Hillier is from Mars.
“We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people,” the newspapers quoted him as saying.
Either that, or the Liberals are concerned about their weakness on the right, and are encouraging tough talk – because God only knows – they don’t have much else to throw into Afghanistan at the moment.
Small wonder he’s cautioning that Canadians can expect casualties.
That’s pretty dismissive. I was actually quite heartened when I read that story. We’re sending 2000 men to Afghanistan, including what is essentially a search-and-destroy unit. We’ve got a new Chief of the Defence Staff who uses words like “bastards” and “scumbags” and “kill”. It’s as if a glimmer of sanity and honour has suddenly reappeared in the land.
Maybe you’re right to be cynical; time will tell. But implying that General Hillier might be nothing more than a Liberal propaganda tool is, at this point, unwarranted.
Finally a commander of Canadian Forces who can call a spade a spade. Let’s see how long he lasts under the Liberals.
Another possibility is that Hillier is setting a tone to act as a keynote for the troops. Also to inform the Canadian public what psychological role will be expected of them in terms of esprit de corps and resolve.
If the attitude catches on, it could be a good thing.
I wasn’t so much accusing him of being a propoganda tool – just suspicious of why he was allowed off his leash.
Perzactly!
His comments are right on the mark.
Seldom do we hear such ,(much needed), plain talk.
We can applaud his candor but be equally suspicious of what role it plays in the lib. agenda.
At this point it’s probably crazy not to be suspicious.
I think the London attacks are forcing a change in the calculus.
As unpleasant as it is for me to mull over, I suspect that the London attacks might mean more to Canada, and some European countries as well, than the attack on America.
After all, a huge part of the international community blames America for just about everything and sees us as being part of the problem.
I don’t think there is a great deal of jealousy and envy about England. And the London attacks may force a more aggressive stance on the part of those who would prefer to distance themselves from the entire matter.
Another thing occurs to me.
If Canada has been forced by the British attacks to take a more aggressive posture, then somebody at the top has to start talking tough.
If Hillier does it then that relieves Paul Martin of having to step outside of his liberal stereotype. Big Pauli can continue to blow his liberal smoke and leave the tough talk to the guys in uniform.
However this could work to the advantage of conservative Canadian bloggers. Now you have a prominent military figure leading the attack against Islamic fascism. You could use this to beat Canadian liberals over the head. “People who don’t despise al Qaeda and Muslim terrorists are not Canadian!”
Kate, from what I understand, he doesn’t clear this sort of thing with Billy Graham or the bureaucrats. I’m not sure the Lib’s really knew what they were getting when they gave Hillier the post, but they can’t sack him without looking completely idiotic. And without losing a pile of troops, who love the guy. And without killing recruiting, which they need to do to meet promises they’ve made.
Much as I bash the former CDS placeholders (with the notable exception of De Chastelain), I’m sure they all said the same things over drinks in the Mess. The difference with Hillier is that he has the balls to say them in front of a camera and microphone.
He won’t be easy to silence.
That will depend I suppose. I did a little searching on Technorati and found one Canadian lefty blog already demanding he “SHUT UP”….
Enough pillowtalk from the NDP, and Hillier might find himself cast adrift.
I think Hillier is savvy enough to know when to slip the leash and speak the truth not Liberal baffle gab.
I think he is strong enough to stand up and tell the politicians to get stuffed if they try & muzzle him.
He is media savvy and has built a rep as a blunt speaker . . . the handlers really can’t muzzle him, becasue the alternative is to fire him. He can’t get any hire rank, so he is free of cow-towing.
Go get ’em Rick . . . call ’em the way ya see ’em.
Yeah Greg – I was just thinking about how Martin has been AWOL during these press conferences…
Nah, the Dippers can yip like the chihuahuas they are, but at their worst, they are ankle-biters. We’ve got the Screecher gently chastising us for not being “psychologically prepared” for a terrorist attack. We’ve got the forces being redeployed across Canada so they can be close by should a terrorist attack occur (or a province try to separate, particularly one with lots of cash & prizes?). We’ve got borders so leaky they can’t really be called borders, more like ‘gateways.’
I’m with Greg & Damian on this one.
Of course since the G8 promised them $9 billion we certainly won’t be hearing more of this will we?
“Annihilate the Infidels”
A Study of the Ongoing Anti-British Religious Hatred in the PA
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, July 14, 2005
Less than 24 hours after the July 7 terrorist bombings in London, a Palestinian Authority Television sermon called for the extermination of every single Infidel:
“Annihilate the Infidels and the Polytheists! Your [i.e. Allah’s] enemies are the enemies of the religion! Allah, disperse their gathering and break up their unity, and turn on them, the evil adversities. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one, and don’t leave even one.”
[Suleiman Al-Satari, PA TV, July 8, 2005
newsbeat1.com
Mr. Pettigrew, Mr. Graham, Mr. Martin, et al,;meet our enemy. We are at war.
It is now becoming commonplace in the media to refer to a US/UK invasion of Afghanistan sometime in late 2001:
Ottawa Citizen editorial, “Central Asian Dilemma” (July 9)
NY Times article, “Al Qaeda’s Smart Bombs” (July 9), Robert A. Pape
Toronto Sun article “As we sowed, so do we reap” (July 10), Eric Margolis
LA Times editorial, “Still a land of danger” (July 11)–this stated that “U.S. troops quickly ousted Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers…”
Kingston Whig-Standard article, “London bombings are directly linked to invasion of Iraq” (July 15), Gwynne Dyer.
But, as the authors of all these pieces should know, there was no “invasion” of Afghanistan. Before the fall of Kabul to the insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001, and the consequent collapse of the Taliban regime, there were no foreign regular combat formations in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance did receive air support and assistance from special forces (both U.S. and British); that however is not an invasion. Substantial foreign ground combat units–including Canadian–only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces, and most of the country was under the control of those forces. Foreign units entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance.
Remember what Senator Kerry said during the September 30, 2004, U.S. presidential debate: “Unfortunately, [Bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong.” Some invasion.
This is no mere semantic quibble. Describing what the U.S. and U.K. did in Afghanistan as an “invasion” tends to equate those actions in people’s mind with the real invasion of Iraq. That equation implicitly and wrongly calls into question the legitimacy of American and British actions in Afghanistan.’
It seems that our pundits’ recall of history does not extend back a mere four years. Such writing is either very sloppy, or deliberately meant to mislead. It is also curious that so many seem to be making the same mistake right after the London terrorist bombings. I would note that Messrs Pape, Margolis and Dyer are strong opponents of U.S. and U.K. actions in Iraq. And that next year Canadian Forces will resume a substantial combat role in south-east Afghanistan.
Mark
Ottawa
Perhaps Hillier reads VDH. Today in NRO, VDH explains how the West is responding to Islamofascist terrorism – for those who haven’t been paying attention.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507150804.asp
Hillier needs some Sensitivity Training.
The Canadian military is supposed to hand out condoms in the third world, armed with pea-shooters, and hold hands around the camp-fire with multi-kulti abortionists.
Brian:
No, we don’t!
For what it’s worth, when our last visit to Kandahar ended, there were “strong representations” made to extend the stay of all, some, or selected portions of 3PPCLI Battle Group; these “representations” were being made by others below the upper echelon elements of the American Command in Afghanistan. So now we’re going back, to pick up where we left off?
Back in April or so, Gen Hillier made a presentation to the personnel at NDHQ. His major point was “building an effective Canadian Forces”. Some may have interpeted that as “becoming better peacekeepers” or such, but they would have been ignoring the majority of his comments. A better interpetation would be “more effective in closing with and destroying the enemy”.
Perhaps the best way to see Gen Hillier’s goal would be to examine the exploits is the Canadian Corps from before Vimy Ridge to 1 Nov 1918. While the casualty count can be disheartening, the Corps always succeeded, in every battle, and generally against superior numbers. Shane Schreiber examines the Corps’ record over the Last Hundred Days (8 Aug to 1 Nov 1918) in his book “Shock Army of the British Empire”. That,
I think, is what Gen Hillier is using as a focus for the Canadian Forces.
For those who might conclude the Gen is blowing smoke with his plans, he did serve a tour as Assistant Commander of III US Corps in Fort Hood, Texas. And one of his new planners has just completed a tour in the same job, including time in Iraq.
The question is: do Canadians support an effective Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force?
Cheers
JMH
“The question is: do Canadians support an effective Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force?”
JMH, this Canadian does.
Good to see someone with guts, common sense, and practical experience leading the show. Perhaps under his watch, the Forces can reverse the rot foisted upon them by a decade plus of shrinking violets. Soldiers killing terrorists, who would have thought of such an idea in Canada. Next someone will think the Mounties could be put to use as something other than wedding props for the Trudeau family!
Hillier isn’t the only one talking tough, check out these comments from a real leader (Australia’s John Howard) – after reading, go back and try to imagine Paul Martin uttering anything even close to this:
JOHN HOWARD: …these people are opposed to what we believe in and what we stand for, far more than what we do. If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world – to the world – for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people.
I’m sure that after conducting several public opinion polls Martin might come up with something like “We..um… well… we Canadians are a nation of peacekeepers um… and we’ll uh… do our best to uh… make Canadian’s safer… umm from these misunderstood people umm… aw geez I hope I didn’t offend anyone with such strong language, if so I apologize”
Go get ’em, General. Good to finally hear someone at the top in this country call a spade a spade!
Kate: Here is Layton’s amazing comment:
‘”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.”‘
From the Globe, “General’s talk of terrorist ‘scumbags’ praised”, July 16.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/MILITARY16/TPNational/?query=terrorist+scumbags
Perhaps Carolyn Parrish could be asked to comment.
Mark
Ottawa
After 30 years of Liberal flower children trying to turn the military into a global social worker corps, I’ll wager the stark gravity of Hillier’s statement is missed by most state brainwashed lemmings…..hey aren’t they peace keepers….kinda like the peace corps with rifles?
Don’t tell me they actually have to shoot people!!!!
“I dont wanna get drafted
I dont wanna go
I dont wanna get drafted
No-oh-woh-oh-woh…
Roller skates n disco
Is a lot of fun
Im too young n stupid
To operate a gun
Wars are really ugly
Theyre dirty and theyre cold
I dont want nobody
To shoot me in the fox hole, fox hole
I dont wanna get drafted
I dont wanna get drafted
I dont wanna get drafted
I dont wanna get drafted”
( Frank Zappa RIP)
Poor old Bourque is beside himself…”Loudmouth General”… lol
The lipstick lesbian daring to confront radical imams
Posted by MadIvan
On 07/16/2005 4:18:32 PM PDT � 4 replies � 37+ views
The Sunday Times ^ | July 17, 2005 | Jasper Gerard
Irshad Manji has already been dubbed �Osama�s worst nightmare� for her criticisms of Islam. Now she wants Britain�s Muslims to stand more firmly on the side of freedomNo wonder Irshad Manji has received death threats since appearing on British television: she is a lipstick lesbian, a Muslim and scourge of Islamic leaders, whom she accuses of making excuses about the terror attacks on London. Oh, and she tells ordinary Muslims to �crawl out of their narcissistic shell�. Ouch. Manji is a glamorous Canadian television presenter whose book, The Trouble with Islam, has made her so famous in America that she..
>>>>>>>>>>> freerepublic.com
Any pics of LL’s lipstick brand? Run, OOOsamaaa..bhawahhaa…..
JMH is spot on about General Hillier. He is busy now with a complete transformation of the Canadian Forces. This is going to be an interesting process. Not all the vested interests he will have to overcome are from outside the military; there’s going to be some “housecleaning” ahead, folks. Hillier is very much a “my way or the highway”* sort of guy – something our touchy-feely military leadership needs just about now.
By the way, the Assistant Commander III US Corps job has become pretty much an important stepping-stone for Canadian two-star generals. Those fortunate to get this plum* position are on their way up.
JJM
* But General Hillier has little patience for fools. Sadly, the danger is that there could be enough political obstruction to transformation that he might well say, “screw it, I’m gone.”
** Yes, it’s a plum position but not for the faint-hearted. The US military is very demanding of its general officers. As the saying goes though:
“The reward of the general is not a bigger tent. It is command.”
If you want to check Canada’s official response to what Gen Hillier said, (the CBC), read the comments in the CBC’s viewpoint section. They blame everybody but the terrorists, this is the official Canadian opinion.