Blame Hillier

EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: The inside story of one man's push for an Afghan mission, and a government that let itself be persuaded

EUGENE LANG AND JANICE GROSS STEIN | October 15, 2007 |

On Feb. 4, 2005, Gen. Rick Hillier, a charismatic and forceful Newfoundlander, became Canada's new chief of defence staff. The visionary field commander had convinced prime minister Paul Martin that he was the man to wrench Canada's military from its Cold War-era thinking and retool it for the post-9/11 world. As two expert commentators -- Eugene Lang, former chief of staff to two Liberal defence ministers, and Janice Gross Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto -- set out in their book, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar (Penguin), within weeks of his appointment Hillier had secured from Martin's government the Canadian Forces' largest funding increase in a generation. And Hillier had also persuaded the government to set the nation on the path to a war that no one, least of all Paul Martin, expected or wanted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In March 2005, the moral imperative to stop crimes against humanity such as those being committed in Darfur or the anarchy and violence in Haiti weighed heavily on Paul Martin's mind. The UN General Assembly had just passed a resolution giving legal weight to the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). The resolution emphasized that governments had obligations toward their citizens and when they abused these obligations the international community had a moral responsibility to intervene within states to protect innocent civilians who were the victims of systematic violence or genocide. Sovereignty no longer trumped criminal behaviour. Canada had been a strong supporter of R2P for several years, prominent Canadians had been involved in its development at every stage, and the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Alan Rock, had been instrumental in steering the resolution through to passage by the General Assembly. Canadian fingerprints were all over this, along with a strong sense of pride and Canadian ownership.

But the attitude within the Department of National Defence was very different. R2P was regarded as dangerous and recklessly naive, divorced from geopolitical and military realities. Deployment of several thousand troops would make little difference in many of these fragile or war-torn states, and Western governments, officials argued, were unwilling to suffer the casualties that would inevitably flow from these kinds of actions.

Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier had been in office for only one month, but already he had managed to develop a considered and integrated Canadian plan for what he thought should be the nation's priority: Afghanistan. He wanted a deployment that would get Canada deeper and deeper into the most troubled part of Afghanistan. It was heavy lifting. And it was an initiative that would impress the Pentagon and even George Bush.

Any barriers to Hillier's proposal to increase Canada's presence in Afghanistan that might have existed at Foreign Affairs melted away after Canada declared it would not join the ballistic missile defence program on Feb. 25. A new consensus, led by DND, was rapidly emerging in Ottawa: Canada, and in particular the Canadian Forces, needed to do something significant for Washington -- something that the Pentagon really valued -- to compensate for the refusal to participate in BMD. Michael Kergin, former Canadian ambassador to Washington, put it this way: "There was this sense that we had let the side down ... and then there was the sense that we could be more helpful, militarily, by taking on a role in Afghanistan ... We could make a contribution in a place like Kandahar." Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy went further: "We would have done this anyway, but there was pressure to be seen to be doing something as a result of BMD." Paul Martin clearly felt the pressure: "There was a view coming out of the military and the Department of Foreign Affairs that we had to do something in order to repair the relationship in terms of both Iraq and BMD. I didn't agree," said Martin.

The new CDS put on the table an Afghanistan package consisting of five elements. The first would be the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar, beginning in the late summer of 2005. It would stay in place for at least two to three years, given the challenges of reconstruction in that part of Afghanistan. In addition, he argued that Canada should deploy JTF2 special forces in the same region. This was the highest value-added military contribution that Canada could make to the ongoing combat in Afghanistan, a contribution that Washington would greatly appreciate.

Young Canadians respond
By PETER WORTHINGTON

Want to know how the Canadian military has changed in recent years?

Look at recruiting ads.

Back in the 1970s, DND recruiting ads stressed security -- that the military was a great career for young people (mostly men) and after 21 years a handsome pension awaited, with the possibility of a new civilian career.

That ad wasn't as appealing as some hoped, since financial "security" isn't a prime motivation for young folk contemplating the military. Financial security and pensions concern the middle aged.

In the 1980s and beyond, with Canadian troops on UN peacekeeping missions around the world (and personnel strained, with equipment ancient and inadequate), the ads switched to the theme: "There's no life like it!" -- young men and women in exotic environments, learning different trades, adventurous surroundings, a great chance to travel. That sort of thing.

Yes, the slogan inspired satire or mocking when things went wrong in the military and critics could sarcastically quip "there's no life like it -- thank goodness." Still, the ad had appeal.

Today, with Canadian troops embroiled in Afghanistan as our contribution to the war against terrorism, the demand for more recruits is critical.

To the dismay of the anti-military movement and the peace-at-any-price proponents, the fact Canadians are getting killed and wounded in combat does not deter recruiting. On the contrary, recruiting is up as danger or risk increases.

To some, this reality is both incomprehensible and inexplicable -- which shows the great divide in our country. I'd argue what this reflects is not increased patriotism, or young people being brainwashed by a military spinmeisters, but a yearning for adventure that burns strong in young Canadians.

The DND ads on TV today would have been inconceivable, even a decade ago. Witness this one:

"Fight fear ... fight chaos ...fight in the Canadian army." Wow! This ad actually gains recruits, and refutes the passivity that infects those in Canada who used to have control of the microphone and media soap box.

It isn't the "fighting" part that's appealing, but the fact our army has more direction these days.

Soldiers are well-trained (as are sailors and air crew), know their job, and are making a difference wherever they serve.

Of course, young soldiers feel invincible and immortal -- always have, except on those occasions when circumstance under fire invoke sheer terror and fear -- controlled or quelled by their discipline and training.

When the moment of fear passes, dark humour and fatalism return. Adrenaline brings an emotional high. Most soldiers learn to put fear behind them.

Now that the political campaign to replace Gordon O'Connor as Defence Minister has succeeded (a former soldier, he hastened the revival of Canada's military as a fighting force), the lib-left has switched to trying to get rid of General Rick Hillier as Chief of Defence Staff. He is too popular among troops, too aggressive, too daring, too outspoken for their liking.

They want a tamer, more passive CDS in command, witness a recent salvo against Hillier in a Maclean's article which, when read, seems more a fishing or exploratory expedition to be rid of him.

Hillier is a fighting commander of traditional hue, with the trust of rank-and-file soldiers.

Replacing him would encourage Canada's enemies at home and abroad -- which is a solid reason why he should not be replaced.

Is he that serious a threat to the pols?