Admit it: Our troops are in combat in Iraq

In one way at least, the big argument making waves in Ottawa this week is really stupid.

Canada’s top soldier, Gen. Jonathan Vance, told a parliamentary committee that sometimes Canadian troops assisting allies in the battle against the Islamic State take the first shot. This admission infuriated opposition parties, and we’ll get to that in a minute. But let’s first deal with the really stupid part.

What would we expect them to do? If a soldier is in a position where he or she could be killed or wounded, or where their colleagues on the field could be, can anyone credibly argue they should not be allowed to shoot first? They should allow themselves or their allies to be shot at, then allow themselves the indulgence of firing back?

How about this example, cited by Vance. Kurdish allies might not have the firepower to stop a suicide bomber attacking in a heavily armoured vehicle, while Canadian troops in Iraq are known to have anti-tank weapons. Should the Canadians wait for the first shot to be fired at Kurds before taking out the vehicle? Of course not.

But this admission is causing quite a stir, because previously the government and military have said Canadians can and have fired in self-defence. That doesn’t sound like firing first, and it allows critics to claim the government hasn’t been forthright about the nature of the Iraq mission.

Here’s the nub of this argument, and it is not stupid. The Trudeau Liberals promised to end Canada’s combat role in the region and replace it with something of greater value. They eventually pulled CF-18s, that were carrying out bombing missions, out of the region. Troops on the ground training and assisting allies like Kurdish forces are supposed to be part of that something. The Liberals increased that contingent from 69 to about 200. And the role makes sense. The problem is the government’s insistence that what is happening now isn’t combat, therefore they haven’t broken that election pledge.

That’s political flim-flam. For all intents and purposes, Canadian troops in Iraq assisting their partners are in combat situations. They may not be leading the combat missions, but in their role they are there, in the field, definitely in harm’s way and definitely needing to take the first shot under certain conditions.

The government and defence spokespeople are trying to further twist this semantic pretzel by saying that noncombat doesn’t necessarily mean not shooting at people or being shot it. Please.

Canadian troops are supporting their allies in the battle against ISIS. That is appropriate given our international commitment. These troops are at risk, and at some point it’s possible one or more will be hurt or killed. That’s modern conflict.

The government needs to be more transparent about what’s real as opposed to what is rhetorically clever.