should obama send ground troops to isis
Debate Rounds (3)
Another issue with toppling ISIS immediately is that there is no plan presented on who to give ISIS controlled territory to. If the territory is given to Assad, we are allowing a ruthless dictator to gain ground on rebel forces. If the land is given to rebel forces, the rebels could change their governing style. When the US funded Al-Qaeda in the 1980's during the final stint of the Soviet Union, Al-Qaeda was able to use conquered lands, money, and supplies given to them by the US to eventually terrorize both the region and the world. There is no need to choose the lesser of two evils. The solution would be to just not make a decision at all.
A coalition should be led by the US and other world powers with the Kurds and allied Middle Eastern countries, like Saudi Arabia, to lead coordinated airstrikes to cripple the ISIS infrastructure. Recruitment and training stations should be the first targeted. And eventually power stations in the region to entirely cripple the ease of access ISIS has on the region. Communication and travel would be far harder to accomplish. Countries who are supplying ISIS with money, troops, or supplies should be met by heavy UN-based sanctions. Saudi Arabia must stop supplying oil to the Syrian region and an attempt to limit the supply of Iranian oil to the region as well should be put into practice.
The US, under any administration, should not send ground troops to the middle east no matter the enemy. Regional and economical instability are far to likely. Do we not learn from the past? Three times since 1970 the US has destabilized a region. It is time to put together an organized coalition that can tackle the issue without US ground force involvement.
Secondly, if ISIS was to somehow conquer Iraq, the resources that they would receive in return would not be a threat at all to America. ISIS would receive an economy that has very little infrastructure, an incredibly high global debt, and a population that does not want them there. Attempting to take over Iraq would mean that they now reign a country almost completely full of Shiites. Why would they want that? They would not kill of the whole population. The Iraqi people would be likely to rebel very hard if this invasion were to occur.
Arming the Iraqi army is going back to the mistakes made during the 1990's and the 2000's. We would be arming and assisting a military that has proven to be unstable and unable to make up their minds on which sides to take in that region. Arming an unstable and uncooperative military could prove to be an even bigger problem in the future.
thejoeyk forfeited this round.
Zennie5000 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.