public forum debate research series vol. 6 april 2015 … · 1 public forum debate research series...

1

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE RESEARCH SERIES

VOL. 6 APRIL 2015 NO. 7

RESOLVED: COMMITTING UNITED STATES GROUND COMBAT TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIL IS IN THE

BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

The group known as ISIS or ISIL seems determined to gain international attention with ever more shockingexamples of its brutality. President Obama offered the following summary of their actions:

ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughterof all who stand in its way. In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists areunique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rapeand force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in actsof barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. SoISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East, includingAmerican citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose agrowing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. (New York Times, Sept. 11,2014, Nexis)

The ISIL fighters are trying to define themselves as a religious movement; their motto is “repent or die.” They havereleased videos depicting the beheadings of Christians. But ISIL’s brutality is also directed against followers of Islam.Jay Bookman, writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, argues that we should not characterize ISIL’s challenge as afight between Islam and Christianity:

But consider the following: In this supposed holy war, ISIS has killed many more Muslimsthan Christians. The ratio of Muslim to Christian victims is probably in the range of 1,000 Muslimsfor every Christian. Muslims have fought harder against ISIS, have killed many more ISISmembers, and have suffered many more casualties against ISIS, than have Americans and otherWesterners. Every Muslim government in the region is a bitter foe of ISIS. ISIS terrorists haveburned a Jordanian pilot, a devout Muslim, alive in a cage. They have killed thousands of Muslimgirls and women in "honor killings." They crucify --- literally --- members of rival groups for the sinof being too "moderate." The Arab League has condemned ISIS for its "crimes against humanity."Ahmed al-Tayeb, grand imam of the al-Azhar mosque in Cairo and the most powerful religiousleader in Sunni Islam, describes ISIS as satanic. The International Association of MuslimScholars condemns it as an "extremist organization (that) does not represent Islam in any wayand its actions always harm Islam." (Feb. 22, 2015, p. 18A)

ISIL has made itself the enemy of almost every government in the Middle East. The question, however, is whetherany of those governments have the military power or the political will to stop ISIL’s expansion across the region. TheUnited States has already begun an active campaign of air strikes against ISIL, but some military experts believe thatonly “boots on the ground” can stop ISIL. The April Public Forum topic asks whether it should be the United States toinsert these ground forces.

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO STOP HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Public Forum debaters will need to understand two major international frameworks for addressing serious humanrights abuses. The first is the Genocide Convention and the second is the “Responsibility to Protect” compact (R2P).

The Genocide Convention, technically entitled The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The Convention entered into force in 1951 and currentlyhas 142 signatory nations. The major motivation for the Genocide Convention was the international revulsion at NaziHolocaust. The phrase, “never again,” reportedly came from hand made signs held up by surviving members of theinmates at the Buchenwald concentration camp, when it was liberated in April of 1945. The world adopted the slogan“never again” as the catch phrase connected to the pledge in the Genocide Convention.

The Genocide Convention defines “genocide” as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, inwhole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; ( b) Causingserious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of lifecalculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births

2

within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Though the United States was actively involved in crafting the language of the Genocide Convention, it did not fullyratify the Convention until 1988 with the Senate passage of the Proxmire Act. When it ratified the GenocideConvention, the United States accepted the responsible under Article 1 of that document “to prevent genocide” – “aduty that rests upon all parties and is a duty owed by each party to every other.”

The second major international framework for addressing serious human rights abuses is the “Responsibility toProtect” framework (R2P). When former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan left office in 1999, he was profoundlytroubled by the UN failure to halt the mass killings in Rwanda and Kosovo. He posed the question: “If humanitarianintervention is an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to gross and systematic violations ofhuman rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?” The Canadian government took Annan’s challengeimmediately to heart, and established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. That groupproduced a framework that eventually (in 2005) achieved unanimous acceptance by the UN General Assembly as theway to properly balance national sovereignty against the responsibility to prevent human rights abuses. Gareth Evans,the co-chair of the Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, explained this breakthrough in his 2008 book,The Responsibility to Protect:

Throughout the decade, a fierce argument raged between, on the one hand, advocates of"humanitarian intervention"—the doctrine that there was a "right to intervene" militarily in thesecases, against the will of the government of the country in question—and, on the other hand,defenders of the traditional prerogatives of state sovereignty, who insisted that internal eventswere none of the rest of the world's business. There was ample room, conceptually, to findcommon ground between these extremes, but no one seemed able to locate or articulate it: theverbal trench warfare, in the UN General Assembly and elsewhere, became ever more intense,and the inability to agree on an appropriate response to each of these situations as they arosebecame ever more frustrating and damaging. The breakthrough came with the emergence in2001 of the concept of the responsibility to protect and its subsequent unanimous embrace by theGeneral Assembly, meeting at head of state and government level, in 2005. This turned "right tointervene" language on its head, focusing not on any rights of the great and powerful to throwtheir weight around but rather on the responsibility of all states to meet the needs of the utterlypowerless. In the first instance, the responsibility to protect a country's people from mass atrocitycrimes lay with its own government; but if it proved unable or unwilling to do so, a widerresponsibility lay with other members of the international community to assist preventively and, ifnecessary, react effectively. (pp. 2-3)

Importantly, the R2P Framework calls upon all nations to take action to protect human rights within those nationsthat fail in their responsibility to protect human rights. One Canadian group involved in the development of the R2Pframework, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, characterizes this internationalresponsibility as a “willingness to intervene” (W2I) – through both “soft” (economic measures, education, etc.) and“hard” (military) interventions.

REALISM VERSUS IDEALISM IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

Should the foreign policy of the United States be governed primarily by idealism or by realism? Should it be ourobligation to ensure the human rights of people, regardless of their nationality? Or should we instead resign ourselvesto the fact that we will never be able to right all wrongs beyond our borders? Essentially, this is a conflict between aphilosophy of cosmopolitanism and a political philosophy called realism. The Stoics were the first to refer explicitly tothemselves as cosmopolitans, seeking to replace the polis in ancient political thought with that of the cosmos in whichhuman beings could live in harmony. The basic idea of classical cosmopolitanism involves the notion that each personis “a citizen of the world” and owes a duty, above all to the worldwide community of human beings. The main point ofStoic philosophers contained a most significant idea: that they were, in the first instance, human beings living in aworld of human beings and only incidentally members of polities (that we today would call nations). The boundaries ofpolities were understood by the Stoics to be historically arbitrary and most often the result of coercion and violence.Borders obscured the common circumstances of humankind and thus, could not have the moral significance frequentlyclaimed for them.

Cosmopolitanism is based on the notion that each human being is equally worthy regardless of the nation, ethnicgroup, or gender to which he or she belongs. This view also forms the basis of much of the eighteenth centuryphilosopher Immanuel Kant’s work. Kant not only accepted the notion of egalitarian individualism espoused by theStoics, but be also claimed that nations have the moral duty to the same moral standards as individuals. Most of theglobal regimes, laws, and regulations associated with a global community are heavily influenced by Kant and theStoics. David Held, professor of political science at the London School of Economics, writing in the 2002 book,Governing Globalization, makes the point clearly:

The human rights commitment to the equal worth of all human beings finds reinforcement in the

3

acknowledgment of the necessity of a minimum of civilized conduct and of specific limits to violence found inthe laws of war and weapons diffusion; in the commitment to the principles of the Nuremberg and Tokyo warcrimes tribunals (1945-6 and 1946-8), the Torture Convention (in 1984) and the statutes of the InternationalCriminal Court (in 1998) which outlaw genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; in the growingrecognition of democracy as the fundamental standard of political legitimacy which finds entrenchment in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and regional treaties; in the development of new codes of conduct forgovernmental and international non-governmental organizations, concerning the transparency andaccountability of their activities; and in the unprecedented flurry of regional and global initiatives, regimes,institutions, networks, and treaties seeking to tackle global warming, ozone depletion, the pollution of oceansand rivers, and nuclear risks, among many other factors.”

In direct opposition to the notion of universal moralism articulated by cosmopolitan philosophers is the philosophyof political realism, or simply realism. It is the oldest perspective on international affairs. It traces its roots toThuycydides, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. The realist interpretation of international affairs makes several basicassumptions about the nature of international affairs. Because it assumes that the international system is anarchic andhas no supreme political authority, realism regards the state or nation as the principal actor(s) in international affairs.The nation-state is said to be sovereign and not subordinate to any temporal power.

The essence of international realism is its belief in the primacy of nation-states’ self interest over moral principle.Thus, for the realist, pursuing national self interest is the only moral obligation of the nation-state. The state is an agentof the people in its jurisdiction. It exists to serve their interests and to protect their welfare. The absence of any centralorder-enforcing power means that moral rules and ethical restraints are neither enforced nor enforceable. Since ethicalrestraints are not enforced in this environment, they lose their binding character. Realists often speak in terms ofnecessity. They claim that international conditions compel states to defend their interests. Since there is no objective,central authority enforcing moral rules, there are always states that act in an immoral or self-interested fashion. Anation that allows itself to be ruled by moral absolutes is always at an extreme disadvantage when other states don’tplay by moral rules but continually seek their own advantage. Because the very existence of the state is predicated onits duty to protect the interests and rights of its people, it would be immoral for the state to act in a way that underminedthose rights and interests.

Realists claim that any morality must be based on what is realistically possible. From their perspective, Kant’sideas are fatally flawed because they do not conform with the ways states function in a world without a centralauthority. For the realist, state sovereignty is the only way a state can protect itself from domination by stronger states.That is why all international law has state sovereignty as its foremost rule. From the realist perspective, what wecommonly refer to as “global human rights” is nothing more than a dominant country like the United States pursuing itsown interests. This is so because there is no impartial and nondiscriminatory institution for enforcing global rules.Should the United States attempt to become the world’s police force, or should we simply accept a reality that theUnited States cannot right every wrong in the world?

ANALYSIS OF THE TOPIC

Debaters will need to carefully consider the wording of the resolution: “Resolved: Committing United States groundcombat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States.” This resolution suggests a few analyticalquestions:

What is meant by the term “United States ground combat troops?” This question is not as simple as it seems. TheUnited States already has thousands of military personnel in Iraq. Trudy Rubin described the distinction between thesemilitary personnel and “ground combat troops:”

The hottest issue: whether the United States will return "ground troops" to Iraq, with someRepublicans urging this on and many Democrats aghast. Obama is opposed (along with the bulkof the U.S. public) and says the fighting should be done by Iraqi forces and moderate Syrianrebels. But what exactly are U.S. "ground troops"? There are already 3,000 new U.S. "advisers"in Iraq. The big question is whether some U.S. special forces or intelligence officials should beembedded with forward Kurdish or Iraqi units, to help call in airstrikes and boost local fighters.Even Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) isn't calling for the return of U.S. infantry units, and anyway,the Iraqi government doesn't want them. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 25, 2014, Nexis)

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, offers the following justification for shifting the role ofU.S. forces in the region:

Obama has not allowed U.S. Special Forces and forward air controllers to embed themselvesin the Free Syrian Army, Iraqi security forces, Kurdish peshmerga, or in Sunni tribes when theygo into combat as he did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. This lack of eyes on theground makes it harder to call in air strikes and to improve the combat capacity of U.S. proxies.Experience shows that "combat advisers" fighting alongside indigenous troops are far more

4

effective than trainers confined to large bases. (Newsweek, Feb. 17, 2015, http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-can-be-defeated-307423)

PRO STRATEGIES

There are a number of excellent strategies available to PRO debaters on this topic. The first PRO strategy focuseson the terrorist threat to United States national security. ISIL has made it abundantly clear that it intends to strike in theUnited States. In one of the videos depicting the beheading of a U.S. journalist, the terrorist leader says to Americans,“we will drown all of you in blood” (USA Today, Sept. 8, 2014, p. 10A). Does this group have the resources to carry outsuch a threat? ISIL has properly been characterized as the richest terrorist organization in history. Osama bin Ladenfinanced al-Qaeda’s operation with a few million dollars from his personal family wealth. Yet ISIL has fully taken overthe assets of banks in cities that it has conquered – it reportedly took $400 million from a single bank in Mosul. EdRoyce, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, says that this group now has assets in the billions of dollars:“ISIS is on the march. Despite some battlefield setbacks in Iraq, the Islamist terrorist group remains unchallenged inSyria and holds sway over an area the size of Great Britain. The group has seized an estimated $2 billion in assets, astunning sum, and its recruits continue to flow in” (Orange County Register, Feb. 22, 2015, Nexis).

ISIL also has accumulated thousands of dedicated fighters holding legal passports from almost all Western nationsincluding the United States, England, and France. The combination of almost unlimited assets and terrorists with easyaccess to entry into the United States adds up to a major threat to U.S. national security. Senator John McCainexplains the threat as follows:

ISIS is now one of the largest, richest terrorist organizations in history. It occupies a growingsafe haven the size of Indiana spanning two countries in the heart of the Middle East, and itsranks are filled with thousands of radicals holding Western passports, including some Americans.They require nothing more than a plane ticket to travel to United States cities. This is why thesecretary of homeland security has called Syria ''a matter of homeland security.'' His warningsabout ISIS have been echoed by the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and,now, the secretary of defense. Americans need to know that ISIS is not just a problem for Iraqand Syria. It is a threat to the United States. Doing too little to combat ISIS has been a problem.Doing less is certainly not the answer now. (New York Times, Aug. 30, 2014, p. A21)

The second PRO strategy focuses on the U.S. obligation under the Genocide Convention. Ahsarq Alasat, theleading English language Arab daily newspaper, offers the following description of genocide at the hands of ISIL:

In October, the bodies of around 150 members of the Albunimr tribe were discovered in amass gravesite near Ramadi, with another 48 discovered in Hit. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat inNovember, one of the members of the prominent tribe said ISIS had a "hit-list" of names ofpeople from the tribe it wished to assassinate, and was now carrying out a "policy of genocide"against its members. (Jan. 12, 2015, Nexis)

The final PRO strategy emphasizes the U.S. responsibility as a party to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)Framework. Diane Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee (in the 113th Congress), offered the followingassessment of ISIL’s brutality:

I recognize the reluctance of many Americans to engage in another war in the Middle East.But it is imperative that every American is fully cognizant of how dangerous and deadly ISISreally is. First, ISIS is utterly ruthless in its fighting and governance. Last month, a United Nationshuman rights panel report described the many crimes against humanity ISIS commits on a dailybasis. The report notes that "executions in public spaces have become a common spectacle." Intotal, the U.N. reports at least 693 child casualties at the hands of ISIS this year. And at least2,250 women and children are currently detained by the group. ISIS has killed, enslaved andcaptured thousands in its efforts at ethnic cleansing, including the Yazidis in Sinjar and theTurkmen in Amerli. Overall, more than a million Iraqis have been displaced. Sadly, these statisticsare just the tip of the iceberg because it is nearly impossible to get a full accounting of the extentof ISIS' brutality on the ground in Iraq and Syria. There are likely thousands of more stories ofsuffering -- of public lashings, rape, abductions, torture and genocidal acts -- that have yet to beproved. (USA Today, Sept. 8, 2014, p. 10A)

CON STRATEGIES

There are also a large number of excellent strategies available to CON teams on this topic. The first strategyargues that the insertion of U.S. ground troops will be counterproductive. A strong case can be made that it was theinsertion of U.S. ground forces in Iraq that actually created ISIL. Consider the following account from Audrey KurthCronin, professor of international affairs at George Mason University:

5

ISIS came into being thanks to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In its earliest incarnation, itwas just one of a number of Sunni extremist groups fighting U.S. forces and attacking Shiitecivilians in an attempt to foment a sectarian civil war. At that time, it was called al Qaeda in Iraq(AQI), and its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had pledged allegiance to bin Laden. Zarqawi waskilled by a U.S. air strike in 2006, and soon after, AQI was nearly wiped out when Sunni tribesdecided to partner with the Americans to confront the jihadists. But the defeat was temporary;AQI renewed itself inside U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, where insurgents and terrorist operativesconnected and formed networks—and where the group’s current chief and self-proclaimed caliph,Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, first distinguished himself as a leader. (Foreign Affairs, Mar/Apr 2015,http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143043/audrey-kurth-cronin/isis-is-not-a-terrorist-group)

The second CON strategy argues that while “boots on the ground” may be necessary, those “boots” should comefrom Arab countries. Patrick Buchanan asks why the United States should be leading the fight against ISIL versus thecountries in the region: “Though the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds may be able to provide those troops to retakeMosul, neither the Turks nor any other Arab nation has volunteered the troops to defeat ISIS in Syria. And if the Turksand Sunni Arabs are unwilling to put boots on the ground in Syria, why should we? Why should America, half a worldaway, have to provide those troops rather than nations that are more immediately threatened and have armies near athand? Why is defeating 30,000 ISIS jihadists our job, and not theirs?” (Tulsa World, Feb. 7, 2015, Nexis).

The final CON strategy argues that while defeating ISIL is important, U.S. air strikes will be sufficient to the task.ISIL is now in retreat rather than in advance, primarily because Iraqi forces have combined with U.S. air strikes toproduce military successes. Vivian Salama describes this success in the Huffington Post: “Since the American aerialcampaign began, Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, backed by U.S. airstrikes, have retaken the strategic Mosul Dam,along with several small towns. French reconnaissance planes left from al-Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirateson Monday as part of France's commitment to provide aerial support to the Iraqi government” (Nov. 17, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/iraq-foreign-troops_n_5835706.html)

A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE PROPER USE OF BAYLOR BRIEFS IN PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

The PRO and CON cases in public forum debate must be presented in only a few minutes. Since the emphasis inpublic forum debate is on persuasive delivery for the lay person, you would never want to try to speak more rapidly inorder to pack more arguments or quotations into the few minutes available in your speeches. Most successful publicforum teams won’t use more than six or seven short quotations in the whole debate. Most of the briefs offered in ourPublic Forum Debate Research Series are much longer – and present much more evidence – than could ever bepresented in a single public forum debate. You should consider each brief as a resource and cafeteria of possibilities.Rarely in public forum debate would you ever read more than one or two short pieces of evidence under each heading.Why does Baylor Briefs, then, sometimes provide several long pieces of evidence? We want to give you choices andalso to make backup evidence available to you. You should make the arguments your own by choosing only thearguments and evidence that makes the most sense to you.

6

TERMS RELEVANT TO THE APRIL PUBLIC FORUM TOPIC

al-Assad, Bashar: President Bassar al-Assad of Syria has responded to rebel forces by engaging in thewidespread slaughter of his own people. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch,describes the extent of human rights abuses in a February 8, 2013 article in the New York Times: “TheSyrian people are caught in a horrible downward spiral. The government’s slaughter seems only tointensify as President Bashar al-Assad pursues a ruthless strategy of draining the sea to get the fish —attacking civilians so they will flee and leave the armed opposition isolated. Meanwhile, the sprawlingcollection of militias that constitute the armed opposition includes some that are themselves torturingand executing prisoners and promoting sectarian strife. While not on a par with the government-directedslaughter, their abuses encourage Syria’s minorities to stick with the murderous Assad rather than riskan uncertain future under rebel rule.” It was out of this chaos in Syria that the ISIL rebellion was born;over the past 18 months, ISIL has spread throughout neighboring regions in northern Iraq.

al-Baghdadi, Abu Bakr: This is the ruthless leader of ISIL who declared that his group has created anIslamic caliphate designed to conquer all Arab lands and beyond. His warning to the United States:"Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch,for we are with you, watching." Al-Baghdadi, whose real name is Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri,grew up in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, north of Baghdad. Some reports indicate that al-Badhdadiwas a prisoner for a short period of time at Camp Bucca, a prison camp operated by the U.S. in Iraq.

al-Kasasbeh, Moaz: This is the name of the Jordanian Air Force pilot who ejected from his damaged fighterjet while flying over airspace controlled by ISIL. In early February of 2015, ISIL released a 22-minutevideo depicting this soldier being burned alive in a cage. This video showed the pilot, covered ingasoline, forced to watch as fire traveled along the ground, eventually engulfing him in flames. Therelease of this video has prompted outrage in Jordan where the young man’s father, Safi al-Kasasbeh, isa respected tribal leader. The pilot's father, who originally had been critical of the war against ISIS, nowsaid that “the Jordanian government must annnihilate ISIS.”

al-Maliki, Nouri: This is the Iraqi politician who led Iraq as Prime Minister from 2006 to 2014. His leadershipwas controversial because he consistently refused to share power with the Sunni factions in the northernand western sections of the country. Al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party reserved all positions of power toIraq’s Shia majority, rejecting U.S. pressure to follow a more inclusive approach. Many political expertsbelieve that al-Maliki’s policies became a powerful recruitment device for ISIL – members of the Sunniminority were more willing to cast their lot with ISIL than with the Iraqi central government in Baghdad.Iraq’s new prime minister is Haider Jawad Kadhim al-Abadi. Though al-Abadi is also a Shia Muslim, theObama administration is hopeful that he will be more willing than his predecessor to offer some positionsof power to Sunni politicians and military officials.

Enduring Offensive Ground Operations: This is the controversial phrase included in the resolution thatPresident Obama has sent to Congress asking for authorization to use military force against ISIL. Thisresolution asked for Congressional blessing of a military campaign against ISIL that would last “nolonger than three years” and with a prohibition on any use of U.S. “enduring offensive ground forces.”The use of this phrase has prompted criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Those who wantthe President to use U.S. ground combat forces worry that the resolution prohibits their use. Opponentsof using ground forces worry about the definition of “enduring” – does that prohibition mean not longerthan a month . . . a year . . . three years? The phrase does seem to contemplate the possibility that U.S.combat ground forces could be used for short periods.

ISIS vs. ISIL: ISIS is an acronym for “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.” ISIL is the acronym for “Islamic Statein Iraq and the Levant.” The Levant refers to a region of the Middle East region in general. The Obamaadministration has insisted on using the term ISIL rather than ISIS. The apparent reason is thereluctance of the United States to attack ISIS in Syrian territory, perhaps out of the fear that it would bedoing the bidding of Bassar al-Assad, the brutal dictator in Syria. Accordingly, the Obama administrationprefers to use a designation that leaves Syria (the final “S”) out of the equation.

7

KEY WEB SITES RELEVANT TO THE APRIL PUBLIC FORUM TOPIC

Boot, Max. (2015, Feb. 26). Uproot the Enemy: The U.S. Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS.http://time.com/3723586/uproot-the-enemy-the-u-s-should-send-troops-to-fight-isis/. Boot, a highly-respected senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, directly supports the use of U.S. groundcombat forces to fight ISIL: “ISIS is not going to run out of cannon fodder anytime soon, and the U.S.approach, limited to air strikes, has shown scant ability to dislodge ISIS from its strongholds, especially inSyria, where ISIS has expanded its zone of control over the past six months. For air strikes to work, theyneed to be launched in coordination with an effective ground force, but that has been mostly lacking. Backin 2007-08, when al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s precursor, was pushed out of the Sunni-dominated northwest ofIraq, it was by Sunni tribal fighters working in conjunction with American troops. To inflict serious setbackson ISIS today will require resurrecting that successful coalition rather than flatly refusing, as Obama hasdone, to put any ‘boots on the ground.’”

Earl, Geoff. (2014, Sept. 24). Dempsey: 15,000 Ground Troops Needed to Destroy ISIS.http://nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/. This article inthe New York Post quotes key U.S. military planners as saying that only ground combat troops candestroy ISIL: “As the massive US-led air campaign plows ahead, the nation’s top military chief says it willtake 15,000 ground troops to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs ofStaff, made the statement at a Friday briefing as Britain, Belgium and Denmark joined the bombingcampaign to wipe out the terror group in Iraq. ‘The answer is yes. There has to be a ground component inthe campaign,’ Dempsey said, appearing alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. ‘We need 12,000 to15,000 to reclaim lost territory,’ he said, referring to the huge swath ISIS carved out from Iraq and Syria.”

Goodman, H.A. (2015, Jan. 30). Why McCain is Wrong About Sending Troops to Fight ISIS.http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight. Goodman, a staff writer for The Hill, believes that sending U.S. ground troops into Iraqwould repeat the tragic mistakes of the past: “It speaks volumes that according to USA Today, more than3,100 Americans have died and over 33,000 have been wounded from IED blasts in the Iraq andAfghanistan Wars. This accounts for more than half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded incombat from both wars. In Iraq, 4,489 U.S. soldiers have died and 2,356 soldiers have died inAfghanistan. In all, close to one million Americans have been injured in both wars, and hundreds ofthousands deal with the repercussions of battle on a daily basis. The end result, sadly, has been militaryvictories that were either squandered by the Iraqi government’s incompetence or devastating sectarianbloodshed. With former GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) blocking a recent veterans suicide prevention bill,and only months from a VA scandal that rocked the nation, it’s a pity that members of Congress areactually contemplating sending American soldiers back to further counterinsurgency wars and sectarianquagmires in Iraq.”

Mauro, Ryan. (2014, Sept. 29). Why the U.S. Should Avoid Sending Ground Troops to Fight ISIS. http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis. Mauro, a securityanalyst with the Clarion Project offers the following seven reasons why the U.S. would regret committingground troops to fight ISIS: (1) It would cause both domestic and international blowback; (2) Iraq doesn’twant U.S. ground troops; (3) It would delay the inevitable – meaning it would actually prolong the appealof ISIS, which otherwise will decline; (4) U.S. troops won’t fight only the Islamic State – meaning that otherregional forces would take up the attack against American soldiers; (5) the Islamic State wants to fightAmerican troops; (6) Sending in U.S. troops would validate Islamist propaganda; and (7) U.S. troopsoppose going back into Iraq or into Syria.

McCain, John & Graham, Lindsey. (2014, Aug. 19). Stop Dithering: Confront ISIS. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/opinion/john-mccain-and-lindsey-graham-confront-isis.html?_r=0. McCain and Grahamare U.S. Senators from Arizona and South Carolina, respectively. While their position has beencharacterized as supporting the use of U.S. troops against ISIL, they make it clear in this article that theydo not support a combat mission for these troops: “We should embed additional United States specialforces and advisers with our partners on the ground — not to engage in combat, but to help our partnersfight ISIS and direct airstrikes against it. Regional allies should play a key role in this effort. No one isadvocating unilateral invasion, occupation or nation-building. This should be more like Afghanistan in2001, where limited numbers of advisers helped local forces, with airstrikes and military aid, to rout anextremist army.”

8

PRO CASE #1: NATIONAL SECURITYThe thesis of this case is that ISIL, already the richest terrorist organization in the history of the world, represents a

threat to U.S. national security demanding a powerful response. The use of U.S. ground combat troops is essential tothe elimination of ISIL as a terrorist sanctuary.

OBSERVATION:

I. THE PRIMARY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IS ENSURING THE SAFETY OF ITS PEOPLE.

A. ENSURING SAFETY IS THE SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY STATE

Thomas Hobbes (Philosopher), THE CITIZEN, 1651, 142.“All the duties of rulers are contained in this one sentence, the safety of the people is the supreme

law.”

Phillimore (Intl. Philosopher) ELEMENTS OF FUNDAMENTAL LAW, 1900, 93.“The right of self-preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals. A society which is not in

condition to repel aggression from without is wanting in its principal duty to the members of which it iscomposed, and to the chief end of its institution. All means which do not affect the independence of othernations are lawful to this end. No nation has a right to prescribe to another what these means shall be, orto require any account of her conduct in this respect.”

Emmerich de Vattel (Philosopher), LAW OF NATIONS, 1828, 24.“Every nation has an undoubted right to provide for its own safety, and to take due precaution against

distant as well as impending danger. The right of self-preservation is paramount to all otherconsiderations.”

B. THE MAINTENANCE OF NATIONAL SECURITY IS THE CRITERION FOR THE SAFETY OF A PEOPLE.

Harold Brown (Sch. Of Adv. Studs., Johns Hopkins U.), THINKING ABOUT NATL. SECURITY, 1983, 278.“National security and the national welfare are inseparable.”

Shabtal Rosenne (Inst. of Intl. Law) in STRUCT. PROCESS OF INTL. LAW, 83, 1158.“In this redistribution of priorities, there is no room for doubt, as already mentioned, that considerations

of national security remain where they always were, at the top.”

CONTENTIONS:

I. THE EXPANSION OF ISIL THREATENS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

A. ISIL IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION INTENT ON ATTACKING THE U.S. AND ITS WESTERN ALLIES.

Dianne Feinstein, (U.S. Senator, California & Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee), USA TODAY,Sept. 8, 2014, 10A.

In the ghastly video showing the beheading of American journalist Steven Sotloff, an Islamic State inIraq and Syria terrorist declares to President Obama, "Our knife will continue to strike the necks of yourpeople." In the earlier video showing the beheading of James Foley, another U.S. journalist, the ISISexecutioner says directly into the camera: "You're no longer fighting an insurgency. We are an Islamicarmy." Another recent video, also directed at Americans: "We will drown all of you in blood."


These are ISIS' true colors. Unlike other terrorist groups, ISIS has grown into a sophisticated militaryforce and is estimated to have between 10,000 and 20,000 fighters. The group now firmly controls largeswaths of territory in both Syria and Iraq. The threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated. This is the mostvicious, well-funded and militant terrorist organization we have ever seen, and it is very quicklyconsolidating its power.


But ISIS' aspirations don't stop there. In an audio message, the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadisaid, "Our last message is to the Americans. Soon we will be in direct confrontation, and the sons of Islamhave prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching."

9

Geoff Earl (Staff), NEW YORK POST, Sept. 24, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/.

“This is about psychopathic terrorists that are trying to kill us, and we do have to realize that, whetherwe like it or not, they have already declared war on us,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron. “Thereisn’t a ‘walk on by’ option. There isn’t an option of just hoping this will go away.”

Lawrence Haas, (Sr. Fellow, American Foreign Policy Council), DESERET MORNING NEWS, July 20, 2014.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Lexis.

That ISIL has its eyes set on the West is already evident. Law enforcement authorities have traced thegroup's ties to terrorist attacks and to attempts that were prevented in recent years in Europe, including theMay attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels that left three people dead.

B. ISIL HAS GREATER ACCESS TO RESOURCES THAN ANY TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IN HISTORY.

Ed Royce, (Chair, House Foreign Affairs Committee), ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, Feb. 22, 2015.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.

ISIS is on the march. Despite some battlefield setbacks in Iraq, the Islamist terrorist group remainsunchallenged in Syria and holds sway over an area the size of Great Britain. The group has seized anestimated $2 billion in assets, a stunning sum, and its recruits continue to flow in.

Donna Brazille, (Political Analyst, CNN), DUBUQUE TELEGRAPH HERALD, June 22, 2014, A14.It has added significant money from the banks it has captured in several cities, in addition to attacking

an oil refinery. ISIL is now likely the richest terrorist organization in the world, and it has done thisapparently without the aid of any nation-state.

Patrick Johnston, (Political Scientist, RAND Corporation), NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 14, 2014. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from Nexis.

As ISIS's most recent annual report shows, the group is sophisticated, strategic, financially savvy andbuilding structures that could survive for years to come. ISIS currently brings in more than $1 million a dayin revenue and is now the richest terrorist group on the planet.


Second, ISIS is a sophisticated terrorist army. There is an extremely high level of organization in ISISoperations and ISIS-controlled territory, almost reminiscent of a military dictatorship. ISIS controlsextensive resources, military vehicles, heavy weapons and border crossings between Iraq and Syria. It hasbecome a de facto terrorist state. Experts estimate that ISIS now has cash and assets worth $2 billion.ISIS adds as much as $1 million per day through extortion, crime, ransom and even the sale of oil on theblack market from the several oil fields it controls. ISIS is also governing effectively, albeit brutally. It hasput in place judicial systems, traffic police and inspectors to ensure sharia law is followed and crime ispunished.

Daniel Byman, (Staff), WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, June 15, 2014, 11A.As forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant sweep across Iraq, conquering cities like Mosul

and Tikrit, the Obama administration is pledging greater support for the Iraqi government. Yet even if theIraqi army is able to stop ISIL's advance on Baghdad, the violent jihadist group will likely retain control ofvast swaths of Iraq and eastern Syria. In a matter of days, ISIL's bold and effective fighting in the heartlandof the Arab world may have made it the pre-eminent force in the Sunni jihadist movement. It has nowarguably eclipsed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and his Pakistan-based terrorist core in the eyes ofpotential recruits and funders. Indeed, unlike al-Qaida, ISIL is on its way to controlling a quasi-state,exercising de facto sovereignty over a territory, even if unrecognized by the international community. Theterritory already under its control is larger than Israel, and it is not some barren desert: It includes oilfields,electrical grids, prisons, small manufacturing centers and the weapon depots abandoned by the Iraqimilitary, including arms provided by the United States. When ISIL fighters conquered Mosul, they seizedthe central bank - and its reported $425 million. By comparison, al-Qaida's budget before 9/11 was about$30 million - and we called it rich.

10

Rod Nordland, (Staff), NEW YORK TIMES, June 21, 2014, A1.Behind the image of savagery that the extremists of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria present to the

world, as casual executioners who kill helpless prisoners and behead even rival jihadis, lies a disciplinedorganization that employs social media and sophisticated financial strategies in the funding andgovernance of the areas it has conquered. The insurgents seized as much as $400 million from thecentral bank in Mosul, said Atheel Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh Province, and reportedly emptied thevaults in all the other banks in a city of more than one million residents. Other officials cite lower figureswhen discussing the central bank theft.

Audrey Kurth Cronin, (Prof., International Affairs, George Mason U.), FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Mar/Apr 2015.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143043/audrey-kurth-cronin/.

Beginning in 2012, ISIS gradually took over key oil assets in eastern Syria; it now controls anestimated 60 percent of the country’s oil production capacity. Meanwhile, during its push into Iraq lastsummer, ISIS also seized seven oil-producing operations in that country. The group manages to sell someof this oil on the black market in Iraq and Syria—including, according to some reports, to the Assad regimeitself. ISIS also smuggles oil out of Iraq and Syria into Jordan and Turkey, where it finds plenty of buyershappy to pay below-market prices for illicit crude. All told, ISIS’ revenue from oil is estimated to be between$1 million and $3 million per day.

C. ISIL IS EXPANDING RAPIDLY.

David Wallis, (Staff), NEW YORK OBSERVER, Dec. 24, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.The conquest of Iraq and Syria and of a few other countries in the Levant is a big deal as far as the

West is concerned, but it pales in comparison to ISIS' true objectives, which is no less than conquering theentire world and to converting it into an Islamic society. The West has yet to comprehend that.

Betsy Hiel, (Staff), PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW, Feb. 8, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.Meanwhile, ISIS is growing: Last fall, the CIA estimated its ranks at 20,000 to 30,000, a tripling over

the previous year. Its arms and tactics have become more sophisticated, too. And its radical ideology,rejected by many Muslim leaders, continues to appeal to many young men and women who seethemselves as the vanguard of a new Islamic caliphate. "We are only seven months since the declarationof the caliphate, and the military successes of ISIS and the enthusiasm for them is only growing," Paz said.

Trudy Rubin, (Staff), PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Aug. 24, 2014, C1.ISIS won't stop with Iraq. Having taking over at least one third of Syria and an adjacent third of Iraq,

and erased the border between them, it will try to expand the territory of its self-declared caliphate.Crocker believes its next targets will be U.S. allies Jordan and oil-rich Saudi Arabia. He thinks the jihadigroup might even try to attack the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. In the meantime, it will keeptargeting minority Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, and try to solidify its hold on the Sunni areas of thecountry. And the ISIS threat doesn't end there. Its leaders have made clear that they will focus on Westernand American targets once they consolidate their territorial gains. ISIS is training thousands of Europeansand scores of Americans at bases in Syria who could return home and wreak havoc.

Donna Brazille, (Political Analyst, CNN), DUBUQUE TELEGRAPH HERALD, Sept. 14, 2014, A14.ISIL is not composed of your average terrorists. They are so extreme that al-Qaida threw them out.

Now ISIL seeks to create its own trans-state out of two weakened nations. Their aim is to abolish thecenturies-old system of nation-states, and replace it with a super-state, run by themselves. If ISILsucceeds, there will no longer be an Iraq or a Syria - or if they grow very strong, an Egypt, Jordan and whoknows what else. The ancient cultures of these states will be gone. There will only be an expandingcaliphate.

D. ISIL IS CONSTRUCTING A SANCTUARY FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

Fred Kaplan, (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, June 26, 2014. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from Nexis.

At this point, the U.S. interests involve -- almost solely -- crushing or severely containing ISIL, in orderto keep it from creating a sanctuary for global terrorism and to keep sectarian warfare from engulfing theentire Middle East.

11

E. ISIL DIRECTLY THREATENS U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY.

Lawrence Haas, (Sr. Fellow, American Foreign Policy Council), DESERET MORNING NEWS, July 20, 2014.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Lexis.

ISIL represents a particularly dangerous threat to the United States, one that grows as the radicalgroup conquers more territory and - with such success - more easily recruits members and acquires moreweapons and money. Citing multiple U.S. intelligence sources, NBC News labeled the ISIS threat againstU.S. targets "extremely high." Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has declared an Islamic caliphate inthe territory ISIL controls, warned America earlier this year, "Soon we will be in direct confrontation, andthe sons of Islam have prepared for such a day. So watch, for we are with you, watching." The UnitedStates learned the hard way not to take warnings from terrorist leaders lightly, for Osama bin Laden hadissued similar threats against the United States before al-Qaida carried them out on September 11, 2001.

John McCain, (U.S. Senator, Arizona), NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 30, 2014, A21.ISIS is now one of the largest, richest terrorist organizations in history. It occupies a growing safe

haven the size of Indiana spanning two countries in the heart of the Middle East, and its ranks are filledwith thousands of radicals holding Western passports, including some Americans. They require nothingmore than a plane ticket to travel to United States cities. This is why the secretary of homeland securityhas called Syria ''a matter of homeland security.'' His warnings about ISIS have been echoed by theattorney general, the director of national intelligence and, now, the secretary of defense. Americans needto know that ISIS is not just a problem for Iraq and Syria. It is a threat to the United States. Doing too littleto combat ISIS has been a problem. Doing less is certainly not the answer now.

II. U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE DEFEAT OF ISIL.

A. AIR STRIKES ARE INSUFFICIENT AGAINST ISIL.


Consider first the tremendous U.S. military and intelligence campaign to capture or kill al Qaeda’s coreleadership through drone strikes and Special Forces raids. Some 75 percent of the leaders of the core alQaeda group have been killed by raids and armed drones, a technology well suited to the task of goingafter targets hiding in rural areas, where the risk of accidentally killing civilians is lower. Such tactics,however, don’t hold much promise for combating ISIS. The group’s fighters and leaders cluster in urbanareas, where they are well integrated into civilian populations and usually surrounded by buildings, makingdrone strikes and raids much harder to carry out. And simply killing ISIS’ leaders would not cripple theorganization.

B. ARAB NATIONS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO SEND GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL.

Trudy Rubin, (Staff), PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Feb. 5, 2015, A14.So for now, says former Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, "public opinion wants revenge -

wants the government to go after ISIS." But the Jordanian government can do little more than it is alreadydoing: participating in air strikes against ISIS, sharing intelligence, and helping the United States trainmoderate Syrian rebels. Indeed, burdened with 1.3 million Syrian refugees, tiny Jordan needs more U.S.(and Arab) aid just to continue its current role. Moreover, Kaseasbeh's death won't rally broader Arabsupport for the anti-ISIS fight unless the White House shows greater commitment to that struggle. A keyally in the U.S.-led coalition, the United Arab Emirates, suspended its air strikes against ISIS in December,after Kaseasbeh was shot down. The reason: The United States hadn't put proper assets in place innorthern Iraq to rescue downed pilots. That contradictory U.S. approach - urging its Arab allies to fight ISISin the air and on the ground, but not giving them the necessary support - makes Arab governments andtribes wary of engaging the jihadis. Arabs are uncertain about what Obama wants in the region given thecontradictions of American policy. This is especially true of Sunni tribes in Syria and Iraq - some of themrelated to Jordanian tribes - which the administration is counting on to rebel against ISIS. Yet the currentU.S. approach discourages Sunni tribes under ISIS control from taking up the fight against the jihadis.There is no American policy of engaging and coordinating tribal opposition and linking it with coalition airstrikes. Tribes that do rebel cannot match ISIS's weapons (most of which were seized from U.S.-supplieddepots in Iraq) and are often slaughtered.

12

C. ONLY U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS CAN DEFEAT ISIL.

Geoff Earl (Staff), NEW YORK POST, Sept. 24, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://nypost.com/2014/09/27/us-military-chief-15000-ground-troops-need-to-destroy-isis/.

As the massive US-led air campaign plows ahead, the nation’s top military chief says it will take15,000 ground troops to wipe out ISIS in Syria. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,made the statement at a Friday briefing as Britain, Belgium and Denmark joined the bombing campaign towipe out the terror group in Iraq. “The answer is yes. There has to be a ground component in thecampaign,” Dempsey said, appearing alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “We need 12,000 to15,000 to reclaim lost territory,” he said, referring to the huge swath ISIS carved out from Iraq and Syria.

Jason Ditz, (Staff, MintPress News), U.S. GROUND FORCES LIKELY TO JOIN IRAQ’S FIGHT AGAINSTISIS, Feb. 20, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-to-join-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/.

US officials are now saying that the offensive against the ISIS-held city of Mosul will be supported bythe US, with both airstrikes and “if necessary” US ground troops backing the Iraqi military. This offensivecould begin as soon as April. The “if necessary” qualifier means the US involvement is all but certain, asthe Pentagon has repeatedly said they don’t believe Iraq’s military is even close to being able to take amajor city like Mosul on their own.

Trudy Rubin, (Staff), PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, Aug. 24, 2014, C1.There is a glaring disconnect between the urgent threat they describe and the administration's

response. "This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventuallyhave to be defeated," Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, said Thursday. Last month,Dempsey told a security conference that the U.S. military was preparing options to "contain, disrupt, andfinally defeat [ISIS]." Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has called ISIS "some of the most brutal, barbaricforces we've seen in the world today." Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, an Arabic speakerwith deep knowledge of the Mideast, told me, "ISIS is our strategic enemy. They are al-Qaeda on steroids.They present an existential threat to us."

Vincent Curtis, (Journalist on Military Affairs, Formerly Embedded with US Troops in Iraq), BUFFALO NEWS,Aug. 17, 2014, 24.

If a means can be found to inflict casualties on ISIS in a continual way, or if it can be brought to battleby a serious military, ISIS will deflate like a broken balloon.

D. EFFORTS SIMPLY TO CONTAIN ISIL ARE INSUFFICIENT.

Helene Cooper, (Staff), NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 6, 2014, A1.''There is no containment policy for ISIL,'' Secretary of State John Kerry said at the start of the

meeting. ''They're an ambitious, avowed, genocidal, territorial-grabbing, caliphate-desiring quasi state withan irregular army, and leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place thatwill ultimately come back to haunt us.''

E. ACCEPTANCE OF ISIL AS ITS OWN STATE IS AN UNACCEPTABLE OPTION.

Trudy Rubin, (Staff), ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, June 21, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from Nexis.One prominent claim is that the ISIS move has effectively partitioned Iraq into three parts, among

Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites, and the United States should accept that. Apart from the horrible human costs,that argument ignores the strategic risks that partition poses. Even if ISIS halts at Baghdad's gates -- asmany believe it will -- the threat it poses will not stop there. ISIS now controls a territory as large as acountry, and it has seized massive amounts of U.S. heavy weapons from Iraqi bases, along with hundredsof millions of dollars from Mosul banks. "This is an army, not a militia," Crocker says. "ISIS can build acaliphate and plan how to attack us" or threaten neighboring Arab countries. Partition would also leaveTehran in virtual control of an Iraqi Shiite rump state in the south along with Iraq's main oil holdings. Anyclaim that Iran would cooperate with Washington in fighting ISIS ignores this fact: Tehran's Iraqi file isunder the control of Gen. Qasem Souleimani, head of the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards, whohas shown little interest in pressing Maliki to be more inclusive.

13

PRO CASE #2: GENOCIDE

The thesis of this case is that genocide is universally recognized as a gross violation of global human rights. It may bethe only act that people of every culture find clearly repugnant. Since ISIL is actively engaged in genocide, the U.S. has acommitment under international law to take necessary action to halt this barbarism.

OBSERVATION:

I. THE UNITED STATES HAS A VITAL INTEREST IN THE PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE.

A. PREVENTION OF GENOCIDE IS A CORE NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

Sarah Brockmeier, (Analyst, Global Public Policy Institute), PROTECTION AND RESPONSIBILITY, July 1,2013. Retrieved Mar. 2, 3015 from http://www.gppi.net/publications/peace-security/article/protection-and-responsibility-an-analysis-of-us-foreign-policy-to-prevent-mass-atrocities/,

In August 2011, President Obama declared that the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities was “acore national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.”

B. THE UNITED STATES IS PARTY TO THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION.

Emily Backus, (Journalist), On This Day: U.S. Fully Adopts Genocide Convention, Nov. 4, 2010. RetrievedDec. 10, 2014 from http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/day-us-ratifies-genocide-convention.

Twenty-two years ago today – November 4, 1988 – the 40-year Senate battle over the ratification ofthe United Nations’ Genocide Convention culminated in the signing of the Proxmire Act by PresidentRonald Reagan at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. The Proxmire Act, officially the Genocide ConventionImplementation Act of 1987, bound the United States to the provisions of the United Nations’ Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

C. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION PLACES THE REPONSIBILITY OF PREVENTION ON INDIVIDUAL

STATES.

Sarah Mazzochi, (J.D., Roger Williams U. School of Law), GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OFLAW, Spr. 2011, 121-122.

The International Court of Justice ("ICJ") embraced this "responsibility to protect" for crimes ofgenocide. The Court made this responsibility a treaty obligation for those states that ratified GenocideConvention Article IX without reservation. Moreover, regarding the responsibility to protect, the Court sawno distinction between genocide committed on a state's own soil and genocide committed elsewhere. It isnow clear that the duty to prevent genocide is not confined to a state's own territory.

Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT ARE KEY, Dec.2008. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2014 from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/GenocideConvention.aspx.

As of today, 140 states have ratified the Genocide Convention. The High Commissioner says thatwhile the international community shares a collective responsibility to prevent genocide, individual stateshave a primary role and a higher stake in putting a stop to the crime.

CONTENTIONS:

I. ISIL IS GUILTY OF GENOCIDE.

A. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION DEFINES GENOCIDE AS ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY AN ETHNIC OR

RELIGIOUS GROUP.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, TEXT OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION, Feb. 9,2010. Retrieved Dec. 10, 2014 from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy,in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the groupconditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposingmeasures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group toanother group.

14

B. ISIL IS CONDUCTING A CAMPAIGN OF GENOCIDE.

Robert George et al., (Professor, Jurisprudence, Princeton U.), A PLEA ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF ISIL,2014. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from http://iraqrescue.org.

The so-called Islamic State of Iraq (ISIS/ISIL) is conducting a campaign of genocide againstChristians, Yazidis, and others in Iraq. In its fanatical effort to establish a caliphate, ISIS/ISIL has engagedin crimes against humanity by deliberately causing mass starvation and dehydration, and by committingunconscionable acts of barbarism against noncombatants, including defenseless women, children, andelderly persons. It is imperative that the United States and the international community act immediatelyand decisively to stop the ISIS/ISIL genocide and prevent the further victimization of religious minorities.This goal cannot be achieved apart from the use of military force to degrade and disable ISIS/ISIL forces.

Juliet Eilperin, (Staff), WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 20, 2015, A3.Obama took aim at the Islamic State, even as he alluded to other terror threats across the globe. "As

we speak, ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq and engaging in unspeakable cruelty," he said."The wanton murder of children, the enslavement and rape of women, threatening religious minorities withgenocide, beheading hostages."

ANADOLU AGENCY, Feb. 20, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from Nexis."The crimes committed by ISIL are categorized as genocide crimes as ISIL has committed mass

massacres and destroyed many places of worship," Soran Omar the chief of the parliament's humanrights committee, told The Anadolu Agency without going into specifics. Moreover, Turkmen women areenslaved by ISIL, Omar added. Turkmens are ethnic relatives to Turks, with whom they share a commonculture. Iraqi Turkmens are the third-largest ethnic group living in northern Iraq.

THE EXAMINER, Feb. 21, 2015, 31.President Obama cited the deadly Sydney siege during his speech to the summit. "As we speak, ISIL

is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq and engaging in unspeakable cruelty - the wanton murder ofchildren, the enslavement and rape of women, threatening religious minorities with genocide, beheadinghostages," Mr Obama said. "ISIL-linked terrorists murdered Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula and theirslaughter of Egyptian Christians in Libya has shocked the world.

ASHARQ ALAWSAT, (Leading English Language Arab Daily Newspaper), Jan. 12, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2,2015 from Nexis.

In October, the bodies of around 150 members of the Albunimr tribe were discovered in a massgravesite near Ramadi, with another 48 discovered in Hit. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat in November, oneof the members of the prominent tribe said ISIS had a "hit-list" of names of people from the tribe it wishedto assassinate, and was now carrying out a "policy of genocide" against its members.

BBC WORLDWIDE MONITORING, Feb. 27, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from Nexis.Talking at a briefing in the Armenian Parliament, representatives of the Assyrian minority in Armenia

warned of an ongoing "genocide" by the ISIS militants of the Assyrian community in Syria and Iraq, theNess.am website reported on 27 February.

India Blooms News Service, IBNS, Feb. 24, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from Nexis.Many of the violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL may amount to war crimes, crimes against

humanity and possibly genocide, the report [of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights] notes. Thereport also notes that the number of civilians who have died from the secondary effects of violence,including the lack of access to food, water or medical care, remains unknown. Large numbers remainedtrapped or displaced in areas under the control of ISIS during the reporting period, with limited access tohumanitarian assistance.

LEBANON DAILY STAR, Feb. 24, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from Nexis.The report by the U.N.'s Assistance Mission for Iraq and the High Commissioner for Human Rights

covers the period from Sept. 11 to Dec. 10 of last year. It documents a long list of atrocities committed byISIS militants, such as murder, rape, slavery, human trafficking, forced military recruitment of children andthe destruction of religious and cultural sites - which could "amount to war crimes, crimes against humanityand possibly genocide." It said the Iraqi security forces and affiliated armed groups also committed humanrights violations, including targeted killings and kidnapping.

15

II. U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS ARE NECESSARY TO HALT ISIL’S CAMPAIGN OF GENOCIDE.

A. THE U.S. MUST DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO STOP ISIL’S GENOCIDE.

Nawaf Obaid, (Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard U.), NEW YORK TIMES,Sept. 9, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.

ISIS poses a unique threat: It is a bloodthirsty movement that can find disaffected young men andwomen and recruit them from among the world's 1.3 billion Sunnis. It does not face the numericalconstraints of groups like Hezbollah or countries like Iran, whose ideologies only appeal to the smallerShiite community. With such enormous growth potential, ISIS must be defeated now.

B. AIR STRIKES WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HALT ISIL’S CAMPAIGN OF TERROR.

Max Boot, (Sr. Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), TIME MAGAZINE, Feb. 26, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1,2015 from http://time.com/3723586/uproot-the-enemy-the-u-s-should-send-troops-to-fight-isis/.

ISIS is not going to run out of cannon fodder anytime soon, and the U.S. approach, limited to airstrikes, has shown scant ability to dislodge ISIS from its strongholds, especially in Syria, where ISIS hasexpanded its zone of control over the past six months. For air strikes to work, they need to be launched incoordination with an effective ground force, but that has been mostly lacking. Back in 2007–08, when al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s precursor, was pushed out of the Sunni-dominated northwest of Iraq, it was by Sunnitribal fighters working in conjunction with American troops. To inflict serious setbacks on ISIS today willrequire resurrecting that successful coalition rather than flatly refusing, as Obama has done, to put any“boots on the ground.”

C. U.S. GROUND TROOPS CAN STOP ISIL’S REIGN OF TERROR.

114 Max Boot, (Sr. Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), TIME MAGAZINE, Feb. 26, 2015. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from http://time.com/3723586/uproot-the-enemy-the-u-s-should-send-troops-to-fight-isis/.

Credible estimates of how many troops we should send range from 10,000 to 25,000. Just asimportant as the troop numbers are the rules of engagement under which they operate. It is imperative thatU.S. advisers and joint tactical air controllers be able to operate on the front lines with the local troops theysupport. This was the formula that made possible the rapid overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in thefall of 2001.

D. THE FACT THAT PAST U.S. MISTAKES IN IRAQ MAY HAVE CREATED ISIL ACTUALLY PRODUCES A

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY – WE BROKE IT, NOW WE HAVE TO FIX IT.

Robert George et al., (Professor, Jurisprudence, Princeton U.), A PLEA ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF ISIL,2014. Retrieved Mar. 2, 2015 from http://iraqrescue.org.

It is also worth bearing in mind that our own nation is not without responsibility for the plight of victimsof ISIS/ISIL genocide. What is happening to these people now, and the further threats they face, wouldnot be happening but for errors and failures of our nation’s own in Iraq. This can and should beacknowledged by all, despite disagreements we may have among ourselves as to precisely what theseerrors and failures were, and which political and military leaders are mainly responsible for them. The pointis not to point fingers or apportion blame, but to recognize that justice as well as compassion demands thatwe take the steps necessary to end the ISIL/ISIS campaign of genocide and protect those who are itsvictims.

16

PRO CASE #3: RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P)

The thesis of this case is that justice is best served when the United States values the protection of human rights asone of its vital interests. The responsibility to protect human rights falls first on each nation to protect the human rights ofits own citizenry. The R2P formula calls for the use of military intervention when other measures have failed.

OBSERVATIONS:

I. JUSTICE IS THE STANDARD DEFINING WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES.

Sara S. Chapman & Ursula S. Colby, (Former Pres. & Former Academic Dean, Russell Sage College), ONE NATIONINDIVISIBLE, 01, 17.

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has ever been, and ever will be pursued, until it beobtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. — James Madison

Helmut Reifeld, (Head of Overseas Offices, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung – a German Think Tank), WE HAVEJUSTICE IN COMMON, 2008, 7.

Justice is a core value not only in the fields of theology, law and political philosophy, but also inpolitics, social life and economics. It is a value that generates other values.

II. FULFILLING THE “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IS THE

APPROPRIATE CRITERION FOR JUSTICE.

A. THE 2005 “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” (R2P) COMPACT ESTABLISHES THE PRIMACY OF HUMAN

RIGHTS AS A VITAL INTEREST FOR ALL STATES.

James Pattison, (Prof., Politics, U. Manchester), HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THERESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2010, 4.

More generally, the development of the responsibility to protect has been hailed by Ramesh Thakurand Thomas Weiss as the most dramatic development of our time – comparable to the Nuremberg trialsand the 1948 Convention on Genocide and by historian Martin Gilbert as the most significant adjustment tonational sovereignty in 360 years.

Gareth Evans, (Co-Chair, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), THERESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2008, 2-3.

Throughout the decade, a fierce argument raged between, on the one hand, advocates of"humanitarian intervention"—the doctrine that there was a "right to intervene" militarily in these cases,against the will of the government of the country in question—and, on the other hand, defenders of thetraditional prerogatives of state sovereignty, who insisted that internal events were none of the rest of theworld's business. There was ample room, conceptually, to find common ground between these extremes,but no one seemed able to locate or articulate it: the verbal trench warfare, in the UN General Assemblyand elsewhere, became ever more intense, and the inability to agree on an appropriate response to eachof these situations as they arose became ever more frustrating and damaging. The breakthrough camewith the emergence in 2001 of the concept of the responsibility to protect and its subsequent unanimousembrace by the General Assembly, meeting at head of state and government level, in 2005. This turned"right to intervene" language on its head, focusing not on any rights of the great and powerful to throw theirweight around but rather on the responsibility of all states to meet the needs of the utterly powerless. In thefirst instance, the responsibility to protect a country's people from mass atrocity crimes lay with its owngovernment; but if it proved unable or unwilling to do so, a wider responsibility lay with other members ofthe international community to assist preventively and, if necessary, react effectively.

Jonathan Horowitz, (Staff, Open Society Justice Initiative), HUMAN RIGHTS BRIEF, Apr. 10, 2012.Retrieved Dec. 10, 2014 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038042.

Within this context, the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine (commonly referred to as R2P) emerged asa means to locate an appropriate legal balance between state sovereignty and human rights. Only recentlyformulated, the R2P doctrine seeks to ensure that states respond to the human needs of people withintheir territory or under their control, and to codify international responsibility to protect a state’s citizens inthe event the state fails to fulfill its domestic obligations. In doing so, the R2P doctrine makes considerablecontributions to defining state responsibilities under both human rights and international law.

17

B. THE “RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT” COMPACT HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY EMBRACED BY THE

UNITED NATIONS.

Gareth Evans, (Co-Chair, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), THERESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2008, 31.

Less than four years later, "R2P" was formally and unanimously embraced by the UN GeneralAssembly meeting at the head of state and government level at the 2005 World Summit.

James Pattison, (Prof., Politics, U. Manchester), HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THERESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2010, 3.

Most notably, at the 2005 UN World Summit (the High-Level Plenary meeting of the 60th session of theGeneral Assembly, with over 160 heads of state and government in attendance), states agreed that thereexists a universal responsibility to protect populations. In doing so, they indicated their preparedness toundertake action should peaceful means be inadequate and when national authorities are manifestlyfailing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes againsthumanity. On the face of it, this agreement was something of a watershed moment for humanitarianintervention. It seemed to mark the worldwide acceptance of the responsibility to intervene in response tothe mass violation of basic human rights.

Mark Malloch Brown, (Chief of Staff, UN Secretary-General), UNITED NATIONS RHETORIC OR REFORM:OUTCOME OF THE HIGH–LEVEL EVENT, House International Relations Comm. Hrg., Sept. 28, 2005, 42.

Please don't overlook the very important progress the summit did make on other areas of humanrights—notably the "responsibility to protect". For the first time the entire UN membership, at the highestlevel, has accepted clearly that it has a collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, warcrimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I believe this is a historic decision, which can helpus to respond more rapidly, and more effectively, to the Bosnias and Rwandas, and indeed the Darfurs, ofthe future. Of course it's a decision in principle. An enormous political effort will still be needed to ensurethat we act on this principle in specific situations. But no one can argue any longer that such horrific crimesare internal affairs, which concern only the people and government of the nation in which they happen. Inthat respect, at least, we have entered a new and better era.

C. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDES WITH PEOPLE RATHER THAN WITH THE STATE.

Anna Spain, (Prof., Law, U. Colorado Law School), HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, Winter 2014, 878.Speaking in 1999 in response to the Genocide in Rwanda, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan

acknowledged that "state sovereignty was being redefined by the forces of globalization and internationalcooperation" and that "the State was now widely understood to be the servant of the people and not viceversa." This view is embraced by those seeking a democratization of sovereignty as well as those thatbelieve that sovereign rights are based in people and not in territory.

Anna Spain, (Prof., Law, U. Colorado Law School), HOUSTON LAW REVIEW, Winter 2014, 879.For these reasons and more, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that “state sovereignty, in

its most basic sense, is being redefined ... States are now widely understood to be instruments at theservice of their peoples, and not vice versa... . When we read the Charter today, we are more than everconscious that its aim is to protect individual human beings, not to protect those who abuse them.”(ellipses in the original)

Keith Petty, (JD, Case Western Reserve School of Law & Major, Judge Advocate General Corps, U.S.Army), MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Summer 2013, 748.

The traditional pillar of world order - state sovereignty - has been eroded since the drafting of the U.N.Charter. A robust human rights framework makes individuals, not just states, proper subjects ofinternational law. Additionally, the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) now places the focus onstates and their ability to prevent civilians from being subjected to large-scale atrocities. This concept,adopted by every state at the 2005 World Summit, suggests that sovereignty is now contingent on a state'sability to protect its civilians from these crimes.

18

CONTENTIONS:

I. THE “RESPONSIBILTY TO PROTECT” HUMAN RIGHTS DEMANDS THAT THE U.S. STOP ISIL’S REIGN OF

TERROR.

A. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE R2P THE CENTERPIECE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY .

Matthew Vigeant, (JD, Columbia Law School), COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS,Winter 2013, 215.

The Obama Administration seized on the [Genocide Prevention] Task Force's recommendations, andtranslated them into a broader elevation of R2P as a national interest, via three key documents. First,Presidential Study Directive 10 ("PSD-10") on Mass Atrocities declares mass atrocity prevention to be a"core national security interest and core moral responsibility."


The second document is the 2010 National Security Strategy ("NSS"). The NSS states that "[t]heUnited States and all member states of the U.N. have endorsed the concept of the Responsibility toProtect." The NSS continues that "[i]n the event that prevention fails, the United States will work bothmultilaterally and bilaterally to mobilize diplomatic, humanitarian, financial, and -- in certain instances --military means to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities." The inclusion of R2P in theNational Security Strategy is seen by the international community as a signal from the ObamaAdministration that embracing R2P is in the national interest of the U.S.

Matthew Vigeant, (JD, Columbia Law School), COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS,Winter 2013,

The role that the Responsibility to Protect ("R2P") played in the United States' decision to intervene inLibya in 2011 received wide coverage in academic and policy circles. While the Executive Branch's legaljustification for taking action in Libya without Congressional authorization was not premised solely onhumanitarian grounds, R2P is a key plank in President Obama's foreign policy.


R2P is shorthand for the emerging international consensus in favor of supporting humanitarianintervention when a state fails to protect its own people, thereby forfeiting its sovereign rights. While theexact role R2P played in decision-making around Libya is unknown to anyone outside of the Executivebranch, the President's 2010 National Security Strategy is seen in the international community as anAmerican endorsement of R2P.

B. ISIL’S CAMPAIGN OF TERROR IS VIOLATING THE MOST BASIC OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

Barack Obama, (President), NEW YORK TIMES, Sept. 11, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who

stand in its way. In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in theirbrutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape and force women intomarriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the livesof two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraqand Syria and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If leftunchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.

Daniel Byman, (Staff), WILMINGTON STAR-NEWS, June 15, 2014, 11A.The disaster is worst for those unlucky enough to find themselves living under ISIL rule. The jihadist

group's extreme ideology calls for killing or subjugating not only Christians and Jews, but also manyMuslims. Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority in Iraq, are particularly hated for their supposedapostasy, as are the Alawites who rule in Syria. ISIL also targets Sunni Muslims, if the group believes thatthey are insufficiently zealous or have collaborated with the United States or its allies, including the currentIraqi government. In Syria, ISIL members shot and then crucified the bodies of their Muslim enemies,leaving their corpses to hang as warnings. Beheading is common. "Repent or die" is its motto. ISIL is soviolent, al-Qaida leader Zawahiri disavowed the group in February, excoriating it for its brutality andattacks against other jihadist fighters. Half a million Iraqis fled Mosul as ISIL forces entered the city, andhundreds of thousands more will surely flee wherever ISIL goes.

19


I recognize the reluctance of many Americans to engage in another war in the Middle East. But it isimperative that every American is fully cognizant of how dangerous and deadly ISIS really is. First, ISIS isutterly ruthless in its fighting and governance. Last month, a United Nations human rights panel reportdescribed the many crimes against humanity ISIS commits on a daily basis. The report notes that"executions in public spaces have become a common spectacle." In total, the U.N. reports at least 693child casualties at the hands of ISIS this year. And at least 2,250 women and children are currentlydetained by the group. ISIS has killed, enslaved and captured thousands in its efforts at ethnic cleansing,including the Yazidis in Sinjar and the Turkmen in Amerli. Overall, more than a million Iraqis have beendisplaced. Sadly, these statistics are just the tip of the iceberg because it is nearly impossible to get a fullaccounting of the extent of ISIS' brutality on the ground in Iraq and Syria. There are likely thousands ofmore stories of suffering -- of public lashings, rape, abductions, torture and genocidal acts -- that have yetto be proved.

II. U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS ARE ESSENTIAL TO PROTECT THE VICTIMS OF ISIL ABUSES.

A. THE IRAQI ARMY IS INCAPABLE OF STOPPING ISIL.

Fred Kaplan, (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, July 2, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1,2015 from Nexis.

In its first few days, the ISIL onslaught met no resistance. The Iraqi army -- in Mosul, an entire divisionof American-trained soldiers -- simply fled, leaving behind their uniforms, weapons, and vehicles. But thiswholesale surrender had little to do with the military prowess or spiritual appeal of ISIL. In a paperpublished today by Caerus Associates, Yasir Abbas and Dan Trombly conclude -- mainly from interviewswith Iraqi soldiers and other insiders -- that much of the Iraqi army had been crumbling for the past twoyears, as a result of corruption, lax maintenance, and the subsequent corrosion of morale.

B. OTHER ARAB MILITARIES ARE INCAPABLE OF STOPPING ISIL.

Bobby Ghosh, (Staff, DefenseOne), WHY ARAB GROUND TROOPS WON’T DEFEAT ISIS, Feb. 23, 2015.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/.

When the time comes for a ground offensive against ISIL, expect the heavy lifting to be done by battle-hardened Western troops, rather than the tin soldiers who make up most Arab militaries.

C. PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS RECOGNIZED THAT U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS ARE NECESSARY.

Adam Chandler, (Staff), THE ATLANTIC, Feb. 19, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-back-ground-troops-against-isis/385650/.

Last week, with a majority of Americans behind him, President Obama sent draft legislation toCongress to authorize the use of military force against ISIS. The authorization would include "limited"approval of ground troops for up to three years.

D. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOW PREPARED TO SUPPORT THE USE OF GROUND COMBAT

TROOPS.

Adam Chandler, (Staff), THE ATLANTIC, Feb. 19, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-back-ground-troops-against-isis/385650/.

The group's confounding brutality has also made a profound impression on the American public,gradually turning a seemingly war-weary country in favor not only of airstrikes against the group, but also,according to a new CBS News poll, the deployment of ground troops. "For the first time, a majority ofAmericans (57 percent) favor the U.S. sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS," CBSreported.

20

CON CASE #1: INTERVENTION BEGETS MORE KILLINGThe thesis of this case is that the insertion of U.S. ground combat troops in Syria and Iraq would only result in

greater chaos in the region while exposing U.S. troops to ISIL’s barbaric atrocities.

OBSERVATION:

I. THE RISE OF ISIL IS PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF THE U.S. GROUND WAR IN IRAQ.

A. THE U.S. GROUND WAR IN IRAQ CREATED A POWER VACUUM THAT ISIS HAS NOW FILLED.


ISIS came into being thanks to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In its earliest incarnation, it was just oneof a number of Sunni extremist groups fighting U.S. forces and attacking Shiite civilians in an attempt tofoment a sectarian civil war. At that time, it was called al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and its leader, Abu Musabal-Zarqawi, had pledged allegiance to bin Laden. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. air strike in 2006, and soonafter, AQI was nearly wiped out when Sunni tribes decided to partner with the Americans to confront thejihadists. But the defeat was temporary; AQI renewed itself inside U.S.-run prisons in Iraq, whereinsurgents and terrorist operatives connected and formed networks—and where the group’s current chiefand self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, first distinguished himself as a leader.

Doug Bandow, (Sr. Fellow, Cato Institute), ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, July 27, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1,2015 from Nexis.

U.S. options are limited. ISIS has grown out of past U.S. policy mistakes. Washington cannot afford tobe stampeded into another unnecessary and counterproductive war.

Trudy Rubin, (Staff), ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS, Nov. 24, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.But no one should forget that George W. Bush's Iraq war triggered the Sunni-Shiite sectarian struggles

that gave birth to ISIS, and guaranteed that Shiite Iran would become Iraq's most influential ally. Thisreality should engender a bit of modesty among Republicans -- before they call for ground troops to returnto Baghdad.

B. ISIL’S MILITARY EXPANSION IS LARGELY DUE TO THE WEAPONS LEFT BEHIND BY THE LAST U.S.

INTERVENTION.

Audrey Kurth Cronin, (Prof., International Affairs, George Mason U.), FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Mar/Apr 2015.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/143043/audrey-kurth-cronin/isis-is-not-a-terrorist-group.

ISIS is now led by well-trained, capable former Iraqi military leaders who know U.S. techniques andhabits because Washington helped train them. And after routing Iraqi army units and taking their U.S.-supplied equipment, ISIS is now armed with American tanks, artillery, armored Humvees, and mine-resistant vehicles.

Michael Gordon, (Staff), NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 22, 2014, A1.To the consternation of American officials, ISIS has been using captured American equipment,

including Humvees and at least one heavily armored troop transport vehicle.

CONTENTIONS:

I. THE USE OF U.S. GROUND COMBAT FORCES AGAINST ISIL WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

A. ISIL IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO PULL THE U.S. INTO A GROUND WAR – IT WOULD BE THEIR ULTIMATE

RECRUITMENT TOOL.

Jason Ditz, (Staff, MintPress News), U.S. GROUND FORCES LIKELY TO JOIN IRAQ’S FIGHT AGAINSTISIS, Feb. 20, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-to-join-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/.

ISIS has gained enormously from the US war, bolstering their recruitment dramatically across theworld. The ground war will likely add to this influx of recruits to resist another American invasion.

21

Jay Bookman, (Staff), ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Feb. 22, 2015, 18A.The No. 1 goal of ISIS --- the one accomplishment that would make its brutish leaders truly ecstatic ---

would be to set off a holy war between Islam and Christianity. And some extremely foolish people want togive ISIS the victory they cherish most.

Patrick Buchanan, (Columnist), TAMPA TRIBUNE, Sept. 7, 2014, 30.But while our natural and normal response to these videos is hot-blooded, hopefully, in our retribution,

we will be more cool-headed than we have been in the recent past. U.S. policy should be designed to dothe maximum damage to ISIS and the least damage to us. Which means we ought not plunge back intoIraq or drop the 82nd Airborne into Syria. That is what ISIS seeks, to be seen by the Islamic worldengaging American soldiers on Islamic lands.

Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDINGGROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.

It is clear from pro-Islamic State social media accounts that the group wants to face American troopson the ground. In fact, supporters encouraged each other in the wake of U.S. airstrikes by predicting thatcombat troops will soon arrive.

B. ISIL WANTS THE PROPAGANDA OPPORTUNITY TO KILL OR CAPTURE AMERICAN SOLDIERS.


Killing, injuring or capturing an American soldier is among the most glorious of achievements forjihadists as a whole, not just the Islamic State. It is much more appealing and widely approved of thanmassacring unarmed civilians, beheading journalists and killing Iraqi and Kurdish forces.


Pictures and videos of American military casualties are invaluable propaganda and help maintain asense of success, even if Islamic State casualties are much higher. The death toll on each side matterslittle to the Islamic State because jihadists see this as a battle of will.

C. AMERICA’S LAST GROUND OPERATION IN IRAQ COST THOUSANDS OF DEATHS FOR U.S.

SOLDIERS.

H.A. Goodman, (Staff), THE HILL, Jan. 30, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight.

It speaks volumes that according to USA Today, more than 3,100 Americans have died and over33,000 have been wounded from IED blasts in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This accounts for morethan half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded in combat from both wars. In Iraq, 4,489 U.S.soldiers have died and 2,356 soldiers have died in Afghanistan. In all, close to one million Americans havebeen injured in both wars, and hundreds of thousands deal with the repercussions of battle on a dailybasis. The end result, sadly, has been military victories that were either squandered by the Iraqigovernment’s incompetence or devastating sectarian bloodshed. With former GOP Sen. Tom Coburn(Okla.) blocking a recent veterans suicide prevention bill, and only months from a VA scandal that rockedthe nation, it’s a pity that members of Congress are actually contemplating sending American soldiers backto further counterinsurgency wars and sectarian quagmires in Iraq.


From the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 to the ending of combat operations onAugust 31, 2010, a total of 4,409 U.S. troops and 13 Defense Department civilians were killed and 31,925troops were injured. Even after combat operations ended and Operation New Dawn took place fromSeptember 2010 to December 2011, 66 U.S. troops were killed and 295 were wounded. This does notcount the psychological damage to the U.S. soldiers and the personal toll their families faced.

22

D. THE INSERTION OF GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL WOULD EMBROIL THE U.S. IN AN UNWINNABLE

WAR.


But putting more U.S. troops on the ground would be counterproductive, entangling the United Statesin an unwinnable war that could go on for decades. The United States cannot rebuild the Iraqi state ordetermine the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Frustrating as it might be to some, when it comes to militaryaction, Washington should stick to a realistic course that recognizes the limitations of U.S. military force asa long-term solution.


Of course, this opens up a third possible approach to ISIS, besides counterterrorism andcounterinsurgency: a full-on conventional war against the group, waged with the goal of completelydestroying it. Such a war would be folly. After experiencing more than a decade of continuous war, theAmerican public simply would not support the long-term occupation and intense fighting that would berequired to obliterate ISIS. The pursuit of a full-fledged military campaign would exhaust U.S. resourcesand offer little hope of obtaining the objective. Wars pursued at odds with political reality cannot be won.

E. THE INSERTION OF U.S. GROUND FORCES INTO IRAQ WOULD BRING EXTREMIST FACTIONS OUT

OF THE WOODWORK.


The unfortunate reality is that extremists other than the Islamic State will fight U.S. soldiers, leading toa bigger conflict. Attacks on American soldiers, especially those in Muslim countries, are viewed with greatlegitimacy in the Muslim world.


Sunnis still have much hostility towards American troops. Apart from the Islamic State, other Sunnimilitants will feel obliged to wage jihad against them. Moqtada al-Sadr, a popular cleric linked to Iran, sayshis followers will attack U.S. troops. Two other militias backed by Iran, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, have also issued threats.


When U.S. troops are in Muslim lands, they are easily demonized. Decades of anti-Westernpropaganda have made Muslim societies inclined to assume the worst. When U.S. troops act, they areblamed for civilian casualties and collateral damage. When they don’t act, they are accused of indifferencetowards the locals and blamed for sufferings.

F. U.S. TROOPS OPPOSE RETURNING TO A GROUND WAR IN IRAQ.


Every wartime decision is a cost-benefit analysis. No one understands this better than those who haveto bear the cost. When 70% of active-duty servicemen oppose sending a “substantial number” of groundtroops to assist Iraqi security forces, it should be taken seriously.


American troops sign up to defend the country. They willingly make enormous sacrifices to addressthreats like the Islamic State and help innocents around the world. This statistic is not a reflection of anunwillingness to fight. It is a reflection of American soldiers’ own cost-benefit analysis of the scenario.

23

CON CASE #2: CONFRONTING ISIS IS AN ARAB RESPONSIBILITYThe thesis of this case is that the fight against ISIL is an Arab responsibility. The United States can no longer

presume that it has the responsibility to right every wrong throughout the world. The Obama administration correctlyunderstands that the insertion of U.S. ground combat forces would fracture the Arab opposition to ISIL.

OBSERVATION:

I. IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE THE WORLD’S POLICE FORCE.

A. THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BEAR THE COSTS OF PROTECTING THE WORLD.

Jim Buxton, (Prof., International Politics, U. Rhode Island), PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, Sept. 5, 2014.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.

If we take the "world's cop" role, will the Europeans and Arabs let us do all the heavy lifting as we didin Afghanistan and Iraq? Over two-thirds of coalition fatalities in Afghanistan were Americans; 90 percentin Iraq. Will the other 192 countries stand by and watch the global policeman grapple with North Korea,Somalia, Ukraine, Nigeria, etc.?

B. U.S. ATTEMPTS TO POLICE THE WORLD HAVE FAILED RATHER DRAMATICALLY.

Sheldon Richmon, (Vice President, Future of Freedom Foundation), REASON MAGAZINE, Sept. 8, 2013.Retrieved Mar. 3, 2015 from http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/08/the-us-must-not-be-the-worlds-policeman.

It's not just that no one appointed the United States the world's policeman. By assuming that role, theU.S. government—no matter who's president—undermines the values we claim to uphold, such asfreedom, justice, privacy, and peace. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan left hundreds of thousandsdead, many more gravely wounded, and corrupt authoritarian governments in control of the socialwreckage. The law of unintended consequences cannot be repealed, and the risk is no less withinterventions that begin modestly, because no one can say what the other side—which includes Iran andRussia—will do. At home, a perpetual war footing drains our pockets, puts us at risk of retaliation, violatesour privacy, and distorts our economy through the military-industrial complex.

CONTENTIONS:

I. THE POLITICAL FORCES THAT HAVE CREATED ISIL CANNOT BE CHANGED BY U.S. MILITARY POWER.

A. THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL TO SHARE POWER WITH THE SUNNI MINORITY HAS

CREATED THE ISIL REBELLION.

Donna Brazille, (Political Analyst, CNN), DUBUQUE TELEGRAPH HERALD, June 22, 2014, A14.Foreign policy analysts are near unanimous that it was President Nouri al-Maliki's Shiite government's

suppression of Sunnis and Kurds that facilitated and fostered ISIL and its partners - groups that are to ISISwhat male mates are to black widow spiders. ISIL hopes to fan Shiite-Sunni divisions across the MiddleEast. So this begs the question: What role should the U.S. play in resolving this crisis? President BarackObama is working to condition U.S. support on real changes by the Shiite government in Baghdad. Thereis no "winning" this battle without real political reform.

B. UNTIL THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT BECOMES MORE INCLUSIVE, ISIL’S POWER WILL CONTINUE TO

GROW.

Ed Royce, (Chair, House Foreign Affairs Committee), ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, Feb. 22, 2015.Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.

Ultimately, it is Iraqis who must defend their nation. The Iraqi government must overcome internaldivisions to field an effective security force. Iraqi leaders must pull Sunnis toward the government, notpush them toward ISIS.

24

Fred Kaplan, (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Sept. 25, 2014. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from Nexis.

More vital still is the forging of a unified government in Iraq. The new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi,has talked about inclusiveness and giving Sunnis a stake in the regime, but he hasn't done much yet. ISIShas conquered as much Iraqi land as it has because the Sunni residents, much as they despise or distrustthe jihadists, prefer their rule to that of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. Once Abadi fills keyministries with Sunnis and lets more Sunni soldiers join the national army, popular support for ISIS will dryup -- or at least that's the hope. Until he takes those steps, the hope can't be fulfilled, much less eventested.

Thomas Friedman, (Staff), NEW YORK TIMES, Feb. 25, 2015, A23.The U.S. keeps repeating the same mistake in the Middle East: overestimating the power of religious

ideology and underappreciating the impact of misgovernance. Sarah Chayes, who long worked inAfghanistan and has written an important book -- ''Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens GlobalSecurity'' -- about how government corruption helped turn Afghans away from us and from the pro-U.S.Afghan regime, argues that ''nothing feeds extremism more than the in-your-face corruption and injustice''that some of America's closet Middle East allies administer daily to their people.

C. NO AMOUNT OF U.S. MILITARY POWER CAN OVERCOME THE CURRENT DISAFFECTION OF THE

SUNNI MINORITIES IN SYRIA AND IRAQ.

H.A. Goodman, (Staff), THE HILL, Jan. 30, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight.

With both the Shia-led government in Iraq and the Alawi-led one in Syria perceived as repressive bymany ordinary Sunnis, IS aims to present itself as the protector of true and pure Sunni ideals. Thus,without a solution to the sectarian violence and animosity between Sunni and Shia in Iraq, no amount ofU.S. ground troops will be able to implement a lasting peace. According to the Georgetown Journal ofInternational Affairs, both Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai utilized U.S. support tofurther their own political goals rather than ensure American interests.

II. ISIL SHOULD PROPERLY BE REGARDED AS AN ARAB PROBLEM.

A. ISIL THREATENS ARAB STATES MUCH MORE THAN IT DOES THE UNITED STATES.


A caliphate undermines the religious legitimacy of the governments of other Islamic countries. ISIS isfar more a threat to the Middle East than it is to the United States.

Doug Bandow, (Sr. Fellow, Cato Institute), ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, July 27, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1,2015 from Nexis.

ISIS is more a problem for America's friends than for America. Islamic extremism most directlythreatens countries in the region. These states, overwhelmingly Muslim other than Israel and Lebanon,possess greater credibility in confronting ISIS. Iraq must convince the group's Sunni allies to cooperatewith a reformed government in Baghdad rather than reconstruct an ancient caliphate.

Jay Bookman, (Staff), ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, Feb. 22, 2015, 18A.But consider the following: In this supposed holy war, ISIS has killed many more Muslims than

Christians. The ratio of Muslim to Christian victims is probably in the range of 1,000 Muslims for everyChristian. Muslims have fought harder against ISIS, have killed many more ISIS members, and havesuffered many more casualties against ISIS, than have Americans and other Westerners. Every Muslimgovernment in the region is a bitter foe of ISIS. ISIS terrorists have burned a Jordanian pilot, a devoutMuslim, alive in a cage. They have killed thousands of Muslim girls and women in "honor killings." Theycrucify --- literally --- members of rival groups for the sin of being too "moderate." The Arab League hascondemned ISIS for its "crimes against humanity." Ahmed al-Tayeb, grand imam of the al-Azhar mosquein Cairo and the most powerful religious leader in Sunni Islam, describes ISIS as satanic. The InternationalAssociation of Muslim Scholars condemns it as an "extremist organization (that) does not represent Islamin any way and its actions always harm Islam."

25

B. AN ARAB COALITION HOLDS THE ONLY REASONABLE HOPE FOR DEFEATING ISIL.

Fred Kaplan, (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations), SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Sept. 25, 2014. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from Nexis.

It is highly significant that four Arab nations -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, andBahrain -- participated in Monday night's airstrikes and that a fifth, Qatar, supported them. No one has yetsaid how many bombs the four dropped, or what Qatar's support amounted to, but it doesn't matter. Duringthe 1990-'91 Gulf War, these and several other Arab nations, including Syria and Egypt, sent tank divisionsand air wings to help push Saddam's army out of Kuwait. Few of them did much, but the important thingwas that they joined the coalition in active force -- and, therefore, Hussein could not claim that this waspurely a Western, imperialist war. Sending this message is even more important in the fight against ISIS,which bills itself as the Islamic army and its mission as a religious one -- the revival of a caliphate. To haveMuslim nations, especially Sunni nations, battling against ISIS helps discredit its rationale for existence.

C. ARAB GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DEFEAT ISIL.


Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down.Having effectively eradicated Al Qaeda in the kingdom, the Saudi government, with its experience fightingterrorism, is uniquely positioned to deal with ISIS, which is, after all, an Al Qaeda-aligned organization. Thekingdom has built up an impressive counterterrorism program and its counterterrorism strategies areconsidered some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.


More importantly, the Saudi leadership has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy, whichwill make it far more effective than other governments at delegitimizing ISIS' monstrous terrorist ideology.The message sent to the Muslim and Arab worlds as Saudi Arabia takes on ISIS is radically different from-- and much preferable to -- the message sent if the United States does so, especially given America'srecent disastrous record in the Middle East.

Patrick Buchanan, (Columnist), TAMPA TRIBUNE, Sept. 7, 2014, 30.The Turks have 400,000 men under arms. Assad has hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The Kurds

have thousands of fighters. Iraq has hundreds of thousands. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia havehundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of planes. No need for U.S. boots on the ground.

D. THE INSERTION OF U.S. GROUND COMBAT FORCES WILL FRACTURE THE ARAB COALITION.

Ariel Edwards-Levy, (Staff, Huffington Post), U.S. DOESN’T YET NEED GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIS,Oct. 12, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/12/isis-ground-troops_n_5972724.html. "Here's the danger,"

[Vermont Senator, Bernie] Sanders continued. "If the Middle East people perceive this is the UnitedStates versus ISIS, West versus East, Christianity versus Islam, we're going to lose that war. This is a warfor the soul of Islam, and the Muslim nations must be deeply involved."


The U.S. has assembled a coalition of over 50 countries including five Arab countries that areparticipating in airstrikes on Syria against the Islamic State. This is important for sharing the burden andundermining propaganda that the U.S. intervention is a war on Islam. The region reacts much morenegatively to U.S. combat forces fighting in Iraqi towns than it does to airstrikes in support of Iraqi forces.The former could propel Arab partners to suspend involvement in military operations.


President Obama has been criticized for ruling out a combat role but this unequivocal pledge waslikely necessary for winning international support, domestic political support and support from Iraqis whoare cynical about American intentions.

26

CON CASE #3: AIR STRIKES ARE SUFFICIENTThe thesis of this case is that while U.S. military force is necessary to confront ISIL, that force should be limited to

the use of air strikes. Arab governments should provide ground forces as necessary.

CONTENTIONS:

I. THE CURRENT U.S. POLICY OF AIR STRIKES AGAINST ISIL BEST SUPPORTS THE INTERESTS OF THE

UNITED STATES.

A. AIR STRIKES ARE DEGRADING THE POWER OF ISIL.

Vivian Salama, (Staff, Huffington Post), IRAQI PM SAYS FOREIGN GROUND TROOPS NOT NECESSARIN FIGHT AGAINST ISIS, Nov. 17, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/iraq-foreign-troops_n_5835706.html.

Since the American aerial campaign began, Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, backed by U.S.airstrikes, have retaken the strategic Mosul Dam, along with several small towns. French reconnaissanceplanes left from al-Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates on Monday as part of France's commitmentto provide aerial support to the Iraqi government.

Mark Mazzetti, (Staff), NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 23, 2014, A1.ISIS is now under pressure from American airstrikes in Iraq. And the group must defend its gains from

advances by a host of adversaries, like Iraqi Kurdish troops, the forces of President Bashar al-Assad ofSyria, and other Syrian rebels. ''Attacking the U.S. is not their first priority,'' Mr. [Andrew] Liepman, [SeniorAnalyst at the RAND Corporation] said. In addition, American officials said that the group's brutal methodsof governing the territory it has seized, while effective in the short term, could create internal factions thatwould weaken its grip on power.

Patrick Buchanan, (Columnist), TAMPA TRIBUNE, Sept. 7, 2014, 30.Although President Obama may not have a strategy yet for Syria, his strategy in Iraq is succeeding.

After its sweeping gains following the capture of Mosul, ISIS has suffered four straight defeats. The moveinto Kurdistan has been halted. The Mosul dam has been retaken from ISIS. The Yazidis on Mount Sinjarwere rescued from ISIS. The Turkmen in Amerli were rescued by Kurdish peshmerga, Shia militia thatAmericans fought years ago and the Iraqi army. Moreover, the Kurdish PKK, whom we regard as terrorists,and military officers of Iran were apparently among the forces helping inflict the defeats on ISIS, along withthe decisive use of U.S. air power. In short, a coalition is forming in Iraq that can provide the ground troopsfor the steady attrition of ISIS and recapture of the Sunni lands it has taken, while the U.S. strikes from theair.

Richard Hall, (Staff, MintPress News Service), IN THE WAKE OF A SERIES OF DEFEATS, ISIS RESORTSTO SHOCK TACTICS, Feb. 5, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 105 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/in-the-wake-of-a-series-of-defeats-isis-resorts-to-shock-tactics-to-reassert-itself/201892/.

The US-led anti-IS coalition, of which Jordan is a member, has played a key role in halting the group’sadvance, and helped various forces on the ground win back lost territory. Over the past few months, IShas suffered a series of defeats on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria — in Sinjar, Diyala province and, infront of television cameras from around the world, in Kobani.


The Islamic State and Al-Qaeda are being seriously damaged by the current efforts, and we shouldgive it a chance to succeed. Sending U.S. soldiers into combat comes with high costs and high risks. Itshould only be done as a last resort.

B. AIR STRIKES BEST DEPRIVE ISIL OF RECRUITMENT MATERIAL.


Airstrikes, on the other hand, cannot be spun by the Islamic State. The jihadists cannot claim they wonbattles or that they even did harm to the U.S. military. Airpower makes them look defenseless and on apath to defeat.

27

C. THE STRENGTH OF ISIL IS EXAGGERATED.


What are the weaknesses of ISIS? They can be reduced to three: ISIS is militarily overextended; it hascome out of the shadows and, having done so, created hostages to fortune; and it has created newenemies in the Islamic world on account of having proclaimed a caliphate.

Jonathan Toaz, (Staff, Politico), U.S. ON THE ROAD TO DEFEATING ISIL, Feb. 8, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2,2015 from http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-kerry-isil-iraq-syria-114991.html.

Asked by host Chuck Todd whether the U.S.-led coalition is winning in its goal of degrading anddestroying ISIL, Kerry said: “I believe we are on the road to, yes. I absolutely do.” The coalition “is strong,more committed than ever,” he said particularly with a greater commitment from Jordan, which launchedstepped-up airstrikes against ISIL after a video surfaced of one of its downed pilots being burned alive in acage. Kerry also said the U.S.-led coalition has regained a large stretch of territory from ISIL and killed “asignificant proportion” of their top leadership. “We believe everything, including the governing process inIraq itself, is moving in the right direction,” he said.

II. U.S. GROUND COMBAT FORCES WILL NOT ASSIST IN THE DEFEAT OF ISIL.

A. ISIL CAN ONLY BE DEFEATED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT ITSELF.

Patrick Johnston, (Political Scientist, RAND Corporation), NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 14, 2014. Retrieved Mar.1, 2015 from Nexis.

The Iraqi government must also engage Turkey, Jordan and the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds to plot a jointstrategy to contain ISIS's oil operations, especially stopping ISIS from controlling Baiji, Iraq's largest oilproduction facility, which small Iraqi special forces teams have been defending for the last two months.The United States can help at the margins, but ultimately only the Iraqis have the power to defeat ISIS.

B. IRAQ HAS THE CAPABILITY TO DEFEAT ISIL.


There is hope that the Iraqi military can succeed. It previously worked with both Sunnis and Shiitesand fought Sunni extremists like Al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists like the Mahdi Army militia. The U.S. canhelp the Iraqis learn from these experiences, but only the Iraqis can implement those lessons.

C. IRAQ’S GOVERNMENT WELCOMES AIR STRIKES, BUT CATEGORICALLY REJECTS THE NOTION OF

U.S. GROUND COMBAT FORCES.

Vivian Salama, (Staff, Huffington Post), IRAQI PM SAYS FOREIGN GROUND TROOPS NOT NECESSARIN FIGHT AGAINST ISIS, Nov. 17, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/iraq-foreign-troops_n_5835706.html.

Al-Abadi praised the U.S. aerial campaign targeting the militants who have overrun much of northernand western Iraq and carved out a proto-state spanning the Syria-Iraq border, saying it has helped effortsto roll back the Sunni extremists. But he stressed that he sees no need for the U.S. or other nations tosend troops into Iraq to help fight the Islamic State. "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't wantthem. We won't allow them.


A combat role would require overriding the will of an elected government and violate Iraqi sovereignty.It is very possible that Iraq would end its diplomatic immunity for U.S. soldiers, heightening the dangersthey face. The Iraqi government has the most to lose from the Islamic State. If the Iraqi government saysthat a U.S. combat role on the ground is unnecessary, then we should respect that confidence.

public forum debate research series vol. 6 april 2015 … · 1 public forum debate research series...

Documents