In the immortal words of Tom Waits, “The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.” Punch-packing headlines such as “Tone it down, Ottawa tells top soldier” and “Harper poised to fire Hillier?” (the title of a segment on The National last night that addressed rumours to that effect) have recently been provoking audiences to think about the relationship between Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But what do the stories really tell us? An unnamed “senior government official” told the Globe that Hillier was given “marching orders” and that “his role is not to be the chief spokesperson for the mission [in Afghanistan].” Although the quotation carries some water-cooler gossip value, it implies little more than a slap on the wrist for Hillier, at least officially. With no official conflict reported between Harper and Hillier, no statements on either side regarding tensions or disagreement, is there any substance to the rumours?
The National took up the hearsay regarding Hillier’s apparent hot seat by posing the question to its At Issue panel. Reaching a rare consensus, the four political analysts agreed that Hillier is far from being in danger of removal. Macleans national editor Andrew Coyne went so far as to say the entire issue is a “needless confrontation.” David Bercuson of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary acknowledged that there are differences in appearances between the PM’s office and the Chief of Defence Staff, but a clear confluence of agenda. Earlier in the broadcast, defence analyst Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said this of Hillier: “I think he’s a realist by any historical standard and by the standards in Afghanistan. These wars take ten to fifteen years, not ten to fifteen months. Governments perpetually promise their people quick, early solutions—and they simply, almost invariably, don’t occur.” CBC correspondent Rex Murphy weighed in at the end of the program, saluting Hillier for his characteristic forthrightness and no-nonsense communication. “[Hillier’s manner of speaking is] a million miles away from the grey muddy fuzziness, the pure slipperiness and evasion that characterizes almost a hundred percent of the language of politics.” MediaScout reflects that the language of the media, the lens through which we perceive Canada’s fuzzily worded politics, can occasionally be equally nebulous.
