Richard Colvin vs the Generals.

.

From Richard Colvin's reports beginning in May 2006 :

3. Of the XXX detainees we interviewed XXX said XXX had been whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and/or otherwise "hurt" while in NDS custody in Kandahar. This period of alleged abuse lasted from between XXX and XXX days, and was carried out in XXX and XXX. XXX detainees still had XXX on XXX body; XXX seemed traumatized. This alleged abuse would have occurred before the new arrangement between the governments of Canada and Afghanistan was signed

'Torture' not mentioned in Afghan detainee reports: Generals

"Three generals declared Wednesday that there was no mention of the word "torture" in reports from a senior diplomat who asserts that he repeatedly warned the government against surrendering Afghan detainees to local authorities because they would almost certainly be abused.

One of the recipients of the widely distributed reports, which Colvin says were copied to 76 government and military personnel in Ottawa and Afghanistan, was retired Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, who was then the head of oversees deployment.
Gauthier told the Commons committee that none of Colvin's 2006 reports, including his May document, mentioned anything about torture.

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada's top soldier during Colvin's posting in Afghanistan in 2006-07 : "There was simply nothing there."

So there you have it - because Richard Colvin neglected to include the word "torture" in his accounts of detainees allegedly being "whipped with cables and shocked with electricity", there was no torture and the generals apparently feel justified in having failed to read his reports in the first place.

.

h/t Dr. Dawg

General Hillier chooses to fade away

He was the right man for the job.

Does that grate you? Good.

That doesn't mean he did everything properly or achieved things without mistakes. I'll chalk that up to him being human.

It may come as a complete surprize to many but Hillier was chosen for a specific purpose. Afghanistan was not in the equation. He was chosen to re-establish the Canadian Armed Forces as a Canadian institution. He was chosen to provide the rough language and unvarnished details about what was necessary to ensure Canada possessed an immediately ready force capable of responding in an emergency and able to buy the time to build an effective expeditionary force.

Harper did not select him. Harper inherited him. No matter what Harper thought of him in 2006, Hillier, although he was able to articulate the Afghanistan mission better than anyone in the Conservative government ever could, never actually promoted the idea of a Canadian involvement in that conflict beyond 2011.

Hillier, quite outside his terms of reference, did insist that the only way to support the mission which had now taken on his trademark, was to give it the extension he desired, and did state that it would take at least ten years, (maybe more), to train the Afghan National Army. At no time did he say that the Canadian Forces should be the ones to do it.

He was stating a fact, as he saw it, without demanding a specific commitment. He was quite probably right.

What I don't believe from today's announcement is that he was under no pressure to leave.

Hillier said he was under no pressure from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to retire.

Yeah, well, we've all heard that one a thousand times before.

I have roundly criticized Hillier in many previous posts for his comments and public statments. I stand by every criticism. If it had been any other general or admiral I would have criticized those same statements.

That doesn't however, mean I believe he was a poor choice for the appointment he held.

Paul Martin, the last prime minister, endorsed his appointment with a view to strengthening the armed forces, revitalizing the personnel structure, re-equipping the infrastructure and consolidating the resources.

He did that. Harper received the benefits of a an appointment made by his Liberal predecessor.

Hillier's eloquence at the announcement of his departure is entertaining, but hides some of the reality. There was pressure.

Harper's words after Hillier announced his retirement.

He is a great Canadian and we are very proud to have worked with him.

That's it?

What about the fact that he's saved your government's ass on a couple of occasions? It's not a glowing testimony. In fact, Harper could have said, Here's your gold watch. Bye. Same thing. Given the limb Hillier occasionally climbed out for the Harperites, there should have been something a little more glowing for Hillier.

But then, Hillier did cost Harper a cabinet minister, didn't he? (Jeez, didn't anyone see that one coming.)

So, while Hillier reported that there was nothing from the prime minister forcing his decision, be reminded that Harper didn't beg him to stay. (Not that Harper would ever do such a thing, but a saviour is a saviour and it might be good to get as much as one can from such a person.)

While I will take Hillier at his word that he was under no pressure from the Prime Minister, (he never mentioned the MND), he would have started to experience pressure.

Walk the halls of any armed forces establishment that does not have a direct role in the Afghanistan conflict. That, by the way, would be the majority of the armed forces. There is a slew of people unhappy with the fact that the entire focus of the Canadian Forces is on Afhanistan. The overall role of those elements, the sovereignty of Canada has been usurped by a mission which is basically a military extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs in an action which involves less than five percent of the regular armed forces as a full-time focused operation.
There is pressure. There is pressure coming from below. As much as Hillier focused on the Afghanistan mission his role was to generate the resources necessary for the whole armed forces. No one is saying he did not do that, but that single mission, under a subordinate commander you probably cannot identify, became synonymous with his name. That's a bad place to be.

The generals and admirals, particularly those who would hope to replace him, would be applying pressure. Notwithstanding that traditionally the CDS was appointed for a three year period, those who might consider themselves eligible for promotion into the position of CDS would expect that some of their priorities might get some attention. And be clear on this, Afghanistan cost any element not directly involved in the ground conflict very dearly. And understand that if this country required the armed forces to respond to any contingency operation, domestic or expeditionary, it would be hard pressed to respond effectively.

But there was another pressure. It became obvious when, as the initial rumours of Hillier's retirement surfaced, he responded to them with a facade of humour. "I was on my second rum and coke when I heard about it."

On a beach in Costa Rica The Dominican Republic.

While a force of 2500 Canadian troops were in a hot combat theatre.

That struck me as odd, until I realized that he had already reached a career decision. He had taken on the mantle of the Afghanistan mission, quite as a result of his own actions, when it should have been the difficult problem of a subordinate commander. Whether that was the way his political leaders wanted it or whether he had voluntarily accepted it, it was now his.

So, while Hillier leaves feeling he has accomplished his goals, I might toss in that there is still no Defence Review from this government. National Defence policy is still the one written by the previous government. Given the helter-skelter purchases made by this government, it becomes clear that they have no idea what they really want.

After two years, I'd retire too.

So, I will offer General Hillier what I would offer any retiring service member.

Firstly, you had a stellar career and achieved what most people do not. End it knowing that and if all you ever do from now on is grow tomatoes, you did what you set out to do.

Secondly, you achieved that level with the help of others. They cleared the way. You took the path. You owe them nothing but a beer. If you've already paid up, they expect another one.

When you've finished signing documents at the Release Centre, go home, crack a beer open and ignore the rest of the day. In the morning, sleep in. When you read the papers, try to find out what happened in Paraguay. Then, when you dress, wear plaid.

Take the day off. You've earned it. Tomorrow you'll be worried about what you're going to do next. Smart people don't do that. Book a cruise. (Make sure I'm not the Captain.)

If you need more information, email. More people blow retirement than they do combat.

"So stick another ribbon on your H-o-C..."

WTF?

General Rick Hillier : " 'the least our soldiers could expect' in Afghanistan is that after the pending vote on extending the mission to 2011 is completed, all MPs in Parliament give unanimous support to a motion backing Canadian troops."

Or Tinkerbell will die.
You don't want Tinkerbell to die, do you?
Well then.

"Support Our Right-Wing Agenda" ribbon pillaged from Cräbgrass.

Cross-posted at Creekside

The debate will drag on until it's over, General. It's not up to you.

Why is Rick Hillier commenting publicly on the parliamentary agenda?

Canada's top soldier urged Parliament to come to a quick decision on the country's role in Afghanistan, warning that lengthy debate may put soldiers increasingly at risk as the Taliban take advantage of the uncertainty. "We are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability, and the longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link," Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said Friday.

It's all very well and good to advise the political leaders of this country of that fact, in the confines of an office; it is another thing to be making public statements suggesting Parliament do anything at all. One is his job; the other is a step over the line.

Rick Hillier, Canadian citizen, has the right to an opinion like everyone else, however, he is a sworn servant of the Crown and when he speaks he does so from a privileged platform. As principle military advisor to the government, he is fully aware that when he stands and speaks, in full uniform, he attracts attention. For the Chief of Defence Staff to stand in public and make demands on Parliament is to suggest that the democracy he serves does not measure up to his personal standard.

Not everyone shares Hillier's opinion.

Some Canadians are not happy at all with the motion before Parliament and wish to see Canada's role in Afghanistan ended as soon as possible. They view, with some substantial support, the Afghanistan mission as a fiasco brought about by an inattentive and incompetent US presidential administration which has done more to exacerbate the problem in Afghanistan than they have to solve it. In short, they think it's a Bush administration problem in which our presence is aiding and abetting the ability of that administration to pursue other misguided and illegal adventures.

Others believe there should be no debate at all; that the government has the legal right to proceed without consulting Parliament and commit forces as they see fit. They might even have a valid conventional argument, even if it does demonstrate a turpitude which most would find unacceptable.

Still others believe that the question should be exhaustively debated. That Parliament examine this mission as closely as possible and consider the consequences of any decision taken. They do not want a quick decision; they want a considered decision.

Hillier's statement belies the fact that, until he has a new set of orders from the Canadian government, his subordinate general at Canadian Expeditionary Forces Command has a mission in Afghanistan that will expire in 2009. It is the government, not Parliament which has the authority to continue the mission. It is the government which has caused the delay in coming to a decision. It was an extended parliamentary break, ordered by the government and done purely for political reasons, which delayed addressing the question. It was the government which chose to engage in a political charade which produced a pre-ordained report.

Hillier, in choosing to suggest that Parliament is culpable in placing a haze over the Afghanistan mission, neatly avoided one particular issue. Even if Parliament carries the current government motion placed before it and the debate ends, there is still no decision.

Harper has stated that Canada will withdraw unless it receives a 1000 troop reinforcement from NATO and additional equipment is forthcoming. If the debate was settled tomorrow those caveats remain. Further, and Hillier knows this, those reinforcements need to come from a single country and have the same length of commitment as Canada in order to be effective. A cobbled together force from several countries will cause a gathering of national command elements which would reduce the actual number of available combat troops. The "1000" identified in the Manley report comes with no qualification: 1000 rifles is, as Hillier is aware, completely different from 1000 troops.

If any country does commit, the duration of that commitment is critical. Anything short of December 2011 means that Canada will be faced with the same problem sometime in the future.

Aside from the plethora of other reasons to question whether success in Afghanistan is even possible, Hillier, in pointing at Parliament, also failed to point out another weakness: NATO itself. ISAF is comprised of a fragmented array of forces with a range of instructions issued by their national governments. The nature of regional assignments by nation inside Afghanistan is the greatest military weakness, but it also reflects how much emphasis those nations put on the Afghanistan situation. Since their commitment seems to suggest they will maintain a presence down to the last Canadian soldier means it is up to us to critically examine the mission.

While Hillier makes noises about Parliament he conveniently did not mention that there are indications that the Canadian Forces are making new plans. Several separate intimations suggest that the CF is planning for an increase in Operational Mentor Liaison Teams (OMLT). About 150 Canadian Forces members are currently training the Afghan 1st Brigade, 205 Corps consisting of three small infantry battalions (kandaks). There are strong indications that Ottawa intends to increase this to two or possibly three OMLTs. So far, no one has said whether this is a change in focus or an increase in the number of people who will deploy in the future.

So, General Hillier can blame Parliament all he wants. Whether he likes it or not, that body answers to the Canadian public and we have the right to expect that questions before it will be debated properly and completely. As for the delays he seems to feel he has to whine about, he should more clearly define his target. The delays exist because the Harper government has been fumbling about trying to find itself. The delays exist because the Canadian public sees little more than a cloak of darkness cast over a costly mission and demands to know what the hell is going on.

That means the nature of the mission will be debated and defined by the elected representatives of the population and they should take whatever amount of time necessary to arrive at a reasonable compromise. General Hillier needs to be reminded that he serves the democracy; not the other way around.

More at POGGE, liberal catnip and Impolitical

It's appointment season in Ottawa. (And Hillier is shilling for Harper again)

For the senior levels of the Canadian Forces, that is. Some of the top jobs in the Canadian Forces are up for grabs, including the position of Chief of Defence Staff. That position will either be handed to someone new or the incumbent might, in a rare move, be given an extension.

That might explain the sudden burst of public presence of Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier. It might also explain why his mouth is, once again, outrunning his brain.

Canada's top soldier says the governor of Kandahar province is doing "phenomenal work," and that allegations of torture against him are up to Afghans to investigate. [...] "Governor Asadullah has been doing some phenomenal work in Kandahar province. Obviously, we have worked with him because he is the governor there. And we have seen some incredible changes in the province, and if there's an issue of any kind of impropriety whatsoever, that's an issue for the Afghanistan government."

He was backed up by Defence Minister Petey MacKay with this.

"The allegation with respect to the governor is not a Canadian-transferred prisoner," Mr. MacKay said.

"Second, with respect to the governor of Kandahar, let us not forget that this is an individual appointed by the sovereign elected government of Afghanistan."

So, let's get this straight, shall we.

According to Hillier, if the Governor of Kandahar is a torturer, it's none of our business. That should draw some fire.

According to MacKay, the Governor of Kandahar is out of our reach because he is appointed by a democratically elected sovereign government over which we have no authority.

Well, to begin with, General Hillier might want to produce something more substantial. A detailed list would be a good start. Let's have the details on Asadullah Khalid's "phenomenal work".

This has been the touchstone of the whole Afghanistan mission since Canada moved its troops to Kandahar. We're making great progress. Except that nobody provides details. We're just expected to believe it. And, given the casualty rate of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, we are fully entitled to know precisely why we're giving the lives of Canadian sons and daughters in Afghanistan.

This nonsense of of Daddy sitting at the head of the table telling us everything is just fine, now just be quiet and eat your broccoli is pure bullshit. The Canadian public are not subordinate to Rick Hillier. In case he doesn't get it, he serves at the pleasure of the Canadian population. The prime minister will dump him in a minute if public opinion turns against him.

As for the activities of Asadullah Khalid being none of our business, Hillier is so off the mark he might well be on the wrong rifle-range. If the governor of the province for which we are providing military defence is engaging in torture, we have every right to exercise any method we choose to stop it. Given that it's our people doing the heavy lifting we have considerable leverage and it would be wrong not to use it. Hillier's assertion is little more than offering a blatantly incorrect defence for the position of the Harper government. Further, Hillier knows he's wrong.

MacKay, typically, tried to run away from the issue. In doing so he attempted to deflect by suggesting that the prisoner claiming to have been imprisoned and tortured by Asadullah Khalid was not a transfer from Canadian custody.

Who cares?

Since when does the origin of a prisoner determine this country's position on torture and human rights? Before Harper, MacKay and Bernier, we had one standard. Now it appears we have several, all based on who is doing the deed and how close we are to them.

Both, however, have something desperately wrong in their thinking and that is the contention that the government of Afghanistan has the power or even the moral right to behave in any way it so chooses because it is sovereign.

That is a "peacekeeping" mindset and it flies in the face of Hillier's (and Harper/MacKay) declaration that any mission in Afghanistan is a combat mission.

Flailing purple fingers do not absolve Afghanistan of the responsibility to live within the bounds of civilized human decency. Far from that however, they are anything but sovereign. They are highly dependent on the presence of others on their own soil as a means of survival.

Afghanistan was released to its own autonomy far too early, primarily because the incompetent Bush administration wanted to be done with it and move on to Iraq. Without a proper military consolidation of the ousting of the Taliban regime, without a planned and progressive construction of civil establishment, without a building of infrastructure, without the proper foundation of the rule of law and the elimination of the elements of corruption, Afghanistan's leaders could be expected to abuse the autonomy they were granted.

But it is even more basic than that. Hillier knows it; MacKay knows it; and, Harper knows it. MacKay and Harper are the worst form of political animals so their positions, while absolutely inexcusable, should come as no surprize.

Hillier, on the other hand, should know better. He didn't learn the words he spoke on any leadership or staff course in this country. He needs to take a good look at his position and decide whether he has just prostituted himself, because there is a simple fact about a nation's sovereignty he seems to be ignoring.

Any country with somebody else's army on the ground is not sovereign.

It's about time

I suspect I will take a few lashes for what follows. Tough. So is my hide.

Via Steve and Impolitical is a report that Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier has been reined in.

My response to that is: it's about time. In fact, it's a day late and a dollar short.

Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, has been told to tone down his political interventions after he spoke out last week on the direction of the Afghanistan military mission, sources have told The Globe and Mail.

“He got his marching orders,” a senior government official said Wednesday. “He was reminded what his role is. His role is not to be the chief spokesperson for the mission.”

That's right. His role is to lead, manage, represent and speak for the entire body of the Canadian Forces. Hillier's blatant drumming for the Afghanistan mission has been unprecedented. No chief of defence staff in Canadian history has been so public, so often in the media, as Rick Hillier. And that is not his place.

The Chief of Defence Staff does not make defence policy. The CDS is a sworn servant of the Crown charged with the responsibility of executing the government's defence policy with the resources provided. If the CDS disagrees, for any reason, with that policy or feels the resources prevent him/her from executing that policy, the CDS is then obliged to inform the minister and the prime minister - not the public. If the government refuses to adapt to the advice of the CDS then the CDS has an option - accept the situation quietly or resign. If resignation is the chosen course of action, once the uniform is off, the former CDS is free to speak as openly as he/she sees fit.

Back in the era of the Cold War the Canadian Forces were suffering from all forms of malaise. Some were internal; some were a result of government policy. At one point, then Chief of Defence Staff, General J.A. Dextraze, was being pursued by the media over his insistence that the rolling footprint (trucks and things) of the Canadian Army was worn out and needed immediate replacement. At some point a compromise was reached and Dextraze, reluctant to become too public, allowed that there would indeed be new vehicles provided to the field army, just not as many as he had asked for.

A reporter suggested, by way of a question, that Dextraze should be unhappy with the result. Dextraze responded by saying, "I'm a soldier. I told the government what I wanted. They told me what I would be getting. That's it. As a soldier, I salute and carry on."

I can tell you that I was among thousands who hated Dextraze for that answer. We felt that all three services, running at full-tilt to keep old gear operational, needed a boost in equipment. But Dextraze was right.

No one in the Canadian Forces is compelled to serve, including the CDS. If one doesn't like the conditions, whether it is the state of equipment, operational tempo, government policy, etc., one can simply resign. But while serving, government policy comes from the government - not the office of the CDS.

If there is anything wrong with the report that Hillier has been told to control his mouth and his public appearances, it is that it has taken so long.

The Conservatives were happy to let him run free amongst the media bazaars when he was spouting their line. Now that he's provided comment which appears to run counter to their communications strategy, they've decided that he should maintain his proper place - a place he should have been required to occupy all along.

The Conservatives have just been given a lesson in structural leadership. There is a reason not to allow military and naval officers to make political comment and to insist that they remain at arms length from the political arena. They're not the policy makers.

Regrettably, Hillier's last comment to the media, which caught the Harperites off-guard, may have been the single most important statement he's made to date: The truth surrounding the state of readiness of the Afghan National Army.

However, we can't have it both ways. I've been calling for a long time to have Hillier withdraw from his overly visible public stance. He has been getting away with it ostensibly because he is extremely popular with the troops and those who unquestioningly support the Afghanistan mission. That's too bad, because the performance of a senior military officer, even the CDS, is not a popularity contest.

This took too long.

If anyone knows what it takes to train an army, it's Sandra Buckler.

Given the two different assessments of what it would take to train the Afghan National Army to stand on its own, the one offered by the Harper government is easily dismissed. Rick Hillier, for all his bluster, is providing a more accurate assessment of the conditions and challenges facing any group charged with producing a self-sustaining ANA.

Hillier stopped short of saying Canada should remain in situ to do the job, although it's not a leap to presume that that is what he would prefer. Regardless, what Hillier is saying is that given the current circumstances nobody will be able to produce the results offered by Harper's government in the latest Throne Speech.

Enter Sandra Buckler.

[A] spokesperson for the Prime Minister, Sandra Buckler, stuck to the early end date, saying it was "achievable" and in line with the Afghanistan Compact, the agreement drawn up between the international community and the Afghan government. In her emailed statement, Buckler did not acknowledge Hillier's comments.

Spin. And nobody believes it. Just as nobody believed that she didn't attempt to mangle manipulate the message when Harper visited Afghanistan earlier this year. More than one source fell millimeters short of calling Sandra Buckler an outright liar.

The fact is, Hillier's assessment is believable because it's based on the current metrics. Whether the ANA kandaks being trained by the Canadian Army are, in fact, "top-notch" doesn't really enter the picture. What is true is that it takes three years to train a single Afghan infantry battalion and we're only half-way there. That doesn't even take into account that the ANA has virtually nothing in the way of combat support and logistical support elements. Adding those in would make Hillier's assessment optimistic.

Hillier has forwarded something which the Harperites know will cause Canadians to balk: the idea of war-without-end. If the ANA is unable to deal with security situation in Afghanistan on its own, the dismal picture being presented is that Canadian troops will continue to be involved in the same kind of asymmetrical warfare they are now engaged in and will continue to suffer losses - unless we can convince other allies to take on that part of the mission - even for a while.

And how's that effort going?

Even though Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Bernier, the foreign affairs minister, invested much time drumming up replacements or support for Canadian troops in Kandahar, there were no firm offers to send new troops to one of the country's most dangerous regions.

Which would make Buckler's input even farther away from reality.

Even the Bush administration, which should be shouldering the blame for the current situation in Afghanistan, can't convince NATO's European nations to step into the meat grinder.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday questioned the commitment of some NATO allies to winning in Afghanistan, saying the outcome there is at "real risk" because some European nations are unwilling to provide enough troops and resources to the mission.

[...]

The U.S. has 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and the non-U.S. total is 23,000. For the past year, NATO has had overall command of the forces, other than 13,000 U.S. troops doing counterterrorism missions.

As much as Gates cajoled Europe's NATO nations, they did not cough up the helicopters he asked for and they hesitate to take on what is increasingly appearing to be an unending situation in Afghanistan's south.

They have every good reason to refuse to engage any further than they have now.

At the outset NATO was lied to by the Bush administration as to the nature of the mission and the level of stability in Afghanistan. It was sold as a peacekeeping mission. Yet, in the south, there was no peace to keep and the supposed stability Rumsfeld had advertised was non-existent. One of the reasons for early casualties after the NATO ISAF takeover of command was that forces which arrived in the most dangerous areas were under-equipped and lacked the type of robust defensive arrangements required for a full-blown combat mission. NATO can take some of the blame for actually believing a US administration which had now developed a reputation for deceptive bait-and-switch behaviour.

There is another recent revelation though, which, if true, puts a lie to the whole concept of a War On Terror. Regardless of whatever military adventures the US embarks upon, everything goes back to one event and one person: the attacks on US soil orchestrated by Osama bin Laden.

No matter what else happens, support for the US mission in Afghanistan hinges on getting the person responsible for those attacks. And now it appears, either through complete incompetence or perhaps for other nefarious reasons, that the primary target of the Global War On Terror has been ignored.

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

The current “boneheads” in charge will tell you all day long that we are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorists there so they do not come here. Nice talk, how about - just for a moment - acting like you mean what you say? You know walk the walk. These incidents, where we displayed a total lack of guts, like the one in August, are just too prevalent. The United States of America’s political and military leadership has, on at least three separate occasions, chosen not capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri. We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Which begs the following question: If the Bush administration is letting Osama bin Laden survive, why the hell should any country spend its resources and waste the lives of its troops pursuing a supposed righteous mission which is little more than something designed to camouflage the grotesque machinations of an American government led by self-serving morons?

Perhaps we should ask Sandra Buckler. She seems to have an answer for everything.

Is there a star fading at National Defence Headquarters?

There seems to be some speculation over whether General Rick Hillier will continue as Chief of Defence Staff after February 2008. Conventionally, the CDS remains in post for three years and then either retires from the Service or moves into an international military position.

Normally such rumblings around Fort Fumble on the Rideau would be passed of as "rumour". Long service members don't take much stock in rumours, and talk of postings and appointments holds no stock until something actually shows up in the pages of Canadian Forces Supplementary Orders.

Hillier however, is a different case. He's been more vocal, more visible and more publicly political than any Chief of Defence Staff ever.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier is expected to be replaced as top military commander when his three-year term expires in February, Conservative insiders have told CTV.

Just to put a finer point on it, he's not being fired. He's just not likely to get six years in the job and, to be completely honest, the Canadian Forces is too small to make its organizational head a "fixture".

Observers say Hillier, who is popular with rank and file soldiers, had hoped to stay on to oversee the war in Afghanistan.

It's nice to be popular with the rank and file, but that and $1.91 will get you a cup of coffee. As far as "overseeing" the war in Afghanistan, that's not the sole focus of his job. His role is to run the Canadian Forces in its entirety. There are those who would argue that Afghanistan, because the Harperites are focused on that mission to the point of distraction, has taken too much of Hillier's attention at the expense of other operations and the operational readiness of other elements of the CF.

But observers say the government seems determined to get rid of the charismatic general, blaming him for outshining his political masters and undermining former defence minister Gordon O'Connor.

This runs deep. Hillier and O'Connor didn't get along from the start, partially because O'Connor overstepped his role. Command of the Canadian Forces is the job of the uniformed head of the CF - not the Minister of National Defence. Hillier did seem to undermine O'Connor but at least a part of that falls on O'Connor and Harper for letting it happen. Hillier became well known for making political statements which would have been better left to his political masters, to the point that he was accused of being a Conservative Party hack and making defence policy.

When the Armed Forces held a private farewell ceremony for O'Connor earlier at Ottawa's Cartier Square Drill Hall on Tuesday, Hillier showed up late.

And he wouldn't talk about his often-testy relationship with O'Connor.

Conservative insiders told CTV the late arrival is another example of the general's disrespect for his political bosses.

Yeah, well, showing up late is just bad form for anybody in uniform, but to be honest, once O'Connor's picture was removed from the wall there was no reason to show up at all. What the Conservatives don't get is that most people in the military consider politicians to be a lower form of life. O'Connor placed demands on Hillier which, to be completely honest, were often ridiculous and which might explain why O'Connor, who once said he aspired to the position of Chief of Defence Staff, never moved beyond the rank of Brigadier General.

I don't think it's the political bosses Hillier has a problem with. It was that particular political boss. The new minister is just about as dumb, but there is less chance Peter MacKay will attempt to play "general" around the real thing.

Another said, "O'Connor is a good guy but he got his feet taken right out from under him by Hillier."

They blame Hillier for embarrassing the former defence minister over his department's failure to reimburse soldiers' families for the full cost of their loved ones' funeral.

Then they're blaming the wrong person. Hillier required approval to change what was Treasury Board policy. It is not within the purview of the Chief of Defence Staff to change benefits and compensation without Treasury Board approval. It is the function of the Minister of National Defence, O'Connor at the time, to seek changes of TB regulations. It's interesting that these unnamed Conservatives (and CTV) missed completely the inept behaviour of O'Connor with regard to prisoner handling, transfer and monitoring. The truth is, O'Connor operated the defence file badly, failing to keep properly briefed on policy considerations, but dabbling in force generation requirements which were more properly left to the uniformed generals and admirals.
Hillier, however, if he finds himself being hustled out the doors of 101 Colonel By Drive earlier than he had hoped, has no one to blame but himself. All flag officers know that they play a political game at their own peril and Hillier was more than a little political.

He would have been well advised to pursue the challenges of his position in way he had told others to behave: Keep your mouth shut and get on with your job.

OH YEAH: This little bit is interesting.

Possible successors include Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson and Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie although insiders say Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk is likely to get the top job because the prime minister likes him.

Ahem! Because Stevie likes you, you will probably get the job?! How very Bush-like. I would hesitate to put Natynczyk into the chair for a couple of reasons, this one not being the least of them.

H/T impolitical

Hillier smacks down O'Connor... again!

Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier has once again contradicted Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor. This time, it's not on defence manning; it's on the Afghanistan mission.

Canada's top soldier says handing over front-line fighting duties to Afghan soldiers by February will prove to be a "significant challenge."

Gen. Rick Hillier told CTV's Question Period that it's unlikely Canada's frontline presence will be scaled back because of the significant time commitment needed to train Afghan forces to take over security in the country.

Hillier effectively downplayed comments by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, who said last week on Question Period that by the time the 22nd Regiment takes over the mission in Afghanistan in August, the Canadian military will be shifting from combat to the classroom. And Afghan soldiers would take up the bulk of the fighting around Kandahar.

"We'd like to see that it was in that position to be able to do so by next February, but that would be certainly a significant challenge for them," said Hillier.

"Significant challenge" in general-speak means, That would be wonderful, and I'd like to say it's possible, but it ain't gonna happen so quit wishing for ponies.

All of which contradicts this bit from O'Connor, last week:

By the time the famed Van Doos are ready to come home next winter, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he believes the Canadian army will be able to cede most of the fighting around Kandahar to Afghan troops.

In his last outing with the news media Hillier contradicted the Conservative defence policy on creating new territorial battalions by suggesting they were unnecessary and were probably not going to happen, claiming, "We're not in the business of creating new units." He also dismissed, completely, the idea of creating a new Canadian Airborne Regiment, again in defiance of O'Connor and Harper plans to the contrary. On that occasion he could have been accused of over-stepping his authority by defining defence policy - the job of the civilian leadership of the country.

It seemed to go unchallenged.

This time, however, Hillier is on solid ground. Mission conduct and activity is the role of the Canadian Forces and the uniforms who run it. It is not the job of the DND, the political ministry, to command the mission. O'Connor's comments would have been valid had he qualified them by stating that "According to the commanders, the CDS and NATO allies with whom we are consulting.... ".

But he didn't.

In fact, the unspoken part of Hillier's contradiction of O'Connor is, "I don't know where you developed that idea, minister, but it isn't in consonance with the information I have been providing you."

In case anyone is missing the obvious, there is a nasty pig-fight taking place at the upper levels of National Defence Headquarters. What we're seeing in the news media is the water splashing over the edge of the pool as two defence heavyweights slug it out in the deep end.

We had a term for it back in the day: The swords have cleared their scabbards.

Hillier has had ongoing disagreements with O'Connor. From having heavy strategic airlift foisted upon him, despite his objections, to manning requirements which the CF could not possibly have met, Hillier has regularly had to correct O'Connor's thinking. O'Connor has managed to embarrass his department, including the Canadian Forces, through sheer lack of diligence and a failure to grasp the realities of any number of given situations, the most monumental screw-up being his handling of prisoner transfers and his initial unqualified statement that the International Committee of the Red Cross was monitoring and reporting back to Canada.

O'Connor is a liability to the Canadian Forces and I suspect Hillier would like nothing better than to see him gone, replaced by someone who has the capacity to listen.

The fact that the long-overdue Defence Review has still not been published suggests that there is indeed a bloody fight going on in the upper halls of NDHQ and O'Connor is the cause of it.

In any event, when the Chief of Defence Staff deems it necessary to outright contradict the words of the Minister of National Defence... twice, it serves as an indication that someone's head is about to roll. Given the confidence with which Hillier is speaking, it isn't he that needs to pull the armour over his neck.

The O'Connor death watch continues.

Hillier drops a bomb on Harper and O'Connor

Well, it's about friggin' time! Canadian Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier has dropped a huge bomb on Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's and Steve Harper's plan to create new and unnecessary army units.

The federal Conservatives' campaign promise to create new army units across the country appears to be in doubt after the country's top soldier suggested the proposed units are unnecessary.

The Conservative party's Canada First defence plan included proposals to establish a new airborne regiment and as many as 14 territorial defence battalions stationed in cities across the country.

But in an exclusive interview with CBC News, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says some of the proposed new units are unnecessary.

Hillier said there are no plans to revive the airborne regiment, which was disbanded in 1995 after Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death during a peacekeeping deployment to the African country.

"We're meeting all the operational demands that we would possibly have to meet with an airborne capability right now," said Hillier.

Each of Canada's three regular force infantry units fields a company of about 120 paratroopers, he said.

And then, since he trashed one Conservative Party promise, he decided to toss a little lime on the manure pile.

The general also poured cold water on Conservative plans to create up to 14 territorial defence battalions.

"We're not in the business of creating new units. We have sufficient units," he said.

Further on, Hillier stated that the reserves would be altered to meet the "spirit" of the CPoC promise.

That will be interesting, but not near as interesting to see what happens next.

Hillier has just plainly spoken common sense in opposition to a plan which was one of O'Connor's hobby horses.

One of them will have to go.

The O'Connor deathwatch continues.

H/T James Curran

Memo to Stephen Harper on "The Troops"

Mr. Harper:

Pay attention. (That's military parlance for "Drop what you're doing. It's not as important as this.")

CBC is reporting that you consider a discussion of your bungled handing of Afghan detainee transfers something which is detracting from focusing on "the troops".

Canadian soldiers' heroism in Afghanistan is not getting the attention it deserves as members of Parliament spar over the handling of detainees, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

[...]

"Unfortunately, those soldiers' stories have been eclipsed by quarrels in the House of Commons with respect to allegations about detainees," said Harper, who joined Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Canada's chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, at the rallies.

Well, Stephen, before we go too much further, go read this.

Then you said this.

"I sincerely hope their story will come to light when the Governor General officially gives them their decorations."

When have such awards not been thoroughly covered by the media? Your suggestion that something might change is disingenuous at best and completely dishonest at worst. Further, here's the Department of National Defence newsroom with up-to-date press releases. Point out the media releases identifying Canadian service personnel who have been recommended for an award.

Can't find any, can you.

That's because, Stephen, no information on the recommendation for an award is permitted to be made public until it has been confirmed by the Governor General. Her office issued a release on April 24th which was picked up by news organizations across the country, including a plethora of hometown publications. As that release was hitting the streets, your minister of national defence was issuing a release about a "new arrangement" regarding detainee transfers. Given the fact that you had ducked and weaved your way around this issue for the better part of ten days at that point, had changed your story several times and then changed the process, why do you think it odd that the major news organs of this country would focus more on the behaviour of your government?

If anyone stole the spotlight from the valour of our troops, it was you, sir!

Nevermind that, beyond identifying the names, ranks, geographic posting and the title of the award, there is almost no information offered until the presentation is made. Citations are not read out until the Governor General makes the presentation. The more comprehensive media story is available only once the presentations are made, and you know that. Notwithstanding some recipients were provided national coverage, despite your dishonest claim.

The heroism and valour of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will get as much coverage as it always has, and it will come at a time when there is enough information made available to present a proper story. Providing, of course, your government doesn't once again erupt in some stunning event, good or bad, which steals the attention of the media away from those who deserve it.

Your affinity to repeat the suggestion that people are "not supporting the troops" because they have a target lock on the way your government is dealing with Afghan detainees and subsequent transfers to Afghanistan government custody is, to put it bluntly, unmitigated bullshit.

None of it is about the troops. In fact, the issue surrounding the troops is that you and your government are putting them at risk by involving them in possible violations of the Geneva and Hague conventions and, worse, robbing them of the ability to believe they are serving Canadian values by treating captives humanely even if they surrender custody.

This isn't about the troops. It's about you.

And make no mistake about it, you are not, never have been, and never will be one of "the troops". You, Stephen, are a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician. I would bet good money that, until you actually took office, you couldn't have recited the Canadian Forces rank structure, and I suspect you still don't know the difference between a dragoon and a guardsman.

This isn't about the troops. It's about Gordon O'Connor, who may go down in history as one of the most incompetent defence ministers Canada has ever known. He isn't one of the troops either. He too, is a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician. The man didn't even understand the prisoner transfer agreement when it was first brought up. He has since wallowed around, rotating on his own thumb while you and his cabinet colleagues produced a different daily story about what you knew and when you might have known it. Have you ever wondered why O'Connor stalled at the rank of Brigadier General? Go on. Ask him. If the whole spectacle wasn't so pathetic it might make good comedy.

This isn't about the troops. This is about Rick Hillier, who is the most politically bent Chief of Defence Staff since J.V. Allard. While Hillier wears a uniform, his willingness to make political statements, which we all know have to be approved, makes him one of your home-boys, Stephen.

Canadians support the troops, Stephen. Those kids don't get to pick the mission; they do as they're told and go where they're sent. The making of policy is not their concern. They carry out the orders they receive. No one has a problem with them.

It's you. You make policy and you pick the mission. If you screw that up, it has nothing to do with the troops.

So, stop trying to hide behind them. They don't deserve to be used as a shield by a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician.

The Political General

A good number of people have weighed in on General Rick Hillier's comments today.

“Let me just come out and say very frankly here, I met a variety of soldiers who are pissed off,” Gen. Rick Hillier told reporters at the Kandahar air base.

“They are angry that these allegations have detracted from the overall mission here – the focus back in Canada, specifically, on the enormous amount of good that is being done, on the incredible things that are happening here in Kandahar province and around the rest of Afghanistan, and the additional security and the stability and the hope for a future that we are bringing to millions of Afghans.”

Are. They. Now.?

Once again, Rick Hillier steps over the line.

The Chief of Defence Staff has publicly criticized elected members of parliament engaged in a debate in the House of Commons.

That is not the province of a serving Canadian general, regardless of his appointment. If the troops are complaining to him it is his responsibility to explain to those troops that it is an essential element of a parliamentary democracy that the government be scrutinized in anything and everything they do. It is the job of the opposition to probe the behaviour of government.

It is not the job of the Chief of Defence Staff to criticize that opposition. The Chief of Defence Staff has a responsibility to be seen to be totally and impeccably apolitical. Hillier has once again failed in that responsibility.

Given that we know Harper must approve public statements made by Hillier, we can safely assume that Harper was fully aware of and condoned the statements by Hillier, if, in fact, they weren't prepared by the Prime Minister's Office.

Hillier is fully aware that criticism of prisoner transfer arrangements is directed at the government and the ministers responsible; not the uniformed troops deployed to Afghanistan. And that awareness, coupled with Hillier's unrestrained criticism of the questions of elected members of parliament means one thing.

Rick Hillier is a Conservative Party prop.

Hillier's thin skin

Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier is, well, insulted. He says so.

"I've been shot at."

Me too. Scared the shit out of me the first time it happened. I learned to keep my head down, way down, and get off a snap shot right away. Still, every time it happened, I got scared.

"People have attempted to blow me up."

Same here. Again, scared shitless. Still have a hearing loss in one ear from that.

"I had a suicide bomber targeted against me when I was the commander in Afghanistan."

THAT is an exclusive club. I'm glad that wasn't me. I'll bet it scared the shit out of you, as it would any thinking human being.

"And I've been called every name in the book, I'm certain."

It goes with the job, General. And I'm sure you've called a few people names yourself. Have you ever been called a "murderer and a scumbag"?

"I don't think I've ever been so insulted as to be called a prop for a political party."

So, who's to blame for that?! For one thing, the first three examples have nothing to do with the latter.

Maybe you should learn to choose your words a little more carefully because, whether you admit it or not, it was awfully goddamned easy for Denis Coderre to take what you said and paint you as a political prop. It wasn't an ambush and you didn't walk into a trap. Coderre simply noticed your foot in your mouth and pointed out that your fucking boot was still on. He didn't have to do any work. You did it for him.

Which brings us to another point.

The timing, General, of this latest shot to the media is highly suspicious. Coderre made his remark almost two weeks ago. Given the attention span of both hard-working Canadians and, especially, the news media, we had almost forgotten the whole event.

Almost...

But, here you are keeping it alive, and now you're making it personal. I would have expected, if you were going to answer Coderre at all, that you would have done so in a timely fashion. Like, within no more than two days. Either you just breathed air into an otherwise lifeless issue or someone else is pulling your strings. Or is the prime minister's in-box so full that it took him this long to get around to approving your statement?

Whatever the reason, I would expect you, General, to have enough smarts to know that silence works well in these circumstances and you probably should have kept it. I'm certain it is the same advice you have given subordinates over the years and I'll wager that advice didn't carry the kinder, gentler tone I am using here.

I do not know what you hope to gain by this little foray into the press and by continuing this fight with Denis Coderre, but I hope it's not sympathy. You live in a political world, General. We, all of us who have served a full career in the service, know that by the time you put that broad band on your sleeve that you have been transformed into a political animal. In your particular job, the politics runs deep, thick and smelly.

Don't protest in a way that makes it appear you didn't know.

So, General Hillier, I will send you back to the days when you first cracked your head on the hatch of a tank turret and everyone laughed.

If you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it between shit and syphilis in the Oxford's Concise Dictionary.

liberal catnip has more.

Hillier's dilemma

General Rick Hillier managed to anger more than a few people with his "Decade of Darkness" speech. Indeed, he was wrong to truncate the truth. It was more like a quarter century of darkness and, if he was going to speak out that way, he should have painted the whole picture.

The government which preceded the "Decade of Darkness", that of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives, perpetrated as much as what followed in the Chretien years. Prior to that, Pierre Trudeau had to be pounded into understanding that if he allowed any further rust-out of the armed forces that even minor peacekeeping missions would be difficult to manage and support.

The Mulroney Conservatives inherited major equipment modernization and upgrades from the Trudeau Liberals. Beyond that, eight years of mismanagement and a forces-wide pay freeze were the hallmark events of that government.

Hillier's heinous crime, if he felt so compelled to lay blame for the condition of the armed forces, was to limit it to just the Chretien era. Beyond that, and this is what galls most people, he failed to acknowledge that the Paul Martin Liberals had restored funding to the Canadian Forces and had promised significant growth with a view to re-equipping and modernizing the CF over the next five years. The Harper Conservatives inherited that program - not the one that preceded it. Hillier was being less than honest by not pointing that out.

Notwithstanding all of that, Hillier is not a Harper appointee. He was selected and appointed by Paul Martin. And, no matter how you view it, Hillier has always been outspoken. Martin was well aware that Hillier would fight tooth and nail to get what he needed for an effective armed forces. In his first speech as Chief of Defence Staff he spoke directly to Martin and his government.

In this country, we could probably not give enough resources to the men and women to do all the things that we ask them to do. But we can give them too little, and that is what we are now doing. Remember them in your budgets.

If Paul Martin was surprised by that statement, he didn't show it. In fact, this was the guy Paul Martin wanted at the head of the Canadian Forces. A general who wasn't afraid to defend his own troops and, more than just an advocate, someone who would fight to mold the Canadian Forces into a modern, multi-role, expeditionary combat capable service.

Hillier probably would have been happy with a Paul Martin Liberal government.

Last week's "Decade of Darkness" speech certainly appeared to be over the line. But then, Hillier has never been known for selecting his words well. (Outwardly calling the Taliban, the enemy his forces would be required to face, "murderers and scumbags" was unprofessional at the least and dangerously stupid at most. It demonstrated a clear lack of respect for an enemy he had not properly assessed. Failure to respect the enemy is a soldier's folly.) In that, it may be that Hillier has been badly misinterpreted. While everyone viewed that speech as a jab at the previous Liberal regime (and a certain amount of that can never be denied), he could quite easily have been speaking directly to his current political masters. Something along the lines of "You have to do more for the CF if you want the CF to do more for you. You get what you give."

Hillier is in a fight with the man who is ostensibly his superior, Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor.

So, how serious is the bad blood?

Well, sources say O'Connor has prohibited Hillier from talking to the Prime Minister's Office without his permission, something Liberals insist is a new way of doing business between supreme leaders.

By most accounts, there was a very acrimonious showdown last month when O'Connor rolled out a six-page attachment to the mandate letter that diverted soldiers to protect Arctic sovereignty and put them in position around a dozen cities as emergency responders.

It's a prohibitively costly exercise that will lay claim to thousands of already scarce troops who are needed on international fronts, particularly with the Taliban on the rise. The way some military brass see it, a domestic priority is admirable, but those soldiers just train for eventualities that may never come.

Still, O'Connor is adamant that his Canada First defence policy is critical and has infuriated the brass by demanding Hillier plan for the questionable deployment of a rapid-reaction battalion to Goose Bay, N.L., and the relocation of the Joint Task Force 2 to Trenton, Ont., which seems more to do with electioneering than legitimate military manoeuvres.

It all came to a head a few weeks ago when a top-level military meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper was scrubbed at the last minute because officials felt no consensus was possible.

Two things emerge. Hillier quite likely had a far better relationship with his Liberal defence minister, Bill Graham, than he has with O'Connor.

O'Connor, once Hillier's superior officer in the army, has laid out several plans with which Hillier disagrees and on which he has not been consulted. There have been several occasions where Hillier has butted heads with O'Connor, but the first was undoubtedly the question of strategic airlift. The Harperites, O'Connor included, have some kind of overwhelming urge to build a permanent and expensive strategic airlift component into the CF. Hillier wanted no part of that if it meant paying for it with a loss of tactical air mobility.

The current fight is over domestic operations and plans to make major changes to domestic defence structure and disbursal of resources, troops and capability. Hillier has made it clear that it cannot be done with what exists now, nor can it be done within the envelope of the forecast increases provided by the last Conservative budget.

It will take a lot more money and a lot more troops than what the Conservatives are offering. The CF is emerging, after all, from a decade of darkness, which the Conservative/Alliance/Reform opposition of the day acknowledged as a fiscal necessity, and the legacy of those fiscal restraints has caused considerable damage. Hillier is telling O'Connor and Harper what he needs to correct the problem and if they are not prepared to provide the massive additional funds and a significant increase in personnel then they had better stop asking for things Hillier is unable to provide.

The second thing which surfaces is that O'Connor is attempting to play general. O'Connor retired from the CF as a brigadier general. That is a notable achievement, but he never did attain the level he had hoped for. Hillier, once O'Connor's subordinate, did achieve the top job and while we'll never hear it, O'Connor is probably somewhat rankled over that. And then there's a little thing called Peter Principle. O'Connor advanced into the most junior of the general officer ranks and did not move beyond that for some reason. That is not to say his competence as a BGen was in question, but he was obviously not considered suitable for further promotion. By taking over the political defence file he is probably in over his head by being elevated to his own level of incompetence. He is supposed to be managing a department; Hillier runs the armed forces.

Something of the fight that is going on was made evident when the navy had to announce that they would not be able to carry out a scheduled sovereignty patrol. The Maritime Commander would have reported the navy's financial condition to Hillier. Understand that Hillier, as CDS would never want any part of the CF to have to stand-down for lack of money. But the navy held firm and at a point where O'Connor clearly did not provide the funds necessary to keep the navy at a proper operational tempo, Hillier let the flotilla commander release the information to the media. O'Connor was forced to acquiesce and come up with additional funding. The navy then followed up with the next announcement that would see them pull out of major international exercises. Hillier would have been fully aware of that. It was also a sign that at the department level, not the force level, funds were being manipulated and moved against the wishes of the Chief of Defence Staff.

So, while Hillier certainly spoke in such a way that it could be interpreted as a Conservative Party prop, I have certain doubts. Once the whole picture is in place, I see Hillier talking to his current political boss.

And it's not a pleasant conversation.