M.Dancer Posted July 31, 2007 Report Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper was warned Monday that the rhetorical duelling between Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and his chief soldier, General Rick Hillier, threatens to undermine already waning political support for the Afghanistan mission. Over the weekend, Gen. Hillier, once again seemed to take a different tack from Mr. O'Connor, insisting that it will take “a long while” until the Afghan National Army is ready to carry on the fighting against the Taliban now in the hands of Canadians and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces. A week ago, Mr. O'Connor had made a more optimistic forecast about the shifting of responsibility from Canadian troops. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home You can argue that Generals should be seen and not heard I and will not gainsay you, but when faced with a minister who is clearly a political neophyte and a liability, you cannot expect the Chief of Staff to say "No Comment" every-time he is asked about another one of the ministers brain farts, nor should he be expected to lie in order to make the Minister sound correct. O'Conner should resign as quickly and as quietly as possible....send him on a whirlwind 72 nation fact finding tour and let someone competent do the job. Edited July 31, 2007 by M.Dancer Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jdobbin Posted July 31, 2007 Report Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) You can argue that Generals should be seen and not heard I and will not gainsay you, but when faced with a minister who is clearly a political neophyte and a liability, you cannot expect the Chief of Staff to say "No Comment" every-time he is asked about another one of the ministers brain farts, nor should he be expected to lie in order to make the Minister sound correct.O'Conner should resign as quickly and as quietly as possible....send him on a whirlwind 72 nation fact finding tour and let someone competent do the job. I think some of the experts making these comments are generally allies of the Conservatives but last week was a mess in terms of who was responsible for making policy for Defence and Afghanistan. Even Bercuson can't ignore the mixed messages being given and this warning has to give Harper pause about what is happening. Hillier and O'Connor contradict one another almost weekly. I would think that the caucus retreat will give Harper the time to look at some other MPs and see where they might fit in terms of cabinet. Edited July 31, 2007 by jdobbin Quote
Harry Nads Posted August 1, 2007 Report Posted August 1, 2007 Indeed. Changes certainly need to be made. Words can be used in a variety of ways and when used creatively and shamelessly, any ridiculous concept can be sweetly sugar coated to convince the masses that opposite of what is truly happening is actually happening. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 5, 2007 Report Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) It looks like Hillier won this battle. Hopefully, O'Connor will be an advocate for veterans (if that is where he is headed) and give them the support they need. Edited August 5, 2007 by jdobbin Quote
Michael Bluth Posted August 5, 2007 Report Posted August 5, 2007 Totally unscientific but here's today's poll from the ctv.ca homepage. If Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is demoted, I think:It would be unfair 793 votes (28 %) It would be appropriate 643 votes (22 %) It should have happened sooner 1429 votes (50 %) Veteran's affairs is probably a better fit in hindsight. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Argus Posted August 6, 2007 Report Posted August 6, 2007 Totally unscientific but here's today's poll from the ctv.ca homepage.Veteran's affairs is probably a better fit in hindsight. Perhaps, but now they need to get rid of Hillier. Firing the CDS is politically inflammable, so I suspect what they'll do is undermine him and ignore him, turn him into a figurehead without power. It's either that or let Hillier do whatever he wants, because if he wouldn't listen to a former general he's not going to listen to any other defense minister either. And I don't think the uniforms should be running the government. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
M.Dancer Posted August 7, 2007 Author Report Posted August 7, 2007 It's either that or let Hillier do whatever he wants, because if he wouldn't listen to a former general he's not going to listen to any other defense minister either. And I don't think the uniforms should be running the government. Well, lets be fair, the former general was retired, and, lower ranking. And to say that he didn't listen to him is completely wrong. He follwed orders as best he could. Unfortunately the orders were not all together in keeping with reality. Hilliers big problem was he didn't kiss arse and he didn't go out of his way to dishonour himself by meekly parroting and O'Connor's brain farts. What is needed is a minister who understands that the Staff are the experts and Ministers don't play armchair general. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Argus Posted August 8, 2007 Report Posted August 8, 2007 Well, lets be fair, the former general was retired, and, lower ranking. And to say that he didn't listen to him is completely wrong. He follwed orders as best he could. Unfortunately the orders were not all together in keeping with reality. Hilliers big problem was he didn't kiss arse and he didn't go out of his way to dishonour himself by meekly parroting and O'Connor's brain farts. What is needed is a minister who understands that the Staff are the experts and Ministers don't play armchair general. By almost any assessment of the situation by anyone who is at all neutral, it is quite clear that O'Connor often had the wrong information. Where did that information come from? From the military in Afghanistan. So the military was continually providing O'Connor with either deliberately misleading or simply screwed up information. I don't believe it was accidental. In either event, every time you people on the left were screaming about O'Connor having the wrong information you must surely have been aware that the source of that information was Hillier's office. The Minister and his staff do not contact officers on the ground in Kabul directly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
M.Dancer Posted August 8, 2007 Author Report Posted August 8, 2007 By almost any assessment of the situation by anyone who is at all neutral, it is quite clear that O'Connor often had the wrong information. Where did that information come from? From the military in Afghanistan. Many of the Minister's gaffes had nothing to do with Afghanistan. So the military was continually providing O'Connor with either deliberately misleading or simply screwed up information. You are making an unfounded assumption. If I was to lay bets, I would wager that his gaffes came via the PMO (new units, bases in cities) or from his own office (detainees) Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
old_bold&cold Posted August 8, 2007 Report Posted August 8, 2007 I am not an O'Conner fan, but I do see where he has been given misleading information, that has immediately flew in the face of things he was trying to say. I also do not believe that ministers have to be on top of the most recent info even before it has been verified. That is to me the reason O'Connor has had more then a few helpings of egg on his face. He just needs to speak in terms of possibilities until he can say things with finality. As for the General Hillier goes, he needs to learn that he can only step on the toes of the min ister so many times before he is put in charge of the meaningless duties that can be found for such men. I will say that it is good that the leaders of the military do think for themselves at times, but when things are not life threatening, the party line is where he must adhere to or you will not be in a position of power for very long. Does it really matter if the Afghan army is 100% ready to take over by 2009, or is 60% and still working on the other 40% good enough. It does mean fewer Canadian soldiers will be needed to do combat, and more will be in supportive roles, no matter what the real numbers are, as for now it is only a guess anyways. Hillier wants to talk in absolutes when there can not be absolutes, and he knows this. So instead of just smearing by driveby, maybe he should give us what he says are the numbers. I think we will find that they are not really that far apart, and it never has been said that the afghan army needs to be 100% capable to do the job, but rather some number closer to say 60-80% would be what would more in line with what they can accomplish. Hillier had better realise this as well, because it will be egg on his face that will stick to him for what short time will be left of his carreer. The facts are that even Canada is not 100% capable of all things its military is asked to do and we learn to adapt to the levels we have or to train to levels we need. So in my own view, any time the Afghan Army is leading the operations and doing more then 50% of the actions, that is very good and a worth while thing. Those who think that they need 100% are not living in the same world as the rest of us. Quote
tom cody Posted August 9, 2007 Report Posted August 9, 2007 I actually like Gordon O'connor (I know I am in the minority here) but he comes across as a good guy, but he is totally overwhelmed by the defence post. As I said in the cabinet shuffle thread, defence should go to a Lawrence Cannon type MP, one that can handle themselves better in that challenging portfolio. Quote
Argus Posted August 9, 2007 Report Posted August 9, 2007 Many of the Minister's gaffes had nothing to do with Afghanistan. You are making an unfounded assumption. If I was to lay bets, I would wager that his gaffes came via the PMO (new units, bases in cities) or from his own office (detainees) His own office? The PMO? And where would these people get information? From Hillier's people. Don't be naive. Hillier didn't like the fact that O'Connor, who was well known to him and a lower ranking general, was suddenly his superior. He resented it from the start, resisted O'Connor's direction, and clearly has done his best to make the minister look bad. Have you honestly never considered the possibility that deputy ministers have deliberately tried to make their ministers look bad in the past in order to get rid of them? Defence probably would prefer the kind of uninvolved, know-nothing minister the Liberals gave them for so many years, one who can be "guided" to whatever they think he should think and say. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
M.Dancer Posted August 9, 2007 Author Report Posted August 9, 2007 His own office? The PMO? And where would these people get information? From Hillier's people. And where would these people get information? Hillier didn't like the fact that O'Connor, who was well known to him and a lower ranking general, was suddenly his superior. And where would these people get information? He resented it from the start, resisted O'Connor's direction, and clearly has done his best to make the minister look bad. And where would these people get information? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.