after reading dozens of articles on the topic, i'm still not clear about what is unclear.

but, to answer a few questions posed in the article...

does committing to further bombing require purchasing new jets? how much will those jets cost? who will benefit from the defense contract? who might be pushing for that defense contract?

i think the liberals have been crystal clear - and that you should take them at face value. but, if you want to really delve into this, i think you need to be prepared to ask some questions, and receive some answers, that you're maybe not prepared for.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-isis-chris-hall-1.3368691

--

eggshaped
So, does that mean he will withdraw the jets but put our military personnel in harm's way by putting boots on the ground, even if only in a "training" capacity? Or is he going to wait for other countries to subdue ISIS so we can then take in the remnants?

jessica murray
the idea is that the only way to build stability in the region is to enable local actors to do it. not western ground troops, but iraqi ground troops.

it's something any expert will tell you. nato can't win this war. there is no tactic that will be successful. only iraqis can win this war. and it requires convincing the civilian population to work with the state. nothing else will ever work - and carpet bombing will just make it worse.

i think there's a bit of a caveat to that. if civilians begin aligning with isis, then they become isis and must be targeted. maybe we screwed something up to get there (or many things up...), but the end result remains. see, but then we're bombing villages - and canadians cannot stomach that the way americans can.

where it gets even more complicated is that the same logic suggests that only assad can win this war. worse, iraq seems to be increasingly aligning with assad. you put two and two together, and there's no way out besides pulling out altogether, or escalating dramatically. the inevitable outcome right now seems to be a russian-backed syrian/iraqi alliance to reconstruct both states. and, while that is probably the fastest way to end the war, supporting this would put as at odds with the americans.

the only specifics i've heard relate to supporting kurdish troops, which really sidesteps the issue.