In a recent New York Times opinion piece, “Where Terrorism Research Goes Wrong,” social psychologist Anthony Biglan argues that, given the importance of antiterrorism programs and the huge resources devoted to them, far too few are subjected to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating their efficacy.

The future of humanitarian assistance and security policy in chaotic places such as Syria and Iraq could rest on a single question: Does aid in conflict zones promote peace or war? It seems intuitive to assume that hunger and exposure push people to violence and that aid should, therefore, lead to peace.

At the tactical level, air-delivered munitions can significantly degrade the ability of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, to mass their forces or employ artillery, mortars, rockets and other weapons that can have a devastating impact on civilians as well as Iraqi military forces in the field. We’ve seen air power achieve positive results in other cases.