For most of the 21st century to date, Canada’s armed forces have been fighting wars. That’s longer than the two world wars combined.

Back in October we jumped in again, in Iraq. Next up: Syria. Few were surprised when the Conservative government formally introduced a motion in Parliament this week to extend and expand Canada’s campaign to defeat the Islamic State, the second extension of what was to be a 30-day “advise and assist” mission.

The motion wasn’t extraordinary; the outcome could be. Are we really clear about what we’re doing?

Following the pattern of previous governments, the Conservative government often characterizes our conflicts as wars – yet Canada has not issued a declaration of war since the Second World War. Rather, we have been caught in an interminable series of “engagements” or “operations”.

Afghanistan started as a special-ops action for Canada and very quickly blew up into a full-scale military conflict. Like Iraq, the Afghan war was led by the United States and initially relied extensively on local ground forces. It was never sanctioned by the United Nations and we were two years into the fighting before NATO assumed operational command.

The Conservatives are quick to point out that the parallels to Afghanistan are invalid, citing differences in scale and scope. What they don’t say is that the Afghan war, like most wars in the 21st century, started small and the Canadian campaign didn’t greatly expand until we were more than five years in.

There is, however, one clear difference between how the Afghan war began and how the Islamic State campaign commenced. In Afghanistan, we had a clear objective. In Iraq — and now Syria — the target is anything but clear.

We paid a very high price for Afghanistan: 162 dead, more than 2,000 injured and billions of dollars spent. We endured the third highest number of military deaths and the highest per-capita casualty rate out of all the allied forces there. In the end, we killed some very dangerous people and got rid of one terrorist-sponsoring government.

But the Taliban still exists. Are Canada’s borders any more secure as a result? Are we any better prepared to defend our territorial sovereignty or our natural resources after spending over $18 billion?

Does the Islamic State pose an existential security threat to Canada? If so, there should be no ambiguity in terms of our objectives. But this is a war without a plan — unless the plan is to win the next election. Does the Islamic State pose an existential security threat to Canada? If so, there should be no ambiguity in terms of our objectives. But this is a war without a plan — unless the plan is to win the next election.

You can ask the very same questions of this current mission. Has six months of sustained bombing improved our domestic security? Has it diminished Islamic State’s recruitment appeal for disenfranchised or radicalized Canadians? Have our military veterans’ lives been improved by the government’s decision to embark on another war before they’ve paid for the last one?

In advance of this week’s motion, Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson spoke to a group of diplomats representing the anti-IS coalition. He cited the “moral clarity” of his government’s decision to extend the military mission to “degrade” the threat posed by Islamic State. Prime Minister Harper also spoke about destabilizing and degrading IS’s capabilities. It was only after the PM’s speech in Parliament that, while speaking to the media, Defence Minister Jason Kenney stated the ultimate objective was to defeat Islamic State.

The military cemeteries are filled with dead soldiers who could have told you that moral clarity is no substitute for a clear strategy. No one questions the fact that Islamic State is a vicious, depraved group of killers — but the depravity of the foe is not the benchmark for sending our people to war. If it were, we’d have troops fighting in half a dozen places around the world right now.

Does the Islamic State pose an existential security threat to Canada? If so, there should be no ambiguity in terms of our objectives. But this is a war without a plan — unless the plan is to win the next election.

Extending the bombing campaign is a safe move for Harper, while putting “boots on the ground” in the region would be political kryptonite. But if we’re really serious about destroying IS’s ability to wage war and capture territory, at some point we must be prepared to send ground troops in sufficient numbers — and with a clear military objective.

Most Canadians – opposition parties included – support our armed forces. And the Conservatives have done a masterful job of conflating opposition to any combat mission with opposition to the troops. So it’s scarcely a wonder that most Canadians have indicated their support for extending the mission.

Given what the polls are saying now, many predicted the Liberals would vote for the mission extension. That would have been political poison for Mr. Trudeau, given how it would have clashed with their previous opposition to the mission while bringing the Liberals even deeper into the Conservative orbit. And opposing the extension deflects some of the damage done to the Liberal brand by Trudeau’s support for C-51 — giving cover to progressive Liberals who otherwise might have stayed home on Election Day.

Tom Mulcair’s position is more awkward. Sure, his solid opposition to the mission extension might solidify some support in Quebec and with urban progressives in Ontario. But his principled stand could actually cost him blue-collar votes in rural and northern Ontario and the Prairies.

The logic behind this mission may be clear — morally and politically — to the Conservatives. But we don’t know what it’ll cost us, any more than we know how our objectives (whatever they may be) will be achieved.

Here’s what we do know: The price, whatever it is, will be paid by the dedicated women and men of our armed forces. We need to be sure the goal is worth the cost.

Geoffrey Hall is a political consultant and writer. Over three decades he has worked with, advised or ghostwritten for some of Canada’s leading progressive voices, including Jack Layton, Bob Rae, Alexa McDonough and Audrey McLaughlin. In 2014 he left the Hill after nearly 15 years of writing for and advising several NDP Members of Parliament. [email protected]

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.