[Previous entry: "Christians issue gay warning on SpongeBob video"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Inauguration Song"]

01/21/2005 Archived Entry: "New Forces' chief has tough job ahead"

Posted by steve @ 03:33 PM EST [Link]

STEVE LECTURES CANADA'S NEW MILITARY CHIEF: What's the point of being a pundit if you can't lecture someone far more qualified then you about his job? Last week the Canadian government named Lieut.-Gen. Rick Hillier the new chief of defense staff so I take it upon myself to tell him what he should do. As you'll learn in the essay, I and Hillier have a bit of a history together.

At any rate, pick up the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and read the essay on the Insight page or just click on the "More" link to read it.

New Forces' chief has tough job ahead

By Steven Martinovich

As expected, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier was named the new chief of defence staff, replacing Gen. Ray Henault who will move onto NATO's top defence post in February. Hiller was a minor surprise to some as he was chosen over the deputy chief of defence staff, Vice-Adm. Greg Maddison, and the vice-chief of defence staff, Vice-Adm. Ron Buck.

For those who don't know him, Hillier is a soldier's soldier. Described as plain spoken, a trait that surprisingly hasn't gotten him into any trouble, he's popular with the ranks. Of course, any general that self-deprecatingly describes himself in his biography as someone who "runs slowly, plays hockey poorly and golfs not well at all" is bound to be popular with grunts. General, if you're reading this, I believe I set up a tent for you at CFB Petawawa back in the summer of 1989 when I was in the army reserve.

For all of his popularity and intelligence, Lt.-Gen. Hillier has a big job ahead of him. He will become a spokesman of a military that is being slowly strangled for a lack of money and as a result is rusting itself well past obsolescence. In some memos -- plain spoken as always -- he questioned the need for so much spending on the air force and navy, arguing that our land forces needed a huge infusion of money.

Unfortunately for the general, the health of any one branch of the military is only relative to the two others. Although several land force weapons systems -- including the M-113 APC, M-109 SP artillery, small arms and body armour -- are either obsolete or in short supply -- the navy and air force can't claim to be in a much better position. The air force has mothballed much of its aging CF-18 fighter force and needs new transport aircraft. The navy would love to replace the Protecteur and Iroquois class ships and is reeling over the fiasco with the Victoria class submarines. Those are just the systems that are the worst off; behind them is a long list of equipment that should be replaced.

The military has moved far past the point meaningful force contributions to NATO despite occasional successes such as our presence in Afghanistan. The reality is that the military faces a "mass extinction scenario" -- at some point the near future the vast majority of its equipment will be so obsolete and out of date that it will all need to be replaced simultaneously.

Lt.-Gen. Hillier's job description requires him to command, control and administer the Canadian Forces and prepare military strategy, plans and requirements but perhaps more important is his advisory role to the prime minister, the defence minister and cabinet. At his first opportunity, the general should advise the prime minister on two matters.

The first is the mission tempo of the Canadian Armed Forces. Although Gen. Henault last year ordered a one-year stand-down for the forces in order for them to catch their breath after a series of overseas missions, the military remains overstretched due to a decline in the combat soldiers. Lt.-Gen. Hillier should advise the prime minister that until the ranks are replenished, overseas operations should be kept to a minimum. Currently Canada has just over 1,500 soldiers serving overseas and finds itself hard pressed to keep those soldiers in the field.

The second is funding. Since 1993, the federal government has cut defense spending by 23 per cent. Despite an increase to the defence budget in 2003, we now spend less money on our military than we did in 1991. One report argued that $15 billion over five years was needed simply to remove the military from critical status. That doesn't mean a healthy military, merely one that wasn't about to collapse. Operations are currently cannibalizing money from maintenance, exacerbating the rusting out of the military. Lt.-Gen. Hillier must make it clear that the military will find itself increasingly hard pressed to carry out its missions without a huge investment by the federal government.

Of course, none of this comes as news to Lt.-Gen. Hillier. He's made a career of speaking his mind and arguing for what's right. His biggest challenge, however, won't be meeting the demands of the federal government with the resources available to him -- though that will be difficult enough. His real job will be convincing his political bosses about the need for much more funding, perhaps the most difficult mission of his career. Oh and Lt.-Gen. Hillier, if you are reading this, my apologies about the tent. It was the first one I ever put together.

Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario.