The US federal government should bomb ISIS

Onto rebuttals, Rebuttal 1: Counter productive My opponent's argument here has a lot of flaws. He states that more than just airstrikes is needed, so therefore the effort is counterproductive. That just doesn't make any sense. I never argued that the only action taken should be airstrikes which is what Con's entire argument hinges on. According to the resolution the only area I have to prove is that we should bomb ISIS, not that we should only bomb ISIS. Bombing ISIS would work very well with attacks with ground forces which I support. I never said that we shouldn't be using ground forces and instead all I said was we should be bombing ISIS. My opponent even stated himself that a combination of ground strikes as well as bombing would be very effective. Also my opponent gives the argument that air strikes simply haven't been doing that much against ISIS, however recently we had a great victory against ISIS thanks to an air strike. The IS's second in command was recently killed in an airstrike. Experts believe that his death will severely cripple ISIS' operations. This includes finance, media and logistics. With results like these airstrikes clearly do have a strategic benefit against ISIS. http://www.voanews.com... Next my opponent gives a lot of problems in the current situation of nations and armies not wanting to directly fight ISIS via ground forces as well as the US being hesitant to deploy ground troops in the area, however that 1. gives no reason as to why we should not be bombing ISIS. 2. That is likely to change very soon. In fact deploying ground troops against ISIS is likely to happen soon for the US and has a lot of public support right now. http://www.mintpressnews.com... http://www.forbes.com... This undermines my opponent's entire argument. If ground troops are being deployed soon then air strikes would be very effective and productive, and in no sense counter productive. If ground troops are not being deployed air strikes still do help in some manner with no losses. My opponent gives a very faulty argument next. "The Islamic state does not recognize the border between Iraq and Syria. Despite their origins in Iraq, the ISIS headquarters in Raqqa is actually in Syria. So even if the US invaded Syria with airstrikes and stopped at the barely existent border between Syria and Iraq, then ISIS would simply retreat to its Iraq territories and remain there. The same could be applied vice versa." This argument is all assuming that we can only strike them while they are on one side of the political border, however this problem can easily be solved by being able to strike them on both sides of the border making this argument simply irrelevant. It's also a little confusing about what my opponent would like the US to do. He has the attitude that the US should not be involved, but something needs to be done. Since I think my opponent has the idea that the US should not get involved let me give a few reasons as to why that would be a bad idea. 1. Allies of the US in the middle east would feel abandoned. This severely hurts diplomatic relationships. Now let me give a few reasons as exactly why this is bad. A. Diplomatic relationships to western countries are key to keep stability and peace. This is especially important in the Middle East, because stability and peace is in very short supply there. B. Diplomatic relationships are very important to trade. Trade helps the economy in both parts of the world. 2. Involvement is what US citizens want. They see the atrocities that ISIS commits and wants something to be done. That is why attacks against ISIS have such high support when usually involvement is not wanted. This helps keep the US at peace by keeping the citizens satisfied. Rebuttal 2: Assad My opponent claims that with hurting ISIS we help Assad, because ISIS is part of a rebellion against Assad. So I have a few different arguments against this. 1. ISIS is the greater of the two evils. ISIS is an international threat that has much more aggressive behavior that extends to a potential nuclear war threat, if ISIS were to get their hands on nuclear weaponry and means to launch it. If Assad will be benefited by taking out ISIS then so be it. 2. Assad is predicted to fall soon regardless of ISIS. http://www.voanews.com... 3. ISIS is only one of the many forces fighting against Assad. If that one force is lost it won't be that much of a change for Assad. 4. We do not necessarily have to pick one or the other. Both can be taken out in time even though one or the other may be temporarily benefited.