Hillier on Darfur: Don't Implement Tactics Until Strategy is Developed

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

The case against lending a hand
Our former top soldier says that when it comes to other countries' crises, it's kind to be cruel
Francine Kopun, Toronto Star, 29 Nov 08
Article link

....(Q)  What is the case for not intervening in situations like Darfur?

(A) It's about having all of the right things put in place to be successful. And I think many of those things are not in place.

(Q) What are the things that are not in place that need to be in place?

(A) There's a laundry list. Start off with strategy versus tactics. I have yet to see the mission that would actually start off with a strategic vision of what we're trying to achieve, articulate that, and articulate some of the milestones that would let us know when we've achieved that, then articulate the strategic road to get to it.

So what you end up doing are a whole lot of tactical things. You can be very successful at them and still not achieve a great strategic victory. The Balkans were like that, Somalia was certainly like that, Rwanda overwhelmingly so, and parts of the Afghan mission challenges are all related directly to exactly that.

(Q) What happens when those things are not in place?

(A) It causes a massive probability of failure.

(Q) So is your position that the international community shouldn't intervene at all in countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe and Burma, or that they shouldn't intervene by sending in their armies?

(A) Neither, what I would say is this: If you're going to intervene – do that harsh, ruthless pragmatic assessment up front. What is it you're trying to achieve, what are the milestones that are going to let you know that you've achieved it? It never will be perfect, but certainly it can be a hell of a lot better than it has been in the past. If you don't do all those things ... it will come to rest on the back of a soldier who will be put in unwinnable, untenable situation.

(Q) Isn't it a bit cold not to help people who are in such desperate circumstances?

(A) In fact, I would say to you this: People in a country, like in Canada, they all want to go do something. yet they are unwilling to invest significant amounts of money in the Canadian Forces. They all want to do it, but nobody wants to pay for it, so don't shift that burden of guilt on to the uniformed ranks. I think a country has to look at itself and say, `Okay were going to do this, and if we're going to do this, we're going to have to pay for it.'....

 

[Garett]

Anyone else feel like Rick Hillier is in the same situation that Tommy Franks was a few years ago?

 

[54/102 CEF]

Gen Hillier is also on the Globe and Mail - same theme - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wcohillier29/CommentStory/Front/

I hate to say it but the comments at the bottom of the op-ed reflect the political reality - the amazing thing to me is they are consistent with a "hope it works on the cheap" mentality thats endemic to a Western approach in WW1 before the Americans came in - went away for a while in WW2 - then roared back in force from the Suez Crisis of the late 50s to the present day.

The west can focus on a visible enemy like the Warsaw Pact - they can't focus on "Never Were States" - that rotten condition below a "failed state".

Think of how long a baby - sitting job it might be - I think it could be 250 years.... the time the Brits were in India

That doesn't even begin to consider the FACT we are in a place with an open border across which the enemy raises funds and troops with impunity - which is really only a factor if there was an organised threat that could be mapped and templated.

Where no government exists - one will be created - we may not like it but to ignore it only prolongs the outcome.

Suggestions?? Men in Black / Conventional Forces? Not enough - as you can damp down the threat here but the whack-a-mole enemy pops up in the next valley.

Doesn't matter where they come from - but even with the Ninja Force - unless there is a unifying political consensus ------> with cash and troops on the table / and provision of services required by people living as they did a thosand years ago ------> then the real enemy of progress is the Home and Friendly Governments.

Pi$$ing on a grassfire doesn't tend to put it out.

 

[AIC_2K5]

I like this statement:

Isn't it a bit cold not to help people who are in such desperate circumstances?

In fact, I would say to you this: People in a country, like in Canada, they all want to go do something. yet they are unwilling to invest significant amounts of money in the Canadian Forces. They all want to do it, but nobody wants to pay for it, so don't shift that burden of guilt on to the uniformed ranks. I think a country has to look at itself and say, `Okay were going to do this, and if we're going to do this, we're going to have to pay for it.'

Once one is out of uniform the gloves come off.

 

[Drag]

I like this statement:

Once one is out of uniform the gloves come off.

+1 Gen Hillier tells it like it is once again.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Touching on the same issue, shared with the usual disclaimer - highlights mine...

Canadians see military merits: poll
James Cowan, National Post, 1 Dec 08
Article link

Most Canadians support using military force to combat ethnic cleansing, mass starvation and other human rights abuses, a new poll suggests.

The survey, conducted by the Innovative Research Group on behalf of the Munk Debates, found 68% of Canadians support military intervention by the international community to stop ethnic cleansing while 61% backed using military force against states that permit widespread human rights abuses such as rape. Furthermore, 56% of respondents approved of military intervention in countries that harbour terrorists, 59% thought it was an appropriate response by the international community to civil wars with heavy civilian casualties and 56% backed acting militarily against states that fail to stop mass starvation.

Not only did respondents consider military intervention as an appropriate response to numerous categories of humanitarian crises, but they also often indicated stronger support for a military response to a problem than to imposing economic sanctions or providing humanitarian aid....

More on link