U.S. Intervention

My opponent drops my observation that potentia harms must be viewied in light of culpability. This is important because it means that even if unforseen consequences occur the U.S. is still justified in helping the SFA protect itself against regime attacks. C1: Self-Defense and Humanitarianism My opponent makes the claim that the Houla massacre was primarily against Alawi/Shia families (government supporters).and thus indicting the Sunni militants. There are a few problems with this analysis: First, the main piece of evidence from the Voltair Network is notorious for promoting conspiracy theories in-line with their own ideology. For example, this network was one of the most active in promoting the Truther Movement (9/11 was an inside job) and also conspiracies pointing to neocon attempts to use military intervention as a means towards oil, which has been demonstrably proven false especially in light of the Iraq War. However, my evidence is from the UN and Amnesty (by far no neocon or rightwing group looking to promote an agenda) which documents interviews, eyewitness reports, and UN monitoring stations in the region. All of my opponent’s evidence relies on 3rd parties such as government claims. [1] Second, it is factually improbable that it was the SFA or allies who committed the massacre because all reports (even his evidence) cite around 20% of deaths occurred by tank fire, artillery shells and helicopter assistance. Why is this important? Because the SFA has no armament of this magnitude. As the reports indicate the first part of the assault in Houla was of heavy armor weaponry followed by an infiltration of Shia/government backed militias. These accounts are substantiated by satellite imagery. [2] Third, even assuming some reports that there were casualties of Alawite and Shia families this is to be expected especially since in certain regions of the country, including Houla, the Shias/Alawites that stayed in the areas dominated by the SFA are Alawite defectors to the SFA. [3] Fourth, even if we assume all of my opponent’s logic is correct his argument drops my argument that the regime is responsible for 100 deaths per day which means in the next 2 days the regime would have killed more than what had occurred in Houla. Refer to rules on drops. C2: Iranian Influence My opponent makes a few claims in this argument: That Iranian influence is best diminished through weakening Iranian stability. This argument doesn’t gain my opponent any ground because it isn’t mutually exclusive to my advocacy. The U.S. can work to undermine Iranian influence internally through sanctions and CIA operations while at the same time working to overthrow Assad. My opponent doesn’t justify the claim that military intervention will unite Iran. He can do so in the next round. My opponent claims that if Assad is overthrown than it wouldn’t be friendly to Iran. That’s the point. Iran only has one main ally in the region – Syria. My opponent drops the analysis that I presented which demonstrates that Iranian influence cannot be sustained if Iran is geographically and numerically isolated from the Peninsula and the Levant. As mentioned above this is true because Iran needs Syria as the 3rd party to initiate proxy skirmishes and to prevent a solid Sunni bloc in the Middle East. C3: Radicalism My opponent claims that since the sects of the SFA are looking to radicals than that is reason why the U.S. shouldn’t intervene or aid the rebels. This is exactly why the U.S. should intervene. As indicated by my evidence the SFA is looking to radicals because they lack the military power to effectively compete with the Syrian military. The evidence indicates that the radicals do not have a power foothold though. The U.S. must act now in order to fill this vacuum that different groups are vying for. If radicals do take this hold then the U.S. is in a double-bind, both groups will be of strategic disadvantage to the U.S. (either it’s an Iranian satellite state or a radical quasi-state). The issue however is that the SFA can maintain a strong defensive against the Syrian military due to just numbers alone. Its offensive will require outside assistance, but its defensive might not. Impact? As time goes on more and more bloodshed will occur. My opponent claims it can devolve into an Iraq situation. The problem with this analysis is that Syria is not like Iraq. When the U.S. invaded Iraq there was no solidified and organized opposition to the degree of the SFA. Moreover, Iraq wasn’t geographically divided into government and opposition camps. The closest would be the divide of the Kurds to the north with the rest of the country but that doesn’t apply because the Kurds had already been beaten into submission with a previous genocide and various military operations there. C4: U.S. Inaction Leads to U.S. Decline My opponent makes the claim that the U.S. has a pretty small military force. This is true yet misleading. The U.S. when it comes to expenditure on the military far exceeds even China who would have the 2nd highest defense expenditure. The U.S., as my opponent alludes to, spends its capital on weaponry and technological innovations especially in the realm of airpower. If the U.S. intervenes in Syria it would not be through an immense solider force, but rather armament and airpower especially drones. This is true because the Syrian military is pretty weak when it comes to airpower. Im sure anyone who knows about the 7-day war would realize the internal weakness of the Syrian army. The U.S. would simply need to supply airpower to effectively moot Syrian ground forces and specifically their heavy artillery. My opponent makes the age old argument of backlash. This would be true if the majority of Arab states oppose U.S./U.N. intervention. But this is not the case. The Arab League has been one of the most vocal groups in asking for international assistance in Syria. [5] Moreover, the SFA is also actively seeking international and U.S. assistance so backlash wouldn’t come from this group. This group is analogous to the Libyan Free Army and Council and there has not been major backlash to the U.S. in Libya. My opponent claims that innocents will die. This argument is non-unique…people are dying now in the status quo. However I would argue less people would die in the long run if the U.S. acts not because as time drags on the civil war is at a standstill resulting in as a I said 100 deaths per day from the regime killing opposition members and innocent civilians. The quicker the violence ends, which would be like Libya when the U.S. and international finally intervened, the less people will die. We know if we don’t act the violence will remain as gruesome as it is. The systematic killing will continue unless the U.S. acts. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.nytimes.com...