The US ought to put boots on the ground to combat ISIS

Before I begin I'd like to say to voters that I think my opponent should lose a point for conduct. His previous round was chalk full of unnecessary sarcasm. Debates don't necessarily require people being nice, but I think there is a difference between being nice and simply being respectful, and what my opponent has done is cross into disrespect."I notice you forgot to include US relations with Israel and Egypt " which I had mentioned before. Well done on your argument cherry-picking."If you follow the news, you'll know that Israel-US relations are not good right now; the leader of Israel went behind Obama's back to give a speech in the capitol, opposing current US attempts at reaching a nuclear deal with Iran. And Egypt, well, only 10% of Egyptians think our military intervention has a positive effect[1], and only 5% hold a favorable view of the US overall[2]."And yet we're popular enough to be a major Iraqi trade partner.."This was in response to my citing the fact that most Iraqis disapprove of the US. The response here it two-fold. A) Just governments rule by a mandate from the people, so to brush aside what the people think is not taking into account this important fact. B) That is not true, our trade with Iraq comprises only .1% of our national GDP[3]. My opponent is using the White House's 'fact sheets', which I would say is not a reliable source, as the White House has public opinion in mind, and not necessarily the truth."All"s you have done is sourced oil import/export statistics for the two countries where you have proceeded to cite this as indisputable evidence for your own global oil conspiracy theories."It's hardly a conspiracy that the US is allies with Saudi Arabia for economic reasons[4]. And regardless of why we're allies with them, it's not even a good thing that we are, as we turn a blind eye to all sorts of crap that they do to their women[5][6][7]."Surge was announced in Dec 2006. Troops didn't arrive until 07. Both the Iraqi govt and think-tanks like the Bookings Institute credited higher troop levels for its success.."As with citing White House 'facts', and for the same reasons, using what the Iraqi government claimed doesn't necessarily make for rock-solid data. Further, my opponent's data is from 2007. Mine are from much later, when the dust has settled and more objective heads can take a look at the situation."Experts?? Nice appeal to authority here (a logical fallacy)."I have not committed a logical fallacy. Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the 'authority' isn't actually an authority[8]. If anyone wants to check source 5 from my previous round, you will see that the authority I cite is comprised of the following: Lieutenant General Daniel Bolger, War Analysis Institutions, and data collected regarding feedback from the Iraqi people and violence over time.And even if I'm wrong about the Surge and its effects, that does not disprove the fact that overall, the US occupation of Iraq inflamed sectarian tensions and contributed to further terrorism down the road, facts I've already sourced. One might say: "Well, let's just do this Surge-style forever to keep the peace!" That is not feasible, given the costs of occupation of other countries, which was also previously documented."So what. According to the quote above "regional conflicts cannot be helped" regardless of US military intervention, and only says intervention "may" sometimes cause trouble; which is NOT the same saying that it DOES cause trouble."My opponent does not appear to dispute the truth of the quote, and I hope he doesn't suddenly change his position in the final round, as that would be unsporting.More importantly though, my opponent is misinterpreting the impact of the information. If our intervention doesn't help, and might cause trouble, then the only possible outcomes are either neutral or bad, neither of which are worth the lives of our soldiers or our tax dollars."Meanwhile I never realized that ISIS was a "small less powerful country" that deserved protection from America"s hegemonic intentions."No, ISIS is not, but countries in which we may operate in the course of fighting them are, meaning the quote does apply."Yet when we do intervene militarily we liberate 30 million Iraqi people from an iron-fist dictator and give the right to vote to over 15 million women. We also eliminate and disrupt terrorist bases of operations and prevent attacks against our homeland and our allies."We may have liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam, but we plunged their country in sectarian strife and foreign occupation, so it's hard to say which is better for them, and even if you answer that, it's hard to say if it was right to force change on the country at all.And when you run it by the numbers, the answer would appear to be no, it wasn't the right thing to do. Roughly 600,000 civilians died under Saddam[9] (he ruled for 24 years), and 500,000 died in the Iraq War[10] (only one decade). Further, Iraq is listed as one of the world's most 'failed' Failed States, right along side our other conquest, Afghanistan[11].Finally, even if Iraq received a net benefit from our occupation, the fact remains that we still did a lot of damage, and weakened ourselves militarily in the process. The drawback being that we now are less likely to become involved in a more worthy issue that can clearly and cleanly be resolved by military force, due to our weakened posture."Just how many major terrorist attacks have happened to the US since 9/11 and the Iraq War again???"According to my count, 1 attack on the US prior to 9/11, and 5 after[12]."So we should put the world economy at risk anyway by allowing ISIS to disrupt a vital region of the world for global trade, shipping, commerce, and energy supplies?"This response suggests that I advocate doing nothing, which I don't. I have already outlined a plan to effectively fight ISIS, and I've already shown that US-Arab coalitions have been effective at stopping ISIS in its tracks."Are these Iraqi Muslim psychologists under attack by ISIS? Your appeal to authority fails here."Again, this is not a fallacious appeal to authority, as I was referencing the findings of scientists. And I do not see how it is relevant, as my opponent seems to insinuate, that these scientists be under attack by ISIS. My purpose in citing this is to prove that humans, as naturally tribalistic beings, tend to dislike people that aren't like them. So you're more likely to develop animosity for the accidental killer of your family if they are not like you (e.g. American) than if they are like you (e.g. fellow countrymen)."So explain to us why 3,000 Americans still died at the WTC and Pentagon in 2001 when the US had no military troops in Afghanistan or a significant military presence in the Middle East." These are pictures of what is known as the Highway of Death. Americans killed fleeing Iraqi troops and civilians, burying them, dead or dying, in the desert[13]. One can imagine how this event might inspire terrorism. I'm not saying the people who died on 9/11 deserved to die for this, I'm merely saying that there are other reasons for 9/11 besides what my opponent is trying to push.This is just one example; America has been involved in military operations all around the world, every year, since 1980[14]. Given other facts I've provided about motivations for terrorists, we can see that our interventionism in other parts of the world are what motivated terrorists. I'd also like to note that my opponent hasn't proven how our supposed lack of presence in Afghanistan during this time affected the outcome on 9/11."Key word, "partly." Other key words "minds of middle easterners," indicating an American perception & communication problem, and NOT a policy problem. This has been helped nowadays by current COIN doctrines that call for winning "hearts & minds."Just because we only partly influence terrorism doesn't mean we should go on influencing terrorism. If giving kids loaded guns partly influenced yearly gun deaths, would we allow it?My opponent also mentions the COIN tactics, ostensibly to suggest that our interventionist operations will go smoothly from here on out because we use COIN. It's true we attempt to use it, but it is a complicated system that has a history of poor or completely failed executions, particularity for the US[15][18]. I'm not saying 'screw COIN'--just that we can't rely on it as a fix-all."..had a status of force agreement been established in 2012, ISIS would have never had been able to rout a US backed Iraqi Army."First thing to note is that we couldn't stay because we weren't wanted by the Iraqi government anymore, at least not in terms that they trusted us with[16][17]. That is part of the overall problem with Pro's philosophy: the idea that we need to stick around the whole time to make sure things don't get out of control again. Simply put, we cannot stay indefinitely to ensure the ill-will we've stirred doesn't spill over, because there isn't the financial or political will on the part of our nation, or the nations we're occupying.We can't stay forever, and we can't pop in and out for reasons already demonstrated. We have to develop a strategy that allows the people of the Middle East to act autonomously; that includes in defense of themselves. I have already outlined a plan in regards to accomplishing this.Unfortunately I'm out of characters. However, the only things I wasn't able to respond to were unsourced statements, or statements already refuted by my previous statements or sources.To conclude:1) Interventionism drives future terrorism, therefore we should avoid a major, visible presence in the fight against ISIS2) US-Arab coalitions have proven effective at fighting ISIS, and there are numerous behind the scenes strategies for America to get involved in to destroy ISIS' funding and recruitmentSources:http://tinyurl.com...