MUTUAL DEFENCE: THIS IS WHAT FRIENDS ARE FOR
Rather than have Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18s bomb the sociopaths of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Liberal government intends to meet them on the ground with an enlarged force of infantry trainers, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed Tuesday.
So Canada is, in fact, ramping up aspects of its contribution to the war against ISIL in the wake of the massacres in Paris and Beirut, and the bombing of a Russian airliner over Egypt.
If only the strategy were founded on fact — evidence, you could say — rather than optics, and an artificial, studied pacifism that begins to look like ideological stubbornness, reminiscent of a previous prime minister we shall not mention.
Somehow these two military functions, air support and ground training, are deemed to be mutually exclusive. Presumably that’s because training sounds a bit like peacemaking, something we could imagine happening under United Nations’ auspices, and thus feels more Canadian. Whereas bombing looks more warlike, on account of the explosions, and does not feel very Canadian at all, from a Liberal perspective. If there’s a better explanation, I have yet to hear it. It’s balderdash. The underlying assumptions are false, the logic flawed, the rationale non-existent.
Let’s set aside, for argument’s sake, that French President François Hollande on Tuesday invoked Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union, which holds that “if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have toward it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power … .” Canada is not, of course, an EU member. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s mutual defence clause, Article 5, has not been invoked, though it may yet be. Should this occur, it’s not at all clear a training mission wouldn’t fulfil Canada’s technical obligation. Each member state decides how it can best contribute.
Let’s overlook, also, that France is explicitly asking for military help in what is, in fact, a shooting war, not a peace-building mission. In his speech to a joint session of the French parliament on Monday, Hollande was categorical: “We shall not just contain (ISIL), but destroy it.” With France in the vanguard and the United States and Britain offering support, perhaps Canada’s tiny contribution makes no real difference, as Liberal partisans have assiduously informed me.
Let’s downplay that the French are a founding people of Canada, with whom this country shares a historical strategic alliance but also extensive cultural, business and family ties. Let’s not dwell, either, on the frightening thought that the carnage in Paris could just as easily have happened in Ottawa, Calgary or Montreal. It’s safer and cheaper for us, we can acknowledge as we sanctimoniously pat ourselves on the back for our pacifism, if our friends take on the hard jobs.
Let’s just parse, for a moment, this supposed dichotomy between bombing and training.
Aerial bombardment in modern warfare is not indiscriminate. It happens in concert with ground troops, in this case the very same peshmerga Canada is so keen on training. The air campaign provides an umbrella beneath which they can move to take back territory. In that sense it is as much for their protection as it is offensive. Though the pace of sorties so far does not compare to previous U.S.led air wars, it is having an effect. That may be why the French response to the Paris attacks, thus far, has been to dramatically escalate the pace of its airstrikes on Raqqa, ISIL’s self-styled capital.
More to the point, training infantry is no more or less martial than flying bombing runs. Though little has been revealed publicly about the current ground mission involving 69 Canadian soldiers, we do know it isn’t confined to work behind the wire, within the relative safe zone of a guarded camp. It is also not confined to training. Guiding in airstrikes is a combat function, though it may not involve physically firing a weapon. This is not less dangerous than contributing to an air war, but more so.
Ground forces require logistical support; transport, food, medical care, latrines and a relatively safe place to sleep, all typically provided by support troops who also run risks, though they may not themselves fight.
The only known Canadian casualty of this Iraq war thus far, Sgt. Andrew Doiron, was killed by friendly fire.
It seems highly unlikely, given the French president’s explicit declaration of war, that this does not end with a ground campaign involving at least some western troops. Hollande appears determined to see this to its conclusion. It’s conceivable, therefore, that Canada ends up in a situation not unlike that in Afghanistan in 2003-05, when the Canadian Forces’ ultimate contribution proved far more robust and costly than was first anticipated.
Trudeau has promised us government by ministry. He might begin by asking his defence minister, Harjit Sajjan, to make some sense of this policy.
It seems highly unlikely, given the French president’s explicit declaration of war, that this does not end with a ground campaign involving at least some western troops. Hollande appears determined to see this to its conclusion. — Michael Den Tandt Somehow … air support and ground training, are deemed to be mutually exclusive.