The United States should go on the "attack" against ISIS

My opponent has presented a compelling case. Compelling cases got us into a number of devastating wars without a productive resolution. One of these pervious devastating wars is almost completely the cause of the current ISIS conflict.I will use this round to rebut the case presented by pro, and thank him for his thoughtful effort.“Should VS Will” Not quoted to save spaceI have no objection to pros description of the debate.“An Offensive Strategy” Not quoted to save spaceI similarly have no issue with the description of offensive strategy as it relates to this debate.“Inevitable Conflict, and avoiding the avoidableIt is no secret the US is a target for ISIS. Just yesterday Al Shabaab of ISIS called for an attack on the Mall Of America in Minnesota (1). ISIS is a direct threat to America, (2) and who knows what they are capable of producing. The problem with ISIS is that they are not confined in one region, they are mobile and have "pockets" around the globe. The fact of the matter is that ISIS influence and informants could be here in America, the influence of ISIS is near impossible to stop but we can hunt down and stop any ISIS soldiers or informants in America, which I think would be progressive and beneficial to public safety, if we go on the offensive. We cannot sit back and wait for a MOA bombing, in my opinion it would be much safer to avoid the avoidable. Nobody is stopping us from persuing and watching over possible ISIS members that are living here in our homeland, but if we take on defensive approach we are inviting pressure and possible terrorist attacks on our nation.”ISIS calling for attacks on - or in the case of the video linked by pro, Al Shabaab (not ISIS) - is not much different than any other radical spouting their venom. In the 80’s the “Army of God”[1] was actively threatening bombings and killing[3]. That they have motivates is not in dispute, do they have means and opportunity? Can the means and opportunity be mitigated in any other way than attack? Can another way be more productive?Pro points to some of the questions. ISIS may, most likely has, sympathetic supporters in the US, but pro further states “the influence of ISIS is near impossible to stop but we can hunt down and stop any ISIS soldiers or informants in America”. On that we agree. In pros definition of “offensive strategy” he says”My idea of an offense is the idea of US presence and monitor in ISIS claimed terrority, in allied nations with their consent, and even on our soil”. This definition was sprung on the debate, but I don’t disagree with it now or before. Where we diverge most strikingly is in severity of the threat. Pro has conceded later that “monitoring” is defensive. We agree on many points, but not on severity. “Monitoring of ISIS Teritory and Allied NationsISIS is hunting down people all over the world and publically slaughtering them on film. Yes, including Americans. I think that once ISIS has started killing US Citizens, then they become not only a threat to national security, but also an enemy of our country. Yes Americans die in foreign nations often, but not by terrorist groups who video it and then mock our country by killing our people. ISIS has become an enemy to the US and a defensive approach is inviting more gruesome online beheadings of our people. The US would receive great benefits by mobilizing in to regions of ISIS control, not necessarily by moving in an army, but by using technology and other forms of intelligence gathering to know more about this group. If we know more about them, we then have a stronger defense, because we can predict what ISIS may do next. If we link up with allied nations, we can have the same benefits in a way. ISIS have claimed attacks on nations like France and England, and if we go to those nations to provide support we may also learn more about the attacks, and then learn more about ISIS' attacks and better prepare ourselves for a possible attack on our soil. (3)”Pro says that ISIS is hunting down people all over the world and slaughtering them on film. This is simply untrue. They are hunting down targets of opportunity within a growing, but still relativity small and contained area of the world [4]. Pro rightly states that the ISIS body count includes Americans. Four of them [6]. That is four Americans killed between 2013 and 2015. Each of these American deaths, while you may use any adjective – I suggest despicable, are still insignificant, and even understandable when considered in the context of choice of the individuals to enter a known battle zone and the intent of terrorism. I have no interest in blaming the victims, only to provide context.Pro wants to make the leap between a handful of Americans killed and a risk to national security. Terrorism in general accounts for a scant few deaths [5] every year, and the common reaction is horror - the intended reaction of those doing the terrorism. But this hardly rises to the level of risk to national security. The way we invite additional terrorism is to react to the terrorism the way the terrorists want us to react.Pro suggests using inelegance, gathering more information. I agree that this defensive strategy is sound. Pro states that these would make for a stronger defense. Further pro wants to use this information to prepare for, and repel attack. Sounds good to me, a perfectly acceptable and smart defense. ConclusionISIS is a national threat. They have killed Americans, threatened America, and an attack on our soil is hanging over our heads. If we go on the attack and monitor incoming possible ISIS members in to America, go monitor their claimed territory, work with nations already attacked, we can go on the progressive front and move towards either stopping an attack completely, or better preparing ourselves for one. A defensive approach where we sit back and wait for an ISIS attack is dangerous to our citizens. We need to actively persue and hunt out possible attacks before it's too late. Once again, this is not a call to war, rather a call to action to go on the offense against someone who is going on the attack against us.Pro and I are not very far off, but where we differ I think is critical. How existential is the threat. Although terrifying looking, ISIS is simply not a threat on par with other threats we should consider. It is giving them too much credit. [1] http://www.armyofgod.com... [2] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [3] http://www.historycommons.org... [4] http://i.dailymail.co.uk... [5] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [6] http://www.syracuse.com...