CANADA’S TOP SOLDIER CAUGHT UP IN WAR OF WORDS
Canada’s top soldier rode to the Liberal government’s defence on Friday, saying “I’m the expert on what is combat,” and telling those who are uncomfortable with his definition: “Too bad.”
While the Liberals promised during the election to end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq and Syria, they have struggled to explain why the new role shouldn’ t be considered combat given that Canadian troops are with Kurdish forces on the front lines, calling in air strikes, and have helped fight off at least one major ISIL attack.
Speaking at a major defence conference Friday, Gen. Jonathan Vance t old military officers, industry insiders and foreign officials that the type of mission Canada is undertaking in Iraq is relatively new, which has led to confusion around how to “pigeonhole it.”
Vance acknowledged that Canadian troops are operating in a theatre of war, and that Canada is“a hostile party to an armed conflict.” He also said t here will be times when Canadian troops are required to fight the forces of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant to defend themselves and their Kurdish allies.
But he said Canadian troops were also forced to defend themselves, and in some cases had died, in previous peacekeeping missions .“We don’t in that context fall in the trap of trying to somehow describe it as something other than a peace support operation,” he said.
The bottom line, Vance concluded, is that a combat mission is defined by Canadian troops actively attacking and fighting the enemy. “That would be clas- sically described as a combat mission,” he said. “In t his case, some people may be uncomfortable with the lexicon, but that’s too bad.”
A war of words has been f ought over whether Canadian soldiers are in combat in Iraq since the beginning of the mission. The Liberals themselves accused the Conservative government of lying about it being noncombat after revelations last year that the Canadians had called in airstrikes and shot at the enemy.
The fact the Liberals have followed the Conservatives in also using the term “non- combat,” even though Canadian soldiers are doing exactly the same thing as before, has emerged as a political headache for the government given that it promised to end combat operations.
Vance was asked after his speech whether he was redefining combat to fit the government’s narrative. “I reject it,” he said. “I’m the expert on what is combat and what is not.”
The general also rebuffed suggestions, voiced by the Conservatives, that the Liberal government’s decision to withdraw Canadian fighter jets from Iraq and Syria will put Canadian soldiers’ lives in danger. Canadian CF- 18s were instrumental in helping Canadian and Kurdish forces fight off an ISIL attack in mid- December.
Vance, who claimed there are some “serious myths” about the Iraq mission, said French fighter jets were also involved in the battle and that aircraft from other coalition nations will continue to provide air support to Canadian troops on the ground even after Canada’s warplanes are gone.
This isn’ t the first time Vance has found himself embroiled in a political controversy. In May 2012, he told reporters the military had informed then- defence minister Peter MacKay that the cost of Canada’s mission in Libya was $106 million — more than double what MacKay had publicly told to Canadians.
Emails later obtained by Postmedia showed that when MacKay contradicted Vance and said he had never been told the true cost, military officials were left scrambling to figure out who was right.