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

In my experience, quoting and responding to an opponent's statements that themselves were quote and responds tends to get messy after a while, so I'll be doing this by section, encompassing my opponent's points.US MILITARY INTERVENTIONISM IS GOODEssentially 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.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 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. If you look at other countries we don't do as much business with, such as Pakistan (i.e. where we set our drones loose) or Iraq, we see that we are not nearly as popular[3][4].In response to my statement that military intervention harms sectarian relationships in the middle east, my opponent again used anecdotal evidence to counter. He claims that the Surge in 2007 actually eased sectarian tensions. I would dispute this in itself. The violence that my opponent claims the Surge quelled was actually going down well before the Surge was even announced; experts suggest that many factors other than the Surge were responsible for what my opponent is saying it was[5].Regardless of that particular anecdote's merit, 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]Finally, my opponent whips out a slew of events in response to my statement that US military interventionism produces more anti-American sentiment, and thus more terrorism. To counter, I would like to present some big picture data, and compare the two.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.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].Which is the worse evil?Clearly, military interventionism is more harmful than helpful in most applications. More people die with military interventionism, and the US, the world's most powerful economy[15] (i.e. one of the backbones of the world economy), is economically threatened by such operations. Another ground war would be horrific for our national debt, and potentially disastrous for our economy and therein the world economy. 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.AMERICAN INTERVENTION DOESN'T DRIVE TERRORISMIn making this general argument above, my opponent comes from two angles, in the form of two quotes."Are you seriously trying to assume that the majority of voters here are Shia, Sunni, or Muslim Kurds currently living in Iraq??? The people you are directing this question to don"t nearly have a credible enough background to come even remotely close to answering this question. But maybe I should ask them how theu would enjoy living under Sharia law or the iron fist of Saddam Hussein."I'd first like to point out the inherent contradiction in this quote. 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.Besides that, this counterargument doesn't really say why my point is invalid. I think it is reasonable to say that having your family killed by people of a different race, country, culture, and language might make you more likely to be distrusting or hateful towards said killers than if they were your own countrymen. Psychologists have concluded that humans are naturally tribal, much more likely to think in terms of us and them[16]. This attitude can lend us the tendency to be distrusting of those that don't look like us, and we can see how this tribalistic view might make collateral incurred by the US more likely to drive terrorism, a point which I will cement further later."The United States (a Geneva Convention signatory) therefore gets a bad rap for allowing genocide and human rights atrocities to continue uncontested."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. Most countries are doing nothing about ISIS, so we won't be singled out as bad people for doing nothing--especially since our last large-scale boots on the ground operations were so unpopular.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, as noted in in two studies. The first, by scholars Robert Pape and James Feldman, concludes that, "of the more than 2,100 documented cases of suicide bombings from 1980 to 2009 and concluded that most of the perpetrators were acting in response to U.S. intervention in the Middle East rather than out of a religious or ideological motivation."[18]The second, conducted by Daniel Byman and Jeremy Shapiro, and published by the Brookings Institute, found that jihadists often become so due to aggravations from US military intervention[18].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. The plain fact is that every time we get involved, there will be collateral damage, and every time that happens, there will be extra incentives for people to become terrorists, and create further death down the road. If we respond to ISIS with US ground troops, we only enable the vicious cycle to continue.ISIS' ORIGINSI 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], no doubt at least in part due to the same factor that I have shown to be empirically proven to drive recruitment: US Interventionism. ISIS rose because we inflamed sectarian tensions in Iraq, and created all manner of reasons for disaffected middle easterners to hate the West and join terrorist groups. The seeds were planted because we were there, not because we left.So to conclude my re-affirmation sections:US Military interventionism tends to produce more death, and more cause for terrorist recruitment. As such, we ought not be the ones doing the killing on the front lines.US GROUND FORCESMy opponent never really responded to my position on targeting funding and recruitment, so I assume he thinks they are viable methods. Given this, I will only focus on parts of his arguments that advocate the need for US forces.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. On both fronts, this is incorrect. US-Arab coalitions have been effective at fighting ISIS, and ISIS has been stalled now for several months[19][20]. Additionally, my opponent's claim that US aerial attacks haven't been useful are contradicted by the facts, as, according to counterinsurgency expert Jason Lyall, "[US aerial strikes have] made it more dangerous to reposition [ISIS'] equipment and forces, slowing down its reaction times and complicating its command and control. As a result, ISIS is a far more dispersed force than it was in June."[19]I would contend that with this knowledge in mind, we can continue useful coordination of airstrikes and coalition ground strategies, begin pursuing ISIS funding and recruitment assets aggressively, and find ISIS falling apart under the weight of its ambition.Lastly, my opponent has stated that we would have a swift ground war with ISIS. I would like to see some proof for this, 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.Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...[21] http://tinyurl.com...