To the Editor:
According to international law, the systematic murders of Christians, Kurds, Shia, and "heretic" Sunnis by the Islamic State are genocidal acts. Western countries have tolerated genocide in the recent past - in Rwanda, for example. But unlike Rwanda, we are at war with the Islamic State. A suitable historical analogy would be Nazi Germany.
Opposition to government policy in Parliament and by many journalists, however, is flippant.
Thomas Mulcair wants to use "diplomatic, humanitarian and financial" resources to "strengthen political institutions" in Iraq and Syria. This will bolster our "hard-earned credibility." Such empty clichés are unconnected to political reality.
Senior Liberals deployed battalions of euphemisms. Lloyd Axworthy wants to "whack" the Islamic State and give them a "full-court press." Meanwhile Justin Trudeau wondered "why aren't we talking more about humanitarian aid." Talking, mind you, not delivering, which first requires security.
Globe and Mail editorialists were equally vague and inconsistent. In late September there was apparently no case for war. Four days later we learned that "wars are not about picking enemies" or "degrading" them, but about "political aims." But when enemies pick you, you have a political aim.
Then they said the Islamic State was a local threat (15 years ago the Taliban would also have been perceived by them as a "local threat'). Finally, the Globe stated there was "a compelling case for Canadian involvement" because we can help the Kurds. But it's not about the Kurds.
Former Canadian diplomate Robert Fowler provided some clarity. War against the Islamic State, he said, is about our political interests and eliminating a criminal organization.Fowler worried that mission creep and bombing "will kill and maim many more innocent civilians than the caliphate could behead in its wildest dreams." Concern with innocents and a refusal to deploy ground troops led him to conclude that Westerners lacked the will to win. Since the Turks and Iranians won't act, that leaves only Western air power.
The response to claims that the Islamic State can't be destroyed by air strikes is obvious: it depends on how big your bombs are and how many you drop. Specifically, the British and Americans have available the successor to the Vietnam-era "daisy cutter," called the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB). Designed for use against soft- and medium-surface targets, it would be useful indeed against the Islamic State.
True, we risk the objections of Arab states by playing to our own strength, air power, rather than that of the enemy, accepting casualties. But seriously: is any Arab state friendly towards us? Are the Saudis our pals? Do they even respect us?
To recall the Nazi analogy: it was a terrible mistake not to have bombed the extermination camps and accepted the deaths of innocent Jewish civilians still living there. Why does this logic not apply to the Islamic State? Why not accept unfortunate collateral damage to ensure that anyone so spiritually disordered as to join the Islamic State will, like Nazis, be killed?
Sometimes questions do answer themselves.
Barry Cooper is Senior Fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
