Striking New PM Ceases Striking
What constitutes the most effective method of dealing with foreign terror threats? According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, harsh militaristic means may not be the answer: As of 15 February 2016, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) has ceased airstrike operations in Iraq and Syria. The CAF strikes were one component of Operation IMPACT, Canada’s contribution to a larger multinational coalition known as the Middle East Stabilization Force (MESF). The purpose of this alliance is to halt and defeat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Trudeau defended his decision to end airstrikes in saying, “It is important to understand that while air strike operations can be very useful to achieve short-term military and territorial gains, they do not on their own achieve long-term stability for local communities." This statement was supported with reference to Canada’s first-hand experiences in Afghanistan.
Operation IMPACT is not only an air mission, as its other main focus points involve direct collaborative action with local forces: it aims to provide training and assistance to the Iraqi security forces, offer capacity building capabilities to regional forces, and support the coalition with highly trained personnel. In the place of airstrikes, Canada will shift its focus to increasing the number of Canadian soldiers training local troops who are fighting the Islamic State (IS). Six fighter jets will be withdrawn from the region, as promised during Trudeau’s campaign, although two surveillance planes will remain.
Canada’s involvement in the fight against the Islamic State began on 8 October 2014, when parliament voted to authorize its armed forces to participate in US-led airstrikes in Iraq. The vote passed by a narrow margin — 157 votes in favour to 134 against — but ultimately backed Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposal on the issue. Despite Canada’s presence of more than two dozen military advisors in Iraq, the deployment of ground troops was ruled out. The mission was to provide up to six CF-18 fighter planes along with surveillance, refuelling aircraft, and about 600 personnel. In defence of his plan, Conservative leader Harper stated, “If left unchecked this terrorist organisation will grow and grow quickly. They have already voiced their local and international terrorist intentions and identified Canada as a potential target.” Opinion polls at the time showed the majority of Canadians supporting Harper’s proposition, with 64% backing a limited combat role for their country.
The issue of rationalizing airstrikes in Syria and Iraq remains a contentious issue, with many Canadians having strong opinions on their respective sides of the debate. In terms of benefits, supporters of airstrikes offer justification by pointing out that IS is a genuine threat to Canada, as terrorist attacks have been occurring across the globe. On the other hand, participation in airstrikes against IS may increase the likelihood of Canada being targeted, as the militant groups seek to punish those who fight them. Proponents argue that airstrikes are a credible strategy to defeat ISIL, while others contend that Syria is in a stalemate; if a credible strategy was available, the war would have already been won. Although airstrikes aim to limit the number of civilian casualties through precision, the death of civilians is an inevitable result of aerial attacks. In fact, the advocacy group Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) stated that airstrikes caused 3 165 civilian deaths from the beginning of 2015 to August of the same year. Clearly, it is up for debate whether the potential effectiveness of airstrikes is worth the consequences they present.
While Canadians may be divided on the issue, Trudeau maintains that “we ought to avoid doing precisely what our enemies want us to do. They want us to elevate them, to give in to fear, to indulge in hatred, to eye one another with suspicion and to take leave of our faculties.” With the official end date of bombings set for 22 February 2016 at the latest, it will soon be made clear how effective Canada’s airstrikes were, if at all, in combating ISIS militants. If it is shown that the detriments outweigh the benefits, perhaps Canada’s decision will become an example for others to follow.