Me too. I'd prefer to keep those from "the other side" around, as long as they can behave like adults.
I'd also like to see a lot less
ad hominum attacks on such people from "our" side - and I use the word "our" very lightly, as "we" are far from a homogeneous body ourselves.
Reasoned debate is Sweet Crunchy Goodness. Both sides have an opportunity to learn from the other.
So Pike, here's your opportunity to rise to the occasion and show that you can be a reasonable adult:
In recent days he has become an increasingly outspoken advocate of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Whether the Forces are or should be as important as multiculturalism or medicare may be -- to understate the matter -- a question of some debate. But that debate is a debate for, by, and among citizens and politicians. The general should butt out.
As the man in charge of the operation, he has the greatest amount of familiarity with what is really going on. If things are going well, things are going poorly - he is the man in the know. I would expect the man in charge to provide Canadians with his well-informed opinion of the nature and quality of the ongoing operation in Afghanistan, so that they can make a better informed opinion as to the value of the mission.
His job is to get the truth out. Would you rather not hear the truth?
Why? What are new recruits told when they first join. "You do not have a political opinion. It is part of being a professional in this profession"
That is true; soldiers are expected to remain apolitical, lest the opinion of one soldier appear to be the policy of the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole. Soldiers are expected to remain apart from party politics.
But that is not what the CDS is doing here. He is not campaining for one political party or another. Instead, he is making the effort to educate ordinary Canadians as to what their armed forces is doing in Afghanistan, why they are there, and what kind of success rate they are having. That would seem to me to be a laudable goal - especially when it appears that there is a great deal of confusion on this very issue. Many Canadians seem to feel that Afghanistan is tied to Iraq, when that is NOT the case at all, and the CDS is taking steps to eliminate the confusion.
Why is General Hiller appearing on daytime talk shows and nightly newscasts telling the Canadian people WHY we should support the mission? regardless if we should or not, HE should not be involved in the debate
Of course he should. He is the man in the best position to tell if we (the Armed Forces) are in a position to actually carry out the mission or not. I would expect the CDS to tell the Government (and the public) if the mission was beyond our capabilities, and I would expect him to do the same if it was within our capabilities. He's the military expert in the government - who else would you have discuss operational readiness?
The reason we abide by this rule (the army has no business in politics) in democratic Western societies is because there are countries in the world where military commanders take over the government and form dictatorships. As a General he should lead by example....am I right?
Absolutely right - in both cases. But what the CDS is doing is completely apolitical, in so far that he is not throwing his weight behind any particular party, nor is he doing anything that threatens Canadian democracy in any way. He is staying well within his Constitutionally-defined lanes.
You might want to read up on the law concerning the National Defense Act, and the roles of the CDS and the Minister of National Defense, and see exactly how the law defines the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the players defined therein. It looks like you may be surprised to see what the law actually states.
DG
