The Commons will be seized today with debating the Iraq combat deployment, which will culminate in a confidence vote (which has been phrased in such a way that it’s confidence in the government after they have made the decision, as opposed to a vote to authorize deployment, which would make for fuzzy lines of accountability going forward – and yes, there is a big difference). The issue of civilian casualties being a likelihood given the air strikes is likely to come up, as it is in the States. Rob Nicholson is also refusing to say whether or not there will be an extension, which is all well and good from the point of nobody being able to tell the future, but given that ISIS is already adapting to the threat of air strikes means that our ability to contribute will likely soon be a fairly moot point. Also, the piece led to this interesting exchange.
@rolandparis you make more sense than Nicholson even if we disagree about creepiness. Being vague about renewal is typical Harper crap
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Why do you assume the gov't knows the answer to that question? Surely it depends on how the operation goes.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell the war is unlikely to be over in six months, so they can be clearer about assessing than suggest over in six months
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014
@smsaideman Yes, but the nature of the mission that will be optimal for Canada after 6 mos is not clear.
— Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) October 6, 2014
@AKimCampbell I am. It surprised by an initial six month mandate but the spin seems wrong to me, as if a renewal would not be likely
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) October 6, 2014