This is from the Star. Hillier's personality may have masked his mistakes but it also caused his mistakes. But I question whether they are mistakes at all. Hillier is not responsible for NATO's losing the war in Afghanistan assuming NATO is losing rather than just facing a stalemate. Backing NATO's mission is hardly a mistake. Hillier has managed to align Canadian military policy with that of the U.S. We are now not a peacekeeper but a fighting force acting as a junior partner to the U.S. military in supporting the global hegominic policy of the U.S. Not only has he changed Canada's role from peacemaker to powdermonkey for the U.S. but he has ensured that more and more taxpayers dollars are fed into the military and indirectly into the military-industrial complex both in the U.S. and Canada. At the same time he has managed to sell the military and the mission to the Canadian public to such a degree that supporting the troops means having them serve warlords, Islamic extremists, and corrupt politicians in Afghanistan together with their U.S. handlers with some troops coming home in coffins and stretchers. Bringing the troops home out of harms way would be not supporting the troops. This is a type of Orwellian MilitarySpeak.
Hillier's personality masked mistakes
TheStar.com - comment - Hillier's personality masked mistakes
April 19, 2008
James Travers
OTTAWA — Most of what is being said and written about Rick Hillier is mostly true. Up to a point, he is a soldier's soldier, a transformational leader and the folksy down-home voice of sophisticated uptown communications spin.
All of that clings close enough to experience to explain the gush after this week's announcement that, come summer, Hillier will step aside. But the man is more than the sum of the clichés and the general's seminal term as Chief of Defence Staff deserves and demands analysis, not pompoms.
In fighting to the top of the military and in now walking away on his terms at his chosen time, Hillier was, and is, a shrewd master of the power vacuum. He filled one in changing then prime minister Paul Martin's mind about who should modernize the military and another in pushing the rump defence department into the premium hierarchical space once occupied by foreign affairs. In leaving he creates two more: one that puts almost impossible pressure on a successor to fill his boots as well as the job description he meticulously defined and another that leaves a contentious – and failing – mission without personal ownership.
Afghanistan connects Hillier's disparate parts. He used it to give the military renewed purpose, erase memories of the Somalia disgrace and change the armed forces' image from peacekeeping to, as he put it, a force able to kill people. Afghanistan was also the catalyst for Hillier's efforts to morph the CDS from obedient public servant to outspoken champion of uniformed men and women in harm's way.
Hillier's successes are obvious and subtle. After decades of decline, the forces are again a proud and prominent national institution. Without fanfare, he has completed former defence minister Paul Hellyer's controversial '60s plan to unify three forces into one that can be led at home and abroad by the army, air force or navy.
Still, his greatest success may be how his larger-than-life persona distracted public attention from what, in the absence of a better word, are his failures. NATO is losing the war Hiller was determined to make Canada's and almost single-handedly managed. And his successor inherits head-hurting problems including a charged and unstable relationship with the military's political masters, a continuing struggle to attract and keep troops and finding the billions needed to balance soaring operational costs against the bills now tumbling in from a Conservative spending spree that was often needed and sometimes a lobbyist's windfall.
Often forgotten, too, are Hillier's mistakes. He was wrong in framing the mission as a test of civilizations fought against a Taliban that turns out to be consumed by imposing its will on Afghanistan, not destroying Westerners or their culture. He had no qualms about biting the hand that appointed him and fed the military. And more than once he crossed the line that democracies draw to safely distance generals from politics.
Hillier's legacy is best left to military historians. In the meantime, his replacement should be pepared for pushback. This obsessively controlling government will be reimposing much of the discipline he escaped and this grasping capital will be clawing back all that it can of the influence over national spending and international policy he and the defence department seized.
As inevitable as the pendulum swing, a system once content to let a powerful individual advance common interests is now ready to take back what it considers its own. If there's a moist eye on Parliament Hill in July it will be hay fever, not the sight of Hillier's back.
James Travers' national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
Showing posts with label Rick Hillier's resignation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Hillier's resignation. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Celebrity generals like Hillier nothing to celebrate.
This is from the Victoria Times Colonist. This is a balanced but critical article on Hillier a gem among the many platitudinous paeans to Hillier. As the article mentions, Hillier was an unelected official and should not be usurping the role of elected politicians. However, elected politicians are always subject to the continual pressure of lobbyists. Hillier was in effect a poster-boy for those who are pro-military and for military suppliers. He was also useful to right wing politicians such as Harper because he could act as a salesman for the Afghan mission. Of course Hillier tended to shoot from the hip and antagonise those who wished to use him. He had his own agenda and refused to be a puppet. It is not surprising that many soldiers should look up to him as a person who supported what he regarded as their interests.
Thursday » April 17 » 2008
Celebrity generals like Hillier nothing to celebrate
Paul Willcocks
Times Colonist
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defence staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I was in the Canadian Forces, certainly if I was in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military -- the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have. He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force -- "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate manager or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light and keep the public onside.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians -- especially ones like Stephen Harper, who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions -- welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that he wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his own agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When Hillier was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, he used the ceremony -- attended by then prime minister Paul Martin -- to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the Armed Forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it. And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murderers and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our Forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The job of the Canadian Forces is -- or should be -- to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was at least in part Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served. Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting objectives for the military and making policy decisions -- a career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given credit for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to his effective political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And it leave questions about what Canadians gave up -- tax cuts, or improved health care or child care -- to fund the military spending increases Hillier so skilfully won.
Martin summed up Hillier's tenure in a column on his departure.
"He didn't fear the politicians. They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. But anytime politicians are afraid of the generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong..
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday » April 17 » 2008
Celebrity generals like Hillier nothing to celebrate
Paul Willcocks
Times Colonist
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The adulation being lavished on Gen. Rick Hillier makes me glad he's stepping down as chief of defence staff.
That's no criticism of Hillier. He's obviously smart and astute. If I was in the Canadian Forces, certainly if I was in a management role, I'd be sad to see him go.
Hillier had a vision for the military -- the equipment, budget, support and public profile it should have. He wanted Canada to be seen as, and act like, a significant international military force -- "one of the big boys."
Like a good corporate manager or politician, he set out to get what he wanted.
And he was good at it. Pushing the politicians a bit sometimes, seeking allies others, charming the media, highly quotable and keeping regular soldiers front and centre. He knew how to cast the military and himself in the best light and keep the public onside.
Hillier became a celebrity general, something almost unprecedented in Canada.
Politicians -- especially ones like Stephen Harper, who shared his desire for more military spending and foreign expeditions -- welcomed the chance to share the spotlight with Hillier.
But they learned quickly that he wasn't afraid to use his celebrity and popularity to advance his own agenda, whether the government shared it or not.
When Hillier was sworn in as chief of defence staff in February 2005, he used the ceremony -- attended by then prime minister Paul Martin -- to criticize the Liberal government for neglecting the Armed Forces.
It was an early warning. Governments that didn't accept Hillier's priorities better watch it. And they quickly learned that Hillier was adroit in capturing headlines and public support and setting the agenda. More adroit than the politicians.
Four months later, while government and the public were grappling with what the Afghan mission should be, Hillier defined it.
Canadian Forces were going to fight "detestable murderers and scumbags," he said. Their focus wasn't reconstruction or aid. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," he said.
Which on one level is true. We give our Forces weapons so they can kill people when necessary.
On another level, Hillier was on shakier ground. The job of the Canadian Forces is -- or should be -- to fill the role that elected representatives set.
Hillier tended to elbow those elected representatives off to the side.
Don Martin, the fine Canwest News columnist, notes that even Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan was at least in part Hillier's doing
"With carefully timed speeches and politically incorrect outbursts defending the needs of the soldier, Hillier dwarfed queasy voter opinion about the Afghanistan mission by focusing on strong public support for the military," Martin suggests.
The result of all this was that Hillier became more powerful, in some ways, than the defence ministers he supposedly served. Whether it was a battle for bigger defence budgets or new arms spending or a power struggle with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor, Hillier emerged victorious.
But who should be setting objectives for the military and making policy decisions -- a career military manager with good political skills, or elected representatives?
O'Connor was a fumbling defence minister, but he was elected. No one ever voted for Hillier.
The general is being given credit for a multibillion-dollar increase in military spending. New weapons programs have won quick approval thanks in part to his effective political positioning.
His task was made easier because Canada was at war. What politician wants to be accused of depriving troops of needed equipment?
But that increases concerns about Hillier's role, particularly in steering Canada into an overseas conflict.
And it leave questions about what Canadians gave up -- tax cuts, or improved health care or child care -- to fund the military spending increases Hillier so skilfully won.
Martin summed up Hillier's tenure in a column on his departure.
"He didn't fear the politicians. They feared him."
Accurate, I suspect. But anytime politicians are afraid of the generals who supposedly work for them, something has gone seriously wrong..
© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)