Hillier to Resign

[madmax]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/04/15/hillier-re

Excerpts

Last October, it was reported that the Conservatives were seeking to push the outspoken senior military commander out of his job. But Harper denied the report, praising Hillier as an outstanding soldier and saying there had been no discussion about the possibility of changing the chief of defence staff.

But later that month, Hillier said it might be "10 years or so" before Afghanistan is strong enough to police itself, a comment that appeared to contradict the Conservative government, which stated in its throne speech that Afghanistan would be able to handle its own security by 2011.

Not one to mince words

Earlier this year, there was also a report that an angry Hillier called Harper over the government's handling of the Afghan detainee issue.

His blunt talk made headlines, for example, when he referred to the Taliban as "detestable murderers and scumbags."

He also raised the ire of some Liberals when he described the period of budget cuts to the military that began in 1994 as the "decade of darkness." The remark prompted then Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre to refer to Hillier as a "prop to the Conservative party."

So, when does he run for the Conservatives???

Edited April 15, 2008 by madmax

[Sean Hayward]

Hillier was an excellent CDS. There are rumours that he will run for the Conservatives and I hope they are true. To be honest, I can't understand what kind of person doesn't think that the Taliban are scumbags. The Liberals criticized him for speaking the truth and being exactly what a General should be, honest and committed.

[daniel]

His legacy will be a renewed military, equipped with new aircraft, vehicles and other equipment that had been depleted by years of budget cuts and neglect.

Now he should work to restore the much more urgent needs of health, education and municipalities.

[Sean Hayward]

Now he should work to restore the much more urgent needs of health, education and municipalities.

Ah yes, the reason that Canada constantly fails to build and maintain a world-class military. There is always something that is "more important" or "more urgent". To be honest, the military should have a higher priority than social services.

[WarBicycle]

I served two tours with NATO and trained with Asian and South American military, the Canadian military, even in lean times, has always been one of the best led and trained military in the world. We may not have the manpower the Americans have, but we are trained to the same standards.

Edited April 15, 2008 by WarBicycle

[Black Dog]

To be honest, the military should have a higher priority than social services.

Okay, I'll bite: why? And what do you mean by "social services?"

Edited April 15, 2008 by Black Dog

[Topaz]

Ah yes, the reason that Canada constantly fails to build and maintain a world-class military. There is always something that is "more important" or "more urgent". To be honest, the military should have a higher priority than social services.

What do you do with a world class military?? They don't seat around, so you have them in combat all time. Is that what you really want? I don't think Canadians want a military like the US but then again with the NAU just down the road and the US and Canada already sharing military, Canadians will have it if we like it or not. The only question is how to get personnel in to fill the void?? Will they offer more money to join or will a majority government just make into law you HAVE serve 5 years?? At the time the Libs did what they had to do for the national debt and it was the military that suffered and if the Libs didn't do what they did back then, Harper wouldn't have a surplus to do what he's doing would he??

[jdobbin]

So, when does he run for the Conservatives???

Announcement in a few weeks.

[jdobbin]

Okay, I'll bite: why? And what do you mean by "social services?"

Medicare, OAS, CPP and all those other useless services.

[Wilber]

What do you do with a world class military??

What kind of military do you want, one that will get massacred if it comes up against competent and well equipped opposition? World class doesn't need to be big, just very well equipped, trained and capable of attracting quality people.

[daniel]

Medicare, OAS, CPP and all those other useless services.

We also note that many world-class militias have been used to exterminate the intellectuals (ie education).

[Canadian Blue]

What do you do with a world class military??

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

They don't seat around, so you have them in combat all time. Is that what you really want?

If you want peace prepare for war. We sat the military in Germany for a while.

I don't think Canadians want a military like the US but then again with the NAU just down the road and the US and Canada already sharing military, Canadians will have it if we like it or not.

We already cooperate alot with NATO countries, my current base trains the British Army, my former one had personnel that was 1/4 American, and I've been involved in Maple Flag where we have over a dozen nations taking part.

The only question is how to get personnel in to fill the void??

Recruitment, and perhaps reforming the Canadian Forces to make it a more palatable career.

Will they offer more money to join or will a majority government just make into law you HAVE serve 5 years??

Doubt it, as much as I'd like to see National Service [one year in either the military, the VSO, or social services] become a requirement I doubt we'll ever see Canadians being forced to join the military. I'm sure many Green Party supporters will be happy to know that they can continue to sit around a campfire and talk about how the world would be a better place if we only hugged the Taliban.

[jdobbin]

If you want peace prepare for war. We sat the military in Germany for a while.

If they had been fighting insurgents all the time with a corrupt and incompetent government, we might have re-thought that lengthy service.

[Canadian Blue]

If they had been fighting insurgents all the time with a corrupt and incompetent government, we might have re-thought that lengthy service.

Sorry, but that's comparing apples to oranges. We fought the Nazi's for around six years, however when Dieppe was a failure we didn't bail because some people were afraid that Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper would forever be tarnished. As well fighting insurgents is much different from fighting a conventional army, while we may be there for another couple of years it will be worth it if the Taliban never come to power.

[jdobbin]

Sorry, but that's comparing apples to oranges.

You are the one that brought up Germany and how Canada was there many years.

We fought the Nazi's for around six years, however when Dieppe was a failure we didn't bail because some people were afraid that Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper would forever be tarnished. As well fighting insurgents is much different from fighting a conventional army, while we may be there for another couple of years it will be worth it if the Taliban never come to power.

We fought with full support of our allies. Can't really say the same about Afghanistan where there are two tiers of involvement.

The Taliban are safe and sound across the border in Pakistan.

[Canadian Blue]

You are the one that brought up Germany and how Canada was there many years.

That was directly refuting the insinuation that a strong military is always for combat and will eventually go to war. I simply pointed out that the Canadian Military was once stronger and had a large presence in Germany during the Cold War.

We fought with full support of our allies. Can't really say the same about Afghanistan where there are two tiers of involvement.

We've got the support of the majority of NATO, not to mention the recent major contributions by the French. Their is no point in abandoning a nation to the wolves simply to appease those who for one reason or another believe the conflict can be ended within a few months.

[M.Dancer]

We've got the support of the majority of NATO, not to mention the recent major contributions by the French. Their is no point in abandoning a nation to the wolves simply to appease those who for one reason or another believe the conflict can be ended within a few months.

Amazing....with just about every lnation there having more troops than we....amazing what partisan politics can do to reality,

[jdobbin]

That was directly refuting the insinuation that a strong military is always for combat and will eventually go to war. I simply pointed out that the Canadian Military was once stronger and had a large presence in Germany during the Cold War.

If you acknowledge that then you must acknowledge that Trudeau spent a higher percent of GDP on the military than Harper does now and had a large military. Even after quite a few years, Harper has not come to the same percent as Trudeau.

We've got the support of the majority of NATO, not to mention the recent major contributions by the French. Their is no point in abandoning a nation to the wolves simply to appease those who for one reason or another believe the conflict can be ended within a few months.

The Tories and Liberals agreed to stay till 2011. I suspect we'll be having this debate every two years for quite some time. I think the five or six nations on the frontlines will eventually tire of going it alone if Afghanistan or our allies continue to bring up the rear.

France's contribution was smaller than Canada's until recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm

Many of the nations have restrictions on what they will do in Afghanistan.

We have the fifth largest deployment of people there and on a per capita basis take more casualties than any other nation.

We can't deploy anywhere in strength no matter what the crisis is as long as we are in Afghanistan or until military spending and recruiting jumps at rates we have not yet seen.

Edited April 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[Canadian Blue]

Amazing....with just about every lnation there having more troops than we....amazing what partisan politics can do to reality,

Was that directed at myself or Jdobbin?

If you acknowledge that then you must acknowledge that Trudeau spent a higher percent of GDP on the military than Harper does now and had a large military. Even after quite a few years, Harper has not come to the same percent as Trudeau.

Depends, if you look at how the military was before Trudeau we were much stronger in terms of defence spending. This can especially be seen under the guardianship of Louis St Laurent.

The Tories and Liberals agreed to stay till 2011. I suspect we'll be having this debate every two years for quite some time. I think the five or six nations on the frontlines will eventually tire of going it alone if Afghanistan or our allies continue to bring up the rear.

First things first, we have seen an increase in troop levels due to lobbying. As well we should stay until 2011 as we have promised our NATO allies. I do believe that some countries should do more, however once again I will not support retreat simply because of it.

We can't deploy anywhere in strength no matter what the crisis is as long as we are in Afghanistan unless military spending and recruiting jumps at rates we have not yet seen.

The Canadian Forces is currently recruiting alot of new members. As well I'm sure with current government we'll see an increase in the amount of defence spending to the CF in order to sustain the mission.

[M.Dancer]

Was that directed at myself or Jdobbin?

Dobbin

[jdobbin]

Depends, if you look at how the military was before Trudeau we were much stronger in terms of defence spending. This can especially be seen under the guardianship of Louis St Laurent.

If we go back further, we did even better under King. Is that how big you want to go?

First things first, we have seen an increase in troop levels due to lobbying. As well we should stay until 2011 as we have promised our NATO allies. I do believe that some countries should do more, however once again I will not support retreat simply because of it.

Have troops levels increased? Do you have a cite? I know the Liberals put it in the budget to have 5000 more troops. Have the Tories carried it out?

The Canadian Forces is currently recruiting alot of new members. As well I'm sure with current government we'll see an increase in the amount of defence spending to the CF in order to sustain the mission.

The Tories have increased the spending about as much as the Liberals did but it hasn't translated in large numbers of troops.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/

The last report I saw in November of 2007 said this:

http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/Story.html?id=92068

And despite the government's commitment to increase the ranks of the military, the number of trained personnel available decreased slightly in the past year, according to a newly released Defence Department performance report.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had promised to boost the size of the regular military to 75,000 and the reserves to about 35,000 as part of his efforts to upgrade the forces.

But the need for new equipment, the commitment to Afghanistan, preparations for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and dealing with transforming the military for the future have prompted the Defence Department to revise the timetable for increasing the ranks.

The expansion has been "re-profiled" to have 68,000 regular force and 26,000 reserve members in place by 2011-2012, according to the annual performance report. The original plan called for the expansion to 70,000 regular troops and 30,000 reservists by 2010-2011.

Edited April 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

Ah hem

n Depth

Canada's Military

Canadian Forces in the 21st century

Last Updated July 10, 2006

CBC News

[Kitchener]

The Liberals criticized him for speaking the truth and being exactly what a General should be, honest and committed.

Of course they didn't criticize him for being honest and committed. Naturally you might think that the things for which some Liberals criticized Hillier were in fact just manifestations of his honesty and commitment. His critics might agree, in fact; for example, honesty can overlap with foolishness, and commitment can amount to zealotry. It's best to be clear when you're inserting your words in someone else's mouth.

For my part, I think Hillier was a fairly good CDS. I also think you'd do well -- in the spirit of honesty and commitment to truth -- to note that he was personally appointed by Paul Martin. Who was, at the time, something of a high-ranking Liberal.

[Muddy]

Gen. Hillier was a class guy tonight on TV. The anti Conservative media tried their damndest to get him to say something derogatory about Harper. He would have none of their nonsence. Soon as the interview was over the talking media heads and opposition were going on about he was being forced out because of a rift with Harper. So who is willing to say that the General was not telling the truth? The media and oppositon are in their quest to vilify Harper are in reality calling Hillier a liar.

Now about Canadian troops involvement with NATO forces in Europe. The brigade we had there was a well trained force second to none. They Cold War was always looming over us at that time. The Berlin Wall and Cuban missel crisis were a time of great concern for those stationed there. The nation has never recognized the deterrant to war that Brigade represented.

[jdobbin]

Gen. Hillier was a class guy tonight on TV. The anti Conservative media tried their damndest to get him to say something derogatory about Harper. He would have none of their nonsence. Soon as the interview was over the talking media heads and opposition were going on about he was being forced out because of a rift with Harper. So who is willing to say that the General was not telling the truth? The media and oppositon are in their quest to vilify Harper are in reality calling Hillier a liar.

Why would he say anything negative about Harper if he is about to be a candidate?