Airstrikes continue to be used in battle


Airstrikes are a growing form of military action and retaliation.

We have seen the United States take action with the growing ISIS crisis and Israel’s attacks on Palestine.

Airstrikes are using any form of aviation, from helicopter to fighter jets, to attack a military target using high-caliber bullets or bombs, depending on the purpose.

Airstrikes do create collateral damage; they can kill or damage people and cities that are not in the fight, making this form of attack unpopular.

“…You have to know where they enemy is so you don’t kill innocent civilians,” said Belal Akramy, a Delta student.

Syrian Kurds are saying the airstrikes from the United States haven’t worked to back ISIS away.

Controversy also continues to boil with the Israel bombings in Palestine. It’s been speculated that Israel is attacking civilian structures and civilians in general.

With airstrikes being so controversial, it creates issues seeing anything positive with airstrikes, but air strikes have shown worth.

The former creator and the leader of ISIS (Abu ayyub al-Masri, Abu Omar al-baghdadi) were killed in an airstrike.

We can eliminate targets that may be heavily guarded or in areas hard to reach without sending troops in.

With the advancement of military technology, we don’t need to send in pilots to do the airstrikes. Drone technology allows control on an unmanned machine from the safety of a base.

Airstrikes also can keep people from entering an area to capture.

The United States has shown that with bombing areas so ISIS can’t move into certain areas to take control.

Airstrikes will always be controversial, though they give support to troops on the ground, allowing coordinated attacks that give cover.

The overall effectiveness of airstrikes, including keeping terrorists away, helping our troops on the ground and saving military lives with new technology, outweigh the problems.