• 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

A quick glance at Prof Byers' CV reveals the typical academic:  tenured,left wing, anti-US and anti-military, no practical experience and taxpayer funded.  

See here: http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/collateral/images/uploads/cv_byers.pdf

His article misses so many points and dredges up such old rhetoric that it isn't worth bothering with.  The lack of research by this tenured Professor is staggering.  Then again, he likely could care less in his haste to make political hay.  :boring:

 
ArmyRick said:
He supposively browbeat the liberals into the current combat mission? Is this going to be the liberals excuse when people point out that they started this mission in A-stan?

Just like the Liberals to not let a thing like facts interfere with a sound bite supported by the obvious left-wing Star. :threat:
 
Is Hillier out of line?
Chief of defence is playing a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission in Afghanistan, even bypassing the defence minister to deal directly with the Prime Minister

Crvena Zvezda, Feb. 20, by Michael Byers
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/183409

Prof. Byers is Steve Staples' equally evil twin.  That anyone with such complete disregard for facts can be a university professor drives me nuts.  Some excerpts and comments:

Since becoming Canada's top soldier two years ago, Hillier has pushed the politicians hard. At his own swearing-in ceremony, he criticized Paul Martin for underfunding the military; one month later, he browbeat the Liberal cabinet into volunteering troops for a combat mission to Kandahar.

We all know Liberals are wusses, but that wussy?

Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited. So far, 44 soldiers have lost their lives. Hillier, the professional upon whose expertise the politicians relied, should have explained the real risks to them.

This is what Gen. Hillier said in July, 2005 (the Kandahar mission was announced by then MND Graham in May, 2005):
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/15/hillier-attack050715.html

...Hillier says Canadians should realize the mission the Canadian military is undertaking in Afghanistan is a dangerous one that could lead to casualties.

Did the General change his tune in just two months?

Byers:

Under Hillier's leadership, Canada's role in Kandahar has morphed from a "provincial reconstruction team" made up of soldiers, diplomats and development personnel, into a "battle group" supported by Leopard tanks.

Where's the morphing?  Prof. Byers just called it a "combat mission" above.  Another July, 2005, report:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050715/AFGHAN15/TPNational/TopStories

...the next three missions [rotations, I think], involving 2,000 troops, will be heavily centred in the southern mountains, where soldiers will be called upon to hunt down and fight the insurgents.

Byers:

Characterizing the enemy as "detestable murderers and scumbags" [in July, 2005] can only exacerbate the situation.

Well, Taliban Jack was against the scumbags before he was against the mission:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004571.html

"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."

Byers:

On the whole, Hillier has been content to adopt the approach of the Bush administration, emphasizing aggressive search-and-kill tactics and downplaying diplomacy, development, and international law.

Ah, the dreaded "B" word.  It just happens however that since last summer Canadian troops have following the approach of NATO ISAF, not the Bush administration.  The professor also never mentions in his piece that the ISAF mission has the unanimous authorization of the UN Security Council.

Hillier shares the dubious company of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in stubbornly refusing to admit his mistake.

If there has been a mistake, primary responsibility rests with the Martin government, not the General.  MND Graham in a speech in the fall of 2005 (one of several explaining the new Kandahar mission that our media essentially ignored--and remember there was not one question on Afstan during the federal election leaders' debates):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1805

...we will be deploying a Task Force of about 1,000 troops into Kandahar for one year. As an essential complement to the reconstruction efforts of our PRT, this force will provide much needed security in the region...

...Canadians should be under no illusion; Kandahar is a very complex, challenging and dangerous environment and mission. The part of Afghanistan we are going to is among the most unstable and dangerous in the country. Indeed, that is why we have been asked to go there and that is why we are going there...

Bilge from Byers, I say.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I got half way through this article before I just stopped and uddered "this is bullshit" under my breath.

I shudder when I think that there are people out there who actually can believe this unsubstantiated crap.
 
IIRC, The CDS picked up a "hugely piled Charlie Foxtrot" from the previous CDS and the Liberals.  They asked for too much from too few who had too little to do too much.  Gen Hillier asked for and recieved that which he needed to do the job and do it right.  Now the Libs are backpeddling (as per usual) and stabbing the CDS in the back with political garbage.  
Gen Hillier was right when his sound bite hit the airwaves about the years of darkness and underfunding.  It will take years for the Canadian Armed Forces to return to it's previous numbers and funding of pre 1990.  
The public was okay with budget cuts, budget cuts and budget cuts to the military in the late 80's, now they complain about how we can't do the job and troops are coming home under flags.  
When will John Q. make up his mind?
Cheers,
:salute:
 
I realize that the Liberals cut defence expenditures and living off the peace dividend with the end of the Cold War, but what would you have them do?  Canada was on the verge of a huge economic disaster with its massive debt.  The Wall Street Journal had made Canada an honorary member of the third world-and no one took Canada seriously.  And so the Liberals shaved about 1.5-2 billion out of the defence budget and made massive cuts everywhere.  But nearly every NATO military including the U.S acted similiarly. http://www.comw.org/pda/bmem10su.htm

The economy was turned around by the Liberals- so all these purchases that are made by the Conservative were because of the efforts of the Liberals, but they get the credit and we forget how their acts were responsible for the cuts in the first place (as already mentioned on the posts).   

I believe there are many myths of the Liberals being anti-military.  However, the military is not some purely conservative establishment, it is dichotemy of all Canadians and includes all political spectrums, including Liberal.  So I take exception to those that perpetuate this myth-including Hillier.  Case in point, the Liberals were roundly criticized for the cancellation of the Coromorant-and this has been shown as  to  demonstrate their hatred of the military.  But I am glad the did those were pretty expensive lemons as the CF search and rescue people are finding out: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=709f24a3-bdf0-48f8-8324-83f438a2aeab&k=40249. In any event the buying  of expensives ASW helicopters when the pride of the russian fleet rusts in harbour is not he best move strategically. But this is forgotten.  Lots of Nato countries use obsolete equipment.  For instance, the U.S president still uses the Sea King, the Marines the Sea Knight (which we called Labrador in Canada) and unitll recently the Italians were using the F-104. 

If the Liberals really hated the military they would have gotten rid of it completely and formed unarmed friendship brigades to journey the world and make people laugh and smile ( I jest somewhat).  The Liberals did not sucumb to pressures from academics in the early 1990's to transform Canada into a third-world military (for more on this read http://www.amazon.ca/Whose-War-J-L-Granatstein/dp/0002008459).

Part of the CF's troubles are due in part to waste at DND HQ and by virtue that the CF is too top heavy.  I believe the euphorism that we have more  Colonels and Generals than main battle tanks or fighter jets still holds true. While the Liberals did make cuts, which did hurt the military, I believe the military office leadership should also take some responsibility for poor choices and hair-brained schemes also.  Just consider the words of Gen. Hillier not so long ago, "Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world."  I am sure those in the know could find example that would make the aforementioned seem intelligent.

Sorry for the rant.

P.S Would I get in trouble if I campaigned for the Liberals in uniform?

 
A comment on this at another topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56697/post-530432.html#msg530432

Mark
Ottawa
 
There is a difference between reducing costs because of a fiscal crunch and the malicious attack by the Liberals on the military and it’s culture. The military budget was a best a cash cow to be milked by the Liberals to gain votes and any purchases were done grudgingly to ensure that the military did not die completely. Yet they demanded that the military perform miracles on demand. It was truly the dark ages. The Liberals used the same tactic for anything they did like or didn’t need anymore, they would never end a program, just slowly starve it to death by slashing funding. 
 
Hebridean, get real, pal.

The US president's sea king is a NEWer, top of the line, one function, maintained to the stars Helicopter.

We geared up for more missions than we could shake a stick at in the early ninties pal. In 1993 we were in Cyrpes, Somalia, Bosnia and Croatia (Thats a Battle group at EACH theater). We can't pull that off now. Why? The liberals gutted us.

The EH101 a lemon? Get lost. It has some glitches. Its alot bettervthan the Ancient Muesum peices called CF SEa KIngs.

We needed new tanks 10 years ago.

We needed IFV 25 years ago.

We need new helicopters 20 years ago.

We needed so much and the liberals stalled and stalled. Oh they did get us second hand submarines.  ::)

 
Rick...
If you look at the UK right about now... they are going thru exactly what we went thru 10-15 yrs ago.

The Gov't had to balance the budget & work down the debt - no one, myself included was particularly interested in paying more taxes - were you?
Else - where was the money going to come from?.... Health & education?

Decisions were made
Elections were carried out
and we are where we are....
 
Rick,
to add to your list. Some of us also remember the prospect of going to war in a riot control vehicle equipped with a water cannon courtesy of the Liberals. Which war was still undecided, Quebec or the plains of Europe. Nice rant by the way.
 
Hebridean said:
I realize that the Liberals cut defence expenditures and living off the peace dividend with the end of the Cold War, but what would you have them do?  Canada was on the verge of a huge economic disaster with its massive debt.  The Wall Street Journal had made Canada an honorary member of the third world-and no one took Canada seriously.  And so the Liberals shaved about 1.5-2 billion out of the defence budget and made massive cuts everywhere.  But nearly every NATO military including the U.S acted similiarly. http://www.comw.org/pda/bmem10su.htm

...

Well, for a start they might have avoided getting us into the bloody hole in the first place.  That economic illiterate P.E. Trudeau was the guy who created the culture of entitlement and made the overly expensive, universal social programmes into a sacred trust.  That was an act of policy vandalism.
 
Hebridean said:
...
The economy was turned around by the Liberals- so all these purchases that are made by the Conservative were because of the efforts of the Liberals, but they get the credit and we forget how their acts were responsible for the cuts in the first place (as already mentioned on the posts).   
...

Rubbish.  Mulroney turned the corner when he balanced the programme budget.  What he failed to do, maybe could not do in the 'real' world was to cut expenditures during a recession so as to balance the interest on the debt.  To their credit Chrétien/Martin did that - largely by offloading expenses to the provinces and slashing defence spending; but the recessions was over; their 'reality' was different.

Hebridean said:
...

If the Liberals really hated the military they would have gotten rid of it completely and formed unarmed friendship brigades to journey the world and make people laugh and smile ( I jest somewhat).  The Liberals did not sucumb to pressures from academics in the early 1990's to transform Canada into a third-world military (for more on this read http://www.amazon.ca/Whose-War-J-L-Granatstein/dp/0002008459).
...

Which is what that petty, puffed up, provincial, pseudo-intellectual poltroon Trudeau (and his foreign affairs guru Ivan Head) wanted to do in '68/'69/'70 when they committed another, equally bad, act of policy vandalism - this time in the foreign/defence domain.  Trudeau was, without a shadow of a doubt, the biggest enemy Canada had post 1955.
 
Hebridean said:
...
Part of the CF's troubles are due in part to waste at DND HQ and by virtue that the CF is too top heavy.  I believe the euphorism that we have more  Colonels and Generals than main battle tanks or fighter jets still holds true. While the Liberals did make cuts, which did hurt the military, I believe the military office leadership should also take some responsibility for poor choices and hair-brained schemes also.  Just consider the words of Gen. Hillier not so long ago, "Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world."  I am sure those in the know could find example that would make the aforementioned seem intelligent.
...

There was, still is, and always will be 'fat' in the CF.  The cuts of the '70s and '90s, however, went waaaay beyond trimming the fat; they cut the meat and muscle and bone, too.  The Liberals don't 'hate' the military - they are, in near perfect reflection of the Canadian populace, indifferent to it.  That is a problem because politicians are supposed to be better than the electorate - more responsible.  The Trudeau and Chrétien Liberals were irresponsible.

Hebridean said:
...
P.S Would I get in trouble if I campaigned for the Liberals in uniform?

Neither more or less than you would if you campaigned for the Conservatives or the Greens; and that would be quite a lot of trouble.
 
ArmyRick said:
Hebridean, get real, pal.

The US president's sea king is a NEWer, top of the line, one function, maintained to the stars Helicopter.

We geared up for more missions than we could shake a stick at in the early ninties pal. In 1993 we were in Cyrpes, Somalia, Bosnia and Croatia (Thats a Battle group at EACH theater). We can't pull that off now. Why? The liberals gutted us.

The EH101 a lemon? Get lost. It has some glitches. Its alot bettervthan the Ancient Muesum peices called CF SEa KIngs.

We needed new tanks 10 years ago.

We needed IFV 25 years ago.

We need new helicopters 20 years ago.

We needed so much and the liberals stalled and stalled. Oh they did get us second hand submarines.  ::)

They actually bought a good submarine....they just hemmed and hawwed for 5 years before they did it.
Imagine if you went to the car dealer today and said....I really like that car there and I intend to buy it...save it for me at the back of your lot....imagine what shape it would be in when you came to get it finally 5 years later! That is the whole trouble with the Libs...they always took too long to make basic decisions.

We will get these boats working in good order but it takes money and time to restore them. They are arguably a great asset....but most submariners you talk to will say that.
It's like restoring an old car left in a farmer's barn...great car but you gotta put the time and money into bringing it up to snuff again after it was neglected for a few years.
 
Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited. So far, 44 soldiers have lost their lives. Hillier, the professional upon whose expertise the politicians relied, should have explained the real risks to them.

Bla bla bla. Explain the REAL risks instead of the pretend ones.
Our politicians really need to be explained what happens in a war zone? I hope our politicans aren't that stupid.

I hardly read these articles anymore. 

I would follow Hillier to hell and back just for the honour of serving under him.
 
and the only other boat that came close was the U214 series and I think they are smaller with a shorter range.
 
Mods:
how relocating Colin P last post and  IN Hoc last post to http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57635/post-530587;topicseen#new
we seem to be drifting from the General theme of this thread. ;D
 
Hmmmm.....IIRC he did spell out the dangers and went on and on for a few months prior to the move to Kandahar, at the PMOs direction at that.

Someone must have forgotten about 911 again....what's next?

We're in Afghanistan as invaders to take over the oil and their world class rail road        ::)

Utter tripe.

Regards
 
Since becoming Canada's top soldier two years ago, Hillier has pushed the politicians hard.At his own swearing-in ceremony, he criticized Paul Martin for underfunding the military

Isn't that the CDS's job? To try to do the best for the military? So a position created by the government and supported by all Canadians is finally being filled correctly, and it's a bad thing?

He browbeat the Liberal cabinet into volunteering troops for a combat mission to Kandahar.

Hmmm, if a government succumbs to any position/person then i would not call them a very good government, but a very good thing they are not in power.

The Martin government also assumed Canada would contribute to the combat mission for a limited time only.
Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited.

Wow, this Liberal government commits its troops to a mission without fully researching it? They signed up for Kandahar based entirely on assumptions! Just woke up the day the mission was up for grabs, rushed to the UN early, and made sure they were first in line for the sign up sheet.

Foiled terrorist plots in Toronto and London were reportedly motivated, at least in part, by anger at the presence of Western troops in Afghanistan.

Note to author, Canadian troops were in Kabul prior to Hillier. And "Western" includes the US, who commits troops there as well.

A new approach is clearly needed, one that focuses on effective and transparent development assistance, the training and ongoing support of a well-paid and professional Afghan police force, and dialogue and diplomacy with at least some of the groups we're fighting against.

Where has this guy been in the past few years? I'm pretty sure a police and military force is being trained. Pretty hard to just train without combatting the criminals.
We should just offer the taliban a peace treaty, snd let each side build up and train their forces. Thus hoping more afghans defy taliban threats to join their "army"; but choose to sign up for the West's Wonder Police Force instead (which offers huge salaries paid for by taxpayers' money of course! Then, when we feel the WWPF is well enough trained, we'll pull out entirely, (to avoid a combat role), and let them handle their own problem.

He's played a highly unusual public role in promoting the mission, and has even used wounded soldiers as part of an elaborate cross-Canada PR campaign.

So he's saying not to get Canadian support behind the troops?

On Friday, Hillier, who claims to be non-partisan, called the Liberal cutbacks of the 1990s a "decade of darkness" for the military.

Actually the military enjoyed the constant budget cuts, ask any soldier serving in that era.

Last week, the Senate Defence Committee asked: "Are Canadians willing to commit themselves to decades of involvement in Afghanistan, which could cost hundreds of Canadian lives and billions of dollars, with no guarantee of ending up with anything like the kind of society that makes sense to us?"

I think there are a fair few Canadians, who believe in promoting a higher standard of life, and trying to share the great quality of living we have in this country with nations who do not.
He's got one thing right though, there is no guarantee this mission will work, but damn I think it's well worth a try.

(Always remember for every left-wing concept, there is a right-wing concept.)
:cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :cdn: :salute: 
 
Girls are going to school. Boys and girls are flying kites, smiling, laughing and playing. Small business' (even those with women at the helm) are popping up. Women are no longer being executed centre-stage in 'soccer' stadiums. Music can be heard playing. Afghan citizens have voted, they have tasted democracy.

Seems like the mission has been somewhat successful to me so far.

What would they have General Hillier do? Lie? He's just stating the facts. Reminds me of a little line from A Few Good Men. Some people "can't handle the truth."
 
The Librarian said:
Girls are going to school. Boys and girls are flying kites, smiling, laughing and playing. Small business' (even those with women at the helm) are popping up. Women are no longer being executed centre-stage in 'soccer' stadiums. Music can be heard playing. Afghan citizens have voted, they have tasted democracy.

Seems like the mission has been somewhat successful to me so far.

What would they have General Hillier do? Lie? He's just stating the facts. Reminds me of a little line from A Few Good Men. Some people "can't handle the truth."
+100 :cdn:
 
Back
Top