What exactly will Canadian troops be doing in a Middle East battle zone as U.S. President Barack Obama ramps up his war against the Islamic State jihadists who have overrun parts of Iraq and Syria? Don’t ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government for clarity. The Conservatives either don’t know or don’t want to share what they do know.

Briefing Members of Parliament this week on the decision to deploy Canadian “advisers” to Iraq, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird characterized the battle with Islamist extremism as the “greatest struggle of our generation.” Defence Minister Rob Rob Nicholson went further, calling the Islamic State “a real and growing threat to civilization itself.”

That closely echoes Washington’s views. Obama sees the Islamic State as a “cancer” and a bigger threat than Al Qaeda itself. He appealed to Americans on Wednesday night for their support targeting the jihadists, in effect opening yet another front in the war on terror that has driven U.S. policy since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat,” Obama said, vowing to wage a “steady, relentless” campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the group by relying on airstrikes and allies.

There is no denying that the Islamic State poses a threat to the Mideast and further afield. Its 10,000 or more fighters have carved out a Sunni jihadist enclave across much of northern Syria and Iraq. They preside over a “caliphate” of terror with its mass executions, crucifixions, beheadings and crimes against fellow Muslims, minorities and foreigners. Left unchecked, they will threaten neighbouring countries and may export terror.

Their outrages, notably the murder of two U.S. journalists, have Americans baying for blood and Obama is under pressure to deliver. His approval rating is just over 40 per cent, a near-low. Half the country regards his presidency as a failure, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found. Democrats are on the defensive as they head into the November midterm elections. Tagged as a vacillator, Obama is anxious to prove himself as commander-in-chief. And he is eager to press allies into service.

Given the scope of the threat, Canadians have every reason to provide the Iraqi government, Kurds and others who are fighting the Sunni jihadists with political support, military supplies and humanitarian aid. But it does not follow that we need to rush troops to the region. As the Star noted in this space on Sunday, this smacks of improvisation. And that is unsettling. Our long and costly mission in Afghanistan began by sending a few elite troops to fight Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attacks. Could history be repeating itself?

Canada is already airlifting weapons and aid, and rightly so. However, Baird and Nicholson failed to make a credible case for putting troops in harm’s way. And they shed precious little light on the woolly nature of our mission or how it meshes with others in the coalition Obama is hurriedly cobbling together.

They also refused to say how many “advisers” we are willing to commi, or for how long in a conflict that may rage for years. To indicate what they might be tasked with, beyond training. To explain why battle-hardened Kurdish forces specifically need Canadian advisers when 1,000 U.S. troops with vastly more local experience are there. To estimate what the deployment will cost. Or to indicate how the mission will be judged a success or failure.

We also don’t know whether Harper is prepared to ramp up our airlift, send Canadian weapons and munitions or step up aid.

And we can only guess at where all this might lead. To dispatching CF-18 fighter-bombers to help the U.S. bomb jihadist targets? To committing combat forces if Washington sends out the call?

Is there a coherent plan? Or is Ottawa making this up on the fly? Canadians should know. Parliament should insist on it.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: