Blankets won’t defeat ISIL

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would have it he is returning Canada to its proper place as a righteous nation that does not do combat because its best talents lie in providing humanitarian aid. This not only misreads the history of Canada at war, it misreads Canada’s history of humanitarian assistance during war.

Imagine if Canada had decided to support the U.S. coalition sent to end Hitler’s occupation of the Netherlands by only offering humanitarian aid and a few military trainers to help Dutch forces training in the rear, instead of sending combat troops.

This is what the Trudeau government believes is the best way for Canada to back up its statements Monday it was “unequivocal” in its resolve to stop Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Such language borders on the Orwellian because the way to stop ISIL is with force, not with boasts about how good Canada is at distributing blankets.

Of course, humanitarian and development support has its place. Canada was a clear leader in Afghanistan with a comprehensive whole-of- government approach involving combat and billions of dollars in Canadian-directed aid. Canadian troops also provided emergency aid to the Dutch as part of Operation Faust and Operation Chowhound, but defeating the Third Reich came first and Canada did its share of the heavy lifting.

It is conceited to believe Canada is superior to other nations at delivering humanitarian aid. Our allies are spending billions of dollars on this in the Middle East, too. It is also odd to believe they are better suited to killing. Canada has a long history of fighting in what Canadians believed were just wars.

The Harper government was a leader in providing humanitarian aid to Iraqis. While it never chose to celebrate this, it was noted by beleaguered UN officials involved with the Middle East refugee crises whom I met in Jordan and Lebanon.

They always praised Canada for its outsized financial contributions. Specifically, they lauded Ottawa for making good on the hundreds of millions of dollars of financial commitments it had pledged at a time when many other countries promised a lot but delivered little.

There is also much to learn from what Canada did in Afghanistan, where the Martin and Harper governments spent more than $2.2 billion on development and humanitarian assistance. Canadian diplomats and technical experts from other government agencies, such as the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada and Agriculture Canada, provided practical advice to Af- ghans as well as funds to get them started.

Working closely with the military through a joint provincial reconstruction team that had its heavily fortified base in Kandahar City, Canadians, such as Ben Rowswell, now ambassador to Venezuela, oversaw usually highly motivated, competent civilians whose work complemented the combat effort (and vice versa). Senior military officers from the strategic advisory team also worked at the highest levels of many government ministries in Kabul.

I saw the payoff that could be achieved in refurbishing the high-profile Dahla Dam and the much smaller prairies-style irrigation wheels that created a shimmering crop of wheat. There was also a push to help Afghan farmers develop saffron as a lucrative cash crop.

Canadian prison wardens were at Kandahar’s notorious jail almost every day for years trying to ensure prisoners were not abused and guards learned how to behave. The Mounties and Canadian police helped train women to become police, while teaching their male counterparts to respect female police officers and the rights of women they arrested.

David Mulroney spearheaded the whole-of-government program. The respected senior diplomat, who was secretary to the all-party Manley panel on Canada’s role in Afghanistan before heading the Ottawabased Afghan Task Force, has pointed out there were flaws in Canada’s delivery of development and humanitarian assistance. He has also warned the lessons learned there should be closely examined before Canada gets too deeply committed to providing such aid in Iraq.

When the Trudeau government talks about a shift in focus, does it mean it is taking a whole-of-government approach as its template? Is there merit in establishing a defended provincial reconstruction team because Iraq is, after all, a war zone with a high risk of terrorist attacks on westerners? And finally, how will any of this be accounted for?

Until now. Trudeau has provided scant information about what development and humanitarian outreach in the Middle East might entail. The Afghanistan Task Force provided rigorous, publicly available quarterly reports on what Canada was up to in Afghanistan. These were frank accounts of what was and was not being achieved. If development and humanitarian aid are really the be-all and end-all, the prime minister should make a similar commitment so Canadians can see whether its aims are being realized.

CANADA HAS A LONG HISTORY OF FIGHTING IN JUST WARS.