nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThe Forensics Files ©The PFD FileApril 2015ISIL1....

The Forensics Files © The PFD FileApril 2015 ISIL

1

THE FORENSICS FILES THE PFD FILE

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

C OP YRI GHT N O TIC E TFF CONSIDERS POSTING THIS FILE TO ANY GENERALLY ACCESSIBLE WEBSITE, INCLUDING A SCHOOL’S PUBLIC WEBSITE, A WILLFULL INFRINGEMENT SUBJECT TO A $150,000 FINE UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 504(C)(2).

April 2015

The Forensics Files The PFD

2

April 2015 ISIL

Table of Contents

Topic Overview 3

-Definitions 4

Pro Cases 11

Con Cases 15

Pro Extensions 19

Con Extensions 29

Pro Blocks 40

Con Blocks 44

Preflows 48


3

April 2015 ISIL

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

This topic concerns the question about the best way to go about defeating the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” ISIL, which is also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or just Islamic State (IS). ISIL is a relatively new, radical Islamic terrorist group that has killed not only Americans, but also civilians from numerous other countries. What has distinguished ISIL from other terrorist groups is their use of new and social media, primarily videos, to record their executions. The primary way ISIL has executed individuals is by beheading them with a sword. Despite not having killed many people relative to other terrorist groups, ISIL has received a lot of news coverage and emphasis from politicians because of their tactics.

President Barack Obama recently requested authorization from Congress to carryout air strikes and provide support to ground troops of Arab nations who are trying to fight ISIL. Other politicians, specifically John McCain and Rick Santorum, have expressly called for the US to commit ground troops to fight ISIL. The distinction is important because the heart of the debate on this topic will likely focus on whether airstrikes supporting ground troops of other nations are sufficient, or whether US ground troops are needed.

The topic wording presents some ground for varying interpretations. The literature on sending US ground troops to engage in combat with ISIL in the Middle East is incredibly skewed towards favoring the Con side. There is plenty of discussion about how ISIL is not really a big threat; other nations’ ground troops can and are effectively ISIL; and how US airstrikes is a sufficient commitment. Another reason why the topic wording is skewed toward the Con side is the term “best interest.” Best implies “utmost,” suggesting it is not enough for the Pro side to show the US has an interest in committing ground troops to fight ISIL, but is in the U.S.’s utmost interest to do so. Thus, for the Pro side to be able to stand a chance, creative approaches to the topic might be advisable.

The first place the Pro side can take some offensive ground is by the ambiguity of the word “committing.” Committing could mean guaranteeing that US ground troops will fight ISIL; or committing could mean simply reserving a specific number of US ground troops to fight ISIL only if necessary. Another term in the topic that is a little ambiguous is “ground combat troops.” Broadly understood, this could include military officials who are on the ground in the Middle East who advise on combat. Furthermore, the topic does not limit the committing of troops to unilateral or multilateral forces, and leaves open the possibility of committing US troops to help in a multilateral operation such as a UN peacekeeping mission.

These issues are addressed by the cases and cards in this File. TFF wishes you the best of luck in April!


4

April 2015 ISIL

Definitions

Committing1. Carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act):2. Pledge or bind (a person or an organization) to a certain course or policy3. Pledge or set aside (resources) for future use:4. (be committed to) Be dedicated to (something)5. Send, entrust, or consign, in particular.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary 2015

Committing1. to hand over, as for safekeeping; charge; entrust2. to pledge or align (oneself), as to a particular cause, action, or attitude3. to order (forces) into action

Source: Collins English Dictionary 2015

Committing1. to do (something that is illegal or harmful)2. to decide to use (a person, money, etc.) for some particular purpose or use3. to say that (someone or something) will definitely do something4. to make (someone or something) obligated to do something

Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 2015

United StatesA country that occupies most of the southern half of North America as well as Alaska and the Hawaiian Islands; population 304,059,724 (est. 2008); capital, Washington, DC. Full name United States of America.

Source: Oxford Dictionary 2015


5

April 2015 ISIL

United StatesA country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The area now occupied by the contiguous 48 states was originally inhabited by numerous Native American peoples and was colonized beginning in the 1500s by Spain, France, the Netherlands, and England. Great Britain eventually controlled most of the Atlantic coast and, after the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), the Northwest Territory and Canada. The original Thirteen Colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and formed a government under the Articles of Confederation in 1781, adopting (1787) a new constitution that went into effect after 1789. The nation soon began to expand westward. Growing tensions over the issue of black slavery divided the country along geographic lines, sparking the secession of the South and the Civil War (1861-1865). The remainder of the 1800s was marked by increased westward expansion, industrialization, and the influx of millions of immigrants. The United States entered World War II after the Japanese attack (1941) on Pearl Harbor and emerged after the war as a world power. Washington, DC, is the capital and New York the largest city.

Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2015

United Statesa federation of states especially when forming a nation in a usually specified territory


Ground1. The solid surface of the earth.2. The floor of a body of water, especially the sea.3. Soil; earth: level the ground for a lawn.4. An area or a position that is contested in or as if in battle: The soldiers

held their ground against the enemy.5. Something that serves as a foundation or means of attachment for

something else: a ground of white paint under the mural.6. A surrounding area; a background.



6

April 2015 ISIL

Ground1. the land2. surface earth or soil


Ground1. the soil that is on or under the surface of the earth2. an area of land


Combat1. Fighting between armed forces


Combat1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions.2. Intended for use or deployment in combat


Combat1. active fighting especially in a war



7

April 2015 ISIL

Troops1. A group of soldiers, especially a cavalry unit commanded by a captain, or an

airborne unit.2. Soldiers or armed forces:


Troops1. armed forces; soldiers


Troops1. soldiers on duty in a large group:2. a group of soldiers, especially ones who fight in strong military vehicles or on

horses

Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 2015

Fight1. Take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the

use of weapons2. Engage in (a war or battle):


Fight1. To contend with or oppose with violence or in battle.2. To wage or carry on (a battle).3. To contend for, as by combat:



8

April 2015 ISIL

Fight1. to oppose or struggle against (an enemy) in battle2. to oppose or struggle against (a person, thing, cause, etc) in any manner

(transitive)3. to engage in or carry on (a battle, contest, etc)


ISIL1. Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. (See ISIS)

Source: Dictionary.com 2015

ISILThe Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəәl/), also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/), is an extremist Islamist rebel group that controls territory in Iraq and Syria and also has operations in eastern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt, and other areas of the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.

Source: Wilipedia.com 2015

ISILThe Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a predominantly Sunni jihadist group, seeks to sow civil unrest in Iraq and the Levant (region spanning from southern Turkey to Egypt and including Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan) with the aim of establishing a caliphate — a single, transnational Islamic state based on sharia. The group emerged in the ashes of the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein as al- Qaida in Iraq (AQI), and the insurgency that followed provided it with fertile ground to wage a guerrilla war against coalition forces and their domestic allies.

Source: Council on Foreign Relations, Background Briefing: What is ISIL? June 24, 2014, www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/what-is-islamic-state-iraq-and-syria/


9

April 2015 ISIL

Best1. Of the most excellent, effective, or desirable type or quality:2. Most appropriate, advantageous, or well advised3. To the highest degree; most:


Best1. Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent:

the best performer; the best grade of ore.2. Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirable: the best solution; the

best time for planting.3. Greatest; most: He spoke for the best part of an hour.


Best1. most excellent of a particular group, category, etc2. most suitable, advantageous, desirable, attractive, etc


Interest1. The advantage or benefit of a person or group:2. A stake, share, or involvement in an undertaking, especially a financial one


Interest1. Regard for one's own benefit or advantage; self-interest



1

April 2015 ISIL

Interest1. benefit; advantage



1

April 2015 ISIL

Pro CasesPRO CASE #1

[Power Grid — 1 of 2]

We believe the following resolution is true. Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States. The thesis of our case is that ISIL is going to take down the US power grid killing 90% of Americans. Thus, it’s try all we can to eradicate ISIL, or die.

First, ISIL is planning to attack the power grid; it is more likely to do so than other US foes. Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, published an article entitled “New ISIS threat: America's electric grid; blackout could kill 9 of 10,” on Sept. 3, 2014 arguing1:

The Texas Department of Public Safety recently said they believe there is evidence that ISIS plans an attack. Pry, Gaffney and others have been pushing Congress to protect the electric grid from attacks including terrorists, assaults by U.S. foes like North Korea and even sun spots that can zap unprotected transformers with electromagnetic pulse.

This means we win on timeframe because ISIL is already planning an attack on the power grid.

Second, ISIL could easily team up with Mexican cartels to take down the grid.Bedard continues:

A lack of electricity would shut off water systems, impact city transportation services and shutdown hospitals and other big facilities. Fresh and frozen foods also would be impacted as would banks, financial institutions and utilities. Pry provided details of recent attacks on electricity systems and said that ISIS could easily team with Mexican drug cartels to ravage America. He told Secrets, for example, that the Knights Templar drug gang blacked out the electric grid of the Mexican state of Michoacan in 2013 to provide cover for killing those fighting the drug trade. “The Knights Templars and other criminal gangs in Mexico will do anything for money, and ISIS, the richest terrorist organization in history, has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal,” said Pry. “ISIS could hire one of the Mexican cartels, or one of their criminal gangs already in the U.S., or activate jihadist terror cells already in the U.S., and inflict a multi-state blackout immediately, within days or weeks. Perhaps even a nationwide blackout,” Pry explained to Secrets.

This means we win on probability because ISIL is the most likely to attack the grid, has plans to do so, and could easily do so.

1 www.washingtonexaminer.com/new-isis-threat-americas-electric-grid-blackout-could-kill-9-of-10/article/2552766


1

April 2015 ISIL

PRO CASE #1[Power Grid — 2 of 2]

Third, the US power grid is key to 90% of American lives; it is wide open to a terrorist attack. Bedard continues:

Former top government officials who have been warning Washington about the vulnerability of the nation’s largely unprotected electric grid are raising new fears that troops from the jihadist Islamic State are poised to attack the system, leading to a power crisis that could kill millions. “Inadequate grid security, a porous U.S.-Mexico border, and fragile transmission systems make the electric grid a target for ISIS,” said Peter Pry, one of the nation’s leading experts on the grid. Others joining Pry at a press conference later Wednesday to draw attention to the potential threat said that if just a handful of the nation’s high voltage transformers were knocked out, blackouts would occur across the country. “By one estimate, should the power go out and stay out for over a year, nine out of 10 Americans would likely perish,” said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

This means we win on magnitude. Even if the Con side wins that ISIL isn’t a big threat in other areas or that ground troops might be unnecessary, there is a risk of solvency that we could eradicate ISIL faster and better with ground trips. Thus, we still win on timeframe, probability, and magnitude of an impending attack on the power grid.


1

April 2015 ISIL

PRO CASE #2[Military Self-Defense — 1 of 2]

We believe the following resolution is true. Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States. The thesis of our case is that US soldiers in the Middle East need authorization to defend against ISIL attacks. Without committing our ground troops to be able to fight ISIL, then they will be sitting ducks waiting to be beheaded by the terrorists.

First, the US has ground troops in Iraq now. They are not authorized to fight ISI. Only by committing them to fight ISIL can they offensively kill ISIL soldiers. Our ground combat troops in Iraq need to be exempted from prohibitions on going out and killing ISIL. This is according to a Bloomberg News article "Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces" on February 10, 20152:

Almost six months after the president began using force against the Islamic State advance in Iraq and then in Syria, the White House is ready to ask Congress for formal permission to continue the effort. Until now, the administration has maintained it has enough authority to wage war through the 2001 AUMF on al-Qaeda, the 2002 AUMF regarding Iraq and Article II of the Constitution. But under pressure from Capitol Hill, the White House has now completed the text of a new authorization and could send it to lawmakers as early as Wednesday. If enacted, the president's AUMF could effectively constrain the next president from waging a ground war against the Islamic State group until at least 2018. Aides warned that the White House may tweak the final details before releasing the document publicly. In advance of the release, top White House and State Department officials have been briefing lawmakers and Congressional staffers about their proposed legislation. Two senior Congressional aides relayed the details to me. The president’s AUMF for the fight against Islamic State would restrict the use of ground troops through a prohibition on “enduring offensive ground operations," but provide several exemptions. First, all existing ground troops, including the 3,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground in Iraq, would be explicitly excluded from the restrictions. After that, the president would be allowed to deploy new military personnel in several specific roles: advisers, special operations forces, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers to assist U.S. air strikes and Combat Search and Rescue personnel.

2 www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-10/obama-s-islamic-state-war-authorization-limits-u-s-ground-forces

3 www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-

1

The Forensics Files The PFD April 2015 ISIL

PRO CASE #2[Self-Defense — 2 of 2]

Second, ISIL is planning attacks on the US military. Pamela Brown, CNN Correspondent, published an article entitled FBI warns military of ISIS threat, for CNN on Dec. 1, 20143:

The FBI issued a warning Sunday to members of the U.S. military that ISIS is calling for attacks against them, according to a law enforcement source, saying that "overseas based individuals are looking for like-minded individuals in the U.S. to carry out these attacks." "We also request members of the military review their online social media presence for any information that might attract the attention of violent extremists," the bulletin said, advising that members of the military "use caution and practice operational security when posting."

Finally, ISIL is tracking specific American soldiers to kill.Pamela Brown, CNN Correspondent, FBI warns military of ISIS threat, CNN Dec. 1, 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/

The concern in the FBI and intelligence community is that ISIS members overseas are tracking personal information about "specific" U.S. soldiers --- such as their addresses and even their relatives addresses -- based on their social media posts, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the matter. The concern is that ISIS operatives are gathering it overseas and then identifying homegrown violent extremists in the U.S who could help carry out the attack. The source says the idea is basically " I don't have to come and get him -- I can call someone in the U.S. who wants to support the cause and they can do it." The FBI is working very closely with the military and intelligence community to address the issue.

Thus, committing our ground troops already in Iraq to be able to offensively kill ISIL instead of waiting to be killed by them is in the US’s best interest.

1

The Forensics Files The PFD April 2015 ISIL

Con CasesCON CASE #1

[Civil Liberties—1 of 2]

We believe the following resolution is false. Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States. The thesis of our case is that ISIL is not a threat, but treating them as a threat by committing ground troops will erode our civil liberties and result in unnecessary deaths of our soldiers.

First, ISIL is not an existential threat; treating them otherwise will only erode our civil liberties. John Mueller, political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, wrote in an article, Terrorism Poses No Existential Threat to America. We Must Stop Pretending Otherwise, on Feb. 24, 20154:

One of the most unchallenged, zany assertions during the war on terror has been that terrorists present an existential threat to the United States, the modern state and civilization itself. This is important because the overwrought expression, if accepted as valid, could close off evaluation of security efforts. For example, no defense of civil liberties is likely to be terribly effective if people believe the threat from terrorism to be existential. At long last, President Barack Obama and other top officials are beginning to back away from this absurd position. This much overdue development may not last, however. Extravagant alarmism about the pathological but self-destructive Islamic State (Isis) in areas of Syria and Iraq may cause us to backslide.

Second, we are already defeating ISIL without ground troops.Travis J. Tritten, BA Journalism Ohio State, wrote in an article, Islamic State can be defeated without US ground troops, for Stars and Stripes Magazine on Mar. 3, 20155:

Gen. Lloyd Austin said the Islamic extremist group is already losing the ability to govern and hold territory in Iraq and Syria following seven months of U.S. and coalition airstrikes, and that eventually it will be pushed out by Iraq and Syrian proxy forces. The U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq has killed more than 8,500 Islamic State fighters since its bombing campaign began in August, he said.

4 www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrorism-poses-no-existential-threat-america-we-must-stop-pretending5 www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/centcom-chief-islamic-state-can-be-defeated-without-us-ground-troops-1.332526


1

April 2015 ISIL

CON CASE #1[Civil Liberties—2 of 2]

Finally, Sending ground troops to fight ISIL will only add to the thousands of troops who have been injured in killed in unnecessary ground fights in the Middle East. H.A. Goodman, wrote in an article, Why McCain is wrong about sending ground troops to fight ISIS, on Jan 30 20156:

It speaks volumes that according to USA Today, more than 3,100 Americans have died and over 33,000 have been wounded from IED blasts in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This accounts for more than half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded in combat from both wars. In Iraq, 4,489 U.S. soldiers have died and 2,356 soldiers have died in Afghanistan. In all, close to one million Americans have been injured in both wars, and hundreds of thousands deal with the repercussions of battle on a daily basis. The end result, sadly, has been military victories that were either squandered by the Iraqi government’s incompetence or devastating sectarian bloodshed. With former GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) blocking a recent veterans suicide prevention bill, and only months from a VA scandal that rocked the nation, it’s a pity that members of Congress are actually contemplating sending American soldiers back to further counterinsurgency wars and sectarian quagmires in Iraq.

Because committing US ground troops to combat ISIL would only erode our civil liberties, not address a real threat, and would result in more of soldiers dying, committing troops is not in the best interest of the United States.

6 thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about- sending-ground-troops-to-fight


1

April 2015 ISIL

CON CASE #2 [Terrorism—1 of 2]

We believe the following resolution is false. Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States. The thesis of our case is that ISIL is not a threat, and committing ground troops will only increase terrorism.

First, ISIL is as strong as they are going to get. Any further ISIL growth into Iraq will cause them to lose support among Muslim allies that has permitted them to grow as they have. Patrick J. Buchanan, author, writes in ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America, for The American Conservative on June 17, 20147:

Secondly, ISIS has as allies in the north and west of Iraq Sunnis who detest Maliki and wish to be rid of him. But these Sunni are not demanding a Taliban regime to abolish smoking and drinking. Nor are they fighting to cut off the heads of their Shia countrymen. If ISIS goes beyond the liberation of the Sunni triangle to trying to take over all of Iraq, they will lose many Sunni allies and find themselves facing Iraq’s Shia majority, backed up by Iranian forces, virtually alone.

Second, without fully understanding why ISIL exists risks policies, like committing ground troops, that causes groups like ISIL to exist. Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer writes in an article If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, for The Week, on Oct. 13, 20148:

To make matters worse, the policy changes forced by fear often fuel the threat they were intended to combat. For instance, "there's little discussion as to why ISIS even exists, and how American foreign policy has played a part in its development," says Connor Boyack, author of the forthcoming Feardom, which deals with the manipulation of public emotion for political ends. "As a result, Americans end up supporting the very policies that have led to this very problem, and thus are likely to produce similar issues in the short and long term."

7 www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no-existential-threat-to-america8 theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen


1

April 2015 ISIL

CON CASE #2 [Terrorism—2 of 2]

Finally, efforts to fight ISIL on the ground create a paradoxical policy where the US is confronted with the prospect of aiding those who carried out 9-11. Buchanan continues:

But while the Iraqi army and Shia militia may well hold Baghdad, it is hard to see how Maliki can soon reconquer the Sunni provinces. For the Sunnis want no part of him or his regime. Nor does Maliki seem capable of taking back Kirkuk, which the Kurds seized in the chaos as a step toward independence. What should America do? Take a hard look at our entire Middle East policy. Consider. We are now providing weapons to the Free Syrian Army to oust Bashar Assad. “Assad must go!” blared Barack Obama in one of his many ignored ultimata. But should Assad fall, the result will be the persecution of the Syrian Christians, a massacre of the Alawites, and a possible takeover of the country by the al-Qaida-linked al-Nusra Front and ISIS. Is any of that in America’s interests? Vladimir Putin lately raised a valid question: Why, in Syria, are the Americans on the same side as the people who took down the twin towers? Indeed, why are we? And who is fighting al-Qaida and ISIS in Syria, battling those McCain calls an “existential threat” to American security? Bashar Assad. Hezbollah. Iran. Russia.

In conclusion, committing ground troops will only prop up terrorism and thus is not in the best interest of the US.


1

April 2015 ISIL

Pro Extensions

Arab ground troops will be ineffective at fighting ISIL; they are too disorganized. Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

It is one thing for the Egyptian air force to bomb ISIL—aka ISIS—from the air. But when it comes to ground troops, the ability of Arab militaries to fight an organized, motivated enemy is highly suspect. (That may explain why, only last week, Sisi was calling for a United Nations force to bring order to Libya.)

Arab ground troops will be ineffective at fighting ISIL because they are not battle ready.Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

It has been decades since the Egyptian military has fought a full-fledged war, and the last time it was deployed in another Arab country—in Yemen in the 1960s—it was humiliated. Since then, Egypt’s rulers have used their army mainly to bully and beat up unarmed civilians protesting against oppression, and to fight homegrown terrorist groups in the Sinai Peninsula. They’ve been pretty good at the former, but not especially effective at the latter. Despite official claims of successes in the Sinai, terrorists attacks have been on the rise, and it is a bad sign that the Sisi regime feels it necessary to exercise strict censorship on reporting from the peninsula.

History proves that Arab ground troops will be ineffective at fighting ISIL.Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

If Egypt’s recent track record is dismal, the history of Arab military cooperation isn’t especially reassuring, either. Some Western analysts hope that the GCC Peninsula Shield, a 40,000-strong force made up of countries in the Persian Gulf, can be brought to bear against ISIL. But like the Egyptian military, this mini-military was built mainly to protect Gulf regimes from internal political unrest. The Peninsula Force was most recently deployed in Bahrain in 2011, to stamp down civilian rallies against the royal family.


2

April 2015 ISIL

ISIL would defeat Arab ground troops because they are not constrained by concern for civilian casualties.Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

It’s worth remembering, too, that one of the most powerful Arab militaries—Syria’s— has been fighting against ISIL for nigh on four years. The forces of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad enjoy home-field advantage, and are not restrained by any concern for civilian casualties or such niceties as the Geneva conventions. Assad’s planes and tanks have flattened entire towns and cities, and still have failed to defeat ISIL, much less recover territory under the terrorists’ control.

Arab ground troops have proven unwilling to engage in heavy combat with ISIL. Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

The other Arab military in the war against ISIL, Iraq’s, seems to be leaving the hardest fighting to Kurdish militias and Iran-backed Shi’ite gangs. Last week, as the Pentagon talked up an Iraqi-led, US-guided offensive against Mosul, many Iraqi leaders were skeptical that their troops would be ready.

Because Arab ground troops will be ineffective, the US will have to commit ground troops to fight ISIL.Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

None of this is to suggest that the fight against ISIL will not require Arab military involvement—it will. But just as in the current air campaign against the terrorists in Syria and Iraq, regional forces can at best be expected to put in a token effort. When the time comes for a ground offensive against ISIL, expect the heavy lifting to be done by battle- hardened Western troops, rather than the tin soldiers who make up most Arab militaries.

15,000 US ground troops will be needed to beat ISIL.Geoff Earle, Dempsey: 15,000 ground troops needed to destroy ISIS, Sept. 27, 2014, nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/

As the massive US-led air campaign plows ahead, the nation’s top military chief says it will take 15,000 ground troops to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the statement at a Friday briefing as Britain, Belgium and Denmark joined the bombing campaign to wipe out the terror group in Iraq.


2

April 2015 ISIL

US air support will be ineffective; ground troops are necessary.Geoff Earle, Dempsey: 15,000 ground troops needed to destroy ISIS, Sept. 27, 2014, nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/

“The answer is yes. There has to be a ground component in the campaign,” Dempsey said, appearing alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “We need 12,000 to 15,000 to reclaim lost territory,” he said, referring to the huge swath ISIS carved out from Iraq and Syria. ISIS is estimated to have amassed more than 30,000 fighters, including many recruits from Western nations.

US ground troops would have assistance from other Arab countries in fighting ISIL on the ground.Geoff Earle, Dempsey: 15,000 ground troops needed to destroy ISIS, Sept. 27, 2014, nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/

The US-led coalition, which also includes five Arab countries joining the air campaign, plans to train Syrian rebels to do the dirty work on the ground, while also relying on Kurdish peshmerga forces and Iraqi tribal fighters.

ISIL is evolving their military strategies to become more effective.Geoff Earle, Dempsey: 15,000 ground troops needed to destroy ISIS, Sept. 27, 2014, nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/

In the face of the withering air attack, ISIS militants are changing tactics by ditching conspicuous convoys in favor of motorcycles. The jihadists have also taken to erecting their notorious black flag on the rooftops of residential houses and buildings — many of them empty — to create confusion.


2

April 2015 ISIL

A majority of Americans now support committing ground troops to fight ISIL Adam Chandler, senior associate editor, For the First Time, Americans Support Ground Troops Against ISIS, The Atlantic, Feb. 19, 2015, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-background-troops-against-isis/385650/

Barack Obama's closing remarks at the summit on Countering Violent Extremism on Wednesday were notable not only for the president's avoidance of words like "Islamic" and Muslim," but also for their emphasis on ISIS. The terrorist group merited a dozen mentions, more than double that of its rival, al Qaeda. "ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq, beheads and burns human beings in unfathomable acts of cruelty," Obama said. "We’ve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa and Sydney and, Paris, and now Copenhagen." The group's confounding brutality (see The Atlantic's March cover story for more about that) has also made a profound impression on the American public, gradually turning a seemingly war-weary country in favor not only of airstrikes against the group, but also, according to a new CBS News poll, the deployment of ground troops. "For the first time, a majority of Americans (57 percent) favor the U.S. sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS," CBS reported.

Americans believe ISIL is a major threat.Adam Chandler, senior associate editor, For the First Time, Americans Support Ground Troops Against ISIS, The Atlantic, Feb. 19, 2015, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-background-troops-against-isis/385650/

The results track with the general sentiment that ISIS is "a major threat" to the United States, which rose from 58 percent in October to 65 percent earlier this week. This uptick dovetails with a Gallup poll released on Wednesday in which terrorism increased six percentage points among issues listed by Americans as the most important problem facing the United States. Terrorism, as a national priority, is still fifth behind other listed problems, but it experienced the biggest gain between this year and last.


2

April 2015 ISIL

There is a growing concern in the US about terrorism from ISIL.Adam Chandler, senior associate editor, For the First Time, Americans Support Ground Troops Against ISIS, The Atlantic, Feb. 19, 2015, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-background-troops-against-isis/385650/

As Gallup pointed out, this was "the highest percentage to mention the issue since January 2010." (That 2010 poll came just weeks after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airplane over Detroit.) Eight percent of Americans citing terrorism as the country's biggest issue doesn't seem like a lot, especially when compared with the 57 percent of Americans who now say they support sending ground troops to Syria and Iraq. But when you combine "terrorism" with "national security" and "Iraq/ISIS," the category comes just one point behind dissatisfaction with the government. Last week, with a majority of Americans behind him, President Obama sent draft legislation to Congress to authorize the use of military force against ISIS. The authorization would include "limited" approval of ground troops for up to three years.

All military and diplomatic officials acknowledge that it will take ground troops to beat ISIL.Erin McClam, ISIS Fight: Samantha Power Can't Foresee US Ground Forces, NBC News, Feb. 12, 2015, www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-fight-samantha-power- cant-foresee-u-s-ground-forces-n305021

"You have to get the Iraqis and ultimately the Syrian moderate opposition groups up so they can fight the fight on the ground," Power said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "There has to be a fight on the ground. You can't do this by air. Everybody acknowledges that." Watch the Interview at MSNBC.com President Barack Obama sent Congress a proposal Wednesday that would authorize the military campaign against ISIS for no longer than three years and prohibit "enduring offensive ground forces."

ISIL is now a global threat.Richard Sharkey, Abraham: U.S. ground troops 'last resort' in ISIS fight, The Town Talk, Feb. 18, 2015, www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/abraham-us-ground- troops-last-resort-isis-fight/23644613/

"ISIS is now a global threat. It is a threat to the United States. If you look at the map of where ISIS is now compared to where they were two years ago, they are spreading like wildfire," Abraham said Wednesday while talking to Town Talk staff members in Alexandria.


2

April 2015 ISIL

Committing US ground troops to fight ISIL is consistent with air strike strategy. Richard Sharkey, Abraham: U.S. ground troops 'last resort' in ISIS fight, The Town Talk, Feb. 18, 2015, www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/abraham-us-ground- troops-last-resort-isis-fight/23644613/

The U.S. is already conducting airstrikes against ISIS, and President Barack Obama now is asking Congress to approve an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, against ISIS. Obama has said the AUMF is in line with "our core objective to destroy ISIL." It would include authority for a "systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes" as well as support and training for forces on the ground. It does not call for the deployment of ground troops in Iraq or Syria. Abraham said the AUMF being sought is too restrictive— "like taking a knife into a gunfight." "What he's asking us to do is tie his hands behind his back," Abraham said of Obama. "The AUMF the president is sending down is not a good one. I don't ever want to give the enemy a timetable."

Air strikes are causing unnecessary deaths.Al Arabiya News, Syria rejects foreign ground troops to fight ISIS, Feb. 9, 2015, english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/09/Syria-rejects-foreign-ground- troops-to-fight-ISIS-.html

Meanwhile, at least 15 people were killed and dozens wounded on Monday in government air strikes on an area outside the capital Damascus, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor said. There were no immediate details on the breakdown of those killed in the strikes, which are the latest to hit the town of Douma in the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta. The opposition bastion, east of Damascus, came under a massive government aerial assault on Thursday after rebels fired more than 120 rockets and mortar rounds into the capital.

Even Republican John McCain agrees with Obama that US ground troops are needed.Fox News, McCain: 'Ugly Truth Is We Will Need U.S. Ground Troops Against ISIS', Feb. 12, 2015, insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/12/mccain-ugly-truth-we-will-need-us- ground-troops-against-isis

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) responded to President Obama's request to Congress for an authorization to use military force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Calling it "a study in Obama incoherence," the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman called out Obama for failing to clearly "articulate" the strategy. McCain said the "ugly truth" is that "we are going to have to have boots on the ground" because the Iraqi army, the Kurdish peshmerga and Iranian-backed Shia militias cannot be relied upon to defeat ISIS.


2

April 2015 ISIL

Committing US ground troops is necessary to take back key cities from ISIL control.Jim Miklaszewski, U.S. Official: American Forces May Help Iraq Retake Mosul, Feb. 19, 2015, www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-official-american-forces-may-help- iraq-retake-mosul-n309241

Iraqi military forces backed by U.S. airstrikes and possibly American ground troops could launch an assault to wrest control of the city of Mosul from ISIS as early as April, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Thursday. As many as 20,000 Iraqi military and Kurdish forces could be involved in the operation to retake Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, said the official with the military's Central Command (CENTCOM). If needed, U.S. ground forces - including special operations and forward air controllers - could be involved, too, the official said.

Despite air strikes, Iraqi soldiers need more assistance from US ground troops.Jim Miklaszewski, U.S. Official: American Forces May Help Iraq Retake Mosul, Feb. 19, 2015, www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-official-american-forces-may-help- iraq-retake-mosul-n309241

President Obama has said he would be willing to authorize the limited use of such ground forces if necessary. The senior official stressed that despite some recent gains by ISIS, such as capturing the town of al-Baghdadi, U.S. and coalition airstrikes have taken a toll. "ISIS is in decline militarily," the official said. "They're losing ground every day." But the official acknowledged Iraqi forces still face serious challenges: Thousands of Iraqi soldiers must undergo rigorous training before they can launch an assault on Mosul.Sunni tribes in the region, considered critical to any lasting military success, also remain reluctant to fight alongside Shia forces. "It's a work in progress," the senior official said.

US ground troops will be needed to guide airstrikes.Erin Durkin, U.S. ground troops will likely be needed in fight against ISIS: military, Daily News, Oct. 12, 2014 www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-ground-troops- needed-isis-military-article-1.1971916

U.S. military advisers will likely be needed on the ground to spot targets when Iraqi forces go on the offensive against ISIS fighters, the top U.S military officer said Sunday. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “there will be circumstances” in which troops on the ground will be needed to guide U.S. airstrikes. “But I haven’t encountered one right now,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” Dempsey said tactics may shift when Iraqi forces try to retake Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, which fell to the Islamic State fighters.


2

April 2015 ISIL

US troops are needed because Iraqi soldiers cannot fight ISIL alone.Erin Durkin, U.S. ground troops will likely be needed in fight against ISIS: military, Daily News, Oct. 12, 2014 www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-ground-troops- needed-isis-military-article-1.1971916

Dempsey also revealed that the U.S. recently had to call in Apache helicopters to prevent the jihadists from overrunning Iraqi forces in a fight that would have left ISIS with a clear path to attack the Baghdad airport. “This is a case where you’re not going to wait until they’re climbing over the wall. They were within, you know, 20 or 25 kilometers” of the airport, he said. “And had they overrun the Iraqi unit, it was a straight shot to the airport. So, we’re not going to allow that to happen. We need that airport.”

Turkey will allow US troops to train in Turkey to fight ISIL.Erin Durkin, U.S. ground troops will likely be needed in fight against ISIS: military, Daily News, Oct. 12, 2014 www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-ground-troops- needed-isis-military-article-1.1971916

The Kurdish enclave near the border with Turkey has seen heavy fighting since last month. The coalition conducted at least two airstrikes there Sunday. U.S. national security adviser Susan Rice said Turkey, which has been under pressure over the situation in Kobani, has agreed to let the U.S. train Syrian rebels on its soil to fight ISIS. Turkey will also allow American and coalition forces to use its military bases to launch attacks against ISIS, in a significant expansion of Turkish cooperation with the campaign against the militants, Rice said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

ISIL is threatening the Pope.Rishi Iyengar, There Is a Real Threat to the Pope From ISIS, Says Vatican Security Chief, Time Magazine, March 2, 2015, time.com/3729537/pope-isis-threat-real-vatican- police/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main- bb%7Cdl39%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D621739

The commander of the Vatican’s security forces acknowledged the existence of a real threat to Pope Francis from ISIS, but said there is no indication of a planned attack on the Catholic leader. “The threat exists,” Domenico Giani told Italian state publication Polizia Moderna, reports the Catholic news website Crux. Giani is the inspector-general of the Corpo della Gendarmeria, the police unit that protects Vatican City. “At the moment, I can say that we know of no plan for an attack against the Vatican or the Holy Father,” he said.


2

April 2015 ISIL

ISIL is targeting Christians and Catholics to murder.Rishi Iyengar, There Is a Real Threat to the Pope From ISIS, Says Vatican Security Chief, Time Magazine, March 2, 2015, time.com/3729537/pope-isis-threat-real-vatican- police/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main- bb%7Cdl39%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D621739

ISIS explicitly mentioned Italy and its Christians as a potential target recently, calling it “the nation signed with the blood of the cross” in a video that featured images of 21 Egyptian Christians beheaded this month. The Islamic militant organization also warned of its proximity to Italy, saying its forces are “south of Rome” in Libya. Four months ago, ISIS propaganda magazine Dabiq also featured Vatican City’s famed St. Peter’s Square on its cover with the headline “The Failed Crusade,” depicting the terrorist group’s flag flying over the piazza’s central obelisk.

ISIL is threatening to take down Twitter and its employees.David Mack, Buzzfeed News Reporter, ISIS Threatens Twitter Founder And Employees Over Blocked Accounts, Buzzfeed Mar. 1, 2015 www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/isis- twitter-threat#.liGY79zrVz

ISIS supporters on Sunday called on jihadis around the world to kill Twitter employees because of the company’s frequent blocking of their social media accounts. “Your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you,” reads an online post addressed to Twitter founder Jack Dorsey and shared by ISIS supporters. The post, whose authorship is unclear, was accompanied by a digitally altered image of Dorsey in the cross sights of a gun. Twitter, like YouTube, often moves quickly to delete posts and suspend accounts that disseminate ISIS videos showing the gruesome executions of hostages.

ISIL is using Twitter and social media to encourage terrorist attacks on the US David Mack, Buzzfeed News Reporter, ISIS Threatens Twitter Founder And Employees Over Blocked Accounts, Buzzfeed Mar. 1, 2015 www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/isis- twitter-threat#.liGY79zrVz

ISIS supporters who have been barred from traveling to Syria or Iraq to join the insurgent group have been previously encouraged to instead launch lone-wolf attacks in their Western home countries. Just last month, ISIS used Twitter to post a video suggesting followers launch attacks on police or military officials in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Sunday’s online message (which was also shared on Twitter) called on ISIS sympathizers to attack the social media company and its “interests.”


2

April 2015 ISIL

ISIL is a threat to American interests overseas.Pamela Brown, CNN Correspondent, FBI warns military of ISIS threat, CNN Dec. 1, 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/

The bulletin language warns of "individuals overseas spotting and assessing" individuals in the U.S., based on their social media postings in support of the group. The warning encourages members of the military to "exercise operational security" in response to such threats, including reviewing their online social media postings so as not to make themselves easier targets. U.S. law enforcement posted the warning now in advance of the upcoming holiday season when many members of the U.S. military travel in uniform. The new warning also cites several recent attacks in Canada against members of the Canadian military, including the Oct. 22 Ottawa shooting and two other attacks using cars.

ISIL is a threat because they will inspire people in the US to commit terrorist attacks.Pamela Brown, CNN Correspondent, FBI warns military of ISIS threat, CNN Dec. 1, 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/

The FBI also issued a security bulletin in October warning of similar attacks on U.S. soil against law enforcement personnel and members of the news media. Terrorism and security experts have expressed growing concerns in recent months that ISIS could inspire individuals in the West to carry out terrorist attacks. Australian authorities in September foiled an ISIS-inspired plot to kidnap and publicly behead someone in public.


2

April 2015 ISIL

Con Extensions

Post-9/11 speculation about impending terrorist attacks has been disproven by nearly fifteen years of proof to the contrary.John Mueller, political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Terrorism Poses No Existential Threat to America. We Must Stop Pretending Otherwise, Feb. 24, 2015, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrorism-poses-no- existential-threat-america-we-must-stop-pretending

The notion that international terrorism presents an existential threat was spawned by the traumatized in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Rudy Giuliani, mayor of New York at the time, recalls that all “security experts” expected “dozens and dozens and multiyears of attacks like this” and, in her book The Dark Side, Jane Mayer observed that “the only certainty shared by virtually the entire American intelligence community” was that “a second wave of even more devastating terrorist attacks on America was imminent”. Duly terrified, US intelligence services were soon imaginatively calculating the number of trained al-Qaida operatives in the United States to be between 2,000 and 5,000.

It is absurd to continue to think that because terrorists were successful at gaining boxcutters to take down flights in 9/11, they could and use nukes.John Mueller, political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Terrorism Poses No Existential Threat to America. We Must Stop Pretending Otherwise, Feb. 24, 2015, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrorism-poses-no- existential-threat-america-we-must-stop-pretending

Also compelling was the extrapolation that, because the 9/11 terrorists were successful with box-cutters, they might well be able to turn out nuclear weapons. Soon it was being authoritatively proclaimed that atomic terrorists could “destroy civilization as we know it” and that it was likely that a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States would transpire by 2014. No atomic terrorists have yet appeared (al-Qaida’s entire budget in 2001 for research on all weapons of mass destruction totaled less than $4,000), and intelligence has been far better at counting al-Qaida operatives in the country than at finding them.


3

April 2015 ISIL

Prior to ISIL, everyone began to acknowledge that the threat of terrorism was overblown; but ISIL’s beheadings change nothing about that fact.John Mueller, political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Terrorism Poses No Existential Threat to America. We Must Stop Pretending Otherwise, Feb. 24, 2015, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrorism-poses-no- existential-threat-america-we-must-stop-pretending

In 2014, however, things began to change. In a speech at Harvard in October, Vice President Joseph Biden offered the thought that “we face no existential threat — none — to our way of life or our ultimate security.” After a decent interval of three months, President Barack Obama reiterated this point at a press conference, and then expanded in an interview a few weeks later, adding that the US should not “provide a victory to these terrorist networks by over-inflating their importance and suggesting in some fashion that they are an existential threat to the United States or the world order.” Later, his national security advisor, Susan Rice, echoed the point in a formal speech. It is astounding that these utterances — “blindingly obvious” as security specialist Bruce Schneier puts it — appear to mark the first time any officials in the United States have had the notion and the courage to say so in public.

Politicians overblow the threat of ISILs terrorism to play on people’s fear and gain approval.John Mueller, political scientist at Ohio State University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Terrorism Poses No Existential Threat to America. We Must Stop Pretending Otherwise, Feb. 24, 2015, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/terrorism-poses-no- existential-threat-america-we-must-stop-pretending

Whether that development, at once remarkable and absurdly belated, will have some consequence, or even continue, remains to be seen. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham have insisted for months that Isis presents an existential threat to the United States. An alarmed David Brooks reported that financial analysts have convinced themselves that the group has the potential to generate a worldwide “economic cataclysm.” And General Michael Flynn, recently retired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been insisting that the terrorist enemy is “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life” while seeking “world domination, achieved through violence and bloodshed.” It was reported that his remarks provoked nods of approval, cheers and “ultimately a standing ovation” from the audience.


3

April 2015 ISIL

Americans are irrationally afraid of ISIL. The fear is not based on facts.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

Americans are scared of ISIS. More than 70 percent believe that there are ISIS terror cells in the United States, while 90 percent believe ISIS poses a real threat to America, and 45 percent label the threat "very serious." But that assessment is nowhere close to the reality of the ISIS threat.

All major US intelligence agencies have confirmed ISIL is no immediate threat to the US.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

Multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly announced their consensus that ISIS is not an immediate threat to America. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says there's no evidence that ISIS is occupied with "active plotting against the homeland." DHS reports ISIS is not in Mexico, attempting to infiltrate the southern border. The FBI swatted down any notion that ISIS is planning an attack in the New York City subway system.

The only people asserting ISIL is a threat are politicians who stand to gain power and news media who stand to gain profit from scaring people.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

It's understandable, of course, that so many Americans are scared: We are consistently told that we should be, a drumbeat of fear which Callaghan argues "elevates risk perceptions and diminishes the capacity for rational information processing." Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) caught a lot of flak last month for his frantic assertion that failure to adequately fight ISIS means we will "all get killed here at home." Graham completely deserved that flak, but he's hardly unusual in his hysteria. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) similarly claimed that "we're gonna pay the price" if we don't kill these "barbarians" before they kill us. Across the aisle, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) sees a "clear and present danger" in ISIS boasts of flying its flag over the White House, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) believes the "threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated."


3

April 2015 ISIL

Politicians exaggerate terrorist threats to protect their positions of power. Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

What gives? "The short explanation... is the incentive structure is such that political figures and public officials can really only be held to account for bad things happening," says Christopher Preble, a foreign-policy scholar at the Cato Institute who studies the causes and effects of excessive fear in politics. Thus politicians tend to exaggerate threats so they can say "I told you so" if the threat comes true — and "Look, I kept us safe" if it doesn't.

Arguing ISIL is a true threat and publicizing them as such means incentivizing them to do more.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

Unfortunately, this incentive structure means a great deal of blood and treasure is spent fighting threats that aren't very threatening. Even more fundamentally problematic, Preble argues, "We are terrorized — we are frightened as a society because we are focused on the still unlikely, but understandably frightening, prospect of terrorism." This acceptance of terror plays into terrorists' central goal, which is to force policy change via the demands of a fearful population.

American intelligence agencies confirm that America is quite safe from ISIL. Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

Ultimately, what intelligence agencies are saying about ISIS — and the public has so far failed to hear — is that America is really quite safe. As Preble summarizes, "what we're talking about are not existential threats. They're frightening. They're damaging. They're costly. But they're not existential." So as long as we're stuck with this enormous national- security apparatus, let's at least benefit from its expertise. Let's take their word for it that ISIS is not crouching at the gate. Let's not out-spook the spooks.


3

April 2015 ISIL

ISIL is not an existential threat justifying ground troop intervention.Real Clear Politics, Susan Rice: ISIS Threat "Not Of The Existential Nature We Confronted In World War II", Feb. 6, 2015, www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/02/06/susan_rice_isis_threat_not_of_the_existenti al_nature_we_confronted_during_world_war_ii.html

In a speech at the Brookings Institution on Friday, President Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice said while ISIS is dangerous, it is not a threat of "existential nature" like World War II or the Cold War. "Too often, what's missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective," Rice said. "Yes, there is a lot going on. Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature of what we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War. We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism and a nearly instantaneous new cycle."

ISIL is too far away and lacks military capabilities to be a real threat to the US Patrick J. Buchanan, author, ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America, The American Conservative, June 17, 2014, www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no- existential-threat-to-america/

As the Islamic warriors of ISIS rolled down the road from Mosul, John McCain was an echo of French Premier Paul Reynaud, when word reached Paris that Rommel had broken through in the Ardennes: “We are now facing an existential threat to the security of the United States of America,” said McCain. But nothing that happens in Mesopotamia is going to threaten the existence of the United States. As for the terrorist threat from ISIS, for us it is neither greater nor less than it was a week ago.

ISIL is Iraq’s problem not ours; we’ve already trained Iraqis how to handle ISIL, we don’t need to commit ground troops.Patrick J. Buchanan, author, ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America, The American Conservative, June 17, 2014, www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no- existential-threat-to-america/

The existential threat here is to Iraq. Its survival as one nation is now in question, with the possibility it could be torn apart in a civil and sectarian war. But this is preeminently Iraq’s problem, not ours. And if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his 900,000-man army, and Shia militia cannot defend Baghdad from a few thousand Islamist warriors, America is under no obligation to do it for them. Maliki told us to go home three years ago. We did. And before we plunge back into that misbegotten war, let us consider what the real threats are—to America.


3

April 2015 ISIL

Iraq is successfully fighting off ISIL now.Patrick J. Buchanan, author, ISIS Poses No Existential Threat to America, The American Conservative, June 17, 2014, www.theamericanconservative.com/isis-poses-no- existential-threat-to-america/

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria consists of fanatics who seek to carve a caliphate out of territory they now control from Aleppo in Syria to 60 miles north of Baghdad. Yet they have halted before Baghdad. And among the reasons is that Iraq’s Shia majority is not going to allow Sunni zealots to capture their cities, smash their shrines, and murder their fellow Shia. They will fight, as the Iraqi army did not.

The US already has ground troops in Iraq that have decimated ISIL in the first battle resulting in no US casualties. No more grounds troops need to be committed just to fight ISIL.Shafaq News, First ground clash between ISIS and US forces in Iraq, Dec. 16, 2014, english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us- forces-in-iraq

An American force has fought its actual first battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “ISIS” organization during a counter-attack that was carried out by tribal forces and other force of the Iraqi army near Ein al-Asad base, west of Anbar, in an attempt to remove them from the base of which includes about 100 US adviser in it. A field commander of the Iraqi Army in Anbar province, said that "the US force equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by fighter force model" F-18 ", was able to inflict casualties against fighters of ISIS organization, and forced them to retreat from the al- Dolab area, which lies 10 kilometers from Ain al-Assad base. US troops have entered with its Iraqi partner, according to Colonel , Salam Nazim in line against ISIS elements and clashed with them for more than two hours, to succeed in removing them from al- Dolab area, and causing losses in their ranks, at a time American fighter jets directed several strikes focused on ISIS gatherings that silenced their heavy sources of fire. "He points out that the clashes took place between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Sunday night.


3

April 2015 ISIL

US successes have led to ISIL withdrawing; there’s no need to commit more ground troops to fight ISIL.Shafaq News, First ground clash between ISIS and US forces in Iraq, Dec. 16, 2014, english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us- forces-in-iraq

Assad base is located 90 km from Ramadi city , the capital of Anbar province, as it was established in a nearby meeting point between the Iraqi-Syrian and Iraqi-Jordanian border, an area of 26 square kilometers, noting that the Euphrates River and industrial lakes are surrounding them from several directions. Sheikh Mahmud Nimrawi, a prominent tribal leader in the region, said that "US forces intervened because of ISIS started to come near the base , which they are stationed in so out of self-defense , they responded , welcoming the US intervention, which I hope will "not be the last." He added, "We have made progress in al-Dolab area, in which ISIS has withdrawn from to the villages beyond, after the battles which involved a private American force , and provided a great impetus firearm, and opened hubs around the region enabled them to storm and surprise ISIS fighters."

The Iraqi army and non-ISIL Islamic militants are already fighting and kicking ISIL out of Iraq.Associated Press, Iraqi forces reportedly begin attack to recapture Tikrit from ISIS, Mar 2, 2015, www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/02/iraqi-forces-reportedly-begin-attack-to- recapture-tikrit-from-isis/

The Iraqi army, backed by Shiite, Sunni, and Iranian fighters, used artillery and airstrikes Monday to begin an attack on the city of Tikrit—Saddam Hussein’s hometown—in a major effort to reclaim dispute areas of Iraq from ISIS fighters. A force of some 27,000 was attacking areas outside the city, with ground troops and airstrikes by Iraqi fighter jets, state TV reported Monday. Despite earlier reports touting the offensive, hours into the operation, Iraq's military said it still hadn't entered Tikrit, but militants have been dislodged from some areas outside the city.

The Iraqis are fed up with ISIL and taking measures to combat them on their own initiative.Associated Press, Iraqi forces reportedly begin attack to recapture Tikrit from ISIS, Mar 2, 2015, www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/02/iraqi-forces-reportedly-begin-attack-to- recapture-tikrit-from-isis/

Al-Abadi's comments appear to be targeting former members of Iraq's outlawed Baath party, loyalists to Saddam Hussein, who joined ISIS during its offensive, as well as other Sunnis who were dissatisfied with Baghdad's Shiite-led government. The premier likely hopes to peel away some support from the terror group, especially as Iraqis grow increasingly horrified by the extremists' mass killings and other atrocities.


3

April 2015 ISIL

The time has not yet come to commit US ground troops to fight ISIL.Richard Sharkey, Abraham: U.S. ground troops 'last resort' in ISIS fight, The Town Talk, Feb. 18, 2015, www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/abraham-us-ground- troops-last-resort-isis-fight/23644613/

The day may come when U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham would support sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS directly, but it's not here yet. But Abraham, R-Alto, said the United States needs to step up efforts to combat the threat posed by ISIS and similar "radical Islamic terrorists."

America’s gigantic national security system has confirmed ISIL is no threat to the US.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

I am no fan of America's national-security state, which continues to grow steadily larger, more intrusive, and increasingly dismissive of civil liberties. The NSA has removed all expectations of privacy in digital communications, and the TSA is, at best, inept security theater. The Department of Homeland Security's "If you see something, say something" campaign imagines a terrorist around every corner, while the CIA is busy spying on Congress and torturing away the rule of law. But sometimes, America's intelligence agencies are actually the voice of reason, offering a far less scary view of security threats than public perception or political pontificating provides. But we don't listen. Perhaps nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in an unjustified level of fear of ISIS, says Karen Callaghan, a political scientist at Texas Southern University who researches framing in political discourse about terrorism. If you listen to our hyperventilating national media and bloviating lawmakers, you'd think ISIS presented America with an existential threat. For instance, pointing to media coverage of graphic acts of terror (like beheadings), Callaghan says that this "hyperpublicizing" makes it "difficult for Americans to separate out the truth, difficult to decipher how worried they should be."


3

April 2015 ISIL

Syria won’t accept help from US ground troops to fight ISIL.Al Arabiya News, Syria rejects foreign ground troops to fight ISIS, Feb. 9, 2015, english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/09/Syria-rejects-foreign-ground- troops-to-fight-ISIS-.html

Syria will not allow foreign ground troops on its territory to fight the Islamic State group, Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said on Monday, according to Agence France-Presse. Speaking at a news conference in Damascus, Muallem also said Jordan had not responded to a Syrian request to coordinate efforts against ISIS after the group killed a captured Jordanian pilot. “So far, there is no coordination between Syria and Jordan in the fight against terrorism,” Muallem said at the joint news conference with Belarus Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei. “As for press reports about ground troops entering Syria, we say clearly that... we will not permit anyone to violate our national sovereignty by intervening to fight IS,” Muallem said.

Syria is fighting ISIL.Al Arabiya News, Syria rejects foreign ground troops to fight ISIS, Feb. 9, 2015, english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/09/Syria-rejects-foreign-ground- troops-to-fight-ISIS-.html

“The Syrian Arab army is honourably undertaking this task.” Damascus regularly accuses Jordan of supporting “terrorism” in Syria because of its backing for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad.

History has shown the US cannot commit ground troops in the Middle East without causing chaos.H. A. Goodman, Why McCain is wrong about sending ground troops to fight ISIS, Jan 30 2015, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong- about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight

However, with all due respect to McCain, he's wrong about sending more Americans into yet another counterinsurgency conflict. While ISIS might be no match for U.S. ground troops in a conventional battle, the lessons of both Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that simply winning military engagements won’t guarantee an end to the chaos and bloodshed in the region. Counterinsurgency wars aren’t pitched battles and according to Daniel Bolger in his book titled Why We Lost, “This enemy wasn’t amenable to the type of war we’re good at fighting, which is a Desert Storm or a Kosovo.”


3

April 2015 ISIL

US ground troops were ineffective for years when first committed to Iraq; committing them to fight ISIL will be no different.H. A. Goodman, Why McCain is wrong about sending ground troops to fight ISIS, Jan 30 2015, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong- about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight

In his book, General Bolger goes on to state some of the other reasons why we failed to achieve many of our objectives in Iraq: We then added to our troubles by misusing theU.S. Armed Forces, which are designed, manned, and equipped for short, decisive, conventional conflict. Instead, certain of our tremendously able, disciplined troops, buoyed by dazzling early victories, we backed into not one but two long, indecisive counterinsurgent struggles ill suited to the nature of our forces.

Non-military efforts are needed more than ground troops.H. A. Goodman, Why McCain is wrong about sending ground troops to fight ISIS, Jan 30 2015, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong- about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight

Now, Sen. McCain is calling for more American to be sent to fight ISIS, even though a decade of the Iraq War should have already provided Iraqis with a stable enough government to protect their own country. Like all counterinsurgency conflicts, especially the one General Bolger writes about, victory lies just as much in a lasting political solution as it does in winning military battles. With ISIS, the U.S. still faces the same Sunni and Shia rivalry that tore apart Iraq. According to Brookings, ISIS is fueled by the sectarian conflict: This central facet of IS’s military strategy aims to spark or sustain sectarian conflict— to “provoke [the Shia] to radicalize, join Iranian-sponsored militias and commit similar atrocities against Sunnis.” With both the Shia-led government in Iraq and the Alawi-led one in Syria perceived as repressive by many ordinary Sunnis, IS aims to present itself as the protector of true and pure Sunni ideals. Thus, without a solution to the sectarian violence and animosity between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, no amount of U.S. ground troops will be able to implement a lasting peace. According to the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, both Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai utilized U.S. support to further their own political goals rather than ensure American interests.


3

April 2015 ISIL

The US has trained Iraqi soldiers to handle ISIL on the ground.H. A. Goodman, Why McCain is wrong about sending ground troops to fight ISIS, Jan 30 2015, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong- about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight

As for sending soldiers to train rebels or Iraqi forces, Adm. John Kirby is quoted as saying that when we left Iraq in 2011, Iraqis already had the necessary tools to protect themselves: And when we left in 2011, we left them capable and competent to the threat that they faced. That opportunity they were given, the skills that they were provided, the leadership that they had were squandered by the Maliki government over the last three, three and a half years.

Ground troops are a last resorts; sending troops in prematurely only causes American troops to die unnecessarily.Richard Sharkey, Abraham: U.S. ground troops 'last resort' in ISIS fight, The Town Talk, Feb. 18, 2015, www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2015/02/18/abraham-us-ground- troops-last-resort-isis-fight/23644613/

U.S. ground troops should be used in the war against ISIS "only as a very last resort to protect our national security and only if we have a winnable strategy laid out by this administration," he said. "I'm tired of sending our good people over there just to get killed, and we end up losing the country anyway like we did in Iraq or Afghanistan."


4

April 2015 ISIL

Pro BlocksA/T ISIL is not an existential threat.

1. ISIL clearly is a threat: ISIL is chopping people’s heads off and getting people to join from all over the world. This justifies sending in US ground troops.

2. Existential threat or just an average threat, ISIL is a threat; this justifies sending in US ground troops.

3. Even if ISIL isn’t a threat here at home, ISIL is a threat to American interests overseas.Pamela Brown, CNN Correspondent, FBI warns military of ISIS threat, CNN Dec. 1, 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/

The bulletin language warns of "individuals overseas spotting and assessing" individuals in the U.S., based on their social media postings in support of the group. The warning encourages members of the military to "exercise operational security" in response to such threats, including reviewing their online social media postings so as not to make themselves easier targets. U.S. law enforcement posted the warning now in advance of the upcoming holiday season when many members of the U.S. military travel in uniform. The new warning also cites several recent attacks in Canada against members of the Canadian military, including the Oct. 22 Ottawa shooting and two other attacks using cars.


4

April 2015 ISIL

Pro BlocksA/T ISIL is a hoax.

1. All the evidence that ISIL is a hoax is from mid-2014; ISIL has clearly shown not to be a hoax threat.

2. Almost every single ISIL video has been confirmed by governments throughout the world as authentic.

3. Even if ISIL is a hoax, committing ground troops would not increase any threat to our soldiers and could more effectively fight other terrorist groups.


4

April 2015 ISIL

Pro BlocksA/T Airstrikes are sufficient.

1. Airstrikes result in more civilian casualties than ground troops. Civilian casualties risk turning more people, such as the dead civilians’ families into terrorists. Thus, airstrikes will only cause more terrorism. Terrorism is not in the US’s best interest.

2. Airstrikes are not as precise as ground troops. This means ground troops would be more efficient in eradicating ISIL; being more efficient in eradicating ISIL is in the US best interest.

3. Ground troops would make airstrikes more effective by being able to provide more intelligence on where and how to conduct airstrikes. Having the cooperation between US air forces and US ground forces is in the US’s best interest.


4

April 2015 ISIL

Pro BlocksA/T Other countries’ ground troops are handling ISIL.

1. Only American ground soldiers can guarantee that ISIL will be fought in a way that serves the US’s best interest; not Iraq’s or some other country’s best interest.

2. Arab ground troops have proven unwilling to engage in heavy combat with ISIL. Bobby Ghosh, journalist, Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015, www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/

The other Arab military in the war against ISIL, Iraq’s, seems to be leaving the hardest fighting to Kurdish militias and Iran-backed Shi’ite gangs. Last week, as the Pentagon talked up an Iraqi-led, US-guided offensive against Mosul, many Iraqi leaders were skeptical that their troops would be ready.

3. Despite air strikes, Iraqi soldiers need more assistance from US ground troops. Jim Miklaszewski, U.S. Official: American Forces May Help Iraq Retake Mosul, Feb. 19, 2015, www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/u-s-official-american-forces-may-help- iraq-retake-mosul-n309241

President Obama has said he would be willing to authorize the limited use of such ground forces if necessary. The senior official stressed that despite some recent gains by ISIS, such as capturing the town of al-Baghdadi, U.S. and coalition airstrikes have taken a toll. "ISIS is in decline militarily," the official said. "They're losing ground every day." But the official acknowledged Iraqi forces still face serious challenges: Thousands of Iraqi soldiers must undergo rigorous training before they can launch an assault on Mosul.Sunni tribes in the region, considered critical to any lasting military success, also remain reluctant to fight alongside Shia forces. "It's a work in progress," the senior official said.


4

April 2015 ISIL

Con BlocksA/T Power grid threat.

1. Experts agree there is no risk to the power grid from cyber terrorism. David Perera, U.S. grid safe from large-scale attack, experts say, Politico, 9-10-14 www.politico.com/story/2014/09/power-grid-safety-110815.html

The specter of a large-scale, destructive attack on the U.S. power grid is at the center of much strategic thinking about cybersecurity. For years, Americans have been warned by a bevy of would-be Cassandras in Congress, the administration and the press that hackers are poised to shut it down. But in fact, the half-dozen security experts interviewed for this article agreed it’s virtually impossible for an online-only attack to cause a widespread or prolonged outage of the North American power grid. Even laying the groundwork for such a cyber operation could qualify as an act of war against the U.S. — a line that few nation-state-backed hacker crews would wish to cross.

2. Physical attacks couldn’t overcome the massive strength of our power grid. David Perera, U.S. grid safe from large-scale attack, experts say, Politico, 9-10-14 www.politico.com/story/2014/09/power-grid-safety-110815.html

Electrical-grid hacking scenarios mostly overlook the engineering expertise necessary to intentionally cause harm to the grid, say experts knowledgeable about the power generators and high voltage transmission entities that constitute the backbone of the grid— what’s called the bulk power system. There’s also the enormity of the grid and diversity of its equipment to consider. “The grid is designed to lose utilities all the time,” said Patrick Miller, founder and director of the Energy Sector Security Consortium. “I’m not trying to trivialize the situation, but you’re not really able to cause this nationwide cascading failure for any extended duration of time,” he added. “It’s just not possible.”


4

April 2015 ISIL

Con BlocksA/T ISIL is growing.

1. This is just fear mongering; even if ISIL is getting more people to jihad, they are not actually gaining ground in Iraq or Syria.

2. The US already has ground troops in Iraq that have decimated ISIL in the first battle resulting in no US casualties. No more grounds troops need to be committed just to fight ISIL.Shafaq News, First ground clash between ISIS and US forces in Iraq, Dec. 16, 2014, english.shafaaq.com/index.php/politics/12492-first-ground-clash-between-isis-and-us- forces-in-iraq

An American force has fought its actual first battle against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “ISIS” organization during a counter-attack that was carried out by tribal forces and other force of the Iraqi army near Ein al-Asad base, west of Anbar, in an attempt to remove them from the base of which includes about 100 US adviser in it. A field commander of the Iraqi Army in Anbar province, said that "the US force equipped with light and medium weapons, supported by fighter force model" F-18 ", was able to inflict casualties against fighters of ISIS organization, and forced them to retreat from the al- Dolab area, which lies 10 kilometers from Ain al-Assad base. US troops have entered with its Iraqi partner, according to Colonel , Salam Nazim in line against ISIS elements and clashed with them for more than two hours, to succeed in removing them from al- Dolab area, and causing losses in their ranks, at a time American fighter jets directed several strikes focused on ISIS gatherings that silenced their heavy sources of fire. "He points out that the clashes took place between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Sunday night.

3. The only people asserting ISIL is a threat are politicians who stand to gain power and news media who stand to gain profit from scaring people.Bonnie Kristian, freelance writer, If we must have a hugely invasive national security state, let's at least listen to it, The Week, Oct. 13, 2014, theweek.com/articles/443162/must-have-hugely-invasive-national-security-state-lets- least-listen

It's understandable, of course, that so many Americans are scared: We are consistently told that we should be, a drumbeat of fear which Callaghan argues "elevates risk perceptions and diminishes the capacity for rational information processing." Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) caught a lot of flak last month for his frantic assertion that failure to adequately fight ISIS means we will "all get killed here at home." Graham completely deserved that flak, but he's hardly unusual in his hysteria. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) similarly claimed that "we're gonna pay the price" if we don't kill these "barbarians" before they kill us. Across the aisle, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) sees a "clear and present danger" in ISIS boasts of flying its flag over the White House, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) believes the "threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated.”


4

April 2015 ISIL

Con BlocksA/T Terrorism/ISIL will kill everyone.

1. This is fear mongering that sounds more like something on Fox News or a politician desperate for attention than an actual rational prediction.

2. This is empirically denied; there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks throughout the world in various places and most people are still alive.

3. This is unlikely because terrorism is definitionally motivated by politics and power; terrorists don’t want to kill everyone they want to have power everyone.


4

April 2015 ISIL

Con BlocksA/T Other countries are ineffective at fighting ISIL

This simply isn’t true:

1. Jordan’s airstrikes following the setting of the Jordanian pilot were incredibly effective

2. Iraqi ground troops have taken back key cities.

3. Even if this is true, there’s no reason to think that throwing US ground combat troops into the mix would make things better.


4

April 2015 ISIL

PRO CASE #1 PREFLOW

Power Grid

First, ISIL is planning to attack the power grid; it is more likely to do so than other US foes. Bedard 2014

Second, ISIL could easily team up with Mexican cartels to take down the grid. Bedard 2014

Third, the US power grid is key to 90% of American lives; it is wide open to a terrorist attack.Bedard 2014


4

April 2015 ISIL

PRO CASE #2 PREFLOW

Self-Defense

First, the US has ground troops in Iraq now. They are not

authorized to fight ISI. Only by committing them to fight ISIL can they offensively kill ISIL soldiers. Our ground combat

troops in Iraq need to be exempted from prohibitions on

going out and killing ISIL. Bloomberg News ‘15

Second, ISIL is planning attacks on the US military.

Brown ‘14

Finally, ISIL is tracking specific American soldiers to

kill. Brown ’14


5

April 2015 ISIL

CON CASE #1 PREFLOW

Civil Liberties

First, ISIL is not an existential threat; treating them otherwise will only erode our civil liberties. Mueller ‘15

Second, we are already defeating ISIL without ground troops.Tritten ‘15

Finally, Sending ground troops to fight ISIL will only add to the thousands of troops who have been injured in killed in unnecessary ground fights in the Middle East. H. A. Goodman ‘15


5

April 2015 ISIL

CON CASE #2 PREFLOW

Terrorism

First, ISIL is as strong as they are going to get. Any further ISIL growth into Iraq will cause them to lose support among Muslim allies that has permitted them to grow as they have. Buchanan 2014

Second, without fully understanding why ISIL exists risks policies, like committing ground troops, that causes groups like ISIL to exist.Kristian ‘14

Finally, efforts to fight ISIL on the ground create a paradoxical policy where the US is confronted with the prospect of aiding those who carried out 9-11. Buchanan ‘14

nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThe Forensics Files ©The PFD FileApril 2015ISIL1....

Documents

Transcript of nycudldebate.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThe Forensics Files ©The PFD FileApril 2015ISIL1....