• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Who'll be the next CDS? Speculation here, please!!

Another post at The Torch (Peter Worthington's Toronto Sun column today):

Globe and Mail's anti-Gen. Hillier agenda
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/globe-and-mails-anti-gen-hillier-agenda.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
tomahawk6 said:
How many CDS's have been kept for a second tour ?

T6, in recent times, Gen John de Chastelain was appointed CDS for a second time after Adm John (JR) Anderson was whisked out of Command after only 9 months as CDS.  De Chastelain served as CDS from 1989-1993 and 1994-1995.  When you mention "second tour", if you mean "consecutive" there is no real such thing as there is no formal period of appointment for the CDS.  General Dextraze was the longest serving CDS, from 1972 to 1977 -- the shortest was Adm Anderson from summer 1993 to early spring 1994.

G2G
 
I am not sure there is such a thing as a second tour; the CDS serves "at pleasure" although the normal tour apparently is three years. In my recollection Dextraze served for more than three years. He took over circa 1972 or 1973 and was replaced by Falls in 1978 or 1979. De Chastelain did one tour, went to Washington as the ambassador and returned for a second tour when Anderson was fired for criticizing the Liberal plan to cancel the EH 101 procurement during the 1993 Federal election.

There have been, as far as I know, two replaced early - Anderson and Boyle. Murray did a short term as acting CDS but was not promoted to full admiral. The others - Miller, Allard, Sharp, Ramsey Withers, Theriault, Baril and Heinault - all served for a 'normal tour' more or less.

I may have missed somebody. However 14 Chiefs of the Defence Staff seems about right for the 43 years since integration in 1964.
 
Thanks Gents. :)
I know in the US the Chairman JCS sometimes gets a second 2 year stint, but the normal tour is 2 years.  The Army Chief of Staff tour is 4 years and its been a very long time for anyone to get a second tour. No question that Hillier has been a very effective advocate for the CF and the members of the CF clearly would like him to stay on. Of course its a political decision but I would think that the PM would want to retain him as long as possible. Another thing to consider is that the ISAF commander is probably going to be changed as McNeil sometime next year.Would a Canadian General be selected to replace him ?
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Gen. Hillier's views, while of obvious interest, are irrelevant.

The Afghanistan Compact is the key to our presence in Afghanistan and it will need to be renegotiated sometime between now and 2010 if we/ISAF are to continue with the mission. The Compact provides the legal cover for the mission - it is, essentially, Afghanistan's invitation to ISAF members to "come and help." It expires at end January 2011 and, from a policy perspective, so does our invitation.

So, it really doesn't matter how long it will take to do the job; the job, per se, ends when the Afghanistan Compact expires.



Edit: typo

...the details of the Afghanistan Compact (signed in London in January 2006), however, are that it supported the first five years of the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS), itself a 20-year plan to rebuild and develop Afghan society to the UN's accepted Millennium Development Goals by the end of 2025.

...so Gen Hillier is correct in that rebuilding does not finish finitely in 2011.  It is, however, correctly up to the GoC to determine the degree to which we will assist the Gov't of Afghanistan towards meeting its goal by 2025.

G2G
 
Did you ever think that maybe Hillier wants to quit? 3 years in that job is a real grind.
 
In some respect, it is good to have change.
While the CDS stays in place, so do the heirs apparent.
For Hillier to stay in office beyond the usual, he creates a "traffic jam" of sorts as the other general officers stack up... already that, by creating all the .com structures, we've gotten ourselves another bunch of LtGens looking for advancement.
 
Geo,

If one has to spend a lot of time in one rank, lieutenant general probably falls into the highly desirable category.
 
And he could certainly retire with honour if he did choose to go. I have never served under a leader like him: the closest would have been JADEX (who also stood up to the Govt on occasion).Since Gen Hillier is already at the approximate typical departure point for the appointment, I wouldn't be surprised to see him replaced without malice by this Govt. I very much doubt that a single comment about the duration of the training period for the ANA would be grounds for the Tories to remove a popular CDS in midstream. I also doubt very much that O'Connor was removed because of the CDS' relationship with him. IMHO O'Connor (despite whatever his ministerial achievements inside DND and the CF may have been) got the heave because he was seen as an endless political train wreck for a PM who is extremely image conscious and has a very focused communications strategy and action plan.

Whether he stays or whether he goes, he has cut a new pattern for senior military leadership in this country, and I see a huge difference in most of our generals now as compared to when I was a Lt. My real fear is that the Govt (of whatever party) does not have a knee-jerk reaction and go looking for a quiet, docile little office boy/apologist as a replacement.

Cheers
 
PBI
Don't get me wrong.  I think Hillier has done wonders to the CF - both WRT the image of the Forces tiwards the Public & within.  He has rekindled the Warrior spirit that was somewhat stunted by 50 some years of peacekeeping and " the death of a thousand papercuts"

Any successor will need to fill an awful big pair of hip waders :) (shoes)

The most recent batch of Senior General officers appear to have been cut from the same cloth... time will tell how well we fare
 
If Hillier is replaced is it likely that an Admiral would replace him ?
 
It's possible, and some might say "traditional" that the post is rotated between  the services, but in fact our Navy currently has very few likely candidates, since some of their capable "heavy hitters" have left the CF in the last few years. The Air Force might be a bit better off, but the best candidate is probably LGen Natynczyk, currently the Vice Chief. He is Armoured, and held the position of Deputy Corps Comd for Support in Iraq. He is quieter than the current CDS but has an equally straightforward presence. It isn't normal to go from VCDS to CDS, but IMHO he is the best man for the job. The Navy and Airforce are probably dreading another Army CDS, but if he can keep the inter-service waters smooth, things may be alright.

Cheers
 
So Leslie isnt a likely candidate ? He held the same post that Natynczyk did with III Corps. If my memory is correct Natynczyk succeded him.
 
Leslie did not serve with III Corps.  It may even be solely an armoured billet (Hillier, Natynczyk, Maissonieve...) Having said that I think Devlin was there...not sure.
 
Trying to read the the leaves in Ottawa to determine which general will move into which position can be a full-time job, with little or no joy.

One item to keep in mind is this, though:  As of January, the post-employment restrictions will apply for 5 years vice one year; could it be that our man Hillier is setting up his exodus on or before 31 December to keep his options open as a future lobbyist?

(see http://pm.gc.ca/grfx/docs/code_e.pdf for details)
 
pbi said:
It's possible, and some might say "traditional" that the post is rotated between  the services, but in fact our Navy currently has very few likely candidates, since some of their capable "heavy hitters" have left the CF in the last few years. The Air Force might be a bit better off, but the best candidate is probably LGen Natynczyk, currently the Vice Chief. 

What about Lt. Gen Dumais?  He's about the best the Air Force has right now.  Not as forceful as Hillier is in person, but still sharp. 
 
Greymatters said:
What about Lt. Gen Dumais?  He's about the best the Air Force has right now.  Not as forceful as Hillier is in person, but still sharp. 

I'd take Watt ten times over Dumais.  Dumais doesn't stand out as having done anything for the air force in particular.  Watt is a no-nonsense (some say gruff) operationally-minded guy. COS(Air) at ISAF, and Acting COMISAF on several occasions, he's walked the walk (after doing very little talking in the first place) -- he's one to keep an eye on.  VAdm Roberston stands out in the Navy's mind, but not particularly anywhere else.  As an AF guy, I'd still objectively have to give Uncle Walt my vote....my gut feel is he's the right recipe for the next Chief.

G2G
 
Good stuff from the CBC--really:

MUCH ADO ABOUT HILLIER
http://maisonneuve.org/index.php?&page_id=12&article_id=3007#

In the immortal words of Tom Waits, “The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.” Punch-packing headlines such as “Tone it down, Ottawa tells top soldier” and “Harper poised to fire Hillier?” (the title of a segment on The National last night that addressed rumours to that effect) have recently been provoking audiences to think about the relationship between Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But what do the stories really tell us? An unnamed “senior government official” told the Globe that Hillier was given “marching orders” and that “his role is not to be the chief spokesperson for the mission [in Afghanistan].” Although the quotation carries some water-cooler gossip value, it implies little more than a slap on the wrist for Hillier, at least officially. With no official conflict reported between Harper and Hillier, no statements on either side regarding tensions or disagreement, is there any substance to the rumours?

The National took up the hearsay regarding Hillier’s apparent hot seat by posing the question to its At Issue panel. Reaching a rare consensus, the four political analysts agreed that Hillier is far from being in danger of removal. Macleans national editor Andrew Coyne went so far as to say the entire issue is a “needless confrontation.” David Bercuson of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary acknowledged that there are differences in appearances between the PM’s office and the Chief of Defence Staff, but a clear confluence of agenda. Earlier in the broadcast, defence analyst Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said this of Hillier: “I think he’s a realist by any historical standard and by the standards in Afghanistan. These wars take ten to fifteen years, not ten to fifteen months. Governments perpetually promise their people quick, early solutions—and they simply, almost invariably, don’t occur.” CBC correspondent Rex Murphy weighed in at the end of the program, saluting Hillier for his characteristic forthrightness and no-nonsense communication. “[Hillier’s manner of speaking is] a million miles away from the grey muddy fuzziness, the pure slipperiness and evasion that characterizes almost a hundred percent of the language of politics.” MediaScout reflects that the language of the media, the lens through which we perceive Canada’s fuzzily worded politics, can occasionally be equally nebulous.

Rex Murphy here:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/a_salute_to_the_general_1.html

"The National" Nov. 8 here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ondemand/news/thenational.asx

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top