The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

"Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and to another long drawn out war." You are making assumptions that aren't backed up with evidence. This is an extreme with no evidence which means it is very unlikely to happen. Many terrorist organizations, including ISIS, has many members that are against US involvement in the middle east for one reason or another. ISIS is getting military training and experience from seasoned members of Naqshbandi Army/JRNT that were opposed to US occupation of Iraq. It is a sound logical assumption that increasing US presence would increase membership of ISIS and other middle east terrorist organizations. It is logical to assume that there are people unsure if they want to join one of these organizations. That at least some of them would then desire to join because of the US sending in more military troops. This would be counter productive because before US troops have been able to arrive in the region ISIS and other middle east terrorist organizations will have grown in size, buy at least the amount of people I have just discussed. The US has been actively tying to fight the terrorist organization al-Qaida since at least October 7, 2001. After 13 years al-Qaida as not been defeated. It is a reasonable logical assumption that ISIS having significantly more financial reresources would be at least as difficult of an opponent and likely to take as long to defeat. “This is not relevant to this debate because by putting boots on the ground we would be combatting as forms of ISIS. Just because they have three groups does not make them any more advanced” Knowing the groups that make up ISIS and the motivations for joining ISIS is very relevant to this debate. I am not saying that this makes them more advanced but that brings up strategic opportunities. It is far easier to undermine one of the groups motivations to join ISIS that to deal with them as a whole. The undermining most be in such a way to remove them as a treat other wise you just turn them in to another threat. "While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own."/"Also we need to do what's best for our country" Haider al-Abadi Iraq's Prime Minster was asked by AP during an interview about the US or international community sending boots on the ground. He stated: "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop." "The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq." http://www.foxnews.com... Is taking on the Iraq government in addition to ISIS really what is best for our country? We would be talking an ally in the fight against ISIS and turning them in to a new enemy. "Iraq is also the main target of ISIS" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, was the leader of an al-Qaida group in Iraq called the Islamic State of Iraq formed in 1999. In 2011 after the civil war broke out in Syria a Syria jihad group was formed called Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra, The Support Front for the People of Levant, lead by Abu Muhammad al-Joulani. Abu Muhammad al-Joulani is a Syrian national and member of al-Qaida that spent time helping Islamic State of Iraq during the US occupation of Iraq before the civil war broke out. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi formed ISIS in April 2013, to gain influence over Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra and Abu Muhammad al-Joulani. Abu Muhammad. Al-Joulani and al-Qaida shorty after stated the newly formed ISIS was to brutal and extreme for them. ISI changed its name after 14 years to take advantage of the Syrian civil war to ISIS. If Syria is not a secondary target then why did Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his terrorist organization wait 14 years to express and interest beyond Iraq. http://www.theguardian.com... http://kavkazcenter.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "Both sides of civil war see ISIS as a threat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power."This not relevant to the debate as the topic you bring up is more a talk in the US getting involved to promote political equality. Provide evidence for the second claim as it is an assumption to if it is the civil war that is gaining them territory and power or is it that there number of followers keeps multiplying and the coalition and US air strikes can't keep up with it. The civil war is relevant to the debate; however, the promotion of Syrian political equity is not, and I didn’t bring it up to discuss that topic. One strategic option is to convince the Syrian government and the Syrian freedom fighters that ISIS is a greater threat than each other. An attempt to get both sides to agree to a cease fire until ISIS is dealt with is a worth attempting; however, it is more likely to get both sides to agree that ISIS targets should be attacked before each other when ever possible. I didn't state that the civil war is currently gaining ISIS power or territory. Only that ISIS is trying to win out against the Syrian government and Syrian freedom fighters, and that that would gain them the territory of Syrian and all the power that comes with controlling Syria. While I was not making that point it is true that the civil war is giving ISIS power and Territory. For example ISIS was able to gain control of Conoco gas field, previously held by Jabhat al-Jabhat al-Nusra, in Syria. The power gained from the addtional money that ISIS is making off this oil field. The The Syrian Military would be more that able to take back the oil field if they were not engaged in battle with freedom fighters. http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.theguardian.com... "Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force."Provide evidence as this is also an assumption. This may be true in a handful of cases but the majority of those battles were won by the superior trained military. In order to give proper rebuttal I would need to show more that a handful of cases. This would cause me to greatly go off topic in a way that would not provide any thing that ties back in to this debate. I concede that it is possible but highly unlikely. US boots on the ground will not win against ISIS. It will make the problem worse. The Muslim Brotherhood is publicly stating that there is no ISIS. That it is the US doing it as an excuse to to bring back the US military to the area. Bringing US troops will also bring attacks from the other Islamic terrorist organizations, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq have all ready made threats. ISIS is stating on there social media accounts that they want the US to send troops, and it is never good when your enemy wants you to attack them. In general it means that have a plan to beat you. The Iraq government will not allow US troops into Iraq, and sending them any way just will turn Iraq in to a enemy. Even if sending a military force in is the only option, and don't think it is, they should not be going to Iraq or Syria. The Turkish government has stated they are willing to send there military to fight ISIS. Turkey is just concerned Iran will then attempt to invade. The US interest are better served sending troops to Turkey. http://www.clarionproject.org... http://english.al-akhbar.com...