Harper poised to unveil combat role in Iraq, Canadians support airstrikes

It looks like Canada will go to war against ISIS in a combat role.

Multiple reports suggest that Stephen Harper will speak in the House of Commons, early Friday afternoon, to unveil his government’s plan to send CF-18 fighters, refueling tankers and surveillance aircraft to join six other countries in the U.S. led airstrikes over Iraq.

The prime minister is also expected to push for more humanitarian aid and announce further counter-terrorism measures to protect Canadians in Canada.

[ Related: Justin Trudeau makes case for non-combat role in Iraq ahead of Commons debate ]

If that is indeed the announcement, it looks like Harper has the overwhelming support of Canadians.

A new Ipsos Reid poll, released on Friday, suggests that 64 per cent of those surveyed “support” Canada sending Canadian Forces fighter jets to participate in airstrikes against ISIS targets in Iraq while 36 per cent “oppose.”

Interestingly, in his post-survey analysis, Ipos Reid’s Darrell Bricker compared support for this mission to other missions.

“Ipsos polling in 2002 showed that only 44 per cent of Canadians agreed that if the United States took military action towards Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Canada should support them by sending its own armed forces to help," he wrote in a press release accompanying the survey.

"In 2001, Ipsos polling revealed that 72 per cent supported US led airstrikes in Afghanistan, and six in ten (61 per cent) supported a combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, compared to 33 per cent who only wanted Canada’s role to be peacekeeping."

[ Related: Politics may be hindering Canadian Muslim effort to combat radicalization ]

The opposition parties, it seems, are not as eager to get involved as Canadians are.

The New Democrats have voiced concerns that this mission is not sanctioned by the United Nations or NATO. The Liberals have promoted a humanitarian role for Canada but haven’t ruled-out supporting air strikes.

"I haven’t made my mind," Trudeau said on Friday.

"But the onus is on Mr. Harper to demonstrate that a shift from a non-combat role that we’ve established right now to a combat role is the right thing for Canada, the right thing for Canadians but also the right thing for the international community."

There are also questions with regard to how effective airstrikes will be at destroying ISIS.

"If we’re going to contribute to a strategy that’s bound to fail because it can’t be successful in eliminating ISIS, but we’re maintaining our alliance with our most important partner — that is the United States of America — then fighters, yes," Retired major general Lewis MacKenzie told CBC's Evan Solomon on Tuesday, deriding the low number of allied combat troops on the ground.

"There were like 250 missions over the last week over Iraq and maybe 60 over Syria. There were six to seven hundred a day during the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. So that number of sorties without people on the ground vectoring them into their targets, selecting targets and then monitoring target damage and securing the ground, they’re going to make a contribution, yes but we’re missing one of the rungs on the stool."

Opposition parties will have the opportunity to respond the the Tory proposal immediately following Harper’s speech.

Parliament will then debate and vote on the proposal early next week.

Are you a politics junkie?
Follow @politicalpoints on Twitter!