This week, the Harper government will extend and expand our supposedly no-boots-on-the-ground, six-month military mission in Iraq.
The purpose, according to Foreign Affairs Minister Rob Nicholson, is to “degrade and destabilize this gang of thugs [Islamic State], and in doing so, strip [it] of its power to threaten the security of the region, or to launch terrorist operations in Canada.”
Stephen Harper
The reality is this soon-to-be-open-ended, bottomless money pit of a misguided mission will achieve none of Nicholson’s objectives, and may actually make us more vulnerable to terrorist attack in the future.
Islamic State is the logical result of cascading, colliding, ill-advised and illogical western military misadventures in a volatile region full of deep-seated historic, religious, ideological, sectarian conflicts we can barely identify let alone wrap our minds around.
This latest mess-of-our-own-making began with George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Canada wisely dodged that bullet.
As Opposition leader then, Stephen Harper had argued for putting our troops in Iraq’s harm’s way. As prime minister, he volunteered us last fall for Iraq II. And now he’s keen for us to push into the front lines of those chasing the Islamic State from Iraq into Syria.
Syria? Wait a minute. Isn’t Syria in the midst of a civil war? Isn’t Syrian president Bashar al-Asaad also fighting the Islamic State? If we take on Islamic State in Syria, are we propping up a reprehensible regime responsible for the deaths of at least 60,000 civilians in the last three years?
We claim we need to fight Islamic State in Syria because the U.S.-led coalition has been so successful in driving them out of Iraq.
How’s that working out?
Well, let’s see. Iran, another non-ally (see nuclear threat) that supports al-Asaad, is also fighting Islamic State in Iraq… when it isn’t fomenting sectarian violence between Iraqi-backed Shia and Islamic-State-encouraged Sunni militias. Not that either side requires encouragement. They’ve been warring since 632 over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad.
Confused?
So is Rob Nicholson, whose dismissal of the Islamic State as simply “a gang of thugs” betrays his ignorance of its complex historical, religious and ideological roots.
Instead of adding our inevitably inconsequential military might to an unwinnable conflict, Canada could make a real contribution by focusing instead on helping these wars’ refugees, and understanding why so many young western-raised Muslims, including Canadians, offer themselves as drone fodder for Islamic State. And finding constructive ways to discourage them.
Unfortunately, those aren’t “warrior” enough for the Harper government.
So we are doomed to continue this tragedy of terrors.
STEPHEN KIMBER, a Professor of Journalism at the University of King's College in Halifax and co-founder of its MFA in Creative Nonfiction Program, is an award-winning writer, editor and broadcaster. He is the author of two novels and eight non-fiction books. Buy his books 
The only way to defeat ISIS is to take all their land. As a declared Caliphate, land is the only legitimacy it has and without it, no one would support it.
The only way to take their land is by force, on land, with ground troops; lots of them. There is no political will to do that, votes would be lost. Certainly our military lacks the resources to mount a sustained ground campaign.
After 100 years of western interference in the Middle East, redrawing boundaries, creating new countries, fomenting sectarian violence, propping up military dictators who suit our current economic purposes (and dumping them when that changes), one would think that we would have twigged to the fact that we may not be the best brokers for the region.
This is all so 19th century.