[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The West's record on military action in the Middle East leading to stability is not that encouraging, to be honest.

Is anybody's record good in this area? Yet I do not think there is a non-military way to end Daesh. That is the dilemma. I am find with the West taking a supporting role though if somebody else wants to lead the attack. I think the West would as well.

And so why jump into a conversation to defend a rather obtuse off hand remark from BB that we should be pouring resources into a military effort that has not benefitted the refugees in order to help the refugees. 

[Grey Fox]

How is Canada going to do that, exactly?

By assisting with the French and US military actions against Deash, and not by withdrawing our CF-18s from the region?

And how exactly is that going to reduce the number of refugees over the next few years?

By Winning the war?

Ah, so Canada is going to take on the Russians?  Remember a lot of these refugees are leaving Syria to avoid being killed by their own government.  Something our friend BB seems to have forgotten.

Canada should do what NATO ask us to do.

[crazy canuck]

How is Canada going to do that, exactly?

By assisting with the French and US military actions against Deash, and not by withdrawing our CF-18s from the region?

And how exactly is that going to reduce the number of refugees over the next few years?

By Winning the war?

Ah, so Canada is going to take on the Russians?  Remember a lot of these refugees are leaving Syria to avoid being killed by their own government.  Something our friend BB seems to have forgotten.

Canada should do what NATO ask us to do.

I agree.  And so if NATO ever asks us to engage militarily we should.  But that has not happened.  I am not sure whether the Liberal plan will provide any greater benefit than the Conservative plan did.  But one thing is certain.  The Conservative plan was never going to lessen the number of refugees this country should take in.

[Grey Fox]

It needs to be stated.

Both the Conservative plan & the Liberal plan are stupid half measures.

[Oexmelin]

By Winning the war?

Really? After Afghanistan and Iraq 1 and 2, are we still at the point where we imagine a) that military conflict - much less "winning" a war solves things neatly, b) that it will be over by Christmas, c) that there is "a" war, as opposed to the Islamic state emerging out of the previous wars, the now almost forgotten Arab Spring, the dictatorship of Al-Assad? Have our political imagination of war traversed unscathed the last 30 years, unaffected by the events around us?

[Grey Fox]

That depends on what the objective is.

If the objective is to stop refugees, we can send endless NATO forces to conquer Syria & turn it into a EU colony. That would be winning the war.

[Oexmelin]

Ok then. What is the non-imbecilic way out of this? Being an imbecile I would love to know.

:huh:I did not call you an imbecile. I called the gutting of Canada's diplomacy by Martin and Harper governments in the last 10-15 years imbecilic.

As for what means there could be of solving this - I think the first thing is getting rid of magic thinking about military conflict solving things easily and quickly, treating every new conflict piecemeal as if they were not connected. There is no getting rid of the Islamic State without dealing with Iraq and Syria, and we all know how easy this is.

[viper37]

It turns out Syrians aren't so keen on coming to Canada.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/

just because they lost everything they posessed does not mean they are stupid.  Freezing in a canadian refugee camp or living in squalor in Turkey, the choice is clear for many.

[viper37]

How is Canada going to do that, exactly?

If the year was 1939, would you advocate that Canada sent supplies and medical aid to Great Britain and France?
If you look back at history, with your encyclopedic knowledge, would you say that Canadian armed forces provided the tipping point in defeating Germany or were we simply doing our part in a global conflict?

[Oexmelin]

Viper: not my point. I am not opposed to conflict on principle. I have lost any faith in our ability to conduct meaningful, purposeful, conflict with a real  understanding of the underlying issues and consequences of the action, and nothing I have seen or read about Syria, and Daesh in the last years have convinced me there is a plan other than respond haphazardly according to the outrage du jour.

[Barrister]

How is Canada going to do that, exactly?

By assisting with the French and US military actions against Deash, and not by withdrawing our CF-18s from the region?

Is the pint of this really to score petty political points inCanadian politics?

I was worried I was being too subtle.

Yes, my point was that Harper was right during the campaign, and Trudeau was wrong.  While assisting in taking refugees is important (and the number of Syrians wanting to come here is small, but definitely not zero), it is also important to do what we can to end the refugee crisis at the source.

Obviously Canada can't do it alone, but we should help those that are already fighting (like the US and France).

[viper37]

It is a bloody civil,war, with Al-Assad being supported by Russia.

In 1939, Russia was at peace with Germany, happily trading with them.  By 1940, France was defeated and Great Britain was the only force left to oppose Germany.  The future looked bleak.  Canada had no reason to send military aid to Great Britain.  In the scope of things, canadian military contribution from 1939 to 1944 was pretty small.  Even if Canada had not participated in the Normandy landing, US & Great Britain would have won the day.  One could say we lost soldiers in vain...

Canada has squandered away a lot of diplomatic goodwill with imbecilic diplomacy in the last ten years.

Not true.  Just because Le Devoir and La Presse wrote about it does not mean it is true.  The reality on the ground is that nothing has changed, Canada is mostly ignored by all countries.

Modern Iraq is dead, even though no one wants to admit it.

So?  Did we go back to 1930's border after the end of WWII?  Should we (as in all nations of the Allies) have refuses to commit ground forces until a proper plan for the post-Germany was reached with everyone, including the local populations in accord?

What is the horizon for this resolution? 2050? 2070?

Depends what you expect.  Defeating ISIS?  If we send ground troops, a couple of years. 3 at most.
Defeating radical islam and post-ISIS movement with similar intents?  Not until we rethink our ways, at home and abroad.  We will have to live with terror for a while, I fear.  ISIS is just one head of the beast.  Once they are dead, the base of operation will shift elsewhere, with a new group rising. There are already lots of tensions in Yemen and various parts of Africa, lots of zones where groups like this can thrive and spread their ideology.

However, there are mass executions and attempted genocide of particular populations.  Unlike the Liberal, this is not something I am comfortable watching going on while doing nothing. 

Refugees are reluctant to come to Canada because there is a such a massive number of them that they are immigrating/fleeing as communities, and in proximity to countries where communities in exiles have been reestablished, notably Turkey, while we insist on picking isolated individuals and families. This is not unique to Canada, of course, but at this point chances are better to not be isolated in Germany.

Refugeese are reluctant to go to far because they still hope to get back home once the weapons are deposed.  The longer we hesitate to commit full forces, the more miserable these people will be.

[Jacob]

The West's record on military action in the Middle East leading to stability is not that encouraging, to be honest.

Is anybody's record good in this area? Yet I do not think there is a non-military way to end Daesh. That is the dilemma. I am find with the West taking a supporting role though if somebody else wants to lead the attack. I think the West would as well.

No, I don't think anyone has a good record on this in recent time except possibly some rather odious strongmen.

On the attacks and Canada's role in them, I'm somewhat ambivalent. As you say, it's a dilemma. So I'm okay with Canada withdrawing, and I'm okay with Canada getting more heavily involved - I can see merit in arguments for both cases.

However, I think the argument that "increasing Canadian participation in the air campaign over Syria is going to lead to the refugees returning home sooner" is specious at best.

[viper37]

Viper: not my point. I am not opposed to conflict on principle. I have lost any faith in our ability to conduct meaningful, purposeful, conflict with a real  understanding of the underlying issues and consequences of the action, and nothing I have seen or read about Syria, and Daesh in the last years have convinced me there is a plan other than respond haphazardly according to the outrage du jour.

It is a difficult conflict because Assad is almost as bad as ISIS and by refusing to enter the conflict without the UN approval, we just gave Russia a reason to intervene.  Had the US/NATO enforced a no fly zone early in the war, Russia would never have dared intervening there against NATO.

I see we keep repeating mistakes of the past and it always make conflicts bloodier.

That is not a reason to depopulate all of the Middle East.  If ISIS is not stopped, the problem will spread to other countries.  Airstrikes have proven effective in letting the Kurds regroup and some small gains have finally been done by the Iraquis.  However, the Iraquis can not work together in a single cohesive force, the fracture between Sunnis and Shiites is just too deep at this point.

The easy solution is of course, to get these group to sit, talk, and solve their differences.  But so long as ISIS is there and there's a civil war in Syria, it ain't a possibility.

I know post civil war Syria is gonna be handed to Assad.  It has been made inevitable by stalling too long in this conflict.  By the time this end, he'll be the only solution left to anarchy.

That freaks me, because it is only delaying the problem.  In one generation or less, there's going to be another bloody civil war in there.

Maybe there is a chance that can be avoided.  With a mix of military threat, economic sanctions and diplomacy.  Maybe.

But in the mean time, there is a bloody civil war with tons of bad guys on all sides and a civilian population that suffers in the middle.
You can deliver medical supplies to isolated population groups in danger of execution or military training to a fractured force on the ground without having our soldiers accompany the various bands of fighters on dangerous missions.

By 1939, we did not know the war would end in 1945.  Heck, without America entering the war, it might have lasted until the 50s.
But a Canadian PM decided it was Canada's duty to fight as well.  Something a certain Prime Minister today does not get.

[Jacob]

I was worried I was being too subtle.

Yes, my point was that Harper was right during the campaign, and Trudeau was wrong.  While assisting in taking refugees is important (and the number of Syrians wanting to come here is small, but definitely not zero), it is also important to do what we can to end the refugee crisis at the source.

Obviously Canada can't do it alone, but we should help those that are already fighting (like the US and France).

And you genuinely believe that French and US intervention - with whatever level of Canadian backing is forthcoming - will reduce the number of refugees?

I don't see how that's a defensible position given the numbers of actors involved in the conflict, and the recent history of creating stability through the use of military intervention.

Now, there may be other good arguments for military intervention, but "taking out Daesh will significantly address the refugee crisis" is not one of them.