Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table of Contents
META...................................................................................................................................... 3
OBAMA PLAN DEFINED ................................................................................................................................................. 3
OBAMA PLAN LIMITS GROUND TROOPS ....................................................................................................................... 4
OBAMA PLAN DOESNT LIMIT GROUND TROOPS .......................................................................................................... 5
INTRIGUE ON TROOPS QUESTION BAD: STOPPING TIME SENSITIVE DEBATE ............................................................... 6
PRO ......................................................................................................................................... 8
AT THIS POINT, NOTHING SHOULD BE OFF THE TABLE! ................................................................................................ 8
CURRENT STRATEGY INEFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING ISIL ................................................................................................. 10
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE TROOPS TO DEFEAT ISIL ........................................................................ 11
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: REGIONAL TROOPS NOT ENOUGH ............................................................................ 14
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AIR STRIKES NOT ENOUGH ........................................................................................ 17
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: TRAINING AND ADVISING NOT ENOUGH .................................................................. 20
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MASSIVE FORCE NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE ................................................... 21
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: SHOULD USE SPECIALIZED FORCES TO DEFEAT ISIL ................................................... 24
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST GREEN LIGHT THE POSSIBLE USE OF TROOPS TO GET POLITICAL SUPPORT .... 25
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT ................................................................................... 26
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE A SHOW OF FORCE TO CONVINCE ALLIES OF OUR RESOLVE ................. 29
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST COUNTER BALANCE COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN .................................................... 31
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS PRESIDENTS ABILITY TO FIGHT ISIL ........................................... 32
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS GENERALS ABILITY TO FIGHT EFFECTIVELY ............................... 33
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: SHOWS THAT THE US IS NOT RESOLVED AGAINST ISIL .......................... 35
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: PLAYS INTO ISIL STRATEGY .................................................................... 36
CON ...................................................................................................................................... 37
BALANCE CON: RULE OUT NOW AND REASSESS IN THREE YEARS ............................................................................... 37
CURRENT STATUS: GROUND TROOPS CURRENTLY UNNECESSARY ............................................................................. 38
EVERYTHING BUT GROUND TROOPS IS NECESSARY.................................................................................................... 39
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: CURRENT STRATEGY DOESNT REQUIRE IT .......................................................... 40
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT GROUND TROOPS .......... 42
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: NEED NOT INVOLVE GROUND TROOPS TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE SOLUTION ............. 43
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LARGE INVASION FORCE WONT BE EFFECTIVE ....................................................... 44
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LOCAL MILITARIES BETTER ...................................................................................... 45
GROUND TROOPS BAD: MUST LEAVE THE FIGHT TO LOCAL ARMIES .......................................................................... 49
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GIVES OBAMA A BLANK CHECK ............................................................................................. 50
GROUND TROOPS BAD: = ENDLESS WAR! ................................................................................................................... 51
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GROUND TROOPS WOULD MAKE ISIL STRONGER ................................................................ 52
GROUND TROOPS BAD: WOULD HELP RECRUIT FIGHTERS FOR ISIL ............................................................................ 53
GROUND TROOPS BAD: IRAQI WAR PROVES .............................................................................................................. 54
GROUND TROOPS BAD: AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 55
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST CONSIDER POLITICAL ISSUES .................................................................... 56
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST DECIDE WHAT TO DO POST ISIL ................................................................. 59
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST SIMPLY DISENGAGE .................................................................................. 60
A/T: WE SHOULD SHOCK AND AWE!! .......................................................................................................................... 61
A/T: PRO CALLS FOR BOOTS NOW! ............................................................................................................................. 62
Page 2
Page 3
META
OBAMA PLAN DEFINED
OBAMA AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE HAS TWO KEY PROVISIONS-Doherty '15
[Daniel; Capitol Hill: Lawmakers Raise Serious Concerns About Obama's New AUMF; TownHall; 11 March 2015;
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2015/03/11/kerry-carter-isis-hearing-n1968981; retrieved 14 March 2015]
Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin
Dempsey all appeared on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify in defense of the presidents new Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF) request to combat ISIL. The provision needs congressional approval and would expire in three
years if authorized. It also has at least two key provisions: First, it would not permit, as Secretary Carter phrased it, a
long term, large scale American ground force to be deployed overseas to fight ISIL. Second, it would allow the
president to prosecute the war without geographical limitation. This means the president would have wide latitude to
go after ISIL terrorists outside Iraq and Syria.
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 8
PRO
AT THIS POINT, NOTHING SHOULD BE OFF THE TABLE!
US SHOULD USE "ALL OF THE ABOVE" STRATEGIES TO WIDEN AND DEEPEN ITS FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Rubeiz '15
[Ghassan Michel; Former Middle East Secretary of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches; Commentary: Three
questions about the war on ISIL; Palm Beach Post; 26 February 2015;
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/commentary-three-questions-about-the-war-on-isil/nkKLh/;
retrieved 11 March 2015]
Many analysts claim that, with its blood-thirsty barbarism, ISIL is digging its own grave by uniting all Muslims against it.
The truth is that new terror formations will continue to emerge as long as the region continues to fragment, as ruling
elites exploit their people and as Western powers build short-sighted and selfish partnerships with such elites.
In his recent testimony before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Marc Lynch asserted that the United States
should recognize the political roots of ISILs spread, and refocus its efforts to promote political reforms and curb the
human rights abuses which fuel popular anger and alienation.
The United States campaign against ISIL should continue, Arab armies should be induced to augment their participation,
and the global campaign against terror must widen and deepen its political strategies to better alleviate injustice.
MILITARY EXPERTS DON'T WANT TO RULE ANYTHING OUT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Van Auken '14
[Bill; Boots on the Ground against ISIL? US Generals Challenge Obama on Ground Troops in Iraq, Syria; Global
Research; 21 September 2014; http://www.globalresearch.ca/threat-of-the-islamic-state-us-generals-challenge-obamaon-ground-troops-in-iraq-syria/5403271; retrieved 5 March 2015]
Odierno referred to the 1,600 US troops the Obama administration has already deployed to Iraq as a good start, but
added that as the US military campaign developed, so too could the demand for further deployments. Based on that
assessment well make further decisions, he said.
The Army chief warned that the US was embarking on a protracted war in the region. This is going to go on, he said.
This is not a short termI think the president said three years. I agree with thatthree years, maybe longer. And so
what we want to do is do this right. Assess it properly, see how its going, adjust as we go along, to make sure we can
sustain this.
As to US ground troops entering combat together with Iraqi units, Odierno stated, I dont rule anything out. I dont ever
rule anything out, personally.
ANY AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE SHOULD HAVE AS MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE AS POSSIBLE TO COMBAT ENEMIESWong '15
[Kristina; GOP senator: Obamas ISIS plan 'utterly stupid'; The Hill; 11 February 2015;
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232559-gop-senator-obamas-isis-plan-utterly-stupid; retrieved 14 March 2015]
A Republican senator on Wednesday ripped President Obama for seeking to limit the use of military force against the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), calling the proposal utterly stupid."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in a radio interview noted the recent death of Kayla Mueller, who died while held captive by
the terrorist group, to argue the president needs to threaten ISIS with "all the force he can get."
"And here we have the president coming up with this I think it's utterly stupid proposal," Hatch told KSL News
Radio. "And he's binding the next president also with really stupid language."
"Any president worth his or her salt is going to ask for as much authority as they can get, so at least the ISIS people know
that he has the authority to come in on them anyway he wants to.
Page 10
Page 11
Page 14
Page 17
Page 20
Page 21
Page 24
Page 25
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST GREEN LIGHT THE POSSIBLE USE OF TROOPS TO GET
POLITICAL SUPPORT
GIVING GROUND TROOPS A ROLE IN THE RIGHT AGAINST ISIL IS CRITICAL TO GAIN POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR AN
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE-Pugliese '15
[David; U.S. general worried about what happens in Iraq after ISIL is defeated; Ottawa Citizen; 11 March 2015;
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-general-worried-about-what-happens-in-iraq-after-isil-isdefeated; retreived 12 March 2015]
Republicans expressed unhappiness that Obama had chosen to exclude any long-term commitment of ground forces,
while some Democrats voiced dismay that he had opened the door to any deployment whatsoever.
The 2002 congressional authorization that preceded the American-led invasion of Iraq would be repealed under the
White House proposal, a step some Republicans were unhappy to see. But a separate authorization approved by
Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would remain in force, to the consternation of some Democrats.
The struggle to define any role for American ground forces is likely to determine the outcome of the administrations
request for legislation. The White House has said that the proposal was intentionally ambiguous on that point to give the
president flexibility, although the approach also was an attempt to bridge a deep divide in Congress.
Page 26
Page 29
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE A SHOW OF FORCE TO CONVINCE ALLIES OF OUR
RESOLVE
IF ISIL IS A SERIOUS THREAT, WE SHOULD BE ACTING AS IF THEY ARE WITH OUR ACTIONS-West '14
[Bing; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; How to Defeat ISIL; National Review; 14 August 2014;
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/401009/print; retrieved 13 March 2015]
With the Obama administration, nothing is ever what it was or may be in the future. There is no constancy. Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel has described the threat in terms of some of the most brutal, barbaric forces weve ever seen in
the world today, and a force, ISIL, and others that is an ideology thats connected to an army, and its a force and a
dimension that the world has never seen before like we have seen it now. The Visigoths, Attila, and Tamerlane have a
new rival. Obviously this new scourge upon mankind must be destroyed.
But wait: Then Mr. Hagel delivered the punch line. I recommended to the president, and the president has authorized
me, to go ahead and send about 130 new assessment-team members. Mr. Hagel is holding the rest of our force in
reserve in case the Martians attack. One hundred thirty assessors are sufficient to deal with the most barbaric forces
weve ever seen.
We have to get serious about this: Does the U.S. view the Islamist army as a threat that must be destroyed by American
force of arms, or not?
INSUFFICIENCY OF US STRATEGY AGAINST ISIL IS FRUSTRATING ALLIES IN THE REGION-Khan '15
[Taimur; Arab frustration comes into focus over US strategy on ISIL; The National; 7 March 2015;
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/arab-frustration-comes-into-focus-over-us-strategy-on-isil#full; retrieved
12 March 2015]
The US has pressured Baghdad to rely less on the militias perhaps conditioning air support on compliance with such
requests but the requests have been ignored. Iraqi officials say that while coalition airstrikes would accelerate the
operations pace, Irans support on the ground is more than enough to succeed.
The insufficiency of Washington limiting its direct role to airstrikes while it coaxes Baghdad to take political steps to
address Sunni grievances and integrate the remaining Sunni tribal forces willing to fight ISIL has never been more
glaring, according to regional allies.
The primacy of Iran and its proxies in ground operations against ISIL have raised deep fears among the Sunni-led
coalition countries that even victory will be temporary if it plays into the extremists narrative of Sunni oppression and
their rival Tehran is further entrenched in Iraq at their expense.
US APPROACH IS ENFORCING NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF OUR POLICY IN THE REGION-Khan '15
[Taimur; Arab frustration comes into focus over US strategy on ISIL; The National; 7 March 2015;
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/arab-frustration-comes-into-focus-over-us-strategy-on-isil#full; retrieved
12 March 2015]
The US strategy has also reinforced the long-simmering perception that there is a lack of commitment from a White
House that is still taking a minimalist approach to the Middle East, content to only react to events without considering
its allies interests.
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
CON
BALANCE CON: RULE OUT NOW AND REASSESS IN THREE YEARS
AS OF TODAY, WE SHOULD RULE GROUND FORCES OUT BUT THEN REASSESS IN THREE YEARS-Newsmax '15
[Kerry Calls for US War Powers to Strike ISIS; Newsmax; 11 March 2015; http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/IraqSyria-conflict-US/2015/03/11/id/629540/; retrieved 12 March 2015]
Carter stressed that "the proposed AUMF does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations
like those we conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them."
But Senator Bob Menendez warned that "we all know that it may be the intent of someone not to have any large-scale,
long-term offensive combat troops, but that intention can honestly change along the way."
Carter, however, highlighted that the new war powers resolution would expire in three years and "wisely does not
include any geographical restriction because ISIL already shows signs of metastasizing outside of Syria and Iraq."
"I cannot tell you our campaign to defeat ISIL will be completed in three years," he said, but including a so-called "sunset
clause" would give the next president and "the American people the chance to assess our progress" at the end of that
period.
Page 38
Page 39
Page 40
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 58
CURRENT STRATEGIES AGAINST ISIL IGNORE THE POLITICAL ISSUES UNDERNEATH THE SITUATION-Rubeiz '15
[Ghassan Michel; Former Middle East Secretary of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches; Commentary: Three
questions about the war on ISIL; Palm Beach Post; 26 February 2015;
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/commentary-three-questions-about-the-war-on-isil/nkKLh/;
retrieved 11 March 2015]
Like Al-Qaida in Iraq, Ansar Beit al Makdis in Egypt, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Nusra Front in Syria and the Taliban in
Afghanistan, ISIL is one of the many structures of terror which exploit the political vacuum of failing states or failed
states. ISIL continues to recruit new fighters; its influence is rapidly expanding in Libya, Yemen and possibly Egypt, not to
mention Europe. ISIL attracts thousands of indoctrinated, unemployed, rebellious youth in the Muslim world and in
Europes immigrant ghettos.
The International Coalitions war on ISIL has not yet adequately addressed the political issues which alienate millions of
young Muslims.
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62