wait a second, here.

i'm not convinced it was isis, and trudeau may not have been fully informed about the nature of the mission, but for brevity let's go with the dominant media narrative.

bill maher made headlines last night by suggesting that the attacks on paris were a consequence of the attacks on isis. he articulated a opinion that is actually fairly widely shared by liberals - that the attacks can only make things worse. and, was this not trudeau's argument in the first place? if he argued the attacks only make things worse, and then the attacks produce a terrible response, that suggests he was right. it in no way suggests he should modify his proposals; to the contrary, it suggests he should stick to them.

if you hold to the dominant media narrative, the obvious conclusion with the mission is that we're fighting with one hand behind our back. isis is a bunch of hoodlums operating on some kind of medieval ideology (if that...). if has no chance of withstanding a serious nato offensive. but, nato has been unwilling to go in all the way and really bludgeon them.

(which certainly begs the question as to *why*, but we're sticking with the dominant media narrative, here)

trudeau's logic could lead to a continuation of bombing if it's also an escalation of bombing. that is, if the americans want to take the lead in seriously bombing these idiots into a crater, then it could very well seriously destroy them, and that would be entirely rational from the perspective he's argued from. but, his logic absolutely rejects continuing the kind of half-serious attacks that nato has been pushing, which accomplish nothing besides further radicalization and an escalation of the problem.

the idea behind focusing on training instead of bombing is that it's more likely to actually work. it's not a "dove" position. it's simple pragmatism.

what happened in paris doesn't - and won't - change anything unless the americans seriously evaluate how they're fighting this. and even that might not be convincing.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277 

RonRaygin
No it's only "piecemeal" attacks to the toenails that make things worse. We have to believably threaten of attack the heart.

We have not yet threatened the only thing they truly care about, and cannot lose. And, that is obviously not their lives, or their childrens lives.

jessica murray
well, it will be a cold day in hell when i take advice from the gipper. but, think about what you're saying.

i agree - and pointed out in this post - that a serious, all-out total blitz on isis with the intent of absolute annihilation is consistent with trudeau's position. it's also a call for genocide.

you could imagine a cartoon strip, with some academics talking with some politicians.

academic: every time you kill a terrorist, you create five more. it's a culture that roots itself in feudal perceptions of honour and the subsequent deduction of revenge. have you seen the princess bride? you're creating a bunch of inigo montoyas, all looking for their six-fingered men. 'you killed my father. prepare to die.'. you need to get to the root cause of this, which is the radicalization.

politician: get to the root cause, huh.

the next still would show them dropping a nuclear bomb, and building a fence around the area to prevent survivors from escaping.

if you follow the logic of excessive force through, that is what you get: the extermination of entire villages. vietnam-style mass aerial slaughter. fire-bombings of cities, or, dare i say it, actual nuclear attacks. there's no middle point.

the cold reality is that it might work - if it is barbaric enough. but, then what have we become?

again: the tactic of sending in advisers is not pacifist. it's pragmatic. we either need to convince them, or we need to start thinking in terms of committing atrocities. the status quo is a failure. and both approaches may be consistent with the argument that the status quo is a failure. but, you'll excuse me for preferring the former.

i don't see any reason why we should tie ourselves to failed strategies that target ourselves without getting to the root causes.