PRO Resolved: Committing United States Ground Combat Troops to Fight ISIL Is in the Best

PRO Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States.

It is in America’s highest interest to be a moral leader in the Middle East. There will be political and economic gains to cut back on DRONE airstrikes and to use limited troops to block the dangerous growth of ISIS. Pro applies and clarifies the Webster definition of ground combat troops as even those U.S. military personal engaged in intelligence gathering, training, and humanitarian protection, the types of troop PRO advocates.

FRAMEWORK: If even some U.S. humanitarian combat troops on the ground are shown to be needed and effective to protect and important U.S. values and interests, pro must sway the debate.

POINT 1: U.S. has a moral responsibility to stop genocide and civilian slaughter. U.S. humanitarian-focused troops will aid this, not inhuman DRONE strikes.

Amnesty International and others report that not only are Syrian civilians being slaughtered with ISIS strength, but Christians are targeted for death, and a specific ethnic group, Yizidis, are being targeted for anhiliation by ISIS.

Boots on the ground are needed to fully liberate Iraqi towns. “Humanitarian Efforts Failing the Hundreds of Thousands Forced to Flee Ethnic Cleansing in Northern Iraq.” Amnesty International. 12 August 2014. Web. 11 March 2015. https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2014/08/iraq-mass-displacement-northern-iraq/ The international response to large scale displacement of civilians from areas seized by ISIS has been woefully inadequate to date. Even much publicized emergency air-drops to the Yezidi community stranded in villages on the Sinjar Mountain surrounded by ISIS militants have proved largely ineffective. “We hear the planes in the distance but nobody has come to us or sent us anything. We can’t leave. ISIS will catch us and kill us if we do. For god’s sake, please help us”. Hundreds of survivors from the mountain and many still stuck there told Amnesty International said that no aid had reached them

U.S. DRONE strikes only anger the Middle East region and kill innocents. “Separate counts of American drone strikes by three organizations, the New America Foundation, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Long War Journal, finds that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, 476 of them civilians. But those counts, based on news accounts and some on-the-ground interviews, are considered very rough estimates.” (NY TIMES April 24, 2105) Experts also agree that Airstrikes typically drive militants to embed themselves in civilian communities. This entails further integration in the communities ISIS controls, which worsens the humanitarian crisis. This is unacceptable.

POINT 2: Humanitarian and intelligence gathering target troops are effective to both block ISIS and raise U.S. power as a global leader.

As reported on Frontline, PBS by UN official Frederick Cuny (Nov. 1989 (UN peacekeeping official and commander of multiple operations. ) Obama has increased the U.S. trend to use combat troops as humanitarian aid, along with allies. They have been “critical to the overall success of the intervention: guarantors of the peoples' right and access to relief assistance. This may involve keeping roads open, ensuring public order around distribution sites, or guaranteeing that forces have disengaged to permit people to reach distribution sites in safety.” He outlined past success of such troops in the Ethiopian airl lift , aid to Sudan, protection of India refugee camps in Pakistan civil war 1971, Sri Lanka peace keeping forces, and in just about every natural disaster and disease epidemic.

U.S. troops will gather key evidence that must be kept from less trustworthy allies like Iran. JSOC can obtain important intelligence, Boot, Max. “Defeating ISIS” Council on Foreign Relations. November 2014. Send in the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Between 2003 and 2010, JSOC—composed of units such as SEAL Team Six and Delta Force—became skilled at targeting the networks of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Its success was largely due to its ability to gather intelligence by interrogating prisoners and scooping up computers and documents—something that bombing alone cannot accomplish. JSOC squadrons should once again be moved to the region (they could be stationed in Iraq proper, the Kurdistan Regional Government, Turkey, and/or Jordan) to target high-level ISIS organizers. PRO POINT 3 Limited, focused combat troops will continue to raise respect for U.S. leading to more breakthrough successes Obama has enjoyed.

(The Global Obama: Crossroads of Leadership in the 21st Century) By Dinesh Sharma, Uwe P. Gielen 2013 It seems the decline in global leadership of the U.S. has been brought to a halt with Obama’s policies, if not reversed thanks to what is viewed as his efforts towards peaceful solutions to all conflicts, . In Jordan and , Lebanon , Morocco and Saudi Arabia, Egypt show 80% are happy with his direction, with issues of Palestine’s refugees marking the one area of concern ...With this Arab vote of confidence needed now more than ever, if Obama does not revert to American aggression, there is a chance to deepen diplomatic success at an unstable time. ...and Obama has used his influence to sway the G8 over issues of energy and environment. With his Technology Transfer Program and more that will bring billions in economic benefits to the U.S. and its allies alike. .

Our opponents may worry that the Middle East region, especially Iran, may retaliate in anger at U.S. involvement, but as we mentioned earlier, our research shows that the majority of the Arab world praise a respectful alliance with U.S. forces.

In economic trade for oil, in political stability for Israel and other growing democracies, we have too much to lose by continuing our cowardly, immoral DRONE strikes, and much more to gain by real engagement against this dangerous, growing threat of ISIS. CON Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States.

The Pro team wants to scare you about beheadings and kidnappings. Don’t confuse cruelty with power. ISIS is not as united or undefeatable as it seems. FRAMEWORK: If CON can show you that other allies can slow and defeat ISIS without any harm to American troops, and with MORE benefits to U.S. key interests, then CON must sway the debate.

The most important self-interest to the U.S. right now, at this moment, is keeping IRAN nuclear free. It was widely reported that the Obama administration has made this a top priority to keep economic and political stability in this region with our ally Israel, and our economic dependency on oil resources there. If we step-up too much power in the region with our training or humanitarian troops, Iran will further gain Anti-Western recruits and allies to block future cooperation and nuclear negotiations. POINT 1: ISIS is not so unified nor undefeatable, and certainly not requiring U.S. expert troops.

Isis is a mosh-up of different factions and has rivals of all kinds in and around it. According to the The Atlantic’s Martha Crenshaw3 it is a sectarian, not religious, group working in resistance against governments—formerly al-Maliki’s Iraq, and currently Assad’s Syria. These are typically Sunni rebel groups. There are also Shia groups, many Iran-funded, working to preserve the status quo waythings are. Add in the various factions and groups aligned with the independence-minded Kurds (including, particularly, the peshmerga), and it is no surprise that ISIS has a list of rivals (some of which agree with the cause but find the methodology abhorrent, like al-Qaeda).

POINT 2 U.S. support of IRAN’s troops wins their cooperation for nuclear negotiations. US ground troop involvement has harms on two levels: 1) it erases any kind of cooperation with Iran, which could be a useful stepping stone diplomatically for a nuclear weapons ban, and 2) it angers muslims and creates new recruits for ISIS.

Ground troops interfere with US interests with respect to Iran. Esfandiary, Dina, and Ariane Tabatabai. “Iran’s ISIS Policy.” International Affairs 91: 1 (2015) 1–15. Chatham House. Web. 11 March 2015 www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_publication_docs/ Dina Esfandiary is a MacArthur Fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College London.

In June 2014 the head of the Centre for Strategic Studies and adviser to President Rouhani, Hesameddin Ashna, noted that ‘Iran would not support a US ground intervention but airstrikes could help the “paralyzed” Iraqi air force’. In September, after the announcement that Iran would not be included in the international coalition against ISIS, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei claimed that several US officials had approached their Iranian counterparts to discuss coordinating efforts against ISIS. He noted that while some Iranian decision-makers were not opposed to such cooperation, he himself had made the decision to reject the United States’ request. However, the Supreme Leader did not condemn US air strikes in Iraq. This is a far cry from the condemnation of the US presence in Iran’s backyard and its general involvement in the region consistently voiced by the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution. Today, US involvement in Iraq has helped take some of the pressure off Iran, by helping to degrade ISIS and constrain it geographically. International intervention also minimizes the need for Iran to have an active presence on the ground in Iraq.

The idea that US ground troops can wipe out ISIS is only topical to the resolution if that’s the fundamental US interest. It’s not. By defeating ISIS now, rather than enabling Arab states to do it themselves, the Americans simply set the stage for more rounds of extremism, warfare, sectarian conflict, and failed states. The impact would be threats to Israel and nuclear annihilation. Harrison, Ross. “Confronting the Islamic State.’” Parameters 44(3) Autumn 2014. Strategic Studies Institute. Web. 11 March 2015. ww.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/Parameters/issues/Autumn_2014/7 Ross Harrison is on the faculty of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Crushing ISIS must be spearheaded by Arab countries, says foreign service expert Ross Harrison Because ” While the U.S. can provide military and other forms of assistance, it can not completely inoculate (protect) the Arab world from the effects of ISIS. The efforts of the United States need to be augmented by political action on the part of governments in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon towards building legitimate institutions and political processes. Without political will and adequate responses from the Arab states, US aid is likely to be ineffective. Questions regarding state-based identities and Arab nationalism are something only Arab leaders and their constituents can answer. Failure to address the question of political identity in the Arab world could mean leaving it to ISIS and the broader jihadist movement to answer. However, the United States can play a critical role. In addition to increasing their defensive capabilities and nudging them towards political inclusion, the United States should encourage its Arab partners to engage politically on issues related to Iraq and Syria.

So the larger, long-term impact of STABLE, legitimate, accountable governments would be weakened and even blocked if U.S. swooped in to control things. Support their troops is crucial, but allowing ARAB states to solve this crisis give a great U.S. interest towards lasting peace in the Middle East.

As peacekeepers, foreign military forces play a number of other roles that may become critical to the overall success of the intervention. As mentioned, they may become guarantors of the peoples' right and access to relief assistance. This may involve keeping roads open, ensuring public order around distribution sites, or guaranteeing that forces have disengaged to permit people to reach distribution sites in safety. November 1989 (UN peacekeeping official and commander of multiple operations. )

Ethiopian airl lift and aid to Sudan, protection of India refugee camps in Pakistan civil war 1971, every natural disaster and disease epidemic, Sri Lanka peace keeping forces,

PRO EXTENSIONS ISIS has achieved a scale unlike any other rebel group. ISIS has foreign recruits, taken from disaffected Middle East communities and thriving Western democracies alike. ISIS has a surprisingly deep well of domestic support, with Sunni outrage at Shia injustices having weight due to the combination of Nouri al-Maliki’s petty sectarian rule in Iraq and Bashar Assad’s reign of cruelty in Syria, reports Western and Middle Eastern journalists alike (Al Jezeera, NYTIMES) ISIS has the logistics for military viability, with a massive cohort of well-trained fighters and a combination of modern Western technology (many stolen, others from Soviet arms). More troublingly, ISIS has the logistics and economics to control the area, the U.S. state department and our allies admit. It has established a vast system of funding, including taxation, sales of oil, and kidnapping ransoms. Of course to the West, what’s most striking about ISIS has been the cruelty. Public beheadings of Coptic Christians. Immolations of Jordanian pilots. Kidnapped British journalists conducting documentary-style tours, under duress, of ISIS-controlled cities, as sadly seen on far too many news programs and youtube video rplays. Isis is tech savvy and knows how to grow! It’s cruelty isn’t unique to ISIS’ brand of extremism: the issue now is of scale, and threat to U.S. global interests in Israel, and cities worldwide. In short, ISIS has “earned” the consideration by the United States to re-commit boots on the ground as a threat to HUMANITARIAN WORLD LEADERSHIP, and to U.S. allied interests like Israel and economic markets and resources.