Last Saturday on CBC's The House Tom Mulcair argued that the key consideration around support for the Iraq mission is the clarity of its objectives. The Liberals seem to be making a different argument, which, so far, has earned them little more than ridicule. It's worth contrasting the two views.We know Canadians are divided on the mission. On the left, many not only oppose it, they would oppose any mission that was not led by an international body, such as the UN or NATO. So, while Mulcair says he is waiting to hear about the objectives, their minds are already made up. And so, I suspect, is his.By contrast, Canadians who favour intervention really do care about the objectives. If they go too far, these people will withdraw their support. For the Liberals, who now seem inclined to support the mission, this is about more than clarity.The prime minister says he wants to "expand and extend" the Iraq mission. This may include new forms of military engagement, possibly even in Syria. As a result, this time around the mission will be much more fluid and complex.Among planners, there is a rule of thumb for complexity: The more complex the mission, the more flexible the objectives. In other words, the objectives must be broad enough to allow the plan to adapt and evolve as the mission unfolds.This is a key lesson from the Libyan mission. In hindsight, we can see that its objectives were clear, but far too narrow in scope. The result was a highly scripted plan that “succeeded,” but also produced a failed state and a political vacuum. Flexibility guards against this by letting us learn about and adjust to the situation as the mission unfolds.This does not mean anything goes. Flexibility requires checks and balances, such as information-sharing and open dialogue between the partners to ensure that decision-making remains rigorous, balanced and in keeping with the objectives. This brings us back to the Liberals.If they vote for the mission, they believe the Harper government will simply treat this as sign-off on its plan, and then fail to live up to its commitment to openness and dialogue. Once consent has been given, it will be very difficult for the Liberals to disagree with the government without looking offside, even though the plan may still be evolving. In effect, the government will hold them hostage. Because the NDP plan to oppose the mission, they don't have to worry about this.Last week on CBC's Power and Politics, Liberal strategist Rob Silver seemed to be struggling with this issue when he floated an interesting, if surprising, idea. In our system, a government has the authority to launch missions like the one in Iraq as part of its foreign policy. It needn't seek the support or approval of the House.Given the poisonous relationships in the Commons, Silver thinks everyone would be better off if the government abandoned the all-party process and assumed full responsibility for the mission. It could announce its plan as a policy decision, and then move ahead with it. It would be up to the government to decide when and how to inform the public on the mission's progress. Failing to do so in a timely way would risk losing their support on this highly sensitive issue.The opposition parties would be free to support or oppose the government as they saw fit. Those who favoured military intervention would now be able to support the idea of engagement without having to sign off on the whole mission. They would remain free to challenge the government's decisions along the way, without appearing to run afoul of their support for military intervention.Of course, someone might reply that, on something as important as military intervention, the government should seek all party support. But like poverty or unemployment, terrorism has become a permanent issue. Given the dysfunctional state of Parliament, Silver's approach may be the best way to ensure good policymaking and clearer accountability over the long-term.Finally, governments could still decide to seek all-party support in special cases. In particular, a mission led by an international organization such as the UN or NATO might be dealt with differently from a decision to join, say, an American-led coalition, such as the current one.Silver's proposal has been ridiculed and dismissed as a tactic to allow the Liberals to dodge the vote on the mission, but I think there's more to the story. Given the many decisions that will have to be made as the mission unfolds; given that soldiers' lives will depend on these decisions; and given the huge distrust between the government and the opposition parties, the proposal has merit.Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon. The status quo works too well for the government. If the NDP and/or Liberals choose to oppose the mission, the issue automatically turns into a wedge that Conservatives believe will work well for them.If one or both parties endorse the mission, this legitimizes the government's approach, while effectively neutering the party's ability to criticize the government's decisions. As a result, the government is unlikely to change course.There has been lots of talk in recent years about the important role of trust in making institutional relationships work. It would be difficult to find a clearer case than this one.Without pointing a finger at anyone in particular, it is truly sad that such an important debate has become hostage to partisan politics. Surely, we should be able to expect more.Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan