Canada stuck on the losing side
The Islamic State is on a roll. The militants are making gains in both Syria and Iraq.
To put it bluntly, the forces of what Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls the “international jihadist movement” are winning.
This presents Canada and other countries taking part in the U.S.-led war against the Islamic State with an unappetizing choice.
Either the West can send more troops to fight the militants on the ground. Or, as in Afghanistan, it can tacitly admit defeat and quietly withdraw.
The current strategy of half-fighting a war is going nowhere.
The Americans face the same dilemma. U.S. President Barack Obama’s response has been to gradually put more so-called military trainers into Iraq while, at the same time, insisting that these ground troops not take part in battle.
The U.S. already has 3,100 soldiers in Iraq and has just announced it will send 450 more. The New York Times reports that Washington is planning to establish a network of bases in Iraq that could require several hundred additional U.S. soldiers.
Meanwhile, the region continues to disintegrate. Major cities have fallen to the Islamic State, sometimes known as ISIS, in both Iraq and Syria. Taking advantage of the power vacuum created by the 2011 NATO attacks on former Libyan strongman Moammar Ghadafi, ISIS militants are expanding into that country as well.
The more ISIS comes under Western attack, the more prestige it reaps. Militants from Nigeria to Yemen to Afghanistan now identify themselves as part of the Islamic State.
At the same time, the conflicts in Iraq and Syria have presented Kurd- ish nationalists in the region with a heaven-sent opportunity to create their own state.
Right now, Canada is helping to train Kurdish peshmerga militias in northern Iraq to fight the Islamic State. We should not be surprised if these same militias eventually take advantage of this training to try for the ultimate prize — an independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.
Throughout, Canada’s role in all of this has been unusually bold.
Ottawa admits to only 69 ground troops in Iraq. But unlike their U.S. counterparts, these Canadian advisers accompany local troops to the front lines. They also, again unlike U.S. soldiers, call in airstrikes.
Harper recognizes that many Canadians still have bad memories of the Afghan war. As a result, and with an election in the offing, his Conservatives are trying to walk a fine line.
On the one hand, they present themselves as the only party with enough guts to take on ISIS. On the other, they insist that Canadian troops — even those taking and returning fire on the front lines — are not involved in combat.
Oddly enough, the prime minister saves his most militant rhetoric not for ISIS but for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This is convenient in two ways. First, it appeals to those Canadian voters who have unhappy memories of the old Soviet Union.
Second, no one expects Harper to back up his bluster. The prime minister may board a Canadian frigate to observe Russian vessels in the Baltic, as he did this week. He may also decry, as he regularly does, Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea.
But no matter how much it lauds feisty Ukraine, Canada will not take unilateral military action against nuclear-armed Russia. Putin knows this. Harper knows it. When it comes to demonizing Russia, talk is cheap.
By contrast, military action against ISIS is eminently doable. The Islamic State has no air force, no sophisticated air defences, no doomsday weapons.
Militarily, it was easy for the U.S., Canada and other allies to begin their war against ISIS.
Militarily, it will be easy to expand this war.
The Americans are already doing so with their new commitment of ground troops to Iraq. Canada and other allies will be under pressure to follow suit.
Don’t expect the government to make this an issue before the October election. To campaign openly on a war platform may not be politically wise.
Do expect it to become an issue after the election, regardless of who wins. We are losing this war. We can spend more lives and money to try to win it. Or we can cut our losses. That is the choice. Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday.