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

He raises some interesting points.1. Military Strength of ISISWhile the rise in fighters is troubling it is worth noting that regional forces are well equipped to handle this issue. My opponent cites the estimate of fighters between 20,000 and 30,000. If this number is accurate it is far outweighed by the recruitment numbers of just one regional force, the Peshmerga. The Peshmerga are the armed forces of Iraqi Kurdistan and their current strength is 270,000. [1] The armed forces of Iraq currently number 271,400. [2] These two forces, while not as strong as the US Military are well equipped and capable of taking on the ISIS in Iraq. The YPG in Rojava number 50,000 with another 7,000-10,000 YPJ fighters. The numbers just don't add up for justifying intensifying US Military Intervention in the region. While our military possesses many capabilities that would assist in the fight, it is not the solution to the issue. We will have to leave eventually and when we do, these forces will have to protect their people and territory. We were unsuccessful at eliminating Al Qaeda in Iraq when we were there, there is no reason to believe that another costly deployment would have a different effect on the current situation. It is however clear that our involvement would intensify recruiting efforts by legitimizing their narrative that this is a fight for an Islamic Caliphate in the region. [4] 2. Financial Capabilities of ISISI will concede the factual claim that ISIS is the richest terrorist organization in the world. Their control over oil in their occupied territory is troubling but again, it is not something that US involvement would be able to stop all together. The reason for this being that ISIS controls oil facilities in Iraq as well as in Syria. [3] I have an issue with the assertion that this money enables ISIS to acquire more tanks, as their armor and military vehicles are all plundered. They cannot buy these weapons on the black market. The air campaign is sufficient to slow their extraction of petroleum and their profit from these activities. The problem we face is that the black market for this cheap oil is not something that can be eradicated with bombs, bullets and boots on the ground. [5] We can only diminish their capabilities, not end them entirely. My opponent is correct in his assertion that bombing alone will not stop this organization. We need to work with our partners on the ground to remove their revenue sources. 3. US International ThreatsIt is true that young minds are easily manipulated to attempt to move to the caliphate. This is because of their unprecedented propaganda campaign on social media. Again this is not something that increased US involvement will cure. In fact by increasing our involvement we provide a boon to their recruitment efforts. [4] To prevent foreign fighters streaming into the country we need to work to discourage their message, not to intensify it. We need to work with our allies in the region, most importantly Turkey, to control the flow of fighters into Syria illegally. These fighters need to transit international boundaries to arrive in the Caliphate and in order to prevent this we need stricter controls on immigration and travel in the neighboring countries. [6] Furthermore his contention that ISIS encourages US citizens to commit terrorist attacks on US soil is accurate, but an alarmist position. We cannot fight battles against every cleric that calls for attacks against the US. Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Hezbollah and Hamas all call for attacks against America, but we should not increase our military footprint in every country where they are operating. Their actions and exhortations are an attempt into goading us into further conflict which inflates their numbers and legitimizes their existence. [4]4. What we should do. Pro suggests three ways to increase our assault on ISIS. The first one is to cut off their oil supply. While it is possible to slow their oil supply, as I have stated it is impossible to completely remove it without conducting a massive offensive that would deprive them of Syria's oil fields. It is estimated that ISIS controls nearly all of Syria's oil fields. The total output of these fields is roughly 380,000 barrels per day. [3] Unless Pro is advocating a ground war in Syria this is not a possible solution. His second suggestion is to increase bombings. This is an area where we agree. I believe that we need to intensify our air campaign against ISIS. The problem with this is that bombings need to be targeted. Without Forward Air Controllers to call in strikes this is a tough task. To aid in this we have been training fighters from the FSA and other militias to assist. The problem with this is that the training is not happening fast enough. [7]Finally he asserts that we should no longer trust Iraq to fight ISIS for us and that US military personnel should be stationed in Iraqi bases. This is not a sustainable or wise solution to the problem. Not only does it put our military in harms way for a region that is not necessary to our national security, it will increase recruiting efforts for ISIS. [4] It will also exacerbate tensions with regional players such as Iran and Syria. He rightly notes that Iraqi armed forces are unwilling or unable to fight ISIS effectively. We need to pressure the Iraqi government to beef up their army's response to this crisis. The current advisory role we have is invaluable to this effort. Also our allies in the region are unwilling to commit ground forces, not because of inaction on our part, but because they are largely fighting their own localized conflicts. Saudi Arabia is currently engaged with Houthi Rebels in Yemen. [8] Jordan cannot be persuaded to fight ISIS alone because they have no do in the fight. Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq using Shia militias and their special forces. Perhaps to prevent the murder of American citizens as Pro suggests, we should focus on changing our foreign policy of intervention and imperialism. The effects of colonialism, most notably the imposition of Sykes-Picot provide the greatest impetus to these terrorist organizations. This arbitrary boundary and division of Syria and Iraq between French and British Mandates laid the foundation for conflict. Rather than letting the people of the region determine their own destiny following WW1, these two great powers divided the land for themselves instead of following through on the promise for an Arab kingdom. I know this will be seen by those who hold our military an international influence in high regard as surrender, but it isn't it is an acceptance of the principles that our government is founded on. The right to self rule and self determination. If America really wants to secure peace in the Middle East, it starts with us righting the wrongs of the past, not perpetuating them. Sources[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://www.businessinsider.com...[4]http://www.scps.nyu.edu... [5]. http://www.cnn.com... [6]. http://www.ibtimes.com... [7]. http://www.vice.com... [8]. http://www.aljazeera.com...