• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

Federal parties would do well to avoid politicizing death of Canadian soldier
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/08/michael-den-tandt-federal-parties-would-do-well-to-avoid-politicizing-death-of-canadian-soldier/
Michael Den Tandt | March 8, 2015

It would be a comfort indeed if Canada’s political class, setting aside partisanship as they’ve so often said they’d like to do, were to avoid crassly transforming the death of Sgt. Andrew Joseph Doiron in Iraq, apparently by “friendly” fire, into a political football. It would be a comfort but it is not at all likely. In an election year the temptation for all three federal parties to politicize this, and other casualties that may follow, will be nigh irresistible. That is lamentable.

Sgt. Doiron, and other Canadian Forces members waging war on Canada’s behalf against the Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham, deserve better than the misguided, hypocritical and often ignorant jaw-boning that characterized the early debate in Ottawa over the Afghan mission, as casualties there began to mount.

To start, we may as well cut straight to it: Were Sgt. Doiron’s death and the injuries of three of his fellow soldiers the result of a combat mission, or mere training? This will inevitably be the axis of political discussion, just as it was in the Afghan war debates between 2006 and 2009. Now, as so often back then, the answer is this: Of course it’s combat, and of course, based on the mission parameters, it’s training. It can be both. It often is.

Axis Number Two: Since Sgt. Doiron’s death is being put down to a tragic misunderstanding, whose fault was it? In the wake of reports Sunday that the Kurdish Peshmerga have blamed the Canadians for disobeying an instruction to remain in their car, this will become the next political question of the hour. Are Canadian special forces soldiers properly trained for their mission? Did they have clear rules of engagement? As is customary, Monday-morning quarterbacking from the Opposition benches will be carefully veiled in assurances that these are merely questions being raised on our soldiers’ behalf, for their own protection. Whereas the Conservative government will treat any and all Opposition questions about the mission as expressions of surly disloyalty to the troops, if not outright sympathy for the enemy.
More on link
 
Rider Pride said:
You are incorrect in your assumption. There are clearly defined front lines in that region.


Complete and utter bull crap.

You have a source to back up your comment?
 
A Rare Interview with a Canadian Commander Fighting the Islamic State

http://www.vice.com/read/vice-speaks-to-a-canadian-commander-fighting-isis-in-iraq-273

If Canada's CF-18 Hornet fighter jets are the muscle in the nation's war against the Islamic State, then its CP-140 Auroras are the eyes and ears.

The high-tech surveillance aircraft are arguably the most advanced manned reconnaissance aircraft in the world, and they're Canada's secret weapon in outsmarting the Islamic State's evolving tactics.

VICE reached the Long-Range Patrol Detachment Commander—the man responsible for the Auroras—from his base in Kuwait. For security concerns, VICE was not provided with the commander's name.

The commander spoke with VICE the morning before Sergeant Andrew Dorion was killed in action after Kurdish soldiers accidentally opened fire on his unit in northern Iraq.

Dorion was in Iraq as a special forces advisor to the Kurdish Peshmerga. The Aurora commander is part of the airborne portion of Operation IMPACT—code for Canada's operation against the Islamic State—which is doing the intelligence work behind the bombing campaign.

As part of IMPACT, Canada has contributed seven CF-18s to the bombing campaign against the Islamic State, as well as two of the CP-140s and three other support aircraft. Canada has also sent 69 advisors, including Dorion.

The commander painted a picture of high morale and optimism in Kuwait, where the pilots and crew for the aircraft are stationed. That mood has no doubt been dampened by the friendly fire death on Friday night.

Notwithstanding the accident, the commander underscored the successes of the mission.

Criticism had been levied at the mission from the opposition NDP and Liberals, who've said that the mission is ineffective and have accused the governing Conservatives of jumping into a mission without a plan. They've argued that the Islamic State's evolving tactics mean airstrikes are of marginal effect, pointing out that Canada's CF-18s have dropped relatively few bombs.

"Are we in danger of being ineffective in a very short period of time?" asked NDP defense critic Jack Harris in a Parliamentary committee in November.

The Aurora commander says it's quite the opposite. One of the main purposes of the high-tech aircrafts is to monitor the Islamic State's movements and help develop counter-tactics to outsmart the versatile fighting force.

While he says it's obviously a challenge, the Auroras are being used to track vehicle movements through the long stretch of desert, and can help discern whether it's a local merchant, or an Islamic State convey posing as one.

"It's striking that right balance between surveillance and reconnaissance that really makes the difference in actually countering these sort of tactics," he says.

That sort of utility can be of great use to the Iraqis, Kurds, and coalition forces on the ground.

"Mostly what we'll do is we'll collect information from a variety of different sensors from the platform and provide it in as near real time as possible and from there it will be synthesized with a lot of other information from other platforms," he says. That cocktail of intelligence is mixed by the coalition, and can then be shared with forces on the ground.

The commander couldn't get too far into the specifics of the aircraft, what sort of data is being collected, or exactly what coalition's changing tactics are—it is, after all, an ongoing war—but he did provide context about Canada's contribution with the mission. An interview with media from the theater is an incredibly rare occurrence.

The commander also gave a sense of the personal aspects of being deployed—the food, the facilities, and connecting back home.

Evidence of the fact that he's been pretty far removed from his life back home, the commander bragged that the base has all the latest movies, such as the latest installment of the Hunger Games franchise (five months old) or the last of the Hobbit series (four months.)

"Maybe they're not the latest anymore," the commander adds on reflection. "I haven't been back in Canada."

He does have internet access, though, which means he can see his wife and kids via Facetime every few days. That's a good boost to morale for everyone.

"I'll be honest, it's been remarkably smooth sailing because there has been such good support here," he says.

The commander still isn't sure if he'll be in Kuwait for another six months, but most signs indicate that Defence Minister Jason Kenney plans to extend Operation IMPACT beyond its current mandate, which ends on April 7.

While communications between Canada and the base in Kuwait are quite good—VICE has been in touch with Canadian Forces personnel on base for weeks—they're not perfect. The interview ended abruptly when the commander's satellite connection cut out.

VICE: What's the day-to-day like, over there?
Commander: Every single day, except for planned maintenance days, we launch the Auroras on a mission. While the time of day varies, the whole idea is that we try to provide the capabilities that the coalition needs, when they need it. So every single day we launch a mission. It means long days for the air crews, and for the ground crews that are preparing the mission—typically the air crews are going to work an 18-hour day. That's not just the flying, that's everything that goes into it. They tend to work themselves pretty hard.

What role are the Auroras playing in the coalition?
The Auroras are a surveillance and reconnaissance platform, so they can be used on a wide variety of tasks: everything from being at the cold face of a fight, so to speak, to where you're actually supporting people on the ground, to reconnaissance operations where you're looking for where the fight will be, not so much today, but tomorrow, the next day, maybe a month out. You'll spend a lot of time assigned to an area, where you'll be given a list of objects or points of interest to observe, but then we'll also get a certain amount of freedom based on our training that allow us to, if something of interest comes along or if we see something out of the ordinary while we're out there, to pursue that as a lead, to gather more information and then report that back. The missions vary quite a bit. Sometimes, you go out and mow the lawn—you go and watch points that you've been to before to develop a better sense of what is going on—and at other times you're being more dynamically employed to look at very specific things that might be time sensitive, and you need to get there and do your job at a prescribed time. It's a wide variety of things, but it's very rewarding work when you do it.

How unique are the Auroras?
The big thing that the Aurora brings to the table is that it's a manned platform. There's always a requirement for both a manned and unmanned platforms—coalition members have both of those platforms in theater. The value of the Aurora, in being a manned platform, brings is that it allows you to then go out to an area that's difficult and react really quickly. As a bigger platform, it has bigger engines, it's much more robust, and you can fly a lot faster from one area to another to be more reactive and responsive. On top of that, the Auroras have gone through their upgrades in the last couple of years. We actually have absolutely cutting-edge equipment onboard the Aurora right now and I would argue, from my perspective, we are one of the best equipped assets here to do a surveillance mission. I would easily put us on par with any of our coalition assets out here.

What sort of data are you actually collecting in these missions?
The Aurora has a wide variety of sensors, some of which are recently upgraded, as part of our upgrade program. Everything from highly complex imaging radar systems to electro-optical systems that allow you to view objects from a great distance away at day and night, to other systems that collect electronic emissions across a broad spectrum that allow us to then, from there, be able to actually create a picture of what's happening on the ground, either with an actual camera-type picture, or with a radar image that allow us to look right through clouds. Once we synthesize all that information together, even aboard the aircraft, you can create a really good picture of what's happening, whether you can actually see the object with the camera, or if it's with a radar or you're actually listening in to the electronic emissions that are coming from it.

How do the Auroras reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties or collateral damage?
One of the key tasks that we'll be assigned is that we'll go out and we'll look at points of interest. Sometimes, for those points of interest, we're looking at developing a really solid understanding of the pattern of life that's around that object so that you can better determine whether or not it's actually a target of interest, and when you might prosecute a strike on it both to achieve your objectives and also to minimize collateral damage. So I can think of several missions that I've personally been on, where we've spent hours circling a target of interest—getting a feel for the traffic flow for a targeted area, the number of people walking around, the activity in and around buildings or whole towns—in order to better understand what's going on. And that can be quite a laborious process, and quite time-consuming, because if you don't fully understand everything that's going on in the vicinity of a potential target, you potentially expose yourself to having unintended consequences. So that's where the Aurora pays its dividends, because we really have the ability to linger over an area for a long periods of time and go back to it on a repeated basis and help develop that pattern of life.

What sort of challenges are posed by the landscape?
The predominant challenge that we experience now is that the characters of the battle space have changed even since Canadians arrived. Last summer when the Islamic State was moving in large formations it was very much a conventional warfare battle space. You had large troop movements, large movements of equipment. In large part due to the coalition presence of airpower, that has forced the Islamic State to change their tactics. They no longer move in these large groups, they have to be much more cagey about what they do. And that's ultimately the challenge. They now go to great lengths to mix what they do with the local population, to try to confuse us and make it difficult to ascertain whether something is enemy or neutral or even friendly, for that matter. They're spending most of their time moving in smaller groups making and concealing their activities in and around large population centers, so they can make it the most difficult for us. That's the predominant challenge.

Couple that with the fact that the population centers in Iraq are sometimes distributed sometimes across large open desert. So you have some spaces, especially along the river, where there are lots and lots of population. But then there are parts out in the middle of the desert where there are towns that have developed along trading routes. So you can actually have trucks in the middle of the desert driving from one town to the other. It can be quite difficult to determine, sometimes, whether that truck driving through the desert just happens to be a local merchant driving from one supply point to a local town that he services, or whether that's something of interest—the Islamic State has adjusted their tactics to mimic those local movements, which makes it a challenge. So you have to go linger in an area to gain lots of information but also be able to go wide ranging in order to cover a wide area of space.

In a personal sense, what's it like on-base out there?
It's a very well-appointed base that we have here. We've done a fairly remarkable job in making it comfortable for the folks that are here. Everyday I have access to gym facilities, both right where the Canadians are, plus shared facilities where we have other coalition partners that we work alongside. We probably have more food than we should have, which means on a daily basis we have to encourage guys to get out to the gym. The mess hall we have here is actually quite outstanding. It is a menu that rotates every two weeks, but hey, you can get crab legs every two weeks, so that's not half bad.

But is there a Tim Hortons?
There isn't a Tim Hortons, but there is a chain of coffee shops you can go to that are here. They produce a Starbucks-like cup of coffee. We have had the odd Timmies run. In fact, I think just yesterday, the senior leadership organized a Timmies run from the local Tim Hortons in Kuwait City, which was a huge boost to morale for everybody. I think the last one that we had was on Christmas Day. Both were extraordinarily well-attended by people and there were far more donuts and coffee that we could shake a stick at. It's been very good.


Are you hunkered down for the long haul?
Certainly the Auroras have always been ready to deploy. It's one of our standing tasks: always be ready to deploy internationally. Back home, that's the job I have: commanding a squadron to make sure that that happens. So we are ready to go, if the government decides to extend the mission. What it really comes down to, is that when the government makes its decision, we always have prudent plans in place to react to whatever decision that they come up with. We give them options, they make the decision.

What sort of preparations need to be made if your mission is extended?
I think the big thing is helping the families of those who have to come back for future deployments. Obviously, as with any military, you have a limited pool of people. In the Aurora community, we've had quite a number of folks who've been exposed to theater, who've been on deployment here. The longer we go on, the better the chance that we'll have to start bringing people back to theater, which would be considered a normal thing. This is ultimately the job people people train for.

This interview has been edited for style, clarity, and length.
 
In addition to the Kurdish investigation, the Iraqi Government has committed to look into the friendly fire incident:
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Tuesday spoke to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and promised that Baghdad would investigate the killing of a Canadian soldier in a “friendly fire” incident with Peshmerga forces.

Last week on the Bashiqa frontline, north of Mosul, Peshmerga forces shot and killed the Canadian soldier and wounded three more.

According to a statement released by the Iraqi PM’s office on Tuesday, Abadi called Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to offer his condolences over the death of Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron.

Abadi also wished the three injured Canadian Special Operations Forces soldiers a speedy recovery.

Abadi promised his government would investigate the case. By establishing the truth, he said, nothing like it should happen again ....
 
Sorry folks, I've totally lost my religion where this mission is concerned. I'm not in the military anymore so I don't feel I have to be silent where government policy is concerned. Western intervention in the Middle East has caused nothing but chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. and this goes back as far as the First World War era and you all know it. Canada has no strategic interest in this conflict and we have no particular strategy apart from tagging along with the rest of the "coalition" in this ill-defined effort to "degrade" ISIS. ISIS is as evil as it gets, yes, but they're no more evil than Saudi Arabia and we never stop kissing the Saudi royal family's rear end, eg. when the king died no fewer than TWENTY U.S. officials attended the funeral. SA have beheaded more people in the last three months than ISIS. If our government said "We are in Iraq to help defend Kurdistan. Period." I would support that mission because these people somehow miraculously are culturally immune from the usual Islamic tribal conflict of most of the region, and actually seem to WANT a modern democratic and pluralist society. But that's not why we're there. Why are we there? We need to get out of there because we are not going to achieve any kind of positive outcome (look at Libya, come on honestly) and we're just delaying the inevitable, i.e. these people killing each other until they get tired of it and they've settled all their ethnic and Sunni-Shia issues.
 
Pencil Tech said:
Sorry folks, I've totally lost my religion where this mission is concerned. I'm not in the military anymore so I don't feel I have to be silent where government policy is concerned. Western intervention in the Middle East has caused nothing but chaos in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. and this goes back as far as the First World War era and you all know it. Agreed  Canada has no strategic interest in this conflict and we have no particular strategy apart from tagging along with the rest of the "coalition" in this ill-defined effort to "degrade" ISIS.  Disagree: we do have an "interest," it is to show active support for the USA. Many Canadians may not like it but "doing our share" is a cornerstone of our foreign policy; so is accepting US 'leadership,' even (maybe especially) when it is suspect. ISIS is as evil as it gets, yes, but they're no more evil than Saudi Arabia and we never stop kissing the Saudi royal family's rear end, eg. when the king died no fewer than TWENTY U.S. officials attended the funeral. SA have beheaded more people in the last three months than ISIS.  Agreed!!! If our government said "We are in Iraq to help defend Kurdistan. Period." I would support that mission because these people somehow miraculously are culturally immune from the usual Islamic tribal conflict of most of the region, and actually seem to WANT a modern democratic and pluralist society. But that's not why we're there. Why are we there?  I repeat: we're there to support the USA, even when it's flailing about like a blind, mindless, gigantic bull in a china shop.  We need to get out of there because we are not going to achieve any kind of positive outcome  Agreed (look at Libya, come on honestly) and we're just delaying the inevitable, i.e. these people killing each other until they get tired of it and they've settled all their ethnic and Sunni-Shia issues. Agreed, again
 
Mr. Campbell, I get your point. It may be that supporting the US is ultimately in our stategic interests, to the point that it overrides all other concerns, but what if the US were completely isolationist, and non-interventionist with regard to anything happening in the world? Would that mean that we should also then be completely isolationist? Or would we have to go looking for another leader to follow, rather than having an independent foreign policy?
 
I personally am having a hard time accepting that Canadian soldiers were shot to pieces just so we can be seen to supporting the USA. We do have our own interests in that region now, namely that it seems to be a place where some young Canadians who have become deranged have decided to fight for religion and kill innocent people on the streets of Iraq, Syria, and Canada. The war is also here, now.

Even if the US was to pull away from the region, would we not at least have some consideration about the foregoing?  Do we stand for nothing but supporting the interests of a self indulgent nation to our south that is suffering from a severe case of ADD and memory lapse? I think not, I hope not, I will not.
 
A lot of articles today with a headline that MND has denied the Canadian contingent in Iraq will grow, but the details in the narrative seem to suggest he only denied the possibility of an increased CANSOF contingent.  Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister hints that our future involvement in Iraq may have similarities to Afghanistan.  It seems pretty clear that he is talking about foreign aid investment.  But lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good rumour.  Clearly, the ministers are trying to tell us that the Canadian Army will step foot into Iraq as the dominante Canadian presence and likely filling a role akin to the Kabul training mission but possibly even a Kandahar like OMLT.

... and, no - I don't really suspect any of that.  There is nothing to actually support such a conclusion at this time.  That does not seem to stop opposition from hinting at such possiblity.
Kenney denies plan to boost force in Iraq
Lee Berthiaume
Ottawa Citizen
12 Mar 2015

The government isn't planning to increase the number of special forces advisers in Iraq, Defence Minister Jason Kenney said Wednesday while sidestepping questions about a tweet some allege was intentionally misleading and intended to bolster support for the mission.

The Citizen reported this week military officers are expecting the government to extend the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) past April, and an expansion of the training contribution is possible.

But Kenney poured cold water on those prospects during an appearance before the Commons defence committee Wednesday, saying: "We certainly have no intention of increasing the number of (special operations troops) in the region."

Canada deployed 69 commandos to northern Iraq in September to help train Kurdish forces in their fight against ISIL. One of those soldiers, Sgt. Andrew Doiron, was

killed and three others were injured when the Kurds opened fire on them near the front lines in a friendly fire incident Friday night.

Kenney said the government is not anticipating more casualties, but he added that the advisory mission isn't without risk.

The six-month advisory mission and Canada's involvement in the U.S.-led bombing campaign against ISIL are scheduled to expire on April 7. Kenney said the government hasn't decided whether to renew the mission, but he promised MPs will be asked to vote on an extension if it is proposed.

Meanwhile, Kenney was unapologetic after tweeting a picture he suggested was of Muslim women put in chains by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), but which was actually from a ceremony that re-enacts the persecution of the prophet Muhammad's family.

During the committee appearance, Kenney was asked about the photo amid opposition suggestions that such a tweet was unbecoming of a Canadian Defence minister.

"Shouldn't the public of Canada really expect when a minister of Defence communicates (by Twitter) that it will be based in reality, not on the basis of some mistaken understanding of what's going on in other parts of the world?" NDP defence critic Jack Harris asked.

"Would you be prepared to refrain from this kind of offensive and erroneous propaganda attempts in the future?" Harris added.

"Should the minister of National Defence not ensure that communications such as on social media are accurate?" Kenney replied. "Absolutely."

But rather than apologize, Kenney instead listed the numerous ways ISIL has trampled and violated the rights of women, children and religious minorities in Iraq, Syria and the surrounding region.

"One of the most important reasons for our Operation Impact is to protect the innocent, including women and children, from the sexual slavery and human trafficking of ISIL, which was the point (of the tweet)," he said, using the military's name for Canada's mission in Iraq.

"I stand by that message on International Women's Day, which is, we are there in part to defend the women and children of Iraq."

Kenney previously refused to apologize after his office was implicated in faking a citizenship reaffirmation ceremony for television when he was Immigration minister in 2011. There have also been questions about his decision to allow the release of photos potentially identifying Canadian special forces troops in Iraq.

Canada’s role in Iraq could mirror Afghanistan, foreign minister says
Kim Mackrael
The Globe and Mail
05 Mar 2015

Ottawa — Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson says Canada’s longer-term role in Iraq could mirror its assistance to Afghanistan as the Conservative government prepares for a possible extension to a combat mission that is due to expire next month.

Mr. Nicholson, who made a covert stop in Baghdad and Erbil earlier this week, said the government will determine in the coming weeks whether to continue Canada’s military contribution to the fight against Islamic State militants. The Conservative government has signalled its interest in extending the mission beyond its six-month mandate, but has not announced a decision to do so.

“Our mandate is until April 7, but we’ve indicated that Canada is not a country that stands on the sidelines, and we’re looking at ways that we have contributed and what is available for the future,” Mr. Nicholson said in a conference call from Jordan on Thursday. “As I say, I indicated that we’re in this for the longer term to make sure that we do what we can to help.”

Asked to explain what he meant by a longer-term commitment, Mr. Nicholson suggested Ottawa would take a similar approach in Iraq to the one it had in Afghanistan by continuing to provide assistance to the country over a longer period.

“Being in this for the long term – it’s similar to what we did in Afghanistan, for instance,” Mr. Nicholson said. “We were in Afghanistan, but we indicated that we would continue our assistance, and we have, in Afghanistan.”

The Canadian military mission to Afghanistan lasted 12 years, and Ottawa spent more than $2-billion on development assistance to the country during that time. Afghanistan remained among Canada’s top foreign-aid recipients after the mission ended.

“It’s not just military, it has to be a bigger picture in terms of what the solutions are,” Mr. Nicholson said. He pointed out that Canada has donated more than $100-million in humanitarian assistance to the region, and said: “This is going to continue.”

Canada’s military contribution to the fight against Islamic State militants includes six fighter planes, two surveillance aircraft and an aerial refuelling tanker. In addition, 69 special forces soldiers are assisting Iraqi security forces on the ground in northern Iraq.

The Canadian military has already begun training troops to ensure they are prepared for a possible extension, said Royal Canadian Navy Captain Paul Forget of Canadian Joint Operations Command.

“That planning’s been in the works for some time,” he said during a briefing on the mission on Thursday afternoon. “The personnel have been identified, the pre-deployment training has been put into place to ensure that those personnel are ready for the challenges that lie ahead should the mandate be announced for an extension.”

Captain Forget said the military is also ready to bring soldiers back to Canada should the government decide not to extend the mission.

Tony Battista, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations , said it would be difficult to imagine the Canadian government walking away from the mission in Iraq at this point.

In addition to continued participation in coalition airstrikes, he said Ottawa could consider providing more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assistance as well as medical and logistical support. The government could also consider a modest increase in the number of special forces troops now serving in Iraq, he added.

Mr. Nicholson’s comments are not the first to suggest Ottawa is looking to lengthen the mission. Last month, Defence Minister Jason Kenney said the government is inclined to maintain a “meaningful role” in the fight and pointed to broad public support for the current deployment.

During his trip to Iraq, Mr. Nicholson met with Iraq’s Foreign Minister, its Prime Minister and the speaker of Iraq’s Council of Representatives. He met with the President of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Masoud Barzani, in Erbil, and with Canadian soldiers who are in the region.

Mr. Nicholson also held meetings this week with the foreign ministers of France and the United Arab Emirates and with the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Jordan, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said he was disturbed by Mr. Nicholson’s comments about remaining involved in Iraq for the longer term and by the comparison the minister drew to Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

“These kinds of comments seem to indicate that Canadians should watch out for the kind of open-ended commitment that we’ve seen in Afghanistan,” he said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/foreign-affairs-minister-nicholson-to-speak-about-secret-trip-to-iraq/article23305564/
 
Get ready for another 12 months in Kuiwait, Iraq and maybe Syria.

ISIS mission: Canada extension could signal year-long commitment
Current mission to Iraq expires in April, but could possibly expand to Syria

Murray Brewster
CBC News
16 Mar 2015

The federal cabinet is poised to decide on extending the combat mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and should it be approved, several defence sources say it likely would involve a commitment of more than six months, possibly up to a year.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney wouldn't indicate on Monday which way the debate is going, but said a verdict will come in the very near future and that "we're considering various options."

He said it is a matter of looking at what meaningful contribution Canada can make to degrading the capability of extremists to wage their bloody campaign.

Kenney and other senior Conservatives have dropped broad hints for weeks that the threat posed by extremists in Iraq and Syria is not something that should be left unchecked by Canada — or its allies.

The parliamentary mandate of the existing mission is to expire within the next few weeks.
The question of duration for an extended commitment is simply a political calculation, one source said.

An extension of six months would require another evaluation and renewal in October at time when the government is expected to be campaigning for re-election.

The Harper cabinet doesn't need Parliament to authorize a renewed commitment at any time, but the Conservatives have sought all-party support in the House of Commons for such missions, even if they have rarely received it.

Kenney dampened speculation last week that the government would authorize an increase in the number of special forces troops, who are providing Kurdish Peshmerga fighters with training and assistance, including the guiding of air strikes.

It's unclear whether cabinet would consider changing the scope of how the elite soldiers carry out their mission by authorizing offensive operations and commando-style raids into Islamic State territory.

Kenney was circumspect when asked about it last week.

The air force has six CF-18 jets bombing Islamic State targets along with two surveillance planes and an aerial tanker operating out of bases in Kuwait. The warplanes have been limited to targets in Iraq.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said his party would oppose any continuation of the mission that involved bombing raids into Syria, which he said would put Canada alongside Bashar al-Assad's regime.

"Of course, you're dealing with a very cruel dictatorship in that country and before putting our brave men and women in uniform at the beck and call of someone of that ilk, we'd really have to know what we're doing."

Defence analysts have said any potential Canadian extension would most likely resemble U.S. President Barack Obama's war resolution before the U.S. Congress, which removes geographic limits and softens the language about the employment of American combat troops.

Like Canada, the U.S. originally ruled out putting "boots on the ground" in the form of conventional combat forces.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/isis-mission-canada-extension-could-signal-year-long-commitment-1.2997425
 
CTV has posted a short item on the National Newswatch site to the effect that PM Harper has announced that next week Parliament will be asked to extend the mission for a year.
 
Old Sweat said:
CTV has posted a short item on the National Newswatch site to the effect that PM Harper has announced that next week Parliament will be asked to extend the mission for a year.
A bit more on that ....
The federal government will seek Parliament’s approval to extend and expand Canada’s mission against Islamic State militants in Iraq, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday.

Harper said he will put a motion before MPs when the House returns next week.

“Next week, it is the government’s plan to move forward with a request from Parliament for extension and expansion of the mission,” Harper told reporters while making a separate trade announcement in Mississauga, Ont.

Asked whether the mission would be expanded into Syria, Harper said he would “address those issues” when putting forward his proposal.

“The current authorization laid open the possibility of going into Syria, though we have not done that,” Harper said.

The mandate for Canada’s six-month mission to Iraq is set to expire on April 7, and the government had previously indicated that it would seek Parliament’s approval for an extension ....
 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page

First half of March appears to have proven  fruitful.
 
And here's the wording of the motion The Canadian Press is sharing:
That, whereas
(i) the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has repeatedly called on its members to target Canada and Canadians at home and abroad;

(ii) ISIL poses a clear and active threat to the people of the Middle East, including members of vulnerable religious and ethnic minority groups who have been subjected to a brutal and barbaric campaign of sexual violence, murder, and intimidation by ISIL;

(iii) unless confronted with strong and direct force, the threat that ISIL poses to Canada and to international peace and security, will grow;

(iv) Canada desires, consistent with Canadian values and interests, to protect the vulnerable and innocent civilians of the region, including through urgent humanitarian assistance;

(v) the Government of Iraq has requested military support against ISIL from members of the international community, including from the Government of Canada;

(vi) Canada is part of a broader international coalition of allies and partners, including numerous countries of the Middle East, committed to the fight against ISIL;

(vii) the United Nations Security Council remains seized of the threat posed by international terrorism with the unanimous passage of the United Nations Security Council resolution 2178;

(viii) the deployment of Royal Canadian Air Force assets has played an important role in degrading, destabilising, and weakening ISIL's position and operations in the region;

(ix) the advise and assist mission of the Canadian Special Operations Forces in Northern Iraq has increased the capabilities of Kurdish-Iraqi Security Forces to combat ISIL; and

(x) continuing to degrade ISIL will require striking its operations and infrastructure where they are located, including in Syria;

Accordingly, this House

(a) continues to support the Government's decision to contribute Canadian military assets to the fight against ISIL, and terrorists aligned with ISIL, including air strike capability with authorization to conduct airstrikes in Iraq and Syria;

(b) supports the Government's decision to extend the mission to a date not beyond March 30, 2016;

(c) notes that the Government continues not to deploy troops in a ground combat role; and

(d) offers its resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for all of us.
 
I am surprised this bit was written as such:
Accordingly, this House

...

(c) notes that the Government continues not to deploy troops in a ground combat role;

...
It is still technically true (as it was when combat vs combat role first consumed the attention of media and Parlaimentarians), but it risks distracting discussion from substance to semantics (again).
 
Back
Top