THE LONG HAUL IN IRAQ
Canada should be ready
On Oct. 7, Parliament voted in favour of a government motion to participate for up to six months in the U.S.-led air campaign against ISIL militants operating in Iraq. The Canadian commitment is by no means insignificant, with more than 600 military personnel deployed in Kuwait along with six CF-188 Hornet fighter aircraft, a CC150T Polaris aerial refueller and two CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft.
Whereas the focus is often on the fighter jets, the Polaris has delivered in-flight fuel to American, Australian, British and French fighter aircraft while the newly upgraded Block III Aurora aircraft are providing vast amounts of intelligence for the coalition to exploit.
Canada, one might say, is doing its part, but how long will our mission actually last?
No doubt, military planners in Canada’s Joint Operations Command have been thinking about how to sustain the mission beyond six months for some time now, given the number of occasions the U.S. has said it will take years to defeat ISIL. It wouldn’t look good at all in Washington if Canada were to pack up and go home right in the thick of things. And, if there were any doubts about how long the mission could go on for, they were recently laid to rest in Ankara, Turkey, on the heels of American Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to the Turkish capital.
Biden was in Ankara, attempting to convince the Turkish government to take a more direct role in the anti-ISIL fight. In particular, the U.S. wanted access for coalition forces to Turkey’s İncirlik air base just north of the Syrian border and in close proximity to ISIL targets both in Syria and Iraq. No doubt, the U.S. also wanted Turkey’s own and significant fighter fleet and its army engaged in the anti-ISIL fight as well. In the end, however, Biden left Ankara empty-handed.
Indeed, there are considerable policy differences between the U.S. and Turkey concerning the situation in Syria and Iraq. For the U.S., the priority is defeating ISIL, while for Turkey it’s removing Syrian President Assad. During Biden’s visit, the Turkish government insisted that a no-fly or safe zone for the opposition had to be established in northern Syria or there could be no common way forward with the U.S. In reality, the Turkish government is frustrated with the U.S., insisting that if the Syrian opposition had been given the support it needed right from the start, Assad would have been forced from power and ISIL would never have appeared.
The fact is, the only organized and disciplined military force or ‘ boots-onthe-ground’ in Syria is Assad’s army.
In Iraq, the combination of air power and Iraqi “boots on the ground” will give the U.S. a fighting chance to defeat ISIL. However, the situation in Syria is different. U.S. air power cannot defeat ISIL in Syria without a significant ground force in support. And, if ISIL is able to use Syria as a semi-safe haven in the future it will remain a threat to the Iraqi government for years to come. Because of this, I suspect that in a number of coalition capitals there is a growing acknowledgment that Assad needs to stay on. Certainly, it is wishful thinking to believe the Syrian opposition can take on ISIL even if the U.S. has promised them more money and training. As for Syria’s Kurds, all they can do is hang on while Turkey clearly has no interest in sending its troops into battle, especially if the U.S. won’t.
The fact is, the only organized and disciplined military force or “boots-on-the-ground” in Syria is Assad’s army. Therefore, for the coalition to have any chance of defeating or at the very least degrading ISIL, some accommodation with Damascus is needed. Otherwise, I suspect the politicians and the military planners in Ottawa will have to start looking, at the very least, for the nearest 2016 monthly planner.