During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to end Canada's combat mission in Iraq. At the same time, they said they would continue to militarily support the international coalition against the so-called Islamic State, including military backing (of a non-combat variety, of course) of our Western partners, and on-the-ground training for our Iraqi allies.
It was never entirely clear what this meant in practice. The Liberals were very specific on one point – no more CF-18 aircraft bombing IS – and vague elsewhere, pledging that Canada's military would somehow be first in line without actually being on the front line, fighting IS in Iraq without actually, well, fighting.
But two months after winning power, Canada's mission in Iraq under the Liberals looks a lot like the mission under the Tories – no, scratch that: It looks exactly alike. The trainers on the ground are still there, sometimes engaged in "training" so close to the front line that it cannot be distinguished from combat. CF-18 jets are still flying bombing missions against IS. It was widely assumed that the fighter jets would be brought home long before the end of the Conservative-authorized mission in March, but last week Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said they would be pulled out in less than six months. Did that hint at an extension of the mission, rather than a shortening? Who knows.
Confusion about the Trudeau government's policy in Iraq – what it plans to do, what it plans to stop doing, when and most importantly why – is growing.
Last week, the so-called Islamic State attacked Kurdish forces in northern Iraq in an operation involving hundreds of fighters. It was the largest IS offensive in months, repulsed with the help of Canadian trainers and Canadian CF-18s dropping bombs. The incident highlighted the value of the CF-18s, and the fact that calling Canada's special forces in Iraq "trainers" is starting to look like an Orwellian abuse of the language. Visiting Iraq on Monday, Mr. Sajjan went to the front, and told reporters that nobody in the Iraqi government had expressed concern over an eventual withdrawal of the CF-18s.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government need to bring some clarity to the Iraq situation. To do that, they should take a lesson from how they handled the question of Syrian refugees.
On Syrian refugees, the Liberals got the principles right but, at least at first, got the policy wrong. The principle was that Canada should be generous, open and welcoming. Liberal, you might say. But on the campaign trail, Liberal policy was a rash promise to admit 25,000 Syrian refugees by the end of the year, no matter what. Once in office, it became clear that wasn't feasible, at least not without compromising safety and inviting chaos, not least for the refugees. And so, after stubbornly insisting it wouldn't change course, the government finally did.
The result has been a win-win-win for refugees, Canada and Liberal political fortunes. Instead of a hurry-up schedule to admit 25,000 in barely a month, the government will spread the number out over many months. Yes, the government bent its promised timeline. But it stuck to its principles. It is more likely to be rewarded by voters than punished, and it deserves to be.
The Liberals are in a fix in Iraq, and once again it is at least partly of their own making. They pledged to do things differently than the Tories, but their actual promises in this regard were vague and ambitious, more electoral rhetoric than governing reality. They also committed to something firm – the end of combat, including bringing the CF-18s home – that Canada's coalition partners do not want, no matter how much the government claims otherwise.
The Trudeau government turned a refugee policy error into a policy winner by focusing on the principles at stake. So what is the government trying to accomplish in Iraq? What are the principles behind its policy? We don't know. Does the government?
The promise to get the jets out of Iraq, while at the same time becoming more involved in other military ways, has never been easy to understand. Is this about a moral opposition to combat? If so, it makes no sense – because Canadian trainers on the ground are clearly in the thick of a combat zone.
Is it about lowering the risk of Canadian casualties? Flying bombing missions against an enemy almost entirely without air defences is about as non-risky as combat operations can be. Canada's only casualty in Iraq so far has been one of our soldiers on the ground, Sgt. Andrew Doiron.
Was the idea that soldier-trainers would be more effective than aircraft in helping Iraqi Kurds battling IS? If so, the Liberals have never made that argument. Instead, the Liberal policy at this point goes something like this: We will withdraw the CF-18s soon, but not immediately, and eventually, but not now, because that's what we promised, though we can't explain why we promised it. Canadians deserve better.