KELLY MCPARLAND
No right or wrong on military combat role, but Trudeau could at least pick a side.
Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was put on the spot recently when he was grilled over his views on the role Canada’s military should play in international hot spots.
Asked repeatedly by London, Ont., radio host Andrew Lawton if he could envision any circumstance in which it would be appropriate for Canada to play a combat role, Mr. Trudeau doggedly avoided a straight answer.
“Very few people believe there is a military-only solution to what’s going on in the Middle East,” he pointed out. Asked again, he said Canada’s role “needs to be suited to what we can do better than other countries.” Pressed further, he finally conceded, “Yes there would be scenarios” in which combat was necessary, but didn’t offer any, returning to his argument that Canada is better suited to support roles, humanitarian aid, refugee operations and training.
Interviewed by the same host on Sunday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper suggested that Mr. Trudeau’s comments reflect a deep-seated Liberal discomfort with the military.
“I do think Mr. Trudeau’s comments around the time of the [Iraq] debate indicate a deep distrust and, frankly, dislike of the Canadian military that I think runs very deep in some elements of that party and with him,” he said, arguing the Liberals are “out of step with virtually the entire world” on the issue of confronting ISIS, the group that has seized broad swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria.
Mr. Harper didn’t raise the subject of Mr. Trudeau’s position, but he clearly recognized a juicy wedge issue when he saw it. Canadians, he noted, have been “overwhelmingly supportive” of the Middle East mission. He said there is no question the international effort to halt ISIS’s advances has been largely successful so far.
The Prime Minister has been accused of playing politics with the terrorist threat, exploiting it as a means of drawing support away from the New Democratic Party and the Liberals, both of which opposed Canada’s participation in direct military action. But it is fair to question Mr. Trudeau’s position. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair at least has the courage of his convictions in making clear his party’s opposition to the use of military force. Mr. Trudeau, on the other hand, has equivocated, first opposing Canada’s participation, now arguing Canada “has an important role to play.”
“I’ve never been against Canada engaging robustly against ISIS,” Mr. Trudeau said, but insisted it should be confined to “military missions that are non-combat,” and those areas in which “Canada can offer expertise the rest of the world is unable to provide.”
What he means by this is unclear. While Canada is certainly skilled at military training, medical support and humanitarian aid, many other countries are as well. Which of those activities does Mr. Trudeau feel Canada alone is able to provide? It appears from his responses that he harbours deep doubts about the wisdom of committing Canadians to combat under even the most dire of circumstances. That’s fair enough: Sending soldiers into situations in which their lives are at stake should be made only after sober reflection. No one who has spoken with the families of soldiers killed or wounded in duty, as Mr. Harper has, would question that.
But those are the types of difficult decisions prime ministers are elected to make. Mr. Trudeau gives the impression that even he doesn’t know exactly where he stands. Under what circumstances, exactly, would he be willing to commit Canada’s armed forces to combat? A direct invasion of Canada? A threat to a Canadian ally? Would he have approved Canadian participation in the Kosovo war? The Afghanistan war?
And how does Mr. Trudeau define “success”? Mr. Harper has been clear in acknowledging there is little chance of defeating ISIS militarily in the short term. In Mr. Trudeau’s view, does that free Canada from any obligation to involve itself beyond offering humanitarian or medical aid?
There is no “right” answer to this sort of question. But we do deserve to know where Mr. Trudeau stands. If he feels combat is not an activity Canadian forces should engage in, he should make that clear, as it could be a significant change in Canada’s role in the world. It could also be a critical determinant when Canadian voters go to the polls next October.
None of the parties holds a monopoly on patriotism. The Conservatives have talked a tough game when it comes to the military, but have frequently failed to back it up with action. Previous Liberal governments had similarly spotty records, allowing Canada’s military capabilities to fall into an embarrassing state of decline. No one wants to see that happen again. We know Mr. Harper’s position. We don’t know Mr. Trudeau’s. It’s not clear he does either.
We know Harper’s position on committing troops to international efforts. We don’t know Trudeau’s, and it’s not clear that he does either