[VioletlightHeron]

Saw this article on Canoe; for a change it seems Paul Martin made the right decision to appoint Hiller to the post. A very good first step towards changing the culture of Canada's defense structure.

'Murderous scumbag' shot par for course from new defence chief; no reprimand

By STEPHEN THORNE

OTTAWA (CP) - If 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.

"General Hillier is not only a top soldier, he is a soldier who has served in Afghanistan," Paul Martin said Friday in Nova Scotia.

"The point he is simply making is we are at war with terrorism and we're not going to let them win."

Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused Friday to soften or explain the comments of its top soldier.

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

"I can certainly understand that there may be people who are concerned with the tone of his statements," said Jurgutis.

But he said Hillier "has certainly been a fairly straight-talking individual throughout his career.

"I wouldn't say this represents a change in attitude."

Defence analysts and soldiers alike lauded Hillier's appointment as chief of defence staff earlier this year as a fundamental shift in the Canadian military.

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.

Born in the outport of Campbellton on Newfoundland's north coast, Hillier doesn't attempt to cover a Scottish-Irish lilt that turns "Afghanistan" into "haffghanistan" and "horse" into "orse."

One factor in Hillier's promotion was his fearlessness and penchant for calling things as he sees them.

The defence minister was looking for a new vision for the Canadian Forces and, in Hillier, he got it.

A defence policy statement released in April charted a whole new course for defence - much of it adhering to Hillier's direction.

His current list of requests for interviews is at about 50, so this week the general with the reddish-blond moustache held an informal, on-the-record media luncheon. Audiotapes were OK, cameras were banned.

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."

The terrorist bombings in London underscore the need to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where they have room to thrive, said Hillier.

As a Western society that values rights and freedoms, Canada is already in conflict with "what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want."

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags," Hillier said. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."

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."

The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday 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.

Taken alongside recent defence policy changes and an increase in the defence budget, Staples said they "show an unmistakable trend toward the Americanization of the Canadian Forces."

Jurgutis noted that Canada was already listed as a terrorist target and he doubted Hillier's comments would change matters.

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden declared Canada a "legitimate target" in March 2004.

Adrian Gordon, executive director of the Centre for Emergency Preparedness, gave a qualified endorsement of Hillier's blunt talk.

"Part of me agrees with that, part of me says that's true," Gordon said in an interview from Burlington, Ont.

"But at the same time, if we're really going to deal with this problem and have a hope of putting an end to terrorism, then we have to work towards understanding the root causes, which go much deeper than current events in Iraq and Afghanistan."

[j-monster]

Nice catch on that article, VLH.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and Gen. Hillier is doing exactly that. More surprising to me, however, is the strong support Paul Martin and Bill Graham have given him. For someone known as "Mr. Dithers", this sort of unequivical statement is unheard of.

But the PM is absolutely correct. We ARE at war with terrorism, and when you're at war there is no room for the softly softly approach. You must fight and win. I hope this support for Gen. Hillier and the Canadian Armed Forces from the government is consistently continued. If it is it could be the important first steps to building the CAF back to the impressive force it was in WWI and WWII.

I did want to touch on one quote by the dissenting commenter...

Jurgutis noted that Canada was already listed as a terrorist target and he doubted Hillier's comments would change matters.

Um, YEAH! Hillier's comments are not supposed to change matters. They are supposed to galvanize and educate the Canadian public that it's time we do more to actively support and fight the war on terrorism, instead of spending too much time sitting on the sidelines and armchair-quarterbacking.

[Dilly_sAm]

Born in the outport of Campbellton on Newfoundland's north coast, Hillier doesn't attempt to cover a Scottish-Irish lilt that turns "Afghanistan" into "haffghanistan" and "horse" into "orse."

Uhhh....that would be a Newfoundland accent, not a Scottish-Irish lilt.
As for Hillier's statements....couldn't agree more. These people we are fighting are scumbags. Saying this isn't going to make us any more of a target than we already are...its going to finally give us the capacity to deal with the problem by recognizing what kind of cretinous things we are up against.

[AndGraceToo]

it's pro-nounced.."turrist"

[skippy the wonder dog]

I've steered clear of this one, but....

Hillier's comments don't represent a change in anything. Nothing. Squat.

People who think this represents something new don't know anything about Canada's armed forces. They're just surprised because they suddenly have a CDS from the army who talks like he's from the army.

News flash: army officers have always talked like this. It's a little unusual for the CDS to talk like this in front of the press, but it hardly represents a cultural shift.

And by the way, j-monster, lecture us about Canada doing more in the war on terror when you're aware of what we've already been doing. Canada has had troops in Afghanistan since the get-go. What would you suggest we actually do? Send troops that we don't have? Or you'd like us to get more troops? When are you signing up, then?

[fingernailsonhull]

Once again I am disgusted with the attitude of many people in this country. Only in Canada would it be surprising that an army general dislikes his enemies.

[j-monster]

And by the way, j-monster, lecture us about Canada doing more in the war on terror when you're aware of what we've already been doing. Canada has had troops in Afghanistan since the get-go. What would you suggest we actually do? Send troops that we don't have? Or you'd like us to get more troops? When are you signing up, then?

Apparently you must think I'm a real idiot. And I should be offended by that... but then I remember the source, and I'm not so bothered any more. The "when am I signing up, then" is an especially smart-assed remark that has no place in reasonable debate and dialogue. When will you ever learn that lesson?

Anyway, I am more than aware that Canada has had troops in Afghanistan from the start.

As for what more we could have done, we could have done more to support the efforts in Iraq, because despite what many people say, this has been a key battleground in the war on terror. I know Canadians are playing a role now as Iraq rebuilds and develops its democracy, but we should have supported the alliance from the get-go.

Another thing our government can and should do is to put their money where there mouth is and provide more resources to our under-funded military. The last decade or so the Canadian Armed Forces have been severely weakened by the lack of government support. And, before you start in again, yes I'm aware that the last budget provides for significant increases in funding. But, they don't kick in for two or three years... and since minority governments rarely last that long, the Liberals' hidden message is "vote for us, or don't expect to see a dime of that extra funding".

[skippy the wonder dog]

Bullshit, j-monster. Like most dittoheads in this country you spout on and on about the state of our armed forces, but you don't have a clue.

During the last decade, since I left the forces, the army has received:
1) new uniforms
2) new body armour and helmets
3) new APCs and recce vehicles
4) new radios
5) new helicopters
etc etc.

Go whine about Sea Kings somewhere else; that's an anti-submarine helicopter, completely useless in the war on terra.

About the only pieces of equipment used by soldiers at the pointy end that I still recognize are their boots and their rifles. These kids today have more night vision equipment and other shiny toys to play with than we ever did.

It amazes me that people can squeak on endlessly about how it would be irresponsible to ramp up spending on health care or whatever, but they think we should throw cash at the military without having any notion of where it needs to be spent. Yes, the CF can always use more funding, but to say it has been utterly neglected is patently false.

If you want to dispute that, I suggest you go out and serve in the military for a while, and then work in the defence industry for a few years, and then our background will be more or less even.

Now: if I was to accept the notion that Iraq is a battleground in the war on terra, the falsity of which was recently proven in London's tube system, I would have to ask you this: which troops do you want to send to Iraq? Because Canada doesn't have enough soldiers to send. Our forces have only recently managed to recover from being massively overcommitted, and we still have overseas commitments to meet. We don't have troops for Iraq, and hiring and training 5,000 more regulars and 3,000 more reservists isn't going to happen overnight.

Which brings me back to my question: when are you signing up? If we're going to meet the commitments you want to rush us into, we need live bodies in uniforms. Throwing money at the forces won't deal with the troop shortage; we need volunteers. And since you're so gung-ho for the war, you seem the ideal candidate.

Don't look at me; I've done my part.

[VioletlightHeron]

A couple of things I think you are overlooking in your bashing of j-monster's post, Skippy. First, when the politicans screw the pooch on defense spending by overcommitting for certain things like the Sea King, the Iltis, the four subs, etc there are hidden costs for correcting those mistakes and that takes away from current needs. What I pray and hope that Canadian politicans will start to do is listen to their front line commanders about what is needed and not to the consultants and the desk commanders. Second, I think Canada's military was overextended in previous years for two reasons; bureacratic red tape that forced willing recruits to wait for paper-shufflers to process their paperwork, which meant that while Canada had on paper enough manpower to meet their doctrinal needs, the reality was that those numbers didn't reflect the long delays between recruitment, entrance processing and completion of training. There are plenty of newspaper stories to back up what I'm saying. Peacekeeping missions that were undertaken for favorable political publicity and a lack of transport aircraft to quickly deploy divisions in the event of emergency were the other reason. The whole snafu with the DART team during the tsunami crisis is a case in point with regards to the transport issue. If Canada can't deploy a disaster relief team to Southeast Asia because it doesnt have enough aircraft to efficiently transport all the needed equipment, how can they deploy a combat division in the same situation??

[skippy the wonder dog]

You're way out on a limb, VLH, and it's going to get embarrassing.

The Iltis? What the hell do you know about that? Nothing, obviously. What was the overcommitment on the Iltis? It was a vehicle bought for a particular role that turned out (because of doctrinal shortcomings that also affected other western armies) to be unsuited for the role. And it is being replaced, as a result. So?

But your greatest embarrassment is the suggestion that Canada needs aircraft to move a combat division. Yes, Canada does need long-haul air transport. That's one of the CF's obvious shortcomings, which has been under discussion for over a decade. But here's your little problem: the CF has only one combat division.

The only way we could move an entire division would be to pull back everything, and then it would be a one-shot deal: no ability to sustain the deployment. That's the definition of overextended.

Do you have any knowledge at all of Canadian defence issues, or are you arguing the point entirely on the basis of some half-accurate bullshit you read in a newspaper somewhere?

I avoided commenting on your post initially, but perhaps the kids on university campuses in foreign countries could refrain from commenting on the culture of Canada's armed forces, a subject they have no experience of and no knowledge of? Just a suggestion.

This time last year, I was on a Canadian army base, talking to front line soldiers about their new equipment and looking at some of their new training systems. Where were you? Reading the newspaper?

[VioletlightHeron]

The Iltis? What the hell do you know about that? Nothing, obviously. What was the overcommitment on the Iltis? It was a vehicle bought for a particular role that turned out (because of doctrinal shortcomings that also affected other western armies) to be unsuited for the role. And it is being replaced, as a result. So?

But your greatest embarrassment is the suggestion that Canada needs aircraft to move a combat division. Yes, Canada does need long-haul air transport. That's one of the CF's obvious shortcomings, which has been under discussion for over a decade. But here's your little problem: the CF has only one combat division.

The only way we could move an entire division would be to pull back everything, and then it would be a one-shot deal: no ability to sustain the deployment. That's the definition of overextended.

Do you have any knowledge at all of Canadian defence issues, or are you arguing the point entirely on the basis of some half-accurate bullshit you read in a newspaper somewhere?

I avoided commenting on your post initially, but perhaps the kids on university campuses in foreign countries could refrain from commenting on the culture of Canada's armed forces, a subject they have no experience of and no knowledge of? Just a suggestion.

I don't think you were following the meaning of my previous post, Skippy. When I was referring to the problems with the Iltis, I wasn't suggesting that the Canadian government bought too many or some such thing, but i was referring to the fact that some Canadian politicians, on the left and right, make grievious errors in judgement in fixing vehicles and equipment with operational shortcomings. Obviously, this isnt just unique to Canada. From what I've been able to find about the Iltis, it does not have enough engine capability to traverse rough terrain and it is underarmored and therefor not suitable for combat operations. The U.S. Army is experiencing the same problem with the Humvee but, and correct me if I am wrong, the U.S. Army is uparmoring Humvees that need it in combat zones and changing their production lines in the States to produce more fully armored Humvees while Canada is making do with the Iltis till they can come up with a vehicle with better capabilities.

Again, I think the key difference is there is been a great deal of attention focused on the problems with the Humvees in American media while the problems of the Iltis have been generally kept out of sight from the Canadian public in the media, which means the defense bureacracy is not getting its feet held to the fire by public pressure to make rapid changes.

The whole theme that I've been attempting to point out in my posts is the culture of how and why top level politicans, bureacrats and desk commanders choose the right equipment and mission priorities needs to have more accountability and openness. There should a public debate as to why Canada only has one combat division, not enough transport capability and what its mission priorities should be. The Canadian Forces should be commended for their roles in taking part on the war on terror and U.N peacekeeping, but I feel the public needs to have greater input into peacekeeping decisions like Haiti, Bosnia and possible deployments into Darfur, etc. The impression I get is there are some politicians who bandy about the joys and need for peacekeeping operations for scoring domestic political points without first having answers to questions about the scope of deployment into specific countries like Haiti, Bosnia or Darfur and how to solve the underlying political and social problems in these countries in a timely fashion. The need for peacekeeping is there and it should be met, but recent American and Canadian history in peacekeeping leaves me with the impression that the politicians are too eager to dive into a sticky situation without a plan (ala Somalia and to a lesser extent Bosnia-Herezegovnia) and when the said situation blows up in their face, they don't have the willpower to stay the course and not hightail it out of there and leave the same people who were causing the problem in the first place in charge.

[skippy the wonder dog]

From what I've been able to find about the Iltis, it does not have enough engine capability to traverse rough terrain and it is underarmored and therefor not suitable for combat operations.

Not really. First of all, the Iltis is a capable cross-country vehicle. I could go into great depth on its advantages and its shortcomings, but it is a pretty capable little truck in its own way.

It is hard to get one stuck, but I have done it - on one notable occasion, with a certain Lt. Col Rick Hillier as my passenger. It's a small army.

The Iltis cannot be uparmoured as the Humvee is, for a few simple reasons: it is much smaller, it has no roof, and it has no doors. This is a soft-top jeep, and armouring it is as impractical as armouring a Jeep CJ.

... Canada is making do with the Iltis till they can come up with a vehicle with better capabilities.

No, Canada is replacing the Iltis with the Mercedes G-Wagon. G-Wagons will be used alongside Iltises in Afghanistan.

Again, I think the key difference is there is been a great deal of attention focused on the problems with the Humvees in American media while the problems of the Iltis have been generally kept out of sight from the Canadian public in the media

Also untrue. The shortcomings of the Iltis have been examined at great length in the Canadian media as a result of incidents in Bosnia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. As a result, the Iltis was phased out in Bosnia, replaced by fully armoured LAVs, and is now being replaced.

There should a public debate as to why Canada only has one combat division,

Because that's how many troops you get when you have an army, navy and air force all wrapped up in a total force the size of the Canadian Forces. Our population is only 30-odd million. Even in WWII, we fielded only three divisions.

Canada is a small country with a huge area and a huge coastline. We have to sustain a navy, an air force, and an army. The logistic chain is expensive because of the physical size of the country, and with a small force you lost your economies of scale. Then there is the standard inter-service rivalry, empire-building, and self-interest, which leads to the navy insisting it needs submarines, for example. You don't get a big army in a situation like this.

On top of that, you have a huge capital deficit created during the Trudeau era. Mulroney began the process of re-equipping the forces, but he was working to a cold-war plan.

The real debate that has to happen over the defence of Canada is to redefine the forces as a post-cold-war force.

[VioletlightHeron]

Have they started producing the G-Wagons in quantity to replace the Iltis in Afghanistan already? I was under the impression that the funding for doing so wasn't in the works for another year. Another question I have is the ratio of combat to support/logistics/headquarters troops of Canadian forces. Doing some research on the Canadian Forces web site, it stated that they have around 10,000 combat troops and they didnt give a figure for total number of personnel in service. The huge size and small population of Canada is undoubtedly a logistical hurdle and the empire building and interservice rivalry doesn't help but again I have to point out that Martin and his predecessor have talked a good game about being able to manage the scope and complexity of the problem to score domestic political points but haven't done all that well in fulfilling their pledges to do so. Appointing Hiller was a great choice but I'm reserving judgement on whether his political masters have the staminia to let him reform and revamp the defense infrastructure and bureacracy.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The CF has a big problem with its teeth to tail ratio.

This is partly because of a large number of headquarters and administrative divisions, created by that same inter-service rivalry. There are also a lot of bases and training areas scattered around. Efforts to address this have been ongoing since Mulroney started in with a bunch of base closures.

The problem when you deal with figures like "10,000 combat troops" is understanding who's included. Does that include helicopter pilots or sailors on frigates, or just soldiers in combat arms units?

The CF has somewhere upwards of 60,000 members but that includes all branches, and that skews the ratio. The air force, for example, has a huge logistics tail for each combat pilot it puts in the air.

But none of this gets around the fact that on peacetime establishment, you can't really justify Canada having more than one army division, or a division plus. I think the US Army has some 12 or so divisions. We're a tenth the size.

[prz]

Bullshit, j-monster. Like most dittoheads in this country you spout on and on about the state of our armed forces, but you don't have a clue.

During the last decade, since I left the forces, the army has received:
1) new uniforms
2) new body armour and helmets
3) new APCs and recce vehicles
4) new radios
5) new helicopters
etc etc.

Go whine about Sea Kings somewhere else; that's an anti-submarine helicopter, completely useless in the war on terra.

About the only pieces of equipment used by soldiers at the pointy end that I still recognize are their boots and their rifles. These kids today have more night vision equipment and other shiny toys to play with than we ever did.

It amazes me that people can squeak on endlessly about how it would be irresponsible to ramp up spending on health care or whatever, but they think we should throw cash at the military without having any notion of where it needs to be spent. Yes, the CF can always use more funding, but to say it has been utterly neglected is patently false.

If you want to dispute that, I suggest you go out and serve in the military for a while, and then work in the defence industry for a few years, and then our background will be more or less even.

Now: if I was to accept the notion that Iraq is a battleground in the war on terra, the falsity of which was recently proven in London's tube system, I would have to ask you this: which troops do you want to send to Iraq? Because Canada doesn't have enough soldiers to send. Our forces have only recently managed to recover from being massively overcommitted, and we still have overseas commitments to meet. We don't have troops for Iraq, and hiring and training 5,000 more regulars and 3,000 more reservists isn't going to happen overnight.

Which brings me back to my question: when are you signing up? If we're going to meet the commitments you want to rush us into, we need live bodies in uniforms. Throwing money at the forces won't deal with the troop shortage; we need volunteers. And since you're so gung-ho for the war, you seem the ideal candidate.

Don't look at me; I've done my part.

What new helicopters did the CF receive in the last decade? The Griffons are much older than that arent they? Or are you talking about the contract that was announced for the new ones? I believe those are not going to be ready until 2009.