Canada Takes A New Approach To Fighting ISIS

[Diane Lane]

It sounds as though Canada has decided to scale back military intervention in fighting ISIS, and focus its resources in an outreach and humanitarian manner instead. Those are obviously areas of concern to many countries, but it appears Canada has decided to let others fight the military battles, and spend their time and money elsewhere. In fighting ISIS, Canada not trying to be 'little U.S.' - CNN.com

 

[fcuco]

You are not necessarily taking the moral high ground if you still expect others to do the dirty work for you, would this approach work if all countries did the same? If the answer is yes, then this is a good approach, if the answer is no, some countries still have to resort to military action then I am not sure if the canadians are helping.

 

[explorerx7]

There are various types of aid that are useful in this situation. I can't just be military aid alone. There is nothing wrong if a country should prefer humanitarian aid. Kudos as well to those would countries who would give military aid because both are giving well-needed support.

 

[arthnel]

Hey @joshposh. That P-Word came to my mind too and it remains there. I love Canada and Canadians are great. But not everyone can remain in a comfort zone and not decide to take a stand. Canada has an isolationist kind of military philosophy in which nobody troubles them so they don't get involved. The USA had that philosophy also. The US was not running around picking fights when the world was going up in flames. The Pearl Harbor attack and the incursion of Germany into other European territories forced the US to act to ensure terrorists would remain at bay. Canada is making a wrong move and history will show that in years to come.

 

[Diane Lane]

I tend to be a bit isolationist myself, but as @arthnel mentioned, sometimes the fight comes to you. I know many in the world regard the U.S. as a bully, but from our perspective, we (the people) do care about trying to ensure that the world is a more stable place. In retrospect, it appears that some interventions (those of other countries as well, not just those of the U.S.) have exacerbated the problem, but as the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

If everyone were living peacefully in every country, there'd be no need for military intervention, except for profit, or just to stir the pot, of course. There are bullies in every society, and if one group wants to bully/terrorize or deprive others of rights, there will probably always be another (person/country/coalition) that feels it needs to step in and intervene.

I agree that humanitarian aid is needed, but I don't think it's enough for a country to simply throw money, supplies, food, etc. at the problem while other countries are doing the dirty work of sending troops to die. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill