How Trudeau is winning my vote

[Derek 2.0]

I think it's demonstrably false that air strikes won't greatly help the Iraqi army or Kurds in pushing back ISIL

Agreed, it will help the Iraqis/Kurds, but in the end, it will be the Iraqi army and Kurds that have to do the hard work of mucking ISIS out of the cities, towns and villages.

[Black Dog]

True enough. But if you put enough countries together then their 6 planes apiece contribution adds up to quite a few bombs and missiles.

Of course, Canada will have to actually BUY some bombs and missiles from someone...

I'd be surprised if Canada's contribution couldn't be equaled or surpassed by a single B-52.

It's pretty much a token gesture.

[Argus]

I'd be surprised if Canada's contribution couldn't be equaled or surpassed by a single B-52.

It's pretty much a token gesture.

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, the Americans, or at least this president needs such symbolic contributions for a variety of reasons. It assuages his own base who don't like the US going it alone for ideological reasons, and it appeases the right, which would otherwise be demanding to know why other countries weren't contributing.

[Derek 2.0]

True enough. But if you put enough countries together then their 6 planes apiece contribution adds up to quite a few bombs and missiles.

Of course, Canada will have to actually BUY some bombs and missiles from someone...

Our contribution, paired with the other smallish forces (Australia, Danes, Dutch, Belgium) equates to the striking power of one US carrier in the gulf…….nothing to scoff at to be sure.......by far though, our CP-140 deployment will have the most effect.

As to munitions, Canada has plenty of conventional bombs left over from the Cold War, but it’s doubtful any of the members of the coalition (outside perhaps the Arabs and British) will be using their own….The Americans have enough in the gulf and Diego Garcia to fight three wars…….It would take most coalition members months to bring their own munitions to the theatre…..

[Derek 2.0]

I'd be surprised if Canada's contribution couldn't be equaled or surpassed by a single B-52.

It's pretty much a token gesture.

Not at all, combined with the other smaller players, will equal that of a carrier battle group, allowing an equal amount of American aircraft to operate in Syria.

[Black Dog]

Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, the Americans, or at least this president needs such symbolic contributions for a variety of reasons. It assuages his own base who don't like the US going it alone for ideological reasons, and it appeases the right, which would otherwise be demanding to know why other countries weren't contributing.

Yeah, it's not exactly Realpolitik in action, is it.

[overthere]

I think it's also demonstrably true that Canada's contribution or not won't make a difference one way or another. We're as big a player in this as Denmark.

Interesting that you'd mention Denmark with Canada.

Extremely crappy analogy, by the way.

Four countries, NATO allies all, carried nearly all the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, and took ground combat roles for extended periods in tough areas.They were: US, UK, Canada and Denmark.

We WERE big players and unched well above our weight , because actual combat carries big creds in the military. So did tiny Denmark. Countries like France, Germany, Italy all know their 'mission' spent hiding in secure bases for a decade carries less than zero creds with their allies. So does a limited COMBAT role against ISIL carry exponential weight with our allies? You bet your ass it does.

[Smallc]

I think it's demonstrably false that air strikes won't greatly help the Iraqi army or Kurds in pushing back ISIL

I'm not so sure. The edge has been lost.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not so sure. The edge has been lost.

Not sure of what? Do you think air strikes will hinder Kurdish and Iraqi Army operations against ISIS?

[Smallc]

I'm not sure that jumping in at this point will have as big of an impact. I think that was the point of the interview I heard. We should have done this last week.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not sure that jumping in at this point will have as big of an impact. I think that was the point of the interview I heard. We should have done this last week.

Why? Our contribution, teamed with Australia, Denmark, the Dutch and Belgium, will allow an equal number of Americans resources to be used in Syria. Likewise, such action will limit ISIS from operating in larger formations, well reducing their ability to move between villages/towns/cities……thusly, Iraqi and Kurdish resources will be focused, with the aide of coalition training, on combating ISIS forces amongst populated areas.

[The_Squid]

Is Canada in danger of being invaded by ISIS?

I thought Iraq was good to go with their own military... Weren't the Americans there for more than a decade to make sure the Iraqis were prepared and equipped?

[waldo]

Why? Our contribution, teamed with Australia, Denmark, the Dutch and Belgium, will allow an equal number of Americans resources to be used in Syria.

just for clarification sake: what formal point of authority do you recognize as supporting the American position to bomb Syria? What formal point of authority are you presuming to leverage (your interpretation of) to support the newest "coalition of the willing" to engage in renewed bombing of Iraq?

[Black Dog]

Interesting that you'd mention Denmark with Canada.

Extremely crappy analogy, by the way.

It's not an analogy. Do you know what an analogy is?

Four countries, NATO allies all, carried nearly all the heavy lifting in Afghanistan, and took ground combat roles for extended periods in tough areas.They were: US, UK, Canada and Denmark.

We WERE big players and unched well above our weight , because actual combat carries big creds in the military. So did tiny Denmark. Countries like France, Germany, Italy all know their 'mission' spent hiding in secure bases for a decade carries less than zero creds with their allies. So does a limited COMBAT role against ISIL carry exponential weight with our allies? You bet your ass it does.

And any of this is relevant...how?

[Derek 2.0]

just for clarification sake: what formal point of authority do you recognize as supporting the American position to bomb Syria? What formal point of authority are you presuming to leverage (your interpretation of) to support the newest "coalition of the willing" to engage in renewed bombing of Iraq?

The requests of the Syrian Government (if given) and the present request of the democratically elected Government of Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I thought Iraq was good to go with their own military... Weren't the Americans there for more than a decade to make sure the Iraqis were prepared and equipped?

Sure...just like Canada did in Afghanistan...good to go !

[PIK]

Clearly you are not very well informed. Do a little homework on the war in the Congo, for example, you might actually learn something and can explain what makes ISIL so special.

He's not "my boy".

I don't need to, I know what is going on, trudeau has embarressed this country with his remarks. He shows nothing g but contempt for the armed forces , just like his father.

[waldo]

The requests of the Syrian Government (if given) and the present request of the democratically elected Government of Iraq.

of course! Oh wait... you include a covering "if given"!... cause you know Assad didn't... give! Couldn't ask for a more representative play on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Oh wait... can't forget about Iran in Iraq now, right?

so... in Syria, no UN cover, no NATO cover,... not even any "Bush Doctrine" cover... or the U.S. Congress passing a covering law! Is that why, FOR NOW, Harper Conservatives are drawing the line with Iraq?

[PIK]

Is Canada in danger of being invaded by ISIS?

I thought Iraq was good to go with their own military... Weren't the Americans there for more than a decade to make sure the Iraqis were prepared and equipped?

They left to early, huge mistake on Obama's part. Even his own former defence sec, rips him on that decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/panetta-blames-obama/index.html

[cybercoma]

I'm all for a limited and targeted intervention coupled with largely humanitarian support, emphasis on the latter. What we should not be doing is getting involved for the long haul in this mess of a war that will not end. Canada needs to rebuild its military, not destroy what precious little equipment we have left in an unwinnable conflict that isn't our mess to clean up in the first place.

Edited October 3, 2014 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

I don't need to, I know what is going on,

If you genuinely think what's happening in Iraq and Syria is particularly special, you really don't.

trudeau has embarressed this country with his remarks. He shows nothing g but contempt for the armed forces , just like his father.

jesus give it a rest.

[Derek 2.0]

of course! Oh wait... you include a covering "if given"!... cause you know Assad didn't... give! Couldn't ask for a more representative play on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Oh wait... can't forget about Iran in Iraq now, right?

so... in Syria, no UN cover, no NATO cover,... not even any "Bush Doctrine" cover... or the U.S. Congress passing a covering law! Is that why, FOR NOW, Harper Conservatives are drawing the line with Iraq?

The Americans and Arabs are, already, conducting air strikes in Syria...........As to Assad, for domestic reasons, I doubt he could ever offer a public request, but from his POV, I fail to see how this would be counter to his own interests.

Care to offer the reasoning behind the Trudeau Liberals refusal for support of limited military action……despite polling showing over 60% of Canadians favour military action to some extent? Does Quebec/the NDP factor into his stance?

[Derek 2.0]

I'm all for a limited and targeted intervention coupled with largely humanitarian support, emphasis on the latter. What we should not be doing is getting involved for the long haul in this mess of a war that will not end. Canada needs to rebuild its military, not destroy what precious little equipment we have left in an unwinnable conflict that isn't our mess to clean up in the first place.

Would you agree that the Governments plan is limited and targeted? I do agree though, we (as in the West) shouldn't, nor can win this conflict in the end with air strikes alone, as that will ultimately be up to the Iraqis/Kurds on the ground in their own country........I don't understand your concern over equipment usage, or your latter suggestion that this "mess" is unwinnable and not our fight.....versus limited intervention at the opening of your post...

[cybercoma]

Would you agree that the Governments plan is limited and targeted?

No I would not. I have no idea what the government's plan is because they're not being forthcoming with details and are making a mockery of Question Period on the matter.

[Derek 2.0]

No I would not. I have no idea what the government's plan is because they're not being forthcoming with details and are making a mockery of Question Period on the matter.

What would you define as limited and targeted?