Hillier’s Obsession

<strong>Written By:</strong> Mike Nickerson
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-10-12 10:22:59
<a href="/article/222259626-hilliers-obsession">Article Link</a>

Never mind what history might say about that, because Hillier won’t listen. Never mind what’s happened since, because Hillier hasn’t noticed. For the obsessed, all that matters is the prize. Take Afghanistan, and all is parades and rose petals.

As with any obsessive, all other concerns are mere background noise to the driving beat in his ears, a fact Hillier made quite clear when he shared his thoughts on what Canada can do to help the Sudanese, or anyone else outside of the Afghani theatre.

Appearing before the Senate foreign affairs committee, Hillier declared that this country’s military is tapped. Can’t send nary a soldier, sorry about that. We’re busy elsewhere folks, take a number. We have a 62,000-strong force with less than 4000 “boots on the ground” abroad yet not another pair to spare anywhere else. General Hillier doesn’t seem phased by this statistic.

During the formative days of Canada’s 3D international policy (namely diplomacy, development and defence doing more than providing a happy moment of alliteration), Hillier made a sales pitch for an active Afghani deployment much larger than we finally committed to. As Bill Schiller reported in the Toronto Star, options were presented to the then Liberal government, and a compromise reached, one that included our present (if not quite as robust as hoped for) deployment as well as a promise by Hillier that troops would also be ready and able to deploy to Sudan, Haiti, or the Middle East if called upon.

So what happened? Amnesia, apparently, along with a sudden inability to plan and organize. In the space of a year and a half, Hillier not only forgot his promise, but lost the ability to put together the very fighting force he confidently lobbied for and was ready to commit when the target was the Taliban and the country was Afghanistan. Where once we could have doubled our commitment, now we can’t spare a single soldier, regardless of the cause, or the import to Canadians.

Retired General Roméo Dallaire, a veteran of the 20th century’s last genocide, and vocal advocate for intervention in this century’s first, has called for Canada to at least contribute 600 troops to a UN force in Darfur. This assumes that the UN is truly interested in the Canadian-inspired “Responsibility to Protect,” and that calls by Stephen Harper to have the UN finally intervene in Darfur are at all serious.

Yet according to Hillier, we shouldn’t bother intervening at all until there’s a political solution. His position in front of the Senate committee was clear, that when it comes to Darfur, negotiation is the key to success. We would be needlessly risking our soldiers’ lives if we send in troops before a political settlement is reached. The general has previously opined that in a post 9/11 world “peacekeeping” is passé while “peacemaking” is de rigueur, yet now Rick Hillier wants the Sudanese to kiss and make up before Canada bothers to help them bury their dead.

Afghanistan is another matter, and Hillier isn’t waiting for the Taliban to pucker up. Leopard tanks are on the way, and what Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor once warned would happen (when he was an opposition MP) is now reality, namely mission creep, an open-ended war effort escalating beyond control.

It’s a case of an obsessed tail wagging a complacent dog. And the tail isn’t obsessed with stamps.

[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 13, 2006]

"We have a 62,000-strong force with less than 4000 “boots on the ground” abroad yet not another pair to spare anywhere else. General Hillier doesn’t seem phased by this statistic."

Do you understand how rotations work? 6 months in, 6 months out. So, 2000 that just rotated out of Afghanistan will stay out for 6 months, and 2000 more take their place. So, with other deployments, we have 4000 resting at home, 4000 deployes. That's 8000. Combat troops, IIRC, are supported 6:1 by other troops. The cooks, the mechanics, the transportation crews, the medics . . .so that 48,000. How many of our troops are actually available, once the 'brass' is discounted? Now, how many combat troops are actually at home, protecting our own country?

Now you know why we can't spare another set of boots.

You also seem to use the word 'obsessed' quite a bit. Perhaps you are confusing obessession with dedication?

".. yet now Rick Hillier wants the Sudanese to kiss and make up before Canada bothers to help them bury their dead. "

The Sudan has made it quite clear that UN peacemakers in Dharfur will be seen as an invasionary force. So if we are to go there, it will have to be with guns blazing. Which is exactally what the Canadian public seems to be adverse to in Afghanistan. Are you and the rest of Canadian public ready for more young soldiers to die to stop the genocide, and if so, why the change of heart?

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

MY heart has never changed. We should have supported Paul Kagame's revolution in Rwanda, and helped him shoot the murderous genocidal militia and police forces there.

We should declare the Sudanese government as a gearbox of evil and invade, overthrow, and install a democratic government composed of people who are against mass murder in general.

We should invade the Congo, and shoot every gorilla poacher in sight, and set up a fence around the volcanoes and permanently protect the great ape.

We should strafe and bomb the clear-cutting bulldozers in the Amazon rainforest, and declare those forests global property to be permanently protected from harm.

We should NEVER use war as an option, when money and oil are involved. Only in cases of protection of humanity and protection of our future on this planet environmentally.

But that's just me. Still dreaming of sailing off with captain Watson and the Sea Sheppard Society. Please brand me an insurgent.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Wouldn't that put Canada's true available combat strength in terms of troops in place and ready for action at about 1 to 2 small divisions at best?

There are nations out there who can field squads bigger than that.

And how many taliban and supporters are they up against?

Even with "help" from erstwhile "allies" it's still an absurd mission that's uphill all the way.

Especially if you factor in force multipliers such as intimate knowledge of the area and it's terrain, which I have heard very few people actually mentioning in relation to the Taliban.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

"Please brand me an insurgent."

You are an insurgent. So am I, because I agree with everything you say.

I'd also like to add firebombing most of BC's interior to erdicate the pine beetle, and now declaring all areas that are drag-netted in Canadian waters being designated "Random Torpedo testing areas".

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

If they had firebombed the very first infestations, then there was every chance they would have been stopped cold.

Now the threat of the Pine Beetle getting past the Rockies is very real.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

"And how many taliban and supporters are they up against?"

If history repeats, then according to historical evidence from past invasions, almost the entire country will oppose the current invasion force. It's a hopeless fight, and the "reconstruction" pacification scheme is clearly not flying.

As more and more people finally realize that 9/11 was an inside job, support for the "War on Terror" fantasy will keep on dropping until it hits somewhere near zero.

Why delay pulling out, when pulling out is already the only foreseeable end game?

Hillier is a professional soldier and a general to boot.

This should be enough to describe the man and what he's saying. Let us also remember that bunches of barefoot coolies and "ragheads" have beaten the world's 2 most powerful armies and highest qualified and educated professional generals.

If Hillier had any brains he would know that with the number of NATO, or whatever, occupying troops the whole affair is a criminal farce without any hope in hell for success, and both sides are suffering and dying for no valid purpose.

Ed Deak.

I have to assume that Hillier knows that his army is beat unless more troops show up to prop them up. He must also know that the whole excercise has an eventual end point where the troops "cut and run".

The real question to ask, is what is Hillier and the Canadian government getting out of this murderous adventure. These freaks are not doing it just for personal pleasure, although they probably are getting off on it in some twisted way.

I figure people like Hillier just cannot pass up the chance to play soldier even he knows it will end in a failure.

Probably most of the troops that went out there (at first) were very excited at the opportunity to blow stuff up and beat up on what they thought were defensless people.

Someone should stuff Hillier in a sack with a gun and place him smack in the middle of some desolated Taliban hold out. I'd love to see how fast he shits his pants and begs for mercy.

In the end, Hillier (or his successor) will just blame NATO and proudly boast that his troops managed to heroically die against all odds and without support. Heroic books will be written, heroic movies will be made, and lots and lots of heroic medals will be handed out. It will indeed be a proud failure, something to use to lure the next generation of pimple faced children into the fold.

The role of Canadians in Afgh. is purely propagandistic, for a number of reasons:

To show "our great friends and biggest trading partners" that we're good guys and on their side.

To get the army and the public used to the idea of being incorporated into a continental force to enforce "the freedom of the global marketplace", in other words, the unlimited profit demands of multinationals.

To blackmail the Canadian public to expand the army and pay for more and newer weapons.

Etc. etc. more propaganda and lies.

Any general should know that the present occupation of Afgh with a handful of mobile troops is a futile exercise and waste of lives and energy, but generals must make big noises to be considered "real soldiers" and earn their camouflage uniforms.

Ed Deak.

Yesterday, a British general spoke honestly, about getting his army out
of Afghanistan fast. A true soldier, in my view.

Even Clausewitz said that no army should go into battle without a plan
which includes how to gtf out afterward.

The folly of the fake "War on Terror" is so transparent, even the soldiers are seeing through it. No one wants to die for nothing.

The more I learn about it, the happier I am that I was turned down due to medical reasons when I tried signing up all those years ago.

At the time, I was far from happy.

It was only later that I discovered it was actually a blessing in disguise.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

Dr Caleb

I’m quite aware of how rotations work. My point in this article was that in March 2005, Hillier made a sales pitch for a troop deployment that is significantly higher than we have now. Apparently he felt at the time that we would be able to deploy more troops in the field than we are able to now. The question is, if for Afghanistan, why not for Sudan, especially when he was specifically asked to do so?

With regards to what going into Sudan would entail, I agree, it would be just as controversial as with our present operations in Kandahar. My point was that Hillier has not provided Canadians with the option to even debate it, much less act. This speaks to your comment of “dedication.” Hillier’s job, ultimately, as Chief of the Defence Staff, is to answer to government, and provide a military that is relevant and able to react to its requests. He ignored a direct request to have a force ready and able to deploy to the Sudan, when he clearly indicated (with another objective in mind) that it was possible.

I would suggest that he has gone beyond dedication to a dysfunctional obsession that is deciding Canadian foreign policy for us.

Michael Nickerson

Even if our troops went into Darfur in a combat role as opposed to the more palatable peacekeeping role and suffered greater casualties than in Afghanistan, I think the Canadian public would be supportive of the mission if the goal was to save a population from genocide. No one can say that that is the goal of the Afghanistan mission. Even Bush\Cheney\Rummy haven't gone so far as to claim that and they've made some pretty far out claims in the past five years.

---
Everybody got to deviate from the norm