London attacks underscore Canada's need to be in Afghanistan: Hillier

[KevinB]

I totally missed the sarcasm - I still dont see it - but I have a poor sense of humour.

I'd be interested in racial profiling some of the respondents who did not like the CDS's fresh and clear statements...

 

[Britney Spears]

Hmm, I think that between Slim and kevinB a lot of men must have died violent deaths due to poorly worded jokes......

 

[Slim]

Hmm, I think that between Slim and kevinB a lot of men must have died violent deaths due to poorly worded jokes......

Not today...

;D

"...Waaaaaaggghhhhh...I'm not (sniff) subtle (sob) Waaaggghhh" :crybaby:

 

[KevinB]

No but I have gotten a lotta black eyes...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I didn't see it as sarcasm either.

 

[48Highlander]

It's hard to tell because of the lack of context.  There's enough people who really beleive that sort of junk that I was uncertain when I first read it.  You can't really be sure of wether or not it was intended as sarcasm unless you've seen some other posts by the same individual.

Personaly, my thoughs at the time were "either he's right the fuck out of 'er, or that's a really inapropriate use of sarcasm".

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Well, at least the CDS has people talking.  A number of letters on the CBC website were in support today (including a couple from obvious army.ca alumni) and this in the Winnipeg Free Press:

Editorial - A soldier's grim job

There is nothing nice about an army. Soldiers are not social workers.

Their job is to kill the other soldiers on the other side. Failing that, their job is to be killed, if it comes to that.

Many Canadians try not to think of this, but it is the grim reality of a military. Canada's chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, reminded the nation of that reality in an unusually frank discussion of the armed forces' deployment in Afghanistan. It was a useful reminder because it has been a long time since this country has heard that kind of talk from either its government or its soldiers.

By September, more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers will be in Afghanistan.

They will not be doing the sort of policing that the forces were previously doing in Kabul. They will be stationed in the south of the country where the fighting is. Part of the Canadian contingent will be members of Joint Task Force 2, this country's special forces.

Their job is not policing or peace-keeping. It is fighting and killing the enemy.

Part of what Gen. Hillier was doing with his comments was preparing Canadians for the very real possibility that there will be casualties in Afghanistan in the coming months -- young Canadians may well be coming home in body bags.

More importantly, perhaps, he was reminding the nation that it is at war, whether it realizes it or not. The London bombings should have left little doubt about that, but some Canadians still take comfort in the fiction that because this country did not go to war in Iraq, Canadians are somehow immune to terrorist attack.

Gen. Hillier was blunt and explicit: "The London attack actually tells us once more, we can't let up. These are detestable murderers and scumbags. I'll tell you right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." Canada's enhanced presence in Afghanistan will increase the risk of this country's becoming a target for the kind of Islamic terrorism that London recently suffered, that earlier killed hundreds in Madrid and Bali.

But as Gen. Hillier made clear to all Canadians, we must take the war to them or they will bring it to us. That is why we should be grateful that we have soldiers

Better, this was in the Canadian Press this morning:

If some Canadians were shocked that the head of their military called his enemy "detestable murderers and scumbags," they better get used to it.

Gen. Rick Hillier has never minced words, nor is he likely to start any time soon. His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister.

"The point he is simply making is we are at war with terrorism and we're not going to let them win," Paul Martin said yesterday in Nova Scotia.

The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said yesterday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.

"His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples.

Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused yesterday to soften or explain the comments.

No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis.

SOLDIER'S SOLDIER

Known as a soldier's soldier, Hillier is the most operationally experienced commander to take the top post in many years, breaking the bureaucratic mould that seemed to dictate many appointments since the Cold War.

This week, the general held an informal, on-the-record media luncheon.

Reporters familiar with Hillier's style barely flinched when he said all elements of the Canadian Forces need to be revamped, including the part where "you go out and bayonet somebody."

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

It's time for Canada to take a stand, he said, just as it did 66 years ago when it joined the Second World War against the Nazis, whom he described as "those despicable, murderous bastards."

(emphasis is mine)

I feel a bit better now... 

 

[scm77]

Here's one from the Toronto Star

Hillier invades political terrain
Generals ought to avoid commenting on foreign policy

JAMES TRAVERS

Until Rick Hillier became chief of defence staff, Canadian generals and politics mixed as easily as oil and water. Blunt, outspoken and quotable, Hillier is now fusing those incompatible fluids in ways that are refreshing and troubling.

With his troops massing for an indisputably risky mission to Afghanistan's wild Kandahar mountains, Hillier seized headlines this week with typically tough talk. Flexing rhetorical biceps, he argued that the London transit bombings only strengthen resolve to root out "detestable murderers and scumbags."

"I'll tell you that right up front," he told reporters. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."

That goes down well in mess halls, where soldiers are steeling nerves for a nasty fight with an enemy holding the advantage of home turf. It also delights a Bush administration that sees in Hillier a Canadian who views the world through Washington's global binoculars.

Hillier's messages have a certain appeal. Dehumanizing the enemy is as old as war and reminding the United States that its neighbour stands shoulder-to-shoulder at the front meshes nicely with Ottawa's efforts to convince Washington â ” and Fox News â ” that this country isn't a rubber-willed, terrorist-harbouring, defty-lefty Canuckistan hiding behind Pentagon skirts.

Still, the spectre of a general expanding his commentary from a mission to the underlying politics, foreign policy and core values is at least unusual. It becomes downright unsettling when the reasoning behind the words is, to be charitable, suspect.

Over lunch with reporters, Hillier essentially endorsed two popular but increasingly discredited theories Washington favours and proselytizes. One is that Al Qaeda attacks are a symptom of civilizations clashing, the other is that the best place to meet that threat is over there.

Those notions are easily marketed to audiences shocked by the outrages of 9/11, Madrid and now London. But they suffer when exposed to quantitative analysis and qualitative experience.

In his book Dying to Win, University of Chicago terrorism expert Robert Pape draws on a unique data base to expose popular misconceptions about suicide bombers.

Instead of religion, a more familiar, if particularly virulent, form of nationalism motivates most attacks.

"The central fact is that, overwhelmingly, suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: To compel modern democracies to withdraw military from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland," Pape said in a spring U.S. interview.

Along with politically inconvenient, Pape's meticulously documented conclusion is grounded in current history.

Created to resist the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda struck New York and Washington to protest U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca, and continues to gain popular support by combating the American-dominated coalition's Iraq occupation.

Resistance is not new to the world's worst neighbourhood: Oil dependent Western empires have been messing in Middle East affairs for about 100 years with predictably disastrous push-back. But to acknowledge or accept that resistance now is to challenge the comforting public perception that the current conflict is defensive.

Apart from contradicting U.S. conventional wisdom, that has home implications.

There is high risk Canadians will die fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Kandahar and death is more easily accepted when the cause is clear and widely endorsed as just. Public opinion is being prepared for that grim possibility and, up to a point, that's as it should be.

There are significant differences between wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One brought down a government supporting and imposing evil, the other a ruthless leader Washington used before toppling.

There are also significant differences between what Hillier is saying about the coming mission and what he is saying about Canada's motivation. One message is positive, the other inappropriate.

Giving the military a recognizable face and strong voice is welcome. But his views on the conflict are tired, and wise generals leave justifying foreign policy to politicians.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1121464222180

 

[Edward Campbell]

Oh, hypocrisy: They name is TorStar!

The Toronto Star had no quibbles when Generals like Henault, Baril and Dallaire intruded into policy in their speeches and statements, presumably because those worthies carefully toed the same party line as TorStar and the Liberal intelligentsia.

 

[Tpr Parsons]

I'm all for what the General is saying. He is finally letting people know that we are Soldiers, trained to kill, and be prepared to be killed if need be. As said before, Canadians seem to forget what we are here for, and are quite stubborn in some situations involving peacekeeping. The public think thats all we are, peacekeepers and that there is a low risk for casualties in our military. Having him tell it how it really is, is great I think. For all soldiers alike, and the public. To General Hillier    Keep up the good work.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister."
"Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused yesterday to soften or explain the comments.
No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis"

I hope this becomes the norm and not the exception.

 

[KevinB]

"His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister."
"Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused yesterday to soften or explain the comments.
No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis"

I hope this becomes the norm and not the exception.

a BIG +1

kudos to the PM and MoD for not watering 

 

[rcr]

TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?

CFL,

I have the actual paper (Winnipeg Free Press - Monday July 18th, 2005) in front of me.  The letter you speak of falls under the editorial section and the author's name appears to be anonymous.  I can forward the comment editor's contact info if you want to look into it further.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?

'Fraid not.  As archer says, it is an editorial and thus is the official position of the paper - no byline.  I got my copy from the DIN's news clipping service, and nothing shows up there.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Roger, thanks.

 

[spitfireMkIX]

But have you seen Jack Layton's comments?

"Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.

"A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/MILITARY16/TPNational/Canada

 

[KevinB]

I guess everyone is ducking for cover -- fight this one (CDS) and you've lost the Army - and to a certain degree the public.  At least at this time (I'm hoping Gen Hillier had Kevlar on his back for I think a lot of people are goign to try to shank him given a chance)

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

My God, I've just seen one of the signs of the Apocalypse...  

 

[The_Falcon]

Layton said those things, maybe I was wrong about the dude.  Or maybe he just dose not want a boot up his butt from an angry general. ;D