Trudeau's Post-Paris ISIS Stance is the same as the pre-Paris stance. Half of Canada's foreign policy theories predicted this outcome: Sokolsky Realism, Role Theory, Nossal, Domestic Politics. Massie in both forms, strucutralism and critical theorists, and elite consensus/bureaucratic politics arguments lose this round.
I am entirely unsurprised--that politicians prefer not to break promises. Again, twas a campaign stance more than a principled or strategic position, but Trudeau was/is stuck. Promising to increase the trainers makes sense. Nossal (via twitter) and I are both curious about other parts of the air mission--the Auroras for surveillance, the refueling plane, and maybe strategic lift (the C-17s).
As suits my theme on this stuff, I am pretty ambivalent. I think the Liberal stance was not well thought out, but I also prefer governments not to overreact in the face of terrorism. Sticking to one's stance can either be pigheadedness or being resolute. Trudeau really could have played it either way although the two parties opposed to bombing got a majority of the Canadian vote....
Anyhow, we shall see what the details bring. I do feel sorry for a government that has had little time in office before having to deal with a crisis like this.