The United States Should Arm the Kurds

I will first start with rebuttals and their counters continuing in to other points of arguments. I will also point out that messaging between Hayd and I reached a conclusion that arming the Kurds would include the primary ethnic region of Syria with branches of Kurdish influence. Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsMy opponent starts off his argument by stating that the elimination of the Islamic State is an absolute necessity. Before I continue further and point out the incompatible simplicity of that statement in this argument, the prior and arguably current primary intention of the United States playing their role in the battleground of Syria is to topple Assad. I'll provide a little background. The United States has poured billions into Syrian rebels, including the Kurds, highlighting that their purpose of militarization is to oust Assad from power [1]. That move can be directly translated into the fact that the United States isn't just in Syria for ISIS. The Kurds in Syria are being used as an insurgent proxy puppeteered by American interests by the greater goal of countering Russian influence in the region [2]. This purpose of action is synonymous with the Kurd's disagreements with Assad [3], relating to American interests, but not synonymous to the other American backed rebels which either turn on each other, like they do to Kurdistan Forces [4], but also defect to ISIS under the belief that an oppressive Assad is a worse reality than a rising Islamic State [5]. Having explained the background as simply as I could, I'll move on to the actual argument. I provided hints and details in the background to the problems correlating to the statement of funding the Kurds to the only reason of it being the common enemy of ISIS. I'll start with the fact that Kurdistan is barely politically unified, and much less militarily [6]. There is no central funding that the United States would be able to actually back, it would be a series of divided insurgencies that already have conflicting interests, including whether to join ISIS in the common goal of toppling Assad, or having to defeat Assad before tackling on ISIS. Both of these military forces are serious threats to the dream of an independent Kurdistan, and both are more powerful than the Kurds [7] [8] [9] themselves which makes the funding and arming of Kurdish insurgencies as an evident and yet assumptively dsyfunctional policy if under the pretense of destroying the Islamic State. I will currently pause this argument on ISIS as the theories and possibilities of the actual decision of Kurdistan would now become subjective and I leave the rebuttals to my opponent. I will not refute the statistics of the displaced and negatively affected people of Kurdistan and Syria, although I will say they have little to no influence on the actual argument of the arming of Kurdistan now that I have restricted your argument being there a lack of unification on strategically attacking a common enemy when the definition of a common enemy varies not only among Syrian rebels, but among Kurdish rebels themselves such as PKK (Kurdistan's Workers Party) Units [10] and Rojava (Refer to Source 3). I will now move on to international consequences. In geopolitics, there is no action that can be done by a major power that will not result in some consequence. The question will always be, what are they? In the case of arming the Kurds, the consequences are strong enough that they can impact the entire American diplomatic foothold in Turkey, Russia, and the European Union. The Kurds have been a long time rival and enemy of the Republic of Turkey. In Turkey, and also by American federal agencies as well, the most unified and powerful force (that also applies to this debate's mutual agreement of which Kurds should be armed) is the Kurdistan's Worker's Party [11]. The PKK (Kurdistan's Worker's Party) is not only recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States, and by Turkey (a major potential friend in more scales than just geopolitical influence), but also an extreme-left wing organization with a communist-friendly doctrine. Two sore points that the United States is keen on keeping suppressed from the world. The PKK is also a powerful terrorist organization, whose primary goals are more of an independent Kurd region in Turkey, not Syria or Iraq. This is evident as their terror strikes stay in the Eastern Turkish region, where Turkish Kurdistan is mapped. The PKK has been in the news both recently, and in contemporary Turkish history as an insurgency that is condemned by using violent tactics in order to achieve their goals [12]. Different Method to Combat ISISWhile the prime topic of this debate is whether the Kurds should be armed, I would believe it is helpful for me to entertain the topic of the method of insurgent proxies in the form of Kurds as combat against a relatively powerful organization being ISIS. If, which cannot be said for sure, the major interests of the United States in Syria was to eradicate ISIS (Which is also not the reason they started funding the rebels, anyways) then there is a mutually beneficial plan which can help all sides until the common enemy is defeated. This theory would require the United States to halt funding towards Syrian rebels dedicated to toppling Assad creating a fractured Syria and a dangerous power vacuum. As I have said with proof before, the Syrian rebel armies are not unified, and Syria would turn into a nation full of Wahhabist warlords making the country their deadly playground in the hunt for power. Assad is brutal and oppressive but he is secular, he has denied any form of Wahhabism to infiltrate the ranks of his nation and he's the only individual which can stop a power vacuum like the US has caused in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan [13]. After the Syrian army has wiped out known terrorist rebels [14] in the country, all military force led by an international coalition can eradicate the thriving ISIS threat. When ISIS is, per se, defeated, Assad has made the decision and serious contemplation to step down [15]. The international community, United States, Russia (notably Vladimir Putin) have all seriously considered the plan I have just made aware to the reader and my opponent and Putin has made a public statement which Assad acknowledge being that when the Civil War is stopped and the threat of ISIS removed, the oppression of Syria will go down with it and the power vacuum is prevented. Sources[1] . http://www.bbc.com...[2] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...(2013%E2%80%93present)[5] . http://www.pri.org...[6] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] . http://www.globalfirepower.com...[8] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[10] . https://en.wikipedia.org...;[11] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[12] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[13] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[14] . http://www.bbc.com...[15] . http://www.newsweek.com...;I