Article content

The Conservative government’s definition of what constitutes combat is not only wrong, but ignores some of the actions of Canadian soldiers in conflicts from the Second World War to Afghanistan, say war veterans and historians.

Dealing with accusations that it misled Parliament about the role of Canadian troops in Iraq, the government has responded with its definition of a combat role.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Government's definition of combat doesn't make sense, say veterans Back to video

That, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, is only when Canadian troops advance and directly seek to attack the enemy.

“A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,” explained Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman.

The Conservatives maintain that Canadian special forces on the ground calling in airstrikes against extremist Islamist gunmen in northern Iraq are not in combat.

But some war veterans say the government doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Combat can involve advancing, retreating or remaining stationary.