Oppose the US direct air force military intervention against ISIS and in the Middle East.

In August, the United States assembled an international coalition to conduct a campaign of air strikes on ISIS positions in Iraq. Then, in October, the coalition expanded the intervention into Syria. American progressives have been relatively uniform in opposing the intervention against ISIS.

However, Hillary says,” a more effective coalition air campaign is necessary and we should be honest about the fact that to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS.” Democracies favor remote strike weapons, as launched aircraft, because they offer great destruction at the target without necessary ground involvement. Personnel on the ground could be captured, wounded, and killed by a simple technology that cannot harm aircraft.

And ironically, an Islamic State is more exposed than the non-state actors from which ISIS was formed. ISIS is occupying and governing territory, within a largely flat, not obscured natural environment, without significant air or water transport, moving between cities, sometimes with captured military trunks and its transporters, which are the easiest weapons to observe from the air.

However, the air strategy has been chosen not for its effectiveness in defeating ISIS, but for its effectiveness in reducing the exposure of friendly personnel, while still offering spectacular images of destruction. The trouble with an air campaign is that aircraft alone cannot flush out ground forces. Jihadi insurgents normally travel in civilian vehicles, which are effectively indistinguishable from collateral traffic, unless ground intelligence has identified the particular vehicle in which a particular target person is travelling at a particular time. If air campaigners want to avoid these collateral risks, then they must focus on large assets in barren areas, such as oil derricks in the desert. This is effectively the current counter of ISIS strategy. But it is the least efficient and lease decisive strategy. Because the ISIS is not dependent on heavy industry or urban infrastructure. And it does not expose friendly personnel on the ground until a air force pilot is shot down in enemy territory. This was the terrible fate of the Jordan whom ISIS captured in December and burnt to death. In response to his capture, the United Arab Emirates had stopped air strikes pending some reassurance that the coalition’s capacity for rescuing downed him could be improved. In retaliation for this death, United Arab Emirates joined in. Egypt has stepped up its strikes in Libya, in response to ISIS killing Egyptian nationals on the ground there, and has accepted inevitable criticism of the high collateral casualties. Retaliation is not a new or an effective military strategy – it just offers domestic political advantages over doing nothing. The retaliatory motivations of the latest air strikes, and the counter-productive collateral harm, increase the net disadvantages. Therefore, I oppose the US direct air force military intervention against ISIS and in the Middle East.