Resolved: The US Federal Government should utilize a ground force to combat ISIS

Thank you for accepting quickly, here is my case. Framework We need to view this debate through the effectiveness of whether putting in a ground force down to fight ISIS will be viable or not. If the con can prove that the plan is not viable or effective, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting in the negation. Contention 1: Radicalize population It is a clear fact that American troops have in the past committed horrible atrocities. We can look at a UN report which shows that military officials have used torture and killed many for no strategic effect (1). This unfortunate realization lends to one of the most terrible impacts in this debate which is the radicalization of populations within the Middle East which lends themselves to ISIS. This is confirmed by Foreign Policy in Focus when it states that our bases and presence in the Middle East resulted in anti-American sentiment and growth of terrorist organizations that we swore to fight (2). The human rights abuse and image of America is something that is used by much propaganda of terrorist organizations to paint us as the “western boogeyman”, which is confirmed by a professor from West Point by the name of Mr. Brown when it is claimed that US presence in the Middle East has been a major catalyst in recruiting for ISIS (3). The study goes on to say that out of 73 terrorists involved in suicide terrorism they were 10 times as likely to have come from a nation in which America had an influence with combat operations (3). We can see this by going into the past. The Cato Institute reports that our military presence in countries such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia led to many terrorist attacks, including an embassy in Tehran being taken over, and Osama Bin Laden training Somali troops to ambush American peacekeeping forces (4). This shows that military radicalization has a real impact by increasing terrorist sympathy while increasing the amount of people working for terrorist organizations and terrorist action, thus one should negate the resolution. Contention 2: Strength ISIS is not a weak organization; it is one that is well funded, well organized, and strategically sound. The University of Texas has stated that our military may be strong for conventional warfare, but in the environment overseas, the military does not function as well (5). We can see why ISIS has gotten so strong if we were to look at a recent Independent article in 2014 claims that the CIA has grossly underestimated the amount of people in the terrorist sect, which now has 200,000 troops (6). This may be due to the terror group recruiting through social media and other forms of propaganda. In fact, the New York Magazine reports in 2015 that as many as 30,000 foreigners were recruited through propaganda to join ISIS (8). Not only this, but despite bombing the oil reserves, which have been a huge revenue for ISIS, last year the terrorist sect still made over $500 million (7). This funding is used for plots and weaponry for ISIS. With this type of military strength, and a military presence already adding to the amount of people in ISIS, we see that the US ground troops stand little chance against the ISIS behemoths. Not only do the ISIS militants have the upper hand economically and manpower-wise, but the recruitment will add even more forces to the army and strengthen the anti-American group to near omnipotence. Since the US army only has a fraction of that amount of troops in Iraq and Syria fighting against the conflict (9), and the fact that it would be patently ridiculous to send the amount of troops necessary to counter 200,000 well trained troops, one must negate. Contention 3: Giving in to demands Clearly, the American troops fighting ISIS is some symbolic venture that ISIS actually wants. Capturing and killing American troops is invaluable propaganda for the terrorist organization, and sending more targets for ISIS is the last thing we need (10). Not only this, but the potential for taking hostages could be used to undermine and change US policy easily, as shown by Forbes where it is shown that it would “undermine American resolve,” (11). This is shown through the Iranian hostage crisis which drove Jimmy Carter from office, which gave credence and prestige to the terrorist. This effect of ISIS actually wanting boots on the ground is further explained by Dr. Peter Neumen of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization when he states “The execution videos [of Western hostages] were bait to provoke an over-reaction. As soon as there are Western boots on the ground it then becomes the old narrative of the West versus Islam and they can claim they are fighting the occupation. They are trying to suck us in," (12). The last thing we need to do now is falter while ISIS grows stronger by giving in to their demands. Especially when the result is more propaganda for a more radicalized group with more people latching on to the twisted ideology. We are showing them weakness by sending in soldiers, which will lead to a theologically unified ISIS that is convicted in their brutal beliefs. That is why a negative vote is necessary. Counter Plan We need to look toward a solution that directly targets the source of their funding by bombing the oil supplies and other sources of revenue made by ISIS using air-strikes. Also, we need to establish a connection with the Arab world through diplomatic relations which would involve trading and aid from NGOs to counter the many humanitarian problems being faced in these problems in the status quo. We also need to lay off military interventionism within this region to prevent the spread of radical Islam and radicalization of the population. This would mean taking out about half of the bases in the Middle East and looking toward less US troops within the region. This is the solution that can finally end ISIS, so let us embrace it as opposed to the current resolution. Conclusion In an attempt to not radicalize the population and to find a more rational solution that does not involve going against a behemoth of an enemy, we need to negate the resolution in place of another plan. 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...)