Hillier, Sr.Officials Muzzled by PMO

[FSTO]

I always love the guys named "Un-named". With that word you can say any damn thing you want. But, if the story is true then we shouldn't see any speeches from NDHQ for the next 4 to six weeks, (which co-incides with the tabling of the budget  ), so we'll just have to wait.

As for the reaction from the Directing Staff of Army.ca, you guys should maybe hold-fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Has the government announced the creation of the RRF at Goose Bay? No, all they have announced is the re-establishment of the weather station there and at Gander.

Now I agree with you that some of the other ideas are fairly out there (Navy Icebreakers, where the Coast Guard would be better employed). But why don't we wait until the budget before you let loose. (Maybe the Tories are in the process of gutting PWGSC, which would decrease procurement time by about 99.9999%)

Now after this rambling response, I hope that I don't get disciplined.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As for the reaction from the Directing Staff of Army.ca, you guys should maybe hold-fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Has the government announced the creation of the RRF at Goose Bay? No, all they have announced is the re-establishment of the weather station there and at Gander.

No, but the Minister said here in Edmonton last month that the four "new" battalions (Airborne, Comox, Bagotville, and Goose Bay) were still part of the overall Tory defence plan.  I agree, though, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating; we'll have to wait and see...

 

[TCBF]

"I would like to see parliament (government and opposition) driving the nation's agenda and not the Globe/Post/Star/Macleans/CBC/CTV."

- I don't mind the media - in fact I WANT them to be troublemakers - but good ones, not lazy ones.  Truth to tell, if anyone thinks they are the new royal family, it's the Supreme Court.  Any one joking that "Boys From Brazil" might be happening in a sub-arctic banana republic, rather than a South American country?

"Somehow, though, I'm not surprised.  Most of the Conservatives' "ideas" on defence are profoundly stupid; they're afraid that someone might actually say so..."

- I disagree.  I thought 'Voting out the crooks who were stealing our money so we could actually use that money for DND and other good projects rather than for paying bribes" was - and remains - an excellent idea on defence.

Tom

 

[TCBF]

The military is not the public service and does not exist to prop up this or that Government politically. 

- Which begs the questions:
1. Does the public service exist to prop up this or that Government politically?
2. Is DND - with or without the Canadian Armed Forces - part of the public service?
3. What year did the professional officer corps stop becoming a separate 'profession' if you will, and begin to be administered (pay and benefits package, etc) like public servants?

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

Tom -

I don't mind the media either, nor the fact that they stir up trouble.  I am just inclined to think that Parliament is where the hard work should be being done.

Cheers.

 

[vonGarvin]

Folks
Let's remember whom we serve: the people of Canada, as directed by the government.  It is not our job to create defence policy, but rather to carry it out.  It is as though SH and his gang are the commanders, and we are the staff.  We do not say "no", but rather "Yes we can; however, the effects of doing x are this and that."  So the previous government had loose reign on the CDS and others.  Would that REALLY be correct?  Perhaps it was for them, but not for this government. 
The military is a tool of the government, and like it or not, we go where they say and do what they say, regardless of our opinion.  And for those who don't like it have a few choices: resign and do something else or they soldier on.

Enough for now.

Garvin out

 

[GAP]

As an outsider looking in, the message is getting smudged. There needs to be a focus, not a lot of verbal wishful thinking outloud. I think the PMO reviewing the speeches prior to dissimulating ridiculous, but I think the PM needs to remind the CF that not much is going to happen if the new government cannot stay on message and win a majority in the next election. That means that internal verbalizing needs NOT happen outside. The comment about the media picking up on the "misspoken comment" is dead on. They can and will utilize the comments out of context and the CF will pay the price.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

One thing I must disagree with Von Garvin on is that the CDS, and the rest of the senior officers of our Land, Sea, and Air forces should shut up and soldier.  Our public, media, and politicians are far beyond pig-ignorant when it comes to the realities of military force.  If our PM is telling Parliament that we can deploy X to do Y, and the CDS and his advisers have already briefed the PMO that deploying force X cannot achieve Y, and in fact endangers force X with no possibility of positively affecting the situation at Y; what are the duties of the CDS?  Do you expect him to vette his replies through the PMO when questioned by the press (as how often does parliament get the chance to question the CDS about these issues before deployment), when you know that he will not be permitted to present the opinion of the professional officer corps that the mission cannot succeed with the assigned forces, but be forced to follow the opinion of the PMO.
    For too long the CF has had its political masters muzzling the senior officers about procurement and deployments. The Canadian govt has been allowed to misslead the Canadian public about the realities of our defence requirements, and capabilities.  We have the legacy of this policy.  Radio's that don't work, a helicopter fleet that best stay in sight of land, no heavy armour, no airlift or sealift capacity, a regular force that burns out its personnel attempting to man the deployments suiting a force twice its size.  We know that no PMO wants any dissenting opinion to get out, but it is the duty of the CDS to serve the Canadian people by answering with the truth, whatever his political masters may wish.

 

[Journeyman]

General Hillier, and his top level subordinates, have had a fairly loose reign since Paul Martin took office – looser, I think, than the ones held by Chrétien when Henault, Baril and De Chastelain and, especially, John Anderson, were CDS.

Absolutely. This whole affair seems all the more shocking because suddenly Canadians are actually aware that there is a Chief of Defence Staff...who is sought out for comment. Did Henault even speak? Would Baril have said "crap" if he had a mouthful? (I still hope his Rwanda role comes home to roost). While not CDS under the Liberals, Jean Boyles' only claim to fame was his public video, washing his hands of Somalia by bragging that no one told him anything and so he couldn't have interfered with any investigations.

If one were cynical (    ) it might be suggested that the motivator behind this pronouncement is an inadequate-feeling Minister of Defence, bemoaning his being left in the media shadow by a popular CDS - - - just as well I'm not cynical.   ;D

 

[DG-41]

Some here on Army.ca will be of the view that the best interests of the CF depend upon a Conservative majority government

I think the PM needs to remind the CF that not much is going to happen if the new government cannot stay on message and win a majority in the next election.

Or maybe... the effectiveness of the Canadian Military is not one of the 5 major priorities for the Reform Party, and they want to silence the CDS to keep the state of the military off the public radar, lest he interfere with their agenda.

I think it is very VERY important for those of us in green to NOT get caught up in party politics (My side rocks and can do no wrong! Your side sucks and can do no right!) and instead remain objective.

Liberals: CDS is free to say what he wants, when he wants.
Reform: CDS must have his speeches vetted and approved by the PMO's office.

DG

 

[Edward Campbell]

My edit

Or maybe... the effectiveness of the Canadian Military is not one of the 5 major priorities for the Reform Party  :tsktsk: government of the day

DG

Precisely.  Harper laid out his party's five priorities during the campaign.  National defence was not on the list.  He has said, time and again, that he plans to stick to those five priorities and that other priorities will be addressed as time, money and events dictate.

So, the problem is: he's doing what he said he was going to do; is that right?  Or, maybe, the problem is: RecceDG doesn't approve of the electors' current choice.

 

[DG-41]

Harper laid out his party's five priorities during the campaign.  National defence was not on the list.

So then - what makes you think that a Reform majority would suddenly push National Defense onto the list of priorities?

DG

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
For too long the CF has had its political masters muzzling the senior officers about procurement and deployments.
...

That's because defence policy which addresses, inter alia how many people shall we have in uniform, how many and what types of ships, tanks and bombers shall they have and where shall they go, what shall they do and how shall they use those ships, tanks and bombers, is not the business of admirals and generals - most, in fact, being experts at doing military operations rather than deciding on policy matters, are relatively amateurish at policy.

It is the Queen's job to defend her realm; and she relies on two groups to help her:

• Her Privy Council (de facto the cabinet of the day) advises her on what to do - it helps her set policy and then decide how to implement her policy by tasking her armed forces to do X with Y; and

• Parliament, the people's parliament, to vote the necessary funds - no money, no operations.

If General Hillier finds the government’s actions unacceptable he ought to resign and speak out.  That’s what Admiral Thomas did about 15 years ago when the government-of-the-day, aided and abetted by a highly political CDS, was misleading the Canadian public.  I guess a whole half dozen reporters came to his press conference; there was a small story on an inside page in a few daily paper the next day – then nothing.  If, on the other hand, General Hillier wants to press on with his improvements then he must:

Make his case, compellingly, supported by facts, to Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council – Gordon O’Connor is, actually, irrelevant in the defence policy business, too – and he must do that in tandem with the DM (Ward Elcock) who, in his turn, must convince Lynch (who, I believe is highly sceptical about DND’s management) that DND can and will manage whatever new resources are provided to accomplish the government’s ends.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So then - what makes you think that a Reform majority would suddenly push National Defense onto the list of priorities?

DG

I have never suggested the Conservatives would; National Defence is not high on Canadians' lists of priorities; it makes sense that it will not be high on politicians' lists either.

 

[pbi]

Unfortunately even when our soldiers speak, the lower rank of the speakers is given the respect that many politicians in Ottawa believe it deserves - nothing.

Centurian: I couldn't disagree more. One of the best things we ever did in the CF was to empower junior soldiers to speak to the media, as long as they "stay in their lane". The soldiers, NCOs and junior officers who make up the majority of faces in uniform we now see on TV or in the paper every day, have turned out to be great spokespeople, simply because they are junior.  They are junior, but the public sees that they are also smart, well spoken, and believe in what they are doing. (A big change from the general public perception of soldiers only a few years ago) The public, IMHO, has little trust in senior govt officials, and sadly I think that until very recently that has included Generals. (Although the present CDS has done much to change that). But, most people can identify with the more junior people in an organization when they speak, because most people have been (or are) there themselves. IMHO we should give great credit to our soldiers for whatever public support exists for uor mission in Afghanistan.

Cheers

 

[Journeyman]

Make his case, compellingly, supported by facts, to Kevin Lynch, the Clerk of the Privy Council – Gordon O’Connor is, actually, irrelevant in the defence policy business, too – and he must do that in tandem with the DM (Ward Elcock) who, in his turn, must convince Lynch (who, I believe is highly sceptical about DND’s management) that DND can and will manage whatever new resources are provided to accomplish the government’s ends.

I personally believe that Ward Elcock is probably one of the best things to happen to DND (and by default, the CF), in recent memory. Smart, capable, and well-respected (although certainly not beloved in some left-of-centre circles    ). I suspect that the Elcock/Hillier combination is terrific, if only because they do understand political realities, and will play the game, within arcs, to the benefit of the troops and the institution.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I personally believe that Ward Elcock is probably one of the best things to happen to DND (and by default, the CF), in recent memory ...

I agree, but see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40460.0.html

DND has, I believe a long, uphill climb before it reaches the level of bureaucratic competence which Lynch probably demands.  I think the last capable DM, before Elcock, was the roundly detested (by many in the military) Bob Fowler.  Nearly 15 years of second and third rate top management is hard to overcome.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I suspect that the Elcock/Hillier combination is terrific, if only because they do understand political realities, and will play the game, within arcs, to the benefit of the troops and the institution.

Indeed it does appear that the arrival of these two gentlemen coincided with new energy and directions for DND, along with a MND with a head on his shoulders.  

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it is very VERY important for those of us in green to NOT get caught up in party politics (My side rocks and can do no wrong! Your side sucks and can do no right!) and instead remain objective.

Liberals: CDS is free to say what he wants, when he wants.
Reform: CDS must have his speeches vetted and approved by the PMO's office.

One is inclined to mention "motes and beams" at this time.

 

[DG-41]

One might.

Why do I insist on calling the "Conservatives" "Reform"? Because that is who they are at the core. The "Conservatives" are NOT the same people as the party of Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney (or even of the various provincial Conservative parties) and I think it is important to always keep that in mind. If one is inclined to play party politics, to claim that (say) the Liberals are Always Bad, and the Conservatives Always Good... well then, the current "Conservatives" are not the same people.

The fact that today's Conservatives were yesterday's Reform is actually, as far as I am concerned, value-neutral. I don't care one way or the other; I prefer to evaluate by results, not by the colour of their banners and placards. But I also like to remember who it is I'm dealing with, irrespective of what they are calling themselves.

In fact, I think that Reform isn't connected to Mulroney by anything more concrete than name is a point in their favour.

But anyway, I remain decidedly unconvinced that the Stephen Harper Reformed Conservatives are the de facto saviours of the Canadian Armed Forces. The fact that Harper visited the Show in person gave me hope, the fact that National Defense wasn't on the "list of five" cooled it somewhat, and now we have the muzzling of an outspoken and competent CDS.

It's too soon to be conclusive in any direction... but I don't see any saviour-ing going on.

DG