The United States Should Arm the Kurds

Rebuttals and Counter ArgumentsMy opponent begins his argument stating that there was no material rebuttal on the basis of American interests in Syria. I did label a source in the previous round highlighting that the United States entered Syria with the intention of toppling Assad, and are still doing so now [1]. The United States had even gone to the Security Council in hopes of passing a resolution directly aimed at ousting Assad out of power under the pretense of uncalled measures of austerity [2]. By pretense, as I had mentioned before, the United States had claimed that a reason for toppling Assad was also to counter Russian influence [3]. My opponent then continues in making a plan regarding the Peshmerga by supporting their interior Ministry through financing. The problem with your argument, I'm afraid, is that it is assumptive and that the plan of unifying Peshmerga is has not only been attempted but has been met with resistance [4]. Iraq, with the financial support of the United States, already attempted a unification of Peshmerga [5] but was met with military resistance and cultural, economic and socio-political challenges all that prevent a unified Peshmerga. These armies that fight under the name of Kurdistan, also fight under their own interests and their own agendas, each of which would either differ culturally, economically or politically. There is also the problem that Syria and Iraq do not want to grant Kurdistani forces too much power in order to prevent a possible civil war and separation in the future because there was a careless grant of military power and weapons as history had proven before with Hussein and 1970's Syria [6].In his argument, my opponent makes the statement "...ministry to disband private militias of certain groups such as the KDP and PUK units, such as the Zerevani, the Emergency Force, and Units 70 and 80". These forces are not under control of the Peshmerga Ministry [7]. I also state, that the Peshmerga Ministry is a political branch of the autonomous and suppressed Kurdistan, heavily limiting the option of powers and actions they can already take under military orders. I will conclude this rebuttal to my opponent with the simple statement that history has also proven that to unify Peshmerga has been a lethal failure (Refer to Source 4), and an advanced and complex web of religious, cultural, socio-political, and economic regions and units of Kurdistan would not want to unify under Peshmerga. Your method is hypothetical and the proposal of a unified Peshmerga has already gone down.My opponent then challenges my rebuttals against international consequences for support of military units in Kurdistan by saying that the size of the PKK is insignificant compared to the 190,000 total Kurd infantry. You conveniently skipped over the fact in your own source that these 190,000 troops are not unified and represent a mass amount of groups (Including the PKK) [8]. You manipulated the wording of your source and argument, when in truth these 190,000 troops are divided into more than 500+ [9] units and infantries with little to no intention of being led under the Ministry of Peshmerga. Pro concludes their argument with the statement that my final method step is not relevant to whether we should arm the Kurds, and it is. You left a strong argument with no rebuttal. The Syrian Forces loyal to Assad would have already eliminated the Syrian insurgencies against Assad backed by the United States (If the US would stop funding them) and Syrian forces would already be able to destroy ISIS [10]. My method highlights that instead of using a bunch of dis-unified groups and waste billions of dollars on their attempted unification to which they have no intention of doing so, anyways, we would actually be able to support a functioning state with an actual unified and secular leader which would allow the United States to prevent a power vacuum and create a stronger area for ISIS to thrive. Syria is an inter-connected web of insurgencies, state oppression, and global powers attempting to advance their interests. Their relevancy is stronger than arming the Kurds. My statement of having Assad step down after the war would allow American interests to get a portion of their own goal achieved, the common goal of ISIS having been eliminated in the majority, and a possible power vacuum to be plugged. No one would want a nation with no government to be fractured by over 500+ groups attempting to dominate the nation [11]. Sources[1] http://www.bbc.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://kurdishquestion.com...[5] http://carnegieendowment.org...[6] https://newrepublic.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.bbc.com...[9] http://www.al-monitor.com...[10] https://en.wikipedia.org...[11] http://www.cnn.com...