The United States should send troops to Syria
Debate Rounds (5)
I'm admittedly plagiarizing myself for this argument - I typed this same opinion three days ago: http://www.debate.org.... I fortunately plan to forgive me in the near future.
Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian effort that provided medical support to hundreds of people and tons of food / medical supplies to needy people in Bosnia . Operation Silver Anvil evacuated 400 people from danger . Only 23 U.S. troops were killed in Operation Provide Comfort , in defense of dozens of thousands of Kurds under threat of massacre. Only 43 U.S. troops were killed in operation Restore Hope, which provided life-saving humanitarian support to an estimated 100,000 people . Only 482 U.S. and coalition troops were killed in the Gulf War, which restored the entire nation of Kuwait in defense against Saddam Hussein, who at the time controlled an indisputably powerful military force.
My opponent assumes that a military operation in Syria would be identical to the full-fledged invasion of Iraq, a conflict that was politically motivated only by fiction and fear. A closer observation of military history shows that military action with humanitarian motive typically involves far less effort, fewer lives and minimal cost, but provides dramatically positive global effects. Most military operations prior to George W. Bush did not cost trillions of dollars or thousands of lives, nor did they extend for over a decade.
My opponent also assumes that air strikes are the most effective form of action, but drone strikes do not offer medical expertise, and do a poor job of filtering the guilty from the innocent (drone strikes in Pakistan have killed a median estimate of 585 civilians and 160 children ). In addition to being a poor solution for the human race, this contributes to anti-American sentiments, from which Al-Qaeda and Taliban draw political, financial and capital support.
We should learn from the recent rebellion in Northern Mali , where the rebels fought for democracy, but turned to five Islamist militant groups for support because they had weak ties with the west. These groups enforced Sharia law as soon as they gained a foothold of power, which prompted the same rebels who had asked the extremists for support to ally with the government they'd sought to overthrow. The militant groups aiding Syria similarly threaten to oppress the Syrian people after establishing power, but early U.N. / U.S. involvement can inhibit their influence.
We cannot let the mistakes of a single president make us too fearful to continue our efforts for international aid.
Al-Qaeda is an underground network woven into civilian populations, it has no central headquarters to destroy. The Syrian government is a completely different story. They make for a poor comparison point. Most casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Improvised Explosive Devices , which is why my original post states the United States "should set up bases in Syria," not drive across the desert every morning. The U.S. military is the best funded on earth, and obviously this bears little relevance when driving over a bomb, but face-to-face warfare is truly its turf. With a U.S. strategy that reduces vulnerability to improvised explosive devices, Assad's forces would be limited to modern and conventional warfare, much like Hussein's forces were in the Gulf War. Comparing Gulf-War Iraq to modern Syria, there is no reason to believe Assad's forces would be any more potent than Hussein's were. In fact, Iraq had 650,000 active solders in the gulf war  while Syria in April of 2013 had only only 110,000.
And no we dont need bases in Syria. If we are going to take action we do not need to create bases.
Lastly there is no more turf warfare. It is technological warfare now, and bombings. We no longer line our troops on a field and fight the enemy face to face. We use technology. And no we can not compare Hussein's forces to Assad's because of the technological advances of the 21st century. We dont need to loose American lives.
brant.merrell forfeited this round.
brant.merrell forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.