UPDATES NSDA Qualls April 17-18

To do list:Affirmative AT: Kurds- Kurds are terrorists, they dont work, etc. AT: Airstrikes Troops Needed Top Defense Guy (Moriartys) evidence Hegemony and trade Drones minimize in-combat fatalities-this needs to be a key analytical argument.

Negative AT: Kurds are terrorists AT: Hegemony AT: Daily Color (Top US Security Official) PoliticsResearch Afghan and Iraq wars.

Con CX: What is the end goal of sending ground troops? What is victory defined by? -ideology argument. 1. Defeating ISIL 2. Defeating IdeologyIdeas1. Drones can be used to survey and reduce the number of fatalities.2. Dont reject one group because another is better-do both

Updates April 17ConImpossible-Kurds/AirstrikesIn order to defeat ISIS, we have to send 100k troops, which isnt feasible-the Kurds and airstrikes continue to workMorrissey February 2015 http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/04/former-cia-2-it-will-take-100000-ground-troops-to-defeat-isis-and-that-will-simply-does-not-exist-here/ (Ed Morrissey is anAmericanconservativeblogger,columnist,motivational speaker, andtalk show host-His opinion articles have appeared in theNew York Sun, theNew York Post, and theDaily Standard)Depressing, and yet entirely true. While the US and other coalition nations expressed outrage over the brutal execution by ISIS of a captured Jordanian pilot and vowed to destroy the terrorist organization, the efforts made so far wont accomplish the mission or even come close, as former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell told CBS Charlie Rose and Norah ODonnell this morning. In order to defeat ISIS, the coalition will have to field an army of at least 100,000 troops, and Morell says the coalition lacks the will to fight at that level: A former deputy director of the CIA said on CBS This Morning Wednesday that it would take 100,000 ground troops to effectively respond to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Unless the coalition is willing to put more ground troops into Iraq and possibly into Syria, there is very little we can do to respond, said CBS News senior security contributor Michael Morell, the former No. 2 at the CIA. Morell said the will to commit such a large number of troops simply does not exist in the U.S. or in Western Europe. Clearly, Morells right about the US and its will to fight to victory. Recall that Savannah Guthrie challenged Barack Obama on this very point in her Super Bowl interview, and Obama responded that sure, we could send 200,000 or even 300,000 troops to fight ISIS, but eventually we would leave, as though Obama himself hadnt done just that with Iraq and precipitated the crisis. Obama insisted that he was fighting ISIS the right way, and that a remote air war against an entrenched enemy would end in victory if given enough time. However, its been ongoing for five months, and the only impact has been a withdrawal from Kobane, and even that is largely due to the Kurdish peshmerga and irregulars that got air support from the US-led coalition. Morell knows this, as does practically everyone else but the White House. It doesnt take a Clauswitz to figure it out. The other coalition partners may be realizing this, too. The New York Times reported that the UAE pulled out of the air strikes after concerns that the US did not have enough assets in the theater to protect downed pilots, a report that the Pentagon initially disputed. The BBC later reported that its sources within the Obama administration confirmed that the UAE had suspended its operations: US officials told the BBC on Wednesday that the UAE had suspended its involvement in the strikes after Lt Kasasbeh was captured in December. The New York Times quoted officials as saying the UAE wanted the Pentagon to improve its search-and-rescue efforts in Iraq before it resumed bombing missions. It seems that we dont have the will to get close enough to the fight to conduct effective rescue operations, or at least thats what our ally seems to think. Imagine what our enemies think.*Great EV-GT BadGround forces dont work, that is what ISIS wants-SQUO forces are solving the threatVick 2015 http://time.com/3723617/dont-take-the-bait-the-u-s-should-not-send-troops-to-fight-isis/ Karl Vick is a TIME correspondent based in New York. From 2010 to the autumn of 2014 he was the Jerusalem Bureau Chief, covering Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories with occasional forays into other lands. He came to the magazine after 16 years with the Washington Post, in its bureaus in Rockville, MD, Nairobi, Istanbul, Baghdad and Los Angeles. Also spent a lot of time in Iran, and a year at Stanford as a Knight Fellow.

In December 2001, when the war on terrorism was only weeks old, victory appeared at hand with the fall of Kandahar, the southern Afghanistan city Osama bin Laden had called home. Now that the question is how best to confront a fresh horror, its worth noting that the city was taken not by U.S. troops but by the same tag team that liberated the rest of the country: scruffy Afghan militias advancing in pickup trucks behind U.S. air strikes. As Christmas approached, there couldnt have been more than 50 Americans in town, most of them Special Forces so at home in local clothes that they were easier to spot by the bumper stickers on their pickups: I NY. The rest of us were reporters haunting public venues like the central market, where one morning I noticed a man standing apart. He wore a black turban and a knowing look, both markers of the Taliban, and had a question. Why didnt you come on the ground? he said. It would have been lovely if you came on the ground. I knew what he meant, but not nearly as viscerally as I did two years later, in Iraq, where we came on the ground. Why we came at all is a bit of a mystery, but it was pretty clear pretty early that our physical presence created its own reality, armored up yet vulnerable both to labelsoccupier at best, but also crusaderand constant ambush. If youre trying to win hearts and minds, a Marine major told me in Najaf, maybe sending 100,000 19-year-olds with machine guns isnt the best way to go about it. Not massing U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a masterstroke, even if it came about mainly because the Pentagon lacked a ready war plan for the country that had sheltered bin Laden. Its not just that Afghanistan has a way of swallowing armies. (Ask the British; ask the Russians.) There is an essential elegance to using what the military calls standoff weapons in a fight made infinitely more difficult by your actual presence. Which is why its fortunate that Americans have shown little appetite for a large-scale ground war against ISIS. The group was, after all, spawned by the occupation of Iraq. Many of its leaders are veterans of the U.S. military prisons that turned out to double as universities for jihad. But their aim is no longer to expel the invader. Just the opposite. Now they want to lure us in. The fundamentalist narrative embraced by ISIS calls for a return of U.S. forces to Iraq, modern legionnaires fulfilling the role of Rome in the end-time narrative the group believes it has set in motion. Its a millennialist vision as complicated as the Book of Revelation, but the U.S. role is pretty simple: show up. For anyone seeking a logic behind the gruesome decapitations of American journalists and aid workers, there it isprovoke a reaction. The bloodletting does summon the associations of terrorism, barbarity and peril that have beset Americans for more than a decade now. But associations are almost all they are. To date, ISIS has demonstrated no particular ambition to attack the West at home. (That remains the raison dtre of al-Qaeda, whose Syria affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra harbors the elite al-Qaeda bombmakers dubbed the Khorasan group.) ISIS eyes another prize. Having declared a caliphate on the river valleys and desert land it has conquered in Syria and Iraq, it aims to turn the clock back to the 7th century. It functions both as a government and as a sectarian killing machine, slaughtering Shiites and many others in the name of purification. To retain its sense of inevitability, however, ISIS must expandsomething its [has] been unable to [expand] do in Iraq since U.S. air strikes began in August. Recent growth, such as it is, has all been virtual, via pledges of fealty from existing jihadi groups in Sinai, Libya and other ungoverned dots on the map. The mother ship itself is hemmed in. Shiites and Kurds man the bulwarks to the east. To the west lie Syrian state forces that ISISnominally a rebel grouphas mostly left alone. What to do? The U.S. clearly has a national interest in preserving Iraq. (We broke it; we bought it.) But sending Americans back into Anbar and Saladin provinces would provide ISIS with pure oxygen and fresh waves of volunteers, while feeding the narrative that the U.S. is in a war against Islam. We have the planes, but this looks like a fight for guys in pickups who want to take their own country back.TimeframeVictory will take years to accomplish.Eisenstadt, Senior Fellow & Director Military & Security Studies Program @ Washington Institute;November 2014 (Michael; Policy Notes; No. 20; Defeating ISIS: A strategy for a resilient adversary and an intractable conflict; http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/defeating-isis-a-strategy-for-a-resilient-adversary-and-an-intractable-conf)For these reasons, the United States needs to define down success in its campaign against ISIS, while allocating greater resources to the effort. The declared goal should be to reduce the ISIS problem to manageable dimensions. In practical terms, this means discrediting and marginalizing ISIS by reducing its base of support inside and outside the region, destroying its military formations and the administrative machinery of its Islamic state, and forcing ISIS to once again become an underground organization capable of little more than occasional acts of terror. This could take years to accomplish.

*OverstrechU.S. military intervention would fail, exhaust resources, and overstretch the U.S. Cronin, Director of the International Security Program at George Mason Univ., March 2015 (Audrey Kirth, Foreign Affairs, vol. 94, no. 2, p. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143043/audrey-kurth-cronin/isis-is-not-aterrorist-group) Of course, this opens up a third possible approach to ISIS, besides counterterrorism and counterinsurgency: a full-on conventional war against the group, waged with the goal of completely destroying it. Such a war would be folly. After experiencing more than a decade of continuous war, the American public simply would not support the long-term occupation and intense fighting that would be required to obliterate ISIS. The pursuit of a full-fledged military campaign would exhaust U.S. resources and offer little hope of obtaining the objective. Wars pursued at odds with political reality cannot be won. CONTAINING THE THREAT The sobering fact is that the United States has no good military options in its fight against ISIS. Neither counterterrorism, nor counterinsurgency, nor conventional warfare is likely to afford Washington a clear-cut victory against the group. For the time being, at least, the policy that best matches ends and means and that has the best chance of securing U.S. interests is one of offensive containment: combining a limited military campaign with a major diplomatic and economic effort to weaken ISIS and align the interests of the many countries that are threatened by the group's advance. ISIS is not merely an American problem. The wars in Iraq and Syria involve not only regional players but also major global actors, such as Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. Washington must stop behaving as if it can fix the region's problems with military force and instead resurrect its role as a diplomatic superpower. Of course, U.S. military force would be an important part of an offensive containment policy. Air strikes can pin ISIS down, and cutting off its supply of technology, weapons, and ammunition by choking off smuggling routes would further weaken the group. Meanwhile, the United States should continue to advise and support the Iraqi military, assist regional forces such as the Kurdish Pesh Merga, and provide humanitarian assistance to civilians fleeing ISIS territory. Washington should also expand its assistance to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which are struggling to contend with the massive flow of refugees from Syria. But putting more U.S. troops on the ground would be counterproductive, entangling the United States in an unwinnable war that could go on for decades. The United States cannot rebuild the Iraqi state or determine the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Frustrating as it might be to some, when it comes to military action, Washington should stick to a realistic course that recognizes the limitations of U.S. military force as a long-term solution.IdeologyDefeating ISIS doesnt destroy their ideology-terrorism is inevitable, ideology still existsBecker, department chair at National Intelligence Univ., 12-12-14 (Joseph, Small Wars Journal,http://anasoft.base.pk/(isis)%20obama%20strategy%20for%20defeating%20isis%20is%20the%20(joseph%20becker)%20 small%20wars%20journal.pdf, p. 3)A military defeat of ISIL would also fail to destroy the international appeal of the Islamist ideology which the organization espouses. Ending the self-proclaimed Caliphate of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi would certainly sever a prominent head from the hydra of militant political Islam, and it might help deny extremists a particular safe haven from which to operate. But just as Osama Bin-Ladens demise failed to defeat the pan-Islamist dream, so would this effort likely fall short. Religion can serve as a powerful mobilizing agent for many of the world populations disillusioned by the forces of globalization and Westernization. The defeat of ISIL would only be one step in the larger campaign against the terrorism promoted by Islamic radicals. Perhaps most important in terms of shortcomings, a decisive defeat of ISIL in strictly military terms would fail to address the regional dynamics which have allowed this organization to flourish in its current context. ISIL does not exist in a vacuum. This is not simply an Iraqi or even a Syrian insurgency. The Syrian civil war has played out largely as a proxy conflict among competing power bases in the greater Middle East region, and this contest has spilled over into Iraqi soil. The spider web of competing and converging interests defies borders and makes a mockery of any attempt at oversimplification. In the words of the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Muhammad Bin Naif, We know that ISIS [ISIL] was not randomly formed but rather sponsored by states and organizations that employ all their resources and ill intentions in backing ISIS [ISIL]. As demonstrated by the cases of Saudi Arabia with Al Qaeda and Pakistan with the Taliban, governments are not monolithic and may choose to fight against a group such as ISIL with one hand while supporting it with the other. Turkeys reluctance to cooperate in efforts against ISIL serves as a stark demonstration of the different calculus employed by regional actors. Turkish buyers have provided a market for oil smuggled out of ISILcontrolled territories.[9] The Turkish government clearly sees Assad as a greater threat than ISIL, and many suspect that its early-October agreement to join the coalition against ISIL largely reflected an ulterior motive of suppressing Kurdish separatism.[10] If regional interests are not adequately addressed, then even erstwhile allies are likely to undermine any military solution in the long run. This could mean preserving and enabling the defeated rump of ISIL in Syria. It could also mean the fostering of new manifestations of this movement, which might prove even more destabilizing in the future.

A2: ISIS in Mexico

Everyone in the room is now dumber for listening to them make this argument

Schmidt 9/15/14 (Michael, U.S. Pushes Back Against Warnings That ISIS Plans to Enter From Mexico, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/us-pushes-back-against-warnings-that-isis-plans-to-enter-from-mexico.html?_r=0)WASHINGTON Militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have traveled to Mexico and are just miles from the United States. They plan to cross over the porous border and will imminently launch car bomb attacks. And the threat is so real that federal law enforcement officers have been placed at a heightened state of alert, and an American military base near the border has increased its security. As the Obama administration and the American public have focused their attention on ISIS in recent weeks, conservative groups and leading Republicans have issued stark warnings like those that ISIS and other extremists from Syria are planning to enter the country illegally from Mexico. But the Homeland Security Department, the F.B.I. and lawmakers who represent areas near the border say there is no truth to the warnings. There is no credible intelligence to suggest that there is an active plot by ISIL to attempt to cross the southern border, Homeland Security officials said in a written statement, using an alternative acronym for the group. Democrats say opponents of President Obama are simply playing on concerns about terrorism as part of their attempt to portray Mr. Obama as having failed to secure the border against illegal immigration. Theres a longstanding history in this country of projecting whatever fears we have onto the border, said Representative Beto ORourke, Democrat of Texas, who represents El Paso and other areas near the border. In the absence of understanding the border, they insert their fears. Before it was Iran and Al Qaeda. Now its ISIS. They just reach the conclusion that invasion is imminent, and it never is. At a congressional hearing last week, Representative Jeff Duncan, Republican of South Carolina, pushed back strongly against the testimony of Homeland Security Department officials and Mr. ORourke, saying they were ignoring a gathering threat. Wake up, America, Mr. Duncan said before storming out of the hearing. With a porous southern border, we have no idea whos in our country. But counterterrorism officials say they are far more concerned that an ISIS militant will enter the United States the same way millions of people do each year: legally, on a commercial flight. Their efforts have focused on the more than 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans who have traveled to Syria to fight alongside extremist groups, nearly all of them crossing over its unprotected borders. Without markings in their passports to show that they traveled to Syria, American border authorities have few ways of determining where they were and stopping them from entering the country. Warnings about the possibility of terrorists entering the United States from Mexico have been sounded in the past. During the 2012 presidential campaign both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, said Islamic extremists working with countries in Latin America, including Mexico, posed a significant threat to the United States. We know that Hamas and Hezbollah are working in Mexico, as well as Iran, with their ploy to come into the United States, Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, said at a Republican debate in 2011. So the idea that we need to have border security with the United States and Mexico is paramount to the entire Western Hemisphere. Mr. Perry repeated his concerns in a speech last month at the Heritage Foundation in Washington in which he said that because the border was not secure, individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be crossing into the United States. I think its a very real possibility that they may have already used that, he said. In late August, the conservative group Judicial Watch posted an article on its website about how ISIS was operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Jurez and planning car bomb attacks. High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued, the report said. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat. Judicial Watch said intelligence officials had picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to carry out an attack on the border. It quoted a high-level source saying that the attack was coming very soon. Mr. ORourke said that immediately after that report was posted he called the F.B.I. and Homeland Security Department. They told him they had no intelligence about such an attack. Mr. ORourke said he spent the rest of his day arguing with members of the news media in Texas about why the Judicial Watch report was not a story. He largely failed to convince them, and the article was widely reported.

Updates April 13-16ProIraq calls for US supportIraq has called for more support in the fight against ISILAssociated Press April 13th 2015 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iraqs-premier-support-needed-finish-30276123

Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country needs greater support from the international coalition so it can "finish" the Islamic State group. Haider al-Abadi said the "marked increase" in airstrikes, weapons deliveries and training has helped roll back the extremist group, but that more is required to eliminate the group once and for all. "We want to see more," al-Abadi told journalists as he boarded a flight to Washington where he will meet with President Barack Obama as part of his first official visit to the U.S. as prime minister. "We can finish Daesh...and we can stop their advance in other countries," he added, using the group's Arabic acronym. "We are the only country with armed forces on the ground fighting Daesh. We need all the support of the world." The US and its coalition allies have carried out nearly 2,000 strikes in Iraq since its campaign began in August as well as nearly 1,400 in neighboring Syria. American officials say the campaign has been somewhat successful, though it is likely to stretch on for years. In November, Obama authorized the deployment of up to 1,500 more American troops to bolster Iraqi forces, which could more than double the total number of U.S. forces to 3,100. The Pentagon has made a spending request to Congress of $1.6 billion, focusing on training and arming Iraqi and Kurdish forces. According to a Pentagon document prepared in November, the U.S. is looking to provide an estimated $89.3 million worth of weapons and other equipment to each of the nine Iraqi army brigades. Earlier this month, Iraqi forces and allied Shiite militias, backed by U.S. airstrikes, were able to recapture the city of Tikrit from the Sunni militants in what was the government's first major victory in Iraq's Sunni heartland. In an interview with The Associated Press in January, al-Abadi said that Iraq was battling the Islamic State militants "almost on our own," adding that "there is a lot being said and spoken, but very little on the ground." His tone ahead of his visit to Washington Monday was noticeably more positive, describing international support as making "good progress." Iraqi officials believe the Islamic State group is coming under increasing pressure and does not have the same strength, funds or resources as last June when the militants launched their lighting offensive across northern Iraq and captured the city of Mosul. Over the weekend, Iraqi forces, backed by coalition airstrikes, repelled an IS attack on Iraq's largest refinery in the town of Beiji. "Daesh (has) an urgent necessity for oil for its use and also for money," said Iraq's Oil Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, who was part of the delegation traveling to Washington with al-Abadi. Al-Abadi also said Iraq's relationship with neighboring Iran is "very balanced" and that those at odds with Iran should not "throw their problems on us." Both the United States and Iran are helping Iraq battle the Islamic State group, but insist they are not coordinating their actions on the battlefield. Iranian generals and advisers have played an unusually public role in recent battles, particularly in Tikrit, collaborating with senior Iraqi military officials on the front lines. Several countries in the region have accused Iran of meddling in the affairs of Arab nations most recently in Yemen, where Shiite rebels backed by Iran have taken over the government, prompting a coalition of Sunni Arab nations to launch an ongoing airstrike campaign.

AT: SQ, KD, IQRelying on status quo forces would create the conditions for long-term instability.Kagan March 2015, Kimberly, Kagan, Frederick W., and Lewis, Jessica D. A strategy to defeat the Islamic state. Institute for the Study of War. Sept 2014. Web. 3 March 2015.http://www.criticalthreats.org/sites/default/files/pdf_upload/Defeating_ISIS_strategy_report.pdf

Meeting this challenge requires centering operations within the Sunni Arab community rather than strengthening Shia and Kurdish forces that are alien and threatening to that community. A strategy of basing in Kurdistan and Shia Iraq and providing air support to Kurdish troops and ISF forces intermingled with Shia militias and Iranian advisers may achieve some initial successes, but will ultimately fail. The prospect of Kurdish domination over Ninewa Province, including Mosul, and of the permanent Kurdish seizure of Kirkuk, could well spark an ethnic Arab-Kurdish war. ISIS has been working actively to stoke those ethnic tensions in order to provoke precisely such a conflict, which would allow it to embed itself more deeply among an embattled Arab populace. Merely strengthening Iraqi Security Forces that are rightly seen as Shia dominated and militia-infiltrated may also achieve short-term gains, but at the cost of setting conditions for an even larger Sunni Arab mobilization against perceived Shia domination that would create new opportunities for ISIS or a successor group to establish itself.

DronesTurn-ISIS can shoot down drones, impacting the USs supply of dronesNew York Post April 11, 2015 http://nypost.com/2015/04/12/war-against-isis-shows-limits-of-drones/

Why not just send in the drones? That seems [like] the easy solution against the Islamic State, which has the capacity to shoot down jet aircraft and is vicious enough to burn captured pilots alive. Yet as of March 31, only a handful of the more than 5,500 airstrikes carried out by the US and allies against ISIS were conducted by remote-control drones. Whatever Hollywood may tell you, the drone revolution is still in its infancy. Thats because while the US military has more than 8,000 drones, relatively few are armed and they are not as powerful as you might think. The Air Force operates two types of drones that carry weapons, the MQ-1 Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper, both made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. of Poway, Calif. The Predator, originally designed only for surveillance, was modified in 2001 to carry two laser-guided AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The Reaper, a larger version of the Predator, typically carries four Hellfires and two precision-guided 500-pound bombs. The Air Force owns about 160 Predators and 140 Reapers, but not all are available to fly combat missions. Meanwhile, the nature of drone operations means the armed fleet is spread thin.

AT: Anti AmericanismThis argument is non-unique, it will happen and continues to happen even though ground troops havent been deployed. Drone and airstrikes are also a cause of anti Americanism.

Iran Threat>ISISIrans influence in the Middle East is single-handedly a bigger threat than ISISHuffington Post 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/06/henry-kissinger-iran-isis_n_5777706.html

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that Iran "is a bigger problem than ISIS." In an interview with NPR that was released on Saturday, Kissinger explained that because Iran has a stronger footing in the Middle East, it has a greater opportunity to create an empire. "The borders of the settlement of 1919-'20 are essentially collapsing," he said. "That gives Iran a very powerful level from a strategic point of view. I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS important as it is is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran. \ Kissinger interview comes just a day after the BBC reported that Iran's Supreme Leader had ordered his military to cooperate with the U.S. in the fight against ISIS forces. CNN had a similar report. Kissinger's warning about Iran is unsurprising given his past skepticism about its nuclear program. On Friday, nuclear talks went south after Iran failed to provide key information on its past nuclear work by an agreed-upon deadline. Earlier this week, ISIS drew international fury when it released a video allegedly showing the beheading of an American journalist. Kissinger told NPR that he would "strongly favor a strong attack on ISIS" in response.

ISIS Threatens the GridISIS will shut down the U.S. national grid itll independently kill 9 out of 10 Americans Bedard 9/3/14 Paul, columnist at the Washington Examiner, New ISIS threat: America's electric grid; blackout could kill 9 of 10 http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-isis-threat-americas-electric-grid-blackout-could-kill-9-of-10/article/2552766Former top government officials who have been warning Washington about the vulnerability of the nations largely unprotected electric grid are raising new fears that troops from the jihadist Islamic State are poised to attack the system, leading to a power crisis that could kill millions. Inadequate grid security, a porous U.S.-Mexico border, and fragile transmission systems make the electric grid a target for ISIS, said Peter Pry, one of the nations leading experts on the grid. Others joining Pry at a press conference later Wednesday to draw attention to the potential threat said that if just a handful of the nations high voltage transformers were knocked out, blackouts would occur across the country. By one estimate, should the power go out and stay out for over a year, nine out of 10 Americans would likely perish, said Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. At the afternoon press conference, Gaffney dubbed the potential crisis the "grid jihad." A lack of electricity would shut off water systems, impact city transportation services and shutdown hospitals and other big facilities. Fresh and frozen foods also would be impacted as would banks, financial institutions and utilities. Pry provided details of recent attacks on electricity systems and said that ISIS could easily team with Mexican drug cartels to ravage America. He told Secrets, for example, that the Knights Templar drug gang blacked out the electric grid of the Mexican state of Michoacan in 2013 to provide cover for killing those fighting the drug trade. The Knights Templars and other criminal gangs in Mexico will do anything for money, and ISIS, the richest terrorist organization in history, has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal, said Pry. ISIS could hire one of the Mexican cartels, or one of their criminal gangs already in the U.S., or activate jihadist terror cells already in the U.S., and inflict a multi-state blackout immediately, within days or weeks. Perhaps even a nationwide blackout, Pry explained to Secrets. I am not saying it is likely they will do so. But given the capabilities and objectives of ISIS and our obvious vulnerabilities, it would be foolish to ignore the threat to the grid, to regard the threat as unlikely. Our planning should be based on imminent asymmetrical threats, and not assume that another 9/11 large-scale attack is years away, he added.Attack on the grid risks nuclear war.Andres and Breetz 11 (Richard Andres, Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a Senior Fellow and Energy and Environmental Security and Policy Chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University, and Hanna Breetz, doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Small Nuclear Reactorsfor Military Installations:Capabilities, Costs, andTechnological Implications, www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-262.pdf)Grid Vulnerability. DOD is unable to provide its bases with electricity when the civilian electrical grid is offline for an extended period of time. Currently, domestic military installations receive 99 percent of their electricity from the civilian power grid. As explained in a recent study from the Defense Science Board: DODs key problem with electricity is that critical missions, such as national strategic awareness and national command authorities, are almost entirely dependent on the national transmission grid . . . [which] is fragile, vulnerable, near its capacity limit, and outside of DOD control. In most cases, neither the grid nor on-base backup power provides www.ndu.edu/inss SF No. 262 3 sufficient reliability to ensure continuity of critical national priority functions and oversight of strategic missions in the face of a long term (several months) outage. 7 The grids fragility was demonstrated during the 2003 Northeast blackout in which 50 million people in the United States and Canada lost power, some for up to a week, when one Ohio utility failed to properly trim trees. The blackout created cascading disruptions in sewage systems, gas station pumping, cellular communications, border check systems, and so forth, and demonstrated the interdependence of modern infrastructural systems. 8 More recently, awareness has been growing that the grid is also vulnerable to purposive attacks. A report sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security suggests that a coordinated cyberattack on the grid could result in a third of the country losing power for a period of weeks or months. 9 Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are not well understood. It is not clear, for instance, whether existing terrorist groups might be able to develop the capability to conduct this type of attack. It is likely, however, that some nation-states either have or are working on developing the ability to take down the U.S. grid. In the event of a war with one of these states, it is possible, if not likely, that parts of the civilian grid would cease to function, taking with them military bases located in affected regions. Government and private organizations are currently working to secure the grid against attacks; however, it is not clear that they will be successful. Most military bases currently have backup power that allows them to function for a period of hours or, at most, a few days on their own. If power were not restored after this amount of time, the results could be disastrous. First, military assets taken offline by the crisis would not be available to help with disaster relief. Second, during an extended blackout, global military operations could be seriously compromised; this disruption would be particularly serious if the blackout was induced during major combat operations. During the Cold War, this type of event was far less likely because the making bases more resilient to civilian power outages would reduce the incentive for an opponent to attack the grid United States and Soviet Union shared the common understanding that blinding an opponent with a grid blackout could escalate to nuclear war. Americas current opponents, however, may not share this fear or be deterred by this possibility.

ISIS Summer OFFENSIVE USISIS is planning an offensive this summer-only ground troops solveAaron Klein 2015 http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/intel-isis-planning-attacks-on-u-s-soil/#W4p8H4Ivp6MOV8lp.99 (Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff writer and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts"Aaron Klein Investigative Radio"on Salem Talk Radio.)

Egypt, now at the forefront of fighting ISIS, is warning it has intelligence revealing [ISIS] the global jihadist group is planning a worldwide offensive this spring or summer that could reach targets within the United States. Interrogations of ISIS members captured in recent weeks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula Egyptian and information collected by Egyptian security forces indicate ISIS is planning ground offensives this spring and summer aimed at taking over more territory across the Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf, a senior Egyptian intelligence official told WND. Some of the information indicates the new offensive will not be limited to the Arab world. Timed to coincide with its planned surge, ISIS is plotting possible attacks using cells abroad. ISIS and its jihadist allies could activate cells to carry attacks in Europe and possibly within the U.S., the senior Egyptian official warned. The official advocated the deployment of significant ground troops acting on multiple fronts to stop ISIS progression. He complained the Obama administration and international community has been hesitant to take major action against ISIS advances. Egypt on Monday sent warplanes over the border into Libya to bomb ISIS targets after the terror groups well publicized, savage attack on Egyptian Christians. Egyptian F-16 fighter jets reportedly struck ISIS training camps and weapons depots along Libyas coast, including targets in Derna, where Islamic extremist groups have joined with ISIS. One day earlier, ISIS allies released a video that appears to show the execution of 21 Coptic Christian prisoners. The Coptic Church is headquartered in Egypt. ConAustralia SolvesAustralia Solves-sending 300 troops next monthJulian Kerr April 13, 2015 (http://www.janes.com/article/50625/australian-pm-confirms-300-ground-troops-to-head-to-iraq-in-mid-may Kerr is an Australian news reporter.)

A 300-strong Australian Army training team that will work alongside about 100 New Zealand Defence Force personnel [and] will be fully operational in Iraq in mid-May, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on 14 April. Both teams will be based at Taji, a logistics base about 50 km north of Baghdad, as part of the international effort to help Iraqi forces repel Islamic State in northern Iraq. Abbott and New Zealand Prime Minister John Key announced the joint two-year initiative to train Iraqi troops in late February but gave no details of deployment dates. Abbott said a 170-strong Australian special forces team that had been in Iraq since November 2014 mentoring and training their local counterparts would be drawn down between July and September of this year. A Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) air task group (ATG), which began operations over Iraq and Syria in September 2014 flying from Al Minhad airbase in the UAE, would remain in place, Abbott said. Six F/A-18F Super Hornet multirole fighters were replaced in the ATG in March by the same number of older F/A-18A "classic" Hornet multirole aircraft. They will continue to be supported by an RAAF KC-30A tanker/transport and an E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft.Iraqi Forces solveIraqi forces solve for ISISInternational Business Times April 13, 2015 http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-leader-abu-maria-killed-iraqi-forces-tikrit-report-1879177 Kukil Bora-holds a Bachelor degree in English literature from Gauhati University and a Masters degree in Mass Communication from Bangalore University.

A senior leader of the Islamic State group has been killed during a military operation by the Iraqi forces in the city of Tikrit, local media reported Monday. Abu Maria, a self-declared governor of ISIS for al-Hajaj and Albu-Tema areas in Iraq was killed by Iraqi troops on Sunday near the Ajeel oil field close to Tikrit, which is located about 87 miles northwest of Baghdad, Iraqi News reported. Today, a force from the Omaya al-Jabbara Battalion has managed to kill the ISIS governor (Wali) of al-Hajaj and Albu-Tema areas, known as Abu Maria, along with his key assistant near the area of Ajil oilfield in northeast of Tikrit city, Iraqi News quoted an anonymous source as saying. The terrorists were heading towards the district of al-Hawija. The source also said that the operation was based on intelligence received from the residents of the local area near Ajeel oil field. Tikrit has been under ISIS control since June. On March 31, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi declared that Iraqi troops aided by Shiite paramilitaries had driven ISIS militants out of the city. The U.S. Department of Defense also said at the time that it could confirm Iraqi security forces advancement into Tikrit to liberate the city center as well as other parts of the city from ISIS. However, subsequent reports claimed that ISIS fighters were still active in central Tikrit, and that the city was not completely liberated. Meanwhile, the U.S. government announced last week that the U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack ISIS positions in Syria and Iraq. According to officials, eight airstrikes were conducted in Syria on Sunday, while nine airstrikes were conducted against the extremist group in Iraq on the same day.

Updates April 11-12AffirmativeISIL ThreatISIL (formally Al Qaeda in Iraq) was pushed back by the US military in Iraq after the US won the hearts and minds of the citizensFerran 2015, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. ISIS Trail of Terror. ABC News. ABC News Network, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. . AQI was weakened in Iraq in 2007 as a result of what is known as the Sunni Awakening, when a large alliance of Iraqi Sunni tribes, supported by the U.S., fought against the jihadist group. AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq. By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his groups influence back into Iraq and changed the groups name to ISIS, reflecting its greater regional ambitions, according to the U.S. State Department. ISIS, as the group has been identified by ABC News and other news organizations, refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Different translations of the Arabic name al-Baghdadi gave his organization have spawned other English-language versions such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (also ISIS) or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It is also known as Daesh, based on an Arabic acronym.

ISIL is planning attacks on US, ground troops can stop thisKLEIN 2015, Aaron. Intel: ISIS Planning Attacks on U.S. Soil. WND. World Net Daily, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. .Egypt, now at the forefront of fighting ISIS, is warning it has intelligence revealing the global jihadist group is planning a worldwide offensive this spring or summer that could reach targets within the United States. Interrogations of ISIS members captured in recent weeks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula Egyptian and information collected by Egyptian security forces indicate ISIS is planning ground offensives this spring and summer aimed at taking over more territory across the Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf, a senior Egyptian intelligence official told WND. Some of the information indicates the new offensive will not be limited to the Arab world. Timed to coincide with its planned surge, ISIS is plotting possible attacks using cells abroad. ISIS and its jihadist allies could activate cells to carry attacks in Europe and possibly within the U.S., the senior Egyptian official warned. The official advocated the deployment of significant ground troops acting on multiple fronts to stop ISIS progression. He complained the Obama administration and international community has been hesitant to take major action against ISIS advances

ISIL has a huge amount of fightersFerran 2015, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. ISIS Trail of Terror. ABC News. ABC News Network, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. . Western officials only have rough estimates on ISISs total fighting force, but in late 2014, the CIA said the group was believed to be up to 30,000 fighters strong including local supporters, and growing. Most disturbing to Western security officials, they say, is the huge portion of foreign fighters who left their homes and at times traveled halfway around the world to join the terror group.

Many of ISILs fighters are from around the worldFerran 2015, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. ISIS Trail of Terror. ABC News. ABC News Network, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. . Nicholas Rasmussen, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told Congress in February 2015 some 20,000 foreign fighters from 90 countries had traveled to Syria to join one group or another -- 3,400 of those fighters are said to have come from Western nations, including over 150 from the U.S. who have either traveled to the conflict zone, or attempted to do so. Its very difficult to be precise with these numbers because they come from a variety of sources that vary in quality, Rasmussen said. But the trend lines are clear and concerning.

The FBI has warned officials that ISIL may be targeting themBrown, Pamela, and Jim Sciutto. FBI Warns Military of ISIS Threat - CNN.com. CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. .The FBI issued a warning Sunday to members of the U.S. military that ISIS is calling for attacks against them, according to a law enforcement source, saying that overseas based individuals are looking for like-minded individuals in the U.S. to carry out these attacks. We also request members of the military review their online social media presence for any information that might attract the attention of violent extremists, the bulletin said, advising that members of the military use caution and practice operational security when posting. The new FBI bulletin includes a concern that ISIS members are spotting and assessing individuals in the U.S. who they believe may be interested in carrying out attacks on U.S. soil against members of the U.S. military, a U.S. counter-terror official tells CNN.AirstrikesAirstrikes are an incentive for ISIS to kill hostagesThompson, Mark 2014. Why the U.S. Won't Buckle Under ISIS Pressure. Time. Time, 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. .Over the past month, the U.S. military has launched more than 100 air strikes against ISIS targets in northern Iraq. While U.S. officials have publicly justified the attacks on humanitarian groundsas well as protecting U.S. intereststhey also have obliterated dozens of ISIS vehicles and checkpoints, and those manning them. There is no way ISIS can counter U.S. air strikes. It has no air force and apparently has few, if any, anti- aircraft weapons. Its ground forces, once identified, are easy targets for American laser- and GPS-guided bombs and missiles. Unable to thwart the attacks, [airstrikes] ISIS has tried to derail them by murdering a pair of journalists it was holding in captivity. The first, James Foley, a freelance reporter for the GlobalPost website, was allegedly killed by a black-clad man speaking with an English accent in a video released Aug. 19. ISIS released a second video 14 days later, purportedly showing the same man murdering Sotloff, who had freelanced for Time.

AT: AlliesUS Special Forces are needed to stop ISILMiller 2015 Miller, Aaron D. Tough Choices: How to Win against ISIS - CNN.com. CNN. Cable News Network, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. .Neither democratic reform in the Arab world (highly unlikely), nor counter- messaging (probably ineffective), will check the rise of ISIS. That [checking the rise of ISIS] can be achieved only by a military and political strategy designed to demonstrate that ISIS has failed. And that means containing and reversing the group's gains through the use of air power, standing up local allies, marshaling a Sunni Arab coalition, and most likely by deploying additional U.S. Special Forces. There are many constraints inherent in this approach. Iranian-backed Shia militias feed ISIS recruitment by killing Sunnis. And Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria does the same. Meanwhile, ungoverned spaces in Libya and Yemen offer new opportunities for IS affiliates. But stopping ISIS gains and rolling them back in Iraq and over time in Syria are critical, and would be the best counter-narrative possible.

AT: KurdsThe Kurds are terrorist-funding them hurts US-Turkey relationsCBS 2014 Turkey Balks at Arming Kurds Against ISIS. CBS. 19 Oct 2014. Web. 4 March 2015. .SURUC, Turkey - Turkey would not agree to any U.S. arms transfers to Kurdish fighters who are battling Islamic militants in Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying Sunday, as the extremist group fired more mortar rounds near the Syrian-Turkish border. Turkey views the main Syrian Kurdish group, the PYD - and its military wing which is fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) - as an extension of the PKK, which has waged a 30-year insurgency in Turkey and is designated a terrorist group by the United States and NATO. The United States has said recently that it has engaged in intelligence sharing with Kurdish fighters and officials have not ruled out future arms transfers to the Kurdish fighters. The PYD is for us, equal to the PKK. It is a terror organization, Erdogan told a group of reporters on his return from a visit to Afghanistan. It would be wrong for the United States - with whom we are friends and allies in NATO - to expect us to say 'yes' to such a support to a terrorist organization, Erdogan said. His comments were reported by the state-run Anadolu agency on Sunday.

Ground Troops K2 Hard PowerHard power is achieved through military threatGray 2011 Gray, Colin. HARD POWER AND SOFT POWER: THE UTILITY OF MILITARY FORCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY IN THE 21ST CENTURY. Strategic Studies Institute. April 2011. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1059.pdf Power is one of the more contestable concepts in political theory, but it is conventional and convenient to define it as the ability to effect the outcomes you want and, if necessary, to change the behavior of others to make this happen. (Joseph S. Nye, Jr.) In recent decades, scholars and commentators have chosen to distinguish between two kinds of power, hard and soft. The former, hard power, is achieved through military threat or use, and by means of economic men- ace or reward. The latter, soft power, is the ability to have influence by co-opting others to share some of ones values and, as a consequence, to share some key elements on ones agenda for international order and security. Whereas hard power obliges its addressees to consider their interests in terms mainly of calcu- lable costs and benefits, principally the former, soft power works through the persuasive potency of ideas that foreigners find attractive. The nominal promise in this logic is obvious. Plainly, it is highly desirable if much of the world external to America wants, or can be brought to want, a great deal of what America hap- pens to favor also. Coalitions of the genuinely willing have to be vastly superior to the alternatives.

American hard power is important to American alliesKaplan 2013, Robert D., The Virtues of Hard Power. Forbes. 22 May 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/Security officials in countries as diverse as Japan and Poland, Vietnam and Romania desperately hope that all this talk about American soft power overtaking American hard power is merely that talk. For it is American warships and ground forces deployments that matter most to these countries and their officials. Indeed, despite the disappointing conclusions to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, rarely before has American hard power been so revered in places that actually matter.

Champion)Briefs))123

Soft power is most effective when backed by hard powerHeritage Foundation 2011 A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Next Wave. Heritage Foundation. 24 August 2011. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism- strategy-for-the-next-waveThe means to implement this strategy will be primarily through hard power and strong bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending free, just, and open societies. Soft power complements hard power and is most effective when Americas friends and enemies know that the U.S. has the will and determination to defend its citizens and values.

Americas ability to project power is essentialKurata 2013, Phillip. Clinton Says Both Hard and Soft Power Needed for Diplomacy. United States of America Embassy. 01 Feb 2013. http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/02/20130201141964.html# axzz3TQuz2mZTShe said that U.S. military and economic strength will remain the foundation of U.S. global leadership, which supports the spread of universal values. American hard power was used to good effect to stop Libyas former dictator Muammar Qadhafi from massacring his people and to hunt down and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, she said. Americas ability to project power all over the globe remains essential, she said. We will ensure freedom of navigation in all the worlds seas. We will relentlessly go after al-Qaida, its affiliates and its wannabes. We will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, she said.

Troops K2 IntelligenceGround troops can be used for essential intelligence gathering-k2 more effective airstrikesBaker 2015, Peter. Obamas Dual View of War Power Seeks Limits and Leeway. New York Times. 11 Feb 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/obama-war- authorization-congress.html?_r=0 At the same time, he left himself some room to refine his past pledge against putting boots on the ground. The proposed measure would rule out enduring offensive ground combat operations. But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr. Obama envisioned the possibility of limited ground action such as rescue operations or the use of Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership. He also said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering, spotting ground targets for airstrikes and planning assistance to ground troops of allies like the Iraqi government.**Troops NeededThe US needs a large force to stop ISILBoot 2015, Max. How ISIS Can Be Defeated. Newsweek. Newsweek, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. .Increase the size of the U.S. force. Military requirements, not a priori numbers dreamed up in Washington, should shape the force eventually dispatched. The current force, even with the recent addition of 1,500 more troops for a total of 2,900, is inadequate. Estimates of necessary troop size range from 10,000 personnel (according to General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command) to 25,000 (according to military analysts Kim and Fred Kagan). The total number should include Special Forces teams and forward air controllers to partner with local forces as well as logistical, intelligence, security, and air contingents in support.

Troops could aid the US in working with Iraqs and Syrias moderate factions against ISILBoo 2015, Max. How ISIS Can Be Defeated. Newsweek. Newsweek, 17 Feb. 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. .Work with all of Iraq's and Syria's moderate factions. The United States should work with the peshmerga, Sunni tribes, the Free Syrian Army and elements of the Iraqi security forces (ISF) that have not been overtaken by Iran's Quds Force, rather than simply supplying weapons to the ISF. Given Shiite militia infiltration, working exclusively through the ISF would risk empowering the Shiite sectarians whose attacks on Sunnis are ISIS's best recruiter. The United States should directly assist Sunni tribes by establishing a small forward operating base in Anbar Province, and also increase support for and coordination with the Free Syrian Army. Current plans to train only 5,000 Syrian fighters next year need to be beefed up.

**The people of the US want troops to be sentCHUMLEY, CHERYL March 2015. Americans Unite: Send U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS. WND. WND Politics, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. .Americans, by a margin of more than 2-1, say the White House and Congress ought to send in the U.S. ground troops against ISIS. Quinnipiac University reported Wednesday that 62 percent of voters wanted the ground troops, versus 30 percent who didnt. By gender, 68 percent of men favored the U.S. military action; 57 percent of women felt similarly. Americans by and large believe U.S. troops could take out the terror group, too. Fully 69 percent are either very confident or somewhat confident in the ability of the United States and its allies to beat ISIS, compared to 39 percent who said sending in the ground troops would go too far in the fight against the terror group. Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: [That's] the resounding hardline message from Americans who say, Dont negotiate with terrorists; destroy them, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll**AT: Iraq 2003**It would be wrong to compare this situation to the invasion of Iraq in 2003Shevardnadze March 2015, Sophie. Americans Have to Die on Battlefield to Destroy ISIS - US Military Strategist. - RT SophieCo. N.p., 16 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015. .No, sadly, this re-invasion of Iraq in 2015 is necessary. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 I think was not just a mistake, but perhaps a biggest mistake the U.S. has ever made in foreign policy. Its a four trillion dollar mistake, it caused enormous damage in the region, to the people of Iraq and certainly to my army and very-very many of my friends. So, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a disaster, a fiasco, unnecessary and poorly conducted. We played the endgame very-very badly and that failure of American foreign policy in 2011 necessitates today America returning to Iraq in force.

ISIS-OilIraq has already had to shut its largest oil refineryJohnson 2014, Keith. ISIS and the Long-Term Threat to Iraqi Oil. Foreign Policy. 17 June 2014. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/isis-and-the-long-term-threat-to-iraqi- oil/The relentless march of Islamist militants south through Iraq is taking a toll on the countrys oil infrastructure, forcing the closure of Iraqs largest oil refinery and sparking fears of an attack on Baghdad itself Iraqi forces in Baghdad braced for the possible arrival of ISIS fighters on Tuesday, June 17, and the southward spread of violent insurgents forced the closure of Iraqs biggest oil refinery and the evacuation of foreign personnel working there. The shutdown and evacuation of the Baiji refinery prompted by fears of ISIS mortar attacks wont directly affect Iraqi oil output, but it does threaten domestic supplies of refined petroleum products.K2 Long Term SolutionWork needs to be done to maintain stability after major military victoriesi24 News March 2015 Iraqi Forces Take Back Strategic Towns in Fight for Tikrit against IS. I24news. N.p., 7 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2015. .But he said the real test would come after the town is recaptured, and how the Iraqi government treats the mostly Sunni population in the area. The important thing about this operation in Tikrit is less about how the military aspect of it goes, and more about what follows, he said. If Sunnis are allowed to return to their homes and feel like the government is following an offensive with reconstruction and humanitarian assistance, then I think we're in a really good place, Dempsey said. But if Sunnis are mistreated or forced out, and if the Baghdad government fails to deliver humanitarian aid, then I think we've got a challenge in the campaign, he said.

Negative**ISIS Losing (AT: Everything)ISIL is being pushed back-prefer this ev, it is the most recent and reliable.Beauchamp March 2015, Zack. ISIS Is Losing. Vox. Vox, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. .If you want to understand what's happening in the Middle East today, you need to appreciate one fundamental fact: ISIS is losing its war for the Middle East. This may seem hard to believe: in Iraq and Syria, the group still holds a stretch of territory larger than the United Kingdom, manned by a steady stream of foreign fighters. Fighters pledging themselves to ISIS recently executed 21 Christians in Libya. It's certainly true that ISIS remains a terrible and urgent threat to the Middle East. The group is not on the verge of defeat, nor is its total destruction guaranteed. But, after months of ISIS expansion and victories, the group is now being beaten back. It is losing territory in the places that matter. Coalition airstrikes have hamstrung its ability to wage offensive war, and it has no friends to turn to for help. Its governance model is unsustainable and risks collapse in the long run. Unless ISIS starts adapting, there's a very good chance its so-called caliphate is going to fall apart

AT: ISIL ThreatISIL was created by the first US invasion of IraqFerran 2015, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. ISIS Trail of Terror. ABC News. ABC News Network, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. .While extremist groups are generally amorphous organizations, ISIS can trace its history directly back to the Sunni terrorist organization al Qaeda, specifically the Iraq faction, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was responsible for scores of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq following the U.S. invasion there. After al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 by an American airstrike, leadership of the group eventually fell to an experienced Iraqi fighter, Abu Dua, better known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who had once been in U.S. custody in Iraq.

ISIL has become more motivated to attack the US as US involvement has increasedFerran 2015, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. ISIS Trail of Terror. ABC News. ABC News Network, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. .Though al-Baghdadi had threatened the U.S. in general before, ISIS primarily focused its attention on its regional ambitions prior to the U.S.-led bombing campaign. But as the U.S. and others continue to bombard ISIS targets, the group has repeatedly called on its followers in Western nations to conduct deadly attacks at home. One of the gunmen in a dual terror attack in Paris in January 2015 claimed that he was part of ISIS, though the other shooters in that attack were linked to an al Qaeda affiliate. Days after the Paris incident, authorities in the U.S. announced they had arrested an Ohio man and ISIS supporter who planned to bomb the U.S. Capitol. In addition to the so-called self-radicalized ISIS supporters, Western intelligence agencies are concerned about those who travel to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS before coming back home. The battlefields in Iraq and Syria provide foreign fighters with combat experience, weapons and explosives training, and access to terrorist networks that may be planning attacks which target the West, Rasmussen said in February 2015.The military cannot solve the issue of ISILThompson, Mark 2014. Why the U.S. Won't Buckle Under ISIS Pressure. Time. Time, 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. .That said, horror isnt the only way to win an asymmetric war: sometimes the points non-state actors want to make are as much political as military, and through their patience and resolve they can prevail over stronger foes. Weve been going after terrorist networks in that part of the world for more than a decade, with very good success, Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday. The real measure of success is that their ideology is ultimately defeated, and the only way thats going to be done is through good governance. And weve said that time and again, but I think its worth repeating. Theres not going to be a military solution to this.

ISIL wants a US invasion, it will gain them more supportMamouri, Ali. IS Eager to Confront US Ground Forces in Iraq - Al-Monitor: The Pulse of the Middle East. Al-Monitor. Al-Monitor, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. .IS appears to be planning, or hoping, to challenge the United States in a ground fight in the vast areas of Iraq and Syria. IS believes that no matter how strong and numerous US regular forces are, they will not be able to win against its trained irregular fighters who have been confronting Iraqi forces in northwestern Iraq. The organization wants a repeat of the battle of Fallujah in 2004, when the United States failed to overwhelm the militia fighters in the city and lost a number of Marines before retreating. With the quantitative and qualitative progress it has made, IS envisions causing even greater losses among US troops. Direct participation by US forces in a war against IS would be used to provide legitimacy to IS propaganda portraying the fighting as evidence of the ongoing Western crusade against Islam. This could help the group mobilize more supporters in majority Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in the West. It could also help expand the combat zone by activating IS cells to carry out attacks in the West and eventually lead Western states to withdraw from the region, enabling IS to impose its will.

**AirstrikesUS airstrikes cant be countered militarilyThompson, Mark 2014. Why the U.S. Won't Buckle Under ISIS Pressure. Time. Time, 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. .Over the past month, the U.S. military has launched more than 100 air strikes against ISIS targets in northern Iraq. While U.S. officials have publicly justified the attacks on humanitarian groundsas well as protecting U.S. intereststhey also have obliterated dozens of ISIS vehicles and checkpoints, and those manning them. There is no way ISIS can counter U.S. air strikes. It has no air force and apparently has few, if any, anti- aircraft weapons. Its ground forces, once identified, are easy targets for American laser- and GPS-guided bombs and missiles. Unable to thwart the attacks, ISIS has tried to derail them by murdering a pair of journalists it was holding in captivity. The first, James Foley, a freelance reporter for the GlobalPost website, was allegedly killed by a black-clad man speaking with an English accent in a video released Aug. 19. ISIS released a second video 14 days later, purportedly showing the same man murdering Sotloff, who had freelanced for Time.

**American hard power is best achieved by airstrikesKaplan 2013, Robert D., The Virtues of Hard Power. Forbes. 22 May 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/ Soft power became a trendy concept in the immediate wake of Americas military overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan. But soft power was properly meant as a critical accompaniment to hard power and as a shift in emphasis away from hard power, not as a replacement for it. Hard power is best employed not when America invades a country with its ground troops but when it daily projects military might over vast swaths of the earth, primarily with air and naval assets, in order to protect U.S. allies, world trade and a liberal maritime order. American hard power, thus, must never go out of fashion.

KurdsThe Kurds are the best opponent to ISIS.Bender March 2015, Jeremy. The World-Class Kurdish Army That Could Beat Back Iraq's Jihadists. Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 17 June 2014. Web. 05 Mar. 2015. .As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Sunni extremist militants quickly gain territory in Iraq, the Kurdish Security Forces are increasing their own operations in an attempt to shelter Iraqi Kurdistan from war. The Kurdish forces, known as Peshmerga, have proven themselves to be the most effective bulwark so far against ISIS's blitz. The Peshmerga, whose name is Kurdish for those who face death, have helped to limit ISIS's incursions towards Baghdad from the north. At the same time, the Kurds have also seized oil-rich Kirkuk, known as the Kurdish Jerusalem, which is formally outside of the autonomous Kurdish Region in Iraq. The Peshmerga's [Kurds] numbers, dedication, and discipline make them possibly the strongest fighting force in Iraq.

Champion)Briefs))97

AT: Hard PowerTerrorism is an ideology that cannot be beat with hard powerEl-Said 2015, Hamed. In Defence of Soft Power: Why the war on terror will never win. Newstateman. 24 Feb 2015. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/defence-soft-power-why-war- terror-will-never-win Some Western countries have recently ramped up security measures in response to some terrorist acts. This will neither make us safer nor answer the important, still unanswered question of what led some individuals to choose a nihilistic view of life in Western societies. Arresting somebody or cancelling his or her passports will also not prevent new attacks, nor will it explain why such attacks were attempted in the first place. As Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D.-Hawaii), and an Iraq combat veteran, stated: This war cannot be won, this enemy and threat cannot be defeated unless we understand whats driving them, what is their ideology. That we have not done.

AT: IntelligenceDrones are more effective than ground troops and minimize the risk of American FatalitiesBackman 2013, Daniel E. Should the United States Use Drones for Military Operations? The Harvard Crimson. 15 February 2013. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/15/Roundtable-Drones/?page=1In this sense drones have been necessary in justifying the War on Terror. Abroad, they have also served various military objectives. As they do not require congressional approval to be launched, drones give the executive branch unilateral direction in ordering and carrying out attacks on targets. The military has pushed for an increase in the use of drones instead of ground troops, members of whom have brought public relations stains to the army by burning Korans and publicly urinating on corpses. In relation to boots on the ground, drones are superior to troops for two main reasons: they are more effective and they minimize the risk of American fatalities.

US Intervention ScrewIf American ground troops go to fight ISIL, it will incite more terrorists to enter the regionNewell 2015, Jim. ISIS ground war insanity: GOP hopefuls and a new poll frighten. Salon. 20 Feb 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/20/isis_ground_war_insanity_gop_hopefuls_and_ a_new_poll_frighten/If a politician really thinks that the United States needs to send in ground troops to stop ISIS from consolidating power and spreading, go ahead and make the arguments, but dont assume that it will be easy to prevent from escalating in troop numbers and duration. How will victory be defined? Especially since, just as happened in the Iraq war, terrorists worldwide are going to flock to the front lines as soon as the Americans show up, to get a piece of the action. Et cetera and so on. List the worst- case scenario for such a war. And then lets see how it polls.US ground forces can be used as propaganda to recruit more supporters for ISIL Mamouri 2015, Ali. ISIS Eager to Confront US Ground Forces in Iraq. Al Monitor. 4 March 2015. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iraq-islamic-state-ain- al-asad-us-ground-forces.html#Direct participation by US forces in a war against IS would be used to provide legitimacy to IS propaganda portraying the fighting as evidence of the ongoing Western crusade against Islam. This could help the group mobilize more supporters in majority Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in the West. It could also help expand the combat zone by activating IS cells to carry out attacks in the West and eventually lead Western states to withdraw from the region, enabling IS to impose its will.

Updates April 8thAffirmativeBest InterestGround troops are in the best interest of the US, citizens prove.NBC News 2014 (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/more-americans-back-u-s-ground-troops-isis-fight-n225721 The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Oct. 8-12 of 1,000 registered voters including 350 cell phone-only respondents and another 41 who were reached on a cell phone but who also have a landline and it has a margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.)More Americans now say that they believe U.S. military action against ISIS should include American combat troops on the ground, according to a newNBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll. Forty-one percent of respondents believe both troops on the ground and airstrikes are necessary for the mission against ISIS, versus 35 percent who think it should be restricted to airstrikes; another 15 percent say no military action should be taken. Thats a reversal from the NBC/WSJ poll in September, when 40 percent wanted just airstrikes and 34 wanted both airstrikes and combat troops. The seven-point increase in those also wanting U.S. ground troops has been fueled mostly by groups that make up the GOP base. More self-described Republicans (up 14 points), men over 50 years old (up 18), white men (up 17) and seniors (up 10) now advocate for troops on the ground in the fight against the terror group. Theres been virtually no change since September among Democrats, young people, and white women. About six in 10 Americans say that the military actions against ISIS are in the national interest of the United States, and only 16 percent disagree. That number is virtually unchanged in the past six weeks. A majority of Americans disapprove of the job President Barack Obama is doing of handling the ISIS situation. Fifty-five percent of respondents (including about a third of Democrats) gave him a thumbs down, while just 37 percent approve.

Deployment of ground troops is growing public supportPianin March 3 (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/04/Most-Americans-Want-Obama-Send-Ground-Troops-Battle-ISIS Eric Pianin is the Washington Editor and D.C. bureau chiefofThe Fiscal Times. A veteran journalist who spent over 25 years as an editor and reporter forThe Washington Post, he has covered D.C. government, congressional budget and tax issues, environmental policy, homeland security and national politics.)Public support appears to be growing for a greatly enhanced U.S. role in combatting ISIS jihadists. A new Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday shows that Americans by a margin of two-to-one now support deploying more U.S. ground troops to fight and destroy the terror group. Sixty-two percent of those surveyed across the country said they favor sending in ground troops compared with 30 percent who oppose it. Moreover, nearly 70 percent say they are very confident or somewhat confident that the U.S. and its European and Middle Eastern allies will eventually prevail over ISIS. The U.S. currently has about 2,300 troops in Iraq, but they are primarily providing security and advice to the Iraqi government while staying far away from the fighting. President Obama for the time being has ruled out the deployment of more ground troops to that region, fearing that he might lead the U.S. back into another quagmire in Iraq and the surrounding region, after spending years trying to wind down the war. His central strategy for months has been to combine U.S. air strikes against ISIS strongholds with helping to train and arm Iraqi military and friendly militias in Iraq and Syria to carry the fight to the terrorists. However, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified that they would recommend to the president putting more U.S. boots on the ground if they concluded the conditions warranted it. Some influential congressional Republicans, including Armed Services Committee Chair John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a potential 2016 presidential candidate and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, insist that that the U.S. cannot prevail in the conflict without a substantial commitment of ground forces to root out and destroy the powerful terrorists. According to the new survey, many Americans agree with the Republicans that a major deployment of U.S. ground troops is unavoidable. Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: the resounding hardline message from Americans who say, Don't negotiate with terrorists; destroy them, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a statement. A breakdown of the poll shows men back the deployment of U.S. troops in that region by 68 percent to 28 percent, while women favor it 57 percent to 33 percent. Only 39 percent of voters are concerned that U.S. military action will go too far in committing the U.S. to long term fighting in the Middle East, while 53 percent are more concerned that the U.S. military will not go far enough in stopping ISIS. Public support has grown for an all-out U.S. offensive against the terrorist groups amid horrifying reports of mass beheadings and widespread killing of civilians and military opponents by ruthless and heavily armed ISIS forces. Fears of a renewal of 9/11 style attacks against the U.S. have also grown following a rash of terrorist attacks in France, Denmark, Australia and Canada inspired by radical Islamic organizations. While Secretary of State John F. Kerry and other senior administration officials contend that the U.S. and its allies are making progress in what is certain to be a long-term battle, its far from clear that the U.S. can count on any indigenous ground forces to take the fight to ISIS, other than perhaps the peshmerga military forces of the Kurds. Iraqi government forces allied with the U.S. are waging what is certain to be an uphill and lengthy fight to reclaim the northern city of Takrit from the ISIS military Iraqs most ambitious effort to date to try to drive out ISIS occupying forces in the country. However, the assault could likely morph into a lengthy urban war of attrition with no clear cut resolution, The Washington Post reported yesterday. Securing the majority Sunni Takrit, the home of the late dictator Saddam Hussein, is crucial for the Iraqi army to prepare for an offensive to eventually liberate the the northern city of Mosul from the ISIS. The U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, which oversees the military coalition fight against ISIS in Iraq, recently inexplicably held a press conference to outline the size and makeup of a force that the U.S. hopes will be ready for the offensive within the coming month or two to retake Mosul from an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 ISIS fighters. The public press briefing tipping off the enemy to the governments plans caught the president and the defense secretary by surprise and was subsequently retracted. According to the new Quinnipiac poll, voters say 64 percent to 23 percent that Congress should grant the authorization requested by President Barack Obama to use military force against ISIS. Yet nearly seven months after Obama sent the military back into combat to take on Islamic State, few in Congress appear enthusiastic about drafting a new war powers act to provide the president with expanded authority. Republicans for the most part think the presidents request for war-making powers are too weak and inadequate to get the job done, while many Democrats believe Obama went too far in seeking new authority to replace ground rules set a decade ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It does not seem to have resonated with anyone, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and a member of the Intelligence Committee, recently told The New York Times. I havent found any colleague whos been enthusiastic about it. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, told The Fiscal Timesrecently he felt there was no need to rush the deliberations. Corker said he planned to hold extensive hearings to explore whether the presidents current strategy in Iraq and Syria made sense or needed to be altered. Only after that will he begin to look at the presidents proposed force authorization.

53% of Americans agree-ground troops neededYou Gov March 2015 (https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/03/09/support-ground-troops-isis-fight/)ISIS may be the most immediate and serious threat Americans perceive in the world: twice as many people see it that way as say that about Iran, Russia or even al Qaeda. The latest Economist/YouGov Poll, completed before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus Tuesday address to Congress, finds a public united across party lines in the seriousness of the threat they see from ISIS, and even a willingness if necessary to commit U.S. troops to oppose it. Republicans and Democrats agree on the seriousness of the threat from Isis (Republicans are more concerned about Iran and al Qaeda, and somewhat more concerned about Russia). But the parties are less similar when it comes to the use of force, a pattern seen on questions about other recent military engagements. Democrats are divided evenly; Republicans support ground troops three to one. Very few just 13% -- would rule out the use of ground troops against ISIS entirely. More who oppose sending ground troops now think it should still be kept as an option. One reason 53% of Americans say they support the use of U.S. ground troops against ISIS may be that they see no alternative. Less than one in four believe the U.S. can fight ISIS effectively through air strikes only. Democrats are a little more hopeful, but not much: 28% of Democrats think air strikes alone can be effective, compared with only 18% of Republicans. There may be other reasons for party differences: with perceptions of Islam and the damage that ISIS has caused. Republicans are far more likely to describe Islam as more violent than other religions, and overwhelmingly think Muslims around the world are more sympathetic to the terrorists in the war against terrorism than they are to think they sympathize more with the United States. The differences are not due to a lack of familiarity. Republicans are just as likely as Democrats to know someone who is a Muslim. About a third in each party know a Muslim (independents are even more likely than those who identify with either party to say they know a Muslim; that is partly due to the fact that half of those under the age of 30 know someone, and the youngest adults are least likely to identify with either party). But Republicans who know a person who practices Islam are just as negative about the religion and about the sympathies of those who practice it around the world as those Republicans who do not. Another difference is that Republicans are more likely by nearly two to one -- to see ISIS attacks as harming Christians even more than they have harmed fellow Muslims. While there have been recent attacks on Christians by ISIS, the group has spent much more time fighting with other Muslims. Many Americans of both parties are aware that there are Muslim countries in the anti-ISIS coalition, but about half the public doesnt know this. On the question of ISIS, Americans seem to agree with President Obama. It is, according to this poll, the severe threat that he has described. The public would support the use of ground troops if it became necessary. But the President continues to experience doubts from the public when it comes to assessing his performance on this issue. Only 38% approve of how he is handling the situation, and when it comes to foreign policy in general, Americans continue -- narrowly -- to disapprove.PoliticsGround Troops are politically popularEhley 2014 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/28/Boehner-Says-Defeating-ISIS-Means-Using-Ground-Troops A journalist based in Washington, D.C., Brianna Ehley covers health care, tax and economic policy, government agencies and Congress for The Fiscal Times. She has previously covered Illinois state government for The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and breaking news for ReutersHouse Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) didnt mince words in a new interview that aired this morning on ABCs This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The top Republican lawmaker in Washington said that if President Obamas airstrikes against ISIS fail to defeat the terror group and he thinks they will fail the U.S. will need to send in ground troops. At some point somebodys boots have to be on the ground, Boehner said. He added that instead of training Syrian rebels and relying on other countries, those boots would likely have to be Americans. We have no choice. These are barbarians. They intend to kill us and if we dont destroy them first, were going to pay the price. The Obama administration has for weeks insisted it will not put U.S. troops on the ground and engage in another long ground war in the Middle East. Instead, the focus in the ISIS battle has been the airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition which now includes the U.K, Denmark and Belgium as well as training and equipping moderate Syrian rebels. White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken on Sunday applauded the airstrike effort in Syria. He added that the Syrian rebel forces will not only play a key role in fighting ISIS but also in facing the Assad regime. The moderate opposition is key to both being a counterweight on the ground to [ISIS], and then, over time, also being a counterweight to Assad, Blinken said. Boehner and others, however, have questioned the effectiveness of the rebels in the fight against the terror group. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told CNN, I dont think we have a partner in the Free Syrian Army who ultimately can win that fight militarily, so I worry you get sucked into a long-term conflict. Lawmakers have also been critical of the president for not sending any proposal for war authorizations to Capitol Hill. Though Congress left Washington last week to campaign for the midterm elections, Boehner said if the president asked, he would call them back immediately. The president typically in a situation like this would call for an authorization vote and go sell that to the American people and send a resolution to the Hill, he said. The president has not done that. On the campaign trail, foreign policy has also taken center stage. The National Republican Congressional Committee, for example, hasnt wasted any time in airing ads attacking the presidents ISIS strategy. Americans are watching the issue closely. A Washington Post poll from earlier this month found that 71 percent of Americans support U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. The same poll found that a majority of respondents believe Obama has been too cautious in the fight against ISIS.Ground Troops Ground Troops are neededRiyadh April 7 http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/07/Why-Only-Ground-Forces-Can-Truly-Destroy-ISIS n Iraqi multimedia investigative journalist who covered the Iraq war, corruption and ISIS for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Mashable and Media Alliance, he also produced documentaries for Way Press International.Over the past week in the Middle East, watching several key cities change hands from government forces to rebel groups and vice versa was like seeing a ping pong match. What this demonstrates is a military rule that has been ignored during the last few decades of technological advancements in aircraft, missiles, satellites and drones: Ultimately, battles are won by troops on the ground. Its true that air strikes can destroy supply lines, drones can target munitions depots, and satellites can identify terrorist training camps. But collateral damage is a huge concern in overcrowded citiesthe very cities where the fighting is taking place. So before people declare mission accomplished because they took out a caravan of trucks carrying weapons to ISIS, they must understand the area and logistics. And air attacks alone simply wont do the job. NegativeCanada SolvesCanada Solves now-sending airstrikes, ground troopsThe Hill Wednesday 4/8 http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/238294-canada-conducts-first-airstrike-in-syriaCanada conducted its first airstrike in Syria on Wednesday, after its government voted last week to expand its mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and extend it for another year. This first airstrike under the expanded mandate demonstrates our Government's firm resolve to tackle the threat of terrorism against Canada and to promote international security and stability," said Minister of National Defence Jason Kenney in a statement. The strike was conducted by two Canadian CF-18 Hornets, using precision guided munitions, against an ISIS garrison near Ar-Raqqah. A total of 10 coalition aircraft, including six from the U.S., were involved in the strike, according to Canada's Department of National Defence. The CAFs first airstrike against ISIL in Syria has been successfully completed," added Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson. "Canadians can be proud of the work that their Canadian Armed Forces are doing, and the contribution they are making to coalition efforts. Canada began conducting airstrikes in Iraq in October and began training peshmerga fighters in September. Although the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands are also conducting airstrikes in Iraq, Canada is the only NATO member other than the U.S. to conduct strikes in Syria. Members of Parliament voted last week to support a Conservative government motion to expand Ca