The Globe & Mail: "Let’s see some military officers in political office"
While I don't disagree with the thrust of the article, I don't feel the article makes its case. I attended graduate school with one of the senior officers the author mentions as a possible political leader, and there's no doubt that the individual mentioned has more than sufficient substance, intelligence and pedigree for the role. As an aside, the list is intriguing for its notable omissions as well. But my problem with the article is that it provides us with a set of stereotypical qualities of soldiers that are by no means universal among the officer cadre, and possibly less so among those who have made careers within the Ottawa bubble, where National Defence HQ is located (where I completed my second year of graduate school).
To be fair, the specific examples the author mentions spent significant portions of their careers as field officers in command positions, not as Ottawa courtiers. One rare quality that such candidates would bring to a political leadership role, but which is currently lacking among Canada's political parties, is a superb combination of practical management experience, intimate knowledge of government systems, and an outsider's perspective on policy and the decision-making machinery. But as the author alludes, it's difficult to think of historical examples among the Westminster systems of government of career military officers achieving eminence in elected political office, although several examples come to mind among presidential states. There aren't many precedents.
Nevertheless the knee-jerk and somewhat naive anti-military sentiment of yesteryear has been replaced in Canada with something more sympathetic to the military as an institution in the years after 9/11 and Canada's costly sacrifices in Afghanistan. Military service is now more apt to be seen as a solid leadership credential than as something to be mistrusted for outdated reasons.
While I don't disagree with the thrust of the article, I don't feel the article makes its case. I attended graduate school with one of the senior officers the author mentions as a possible political leader, and there's no doubt that the individual mentioned has more than sufficient substance, intelligence and pedigree for the role. As an aside, the list is intriguing for its notable omissions as well. But my problem with the article is that it provides us with a set of stereotypical qualities of soldiers that are by no means universal among the officer cadre, and possibly less so among those who have made careers within the Ottawa bubble, where National Defence HQ is located (where I completed my second year of graduate school).
To be fair, the specific examples the author mentions spent significant portions of their careers as field officers in command positions, not as Ottawa courtiers. One rare quality that such candidates would bring to a political leadership role, but which is currently lacking among Canada's political parties, is a superb combination of practical management experience, intimate knowledge of government systems, and an outsider's perspective on policy and the decision-making machinery. But as the author alludes, it's difficult to think of historical examples among the Westminster systems of government of career military officers achieving eminence in elected political office, although several examples come to mind among presidential states. There aren't many precedents.
Nevertheless the knee-jerk and somewhat naive anti-military sentiment of yesteryear has been replaced in Canada with something more sympathetic to the military as an institution in the years after 9/11 and Canada's costly sacrifices in Afghanistan. Military service is now more apt to be seen as a solid leadership credential than as something to be mistrusted for outdated reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment