Canada should keep bombing role against ISIS: experts

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s commitment to withdraw Canadian airplanes from the bombing coalition in Iraq and Syria may have a negative impact on Canada’s influence internationally, according to defence expert Thomas Juneau.

• See also: Canada should end bombing, take on ‘logistical role’ against ISIS: experts, NGOs

Two days after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, French fighter jets dropped 20 bombs on Raqqa, the de facto capital of the so-called Islamic State group in Syria. French president François Hollande called the attack Paris a “declaration of war.”

Since then, the United States has shared intelligence with the French and carried out airstrikes of their own. The Russians have joined in, flying more than 100 combat missions on Nov. 19 in retaliation for the downing of a Russian airplane in Egypt, for which a branch of the Islamic State has claimed responsibility.

En route to the APEC meeting in Manila, Philippines, Trudeau instead promised more training of Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq.

“We made a clear commitment in the campaign to stop the bombing mission by Canadian jets and replace it with a role for Canada that is still a serious military role, but leaned more towards training of local troops to be able to bring the fight directly to [ISIS],” he said. “That’s the commitment we made very clearly throughout the campaign and we have a mandate to do that.”

But while training local forces is part of the solution, Canadian airstrikes are also essential to the country’s efforts to fight ISIS, says Juneau.

“We are as good at airstrikes as we are at training local forces,” says Juneau. “Canadian Forces acquired excellent combat and training experience in Afghanistan. We can do both.”

Juneau was a strategic analyst with the Department of National Defence from 2003 to 2014. He says pulling out of the airstrike mission is undermining the whole coalition.

“It’s not the loss of airplanes that angers the United States,” he says. “It’s the precedent that it creates, that a change in government can mean a country is pulling out of the coalition.”

The United States created a coalition with Arab countries such as Qatar, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia and even though they have not carried out many airstrikes of their own, at least they are present, he argues.

There are more than 30 countries participating in the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. A dozen of these have intervened in Syria and Iraq, including Canada. Other participants contribute military assistance or humanitarian aid.

The United States has conducted the majority of the 57,301 sorties in Iraq and Syria for a total cost of $5 billion U.S. In comparison, Canada’s airplanes had conducted 1,821 sorties as of Dec. 2, which amounts to roughly three per cent of total coalition sorties. Canada currently has six CF-18 fighter jets, two Aurora reconnaissance airplanes, and one Polaris refueller aircraft involved in the fight against ISIS.

Supporters of the Liberal government point to that low contribution as a reason to withdraw from the mission. But for Juneau, that argument misses the point. Canada needs to stay involved in the airstrikes to fulfill its obligations as an ally of the United States and NATO, he argues.

“For an alliance to work, you got to give some and take some,” he says. “Every country has a long-term responsibility towards their allies.”

France, which lost 130 lives at the hands of ISIS fighters in the Paris attacks, is one of the NATO allies of Canada. And while French ambassador Nicolas Chapuis did not object to Trudeau’s plans of withdrawing the CF-18s from the fight, the Belgian ambassador urged the prime minister to keep fighting the jihadist group from the air.

Trudeau’s plan faces opposition at home as well. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Québec Premier Philippe Couillard have both called on Trudeau to continue the air combat mission. An Angus Reid poll conducted on Nov. 19 suggests nearly two-thirds of Canadian adults support the combination of bombing and training missions against ISIS. Forty-nine percent of Liberal respondents supported maintaining the mission in its current form.

In a recent editorial, Conservative interim leader Rona Ambrose warned Trudeau of the message he might be sending by pulling out of Iraq and Syria. The Canadian airstrikes saved lives, she argues, and the Canadian Forces contribution is small but effective.

Canada must do its share of “heavy lifting,” writes retired Col. Bernd Horn about the role of Canadian Forces in a paper published last February by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He said he notices a reluctance from the government of Canada to engage in long and costly conflicts, but argues Canada must sometimes do so to maintain its status among its allies.

Canada, allies stand to win from airstrikes

Keeping the CF-18s in the air may not only benefit Canada, but also coalition partners.

Abdulrahman al-Masri, a Syrian journalist living in Canada, applauds Trudeau’s plan to bring in Syrian refugees—but deplores his position on airstrikes.

“Canada contributed millions to aid and [will] bring around 25,000 refugees by the end of this year,” he says. “That’s greatly appreciated, but it’s still in the role in the fight against ISIS that Canada hasn’t contributed much.”

He argues withdrawing the Canadian participation means losing a Canadian opinion and perspective on the airstrikes.

“The Canadian army is more cautious in relation to civilian casualties in this fight,” says al-Masri. “And by going completely out of this conflict, it loses all input.”

“An opinion and providing intelligence and support to these airstrikes, I believe is essential,” he says.

Canada was never aiming to defeat ISIS with only airstrikes. In the second debate of the federal election, then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper argues airstrikes are “the only way to keep [ISIS] in their positions.”

A war cannot be won only with airstrikes, says Juneau. Training Iraqi and Kurdish forces as well as negotiations with Syrian rebels are an integral part of the solution to the Syrian civil war, which must be political and not solely military, he says.

“It’s not a great solution, but it’s the least bad one available,” he says.