Coalition airstrikes won't flush out ISIS

Following the November 13 Paris attack, with France seemingly spearheading the fight against ‘Islamic State’ (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2249 (2015) calling upon member states to take ‘all necessary measures’ to redouble and coordinate their efforts to eradicate the safe haven established by ISIL in significant parts of Iraq and Syria’. Showing just how serious it was, France sailed it’s biggest navy aircraft carrier, the ‘Charles de Gaulle’, to expand its attacks on the ISIL. Besides its military moves, the French President Francois Hollande has been ramping up his diplomatic effort. In his recent visit to the US, he and President Barack Obama agreed to redouble their efforts against ISIL. French President noted “we will intensify our (air) strikes, we will choose targets that will do the most damage possible to the terrorist army”. In echoing that, President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to work with the French as “with allies.” However, I have misgivings whether airstrikes will defeat ISIS. For example, the US joined the fight in 2014 and, statistically, has attacked more than 2, 600 ISIS targets, but without severe blow to the group. At this point, it seems intractable to win this war by relying squarely on airstrikes without boots on the ground. It is apparent that all the countries that have joined the air campaign against ISIL are unwilling to send their troops on the ground. Until and unless they send boots on the ground, winning this warfare will remain elusive. Airstrikes alone have never been a means to win a war. They must be backed by a ground offensive. Russia began conducting its own airstrikes in later September, targeting anti-Assad rebels, but what has it achieved? It purports to be targeting ISIS, but in actual sense attacks are mainly targeting Syrian rebels. I wish to underline that military airstrikes cannot, and will never, achieve the coalition’s objective. Let me give one example, to better illustrate the point put forward. The Saudi-led coalition started airstrikes against Houthi rebels (who overthrew the democratically-elected government) in Yemen since March 2015 but, to date, they haven’t been able to eject them out of Sanaa, the capital city. This failure despite the fact that the rebels are facing a coalition made up of nine nations, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain (plus Somalia that makes its airspace, territorial waters and military bases available to the coalition) and the United States that provides intelligence and logistical support, including search-and-rescue for downed coalition pilots. So, what have the airstrikes achieved? Truthfully, nothing. They haven’t been able to kick Houthi rebels out of capital city or reinstate the ousted President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. Another question that no one is answering is, ‘can ISIL be defeated when President Bashar al-Assad is still in power’? Although the war in Syria is superficially different from the war against ISIL, it is nevertheless important to note that both wars are umbilically linked. One of the biggest challenges in resolving Syria conflict is the future of President Assad, who is, on the one hand, supported by Russia, Iran and, probably, China, and, on the other hand, opposed by the US and its Western allies, who believe that that he (Assad) should not be part of a possible transitional government. As a matter of fact, the state of instability and violence in Syria and Iraq contributed significantly to the genesis of ISIL extremism. Either way, there was lack of effective governance; hence Islamic extremists took advantage of that to declare an Islamic State that sought ‘to restore early Islam’s days of glory through jihad, a holy war directed against internal and external enemies’. The perennial problem today is whether Assad should be removed from power, who is probably the root cause of most problems in his country, including the deaths of hundreds and thousands of Syrians, the refugee crisis and the existential threats posed by ISIL, although it originated in Iraq. A common position is extremely necessary to restore the peace and stability in Syria; the differences between the key actors need to be ironed out so as to help the warring parties to form an inclusive transitional government that guarantees peace and security for all. Thus, the threat posed by ISIL would gradually come to halt. For example, on Tuesday, last week, Turkey shot down a Russian warplane claiming it had crossed into its airspace from Syria, an apparent retaliation for Russia’s attack of Turkey-backed anti-Assad rebels. As long as the key actors in the Syrian conflict remain at loggerheads regarding how to end the conflict, defeating ISIL will just be a chimera. The writer is a lecturer and international law expert.

Opinions

Coalition airstrikes won't flush out ISIS