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

General Hillier's Legacy (split from:Top general fights to cut the fat in the Forces)

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
139
Points
630
This Canadian Press story which appears in the Winnipeg Free Press, is posted under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Hillier slams 'field marshal wannabes' in revised edition of his memoir

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Canada's former top soldier is warning that "field marshal wannabes" are angling to take a bigger role in directing the day-to-day operations of military forces in the field.

Retired general Rick Hillier says a policy paper is circulating around senior levels of the Harper government that suggests the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy minister of defence take a greater role to "guide" the military.

The former chief of defence staff writes, in a new postscript for the softcover edition of his memoirs, that there is a growing movement within the federal government to establish a system of micro-management that could extend from the highest reaches of Ottawa all the way down to individual combat units.

The paper was produced within the last year and has been the subject of some discussion, according to Hillier, and would give senior bureaucrats greater powers than those already spelled out in the National Defence Act.

The notion that the military needs greater guidance on how to conduct operations irked Hillier.

"What crap!" Hillier writes in the new edition of A Soldier First, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Canadian Press.

"The National Defence Act is clear — our sons and daughters need to have direction from the leaders that Canadians have elected, and they need to have that direction passed through the Chief of Defence Staff without interference from bureaucrats who have no preparation or training for this task, and no responsibility for those lives.

"Any governments who permit anything different should have their rear ends booted out of office by moms and dads of those serving sons and daughters."

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was unavailable for an interview, but in statement he suggested the relationship between civilians and the military is productive and not strained.

"Whether it is our mission in Afghanistan, disaster relief in Haiti, support to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic games or any other initiative, the professionalism and dedication of all personnel is paramount to our success," he said.

"I'm proud of the excellent efforts that numerous departments and agencies have put into our mission in Afghanistan. But I'm even more proud to work with the incredible people that make up the defence community."

Military and political science historian Desmond Morton said Hillier's warning about the creeping centralization of authority should be heeded because of the "control freak" reflex of the current government.

The general also took a swipe at parliamentarians for last year's investigation to torture claims in Afghan prisons and what the government knew about it. He accused all parties being uninterested in facts and declared soldiers "would be run over in a heartbeat if those involved thought it would give them a few more votes."

Hillier added excessive government secrecy over documents fuelled the debate.

"Now, I believe that those who have turned our Parliament into an embarrassment are unworthy of those in uniform who serve with such valour," he wrote.

Stories of the battles between the bureaucracy and Hillier, who retired as the country's top military commander in 2008, are legion around Ottawa. In the first edition of his book, published last year, he stunned many in the political community with his frank account of how the Conservative government toyed with the notion of yanking day-to-day control of the war away from the ground commander in Kandahar and placing it with the country's ambassador in Kabul.

He railed against the Ottawa culture in the book and referred to the bureaucrats who cooked up the proposal as "field marshal wannabes," who shouldn't be trusted with authority beyond what Parliament has already granted them.

"I absolutely refused, for more than a year before my retirement, to condone any direct role in the command and control of the CF contingent in Afghanistan by any of the bureaucrats," he writes in the new edition of the book.

"This would have been dangerous to our young men and women, to the mission and to the bureaucrats, who had had no preparation, training or experience in such command and were not qualified for it."

Hillier was not available for an interview.

Morton said the former general's fear about bureaucrats who know nothing about the military is well-founded because unlike previous generations they've not been educated or exposed to the culture.

He blamed that on the Liberals who killed off the National Defence College, an institution with a sizable civilian enrolment, but said Hillier has alienated them further with bellicose rhetoric.

"Folks at foreign affairs or even the mounted police used to be educated in what these fellows in green were doing and why, but that's not the case anymore," Morton said.

"They don't know what use the military is, and Hillier has some justification for wondering about the kind of creeps rose the ranks, but to my knowledge, as chief of defence staff, he did very little about it."

Hillier made a lot of speeches and raised the public profile of the Forces, but Morton said he questions what concrete action was taken to educate federal officials.
 
Shades of Bob Fowler who didn't just guide the military; he saddled, bridled and rode it as it he saw fit.

images


 
Folwer's intellect and force of personality dominated the Department and the CF. It seems from reading the above story that Hillier is referring to a different set of circumstances. It may be that someone in PCO is trying to get around the provision in the NDA where the MND is the only person who can issue orders and direction to the CF, and must go through the CDS.

This sort of power grab which essentially would put the CF under the control of the DM originally appeared nearly 30 years ago in the reorganization that produced NDHQ. In that plan, which did not survive contact with Jadex, the chain went MND to DM to CDS. It would drag the CF into the Public Service chain, to the detriment of the former. It also to me raises the prospect of another manifestation of the mandarin attitude that they really are the ones who run Canada, and the politicians (and the soldiers and the mounties and of course the public) are misguided children who just get in the way.

I would be concerned very concerned at the prospect of senior public servants meddlng in operations. Politicians are bad enough, but they at least have legitimate constitutional responsibilities.
 
To be fair, the poor decisions of Hillier saddled DND with the dot COMs and other oversize organziations with little purpose in life.  Add to that his direction to recruit hundreds of people into trades that were overborne and we are left with todays' CF - budgetary stresses that were foreseen and easily avoidable with sound leadership.

Perhaps this reaction is to his failed leadership in many dimensions.


(It is amusing that we still call Chris Wattie's book about Hillier an autobiography, though)


(edit: typos.)
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Shades of Bob Fowler who didn't just guide the military; he saddled, bridled and rode it as it he saw fit.

images

I just threw up in my mouth remembering those years.....and a couple more kitten just died.

Regards
 
Funny how nobody wanted to pony up ransom money when Fowler disappeared in Africa. Coincidence??? Or he just got set free because his captors were tired of dealing with his S**T.
 
To be fair, and I agree with Old Sweat about Fowler's intellect, Fowler dominated because the CF was very poorly led, nowhere worse than at the top.

To make matters worse, senior officers posted to Ottawa became fascinated with the machinery of government, including e.g. defence policy and  the defence budget - both of which are in the exclusive domain of the civil service. The end result was admirals and generals tried to meddle in fields in which they were bound to, and inevitably did, perform badly and they left a leadership and management vacuum in Festung Rideau that Fowler was only too happy to fill.

Fowler didn't hate the CF; quite the contrary he tried - and failed - to institute some sensible military organizational, management and planning reforms that the CF brass would not or could not implement.

I think I can safely say that Mr. Fowler would have been horrified - on both an intellectual and a personal level - had he been ransomed; he would have been equally horrified had lives been risked (and worse lost) to rescue him. He was, all his professional life, a negotiator and a manager and a diplomat. He knows how to get things done - including how to get the UN Secretary General's personal envoy released. Most likely the people who managed his release just said, "What would Fowler do?" and then did it.

The problem in NDHQ wasn't Fowler: it was too many inept, second rate uniformed people.
 
Robert McNamara and Lyndon B. Johnson ran the military in a war, and look at the results. Things could be worse in Canada if the DM from VAC becomes the DM at DND.
 
Part of this, I'm guessing is a holdover from former Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch's well known mistrust of DND and, especially, military management skills.

He was, routinely, frustrated by DND and the CF crying about "rust out!" "stretched too thin!" and then shouting "Ready Aye Ready! Here we go" whenever the government called and then by DND, having accepted a commitment, coming to the centre for more money.
 
The problem in NDHQ wasn't Fowler: it was too many inept, second rate uniformed people.

Hit it right on. After the legendary JADEX, IMHO we went into a period of decline in the quality and focus of senior military leadership, as the WWII generation of soldiers was replaced by a cohort of flag officers who were increasingly being socialized as bureaucrats, technocrats, and all other sorts of -rats, but much less so as leaders who could inspire people.

This was (again IMHO) reflected by the tone of senior professional military education, which increasingly emphasized the flag officer as a uniformed equivalent of a senior civil servant. One can only speculate to what degree this lack of emphasis on fundamentals and what Hillier later called "transformational" leadership led us into the Dark Years (which we are so fond of blaming completely on  politicians, media and an ignorant public).

Although I never never thought much of most of the GO/FOs I encountered over the years, I really became aware of the absence of a "leadership" culture amongst our GO/FOs when I attended USMC C&SC Quantico in 97-98. There I was exposed to a broad range of visiting flag officers of all US services who were dynamic, inspirational, and could speak convincingly abouit a wide range of subjects without shuffling through a stack of notes, or droning on in a pathetic monotone. They looked and acted like genuine leaders.

Fast forward to today, and I do believe we have come a very long way (at least in the Army...) in the quality, dynamism, intellect and charisma of general officers. Whether we wish to admit this or not, I think our increasingly close relationship with US forces at very senior levels over the last decade has had a "rub-off" effect.

The unintended second-order effect has been, I think, that a number of senior types in the civil service (and perhaps a few politicians as well) have become distinctly nervous. My bet is that they would much prefer the bland, grey, mild-mannered bureacratic apologist who will pliably agree to anything, as opposed to the confident, well-educated and well-informed leader, far more worldly than the average civilian equivalent he deals with, who may challenge their narrow-minded view of things.

One of the great weaknesses of our civil service is that it lacks a true institute of professional education such CFC provides the CF (as opposed to a trade school such as Asticou). I agree fully with those who say that as a nation we desperately need a rebirth of NDC: good luck convincing those who really need the education it would offer them.

Cheers

 
Too many bureaucrats who wannabe soldiers and generals.

Too many soldiers et al that wannabe bureaucrats.

My two cents.
 
Jim Seggie said:
Too many bureaucrats who wannabe soldiers and generals.

Too many soldiers et al that wannabe bureaucrats.

My two cents.

I'll subscribe to that newsletter!

Big +1 right here.
 
For years our senior leadership was not very colorful and not given to being "leaders with vision".

This spread down to the Lt/Capt and Sgt/WO level....where a bit of dash and colour can be the difference between success and failure.
 
When I read the thread title I assumed he meant the content of forums like this.................
 
Jim Seggie said:
For years our senior leadership was not very colorful and not given to being "leaders with vision".

This spread down to the Lt/Capt and Sgt/WO level....where a bit of dash and colour can be the difference between success and failure.

Another problem is that we adopted many of the practices from the business world. How many times did you hear about "PY's," "serving the customer" or "pushing a product?"
 
Retired AF Guy said:
Another problem is that we adopted many of the practices from the business world. How many times did you hear about "PY's," "serving the customer" or "pushing a product?"

yes....we had this discussion in 97 in Bosnia. CSM Adm Coy refused to call soldiers "Customers" unlike the Pay Sgt.....
I refuse to call my soldiers "clients". They are not "clients" - they are soldiers.
 
Jim Seggie said:
yes....we had this discussion in 97 in Bosnia. CSM Adm Coy refused to call soldiers "Customers" unlike the Pay Sgt.....
I refuse to call my soldiers "clients". They are not "clients" - they are soldiers.

Customer Services Section in Base Supply has existed since my father was a Pte at least. That term has nothing to do with business model adaptation. I refused to call soldiers "clients"; they are my "customers".

I think there's a thread on this site where we've already travelled down this road ... and discovered that many of those "business" terms were actually carried to the civilian sector from the military who originated them.
 
Hmmm....Fowler compared to the likes of Boyle & Baril?  IMO, people can say what they will about the iron hand of Bob Fowler, but is was exactly for the reasons the Edward Campbell noted - someone had to show institutional responsibility/leadership and there was not a lot of it happening in senior levels of CF leadership.  The 90's weren't a decade of darkness just because of reduced budgets.

Robert Fowler was instrumental in stewarding a number of developments within DND and specifically the CF that stand the service in good stead today...none the least of which was further institutionalized in Hillier's first round of CF Transformation as one of the new found Commands that few complain about.

2 more ¢

Regards
G2G
 
ArmyVern said:
Customer Services Section in Base Supply has existed since my father was a Pte at least. That term has nothing to do with business model adaptation. I refused to call soldiers "clients"; they are my "customers".

Customer Service Section Afghanistan responding to a client.

afghanistan.jpg
 
Back
Top