The Instigator
matspub
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gomergcc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,828 times Debate No: 65992
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

matspub

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing arguments/ rebuttals

Rules:
Provide linked sources
No profanity
gomergcc

Con

I accept your debate and look forward to your opening statment.
Debate Round No. 1
matspub

Pro

First I would like to start of with some definitions. "Boots on the ground" shall refer to sending troops into Iraq and Syria to fight directly against ISIS soldiers. As the Pro I need to prove that we need to send any number of troops to combat ISIS and the com has to prove that we shouldn't send troops to combat ISIS and either propose an alternate solution or argue for the existing one of sending strategic air strikes. No Rebuttals This Round.

ISIS is much more advanced then any other terrorist organization:
According to a Huffington Post article on September 9, 2014 states that ISIS makes around 3 million US dollars a day. This is also confirmed in more recent articles by CNN and NBC news. The article goes in to say that ISIS makes this great sum of money because of oil, extortion, and bank robberies. This is way more than Al-Quada ever made and we went to war with them. Also, ISIS has obtained many US weapons that are highly technological. They do this by taking weapons from Iraqi soldiers that were trained by the US. There is evidence if this in a recent article by the guardian that shows that ISIS took weapons from an US airdrop intended for the Kurds. This shows that by providing military training it is actually helping terrorist organizations like ISIS.

The air strikes have not been working
ISIS oringanally declared war against the west and the US when they beheaded the first two American hostages. Now with the recent beheading of Peter Kassig we see that the United States way to combat this war is not working. We need to do more to stop losing American lives that are there to get the truth or in Peter Kassig's to be an aid worker. Also there has been much confusion in who the air strikes are actually killing. For example, the same air strike was said to kill leader Abu bakr al-Baghdadi but another commander says they just injured him and finally a third commander said they might have killed just a infantry ISIS solider. “We have not ostensibly degraded the capability of the organization — we have put them on notice that we will target them, but we have not prevented the movement or the offensive of ISIS,” according to David Schenker, director of the program on Arab politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says in a NBC article. He goes on to say “These groups recognize that they are being targeted and are not making themselves so obvious. They’ve gone to ground.” This shows that while the air strikes might have worked at the start ISIS has adapted and they are becoming less and less useful in combating ISIS.

American efforts to vet and enlist Syrian and Iraqi candidates for an anti-Islamic Caliphate military coalition are misadventures in the making.
Even President Obama know this is a fool’s errand. Earlier this summer he dismissed the idea of recruiting “farmers, or teachers or pharmacists” to take on the murderous forces of Islamic Caliphate and/or the equally murderous Assad regime. “How quickly can you get them trained?” asked Obama rhetorically. “How effective are you able to mobilize them?” The answer is obvious: Never. The idea of a pro-western citizens’ militia rising in righteous indignation and defeating the Syrian dictatorship is preposterous. The possibility that such a militia could destroy the marauders of the Islamic Caliphate is ridiculous. The notion that it could do both of these things simultaneously is delusional. Still, there are “experts” in Washington who argue that the Free Syrian Army might be able to transform itself into a real military with American training. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The U.S. military spent a decade trying to build an army in Iraq. The Iraqi army after billions of dollars in US aid and equipment and countless hours of American tutelage, is worthless. America has not undertaken a military challenge of this magnitude since World War II. Perhaps President Obama is right to shy away from it. That is certainly the meaning of his “no boots on the ground,” pledge. But there is no point in pretending; without American boots on the ground, no sane foreign leader (or Syrian podiatrist or Iraqi foot soldier) will rush in where America fears to tread.

Good luck in your opening arguments!

Works Cited:
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.newsweek.com...
gomergcc

Con



I agree with my opponent on the threat that ISIS posses. This is a threat that presents us with a complex challenge. This is not a threat that will go away from just sending in more troops. Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and lead to another long drawn out war. I will be presenting several ways that we can reduce and eliminate this threat with out increasing US military personal.



ISIS is combination of three groups that are fighting for there own reasons under one banner:

The Islamic State: group of Muslims extremist that want to bring a strict interpretation of the Koran as law in Iraq and Syria

Naqshbandi Army/JRNT: A group of Baathist officials and military personal from Iraq. This group consists of two subgroups. The remaining Saddam loyalist that want Iraq to to return to how it was before US occupation. In addition a group of Baathists military personal that that are resentful of there firing over political reasons and want to have the Baathist recognized as a valid political party in Iraq, and there jobs backs.

Arab tribes: A group of several small tribes in both Iraq and Syria. Each with there own reasons for joining with ISIS that can be summed up as a lack of power. They range from small farming villages waning a better economic opportunity, to war lords that control several villages wanting more wealth and power.


In addition ISIS is spread over two countries that each present there own challenges. Iraq still on the long road to recovery from US occupation. While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own. They see defeating ISIS is a way of showing that they are able to solve there own problems. Iraq is also the main target of ISIS. Syria is in the middle of a bloody civil war. Both sides of the civil war see ISIS as a treat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power.


This is a complex threat. We need several plans of attack all working together. We can not lock our selves in to a single way of thinking. While soldiers are a power tool they are most effective when there is a clear cut enemy, and has clear cut battle lines. Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force. Throwing more solders in to the battle have only extended the battle not won it, in most cases. Once you start brain storming on how to defeat this dynamic group with out using the military far more effective options open up.




http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com...

http://www.weeklystandard.com...

Debate Round No. 2
matspub

Pro

"Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and to another long drawn out war."
You are making assumptions that aren't backed up with evidence. This is an extreme with no evidence which means it is very unlikely to happen.

"ISIS is combination of three groups that are fighting for there own reasons under one banner"
This is not relevant to this debate because by putting boots on the ground we would be combatting as forms of ISIS. Just because they have three groups does not make them any more advanced. Al-Quada had many more groups fighting then ISIS has.

"While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own."
Please provide evidence of this because it is an assumption. Also we need to do what's best for our country and just these horrid beheadings and the best way to do that is by putting boots on the ground.

"Iraq is also the main target of ISIS"
Provide evidence of this as it is an assumption. ISIS wants to covert democracies into harsh jihadist rule like the US. Through the beheadings they have started following through with this action and needs to be stopped by boots on the ground.

"Both sides of civil war see ISIS as a threat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power."
This not relevant to the debate as the topic you bring up is more a talk in the US getting involved to promote political equality. Provide evidence for the second claim as it is an assumption to if it is the civil war that is gaining them territory and power or is it that there number of followers keeps multiplying and the coalition and US air strikes can't keep up with it.

"Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force."
Provide evidence as this is also an assumption. This may be true in a handful of cases but the majority of those battles were won by the superior trained military.

We both agree that ISIS is a threat and since my opposition has not given evidence for their extreme assumptions I have shown that the only truly winnable way to beat ISIS is by putting boots on the ground.
Good luck in your rebuttal!
gomergcc

Con


"Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and to another long drawn out war." You are making assumptions that aren't backed up with evidence. This is an extreme with no evidence which means it is very unlikely to happen.



Many terrorist organizations, including ISIS, has many members that are against US involvement in the middle east for one reason or another. ISIS is getting military training and experience from seasoned members of Naqshbandi Army/JRNT that were opposed to US occupation of Iraq. It is a sound logical assumption that increasing US presence would increase membership of ISIS and other middle east terrorist organizations. It is logical to assume that there are people unsure if they want to join one of these organizations. That at least some of them would then desire to join because of the US sending in more military troops. This would be counter productive because before US troops have been able to arrive in the region ISIS and other middle east terrorist organizations will have grown in size, buy at least the amount of people I have just discussed. The US has been actively tying to fight the terrorist organization al-Qaida since at least October 7, 2001. After 13 years al-Qaida as not been defeated. It is a reasonable logical assumption that ISIS having significantly more financial reresources would be at least as difficult of an opponent and likely to take as long to defeat.




This is not relevant to this debate because by putting boots on the ground we would be combatting as forms of ISIS. Just because they have three groups does not make them any more advanced”



Knowing the groups that make up ISIS and the motivations for joining ISIS is very relevant to this debate. I am not saying that this makes them more advanced but that brings up strategic opportunities. It is far easier to undermine one of the groups motivations to join ISIS that to deal with them as a whole. The undermining most be in such a way to remove them as a treat other wise you just turn them in to another threat.



"While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own."/"Also we need to do what's best for our country"



Haider al-Abadi Iraq's Prime Minster was asked by AP during an interview about the US or international community sending boots on the ground. He stated:


"Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop." "The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."


http://www.foxnews.com...



Is taking on the Iraq government in addition to ISIS really what is best for our country? We would be talking an ally in the fight against ISIS and turning them in to a new enemy.



"Iraq is also the main target of ISIS"



Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, was the leader of an al-Qaida group in Iraq called the Islamic State of Iraq formed in 1999. In 2011 after the civil war broke out in Syria a Syria jihad group was formed called Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra, The Support Front for the People of Levant, lead by Abu Muhammad al-Joulani. Abu Muhammad al-Joulani is a Syrian national and member of al-Qaida that spent time helping Islamic State of Iraq during the US occupation of Iraq before the civil war broke out. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi formed ISIS in April 2013, to gain influence over Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra and Abu Muhammad al-Joulani. Abu Muhammad. Al-Joulani and al-Qaida shorty after stated the newly formed ISIS was to brutal and extreme for them. ISI changed its name after 14 years to take advantage of the Syrian civil war to ISIS. If Syria is not a secondary target then why did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his terrorist organization wait 14 years to express and interest beyond Iraq.



http://www.theguardian.com...


http://kavkazcenter.com...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk...




"Both sides of civil war see ISIS as a threat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power."This not relevant to the debate as the topic you bring up is more a talk in the US getting involved to promote political equality. Provide evidence for the second claim as it is an assumption to if it is the civil war that is gaining them territory and power or is it that there number of followers keeps multiplying and the coalition and US air strikes can't keep up with it.



The civil war is relevant to the debate; however, the promotion of Syrian political equity is not, and I didn’t bring it up to discuss that topic. One strategic option is to convince the Syrian government and the Syrian freedom fighters that ISIS is a greater threat than each other. An attempt to get both sides to agree to a cease fire until ISIS is dealt with is a worth attempting; however, it is more likely to get both sides to agree that ISIS targets should be attacked before each other when ever possible. I didn't state that the civil war is currently gaining ISIS power or territory. Only that ISIS is trying to win out against the Syrian government and Syrian freedom fighters, and that that would gain them the territory of Syrian and all the power that comes with controlling Syria. While I was not making that point it is true that the civil war is giving ISIS power and Territory. For example ISIS was able to gain control of Conoco gas field, previously held by Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra, in Syria. The power gained from the addtional money that ISIS is making off this oil field. The The Syrian Military would be more that able to take back the oil field if they were not engaged in battle with freedom fighters.



http://www.globalfirepower.com...


http://www.theguardian.com...



"Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force."Provide evidence as this is also an assumption. This may be true in a handful of cases but the majority of those battles were won by the superior trained military.



In order to give proper rebuttal I would need to show more that a handful of cases. This would cause me to greatly go off topic in a way that would not provide any thing that ties back in to this debate. I concede that it is possible but highly unlikely.




US boots on the ground will not win against ISIS. It will make the problem worse. The Muslim Brotherhood is publicly stating that there is no ISIS. That it is the US doing it as an excuse to to bring back the US military to the area. Bringing US troops will also bring attacks from the other Islamic terrorist organizations, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq have all ready made threats. ISIS is stating on there social media accounts that they want the US to send troops, and it is never good when your enemy wants you to attack them. In general it means that have a plan to beat you. The Iraq government will not allow US troops into Iraq, and sending them any way just will turn Iraq in to a enemy.



Even if sending a military force in is the only option, and don't think it is, they should not be going to Iraq or Syria. The Turkish government has stated they are willing to send there military to fight ISIS. Turkey is just concerned Iran will then attempt to invade. The US interest are better served sending troops to Turkey.


http://www.clarionproject.org...


http://english.al-akhbar.com...


Debate Round No. 3
matspub

Pro

" 'This is not relevant to this debate because by putting boots on the ground we would be combating as forms of ISIS. Just because they have three groups does not make them any more advanced'
Knowing the groups that make up ISIS and the motivations for joining ISIS is very relevant to this debate. I am not saying that this makes them more advanced but that brings up strategic opportunities. It is far easier to undermine one of the groups motivations to join ISIS that to deal with them as a whole. The undermining most be in such a way to remove them as a treat other wise you just turn them in to another threat. "

What you are basically saying is if we don't combat ISIS directly and try to take for example an economic approach it will be harder to stop them because they have different groups. That is helping to prove my point because it is showing by taking another approach then putting boots on the ground will be harder.

"Haider al-Abadi Iraq's Prime Minister was asked by AP during an interview about the US or international community sending boots on the ground. He stated: "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop." "The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."

Though the prime minister might not love the idea we need to do what is best for our country and that is to stop the people who have declared war against us. Did we care what the Prime Minister of Russia though when we went into the Cold War.

"US boots on the ground will not win against ISIS. It will make the problem worse. The Muslim Brotherhood is publicly stating that there is no ISIS. That it is the US doing it as an excuse to to bring back the US military to the area."

This contradicts everything you have said in your arguments. Now you are saying that ISIS doesn't exist. What about all the beheading, or the extortion the list goes on and on. In your last sentence you say that the US practically made this up. Maybe you should say that to James Foley or Peter Kassig. They lost their sons who were just trying to show as what was really going on and now you are saying the US made it up.

"The Iraq government will not allow US troops into Iraq, and sending them any way just will turn Iraq in to a enemy."

You are making an assumption based on what the Prime Minister said 3 months ago. Are you trying to say the solution to solve ISIS is one that Iraq doesn't want to happen? Think about all the attacks ISIS has made to Iraq to try to gain land and power. The amount of land they controlled was half the size when that Prime Minister spoke.

"The US interest are better served sending troops to Turkey."

You need to clarify what are you saying because are you saying we should waste our tax money on sending troops to a place NOT in war or are you saying that we should send troops with Turkey's to fight ISIS? The latter would be that you are agreeing with my proposition as we would still be putting boots on the ground to combat ISIS.


I have shown that ISIS needs to be stopped and the only way to do that is by putting boots on the ground. The general population is even in agreement with me. A recent poll by the Huffington Post show people wanting to put boots on the ground rise 24 percentage points. It went from 34% to 58%. This show that the majority of people want this to happen and we need to listen. My opponent has contradicted himself on multiple occasions and has provided substantial evidence to why we should put boots on the ground. According to our President Barack Obama," ISIS is a cancerous tumor that needs to be stopped." ISIS can be stopped by putting boots on the ground before the cancerous tumor gets to big and kills the US with another 9/11. We need to save our country and do what is best for the American People not the Prime Minister of Iraq. Also, my opponent has failed to mention an alternate solution as the air strikes have cleary not been working. His only solution is agreeeing with my proposition. Therefore, the only way to truly end ISIS is by putting boots on the ground.

gomergcc

Con

“What you are basically saying is if we don't combat ISIS directly and try to take for example an economic approach it will be harder to stop them because they have different groups.”

No, I was saying that is more strategic to rip apart the ties that bond them. This would make each group weaker. Let me use a hypothetical example to help understand my meaning. If China wanted to attack the US we put up a large fight. It would be easier for them to defeat the US if they ripped apart the ties that bound the states together. Then instead of tying to fight one large enemy they would be fighting 50 small enemies. That a ecomic approach is a vaild alternative to sending in troops, but most be used in combination with other strategies.

“Did we care what the Prime Minister of Russia though when we went into the Cold War”

I remind my opponent that the Cold War was against the USSR and not just Russia. That we the US cared enough not to send in troops in to the USSR. This is a perfect example of how you can defeat an enemy using a dynamic strategy that that does not include sending in US troops.

“Now you are saying that ISIS doesn't exist”

No, I didn't state that. I stated that the Muslim Brotherhood does not think that ISIS exists, and that they believe that ISIS is US troops. That if the US sends troops that the Muslim brotherhood will be another enemy that US troops will have to deal with in addition to ISIS. I also maned other simmar groups that would also be enemies to US troops. I was showing that the US would not jsut have to fight ISIS but many other terrorist organizations.

“you saying we should waste our tax money on sending troops to a place NOT in war or are you saying that we should send troops with Turkey's to fight ISIS? The latter would be that you are agreeing with my proposition as we would still be putting boots on the ground to combat ISIS.”

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Send in a large military force to Turkey were the war is not happening. To leave the military in Turkey and the Turkish military to be sent to combat ISIS. This would remove the threat of other terrorist organizations from joining with ISIS to attack US troops. This remove the threat Iran posses to Turkey. This would use less tax payer money and would likely have far less injuries to US troops.



My opponent was not shown any reason that sending in US troops is the only valid option, or why that option is better than other options. I have shown that sending in US troops would increase terrorist threats and how the Turkish government is more that willing to send in there military. I have meet my burden of proof my opponent has not.

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.