like all admirals and generals) needs to be silent.  He needs to give his best military advice to the government of the day – in private.  He may talk, off the record, to his sailors, soldiers and aviators.  He may not defend himself when attacked from the cheap seats – the ones occupied by stupid journalists."

Fact of the matter is that General Hillier has not been at all silent.  While he may give advice to the government in private he has been exceptionally public, talking and dispensing advice, on the record.  As such, I'm surprised that it has taken this long for such an article to appear.

 

[rmacqueen]

As such, I'm surprised that it has taken this long for such an article to appear.

General Hillier is quite popular with a large portion of the public so it may have just taken awhile for someone to find the "hook" to be able to write disparaging things about him...and this is the best they can do.

 

[paracowboy]

I have never considered Martin to be even a muck-raking journalist (whom I think we all know I despise on principle), but rather that more detestable creature: a polemicist. I believe anything he has written even less than I do Anne Coulter or Michael Moore. At least Coulter can be reasonably attractive after a couple beers, and Moore is a skilled story-teller.

 

[2 Cdo]

General Hillier (like all admirals and generals) needs to be silent.  He needs to give his best military advice to the government of the day – in private.  He may talk, off the record, to his sailors, soldiers and aviators.  He may not defend himself when attacked from the cheap seats – the ones occupied by stupid journalists.

Fact of the matter is that General Hillier has not been at all silent.  While he may give advice to the government in private he has been exceptionally public, talking and dispensing advice, on the record.  As such, I'm surprised that it has taken this long for such an article to appear.

Yes by all means the highest ranking man in the CF shouldn't answer any questions given to him by the press. : As an ex-officer I expected a little more support from his own kind but I already gather you aren't a big fan.

 

[North Star]

I too was weirded out by Mr. Martin's comparison (or rather biased leading question) of McNamara to Gen Hillier. If memory serves, McNamara was a politician and as such was responsible to make poltical judgments about what to do with the military, solicit options from military officers, and then pick and choose what was to be done. Last I heard, Gen Hillier wasn't MND, nor did he decide to commit Canada to any combat missions. He runs them, but never had the political luxury of choice...

Certainly, Gen Hillier needs to be apolitical. But that does not mean that he relinquishes his responsibility as a professional to explain publicly the consequences of political decisions. For example, if tomorrow the government were to cut the defence budget by 50% (the dream of the Polaris Institute), Gen Hillier is well within his right to stand up in public and explain that this means Canada will have to cut overseas commitments (including precious peacekeeping), close bases, etc. Yes, this has political reprecussions, but that's for the government to explain. I certainly hope that if Canada decides to shamefully withdraw from Kandahar, that he explains the humanitarian disaster the Taliban and HIG will impose upon the civilian populace.

Canadian journalists and members of the public have become so used to CDSs without balls that even Gen Hillier's apolitical/professional comments on doctrine and tactics (including emphasis on Defence before the ther Ds) frighten them. Mr. Martin falls within this group. Perhaps he should visit the UK, where serving officers are more blunt with the public on the consequences of restructure and funding changes. Then again, perhaps not - a military coup and general militarization of British society is just around the corner!

 

[OnTrack]

As an ex-officer I expected a little more support from his own kind but I already gather you aren't a big fan.

In fact, I am a huge fan and wish that we had Chiefs with the gusto, cajones and personality that he has when I was in.  My post was only to infer that when you become as public a figure at the General is you have to expect these rubbish type of articles.

 

[2 Cdo]

And my point is by addressing them, and not ignoring them, he can help educate the Canadian public. Ignoring, or being silent, is never right when dealing with obvious disinformation and lies.

 

[sleeman]

A little off topic, but since the article mentioned Robert McNamara it has some relevance.

Maybe Mr. Martin should watch the following documentary.  I recommend it to anyone with interest in military matters.
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara

It's a great documentary, mostly an interview with Mr. McNamara and footage of the events he is talking about. 

Watching this gives great insight as to how the US got involved and escalated it's involvement in the Vietnam war. 
If I got the facts right, Mr. McNamara wanted out before it even got started.  Had Kennedy not been assassinated, the Vietnam war might not have ever happened.  Very interesting.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Lawrence Martin writes that Robert McNamara "...had a similar kind of silver-tongued magnetism. Commandingly articulate, he cast a spell."  That shows that Mr Martin has not a clue.  McNamara was a  studious technocrat with a brilliant mind but was not known for either a silver-tongue or charisma when SecDef.

He was known as a "whiz kid" who helped turn Ford around after WW II and ended up as president of the company before he was appointed SecDef.  He never was a politician.
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/mcnamara.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1459/is_200306/ai_n8989162

Comparing Gen. Hillier with McNamara is as silly as David ********'s writing that "critics" compare the General with Douglas MacArthur.  Though the latter makes slightly more sense.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/hillier-youth.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[probum non poenitet]

That shows that Mr Martin has not a clue.  McNamara was a  studious technocrat with a brilliant mind but was not known for either a silver-tongue or charisma when SecDef.

Further to that, McNamara was one of the godfathers, if not THE godfather of "run the Army like a business and you will succeed."

Gen Hillier made huge waves by stating the obvious (to me anyway) "we are not just another department of the civil service ... we kill people" (forgive the paraphrase)

McNamara was huge on numbers on statistical returns, pie charts, and thank the stars he retired before Power Point was invented.
Gen Hillier is popular because he doesn't have time for over-bureaucratization. "Give me one lever to pull, and one throat to choke." Classic stuff.

What's Martin's next column, comparing Stephen Harper to Rick James?

 

[Weinie]

  I too saw the Fog of War, and only wished that McNamara had agreed to do something like that earlier in his life. It certainly would have been interesting to have that kind of commentary in the public debate at the time.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

If memory serves, McNamara was a politician and as such was responsible to make poltical judgments about what to do with the military, solicit options from military officers, and then pick and choose what was to be done. Last I heard, Gen Hillier wasn't MND, nor did he decide to commit Canada to any combat missions. He runs them, but never had the political luxury of choice...

Not to split hairs, but McNamara was a political appointee to an essentially bureaucratic position:

According to: http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/mcnamara.htm

McNamara was born on 9 June 1916 in San Francisco, where his father was sales manager of a wholesale shoe firm. He graduated in 1937 from the University of California (Berkeley) with a degree in economics and philosophy, earned a master's degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Admin-istration in 1939, worked a year for the accounting firm of Price, Waterhouse in San Francisco, and then in August 1940 returned to Harvard to teach in the business school. He entered the Army Air Forces as a captain in early 1943 and left active duty three years later with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

In 1946 McNamara joined Ford Motor Company as manager of planning and financial analysis. He advanced rapidly through a series of top-level management positions to the presidency of Ford on 9 November 1960one day after Kennedy's election. The first company head selected outside the Ford family, McNamara received substantial credit for Ford's expansion and success in the postwar period. Less than five weeks after becoming president at Ford, he accepted Kennedy's invitation to join his cabinet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Eugene Lang, the chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham, watched as Gen. Hillier bent the nation's capital to his will. "He's remarkable," said Mr. Lang. "The problem is, there isn't anyone who can take him on with a counter world view. He blows them away."

"Kind of like of Robert McNamara, you mean?"

Pause.

"Well, maybe."

Mr. McNamara, the secretary of defence under John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and the principal architect of the Vietnam War, had a similar kind of silver-tongued magnetism. Commandingly articulate, he cast a spell. Regrettably, Mr. Kennedy and, to a greater degree, Mr. Johnson fell under it.

The only point Martin has tried to make (and bolstered only with Lang's opinion) with respect to comparing Hillier to McNamara is that they are both persuasive.  Big deal.  Many people are persuasive.  Martin has a lot more work ahead if he wants to expand the comparison to other facets.  Since Martin isn't here to explain whether he intended a reader to draw any unwarranted conclusions about Hillier and McNamara, I'll assume he wasn't trying to lead a sloppy reader to infer anything else.  Martin has even more work ahead if he wants to challenge Hillier's ideas by discussing the merits of the ideas rather than the character of the man, the latter being irrelevant to the merits of the ideas.

 

[rmacqueen]

The only point Martin has tried to make (and bolstered only with Lang's opinion) with respect to comparing Hillier to McNamara is that they are both persuasive.  Big deal.

And, at the same time, made a connection between Hillier and Vietnam, a fear than many Canadians have