Thomas Mulcair argues that Canada should not go to war with ISIS because Prime Minister Harper has refused to answer important questions about the potential conflict. Specifically, Mulcair states that Harper has not outlined why war is necessary, how long Canadian forces would be deployed, what their rules of engagement would be, or how much the mission would cost. Mulcair asserts that a prime minister has a duty to be accountable for sending troops to war, yet Harper does not want to discuss details of the military operation. Without answers to these critical questions, Mulcair concludes that Canada cannot responsibly commit its forces to battle against ISIS.

1. Kevin Galasinao
Michael Wells
WRIT-100-0AL
February-13-15 Friday
A Response to “Canada Has a Duty to Act”
Thesis: In John Baird’s artcle, “Canada Has a Duty to Act, he argues that Canada should involve
itself in a very important war against the Islamic State because of what ISIS it does acts like
raping, stealing, killing people; and expanding their conquered land.
A main point that John Baird uses as a justification for a Canadian war against the Islamic state
is point out what ISIS does and will do. “But this is not just another conflict. This struggle is not
against a state, or even a foreign dictator. This is a struggle against a group of terrorists that rape,
pillage and slaughter anything and anyone that stands in its way. This group has spread like a
cancer over our Iraqi friends, and it has no intention of stopping there. Islamic State (IS) talks
openly about attacking the West and expanding its so-called caliphate far beyond the Middle
East, from Spain to India. (Baird, p. 1). What he’s saying is that the conflict is important because
ISIS does evil. For example, rape, murder, and expansion throughout Asia is what ISIS is doing.
The division to him is between ISIS and Canadians He believes that it is ISIS’ fault for Canada’s
intervention in war. ISIS’ effect on people is killing them, raping, and etc. The solution for Baird
is for Canada to go to war with ISIS. He says that such a conflict would be similar to WWI
battle, Passchendale, the beaches of Normandy, and the fight against communism. He thinks of
the previous conflicts and a conflict with ISIS as noble. He is against peace because he states
“this death cult will not negotiate for territory. They will not hear humanitarian appeals because

2. they have no humanity. They will only be deterred by force. We cannot in good conscience leave
this burden entirely to others (Baird. P.2).” Baird isn’t doing a great job because a war means
that Canadian soldiers will die, they will be stuck in the war for a long period of time just like the
U.S. war in Iraq, and it will only fuel the hatred of terrorists against Canada. My example relates
as a whole because it clearly stating that Baird wants war. That’s the main point of the article.
What ISIS does to human beings is awful but a war will not end the violence; with Canadian
soldiers in Iraq, the violence will only increase; Canadians will die as well. I am not convinced
because one cannot obtain peace through war with ISIS. Baird is right about the wrongful actions
committed by ISIS but a war with ISIS is another wrongful act. Canada should not commit it.

3. Kevin Galasinao
Michael Wells
February-13-15 Friday
A Response to ‘The Case Has Not Been Made For War
Thesis: In Thomas Mulcair’s article, he argues that Canada cannot involve itself in war with the
Islamic State because Harper has not answered important questions on the war.
An important point that Mulcair states is the questions Harper refuses to answer. What’s he
saying is that Prime Minister Harper cannot allow Canadians to fight and die in a war against
ISIS. Harper wants people to support Canada’s war against ISIS. But Harper can’t start a war
because he has not answered important questions that prove why a war is necessary. “If you’re
tempted to think that’s an exaggeration, consider Mr.Harper’s own words on the subject: “Mr.
Speaker, you can understand, I neither have the will nor the desire to get into detailed discussions
of military operations here.” A prime minister has no more sacred duty than accountability for
the decision to send young Canadian women and men to fight, and perhaps die, in a foreign war.
The Prime Minister is sending these troops to Iraq in your name. He wants your support for
sending them there. But let’s be clear: he doesn’t want to answer any of your questions before he
does it (Mulcair P.3)” What’s he saying is that Prime Minister Harper cannot allow Canadians to
fight and die in a war against ISIS. Harper wants people to support Canada’s war against ISIS
but he can’t start a war because he has not answered important questions that prove why a war is
necessary. To Mulcair, the division lies between Prime Minister Harper and Canadians. The
cause is that Prime Minister wants a war because of ISIS. The effect is that he doesn’t answer

4. certain important questions. Canada cannot send young Canadians to fight, get injured, and/or
die because he hasn’t answered the questions. Mulcair pointed out these questions, “That’s worth
repeating: The Prime Minister is sending Canadian soldiers to war in Iraq, but he doesn’t want to
discuss the details before sending them there. Neither the will, nor the desire. And it’s not just on
the “details” that the Prime Minister has gone silent. Mr. Harper hasn’t outlined a broad strategic
blueprint for the mission. He can’t even answer the most basic questions of fact about the length
or breadth of our commitment. What contribution have our American allies requested? No
answer. How much will this mission cost? No answer. How long will the deployment last? What
are the rules of engagement? What is our exit strategy? No answer. These are not hypothetical
questions” (Mulcair P.3). The problem is Harper’s lack of answers and Mulcair’s solution is no
war Mulcair makes a comparison of ISIS to Al Qaeda because he states that ISIS is really just Al
Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, he adds that it doesn’t make sense to send troops to Iraq when
Canada has never sent troops in conflicts similar to the one with ISIS. “In Congo, through 15
years of bloodshed and 5 million dead, Stephen Harper has never suggested that military action
was the solution there. In Darfur, with hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced,
Conservatives have never proposed sending in troops.” The article is effective because Mulcair is
right on why Canada shouldn’t go to war. Harper does need to answer these questions on how a
war with ISIS is necessary. If he doesn’t, then Canada will face many problems. He doesn’t
answer because the answers he wants aren’t satisfactory. They only prove that a war with ISIS is
pointless and bloody. These are some of the questions I have answered. There’s no blueprint
because it must be difficult to fight and defeat an army that has both the will to fight, detests the
West’s materialism and knows their land. Canada’s American allies would want Canada to stay
involved for a long period of time because they have done the same in previous pointless wars

5. like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. The cost would probably be expensive when it comes to
actions like producing weapons and vehicles. That money could be spent on something useful
like poverty. My example relates to the article because it focuses on Harper inability to the
answer the questions. That’s the main idea. It does support the main idea because if Harper
doesn’t answer the questions, his need for war is pointless and see that he’s deluded. Mulcair is
right to point out the very important questions; otherwise Canadians will allow their country to
take part in a war with IS and they will learn the answers the hard way.