Airstrikes alone cannot win? Actually, yes they can. Sort of.

In the fight against ISIS Canada has committed to a six-month air campaign in support of the U.S.-led mission. There is talk of extending beyond this initial six months and I expect that we will. Some allies are bombing targets in Iraq and Syria, to date, Canada is only involved in Iraq.
 

According to the Department of National Defence, Canada has conducted 211 sorties as of Dec. 18:

134 sorties conducted by CF-18 Hornet fighters.

36 stories by CC-150 Polaris aerial refueller, delivering some 1,911,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft.

41 reconnaissance missions by the CP-140 Aurora aircraft.

This past Sunday, our most recent combat sortie struck an ISIS weapons facility in Fallujah, Iraq.

In the early days of our commitment to this U.S.-led mission we heard a lot about “mission creep” including a lot of questions about whether or not there would eventually be Canadian “boots on the ground.” The oft repeated analysis is that air power alone cannot win. 

If you define “win” as the total elimination of the enemy and complete safety of all people in the region currently occupied by the enemy then, that’s right, air power cannot win. You will need troops – soldiers and police – among the citizenry in order to preserve peace and security in the region. But, if you define “win” as "eliminate the enemy’s ability to wage war" then air power can win. It is well along that path.

German journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer is just back from six days with ISIS in Mosul, Iraq. He reports that ISIS fighters are highly motivated. And, he says, they have made themselves difficult to target by spreading themselves throughout the city and no longer travelling in convoys to avoid coalition air strikes. 

Under constant threat of U.S.-led airstrikes, ISIS cannot presently wage war in any significant way. Their fighters are dispersed because they know that any large concentration will be targeted. They have a great deal of difficulty in moving large concentration of forces which you need to do if you are going to expand your territory. Air power can make it difficult to move even a lone Toyota truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed. It would seem that significant ISIS geographic expansion has been stopped and, indeed, turned back in places by regional allies. If victory is eliminating ISIS’ ability to wage war then this battle is won. Or close to it.

But, to define “win” we need to talk about the end game. What is the goal of the mission? What set of circumstances will have us clapping hands and declaring victory. And what is our stomach for it.

One possibility is to provide air support to regional allies for years to come. This is a continuation of the current strategy. And, it will almost certainly contain ISIS. This maximizes the safety of our soldiers and pilots. It does, however, bring years of horrific atrocities – beheadings, rapes, persecution – in ISIS controlled areas. Amnesty International reports that some of those held by ISIS are children as young as 10, and the militants are using rape as a weapon in attacks amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Captives have been tortured, raped, sold, forced to marry fighters, and in many cases, forced to convert to Islam. These atrocities will diminish with time as there will be no victims left in ISIS controlled areas, having fled or been killed. So, we can contain ISIS while maximizing our own safety but abandoning those who remain in ISIS controlled areas. After years of containment we hope that ISIS fighters lose the motivation which Jürgen Todenhöfer reports.

Another possibility is to abandon the entire endeavour. Bring our aircraft home and let the regional powers sort themselves out. This seems laden with trouble as the regional powers have poor command and control. Their ability to stand against ISIS is in doubt.

A third possibility is to go all in. To send in the troops and to occupy land. To bring peace and security with the equivalent of a militarized police force. This places our troops at maximum risk but minimizes atrocities committed. And as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, requires a commitment of decades which we are not appear willing to make.

Our choice falls on a continuum from "do nothing" to "total commitment." Given the atrocities being reported by Amnesty International, I am amazed by those who say that we have no role to play.

Can airstrikes alone win? Yes. But only if you accept that “victory” means containment, not complete defeat.

The next question is, if you contain the ISIS threat for, say, the next thirty years, what happens? Does ISIS influence fade? Does it grow and inspire ever more “homegrown terrorism” throughout the world? Does the world get safer or more dangerous? Will Canadians be safer? Tough questions.