The Shotgun Blog
« The shearing of a British wooly liberal | Main | Order Of Manitoba »
Saturday, July 16, 2005
"A soldier, not a diplomat"
[originally posted to Daimnation!]
Three cheers for Newfoundland's own General Rick Hillier:
Canada's blunt-talking top soldier won praise yesterday for his clear and sometimes brutal description of the coming military effort against terrorist "scumbags" in Afghanistan.
Defence analysts and politicians from the NDP and the Conservative Party said it is time for a military leader like General Rick Hillier, who speaks from the heart about the role of the Canadian Forces in the war on terror.
"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."
Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor said Gen. Hillier "speaks like a soldier, not a diplomat."
[...]
In a media briefing two days ago, Gen. Hillier laid out the mission for the more than 2,000 troops who are headed to Afghanistan in the coming year: provide security in the country and, more importantly, go on the hunt for terrorists.
As part of the deployment, the Canadian Forces are sending commando soldiers from Joint Task Force 2 with the expectation that they will be involved in combat.
"We are going to Afghanistan to actually take down the folks that are trying to blow up men and women," Gen. Hillier said.
He also gave a blunt assessment of the role of the Canadian Forces, which he said are designed to protect Canadian interests at home and abroad.
"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," Gen. Hillier said.
If you aren't already convinced he's the right man to head our military, this should seal the deal:
However, Gen. Hillier's vow to hunt down terrorists did ruffle some feathers. Maude Barlow, chairwoman of the Council of Canadians, said Canada should retain a more level-headed approach to events such as last week's terrorist attacks in London.
"I'm feeling it's time for people to be as calm as possible. . . . I would love Canada to play a thoughtful, moderating position in this," she said, denouncing Gen. Hillier's comments as "very aggressive."
Another leftist think-tanker suggests Hillier's comments show "an Americanization of the Canadian Forces". He has a point: our soldiers will soon get helicopters that work.
Posted by Damian Penny on July 16, 2005 in Military | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8345b40a069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "A soldier, not a diplomat":
» Controlled Retreat from small dead animals
A good read in the National Post by Lorne Gunter on Jack Layton, who if I remember correctly, said the following about Gen. Hillier's terrorist "scumbag" comments last July while he was still propping up Paul Martin's Liberals; “Controlled anger,... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-03-06 12:00:35 PM
Comments
It's about time we had a CDS with balls. The last ones I remember, didn't even have a vagina. When Martin got convinced to make Hillier the CDS over more senior Generals, he thought Hillier, too, would be a pussy. Guess he got fooled! Hillier next step should be to get rid of a hundred or so Generals this country certainly doesn't need.
Posted by: old squid | 2005-07-16 2:19:07 PM
I almost could not believe my eyes when I read Jack Layton's comment on General Hillier's forceful interpretation of the Canadian Forces' future role in south-east Afghanistan:
'"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."'
From the Globe, "General's talk of terrorist 'scumbags' praised", July 16.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ s...rorist+scumbags
Perhaps Carolyn Parrish could be asked to comment. More seriously, Lloyd Axworthy and Michael Ignatieff: how broad a church (giggle) is the Liberal Party?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-16 3:44:37 PM
In 1968, the Canadian military dropped much of its British influences in the Unification process. While much was later undone as useless, the new military adopted a more American look.
In this light, the "Americanization of the Canadian Forces" as suggested by a leftist think-tank seems both strange and pathetic. Methinks they're desperate to find something to criticize than they are in providing genuine insight. But isn't that what leftists do anyway????
Maude Barlow's suggestion that a "more level-headed response" is needed is not surprising. As she says later: "I'm feeling it's time for people to be as calm as possible. . . . I would love Canada to play a thoughtful, moderating position in this,"
Now what Ontarian (and Trudeauist to boot!) wouldn't say something like that. White Ontarians are by nature calm because they are perpetually at rest as a leisure society. The insistance on a "thoughtful, moderating position" means the government ignored their advice and went along with the other NATO countries in Afghanistan.
As critical as I am of the Liberal Party and their intense stupidity, greed and wealth, they're better than people like Barlow and Layton.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-16 3:52:51 PM
Mark: Layton's comments are surprising. I thought he would have denounced Hillier and demanded his resignation as a war-mongering lackey of the United States.
Or maybe Layton likes his aggressive nature, which he would use whenever Tronna has a blizzard.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-16 3:57:38 PM
Scott: Why Ms Parrish and Mr Axworthy in particular should be asked to comment on General Hillier's remarks: Canadian Forces in the Kandahar area will for several months be under overall U.S. command, until NATO takes over from the U.S. sometime in 2006.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/New...s_e.asp? id=1660
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-07-16 4:28:27 PM
Mark: Hmm, what would Parrish, Axworthy and the Polaris Institute say about this:
"under US command you say? Under American command?"
"Under the command of George W. Bush, genocidal war criminal with designs for global domination?"
"This cannot be allowed to happen!"
"Bring the troops home! Have them 'fight terrorists' at home, just not the Sikh separatists or the Tamil Tigers because they give money to the Liberal Party"
Of course the thought that Canada has operated under American leadership through NATO and Norad for 60 years seems to have escaped these people. But why let facts interfere with a good rant against the Americans.
God Bless America, President Bush, and the American people.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-07-16 4:45:50 PM
Let's all hope that the troops will be supplied with live rounds that actually work. Hopefully, although highly unlikely, under the Rules of Engagement they will be allowed to shoot first, and ask the questions later. We must be kinder and gentler Canadians you know! Cold Coventry steel tends to bring order out of chaos.
Posted by: Keith Thomson | 2005-07-16 9:02:29 PM
What's wrong with General Hillier? Does he not know that Canada is a nation of peacekeepers who prefer diplomacy over force? I'm sure if we just sat down and listened to the terrorists ... err, insurgents (Is that the current PC term?) we can each air our grievances in a peaceful manner then lock hands and sing Kum Bay Yah.
It's comforting to know that our top soldier has not bought into the anemic vision the Liberals paint of our armed forces. Hillier's got balls. Hopefully, the Government will soon give him guns.
Posted by: Alex | 2005-07-16 9:26:11 PM
One longtime military guy I spoke to doesn't like this Hillier talk about dangerous work and inevitable bodycounts one bit. Here's why: It's actually defense ministers, not high-ranking generals, who are generally supposed to deliver grim assessments of operations, preparing the public for the potential for high casualties. The generals, meantime, on the eve of their men shipping out, should, he says, be talking about how he will endeavour to minimize casualties, deploy his men with skill, etc. He points out that the last thing a general should be saying on the brink of a battle scenario is that there is certain death afoot. Generals are not politicians. It is not their job to address the people.
I don't know enough about military theory to know how generals are supposed to conduct themselves. As far as the Americans go, however, the discussion did make me realize just how different Bush Jr.'s team has handled the war versus Bush Sr. In Gulf War I, it was general as celebrity, specifically Schwarzkopf and Powell. In Gulf War II, it was Rumsfeld who handled the media and spoke to the votes. Somehow that seems to make more sense.
Posted by: Kevin Libin | 2005-07-18 11:12:38 AM
Three cheers for Hillier is right! My husband is currently serving in Afghanistan and was there on the first deployment. As hard as it is for me as a wife to hear "expect casualties" I think it very important that the Canadian public have an accurate idea of what our soldiers are trained to do, and what they are doing (within reason). My husband is a professional soldier trained to handle combat operations. Most Canadians think the role of the soldier is to fill sandbags and clear snow. Few Canadians realise that active combat was part of their job when sent to Afghanistan back in early 2002. This lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have contributed to the War on Terror is very frustrating. Thank you to Hillier for opening Canadians eyes - keep it coming.
Posted by: Sarah | 2005-07-26 5:30:15 PM
While I agree that it is the MND that should be addressing the public to keep them informed and it is the CDS's job to kepp morale up among his troops and play down the inevitability of casualties, Gen Hillier is intelligent enough to know that since there is no such thing as a Liberal with balls (or a brain or heart for that matter) and able to tell Canadians the truth, it is up to him to say something that is finally realistic and not PC. Three cheers for Gen Hillier!
Posted by: Ron | 2005-07-27 10:07:46 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.