Big surprise, they’re trying it out at the Torch already. It all starts well enough by an approving quotation of a favourable Economist segment on the general. The ensuing commentary by Damian Brooks gets a bit silly though:
“The point they fail to make – and it’s an important one – is that the general’s fame wasn’t his aim. Rather, it was a necessary evil in order for him to do the job with the level of effectiveness he needed. In other words, Hillier wasn’t chasing cameras and microphones for his own sake, but for the sake of his men.”
Now I know that Brooks loves to write about military stuff and that he’s from the same region as Hillier, but how can he even assert to know this about Hillier? Outside of our close friends how can we know an individual’s deepest motives? Even among our close friends we might be misled. Generally people who are vainglorious assholes don’t get up and say “look, I’m not altruistic, I’m a camera-hog because I need the attention.” I really have no idea why Hillier put his mug in front of the cameras so much. It may not be an either/or thing too. He might have legitimately thought he was doing right by his soldiers and furthering some nascent political ambitions.