The US federal government should bomb ISIS

Now it is my turn to rebutt my opponent's rebuttals. Let's begin."However, most countries under the US-Led coalition are geographically distant from ISIS territory" With modern technology this isn't much of a problem. Especially for an organization as advanced as the US military. "So to most countries a part of the coalition, they do not face direct threat from ISIS"Wrong. Western countries face direct and indirect treat from ISIS attacks or ISIS inspired attacks. Also from destabalization in an area as critical as the Middle East the economy is put at risk because of oil price spikes.It is in everyone's best interest to keep the Middle East as stable as possible and terrorism is devastating to stabilitity. "ISIS has little interest in engaging in attacks abroad. If one looks at the Islamic terrorist attacks done in west" If ISIS has little interest in attacking abroad then why has ISIS trained Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, a recently arrested terrorist who was trained by the Islamic State to spread terror in the US?The answer is simple. ISIS does aim to attack the US and because of that this is our battle to fight too.Next my opponent talks about how ISIS is not a threat to the US.However, this is just wrong. In fact there enough of a threat that the FBI officially warned people to be careful of violent ISIS followers in the US that target military members and veterans.ISIS commands it's followers to simply kill whoever they can in the US, whether it be the military, innocent civilians, parents, children. ISIS preaches that innocent civilians simply trying to live a peaceful life deserve to die. By ISIS existing and preaching this message the US is at risk of terrorism increasing and innocent lives being lost. This is our fight. None of these innocent civilians deserve to die and we need to protect our citizens who have done nothing wrong.http://nypost.com...;http://abcnews.go.com...;"Simply because airstrikes can cause the least casualties from the offending side, that does not make it a sufficient reason for it to be the only form of military intervention against ISIS"This is very important to listen close. The resolution asks the question of if ISIS should be bombed or not. This does not mean that ISIS only has to be bombed, because bombing is cooperative with other military strategies. If I can prove that ISIS should be bombed with or without other types of military intervention then I should win the debate. " As mentioned previously, airstrikes may be effective at temporarily hindering ISIS but it would not be enough to do any long term damage to ISIS. Simply put it, no war has ever been won through air superiority alone."You see the thing is I'm not arguing for only air strikes. I am arguing that air strikes should be done with the possibility of ground strikes. As I stated before ground strikes are likely to happen soon, so that is just more of a reason to continue our air strikes.Even without ground forces follow up air strikes help eliminate ISIS leadership, and has done so in the past. This does have serious effects and helps slow ISIS' growth and opperations. This buys us more time and allows the war against ISIS to be won more easily. " ISIS ground units would eventually adapt to the airstrikes."But you see their adaption will not be perfect. There will be flaws and mistakes that will be fatal and allow for ISIS to be damaged. Even if they do adapt then our military strategies will adapt with them to better target them.