Header image for Interrobang article CREDIT: CREATAS IMAGES / CREASTAS / THINKSTOCK
After recent terrorist attacks against Paris, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau must think long and hard about whether or not to go along with his initial idea of ending Canada's involvement in the fight against ISIL.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has barely had time to savour his victory and he’s already on the international stage in the wake of a horrific terror attack.

As details of the orchestration and execution of the attacks in Paris come to light, world leaders are re-evaluating their commitments in the fight against ISIL.

Trudeau will have to walk the line between keeping his election promise to end Canada’s active combat role, and responding to the attack on Paris.

Given the moderate tone of his campaign, it will be difficult to match the response of our international allies without a serious change in tune. Despite his assertion that this attack won’t affect the number of refugees he’s pledged to accept, the security ramifications of accelerating the approval process can’t be ignored.

The events in Paris have put a spotlight on every world leader that purports themselves to be a champion of democracy. Public support of military action in the wake of such a tragedy is much higher, and there’s pressure for leaders to put their money where their mouth is.

It’s a double-edged sword because the mob that demands a swift response is the same mob that will bemoan a lengthy foreign military engagement. Fighting a decentralized and multi-faceted organization like the Islamic State is an immeasurably complex endeavour because they can evolve so swiftly.

Senior CBC News Correspondent Neil Macdonald wrote a thought-provoking piece on what the response to these attacks should entail.

He drew attention to the fact that acts of aggression by ISIL always result in the threat of quick action that fails to generate any kind of significant repercussions. Macdonald’s piece utilizes the example of a Jordanian fighter pilot who was filmed by members of ISIL being burned alive while locked inside of a cage.

The Jordanian government, despite strong words from their leader, simply increased their role in the ongoing bombing missions. The conclusion Macdonald reached is that we can either continue an ineffective strategy of engagement or withdraw entirely.

Despite the appearance of a choice, there really isn’t one. The international community cannot appear to be intimidated or they risk increasingly bold action from the terrorist organization.

Despite having only moderate success with the current methods of engagement, no one has been willing to put ground forces into occupied territory. Prime Minister Trudeau is facing a no-win situation. Although there are international allies who will fill the void, if he withdraws Canada’s bombing force he will appear soft in light of direct threats to Canada by ISIL leadership. If he continues the bombing, he’ll be backtracking on his pledge to end Canada’s combat role in the mission. Their barbaric treatment of prisoners has exemplified ISIL’s determination to use cruel and ruthless methods of warfare against any enemy aggressor. With his orations of principle and democracy still ringing in the air, Trudeau must decide what role to play in the war against the most unprincipled adversary in modern history.

Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.