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

Essentially what my opponent has done is list a series of good things that have happened when the US has been militarily involved in the world, particularly the middle east, while presenting a contrasting list of bad things that have happened supposedly because of our lack of military intervention.And? What’s wrong with that?! I’ve provided ample historical evidence for the positives of US military intervention in the Middle East and have compared and contrasted those with a series of bad events that did in fact occur because of a lack of military intervention. There is no logical fallacy here on my part and it's all up to CON to disprove the evidence that I have provided. My opponent has claimed that our military interventions promote global unity, and he references Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as evidence, saying that we're really chummy with these nations as a result of our interventionism.I notice you forgot to include US relations with Israel and Egypt – which I had mentioned before. Well done on your argument cherry-picking.I would contend that it is because of the massive amounts of oil they produce[1], and the fact that we are primarily an oil purchasing economy[2], as the main reason there's so much international unity between our countries.Prove it! 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. Meanwhile, the source that I provided in Round #2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov...) –from the White House btw- mentions NINE unique areas of US and Saudi cooperation. They are: Defense Cooperation, Counterterrorism, Trade and Investment, Energy Cooperation, Education, Environmental Policy, Science and Technology, Citizen Exchange, and Govt Health Programs. Iraq, we see that we are not nearly as popularAnd yet we're popular enough to be a major Iraqi trade partner (http://www.state.gov...)He claims that the Surge in 2007 actually eased sectarian tensions. I would dispute this in itself.Timeline of Iraq War violence:https://www.emptywheel.net...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: http://www.brookings.edu... experts suggest that many factors other than the Surge were responsible for what my opponent is saying it was[5].Experts?? Nice appeal to authority here (a logical fallacy). But the evidence and stats from 2007 still show a huge drop in Iraqi sectarian violence that coincided with a US troop surge in 07. You have no counterargument here if you continue to believe that increased US military intervention actually leads to more Middle East violence.we can see that in terms of the big picture, US military intervention has inflamed sectarian tensions in Iraq[6][7], and the Cato Institute finds that, "In most cases regional conflicts cannot be helped--and may well be exacerbated--by the intervention of outside parties. U.S. intervention can be especially counterproductive, since it often intensifies smaller, less powerful countries' (the very nations most likely to be involved in regional conflicts) fears of America's hegemonic intentions."[8]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. Meanwhile I never realized that ISIS was a “small less powerful country” that deserved protection from America’s hegemonic intentions. My opponent says when we don't intervene militarily, we get:Yemen Embassy Bombing (killing 2)[9], the World Trade Center Bombing of '93 (killing 6)[10], the Attack on the USS Cole (killing 17)[11], and finally, 9/11, killing roughly 3,000. Total=roughly 3,036 deaths.I would dispute that some of these attacks could've been prevented by our conducting military operations in other countries, but it really isn't even necessary.So you would have done nothing and let the worst foreign attack on America soil since Pearl Harbor happen? When we do intervene militarily:9,000 soldiers die[12]. Over 133,000 civilians die (note that this is a very low number according to the experts)[13]. America accrues $6 trillion in debt[14].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. Just how many major terrorist attacks have happened to the US since 9/11 and the Iraq War again??? Which is the worse evil?The worse evil would have been not doing anything.Another ground war would be horrific for our national debt, and potentially disastrous for our economy and therein the world economy.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 is important to keep in mind not only from a purely economic perspective, but also from a 'peace perspective'. Poverty naturally leads to more crime and violence, and the collapse of the American economy could incur a lot of this worldwide.More reason to believe then that US nation building and intervention in the middle east is a positive.My opponent tells me, quite sarcastically, that it would be silly to ask the voters to assume the perspective of those living in the areas in which we conduct military operations... and then asks us to assume the perspective of the same people in his example.Which only demonstrates the absurdity of CON's original claim.Psychologists have concluded that humans are naturally tribal, much more likely to think in terms of us and themAre these Iraqi Muslim psychologists under attack by ISIS? Your appeal to authority fails here.I don't think so, because we perform the vast majority of the airstrikes against ISIS[17], much more than any other Geneva Signatory; it's not like we're going to get crap for passivity.We will by allowing mission creep to unfold. More and more civilians continue to die everyday by ISIS. Thus far Iran has even done more than us.Most countries are doing nothing about ISIS,All the more reason why US should intervene militarily and put in ground troops. Though my opponent never touched on it directly, I'd like to nail home the fact that American military aggression does contribute to future terrorism, 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.This should not be surprising given the massive death counts I mentioned earlier that are at least partly attributable to the US, certainly especially in the minds of middle easterners.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.” (http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...)The plain fact is that every time we get involved, there will be collateral damageThe plain fact is that there will still be collateral damage if we don’t get involved – aka 9/11.I purposely waited until the end to address this. My opponent insinuated that ISIS rose because we left Iraq. That is simply untrue. ISIS began its rise in 2010[21],So why wasn't ISIS rolled back when US forces left in 2012. Seeing how (according to CON's theory) US intervention was the problem. But had a status of force agreement been established in 2012, ISIS would have never had been able to rout a US backed Iraqi Army.no doubt at least in part due to the same factor that I have shown to be empirically proven to drive recruitment: US Interventionism.Then why has ISIS been able to recruit 3,000 fighters from Europe? Seeing as how European countries have been largely reluctant to engage militarily in Middle Eastern affairs (http://www.latimes.com...).Generally, my opponent seems to suggest a couple things. First and foremost among them is that US ground forces are the only way to stop this swiftly growing threat.Incorrect. I said US ground forces were “the most efficient” way to stop the ISIS threat. And that ISIS warranted boots on the ground because they were a significant threat (one of the most well-funded and organized international terrorists groups in history).On both fronts, this is incorrect. US-Arab coalitions have been effective at fighting ISIS, and ISIS has been stalled now for several monthsAnd yet ISIS is still far from being defeated. They haven’t loosed any significant territory, and US mission creep continues.Lastly, my opponent has stated that we would have a swift ground war with ISIS. I would like to see some proof for this,Surge in Iraq 2007. After being at war since 2003 year, Baghdad sectarian violence dops by 75% in ONE year after a US troop presence in Iraq is dramatically increased (http://m.mg.co.za...).However, we shouldn't expect CON to know how to fight a war if his best military strategy calls for withdrawal and running away.because common sense and experience would tell us that it would not be a quick fight, but rather, a long endeavor which would cost us blood and treasure similar to that which was lost in the Iraq War.Which is why common sense tells us we need to finish this fight and deploy more forces. American sacrifices should not be done in vain.