Agonizingly Distasteful Choices

"Canada has, in my view, a moral obligation to join the civilized world to destroy ISIL and allow the millions and millions of people who ISIL has displaced to live full and productive lives in their home countries."
Conservative Member of Parliament Steven Fletcher

"I think our participation has to be helpful, has to be strategic -- it has to be limited."
"And then each time, it needs to be reviewed and renewed to see."
"[Air strikes are] one option that's being heavily considered."
Conservative MP Erin O'Toole

"We don't always have to be first in. What we have to do is make sure that whatever we do is in concert with our allies and is in the best interests of Canada, long-term."
Conservative MP Laurie Hawn (former Canadian fighter pilot)

Militants from the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) taking aim at captured Iraqi soldiers Photo: AP

"It is something ... that as an alliance, countries will have to grapple with. What they will find themselves doing is pinpointing individuals who are citizens of their own countries."
"Militaries have learned the importance of following the laws of war and international conventions for the conduct of military operations. Even if the political authorities aren't very sensitive about this, militaries are culturally attuned to this in terms of authorization needed."
Wesley Wark, intelligence specialist, University of Ottawa

"The prospect of ISIL attacks on the United States or its allies in general falls under (United Nations) Article 5, because there is nothing in the article that states that self-defence is viable only against armed attacks made by states."
"Moreover, a defending state need not wait to sustain such a devastating blow."
Ernesto J. Sanchez international law attorney

So while Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Cabinet consult and arrive at a decision whether or not to recognize the U.S. administration request for Canada to weigh in further than has been done to date as a temporary measure assisting air strikes against the Islamic State group, the question of whether to become more fully involved, and the ghastly prospect of once again being mired in a Middle East quagmire for a lengthy period presents as a nightmare scenario best avoided. But can it be avoided?


^{Isis fighters capture a Syrian army base}

The U.S. has requested Canada to provide CF-18 fighter jets, refuelling aircraft and surveillance planes to augment the already robust-enough appearance of the campaign against the Islamic State. The international effort to defeat ISIL is described by the Prime Minister as "a counterterrorism military operation" which the United States is leading in consultation with NATO and its Arab regional allies. Is Canada's more robust action really needed?

There are those in government who would far prefer stepping up humanitarian aid in support of Syrian refugees rather than commitment to further military action on Canada's part. It is a difficult decision to make when one country sees its allies making swift decisions and commitments and it lingers yet on the decision-making process. The lessons of Afghanistan and Libya are still uppermost in mind; the former's lengthy commitment with little to show for the effort, and the latter's swift conclusion with even less to show for the effort; each represent failed states within whose borders chaos reigns.


^{Isis militants apparently leading away captured Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit}

And then there is the prospect of making hard decisions during the conflict itself; with the full understanding that Canadian Muslims have departed to fight as mujahedeen, and air attacks directed at Islamist fighters will most certainly cause the deaths of Muslim European and North American citizens who have flocked to commit themselves to fanatical jihad, called upon to prove themselves pious Muslims prepared to sacrifice themselves as Allah's martyrs.

According to Mr. Sanchez, legal backing for conflict with ISIL is presented by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter where the article notes: "nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs." So that more or less clears that particular obstacle. Now, the one that is resonant with the sobering reminder that Syria's presiding butcher, Al-Assad benefits when the U.S.-led coalition strikes ISIL, comes as a jolt.

As does the fact that in combatting ISIS/ISIL, the butchering Alawite regime that has caused the deaths of close to 200,000 Syrians in three years of conflict gains, and also benefits the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's number one terrorist-supporting state, itself fanatically Islamist, easily equal in intentions to that of the Sunni ISIL, but a Shiite counterpart whose terrorist proxy Hezbollah and Iran's Republican Guard combined have slaughtered tens of thousands of Sunnis.

To become mired yet again in the foetid swamp of Arab Muslim sectarian hatred and conflict, inflicting misery on untold millions of ordinary Muslims in the Middle East, represents a nightmare of colossal proportions for the West, Canada included. In the stinking mess that prevails, Iran's march toward nuclear weaponry has been all but forgotten; the maelstrom of death and destruction in the Middle East, fixating the West on that misery, while a much greater potential for destruction and death looms large into the future.