Canada Should Never Have Become a Member of the Military Coalition Against ISIS

Here are my main points. A. It is the responsibility of strong nations to police the common global laws, of which ISIS is in direct and egregious violation. B. Isis is a particularly heinous threat to global security, which directly impacts Canadian national security. C. Trusting others to deal with the threat ISIS poses to Canadian interests is counterproductive. A. Legal Responsibility. Canada is a signature member of the United Nations. The United Nations has adopted a doctrine called 'Responsibility to Protect.' In it, as a condition of sovereignty, a state has the responsibility to protect it's citizens from war crimes. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of every citizen in a sovereign nation to do the same. This was adopted by consensus of almost every nation on the planet during the 2005 world summit, including Canada(1). It also extends the responsibility of protecting citizens from war crimes and the like to other nations beyond the sovereign borders of where the crimes occur. Because Canada is a nation of laws, the responsibility to protect global citizens from warcrimes applies to Canada. Canada is failing it's legal responsibility if it fails to act to prevent atrocities and warcrimes. ISIS has taken hostages, executed civilians, and has been observed executing attacks on civilian populations, all of which are violations of international law(2). It has shown a disrespect for observers and reporters, deliberately targeting them in several instances(3), making it clear that these violations will continue. B. Threat to National Security. ISIS poses an ongoing threat to Canada's National security. It's example that violence can be used with impunity to achieve it's objectives is a message to other terrorist organizations, both domestic and international, that they can do the same on Canada's soil. ISIS is not an organization that is native to Iraq, but an outside force. Their actions could be done anywhere, or be repeated anywhere. While ISIS's particular ideology is focused on the geographical region in the middle east, they are not hesitant to execute attacks outside of this area if it is in their interest to do so, disrespecting and even blatantly defying sovereignty of other states for no other reason then to send a political message(4). C. Why others can't be trusted to do the job. Canadian interests are just as complex as any other nation's, and if Canada is not allowed to express those interests and ensure that other more powerful nations are not held in check, then it is likely that Canadian interests will be disregarded to the detriment of global peace and security. 1. 2005 World Summit Outcome http://www.un.org... 2. Principle VI of International law. https://www.icrc.org... 3. ISIS " major threat to media freedom in both Iraq and Syria. http://en.rsf.org... 4. Brussels Jewish Museum killings: Suspect 'admitted attack' http://www.bbc.com... Cross Examination On issue I, Unnecessary Expenditure, you claim that Canada is spending money for no good reason. You claim that the money would be better spent in humanitarian aid. Are you familiar with the actions of militias in African countries shattered by warfare? Warlords and militants would go into the camps, steal the food, and sell it. Aid in unstable countries often is subjected to theft, preventing the people who most need it, the civilians, to get it. To prevent that you then have to deploy ground troops. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of not being involved in the Coalition? You state that alternatively this money could better be spent on shoring up Canada's borders and bolstering Canadian national defense. National defense is a strange creature. It costs a certain amount to maintain a ready force, but active operations are much more expensive. This is where the order of magnitude expenditures come from. By increasing national defense, you add capacity to spend more money, money that may be beyond Canada's means. Is it not best, therefore, to keep capacity within Canada's capability? I concede that providing 30000 Canadians access to undergraduate scholarships is a very worthy cause, but global security for those Canadians would be much more valuable. You state that it would raise 188 children to adulthood, but the actions of the Canadian Airforce could easily prevent several orders of magnitude larger loss of life by preventing ISIS from operating with Impunity. Isn't it better to save lives already here rather than provide for the additional of more? For the actual effectiveness of the strikes, I move on to issue II. On issue II, Ineffectual Airstrikes, you claim that it is not the best way of dealing with ISIS fighters. You are right in that Airstrikes do not defeat ground troops alone, but it does restrict their movement. Furthermore, airpower assists troops already on the ground be that much more effective. It also allows tracking of individuals attempting to escape, which is vital to modern operations. While the news brags about bombs being dropped on tanks and large guns, the truth is that the most critical operations are those where a single bullet isn't fired. Those aren't bragged about in the news because it's not flashy, but consist of the majority of the operations that will be executed. This isn't about the complete elimination of the enemy either. In most warfare some remnant of the enemy exists after the conflict ends. This enemy may or may not be intact at the conclusion of the conflict based on too many variables to tell. This is independent of victory or defeat of either party in any conflict. Furthermore, the Coalition is only there because of the particularly heinous acts perpetuated by ISIS. While maybe that aircraft can't kill them all, an aircraft flying overhead could be a determining factor in if a cell of ISIS fighters feel safe enough to execute genocide against an entire village. On issue III, Why is it OUR problem, you claim that ISIS is not a threat to Canadian safety. While it is true that ISIS will not be attacking Canadian soil in mass anytime soon, global terrorism as it stands is a new idea that is evolving as we watch, and if ISIS is allowed to gain their objective uncontested, then it sets an example for other organizations to participate in acts of a similar manner. Isn't it better that we learn to fight it before it reaches Canada's shores? Furthermore, if we defeat the ideology where it stands, would it not help improve global security by teaching people that violence is no longer the path for change? You claim that Canada should be focusing on doing all you can for those displaced by the conflict. What of those who are calling for Air Support? What of those who want us to stop ISIS from killing their loved ones? What do you say to them? Do you say sorry about your children, but we will only support you once you are displaced? If the role were reversed and Canada were invaded by a foreign religious fundamentalist terrorist organization killing civilians in the thousands, would you want people to devote resources to feed you, or to stop the killers?