Both parties playing politics with the call to arms: Hbert
For the first time in his three-mandate tenure, Stephen Harper has failed to secure opposition support for sending Canada to war.
The Liberals among others claim the prime minister always meant to go it alone; that he wanted to be isolated in Parliament for electoral purposes.
The Conservatives among others argue that Harper is making the best of a less than ideal situation; that he is dealing with opposition parties no longer capable of rising above partisan calculations.
Those who argue that Harper never wanted opposition support for a combat mission point to Paul Calandras hapless responses to early NDP queries about Canadas role in the fight against the Islamic State group.
They see that as a provocation designed to undermine any chance of a parliamentary consensus and subsequently compounded by Harpers failure to keep his opposition counterparts in the loop as to his thinking on the issue.
They suggest that for the better part of the past year, the prime minister had been looking for an international wedge issue that would distinguish his foreign policy from that of the Liberals, and also resonate in the next election.
From their perspective, Harper saw a golden opportunity not only to divide the Liberals but also to bring home 2011s soft Conservative supporters who have been flirting with voting for Justin Trudeau next year.
Scratching the surface, one unearths quiet speculation that the prime ministers six-month deadline on Canadas combat role could be meant to give him a window if circumstances are favorable to call an early election, so as to seek a mandate to pursue or expand the current mission.
That thesis makes for an irresistible construct for anyone who believes the prime minister is blind to the missions political risks or, alternatively, who assumes that governments always have their ducks perfectly lined up.
As it happens, the opposite is more often true.
See more here:
Both parties playing politics with the call to arms: Hbert