BIRT America should continue to participate in the Military Coalition against ISIS

Good morning BigStokes, and welcome to this debate. I thank you for being my opponent in this complicated and rapidly evolving topic, and I hope we can have a friendly, and competitive debate. Thank you. I will now begin my opening speech. As you know, the circumstances surrounding ISIS are highly complex and rapidly evolving. ISIS has gained incredible notoriety in the media as of late, and for good reason. Beginning from early 2014, this radical fundamentalist group began to make surprising territorial gains. In the process of doing so, ISIS militants have secured hundreds of millions from banks, and continue to regularly extort money from the population. A combination of oil smuggling, drug trafficking and human trafficking provides ISIS with an additional 3 million dollars daily, essentially rendering ISIS the most financially successful jihadist group in history. Using this money they purchase arms, conduct elaborate propaganda campaigns, increase their ranks and train thousands of fanatic soldiers. In the territories that they control they have perpetrated human rights violations on an unprecedented scale. Consider the following list: ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass executions, extortion, torture, kidnappings, rape, sexual slavery, slavery, beheading of prisoners, and other medieval horrors we"d rather not describe in detail. Their stated goal is to create an Islamic fundamentalist state, which they intend to achieve through force and intimidation. From the above, ISIS is more or less the greatest threat to world security since the beginning of the 21st century. Thus far the solution has primarily consisted of air strikes. Elaborating more on the military support the and the objective of the coalition, it may be useful to quote to following: "Our objective is clear: We will degrade and ultimately destroy [IS] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. Specifically, its ability either to engage in military movements of scale, or to operate bases in the open." (Purpose of air strikes) - Barack Obama NOW: I will seek to justify the necessity of a military response against ISIS, and the need for a swift and immediate response against the organisation"s doings. Let us examine all the solutions which we currently have available. To begin, humanitarian aid is not possible. Why? Firstly. It is impossible to administer humanitarian aid in a situation as severe as the one we are currently experiencing, given that there is nothing to stop ISIS from capturing the resources given, and then re-administering them for its own purposes. ISIS could use the materials for its own fighters, or worse, to draw sympathy from the population and pull additional volunteers into its ranks. Therefore, we cannot send the aid to those who most need it without some kind of protection or escort, meaning that we must have military aid as well in doing so! Another argument that could be stated is that we could provide supplies and equipment to our allies. This is unreasonable especially given the fact that each country"s ability to conduct air strikes is limited. We cannot rely on others assuming that they will be able to solve the issue for us, given some amount of munitions and supplies. America is one of few countries with an air force advanced enough to contribute in a meaningful manner, and considering the situation at hand, we are going to need all the air support we can muster in order to contain and eventually beat back ISIS. So for what reason is America is keep out of this? If we"re going to get rid of ISIS at all, which everyone agrees must happen at some point, then we must provide a military solution. The problem is, after all, military in nature. The Iraqi Armed Forces can hold their position against ISIS fighters, but without foreign air support they are unlikely to make any major advance against them. The third argument is we could do nothing. This is by far the most deadly option. ISIS has explicitly identified America and its allies as enemies to be annihilated, even before America took any active role against ISIS. They will not accommodate for reason or negotiation. They are unwavering in their determination to create their fundamentalist state, and have enthusiastically employed brutal bouts of violence again and again to achieve their goals. They will not cease to target America merely because we do not participate in the coalition, and they certainly will not cease in their rampaging fight across northern Iraq and Syria. Keep in mind, ISIS is objectively speaking the most successful jihadist group on record. If we are willing to take no action even against them, then what is there in this world that will stir us out of our seats? To do nothing is to allow the situation to continue unchecked, giving it the potential to explode beyond manageable proportions. I REPEAT: The mere existence of ISIS in any major capacity means that no progress can be made in the area to pave the way for lasting stability. What we understand at the moment is ISIS" severity, and with this understanding we must address the situation immediately. In order to establish a reasonable equilibrium we must address problems one at a time! As long as ISIS remains in power we will have an active danger, so for anything to happen, it itself must first go. It is for these reasons that America Should continue to lead the military coalition against the radical ISIS fundamentalists.