Article content continued

Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman, said in an email Monday the bulk of the special forces work is taking place away from the front lines, and that “a combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly. That is not the case with this mission.”

While the October resolution is not legally binding, the government has committed to no troops on the ground. And yet, by the military’s own admission, troops are not only on the ground, they are involved in firefights with the enemy.

The incongruity stems from the shadowy nature of our special forces’ mandate. We knew there were 69 special operations members in Iraq. We didn’t know what they were doing — quite frankly, it’s a shock to be told as much as we have been. But most informed observers assumed they were acting as frontline combat advisors to Kurdish and Iraqi forces, as well as providing reconnaissance for the air mission. This is still a long way from our experience in Afghanistan.

But there are signs that is the direction in which we may be going.

Lt.-Gen. Vance said ISIS’s advance has been halted but not defeated. A “large-scale reversal” has yet to occur, he said, and the unspoken coda is that that won’t happen without the intervention of ground troops.

He said the Forces are prepared, and preparing, to extend the mission, if they are asked to do so by Parliament.

The government has said it will return to the House of Commons to gain its support at the end of the six month period this spring, though it has no legal obligation to do so.