US/Allies should authorized use of greater military force against Isis.

Thanks to parkerwil11 for opening a debate that is sure to be interesting and will have great points on both sides. Issues like this are complicated precisely because there are some compelling reasons for and against increasing military intervention. The United States should not increase its military intervention against the Islamic State. Of the many reasons to not escalate is the fact that our intervention in Iraq caused the rise of ISIS in the first place. This coupled with the fact that terrorism as a tactic is not easy to deter by traditional means, makes any action we take politically useful for ISIS. Interjecting US ground forces into the region is not the solution. The solution is to equip and empower the people who are fighting for their countries now to get the job done. 1. Foreign Intervention caused the rise of ISIS.Our ill advised adventure in Iraq toppled a military dictatorship and left a power vacuum and instability which ISIS exploited. We replaced the harsh regime with a government that is corrupt and that does not listen to all of it's citizens, which ISIS fights against. We sent every member of the Ba'athist party packing, people that ISIS now employs. According to accounts from former ISIS members and analysts interviewed by the Washington Post, the majority of the high ranking officials in ISIS are former Iraqi officials."Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group."[1]Beyond our installation of a corrupt government we have provided a rich quarry of high powered and high tech weapons for ISIS to plunder from a government unwilling or unable to defend itself. The United States pours billions of dollars worth of weapons to most major powers in the region every year. Missiles, tanks, helicopters and bombs. Jon Stewart famously covered this very fact and said "We're the United States we're like the Oprah of Middle East weapon systems. ... Well it's a good thing we flooded our allies with sophisticated weapons because they're gonna need them to fend off all of our other sophisticated weapons."[2] Our policies are often short sighted and lead to more problems than they solve. For instance our support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 80s trained the majority of terrorists that we face now. One of them, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, would learn in Afghanistan and go on to found an organization that would become Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the front runner to ISIS. Osama Bin Laden's goal with 9/11 was to draw the United States into a wider regional conflict. To this extent he was successful. The goal of ISIS is to not only establish a caliphate, but to draw us back into the region. The instability, death and destruction that we bring with us is the fuel that jihadis and extremists need to keep their fires of hatred and power still burning. 2. Terrorism is hard to deter by traditional means.Escalating our involvement means an attempt at deterrence-by-punishment. In a paper published in 2014, Max Abrahms examines why traditional deterrence is not effective against terrorists. He notes that deterrence is based on "influencing the adversary by reducing the utility of his actions. Unfortunately, neither approach is likely to succeed since terrorists are generally motivated by such a wide variety of personal and strategic aims that they are liable to derive utility from their actions regardless of how governments respond."[3] By attacking them we provide them utility by making us into the bad guy. The traditional aims of terrorism are either concessions from a government or provocation. Response by escalation would play right into their hands. For this reason Abrahms suggests deterrence by deligitimization. By eroding their support structures we have a better tactic because the people who support ISIS can be deterred by other means. If we make their support for ISIS politically costly their support structures will fail. 3. We need to empower and equip the people who live there to control their own destiny. The problem we have is that we refuse to arm and aid the best fighters in the region and we are committed to the old colonial boundaries of the region. The Kurdish people are the only force from the region that is willing, able and effective at fighting ISIS. The biggest case in point would be the siege of Kobani. In the fall of 2014 the Islamic State made a push to eliminate one of the last pockets of resistance on the Turkish border, Kobani Canton. For months they moved forward capturing town after town until they had the Kurdish YPG and YPJ trapped in a small section of the city. As a primer the YPG is one of the finest light infantry formations currently operating in the world right now. The YPJ is the women's protection units, just as fierce as their male counterparts they fought along their side to retake their city. The Kurds, with extensive help and coordination from the USAF were able to repel the invaders and eventually drove them completely out of Kobani Canton after a long struggle. The Kurds are our best option on the ground right now. Under 3,000 YPG, YPJ, FSA and Peshmerga infantry defeated a well supplied force of 9,000 ISIS fighters equipped with rockets, artillery and tanks.[4] Despite being ready to fight and destroy ISIS, the Kurds find themselves in a hard place. The United States won't help them as much as they should because Turkey despises the Kurds. They have been fighting against PKK rebels in their country for decades. Recently the Turks have joined the air campaign against ISIS and their first action was to bomb the Kurds who are fighting ISIS. The Kurds have no homeland and have varying degrees of autonomy throughout the countries they do live in. In Turkey they are oppressed and in Iraq they have autonomy over their region in the north. The US needs to focus on helping them take on ISIS and carve out a stable, Kurdish homeland. The Kurds are progressive and support women's rights and the rights of all to worship how they please. I urge you to read the Constitution of the Rojava Cantons.[5] It shows their dedication to human rights and proves that they are the only viable partner to securing peace in the region. Article 28 for example holds that men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Article 31 protects the right for everyone to worship how they please. Article 32 protects the right to freely associate. The Kurds are the most progressive voice in the region and despite this we continue to write them off because of our alliance with Turkey. Sources[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2]http://thedailyshow.cc.com... [3]https://www.academia.edu...[4]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[5]http://civiroglu.net...;