USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

Alright, thanks to Forever23 for kicking this off. I'll respond to her contentions next round. To begin, Pro has failed to define a few key terms that are essential to determining a) what Pro's case is, b) what her case necessarily supports, and c) the limits of what I can argue. So let's define. Lead: to take the directing or principal part.[1] More specifically, it means that the USFG must act before Russia and take a head role in any potential bilateral efforts. Support: to agree with or approve of (someone or something), to give help or assistance to (someone or something).[2] Again, more specifically, this means the USFG show approval for Assad to some degree, and provide a great measure of assistance to him and his forces. Assad: since we're presumably talking about status quo Syria, this is about supporting Bashar al-Assad. Given these definitions, we should be clearer on what Pro's pursuing, though we haven't gotten a plan text yet, so I can only clarify so much. However, I will try to be reasonable in determining what plan Pro is supporting based on her definitions, the context of the resolution, and her contentions. The plan seems to be that the US will work with Russia and Assad directly, leading a joint effort between all 3 that apparently must include some form of military action against ISIS. That action would certainly have to be more than what the US is doing right now (you can't really lead a coalition without committing to more than strategic bombings). Given that, I think we have to assume some sort of ground-based intervention with serious troop committal. Pro should take the opportunity next round to clarify her case so that we can get specific. Given that presumed plan, I'll present some disadvantages, followed by my counter plan. DA1) Civilian Deaths and Displacements Syria is clearly at war, and the death toll is staggering. It's been estimated that as many as 340,000 people have died. Of those, it's estimated that the number of civilian deaths, estimated by the SOHR, numbers close to 90,000.[3] Back in July of this year, it was estimated that the number of Syrian refugees exceeded four million.[4] These people are fleeing to other countries that do not have the capacity to take them, resulting in a major humanitarian crisis where many are being given the choice of starving to death in a foreign land or returning home to their war ravaged country. Pro is doing nothing to solve for this. Her plan may result in an earlier end of the war, but given our experience with major wars in the Middle East, this conflict is likely to be protracted, especially as ISIL is not relegated to any single country, occupying vast swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, and small areas in Libya, Nigeria and Afghanistan, not to mention operating in North Africa and South Asia.[5] Even if they are defeated within the borders of Syria, conflict will persist, as will these deaths and displacements. At best for her, this means Pro is allowing one of the biggest humanitarian crises of all time to persist for an unknown period of time. The war in Syria likely won't end for over a decade, during which time these problems will persist. Even when that war ends, Pro is relegating the US to a prolonged occupation, where we will have to deal with all manner of insurgent threats. The worst case scenarios, however, are far more likely. Pro is requiring that the US turn their back on moderate rebels in the region and lend support to Assad. That will give the rebels little choice but to find common cause with ISIS and strike back as yet another force to be reckoned with, increasing death tolls across the board. Given past precedent, our intervention will be more likely to spark further violence in the region and lead to long term instability.[6] In effect, Pro is fighting fire with fire, and as a result all she's doing is fanning the flames of war. DA2) Assad and Instability There's a reason I defined Assad from the outset, mainly because it's important we understand who it is Pro is supporting. Bashar al-Assad learned a lot of lessons from his father, particularly in brutalizing his population. I could spend all 10,000 characters simply listing the multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity he's accused of committing, but here are the highlights: The Ghouta chemical attack in August of 2013, which killed at least 734 civilians. 7] Mass torture and killings in Damascus, done in places disguised as hospitals.[8] The dropping of chemical and "vacuum" bombs on hospitals and schools.[9] This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a civil war that has ended hundreds of thousands of lives, many of which Assad's government has been implicated in causing. But not every problem is directly his doing. Some things are outside of his direct control. Assad is a Muslim himself, a member of the sect known as Alawites, and his chief supporters include the Shiite theocracy of Iran. That wouldn't be a problem with the majority of the Syrian population weren't Sunni (making up two-thirds of the population [10]), and so there's an ideological split between Assad and his supporters and the majority of the Syrian people. It's not hard to see how that could lead many to view his rule as illegitimate, and seek to oust him based on ideology alone, which just so happens to be what ISIS thrives on. By putting Assad back in power (assuming that the combined efforts of the US and Russia can accomplish that), all Pro's doing is perpetuating these harms. In fact, she's making them worse. Now, Assad will have western support as well, turning this from an ideological war against oppression to an east vs. west mentality that has permeated so many of the conflicts in the Middle East. Worse yet, Assad's history makes clear that backing him won't end the conflict " it may even make it worse. There's a reason Assad has gone so far as to aid ISIS on the battlefield and release known militants of theirs " he's empowering the extremists. Whatever his reasons for doing so, he clearly has little interest in letting the conflict lapse, probably because it offers him yet more opportunities to brutalize his people into submission. And Pro is making the US complicit in these actions. DA3) Russian Hegemony Pro will probably claim that there's some sort of benefit for working with Russia, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Russia will find this to be yet another assertion of US hegemony, the very thing they're trying to counter by supporting Assad.[11] Now, Pro's not requiring Russia to take part in anything, instead stating what the US will do and just sort of hoping that Russia will fall in line. They won't. Russia has no incentive to march lock-step with the US when we're the ones who are leading it. Instead, they're going to view this as yet another attempt on the part of the US to assert its hegemony in the region. That leads to a few problems. First and most likely, they're just going to ignore any attempt at a bilateral effort, continuing to go it alone and confusing any military strategy we make. Even if Russia signs on, they're much more likely to subvert our efforts to disempower the US forces in the area and gain notoriety for theirs. They're not going to stand by and let the US lead any effort that could be clearly successful in the region. This is likelier to deepen divides between Russia and the US and to further complicate efforts made by them as well. With that in mind, here's my counter plan: 1) The USFG will step up its support to moderate rebel forces in Syria by establishing a no-fly zone for Syria. The no-fly zone will allow American and Russian aircraft to fly so long as their attacks are targeted at eliminating ISIS. This will require a substantial ground troop commitment, and these troops will function solely in the establishment of this safe zone. Russian forces will be encouraged to participate. 2) Funds will be garnered from surrounding nations (particularly from Turkey and the EU) to establish a civilian refuge within Syrian borders. 3) The USFG will broker a temporary ceasefire between the moderate rebels and Assad's forces. This ceasefire will end immediate combat operations between the two until ISIS is removed as a threat. Note that this does not lend any US support to the Assad regime. It also does not require the US to lead a war effort, requiring only that US protect civilians by preventing aerial and artillery bombardments on the part of ISIS in particular, but also on the part of Assad. No-fly zones have been successful in the past, require limited resource investments, and ensure dramatically reduced levels of death.[] While Syria may be a different situation, the commitment of ground troops will ensure that such a safe zone can be effectively enforced.[13] Russians are allowed to continue doing exactly what they're doing now, though they also have clear peer pressure to engage in humanitarian means for addressing the conflict. The funds will be easy to come by since the migration crisis is costing these nations far more than they would need to contribute.[14] Countries would gladly contribute. The ceasefire would be in everyone's favor at this point. Assad and the moderate rebels might chafe at the prospect of signing it, but the prospect of dealing with such a dangerous foe that clearly threatens both parties is likely to shift mentalities. Even if they don't sign it, both groups are likely to treat ISIS as the bigger and more unstable threat. Alright, back to Pro to explicate her case and engage with mine. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://huff.to... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://ind.pn... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://abcn.ws... 12. http://ind.pn... 13. http://bit.ly... 14. http://bit.ly...