Is the U.S. doing more harm than good in the fight against ISIS? (Pro=Yes, Con=No)

Thank you, lets begin.First on drones:Without the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command declassifying more information on the strikes, unofficial and imprecise information is all that is available, complicating efforts to independently verify or refute administration assurances about the impact of the drones.[3] Using this unreliable data, the amount is only 7 casualties per bad guy (1:7), which is 4x the amount cited in the example PRO gives (1:29). And this is from PROs own source. “of 308 people….TBIJ estimates that only 4 were civilians. This would amount to a civilian casualty rate of less than 1.5 percent, meaning that only 1 in 65 casualties caused by drones over that 19-month period was a civilian. This speaks to drones effective discrimination between civilian and military targets that no other weapons system can possibly match.”[4] “Their ability to follow targets for days or weeks accomplishes two things that contribute to saving the lives of innocents: First, it confirms that the target is engaged in the behavior that put them on the target list, reducing the likelihood of striking someone based on faulty intelligence. Second, by establishing a "pattern of life" for the intended target, it allows operators to predict when the target will be sufficiently isolated to allow a strike that is unlikely to harm civilians.”[4] “The data for the report is from the [British] Bureau of Investigative Journalism and only includes information of collateral deaths resulting from specific targeting of individuals. The British newspaper the Guardian noted problems with analyzing drone strike data includes the secretive nature of the actions, compelling reliance on local media sources, as well as unofficial and imprecise available information.” [5] Prefer my drone evidence because, her citation states that the information they use is unreliable and comes from unofficial sources at the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism while mine comes from definitive long term data, because my data is more recent, because I provide actual explanations rather than bare assertions as to why drones cause less casualties, because the opposition has the burden to prove her case and even if you consider our evidences to be equal that fact tips the scale to me and because she hasn’t actually refuted my source in anyway while I have refuted her source. For all of those reasons flow this argument to me. Since this argument is flowed to me this means that the US coalition is helping win the war against ISIS in a way that inspires very few casualties and thus vengeance and to expand a little bit further on the vengeance claim, this means that the people of the middle east would much rather side with the US who is getting rid of the people who are REALLY leading the crusade against Muslims, ISIS. I maintain the points that a.) Many people think that drones cause excessive casualties however this simply isn’t true. Drone strikes are actually very effective and reduce causalities….. “Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon.” [1] The fact is that drone strikes do Not inflict more casualties and are one of our best weapons against terrorists. While other means of attack have to be more risky drones are better because “You can fly them low without fear of losing your life. You can study your target carefully instead of reacting in the heat of the moment. You can watch and guide the missiles all the way down.” Because of this evidence please note that Pro’s first premis is insignificant and doesn’t have as big an impact as she would have you think. b.) While civilians do get mad, seeking revenge is impossible because they don’t have the means to attack the US, even if they did attack, ISIL has no way to fight in the air so they cant kill americans, furthermore this premise can only be true for other Sunni muslims, meaning every other type of Islam wouldn’t join ISIS. c.) Also the civilians wouldn’t get mad at the US because this is not a war waged solely by the US or its drones, this is a war by over 30 different nations meaning the drone strikes cant be blamed on the US specifically, its like a firing squad, you don’t know who is shooting. d.) The people of the middle east will be more gratefull that their heads are not on an ISIL plate than a few casualties by drones. To back this point up, take a look at the evidence from USA Today which states that ISIL has lost 25% of its territory [2] thus showing that US airstrikes are working and helping push ISIL back. Why would the people be mad at that? The resolution requires that the opponent show how exactly we are harming the war more than helping it, yet even if we accept her points to be true they simply show that we are doing a few things that are not so great, but it surely doesn’t show that we are more bad than good, as the burden of proof is on her, the resolution thus cannot be affirmed. Her only true point is that right now we are making people mad with our destruction of their land, yet this is true of all wars and it doesn’t mean we are doing worse in the war than better. I maintain that the United States has firmly lead the coalition against ISIL and is succeeding in taking them down, which is in fact in the better interest of the war. Thank you. Cites [3] http://www.theguardian.com... [4] http://www.theatlantic.com... [5] http://www.upi.com...