"Prime Minister Harper's War" - is that what Canadian historians will call it?
Canada, under Mr. Harper and his government, joined the "coalition of the willing" this time, to help the United States fight a war in the Middle East. Mr. Harper wanted to join George Bush and go to war 12 years ago but he was not in power and saner minds prevailed.
This time, though, young Canadian men and women will be putting their lives on the line against ISIS or ISIL or a really nasty bunch of people, depending upon who you talk to. There is little doubt that the Islamic State falls well outside of the accepted norms. It is a rogue state.
As a consequence, Canada committed 69 military advisers to assist the security forces in Iraq almost a month ago. These advisers are not "boots on the ground" nor are they "combat troops." Their job is to assist in training and logistics. When deployed, their job was not about fighting.
It is perhaps not surprising ISIS took offence to this deployment.
The Islamic State called upon its members to take retribution against the coalition of countries: "If you can kill a disbelieving American or European especially the spiteful and filthy French or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be."
This, of course, is now the justification for the government's latest action.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has called upon MPs to support deploying Canadian military assets in the region for a period of six months consisting of airstrike capacity in the form of a fueling jet, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and up to six CF-18 fighter jets. No troops yet.
On Friday, Mr. Harper tweeted: "We tabled a motion asking the House to confirm its confidence for the Government to join our allies in launching air strikes against ISIL.", "The Govt's ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians, & to defend our citizens from those who would do harm to us & to our families", and "When our allies recognize & respond to a threat that would also harm us, we Canadians do not stand on the sidelines."
I find it amazing that our foreign policy can be defined in 140 characters or less! I also find it amazing that the government thinks that ISIS was a threat to Canada. It is now but not before we joined the "coalition of the willing".
Not unless one truly believes that a small group of terrorists (or even a large group of terrorists) in the Middle East could successfully achieve world domination.
ISIS is not a worldwide threat and it is doubtful that they would be viewed as anything more than just a regional problem if they had been in any other part of the world.
ISIS would not have included Canadians in its list of disbelievers if we had not joined the "coalition of the willing".
Or to put it in other terms, we kicked the beehive and now that the bees have swarmed in response, our government seems to think that we need to eradicate them. What ever happened to live and let live?
But some would contend this has nothing to do with terrorists or a war in the Middle East or beheadings or thousands dying. It has to do with posturing, at home, for the Conservative base. It has to do with showing that this government and Prime Minister Harper in particular are tough enough. After all, there is an election coming.
In his speech to Parliament, the Prime Minister noted: "there is rarely a political upside in supporting any kind of military action, and little political risk in opposing it." Translated, this says "look at us - we are doing the hard thing and making the hard choices which the opposition won't". The Prime Minister is still trying to frame his government as tough on bad guys.
Is ISIS or ISIL a scourge? Yes.
However, it is not because they are a threat to Canada that they should be eliminated. And our actions in any war against them should not be political grandstanding or opportunism.
No one is talking about the Canadian soldiers that will be put in harm's way or the lives that will be lost in this action. That is where the real conversation should lie. Do Canadians want to see more Canadian troops die in the Middle East?
Maybe another tweet sums it up best: "I think it's pretty clear that Canadians don't want to be involved in endless wars in the Middle East. Good to see that Harper is consistent in his alienation from the Canadian people's wishes."
