Article content continued

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

Mr. Nicholson’s Thursday speech revealed a clear desire to prevent a recurrence. “In the territory [ISIS] has occupied, it has conducted a campaign of unspeakable atrocities against the most innocent of people. It has tortured and beheaded children. It has raped and sold women into slavery. It has slaughtered minorities, taken prisoners, innocent civilians whose only crime is being or thinking differently from [ISIS]. That, in part, is why we have deployed effective military resources to the region, even as we deliver humanitarian aid with the help of our international partners.”

The corollary to the humanitarian case, as noted by Jean-Christophe Boucher, Philippe Lagasse and Justin Massie in the National Post last week, is that this mission does not come close to the Afghan effort in terms of scope, expense or risk. If the dangers were to suddenly grow — say, via a big increase in the size of the ground contingent — then public concern could rise. But a large ground deployment, the government has made abundantly clear, is not in the cards.

Finally, not inconsequentially, there’s this: ISIS depravity and butchery make even the Taliban look mild by comparison, if such a thing is possible. The question facing the Liberals and New Democrats this week, as they search for a hole in the government’s armour, is stark: If not this mission, then what? Deploy more? Deploy fewer, or none? To suggest Canada should not participate at all, when the centre-left-leaning governments of the United States and France are out front, is not credible. No Canadian government, not even one run by the NDP, could justify total isolationism, under present circumstances. Nor is it credible to say humanitarian work can take place in a war zone, without armed protection. So, what would the Opposition do differently?