What are the Liberals trying to do in Iraq? Do they know?

[Locutus]

ouch!

Globe Politics Verified account ‏@globepolitics

Editorial: What are the Liberals trying to do in Iraq? Do they know?


During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq. At the same time, they said they would continue to militarily support the international coalition against the so-called Islamic State, including military backing (of a non-combat variety, of course) of our Western partners, and on-the-ground training for our Iraqi allies.


It was never entirely clear what this meant in practice. The Liberals were very specific on one point – no more CF-18 aircraft bombing IS – and vague elsewhere, pledging that Canada’s military would somehow be first in line without actually being on the front line, fighting IS in Iraq without actually, well, fighting.


mo


What are the Liberals trying to do in Iraq? Do they know? - The Globe and Mail

 

[davesmom]

Circumstances change and changed circumstances call for changes in policy. The Liberals seem to be having trouble with flexibility.
They seem to favor putting more troops in a training capacity and withdrawing the bombers. I can't help but wonder how the battle this week would have ended for the ground troops if the CF18s had not been there to lend air support.
As many are now advising, the two roles go together and should be kept that way.

 

[MHz]

Perhaps the friendly fire mistake helped ISIS more than anything hurting them.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Here it is in a nutshell, now pay attention. They want to remove the CF-18's because that is bad optics, but they don't want to look like they are abandoning the mission, so they say they will put troops on the ground to train people. That is good optics. Are you still with me? Now with troops on the ground, we don't want it to appear that we are picking a fight. That would be bad optics. So we should probably saddle our soldiers with a sh!tty new set of engagement orders so that they don't look aggressive. That good optics. They don't want it to be called a combat mission. That would be bad optics. So, they will probably rename it peacekeeping. Good optics.

This is proven ground. We need only to point to the Chretien government removing the word ARMED from the Canadian Armed forces<--bad optics and replacing it with Canadian Forces<--good optics. There will likely still be casualties and no government to date, left or right likes taking care of wounded soldiers , because, well that's just bad optics. So really, what they should do is buy them new uniforms, because a well dressed soldier is, well... Good optics. So, if you are still with me, and you haven't jabbed a pencil in your eye, that is what the Liberal Government is doing in Iraq.

Optically speaking.

 

[Locutus]

I think I see what you did there.

 

[Jinentonix]

Soooo send in the ground troops and remove their CAS. Why, it's f*cking brilliant. Better make sure they don't have any magazines that hold more than 4 rounds too, wouldn't want to give the "wrong impression".

 

[Bar Sinister]

They are probably trying to determine why it is that Canada volunteered to go into another US-created screw up.

 

[CDNBear]

Probably because there are people suffering.

I know I know, it's the Canadian liberal prog way to treat the symptom, not administer the cure.

But some people aren't that stupid.