The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

First I would like to start of with some definitions. "Boots on the ground" shall refer to sending troops into Iraq and Syria to fight directly against ISIS soldiers. As the Pro I need to prove that we need to send any number of troops to combat ISIS and the com has to prove that we shouldn't send troops to combat ISIS and either propose an alternate solution or argue for the existing one of sending strategic air strikes. No Rebuttals This Round.ISIS is much more advanced then any other terrorist organization:According to a Huffington Post article on September 9, 2014 states that ISIS makes around 3 million US dollars a day. This is also confirmed in more recent articles by CNN and NBC news. The article goes in to say that ISIS makes this great sum of money because of oil, extortion, and bank robberies. This is way more than Al-Quada ever made and we went to war with them. Also, ISIS has obtained many US weapons that are highly technological. They do this by taking weapons from Iraqi soldiers that were trained by the US. There is evidence if this in a recent article by the guardian that shows that ISIS took weapons from an US airdrop intended for the Kurds. This shows that by providing military training it is actually helping terrorist organizations like ISIS.The air strikes have not been working ISIS oringanally declared war against the west and the US when they beheaded the first two American hostages. Now with the recent beheading of Peter Kassig we see that the United States way to combat this war is not working. We need to do more to stop losing American lives that are there to get the truth or in Peter Kassig's to be an aid worker. Also there has been much confusion in who the air strikes are actually killing. For example, the same air strike was said to kill leader Abu bakr al-Baghdadi but another commander says they just injured him and finally a third commander said they might have killed just a infantry ISIS solider. “We have not ostensibly degraded the capability of the organization — we have put them on notice that we will target them, but we have not prevented the movement or the offensive of ISIS,” according to David Schenker, director of the program on Arab politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says in a NBC article. He goes on to say “These groups recognize that they are being targeted and are not making themselves so obvious. They’ve gone to ground.” This shows that while the air strikes might have worked at the start ISIS has adapted and they are becoming less and less useful in combating ISIS.American efforts to vet and enlist Syrian and Iraqi candidates for an anti-Islamic Caliphate military coalition are misadventures in the making. Even President Obama know this is a fool’s errand. Earlier this summer he dismissed the idea of recruiting “farmers, or teachers or pharmacists” to take on the murderous forces of Islamic Caliphate and/or the equally murderous Assad regime. “How quickly can you get them trained?” asked Obama rhetorically. “How effective are you able to mobilize them?” The answer is obvious: Never. The idea of a pro-western citizens’ militia rising in righteous indignation and defeating the Syrian dictatorship is preposterous. The possibility that such a militia could destroy the marauders of the Islamic Caliphate is ridiculous. The notion that it could do both of these things simultaneously is delusional. Still, there are “experts” in Washington who argue that the Free Syrian Army might be able to transform itself into a real military with American training. There is absolutely no evidence for this. The U.S. military spent a decade trying to build an army in Iraq. The Iraqi army after billions of dollars in US aid and equipment and countless hours of American tutelage, is worthless. America has not undertaken a military challenge of this magnitude since World War II. Perhaps President Obama is right to shy away from it. That is certainly the meaning of his “no boots on the ground,” pledge. But there is no point in pretending; without American boots on the ground, no sane foreign leader (or Syrian podiatrist or Iraqi foot soldier) will rush in where America fears to tread.Good luck in your opening arguments!Works Cited: http://www.nbcnews.com...http://www.cnn.com...http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.cnn.com...http://www.nbcnews.com...http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.newsweek.com...