The Instigator
brant.merrell
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Logan94
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The United States should send troops to Syria

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 5/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,070 times Debate No: 33342
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

brant.merrell

Pro

The U.S. Military should set up bases in Syria to draw Syrian military focus from rebel and civilian populations, offer refuge to civilian populations, undermine political leverage of the Islamic militant groups participating in the Syrian rebellion, avoid the susceptibility to I.E.D.s caused by regular vehicle transportation, provide transitional infrastructure and living necessities for the Syrian people, avoid obligatory involvement in Syrian politics, and sidestep accusations of over-involvement that typically fund anti-western terrorist organizations.

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.
Logan94

Con

we should not send troops to Syria. I believe in attack the regime but we need to do it in a form similar to libya. Airstrikes to help the rebels but no ground troops. There is no need for ground troops in syria! we should help but without ground troops. We do not need another iraq. Plus we dont have the money to do this.
Debate Round No. 1
brant.merrell

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

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 [1]. Operation Silver Anvil evacuated 400 people from danger [2]. Only 23 U.S. troops were killed in Operation Provide Comfort [3], 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 [4]. 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 [6]). 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 [7], 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.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Logan94

Con

My opponent points out operations that provided humanitarian support to people in need, but this will be a lot different. Our troops, if sent, will be going against the army of Syria. The syrian army is much more advanced than Al-Qaueda when it comes to weaponry and procedure. We would loose a lot of lives in syria. Also my opponents looks at these deaths as pure numbers. He says "only 482 US and coalition troops were killed". Only???? those are lives we are talking about.many had families, and the death of service men, even if only one, should not be taken lightly. We could just as easily use drones and aircraft to fight the regime, as we did SUCCESSFULLY in Libya. This shows we can help the rebels and set no troops on the ground. My opponent says drone strikes create anti-american sentiment among Al-Qaeda member, but I believe setting troops in Libya would be the same result if not worse. We can not afford to put troops on the ground and enter a conflict that we don't know will end soon. We need to help the rebels, but also protect American servicemen's lives, and not put there family through the possible loss of a father, brother, and son. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
brant.merrell

Pro

I was comparing the losses to the saved lives in each of those operations, and to the dozens of thousands of Syrian civilians killed in their current civil war because of lack of intervention, and to the millions without homes in need of humanitarian aid. So yes, I used the word "only," but with respect. You see, the military personnel in my acquaintance signed up out of a sense of humanitarian selflessness. Anyone unable to appreciate that trade-off is free to avoid military service on their own, but should also avoid sensationalizing military sacrifice to earn points in order to win an argument.

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 [1], 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 [2] while Syria in April of 2013 had only only 110,000[3].

1.http://www.washingtonpost.com...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Logan94

Con

Yes the syrian army is much more organized and it does have a central location, AKA capital. Which means it would be very easy to cripple the regime with airstrikes and no need for ground troops. We can do this job without sending troops and risking our troops lives. Save american's lives.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
brant.merrell

Pro

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
Logan94

Con

dont risk American troops! we can do this with drones and planes. I would rather a drone get shot down than a soldier die at battle when we didnt even need him their. Keep Americans safe,while helping the syrian rebels.
Debate Round No. 4
brant.merrell

Pro

brant.merrell forfeited this round.
Logan94

Con

save americans VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.