1. law, govt and politics
2. legal issues
3. human rights

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 shocking
examples 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 slaughter
of all who stand in its way. In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are
unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape
and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts
of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. So
ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East, including
American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a
growing 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 have
released 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 a
fight between Islam and Christianity:
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 every Christian. Muslims have fought harder against ISIS, have killed many more ISIS
members, and have suffered many more casualties against ISIS, than have Americans and other
Westerners. Every Muslim government in the region is a bitter foe of ISIS. ISIS terrorists have
burned a Jordanian pilot, a devout Muslim, alive in a cage. They have killed thousands of Muslim
girls and women in "honor killings." They crucify --- literally --- members of rival groups for the sin
of 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 religious
leader in Sunni Islam, describes ISIS as satanic. The International Association of Muslim
Scholars condemns it as an "extremist organization (that) does not represent Islam in any way
and 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 whether
any of those governments have the military power or the political will to stop ISIL’s expansion across the region. The
United States has already begun an active campaign of air strikes against ISIL, but some military experts believe that
only “boots on the ground” can stop ISIL. The April Public Forum topic asks whether it should be the United States to
insert these ground forces.
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO STOP HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
Public Forum debaters will need to understand two major international frameworks for addressing serious human
rights 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 of
Genocide, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. The Convention entered into force in 1951 and currently
has 142 signatory nations. The major motivation for the Genocide Convention was the international revulsion at Nazi
Holocaust. The phrase, “never again,” reportedly came from hand made signs held up by surviving members of the
inmates 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, 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 group conditions of life
calculated 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 fully
ratify the Convention until 1988 with the Senate passage of the Proxmire Act. When it ratified the Genocide
Convention, the United States accepted the responsible under Article 1 of that document “to prevent genocide” – “a
duty 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 to
Protect” framework (R2P). When former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan left office in 1999, he was profoundly
troubled by the UN failure to halt the mass killings in Rwanda and Kosovo. He posed the question: “If humanitarian
intervention is an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to gross and systematic violations of
human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?” The Canadian government took Annan’s challenge
immediately to heart, and established the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. That group
produced a framework that eventually (in 2005) achieved unanimous acceptance by the UN General Assembly as the
way 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 these
cases, 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 events
were none of the rest of the world'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 Assembly and elsewhere, became ever more intense,
and the inability to agree on an appropriate response to each of these situations as they arose
became ever more frustrating and damaging. The breakthrough came with the emergence in
2001 of the concept of the responsibility to protect and its subsequent unanimous embrace 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
their weight around but rather on the responsibility of all states to meet the needs of the utterly
powerless. In the first instance, the responsibility to protect a country's people from mass atrocity
crimes lay with its own government; but if it proved unable or unwilling to do so, a wider
responsibility lay with other members of the international community to assist preventively and, if
necessary, react effectively. (pp. 2-3)
Importantly, the R2P Framework calls upon all nations to take action to protect human rights within those nations
that fail in their responsibility to protect human rights. One Canadian group involved in the development of the R2P
framework, the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, characterizes this international
responsibility 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 our
obligation to ensure the human rights of people, regardless of their nationality? Or should we instead resign ourselves
to the fact that we will never be able to right all wrongs beyond our borders? Essentially, this is a conflict between a
philosophy of cosmopolitanism and a political philosophy called realism. The Stoics were the first to refer explicitly to
themselves as cosmopolitans, seeking to replace the polis in ancient political thought with that of the cosmos in which
human beings could live in harmony. The basic idea of classical cosmopolitanism involves the notion that each person
is “a citizen of the world” and owes a duty, above all to the worldwide community of human beings. The main point of
Stoic philosophers contained a most significant idea: that they were, in the first instance, human beings living in a
world of human beings and only incidentally members of polities (that we today would call nations). The boundaries of
polities 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 frequently
claimed for them.
Cosmopolitanism is based on the notion that each human being is equally worthy regardless of the nation, ethnic
group, or gender to which he or she belongs. This view also forms the basis of much of the eighteenth century
philosopher Immanuel Kant’s work. Kant not only accepted the notion of egalitarian individualism espoused by the
Stoics, but be also claimed that nations have the moral duty to the same moral standards as individuals. Most of the
global regimes, laws, and regulations associated with a global community are heavily influenced by Kant and the
Stoics. 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 in
the laws of war and weapons diffusion; in the commitment to the principles of the Nuremberg and Tokyo war
crimes tribunals (1945-6 and 1946-8), the Torture Convention (in 1984) and the statutes of the International
Criminal Court (in 1998) which outlaw genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; in the growing
recognition of democracy as the fundamental standard of political legitimacy which finds entrenchment in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and regional treaties; in the development of new codes of conduct for
governmental and international non-governmental organizations, concerning the transparency and
accountability 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 oceans
and rivers, and nuclear risks, among many other factors.”
In direct opposition to the notion of universal moralism articulated by cosmopolitan philosophers is the philosophy
of political realism, or simply realism. It is the oldest perspective on international affairs. It traces its roots to
Thuycydides, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes. The realist interpretation of international affairs makes several basic
assumptions about the nature of international affairs. Because it assumes that the international system is anarchic and
has 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 agent
of the people in its jurisdiction. It exists to serve their interests and to protect their welfare. The absence of any central
order-enforcing power means that moral rules and ethical restraints are neither enforced nor enforceable. Since ethical
restraints are not enforced in this environment, they lose their binding character. Realists often speak in terms of
necessity. 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. A
nation that allows itself to be ruled by moral absolutes is always at an extreme disadvantage when other states don’t
play by moral rules but continually seek their own advantage. Because the very existence of the state is predicated on
its duty to protect the interests and rights of its people, it would be immoral for the state to act in a way that undermined
those rights and interests.
Realists claim that any morality must be based on what is realistically possible. From their perspective, Kant’s
ideas are fatally flawed because they do not conform with the ways states function in a world without a central
authority. 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 we
commonly refer to as “global human rights” is nothing more than a dominant country like the United States pursuing its
own 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 the
United 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 ground
combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best interest of the United States.” This resolution suggests a few analytical
questions:
What is meant by the term “United States ground combat troops?” This question is not as simple as it seems. The
United States already has thousands of military personnel in Iraq. Trudy Rubin described the distinction between these
military personnel and “ground combat troops:”
The hottest issue: whether the United States will return "ground troops" to Iraq, with some
Republicans urging this on and many Democrats aghast. Obama is opposed (along with the bulk
of the U.S. public) and says the fighting should be done by Iraqi forces and moderate Syrian
rebels. 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 be
embedded 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 of
U.S. forces in the region:
Obama has not allowed U.S. Special Forces and forward air controllers to embed themselves
in the Free Syrian Army, Iraqi security forces, Kurdish peshmerga, or in Sunni tribes when they
go into combat as he did with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. This lack of eyes on the
ground 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.news
week.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 focuses
on the terrorist threat to United States national security. ISIL has made it abundantly clear that it intends to strike in the
United 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 out
such a threat? ISIL has properly been characterized as the richest terrorist organization in history. Osama bin Laden
financed al-Qaeda’s operation with a few million dollars from his personal family wealth. Yet ISIL has fully taken over
the assets of banks in cities that it has conquered – it reportedly took $400 million from a single bank in Mosul. Ed
Royce, 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 in
Syria and holds sway over an area the size of Great Britain. The group has seized an estimated $2 billion in assets, a
stunning 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 nations
including the United States, England, and France. The combination of almost unlimited assets and terrorists with easy
access to entry into the United States adds up to a major threat to U.S. national security. Senator John McCain
explains the threat as follows:
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 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 the
secretary of homeland security has called Syria ''a matter of homeland security.'' His warnings
about 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 Iraq
and 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, the
leading 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 a
mass gravesite near Ramadi, with another 48 discovered in Hit. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat in
November, one of the members of the prominent tribe said ISIS had a "hit-list" of names of
people 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 113 th Congress), offered the following
assessment 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 ISIS
really is. First, ISIS is utterly ruthless in its fighting and governance. Last month, a United Nations
human rights panel report described 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 693 child casualties at the hands of ISIS this year. And at least
2,250 women and children are currently detained 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 been displaced. Sadly, these statistics
are just the tip of the iceberg because it is nearly impossible to get a full accounting of the extent
of ISIS' brutality on the ground in Iraq and Syria. There are likely thousands of more stories of
suffering -- of public lashings, rape, abductions, torture and genocidal acts -- that have yet to be
proved. (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 strategy
argues that the insertion of U.S. ground troops will be counterproductive. A strong case can be made that it was the
insertion of U.S. ground forces in Iraq that actually created ISIL. Consider the following account from Audrey Kurth
Cronin, 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, it
was just one of a number of Sunni extremist groups fighting U.S. forces and attacking Shiite
civilians 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 was
killed by a U.S. air strike in 2006, and soon after, AQI was nearly wiped out when Sunni tribes
decided 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 operatives
connected 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 come
from Arab countries. Patrick Buchanan asks why the United States should be leading the fight against ISIL versus the
countries in the region: “Though the Iraqi army, Shia militias and Kurds may be able to provide those troops to retake
Mosul, neither the Turks nor any other Arab nation has volunteered the troops to defeat ISIS in Syria. And if the Turks
and Sunni Arabs are unwilling to put boots on the ground in Syria, why should we? Why should America, half a world
away, have to provide those troops rather than nations that are more immediately threatened and have armies near at
hand? 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 to
produce military successes. Vivian Salama describes this success in the Huffington Post: “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 reconnaissance planes left from al-Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates
on 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 in
public forum debate is on persuasive delivery for the lay person, you would never want to try to speak more rapidly in
order to pack more arguments or quotations into the few minutes available in your speeches. Most successful public
forum teams won’t use more than six or seven short quotations in the whole debate. Most of the briefs offered in our
Public Forum Debate Research Series are much longer – and present much more evidence – than could ever be
presented 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 and
also to make backup evidence available to you. You should make the arguments your own by choosing only the
arguments 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 the
widespread 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: “The
Syrian people are caught in a horrible downward spiral. The government’s slaughter seems only to
intensify 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 sprawling
collection of militias that constitute the armed opposition includes some that are themselves torturing
and executing prisoners and promoting sectarian strife. While not on a par with the government-directed
slaughter, their abuses encourage Syria’s minorities to stick with the murderous Assad rather than risk
an 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 an
Islamic 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-Badhdadi
was 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 fighter
jet while flying over airspace controlled by ISIL. In early February of 2015, ISIL released a 22-minute
video depicting this soldier being burned alive in a cage. This video showed the pilot, covered in
gasoline, forced to watch as fire traveled along the ground, eventually engulfing him in flames. The
release of this video has prompted outrage in Jordan where the young man’s father, Safi al-Kasasbeh, is
a respected tribal leader. The pilot's father, who originally had been critical of the war against ISIS, now
said 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 leadership
was controversial because he consistently refused to share power with the Sunni factions in the northern
and western sections of the country. Al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party reserved all positions of power to
Iraq’s Shia majority, rejecting U.S. pressure to follow a more inclusive approach. Many political experts
believe that al-Maliki’s policies became a powerful recruitment device for ISIL – members of the Sunni
minority 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, the
Obama administration is hopeful that he will be more willing than his predecessor to offer some positions
of power to Sunni politicians and military officials.
Enduring Offensive Ground Operations: This is the controversial phrase included in the resolution that
President Obama has sent to Congress asking for authorization to use military force against ISIL. This
resolution asked for Congressional blessing of a military campaign against ISIL that would last “no
longer 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 want
the President to use U.S. ground combat forces worry that the resolution prohibits their use. Opponents
of using ground forces worry about the definition of “enduring” – does that prohibition mean not longer
than 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 State
in Iraq and the Levant.” The Levant refers to a region of the Middle East region in general. The Obama
administration has insisted on using the term ISIL rather than ISIS. The apparent reason is the
reluctance of the United States to attack ISIS in Syrian territory, perhaps out of the fear that it would be
doing the bidding of Bassar al-Assad, the brutal dictator in Syria. Accordingly, the Obama administration
prefers 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 highlyrespected senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, directly supports the use of U.S. ground
combat 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 in
Syria, where ISIS has expanded its zone of control over the past six months. For air strikes to work, they
need to be launched in coordination 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 Sunni tribal fighters working in conjunction with American troops. To inflict serious setbacks
on ISIS today will require resurrecting that successful coalition rather than flatly refusing, as Obama has
done, 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 in
the New York Post quotes key U.S. military planners as saying that only ground combat troops can
destroy ISIL: “As the massive US-led air campaign plows ahead, the nation’s top military chief says it will
take 15,000 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 to wipe out the terror group in Iraq. ‘The answer is yes. There has to be a ground component in
the campaign,’ Dempsey said, appearing alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. ‘We need 12,000 to
15,000 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-groundtroops-to-fight. Goodman, a staff writer for The Hill, believes that sending U.S. ground troops into Iraq
would repeat the tragic mistakes of the past: “It speaks volumes that according to USA Today, more than
3,100 Americans have died and over 33,000 have been wounded from IED blasts in the Iraq and
Afghanistan Wars. This accounts for more than 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 have been injured in both wars, and hundreds of
thousands deal with the repercussions of battle on a daily basis. The end result, sadly, has been military
victories that were either squandered by the Iraqi government’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 rocked the nation, it’s a pity that members of Congress are
actually contemplating sending American soldiers back to further counterinsurgency wars and sectarian
quagmires 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 security
analyst with the Clarion Project offers the following seven reasons why the U.S. would regret committing
ground troops to fight ISIS: (1) It would cause both domestic and international blowback; (2) Iraq doesn’t
want U.S. ground troops; (3) It would delay the inevitable – meaning it would actually prolong the appeal
of ISIS, which otherwise will decline; (4) U.S. troops won’t fight only the Islamic State – meaning that other
regional forces would take up the attack against American soldiers; (5) the Islamic State wants to fight
American troops; (6) Sending in U.S. troops would validate Islamist propaganda; and (7) U.S. troops
oppose 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 Graham
are U.S. Senators from Arizona and South Carolina, respectively. While their position has been
characterized as supporting the use of U.S. troops against ISIL, they make it clear in this article that they
do not support a combat mission for these troops: “We should embed additional United States special
forces and advisers with our partners on the ground — not to engage in combat, but to help our partners
fight ISIS and direct airstrikes against it. Regional allies should play a key role in this effort. No one is
advocating unilateral invasion, occupation or nation-building. This should be more like Afghanistan in
2001, where limited numbers of advisers helped local forces, with airstrikes and military aid, to rout an
extremist army.”
8
PRO CASE #1: NATIONAL SECURITY
The 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 to
the 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 is
composed, and to the chief end of its institution. All means which do not affect the independence of other
nations are lawful to this end. No nation has a right to prescribe to another what these means shall be, or
to 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 other
considerations.”
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 in
Iraq and Syria terrorist declares to President Obama, "Our knife will continue to strike the necks of your
people." In the earlier video showing the beheading of James Foley, another U.S. journalist, the ISIS
executioner says directly into the camera: "You're no longer fighting an insurgency. We are an Islamic
army." Another recent video, also directed at Americans: "We will drown all of you in blood."
Dianne Feinstein, (U.S. Senator, California & Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee), USA TODAY,
Sept. 8, 2014, 10A.
These are ISIS' true colors. Unlike other terrorist groups, ISIS has grown into a sophisticated military
force and is estimated to have between 10,000 and 20,000 fighters. The group now firmly controls large
swaths of territory in both Syria and Iraq. The threat ISIS poses cannot be overstated. This is the most
vicious, well-funded and militant terrorist organization we have ever seen, and it is very quickly
consolidating its power.
Dianne Feinstein, (U.S. Senator, California & Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee), USA TODAY,
Sept. 8, 2014, 10A.
But ISIS' aspirations don't stop there. In an audio message, the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
said, "Our last message is to the Americans. 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."
9
Geoff Earl (Staff), NEW YORK POST, Sept. 24, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://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, whether
we like it or not, they have already declared war on us,” said British Prime Minister David Cameron. “There
isn’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 the
group's ties to terrorist attacks and to attempts that were prevented in recent years in Europe, including the
May 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 remains
unchallenged in Syria and holds sway over an area the size of Great Britain. The group has seized an
estimated $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 this
apparently 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 and
building structures that could survive for years to come. ISIS currently brings in more than $1 million a day
in revenue and is now the richest terrorist group on the planet.
Dianne Feinstein, (U.S. Senator, California & Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee), USA TODAY,
Sept. 8, 2014, 10A.
Second, ISIS is a sophisticated terrorist army. There is an extremely high level of organization in ISIS
operations and ISIS-controlled territory, almost reminiscent of a military dictatorship. ISIS controls
extensive resources, military vehicles, heavy weapons and border crossings between Iraq and Syria. It has
become 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 the
black market from the several oil fields it controls. ISIS is also governing effectively, albeit brutally. It has
put in place judicial systems, traffic police and inspectors to ensure sharia law is followed and crime is
punished.
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 the
Iraqi army is able to stop ISIL's advance on Baghdad, the violent jihadist group will likely retain control of
vast swaths of Iraq and eastern Syria. In a matter of days, ISIL's bold and effective fighting in the heartland
of the Arab world may have made it the pre-eminent force in the Sunni jihadist movement. It has now
arguably eclipsed al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and his Pakistan-based terrorist core in the eyes of
potential 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. The
territory 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 Iraqi
military, including arms provided by the United States. When ISIL fighters conquered Mosul, they seized
the 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 disciplined
organization that employs social media and sophisticated financial strategies in the funding and
governance of the areas it has conquered. The insurgents seized as much as $400 million from the
central bank in Mosul, said Atheel Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh Province, and reportedly emptied the
vaults in all the other banks in a city of more than one million residents. Other officials cite lower figures
when 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 an
estimated 60 percent of the country’s oil production capacity. Meanwhile, during its push into Iraq last
summer, ISIS also seized seven oil-producing operations in that country. The group manages to sell some
of this oil on the black market in Iraq and Syria—including, according to some reports, to the Assad regime
itself. ISIS also smuggles oil out of Iraq and Syria into Jordan and Turkey, where it finds plenty of buyers
happy 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 the
entire 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 see
themselves as the vanguard of a new Islamic caliphate. "We are only seven months since the declaration
of 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 jihadi
group might even try to attack the holy Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. In the meantime, it will keep
targeting minority Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, and try to solidify its hold on the Sunni areas of the
country. And the ISIS threat doesn't end there. Its leaders have made clear that they will focus on Western
and American targets once they consolidate their territorial gains. ISIS is training thousands of Europeans
and 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 the
centuries-old system of nation-states, and replace it with a super-state, run by themselves. If ISIL
succeeds, there will no longer be an Iraq or a Syria - or if they grow very strong, an Egypt, Jordan and who
knows what else. The ancient cultures of these states will be gone. There will only be an expanding
caliphate.
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 order
to keep it from creating a sanctuary for global terrorism and to keep sectarian warfare from engulfing the
entire 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 radical
group conquers more territory and - with such success - more easily recruits members and acquires more
weapons and money. Citing multiple U.S. intelligence sources, NBC News labeled the ISIS threat against
U.S. targets "extremely high." Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has declared an Islamic caliphate in
the territory ISIL controls, warned America earlier this year, "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." The United
States learned the hard way not to take warnings from terrorist leaders lightly, for Osama bin Laden had
issued 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 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 the secretary of homeland security
has called Syria ''a matter of homeland security.'' His warnings about 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 Iraq and 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.
II. U.S. GROUND COMBAT TROOPS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE DEFEAT OF ISIL.
A. AIR STRIKES ARE INSUFFICIENT AGAINST ISIL.
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/.
Consider first the tremendous U.S. military and intelligence campaign to capture or kill al Qaeda’s core
leadership through drone strikes and Special Forces raids. Some 75 percent of the leaders of the core al
Qaeda group have been killed by raids and armed drones, a technology well suited to the task of going
after 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 urban
areas, where they are well integrated into civilian populations and usually surrounded by buildings, making
drone strikes and raids much harder to carry out. And simply killing ISIS’ leaders would not cripple the
organization.
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 already
doing: participating in air strikes against ISIS, sharing intelligence, and helping the United States train
moderate 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 Arab
support for the anti-ISIS fight unless the White House shows greater commitment to that struggle. A key
ally 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 in
northern Iraq to rescue downed pilots. That contradictory U.S. approach - urging its Arab allies to fight ISIS
in the air and on the ground, but not giving them the necessary support - makes Arab governments and
tribes wary of engaging the jihadis. Arabs are uncertain about what Obama wants in the region given the
contradictions of American policy. This is especially true of Sunni tribes in Syria and Iraq - some of them
related to Jordanian tribes - which the administration is counting on to rebel against ISIS. Yet the current
U.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 air
strikes. Tribes that do rebel cannot match ISIS's weapons (most of which were seized from U.S.-supplied
depots 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 from
http://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 take
15,000 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 to
wipe out the terror group in Iraq. “The answer is yes. There has to be a ground component in the
campaign,” Dempsey said, appearing alongside Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. “We need 12,000 to
15,000 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 AGAINST
ISIS, Feb. 20, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-tojoin-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/.
US officials are now saying that the offensive against the ISIS-held city of Mosul will be supported by
the US, with both airstrikes and “if necessary” US ground troops backing the Iraqi military. This offensive
could begin as soon as April. The “if necessary” qualifier means the US involvement is all but certain, as
the Pentagon has repeatedly said they don’t believe Iraq’s military is even close to being able to take a
major 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 eventually
have 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, and
finally defeat [ISIS]." Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has called ISIS "some of the most brutal, barbaric
forces we've seen in the world today." Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, an Arabic speaker
with 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 battle
by 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 with
an irregular army, and leaving them in some capacity intact anywhere would leave a cancer in place that
will 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 -- as
many believe it will -- the threat it poses will not stop there. ISIS now controls a territory as large as a
country, and it has seized massive amounts of U.S. heavy weapons from Iraqi bases, along with hundreds
of millions of dollars from Mosul banks. "This is an army, not a militia," Crocker says. "ISIS can build a
caliphate and plan how to attack us" or threaten neighboring Arab countries. Partition would also leave
Tehran in virtual control of an Iraqi Shiite rump state in the south along with Iraq's main oil holdings. Any
claim that Iran would cooperate with Washington in fighting ISIS ignores this fact: Tehran's Iraqi file is
under the control of Gen. Qasem Souleimani, head of the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards, who
has 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 be
the only act that people of every culture find clearly repugnant. Since ISIL is actively engaged in genocide, the U.S. has a
commitment 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-andresponsibility-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 “a
core 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. Retrieved
Dec. 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 of
the United Nations’ Genocide Convention culminated in the signing of the Proxmire Act by President
Ronald Reagan at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. The Proxmire Act, officially the Genocide Convention
Implementation Act of 1987, bound the United States to the provisions of the United Nations’ Convention
on 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 OF
LAW, Spr. 2011, 121-122.
The International Court of Justice ("ICJ") embraced this "responsibility to protect" for crimes of
genocide. The Court made this responsibility a treaty obligation for those states that ratified Genocide
Convention Article IX without reservation. Moreover, regarding the responsibility to protect, the Court saw
no distinction between genocide committed on a state's own soil and genocide committed elsewhere. It is
now 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/Genocide
Convention.aspx.
As of today, 140 states have ratified the Genocide Convention. The High Commissioner says that
while the international community shares a collective responsibility to prevent genocide, individual states
have 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 group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another 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 against
Christians, Yazidis, and others in Iraq. In its fanatical effort to establish a caliphate, ISIS/ISIL has engaged
in crimes against humanity by deliberately causing mass starvation and dehydration, and by committing
unconscionable acts of barbarism against noncombatants, including defenseless women, children, and
elderly persons. It is imperative that the United States and the international community act immediately
and 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 with
genocide, 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 human
rights committee, told The Anadolu Agency without going into specifics. Moreover, Turkmen women are
enslaved by ISIL, Omar added. Turkmens are ethnic relatives to Turks, with whom they share a common
culture. 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 of
children, the enslavement and rape of women, threatening religious minorities with genocide, beheading
hostages," Mr Obama said. "ISIL-linked terrorists murdered Egyptians in the Sinai Peninsula and their
slaughter 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 mass
gravesite near Ramadi, with another 48 discovered in Hit. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat in November, one
of the members of the prominent tribe said ISIS had a "hit-list" of names of people from the tribe it wished
to 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, the
Ness.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. The
report 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 remained
trapped or displaced in areas under the control of ISIS during the reporting period, with limited access to
humanitarian 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 by
ISIS militants, such as murder, rape, slavery, human trafficking, forced military recruitment of children and
the destruction of religious and cultural sites - which could "amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity
and possibly genocide." It said the Iraqi security forces and affiliated armed groups also committed human
rights 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 and
women and recruit them from among the world's 1.3 billion Sunnis. It does not face the numerical
constraints of groups like Hezbollah or countries like Iran, whose ideologies only appeal to the smaller
Shiite 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 air
strikes, has shown scant ability to dislodge ISIS from its strongholds, especially in Syria, where ISIS has
expanded its zone of control over the past six months. For air strikes to work, they need to be launched in
coordination with an effective ground force, but that has been mostly lacking. Back in 2007–08, when alQaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s precursor, was pushed out of the Sunni-dominated northwest of Iraq, it was by Sunni
tribal fighters working in conjunction with American troops. To inflict serious setbacks on ISIS today will
require 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 as
important as the troop numbers are the rules of engagement under which they operate. It is imperative that
U.S. advisers and joint tactical air controllers be able to operate on the front lines with the local troops they
support. This was the formula that made possible the rapid overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan in the
fall 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 victims
of ISIS/ISIL genocide. What is happening to these people now, and the further threats they face, would
not be happening but for errors and failures of our nation’s own in Iraq. This can and should be
acknowledged by all, despite disagreements we may have among ourselves as to precisely what these
errors and failures were, and which political and military leaders are mainly responsible for them. The point
is not to point fingers or apportion blame, but to recognize that justice as well as compassion demands that
we take the steps necessary to end the ISIL/ISIS campaign of genocide and protect those who are its
victims.
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 as
one of its vital interests. The responsibility to protect human rights falls first on each nation to protect the human rights of
its 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 NATION
INDIVISIBLE, 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 be
obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. — James Madison
Helmut Reifeld, (Head of Overseas Offices, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung – a German Think Tank), WE HAVE
JUSTICE IN COMMON, 2008, 7.
Justice is a core value not only in the fields of theology, law and political philosophy, but also in
politics, 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 THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2010, 4.
More generally, the development of the responsibility to protect has been hailed by Ramesh Thakur
and Thomas Weiss as the most dramatic development of our time – comparable to the Nuremberg trials
and the 1948 Convention on Genocide and by historian Martin Gilbert as the most significant adjustment to
national sovereignty in 360 years.
Gareth Evans, (Co-Chair, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty), THE
RESPONSIBILITY 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 the
traditional prerogatives of state sovereignty, who insisted that internal events were none of the rest of the
world'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 Assembly
and elsewhere, became ever more intense, and the inability to agree on an appropriate response to each
of these situations as they arose became ever more frustrating and damaging. The breakthrough came
with the emergence in 2001 of the concept of the responsibility to protect and its subsequent unanimous
embrace 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 their
weight around but rather on the responsibility of all states to meet the needs of the utterly powerless. In the
first instance, the responsibility to protect a country's people from mass atrocity crimes lay with its own
government; but if it proved unable or unwilling to do so, a wider responsibility lay with other members of
the 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 as
a means to locate an appropriate legal balance between state sovereignty and human rights. Only recently
formulated, the R2P doctrine seeks to ensure that states respond to the human needs of people within
their territory or under their control, and to codify international responsibility to protect a state’s citizens in
the event the state fails to fulfill its domestic obligations. In doing so, the R2P doctrine makes considerable
contributions 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), THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2008, 31.
Less than four years later, "R2P" was formally and unanimously embraced by the UN General
Assembly meeting at the head of state and government level at the 2005 World Summit.
James Pattison, (Prof., Politics, U. Manchester), HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION AND THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, 2010, 3.
Most notably, at the 2005 UN World Summit (the High-Level Plenary meeting of the 60 th session of the
General Assembly, with over 160 heads of state and government in attendance), states agreed that there
exists a universal responsibility to protect populations. In doing so, they indicated their preparedness to
undertake action should peaceful means be inadequate and when national authorities are manifestly
failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against
humanity. On the face of it, this agreement was something of a watershed moment for humanitarian
intervention. It seemed to mark the worldwide acceptance of the responsibility to intervene in response to
the 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 human
rights—notably the "responsibility to protect". For the first time the entire UN membership, at the highest
level, has accepted clearly that it has a collective responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. I believe this is a historic decision, which can help
us to respond more rapidly, and more effectively, to the Bosnias and Rwandas, and indeed the Darfurs, of
the future. Of course it's a decision in principle. An enormous political effort will still be needed to ensure
that we act on this principle in specific situations. But no one can argue any longer that such horrific crimes
are internal affairs, which concern only the people and government of the nation in which they happen. In
that 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 international
cooperation" and that "the State was now widely understood to be the servant of the people and not vice
versa." This view is embraced by those seeking a democratization of sovereignty as well as those that
believe 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 the
service of their peoples, and not vice versa... . When we read the Charter today, we are more than ever
conscious 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 of
international law. Additionally, the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) now places the focus on
states 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's
ability 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, and
translated 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."
Matthew Vigeant, (JD, Columbia Law School), COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS,
Winter 2013, 216.
The second document is the 2010 National Security Strategy ("NSS"). The NSS states that "[t]he
United States and all member states of the U.N. have endorsed the concept of the Responsibility to
Protect." The NSS continues that "[i]n the event that prevention fails, the United States will work both
multilaterally 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 the
National Security Strategy is seen by the international community as a signal from the Obama
Administration 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 in
Libya in 2011 received wide coverage in academic and policy circles. While the Executive Branch's legal
justification for taking action in Libya without Congressional authorization was not premised solely on
humanitarian grounds, R2P is a key plank in President Obama's foreign policy.
Matthew Vigeant, (JD, Columbia Law School), COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS,
Winter 2013, 211.
R2P is shorthand for the emerging international consensus in favor of supporting humanitarian
intervention when a state fails to protect its own people, thereby forfeiting its sovereign rights. While the
exact role R2P played in decision-making around Libya is unknown to anyone outside of the Executive
branch, the President's 2010 National Security Strategy is seen in the international community as an
American 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 their
brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape and force women into
marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives
of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq
and Syria and the broader Middle East, including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left
unchecked, 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 many
Muslims. Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority in Iraq, are particularly hated for their supposed
apostasy, as are the Alawites who rule in Syria. ISIL also targets Sunni Muslims, if the group believes that
they are insufficiently zealous or have collaborated with the United States or its allies, including the current
Iraqi 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 so
violent, al-Qaida leader Zawahiri disavowed the group in February, excoriating it for its brutality and
attacks against other jihadist fighters. Half a million Iraqis fled Mosul as ISIL forces entered the city, and
hundreds of thousands more will surely flee wherever ISIL goes.
19
Dianne Feinstein, (U.S. Senator, California & Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee), USA TODAY,
Sept. 8, 2014, 10A.
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 ISIS really is. First, ISIS is
utterly ruthless in its fighting and governance. Last month, a United Nations human rights panel report
described 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 693
child casualties at the hands of ISIS this year. And at least 2,250 women and children are currently
detained 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 been
displaced. Sadly, these statistics are just the tip of the iceberg because it is nearly impossible to get a full
accounting of the extent of ISIS' brutality on the ground in Iraq and Syria. There are likely thousands of
more stories of suffering -- of public lashings, rape, abductions, torture and genocidal acts -- that have yet
to 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 division
of American-trained soldiers -- simply fled, leaving behind their uniforms, weapons, and vehicles. But this
wholesale surrender had little to do with the military prowess or spiritual appeal of ISIL. In a paper
published today by Caerus Associates, Yasir Abbas and Dan Trombly conclude -- mainly from interviews
with Iraqi soldiers and other insiders -- that much of the Iraqi army had been crumbling for the past two
years, 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-wontdefeat-isis/105876/.
When the time comes for a ground offensive against ISIL, expect the heavy lifting to be done by battlehardened 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 from
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-back-ground-troopsagainst-isis/385650/.
Last week, with a majority of Americans behind him, President Obama sent draft legislation to
Congress 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 from
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-back-ground-troopsagainst-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 of
Americans (57 percent) favor the U.S. sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS," CBS
reported.
20
CON CASE #1: INTERVENTION BEGETS MORE KILLING
The 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.
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 came into being thanks to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In its earliest incarnation, it was just one
of a number of Sunni extremist groups fighting U.S. forces and attacking Shiite civilians 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 was killed by a U.S. air strike in 2006, and soon
after, AQI was nearly wiped out when Sunni tribes decided 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 operatives connected and formed networks—and where the group’s current chief
and 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 to
be stampeded into another unnecessary and counter- productive 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. This
reality should engender a bit of modesty among Republicans -- before they call for ground troops to return
to 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-aterrorist-group.
ISIS is now led by well-trained, capable former Iraqi military leaders who know U.S. techniques and
habits 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 mineresistant 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 AGAINST
ISIS, Feb. 20, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-ground-troops-likely-tojoin-iraqs-fight-against-isis/202307/.
ISIS has gained enormously from the US war, bolstering their recruitment dramatically across the
world. 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 to
give 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 do
the maximum damage to ISIS and the least damage to us. Which means we ought not plunge back into
Iraq or drop the 82nd Airborne into Syria. That is what ISIS seeks, to be seen by the Islamic world
engaging American soldiers on Islamic lands.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://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 troops
on the ground. In fact, supporters encouraged each other in the wake of U.S. airstrikes by predicting that
combat troops will soon arrive.
B. ISIL WANTS THE PROPAGANDA OPPORTUNITY TO KILL OR CAPTURE AMERICAN SOLDIERS.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
Killing, injuring or capturing an American soldier is among the most glorious of achievements for
jihadists as a whole, not just the Islamic State. It is much more appealing and widely approved of than
massacring unarmed civilians, beheading journalists and killing Iraqi and Kurdish forces.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
Pictures and videos of American military casualties are invaluable propaganda and help maintain a
sense of success, even if Islamic State casualties are much higher. The death toll on each side matters
little 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 from
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about-sending-groundtroops-to-fight.
It speaks volumes that according to USA Today, more than 3,100 Americans have died and over
33,000 have been wounded from IED blasts in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. This accounts for more
than 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 have
been injured in both wars, and hundreds of thousands deal with the repercussions of battle on a daily
basis. The end result, sadly, has been military victories that were either squandered by the Iraqi
government’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 rocked
the nation, it’s a pity that members of Congress are actually contemplating sending American soldiers back
to further counterinsurgency wars and sectarian quagmires in Iraq.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
From the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 to the ending of combat operations on
August 31, 2010, a total of 4,409 U.S. troops and 13 Defense Department civilians were killed and 31,925
troops were injured. Even after combat operations ended and Operation New Dawn took place from
September 2010 to December 2011, 66 U.S. troops were killed and 295 were wounded. This does not
count 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.
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-aterrorist-group.
But putting more U.S. troops on the ground would be counterproductive, entangling the United States
in an unwinnable war that could go on for decades. The United States cannot rebuild the Iraqi state or
determine the outcome of the Syrian civil war. Frustrating as it might be to some, when it comes to military
action, Washington should stick to a realistic course that recognizes the limitations of U.S. military force as
a long-term solution.
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-aterrorist-group.
Of course, this opens up a third possible approach to ISIS, besides counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency: a full-on conventional war against the group, waged with the goal of completely
destroying it. Such a war would be folly. After experiencing more than a decade of continuous war, the
American public simply would not support the long-term occupation and intense fighting that would be
required to obliterate ISIS. The pursuit of a full-fledged military campaign would exhaust U.S. resources
and offer little hope of obtaining the objective. Wars pursued at odds with political reality cannot be won.
E. THE INSERTION OF U.S. GROUND FORCES INTO IRAQ WOULD BRING EXTREMIST FACTIONS OUT
OF THE WOODWORK.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
The unfortunate reality is that extremists other than the Islamic State will fight U.S. soldiers, leading to
a bigger conflict. Attacks on American soldiers, especially those in Muslim countries, are viewed with great
legitimacy in the Muslim world.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
Sunnis still have much hostility towards American troops. Apart from the Islamic State, other Sunni
militants will feel obliged to wage jihad against them. Moqtada al-Sadr, a popular cleric linked to Iran, says
his followers will attack U.S. troops. Two other militias backed by Iran, Kataib Hezbollah and Asaib Ahl alHaq, have also issued threats.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
When U.S. troops are in Muslim lands, they are easily demonized. Decades of anti-Western
propaganda have made Muslim societies inclined to assume the worst. When U.S. troops act, they are
blamed for civilian casualties and collateral damage. When they don’t act, they are accused of indifference
towards the locals and blamed for sufferings.
F. U.S. TROOPS OPPOSE RETURNING TO A GROUND WAR IN IRAQ.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
Every wartime decision is a cost-benefit analysis. No one understands this better than those who have
to bear the cost. When 70% of active-duty servicemen oppose sending a “substantial number” of ground
troops to assist Iraqi security forces, it should be taken seriously.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
American troops sign up to defend the country. They willingly make enormous sacrifices to address
threats like the Islamic State and help innocents around the world. This statistic is not a reflection of an
unwillingness 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 RESPONSIBILITY
The 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 correctly
understands 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 did
in Afghanistan and Iraq? Over two-thirds of coalition fatalities in Afghanistan were Americans; 90 percent
in 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-worldspoliceman.
It's not just that no one appointed the United States the world's policeman. By assuming that role, the
U.S. government—no matter who's president—undermines the values we claim to uphold, such as
freedom, justice, privacy, and peace. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan left hundreds of thousands
dead, many more gravely wounded, and corrupt authoritarian governments in control of the social
wreckage. The law of unintended consequences cannot be repealed, and the risk is no less with
interventions that begin modestly, because no one can say what the other side—which includes Iran and
Russia—will do. At home, a perpetual war footing drains our pockets, puts us at risk of retaliation, violates
our 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 ISIS
what male mates are to black widow spiders. ISIL hopes to fan Shiite-Sunni divisions across the Middle
East. So this begs the question: What role should the U.S. play in resolving this crisis? President Barack
Obama is working to condition U.S. support on real changes by the Shiite government in Baghdad. There
is 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 internal
divisions to field an effective security force. Iraqi leaders must pull Sunnis toward the government, not
push 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. ISIS
has conquered as much Iraqi land as it has because the Sunni residents, much as they despise or distrust
the jihadists, prefer their rule to that of the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad. Once Abadi fills key
ministries with Sunnis and lets more Sunni soldiers join the national army, popular support for ISIS will dry
up -- or at least that's the hope. Until he takes those steps, the hope can't be fulfilled, much less even
tested.
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 in
Afghanistan and has written an important book -- ''Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global
Security'' -- 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 from
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-wrong-about-sending-groundtroops-to-fight.
With both the Shia-led government in Iraq and the Alawi-led one in Syria perceived as repressive by
many 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 of
U.S. ground troops will be able to implement a lasting peace. According to the Georgetown Journal of
International Affairs, both Iraq's Nouri al-Maliki and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai utilized U.S. support to
further 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.
Vincent Curtis, (Journalist on Military Affairs, Formerly Embedded with US Troops in Iraq), BUFFALO NEWS,
Aug. 17, 2014, 24.
A caliphate undermines the religious legitimacy of the governments of other Islamic countries. ISIS is
far 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 directly
threatens 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 cooperate
with 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 every
Christian. Muslims have fought harder against ISIS, have killed many more ISIS members, and have
suffered many more casualties against ISIS, than have Americans and other Westerners. Every Muslim
government in the region is a bitter foe of ISIS. ISIS terrorists have burned a Jordanian pilot, a devout
Muslim, alive in a cage. They have killed thousands of Muslim girls and women in "honor killings." They
crucify --- literally --- members of rival groups for the sin of 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 religious leader in Sunni Islam, describes ISIS as satanic. The International
Association of Muslim Scholars condemns it as an "extremist organization (that) does not represent Islam
in 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, and
Bahrain -- participated in Monday night's airstrikes and that a fifth, Qatar, supported them. No one has yet
said how many bombs the four dropped, or what Qatar's support amounted to, but it doesn't matter. During
the 1990-'91 Gulf War, these and several other Arab nations, including Syria and Egypt, sent tank divisions
and air wings to help push Saddam's army out of Kuwait. Few of them did much, but the important thing
was that they joined the coalition in active force -- and, therefore, Hussein could not claim that this was
purely 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 have
Muslim nations, especially Sunni nations, battling against ISIS helps discredit its rationale for existence.
C. ARAB GOVERNMENTS HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DEFEAT ISIL.
Nawaf Obaid, (Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard U.), NEW YORK TIMES,
Sept. 9, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.
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 fighting
terrorism, is uniquely positioned to deal with ISIS, which is, after all, an Al Qaeda-aligned organization. The
kingdom has built up an impressive counterterrorism program and its counterterrorism strategies are
considered some of the most sophisticated and effective in the world.
Nawaf Obaid, (Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard U.), NEW YORK TIMES,
Sept. 9, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from Nexis.
More importantly, the Saudi leadership has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy, which
will 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's
recent 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 have
hundreds 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-groundtroops_n_5972724.html. "Here's the danger,"
[Vermont Senator, Bernie] Sanders continued. "If the Middle East people perceive this is the United
States versus ISIS, West versus East, Christianity versus Islam, we're going to lose that war. This is a war
for the soul of Islam, and the Muslim nations must be deeply involved."
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
The U.S. has assembled a coalition of over 50 countries including five Arab countries that are
participating in airstrikes on Syria against the Islamic State. This is important for sharing the burden and
undermining propaganda that the U.S. intervention is a war on Islam. The region reacts much more
negatively 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.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
President Obama has been criticized for ruling out a combat role but this unequivocal pledge was
likely necessary for winning international support, domestic political support and support from Iraqis who
are cynical about American intentions.
26
CON CASE #3: AIR STRIKES ARE SUFFICIENT
The 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 NECESSAR
IN
FIGHT
AGAINST
ISIS,
Nov.
17,
2014.
Retrieved
Mar.
1,
2015
from
http://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 reconnaissance
planes left from al-Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates on Monday as part of France's commitment
to 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 of
Syria, and other Syrian rebels. ''Attacking the U.S. is not their first priority,'' Mr. [Andrew] Liepman, [Senior
Analyst at the RAND Corporation] said. In addition, American officials said that the group's brutal methods
of governing the territory it has seized, while effective in the short term, could create internal factions that
would 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 move
into Kurdistan has been halted. The Mosul dam has been retaken from ISIS. The Yazidis on Mount Sinjar
were rescued from ISIS. The Turkmen in Amerli were rescued by Kurdish peshmerga, Shia militia that
Americans 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 with
the decisive use of U.S. air power. In short, a coalition is forming in Iraq that can provide the ground troops
for the steady attrition of ISIS and recapture of the Sunni lands it has taken, while the U.S. strikes from the
air.
Richard Hall, (Staff, MintPress News Service), IN THE WAKE OF A SERIES OF DEFEATS, ISIS RESORTS
TO SHOCK TACTICS, Feb. 5, 2015. Retrieved Mar. 2, 105 from http://www.mintpressnews.com/in-thewake-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’s
advance, and helped various forces on the ground win back lost territory. Over the past few months, IS
has suffered a series of defeats on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria — in Sinjar, Diyala province and, in
front of television cameras from around the world, in Kobani.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
The Islamic State and Al-Qaeda are being seriously damaged by the current efforts, and we should
give it a chance to succeed. Sending U.S. soldiers into combat comes with high costs and high risks. It
should only be done as a last resort.
B. AIR STRIKES BEST DEPRIVE ISIL OF RECRUITMENT MATERIAL.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
Airstrikes, on the other hand, cannot be spun by the Islamic State. The jihadists cannot claim they won
battles or that they even did harm to the U.S. military. Airpower makes them look defenseless and on a
path to defeat.
27
C. THE STRENGTH OF ISIL IS EXAGGERATED.
Vincent Curtis, (Journalist on Military Affairs, Formerly Embedded with US Troops in Iraq), BUFFALO NEWS,
Aug. 17, 2014, 24.
What are the weaknesses of ISIS? They can be reduced to three: ISIS is militarily overextended; it has
come out of the shadows and, having done so, created hostages to fortune; and it has created new
enemies 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 and
destroying 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 launched
stepped-up airstrikes against ISIL after a video surfaced of one of its downed pilots being burned alive in a
cage. Kerry also said the U.S.-led coalition has regained a large stretch of territory from ISIL and killed “a
significant proportion” of their top leadership. “We believe everything, including the governing process in
Iraq 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 joint
strategy to contain ISIS's oil operations, especially stopping ISIS from controlling Baiji, Iraq's largest oil
production 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.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
There is hope that the Iraqi military can succeed. It previously worked with both Sunnis and Shiites
and fought Sunni extremists like Al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists like the Mahdi Army militia. The U.S. can
help 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 NECESSAR
IN 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 northern
and western Iraq and carved out a proto-state spanning the Syria-Iraq border, saying it has helped efforts
to roll back the Sunni extremists. But he stressed that he sees no need for the U.S. or other nations to
send troops into Iraq to help fight the Islamic State. "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want
them. We won't allow them.
Ryan Mauro, (National Security Analyst, The Clarion Project), WHY U.S. SHOULD AVOID SENDING
GROUND TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS, Sept. 29, 2014. Retrieved Mar. 1, 2015 from
http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/7-reasons-hold-sending-us-ground-troops-fight-isis.
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 dangers
they face. The Iraqi government has the most to lose from the Islamic State. If the Iraqi government says
that a U.S. combat role on the ground is unnecessary, then we should respect that confidence.