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

The General Hillier Years. The Merged Superthread

well shouldn't the army get more of the shot in the arm , we are the most deployed then the air force and the well the navy gets deployed but we are the guys on the ground! but really doesn't every CDS kinda lean towards the element they came from.
 
I'll spare Ex-Dragoon the effort of replying, but you obviously don't have a clue on what the Navy's operational cycle is like.  The fact that we have boats tied up for lack of sailors should be indicative that the Navy needs as much help as the other two services.

GGboy is right.  If the new CDS has a agenda of service-based loyalty instead of a cohesive and joint approach to National Defence, then he isn't doing his job as the CDS.  Time should tell.
 
Thanks Infanteer could not have said it any better and would have probably been a lot more rude. ;)
 
GGboy said:
Different question ex-Dragoon: the shot in the arm the new CDS gave last week was an instant morale boost for the whole Canadian Forces.
The budgetary shot in the arm is a whole other issue. One hopes that Gen. Hillier realizes he's now chief of all the services, not just the one that wears green ... but this is still a promising start.

Guys, I'm not particularly worried about this...last time Hillier came down to Kingston to talk to his "Southern half of the Land Staff" he was pretty inclusive of all arms, particularly with the view that environmnetalism has more to do with Force Generation...once boots, ships and aircraft go out the door, we're all purple.  Then again, I'm more comfortable in CADPAT than I am in that poofter blue stuff, so maybe I'm not quite objective enough! ;D

Cheers,
Duey
 
silentbutdeadly said:
then don't you think we should have something like the joint chiefs?

Could not the current format be considered as such? I know I always viewed it in that manner.
 
silentbutdeadly said:
then don't you think we should have something like the joint chiefs?

No, in a properly constituted joint force the staff responsible for planning and conducting operations is a joint staff at national, command and even formation level â “ most formations being joint task forces of some sort.

The professional heads of service (the individual single-service chiefs of staff in the US, who, together constitute the Joint Chiefs of Staff) should be separate the national joint staff and should have specific responsibilities for special to service matters including personnel, doctrine, equipment requirement and individual training.

The JCS, as constituted in the US, is the best Eisenhower could get in the bruising unification debates of the late 1950s.
 
All a JCS would do is to have more chefs and less cooks in the kitchen.  It is bad enough as it is don't you think?

If anything it should be restructured so that it represents the way the forces are today shaving some from the top to balance out the bottom.

My thoughts.
 
Interesting perspective in the article below, if it's true. I'm presuming the "defence sources" quoted below work in close proximity to the MND, if in fact they aren't Mr. Graham himself:



By Stephen Thorne
OTTAWA (CP) _ Defence Minister Bill Graham has tossed out initial drafts of the department's comprehensive policy review, calling it ``dreadful dreck'' and demanding a clear bold vision.
Graham's frustration shows how difficult it can be to propel conservative generals and defence bureaucrats in a radically new direction, particularly in a minority government.
Policy-makers at National Defence had been labouring on a blueprint for the future of Canada's military for almost a year when Graham arrived there in July.
In December, Graham suddenly dismissed what senior officials described as ``dreadful dreck that would not be acceptable in the public domain.''
The draft that had been promised by Christmas would have been pilloried had it gone beyond the grey walls of defence headquarters in downtown Ottawa, defence officials told The Canadian Press.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, officials said the document relied on the status quo set by the 1994 White Paper on defence, ``minus the slash-and-burn'' of the 1990s and adding a demand for more money.
``You want me to go out and demand more money for the status quo?'' Graham told his officials. ``It's not going to work.''
The document was peppered with references to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, said the officials.
The theory was: ``If you throw in 18 references to 9-11, people will think it's an innovative defence policy.''
``It was a train wreck waiting to happen.''
Graham was aghast. He told his officials: ``We've got to get a new chief (of defence staff) in here now.''
The old document retained a traditional, three-service view of the military. The new one, still being drafted, embraces a smaller, more integrated, mission-ready approach with a large boost in profile for the elite Joint Task Force 2 commando squad.
``It has three themes,'' said a senior leader. ``First of all, we have to fix the Canadian Forces right now, we have to grow it and then we have to transform it.
``It's complicated, hard stuff with some people supportive and others passively fighting tooth and nail.''
Ideas now being discussed include making more troops available for overseas duty _ the government has already announced a 5,000-member expansion _ as well as a streamlined, more effective command-and-control structure.
``We have too many headquarters,'' the senior officer said.
The new approach was born last summer after a bruised Graham lost his coveted Foreign Affairs job and landed in Defence in the post-election round of cabinet appointments.
Initially disappointed at losing what he thought was his dream job, Graham soon realized he was heading a department on the rise that was about to get a large cash infusion after years of being slashed.
Graham was in some ways qualified for the job _ at Foreign Affairs, he had come to know many of the issues and key players in the military world. He had developed a personal rapport with U.S. State Secretary Colin Powell, the Pentagon's former chief of defence staff.
But it was only after spending a transatlantic plane ride reading papers given to him by British Defence Minister Jeffrey Hoon outlining ideas for an integrated defence policy that Graham's own thoughts began to crystallize.
Graham realized he was not seeing in the drafts and redrafts coming across his desk the kind of revolutionary change he felt Canada's new defence policy would require.
``Now all of a sudden he's starting to drive the bus instead of the bureaucrats driving him,'' said an official. ``It was about that point in time where you started to see the frustration.''
The minister already had a new deputy. Former CSIS head Ward Elcock had arrived a few weeks after Graham.
His chief of defence staff, Gen. Ray Henault, was on the way out. He had won the chairmanship of NATO's military council in Brussels, but he wasn't scheduled to vacate the defence chief post until April.
Lobbying had begun for Henault's replacement. Among the dark horses _ far off Prime Minister Paul Martin's radar screen _ was the army chief, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier, a veteran of several overseas missions who had just returned from heading the 34-nation NATO contingent in Kabul.
Graham asked him what he would do if given the opportunity to redesign the Canadian Forces from scratch. His plan was bold while other candidates offered bland.
``Gen. Hillier, evidently, had at that point given some more considerable thought to what the vision of the Canadian Forces would look like than perhaps more parochial, service-specific visions would look like.''
During meetings with Graham, Hillier _ a gregarious Newfoundlander _ outlined his ideas in multi-coloured ink on large sheets of paper mounted on a stand. Graham liked what he saw and heard.
On Nov. 30, Graham bounced some of Hillier's ideas off Powell during the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush to Ottawa.
By mid-December, Graham was telling the prime minister he should at least have a coffee with Hillier to listen to his sweeping ideas.
At the meeting at 24 Sussex Drive on the Saturday before Christmas, Hillier didn't have his rainbow array of pens or large sheets of paper he favours, so he got down on the floor and drew his charts and diagrams on foolscap.
Martin, who was also tiring of the innocuous plans he had seen, signed on that afternoon.
Hillier was already working on drafts in early January, a week before news leaked that he was to be appointed the next chief of defence staff.
Henault's exit was moved up. The change-of-command ceremony took place Feb. 4. Hillier has been buried in the policy review process ever since.
Senior military leadership will be discussing the plan next week, when the appointment of Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie to the critical post of director-general of strategic planning will be announced.
The youthful Leslie, who was deputy head of Kabul's NATO force before Hillier went over, will be in charge of long-range planning, formulating strategies to implement the new ideas and crunching the numbers.
 
Woo here a sec, am I reading this right?

A LIBERAL cabinet minister seeing the light and endorsing change by disregarding safe old ideas, bringing in new and enlightened experts who will work on revolutionary concepts and ideas toward a goal of a new revitalized CF which will actually be effective in the future....

I might be wrong, but Bill Graham may just be displaying....(oh no   :eek: ) LEADERSHIP.
 
very interesting, wish there was more detail about what Hillier's vision is....maybe we are going to see a CF focused on the Army...
 
If I'm reading this article right, then there is much to be excited about in the next few years.  Hopefully, Defence will be taken seriously.

I am personally happy to see the "drek" that looked at Three Service Empires (Army, Navy, Airforce) playing to their own tune got scrapped - this is what Unification was intended to eliminate and if Hillier can do that by focusing on true and effective Joint Forces capability (and be backed by his political boss) then the Office of the Chief of Defence Staff is being utilized properly (as Hellyer envisioned).
 
mdh said:
very interesting, wish there was more detail about what Hillier's vision is....maybe we are going to see a CF focused on the Army...

Had to go there, did you...

He is the Chief Of Defence Staff, therefor in charge of the CF....As an effective leader of Canadian service personnel, he will ensure he has experts from all areas of expertise assisting him in developing the MINISTER's plan for the entire CF.

If they took the old report and shredded it, then don't expect the new one out any time real soon. After all, the CF has been without high level direction for a while, and the 6-12 months to develop and effective policy direction may well be worth the wait.
 
Why would I willingly dedicate myself to a career if I hated the job and felt everything sucked ass?  ;D
 
Quote from: mdh on Today at 17:51:37
very interesting, wish there was more detail about what Hillier's vision is....maybe we are going to see a CF focused on the Army...


Had to go there, did you...

He is the Chief Of Defence Staff, therefor in charge of the CF....As an effective leader of Canadian service personnel, he will ensure he has experts from all areas of expertise assisting him in developing the MINISTER's plan for the entire CF.

If they took the old report and shredded it, then don't expect the new one out any time real soon. After all, the CF has been without high level direction for a while, and the 6-12 months to develop and effective policy direction may well be worth the wait.



I'm speculating on the article, not taking sides - for the record I support a balanced joint forces operational capabililty, not that anyone really cares what I think   ;) cheers
 
Good article. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Gads, the wait...
 
What's his vision indeed! From Gen. Hillier's previous public musings on this topic I can make some educated guesses (ie: a light, mobile USMC-type expeditionary capability incorporating all three elements of the CF) but knowing the general, I don't think we'll have to wait long to hear EXACTLY what his vision is -- he hasn't exactly been shy and retiring, has he? ;)
What's interesting about the rewrite of the DPR described in this article (if accurate) is that it could signal the much anticipated end of the sway held by ADM Pol over successive ministers and indeed the entire department. Bill Graham may turn out to be the best MND we've had in decades ... who knew?
 
Back
Top