The Islamic State
and Canadian

perspective

James Mangan
Team Member

n October 6, the House of Commons

began their debate on Canada’s role
against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
ISIS gained global recognition over the
past few months after expanding out from
the Syrian civil war and taking control of
northern Iraqi cities. Their public relations
department has released videos depicting
crimes against human rights, including
beheadings and other atrocities, to the
horror of the civilized world. The major
federal parties all agree that ISIS is a global
threat, and action must be taken against
this organization. However, even with
Canada’s fighter jets already contributing
to the effort, Canadians are divided over
the exact contribution Canada should
provide. Regardless of one’s stance on
this issue, Canadians must resist the urge
to give into cynicism or apathy. Inaction
through cynicism and apathy, as opposed to
reasonable debate, leaves Canadians without
any legitimacy to hold their politicians
responsible for their decisions.

Before this article can continue, an
important distinction must be made: this is

not another Iraq war. Past conflicts in Iraq
have been waged against the state, ruled

by the former dictator Saddam Hussein.
After the US armed forces removed Hussein
from government, Iraq descended into

a civil war among the various warlords.
The US was forced to remain in Iraq and
rebuild the institutions of governance
destroyed during this conflict. The term
used to describe this situation is “quagmire?
ISIS is not recognized as a legitimate
governing body, and therefore does not
represent any recognizable state. War is
being declared against an organization,

not a nation. However, opponents of the
military response to ISIS still fear that a
coalition attack against ISIS in northern
Iraq could result in another quagmire.

?

The Conservative Party of Canada has
supported the use of Canadian jets in Iraq
to combat ISIS forces. On the day debate
began in the House of Commons, Canada’s
F-16s were already on their way to the
middle east. The Conservatives have made
their position clear: destroy ISIS before they
become an imminent threat to Canada. In
an attempt to show the west that Canada is
still a major global actor, the Conservatives
seem eager to participate in global defense.

The Conservatives have also attempted to
brand themselves as the Canadian federal
party willing to fight terror on a global scale.

The opposition parties, on the other

hand, are wary of devoting military-grade
resources to the fight against ISIS. Both

the Liberal Party of Canada and the New
Democratic Party of Canada are in support
of contributing to the struggle against

ISIS, but Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau, has
made it publicly clear that the Liberals do
not support the deployment of any F-16

jets or Canadian troops for the purposes of
combat missions. Rather, the Liberals support
continued humanitarian relief to local
communities defending themselves from
ISIS, as well as allied Iraqi forces. The longer
the NDP wait to hear the details concerning
the Conservative’s intentions in Iraq, the
more they are supporting humanitarian
intervention over military intervention.

Regardless of whether one agrees with

a certain political party or advocates for
non-intervention, there is one thing in
which all Canadians agree: the need for
discourse. This is the time for Canadians

to ask themselves about Canada’s global
presence and responsibilities. Should Canada

g
8
S
Y
a)
g
3
S
S
i>)

be engaging in airstrikes against a foreign
organization? How many troops should be
deployed in the Middle East to fight ISIS?
Should we even be providing humanitarian
aid to local groups fighting in either Iraq
or Syria? Right now, every Canadian can
contribute by having these discussions.

Since the Conservatives hold a majority
government, Canada will likely contribute
military resources in the form of airstrikes,
as well as contribute more ground troops
for the purposes of advising Iraqi forces.
Regardless, the discussions that Canadians
are having right now will influence the
future of this country. Despite what some
people may think, politicians have to
listen to the overwhelming voice of the
electorate (their jobs depend on it), and one
day Canadians will have to look back and
consider whether they’ve advocated for
the right decision. If cynicism towards past
Iraqi conflicts results in Canada’s inaction,
Canada will have failed to uphold its global
responsibilities to peace and sovereignty.
However, if apathy dictates what occurs in
the middle east, Canadians will have lost any
right to hold their politicians accountable.
Right now in Canada, cynicism and apathy
are much more dangerous than ISIS.