ISIL Champion Brief

Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
Resolved: Committing United

States ground combat troops to
fight ISIL is in the best interest of
the United States.
Copyright 2015 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional Debate
ChampionBriefsInstitute.com
The$Evidence$Standard$$ $ April$2015$
!
$
The$Evidence!Standard$
!
!
Speech!and!Debate!provides!a!meaningful!and!educational!experience!to!all!who!are!involved.!
We,!as!educators!in!the!community,!believe!that!it!is!our!responsibility!to!provide!resources!that!
uphold!the!foundation!of!the!Speech!and!Debate!activity.!Champion!Briefs,!its!employees,!
managers,!and!associates!take!an!oath!to!uphold!the!following!Evidence!Standard:!
1. We!will!never!falsify!facts,!opinions,!dissents,!or!any!other!information.!
2. We!will!never!knowingly!distribute!information!that!has!been!proven!to!be!inaccurate,!
even!if!the!source!of!the!information!is!legitimate.!
3. We!will!actively!fight!the!dissemination!of!false!information!and!will!provide!the!
community!with!clarity!if!we!learn!that!a!thirdEparty!has!attempted!to!commit!deception.!
4. We!will!never!support!or!distribute!studies,!news!articles,!or!other!materials!that!use!
inaccurate!methodologies!to!reach!a!conclusion!or!prove!a!point.!
5. We!will!provide!meaningful!clarification!to!any!who!question!the!legitimacy!of!
information!distributed!by!ourselves!or!by!any!thirdEparty.!
6. We!will!actively!contribute!to!students’!understanding!of!the!world!by!using!evidence!
from!a!multitude!of!perspectives!and!schools!of!thought.!
7. We!will,!within!our!power,!assist!the!community!as!a!whole!in!its!mission!to!achieve!the!
goals!and!vision!of!this!activity.!
These!seven!statements,!while!seemingly!simple,!represent!the!complex!notion!of!what!it!means!
to!advance!students’!understanding!of!the!world!around!them,!as!is!the!purpose!of!educators.!
Champion)Briefs) ) 4$
Table"of"Contents" " April"2015"
"
!
Table"of"Contents"
"
The)Evidence)Standard)................................................................................)4!
)
Topic)Analyses)................................................................................................)8!
Topic"Analysis"by"Anna"Waters".........................................................................................."9!
Topic"Analysis"by"Justin"Katz"............................................................................................"19!
Topic"Analysis"by"Zach"Kirsch"and"Tim"Perevozchikov"..........................................."30!
)
General)Information)...................................................................................)39!
)
Frameworks)...................................................................................................)47!
)
Pro)Arguments)with)Con)Responses)......................................................)51!
ISIL"is"a"Threat"to"the"United"States"............................................................................................."52!
A2"–"ISIL"is"a"Threat"to"the"United"States"......................................................................"56!
ISIL"Has"Committed"Vast"Human"Rights"Abuses"....................................................................."60!
A2"–"ISIL"Has"Committed"Vast"Human"Rights"Abuses"..............................................."63!
State"Stability"......................................................................................................................................"66!
A2"–"State"Stability"................................................................................................................"73!
US"Allies"are"not"to"stop"ISIS"..........................................................................................................."77!
A2"–"US"Allies"are"not"enough"to"stop"ISIS"....................................................................."80!
Regional"and"Kurdish"forces"are"insufficient"..........................................................................."84!
A2"–"Regional"and"Kurdish"forces"are"insufficient"....................................................."88!
Eliminating"Funding".........................................................................................................................."92!
A2"–"Eliminating"Funding"..................................................................................................."96!
Reduced"Airstrikes"........................................................................................................................."100!
A2"–"Reduced"Airstrikes"..................................................................................................."105!
Champion)Briefs) ) 5"!
"
!
Ground"Troops"Increase"US"Hard"Power"................................................................................"110!
A2"–"Ground"Troops"Increase"US"Hard"Power".........................................................."114!
Ground"Troops"are"Crucial"For"Intelligence"Gathering"....................................................."118!
A2"–"Ground"Troops"are"Crucial"for"Intelligence"Gathering"................................"122!
US"Ground"Troops"Would"Be"Effective"....................................................................................."126!
A2"–"US"Ground"Troops"Would"Be"Effective".............................................................."129!
ISIS"Threatens"the"Global"Oil"Market"......................................................................................."133!
A2"–"ISIL"Threaten"the"Global"Oil"Market"..................................................................."136!
Protecting"Minority"groups"........................................................................................................."140!
A2"–"Protecting"Minority"groups"..................................................................................."146!
The"Government"Must"Listen"to"US"Popular"Opinion"........................................................."150!
A2"–"The"Government"Must"Listen"to"US"Popular"Opinion"..................................."154!
Ground"troops"can"help"implement"long"term"stability"...................................................."157!
A2"–"Ground"troops"can"help"implement"long"term"stability".............................."161!
Decapitation"of"ISIL"Leadership"................................................................................................."165!
A2"–"Decapitation"of"ISIL"Leadership"..........................................................................."169!
)
Con)Arguments)with)Pro)Responses)...................................................)174!
No"Threat"to"United"States"..........................................................................................................."175!
A2"–"No"Threat"to"United"States"....................................................................................."181!
Such"an"intervention"would"be"long"and"open;ended"........................................................"185!
A2"–"Such"an"intervention"would"be"long"and"open;ended".................................."191!
Historical"Precedent"......................................................................................................................"194!
A2"–"Historical"Precedent"................................................................................................"200!
Reduced"Funding"for"Humanitarian"Projects"........................................................................"203!
A2"–"Reduced"Funding"for"Humanitarian"Projects"................................................."206!
The"US"should"allow"Iran"to"utilize"their"troops"instead.".................................................."210!
A2"–"The"US"should"allow"Iran"to"utilize"their"troops"instead."..........................."215!
Ground"Combat"Troops"Destroy"the"Environment".............................................................."219!
A2"–"Ground"Combat"Troops"Destroy"the"Environment"......................................."223!
"
!
Feeds"Islamophobic"Narrative"...................................................................................................."226!
A2"–"Feeds"Islamophobic"Narrative"............................................................................."231!
Entrenchment"of"Patriarchy"........................................................................................................"234!
A2"–"Entrenchment"of"Patriarchy"................................................................................."237!
Fossil"Fuel"Consumption"..............................................................................................................."244!
A2"–"Fossil"Fuel"Consumption"........................................................................................"247!
Drones"are"a"better"alternative".................................................................................................."250!
A2"–"Drones"are"a"better"alternative"..........................................................................."257!
Iraq"needs"a"better"government,"not"military"intervention"............................................."263!
A2"–"Iraq"needs"a"better"government,"not"military"intervention"......................"270!
Backlash"............................................................................................................................................."276!
A2"–"Backlash"......................................................................................................................."280!
Harm"to"Oil"Interests"....................................................................................................................."283!
A2"–"Harm"to"Oil"Interests"..............................................................................................."286!
Veteran"Assistance"Programs"can’t"handle"the"overload"................................................."292!
A2"–"Veteran"Assistance"Programs"can’t"handle"the"overload"..........................."298!
Military"Debris"................................................................................................................................."303!
A2"–"Military"Debris"..........................................................................................................."307!
"
Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
Topic Analyses
Topic&Analysis&by&Anna&Waters& April&2015&
! ! ! !
!
Topic Analysis by Anna Waters
Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL is in the best
interest of the United States.
!
Initial Thoughts
It goes without saying that April is an exciting month in the Public Forum world. The
stakes are high for this topic and debaters will spend weeks crafting the perfect case and blocking
out every article imaginable in preparation for the Tournament of Champions. This resolution
will make it an interesting tournament to say the least. This is about as ripped-from-the-headlines
as Public Forum can get, and it may be reminiscent of NSDA Nationals last year when events
were changing while the tournament was unfolding. This topic will hopefully give debaters an
opportunity to push boundaries with creativity and make unique, solid arguments about a major
international political question.
Major Tournaments
As far as major tournaments are concerned, there is only one in the month of April. The
Tournament of Champions, or the TOC, is arguably the biggest tournament of the year while
perhaps only NSDA Nationals gives it a run for its money. These two tournaments are the
pinnacle of the debate season and the champions of these tournaments are generally viewed as
the best teams in the nation. This tournament is an invitational, but rather than signing up or
applying teams must obtain two or more bids to the tournament over the course of the school
year. Teams with only a single bid may apply for a discretionary at-large entry. Teams get bids
by making it to a predetermined outround at a national tournament. The largest tournaments
giving bids to teams in the top 16, and smaller national tournaments only giving to the top 2 or 4
Champion)Briefs& 9&
! ! ! !
!
teams. If you are attending the Tournament of Champions you either already know you are going
or you are waiting to hear back from the at-large application process.
Because the stakes are so high at the TOC, it is an incredibly stressful environment. It
is without a doubt the most stressful tournament I ever attended, and the tension can mess with
debaters’ heads and make them more anxious (and less successful). In my opinion, the first step
to success at this tournament is to stay focused on the rounds themselves while trying to remain
above the anxious atmosphere in the common room or halls. Teams that are more relaxed in
round are more likely to be perceived as confident in crossfire and less likely to trip over words,
speak too quickly, and appear insecure or anxious in round. Teams at the TOC should remember
that they are there for a reason, and no matter how intimidating their opponents are, they are all
on the same playing field now. As a debater from California, I knew very few teams at the TOC
and was very intimidated by the East Coast vibe. It seemed like all of the best teams in the
country were best friends that were united against teams like mine. However, I kept my cool
during the tournament and debated some of the best teams in the country without being
intimidated, which was a major part of my success at the tournament.
In terms of the debating itself, judging is generally similar to tournaments Harvard or
Berkeley. Debaters will likely encounter the occasional parent judge but will primarily see
coaches and ex-debaters. Many teams are shocked to find any parent judges at the TOC, but not
every team has the financial resources to hire a judge or bring along a coach so the occasional
parent judge is inevitable. I estimate that around one in eight or nine judges in preliminary
rounds will be a parent, though elimination rounds exclusively have coach and ex-debater
judges. As a result, teams cannot come into the TOC with a case completely incomprehensible to
a parent because every round matters. Though I would highly recommend having a circuit-style
case with multi-pronged links and impacts, I would also caution teams to be prepared to deal
Champion)Briefs& 10&
! ! ! !
!
with a parent judge. Even if the case debaters run is circuit-style, they need to be conscious of
their judge’s comprehension level and be sure to cross-apply or re-explain their case in rebuttal
as necessary. I think having both a lay case and a circuit case is unnecessary at the TOC, but
being prepared to adapt a case is absolutely vital and can definitely be the difference between a
team that breaks and a team that does not.
Though I rarely give tournament-specific preparation advice, I think it is important to
point out that teams should focus more on cutting blocks for this tournament than a typical
tournament. Teams at the TOC will run weird arguments. It is a fact. They will find the most
obscure piece of evidence and extrapolate it to impact to human extinction. Judges know this,
and are generally more open to odd arguments at this tournament than anywhere else. Debaters
should know this too, so no matter how random an argument may seem, it is always better to be
safe than sorry with regard to preparing a response in advance. A final vital piece of advice: La
Petite Creperie is an adorable crepe place right by the University of Kentucky that looks like a
house and has amazing savory and sweet crepes that make an excellent meal.
Resolution Analysis and Background
To start off, “committing” is defined as “to decide to use for some particular purpose,”
“to say that (someone or something) will definitely do something,” or “to make (someone or
something) obligated to do something.”1 All of the definitions basically mean the same thing in
the context of troops, though if it were relevant to an argument, a debater could probably argue
that committing troops is not he same thing as actually deploying them. “United States ground
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
“Commit.” Merriam Webster. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commit>
2
“NZ to send non-combat troops to Iraq.” BBC News. February 23 2015.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31598270>
3
“ISIS Fast Facts.” CNN, February 27, 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/>
! ! ! !
!
combat troops” is also straightforward, and narrows the debate to American troops and troops for
combat, not for training or nation-building. There is an important distinction between combat
and non-combat troops; for example, New Zealand sent about 150 non-combat troops to Iraq to
help in the fight against ISIL2. The phrase “to fight” also makes this meaning clear; these troops
are tasked with violently defeating ISIL. This distinction matters because debaters on the Con
can argue that troops could do good if they were supporting infrastructure, development or rule
of law in the region, rather than using coercive force or going to war.
“ISIL”, or “the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, is a terrorist group that has gained
control of territory in Iraq and is operating throughout the Middle East. The group famously
beheaded foreign journalists and aid workers, and has been reasonably accused of war crimes on
a terrifying scale. The group goes by many names, which can be confusing, so here is a quick
breakdown. The resolution uses “the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”, which is the term
used by several news organizations and the White House to describe the group. A majority of
news organizations, however, refer to the group as “ISIS”, or “the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria”. As of June 2014, the group refers to itself as “the Islamic State”, but most foreign
governments and news organizations prefer one of the two other terms. In Arabic, the acronym
for the group is “DAESH” or “Da’ish.” This can make research frustrating, as the perfect piece
of evidence a debater is searching for might use the term “ISIS” and not come up under an
“ISIL” search, or vice versa. These many names can get complicated, and though there is debate
over which is best, evidence using any of these names is completely fair game because they all
refer to the same group. The closing phrase “in the best interest of the United States” is
interesting, as it will probably add more framework-level debate to the topic. Debate around
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
“NZ to send non-combat troops to Iraq.” BBC News. February 23 2015.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31598270>
! ! ! !
!
whether ISIL is actually capable of harming the United States – or whether ISIL is even
interested in doing so – will be important. Intervention generally will also be up for debate –
debaters must evaluate whether it is in the United States’ best interest to violently intervene in
human rights abuses around the world. Debaters should familiarize themselves with international
relations theories that identify different approaches to identifying national interest.
I would recommend debaters do more research into the background history of this
resolution than I can feasibly summarize here, because this is only a general history of the United
States’ involvement with Iraq and ISIL. The terrorist group al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was
established in 20043, and it evolved into the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) in 2006. Over the next
decade, ISI became ISIL when it absorbed and then lost the al-Nusra front (a Syrian military
group) and al-Qaeda denounced the group, calling it barbaric. This fact might help framing
affirmative cases: an accusation of barbarism is relatively severe from the group that carried out
9/11. In 2014, ISIL started to feature in major news outlets because it kidnapped 140 Kurdish
schoolboys in Syria and began to take control of territory like Mosul and Tikrit which are
significant territories in northern Iraq. By July of the same year, about 1.2 million Iraqis fled the
state and major territories in Syria fell to ISIL. In August and September, American journalists
and British aid workers were beheaded and the U.S. began to respond with air strikes. In the first
few months of 2015, a Japanese hostage was beheaded, a Jordanian military pilot was burned
alive, an American aid worker was executed, and a record number of 17,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed in the conflict4.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
“ISIS Fast Facts.” CNN, February 27, 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/>
4
Gottlieb, Stuart. “Four Reasons ISIS Is a Threat to the American Homeland.” National Interest,
September 20 2014. < http://nationalinterest.org/feature/four-reasons-isis-threat-the-american-
homeland-11317?page=2>
! ! ! !
!
Though this is the major plotline of the history of ISIL, I would recommend that
debaters look more into the history of the group’s origins with regard to American action in Iraq.
America invaded Iraq in 2003 and withdrew the majority of its troops eight years later. The war
is overwhelmingly considered a failure, in part because the original rationale for the war was
exposed as an imperialist pretext, in part because the war caused a gratuitous and massive loss of
civilian life, and in part because the withdrawal was drawn out and largely unsuccessful. All
debaters should be prepared for arguments that sending troops to fight ISIL would lead to a
second Iraq war. To properly prepare, debaters should know as much as possible about the
history of ISIL’s anti-American sentiment because there are also arguments that the United
States’ invasion of Iraq actually led to the creation of this group.
Framework Strategy
This topic should not be incredibly framework heavy as it is a straightforward
resolution, though there will be some debate around what “the best interest of the United States”
actually entails. All impacts will have to relate to helping the United States, though arguments
about altruism/humanitarianism (the idea that it is in America’s best interest to stop tens of
thousands of people from being killed) mean that almost any impact is potentially viable. Death
count impacts are commonly accepted as the most important impacts in Public Forum for the
simplistic reason that being alive is a prerequisite to enjoying any other impacts, like peace or
economic growth5. Debates on this topic will likely invoke these concepts, but these concepts
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
This argument is unfortunately simplistic because it fails to account for quality of life questions.
Debaters intuitively understand that saving one life is not worth depriving tens of thousands of people
from consistent access to food, water, and health care. Debaters who can effectively find a line that
balances quality and quantity of life will be the most effective debaters on this topic. For an interesting
approach to this balancing test, debaters should generally see the B<PL approach outlined by Honorable
! ! ! !
!
will all be contextualized to the best interest of the United States. Debaters should also weigh the
magnitude and probability of various impacts. For example, the magnitude of a terrorist attack on
the United States could be immense but the probability of a successful attack may be low, which
justifies less precaution than a high-probability, high-magnitude impact. Debaters should be
cautious in adopting a particular framework and should do so in a manner consistent with their
cases’ core arguments. I recommend familiarity with all of the above frameworks because
opposing debaters may well use them, and all teams should be prepared to respond.
Affirmative: Strategy and Major Arguments
Affirmative strategies should focus the discussion on two main ideas: the atrocities
committed by ISIL and the ability for the American militarily to swiftly and decisively stop
them. Horrors of ISIL are not hard to find: they have committed decapitations, murders,
immolation, and mass slaughter. The numbers of dead, injured, and displaced persons are
staggering. The Pro has the advantage of hindsight: they can guarantee their impacts are
happening now, while the Con cannot reference negative repercussions of an intervention that
has yet to occur. The Con is confined to focusing on potential ways the Pro could go wrong6.
Since the Con cannot offer up any type of counterplan, Pro should consistently remind the judge
that a vote for the Con is a vote to do nothing7.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947) as well as
secondary literature commenting on the same.
6
The Con is only confined to potential impacts in a limited sense. The United States has invaded Iraq
enough times in the last several decades with an identical result – even the most simplistic approach to the
situation cannot ignore the serial catastrophic failures and mass death that have consistently followed U.S.
intervention.
7
Con debaters should aggressively contest this framing. The advice as written is unfortunately an
egregious misstatement of how counterplans are defined by the NSDA. This misstatement is common in
debaters who do not actually understand how plans and counterplans function or how they are deployed
! ! ! !
!
Along with these two ideas, Pro teams should focus on linking the threat of ISIL to US
interests. This can be done in many ways. For example, Pro debaters can argue that protecting
human life is in the interest of the United States. They may also identify U.S. interests abroad
and suggest that ISIL can target them. They could similarly suggest that ISIL has both the
interest and capacity to attack the United States domestically. Pro teams can also search for
arguments that are slightly less directly linked to military success against ISIL. For example,
debaters could examine the symbolic interaction between intervention and increasing the global
perception of the United States’ hegemony. They could also simplistically suggest that the
United States must deploy troops because popular opinion favors intervention, and upholding
democratic values is a core component of U.S. interests.
Negative: Strategy and Major Arguments
One of the strongest narratives on the Con side of this topic is focusing on the essentially
undeniable disaster that was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. By comparing the current
proposal to that war, Con debaters create an association that lends more credence to other
arguments. The comparison also grounds the Con narrative in historical background, which lends
it legitimacy. Debaters could also make arguments that ISIL was created by the invasion of Iraq,
which implies that further intervention is most likely make the problem worse. In my opinion,
three authors best explain the historical and current foreign policy that America put in place that
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in policy debate. The NSDA expressly permits Con debaters to provide generalized alternatives:
“Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a
formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted
to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of
advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.” For more on this, see the forthcoming
article by Christian Chessman that discusses misstatements and mistakes of this type.
! ! ! !
!
led to ISIL’s rise, and debaters should read all three of these articles so they have the best
historical background knowledge to prepare for debates. Mother Jones reporter Patrick
Cockburn8, Doug Bandow for the CATO Institute9 and Ben Reynolds for The Diplomat10 all
write about how America may have indirectly created the monster it is now trying to take down,
and knowing historical background is inherently persuasive to judges because teams who seem
to know history more simply appear more intelligent.
With regard to more specific arguments, one popular idea will be that ISIL is not
actually a threat to American interests because it is simply a regional actor. This is an enticing
argument because it allows Con teams to concede that ISIL is terrible within the Middle East,
and that sending troops to help the Middle East might be good, but it is not within the best
interest of the US. Another common argument relates to backlash: there is ample evidence
recycled on many terror-related topics (like this11 study by Eric Neumayer and this12 RAND
study) that links intervention or military presence from foreign powers like the United States to
increased terrorism. Some less common arguments, which are developed later in the brief,
include the idea that going to war with ISIL will feed the narrative that America is at war with
Islam, increasing islamophobia and hate crimes domestically and increasing terrorism
internationally by feeding into ISIL propaganda. Still other arguments focus on the complex and
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Cockburn, Patrick. “How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster.” Mother Jones, August 21 2014.
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-
assad>
9
Bandow, Doug. “Every Middle East Mistake Causes the United States to Intervene Again.” CATO
Institute, November 5 2014. <http://www.cato.org/blog/gop-senate-likely-push-more-war-yet-
every-mistake-causes-us-intervene-again>
10
Reynolds, Ben. “Iran Didn’t Create ISIS; We Did.” The Diplomat, August 31 2014.
<http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/iran-didnt-create-isis-we-did/>
11
Neumayer, Eric. "Foreign Terror on Americans." London School of Economics, March 2 2012.
<http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/PLUMPER_NEUMAYER_ForeignTerrorO
nAmericans.pdf>.
12
Jones, Seth. “How Terrorist Groups End.” RAND, July 29, 2008.
<http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29.html>
! ! ! !
!
critical relationship between gender subordination and intervention. Debaters can also discuss the
relationship between intervention and infrastructure by identifying the ways that intervention is
likely to degrade the environment, ruin agricultural infrastructure, and take money away from
humanitarian and refugee programs.
Final Thoughts
Without a doubt, this will be an exciting month for the Public Forum debate world, and
an exciting, timely resolution will only enhance that. As long as debaters keep strong narratives
grounded in historical precedent on both sides of the topic, their more complex and multipronged
arguments will make sense to judges of all varieties.
Good Luck!
Anna Waters
About Anna Waters
Anna attended and debated for Presentation High School in Northern California. She
began her Public Forum career in her sophomore year and earned eight TOC bids, qualifying to
the Tournament of Champions in both her junior and senior years, when she made it to the
octofinal round. She also won the 2014 Berkeley Invitational and advanced to elimination rounds
at Harker, Apple Valley, Arizona State University, James Logan, Stanford, and the Berkeley
Round Robin. Anna also finished in 10th place at the National Speech and Debate Association
National Tournament. Anna is studying journalism at Northwestern University.
Topic&Analysis&by&Justin&Katz&& April&2015&
! ! ! !
Topic Analysis by Justin Katz
!
!
Introduction
Congress is currently debating an Authorization of Force bill that will affirm Obama’s power to
execute limited military operations in Iraq, making this topic “ripped from the headlines” in the
purest sense. The resolution is an ongoing question. Debaters will have access to a wealth of
analysis on both sides considering the issue and must follow news developments closely because
conditions on the ground change day by day. Although the topic is relatively limited in scope, the
implications of any choice, action or inaction, will transform the Middle East and the United
States’ relationship with it. Generally speaking, debaters should familiarize themselves with
regional history, with the goal of understanding what makes each actor tick and how they will
respond to US action. Considering the redeployment of combat troops to Iraq would mark a
major watershed US foreign policy development, debates this month will have a particular
gravity to them that I think will make them engaging and exciting.
Background and Definitions
ISIL stands for “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant,” and is the name of a terrorist group
that originated in Iraq. ISIL, sometimes referred to as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
Daesh (the acronym in Arabic), or simply the Islamic State, began as spinoff of al-Qaeda, and
then gained momentum by supporting rebel insurgents in Syria during their civil conflict. As the
name implies, ISIL wants to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. It currently
! ! ! !
controls large swaths of territory in Western Iraq and Northern Syria. In the areas the
organization controls, ISIL leaders set up governance structures, establish courts, and exercise
powers otherwise consistent with government action. ISIL is known for using particularly brutal
tactics to assert control over territory. In Syria, fighters have perpetrated mass atrocities
including massacres of civilians, the execution of war criminals, and ethnic cleansing. In areas
under the group’s control, leaders impose a particularly brutal interpretation of Sharia law and
tolerate no religious dissent. ISIL has also kidnapped and executed several Western journalists,
and published graphic videos of beheadings. ISIL’s tactics have drawn wide international
condemnation – so wide, in fact, that in 2014 al-Qaeda leadership cut itself off from the group
and condemned its tactics.13 So far, fighters affiliated with ISIL have killed about 17,000 people.
In response to rapid territorial acquisitions, countries across the world began authorizing
military strikes against the group. Almost every Middle Eastern country contributed to airstrikes
or other operations to supplement efforts by the Iraqi army to dismantle the organization. Despite
decades of antagonism between Iran and Iraq, Tehran even contributed about 500 elite combat
forces to Bagdad and a series of provincial capitals. In August, President Obama authorized
airstrikes to block ISIL advances on major Iraqi cities. Since then, a coalition composed of the
US, most Arab states, and other Western powers have continued to carry out airstrikes along
with selective Special Forces operations and limited aid programs to assist Kurdish militias that
engage with ISIL. In recent weeks, Obama submitted an Authorization of Force bill to get
Congressional support for the actions that are already being carried out. However, the bill does
not authorize commitments of ground troops engaging in combat operations.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13
Breitbart,. 2015. 'Al-Qaeda Condemns ISIS 'Deviance' After Jordanian Pilot-Burning Video - Breitbart'.
March 4 2015. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/06/al-qaeda-condemns-isis-
deviance-after-jordanian-pilot-burning-video/.
! ! ! !
The term “combat troops” typically refers to ground forces carrying out tactical,
sustained, and offensive operations.14 The line is somewhat blurry: troops on the ground that
primarily engage in training of Iraqi forces, for example, might not represent “combat troops.”
At the very least, the United States can definitely deploy Special Forces brigades on limited
missions – which represent “boots on the ground” – without sending combat troops to fight ISIL.
Framing the Round
The resolution is relatively straightforward. Having said that, some sticky issues might
arise in interpreting what exactly is “in the best interest of the United States.”
The clause invites two questions. First, what are the interests of the United States? Here,
debaters could establish a framework to create a hierarchy of interests – perhaps by placing the
safety and security of US citizens over all else. Second, what does “best interest” mean? On the
one hand, the phrase could be interpreted as requiring the Pro to demonstrate that ground troop
commitments represent the best possible policy option to deal with ISIL. Such a framing would
open up the debate to alternatives to ground troops and substantially increase the burden on the
Pro. On the other, it could just invite a typical cost-benefit analysis: the resolution does not ask if
committing ground troops is the best interest, but rather sets the policy under a broader umbrella
of “the best interest.” In that sense, so long as committing ground troops would prove to be a
useful policy tool, it should fall under the category of promoting US “best interests.” The latter
interpretation is probably a more common-sense way to approach the resolution, but the former
could invite interesting debates as well.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14
Foreign Policy,. 2015. 'What’S The Difference Between Combat And Noncombat Troops?'. Accessed
March 4 2015. http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/03/whats-the-difference-between-combat-and-
noncombat-troops/.
! ! ! !
Arguments – Pro
There are three lines of argumentation on the Pro: first, the threat of ISIL unabated;
second, how ground troops would neutralize the threat; and finally, what spillover benefits the
US would reap after deploying ground troops.
First, showing that ISIL is a threat to the United States may actually be more difficult
than it seems at first glance. Although the group has captured and executed US journalists, such
incidents are relatively isolated, and can be solved by means of airstrikes and special operations.
However, Pro teams can easily show that such measures have been insufficient. ISIL is not like
any terrorist threat the world has seen up until this point. The group’s goals extend beyond just
sowing chaos – they want to set up a new, adversarial nation-state, and they are well on their way
to doing so. They already control key territories in Iraq and Syria which may expand to broader
parts of the region. They receive incredible international support: even if their brutality has
alienated many Arabs in the Middle East, recruits continue to flock to the group from around the
world. In short, inaction will only lead to an increasingly dangerous group that will swell in size
and influence. In the short term, ISIL fighters will destabilize a region important to both US
economic and geostrategic interests, damaging our allies and jeopardizing the free flow of
commerce, most importantly oil. The group may soon turn its attention towards US military
bases in the region, actively threatening United States citizens. In the long term, as the group
continues to assert its control over widening territory, it will provide sufficient shelter and
support to terror cells that can plan and execute direct attacks on US soil. Taliban rule in
Afghanistan gave al-Qaeda the space to carry out the 9/11 attacks, and even in a post-9/11 world,
critical infrastructure and domestic security apparatuses in the US remain vulnerable to a
carefully coordinated effort. More broadly, the United States has an interest in stopping the
! ! ! !
horrific human rights abuses perpetrated by ISIL in the region. While beheadings, floggings, and
rape do not directly affect US citizens, it is certainly true that the US has an interest in combating
de facto genocide and crimes against humanity.
Second, ground troop commitments can neutralize the threat. ISIL, more than al-Qaeda
and other insurgent groups, is an army, with bases, outposts, and hierarchical governance
structures. It controls territory, and the US can take it back with military action. There are several
reasons why US commitments would be uniquely successful at dismantling ISIL. First, the US
has experience fighting insurgent groups in Iraq. Second, the US has close ties with the Iraqi
government, enabling the US military to seamlessly integrate into joint operations in the country.
Third, unlike 2003, the US would have unanimous regional support, enabling intelligence
sharing, cooperation, and support between countries with intimate knowledge of the situation on
the ground. Also, unlike last time, no regional actors support ISIL, meaning that even groups
with hostility to the US would make no attempt to spoil US success by funneling weapons and
funds to other insurgent groups. Fourth, the United States has unique intelligence capacity to
penetrate ISIL’s organizational structure. And lastly, the optical effect of the most powerful
military in the world committing troops to destroy ISIL would discourage recruits from traveling
to the Middle East and fighting for the Islamic State.
Lastly, commitment would provide the US with a host of ancillary benefits. First, US
inaction makes it seem like Washington is abandoning the region in its time of need. Committing
troops would show US commitment to allies in the region more broadly, expanding US soft
power. Second, taking a harder line on ISIL may encourage Assad to go to the negotiating table
with Syrian rebel groups to avoid an US intervention. There are likely other spillover benefits
! ! ! !
that intervention would have, including increased political will for humanitarian aid and an
improved view of US involvement in the region as a potential force for good.
Arguments – Con
The best arguments on the Con do not wholly dispute the threat of ISIL, but rather
suggest that the status quo is preferable to an intervention force.
First, ground troop commitments present major obstacles to victory. ISIL is a
decentralized organization that controls sprawling territory: there is no capital to invade, no
leader who can be pushed to surrender. To succeed, the US would have to basically conquer,
piece by piece, the huge portions of Iraq. Without altering the underlying conditions that permit
the spread of ISIL, US action will be unable to actually destroy the organization. At the same
time, sending ground troops risks US casualties, open-ended commitment, and billions poured
into a repeat of the 2003 war.15
Second, US intervention would create recruitment for ISIL. On the one hand, the group
would use US involvement as evidence of unjust imperialism and interventionism, stoking hatred
of the West and adding to ISIL’s ranks. On the other, an attack by a major international power
would legitimize the group in the region and around the world, potentially making propaganda
more potent and drawing more fighters to the Middle East.
Third, intervention could draw the US into broader engagement in Syria. Islamic State
fighters have Syrian towns established as one of their bases, giving US ground operations two
options. Either the military can stay away from the Syrian border, which would just concentrate
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15
The Hill,. 2015. 'Why Mccain Is Wrong About Sending Ground Troops To Fight ISIS'. Accessed
March 7 2015. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/231170-why-mccain-is-
wrong-about-sending-ground-troops-to-fight.
! ! ! !
ISIL fighters in Syria, or it could launch operations in the country, which will exacerbate
tensions with Assad and likely invite some sort of counter-response. Even if Assad does not
respond to the infringement on sovereignty with hostility, fighting against ISIL directly, which is
engaged in insurgent operations against the Assad government, would weaken opposition to his
reign.
Forth, even if ground troops defeated ISIL in the Middle East, the group would just shift
its base to somewhere more difficult to infiltrate and more dangerous for the world. The group
has close ties with terrorist organizations around the world, most notably with Libyan groups and
Boko Haram. Upon defeat in Iraq, the core leadership could regroup in harder-to-reach parts of
the world, like West Africa or Syria. Without a constant threat from Middle Eastern militaries,
ISIL could destabilize vulnerable governments and come back stronger and more entrenched
than before.
Lastly, other alternatives remain short of ground operations. The US could continue
carrying out airstrikes and supplement them with taking out leaders using US Special Forces or
drone strikes. The military could provide direct military aid and training to regional armies,
giving them the tools to fight ISIL and other terrorist threats into perpetuity. So long as other
options besides putting US lives on the line exists, the US has an obligation to try them first.
Strategy – Pro
There is not very much argument diversity on the Pro – at a bare minimum, every case
must show that ISIL is a threat, and that ground troops would succeed in their goal. However,
there are several ways to make those arguments round winning on their own.
! ! ! !
First, the Pro has the huge advantage of ISIL being extremely scary. Simply making vivid
the horror of Islamic State practices may win rounds, because many judges will support pulling
out all the stops to halt the expansion of the group. Indeed, most US citizens – about 65 percent –
are in favor of ground operations. Having said that, and despite the need to play on emotions
when characterizing ISIL’s danger, debaters must also provide several strong, clear warrants as
to why the Islamic State directly threatens US interests. It seems obvious, but most media
coverage of the issue emphasizes the sensationalist brutality above the strategic implications for
the US of ISIL expansion. As such, Pro teams must figure out a clear narrative for why US
citizens should care about insurgent fighters across the world.
Second, US citizens are wary of using boots on the ground, especially in Iraq. Pro teams
can break the stigma associated with ground operations by distinguishing attacks on ISIL from
the general category of military intervention. As opposed to providing general warrants for why
the US can crush terrorist threats, debaters should provide examples of specific types of
operations US ground troops could and would carry out – for example, which cities should be
strategically captured, how US intelligence capabilities and close ties with the Iraqi military will
hasten victory, and the like. In doing so, ground operations against ISIL will start to seem more
and more unique, instead of like just another endless boondoggle in Iraq.
Lastly, Pro teams can and should emphasize the shortfalls of the current approach.
Military options begin to seem much more viable when compared with the costs of inaction,
which, in the case of ISIL, may be quite substantial. If the Pro can characterize the Con as
defending a world where Islamic State fighters slowly take over the entire Mashriq, then boots
on the ground will begin to look much more palatable.
! ! ! !
Strategy – Con
The Con’s greatest strategic advantage is the failure of the US-led war in Iraq. In
hindsight, the world saw that the threat from Saddam Hussein’s government was overblown, the
US’s ability to win quickly turned out to be a farce, and the military solution created a regional
quagmire that it took almost a decade and trillions of dollars to clean up. Con teams can use the
failure of the Iraq war as a framing tool to establish the independent ways to win.
Unlike the Pro, the Con only has to win either that the ISIL threat is overblown, that
boots on the ground would fail to neutralize the group, that the costs of war outweigh the
benefits, or that other viable solutions exist. Winning any of those points should be sufficient to
derail at least one of the two conditions that Pro must prove to win the round. Pointing out the
variety of paths to victory early in the round will raise the burden on the Pro and lower it
substantially on the Con, while simultaneously enabling debaters to concentrate the latter half of
the debate where the Pro analysis is weakest.
Most importantly, Con teams have to provide some sort of alternative way to deal with
ISIL. Doing nothing in the face of what many perceive to be a large threat seems like a cowardly
way forward, one that few judges will accept. To make it appear as though Con teams are taking
the more reasoned approach to the terrorist group, debaters should establish the root cause of
ISIL’s dominance, then show how alternative strategies, like cutting off funding sources, arming
regional militaries, or providing humanitarian aid to vulnerable Middle Eastern populations will
provide a better, more sustainable solution to the ISIL threat.
! ! ! !
Adapting throughout the Month
The only “national circuit” tournament this month is the Tournament of Champions at the
University of Kentucky. The TOC is a fantastic tournament where, every round from the
beginning, debates will be of the highest caliber. The judging pool is substantially more flow-
based than any other during the year, given the greater share of Policy and Lincoln-Douglass
coaches and former competitors who enter into the mix. As such, debaters can get away with
running more intricate, evidence-based, and technical arguments than at other tournaments.
Having said that, it is easy for competitors to get carried away and pull out the most absurd
arguments they can get their hands on. Stock arguments are common for a reason – they are the
best arguments on the topic, especially in a narrow resolution like this one. Opting for nuanced
analysis under perhaps more commonplace arguments is the way to go.
This resolution should prompt some incredible rounds at the TOC this year.
Good Luck!
Justin Katz
About Justin Katz
Justin Katz attended Durham Academy and competed for four years in Public Forum
Debate. He won the Harvard Invitational his Senior Year. He was a finalist at the National
Speech and Debate Association National Tournament and the Glenbrooks Invitational
Tournament, a semifinalist at the Tournament of Champions, a two-time semifinalist at the Laird
Lewis Invitational, and repeatedly reached the octofinals round at Yale, Wake, and the
University of Florida Blue Key Tournament. Justin placed in the Top 30 at NFL Nationals as a
! ! ! !
two-time qualifier. Additionally, he was a two-time finalist at the National Public Forum
Challenge, placed second at the Florida Blue Key Round Robin, and was a top-ten speaker at
Harvard, Yale, and the Glenbrooks. In his senior year, he was the top speaker at Harvard and the
Tournament of Champions. In North Carolina, he was ranked first in the state his Junior year,
finishing as a quarterfinalist, finalist, and champion at the state tournament. He amassed a total
of seven bids to the Tournament of Champions, and was ranked as Top Ten in the country by
both the National Forensics League and Debaterankings.com. Justin Katz currently attends Yale
University and is majoring in Economics, Ethics, and Politics. He is currently ranked 15th Novice
of the Year in the American Parliamentary Debate Association.
Topic&Analysis&by&Perevozchikov&&&Kirsch& April&2015&
! ! ! !
!
Topic Analysis by Zach Kirsch and Tim Perevozchikov
In a move that is rather uncharacteristic for the April topic, the NSDA has ripped the
resolution right from the headlines. While there is a lot of existing literature on this topic, there is
no doubt that there will be news every day that will affect it. Even if the topic seems lopsided at
first glance, there is plenty of legitimate ground for both sides. We encourage you to spend lots
of time brainstorming and developing arguments, and most importantly to have fun!
The Tournament
The last few months of the season are unique in that there is only one national tournament
per month. While this certainly has its benefits, it also creates a number of traps that debaters
should avoid. For example, at the Tournament of Champions in April, nearly every opponent
will be very talented by definition. These debaters have won enough elimination rounds to win at
least one bid. As a result, debaters’ arguments should be nuanced in a way that differentiates
them from the common arguments on the topic. Debaters should not run arguments that make it
easy for their opponents to rely on previously prepared blocks. Put another way, you should
block out every argument in this brief and you should not be running any arguments exactly as
they appear here16.
When constructing cases, teams should balance the quantity of their evidence with
quality analysis and explanation. Teams may have a tendency to associate the Tournament of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16
I admit this results in somewhat of a paradox: if no one is running the arguments as listed here (because
I have suggested that all debaters at the TOC are per se good), then there is little use in preparing blocks
specific to these arguments. It is wise for debaters to focus on cutting good blocks in general.
! ! ! !
!
Champions with heavy reliance on evidence, and elect to read card after card without referencing
to the reasoning behind their cards.
All in all, this tournament is a hard one. Debaters should do as much preparation work as
they can. It is an awful feeling to lose rounds because the opponent prepared more thoroughly.
Framework
At first glance, the resolution seems to be posing a straightforward question – will
sending ground troops back into Iraq and parts of Syria benefit the United States? The first
consideration for debaters is defining what it would mean for the U.S to commit ground troops.
For example, if the U.S sent a small force of 1,000 soldiers to fight ISIL, the result likely would
be different then if they choose to send a ground force of 50,000 troops. In this respect, it is
critical that debaters in the framework17 clearly define what is actually being debated. To do this,
debaters may want to examine current proposals for sending combat troops back into Iraq and
debate the merits of those proposals. It is important to note that the United States in already has
ground troops in Iraq that conduct training and military exercises to strengthen the Iraqi army. In
that sense, the United States has already been using ground troops to counter the threat posed by
ISIL. We intentionally avoid using the phrase fighting ISIL because an important part of the
debate will be to frame what it means to fight ISIL. In other words, debaters should evaluate
whether troop training and other technical and material support delivered by U.S ground troops
constitute “fight[ing] ISIL.”18 Depending on how this phrase is defined, the affirmative and the
negative will have differing access to diverse sets of argumentation. For example, if the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17
This is an incorrect description of “framework”, though it is admittedly common in Public Forum.
Framework deals with a metric for evaluating and prioritizing impacts; here, I am actually discussing
definitions of topical phrases.
18
Note that there has indeed been at least one U.S marine casualty while being deployed in this training
! ! ! !
!
affirmative frames the round as the status quo and claims that ground troop deployment for
training purposes is fighting ISIL, they may win the round by convincingly demonstrating that
our material support to the Iraqi army has secured our interests at little to no cost.
The next important phrase is “best interest of the United States”. Two things are
important to draw from it. First, the resolution is not necessarily asking debaters to weigh the
debate on balance.19 Rather, the affirmative has the task of demonstrating that using the United
States’ resources for sending ground troops, would achieve the absolute best end for the United
States. This means, assuming mutual-exclusivity, that if we could have used these troops or
resources to secure more vital interests elsewhere, then sending them to fight ISIL is not in our
best interests. This is important as the affirmative is tasked with a difficult challenge; not only do
they have to prove that sending ground troops bring benefits, but additionally they must prove
that they bring the most benefits. At the same time, the affirmative can argue that United States’
interests extend outside its border. Debaters may also suggest the US should have a role in
international peace and in human rights, and thus has an interest in stopping terrorism and
violence against innocent people no matter where it takes place. Conversely, the negative team in
their framework can observe that the resolution is not asking if intervention is a good use of our
resources, but rather if it is the best use of our resources. Second, debaters must be prepared to
defend why the benefits they impact to are the ‘best interests’ of the United States. With the
United States economy performing at its best in seven years, our military and diplomatic
interests seem to have taken precedence. It is best for debaters to take an overarching view of the
possible impacts of ground troops – the debate is not just about the immediate effects of conflict
in the region, but rather includes the future harms to both diplomatic and security relations.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19
Although debaters can still choose to evaluate it from that perspective
! ! ! !
!
Finally, debaters in many cases could secure a late round strategic advantage if they
frame the round in such a way that focuses on the long term result of sending in a U.S. ground
force. After all, the result of our last incursion into Iraq could be said as the most pivotal factor in
the creation of ISIL and its rapid ascent to power.
Affirmative Strategy
At first glance, it seems like the pro team has the shorter end of the stick. After nearly
pulling back all of our deployed troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, there is cause to question
immediately redeploying them. This is the presumption that must be convincingly overcome to
win the round.
While there are a number of arguments that you can make on the pro, we caution you
again to be wary of stock or “obvious” arguments. Remember that teams will have had seven
weeks to block out those arguments by the times rounds start. In this section, we will discuss
what we think is the best argumentation from a strategic standpoint.
In some ways, the pro team has a harder job than the con – while the con can easily find
and list the costs of action (dollars, numbers of troops, political capital, etc.), the pro has to
identify costs of inaction. This is inherently a harder job because while the con’s harms are
definite, the pro’s seem more hypothetical. There’s ways you can fight this advantage though.
Namely, as the pro, you get to frame this debate: any number of troops is sufficient to justify an
affirmative ballot. Debaters should choose an advocacy that will make their opponents’ job the
hardest.
We think it is best to argue for a small number of troops to be sent. The affirmative has
the right to specify troop numbers because the resolution does not specify any minimum troop
! ! ! !
!
deployment or that the US has to successfully destroy ISIL. This limits the con’s resource-based
harms which are tied to the number of troops deployed. Additionally, it keeps a pro options open
in terms of perception-based arguments. These are arguments about how sending troops creates
perceptions, and how those perceptions are good. These arguments are your best friend on the
pro, as they are often immune to factual rebuttal in many senses because even if something is not
actually true, people may nonetheless perceive it to be true. First, you can argue that sending
troops is a show of force against ISIL, and they will perceive it as a threat and be less aggressive
(again, even if the troops could not actually defeat ISIL, you are arguing about the perception
that they could). Even a small troop deployment would have the U.S. cross the “interventionism”
line, and show ISIL that the US is willing to engage in ground combat. Additionally, sending
troops has perceptual benefits outside of ISIL. It shows the rest of the world, allies and enemies,
that it is not afraid to take the lead against terror, and it rebuts current criticism that the U.S. is
not doing much to help the region. Lastly, deploying troops is good domestically because most
people in the United States support the decision.20 That boosts morale, confidence in
government, and gives this administration more leeway to commit to other good legislation.
Another important note on the affirmative strategy is to recognize and make explicitly
clear each side’s burdens. Affirmative should make it clear that they do not have to solve for the
entire war on terror or destroying ISIL. Affirmatives also do not have to argue for mutual
exclusivity, which takes out the effectiveness of many negative alternatives. Even if the con
argues that diplomacy and air strikes are better, a diverse arsenal of responses may be the best
option for the United States.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20
Pianin, Eric. "Most Americans Want Obama to Send Ground Troops to Battle ISIS." The Fiscal Times.
4 Mar. 2015. Web. <http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/04/Most-Americans-Want-Obama-
Send-Ground-Troops-Battle-ISIS>.
! ! ! !
!
Lastly, make sure to give comparative analysis. Debaters should tell the judge the details
of their case, such as the number of troops, and then clearly outline the advantages to that
implementation.
Negative Strategy
In a recent poll of United States citizens, nearly 67% supported the idea of sending in
United States’ ground troops to fight ISIL.21 Because the majority of people favor of sending
ground troops, the negative faces an uphill battle. Fortunately, the resolution presents a number
of burdens the affirmative must meet in order to win the debate which restores a degree of parity.
We would recommend that all negative strategies include components of the case structured
around the following observations. First, the affirmative must prove that ISIL poses a threat to
United States interests. While it is undeniable that ISIL has carried out a series of highly
coordinated land grabs, it is less clear if they pose an acute threat to United States security. The
literature suggests that ISIL does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to conduct an
attack against the United States mainland. This trend is unlikely to reverse because “evidence
suggests that the Islamic State's power has been declining for months.”22 Thus, the negative can
claim that we should not be committing troops to fight a war if there are no clear strategic
interests at stake.
Second, the negative should observe that it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that
ground troops are a proper vehicle for fighting ISIL. The United States has a dismal record with
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21
Pianin, Eric. "Most Americans Want Obama to Send Ground Troops to Battle ISIS." The Fiscal Times.
4 Mar. 2015. Web. <http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/04/Most-Americans-Want-Obama-
Send-Ground-Troops-Battle-ISIS>.
22
Gartenstein-ross, Daveed. "ISIS Is Losing Its Greatest Weapon: Momentum." The Atlantic. 06 Jan.
2015. Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/the-decline-of-isis-syria-
iraq/384261/>.
! ! ! !
!
respect to troop deployments both generally and in Iraq specifically. This is especially true of the
United States last invasion of Iraq, where years’ worth of troop training of the Iraqi Military
Forces failed to hold ISIL at bay this past June. To say that the Iraqi forces slowly folded under a
land blitz by ISIL would be a vast understatement – in a period of weeks, the forces imploded.
This is important for the negative team to point out, as it grants a strategic advantage in two
ways. First, even if the affirmative were able to prove that United States forces can counter the
ISIL threat, nobody would advocate for permanent U.S. troop deployments. To that end, troops
deployments cannot provide a permanent solution to the ISIL threat unless the Iraqi force can
continue the fight after the U.S. has pulled out. This can be an especially powerful argument
when combined with analysis that discusses the current Iraqi leadership’s aversion to cooperating
with United States forces in Iraq. In fact, when asked if Iraq needs U.S. ground combat support,
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi claimed, “[n]ot only is it not necessary, we don't want
them. We won't allow them. Full stop."23 The likelihood of a successful ground war hinges on
long-term cooperation between Iraq and the United States, and as such, current political
conditions make U.S. troops the wrong vehicle to fight ISIL. Therefore, it seems to be tactically
inefficient to send in an unwanted party.
Third, the negative should point out that the affirmative must prove that using resources
for ground combat troops is comparatively better than other military alternatives. The wording of
the resolution implies that if a negative team is able to prove that a less costly alternative course
of action could achieve the same strategic ends as sending in a ground force, then they should
win. From there, negative teams can combine a few arguments to structure a persuasive case. It
will be useful to note that the airstrikes that have being conducted in the status quo are very
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
23
Salama, Vivian. "Iraq PM Tells U.S. 'we Don't Want' Ground Troops." CBC news. 17 Sept. 2014. Web.
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iraq-pm-tells-u-s-we-don-t-want-ground-troops-1.2769734>.
! ! ! !
!
efficient at hampering the ISIL threat.24 Air strikes are important because ISIL’s technology to
counter these strikes is nearly non-existent. There is a way to push ISIL back without putting as
U.S. soldiers’ lives at risk.
Fourth, negative teams should observe that the current fight against ISIL is being
conducted by a coalition of forces. This is important for two reasons. First, committing U.S.
ground troops would likely splinter the current coalition, as many countries are quite adverse to
U.S. troop presence in their region. For example, Iran has continually supported various Shiite
Forces that fight ISIL. However, introducing a U.S. troop presence would likely lead to a three-
way shootout as these forces view the troop presence as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Second,
the likely use of ground forces by Jordan and Egypt make U.S. troop deployment unnecessary.
With these nations escalating the fight against ISIL, the use of their forces could avoid the age-
old perception of U.S. overreach, and better cooperate with existing military forces in Iraq.
Finally, it is always worth noting on the negative that many of the underlying causes of
the current violence that plagues Iraq, stems from century old religious secularism between the
Sunni and Shia populations. This means that ground troop deployment, much like the last time
the U.S entered Iraq, will do nothing to solve for those crisis, and as such, represent a poor policy
tool to counter ISIL.
This month should be filled with top debates on an extremely timely topic. With such
broad literature available on the effects of troop deployment its especially important that debaters
carry through links and not just impacts. Finally, for the forensics community, April is a month
defined by the Tournament of Champions. Often the atmosphere at the tournament is suffocating
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24
Gartenstein-ross, Daveed. "ISIS Is Losing Its Greatest Weapon: Momentum." The Atlantic. 06 Jan.
2015. Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/the-decline-of-isis-syria-
iraq/384261/>.
! ! ! !
!
and hyper-competitive, and debaters seem to be on edge. We implore debaters, as always, to
remember to enjoy the activity and not get dragged too much into the end result. Simple things
like smiling when walking into a room will differentiate you in the judge’s mind from many
other competitors.
Good Luck!
Tim and Zach
About Tim Perevozchikov and Zach Kirsch
Tim and Zach went to Hawken School in Cleveland, Ohio. When they competed
together, they had a 63-5 record, and won the Blake Round Robin, the Stanford Invitational, and
the CFL Grand National Tournament. In the month of November, Zach finalled at Minneapple
and received the top speaker award, and Tim semifinalled at Glenbrooks and received the 3rd
best speaker award. Additionally, Tim won the NSDA National Tournament in 2014. Tim
currently studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Zach is at Tufts University in
Boston.
Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
General
Information
General'Information' ' April'2015'
! ! ! !
!
General Information
Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight

ISIL is in the best interest of the United States.
Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge

about a topic is just as valuable as formulating the right arguments.
Having general background knowledge about the topic area helps
debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of
knowledge. As such, we have compiled general information on the key
concepts and general areas that we feel will best suit you for in- and out-
of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built from a
strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this
section to help build that foundation.
Champion)Briefs! 40'
!
! ! ! !
!
Ground troops against ISIS could be similar to the 1983 incursion into the Lebanese Civil
War
The memory of that December 1983 raid, which came only six weeks after 241 American
servicemen were killed in the bombing of their barracks in Beirut, remains vivid among senior
officers in the Pentagon as they await the outcome of diplomatic efforts to end the current
hostage crisis. The ill-fated Navy air attack on Dec. 4, 1983, was against Syrian anti-aircraft guns
located around the village of Hammana, east of Beirut. It was launched in retaliation for Syrian
anti-aircraft fire the day before against an American reconnaissance plane supporting the Marine
peacekeeping force. Planning for the attack was marked by confusion along the chain of
command. When President Reagan ordered retaliation, one of the Navy aircraft carriers, the
Kennedy, was about to leave for the Suez Canal and had already stored its bombs. The aircraft of
the other carrier, the Independence, were armed with heavy bombs in anticipation of orders to
attack a different target. Those bombs had to be replaced with a type more suitable for use
against anti-aircraft emplacements. (Trainor, 1989)
A Majority of Americans support ground troops
“According to a new Quinnipiac poll, American voters strongly support sending ground troops to
defeat ISIS by more than a 2-to-1 margin. When asked, “Would you support or oppose the U.S.
sending ground troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria?” 62 percent say “yes,” while only 30
percent say “no.” Even among Democrats, a majority (53 percent) say they support the use of
ground troops.” (Griswold, 2015)
!
! ! ! !
!
Current airstrikes have been relatively weak
So far, the U.S. bombing campaign against ISIS has been remarkably restrained, as revealed by a
comparison with the strikes against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. When
the Taliban lost control of Afghanistan between October 7, 2001, and December 23, 2001—a
period of seventy-five days—U.S. aircraft flew 6,500 strike sorties and dropped 17,500
munitions. By contrast, between August 8, 2014, and October 23, 2014—seventy-six days—the
United States conducted only 632 airstrikes and dropped only 1,700 munitions in Iraq and Syria.
Such episodic and desultory bombing will not stop any determined military force, much less one
as fanatical as ISIS. (Boot, 2014)
U.S. Ambassador to the UN think’s U.S. ground forces are unlikely
The American ambassador to the United Nations, said on Thursday that the fight against ISIS
will require ground troops, "but they aren't going to be American ground troops."
"You have to get the Iraqis and ultimately the Syrian moderate opposition groups up so they can
fight the fight on the ground," Power said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "There has to be a fight
on the ground. You can't do this by air. Everybody acknowledges that." (McCalm, 2015)
Reluctance to use ground forces may hurt chances
President Obama's decision to launch a campaign aimed at "degrading and eventually
destroying" the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) marks a major turning point in U.S.
policy toward the Middle East. But the administration's approach faces major challenges,
including the resiliency of ISIS, the complexity of the operational environment, and the
coalition's limited ability to exploit the group's military, geographical, political, and financial
!
! ! ! !
!
vulnerabilities. Moreover, the president's reluctance to adequately resource the effort, commit
additional reconnaissance and strike assets, or deploy small numbers of troops to the fight will
further limit U.S. options and reduce the prospects for near-term success.
Boko Haram has pledged its loyalty to ISIS
Boko Haram, the Nigeria-based Islamist terror group, has pledged allegiance to ISIS, according
to an audio message purported to be from Boko Haram's leader, Abubakar Shekau. In the audio,
which was posted online Saturday, the speaker says Boko Haram is announcing its "allegiance to
the Caliph of the Muslims, Ibrahim ibn Awad ibn Ibrahim al-Husseini al-Qurashi," which is
another name for ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. (Elbagir, 2015)
Boko Haram joining with ISIS gives ISIS more legitimacy
"Boko Haram joining the ISIS fold makes sense to both groups," he said from Abuja, Nigeria.
"Boko Haram will get legitimacy, which will help its recruiting, funding and logistics as it
expands into (French-speaking) West Africa. It will also get guidance from ISIS in media
warfare and propaganda. Previously Boko Haram was a sort of outcast in the global Jihadi
community. Now it is perhaps ISIS's biggest affiliate. "ISIS gets more international legitimacy as
a global caliphate." (Elbagir, 2015)
Many ISIS Fighters gain access to Syria and Iraq through Turkey
Under pressure from its allies in the West, Turkey has made it harder for would-be jihadists to
slip across the border and join the ranks of the Islamic State group at its base in northern Syria.
But it has been unable — or unwilling — to halt the flow as the group, also called ISIS or ISIL,
!
! ! ! !
!
continues to replenish forces depleted in battle. Smugglers from border villages who have long
earned a living ferrying pistachios, sugar, cigarettes and fuel across the border say they are
compelled by the Islamic State to traffic in jihadists, under the threat of death or the end of their
livelihoods. Sometimes they receive a late-night phone call from an ISIS commander inside
Syria directing them to receive a recruit at a luxury hotel in this city to escort across the border.
“Things have become more difficult because Turkey has stricter procedures on the border,” one
smuggler who gave only his first name, Mustafa, said in an interview at a cafe in Kilis, a border
town. (Arango, 2015)
ISIS has attacked ancient historical sites in Iraq
The Iraqi antiquities ministry has acknowledged reports of a new attack by Islamic State
militants on an ancient Assyrian city north-east of Mosul, reiterated calls for the international
community to intervene and condemned the jihadi group for “erasing the history of humanity”.
There have been reports that Isis bulldozed landmarks in the ancient city of Dur Sharrukin, now
called Khorsabad. The ministry said it was in keeping with the militant group’s “criminal
ideology and persistence in destroying and stealing Iraq’s antiquities” Dur Sharrukin is a former
capital of the Assyrian empire in Nineveh that dates back to the 8th century BC. “The hand of
terrorism insists upon erasing the history of humanity by erasing the heritage of the land of the
two rivers amid the shock and astonishment of the world,” the ministry said in a statement. “We
have warned previously and warn now that these gangs with their sick, takfiri ideology will
continue to destroy and steal artefacts as long as there is no strong deterrent, and we still await a
strong international stand to stop the crimes of Daesh that are targeting the memory of
humanity,” it added, referring to the militant group by its Arabic acronym. (Shaheen 2015)
!
! ! ! !
!
Some think the current strategy to fight ISIS is not working
President Barack Obama's strategy in Syria and Iraq is not working. The president is hoping that
limited air strikes, combined with U.S. support for local proxies—the peshmerga, the Iraqi
security forces, the Sunni tribes, and the Free Syrian Army—will "degrade and ultimately
destroy" the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). U.S. actions have not stopped ISIS from
expanding its control into Iraq's Anbar Province and northern Syria. If the president is serious
about dealing with ISIS, he will need to increase America's commitment in a measured way—to
do more than what Washington is currently doing but substantially less than what it did in Iraq
and Afghanistan in the past decade. (Boot, 2014)
The U.S. should aim to defeat not destroy ISIS
A reasonable goal for the United States would be neither to “degrade” ISIS (vague and
insufficient) nor to “destroy” it (too ambitious for the present), but rather to “defeat” or
“neutralize” it, ending its ability to control significant territory and reducing it to, at worst, a
small terrorist group with limited reach. This is what happened with ISIS’ predecessor, al-Qaeda
in Iraq, during 2007 and 2008, before its rebirth amid the chaos of the Syrian civil war. It is
possible to inflict a similar fate on ISIS, which, for all of its newfound strength, is less
formidable and less organized than groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban, which operate with
considerable state support from Iran and Pakistan, respectively. Although not as potent a fighting
force as Hezbollah or the Taliban, ISIS is an even bigger threat to the United States and its allies
because it has attracted thousands of foreign fighters who could return to commit acts of
terrorism in their homelands. (Boot, 2014)
!
! ! ! !
!
Works Cited
Arango, Tim, and Eric Schmitt. "A Path to ISIS, Through a Porous Turkish Border." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 9 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/europe/despite-crackdown-path-to-join-isis-
often-winds-through-porous-turkish-border.html?_r=0>.
Boot, Max. "Defeating ISIS." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 5
Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cfr.org/iraq/defeating-isis/p33773>.
Elbagir, Nima. "Boko Haram Purportedly Pledges Allegiance to ISIS - CNN.com." CNN. CNN,
9 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/africa/nigeria-boko-
haram-isis/>.
Griswold, Alex. "Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support US Ground Troops Against ISIS."
The Daily Caller. Daily Caller, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.
<http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/04/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-u-s-ground-
troops-against-isis/>.
McCalm, Erin. "ISIS Fight: Samantha Power Can't Foresee U.S. Ground Forces." NBC News. 12
Feb. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-fight-
samantha-power-cant-foresee-u-s-ground-forces-n305021>.
Shaheen, Kareem. "Isis Attacks on Ancient Sites Erasing History of Humanity, Says Iraq." The
Guardian. The Guardian, 9 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/09/iraq-condemns-isis-destruction-
ancient-sites>.
Trainor, Bernard. "'83 Strike on Lebanon: Hard Lessons for U.S." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 5 Aug. 1989. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/06/world/83-strike-on-lebanon-hard-lessons-for-
us.html>.
!
Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
Frameworks
Framework) ) April)2015)
! ! ! !
!
Frameworks
AFFIRMATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Framework: Evidence that is considered breaking news should not be automatically more
credible because of the date of the evidence. With a volatile situation, new developments may be
incorrectly reported or overly sensationalized. Thus you should prefer comprehensive analysis
because it provides a more holistic and unbiased analysis of the situation at hand.
When to Use: Use this if your opponents try to take advantage of very recent developments
with ISIS that occur on the day of the tournament. Almost everyday there is some kind of
newsworthy action undertaken by ISIS, but the media may overplay or incorrectly report the
development as a way of increasing viewership or readership. This framework will try and
mitigate some of the more confounding aspects of the topic. Con may use recent developments
to highlight that they are not much of a threat.
How to Answer: Answer this by saying that unless Pro can disprove the content of news
developments then they should be valued more than older evidence that is disproven by the
recent developments.
Framework: The stability of Iraq and Syria are crucial American Interests because of their
strategic locations in the Middle East, the geopolitical ramifications of failure in the region, and
the growing presence of anti-US combatants. Thus, arguments impacting to stability should be
weighed most heavily in the round because it lies at the core of the conflict between ISIL and the
United States.
Champion)Briefs! 48)
!
! ! ! !
!
When to use: This framework allows Pro to magnify the impacts of providing stability for Iraq
and Syria. Illustrate the amount of blood and treasure that were poured into the Iraq War, and
losing Iraq to ISIS will have made that War even more futile. Additionally stress the threat of
ISIS being on the border of Israel, a crucial U.S. ally.
How to Answer: Answer this argument by saying that the cost of the Iraq War should not
warrant spending more money and risking more lives to salvage a failed war. Also point out that
ISIS poses no unique threat to Israel.
!
! ! ! !
!
NEGATIVE FRAMEWORKS
Framework: Pro cannot cherry pick small-scale Special Forces operations as their ground
because these sorts of operations are not public, so pro would not be able to establish how or
why Special Forces operations would be successful. Additionally, the term “committing ground
combat troops” in the resolution suggests a larger scale operation because it implies a long-term
goal or commitment of infantry rather than short or strategic deployment of Special Forces.
When to Use: Use this framework to prevent your opponents from gaining offense off of covert
special forces operations arguments. These operations are different in that they don’t require
Congressional authorization to conduct, and they are specific per scenario, they aren’t
continuous. (For instance the Bin Laden raid was not part of a series of ground operations, but
rather one Special Forces mission).
How to Respond: Answer this framework by saying that per the literal interpretation of ground
operations if the special forces operation involves “Boots on the ground” then it is topical.
Framework: The most important interests are the reduction of national debt and reduction of
civilian casualties because America’s national debt has spiraled out of control due to costly wars
in the Middle East and the US economy can no longer sustain continual deficit spending as
evidenced by the 2014 government shutdown and the avoided 2015 shutdown of the Department
of Homeland Security, and civilian casualties are the biggest source of terrorist recruitment
around the world because it justifies, validates, and adds truth to the rhetoric used by these
hostile organizations.
When to Use: Use this framework to establish the most important American interests. Then you
can link into these interests by demonstrating how ground operations would be counter to these
interests.
How to Respond: Respond to this argument by saying that protecting American citizens is the
most important job of the U.S. government, and fighting ISIS with ground forces is an essential
component of that.
!
Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
Pro Arguments with

Con Responses
Pro Arguments with Con Responses April 2015
PRO – ISIL is a Threat to the United States
Argument: ISIL has proven to have the capability and the intent to send fighters to America to
carry out terrorist attacks. Ground troops are a viable solution to this.
Warrant: The FBI has warned officials that ISIL may be targeting them
Brown, Pamela, and Jim Sciutto. "FBI Warns Military of ISIS Threat - CNN.com." CNN.
Cable News Network, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/>.
The FBI issued a warning Sunday to members of the U.S. military that ISIS is
calling for attacks against them, according to a law enforcement source, saying that
"overseas based individuals are looking for like-minded individuals in the U.S. to
carry out these attacks.” "We also request members of the military review their
online social media presence for any information that might attract the attention of
violent extremists," the bulletin said, advising that members of the military "use caution
and practice operational security when posting."The new FBI bulletin includes a concern
that ISIS members are "spotting and assessing" individuals in the U.S. who they
believe may be interested in carrying out attacks on U.S. soil against members of the
U.S. military, a U.S. counter-terror official tells CNN.
Warrant: ISIL has a huge amount of fighters
Ferran, Lee, and Rym Momtaz. "ISIS Trail of Terror." ABC News. ABC News Network,
23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-
25053190>.
Western officials only have rough estimates on ISIS’s total fighting force, but in late
2014, the CIA said the group was believed to be up to 30,000 fighters strong
including local supporters, and growing. Most disturbing to Western security officials,
they say, is the huge portion of foreign fighters who left their homes and at times traveled
halfway around the world to join the terror group.
Warrant: Many of ISIL’s fighters are from around the world
23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-
25053190>.
Nicholas Rasmussen, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told

Congress in February 2015 some 20,000 foreign fighters from 90 countries had
traveled to Syria to join one group or another -- 3,400 of those fighters are said to
have come from Western nations, including over 150 from the U.S. “who have either
traveled to the conflict zone, or attempted to do so.” “It’s very difficult to be precise with
these numbers because they come from a variety of sources that vary in quality,”
Rasmussen said. “But the trend lines are clear and concerning.”
Warrant: ISIL (formally Al Qaeda in Iraq) was pushed back by the US military in Iraq after the
us won the hearts and minds of the citizens
23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fullpage/isis-trail-terror-isis-threat-us-25053190>.
AQI was weakened in Iraq in 2007 as a result of what is known as the Sunni
Awakening, when a large alliance of Iraqi Sunni tribes, supported by the U.S.,
fought against the jihadist group. AQI saw an opportunity to regain its power and
expand its ranks in the Syrian conflict that started in 2011, moving into Syria from Iraq.
By 2013, al-Baghdadi had spread his group’s influence back into Iraq and changed the
group’s name to ISIS, “reflecting its greater regional ambitions,” according to the U.S.
State Department. ISIS, as the group has been identified by ABC News and other news
organizations, refers to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Different translations of the
Arabic name al-Baghdadi gave his organization have spawned other English-language
versions such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (also ISIS) or the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It is also known as Daesh, based on an Arabic acronym.
Warrant: There have been attacks on the Canadian military
Brown, Pamela, and Jim Sciutto. "FBI Warns Military of ISIS Threat - CNN.com." CNN.
Cable News Network, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/01/politics/fbi-warns-military-of-isis-threat/>.
U.S. law enforcement posted the warning now in advance of the upcoming holiday
season when many members of the U.S. military travel in uniform. The new
warning also cites several recent attacks in Canada against members of the
Canadian military, including the Oct. 22 Ottawa shooting and two other attacks using
cars. The concern in the FBI and intelligence community is that ISIS members
overseas are tracking personal information about "specific" U.S. soldiers --- such as
their addresses and even their relatives addresses -- based on their social media
posts, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the matter.The concern is
that ISIS operatives are gathering it overseas and then identifying homegrown
violent extremists in the U.S who could help carry out the attack. The source says the
idea is basically " I don't have to come and get him -- I can call someone in the U.S. who
wants to support the cause and they can do it."
Warrant: ISIL is planning attacks on US, ground troops can stop this
KLEIN, Aaron. "Intel: ISIS Planning Attacks on U.S. Soil." WND. World Net Daily, 17
Feb. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/intel-isis-planning-attacks-on-u-s-soil/>.
Egypt, now at the forefront of fighting ISIS, is warning it has intelligence revealing
the global jihadist group is planning a worldwide offensive this spring or summer
that could reach targets within the United States. Interrogations of ISIS members
captured in recent weeks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula Egyptian and information
collected by Egyptian security forces indicate ISIS is planning ground offensives this
spring and summer aimed at taking over more territory across the Middle Eastern
and Persian Gulf, a senior Egyptian intelligence official told WND. Some of the
information indicates the new offensive will not be limited to the Arab world. Timed
to coincide with its planned surge, ISIS is plotting possible attacks using cells
abroad. ISIS and its jihadist allies could activate cells to carry attacks in Europe
and possibly within the U.S., the senior Egyptian official warned.The official
advocated the deployment of significant ground troops acting on multiple fronts to
stop ISIS’ progression. He complained the Obama administration and international
community has been hesitant to take major action against ISIS advances.
A2 – ISIL is a Threat to the United States
Answer: Sending ground troops will only perpetuated a cycle where the US invades a country,
which increases support for terrorist groups who want to carry out attacks against America.
Warrant: ISIL was created by the first US invasion of Iraq
23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
While extremist groups are generally amorphous organizations, ISIS can trace its
history directly back to the Sunni terrorist organization al Qaeda, specifically the
Iraq faction, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was
responsible for scores of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings in Iraq following
the U.S. invasion there. After al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006 by an American airstrike,
leadership of the group eventually fell to an experienced Iraqi fighter, Abu Du’a, better
known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who had once been in U.S. custody in Iraq.
Warrant: ISIL has become more motivated to attack the US as US involvement has increased
23 Feb. 2015. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
Though al-Baghdadi had threatened the U.S. in general before, ISIS primarily
focused its attention on its regional ambitions prior to the U.S.-led bombing
campaign. But as the U.S. and others continue to bombard ISIS targets, the group
has repeatedly called on its followers in Western nations to conduct deadly attacks
at home. One of the gunmen in a dual terror attack in Paris in January 2015 claimed that
he was part of ISIS, though the other shooters in that attack were linked to an al Qaeda
affiliate. Days after the Paris incident, authorities in the U.S. announced they had
arrested an Ohio man and ISIS supporter who planned to bomb the U.S. Capitol. In
addition to the so-called “self-radicalized” ISIS supporters, Western intelligence
agencies are concerned about those who travel to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS
before coming back home. “The battlefields in Iraq and Syria provide foreign
fighters with combat experience, weapons and explosives training, and access to
terrorist networks that may be planning attacks which target the West,” Rasmussen
said in February 2015.
Warrant: US airstrikes can’t be countered militarily, ISIL will likely attempt terror attacks as a
response
Thompson, Mark. "Why the U.S. Won't Buckle Under ISIS Pressure." Time. Time, 3
Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://time.com/3263008/sotloff-us-isis-military-terror/>.
Over the past month, the U.S. military has launched more than 100 air strikes against
ISIS targets in northern Iraq. While U.S. officials have publicly justified the attacks on
humanitarian grounds—as well as protecting U.S. interests—they also have obliterated
dozens of ISIS vehicles and checkpoints, and those manning them. There is no way ISIS
can counter U.S. air strikes. It has no air force and apparently has few, if any, anti-
aircraft weapons. Its ground forces, once identified, are easy targets for American
laser- and GPS-guided bombs and missiles.Unable to thwart the attacks, ISIS has
tried to derail them by murdering a pair of journalists it was holding in captivity.
The first, James Foley, a freelance reporter for the GlobalPost website, was
allegedly killed by a black-clad man speaking with an English accent in a video
released Aug. 19. ISIS released a second video 14 days later, purportedly showing
the same man murdering Sotloff, who had freelanced for Time.
Warrant: The military cannot solve the issue of ISIL
Thompson, Mark. "Why the U.S. Won't Buckle Under ISIS Pressure." Time. Time, 3
Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://time.com/3263008/sotloff-us-isis-military-terror/>.
That said, horror isn’t the only way to win an asymmetric war: sometimes the points
non-state actors want to make are as much political as military, and through their
patience and resolve they can prevail over stronger foes.“We’ve been going after
terrorist networks in that part of the world for more than a decade, with very good
success,” Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday. “The real
measure of success is that their ideology is ultimately defeated, and the only way
that’s going to be done is through good governance. And we’ve said that time and
again, but I think it’s worth repeating. There’s not going to be a military solution to
this.”
Warrant: ISIL wants a US invasion, it will gain them more support
Mamouri, Ali. "IS Eager to Confront US Ground Forces in Iraq - Al-Monitor: The Pulse
of the Middle East." Al-Monitor. Al-Monitor, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iraq-islamic-state-ain-al-
asad-us-ground-forces.html>.
IS appears to be planning, or hoping, to challenge the United States in a ground fight

in the vast areas of Iraq and Syria. IS believes that no matter how strong and
numerous US regular forces are, they will not be able to win against its trained
irregular fighters who have been confronting Iraqi forces in northwestern Iraq. The
organization wants a repeat of the battle of Fallujah in 2004, when the United States
failed to overwhelm the militia fighters in the city and lost a number of Marines
before retreating. With the quantitative and qualitative progress it has made, IS
envisions causing even greater losses among US troops.Direct participation by US
forces in a war against IS would be used to provide legitimacy to IS propaganda
portraying the fighting as evidence of the ongoing Western crusade against Islam.
This could help the group mobilize more supporters in majority Muslim countries
and among Muslim communities in the West. It could also help expand the combat
zone by activating IS cells to carry out attacks in the West and eventually lead Western
states to withdraw from the region, enabling IS to impose its will.
PRO ISIL Has Committed Vast Human Rights Abuses
Argument: ISIL’s human rights violations are atrocious and should be stopped. Ground troops
could stop ISIL and therefore prevent these abuses.
Warrant: ISIL’s crimes are on the verge of genocide
"UN Says ISIL Abuses in Iraq May Amount to Genocide." Al Jazeera English. Al
Jazeera, 24 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/isil-abuses-iraq-amount-genocide-
150224060400831.html>.
A new UN report has documented widespread human rights violations committed in

Iraq between September and December last year.The report, produced jointly by the
UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, was released on Monday and details abuses committed by the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group. It says that between September 11 and
December 10, at least 165 executions were carried out following sentences "by so
called 'courts' in ISIL-controlled areas".“Members of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and
religious communities, including Turkmen, Shabaks, Christians, Yezidi, Sabaeans,
Kaka’e, Faili Kurds, Arab Shi’a, and others have been intentionally and
systematically targeted by ISIL and associated armed groups and subjected to gross
human rights abuses, in what appears as a deliberate policy aimed at destroying,
suppressing or expelling these communities permanently from areas under their
control,” the report says.“Many of the violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL
may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and possibly genocide."
Warrant: Many aspects of Iraqi society are being attacked, including racial groups and
infrastructure
“'Staggering Array' of Gross Human Rights Abuses in Iraq – UN Report." UN News

Center. United Nations, 02 Oct. 2014. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48980#.VPecrIeUCA8>.
“This report is terrifying,” said Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for

Iraq Nickolay Mladenov, calling on Iraqi leaders to “act in unity to restore control
over areas that have been taken over by ISIL and implement inclusive social,
political and economic reforms.” The UN human rights officers describe serious
violations of international humanitarian law and gross abuses of human rights that
have been perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups, “with an apparent
systematic and widespread character.”These include “attacks directly targeting
civilians and civilian infrastructure, executions and other targeted killings of
civilians, abductions, rape and other forms of sexual and physical violence
perpetrated against women and children, forced recruitment of children,
destruction or desecration of places of religious or cultural significance, wanton
destruction and looting of property, and denial of fundamental freedoms,”
according to the report.
Warrant: ISIL tortures its prisoners
"Syria: Harrowing Torture, Summary Killings in Secret ISIS Detention Centres."

Amnesty International. Amnesty International, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2013/12/syria-harrowing-torture-
summary-killings-secret-isis-detention-centres/>.
Torture, flogging, and summary killings are rife in secret prisons run by the Islamic
State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), an armed group that controls large areas of northern
Syria, said Amnesty International in a briefing published today. ISIS, which claims to
apply strict Shari’a (Islamic law) in areas it controls, has ruthlessly flouted the rights of
local people. In the 18-page briefing, Rule of fear: ISIS abuses in detention in northern
Syria, Amnesty International identifies seven detention facilities that ISIS uses in al-
Raqqa governorate and Aleppo. “Those abducted and detained by ISIS include
children as young as eight who are held together with adults in the same cruel and
inhuman conditions,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Director for the
Middle East and North Africa. Former detainees describe a shocking catalogue of
abuses in which they or others were flogged with rubber generator belts or cables,
tortured with electric shocks or forced to adopt a painful stress position known as
aqrab (scorpion), in which a detainee’s wrists are secured together over one
shoulder.
Warrant: Arms/ support to ISIS needs to be stopped
"Syria: Harrowing Torture, Summary Killings in Secret ISIS Detention Centres."

Amnesty International. Amnesty International, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2013/12/syria-harrowing-torture-
summary-killings-secret-isis-detention-centres/>.
Amnesty International is calling on the international community to take concrete

steps to block the flow of arms and other support to ISIS and other armed groups
implicated in committing war crimes and other serious human rights abuses. “The
Turkish government, in particular, should prevent its territory being used by ISIS to bring
in arms and recruits to Syria,” said Philip Luther. “As well, Gulf states that have voiced
support for the armed groups fighting against the Syrian government should take action
to prevent arms flows, equipment or other support reaching ISIS in view of its appalling
human rights record.”
A2 ISIL Has Committed Vast Human Rights Abuses
Answer: No party in this conflict has a clean track record on human rights, including the United
States
Warrant: The Iraqi military has committed rights violations of its own
"UN Says ISIL Abuses in Iraq May Amount to Genocide." Al Jazeera English. Al
Jazeera, 24 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/isil-abuses-iraq-amount-genocide-
150224060400831.html>.
The report also details violations committed by the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and
affiliated armed groups.“Armed groups claiming to be affiliated to or supporting the
Government also perpetrated targeted killings, including of captured fighters from ISIL
and its associated armed groups, abductions of civilians, and other abuses,” the report
says.
Warrant: The government of Iraq stifles political freedom
Mamouri, Ali. "Human Rights Watch Condemns Situation in Iraq - Al-Monitor: The
Pulse of the Middle East." Al-Monitor. Al-Monitor, 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 04 Mar.
2015.
<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/iraq-human-rights-situation-
bad-hrw.html#>.
In the latest developments on such matters, Iraq's Court of Publishing and Media
issued two arrest warrants in early February 2014: the first against Judge Munir
Haddad, who approved the death sentence of Saddam Hussein; and the second
against Iraqi journalist Sarmad al-Tai, a known critic of the government’s political
and economic performance.The warrants charged them with “defaming” Iraqi
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In the instance of Tai, it was the first time the
defamation charge has been used since 2003. Tai was even charged based on laws
issued under the former regime.
Analysis: While it is true that political freedoms may not be as impactful as human rights,
remember that political freedom (such as freedom of the press or freedom of speech) can allow
citizens to point out human rights abuses and help push for changes.
Warrant: The government of Iraq has not shown a commitment to improving human rights
Mamouri, Ali. "Human Rights Watch Condemns Situation in Iraq - Al-Monitor: The
Pulse of the Middle East." Al-Monitor. Al-Monitor, 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 04 Mar.
2015.
<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/02/iraq-human-rights-situation-
bad-hrw.html#>.
In another example showing the lack of serious political will to respect human
rights, the formation of the Independent Commission for Human Rights in Iraq had
been repeatedly delayed for many years. Law No. 53 of 2008 binded the Iraqi
government to form this commission, which is not under government control. The
commission was finally formed under difficult and unwelcoming circumstances. Golo
Sinjari, a staffer with the Independent Commission for Human Rights in Iraq, told Al-
Monitor that the Commission has prepared its first report on human rights in Iraq and will
soon submit it to parliament.
Warrant: President Obama has asked congress to waive a ban on aiding allies who abuse human
rights
Levine, Sam. "Obama Seeks Human Rights Waiver On ISIS War Funds." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/13/obama-human-rights-
waiver_n_6154336.html>.
The Obama administration has asked Congress repeatedly to exempt its military
effort against the Islamic State from a longstanding ban on U.S. assistance to
torturers and war criminals, highlighting doubts about finding "clean" American
allies in a region wracked by ethnic animosity and religious extremism.The latest
proposal is included in a Nov. 10 request to Congress for $1.6 billion to train Iraqi and
Kurdish forces to fight IS as part of a $5.6 billion request to expand the U.S. mission in
Iraq. The proposal sets up a fight with key Senate Democrats, who blocked two earlier
requests for such an exemption, according to documents and interviews.
Warrant: The last time US sent troops to Iraq it didn’t improve human rights
Pearlman, Alex. "Iraq, 10 Years Later: Human Rights Abuses Continue." GlobalPost.
GlobalPost, 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/iraq-10-years-
later-human-rights-abuses-continue>.
In the 10 years since American forces invaded Iraq — touted as a necessary action to
remove a dictator, prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction and bring about
democracy — human rights abuses have abounded and not abated. Even after
withdrawing combat troops, the US intelligence apparatus maintains a large presence in
Iraq, and reports indicate that US involvement could even be beefed up to assist Iraqi
forces in the near future."Ten years after the end of Saddam Hussein's repressive rule,
many Iraqis today enjoy greater freedoms than they did under his regime, but the
fundamental human rights gains that should have been achieved during the past
decade have significantly failed to materialize," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Middle
East and North Africa deputy director at Amnesty International. "Neither the Iraqi
government nor the former occupying powers have adhered to the standards
required of them under international law and the people of Iraq are still paying a
heavy price for their failure.”
Analysis: The government the United States put in power in Iraq after Saddam Hussein has
shown that it is clearly not interested in protecting human rights. Many of the abuses this
government committed occurred under the watch of the US occupation. Furthermore, the US
occupation itself harmed people. It would make little sense to repeat this cycle.
PRO – State Stability
Argument: American intervention is needed in order to preserve the Iraqi state.
Warrant: The most important US interest is maintaining the stability of states in the
Middle East.
Kagan, Kimberly, Kagan, Frederick W., and Lewis, Jessica D. “A strategy to defeat the
Islamic state.” Institute for the Study of War. Sept 2014. Web. 3 March 2015.
<http://www.criticalthreats.org/sites/default/files/pdf_upload/Defeating_ISIS_stra
tegy_report.pdf>.
“The threat to American interests goes beyond ISIS and even al-Qaeda in Iraq and
Syria. The Iraqi and Syrian states have largely collapsed. They are not legitimate
while they cannot assert the integrity of their borders and while they cannot regain
physical control of their cities. Numerous major armed groups hold large areas of Iraq
and Syria. At least four separate groups — the Iraqi and Syrian governments, the Islamic
State, and the Kurdish Regional Government — are currently governing independently of
one another. The permanent destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian states, a principal
objective of the Islamic State, would be a grave blow to the international order and
American interests. The Islamic State and regional events are bringing enormous
pressure on Lebanon and Jordan, which may well collapse under the weight. Al-Qaeda
franchises in the Sahel and North Africa — particularly Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Mali,
and Niger — are eroding state borders and structures in that region (the Libyan state has,
in fact, collapsed). Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has established a safe-haven in
eastern Yemen and, together with the al-Houthi uprising, is threatening the continued
existence of the Yemeni state as well. Al-Qaeda has long sought to destroy borders in the
Muslim world as part of its effort to create a universal caliphate, which might be reason
enough to see danger in the collapse of so many states. American and Western
strategy, however, is so intimately connected with the persistence of the states
system that the collapse of that system would unhinge our efforts entirely. President
Obama rightly says that the U.S. must work through local partners to defeat al-
Qaeda and set conditions to prevent its return. But al-Qaeda and regional war are
destroying or threatening the local partners with which we need to work. U.S.
strategy cannot focus only on attacking the Islamic State. It must also work to re-
establish functional and legitimate states that will be able to ensure that al-Qaeda does
not return.”
Warrant: Relying on status quo forces would create the conditions for long-term instability.
tegy_report.pdf>.
“Meeting this challenge requires centering operations within the Sunni Arab
community rather than strengthening Shi’a and Kurdish forces that are alien and
threatening to that community. A strategy of basing in Kurdistan and Shi’a Iraq and
providing air support to Kurdish troops and ISF forces intermingled with Shi’a
militias and Iranian advisers may achieve some initial successes, but will ultimately
fail. The prospect of Kurdish domination over Ninewa Province, including Mosul,
and of the permanent Kurdish seizure of Kirkuk, could well spark an ethnic Arab-
Kurdish war. ISIS has been working actively to stoke those ethnic tensions in order
to provoke precisely such a conflict, which would allow it to embed itself more
deeply among an embattled Arab populace. Merely strengthening Iraqi Security
Forces that are rightly seen as Shi’a dominated and militia-infiltrated may also
achieve short-term gains, but at the cost of setting conditions for an even larger
Sunni Arab mobilization against perceived Shi’a domination that would create new
opportunities for ISIS or a successor group to establish itself.”
Warrant: The Kurdish people are rapidly gaining territory.
“Iraqi Kurds Prepared For ISIS Offensive For A Year And Expanded Their Territory By
40% In Hours.” Business Insider. 13 June 2014. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-kurds-expand-territory-2014-6>.
“After Sunni insurgents from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seized Iraq's
biggest northern city Mosul and rampaged towards the capital Baghdad, Kurdish
fighters wasted no time in mobilizing. They seized full control of Kirkuk - and tracts
of land besides. In all, they expanded the territory they control by as much as 40
percent, without having to fight a single battle. The new territory includes vast oil
deposits the Kurdish people regard as their national birthright and foundation for
the prosperity of a future independent homeland. Kurds plundered bases deserted by
the Iraqi army in Kirkuk, making off with everything from guns to air-conditioning units,
armored vehicles and mattresses in a frenzy reminiscent of the scenes that followed the
fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. For now, Kurdish officials are still weighing their
options for next steps, but they have made clear that the settlement that held Iraq
together as a state has been torn up. "We have entered a new era in Iraq that is
completely different than before Mosul," Fuad Hussein, chief of staff to Kurdish
regional President Masoud Barzani, told Reuters. "We will see how we are going to
deal with this new Iraq."”
Warrant: The Kurds have been able to expand their territory.
Mroue, Bassem. “Kurds expand offensive after driving ISIS from Kobani.” USA Today.
27 January 2015. Web. 9 March 2015.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/27/kobani-islamic-state-
kurds/22393383/>.
“Kurdish fighters expanded their offensive Tuesday after driving Islamic State
militants from the Syrian border town of Kobani the previous day, to retake dozens
of surrounding villages still held by the militants, activists and officials said. Pushing
IS out of Kobani after a bloody, four-month campaign was a significant boost for
both the Kurds and the U.S.-led coalition, though the U.S. Central Central Command
tempered Monday's victory by saying it estimated that 90 percent of Kobani was now
controlled by Kurdish forces. From Kobani, Kurdish troops took the fight Tuesday
to the village of Shiran, southeast of the town, said Mustafa Bali, a Kobani-based
activist. Earlier in the day, they captured the nearby village of Qarah Hlanj. The
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights confirmed the capture of Qarah
Hlanj and said the fighting near Shiran has intensified.”
Warrant: It’s necessary to prevent Iran from gaining influence in Iraq.
tegy_report.pdf>.
“Cooperate with Iran at any level. Iran is the principal regional symbol of
sectarianism, preferentially supports extremist Shi’a groups, and is integrating
national security forces into an international structure that includes its own forces
and terrorist groups. Working with Iran will have the same effect on Sunni
perception as working with Assad. It may also drive our Gulf Arab allies away in
the belief that the U.S. has made a permanent shift of alliances in the Middle East.
Iran’s leaders and military commanders, finally, have consistently and loudly repudiated
any notion of cooperating with the U.S. in Iraq.”
Warrant: Iran is gaining power now.
Barnard, Anne. “Iran Gains Influence in Iraq as Shiite Forces Fight ISIS.” NYT. 5 March
2015. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/world/middleeast/iran-gains-influence-in-
iraq-as-shiite-forces-fight-isis.html?_r=0>.
“More openly than ever before, Iran’s powerful influence in Iraq has been on
display as the counteroffensive against Islamic State militants around Tikrit has
unfolded in recent days. At every point, the Iranian-backed militias have taken the
lead in the fight against the Islamic State here. Senior Iranian leaders have been
openly helping direct the battle, and American officials say Iran’s Revolutionary
Guards forces are taking part. Iraqi officials, too, have been unapologetic about the
role of the militias. They project confidence about their fighting abilities and declare
that how to fight the war is Iraq’s decision, as militia leaders criticize American
pressure to rely more on regular forces. On Thursday, as they showed journalists
around the outskirts of the battle, leaders of militias and regular forces alike declared
that there was no distinction between the two; that the militias were a legitimate
force under the government’s chain of command. And like the militiamen, many
police officers and soldiers decorated their checkpoints and helmets with Shiite
slogans and symbols.”
Warrant: Engaging with ground troops is the key to winning the conflict in the long term.
tegy_report.pdf>.
“The threat from ISIS is already very real. Whether the group itself is planning attacks
against the U.S. at this moment, at least a thousand American and European citizens are
cycling through the fight and returning to their home countries.20 The longer the
conflict is allowed to continue, the higher the likelihood that some of those fighters
will turn their attention against their home countries. This threat will increase as
ISIS gains the freedom to consolidate, train, and plan its next moves outside Iraq
and Syria. It will increase from other al-Qaeda groups while all attention remains
on ISIS. Terrorist armies, rather than cellular groups, have already emerged elsewhere in
the Middle East and North Africa. They will embolden other violent non-state actors
and criminal organizations to challenge weak state security across the Middle East
and North Africa. This is both the most dangerous and the most likely scenario
while a clear path to ISIS defeat is not yet clear. The strategy to defeat and destroy
ISIS must instead be determined, deliberate, and phased, allowing for iterative
decisions that adjust the plan in response to the actual realities on the ground. The U.S. is
not positioned to estimate these ground conditions accurately without more direct
engagement of the Sunni populations in Iraq and Syria. Developing this accurate
intelligence picture, which should be accomplished in conjunction with military
action to disrupt ISIS and end its current offensive, means that the first phase of the
U.S. strategy should be a movement to contact. The operational risks of this phase
outweigh the strategic risks of decided to destroy ISIS and then engaging insufficiently.”
Analysis: This argument takes a very realist perspective on international relations; essentially,
what would maintain the highest levels of US relative power, regardless of the means used to get
there. This arguments says that in the long term, the best way for the US to preserve power in the
Middle East is to have the ability to deal and negotiate with states; this what the current system is
designed to deal with, and this system puts the US in a position of relative power. Thus, losing
this relative power in a volatile area like the Middle East is highly costly, and ore important than
anything else, especially in terms of impacts such as national security and energy security, both
of which can be weighed easily. It’s relatively easy to argue that energy security is the pre-
requisite to things like economic growth, while national security functions in a similar way.
A2 – State Stability
Answer: US intervention tends to be the cause of destabilization in the first place
Warrant: The invasion of Iraq shows how severely the US destabilized the Middle East.
Reynolds, Ben. “Iran didn’t create ISIS; we did.” The Diplomat. 31 Aug 2014. Web. 7
March 2015 <http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/iran-didnt-create-isis-we-did/>.
“The U.S., Western Europe, and their regional allies in fact bear most of the
responsibility for the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, which Britain notably supported, was a strategic disaster. Contrary to speculation
at the time, Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist regime prevented Al Qaeda from
operating out of Iraq. Iraq had also been supported by the West before the 1991
Gulf War as a counterbalance against the revolutionary Islamic Republic during the Iran-
Iraq War. The U.S.-led invasion changed all of that. The Iraq War toppled Saddam,
destabilized the country, and led to a wave of sectarian bloodshed. It also made Iraq
a safe haven and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda affiliates. Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s
forerunner, was founded in April 2004. AQI conducted brutal attacks on Shia civilians
and mosques in hopes of sparking a broader sectarian conflict. Iran naturally
supported Shia militias, who fought extremists like AQI, both to expand its influence
in Iraq and protect its Shia comrades. Iran cultivated ties with the Maliki government as
well. Over the long term, Iran tried to seize the opportunity to turn Iraq from a
strategic counterweight into a strategic ally. The U.S. didn’t do much to stop it.”
Warrant: The case of Afghanistan shows how US intervention causes internal destabilization
Engelhardt, Tom. “When Will the US Military End its Pattern of Destabilizing Entire
Regions?” The Atlantic. 25 November 2014. Web. 7 March 7, 2015.
<http://www.thenation.com/article/191409/when-will-us-military-end-its-pattern-
destabilizing-entire-regions#>.
“Having imagined that, ask yourself: How well did all of that turn out for this other
power? In Afghanistan, a recent news story highlights something of what was
accomplished. Though that country took slot 175 out of 177 on Transparency
International’s 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index, though its security forces
continue to suffer grievous casualties, and though parts of the country are falling to
a strengthening Taliban insurgency, it has for some years proudly held a firm grip on
one record: Afghanistan is the leading narco-state on planet Earth. In 2013, it upped
its opium poppy cultivation by 36 percent, its opium production by almost 50
percent, and drug profits soared. Preliminary figures for this year, recently released by
the UN, indicate that opium cultivation has risen by another 7 percent and opium
production by 17 percent, both to historic highs, as Afghanistan itself has become “one
of the world’s most addicted societies.””
Answer: Preserving the Iraqi state has been a major source of instability
Warrant: Iraq has three major ethnic groups that aren’t able to live in peace.
“In the following years, shielded by a Western no-fly zone, Iraqi Kurds established
their first autonomous government and started building the apparatuses of a
modern state. The recent defeat of Iraq's armed forces in Mosul was not caused by the
lack of enough training or equipment, as some analysts have suggested. It was rather
caused by the lack of will. What happened in Mosul is not a conventional loss of a
battle resulting from an imbalance in size or shortage of ammunition. It represents
the failure of a narrow-minded, authoritarian worldview that, in different forms, has
been pursued by the ruling elite since the country was founded nearly a century ago: an
ideology that supports the use of whatever it takes to force three different ethnic and
sectarian groups, with a history of bloody conflicts, together in one country and
under one leader. Saddam Hussein tried this. He killed 182,000 Kurds and tens of
thousands of Shia. He used chemical gas against his own people. What did he achieve?
Over the past eight years, Maliki's main objective has been the same: trying to force
everyone to live under his rule while refusing to trust others except for his Shia
relatives. If he continues along this path, his fate will be no better than Saddam's.”
Answer: Destabilization is happening now; it doesn’t matter if we intervene.
Waters, Timothy Williams. “The Kurdish option: An independent state for the Kurds, an
ally for the U.S. in Iraq.” LA Times. 7 July 2014. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0708-waters-recognize-kurdistan-
20140708-story.html>.
“Then there was fear that independence would destabilize Iraq. Reading the news,
that hardly seems like a compelling argument anymore. Of course, things could get
worse. Some argue that partition would provoke even more bloodshed — quite a claim,
since unified Iraq has set the bar pretty high. But while partitioning Arab Iraq might
provoke a maelstrom, Kurdistan in effect has already separated from Baghdad.
Independence carries risks, but there are no options that don't. Objecting to recognition
because of the risk utterly ignores the very real and rising tide of bloodshed that our
present policy of a unified Iraq entails. It is like objecting to the dangerous qualities of
the only exit before one hurtles off a cliff. But the most compelling argument is the
realist one: Kurdish independence is happening and we don't have good
alternatives, so we might as well harness it to our interests. The U.S. wants the
Islamic State defeated. But neither 300 military advisors nor drones nor bombing are
going to turn the tide or hold the ground. The Kurdish militia, the peshmerga, is the
only fighting force in Iraq able to resist and roll back the militants.”
Analysis: This argument is basically arguing that we’re reversing causality; state failure doesn’t
cause US action, US action causes state failure. A simpler way to put it is that the reason we’re
in this mess is because we started an unnecessary fight in the first place. Secondarily, the next
argument explains that all the arguments that the pro makes are the status quo; Iraq has already
collapsed, the Kurds have more power, and nothing horrible has happened. Therefore, there’s
really no point of placing grounds troops because we can’t do anything about it at this point, and
the consequences aren’t bad anyways.
PRO US Allies are not to stop ISIS
Argument: The current troops fighting ISIL are not good enough to win. United States troops
could help tip the tide and ensure peace for the future.
Warrant: US Special Forces are needed to stop ISIL
Miller, Aaron D. "Tough Choices: How to Win against ISIS - CNN.com." CNN. Cable
News Network, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/opinion/miller-white-house-extremism-
summit/>.
Neither democratic reform in the Arab world (highly unlikely), nor counter-
messaging (probably ineffective), will check the rise of ISIS. That can be achieved
only by a military and political strategy designed to demonstrate that ISIS has
failed. And that means containing and reversing the group's gains through the use
of air power, standing up local allies, marshaling a Sunni Arab coalition, and most
likely by deploying additional U.S. Special Forces. There are many constraints inherent
in this approach. Iranian-backed Shia militias feed ISIS recruitment by killing Sunnis.
And Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria does the same. Meanwhile, ungoverned spaces in
Libya and Yemen offer new opportunities for IS affiliates. But stopping ISIS gains and
rolling them back in Iraq and over time in Syria are critical, and would be the best
counter-narrative possible.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Warrant: Airstrikes are not enough
Gordts, Eline. "U.S. On The Sidelines In Key Battle Against ISIS In Iraq." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Mar. 2015. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/us-isis-
battle_n_6795926.html>.
However, the U.S.-led mission has hit a roadblock in its efforts to support the Iraqi
government. Both the Iraqi and U.S. government agree that airstrikes have pushed
the militants back and the group has struggled to gain territory since airstrikes
began. But there will come a point where airstrikes alone will not be enough. Most of
the battlefield successes in Iraq have been coordinated efforts, with Iraqi and Kurdish
forces and Shiite militias fighting on the ground and the U.S.-led coalition providing air
power.
Warrant: ISIL has defeated the Kurds on the battlefield in the past
"ISIS Beats Back Kurds to Take Mosul Dam and Three Towns | News | DW.DE |
03.08.2014." DW.DE. Deutsche Welle, n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.dw.de/isis-beats-back-kurds-to-take-mosul-dam-and-three-towns/a-
17829105>.
The capture of the Mosul Dam could give the group a base from which to attack
major cities and aid its bid to topple Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's Shiite-led
government. ISIS's capture of the northern town of Sinjar has already forced up to
200,000 people to flee, the United Nations announced on Sunday.” A humanitarian
tragedy is unfolding in Sinjar," UN envoy Nickolay Mladenov said Sunday after ISIS,
formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, captured the town near the
Syrian border, which had served as a refuge for thousands of families displaced from
elsewhere in previous fighting. After beating militia fighters (pictured) to take
territories in what had until recently been a stronghold for the transnational
Kurdish minority, fighters hoisted the ISIS flag. The group has declared a caliphate in
an area on the Iraq-Syria border and taken aim at the region's various sects, including the
dwindling Christian population in areas such as Mosul.
Warrant: Iraqi forces, backed by Iran, may be too heavy-handed
Youssef, Nancy A. "Iraq’s Attack Against ISIS Catches U.S. ‘By Surprise’." The Daily
Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/02/iraq-s-attack-against-isis-
catches-u-s-by-surprise.html>.
But the Iranian-led approach the clearing of Tikrit [a major Iraqi city, the
hometown of Saddam Hussein] is largely sectarian—with Shiite militias reviled and
feared by Sunni residents. Rather than a deliberate military campaign, the forces
appear prepared to pound Tikrit, hard. And perhaps because of that, there is no need
for an air campaign. There are already fears that the Iraqi effort, backed by their
Iranian supporters, will decimate parts of the city, defense officials said. Such
actions would have great symbolic effect and make increasingly unlikely the
mending of sectarian tensions between the minority Sunnis and their Shiite-
dominated government.
Warrant: ISIL has proven it has the capabilities to inflict heavy losses
Ahmed, HEVIDAR. "Iraqi Defense Official: Army Has Lost 7 Divisions; Losses at
$10b." Rudaw. N.p., 26 June 2014. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/26062014>.
Since they began their blitz just over a fortnight ago, Sunni insurgents in Iraq have
destroyed half of the Iraqi army and inflicted $10 billion in losses, a senior Iraqi
defense official said. Those losses continued to mount Wednesday as the jihadi-led
insurgents reportedly overran the Ajeel oil site east of the captured city of Tikrit, and
Iraqi television showed helicopters flying in troops as fighting continued for Baiji, the
country’s largest oil refinery.Meanwhile, Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
poured cold water on any hope of a resolution to the serious gripes of the country’s very
large Sunni and Kurdish populations that lie at the heart of Iraq’s problems.
A2 US Allies are not enough to stop ISIS
Answer: The groups that are currently fighting ISIL are well armed, trained, and motivated.
They have had success thus far.
Warrant: US involvement breeds anti-American sentiment
Miller, Aaron D. "Tough Choices: How to Win against ISIS - CNN.com." CNN. Cable
News Network, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/20/opinion/miller-white-house-extremism-
summit/>.
This contradiction leads to a second problem -- the idea that a summit in

Washington, or indeed anything made in America, will somehow lead to an effective
counter narrative that will halt ISIS success at recruitment. The reality is that the
United States has been particularly ill-suited to capturing the hearts and minds of
Arab and Muslim youth, partly because of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but
also our support for authoritarian regimes, our drone strikes and our support for
Israel. We may not actually have the problem in the right sequence. Instead of hearts and
minds, it should be minds and hearts.
Warrant: The Kurds are a formidable opponent to ISIL
Bender, Jeremy. "The World-Class Kurdish Army That Could Beat Back Iraq's
Jihadists." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 17 June 2014. Web. 05 Mar.
2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-world-class-army-that-could-beat-isis-
2014-6>.
As the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Sunni extremist militants quickly
gain territory in Iraq, the Kurdish Security Forces are increasing their own
operations in an attempt to shelter Iraqi Kurdistan from war. The Kurdish forces,
known as Peshmerga, have proven themselves to be the most effective bulwark so
far against ISIS's blitz. The Peshmerga, whose name is Kurdish for "those who face
death," have helped to limit ISIS's incursions towards Baghdad from the north. At
the same time, the Kurds have also seized oil-rich Kirkuk, known as the "Kurdish
Jerusalem," which is formally outside of the autonomous Kurdish Region in Iraq.The
Peshmerga's numbers, dedication, and discipline make them possibly the strongest
fighting force in Iraq.
Warrant: Kurds have won major battles as well
McLaughlin, Elliot C. "Kobani Liberated: Kurds Take Strategic City from ISIS -
CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/26/middleeast/syria-kobani-fighting/>.
Kurdish fighters have taken the Syrian city of Kobani from ISIS' grip after 112
days of fighting with the Sunni extremist group, multiple sources said Monday. The
announcement comes a day after an Iraqi official declared that Iraq's Diyala
Province had been "liberated" from ISIS. Idriss Nassan, Kobani's deputy foreign
minister, told CNN he expects an official announcement Tuesday "if things continue this
way.""YPG is in control," Nassan said, using the acronym for the People's Protection
Units. "They are making sure to clear the streets and the places from ISIS to declare it a
free city."YPG spokesman Polat Can confirmed the news in a tweet: "Congratulations
for liberation of Kobani to all of humanity, Kurdistan and people of Kobani.”
Nassan called for the quick implementation of a "humanitarian corridor" to help
the myriad refugees in the city, whom, he said, "need everything."
Warrant: Iraq making moves without US help

The Iraqi military launched a major campaign to take back a key city[Tikrit] from
the self-proclaimed Islamic State over the weekend—a move that caught the U.S.
“by surprise,” in the words of one American government official.The U.S.-led coalition
forces that have conducted seven months of airstrikes on Iraq’s behalf did not participate
in the attack, defense officials told The Daily Beast, and the American military has no
plans to chip in. Instead, embedded Iranian advisers and Iranian-backed Shiite
militias are taking part in the offensive on the largely Sunni town, raising the
prospect that the fight to beat back ISIS could become a sectarian war.
Warrant: Iraq-Iran offensive is best chance to take back a key city
But never has Iraq sought to seize the city with so many troops and with so much
help from Iran, making this campaign it best chance of reclaiming the city.“I don’t
know if this operation is going to succeed. But I know the size and configuration has
been successful in the past,” said Sinan Adnan, a research associate at the Washington,
D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War.
Warrant: Iraqi militias successful against ISIL
WILLIAMS, Holly. " Armed with U.S. Weapons, Infamous Militia Beating ISIS."
CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/armed-with-u-s-weapons-ruthless-militia-
beating-isis-in-iraq/>.
But these soldiers are not part of Iraq's National Army. Instead, they're volunteers
with a Shiite Muslim militia known as the Badr Brigade."Our guns all come from
the Iraqi Defense Ministry," said Badr Brigade Commander Essam Yahya Hussein,
who ran a grocery store before he joined the fight six months ago.The U.S. spent $20
billion training and arming the Iraqi army. Now many of its weapons are in the
hands of these unchecked militiamen. But with the Iraqi army in disarray, they have
the best track record of defeating ISIS in central Iraq. The villages around Al
Muqdadiyah are battle scarred and the local people have all fled. The battle for Al
Muqdadiyah lasted four days, and when ISIS was finally defeated its fighters fled
over hills where they've now regrouped.
PRO – Regional and Kurdish forces are insufficient
Argument: Regional and Kurdish powers need US support in order to eradicate ISIS as a
whole.
Warrant: Regional Arab powers will not be able to counter ISIS.
Ghosh, Bobby. “Why Arab Ground Troops Won’t Defeat ISIS.” Defense One. 23 Feb
2015. Web. 4 March 2015. < http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-
arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/>.
“It has been decades since the Egyptian military has fought a full-fledged war, and
the last time it was deployed in another Arab country—in Yemen in the 1960s—it
was humiliated. Since then, Egypt’s rulers have used their army mainly to bully and
beat up unarmed civilians protesting against oppression, and to fight homegrown
terrorist groups in the Sinai Peninsula. They’ve been pretty good at the former, but not
especially effective at the latter. Despite official claims of successes in the Sinai,
terrorists attacks have been on the rise, and it is a bad sign that the Sisi regime feels it
necessary to exercise strict censorship on reporting from the peninsula. If Egypt’s recent
track record is dismal, the history of Arab military cooperation isn’t especially
reassuring, either. Some Western analysts hope that the GCC Peninsula Shield, a
40,000-strong force made up of countries in the Persian Gulf, can be brought to bear
against ISIL. But like the Egyptian military, this mini-military was built mainly to
protect Gulf regimes from internal political unrest. The Peninsula Force was most
recently deployed in Bahrain in 2011, to stamp down civilian rallies against the
royal family. It’s worth remembering, too, that one of the most powerful Arab
militaries—Syria’s—has been fighting against ISIL for nigh on four years. The
forces of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad enjoy home-field advantage, and are not
restrained by any concern for civilian casualties or such niceties as the Geneva
conventions. Assad’s planes and tanks have flattened entire towns and cities, and
still have failed to defeat ISIL, much less recover territory under the terrorists’
control.”
Warrant: The amount of territory held by ISIS is too large for the Kurds to fight back against in
the long term.
“Peshmerga General: IS Air Strikes Helpful, But 'We Will Need Ground Forces'.” Radio
Free Europe. Oct 30 2014, Web. 4 March 2015. <
http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-peshmerga-islamic-state-air-
strikes/26618908.html>.
“RFE/RL: As a military expert, do you believe that coalition air strikes are enough to stop
the IS militants' advance and to liberate Mosul and the other regions in Diyala and
Anbar? Yawar: [The air strikes] help the Peshmerga in stopping the terrorist attacks
and in supporting Peshmerga attacks on the terrorists' positions, but they will not
be enough for the future liberation of all the Mosul, Salahuddin, Anbar, and Diyala
areas. Larger forces will be needed on the ground, whether they be federal
government forces in coordination with the U.S. and coalition air forces, together
with Peshmerga forces, or through the presence of ground forces from those
countries. In the future, we will need forces on the ground. The areas controlled by
the terrorists are large. “
***The brackets were in the original evidence, not added in afterwards
Warrant: Territory held by ISIS is expanding, and current efforts have been insufficient to
counter it.
Cafarella, Jennifer and Nassief, Isabel. “ISIS’s Offensive in Syria Shows that U.S.
Airstrikes Have Not Blunted Mom.” Institute for the Study of War. 28 Aug 2014.
<
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Opinion_Syria_Airstrikes_1.
pdf>.
“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told reporters that U.S. airstrikes “have stalled ISIL’s
momentum” after two weeks of bombarding ISIS positions in Northern Iraq. The Islamic
State of Iraq and al-Sham has not stalled under U.S. pressure. Rather, since the fall
of Mosul and despite U.S. airstrikes, the insurgent army has continued a successful
and spectacular offensive in Syria. Their gains nearly equal in scale the seizure of
northern Iraq in June. The insurgent army’s latest triumph is the capture of Assad’s
Tabqa air base in Eastern Syria. ISIS is one-armed force fighting on multiple fronts in
two theaters of operation, Iraq and Syria, across a border that the group does not
recognize. It aims to establish and consolidate a cross-border Caliphate and has
sought to fuse its lines of communication across the border region, while also seizing
control of populated urban areas in both countries. ISIS has sought to expel armed
forces of both states from positions within ISIS’s desired “borders” in order to preserve
the Caliphate’s territorial integrity.”
Warrant: Kurds need more support in order to push forward against ISIS.
Janssen, Bran. “Iraqi Kurds call for foreign troops to help them battle Islamic State
group.” US News and World Report. 4 Feb 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/02/04/iraqi-kurds-call-for-
foreign-ground-troops-in-anti-is-fight>.
“IRBIL, Iraq (AP) — A senior Iraqi Kurdish official on Wednesday called for greater
support in the battle against the Islamic State group, including with foreign troops,
saying the Kurds are "alone" in the fight. Fouad Hussein, chief of staff to Kurdish
President Massoud Barzani, said the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes are helpful but "to
finish ISIS ... you need to finish it on the ground. And on the ground, we are most of
the time alone. So we need partners." "It means advisers, it means special forces, it
means a collective fight against ISIS, it means equipment, it means munitions,"
Hussein said. Though IS fighters have been forced to retreat from Kobani, the strategic
town on Syria's border with Turkey, the battlefield picture suggests they are far from
beaten in northern Iraq, where harsh winter weather and thick mud underfoot hampers
military moves. The Kurdish peshmerga fighters have struggled for months to inch
ahead, backed by U.S.-led coalition airstrikes, which began in northern Iraq on Aug. 8. "
Analysis: The way that this argument should be used and framed is a central command type of
argument; essentially, there are many parts and actors that are willing to fight ISIS on the
regional level, but they lack coordination, effective supplies, training, and need some raw
numbers support. This argument becomes powerful because it shows that the status quo is
sufficient to stall ISIS but not defeat ISIS; the tipping point comes when the US decides to
intervene. This argument is also powerful in that it avoids many of the harms that the negative
can point out; arguments like backlash are unlikely to actually materialize because many
civilians and regional actors support increased US intervention. This stands in stark contrast to
previous Middle Eastern engagements, which were heavily opposed. This makes this an
argument with large potential benefits, with few drawbacks.
A2 – Regional and Kurdish forces are insufficient
Answer: Relations with Turkey are vital for the US, and would be harmed by helping the Kurds
Warrant: Increasing support for the Kurds would hurt relations with Turkey, which are already
strained due to weapons transfers.
“Turkey Balks at Arming Kurds Against ISIS.” CBS. 19 Oct 2014. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/turkey-balks-at-arming-kurds-against-isis/>.
“SURUC, Turkey - Turkey would not agree to any U.S. arms transfers to Kurdish
fighters who are battling Islamic militants in Syria, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
was quoted as saying Sunday, as the extremist group fired more mortar rounds near the
Syrian-Turkish border. Turkey views the main Syrian Kurdish group, the PYD - and
its military wing which is fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) - as an
extension of the PKK, which has waged a 30-year insurgency in Turkey and is
designated a terrorist group by the United States and NATO. The United States has
said recently that it has engaged in intelligence sharing with Kurdish fighters and officials
have not ruled out future arms transfers to the Kurdish fighters. "The PYD is for us,
equal to the PKK. It is a terror organization," Erdogan told a group of reporters on
his return from a visit to Afghanistan. "It would be wrong for the United States -
with whom we are friends and allies in NATO - to expect us to say 'yes' to such a
support to a terrorist organization," Erdogan said. His comments were reported by the
state-run Anadolu agency on Sunday.”
Warrant: Relations with Turkey are important, strategically, because of Turkey’s role within
NATO.
McNamara, Sally, Cohen, Ariel, and Phillips, James. “Countering Turkey’s strategic
drift.” Heritage Foundation. 26 July 2010. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/countering-turkey-s-strategic-
drift>.
“The Turkish government continues to describe NATO as “the cornerstone of

Turkey’s defense and security policy.”[70] Turkey joined NATO in 1952 and has
been one of the alliance’s most important partners. Turkey has significant military
resources to contribute, and it is situated at the pivotal gateway between Europe,
Russia, and the Middle East. Turkish membership gives NATO the capability to
project power far beyond Europe’s borders, and Ankara’s participation in regional
peacekeeping missions, including all NATO-led operations in the Balkans since
1995, has been good for the alliance.[71] Turkey has even contributed to several EU
civilian missions, despite the EU’s continued discrimination against it in the defense
sphere.”
Warrant: Turkey is strategically important for the United States.
Kaylan, Melik. “Why Turkey Matters To The U.S.” Forbes. 17 March 2009. Web. 4
March 2015. < http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/16/obama-turkey-summit-
opinions-columnists-erdogan.html>.
“What are the practical benefits to the U.S.? Let us list them: Turkish troops in
Afghanistan. Freer NATO naval access to the Black Sea to bolster Ukrainian and
Georgian morale. Turkish help for Georgia. A pro-U.S. Turkish flanking threat to
distract Iran. Ditto Syria. The continued flow of non-Arab, non-Russian oil from
Azerbaijan to the world. Increased U.S.-friendly Turkish influence in Central Asia’s
Turkic states to counteract Russian and Iranian influence (remember those U.S.
bases?). A secular Muslim buffer in the region against Islamization. If the U.S. and
Turkey act in unison, as they did in the Cold War, Turkey can tip the balance as a
pro-Western force in the region’s new politics. But it will take all of President
Obama’s diplomatic and symbolic skills, sustained over time, to turn things around.”
Answer: A better alternative is to just increase munitions support for the Kurds.
Warrant: The Kurds aren’t currently receiving enough munitions support.
Lake, Eli. “Victorious Kurds Ask U.S. for Promised Guns.” Bloomberg. 30 Jan 2015.
Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-
30/kurds-who-beat-islamic-state-at-kobani-ask-u-s-for-promised-guns>.
“Yet Barzani said that most of those shipments came in the late summer and fall
from eastern European countries, and that the re-supply of the Kurdish forces since
December has slowed to a trickle. He was particularly angry that his forces received
only 25 MRAPs. “Now the Americans are providing 250 MRAPs to Iraq, but only 25
of them are promised to be given to the Kurds,” he said. “90 percent of the burden
for this war is on the shoulder of the Peshmerga, 90 percent of the work is done by
the Peshmerga, but we are only getting 10 percent of the armaments.” Barzani also
pointed out that his forces were getting none of the 1,000 Humvees or 175 Abrams
tanks promised to Iraq. “We are starting to have doubts that there might be a political
decision on what sort of equipment should be given to the Kurds,” he said. “We don’t
think this is just a technical issue. It’s been way too long for any technical issue.””
Warrant: The Kurdish forces need heavier weapons to deal with ISIS, but the US has not
provided heavy weapon support.
Ernst, Douglas. “Iraqi Kurds to U.S.: We need heavy weapons to defeat Islamic State.”
Washington Times. 21 Nov 2014. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/21/iraqi-kurds-us-we-need-
heavy-weapons-defeat-islami/>.
“Iraqi Kurds issued a message to the Obama administration: heavy weapons are
needed to defeat the Islamic State group. Kurds on the front lines against the radical
Sunni terror group say they need helicopters, tanks, artillery and an assortment of
heavy weapons if they plan on mounting successful offensive military operations.
“We cannot fight with these weapons that we have. We need different kinds of weapons.
Without these weapons, I think it will be difficult for us to continue this fight, or at least
we cannot liberate other areas,” Fuad Hussein, chief adviser to the president of the
Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, Massoud Barzani, told The Wall Street Journal
Thursday. The Journal reported that the Pentagon has sent light arms to Iraqi
Kurds, but has refrained from sending much more beyond rocket-propelled
grenades and rifles. The Islamic State group’s military assets include armored
vehicles and tanks.”
Analysis: The argument here is that Turkey’s alliance with the US is critical for projecting
power into the Middle East and Asia; losing this would be a huge blow to long term power.
Instead, it’s preferable to walk the line and support the Kurds and Regional forces as we are now,
without full blown military support and training. This allows the best of both worlds approach; if
we increase support for Kurds in terms of supplies, we give a greater ability to push ISIS back,
while maintaining the strategic importance of Turkey. This long term impact to Turkey needs to
be weighed against the short term benefit of taking out ISIS. Even if we’re successful, we
undermine our ability to intervene in the Middle East in the future, when new crisis are likely to
occur.
PRO – Eliminating Funding
Argument: Ground troops are needed to destroying ISIS funding networks.
Warrant: ISIS has many sources of non-oil revenues.
Shelley, Louise. “Blood Money.” Foreign Affairs. 10 November 2014. Web. 7 March
2015. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142403/louise-shelley/blood-
money>.
“Oil is not ISIS’ only source of revenue. For example, when the group needed seed
capital to recruit personnel and acquire military equipment to conquer the Sunni-
dominated areas of Iraq, some of it came from donors in the Gulf States, who had
funded the antecedents of ISIS. More recently, ISIS funding has come from the usual
terrorist businesses—smuggling, kidnapping, extortion, and robberies. In one
reported case, a Swedish company paid $70,000 to rescue an employee who had been
taken by ISIS. And before the American journalist James Foley was beheaded, ISIS
fighters demanded an exorbitant sum for his freedom, which they did not receive. Still
more funding comes from the sale of counterfeit cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, cell
phones, antiquities, and foreign passports. The trafficking of some of these
commodities into Turkey from Syria has risen dramatically. For example, cigarette
smuggling has increased, fuel smuggling is estimated to have tripled, and cell phone
smuggling has risen fivefold. ISIS is also taxing black market antiquities at 20–50
percent, depending on the region and type of antiquity. Meanwhile, foreign fighters sell
their passports for thousands of dollars in Turkey before entering Syria, where the
proceeds help fund them and ISIS. These particular forms of illicit trade are attractive
to terrorists because there is less competition, less regulation, and limited law
enforcement in these markets compared to others, such as the arms and narcotics
trades. These days, ISIS in many ways resembles a legitimate business. It has diverse
revenue sources, seeks and develops new profit lines, and focuses on its most
successful products and competitive advantages. ISIS was smuggling oil in Syria
before its fighters entered Iraq. The lure of those better oil fields might have been
one of the reasons it expanded its operations. ISIS is also entrepreneurial—for
example, it has obtained several modular mini-refineries, which are low cost, low
capacity, and mobile. The U.S. Department of Defense has targeted about a dozen of
these facilities. ISIS leaders are rational business actors, too. They seek the best
professional services; engage in cost-benefit analysis, focusing on crimes that yield the
highest reward with the lowest risk; and use advanced technology to recruit personnel
globally.”
Warrant: The sale of physical artifacts is a major source of funding.
GIOVANNI, JANINE DI, GOODMAN, LEAH MCGRATH, and SHARKOV,

DAMIEN. “How does ISIS fund it’s reign of terror.” Newsweek. 6 Nov 2014.
Web. 7 March 2015. <http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-
fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html>.
“More than a third of Iraq’s 12,000 important archaeological sites are now under
ISIS control and it has hastily begun excavating and selling artifacts dating from
9,000 B.C. to A.D. 1,000 through intermediaries to collectors and dealers, says al-
Hamdani. “It is the looting of the very roots of humanity, artifacts from the oldest
civilizations in the world. A shrine, a tomb, a church, a palace or an archaeological
site is dug up. They will sell the useful objects and destroy the rest.” By some
estimates, these sales now represent ISIS’s second largest source of funding. One of
its biggest paydays recently came from looting the ninth century B.C. grand palace of the
Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II at Kalhu, which is now called Nimrud, says Aymen
Jawad, executive director of Iraq Heritage, a London-based organization dedicated to
preserving Iraq’s antiquities. “Tablets, manuscripts and cuneiforms are the most common
artifacts being traded, and, unfortunately, this is being seen in Europe and America,” he
says. “Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of irreplaceable pieces are being sold
to fund terrorists.””
Warrant: ISIS has connections to the black market among its leadership.
Shelley, Louise. “Blood Money.” Foreign Affairs. 10 November 2014. Web. 7 March
2015. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/142403/louise-shelley/blood-
money>.
“ISIS leaders’ talent for business is not surprising. Although the group has its fair share
of ideological fanatics, it also includes foreign fighters that have extensive criminal
expertise, such as the Georgian militant Tarkhan Batirashvili, known by his nom de
guerre Sheikh Abu Omar al-Shishani, who was arrested for illegally harboring weapons.
Of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's 25 deputies in Iraq and Syria,
approximately a third served in the military during Saddam Hussein’s rule, and
nearly all were imprisoned by American forces after the 2003 invasion, often with
terrorists and insurgents who are now in ISIS. These experienced Baathists can tap into
the illicit smuggling networks of the Saddam era.”
Warrant: Eliminating funding is key to undermining the legitimacy of ISIS.
Maloof, F. Michael. “ISIS sees cash cow in capture of Iraqi oil fields.” WND. 27 June
2014. Web. 7 March 2015. <http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/isis-sees-cash-cow-in-
capture-of-iraqi-oil-fields/#XKVR0tCF8LmIcm3m.99>.
“The vision by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is to create an Islamic caliphate. It
would stretch from the Mediterranean through Mesopotamia, or modern-day Iraq, which
also includes the countries of Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and even Israel, an area
once referred to as Greater Syria. As ISIS takes control of the region, it can help
ensure a following by using oil revenue to finance social programs and restore
public services. In many instances, ISIS has been able to get electricity and water
resources functioning again in towns it now occupies and create a series of social
programs to provide other essential needs for the population. The ISIS targeting of
the oil fields is reminiscent of the U.S. priority in 2003 to revitalize the oil industry for
foreign investors once the Iraqi government was back in friendly hands. However, there
were little or no plans for post-war reconstruction.”
Warrant: Current coalition forces are not willing to attack Oil fields; ground troops are needed
to claim them.
Johnson, Keith. “U.S. Strikes ISIS Oil Installations.” Foreign Policy. 24 Sept 2014.
Web. 7 March 2015. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/24/u-s-strikes-isis-oil-
installations/>.
“"If ISIS wants to run an oil industry, it is extraordinarily vulnerable to military attacks,"
Michael Knights, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told FP in an
interview this summer. ISIS’s move to bigger tanker trucks presents a particular weak
point. "They’re slow, they’re big, and they explode when you hit them. This is not a
reliable way of making money," he said. U.S. and coalition forces could attack ISIS-
held oil fields in Syria, which would further erode the group’s ability to turn black
gold into black profits. But two concerns have so far kept oil fields off the target list:
The underground resources belong to the Syrian people, and they would likely
suffer long-term damage and a decline in their productive capacity if they were
attacked. And memories of the choking, black fires that came from burning oil wells
sabotaged by Saddam Hussein’s forces in the first Gulf War underscore the
potential environmental damage that a concerted oil attack could leave. As it is, ISIS
refining operations, carried out in makeshift facilities, have already inflicted local
environmental damage in many parts of eastern Syria, observers there say.”
Analysis: The way to use this argument is to argue that money is the pre-requisite to all terrorist
action; without sufficient financing, ISIS is handicapped in it’s ability to conduct warfare and
hold territory. Thus, at the point where there are specific funding mechanisms such as smuggling
routes that only ground troops can prevent, that gives the pro significant impacts in being able to
prevent future terrorism.
A2 – Eliminating Funding
Answer: Airstrikes are sufficient
Warrant: Airstrikes are effectively destroying oil refineries.
“New Airstrikes, New tactic to beat ISIS.” CBS. 25 Sept 2014. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-arab-allies-airstrikes-target-isis-oil-
refineries/>.
“Martin says 12 small-scale oil refineries were hit in the eastern desert of Syria.
According to the Pentagon, the refineries produced between 300 and 500 barrels of
petroleum a day, which ISIS used to power its own vehicles and to sell on the black
market, bringing in up to $2 million every day in revenue. The strikes were carried
out by the U.S. Air Force and by aircraft from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi
Arabia. Arab jets hit seven of the refineries and American aircraft the other five, says
Martin, and a total of 18 aircraft took part. All of them returned safely to their bases.
Along the way, one of the jets spotted an ISIS vehicle and attacked it as well. Pentagon
officials said initial indications were that all 12 of the refineries were knocked out of
commission, but Martin points out that ISIS still has other sources of revenue, such as
robbing banks and demanding ransom for kidnapping victims.”
Warrant: We’ve been successful in knocking out most of their oil refineries, and reducing
revenues significantly.
Ruskin, Jay. “NEWS: Pentagon says most of ISIS's oil refineries demolished.” UFPCC. 1
Oct 2014. Web. 7 March 2015. < http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-
mainmenu-35/12074-news-pentagon-says-most-of-isiss-oil-refineries-
demolished.html>.
“A Pentagon official, speaking anonymously, claimed that sixteen of about twenty

oil refineries controlled by the Islamic State in eastern and northern Syria were
"demolished" on Sept. 24 and Sept. 28 by airstrikes, the Washington Times
reported Tuesday.[1] -- Oil trafficking has been the jihadist group's main source of
revenue, as the Financial Times of London reported on Sept. 22. -- Speaking "on the
sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Istanbul," Luay al-Khatteeb, the director
of the Iraq Energy Institute, said that ISIS's revenues have been dramatically
reduced, International Business Times reported.”
Answer: ISIS will destroy itself in the long run.
Warrant: ISIS is cannibalistic, destroying it’s own revenue sources as it’s being pushed away.
Hameed, Saif and Evans, Dominic. “Islamic State torches oil field near Tikrit as militia
advance.” Reuters. 5 March 2015. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-
idUSKBN0M10Z420150305>.
“(Reuters) - Islamic State militants have set fire to oil wells northeast of the city of
Tikrit to obstruct an assault by Shi'ite militiamen and Iraqi soldiers trying to drive
them from the Sunni Muslim city and surrounding towns, a witness said. The witness
and a military source said Islamic State fighters ignited the fire at the Ajil oil field to
shield themselves from attack by Iraqi military helicopters. The offensive is the
biggest Iraqi forces have yet mounted against IS, which has declared an Islamic
caliphate on captured territory in Iraq and Syria and spread fear across the region by
slaughtering Arab and Western hostages and killing or kidnapping members of religious
minorities like Yazidis and Christians. Black smoke could be seen rising from the oil
field since Wednesday afternoon, said the witness, who accompanied Iraqi militia
and soldiers as they advanced on Tikrit from the east. Control of oil fields has played
an important part in funding Islamic State, even if it lacks the technical expertise to run
them at full capacity.”
Warrant: ISIS is naturally unsustainable in the long run
Woertz, Eckert. “How Long Will ISIS Last Economically.” Barcelona Centre for
International Affairs. Oct 2014. Web. 7 March 2015.
<http://www.cidob.org/es/publicaciones/notes_internacionals/n1_98/how_long_w
ill_isis_last_economically>.
“The (Un)Sustainabilty of Looting. Like an overvalued stock company, ISIS needs to

create a constant news flow to draw in funds and attention. The intensification of
looting is limited by the territory it governs and the ability of the looted to survive
and bear the consequences. ISIS has arguably maxed out the latter, while it already
rehearses the rhetoric of geographical expansion by telling the Gulf states “we are
coming” (qadimun) and rebranding itself as the Islamic State, without the qualification of
Iraq and Syria, thus manifesting a global ambition that appears outsized compared to its
means. The economic base of ISIS is a Ponzi scheme of looting that is in constant
need of expansion. Yet there are signs that expansion is becoming more arduous.
The early easy phase of looting is over. The oil business has been big for ISIS, but
small in regional and global comparison. It has suffered from airstrikes and trading
restrictions and the more lucrative fields in the north and south of Iraq will likely
remain beyond its reach. Recent global oil price corrections will further affect the weak
marketing position of ISIS, which already has to accept hefty discounts on its deliveries.
There is no indication that ISIS would have succeeded in building up productive
capacities in territories that it governs. The only commodity that is attracted to its
lands is the human flesh from foreign soils that hopes to act out in a jihadist
Disneyland. Its professional skills are limited and its disposal as suicide bombers is
hardly a cash generating activity. Gruesome executions deter western journalists and
charity workers from traveling to the region and European governments might
pursue a more reluctant approach to ransom payments in order to discourage
further abductions. Hence, the ransom business has presumably dried up. Its
revenue streams could only be maintained if it was expanded in size by increasing
hostages from the local population who fetch a lower price per head than westerners.
Arguably the enslavements that have happened among minorities like the Yazidis are a
move in this direction. But there are limits to this strategy and the risks of alienating the
local population on which ISIS ultimately depends are considerable.”
Analysis: The way to use this argument is to show that current efforts are working, and ISIS is
unsustainable anyways; essentially, that the affirmative argument isn’t unique. At that point, this
opens the door to arguing things like, in the long term, it would hurt the interests of the US
because what would actually spur greater donations and sympathy with ISIS would be the
perception of an occupying US force. That can give some analytical grounds to try and outweigh
the arguments as well as showing they are not unique.
PRO – Reduced Airstrikes
Argument: Ground troops are the only long-term solution to ISIS; airstrikes are unable to push
them back, and result in high collateral damage.
Warrant: Air strikes cannot push back and hold territory like ground forces can.
Newsome, Bruce. “How to defeat ISIS (and why it probably won’t happen).” Berkley
Blog. 2 March 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2015/03/02/how-to-defeat-isis-and-why-it-probably-
wont-happen/>.
“Air strikes alone are indecisive without a ground campaign to flush the
terrorists/insurgents out of their hiding places and to contain them for separation
from ordinary civilians. In response, terrorists/insurgents must fight, pretend to be non-
combatants, or flee. Fighting against enemies on the ground offers a much higher
chance of harm, since ground troops (unlike air-delivered missiles) can sustain and
adapt the fight at short ranges. Terrorists/insurgents who pretend to be non-
combatants are exposed to their enemy’s policing and their co-conspirator’s
betrayal. Those who break free of their urban shelters expose themselves to air
attack, helped by the reliable intelligence that only a ground presence can provide.”
Warrant: Ground components by local and regional forces are either inadequate or self-
interested; they will not eliminate the threat of ISIS.
wont-happen/>.
“The ground component could be provided by local ground forces, but they are self-
interestedly focused on securing their own claims, not on defeating ISIS. For
instance, Kurdish ground troops and Western air strikes helped to drive ISIS out of
Kobani, on the Syrian side of the Turkish border, but that battle lasted from October
to January, when ISIS gave up, leaving few dead behind. In February, Kurdish troops
advanced back to their self-declared borders short of Mosul, but the situation is
properly described as a stalemate. Also in February, Turkish troops entered Syria
to secure an Ottoman shrine, which they shortly evacuated to Turkey, again without
any intent to defeat ISIS. On 20 February, a careless spokesman at Central Command
(the US military command responsible for the Middle East) gave background
information to journalists about a plan for Iraqi ground troops to retake Mosul in
April or May, supported by Western air strikes, but Mosul is under ISIS control
because Iraqi troops largely abandoned their posts last year, and Iraq has not
observably improved its military’s will since then, except to negotiate more US tanks
and helicopters.”
Warrant: Air strikes cause significant collateral damage.
wont-happen/>.
“The trouble with an air campaign is that aircraft alone cannot flush out ground
forces. Jihadi insurgents normally travel in civilian vehicles, which are effectively
indistinguishable from collateral traffic, unless ground intelligence has identified the
particular vehicle in which a particular target person is travelling at a particular time.
Jihadis have taught each other to hide these unobtrusive vehicles in buildings or
under natural materials and to live among non-combatants. An air campaign
against terrorists/insurgents inevitably causes collateral harm to the persons and
infrastructures within which terrorists/insurgents operate, thereby apparently
proving the non-state side’s frequent claims that the state is the real terrorist. If air
campaigners want to avoid these collateral risks, then they must focus on large
sedentary assets in barren areas, such as oil derricks in the desert. This is effectively
the current counter-ISIS strategy. It cannot defeat ISIS.”
Warrant: Militants are adapting to air strikes, making them less effective overall.
Mawy, Reda El. “Islamic State 'adapting to US-led air strikes.” BBC. 30 Sept 2014.
Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29423776>.
“‘Witnesses and tribal sources in IS-controlled areas have told Reuters news agency
of a drop in the number of militant checkpoints and fighters using mobile phones
less, apparently to avoid being targeted by air raids. Reuters also reported that
militants have been seen to ditch conspicuous convoys of armoured vehicles in
favour of motorcycles. Analysts say that IS militants are known for their light
mobility, enabling them to withdraw and regroup quicker than regular army
troops. ‘It's a well-tried and tested formula,’ said defence and security expert Paul
Gibson, a retired British Army brigadier. ‘Once [militants] start facing air strikes, the
first thing they'll do is to reduce the targets available to the coalition forces. They
will disperse and reduce their communications by mobile and radio so their
electronic signature is reduced.’”
***The brackets were in the original article
Warrant: The longer we spend time bombing ISIS, a greater number of civilians will be killed
Alessandria, Masi. “Does The US Need Ground Forces To Fight ISIS In Iraq, Syria? The
Impact Of Airstrikes Vs. Combat Troops.” International Business Times. 17
September 2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/does-us-need-
ground-forces-fight-isis-iraq-syria-impact-airstrikes-vs-combat-troops-1690915>.
“But airstrikes have their limitations. They run the risk of significantly increasing
civilian casualties. While ISIS has some known strongholds -- in Raqqa, Syria, for
example -- which could be neutralized by airstrikes, their other hideouts will not be
as easily targeted. Last week, the CIA estimated that the militants could have up to
31,500 fighters sprinkled across Iraq and Syria. They operate in clandestine cells in
many parts of Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The more the U.S. bombs them from the
sky, the deeper they go underground: That could make the air campaign less
effective while also endangering more civilians. ‘If the U.S. only uses air power, ISIS
will eventually hide in the cities and the U.S. will be faced with causing a lot of
civilian casualties to get the group out or kill its fighters,’ said Dr. Ivan Eland, author
of the ‘The Failure of Counterinsurgency: Why Hearts and Minds Are Seldom Won.’”
Warrants: The status quo method of operations is resulting in high civilian casualties.
Pandey, Avaneesh. “Pentagon Acknowledges Airstrikes Against ISIS May Have Caused
Civilian Deaths, Initiates Investigation.” International Business Times. 7 January
2015. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/pentagon-acknowledges-
airstrikes-against-isis-may-have-caused-civilian-deaths-1775602>.
“The announcement by the U.S. government comes just days after organizations
monitoring the war in the region claimed that over 33,000 civilians had been “killed
by all sides” in Iraq and Syria in 2014. The United Nations had also lamented the
“very sad state of affairs” in the region, and condemned the high number of civilian
casualties in the war against ISIS. “We are very mindful of trying to mitigate the risk to
civilians every time we operate, everywhere we operate. And so when we do believe that
we've had occasion to cause collateral damage or hurt, kill civilians, we take it seriously
and we look into it,” Kirby said. The U.S.-led coalition has carried out nearly 1,400
airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in Iraq and Syria since the aerial offensive began last
August, according to media reports. Until now, the Pentagon had maintained that it had
not received any credible reports of civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombs.”
Analysis: This argument is based around the idea that Airstrikes create an endless cycle; they
aren’t able to ever fully eradicate ISIS, and as they become more and more able to adapt to
airstrikes, the ratio of civilians dead to ISIS militants dead shifts in favor of more civilians dying,
the more collateral damage that happens, etc. The only way to push back ISIS in the long term is
to engage ground troops. The way to weigh this argument is to describe in terms of structural
terms; the longer we allow ISIS to hang around, the more damage is done to Iraq, the more
unstable and open to insurgency it is. The faster this conflict can be ended, the less damage that
Iraq has to recover from, and the more likely conditions for future insurgencies can be prevented.
A2 – Reduced Airstrikes
Answer: Airstrikes are effective at pushing back ISIS.
Warrant: The current airstrikes have been effective in pushing back ISIS.
Smith-Spark, Laura and Basil, Yousuf. “ISIS fighters say constant airstrikes drove them
out of Kobani.” CNN. 31 Jan 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/31/middleeast/isis-fighting/>.
“Two purported ISIS fighters interviewed for a news agency working in ISIS-held
territory have given the same reason for the militants' retreat from the Syrian city
of Kobani: the constant pummeling by coalition airstrikes. On Monday, Kurdish
fighters declared that they had released the city on the border to Turkey from ISIS'
grip after 112 days of fighting. The efforts of the Kurdish fighters -- known as the YPG,
or People's Protection Units -- on the ground were backed by an extensive campaign of
airstrikes by the U.S.-led international coalition against ISIS. And according to the
interviews given to ISIS-aligned Amak news agency in Syria, it was those airstrikes
that won the battle for Kobani, referred to by the fighters as Ayn Al-Islam. "Recently,
we have withdrawn from Ayn Al-Islam bit by bit, because of the airstrikes and deaths of
a number of our brothers," said one of the two fighters, his face covered apart from his
eyes.”
Warrant: The airstrikes are focused on knocking out ISIS infrastructure, and has been
successful and doing so.
RADDATZ, MARTHA, MARTINEZ. LUIS and FERRAN, LEE. “Airstrikes

‘Successful’ Against ISIS Targets in Syria, US Military Says.” ABC. 23 Sept
2014. Web. 4 March 2015. < http://abcnews.go.com/International/airstrikes-
successful-isis-targets-syria-us-military/story?id=25686031>.
“‘We took out command-and-control facilities, supply depots, some training areas,
some vehicles and trucks, that kind of thing. Mainly, what we were going after was
this group's ability to sustain itself, to resource itself and to, frankly, command and
control and lead their forces,’ Kirby told ‘Good Morning America,’ referring to ISIS.
Many of the targets were in and around Raqqa, Syria, believed to be an ISIS
stronghold, a defense official said Monday. Several Arab nations took part in the U.S.-
led operation: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the
U.S. military's Central Command said early today.”
Warrant: Over 6000 militants and half the leadership of ISIS have been eliminated.
Dilanian, Ken, and Baldor, Lolita C. “John Kerry Claims Airstrikes Have Eliminated
Half Of ISIS Leadership.” Business Insider. 23 Jan 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-claims-airstrikes-have-eliminated-
half-of-isis-leadership-2015-1>.
“The U.S. and its allies sought to put a good face on the coalition's deliberate campaign
to roll back the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria on Thursday, boasting of having
killed thousands of militants while acknowledging that ousting the group from key cities
remains a distant aspiration. Speaking to reporters in London alongside the British
foreign minister and Iraqi prime minister, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said
nearly 2,000 air strikes had arrested the Islamic State group's momentum, squeezed
its finances, killed "in the single digit" thousands of fighters and eliminated half of
the group's leadership. A U.S. Central Command official said a conservative
estimate would be 6,000 militants killed. The official was not authorized to discuss the
matter publicly, and so spoke on condition of anonymity.”
Warrant: Airstrikes have had relatively low casualties
Cooper, Helene. “Reports of Civilian Deaths Prompt Inquiry Into Strikes Against ISIS.”
New York Times. 6 Jan 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/world/middleeast/reports-of-civilian-
deaths-prompt-inquiry-into-strikes-against-isis.html>.
“Sgt. First Class Sheryl Lawry, a spokeswoman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla.,
said in an email that Centcom was investigating two instances, one in Iraq and one in
Syria, that may have resulted in civilian casualties. The investigations are a result of
Centcom’s internal review process. Another three reports of civilian casualties are
pending an internal assessment before determining whether they need to be
investigated, she said. The military has examined the credibility of 18 allegations
that coalition airstrikes led to civilian casualties in Iraq and Syria from Aug. 8 to
Dec. 30 last year, Sgt. Lawry said. Of those, 13 have been determined not to be
credible. Of the 18 allegations, nine were said to have taken place in Syria, and nine in
Iraq, she said, adding that no further details would be provided until the investigations
were finished. Since the bombing campaign against the Islamic State began in
August, American military officials have maintained that they had no reports of
civilian casualties.”
Answer: Ground troops will do more harm than good.
Warrant: Ground troops are likely to be costly and cause high casualties, based on historical
experience.
Masi, Alessandria. “Does The US Need Ground Forces To Fight ISIS In Iraq, Syria? The
Impact Of Airstrikes Vs. Combat Troops.” International Business Times. 17 Sept
2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/does-us-need-ground-
forces-fight-isis-iraq-syria-impact-airstrikes-vs-combat-troops-1690915>.
“Ground troops, on the other hand, would involve a significantly higher
casualty rate for the U.S. As of April 2014, more than 6,800 American men
and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the U.S. led a ground
invasion in 2003. Ground forces in either Syria or Iraq would also be very
expensive. The 2003 Iraq and Afghanistan invasion will ultimately cost
taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, including the cost of treating veterans,
according to a Harvard study published last year.”
Warrant: Ground troops would not solve the problem, which is political at its roots.
Masi, Alessandria. “Does The US Need Ground Forces To Fight ISIS In Iraq, Syria? The
Impact Of Airstrikes Vs. Combat Troops.” International Business Times. 17 Sept
2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/does-us-need-ground-
forces-fight-isis-iraq-syria-impact-airstrikes-vs-combat-troops-1690915>.
“‘The U.S. military is right that you can't win without troops on the
ground," says Eland. "The problem is that despite technological military
superiority of great powers, including the United States, it doesn't count for
very much. Counterinsurgency is mostly political. So it is actually better to
use local forces on the ground, despite their technological inferiority. The use
of U.S. ground forces to fight ISIS is unlikely to be successful.’”
Analysis: The arguments here look at the short term, and show that airstrikes are relatively
effective now without significant costs, and ground troops would likely have high costs without a
high chance of success. One way to relate this to judges is to relate this to past wars; try and
emphasize that we’ve intervened with troops since the 80s and terrorism has continued. It makes
sense not to repeat the mistakes of the past. The way to weigh this is to argue that the short term
is more important; instead of risking more future insurgency, it makes more sense to take the
gains you can now, and partner with regional actors for a more probable, future stability.
PRO – Ground Troops Increase US Hard Power
Argument: Ground Troops Increase US Hard Power
Warrant: Hard power is achieved through military threat
Gray, Colin. “HARD POWER AND SOFT POWER: THE UTILITY OF MILITARY
FORCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY IN THE 21ST CENTURY.”
Strategic Studies Institute. April 2011.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1059.pdf
Power is one of the more contestable concepts in political theory, but it is conventional
and convenient to define it as “the ability to effect the outcomes you want and, if
necessary, to change the behavior of others to make this happen.” (Joseph S. Nye, Jr.) In
recent decades, scholars and commentators have chosen to distinguish between two
kinds of power, “hard” and “soft.” The former, hard power, is achieved through
military threat or use, and by means of economic men- ace or reward. The latter, soft
power, is the ability to have influence by co-opting others to share some of one’s values
and, as a consequence, to share some key elements on one’s agenda for international
order and security. Whereas hard power obliges its addressees to consider their interests
in terms mainly of calcu- lable costs and benefits, principally the former, soft power
works through the persuasive potency of ideas that foreigners find attractive. The
nominal promise in this logic is obvious. Plainly, it is highly desirable if much of the
world external to America wants, or can be brought to want, a great deal of what America
happens to favor also. Coalitions of the genuinely willing have to be vastly superior to
the alternatives.
Warrant: Hard power is necessary
Kaplan, Robert D., “The Virtues of Hard Power.” Forbes. 22 May 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2013/05/22/the-virtues-of-hard-power/
The fact is that hard power is supremely necessary in today’s world, for reasons
having nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the Harvard professor and
former government official, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., who, in 2004, actually coined the term
“soft power” in an eponymous book, has always been subtle enough in his own thinking
to realize how relevant hard power remains.
Warrant: American hard power is important to American allies
Security officials in countries as diverse as Japan and Poland, Vietnam and

Romania desperately hope that all this talk about American soft power overtaking
American hard power is merely that — talk. For it is American warships and
ground forces deployments that matter most to these countries and their officials.
Indeed, despite the disappointing conclusions to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,
rarely before has American hard power been so revered in places that actually
matter.
Warrant: American hard power is necessary for the current international environment
Hanlon, Michael E. “The Case for Larger Ground Forces.” Brookings Institute. April
2007. http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2007/04/01-ground-forces-
ohanlon
Sound US grand strategy must proceed from the recognition that, over the next few
years and decades, the world is going to be a very unsettled and quite dangerous
place, with Al Qaeda and its associated groups as a subset of a much larger set of
worries. The only serious response to this international environment is to develop
armed forces capable of protecting America’s vital interests throughout this
dangerous time. Doing so requires a military capable of a wide range of missions—
including not only deterrence of great power conflict in dealing with potential hotspots in
Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Persian Gulf but also associated with a variety of
Special Forces activities and stabilization operations. For today’s US military, which
already excels at high technology and is increasingly focused on re-learning the lost art of
counterinsurgency, this is first and foremost a question of finding the resources to field a
large-enough standing Army and Marine Corps to handle personnel intensive missions
such as the ones now under way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Warrant: Soft power is most effective when backed by hard power
“A Counterterrorism Strategy for the ‘Next Wave.’” Heritage Foundation. 24 August

2011. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/08/a-counterterrorism-
strategy-for-the-next-wave
The means to implement this strategy will be primarily through “hard” power and strong
bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and nations that share a commitment to defending
free, just, and open societies. “Soft” power complements hard power and is most
effective when America’s friends and enemies know that the U.S. has the will and
determination to defend its citizens and values.
Warrant: America’s ability to project power is essential
Kurata, Phillip. “Clinton Says Both Hard and Soft Power Needed for Diplomacy.” United
States of America Embassy. 01 Feb 2013.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/02/20130201141964.html#
axzz3TQuz2mZT
She said that U.S. military and economic strength will remain the foundation of U.S.
global leadership, which supports the spread of universal values. American hard
power was used to good effect to stop Libya’s former dictator Muammar Qadhafi from
massacring his people and to hunt down and bring to justice Osama bin Laden, she said.
“America’s ability to project power all over the globe remains essential,” she said.
“We will ensure freedom of navigation in all the world’s seas. We will relentlessly go
after al-Qaida, its affiliates and its wannabes. We will do what is necessary to prevent
Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” she said.
Analysis: This is probably the most general argument on the topic and is at the heart of every
other argument that argues the effectiveness of various military ground strategies in eliminating
terrorism. This evaluates the arguments at their core, looking to the concept of whether or not
using hard power and military strategy is theoretically the way to end the war on terror. This
argument is strategic for the pro, because ultimately there will be contradicting literature on the
empirical effectiveness of ground troops, but if the pro can win that theoretically, military, hard
power is the way to stop terrorism, you will win the crux of the debate.
A2 – Ground Troops Increase US Hard Power
Answer: Ground Troops Do Not Achieve Hard Power Best
Warrant: American hard power is best employed through air and naval assets
Soft power became a trendy concept in the immediate wake of America’s military
overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan. But soft power was properly meant as a critical
accompaniment to hard power and as a shift in emphasis away from hard power, not as a
replacement for it. Hard power is best employed not when America invades a country
with its ground troops but when it daily projects military might over vast swaths of
the earth, primarily with air and naval assets, in order to protect U.S. allies, world
trade and a liberal maritime order. American hard power, thus, must never go out of
fashion.
Analysis: The CON team can make the argument that it can achieve the PRO ends better by
simply eliminating the terrorist threat through other mechanisms of hard power. If hard power is
best achieved through the use of effective air strikes and naval assets or even the non-use of
military resources, there is no need, in fact it may be counterproductive, to use military ground
troops.
Answer: Hard Power Destroys Our Ability to Use Effective Soft Power
Warrant: Use of ground troops can undercut soft power
Nye, Joseph S. “Think Again: Soft Power.” Foreign Policy. 23 Feb 2006.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2006/02/23/think-again-soft-power/
Of course, misuse of military resources can also undercut soft power. The Soviets had
a great deal of soft power in the years after World War II, but they destroyed it by the
way they used their hard power against Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Brutality and
indifference to just war principles of discrimination and proportionality can also
destroy legitimacy. The efficiency of the initial U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003
created admiration in the eyes of some foreigners, but that soft power was undercut
by the subsequent inefficiency of the occupation and the scenes of mistreatment of
prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Warrant: “Soft” approaches have been destroyed by the use of hard power
El-Said, Hamed. “In Defence of Soft Power: Why the ‘war’ on terror will never win.”
Newstateman. 24 Feb 2015.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/defence-soft-power-why-war-
terror-will-never-win
Although the EU and UN’s “soft” approaches, which called for “addressing the
conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism” in the first place, held great
potential, they were watered down by the continued prevalence of hard military
approach worldwide. The United States, for instance, has never bought into the
“soft” approach and continued to follow a military strategy, despite noticeable
change in terminology. As a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Security
Preparedness Group concluded in 2001, the US government has shown little interest in
“soft” counter radicalisation and de-radicalisation policies.
Warrant: Terrorism is an ideology that cannot be beat with hard power
El-Said, Hamed. “In Defence of Soft Power: Why the ‘war’ on terror will never win.”
Newstateman. 24 Feb 2015.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/defence-soft-power-why-war-
terror-will-never-win
Some Western countries have recently ramped up security measures in response to some
terrorist acts. This will neither make us safer nor answer the important, still unanswered
question of what led some individuals to choose a nihilistic view of life in Western
societies. Arresting somebody or cancelling his or her passports will also not prevent new
attacks, nor will it explain why such attacks were attempted in the first place. As Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard (D.-Hawaii), and an Iraq combat veteran, stated: “This war cannot be
won, this enemy and threat cannot be defeated unless we understand what’s driving
them, what is their ideology.” That we have not done.
Warrant: Soft power is necessary to prevent terrorist recruitment
Nye, Joseph S. “Think Again: Soft Power.” Foreign Policy. 23 Feb 2006.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2006/02/23/think-again-soft-power/
There is a small likelihood that the West will ever attract such people as Mohammed Atta
or Osama bin Laden. We need hard power to deal with people like them. But the current
terrorist threat is not Samuel Huntingtons clash of civilizations. It is a civil war within
Islam between a majority of moderates and a small minority who want to coerce others
into an extremist and oversimplified version of their religion. The United States cannot
win unless the moderates win. We cannot win unless the number of people the
extremists are recruiting is lower than the number we are killing and deterring.
Rumsfeld himself asked in a 2003 memo: Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and
dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are
recruiting, training, and deploying against us? That equation will be very hard to balance
without a strategy to win hearts and minds. Soft power is more relevant than ever.
Analysis: Many authors argue that the way to end the terrorist threat is not to keep striking and
killing them as this reaffirms the message they send that America is a big, bad bully. Instead, the
CON can argue that we have to work on changing the mindset of the people, and hard power is
counterproductive to changing this ideology.
PRO – Ground Troops are Crucial For Intelligence Gathering
Argument: Ground Troops are Crucial for Intelligence Gathering
Warrant: Ground troops can be used for essential intelligence gathering
Baker, Peter. “Obama’s Dual View of War Power Seeks Limits and Leeway.” New York
Times. 11 Feb 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/obama-war-
authorization-congress.html?_r=0
At the same time, he left himself some room to refine his past pledge against putting
“boots on the ground.” The proposed measure would rule out “enduring offensive ground
combat operations.” But in a letter to Congress accompanying the proposal, Mr. Obama
envisioned the possibility of limited ground action “such as rescue operations” or the use
of “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” He also
said the legislation would allow the use of ground forces for intelligence gathering,
spotting ground targets for airstrikes and planning assistance to ground troops of
allies like the Iraqi government.
Warrant: US ground troops can provide much needed intelligence gathering
Wong, Kristina. “Graham: Jordan ‘onboard’ with ground forces vs ISIS, but wants US to
lead” The Hill. 6 Feb 2015 http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232066-sen-graham-
jordan-onboard-with-ground-forces-against-isis-but-wants-us-to-lead
Graham said U.S. forces could provide much-needed logistics, intelligence gathering,
special operations, forward air controlling, and other assistance. Recently, Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel said some U.S. troops might be needed to assist Iraqi forces in the
fight. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has said retaking Mosul could require
U.S. troops.
Warrant: Taking out ISIS requires intelligence cooperation
Katulis, Brian. “Defeating ISIS: An Integrated Strategy to Advance Middle East

Stability.” Center for American Progress. 10 September 2014.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/09/10/96739/defeat
ing-isis-an-integrated-strategy-to-advance-middle-east-stability/
As with efforts to counter extremism elsewhere, defeating ISIS will require a

concentrated effort over time. Any successful U.S. strategy must be built on a
foundation of regional cooperation that requires coordinated action from U.S. partners—a
central concept of the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund that President Barack Obama
proposed earlier this year. The strategy will be multifaceted, involving intelligence
cooperation, security support, vigorous regional and international diplomacy, strategic
communications and public diplomacy, and political engagement.
Warrant: The US needs men on the ground to gather intelligence on ISIL’s funding
Katulis, Brian. “Defeating ISIS: An Integrated Strategy to Advance Middle East

Stability.” Center for American Progress. 10 September 2014.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/09/10/96739/defeat
ing-isis-an-integrated-strategy-to-advance-middle-east-stability/
ISIS funds its activities from areas under its control through taxation, illicit
economies such as oil smuggling and extortion, and external support, mainly from
individuals in Gulf states. Some estimates project ISIS will raise between $100
million and $200 million over the next year. To disrupt ISIS’s finances, the United
States should work with regional partners to target the criminal networks that ISIS uses to
sell goods or otherwise generate revenue; disrupt ISIS oil extraction, transport, and
refining operations and prevent exchanges with buyers in foreign markets such as Iran,
Turkey, and the Kurdistan Regional Government, or KRG; and disrupt online and
regional fundraising efforts. The United States should create an interagency threat
finance cell headed by either the U.S. Treasury Department or State Department
with military and intelligence personnel, and it should be based in the region to help
coordinate the collection and analysis of financial and economic intelligence.
Warrant: Human source intelligence is collected by interpersonal contact- requiring troops on

the ground
Princeton Dictionary. “HUMINT.”

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/HUMINT.html
HUMINT, a syllabic abbreviation of the words HUMan INTelligence, refers to

intelligence gathering by means of interpersonal contact, as opposed to the more
technical intelligence gathering disciplines such as SIGINT, IMINT and
MASINT. NATO defines HUMINT as "a category of intelligence derived from
information collected and provided by human sources."[1] Typical HUMINT
activities consist of interrogations and conversations with persons having access to
pertinent information.
Warrant: The US lacks human source intelligence
Caruso, Robert. “Here’s How the US Can Build The Intelligence Capabilities Needed to
Defeat ISIS.” Business Insider. 8 September 2014.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-needs-better-humint-to-beat-isis-2014-9
Even in today's era of irregular warfare, the fine art of collecting human source
intelligence has in large part become lost thanks to the relative comfort afforded by
partner relationships and advances in intelligence technology. This reliance has
been coupled with the tendency to lean on practices and procedures that reduce the risk of
seeking out and engaging potential human sources. Clandestine human intelligence or
HUMINT makes up a surprisingly small percentage of the US intelligence collection
effort worldwide. I can say from experience that the U.S. could devote significantly
more resources to humanderived information. This lack of HUMINT might have
something to do with the lack of warning about ISIS's summer blitz through Iraq
and Syria.
Analysis: This argument is strategic for the pro for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates that
ground troops serve a greater purpose than just killing people and inciting violence. An on the
ground presence can be crucial to ensuring victory against organizations that are not out in the
open for reasons other than their ability to kill off terrorists. Second, intelligence gathering is
central to all military policy. Effective intelligence capabilities allow the United States to target
individuals that are dangerous while minimizing civilian casualties to ensure that we do not
create more terrorists.
A2 – Ground Troops are Crucial for Intelligence Gathering
Answer: There are other means of acquiring intelligence that do not put soldiers in harms way
Warrant: Drones can effectively provide intelligence
Levs, Josh. “CNN Explains: US Drones.” CNN. 8 Feb 2013.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/politics/drones-cnn-explains/
Drones are Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. They are used for surveillance and targeted
killings, allowing the United States to carry out certain missions without risking the lives
of military personnel. There are numerous types. The MQ-1B Predator is used for what
the military calls "medium-altitude, long endurance" missions, offering intelligence
gathering as well as "munitions capability." The MQ-9 Reaper is used primarily "in a
hunter/killer role," and secondarily for intelligence, the military says. It is designed to
carry out the "kill chain (find, fix, track, target, execute, and assess) against high value,
fleeting, and time sensitive targets."
Warrant: Drones are more effective than ground troops and minimize the risk of American
Fatalities
Backman, Daniel E. “Should the United States Use Drones for Military Operations?” The
Harvard Crimson. 15 February 2013.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/15/Roundtable-Drones/?page=1
In this sense drones have been necessary in justifying the War on Terror. Abroad, they
have also served various military objectives. As they do not require congressional
approval to be launched, drones give the executive branch unilateral direction in ordering
and carrying out attacks on targets. The military has pushed for an increase in the use
of drones instead of ground troops, members of whom have brought public relations
stains to the army by burning Korans and publicly urinating on corpses. In relation to
boots on the ground, drones are superior to troops for two main reasons: they are
more effective and they minimize the risk of American fatalities.
Warrant: Drones are capable of being used to minimize harm against noncombatants
Walsh, James Igoe. “THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DRONE STRIKES IN

COUNTERINSURGENCY AND COUNTERTERRORISM CAMPAIGNS.”
Strategic Studies Institute. September 2013.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1167.pdf
The United States increasingly relies on unmanned aerial vehicles—better known as

drones—to target insurgent and terrorist groups around the world. Drones have a number
of advantages that could fundamentally alter how the United States engages in counter-
insurgency and counterterrorism operations. Drones place no U.S. military personnel at
risk. They do not require a large “footprint” of U.S. personnel overseas. They are armed
with accurate missiles that have the capacity to target individuals, automobiles, and
sections of structures such as rooms in a large house. Perhaps the most consequential
advantage of drones is their ability to integrate intelligence collection with decisions
to use force. These characteristics should make drones especially effective at
targeting only the individuals against whom the United States wishes to use force,
and minimizing harm to noncombatants. This highly selective use of force has the
potential to allow the United States to achieve its counterinsurgency objectives at lower
cost and risk.
Analysis: If there is a better alternative that does not require putting American lives at risk,
policymakers should definitely take that route. The con can capitalize on the narrative that
putting boots on the ground should always be a last case scenario. If the con can show that we
can effectively gather intelligence on ISIL without putting our soldiers in harms way through the
use of drones, there is no reason to use the dangerous means of the affirmative advocacy.
Answer: Ground troop presence increases violence
Warrant: ISIL appears eager to confront US ground troops
Mamouri, Ali. “ISIS Eager to Confront US Ground Forces in Iraq.” Al Monitor. 4 March
2015. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iraq-islamic-state-ain-
al-asad-us-ground-forces.html#
IS appears to be planning, or hoping, to challenge the United States in a ground fight in

the vast areas of Iraq and Syria. IS believes that no matter how strong and numerous US
regular forces are, they will not be able to win against its trained irregular fighters who
have been confronting Iraqi forces in northwestern Iraq. The organization wants a repeat
of the battle of Fallujah in 2004, when the United States failed to overwhelm the militia
fighters in the city and lost a number of Marines before retreating. With the quantitative
and qualitative progress it has made, IS envisions causing even greater losses among US
troops.
Warrant: US ground forces can be used as propaganda to recruit more supporters for ISIL
Direct participation by US forces in a war against IS would be used to provide

legitimacy to IS propaganda portraying the fighting as evidence of the
ongoing Western crusade against Islam. This could help the group mobilize
more supporters in majority Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in
the West. It could also help expand the combat zone by activating IS cells to carry out
attacks in the West and eventually lead Western states to withdraw from the region,
enabling IS to impose its will.
Analysis: It is important to consider that every single pro argument can be responded to in the
same way. Ground troops are the most direct way to incite anti-American sentiment and further
generate and fuel the creation and continuation of organizations like ISIL. If gathering
intelligence means we will create more terrorists, the intelligence is probably not worth it. At the
end of the day, intelligence can only go so far, if ISIL becomes a widespread organization and
continues to grow, our capacity to gather intelligence on the ground will disappear.
PRO US Ground Troops Would Be Effective
Argument: Stopping ISIL will not be easy. The United States military is uniquely suited to stop
such a threat.
Warrant: Ground troops would improve airstrikes
Boot, Max. "How ISIS Can Be Defeated." Newsweek. Newsweek, 17 Feb. 2015. Web.
17 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.newsweek.com/how-isis-can-be-defeated-307423>.
Lift the prohibition on U.S. "boots on the ground." 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 effective than trainers confined to large bases.
Warrant: The US needs a large force to stop ISIL
17 Feb. 2015.
Increase the size of the U.S. force. Military requirements, not a priori numbers dreamed
up in Washington, should shape the force eventually dispatched. The current force,
even with the recent addition of 1,500 more troops for a total of 2,900, is inadequate.
Estimates of necessary troop size range from 10,000 personnel (according to General
Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command) to 25,000 (according to military
analysts Kim and Fred Kagan). The total number should include Special Forces teams
and forward air controllers to partner with local forces as well as logistical,
intelligence, security, and air contingents in support.
Warrant: Troops could aid the US in working with Iraq’s and Syria’s moderate factions against
ISIL
17 Feb. 2015.
Work with all of Iraq's and Syria's moderate factions. The United States should work
with the peshmerga, Sunni tribes, the Free Syrian Army and elements of the Iraqi
security forces (ISF) that have not been overtaken by Iran's Quds Force, rather
than simply supplying weapons to the ISF. Given Shiite militia infiltration, working
exclusively through the ISF would risk empowering the Shiite sectarians whose attacks
on Sunnis are ISIS's best recruiter. The United States should directly assist Sunni
tribes by establishing a small forward operating base in Anbar Province, and also
increase support for and coordination with the Free Syrian Army. Current plans to train
only 5,000 Syrian fighters next year need to be beefed up.
Warrant: The people of the US want troops to be sent
CHUMLEY, CHERYL. "Americans Unite: ‘Send U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS’." WND.
WND Politics, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/americans-unite-send-u-s-troops-to-fight-isis/>.
Americans, by a margin of more than 2-1, say the White House and Congress ought
to send in the U.S. ground troops against ISIS. Quinnipiac University reported
Wednesday that 62 percent of voters wanted the ground troops, versus 30 percent
who didn’t. By gender, 68 percent of men favored the U.S. military action; 57 percent of
women felt similarly. Americans by and large believe U.S. troops could take out the
terror group, too. Fully 69 percent are either “very confident” or “somewhat confident” in
the ability of the United States and its allies to beat ISIS, compared to 39 percent who
said sending in the ground troops would go “too far” in the fight against the terror group.
“Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: [That's] the resounding hardline message
from Americans who say, ‘Don’t negotiate with terrorists; destroy them,’” said Tim
Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
Warrant: It would be wrong to compare this situation to the invasion of Iraq in 2003
Shevardnadze, Sophie. "Americans Have to Die on Battlefield to Destroy ISIS - US

Military Strategist." - RT SophieCo. N.p., 16 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/232635-us-isis-middle-east/>.
No, sadly, this re-invasion of Iraq in 2015 is necessary. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 I
think was not just a mistake, but perhaps a biggest mistake the U.S. has ever made in
foreign policy. It’s a four trillion dollar mistake, it caused enormous damage in the
region, to the people of Iraq and certainly to my army and very-very many of my friends.
So, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a disaster, a fiasco, unnecessary and poorly
conducted. We played the endgame very-very badly and that failure of American
foreign policy in 2011 necessitates today America returning to Iraq in force.
Analysis: The first Iraq war was not necessary, and was a failure on many fronts including long
term stability and civilian casualties. However, ISIL poses a real and latin threat to the United
States and thus it is necessary for the US to get involved.
A2 US Ground Troops Would Be Effective
Answer: The US is not needed to stop ISIL, or at the very least does not need to commit ground
troops. This would only be counterproductive.
Warrant: ISIL is being pushed back
Beauchamp, Zack. "ISIS Is Losing." Vox. Vox, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8085197/is-isis-losing>.
If you want to understand what's happening in the Middle East today, you need to
appreciate one fundamental fact: ISIS is losing its war for the Middle East. This may
seem hard to believe: in Iraq and Syria, the group still holds a stretch of territory larger
than the United Kingdom, manned by a steady stream of foreign fighters. Fighters
pledging themselves to ISIS recently executed 21 Christians in Libya.It's certainly true
that ISIS remains a terrible and urgent threat to the Middle East. The group is not on the
verge of defeat, nor is its total destruction guaranteed. But, after months of ISIS
expansion and victories, the group is now being beaten back. It is losing territory in
the places that matter. Coalition airstrikes have hamstrung its ability to wage
offensive war, and it has no friends to turn to for help. Its governance model is
unsustainable and risks collapse in the long run. Unless ISIS starts adapting, there's
a very good chance its so-called caliphate is going to fall apart
Warrant: ISIL has lost its momentum
Beauchamp, Zack. "ISIS Is Losing." Vox. Vox, 23 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8085197/is-isis-losing>.
In that year [2014-2015], the situation has changed dramatically. After ISIS's
seemingly unstoppable rampage from June to August of 2014, the Iraqi government
and its allies have turned the tide. Slowly, unevenly, but surely, ISIS is being pushed
back." There's really nowhere where [ISIS] has momentum," Kirk Sowell, the
principal at Uticensis Risk Services and an expert on Iraqi politics, told me in late
January." There are a significant string of [Iraqi] victories all along the northern
river valley, up through Diyala and Salahuddin [two central Iraqi provinces]," Doug
Ollivant, National Security Council Director for Iraq from 2008-2009 and current
managing partner at Mantid International, explained. In northern Iraq, Kurdish forces
are threatening to cut off a highway that serves as ISIS's main supply line between
Iraq and Syria. They took the town of Sinjar, which sits on the highway, in
December; by late January, they had taken a longer stretch of the highway near a
town called Kiske.
Warrant: Airstrikes are working
Starr, Barbra. "U.S. Officials Say 6,000 ISIS Fighters Killed in Battles - CNN.com."
CNN. Cable News Network, 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/politics/us-officials-say-6000-isis-fighters-
killed-in-battles/>.
The coalition fighting ISIS has killed more than 6,000 fighters, including half of the
top command of the terror group, U.S. diplomatic officials said Thursday. The
number of fighters killed has not been publicly discussed before but was disclosed
by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq Stuart Jones, who told Al Arabiya television earlier
in the day that an estimated 6,000 fighters have been killed. Jones said the military
effort was having a "devastating" impact on ISIS. The estimate was calculated by
U.S. Central Command and finds ISIS fighters have been killed in Iraq and Syria by
coalition airstrikes, according to a U.S. military official. CENTCOM has kept a running
estimate of fighters killed, but has not made it public.
Warrant: US involvement would only increase anti- American sentiment
Neumayer, Eric, and Thomas Plu ̈mper. "Foreign Terror on Americans." SAGE. Journal
of Peace Research, 2011. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.grammatikhilfe.com/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/
neumayer/pdf/Terror%20on%20Americans.pdf>.
Turning to our variables of main interest, we find evidence in favour of our hypothesis. In
particular, the three ‘military support’ variables exert a positive impact on the number of
US victims. All three show a significant and positive relation to the number of American
terror victims, as our theory predicts. The three variables also exert a substantively
important influence on the dependent variable. A one standard deviation increase in
the measure of military aid, arms exports and military personnel raises the expected
count of anti-American terrorism by 135%, 109% and 24%, respectively. Model 4 of
Table II shows that the predictions of our theory still find support if we simultaneously
include military support. An analysis of substantive effects based on Model 4 allows one
to gauge the relative importance of the three measures of military support when entered
together in the estimations. A one standard deviation increase in US military aid raises
the expected count of anti- American terrorism most by 114%, followed by arms exports
and military personnel, in which a one standard deviation increase leads to an increase of
45% and 30%, respectively. It would thus appear that US military aid matters most for
foreign terror on Americans.
Analysis: The source this card is from (The Journal of Peace Research) is very legitimate. What
this card means is that as the United States continues to get involved in a conflict (in pretty much
any capacity that takes a side) it increases the amount of attacks against America.
Warrant: The last time the US invaded Iraq we failed miserably
Raphael, Daniel. "The Failure of the Iraq War." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 2014. Web. 09 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-raphael/the-failure-of-the-iraq-
w_b_5530820.html>.
In 2003, the Bush administration justified the Iraq War on the grounds that
Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator, had obtained WMDs (Weapons of Mass
Destruction). While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein committed a plethora of
human rights abuses and repressed his own people, the Iraq we see today is
arguably worse than Saddam's Iraq. At least under Saddam, the ethnic tensions
were controlled, Al Qaeda had not taken root, and people had a more stable security
situation. So knowing this, what have the United States, and more importantly the Iraqi
people, gained from this war?According to the British charity Oxfam, around "28 percent
of Iraqi children are malnourished, " and "70 percent lack clean drinking water." This is
actually an increase since 2003, when hard sanctions crippled the regime's food
distribution system. The United States spent billions, with some estimates putting it at
over 2 trillion on this war which has cost ordinary Iraqis severely.This is money that
could have gone into education, health care and infrastructure, rather than creating
chaos abroad. Instead of 'creating democracy', as the Bush administration claimed,
we have created an utter mess that is near impossible to resolve. Organizations like
Freedom House do not view Iraq as a functioning democracy, rather as a system
that functions on corruption. Critics will claim that at least it is more democratic
than under Saddam, which, while true, is by no means worth the human sacrifice.
PRO – ISIS Threatens the Global Oil Market
Argument: ISIS Threatens the Global Oil Market
Warrant: Iraq has already had to shut its largest oil refinery
Johnson, Keith. “ISIS and the Long-Term Threat to Iraqi Oil.” Foreign Policy. 17 June
2014. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/17/isis-and-the-long-term-threat-to-iraqi-
oil/
The relentless march of Islamist militants south through Iraq is taking a toll on the
country’s oil infrastructure, forcing the closure of Iraq’s largest oil refinery and
sparking fears of an attack on Baghdad itself… Iraqi forces in Baghdad braced for the
possible arrival of ISIS fighters on Tuesday, June 17, and the southward spread of
violent insurgents forced the closure of Iraq’s biggest oil refinery and the evacuation
of foreign personnel working there. The shutdown and evacuation of the Baiji refinery
— prompted by fears of ISIS mortar attacks — won’t directly affect Iraqi oil output, but
it does threaten domestic supplies of refined petroleum products.
Warrant: Oil prices have already raised as a result of the ISIS incursions
“Iraq and Global Markets: The ISIS Effect.” The Economist. 18 June 2014.
http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/1791923963/iraq-and-global-oil-markets-the-
isis-effect/2014-06-18
Energy markets are unnerved: in a worst-case scenario Iraq could even break up. ISIS
thus poses a grave threat to oil production in OPEC’s second-largest producer(although
output has not been directly impacted yet). Following the ISIS incursions, the price of
Brent crude, the European crude oil benchmark, jumped by more than US$4/barrel
in a matter of days. Prices stood at just over US$113/ b yesterday (June 17th),
having spent much of the year at US$105-110/b.
Warrant: Without intervention there is a risk that ISIS and other militant groups could expand
into key infrastructure in the south
“Iraq and Global Markets: The ISIS Effect.” The Economist. 18 June 2014.
http://www.eiu.com/industry/article/1791923963/iraq-and-global-oil-markets-the-
isis-effect/2014-06-18
Now, there is a risk that ISIS and other militant groups could gradually expand
operations and begin targeting key energy infrastructure in the south. Already, ISIS
has captured Baiji, a key northern city containing Iraq’s largest oil refinery. After Mosul
fell to ISIS, troops belonging to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) claimed to
have taken control of Kirkuk when government forces fled the northern oil city.
Heightened insecurity in the north is a risk to Kurdish exports by truck and pipeline.
Warrant: ISIS set fire to oil wells in the northeast of Iraq
Hameed, Saif. “Islamic State torches oil field near Tikrit as militia advance.” Reuters. 5
March 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-
idUSKBN0M10Z420150305
Islamic State militants have set fire to oil wells northeast of the city of Tikrit to
obstruct an assault by Shi'ite militiamen and Iraqi soldiers trying to drive them from the
Sunni Muslim city and surrounding towns, a witness said… Black smoke could be seen
rising from the oil field since Wednesday afternoon, said the witness, who accompanied
Iraqi militia and soldiers as they advanced on Tikrit from the east.
Warrant: ISIS militants attacked the key oil-rich city Kirkuk
Basil, Yousuf. “ISIS launches attack on oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.” CNN. 30
January 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/middleeast/isis-attack/
ISIS militants have attacked Kirkuk in northern Iraq, an effort that might be an
earnest attempt to capture the key oil-rich city or perhaps to divert Kurdish troops
fighting to capture the Islamist extremist group's stronghold of Mosul. For months, ISIS
has been facing off with the Peshmerga -- armed fighters who protect Iraqi Kurdistan --
to the west of Kirkuk. It had gone into areas on Kirkuk's outskirts, but not the central city.
Warrant: Iraq represents a huge portion of the world’s expected increase in oil
Medium-Term Oil Market Report. IEA. 2014.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/MTOMR2014sum.pdf
Not everything is rosy about crude supply in the next five years. In contrast with the non-
conventional boom, conventional supply, despite several bright spots, faces headwinds.
This is especially true of OPEC. Production declines in 2013 should not necessarily be
construed as an indication of slower-than-expected capacity growth in the medium term.
At 2.08 mb/d for 2013-19, forecast OPEC capacity growth looks on paper in line with
historical trends, but as much as 60% of the increase is expected in beleaguered Iraq,
where sectarian strife reached an apex in early June, as this Report was going to press.
Given Iraq’s precarious political and security situation, the forecast is laden with
downside risk. Equally, a planned recovery in Libya looks increasingly elusive for the
short term and may even be derailed in the medium term.
Analysis: This argument can be extremely strategic for the pro team because of the huge impacts
that exist. Because the Iraqi oil market is hugely tied to the global oil market, any fluctuation in
the availability of oil will have a huge impact abroad. The strategic benefit of this argument is
that it has impacts so large, the pro team is likely able to justify any action with preventing the
end crisis that would exist if ISIL were able to access Iraq’s major oil fields.
A2 – ISIL Threaten the Global Oil Market
Answer: Increased Conflict from Fighting ISIL Will Only Create Bigger Issues
Warrant: If American ground troops go to fight ISIL, it will incite more terrorists to enter the
region
Newell, Jim. “ISIS ground war insanity: GOP hopefuls — and a new poll — frighten.”
Salon. 20 Feb 2015.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/20/isis_ground_war_insanity_gop_hopefuls_and_
a_new_poll_frighten/
If a politician really thinks that the United States needs to send in ground troops to stop
ISIS from consolidating power and spreading, go ahead and make the arguments, but
don’t assume that it will be easy to prevent from escalating in troop numbers and
duration. How will ”victory” be defined? Especially since, just as happened in the Iraq
war, terrorists worldwide are going to flock to the front lines as soon as the
Americans show up, to get a piece of the action. Et cetera and so on. List the worst-
case scenario for such a war. And then let’s see how it polls.
Warrant: ISIL appears to want to engage the US in a ground fight
IS appears to be planning, or hoping, to challenge the United States in a ground

fight in the vast areas of Iraq and Syria. IS believes that no matter how strong and
numerous US regular forces are, they will not be able to win against its trained
irregular fighters who have been confronting Iraqi forces in northwestern Iraq. The
organization wants a repeat of the battle of Fallujah in 2004, when the United States
failed to overwhelm the militia fighters in the city and lost a number of
Marines before retreating. With the quantitative and qualitative progress it has made, IS
envisions causing even greater losses among US troops.
Warrant: US ground forces can be used as propaganda to recruit more supporters for ISIL
Direct participation by US forces in a war against IS would be used to provide

legitimacy to IS propaganda portraying the fighting as evidence of the
ongoing Western crusade against Islam. This could help the group mobilize
more supporters in majority Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in
the West. It could also help expand the combat zone by activating IS cells to carry out
attacks in the West and eventually lead Western states to withdraw from the region,
enabling IS to impose its will.
Warrant: The increased violence and fight against terrorism increased the price of oil drastically
during the Iraq war
Stiglitz, Joseph. “The $3 Trillion War.” New Perspectives Quarterly, April 15,
2008. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2008.00980.x/epdf
The war has led directly to the US economic slowdown. First, before the US went to war
with Iraq, the price of oil was $25 a barrel. It’s now $100 a barrel. While there are other
factors involved in this price rise, the Iraq war is clearly a major factor. Already factoring
in growing demand for energy from India and China, the futures markets projected before
the war that oil would remain around $23 a barrel for at least a decade. It is the war and
volatility it has caused, along with the falling dollar due to low interest rates and the huge
trade deficit, that account for much of the difference. That higher price means that the
billions that would have been in the pockets of Americans to spend at home have been
flowing out to Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters.
Analysis: The con team can argue that if Americans go to Iraq to fight ISIL, it will incite
violence in various ways. Because the negative case will likely have several warrants as to why
violence goes up when we send ground troops to fight terrorist organizations, it will be easy to
link this response into the arguments you are making in case. If violence is only going to increase
as we actively fight ISIL, there is only going to be more instability, which will increase the
likelihood that oil markets will be volatile and vulnerable to massive price increases.
Answer: ISIL Will Not Affect the American Oil Market
Warrant: The insurgency is in a part of the country that will not truly affect oil markets
West, James. “Here’s what the battle over Iraqi oil means for America.” Mother Jones. 19
June 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/iraq-obama-baiji-
oil-fracking
For now, the insurgency is limited to the part of the country north of Baghdad.
Unless there's an increased threat of instability in the south, deeper and longer-lasting
seismic shocks to the world energy market are unlikely, according to Luay al-Khatteeb,
an energy and politics analyst with the Brookings Doha Center and a senior adviser to the
Iraqi parliament. While Baiji is the country's largest refinery, the overwhelming bulk
of oil production in Iraq is centered around the city of Basra, in the country's
south, "far from the fault lines," he said. Khatteeb called the recent oil price
increases "baseless," adding that "there is zero threat whatsoever to oil
production."
Warrant: America is importing 20 percent less oil from Iraq
oil-fracking
That's not just the story in Iraq. America is now importing less oil overall—20
percent less, in fact—than in 2003. "We're getting more of that oil domestically,"
Rapier said, pointing to increased local production facilitated by the fracking boom,
especially in Texas and North Dakota.
Warrant: America’s decreased dependence on foreign oil will decrease its capacity to be
effected by oil crises in the Middle East
oil-fracking
And America's own neighbors are also chipping in to help, says Rapier, pointing to
Canadian crude. "We've got lower cost production in our neighborhood here." This
means the United States is now somewhat insulated from big shocks to the market
like the 1970s oil crisis, in which oil-producing Arab states imposed a crippling
embargo against the US. "The increase of unconventional oil supplies from new
emerging assets in the US, all of this has created some sort of a comfort zone,"
said Khatteeb from the Brookings Doha Center.
Analysis: The con team can also argue that there is no reason to go in and fight ISIL, because the
US is not particularly vulnerable to changes in the oil market in the Middle East. Because the US
has become more dependent on domestic oil, many authors argue that we would not see a huge
impact if these markets were threatened. Additionally, the con can argue it is unlikely that ISIL
will have a huge effect on global markets, because it will not reach the oil fields that will truly
have an impact.
PRO – Protecting Minority groups
Argument: The only way to help the Kurds and protect minority groups in the long term is
through the use of ground troops.
Warrant: Millions have been displaced, thousands have been killed, and Iraq’s UN ambassador
is reporting a genocide to the UN.
GUILBERT, KIERAN. “Islamic State aims to eradicate Iraq minorities: rights groups.”
Reuters. 27 Feb 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-iraq-violence-minorities-
idUSKBN0LV0U020150227>.
“Islamic State militants have abducted, injured and killed thousands of civilians
across northern Iraq and uprooted millions from their homes in a bid to eradicate
the country's ethnic and religious minorities, rights groups said on Friday. Several
minority communities, including Christians, Yazidis and Turkmen, have been
subjected to killings, rape and sexual enslavement, and women and children have been
targeted in particular, a report by four human rights organizations said. Islamic State
seized the Iraqi city of Mosul in June last year while sweeping through the north
towards Baghdad, meeting virtually no resistance from the army and declaring a
caliphate in parts of Iraq and Syria under its control. Around 8,000 civilians were
killed and more than 12,000 wounded between June and December 2014, the United
Nations said. Alison Smith, legal counsel of No Peace Without Justice, said Islamic
State had committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and possibly even
genocide against minorities in northern Iraq. Iraq's U.N. ambassador told the U.N.
Security Council last week that Islamic State had committed genocide.”
Warrant: Domestic military has failed to protect minorities, and international organizations lack
the resource to meet current needs.
GUILBERT, KIERAN. “Islamic State aims to eradicate Iraq minorities: rights groups.”
Reuters. 27 Feb 2015. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/27/us-iraq-violence-minorities-
idUSKBN0LV0U020150227>.
“More than two million people in Iraq have been displaced, primarily in the north,
according to the latest figures from the International Organisation for Migration.
The majority are living under bridges or squatting in abandoned buildings, while those in
refugee camps face a lack of food, water and healthcare because of government
failings and limited aid from international agencies, the report said. International
donors have so far provided 37 percent of the $2.23 billion requested for
humanitarian aid for Iraq, according to the United Nations. "The sheer number of
displaced people means the country continues to face a humanitarian crisis... many
of them are in a difficult and precarious situation," Lattimer said. Many minority
groups are now trying to leave the country, fearing that the government will be
unable to support any return to their communities, locate missing people and ensure
the recovery of possessions looted by Islamic State.”
Warrant: Military ground forces are necessary to move forward and hold territory.
“Ground Forces Needed To Play A Role In Strategy Against ISIS.” NPR. 25 Sept 2014.
Web. 4 March 2015. < http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351373700/some-type-of-
ground-forces-are-need-in-strategy-against-isis>.
“AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: Here's what the U.S. has not built up against ISIS in Syria -
any credible ground force. INSKEEP: Michele Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon
official, helped us understand why that is a problem. Give me some military 101.
Why is it necessary to have ground forces along with a powerful air campaign?
MICHELE FLOURNOY: Because air campaigns can destroy targets. They can make
people flee an area for a time. But inevitably they will come back in and reclaim that
territory and so you need those ground forces to actually take and hold territory on
a more permanent basis. INSKEEP: President Obama has ruled out using U.S.
ground troops except his advisers and even then only in Iraq. That leaves the U.S.
hoping to restore Iraq's battered army and build up more moderate Syrian rebel
forces, who are fighting both Syria's government and ISIS.”
Analysis: Something especially important to note here is that ISIS’s current trends, the
movement towards Northern Iraq is Kurdish territory, meaning that minority groups are
threatened in the status quo.
Warrant: ISIS is on the verge of committing genocide against minority Christian groups.
“Religious leaders say Isis persecution of Iraqi Christians has become genocide.” The
Guardian. 8 Aug 2014. Web. 3 March 2015.
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/isis-persecution-iraqi-
christians-genocide-asylum>.
“Isis's persecution of Iraqi Christians, which has already forced tens of thousands of
men, women and children to flee for their lives, is fast becoming a genocide,
religious leaders have warned. Archbishop Athanasius Toma Dawod of the Syriac
Orthodox church said that Isis's capture of Qaraqosh, Iraq's largest Christian city,
had marked a turning point for Christians in the country. "Now we consider it genocide –
ethnic cleansing," he said. "They are killing our people in the name of Allah and
telling people that anyone who kills a Christian will go straight to heaven: that is
their message. They have burned churches; they have burned very old books. They have
damaged our crosses and statues of the Virgin Mary. They are occupying our churches
and converting them into mosques." The archbishop, who leads the Syriac Orthodox
church in the UK, urged the UK government to open the country's doors to those fleeing
the violence. "We are dying, 100%," he said. "The British government needs to help
people and to give them asylum. If they stay here, they will be killed." His pleas were
echoed by Patriarch Louis Sako, the Iraq-based leader of the Chaldean Catholic church,
who said that about 100,000 Christians had abandoned their villages in the Nineveh
plains earlier this week after Isis launched mortar attacks. He asked the EU and the
UN to help them before it was too late.”
Warrant: 500 Yazidi (A Christian minority group) have been killed, and thousands have been
displaced as a result of the advance of ISIS.
“Islamic State Killed 500 Yazidis, Buried Some Victims Alive.” Huffington Post. 10 Aug
2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/10/yazidis-
islamic-state-massacre_n_5665655.html>.
“Islamic State militants have killed at least 500 members of Iraq's Yazidi minority,
burying some alive and taking hundreds of women as slaves, an Iraqi government
minister told Reuters on Sunday. Human rights minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani
accused the Sunni Muslim insurgents - who have ordered the community they regard as
"devil worshippers" to convert to Islam or die - of celebrating a "a vicious atrocity" with
cheers and weapons waved in the air. No independent confirmation was available.
Islamic State's advance through northern Iraq has forced tens of thousands to flee,
threatened the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region and provoked the first
U.S. air strikes in the area since Washington withdrew troops from Iraq in late
2011.”
Warrant: The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine obligates us to act in instances of genocide.
“The U.S. strongly supports the concept of Responsibility to Protect.” US Mission to

Geneva. 19 June 2012. Web. 4 March 2015.
<https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/06/19/the-u-s-strong-supporter-of-the-
concept-of-responsibility-to-protect-r2p/>.
“We welcome this opportunity to discuss and advance our common commitment to
the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Seven years ago, all member states of the United
Nations came together to endorse and accept a shared responsibility to protect
populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes. While aspects of this principle would need to be elaborated further, we
embraced a principle of protection anchored in three pillars: the essential
responsibility of States to protect their own citizens, our shared responsibility to

take appropriate steps to assist States in exercising that solemn duty, and our
preparedness to take timely and decisive action where national authorities
manifestly failed to do so. The consensus agreement in 2005 reflected recognition of our
common humanity and a new clarity in our collective conscience that certain actions
could not be allowed to stand. The United States was then and is now a strong
supporter of the concept of Responsibility to Protect, and we are committed to
working with international partners at the Human Rights Council to focus on pillar
two, prevention and capacity building, in order to develop more effective strategies
to protect populations from atrocities.”
Analysis: The most important part of this argument is being able to explain that the way you can
protect minority groups is by reducing ISIS’s territorial control; by denying territory, you reduce
the exposure of minority groups to militants. The link to US interests come in two ways; first, it
upholds the international norm outlined in the responsibility to protect doctrine; this strengthens
international law, and would help to improve the reputation of the United States abroad, which
has suffered tremendously as a result of past middle eastern conflicts, and drone usage. Second,
having the support of minority groups has the potential to improve relations in the long term; it
gives the US a larger base of support in the Middle East.
A2 – Protecting Minority groups
Answer: Kurdish forces are sufficient to protect minority groups.
Warrant: Kurds (also referred to as the Peshmerga) are currently helping to protect prosecuted
minority groups.
Salih, Mohammed A. “Iraq's Christians seek refuge with Kurds.” Al Jazeera. 26 June
2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/iraq-christians-seek-refuge-
with-kurds-2014624867119947.html>.
“The oil-rich, fertile and historic plains of northern and eastern Nineveh have a
population of around half a million. Most are Christians, followers of the ancient
Mesopotamian Yazidi faith and members of the ethno-religious Shabak community.
The Kurdish Peshmerga has been present here since the US-led invasion in 2003
and is now the force that many residents look to for protection against armed
groups. ISIL forces have launched small-scale attacks on certain targets in Nineveh
plains including an attack on Wednesday on Christian-dominated district of Hamdaniya,
east of Mosul. But, according to Halgurd Hikmat, a spokesman for the KRG ministry of
Peshmerga affairs, the Peshmerga repulsed the attack and prevented ISIL forces from
making any advances. In recent weeks, the Peshmerga expanded its reach by maintaining
control of a key strategic area around Rabia, including a major border crossing between
Iraq and Syria. The KRG has also dispatched thousands more troops to confront any
ISIL push towards the Nineveh plains, and has, in effect, consolidated its de-facto
grip on the territory. Such actions in the past would have drawn significant local
opposition. There have been tensions between the KRG and segments of the local
population over the past decade as Kurds have tried to solidify their control over the
Nineveh plains. Most parts of the disputed territories have suffered from negligence by
the Baghdad and Kurdish governments due to their unclear administrative status. Many
roads and buildings here appear in need of urgent repair. But the deadly mix of the rise
of ISIL and the ongoing sectarian war between Sunni armed groups and the Shia-
dominated Iraqi army has generated unprecedented support for the Peshmerga
among vulnerable religious minorities here out of pragmatic considerations.”
Answer: Current US operations are sufficient to help protect minority groups.
Warrant: The US has already provided humanitarian support to persecuted minority groups.
Cooper, Helene, Landler, Mark, and Rubin, Alissa J. “Obama Allows Limited Airstrikes
on ISIS.” New York Times. 7 Aug 2014. Web. 4 March 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/obama-weighs-military-
strikes-to-aid-trapped-iraqis-officials-say.html?_r=0>.
“While Mr. Obama has authorized airstrikes, American officials said there had not yet
been any as of late Thursday. In addition to protecting Americans in Erbil and
Baghdad, the president said he had authorized airstrikes, if necessary, to break the
siege on Mount Sinjar, where tens of thousands of Yazidis, a religious minority
group closely allied with the Kurds, have sought refuge. The aircraft assigned to
dropping food and water over the mountainside were a single C-17 and two C-130
aircraft. They were escorted by a pair of F-18 jet fighters, the administration official
said. The planes were over the drop zone for about 15 minutes, and flew at a
relatively low altitude. They flew over the Mount Sinjar area for less than 15
minutes, Pentagon officials said, and dropped a total of 5,300 gallons of fresh
drinking water and 8,000 meals ready to eat. Mr. Obama, officials said, delayed
announcing the steps he intended to take in Iraq until the planes had safely cleared the
area.”
Warrant: Current operations have been sufficient to protect minority groups.
Mason, Jeff and Felsenthal, Mark.“Obama says Sinjar siege broken, some personnel to
leave Iraq.” Reuters. 14 Feb 2014. Web. 4 March 2015. <
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/14/us-iraq-security-obama-
idUSKBN0GE1TD20140814>.
“U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday the Islamist militant siege of
Iraq's Mount Sinjar had been broken and most U.S. military personnel sent to
assess the situation would be pulled out of Iraq in coming days. He told reporters he
did not expect the United States to have to stage an evacuation of the mountain,
where thousands of members of the Yazidi religious minority had been trapped by
militants, or to continue humanitarian airdrops. ‘We broke the ISIL (Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant) siege of Mount Sinjar,’ Obama said. ‘We helped innocent people
reach safety and we helped save many innocent lives. Because of these efforts we do not
expect there to be an additional operation to evacuate people off the mountain and
it’s unlikely that we are going to need to continue humanitarian airdrops on the
mountain,’ he said.”
Answer: Ground troops would probably increase the humanitarian costs of war.
Warrant: A full out ground war will probably increase casualties; look to Iraq, where the
humanitarian cost was huge.
Tirman, John. “Grisly War, Blank Memories.” Canadian International Council. 16

December 2011. Web. 4 March 2015. <http://opencanada.org/features/grisly-
wars-blank-memory/>.
“Counting the Dead. One symptom of this indifference is the absence of an adequate
accounting of the wars’ destruction, particularly of war mortality. The governments don’t
discuss it, and the news media reliably report the lowest conceivable numbers—“tens of
thousands” is the usual formulation for Iraq – or the partial numbers collated by the U.N.
office in Kabul for Afghanistan. In fact, the numbers of fatalities are significantly higher
and need to be studied for their implications. In Iraq, some brave attempts to collect
and analyze data about war-related mortality have at least given us a sense of the
scale of mayhem. Several household surveys, the state-of-the-art method favored by
epidemiologists, indicate a death toll reaching well into the hundreds of thousands.
(This includes all Iraqis, not just civilians, from direct violence and indirectly due to
other factors – so-called excess deaths above the pre-war mortality rate.) Even the
oft-cited tally of Iraq Body Count, a U.K.-based NGO, holds that more than 100,000
civilians have died as a result of violence. IBC’s method is crude and incomplete—it
gathers data mainly from English-language newspapers—and they acknowledge an
undercount by at least a factor of two. The lowest estimate of all the household
surveys—a large, randomized sample conducted by the Ministry of Health in the
spring of 2006—was 400,000 excess deaths in the 2003-2006 period, and there was
still a lot of killing to come. By using data on widows, displaced persons (up to 5
million), and the household surveys, I estimate the number of war-related dead to be
at least 600,000 and possibly as much as one million.”
Analysis: These arguments focus on showing that the potential affirmative benefits are not
unique or potentially small, while the risk of higher humanitarian costs is high. This makes it
easy to take out the impacts that the affirmative brings, because many of those impacts are being
brought about in the status quo. At the same time, you can outweigh the long term harms by
showing that military intervention always leads to more civilian casualties; after all, more
conflict means that civilians are more likely to be caught in the crossfire.
PRO – The Government Must Listen to US Popular Opinion
Argument: The Government Must Listen to US Popular Opinion
Warrant: Nearly two-thirds of voters support sending ground troops to fight ISIS
Streb, Matthew J. “When the People Lead: Public Opinion and the Direction of
Democratic Government.” Leadership and Politics.
http://www.academia.edu/320969/When_the_People_Lead_Public_Opinion_and_
the_Direction_of_Democratic_Government
At the heart of a sound democratic government is an active citizenry whose opinions

are voiced and usually translated into policy. As prominent political scientist V.O.
Key Jr. once wrote, “Unless mass views have some place in the shaping of policy, all
the talk about democracy is nonsense.” Indeed, the word “democracy” stems from
the Greek demos (people) and kratos (to rule). Although American democracy is
generally representative in nature rather than direct, it is still based on the principle of
popular sovereignty- the belief that citizens are the ultimate source of political power.
That being the case, most Americans believe that on issues in which they have strong
opinions, elected officials should listen to those opinions and enact them into law. While
representatives should act as trustees on the issues in which the public does not have
enough information to form a judgment, voting based on what they believe is best for the
district, state, or country, on the issues in which we do have opinions, we expect our
representatives to act as delegates; in other words, to act as the voice of the people. If
citizens want tax cuts or universal health care under a delegate view of representation,
then politicians better give citizens tax cuts or universal health care; otherwise they will
be looking for new jobs after the next election. When public policy mirrors public
opinion, we refer to this as policy congruence.
!
Warrant: A majority of Americans believe government leaders should pay attention to public
opinion polls
Kull, Steven. “American Public Says Government Leaders Should Pay Attention to
Polls.” Common Dreams. 28 March 2008.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/28/american-public-says-
government-leaders-should-pay-attention-polls
In sharp contrast to views recently expressed by Vice President Cheney, a new poll finds
that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe government leaders should pay
attention to public opinion polls and that the public should generally have more
influence over government leaders than it does. Eighty-one percent say when
making "an important decision" government leaders "should pay attention to
public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views."
Only 18 percent said "they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this
will distract them from deciding what they think is right.”
Warrant: Nearly two-thirds of voters support sending ground troops to fight ISIS
Malloy, Tim. “U.S. VOTERS BACK 2-1 SENDING TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; VOTERS SAY 3-1
KEEP UN-VACCINATED KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL.” Quinnipiac University. 4
March 2015.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03042015_Uic472gg.pdf
American voters support 62 – 30 percent sending U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS in
Iraq and Syria, with strong support across all party, gender and age groups,
according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.
Warrant: Even Democrats support using ground troops
Griswold, Alex. “Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support US Ground Troops Against

ISIS.” The Daily Caller. 4 March 2015. http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/04/poll-
americans-overwhelmingly-support-u-s-ground-troops-against-isis/
When asked, “Would you support or oppose the U.S. sending ground troops to fight ISIS
in Iraq and Syria?” 62 percent say “yes,” while only 30 percent say “no.” Even among
Democrats, a majority (53 percent) say they support the use of ground troops.
Warrant: A majority of Americans are confident that the US will defeat ISIS
Malloy, Tim. “U.S. VOTERS BACK 2-1 SENDING TROOPS TO FIGHT ISIS,
QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; VOTERS SAY 3-1
KEEP UN-VACCINATED KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL.” Quinnipiac University. 4
March 2015.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us03042015_Uic472gg.pdf
A total of 69 percent of American voters are “very confident” or “somewhat

confident” that the U.S. and its allies will defeat ISIS. Only 39 percent of voters are
concerned that U.S. military action will go “too far” in getting involved in the situation,
while 53 percent are more concerned the U.S. military “will not go far enough in
stopping ISIS.”
Warrant: Americans lack trust in government because of the perception that it is not doing
anything for them
Salvanto, Anthony. “Why don’t Americans trust government?” CBS News. 13 February
2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-dont-americans-trust-government/
This week, as another legislative session really gets rolling, we decided to ask the 78
percent of Americans who don't trust it most of the time to tell us why they don't, and we
asked these skeptical Americans to describe their beliefs in their own words. The replies
we got described a frustration with ineffectiveness and partisanship; misgivings about an
insular Washington wrapped up more in its own battles than in working for average
people. To many, it seemed, lack of trust was born not from apprehension about what a
government might do to you, but rather that it isn't doing anything for you.
Warrant: Low trust in government results from the perception that the government does not
respond to the will of the people
“Responding to the Crisis of Democracy.” Program for Public Consoltation.

http://www.public-consultation.org/crisis.html
Low trust in government is highly correlated with the perception that government is
not responding to the will of the people. Presented the argument that "Government
tends to get bogged down in partisan conflict and distorted by the influence of
moneyed interests. Thus, it is necessary for the public to have a stronger voice in
shaping government decisions," 78% found it convincing.
Analysis: While this argument may seem simple at first glance, this can actually be developed
into an extremely interesting argument for the pro team. Although it is less common in Public
Forum, the pro team can make the argument that in a democracy it is crucial that politicians
listen to public opinion when making policy decisions. A democracy is founded up rule by the
people, and even in a representative democracy, it is necessary that the politicians in power are
representing the people’s interests. The pro team can make the argument that even if ground
troops will fail in the fight against ISIS, it is necessary that we employ these troops because the
American people have provided a strong mandate in their most recent public opinion.
A2 – The Government Must Listen to US Popular Opinion
Answer: Public opinion should not guide public policy
Warrant: Polling advice should not guide public policy
Weissberg, Robert. “Why Politicians Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls.” Policy
Analysis. 29 May 2001.
http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/weissberg.pdf
Despite all the fancy numerology surrounding modern polling, the extracted advice
should not guide public policy. Although public desires for “more government
intervention to help (fill in worthy cause)” are real in that people sincerely crave the
promised improvement, those cries for government action fail to meet even the most
minimal standards of legitimate counsel. This paper shows how little polls tell us about
public policy and why we should ignore the proffered guidance to policymakers.
Warrant: Public opinion polls do not evaluate public policy properly
Weissberg, Robert. “Why Politicians Should Ignore Public Opinion Polls.” Policy
Analysis. 29 May 2001.
http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/weissberg.pdf
Policymakers often assume that public opinion is a reliable guide to making public
policy, but they should not. Public opinion polling measures the wishes and preferences
of respondents, neither of which reflect the costs or risks associated with a policy.
Public opinion expressed in polls cannot inform policy choice, which requires
attention to tradeoffs among values, to second-best possibilities, and to unexpected
risks.
Warrant: Politicians should lead rather than follow
Page, Ben. “It’s OK for politicians to ignore public opinion.” Guardian. 25 March 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/25/opinion-polls-public-
opinion-politicians
Speaking in 1996 another politician, Roy Hattersley, described public opinion as "a
major disincentive to ideological politics. There has never been a time in our history
when it was more difficult for a politician to say 'I will lead rather than follow'." He
went on to say, "If the Liberal party of 1885 had employed Mori, Gladstone would have
faced a real test of courage and conscience." Many politicians still dismiss public opinion
as mercurial or irrelevant or both. Former British foreign secretary Douglas Hurd wrote
in 1993 that "if we had followed the polls, we would have been in and out of the EU
several times in the last 20 years. On matters of principle, like the monarchy and
membership of the European Community, the job of the politician is to persuade, not
automatically to follow."
Warrant: The American public changes its mind often
Isquith, Elias. “America’s war fever is rising: How fear & bloodlust are bringing
Americans together.” Salon. 5 March 2015.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloo
dlust_are_bringing_americans_together/
Taken altogether, the rapidity with which Americans have changed their mind about
sending “boots on the ground” to Mesopatamia is almost stunning. As recently as
September of last year, when ISIS had already made a name for itself with its
horrible snuff films and heinous crimes, fewer than four-in-10 Americans wanted to
send their sons and daughters to that faraway and benighted land. ISIS has not
made any significant territorial or strategic gains in the time since — experts seem
to agree, in fact, that the group is currently losing — but that does not seem to have
any affect on how most Americans view the situation. And it certainly hasn’t been
much of an influence on the U.S. media’s coverage, which remains sensationalist to the
point of being lurid.
Warrant: After the Iraq war, people changed their minds
Dutton, Sarah. “Most Americans say Iraq War wasn’t worth the costs: poll.” CBS News.
23 June 2014. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-say-iraq-war-
wasnt-worth-the-costs-poll/
Just 18 percent of Americans think the result of the war in Iraq was worth the loss
of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, the lowest percentage ever
recorded in CBS News Polls. Seventy-five percent do not think the Iraq War was
worth it, up eight percentage points since 2011 (just before all U.S. troops were
removed), and up 30 points since August 2003.
Analysis: This argument is pretty simple to respond to on the con. The entire pro argument is
founded on the fact that we should trust the American people enough to dictate the policy
choices of our country, but a lot of times, the American people and polls in general lack the
thought, knowledge, and consideration that politicians put into these issues. At the end of the
day, the politician is the leader and is it very easy for the con to argue that the politician has the
experience to properly make decisions on important issues like sending troops overseas. The
politician also knows that a lot of time the public will support a specific foreign policy until it is
implemented, then change its mind and blame those in charge.
PRO – Ground troops can help implement long term stability
Argument: The US must get more involved than it currently is against ISIL. The US should
expand its strategy with regard to military operations, humanitarian aid, and troop training.
Ground troops are effective at all of these goals.
Warrant: Work needs to be done to maintain stability after major military victories
"Iraqi Forces Take Back Strategic Towns in Fight for Tikrit against IS." I24news. N.p., 7
Mar. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/63464-150307-iraqi-
forces-take-back-strategic-towns-in-fight-for-tikrit-against-is>.
But he said the real test would come after the town is recaptured, and how the Iraqi
government treats the mostly Sunni population in the area."The important thing
about this operation in Tikrit is less about how the military aspect of it goes, and
more about what follows," he said.If Sunnis are allowed to return to their homes and
"feel like the government is following an offensive with reconstruction and humanitarian
assistance, then I think we're in a really good place," Dempsey said.But if Sunnis are
mistreated or forced out, and if the Baghdad government fails to deliver humanitarian aid,
"then I think we've got a challenge in the campaign," he said.
Warrant: The US military frequently engages in humanitarian missions
Carafano, James J. "U.S. Troops Are Unrivaled in Carrying out Humanitarian Missions."
The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 4 Nov. 2014. Web. 08 Mar.
2015.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/11/us-troops-are-unrivaled-
in-carrying-out-humanitarian-missions>.
It is, of course, wholly appropriate for the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance
when we have the means to do so and it does not conflict with America's interest.
America's humanitarian response to the 2004 Tsunami in the Asia-Pacific dwarfed
the assistance provide by most countries. Further, the U.S. military undertakes
these kinds of missions quite frequently, both at home and abroad. Be it sandbagging
during storms or delivering supplies and rescue services after disaster strikes, our military
is skilled at alleviating non-military emergencies. It is not the principal job for our armed
forces, but these are appropriate auxiliary missions - tasks to be done on an as-needed and
as-available basis.
Warrant: Food shortages are causing a humanitarian crisis in Iraq
"Iraq: UN Refugee Agency Launches Major Humanitarian Aid Push for Displaced
People." UN News Centre. UN News Centre, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fapps%2Fnews%2Fstory.asp%3FNew
sID%3D48518%23.VPyUSoeUB2Y>.
The Saudi contribution has also enabled the UN World Food Programme (WFP) to scale
up food assistance to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis displaced from their homes in
recent weeks. “The food security situation in Iraq is alarming – the worst that the
country has witnessed since the sanctions in the early 1990s,” Mohamed Diab,
Director of WFP’s Regional Bureau for the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia
and Eastern Europe, said in a news release. “The breakdown of the Public
Distribution System for food in many parts of Iraq, the destruction and confiscation
of agricultural produce, widespread insecurity and massive displacement of civilians
have resulted in immense hardship and untold human suffering,” he stated.
Warrant: US leaders state that we need to train soldiers against ISIL and then support them in
the fight
Pianin, Eric. "McCain: Get Ready for U.S. Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria." The
Fiscal Times. The Fiscal Times, 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefiscaltimes.com%2F2015%2F01%2F27%2F
McCain-Get-Ready-US-Troops-Ground-Iraq-and-Syria>.
McCain said it’s an outrage that the Obama administration has pulled back and is no
longer insisting that Assad step aside, although his regime is responsible for the deaths
of over 200,000 Syrian civilians.“In the Middle East, we have got to have boots on
the ground,” McCain said over the weekend. “We have got to have training
capability. We can't train young people in Syria and send them back into Syria to be
barrel-bombed by Bashar Assad. That is also immoral.”
Warrant: The US needs to expand on it’s current approach
Pianin, Eric. "McCain: Get Ready for U.S. Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria." The
Fiscal Times. The Fiscal Times, 27 Jan. 2015. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefiscaltimes.com%2F2015%2F01%2F27%2FMcCain
-Get-Ready-US-Troops-Ground-Iraq-and-Syria>.
McConnell seconded Boehner’s contention that the U.S. and its allies will ultimately
fail unless they break out of the current Obama approach – which amounts to
strategic air strikes against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria and efforts to recruit and
train friendly “moderate” rebels in Syria to take the fight directly to ISIS forces on
the ground. The U.S. currently has about 2,300 troops in Iraq, but they are
primarily providing security and advice to the Iraqi government while staying far
away from the fighting. Obama has vowed repeatedly that he will not send in more
U.S. ground troops to engage ISIS on the battlefield. GOP leaders say that is a
misguided approach that will simply embolden the jihadist terrorists to persist in
their rampage and killing across a major swath of Iraq and civil war-torn Syria in a
drive to establish a new Islamic Caliphate.
Warrant: The US has lofty goals for troop training, more US ground troops could help this be
more efficient
Walker, Jade. "U.S. To Deploy 400 Troops To Train Syrian Opposition To Defeat ISIS."
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/16/us-troops-syria-
isis_n_6484128.html>..
The U.S. will deploy about 400 troops this spring to help train moderate opposition
rebels to defeat Islamic State militants, Reuters reported. The troops will work out of
training sites in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, Cmdr. Elissa Smith, a Defense
Department spokesperson, said in the Army Times. The troops will also be supported
by hundreds of enabling forces who will provide security and other services, Defense
One reported. The goal of the deployment is to train more than 5,000 rebels in the
first year to push back against Islamic State militants who have seized large swaths
of Syria and Iraq. Coalition partners are expected to contribute forces to the
training effort as well.According to Reuters, up to 15,000 trained Syrian rebels will
be needed to retake areas in the east that are already controlled by ISIS.Identifying
rebel fighters who don't have ties to ISIS or the main al Qaeda affiliate in Syria will
be extremely difficult, but Pentagon officials said they're confident U.S. forces can
recruit and train a moderate fighting force against the terrorists.
A2 – Ground troops can help implement long term stability
Answer: Currently the US has troops in the regions near ISIL where they are engaging in non
combative roles to support the fight against ISIL. This has been successful thus far and US allies
do not want the US to increase it’s involvement.
Warrant: Iraq does not want US ground troops
Pandey, Avaneesh. "Iraq Has Never Requested Foreign Ground Troops To Fight ISIS,
Claims Senior Government Official." International Business Times. International
Business Times, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/iraq-has-never-requested-foreign-ground-troops-fight-
isis-claims-senior-government-1813844>.
Iraq has not requested the deployment of foreign troops in the country to combat
the Islamic State group, a senior Iraqi government official said, on Thursday, a day
after U.S. President Barack Obama requested Congress to formally approve the use of
military force against ISIS. In his proposal, Obama had reportedly sought powers for
U.S. special forces to carry out ground operations in “unforeseen
circumstances.”“We have never asked for a ground forces contribution … what we
have agreed with the international coalition partners is to provide assistance on the
aerial support, training, advising and intelligence information sharing in addition to
providing humanitarian assistance,” Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi foreign minister,
reportedly said, after a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in Sydney
on Thursday.
Warrant: The US has enough personnel in the region currently to achieve it’s goals
Pandey, Avaneesh. "Iraq Has Never Requested Foreign Ground Troops To Fight ISIS,
Claims Senior Government Official." International Business Times. International
Business Times, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.ibtimes.com/iraq-has-never-requested-foreign-ground-troops-fight-
isis-claims-senior-government-1813844>.
The U.S. military and Australia, along with several Western nations that are part of
a broad anti-ISIS coalition, have been carrying out airstrikes on ISIS strongholds in
northern Iraq. In addition, the U.S. has also deployed nearly 2,600 American troops
in the country to provide aid and training to the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces. Al-
Jaafari claimed that the Iraqi army had made significant advances against ISIS in recent
weeks, resulting in a drastic “diminution of capability” of the militant group, according to
media reports.
Warrant: US allies believe that US airstrikes are sufficient
Alfred, Charlotte. "Iraq PM Says Foreign Ground Troops Not Necessary In Fight Against
ISIS." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 07
Mar. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/iraq-foreign-
troops_n_5835706.html>.
Haider al-Abadi has been embraced by the West as a more inclusive leader who might
heal the internal rifts that have dismembered Iraq. But his forthrightness in an interview
with The Associated Press — his first with international media — suggested a man
capable of parting ways on vision and holding his ground. 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. Full stop.” Instead, al-Abadi urged the international community to expand its
campaign against the extremists in neighboring Syria, noting that militants coming
under pressure in Iraq are retreating back into Syria.
Warrant: The US is having success airdropping humanitarian supplies
"United States Department of Defense." Defense.gov News Article: U.S. Airdrops Aid in
Support of Iraqi Humanitarian Efforts. US Department of Defense, 28 Oct. 2014.
Web. 07 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123518>.
U.S. Air Force C-130 aircraft conducted an airdrop yesterday near Al Asad Air
Base, Iraq, to provide humanitarian aid for delivery by Iraqi security forces to
members of the Iraqi Albu Nimr tribe, U.S. Central Command officials reported
today.In response to a request from the Iraqi government, the aircraft delivered
more than 7,000 halal meals, Centcom officials said. Iraqi forces retrieved the meals
and delivered them to the tribe, who recently relocated from their homes near Hit,
Iraq, to flee aggression by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists, they
added.The C-130 aircraft are deployed to the Centcom area of responsibility, and they
left the airdrop zone safely, officials said.
Warrant: The issue is not a lack of US manpower, but that Iraq is not putting it’s men in a
position to be successful;
"Dempsey: Some Iraqi Troops Show up for Training Ill-prepared." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 8 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/dempsey-some-iraqi-troops-show-up-
for-training-ill-prepared/2015/03/08/c97ccf8a-c5b8-11e4-bea5-
b893e7ac3fb3_story.html>.
Some Iraqi army units in line for U.S.-led training to fight the Islamic State group
are showing up ill-prepared, the top American general said Sunday.Gen. Martin
Dempsey, speaking to reporters aboard this French aircraft carrier in the northern Persian
Gulf not far from Iran's coast, said he sees no reason to send more U.S. military trainers
or advisers at this time. More, broadly, he defended the pace of the overall military
campaign in Iraq."Right now we don't need more advisers on the ground,"
Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said with his French
counterpart, Gen. Pierre de Villiers, at his side on the hangar deck of the de
Gaulle."We've got trainers and advisers that are waiting for some of the Iraqi units
to show up, and when they've shown up — a handful of them — they've shown up
understrength and sometimes without the proper equipment. The Iraqi government
can actually fix that themselves."
PRO Decapitation of ISIL Leadership
Argument: Use of Ground Combat Troops Will Allow the US to Decapitate ISIL Leadership
!
Warrant: Eliminating ISIL requires elimination of its high leadership
Trombly, Daniel. Who the U.S. Should Really Hit in ISIS. The Daily Beast. Sept 9
2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/airstrikes-in-syria-aren-t-
enough-we-need-to-take-out-isis-s-midlevel-commanders.html
The"more"familiar"but"difficult"medium;"to"long;term"task"of"degrading"ISIS’s"
operational"leaders"and"eventually"its"high"leadership"will"take"well;
disciplined,"organized"ground"forces"to"push"out"ISIS"guerrillas"entrenched"
among"population"centers"where"airpower"cannot"remove"them.!It!also!will!
take!major!improvements!of!the!quality!of!intelligence,!especially!in!Syria,!where!
U.S.!relationships!are!least!developed!and!its!forces!are!most!unfamiliar!with!the!
local!environment.!Strategically,!airpower!will!play!a!supporting!role!to!efforts!to!
organize!and!coordinate!ISIS’s!rivals!on!the!ground!to!retake!territory!permanently!
and!contain!it!as!a!regional!threat.!Even!as!ISIS’s!rapid!offensive!gains!have!proved!
limited!and!vulnerable!to!modern!air!attack,!the!group’s!capabilities!as!a!defensive!
and!clandestine!guerrilla!force—and!its!decentralized!military!structure—will!deny!
foreign!airpower!a!rapid!or!comprehensive!victory!in!the!longCterm!effort!for!its!
defeat.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Warrant: Leadership decapitation eliminates the knowledge, charismatic power, and direction
of insurgent leaders
Trombly, Daniel. Who the U.S. Should Really Hit in ISIS. The Daily Beast. Sept 9
2014. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/airstrikes-in-syria-aren-t-
enough-we-need-to-take-out-isis-s-midlevel-commanders.html
!
Killing"or"capturing"an"insurgent"leader"provides"a"means"of"eliminating"the"
knowledge,"charismatic"power,"and"direction"that"the"leader"instills"within"the"
organization.!Technological!breakthroughs!in!signal!intelligence!(SIGINT),!an!
increase!in!the!collection!of!human!intelligence!(HUMINT),!and!the!beginning!of!the!
global!war!on!terror!have!brought!the!employment!of!leadership!decapitation!as!a!
means!of!collapsing!insurgent!organizations!back!into!the!consciousness!of!western!
society.!!
!
Warrant: Leadership decapitation increases the chance of a rapid end to insurgencies, the
probability of government victory, and reduces the intensity of violent conflict and number of
attacks
Johnston, Patrick B. The Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation in Combating

Insurgencies. International Security Journal. June 2012.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22120/effectiveness_of_leadership
_decapitation_in_combating_insurgencies.html
!
An"analysis"of"leadership"targeting"in"ninety"counterinsurgencies"since"the"
1970s"suggests"that"removing"militant"leaders"is"neither"ineffective"nor"
counterproductive."Quite"the"opposite:"on"average,"leadership"decapitation"
(1)"increases"the"chances"of"a"rapid"end"to"insurgencies;"(2)"enhances"the"
probability"of"a"government"victory;"(3)"reduces"the"intensity"of"violent"
conflict;"and"(4)"decreases"the"number"of"insurgent"attacks.!Killing!or!capturing!
highCvalue!targets!is!far!from!a!magic!bullet,!but!states!do!it!because!it!weakens!
insurgencies—in!short,!because!it!works.!
!
Warrant: Leadership decapitation is effective in ending insurgencies
Johnston, Patrick B. The Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation in Combating

Insurgencies. International Security Journal. June 2012.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22120/effectiveness_of_leadership
_decapitation_in_combating_insurgencies.html
Leadership"decapitation"significantly"increases"states'"chances"of"tamping"
down"militant"violence"and"defeating"insurgencies."As!such,!it!should!come!as!no!
surprise!that!decapitation!is!an!extremely!common!policy,!regardless!of!the!ethical!
objections!and!legal!ambiguities!that!surround!it.!Despite!the!evidence!of!leadership!
decapitation's!effectiveness,!scholars!and!policymakers!should!consider!what!it!is!
not.!Although!decapitation's!impact!may!be!significant!in!many!instances,!it!is!not!a!
silver!bullet;!other!factors!will!matter!greatly!in!most!cases!and!be!decisive!in!many.!
Decapitation!can!help!states'!efforts!against!militants,!but!it!is!more!effective!as!part!
of!a!larger!strategy!than!as!a!standCalone!tactic.!
Warrant: Targeted killing is effective in eliminating leadership
Staeheli, Paul. COLLAPSING INSURGENT ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH

LEADERSHIP DECAPITATION: A COMPARISON OF TARGETED
KILLING AND TARGETED INCARCERATION IN INSURGENT
ORGANIZATIONS. Navel Postgraduate School. March 2010.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518738.pdf
!
This!thesis!provides!some!new!insights!into!the!study!of!the!effectiveness!of!
targeted!killing!and!targeted!incarceration.!The"evidence"suggests"that"the"state’s"
employment"of"a"strategy"of"targeted"killing"or"targeted"incarceration"against"
an"insurgent"organization"without"a"clear"successor"is"more"likely"to"cause"the"
insurgent"organization"to"collapse.!This!thesis!also!suggests!that!both!targeted!
killing!and!targeted!incarceration!are!effective!in!reducing!insurgent!violence!five!
years!after!the!event.!
!
Analysis:!The!PRO!team!can!argue!that!a!ground!campaign!will!allow!the!US!to!more!
effectively!take!out!ISIL!leadership.!Because!there!is!a!precedent!for!special!operations!
forces!and!ground!troops!effectively!eliminating!leadership,!the!PRO!team!can!argue!that!
this!strategy!can!be!used!in!a!ground!campaign!and!capturing!and!killing!insurgent!
leadership!is!effective!in!their!destruction.!
!
!
!
A2 Decapitation of ISIL Leadership
!
Answer: US Leadership Decapitation Fails
!
Warrant: Leadership decapitation is a recipe for failure
Russell, James. America s Leadership Decapitation Policy is a Recipe for Endless War.
Guardian. 12 Feb 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/12/america-leadership-
decapitation-policy
!
Leadership"decapitation"as"a"strategy"is"short;sighted,"bound"to"ultimately"fail,"
and"may"actually"increase"threats"to"our"country.!What!is!the!evidence!to!
support!this!assertion!and!where!has!leadership!decapitation!been!tried?!
!
Warrant: Leadership decapitation is a recipe for failure, because Islamic militants will keep
coming back
Russell, James. America s Leadership Decapitation Policy is a Recipe for Endless War.
Guardian. 12 Feb 2013.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/12/america-leadership-
decapitation-policy
Setting!aside!the!moral!and!ethical!issues!related!to!state!assassinations!of!people!
without!due!process,!the!broader!strategic!issue!remains!–!we"can't"kill"our"way"
out"of"disputes"with"Islamic"militants"that"are"currently"on"the"receiving"end"
of"our"hellfire"missiles."They"will"keep"coming"back"until"a"political"settlement"
is"reached"or"until"they"are"all"dead."Since"we"can't"kill"them"all,"the"war"will"
go"on."Still"worse,"by"intervening"in"what"are"essentially"local"political"
disputes"in"countries"like"Yemen,"Mali,"and"Afghanistan,"we"run"the"risk"of"
provoking"exactly"the"kind"of"attacks"against"us"that"we"are"supposed"to"be"
trying"to"forestall."
!
Warrant: Organization that have not had their leaders removed are more likely to fall apart
Jordan, Jenna. When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership
Decapitation. University of Chicago. 2009. http://informationcollective.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/01/Jordan.pdf
!
Second,!I!determine!whether!decapitation!is!an!effective!counterterrorism!strategy!
that!results!in!organizational!collapse.!The"data"show"that"decapitation"does"not"
increase"the"likelihood"of"organizational"collapse"beyond"a"baseline"rate"of"
collapse"for"groups"over"time."Organizations"that"have"not"had"their"leaders"
removed"are"more"likely"to"fall"apart"than"those"that"have"undergone"a"loss"of"
leadership."The"marginal"utility"of"decapitation"is"negative"for"many"groups,"
particularly"for"larger,"older,"religious,"and"separatist"organizations."!
!
Warrant: Decapitation of leadership can lead to development of smaller groups that incite more
violence
Jordan, Jenna. When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership
Decapitation. University of Chicago. 2009. http://informationcollective.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/01/Jordan.pdf
!
The!belief!that!decapitation!is!effective!is!based!upon!the!notion!that!leadership!is!
essential!to!the!functioning!of!an!organization.!Kent!Layne!Oots!argues!that!
leadership!is!essential!to!the!formation!of!terrorist!organizations.9!“The!formation!
of!a!terrorist!organization,!like!the!formation!of!any!other!political!organization!
depends!on!the!leadership’s!ability!to!recruit!and!retain!a!committed!
membership.”10!If!individuals!do!not!have!sufficient!incentives!to!act!on!behalf!of!a!
terrorist!organization,!there!will!be!a!strong!tendency!to!free!ride.!Mancur!Olsen!
presents!the!concept!of!selective!incentives!as!a!solution!to!this!freeCrider!
problem.11!The!leader!is!responsible!for!ensuring!that!the!group!is!able!to!provide!
selective!incentives!sufficient!to!maintain!and!attract!members!and!to!induce!them!
to!commit!acts!of!violence.12!It!is!the!leader’s!job!to!provide!incentives!that!are!
lower!than!the!cost!of!membership!in!order!to!generate!a!surplus!that!can!be!used!to!
lead!the!organization!and!supply!goods!to!its!members.!While!leadership!is!crucial!
to!the!provision!of!selective!incentives,!the!removal!of!key!leaders!does!not!always!
result!in!organizational!disintegration.13!According!to!Oots,!while!a!group!without!
political!leadership!can!lose!the!political!focus!necessary!to!direct!its!behavior!
toward!specific!goals,!it!can!still!carry!out!terrorist!activity!even!if!it!is!no!longer!
operates!as!a!unified!political!movement.!Furthermore,!decapitation"can"cause"the"
factionalization"of"an"organization"into"smaller"groups"causing"an"increase"in"
political"violence"as"“smaller"groups"each"become"active"and"develop"their"
own"demands.”14!While!Oots!recognizes!the!importance!of!leadership!in!the!
provision!of!selective!incentives,!he!remains!ambivalent!regarding!the!ability!of!
decapitation!to!result!in!organizational!collapse.!!
!
Analysis:"The!CON!team!can!turn!the!PRO!argument!by!saying!that!leadership!decapitation!
logically!and!empirically!increases!the!likelihood!that!a!terrorist!organization!will!survive.!
This!is!because,!arguably,!when!a!leader!is!killed,!it!creates!more!momentum!for!the!
terrorist!organization!to!survive!as!terrorists!become!angry!with!the!US,!a!perceived!
aggressor!who!killed!the!leader!they!worship!and!follow.!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Answer: Leadership decapitation can be done from the air

!
Warrant:"The!US!uses!drones!for!targeted!killings!of!leaders!
!
Staeheli, Paul. COLLAPSING INSURGENT ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH
LEADERSHIP DECAPITATION: A COMPARISON OF TARGETED
KILLING AND TARGETED INCARCERATION IN INSURGENT
ORGANIZATIONS. Navel Postgraduate School. March 2010.
!
The!Global!War!on!Terrorism!continues!to!highlight!the!debate!over!the!
effectiveness!of!targeted!killing!against!enemy!leadership.!United!States’!Special!
Operations!Forces!(SOF)!and!the!Central!Intelligence!Agency!(CIA)!regularly!target!
and!eliminate!high!value!individuals!(HVI)!and!terrorist!cell!leaders!in!an!attempt!to!
disrupt!radical!Islamist!groups!capable!of!influencing!America’s!global!interests.!The!
expansion!of!Hellfire!missile!strikes!launched!from!Predator!drones!in!Afghanistan,!
Iraq,!Pakistan,!and!the!Horn!of!Africa!(HoA)!displays!clearly!the!United!States’!
reliance!on!the!tactic!of!leadership!decapitation.!“Since"President"Obama"took"
office,"there"have"been"reports"of"more"than"40"attacks"by"Hellfire"missiles"
fired"from"drones,"an"increase"over"the"approximately"30"missile"strikes"
launched"in"2008"during"the"Bush"administration.”!
!
Warrant: Egyptian air strikes effectively took out ISIS leaders
Malsin, Jared. Egyptian air strikes in Libya kill dozens of Isis militants Guardian. 17
Feb 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/16/egypt-air-strikes-
target-isis-weapons-stockpiles-libya
Egyptian"air"strikes"killed"64"Isis"fighters,"including"three"of"the"leadership,"in"
the"coastal"cities"of"Derna"and"Sirte,"the"Libyan"army"said.!Reports!reaching!
Tunis!said!at!least!35!more!Egyptians!had!been!rounded!up!by!Isis!in!retaliation!for!
the!morning!air!raids!–!but!there!was!no!confirmation!of!this!from!the!Egyptian!
presidential!spokesman.!
!
Analysis:"The!CON!team!can!use!this!response!as!a!second!layer!to!the!turn!saying!
leadership!decapitation!is!bad.!It!is!strategic!for!the!Con!to!argue!that!even!if!leadership!
decapitation!is!effective,!we!do!not!have!to!launch!a!full!on!ground!campaign!to!achieve!this!
goal.!Instead,!drones!are!effective!in!targeting!leadership!and!effectively!achieving!the!same!
end!as!the!PRO!team.!!
!
Champion Briefs
April 2015
Public Forum Brief
Con Arguments with

Pro Responses
Con"Arguments"with"Pro"Responses" April"2015"
"
CON – No Threat to United States
Argument: ISIL is not a real threat to United States, so a ground invasion would be
unprecedented under international law.
Warrant: Government experts say ISIL is not a direct threat to the U.S.
Stein, Sam. “Americans Panicked Over ISIS Threat That Experts Say Isn't Imminent.”
Huffington Post, September 9 2014.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/isis-media-threat_n_5791594.html >
The distinction between a threat to the homeland and a threat to U.S. national security
interests in the Middle East has been borne out by statements from the intelligence
community. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said that the Islamic State poses an
imminent threat to U.S. interests abroad. But the FBI and the Department of
Homeland Security recently stated that the group poses “no specific or credible
terror threats to the U.S. homeland." Similarly, Pentagon press secretary Rear
Adm. John Kirby said last month that the Islamic State does not have “the
capability right now to conduct a major attack on the U.S. homeland.” National
Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen said Wednesday that “we have
no credible information that ISIL is planning to attack the United States.”
"
Warrant: There, is no credible evidence that ISIL wants to or will attack the United States, and
making decisions about putting troops on the ground based on fear rather than fact inhibits
logical foreign policy.
Sullivan, Andrew [author of six books, former editor of New Republic]. “The Passion To
Be Reckoned Upon Is Fear.” The Dish, September 9 2014.
<http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/09/the-passion-to-be-reckoned-upon-is-
fear/>
But I have yet to see or be shown any solid intelligence that suggests that these
fanatics are aiming at the US. We may well have a problem of home-grown
Jihadists returning and wreaking havoc – but that is a manageable threat. And
direct military intervention by the West could easily increase these losers’ incentives
to strike us here at home. So, in that narrow sense, this return to fighting other people’s
civil wars in the Middle East may actually increase the risks to us. That’s what I mean
by “taking the bait“. More worryingly, the president appears to be choosing
September 11 to make the case for a war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The fear
factor is thereby evoked all the more powerfully – and any return to normality, or
restraint, or prudence that we have slowly achieved since then will be wiped away. I
just ask you: did that fear and terror help us make wise decisions about foreign
policy back then? Do we really want to recreate that atmosphere – with no solid
evidence of a tangible threat to the US?
"
Warrant: ISIL does not have the military capability to hurt the United States even if it wanted
to do so.
Lyons, Gene. “ISIS poses no realistic threat to the U.S.” Chicago Sun Times, February
26, 2015. <http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/398961/isis-poses-realistic-
threat-u-s>
A glance at the map, however, reveals that ISIS has basically conquered all the thinly
populated desert territory it can reasonably hold. It can maintain a semblance of
control only through stark brutality and terror. It’s basically a rag-tag, pickup-based
militia lacking any means of attacking the United States unless we make it easy for
them by re-invading Iraq. ISIS has no air force, no navy, no real artillery or
armored brigades apart from captured Iraqi gear it can’t effectively service or
repair. The Turks could crush ISIS whenever they choose, but choose not to act for
fear of empowering the hated Assad regime in Syria and/or its Iranian Shiite allies
(themselves protecting Baghdad).
Warrant: ISIS is being crippled in the status quo.
Bandow, Doug. “Every Middle East Mistake Causes the United States to Intervene
Again.” CATO Institute, November 5 2014. <http://www.cato.org/blog/gop-
senate-likely-push-more-war-yet-every-mistake-causes-us-intervene-again>
If you want to understand what's happening in the Middle East today, you need to
appreciate one fundamental fact: ISIS is losing its war for the Middle East. This may
seem hard to believe: in Iraq and Syria, the group still holds a stretch of territory larger
than the United Kingdom, manned by a steady stream of foreign fighters. Fighters
pledging themselves to ISIS recently executed 21 Christians in Libya. It's certainly true
that ISIS remains a terrible and urgent threat to the Middle East. The group is not
on the verge of defeat, nor is its total destruction guaranteed. But, after months of
"
ISIS expansion and victories, the group is now being beaten back. It is losing
territory in the places that matter. Coalition airstrikes have hamstrung its ability to
wage offensive war, and it has no friends to turn to for help. Its governance model is
unsustainable and risks collapse in the long run. Unless ISIS starts adapting, there's a
very good chance its so-called caliphate is going to fall apart. Believe it or not, Iraq is
looking better than anyone could have hoped six months ago. One year ago, ISIS was
soon to launch the offensive in Iraq that, in June, would sweep across northern Iraq and
conquer the country's second-largest city, Mosul. Today, the Iraqi government is
prepping a counter-offensive aimed at seizing Mosul back, which the US believes will
launch in April. In that year, the situation has changed dramatically. After ISIS's
seemingly unstoppable rampage from June to August of 2014, the Iraqi government
and its allies have turned the tide. Slowly, unevenly, but surely, ISIS is being pushed
back. "There's really nowhere where [ISIS] has momentum," Kirk Sowell, the
principal at Uticensis Risk Services and an expert on Iraqi politics, told me in late
January. "There are a significant string of [Iraqi] victories all along the northern
river valley, up through Diyala and Salahuddin [two central Iraqi provinces],"
Doug Ollivant, National Security Council Director for Iraq from 2008-2009 and
current managing partner at Mantid International, explained.
"
Warrant: The UN Charter specifically says that nations can only militarily act in self-defense.
“CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE,

BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION.” Charter of the
United Nations. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml>
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right
of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any
way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present
Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security.
"
Warrant: This is the only justified military action against another state or entity, and the
invasion of Iraq back in 2003 failed to uphold this, so neither would an invasion today.
Skopets, Michael. “Battered Nation Syndrome: Relaxing the Imminence Requirement of

Self-Defense in International Law.” American University Law Review, 2006.
<http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&cont
ext=aulr>
Recently published legal literature has noted the connection between the United States’
legal rationale for preemptive war and the imminence requirement of self-defense in
criminal law. The imminence requirement, further discussed infra Part I.A, posits that
one may only act in self-defense if, at the time of the act, he or she reasonably
believes that there is a present or imminent danger of physical harm. One line of
thought is that the Bush Administration’s claim that the war was necessary to
prevent Iraq from attacking the United States or its allies with non-conventional
weapons would not satisfy a strict self-defense analysis.11 Other authors have
postulated that the Bush Administration’s justification for the war in Iraq could lead to
more challenges to, or a possible relaxation of, the imminence requirement of self-
defense in criminal proceedings.
Analysis: This argument is strong because it draws a parallel with the American invasion of Iraq
in 2003, something that nearly all Americans (and public forum debate judges) will agree was a
disastrous mistake. Arguing that invading now would be based on the same fearmongering that
got America into Iraq a decade ago will elicit a strong emotional connection from judges to the
argument, while more detailed pieces of evidence support that claim by showing that ISIL has
neither the desire nor capability to carry out an attack on the United States. Basing this somewhat
in international law can also be strong, so an appeal to self-defense and the UN charter can
ground this argument in a slightly stronger way.
"
A2 – No Threat to United States
Response: ISIL actually constitutes a major threat to the United States and needs to be stopped.
Warrant: The idea that ISIL is a regional terrorist group rather than an international one is
fundamentally wrong.
Gottlieb, Stuart. “Four Reasons ISIS Is a Threat to the American Homeland.” National
Interest, September 20 2014. < http://nationalinterest.org/feature/four-reasons-
isis-threat-the-american-homeland-11317?page=2>
But such efforts are inherently flawed—not because understanding the local
contexts of militant Islamist groups is not important (it is). But rather because
viewing such groups as of either local or global significance is precisely the wrong
way to approach the challenge. The fact is groups like ISIS always think and act in
terms of both local and global ambitions—or, in the parlance of the “defensive
jihad” they believe they are waging, their targets are both “near enemies” (apostate
Muslim rulers) and “far enemies” (the infidels that support them). While some in
Congress and elsewhere still believe ISIS is a localized problem of little concern to
the United States, the inconvenient truth is that ISIS actually represents a
dangerous new chapter in the global war being waged by Al Qaeda and its affiliated
and inspired groups, and a clear and present threat to the U.S. homeland.
"
Warrant: Asymmetric advantage means that even if ISIL does not seem to have the power to
attack us right now, its ability to operate in secret and have operatives willing to die for the cause
gives it a strong strategic advantage.
Terrorism is by definition “asymmetric”—a weaker party using violence as a

political tactic against a more powerful adversary. And any capable terrorist group
can be thought of as having “asymmetric advantages” because it operates in the
shadows and can often pick the time, place and nature of attack against its enemies.
But groups like Al Qaeda and its more sophisticated offshoots are especially
problematic with regard to asymmetric advantages because they operate in
effective, secret global networks; they are focused primarily on Western liberal
democracies that are more open and therefore more vulnerable than other types of
political systems; and they recruit actors willing to die on their missions, so they are
less concerned about carrying dangerous substances, like radiological or biological
material.
Warrant: ISIS is capable of obtaining and using funds in secret, making it harder to track and
harder to know its capabilities.
Second, and more problematic, a group like ISIS, with its troves of hard currency
from its seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in bank deposits from towns and
cities it has overrun, and from tens of millions more in black-market oil sales, is less
"
susceptible to international electronic surveillance. Though it does not often get
publicized, tracking “terror financing” is one of the best ways to fight terrorism—
often even more so than tracking terrorist communications. Terrorists simply
cannot operate without financing, so law enforcement and intelligence agencies
constantly monitor known or suspected terror financiers or facilitators, which can
break up terror finance networks, expose terror cells and even thwart major plots.
With roughly $1 billion in cash, ISIS will not necessarily need to expose itself to
international counterfinance efforts, adding another stealthy advantage to its
growing list of capabilities.
Warrant: One Senator on the Armed Services Committee says that ISIS is rapidly developing a
method to attack a major US city.
Cross, Phil. “Senator Inhofe warns of potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.” Vox,
August 20, 2014. <http://www.okcfox.com/story/26331734/senator-inhofe-warns-
of-potential-terrorist-attacks-on-us-soil>
It is a serious warning coming from Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe as he warns of the
potential of another attack on American soil. The senator sat down with Fox 25 to talk
about a variety of topics, but as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, the top issue was national security. “We're in the most dangerous
position we've ever been in as a nation,” Senator Inhofe told Fox 25's Phil Cross.
“ISIS, they are really bad terrorists, they're so bad even Al Qaida is afraid of them,”
Inhofe said reflecting on the recent beheading of American journalist James Foley.
Beyond the beheading, Inhofe said the current terror organizations are not going to
stay contained to the Middle East. “They're crazy out there and they're rapidly
developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city and people just can't believe
that's happening.” Inhofe blames policy decisions from the Obama administration and
cuts in defense spending for putting the country in what he calls a dangerous situation.
"
Warrant: A prominent senator from the other side of the political aisle also sees ISIL as a
serious threat, arguing that its organization and resources make it a more powerful threat than
many believe.
Feinstein, Dianne. “Sen. Feinstein: Confront ISIS now.” USA Today, September 7 2014.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/07/feinstein-confront-isis-
action-terror-obama-column/15254223/>
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. Most
disturbing is what it seeks to do next. ISIS has its sights set on taking control of
additional areas in the Middle East, including Baghdad, where it is already
interspersing among the civilian population in Sunni areas. 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.”
Analysis: This response hinges on the idea that our current knowledge about ISIL either shows
it is a threat or is inconclusive. The Pro side should point out on more of a framework level that
the Con has the burden of proof with this argument to show that ISIL has absolutely no chance of
threatening the United States, whereas Pro can argue that any possibility of an ISIL attack on
American soil is enough to justify intervention. The two Senators included in this response also
serve to bolster this response against the many government officials the Con side can quote as
saying that ISIL cannot hurt the United States, so leveraging those against each other can help
discredit those sources.
"
CON – Such an intervention would be long and open-ended
Argument: The United States does not want to get into another long conflict in the Middle East.
Open-ended commitment of troops is costly, controversial and not always necessary to solve
problems, and as such, the Pro’s advocacy for such an intervention is not something worth
pursuing.
Warrant: Fighting in Iraq and Syria is open-ended
Lazare, Sarah. "How to Get Serious About Ending the ISIS War - FPIF."Foreign Policy
In Focus. N.p., 04 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2015. <http://fpif.org/get-serious-
ending-isis-war/>.
“2014 was the deadliest year for civilians in Iraq since the height of the U.S. war in
2006 and 2007, according to Iraq Body Count. The watchdog found that 17,049
civilians were recorded killed in Iraq last year alone — approximately double the number
recorded killed in 2013, which in turn was roughly double the tally from 2012. And more
than 76,000 people — over 3,500 of them children — died last year in Syria, according to
figures from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. António Guterres, the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, recently warned, “The Syria and Iraq mega-crises, the
multiplication of new crises, and the old crises that seem never to die have created the
worst displacement situation in the world since World War II,” with at least 13.6 million
people displaced from both countries. But instead of reckoning with these legacies, the
U.S. government has taken a giant leap backward — towards another open-ended,
ill-defined military operation in Iraq and now Syria.”
"
Warrant: Fighting to stop ISIS will ‘take time’ according to the President and thousands of
troops will be moved.
ending-isis-war/>.
“President Obama vowed in his recent State of the Union address to double down in
the fight against ISIS, declaring yet again, “this effort will take time.” His remarks
came just days after the United States and Britain announced a renewed joint military
effort, and the Pentagon deployed 1,000 troops to Middle Eastern states to train
“moderate” Syrian fighters. That comes in addition to the 3,000 soldiers ordered to
deploy to Iraq, with more likely to follow. Meanwhile, the rise of Islamophobia in the
wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks is feeding war fervor abroad and at home.”
Warrant: The legislation President Obama is using for intervention has lead to perpetual
wartime in the past.
ending-isis-war/>.
“And so the Obama administration — which falls into the political realist camp and
has, at times, pressed for a moderate retrenchment of U.S. war in the Middle East (in part
to enable a disastrous pivot to Asia) — is now leading a military response to a crisis
that the president himself has acknowledged cannot be solved by the U.S. military.
To do so, Obama has repeatedly sidestepped congressional debate by claiming
authority from the post-9/11 war authorization against the perpetrators of the
attacks — the same legislation he once denounced for “keeping America on a
perpetual wartime footing.””
"
Warrant: Kerry and Obama agree it will take years and has no indicated boundary.
ending-isis-war/>.
“In truth, the U.S. and global publics are kept in the dark about what the U.S.-led military
coalition is doing, how long this war will last, where its boundaries lie, and what
“victory” means. Obama and Kerry have both indicated that the war on ISIS will
take years, but Pentagon officials repeatedly refuse to reveal basic information, like
what specific duties troops on the ground in Iraq are tasked with and who is dying
under U.S. bombs in Iraq and Syria. Just last December, a U.S. coalition bomb struck
an ISIS-operated jail in the town of al-Bab, Syria, killing at least 50 civilians detained
inside, according to multiple witnesses. Yet while the Pentagon has demurred that
civilians “may have died” during its operations, it’s refused to actually acknowledge a
single civilian death under its bombs.”
Warrant: Victory has not been defined, so an endpoint is unknown.
ending-isis-war/>.
“In truth, the U.S. and global publics are kept in the dark about what the U.S.-led
military coalition is doing, how long this war will last, where its boundaries lie, and
what “victory” means. Obama and Kerry have both indicated that the war on ISIS will
take years, but Pentagon officials repeatedly refuse to reveal basic information, like what
specific duties troops on the ground in Iraq are tasked with and who is dying under U.S.
bombs in Iraq and Syria. Just last December, a U.S. coalition bomb struck an ISIS-
operated jail in the town of al-Bab, Syria, killing at least 50 civilians detained inside,
according to multiple witnesses. Yet while the Pentagon has demurred that civilians “may
have died” during its operations, it’s refused to actually acknowledge a single civilian
death under its bombs.”
"
Warrant: The US Public is against long-term interventions and is war fatigued after Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Homer, Ben. "In Middle East, U.S. Must Focus on Diplomacy, Not Military
Intervention." Baltimore Sun. N.p., 26 June 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-06-26/news/bs-ed-syria-letter-
20140626_1_military-intervention-diplomacy-iraq>.
“Although Mr. Van Dyke is correct that the 2003 invasion of Iraq represents what may be
the greatest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history, his argument — that the present
administration's feckless "isolationist tendencies, exemplified by President Barack
Obama's foreign policy" has led to "complete chaos in the Middle East" — fails to
acknowledge core realities which have been illuminated by George W. Bush's
misadventures. The hard truth is that two of the longest wars in American history have
made two things very clear. First, the American military is not well suited to occupation.
And second, American public opinion strongly opposes long term foreign military
interventions of the sort that Iraq and Afghanistan have become.”
Warrant: Although President Obama is against open-ended intervention, he is pursuing it with

ISIS.
LaFranchi, Howard. "With Islamic State Speech, Obama Deepens US Involvement in

Middle East (+video)." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science
Monitor, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/0911/With-Islamic-State-
speech-Obama-deepens-US-involvement-in-Middle-East-video>.
“In presenting to the American people his strategy for “degrading and ultimately
destroying” the Islamic State (IS), President Obama essentially launched what he
came into office pledging to get the United States out of: an open-ended military
"
campaign in the Middle East. Perhaps because he was declaring the kind of action he
once vowed to end, the president strove in his 15-minute White House address
Wednesday night to differentiate this new battle with terrorists “unique in their brutality”
from the wars he inherited, in particular the war in Iraq.”
Warrant: The National Security Strategy puts the US at an open-ended conflict with ISIL.
Ackerman, Spencer. "US Facing Open-ended Conflict in Middle East, Obama's Security
Plan Says." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 6 Feb. 2015. Web.
3 Mar. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/06/obama-national-
security-plan-terrorism-middle-east>.
“In a reversal of his campaign-trail assurances that the tide of war is receding, the final
national security strategy of Barack Obama’s presidency declares terrorism “a persistent
threat” amidst a “generational struggle for power in the Middle East”. The 2015 National
Security Strategy, released by the White House on Friday, resigns the US to an open-ended
conflict against al-Qaida and now the Islamic State (Isis), as well as their undefined
“affiliates”. It does not significantly discuss Yemen or Pakistan, the two most active theaters of
drone strikes against al-Qaida. While the document declares al-Qaida’s core leadership
“decimated”, the strategy forecasts a continued global conflict against a “more diffuse” series of
al-Qaida and Isis networks abroad, raising questions about what a counterterrorism approach that
privileges decapitation strikes will durably achieve.”
"
Analysis: The Con team can use this argument in a few ways.
First, they can take note of the fact that generally the democratic government of the US is
supposed to listen to its people, and as this argument shows, the American public is against an
open-ended war.
Second, it can be coupled with other arguments that say, for example, that intervention creates
more terrorism. This acts as an impact multiplier, because if the intervention is extremely long
term, then this problem is perpetuated.
Third, the argument can be used to show that such an intervention on a large scale is a waste of
resources, time, and money. This comes from the fact that we are uncertain of how long it will
last and whether there is an actual end to the plan in mind.
"
A2 – Such an intervention would be long and open-ended
Answer: The plan won’t be open-ended.
Warrant: President Obama is against open-ended conflict.
Homer, Ben. "In Middle East, U.S. Must Focus on Diplomacy, Not Military
Intervention." Baltimore Sun. N.p., 26 June 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-06-26/news/bs-ed-syria-letter-
20140626_1_military-intervention-diplomacy-iraq>.
“With this in mind, President Obama has wisely sought to shift U.S. foreign policy
objectives toward long term goals which do not involve large scale open-ended
American military deployments in the Middle East. This is what he was elected to do,
and it is a policy that has the support of the American public as well as of those American
soldiers who fought so hard in the region over the past decade. It should be stressed that
as the Obama administration has wound down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his
State Department has greatly expanded its working relationship with China, strengthened
American influence throughout Asia and the Pacific, increased the U.S. military presence
in Europe and renewed negotiations with Iran. These policies, rooted in diplomatic and
economic ties, are far from isolationist. They represent a complex integrated approach to
international diplomacy.”
"
Warrant: The open-ended plan the Con talks about does not include ground-troops.
LaFranchi, Howard. "With Islamic State Speech, Obama Deepens US Involvement in

Middle East (+video)." The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science
Monitor, 11 Sept. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2014/0911/With-Islamic-State-
speech-Obama-deepens-US-involvement-in-Middle-East-video>.
“This war will entail no US combat forces on the ground, Mr. Obama said – although
he did announce 475 more military advisers for Iraq, which will bring the total there to
about 1,600. He also underscored that no military assignment, including the pilots
carrying out airstrikes against IS positions, is guaranteed risk-free.”
Warrant: There is a three-year sunset clause in place on the intervention legislation.
Bob, Yonah. "Obama's War against ISIS â “ Much More Open-ended than Meets the
Eye." The Jerusalem Post. N.p., 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Obamas-war-against-ISIS-much-more-open-
ended-than-meets-the-eye-390912>.
“But once you dig deeper into the details, it becomes clear that in many ways, the
proposed law that the US president hopes that Congress will adopt leans heavier toward
potential for greater intervention. Yes, the policy would be more restricted than many
prior similar policies, because it specifically limits ground forces and requires a
reauthorization of the policy in three years. But it is not the first policy to have a time
limit. US president Ronald Reagan’s 1983 intervention into Lebanon was limited to an
even shorter 18 months.”
!
!
"
Warrant: The current US government is not interested in long-term intervention and is leaving
an exit strategy for future Presidents.
Bob, Yonah. "Obama's War against ISIS â “ Much More Open-ended than Meets the
Eye." The Jerusalem Post. N.p., 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Obamas-war-against-ISIS-much-more-open-
ended-than-meets-the-eye-390912>.
“At most, those limits were Obama’s signal that as long as he is president, he is not
anxious to get drawn into major ground operations and wants to leave the next
president an exit. But it will be the next president who chooses whether to take that exit
or to expand on the openings that Obama’s proposed law leaves for him.”
Analysis: This response very directly refutes the argument made by the Con team. It provides
four different ways under which their argument is not true. First, it shows the President as being
against open-ended conflict so clearly the potential for such an action is low in the status quo.
Second, it shows that the open-ended plan that was a sound-byte often used in the evidence
discussing the “lengthy” nature of the plan was not even referring to ground troops, and therefore
is not applicable to the Pro case or topical in the first place. Third, there is an actual sunset clause
on the legislation, giving it a potential three year end-date, which is the very opposite of an open-
ended conflict. Lastly, it shows there is an exit strategy provided inside the legislation for future
administrations, meaning that the intervention can be stopped if need be. Collectively, these set
up four different tiers of responses against the argument provided by the Pro that each can
function independently and respond to the argument on their own, but work best when used
together to set up a group of blocks to their argument, which is much more difficult for them to
overcome and defend from in the shorter speeches in the round like the summary and final focus.
"
CON – Historical Precedent
Argument: ISIL would not be a problem in the first place were it not for military intervention
by the United States, so troops on the ground now would only make the problem worse.
Warrant: ISIL is a direct consequence of the war in Iraq.
Washington again is at war in the Middle East. Unfortunately, pressure for military
intervention will grow with Republican control of the Senate. The likely result of any
new conflicts will be similar to America’s past interventions. The United States will
be intervening again in a few years to try to clean up the mess it is creating today.
The United States is not bombing the Islamic State out of necessity. Rather,
Washington is acting in response to past mistakes. ISIL exists only because the Bush
administration invaded Iraq. The Obama administration’s decision to attack the Islamic
State makes no policy sense. So far, ISIL has focused on creating a quasi-government in
the Middle East and has not targeted America. Of course, the Islamic State killed two
U.S. citizens who fell into its hands in truly monstrous behavior. But these murders are
no different than similar barbarities committed by others around the globe. Such personal
tragedies are no reason to go to war. If successful in creating a viable “caliphate,” ISIL’s
leaders might turn towards terrorism, but doing so would risk their quasi-state by
bringing America’s wrath down upon it. Moreover, Iraq demonstrated the foolishness of
launching preventive wars based on fantasies disguised as forecasts. The United States
is more likely to turn the Islamic State to terrorism now by making war on it,
encouraging it to retaliate. Perhaps the worst aspect of Washington’s policy is
absolving nearby states of their responsibility to destroy ISIL. These countries will not
act if the United States bails them out. More fundamental is the fact that American
policymakers have so often gotten the Middle East wrong, intervening arrogantly
and maladroitly, creating more problems than they solved. Already the attack on
"
the Islamic State has caused al-Qaeda affiliates such as the al-Nusra Front to
support ISIL.
Warrant: Historically, US involvement in Iraq specifically directly lead to the rise of ISIL.
The U.S., Western Europe, and their regional allies in fact bear most of the
responsibility for the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, which Britain notably supported, was a strategic disaster. Contrary to speculation
at the time, Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist regime prevented Al Qaeda from
operating out of Iraq. Iraq had also been supported by the West before the 1991 Gulf War
as a counterbalance against the revolutionary Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq War.
The U.S.-led invasion changed all of that. The Iraq War toppled Saddam, destabilized
the country, and led to a wave of sectarian bloodshed. It also made Iraq a safe haven
and recruiting ground for Al Qaeda affiliates. Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS’s forerunner,
was founded in April 2004. AQI conducted brutal attacks on Shia civilians
and mosques in hopes of sparking a broader sectarian conflict. Iran naturally supported
Shia militias, who fought extremists like AQI, both to expand its influence in Iraq and
protect its Shia comrades. Iran cultivated ties with the Maliki government as well. Over
the long term, Iran tried to seize the opportunity to turn Iraq from a strategic
counterweight into a strategic ally. The U.S. didn’t do much to stop it. When the U.S.
helped to establish Iraq’s government, it consistently supported Maliki, even going
so far as to assist in Maliki’s persecution of dissidents and civil society activists. The
U.S. was probably more instrumental than Iran in cementing Maliki’s power in
Iraq. Maliki alienated Sunnis in Iraq by cracking down on his opponents and
pursuing discriminatory policies in government and the armed forces. When
Maliki’s troops stormed Sunni protest camps in 2013, they were armed with U.S.-
made weapons. By the time the U.S. and Western Europe finally decided Maliki was
enough of a liability to push out of government, fertile ground already existed for an
ISIS-led Sunni insurgency in Western Iraq.
"
Warrant: Involvement in Syria also played a major role.
The Syrian story is even more important. In 2011 the Assad regime violently
suppressed peaceful pro-democracy protests. This civil society movement rapidly
transformed into an armed uprising against the Syrian government. Why? In
the early stages of the war, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey began funneling arms
to opposition forces, seeing an opportunity to destabilize a key ally of Iran and
Hezbollah, their geopolitical foes. As the civil war deepened, extremist groups joined
the fight against what they saw as an odious secular regime. They also became the
beneficiaries of large amounts of arms and funding from America’s regional allies. Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and Turkey knowingly funded extremist groups including Jabhat al-
Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra quickly became one of
the most effective and influential rebel groups fighting against the Syrian
government. ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra have been fighting over doctrinal and
practical matters for months, but some al-Nusra elements have also merged into
ISIS. The extent of Saudi support for ISIS is uncertain and hotly debated, but many
analysts agree that there has been a substantial bleed of funding and weapons between
rebel groups. The U.S.’s own involvement in the Syrian conflict is telling. Early in the
civil war, the Obama administration expressed its conviction that Bashar al-Assad’s
regime had to go. Given U.S. antagonism toward Iran and its allies, this statement did
not come as a surprise. The U.S. offered nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels and
eventually covertly armed them, going so far as to operate a training camp for
rebels in northern Jordan. But the U.S. didn’t appear to expand its direct support for
the Syrian rebels beyond this point, and for good reason. When the Obama
administration asked Congress for $500 million to train and equip “moderate rebels,”
the Pentagon testified that it anticipated difficulties finding moderate fighters to train and
arm. In plain English, this means that they don’t really exist. With ISIS’s victories in
Iraq, the U.S. strategy of fueling the fire in Syria without allowing either side to win
"
is finally revealing its inherent contradictions. No one is innocent in the Iraqi and
Syrian civil wars, but Iran is not primarily responsible for the current state of affairs. The
U.S. and its allies destabilized Iraq and Syria in turn, creating safe havens for
extremists that previously did not exist. U.S. allies provided the material support
that allowed ISIS and groups like it to become threats to the entire region, despite
lacking any substantial popular base in Syria and Iraq.
Warrant: Historical precedent shows that US intervention in the Middle East overall generally
breeds more conflict.
But blowback is to be expected. In 1953, Washington helped oust Iran’s

democratically elected prime minister. Eventually the authoritarian Shah was
overthrown, with radical Islamists targeting America. The Reagan administration
inserted the U.S. military into the middle of Lebanon’s bloody civil war. Attacks on
the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks followed. Fear of Iranian domination
of the Persian Gulf caused Washington to back Saddam Hussein in his aggressive
war against Tehran. That helped persuade Hussein that the United States would not
block his conquest of Kuwait. The first Bush administration expelled Hussein’s
forces without overthrowing his regime. But the Bush and Clinton administrations
launched regular air strikes, while U.S-led sanctions harmed Iraqi civilians.
American forces garrisoned Saudi Arabia, providing one of Osama bin-Laden’s
grievances against America. The immediate result of the second Bush
administration’s invasion of Iraq was sectarian war, mass civilian casualties,
destabilization of surrounding nations, and strengthened Iranian influence, along
with high American human and financial costs. The Islamic State turned out to be a
longer-term consequence.
"
Warrant: Contradictory American military support within the Middle East ensures a safe haven
for ISIS.
Cockburn, Patrick. “How the US Helped ISIS Grow Into a Monster.” Mother Jones,
August 21 2014. <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/how-us-helped-
isis-grow-monster-iraq-syria-assad>
There are extraordinary elements in the present US policy in Iraq and Syria that
are attracting surprisingly little attention. In Iraq, the US is carrying out air strikes
and sending in advisers and trainers to help beat back the advance of the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (better known as ISIS) on the Kurdish capital, Erbil. The
US would presumably do the same if ISIS surrounds or attacks Baghdad. But in Syria,
Washington's policy is the exact opposite: there the main opponent of ISIS is the
Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds in their northern enclaves. Both are under
attack from ISIS, which has taken about a third of the country, including most of its oil
and gas production facilities. But US, Western European, Saudi, and Arab Gulf
policy is to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad, which happens to be the policy of
ISIS and other jihadis in Syria. If Assad goes, then ISIS will be the beneficiary, since
it is either defeating or absorbing the rest of the Syrian armed opposition. There is a
pretense in Washington and elsewhere that there exists a "moderate" Syrian opposition
being helped by the US, Qatar, Turkey, and the Saudis. It is, however, weak and getting
more so by the day. Soon the new caliphate may stretch from the Iranian border to the
Mediterranean and the only force that can possibly stop this from happening is the Syrian
army. The reality of US policy is to support the government of Iraq, but not Syria,
against ISIS. But one reason that group has been able to grow so strong in Iraq is
that it can draw on its resources and fighters in Syria. Not everything that went wrong
in Iraq was the fault of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as has now become the political
and media consensus in the West. Iraqi politicians have been telling me for the last two
years that foreign backing for the Sunni revolt in Syria would inevitably destabilize their
country as well. This has now happened. By continuing these contradictory policies in
"
two countries, the US has ensured that ISIS can reinforce its fighters in Iraq from
Syria and vice versa. So far, Washington has been successful in escaping blame for
the rise of ISIS by putting all the blame on the Iraqi government. In fact, it has
created a situation in which ISIS can survive and may well flourish.
Analysis: This argument appears more complex than it seems due to the detailed and
convoluted history of America’s involvement in the Middle East. Understanding this evidence
provides historical background to the situation that will be persuasive to judges. The team that
seems to know more about the history and geopolitics of the reason will often be the winner, so
time spent memorizing who the US supported when and in which country will definitely pay off
in round. Not only is this knowledge helpful in general, but also a contention based on historical
precedent can be an excellent argument.
"
A2 – Historical Precedent
Response: Just because a flawed full-scale military intervention may have been a part of the
cause of ISIS does not mean any type of ground troops will exacerbate it.
Warrant: Even if military intervention brought about initial resentment, it was also the only
way to bring about peace in the region.
Boot, Max. “Another Iraq war is coming – the only question is whether we want to win.”
The Spectator, August 16 2014.
<http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9287832/defeat-isis-yes-we-can/>
Faced with these troubles in a strange, far-away land, it would be natural for many
westerners, including Obama and Cameron, to despair. No doubt many on both sides
of the Atlantic are concluding that this latest spasm of ugliness is a natural result of
the misguided Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq, that Iraqis simply like to massacre each
other and that there is little the West can or should do about it. Didn’t our previous
intervention just make things worse? This is alluring but wrong-headed. In point of
fact, while the US and Britain did create a disaster in Iraq by not doing more to
maintain law and order after Saddam Hussein’s downfall, the situation turned
dramatically after the success of the ‘surge’ in 2007-2008. Violence fell more than 90
per cent and Iraqi politics began to function again. The situation was stable enough
that in 2010 Vice President Joe Biden bragged on CNN that Iraq would be ‘one of
the great achievements of this administration’.
Analysis: This response is important because it protects the Pro side if the Con team wins that
the American invasion was the root cause of ISIS. Pro teams can argue that regardless of what
caused conflict in Iraq, a surge in ground troops was also the only way to bring that conflict back
down. Pro teams should frame the Con as overly simplistic, and say that the actual nuances of
conflict mean that not all military action can be equated.
"
Warrant: Domestic policies of the United States more recently actually led to the rise of ISIS,
not any military action.
Straus, Ira. “How Obama Caused ISIS.” National Review, August 27 2014.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386354/how-obama-caused-isis-ira-
straus>
The Syria policy of the Obama administration is the main reason for the growth of
the Islamic State (or ISIS) – and with it, for the current crisis in Iraq, and for a greatly
increased danger of terrorism in Europe and America. Administration policy has
fanned the rebellion in Syria and kept it going for three full years, while doing
nothing to bring it to a successful close. Sometimes the administration has explicitly
tried to keep the rebels in a stalemate with Assad; Secretary of State Kerry said that it
was his policy to do just that, in order to promote negotiations and “peace.” The result,
so obvious as to make that statement a shameless Orwellianism, has been to keep the
war dragging on. This has provided the hothouse for the growth of the extremist
Islamic State. In due course, it spilled over from Syria into Iraq, and it has issued
threats against the American homeland. The Obama-Kerry policy has also made for
the more than 190,000 deaths in Syria, 500,000 wounded, and 8 million refugees (more
than 2 million abroad, 6 million inside Syria) — this, out of a population of about 22
million. It is hard to imagine a policy more irresponsible, or worse from a moral
standpoint. Yet it has been the long-standing policy of Obama and Kerry — and it was
Secretary of State Clinton’s, too, until her last weeks in office, when she finally seemed
to be getting serious, only to have her new plans thrown out by Kerry. Fanning a
rebellion just up to the point where the country is bleeding continuously — what could be
more horrible? As the saying goes, “It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.”
"
Warrant: Domestic politics and policies, namely those set forth by Prime Minister al-Maliki,
are what galvanized support for ISIL, not international military policy.
Beauchamp, Zack. “How the US, its allies, and its enemies all made ISIS possible.” Vox,
August 25, 2014. <http://www.vox.com/2014/8/25/6065529/isis-rise>
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a lame duck recently voted out by his own party,
since 2006 has run an authoritarian, Shia government that systematically excluded
Sunni Iraqis from power and favored the country's majority Shia population. That
played a major role in allowing ISIS to push so successfully from Syria into Iraq this
year. Here is an incomplete list of terrible Maliki policies that have contributed to
this: Using Iraq's counterterrorism laws to imprison Sunni dissenters. Exploiting
laws that prohibit Saddam-era officials from holding office (a number of those
officials had been Sunni) to boot Sunnis out of the upper echelons of the government
and military. Using deadly force to break up peaceful Sunni demonstrations against
his government. Aligning himself with non-governmental Shia militias that had
slaughtered Sunnis during the post-invasion civil war. And there's much, much more
where that came from. Maliki's policies convinced a number of Iraqi Sunnis that the
Iraqi government would never treat them equally, making ISIS and other Sunni
militias seem like a comparatively attractive alternative. That's a big part of how
ISIS managed to gain so much power in Sunni Iraq in such a short period of time.
Analysis: Though providing a counter-explanation for the rise of ISIS is not necessary to win
this argument, providing historical and cultural context that relates to purely domestic politics
will be especially persuasive and make this response much stronger. Any potential cause of ISIS’
rise that is unrelated to military action will bolster the Pro case, and clearly explaining religious
tension in Iraq and a lack of military action in Syria will cast enough doubt on the Con narrative.
Pro teams do not need to prove that these are the sole causes; rather, that the sole cause is not
American military action.
"
CON – Reduced Funding for Humanitarian Projects
Argument: As the American government has shifted its national security and foreign policy
focus to military campaigns, USAID and other humanitarian programs have lost funding. This
makes US foreign policy less effective as these benevolent programs that “win the hearts and
minds” of the global community lose resources to antagonizing combat missions.
Warrant: USAID programs have lost funding because of shifts in US foreign policy
Atwood, Brian and M. Peter McPherson and Andrew Natsios. “Arrested Development:
Making Foreign Aid a More Effective Tool”. Council on Foreign Relations. Dec
2008. Web. Accessed 7 Mar 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699376
““During the Cold War, usaids presence abroad was far more significant than it is
today. Leaders realized that the agency's staff was one of the most powerful
instruments of soft power the U.S. government had at its disposal. In many places,
usaid is the most visible face of the U.S. government; its influence at the level of civil
society is far greater than the State Department s or the Pentagons, whose representatives
tend to remain in capital cities. Usaid officers have daily interactions with civil-society
leaders, government officials, members of local legislative bodies, businesspeople, and
ministries that deal with development issues. For much of its existence, usaid had
substantial resources and autonomy, but in recent decades these have largely been
stripped away. For example, the State Department was given responsibility for U.S.
foreign assistance programs in central and eastern Europe in 1989 and in the
former Soviet Union in 1992, with usaid placed in a subordinate role. Eventually, in
2001, the State Department took over usaids account and its direct relationship with
the Office of Management and Budget. As a result, usaid lost staff, programmatic
flexibility, and influence with Congress, other government departments, other aid
donors, and recipient nations.””
"
Warrant: Programs focused on poverty reduction and human rights concerns are more effective
alternatives to military campaigns but they have less funding and resources
Parkinson, Stuart. “Challenging the Mindset of War”. Scientists for Global

Responsibility. Winter 2015. Web. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.
http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGRNL43_Challenging-war-
mindset.pdf
““There are many alternative strategies to tackling these security problems which do
not prioritize military action. The most obvious action Western governments could take
would be to end military exports to countries with poor human rights records such as
Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their international action includes: more concentrated effort to
enforce arms embargoes in regions of conflict as well as much stricter controls more
generally of the international arms trades; improving international financial controls to
shut down funding routes for groups such as IS; stricter border controls to prevent new
combatants entering conflict zones: eg Turkey; continued negotiation to create more
humanitarian corridors to help refugees fleeing from war zones; providing adequate
funding and resources for refugee camps, food aid and other support services; rapid
reaction mediation teams composed of neutral parties to help defuse political conflicts
before fighting breaks out; defusing international tensions by reducing military exercises,
co-operating in arms control and disarmament programmes and cutting military
spending; more national and international processes for tackling underlying
grievances such as political exclusion, human rights abuses, inequality, poverty and
environmental damage. Some of these options are being pursued at a limited scale
with the essential involvement of science and technology professionals but they need
to be expanded and or provided with more resources. It is particularly shocking that
the World Food Programme was forced to halt its food voucher scheme for Syrian
refugees in early September due to lack of funds. This meant aid for million
refugees was put in jeopardy as the harsh winter weather set in. Given the huge
military spending summarised above nothing illustrates the distorted set of priorities
"
better. No one is under any illusions about the difficulty in solving the security
problems in the Middle East, Ukraine, Africa or elsewhere, but it is clear there are
many alternatives to military action and these remain poorly funded.””
Warrant: US foreign policy will be more effective if there is a shift in focus from current
militaristic strategy to humanitarian USAID programs
Atwood, Brian and M. Peter McPherson and Andrew Natsios. “Arrested Development:
Making Foreign Aid a More Effective Tool”. Council on Foreign Relations. Dec
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20699376
““Effective foreign aid programs, therefore, can and should be a crucial component of
U.S. foreign policy. To ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent on a single,
coherent foreign aid bureaucracy under one chain of command, the next president
will have to push through major institutional reforms. But as many recent studies have
demonstrated, U.S. development efforts lack coherent policy guidance and are spread
across myriad agencies with little coordination among them. Such a sad state of
affairs did not always exist. We can testify to this from our own experience, having
collectively run usaid for 16 years, under both Democratic and Republican
administrations. We share the concern that our civilian capacities have eroded at a
time when they are most needed. The United States cannot win the hearts and minds
of the world’s people with only an anemic usaid presence in the developing world.
The situation will not improve without sensible presidential leadership to support an
independent, vigorous, and re structured usaid or a new federal department devoted
to development.””
"
A2 – Reduced Funding for Humanitarian Projects
Answer: Humanitarian aid programs, as they are administered in the status quo, may be doing
more harm than good. Because the governments of developing nations that receive aid may be
corrupt or otherwise inefficacious there are often damaging discrepancies in aid program
administration that can ultimately increase inequality where attempting to relieve it.
Warrant: Status quo development and humanitarian projects fail impoverished people
“No Accident: Resilience and the Inequality of Risk”. Oxfam International. 21 May
2013. Web. Accessed 7 Mar 2015. http://www.wcdrr.org/wcdrr-
data/uploads/854/NO%20ACCIDENT%20Resilience%20and%20the%20inequali
ty%20of%20risk_Oxfam%20briefing%20paper.pdf
““Recent crises – such as the global food price hikes of 2008, Pakistan‟s floods in
2010 and 2011, and the recurring droughts of the past few years in the Horn of
Africa and the Sahel region of West Africa – have been a wake-up call. It is clear
now that the response from both governments and the aid sector to increasing risk
and structural inequalities is failing the most vulnerable. These problems cannot be
solved by more “development-as-usual”. Both government investment and
development aid, in practice, often fail to support the poorest people enough.
Government support favours agribusiness over small-scale farmers, but benefits often
fail to trickle down. Development aid has often been blind to the shocks and
uncertainties that poor people face, and naïve in assuming that development takes
place in largely stable environments. That is not the real world – where, by 2015, half
of all people living on less than $1.25 a day will be in “fragile states” or affected by
conflict,9 and millions more will face disasters from global economic or environmental
changes outside of their control.”
"
Warrant: Programs are poorly administered by recipient governments
“No Accident: Resilience and the Inequality of Risk”. Oxfam International. 21 May
2013. Web. Accessed 7 Mar 2015. http://www.wcdrr.org/wcdrr-
data/uploads/854/NO%20ACCIDENT%20Resilience%20and%20the%20inequali
ty%20of%20risk_Oxfam%20briefing%20paper.pdf
““Governments often fix the rules in favour of big business and provide significant
tax breaks, 91 while smaller businesses are stymied by bureaucracy, over-regulation
and corruption.92Women face the additional constraint of a disproportionate amount of
unpaid care work in the family, which reduces the time available for economically
productive activities. Governments may legitimately claim that they have a lack of
resources and technical skills. The capacity of government officials at local, district,
and national levels can indeed be a real barrier, and external support may be
required. In terms of resources, the costs of providing universal basic social
protection93 and essential health care vary, from 4 per cent of GDP in India to 10
per cent in Burkina Faso.94 This will remain a challenge for very low-income countries
in which aid will probably continue to be a key element of financing (the initiative of the
Global Fund for Social Protection has been designed to fill the financial gap that states
cannot support). 95””
"
Warrant: Poorly administered programs could heighten income inequality – the real cause of
terrorism
Enders, Walter and Gary A. Hoover, “The Nonlinear Relationship between Terrorism and
Poverty”. American Economic Association. May 2012. Web. Accessed 7 Mar
2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23245540
““In contrast to the standard results, we find that real per capita GDP has a strong
nonlinear effect on both domestic and transnational terrorism; the form is such that a
linear regression of overall terrorism on per capita income will not tend to uncover the
relationship between the two variables. We also find that countries with high levels of
income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) tend to have high levels of
terrorism. It is important to understand the nature of the nonlinearities present in
the two types of terrorism. As nations develop, the level of domestic terrorism they
experience is likely to decline once their real per capita GDP passes a threshold of about
$1,000. If development is accompanied by an increase in income inequality,
however, domestic terrorism could increase. Regarding transnational terrorism,
economic development is predicted to increase the number of transnational
incidents until per capita GDP reaches a threshold of about $2,215. Clearly, nations
providing development assistance need to be aware that their efforts might actually
increase the number of attacks directed at their interests. As such, it is especially
important to be concerned about constructing a development plan that does not
exacerbate income inequality.””
"
Answer: The Con’s impact is mitigated by the fact that terrorism is not necessarily caused by
poverty. This insinuates that even if aid programs did reduce poverty the magnitude of that
impact is questionable.
Warrant: Terrorism is not causally linked to poverty
Bergen, Peter. “'Jihadi John': The bourgeois terrorist”. CNN News. 27 Feb 2015. Web.
Accessed 7 Mar 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/opinion/bergen-terrorism-
root-causes/
““In other words, there is only limited evidence to support the hypothesis that
economic deprivation causes terrorism (GH1). As we shall see later, poor economic
conditions matter less to terrorism once it is controlled for institutional and political
factors. The notion that economic deprivation is not a strong catalyst of terrorism is also
supported by the micro evidence of Krueger and Maleckova (2003) and Berrebi (2007).
Neither study finds a negative relationship between wealth and terrorism. A study using
aggregated data by Piazza (2007) for the Middle East for the period 1972 to 2003 returns
similar findings. At best, we may hypothesize that a combination of poor economic
and institutional conditions may matter to the genesis of terror, e.g., when poverty is
accompanied by low opportunities to escape it (as poor institutions constrain
political and economic participation). However, such an assumption only stresses
that poverty and inequality do not translate into terrorism of their own accord””
"
CON – The US should allow Iran to utilize their troops instead.
Argument: In attempt to build better relations with Iran, the US should allow them to take a
large amount of the fight against ISIL, and improve our cooperative strategy. This allows for
diplomatic benefits on both sides, whilst also enabling Iran to pursue policy that the West will be
more accepting of, allowing them to act in a more secure manner. Moreover, there is no need for
the US to act if another country, that being Iran, can hold back ISIL without our help.
Warrant: The US can use Iran so that American troops don’t have to be on the ground.
Cooper, Helene. "U.S. Strategy in Iraq Increasingly Relies on Iran." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/world/middleeast/us-strategy-in-iraq-
increasingly-relies-on-iran.html?_r=0>.
“At a time when President Obama is under political pressure from congressional
Republicans over negotiations to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, a startling paradox
has emerged: Mr. Obama is becoming increasingly dependent on Iranian fighters as
he tries to contain the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria without
committing American ground troops.”
"
Warrant: The US is using Iraq as an intermediary to work with and monitor Iran’s military
efforts.
“That may be technically true. But American war planners have been closely
monitoring Iran’s parallel war against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or
ISIL, through a range of channels, including conversations on radio frequencies that each
side knows the other is monitoring. And the two militaries frequently seek to avoid
conflict in their activities by using Iraqi command centers as an intermediary.”
Warrant: Iran is helping Iraq hold off ISIL right now.
“As a result, many national security experts say, Iran’s involvement is helping the
Iraqis hold the line against Islamic State advances until American military advisers
are finished training Iraq’s underperforming armed forces. “The only way in which
the Obama administration can credibly stick with its strategy is by implicitly assuming
that the Iranians will carry most of the weight and win the battles on the ground,” said
Vali R. Nasr, a former special adviser to Mr. Obama who is now dean of the School of
Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “You can’t have your cake
and eat it too — the U.S. strategy in Iraq has been successful so far largely because of
Iran.””
"
Warrant: The US is relying on Iran to have a successful strategy in Iraq.
“As a result, many national security experts say, Iran’s involvement is helping the Iraqis
hold the line against Islamic State advances until American military advisers are finished
training Iraq’s underperforming armed forces. “The only way in which the Obama
administration can credibly stick with its strategy is by implicitly assuming that the
Iranians will carry most of the weight and win the battles on the ground,” said Vali
R. Nasr, a former special adviser to Mr. Obama who is now dean of the School of
Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “You can’t have your
cake and eat it too — the U.S. strategy in Iraq has been successful so far largely
because of Iran.”
Warrant: There is historical precedent that states with vastly different ideals can work together
against a common evil and threat.
““So far in general there was no clash within the two,” Mr. Jaboori said. He drew a
comparison to World War II. “Countries with different ideologies, different
priorities, different systems of government, cooperated to defeat the Nazis,” he said.
“It’s foreseeable that we see countries which might not get along very well in terms
of their bilateral relations working to help Iraq to defeat this threat.”
"
Warrant: Cooperation as a result of Iran fighting ISIL ensures their transparency with their
nuclear program.
Avni, Benny. "Iran Says It's Willing to Fight ISIS, for a Price." Newsweek. Newsweek
LLC, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. <http://www.newsweek.com/iran-says-
its-willing-fight-isis-price-273939>.
“Well aware of its new position, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani told the General
Assembly on September 25 that Iran’s promises of help in the war against ISIS depended
on Western concessions in the nuclear talks. “We are determined to continue our
confidence-building approach and our transparency” in the nuclear negotiations,
Rouhani said. “If our interlocutors are equally motivated and flexible,” then Iran and the
West can start cooperating on “very important regional issues, such as combating
violence and extremism.””
Warrant: Iran needs to be part of this process for the anti-ISIS coalition to work.
Avni, Benny. "Iran Says It's Willing to Fight ISIS, for a Price." Newsweek. Newsweek
LLC, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2015. <http://www.newsweek.com/iran-says-
its-willing-fight-isis-price-273939>.
“Typical was the response from the French president, François Hollande. “I met with the
president of Iran, because Iran must be an actor” in the anti-ISIS coalition, he told
reporters. A week ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron also met with
Rouhani, saying that he and the Iranian leader “noted the threat posed to the whole
region by [ISIS] and agreed that all states in the region must do more to cut off
support for all terrorist groups, including financial support.””
"
Warrant: Iranian military leaders that used to hurt Sunnis are now helping protect them and
have been crucial in the fight against ISIL.
Bazzi, Mohamad. "Iran Will Do What It Takes to Fight ISIS - CNN.com." CNN. Cable
News Network, 03 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/03/opinion/bazzi-iran-iraq/>.
“Since ISIS swept through northern Iraq in June, Tehran has mobilized to protect
the Shiite-led government from the Sunni militant threat. General Qassim Suleimani,
commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, traveled to
Baghdad at the start of the crisis to coordinate the defense of the capital with Iraqi
politicians and military officials. He also directed Iranian-trained Shiite militias—
including the Badr Brigade and the League of the Righteous, two notorious militias
responsible for widespread atrocities against Sunnis—in the fight against ISIS. With
a weakened and corrupt Iraqi military, the militias have proven crucial in stopping
ISIS' advance.”
Analysis: This argument has a few impacts and facets:
First, it emphasizes that Iran will be working with the US better now because we are being
forced to cooperation.
Second, if Iran is negotiating more the US with its nuclear program, the US is achieving one of
its major Middle Eastern foreign policy goals in this process, that being to maintain a better
control over the Iranian nuclear supply.
Third, the US government should never waste its resources and put its troops in harm way if it is
not necessary, and in this case if Iran is handling the problem without our help, then there is no
reason for us to put boots on the ground as well.
"
A2 – The US should allow Iran to utilize their troops instead.
Answer: The US is essentially supporting terrorism in this process.
Warrant: The Iranian military leaders we are supporting are likened to Osama Bin Laden.
“There’s just no way that the U.S. military can actively support an offensive led by
Suleimani,” said Christopher Harmer, a former aviator in the United States Navy in the
Persian Gulf who is now an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War. “He’s a more
stately version of Osama bin Laden.”
Analysis: The US working with terrorists and endorsing their actions the moment in might work
in our favor makes us seem hypocritical in the international sphere as well as weak because we
have to rely on them. Moreover, by sinking down to the moral level of terrorist groups and
relying on them for their fighting forces, it would probably make it far harder for the US to
justify asking for help with the war on terror from other countries.
"
Answer: Iran is committing atrocities in the process.
Warrant: Iran is taking advantage of this opportunity to create sectarian bloodshed.
Weiss, Michael, and Michael Pregent. "How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to
Beat ISIS." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 1 Feb. 2015. Web. 05 Mar.
2015. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/01/how-iran-is-making-it-
impossible-for-the-us-to-beat-isis.html>.
“Iran’s influence in Iraq since ISIS sacked Mosul last June has resulted in a wave of
sectarian bloodletting and dispossession against the country’s Sunni minority
population, usually at the hands of Iranian-backed Shia militia groups, but
sometimes with the active collusion of the Iraq’s internal security forces. Indeed, just
as news was breaking last week that ISIS’s five-month siege on the Syrian-Turkish
border town Kobane finally had been broken, Reuters reported that in Iraq’s Diyala
province at least 72 “unarmed Iraqis” —all Sunnis—were “taken from their homes by
men in uniform; heads down and linked together, then led in small groups to a field,
made to kneel, and selected to be shot one by one.” Stories such as these out of Iraq have
been frequent albeit under-publicized and reluctantly acknowledged (if at all) by
Washington both before and after Operation Inherent Resolve got underway against
ISIS.”
Analysis: If Iran is committing acts of terror that are considered near on par with ISIL’s
beheadings, but this time the US is endorsing it rather than attempting to work against it, it not
only looks bad for us but also allows the activity to continue to a much greater extent because it
is difficult to go back on the cooperation we would commit to with Iran.
"
Answer: This angers our allies in the region
.
Warrant: Saudi Arabia and other Persian allies are skeptical.
“Beyond that, the closer the United States appears to get to Iran, the more fretful
Sunni Arab allies become. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to
reassure Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states that nuclear negotiations would
not lead the Obama administration to let down its guard against Iranian influence
in the region. But Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, used the opportunity
to complain about the Tikrit operation, saying Iran’s role there was an indication of what
he called Tehran’s “hegemonic” tendencies.”
"
Warrant: Saudi Arabia is concerned Iran is just using this for hegemonic influence, so they’re
concerned Iran will just be seeking more power.
“Beyond that, the closer the United States appears to get to Iran, the more fretful Sunni
Arab allies become. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry sought to reassure Saudi
Arabia and other Persian Gulf states that nuclear negotiations would not lead the Obama
administration to let down its guard against Iranian influence in the region. But Prince
Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, used the opportunity to complain about
the Tikrit operation, saying Iran’s role there was an indication of what he called
Tehran’s “hegemonic” tendencies.”
Analysis: If, in the process of trying to keep our allies safe, they feel less safe and we’re
encouraging instead one of their largest threats in the region to attain more power and influence,
the net effects of our actions are likely not good. In fact, this response turns the Con’s impacts if
the reason we want to stop ISIL is conceded to be to protect our allies in the Middle East because
the very allies we care about are interpreting this change as even worse.
"
CON – Ground Combat Troops Destroy the Environment
Argument: In historical and contemporary examples, American combat missions devastate the
environment local to the mission. Ground troops are trained to ignore environmental protection
norms as they operate in invaded nations. Degradation of the environment can lead to armed
resource conflicts.
Warrant: As seen in Iraq, ground combat presence strains water systems and the surrounding
environment
Dowdeswell, Tracey Leigh and Patricia Hania. “Regulating Water and War in Iraq: A
Dangerous Dark Side of New Governance”. Indiana Journal of Global Legal
Studies. Summer 2014. Web. Accessed 2 Mar 2015.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2979/indjglolegstu.21.2.453?uid=37846&uid=3
739640&uid=2&uid=3&uid=67&uid=37844&uid=62&uid=3739256&sid=21105
998718303
““Today, many communities continue to rely on the Tigris and Euphrates river
system and the marshlands for drinking water, irrigation, and waste management.
n103 Nevertheless, it is not surprising that after numerous armed conflicts these
water resources are showing signs of pollution and ecological stress, in part because
of the use of chemical weapons and munitions, and other toxic war waste lining the
riverbeds and wetlands. Recently, Marshland rehabilitation plans have been put
forward; but a concern exists that the uncontrolled re-flooding might adversely affect
water quality because "toxins from re-flooded soils that are contaminated with
chemicals, mines, and military ordnance" n104 could be released. Scientists have
expressed concerns regarding the impact of this toxic waste upon vulnerable local
communities and an already fragile ecosystem if it is released.””
"
Warrant: This disregard for the environment is intrinsic in ground military missions because
troops are trained to have this mentality
998718303
““Consequently, the military's spent wreckage that now litters Iraq's waterscapes
and countryside has created an insidious environmental legacy for current and
future citizens. In Iraq's military theatre, individual soldiers displayed an apathetic,
disconnected attitude towards environmental protection. With respect to the
discharge of waste in a base camp, a soldier stated: "We are in the desert, what does
it matter?," "The locals don't care, so why should we?," and "We are just passing
through and don't have the time." n111 For a combat soldier, it is reasonable to
expect that this institutionalized attitude of disregard for environmental protection
would naturally be embraced when the bombs begin to drop and bullets zoom by
during chaotic combat. While in-theatre, individual soldiers separate themselves
from the natural environment and any environmental impact of their actions. In
effect, they lack an environmental ethic during armed "contingency operations."
n112””
"
Warrant: Pollution from American military campaigns in Iraq have produced environmental
and health damages
“Environmental Costs”. The Cost of War Project by the Watson Institute at Brown
University. 2011. Web. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.
http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
““During the 1991 aerial campaign over Iraq, the US utilized approximately 340 tons of
missiles containing depleted uranium (DU). Water and soil may be contaminated by
the chemical residue of these weapons, as well as benzene and trichloroethylene
from air base operations. Perchlorate, a toxic ingredient in rocket propellant, is one
of a number of contaminants commonly found in groundwater around munitions
storage sites around the world. The health impact of war-related environmental
exposure remains controversial. Lack of security as well as poor reporting in Iraqi
hospitals have complicated research. Yet, recent studies have revealed troubling trends. A
household survey in Fallujah, Iraq in early 2010 obtained responses to a
questionnaire on cancer, birth defects, and infant mortality. Significantly higher
rates of cancer in 2005-2009 compared to rates in Egypt and Jordan were
found. The infant mortality rate in Fallujah was 80 deaths per 1000 live births,
significantly higher than rates of 20 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 10 in Kuwait. The
ratio of male births to female births in the 0-4 age cohort was 860 to 1000 compared
to the expected 1050 per 1000. [13]””
"
Warrant: The threat of conflict spurred by environmental degradation and the potential damage
from that conflict is momentous
Sunga, Lyal. “Does Climate Change Worsen Resource Scarcity and Cause Violent Ethnic
Conflict”. International Journal on Minority and Group Rights. 2014. Web.
Accessed 2 Mar 2015.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718115-
02101001?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf
““The precise cause, extent or severity of climate change may not be known for certain.
However, the harmful effects of intensified desertification, increased land and sea
temperatures, altered weather patterns and greater frequency of both drought in
dry areas and flooding in coastal and delta areas, as well as the knock-on effects of
increased crop failures, scarcer access to food and water, rampant disease and
malnutrition and lowered health, cannot be denied, and many empirical studies
have noted these impacts. While there seems to be scant evidence that these factors
are linked to an increased likelihood of ethnic conflict in a directly linear causal
sense, the harmful effects of ecological stress more generally on the enjoyment of
human rights, democratic participation and human security have been well
documented by both intergovernmental bodies and in academia, particularly with
regard to marginalised sectors of the population such as women, children, the
elderly, persons with disabilities, disadvantaged ethnic minorities, the poor and
migrants. The precautionary principle reminds us that even if causal connections
cannot be shown with much certainty, and perhaps even unsatisfactorily, it is still
more prudent not to dismiss the possibility entirely where the potential harm is
great, as it is for the onset of ethnic conflict, particularly in underdeveloped regions
where many people live at subsistence level, such as in Darfur, Ethiopia, Rwanda, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad or Somalia.””
"
A2 – Ground Combat Troops Destroy the Environment
Answer: Water insecurity and other environmental concerns can be an impetus for cooperation
between divided states. There are many examples of states coming together in times of resource
crisis despite geopolitical rivalry.
Warrant: Water insecurity can prompt agreements between arguing states
“Global Water Security”. Intelligence Community Assessment from the Defense

Intelligence Agency (US Federal Government). Web. 2 Feb 2012. Accessed 1 Mar
2015.
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/ICA_Global%
20Water%20Security.pdf
““Water challenges have often brought divergent actors together to resolve a

common problem. Once cooperative water agreements are established through treaties,
they are often resilient over time and produce peaceful cooperation, even among
other existing hostilities and contentious issues. [examples:]
• The Mekong Committee, established by Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam
in 1957 exchanged data and information on the river basin throughout the Vietnam
War.
• Israel and Jordan held secret “picnic table” talks to manage the Jordan River
starting in 1953, even though they were officially at war from 1948 until 1994.
• The Indus River Commission survived two major wars between India and
Pakistan. In some cases, joint water governance has created cooperation on broader
issues. Water can serve as a potential entry point for peace and support sustainable
cooperation among nations.””
"
Answer: The Con’s impact of military conflict over resources does not make sense outside of a
structured theoretical scenario. Because nations are rational actors and have much to lose from
military conflict, it is unlikely that resource disputes would escalate.
Warrant: Military conflict over resources is not realistic because it ignores the reality of
decision-making processes
Salehyan, Idean. “From Climate Change to Conflict? No Consensus Yet”. The Journal of
Peace Research. 2008. Web. Accessed 2 Mar 2015.
http://emergingsustainability.org/files/resolver%20climate%20change%20and%2
0conflict.pdf
““Let me be clear: climate change certainly presents a major challenge to economies,

social relations, and livelihoods, and action must be taken quickly to attenuate its
negative impacts and to adapt to this reality. That said, claims of environmental
determinism leading seamlessly from climate change to open warfare are suspect.
The overly structural logic linking climate change to armed conflict ignores human
agency, ingenuity, the potential for technological innovation, and the vital role of
political institutions in managing conflict (or failing to do so). Additionally, ignoring
the role that governments play in managing and redistributing resources, as well as
mediating conflict, leads to incorrect predictions and policy prescriptions, and allows
decision-makers to shift blame for civil wars and grave human rights violations. If
scholars are serious about informing policy debates (see Mack, 2002), then
communicating more effectively with the policy community is critical.””
"
Answer: Entertaining the mindset that resource access will create military conflicts is dangerous
because it encourages circular reasoning. It will enable policymakers to go to use environmental
reasons to go to war while they actually ignore real solutions to recourse scarcity.
Warrant: Securitizing resource access will legitimize unnecessary war
Von Luckea, Franziskus, and Zehra Wellmanna, Thomas Diez. “What’s at Stake in
Securitising Climate Change? Towards a Differentiated”. Geopolitics. 8 Aug
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fgeo20#.VPZpdvnF_UI
““Yet this view has come under increasing pressure. The challenge is both empirical
and normative. Empirically, a 2012 study conducted by the Marshall Institute
concludes that “the climate-security argument is dangerously overstated and
designed to serve a domestic political purpose more than filling a void in strategic
thinking”.7 The linkage between security and climate change may lend
legitimization to the expansion of military activities and budgets while not actually
tackling the root causes of climate change, and it is therefore, in the words of Rita
Floyd, often seen as not being “just” in a normative sense.8 There are also differences
between countries when it comes to the construction of the climate change-security
nexus. Arguments linking climate change to violent conflict and military solutions are
particularly visible in the US-American debate. In contrast, in countries such as
Germany, arguments prevail that favour sustainable, long-term measures, such as the
development of a functioning international climate change regime, the stabilization of
weak states and regions (resilience building) and improved development policies.9””
"
CON – Feeds Islamophobic Narrative
Argument: United States troops on the ground would feed the narrative of the United States
being at war with Islam, harmful both to bringing peace in the region and stopping islamophobia
at home.
Warrant: The United States’ War on Terror often leads to Muslims being perceived as
inherently against American values, and increases the divide between the two cultures.
Stein, Sam. “Islam and the West: Narratives of Conflict and Conflict Transformation.”
International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 9, Number 1, Spring/Summer
2004. <http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol9_1/Funk&Said_91IJPS.pdf>
The idea that the “other” is noteworthy first and foremost as a threat to cherished
values and interests is now firmly established in relations between Western and
Muslim cultures. America’s War on Terrorism, for example, reflects both a
reasonable concern to provide safety for U.S. citizens and a deeply rooted conviction
that the existence of hatred for America has more to do with Islam itself than with
the tragic history of Islam and the West America’s relationships with Arabs and
Middle Eastern Muslims. In the aftermath of September 11, many columnists
interpreted the shocking acts of al Qaeda militants as a confirmation of the “clash of
civilizations” thesis, and mainstream journalistic opinion emphatically denounced
any reflection on the possibility that the attacks on American civilians and
servicemen might have constituted a misguided retaliation for “American sins” in
distant lands. Like the American response to September 11, the Muslim response
has been more emotional than imaginative. Indeed, many Muslims have been more
concerned to deny guilt by association than to transcend an increasingly ominous
pattern of mutual recrimination and political opportunism. While the common
Muslim tendency to view the War on Terrorism as a pretext for their own political
subjugation and defeat is understandable given the hegemonic overtones within
"
American “for us or against us” foreign policy discourse, it also must be recognized
that the pronouncements of Middle Eastern leaders and intellectuals often manifest
a sense of “learned powerlessness” through which options for constructive action
are rejected.
Warrant: This narrative of us vs. them in the context of the American War on Terror is
something that President Obama argues fuels ISIS’ recruiting power.
Chappell Bill [quoting Barack Obama]. “Obama Calls Idea That The West Is At War
With Islam 'An Ugly Lie'.” NPR, February 19 2015.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/19/387519422/obama-calls-the-
idea-that-the-west-is-at-war-with-islam-an-ugly-lie>
Nations need to break the cycles of conflict — especially sectarian conflict — that
are magnets for violent extremism. We have to confront the warped ideologies
espoused by terrorists like al-Qaida and ISIL, especially their attempts to use Islam
to justify their violence. When people, especially young people, feel entirely trapped in
impoverished communities — where there is no order and no path for advancement,
where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support
families and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds
instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment. We
must acknowledge that groups like al-Qaida and ISIL are deliberately targeting
their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth. Muslim
communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push
back — not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are
somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations, that America and the West are
somehow at war with Islam, or seek to suppress Muslims, or that we are the cause of
every ill in the Middle East.
"
Warrant: This narrative allows for home-grown terrorists and for recruiting measures that give
groups like ISIL the capability to commit major terrorist attacks.
Thompson, Steven. “Countering the Narrative: Combating the Ideology of Radical

Islam.” United States Navy, October 2011.
<https://www.usnwc.edu/Lucent/OpenPdf.aspx?id=130>
The Narrative asserts the West is at war to destroy Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda
embraced this ideology and attempted to subvert others to achieve their strategic
end state of restoring the ancient Caliphate over the Islamic world. A Salafi jihad
ideology seeks to purge Islam of outside influence through violent means. While many
Shiite in the Middle East may reject a Sunni Caliphate as the answer to their problems,
faulting the West still resonates among most Muslims. Frustration over corrupt
political leaders and unwanted U.S. presence empowers clerics with credibility. As
scholar Mehrdad Mozayann observes, “Many grievances against the West were
legitimate, but what the new approach entailed was to make it the sole scapegoat for
all existing problems.”4 While not all who subscribe to the Narrative become violent
Islamic extremists, such fertile ground left unattended may cultivate the mere few
radicals necessary to inflict mass destruction on a global scale. This is why additional
efforts to counter the Narrative are critical. Countering such a deeply rooted ideology is
a difficult task. It resonates well beyond just the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Supporters can be found in Indonesia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and
even beyond the borders of these states. Former CIA operative and psychiatrist Marc
Sageman believes the ideology transformed into a social network which is even more
difficult to disrupt. Sageman argues the greatest threat facing the West today comes
from a leaderless jihad, or cells of home-grown Western-born educated Muslims. To
support this claim, compelling evidence and lessons can be found in the story of Maajid
Nawaz.
"
Warrant: This theory is supported empirically, with one study finding that Americans who
support the War on Terror are more likely to be islamophobic.
Sides, John. “Stereotypes of Muslims and Support for the War on Terror.” George
Washington University, 2012. <http://home.gwu.edu/~jsides/muslims.pdf >
A first contribution of this study is to delineate the stereotypes that Americans have of
both Muslims and Muslim-Americans. Many Americans see both Muslims and
Muslim-Americans as violent and untrustworthy—a finding that dovetails with
theories of stereotype content and with depictions of Muslims in the media. Muslims and
Muslim-Americans are denigrated more strongly on the warmth dimension than the other
ethnic groups we examined. Moreover, Americans do not differentiate Muslim-
Americans from Muslims. Muslim-Americans are considered just as violent and
untrustworthy as Muslims, on average. In short, despite attempts by political leaders
to distinguish Muslims who commit violent acts from the vast majority of peaceful
Muslims, and despite favorable depictions of Muslim-Americans in the wake of
September 11, many Americans have derogatory views of Muslims generally and
Muslims in the United States. Our second contribution is to show that attitudes toward
Muslims are associated with support for the War on Terror. This finding helps to
clarify the group-centric nature of public opinion about the War on Terror in important
ways. First, we show that attitudes toward Muslims, not simply a generalized
ethnocentrism, are central. When thinking about the War on Terror, Americans may
not be envisioning an ill-defined enemy but one clearly identified by religion.
Second, we show that specific stereotypes affect attitudes, and in specific ways.
Perceptions of Muslims as violent and untrustworthy are a key ingredient in
support for several aspects of the War on Terror.
"
Warrant: These prejudiced beliefs can manifest in high levels of hate crimes within the United
States.
“FBI: Bias Crimes Against Muslims Remain at High Levels.” Southern Poverty Law
Center. <http://www.splcenter.org/home/2012/spring/fbi-bias-crimes-against-
muslims-remain-at-high-levels>
Hate crimes against perceived Muslims, which jumped 50% in 2010 largely as a result of
anti-Muslim propagandizing, remained at relatively high levels for a second year in 2011,
according to the FBI’s new national hate crime statistics. The bureau reported that
there were 157 anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2011, down very slightly from the 160
recorded in 2010. The 2011 crimes occurred during a period when Islam-bashing
propaganda, which initially took off in 2010, continued and even intensified. The actual
number of reported anti-Muslim hate crimes is small for a country the size of the United
States, but the FBI statistics are known to be notoriously understated, in part
because more than half of hate crimes are never reported to police. Two major
Department of Justice (DOJ) studies have indicated that the real level of hate crimes in
America is some 20 to 30 times higher than the numbers reported over the years by the
FBI, which are simply compilations of state statistics. If the FBI numbers are taken as
only an indicator of larger trends, as seems reasonable given the DOJ studies, the
real number of anti-Muslim hate crimes during 2011 may have been somewhere
between 3,000 and 5,000.
Analysis: This argument is complex and perhaps unique from the typical Public Forum
argument because the link is partially psychological. However, if explained clearly, this can be a
very intuitive argument to go along with more typical PF style contentions. When a country is at
war with something nebulous like terrorism, its constituents need a clear foe. The George
Washington study, along with the hate crime statistics, shows that Americans have found theirs:
Muslims. By putting troops in Iraq to fight ISIL, Americans would yet again be thrown into a
major offensive against the nebulous idea of terrorism, and their stereotypes of what makes a
terrorist would only be enhanced, increasing islamophobia. This would also help the terrorists
with their propaganda to recruit more members if they could show that Americans hate Islam.
This impact is clear and significant, even if not as quantifiable or simple as others on this topic.
"
A2 – Feeds Islamophobic Narrative
Response: Islamophobia is far more strongly tied to terrorist acts than American military force,
so military force to decrease the capacity of terrorist groups like ISIL is actually a better way to
access this impact.
Warrant: The terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris directly led to a massive spike in hate
crimes.
“Over 50 anti-Muslim incidents registered in France after Charlie Hebdo shooting.”

Russia Today, January 13 2015. <http://rt.com/news/221995-france-anti-muslim-
incidents/>
More than 50 anti-Muslim incidents have happened across France – including

shootings – in less than a week since the deadly attack on satirical weekly Charlie
Hebdo, according to the nation's Muslim community, which is calling for heightened
security. Among the 54 anti-Muslim incidents, there have been 21 reports of
shootings and grenade throwing at Islamic buildings, as well as 33 cases of threats
and insults, said Abdallah Zekri, president of the Collective Against Islamophobia in
France (CCIF). CCIF is a monitoring body within the Central Council of Muslims. The
figures were provided by the Interior Ministry, Zekri said, and do not include Paris, its
suburbs, or the Poitiers mosque fire on Sunday. Zekri said he has “never seen” so many
attacks in such a short time, and has called for heightened security at Muslim places
of worship, as well as increased monitoring of social media.
"
Warrant: After 9/11, hate crimes against Muslims increased by 1,700%.
Mussarat Khan. “Attitudes Toward Muslim Americans Post-9/11.” Journal of Muslim

Mental Health, 2012. <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jmmh/10381607.0007.101/--
attitudes-toward-muslim-americans-post-911?rgn=main;view=fulltext>
Following September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported a
1,700 percent increase of hate crimes against Muslim Americans between 2000 to
2001 (Anderson, 2002). During the process of adjusting to the aftermath of
September 11, Muslim Americans faced an upsurge in negative stereotypes
expressed by the larger society (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2003;
Cassel, 2006) and Muslim immigrants, more than any other immigrant group, were
met with negative attitudes (Council of American Islamic Relations, 2003; Saroglou &
Galand, 2004). Since then, increased racial and religious animosity has left Arabs, Middle
Easterners, Muslims, and those who bear stereotyped physical resemblance to members
of these groups, fearful of potential hatred and hostility from persons of other cultures
(Abu-Ras & Suarez, 2009; Baqi-Aziz, 2001; Kira et al., 2010; Rippy & Newman, 2006).
Analysis: This response allows for the Pro side to provide a stronger link into the Con side’s
impact, so debaters on the Pro should feel no need to read statistics on how many hate crimes
exist today or to explain to the judge why hate crimes are so bad and outweigh other harms,
because both teams in the round agree on that. The debate, then, is who accesses that impact.
Using strong statistics like this can at least give the Pro the idea that islamophobia is not only
caused by this alleged false narrative, but it could go so far as to turn the impact to the Pro as
long as the team can prove decreased terrorist attacks with a strong military force to take down
ISIL.
"
Response: The narrative that the US is at war with Islam already exists in the status quo, so the
impact is entirely non-unique.
Warrant: President Obama has declared that the U.S. will destroy ISIS, and the United States
has already killed a significant amount of ISIS militants with a coalition bombing campaign.
Bergen, Pete. “Is U.S. coalition winning war vs. ISIS?” CNN, February 3 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/01/opinion/bergen-state-of-isis/>
Nearly five months ago, President Obama spoke to the nation from the White House
and declared: "Our objective is clear. We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL
(also known as ISIS) through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism
strategy." Since then, the United States has provided advisers to the Iraqi military
in its fight with ISIS and has bombed ISIS positions. But in an interview with CNN
last week, outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel raised the prospect that the United
States might need to expand its involvement. This week, ISIS has again dominated
headlines and TV news coverage around the world with the release of a video allegedly
showing Jordanian pilot Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned alive after being captured by
the group. This followed shortly after the apparent killing of two Japanese hostages. All
of which raises the question: How is ISIS doing as it confronts the U.S.-led military
campaign against it in both Iraq and Syria? And should the United States get more
actively involved on the front lines of the fight, at least in Iraq, where the government is
pushing for greater American involvement in its fight against ISIS? U.S. officials assert
the coalition has killed more than 6,000 ISIS fighters since the start of the campaign.
That's a significant loss when you consider that ISIS currently has a core force of
9,000 to 18,000 fighters, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. U.S. officials also
estimate that ISIS can also draw on manpower from other militant groups to bulk up to a
force of around 30,000.
Analysis: This response should be intuitive; all Pro teams need to do is ask the Con why ground
troops are the turning point for islamophobia. Considering the U.S. is already leading a coalition
bombing campaign and killing thousands of ISIS militants, the narrative of America at war with
Islam exists in the status quo whether troops on the ground are sent to fight or not.
"
CON – Entrenchment of Patriarchy
Argument: Sociopolitical analysis of the American military and broader culture demonstrates a
normative preference for armed conflict over alternative strategies. This preference is rooted in
themes of dominance, misogyny, and unnecessary violence. The Pro advocacy is consistent with
this trend and therefore continues systems that oppress women.
Warrant: The foundation of military service that is reflected in the culture of troops is
intrinsically masculine
Morgan, Erin. “Masculinity and Femininity in the Corps”. Race, Gender & Class
(Journal). 2007. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://genderandsecurity.org/projects-resources/research/masculinity-and-
femininity-corps
““The most interesting result of my research was the realization and affirmation of the
romanticism surrounding military service and warfare. As cited in Facebook groups
and in my interviews and discussions with cadets, there is a strong emotional
resonance among cadets with the idea that military service and participation in
warfare is an honor that "lasts longer than life" (Braudy, 2003:36). This feeling is
one that historically has been associated with men, and one that I had difficulty
finding in female members of the Corps. It seems that "...masculinity particularly
defines itself in a polarized situation, and nowhere better than in a war (and perhaps
marriage) does that polarity seem so clear-cut and natural. Even when there is no
specific enemy and no need to muster opinion through propaganda, the urge to
define masculinity as a special way of being persists" (Braudy, 2003:24). The calling
for many male cadets to West Point is, by personal admittance and group
attribution, a method to connect oneself to "the beautiful days of war" (see
Appendix A) and to pass "...one of the few social initiations that binds together [an]
otherwise wide variety of masculine rites and traditions" (Braudy, 2003:21).””
"
Warrant: Military force is a tool of patriarchal domination
Maxwell, Caitlin. “Moving Beyond Rape as a "Weapon of War": An Exploration of

Militarized Masculinity and its Consequences”. Canadian Woman Studies
(Journal). Winter 2010. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://www.cwscf.ca/womenresistingrape.html
““Now we must take this recognition and extend its reach to the military, and specifically
to militarized violence. Recognizing the military as a key institution in the historical
domination of women is the next step. Of course, broadening the scope of the General
Assembly's critical gaze may prove difficult, given the importance of the military as an
institution to the missions the UN carries out, at least at present. But the more we push
for education and understanding of violent masculine culture, the more we will be
forced to confront the realities of military culture, including those of troop-
contributing countries. Patriarchal institutions, misogynist mentalities, and white
supremacy have underpinned the subordination of women for centuries;
challenging them thus means struggling against the powerful forces of history,
custom, and tradition. Hopefully, the more we progress toward equality, the more we
will realize our need for militarized protection - in the form of domination, weapons,
and violence - is actually counterproductive to the goal of peace, which necessarily
encompasses "women's achievement of control over their lives" and recognizes that
"any such peace is fragile and tentative without the conditions which enable it to be
continually recreated."29””.
"
Warrant: Institutional and interpersonal decisions must be made differently to change the ways
that our government and society facilitate patriarchal goals
Shor, Fran. “Transcending the Myths of Patriotic Militarized Masculinity: Armoring,

Wounding, and Transfiguration in Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July”.
Journal of Men's Studies. 30 Apr 2000. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://men.sagepub.com/content/8/3/375.full.pdf
““To go beyond the residual myths of patriotic militarized masculinity means

transcending the forms of patriotism and war-making embedded in the American
story. Barbara Ehrenreich's (1998) brilliant expose of the interconnections of the
passions of war and American patriotism provide an important starting point to the
revisioning process. As she notes in her conclusion on "Fighting War": "We will need
`armies,' or at least networks of committed activists willing to act in concert when
necessary, to oppose force with numbers, and passion with forbearance and reason"
(p. 240). Both Kovic's autobiography, Born on the Fourth of July, and his continuing
activism against American war-making offer a profile in the kind of courage we, but
especially American men, will need in confronting all those existing systems that
perpetuate narrow national and militaristic mythologies. If we are to transcend and
transform patriotic militarized masculinity for good, and not just temporarily, we
must take seriously Kovic's dedication to challenging those myths, with our bodies
and our minds.””
Analysis: Because this argument is based on the theoretical body of feminist thought, it will be
most effective to debate the impacts of patriarchy and institutionalized sexism at a macro-level;
focus on the institutional, political, and discursive violence that women experience at the hands
of military force. It is also important to recognize that this argument criticizes military force as a
general concept, so it should be used in Con cases that negate the resolution with arguments
against any use of military force against ISIL.
"
A2 – Entrenchment of Patriarchy
Answer: The field of masculinity studies, as it has diverged from feminist scholarship, tends to
make generalizations about the state of masculinity that can set up harmful dichotomies in dialog
about the way that gender influences sociopolitical realities. Failing to address race and class
makes feminist politics less effective.
Warrant: Deductions from cursory studies on masculinity sometimes fail to account for the
intersections of race and class in gender norms
Amar, Paul. “Middle East Masculinity Studies Discourses of "Men in Crisis," Industries
of Gender in Revolution”. Journal of Middle East Women's Studies. Fall 2011.
Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmw/summary/v007/7.3.amar.html
““To date, masculinity studies remains focused on charting the social norms that
characterize subgroups of men, with particular interest in norms that foster
violence, including domestic violence, gang membership, homophobia, terrorism,
and militarism, among others. In a certain light, this agenda can seem
emancipatory, shifting attention from the deviancy of homosexuals or the
marginality of women and turning it toward the constructed nature of masculinized,
heteronormative identities, heterosexual forms of family and social life, and modes
of violence embedded in so-called "normal" male behavior (Kimmel 1994, Kimmel,
Hearn, and Connell 2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) scholars and
feminists have drawn on the literature of masculinity studies in order to shed light
critically on how the norms of heterosexuality and/or homosociality are generated in
relationship to ethnic cultures, territorial identities, and social histories. But the field's
dominant branch still leans toward broad behavioralist generalizations and
therapeutic similes: masculinity as homophobia, masculinity as misogyny,
masculinity as myth. Elaborating psychological or biomedical generalizations, and,
"
delinked from theories of specific social and historical power locations, critical
approaches to masculinity can easily become incorporated within liberal, colonial,
or disciplinary state projects. For example, accounts of masculine norms and
socialization processes that generate domestic violence can be utilized to increase
repressive interventions by the state in racialized and immigrant communities in ways
that increase gendered violence and economic marginality. Studies of male youth self-
organization and militarization can feed the extension of gang injunction legislation,
the mainstreaming of counter insurgency policing policies, and the re-segregation
and re-racialization of social space. Studies of men's homophobia, misogyny, and
harassment behavior can be misused to create gender and class segregation in urban
spaces and workplaces, leading to projects of class and ethnic cleansing that never
resolve root questions of gender and sexual justice.””
Warrant: Intersectionality and transnationalism are especially important in discussions of

gender, the Middle East, and the West because it ensures efficacy and sensitivity
Arat-Koç, Sedef. “(Some) Turkish Transnationalism(S) In An Age Of Capitalist

Globalization And Empire: "White Turk" Discourse, The New Geopolitics, And
Implications For Feminist Transnationalism”. Journal of Middle East Women's
Studies. Winter 2007. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_middle_east_womens_studies/v003/3.1ar
at-koc.pdf
““A regional transnationalism is particularly relevant in regions sharing similar

histories of colonization, racialization, imperial intervention or specific forms of
economic subordination. I believe that in the present world context of Empire and a
post-Cold War geopolitics that interprets the world as being in a "clash of
civilizations" where Islam is the "West's" new enemy, the Middle East and North
Africa are well placed to constitute such a region. Alvarez argues that one of the
greatest advantages of intraregional activism is that it can provide "contextually
appropriate discursive frameworks and organizational practices" and stronger
"
public legitimacy for feminists against charges that feminism is a "foreign import"
(2000, 38-39). While such charges are often dismissed as patriarchally motivated-as they
often are-they may need to be taken seriously in the present geopolitical context,
especially in regions such as the Middle East where discourses of feminism and
human rights are often hijacked by imperial powers.””
Answer: The Con does not address the root cause of institutional violence against women. The
solution to patriarchal dominance must begin on the individual level. Until men and boys learn
and embrace healthier and more benevolent identities and understanding of their masculinity,
there will be no change in the way that institutions function.
Warrant: Movements to end sexism will not work unless they begin with the individual
Hooks, Bell. “Feminism Is For Everybody: Passionate Politics”. South End Press. 2000.
https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-
feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf
““What is and was needed is a vision of masculinity where self-esteem and self-love
of one's unique being forms the basis of identity. Cultures of domination attack self-
esteem, replacing it with a notion that we derive our sense of being from dominion
over another. Patriarchal masculinity teaches men that their sense of self and
identity, their reason for being, resides in their capacity to dominate others. To
change this males must critique and challenge male domination of the planet, of less
powerful men, of women and children. But they must also have a clear vision of what
feminist masculinity looks like. How can you become what you cannot imagine? And
that vision has yet to be made fully clear by feminist thinkers male or female. As is often
the case in revolutionary movements for social justice we are better at naming the
problem than we are at envisioning the solution. We do know that patriarchal
masculinity encourages men to be pathologically narcissistic, infantile, and
"
psychologically dependent on the privileges (however relative) that they receive
simply for having been born male. Many men feel that their lives are being
threatened if these privileges are taken away, as they have structured no meaningful
core identity. That is why the men's movement positively attempted to teach men how to
reconnect with their feelings, to reclaim the lost boy within and nurture his soul, his
spiritual growth.””
Answer: The field of masculinity studies, as it has diverged from feminist scholarship, tends to
make generalizations about the state of masculinity that can set up harmful dichotomies in dialog
about the way that gender influences sociopolitical realities. Failing to address race and class
makes feminist politics less effective.
Warrant: Deductions from cursory studies on masculinity sometimes fail to account for the
intersections of race and class in gender norms
Amar, Paul. “Middle East Masculinity Studies Discourses of "Men in Crisis," Industries
of Gender in Revolution”. Journal of Middle East Women's Studies. Fall 2011.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jmw/summary/v007/7.3.amar.html
““To date, masculinity studies remains focused on charting the social norms that
characterize subgroups of men, with particular interest in norms that foster
violence, including domestic violence, gang membership, homophobia, terrorism,
and militarism, among others. In a certain light, this agenda can seem
emancipatory, shifting attention from the deviancy of homosexuals or the
marginality of women and turning it toward the constructed nature of masculinized,
heteronormative identities, heterosexual forms of family and social life, and modes
of violence embedded in so-called "normal" male behavior (Kimmel 1994, Kimmel,
Hearn, and Connell 2003). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) scholars and
feminists have drawn on the literature of masculinity studies in order to shed light
critically on how the norms of heterosexuality and/or homosociality are generated in
"
relationship to ethnic cultures, territorial identities, and social histories. But the field's
dominant branch still leans toward broad behavioralist generalizations and
therapeutic similes: masculinity as homophobia, masculinity as misogyny,
masculinity as myth. Elaborating psychological or biomedical generalizations, and,
delinked from theories of specific social and historical power locations, critical
approaches to masculinity can easily become incorporated within liberal, colonial,
or disciplinary state projects. For example, accounts of masculine norms and
socialization processes that generate domestic violence can be utilized to increase
repressive interventions by the state in racialized and immigrant communities in ways
that increase gendered violence and economic marginality. Studies of male youth self-
organization and militarization can feed the extension of gang injunction legislation,
the mainstreaming of counter insurgency policing policies, and the re-segregation
and re-racialization of social space. Studies of men's homophobia, misogyny, and
harassment behavior can be misused to create gender and class segregation in urban
spaces and workplaces, leading to projects of class and ethnic cleansing that never
resolve root questions of gender and sexual justice.””
Warrant: Intersectionality and transnationalism are especially important in discussions of

gender, the Middle East, and the West because it ensures efficacy and sensitivity
Arat-Koç, Sedef. “(Some) Turkish Transnationalism(S) In An Age Of Capitalist

Globalization And Empire: "White Turk" Discourse, The New Geopolitics, And
Implications For Feminist Transnationalism”. Journal of Middle East Women's
Studies. Winter 2007. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_middle_east_womens_studies/v003/3.1ar
at-koc.pdf
““A regional transnationalism is particularly relevant in regions sharing similar

histories of colonization, racialization, imperial intervention or specific forms of
economic subordination. I believe that in the present world context of Empire and a
post-Cold War geopolitics that interprets the world as being in a "clash of
"
civilizations" where Islam is the "West's" new enemy, the Middle East and North
Africa are well placed to constitute such a region. Alvarez argues that one of the
greatest advantages of intraregional activism is that it can provide "contextually
appropriate discursive frameworks and organizational practices" and stronger
public legitimacy for feminists against charges that feminism is a "foreign import"
(2000, 38-39). While such charges are often dismissed as patriarchally motivated-as they
often are-they may need to be taken seriously in the present geopolitical context,
especially in regions such as the Middle East where discourses of feminism and
human rights are often hijacked by imperial powers.””
Answer: The Con does not address the root cause of institutional violence against women. The
solution to patriarchal dominance must begin on the individual level. Until men and boys learn
and embrace healthier and more benevolent identities and understanding of their masculinity,
there will be no change in the way that institutions function.
Warrant: Movements to end sexism will not work unless they begin with the individual
Hooks, Bell. “Feminism Is For Everybody: Passionate Politics”. South End Press. 2000.
https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-
feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf
““What is and was needed is a vision of masculinity where self-esteem and self-love
of one's unique being forms the basis of identity. Cultures of domination attack self-
esteem, replacing it with a notion that we derive our sense of being from dominion
over another. Patriarchal masculinity teaches men that their sense of self and
identity, their reason for being, resides in their capacity to dominate others. To
change this males must critique and challenge male domination of the planet, of less
powerful men, of women and children. But they must also have a clear vision of what
feminist masculinity looks like. How can you become what you cannot imagine? And
"
that vision has yet to be made fully clear by feminist thinkers male or female. As is often
the case in revolutionary movements for social justice we are better at naming the
problem than we are at envisioning the solution. We do know that patriarchal
masculinity encourages men to be pathologically narcissistic, infantile, and
psychologically dependent on the privileges (however relative) that they receive
simply for having been born male. Many men feel that their lives are being
threatened if these privileges are taken away, as they have structured no meaningful
core identity. That is why the men's movement positively attempted to teach men how to
reconnect with their feelings, to reclaim the lost boy within and nurture his soul, his
spiritual growth.””
"
CON – Fossil Fuel Consumption
Argument: Ground combat missions require inordinate amounts of fossil fuels. Not only does
this rapid consumption of natural resources put a significant financial burden on the United
States, it also contributes to growing reliance on non-renewable energy sources.
Warrant: Ground troops require large amounts of fossil fuels
“Environmental Costs”. The Cost of War Project by the Watson Institute at Brown
University. 2011. Web. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.
http://costsofwar.org/article/environmental-costs
““Even setting aside the accelerated operational tempo of wartime, the Department of
Defense has been the country’s single largest consumer of fuel, using about 4.6
billion gallons of fuel each year.[1] Military vehicles consume petroleum-based fuels
at an extremely high rate: an M-1 Abrams tank can get just over a half mile on a gallon
of fuel per mile or use about 300 gallons during eight hours of operation.[2] Bradley
Fighting Vehicles consume about 1 gallon per mile driven. War accelerates fuel use. By
one estimate, the U.S. military used 1.2 million barrels of oil in Iraq in just one
month of 2008.[3] This high rate of fuel use over non-wartime conditions has to do
in part with the fact that fuel must be delivered to vehicles in the field by other
vehicles, using fuel. One military estimate in 2003 was that two-thirds of the Army’s
fuel consumption occurred in vehicles that were delivering fuel to the battlefield.[4]
The military vehicles used in both Iraq and Afghanistan produced many hundreds
of thousands of tons of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and sulfur
dioxide in addition to CO2. In addition, the allied bombing campaign of a variety of
toxics-releasing sites such as ammunition depots, and the intentional setting of oil
fires by Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to air, soil, and
water pollution.[5].””
"
Warrant: Burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change
Justus, John R. and Susan R. Fletcher. “Global Climate Change”. Congressional

Research Service. 12 May 2006 Web. Accessed 2 Mar 2015.
http://nnsa.energy.gov/sites/default/files/nnsa/10-12-
multiplefiles/154_Justus%20and%20Fletcher%202006%20Global%20Climate%2
0Change.pdf
““A large number of scientists believe that human activities, which have increased
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 35% from preindustrial values of
280 parts per million (ppm) to 378 ppm over the past 150 years, are leading to an increase
in global average temperatures. Global temperatures have already risen 0.6o C (0.9o F) in
the last 100 years, and, according to model projections, might rise anywhere from as little
as 1.8o C to as much as 7.1o C (2.7o F to 10.7o F) over the next 100 years. However, the
science of “global warming” is not without challengers, who argue that scientific proof is
incomplete or contradictory, and that there remain many uncertainties about the nature
and direction of Earth’s climate. Nevertheless, there is significant concern that human
activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, industrial production, deforestation,
and certain land-use practices are increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide (CO2) that, along with increasing concentrations of other trace gases such as
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), may be leading to changes in the chemical
composition and physical dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere, including how
heat/energy is distributed between the land, ocean, atmosphere and space.””
"
Warrant: The Department of Defense must allocate large portions of their budget to energy and
fuel
Energy Briley, Emily. “How America's Military is Helping America with Renewable”.
La Prensa San Diego. 11 Nov 2011. Web. Accessed 3 Mar 2015. http://laprensa-
sandiego.org/editorial-and-commentary/commentary/how-america%E2%80%99s-
military-is-helping-america-with-renewable-energy/
““Economically speaking, the total energy budget for the Department of Defense
(inclusive of domestic and international installations and operations) ebbs and flows
around $20 billion. Every $10 increase in price per barrel on the world market
equates to an additional annual departmental energy cost of $1.3 billion. Many
technologies being implemented at Forward Operating Bases, where the real human
life savings will be realized, simply rely on the sun rising in the East - and last I
checked there isn't an OPEC authorizing international agency that regulates
worldwide "sun" prices.””
"
A2 – Fossil Fuel Consumption
Answer: The Army is trying to reduce their energy use in the status quo.
Warrant: The Army plans to reduce the amount of fossil fuels they use during in-theater combat
missions
Barrow, Allison. “Army fuel reformation looks to increase efficiency, save lives”. The
US Army. 25 Feb 2014. Web. Accessed 2 Mar 2015.
http://www.army.mil/article/120743/Army_fuel_reformation_looks_to_increase_
efficiency__save_lives/
““To combat this problem, scientists and engineers from the U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering Command are working to lessen the reliance on fuel
truck convoys by reducing the amount of military fuel, called Jet Propellant 8, or
JP-8, the Army needs in theater and improving the efficiency of its use. One way
they are doing this is through reforming JP-8 so that it can be used in efficient
portable energy systems, like fuel cells and other novel power sources, which
primarily operate on hydrogen or other cleaner fuels. "The goal is to take the logistic
fuel that's already all over the battlefield, that's there and available to the Soldiers, and
convert it to something that can be used in smaller and renewable systems," said Steve
Slane, RDECOM's communications-electronics center, or CERDEC, Command, Power
and Integration Directorate, Power Generation and Alternative Energy Branch chief.””
"
Warrant: The Army has reduced the amount of fuel and automobiles they use
Vergun, David. “Gas guzzlers disappearing from Army's shrinking fleet”. The US Army.
5 Dec 2012. Web. Accessed 2 Mar 2015. http://www.army.mil/article/92380/
““As for gas guzzlers, Moscatelli said that there are a lot fewer of them as the Army
turns to smaller, more efficient vehicles, including high-mileage gas or diesel, hybrid
and electric. Large sedans and sport utility vehicles are restricted and require
individual approval based on mission requirements. The cost of buying, leasing and
maintaining the fleet has dropped significantly as well. The Army's annual vehicle
budget is now about $200 million a year, down from about $251 million in that peak year
of 2009, he said. The declines in cost, number of vehicles and the increase in fuel
efficiencies are especially significant, Moscatelli said, because the Army is the second-
largest user of commercial vehicles in the federal government, surpassed only by the U.S.
Postal Service. The push for more efficient vehicles started in 2008, he said, when the
Army began requiring commands to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles than the ones being
replaced.””
"
Warrant: Military innovations that use less fuel benefit the economy and troop safety
Energy Briley, Emily. “How America's Military is Helping America with Renewable”.
La Prensa San Diego. 11 Nov 2011. Web. Accessed 3 Mar 2015. http://laprensa-
sandiego.org/editorial-and-commentary/commentary/how-america%E2%80%99s-
military-is-helping-america-with-renewable-energy/
“”Antibiotics, jet travel, the Internet and GPS. Those are just a few things made
possible by military investments that paved the way for mainstream commercial
applications benefiting millions of Americans. The same process is going on with the
military and renewable energy. And what makes the process today all the more
beneficial is the human lives saved and economic gain implementing renewable
energy technologies can achieve. A new report prepared for the Civil Society Institute
(CSI) shows that the Department of Defense has served as an incubator for some of our
most important technologies. The CSI report - "Department of Defense: Renewable
Energy & Tech Transfer" - had a collection of interesting findings, and framed the
discussion of renewable energy in a different and distinct light. This "plus" for the
American economy is significant, but the military's groundbreaking focus on
renewable energy also keeps Americans serving in combat safer. Transport lines -
or convoy routes - required for fossil-fuel energy options are a prime target for
enemy attacks and a source of troop deaths. Shipments are, on average, 50 percent
fuel, 20 percent bottled water and 30 percent other necessary items, including
munitions. According to an Army report published in 2007, there was one casualty
per every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan and one casualty for every 39 fuel convoys
in Iraq.””
"
CON – Drones are a better alternative
Argument: Because the military has a limited capacity to act, it should prefer using the money
and resources that the Pro says should be put towards ground troops towards drone use instead,
as they can more efficiently combat ISIL.
Warrant: Drones are cheap
McLean, Wayne. "Drones Are Cheap, Soldiers Are Not: A Cost-benefit Analysis of
War." The Conversation. The Conversation US Inc, 25 June 2014. Web. 02 Mar.
2015. <http://theconversation.com/drones-are-cheap-soldiers-are-not-a-cost-
benefit-analysis-of-war-27924>.
“These basic principals are visible in the emergence of drones. For example, according to
the American Security Project, unclassified reports show that the MQ-9 Reaper drone
used for attacks in Pakistan has a single unit cost of US$6.48 million and an operational
cost of close to US$3 million. This latter figure is deceptive, however, as a full drone
“system” requires a larger infrastructure to operate. Therefore, a typical reaper drone in a
group of four on an active mission requires two active pilots, a ground station, and a
secured data link. However, even with this significant infrastructure requirement the
end cost is US$3250 per hour of flight time.”
"
Warrant: Cost in military missions matters a lot.
“Cost is largely absent in the key debates around the use of unmanned drones in war,
even though drones are a cost-effective way of achieving national security objectives.
Many of the common objections to drones, such as their ambiguous place in humanitarian
law, become second-tier issues when the cost benefits are laid out. For strategic military
planners, cost efficiencies mean that economic outputs can be more effectively
translated into hard military power. This means that good intentions concerned with
restricting the use of drones are likely to remain secondary. This pattern of cost-
trumping-all has historical precedents. The cheap English longbow rendered the
expensive (but “honourable”) horse-and-knight combination redundant in the 14th
century. Later, the simple and cost-effective design of the machine gun changed
centuries of European military doctrine in just a few years.”
Warrant: Drones are preferable to soldiers in the conflict context of the middle east.
“While drones will never completely replace soldiers, this debate is becoming less
important in the current strategic climate. The operating environments where drones
are deployed – countries such as Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen – do not emphasize
“hearts and minds” strategies where the human element has traditionally been
"
valued as a force multiplier. Instead, objectives in these countries involve attacks on
specific individuals, with operational data obtained by signal intelligence
beforehand. Human contact becomes even less desirable given that a key tactic of
combatants in these weak states is attrition with the aim of creating low-level civil
conflicts. The end goal of these actions is to inflict high economic costs to the adversary.
As a result, this remote and analytical method of engaging militarily leads to
substantial cost efficiencies.”
Warrant: Soldiers are extremely expensive.
“While military budgets get smaller, the cost of the human soldier remains
expensive. For example, each US solider deployed in Afghanistan in 2012 cost the
government US$2.1 million. These costs are only part of the picture, though. Thanks to
medical advances, soldiers are now more likely to survive catastrophic battleground
injuries than in the past. For instance, during the Iraq and Afghan operations there were
seven injuries to each fatality compared to 2.3 in World War Two and 3.8 in World War
One. This increasing likelihood of survival means a greater need for long-term support of
veterans. US operations in the Middle East over the past 13 years have resulted in 1558
major limb amputations and 118,829 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. There have
also been 287,911 episodes of traumatic brain injury, often caused by a soldier’s close
proximity to mortar attacks.”
!
!
!
"
Warrant: In light of cost differences, drones are more economically efficient than soldiers.
“When these costs are combined, future medical outlay for veterans of the Iraq and
Afghan missions are estimated to be US$836.1 billion. In this context, the benefits of
solider-less modes of operation to military planners are clear.”
Warrant: Drones mean that we don’t need to send men and women in to be killed by roadside
bombs and ground threats.
Coughlin, Con. "Drones Are Gruesome, but Would We Prefer Boots on the
Ground?" The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 07 Feb. 2013. Web. 02 Mar.
2015. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9855577/Drones-are-
gruesome-but-would-we-prefer-boots-on-the-ground.html>.
“But at a time when Western governments are increasingly reluctant to commit combat
troops, we are becoming ever more reliant on aerial robots to do the job for us. Rather
than sending our young men and women to risk being killed or maimed by roadside
bombs, it is easier to vaporise the enemy with a well-directed Hellfire missile.”
"
Warrant: Drones kill less civilians than ground troops, and keep those troops safe.
Weiner, Robert, and Tom Sherman. "Drones Spare Troops, Have Powerful Impact." U-T
San Diego. The San Diego Union Tribune, 09 Oct. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/09/drones-troops-impact/>.
“A note from Osama bin Laden discovered at his Abbottabad residence by U.S. Seal
Team Six during the U.S. raid on May 2, 2011, revealed, “Brothers said they were
frankly exhausted from the enemy’s air bombardments.” Osama bin Laden hated drones,
because they work. Drones save American troops from risk of death, kill far fewer
civilians than ground troops operations, and make our military more effective
against enemy combatants.”
Warrant: Drones have been used successfully against ISIL.
Carter, Chelsea, Tom Cohen, and Barbara Starr. "U.S. Jet Fighters, Drones Strike ISIS
Fighters, Convoys in Iraq - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 9 Aug. 2014.
Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/iraq-options/>.
“U.S. fighter jets and drones repeatedly bombed Sunni Islamic extremists in
northern Iraq on Friday, targeting what officials described as ISIS artillery units
and convoys advancing on the Kurdish regional capital of Irbil. The airstrikes ramped
up America's involvement in Iraq where ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State, is
seizing control of towns and key infrastructure in an advance that has forced hundreds of
thousands to run for their lives.”
"
Warrant: Drones have combatted ISIS in Iraq in the past.
Carter, Chelsea, Tom Cohen, and Barbara Starr. "U.S. Jet Fighters, Drones Strike ISIS
Fighters, Convoys in Iraq - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 9 Aug. 2014.
Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/iraq-options/>.
“Two U.S. F/A 18 fighters first struck an ISIS artillery unit outside of Irbil, dropping two
500-pound laser-guided bombs at about 6:45 a.m. ET Friday, Pentagon spokesman Navy
Rear Adm. John Kirby said. Later, a drone targeted an ISIS mortar position, Kirby
said. When ISIS fighters returned to the site a short time later, the drone struck the
target again, he said. That was followed a short time later by a second round of
airstrikes, carried out by four U.S. fighter jets, that targeted an ISIS convoy of seven
vehicles and another mortar position, Kirby said.”
Warrant: Drones are the US’s preferred weapon in of the fight against ISIS in light of its use.
Tucker, Patrick. "White House Wants More Reaper Drones To Fight ISIS."Defense One.
National Journal Group Inc, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/white-house-wants-more-
reaper-drones-fight-isis/104340/>.
“President Barack Obama today requested a healthy increase in the number of MQ-9
Reaper drones that the Pentagon will purchase next year, further reversing the brief trend
in fewer drone purchases. The numbers show that the Reaper is becoming the
military’s favorite weapon in its fight against ISIS.”
"
Warrant: Civilian casualties have dropped significantly for drone strikes because of new
regulations and technology.
Bergen, Peter. "Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes - CNN.com."CNN. Cable

News Network, 14 July 2012. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/>.
“Today, for the first time, the estimated civilian death rate is at or close to zero.
Over the life of the drone program in Pakistan, which began with a relatively small
number of strikes between 2004 and 2007, the estimated civilian death rate is 16%. And
in the Obama administration, between 1,507 and 2,438 people have been killed in drone
strikes. Of those, 148 to 309, or between 10% and 12%, were civilians, according to the
New America Foundation data. The drop in the number of civilian casualties since
2008 came as a result of several developments, one of which was a directive issued
from the White House just days after President Obama took office, to tighten up the way
the CIA selected targets and carried out strikes. Specifically, Obama wanted to
evaluate and sign off personally on any strike if the agency did not have a "near
certainty" that it would result in zero civilian casualties. The CIA began utilizing smaller
munitions for more pinpoint strikes. And drones can now linger for longer periods of
time over targets, ascertaining whether civilians are around the target area, than
was the case several years ago. The drone program has also come under increasing
congressional oversight in the past couple of years, a layer of accountability that one
former CIA official said was unheard-of when he left the agency in 2009.”
"
A2 – Drones are a better alternative
Answer: Civilian causalities will result from drones.
Warrant: ISIS works in heavily populated areas.
Harress, Christopher. "What The US Campaign Against ISIS May Look Like: Jets,
Drones, Special Forces, And Allies." International Business Times. N.p., 11 Sept.
2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/what-us-campaign-against-
isis-may-look-jets-drones-special-forces-allies-1686074>.
“But both drones and manned aircraft would face a problem: the risk of civilian
casualties. ISIS is not like a typical enemy force that has distinct bases and can be
easily identified as a military force among civilians. Early reports have indicated
that ISIS is operating in heavily populated areas; according to Carafano it would be
very difficult to identify ISIS leaders and their strongholds by only using drones, and
even more difficult to take out ISIS leadership without using special forces, otherwise the
U.S. would risk civilian deaths. That job would fall increasingly to Syrian rebels fighting
ISIS, as well as the government of President Bashar Assad, with growing American and
coalition support.”
Warrant: Special Forces (ground troops) are needed to avoid civilian deaths.
Harress, Christopher. "What The US Campaign Against ISIS May Look Like: Jets,
Drones, Special Forces, And Allies." International Business Times. N.p., 11 Sept.
2014. Web. 02 Mar. 2015. <http://www.ibtimes.com/what-us-campaign-against-
isis-may-look-jets-drones-special-forces-allies-1686074>.
“But both drones and manned aircraft would face a problem: the risk of civilian
casualties. ISIS is not like a typical enemy force that has distinct bases and can be easily
"
identified as a military force among civilians. Early reports have indicated that ISIS is
operating in heavily populated areas; according to Carafano it would be very difficult to
identify ISIS leaders and their strongholds by only using drones, and even more
difficult to take out ISIS leadership without using special forces, otherwise the U.S.
would risk civilian deaths. That job would fall increasingly to Syrian rebels fighting
ISIS, as well as the government of President Bashar Assad, with growing American and
coalition support.”
Warrant: Over 2,400 people have died from US Drone Strikes.
Sledge, Matt. "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2013. Web. 23 Feb. 2015.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-
anniversary_n_4654825.html>.
“The U.S. drone program under President Barack Obama reached its fifth anniversary on
Thursday having tallied up an estimated death toll of at least 2,400 people. As the Bureau
of Investigative Journalism, a U.K.-based non-profit, details on its website, five years ago
the CIA conducted the first drone strikes of the Obama presidency. Although there were
reports of suspected "militants" killed, at least 14 civilians also died that day.
Warrant: Private firms put the civilian death rate at near 80%.
Bergen, Peter. "Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes - CNN.com."CNN. Cable

News Network, 14 July 2012. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/opinion/bergen-civilian-casualties/>.
“That is far below the civilian death rate that the Pakistani government and other private
research groups such as Pakistan Body Count have claimed. A report released by
Pakistani authorities in 2010 estimated that for every militant killed in a drone
"
strike in 2009, 140 Pakistani civilians also died, and that the civilian casualty rate
for that year was more than 90%. And Pakistan Body Count's ongoing tally
estimates the civilian casualty rate over the life of the drone campaign to be between
75% and 80%.”
Analysis: If drone strikes are killing more civilians than terrorists, we can’t expect them to be
effective in the fight against ISIL, especially considering the unique aspects of ISIL that would
make those same problems of inaccuracy that we saw in Pakistan much worse, like the fact that
ISIL is generally more based in heavily populated towns and is more decentralized. Instead, the
human body count that would result from unregulated strikes would far outweigh any benefits
the Con claims they might achieve. Ground troops can much more easily distinguish between a
terrorist and civilian.
Answer: Drones can’t be used effectively against ISIS.
Warrant: The US does not have enough drone pilots.
Tucker, Patrick. "White House Wants More Reaper Drones To Fight ISIS."Defense One.
National Journal Group Inc, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/white-house-wants-more-
reaper-drones-fight-isis/104340/>.
“But will a few extra drones be enough to help Kurdish, Iraqi and moderate Syrian
opposition forces to defeat ISIS? Scharre expressed skepticism. The problem with the
military’s drone capabilities isn’t a lack of equipment but a lack of manpower.
“Increasing medium-altitude ISR is the right move, but this modest bump still won’t
come close to meeting demand. The main limitation is personnel, not platforms. In
order to address the widening gap between supply and demand, the Department of
Defense will have to take steps to alleviate its personnel problems,” says Scharre. The
Air Force has taken a few steps to address the problem. In January, Air Force Secretary
"
Deborah Lee James announced a big jump in incentive pay, from $650 per month to
$1,500 per month, in order to make the job of drone piloting and image analysis more
appealing. But it remains a tough job, often requiring pilots to work more than 14
hours a day. It’s also a very specialized skill. Upward mobility for drone operators
within the military is extremely limited. That’s not the case everywhere. The private
sector could begin to siphon trained pilots away from the military as early as this
year, especially if the FAA passes a law mandating that commercial drone pilots
have licenses, which is what many expect to happen.”
Analysis: If the US doesn’t have enough drone pilots to use the drones they are purchasing, then
they cannot be used effectively to combat ISIL. In fact, drones can instead be seen as very
inefficient when it comes to cost then as we are constructing UAV’s that quite literally cannot be
flown unless we fix the personnel problem first.
Answer: Drones create more terrorists.
Warrant: When civilians die from drone strikes, family members and locals are angry and
become terrorists.
Akbar, Shahzad. "Caught in the Middle of a Drone War; Are Targeted Killings
Effective?" CNN. Cable News Network, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/12/cg.02.html>.
“Drones are creating not just one generation, but generations of Jihadists because if
you kill a father, his son will come and then if you kill the son his grandson will
come and this is what is happening.”
"
Warrant: Strikes result in more attacks that are also more fatal.
Morehouse, Matthew A. "Hellfire and Grey Drones: An Empirical Examination of the

Effectiveness of Targeted Killings." University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 1 May
2011. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticl
e%3D1007%26context%3Dpoliscitheses>.
“Secondly, it appears that Ramadan has no influence upon the number of terrorist attacks
and fatalities from terrorist attacks. Thirdly, it appears that terrorist attacks and fatalities
from terrorist attacks are more likely to happen under the Obama administration than
under the Bush administration. Finally, it appears that increases in the number of
targeted killings result in increases in both the numbers of terrorist attacks and the
numbers of fatalities from such attacks.”
Warrant: Drones radicalize the population and make locals think America is waging a war
against Muslims.
Beaumont, Peter, and Saeed Shah. "US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Claiming Many
Civilian Victims, Says Campaigner." The Guardian. N.p., 17 July 2011. Web. 2
Mar. 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2011%2Fjul%2F17%2F
us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan>.
“According to Noor Behram, the strikes not only kill the innocent but injure untold
numbers and radicalise the population. "There are just pieces of flesh lying around
after a strike. You can't find bodies. So the locals pick up the flesh and curse
America. They say that America is killing us inside our own country, inside our own
homes, and only because we are Muslims. "The youth in the area surrounding a strike
gets crazed. Hatred builds up inside those who have seen a drone attack. The Americans
"
think it is working, but the damage they're doing is far greater." Even when the drones hit
the right compound, the force of the blast is such that neighbours' houses, often made of
baked mud, are also demolished, crushing those inside, said Noor Behram. One of the
photographs shows a tangle of debris he said were the remains of five houses blitzed
together.”
Analysis: If drone strikes result in more terrorism and incentive more anti-American sentiment,
there is no reason to pursue such a program, especially when the alternative of boots on the
ground does not lead to the same civilian casualties and allows for real human contact with the
innocents, showing them that we mean to help and not to destroy. The con team, in advocating
for drone strikes, is going to just create an even larger problem.
"
CON – Iraq needs a better government, not military intervention
Argument: ISIL cannot be defeated by ground troops. Rogue organizations fighting on the basis
of ideals can survive even if a few US troops shoot at them – instead a better government and
new legal infrastructure should be encouraged to solve the problem.
Warrant: Ground troops won’t eliminate ISIL
Linetsky, Zuri. "ISIL, Iraq and Syria: Why Military Action Won't Do The Trick."The
American Prospect. N.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://prospect.org/article/isil-iraq-and-syria-why-military-action-
won%E2%80%99t-do-trick>.
“Neither inaction nor American military action will ultimately destroy ISIL. U.S.
airpower may succeed in eliminating ISIL’s heavy armaments and dispersing its
forces, but will not eliminate the organization. A clear strategy focused on building
Iraq’s capacity for good governance as well as diplomatic support for Iraq buoyed by
U.S. military power is necessary to defeat ISIL.”
Warrant: Instead of troops, developments of institutions can solve ISIL.
“Neither inaction nor American military action will ultimately destroy ISIL. U.S.
airpower may succeed in eliminating ISIL’s heavy armaments and dispersing its forces,
but will not eliminate the organization. A clear strategy focused on building Iraq’s
capacity for good governance as well as diplomatic support for Iraq buoyed by U.S.
"
military power is necessary to defeat ISIL. Most critically the U.S. must continue
supporting Iraq diplomatically. The U.S. must help build up Iraqi political,
economic, and social institutions in order to facilitate good governance. Only
functioning and representative institutions can compete with these quasi-state
institutions.”
Warrant: Quasi-states like ISIL can’t be fought by military operations, and militaries can create
the poblems.
“As well, military operations—such as air strikes—against quasi-state entities are

largely ineffective. Traditional military operations, including missile strikes, U.S.
special forces raids, and conventional NATO missions failed to eliminate the
Taliban or al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, as a direct result of these
military operations the Taliban and al-Qaeda reconstituted themselves as insurgent
forces that still fight today. A renewed insurgency in Iraq, led by ISIL, is a potential
byproduct of ongoing American military operations there.”
"
Warrant: ISIL is setting up its own governing institutions.
“Currently, ISIL controls one of Iraq’s largest oil refineries (in Baiji), in addition to other
large oil fields. Estimates put ISIL’s strength at between 15,000 and 25,000 fighters, with
a daily income of between one and four million dollars from black-market oil sales. Most
important, as Charles C. Caris and Samuel Reynolds have reported, “ISIS has built a
holistic system of governance that includes religious, educational, judicial, security,
humanitarian, and infrastructure projects.” ISIL generally builds courts when first
entering an area, as these are the least foreign to the population, and after militarily
consolidating an area, it moves towards stricter religious rule and education.
Additionally, ISIL offers humanitarian aid, food-stuffs, as well as water and electricity
repair (through its military successes it has acquired the necessary heavy equipment to fix
water and power lines). It is critical to note, however, that this new system of governance
is specific to Iraq’s Sunni population. Non-Sunni Muslims, other ethno-religious groups,
former government officials and uncooperative Sunnis, are threatened, coerced or killed
in an effort to ensure their compliance with ISIL rule. By way of example, ISIL issued an
ultimatum to Christians in Mosul: convert, pay a religious tax (jizya), or die. As a result
non-Sunni ethnic and religious groups flee areas that have come under ISIL control or are
threatened by ISIL.”
"
Warrant: Quasi-States can adapt to military defeat, so government reform is needed.
“After 35 years of experience in dealing with quasi-states, it’s time for the U.S. to heed
the lessons it should have learned. Institutional design and maintenance is the key to
preventing the resurgence of quasi-states, not military action. While military might may
be helpful in the short-term, quasi-states have demonstrated an ability to adapt to
military defeat. In order to root them out better options need to be offered to the
population. Baghdad has remained safe from ISIL advances is because the Iraqi state is
strongest there; similarly it took a yearlong siege for the Taliban to take Kabul in 1996.
Extending governance from the center of a state towards its periphery and making the
state more inclusive, for Sunnis as well as Kurds is the only long-term answer to actually
“destroying” the threat from the ISIL quasi-state. For this the U.S. requires local,
regional, and international support. The best option for the U.S. in the current conflict is
to guide international support, and only deploy military force when absolutely
necessary.”
"
Warrant: The only real way to beat Quasi-states in the long term is institutionally, not
militarily.
“After 35 years of experience in dealing with quasi-states, it’s time for the U.S. to
heed the lessons it should have learned. Institutional design and maintenance is the
key to preventing the resurgence of quasi-states, not military action. While military
might may be helpful in the short-term, quasi-states have demonstrated an ability to adapt
to military defeat. In order to root them out better options need to be offered to the
population. Baghdad has remained safe from ISIL advances is because the Iraqi state is
strongest there; similarly it took a yearlong siege for the Taliban to take Kabul in 1996.
Extending governance from the center of a state towards its periphery and making
the state more inclusive, for Sunnis as well as Kurds is the only long-term answer to
actually “destroying” the threat from the ISIL quasi-state. For this the U.S. requires
local, regional, and international support. The best option for the U.S. in the current
conflict is to guide international support, and only deploy military force when
absolutely necessary.”
"
Warrant: Strong legal institutions are extremely helpful for stopping terrorism.
Assisting States to Provide a Criminal Justice Response to Terrorism. Vienna, Austria:

Terrorism Prevention Branch, United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime
Prevention, Vienna International Centre, 2000.United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime. United Nations - Terrorism Prevention Branch. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.unodc.org/documents/middleeastandnorthafrica//terrorism/TPB_leaf
let_work_A4_.pdf>.
“Experience has shown that no country is immune to terrorism, irrespective of the

political structure or level of development. Both national action and international
cooperation are therefore central to any effort to address this global threat. A key
element is to strengthen the capacity of national criminal justice systems to bring
perpetrators to justice in compliance with the international legal regime against
terrorism and the rule of law.”
Warrant: Better statehood and accountability helps stop ISIL
Sullivan, Kevin. "Can We Stop the Islamist Army of Terror?" Real Clear World.
RealClearWorld, 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/02/20/can_we_stop_the_army_of_t
error_110986-2.html>.
“Harf's comments, though inexact and ill-timed, were not entirely without merit.
Dissatisfaction with government runs rampant throughout the Middle East, and the
prisons of U.S.-backed regimes in the region - from Abdel Fatah al-Sisi's Egypt to the
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - are filled with dissidents and Islamists. The false choice
between anarchy and autocracy has limited American options in the region, and, as
Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution posits, it has removed a viable option for
reconciling Islam with governance in the region. "If ISIS and what will surely be a
"
growing number of imitators are to be defeated," argues Hamid, "then statehood -
and, more importantly, states that are inclusive and accountable to their own people
- are essential."”
Analysis: Debaters can effectively use this argument to compare two worlds, one where legal
improvements are pursued and one where the Pro puts ground troops in the region. In doing so,
the Con can provide an image of peace and stability, and then frame the Pro as advocating for
violence that may not even solve the problem. It sounds a lot more appealing to a judge to say we
can make a few courthouses instead of invading a country and in the process actually solve more
of the problem.
"
A2 – Iraq needs a better government, not military intervention
Answer: Governmental improvement is too expensive.
Warrant: Americans aren’t willing to commit enough funds to improve government institutions.
“But any effort to nudge the Middle East's monarchies and autocracies toward
pluralism would require time and a great deal of funds - more than most Americans
are now willing to spend on the Middle East. This means that the current combination
of airstrikes and proxy warfare will likely remain the course of action going forward. And
it could work.”
Analysis: If improving the government of Iraq and the legal infrastructure in the surrounding
areas is too expensive, then it is not a feasible alternative to having boots on the ground that can
effectively solve the problem anyways.
"
Answer: Governmental improvement takes too much time.
Warrant: On top of costing a lot, changing forms of government is a lengthy process.
“But any effort to nudge the Middle East's monarchies and autocracies toward
pluralism would require time and a great deal of funds - more than most Americans
are now willing to spend on the Middle East. This means that the current combination
of airstrikes and proxy warfare will likely remain the course of action going forward. And
it could work.”
Warrant: It would take several lifetimes of work, and in the meantime troops are needed.
Hanchett, Ian. "Harf: 'We Can't Kill Our Way' Out of War Against ISIS -
Breitbart." Breitbart. N.p., 16 Feb. 2015. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/16/harf-we-cant-kill-our-way-out-of-
war-against-isis/>.
“We need, in the longer term, medium and longer term, to go after the root causes that
leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…” At this
point, Matthews cut Harf off and argued “we’re not going to be able to stop that in our
lifetime, or 50 lifetimes. There’s always going to be poor people, there’s always
going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s
blowing, they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?””
"
Analysis: If this process of legal infrastructure creation and governmental change takes too
much time, then the US will be sitting vulnerably in the mean time. Instead of being idle during
the transformation process, it is better to use troops to try to stop the problem – something only
the Pro can achieve. This means that as the Pro, you can accept the impacts the Con provides
from legal infrastructure if you need to, just as long as you point out that during the lengthy
process they advocate for, ground troops should be used to assist in quelling the conflict.
Answer: Ground troops can work.
Warrant: Military operations take away ISIL’s territory, which defeats it.
“But any effort to nudge the Middle East's monarchies and autocracies toward pluralism
would require time and a great deal of funds - more than most Americans are now willing
to spend on the Middle East. This means that the current combination of airstrikes
and proxy warfare will likely remain the course of action going forward. And it
could work. "If [the Islamic State] loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it
will cease to be a caliphate," writes Wood. "Caliphates cannot exist as underground
movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of
territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding."”
"
Warrant: We are currently destroying training camps and working militarily against ISIL
successfully.
war-against-isis/>.
“Matthews remarked “this sounds like we’re going to get rid of juvenile delinquency in
America over time by erasing poverty, improving education. Sure, over time. But the
American people, I think, are getting humiliated morally by this.” Harf then declared
“they should know that the United States military is taking direct action in Iraq and in
Syria. We’re taking their leaders out. We’re taking out their financing; we’re taking
out their training camps. This is a long fight, Chris. But I also think, not to take it to
politics for a second, they should tell their elected leaders to support the AUMF that we
sent to Congress.” Matthews agreed that members of Congress should support the
AUMF.”
Analysis: If the military is working successfully right now, then legal infrastructure isn’t a
necessary alternative. In fact, it would just be a waste of funds considering that the first response
provided shows how expensive reforming government is.
"
Answer: We can do both military and legal infrastructure improvements.
Warrant: They can work with each other.
war-against-isis/>.
“Harf responded “we can work with countries around the world to help improve
their governance, we can help them build their economies, so they can have job
opportunities for these people. You’re right, there is no easy solution in the long-term
to preventing and combating violent extremism, but if we can help countries work at the
root causes of this, what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47, instead of try to
start a business? Maybe we can try– try to chip away at this problem, while at the same
time going after the threat, taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners
around the world.” Matthews remarked “this sounds like we’re going to get rid of
juvenile delinquency in America over time by erasing poverty, improving education.
Sure, over time. But the American people, I think, are getting humiliated morally by
this.” Harf then declared “they should know that the United States military is taking
direct action in Iraq and in Syria. We’re taking their leaders out. We’re taking out
their financing, we’re taking out their training camps. This is a long fight, Chris.
But I also think, not to take it to politics for a second, they should tell their elected
leaders to support the AUMF that we sent to Congress.” Matthews agreed that
members of Congress should support the AUMF.”
"
Warrant: Government improvements can compliment military efforts.
“Buying off Saddamists and secular foes will not, however, fully address the many
systemic problems that plague the Middle East. U.S. State Department spokesperson
Marie Harf recently came under criticism for suggesting that the United States must
complement its military efforts against Islamic terrorism with the promotion of
better, more accountable Middle Eastern governments.”
Analysis: If the two different actions can be accomplished at the same time, then the Con never
proves any mutual exclusivity. In other words, they never show why we can’t both build up
governments to work against long-term problems and intervene militarily to stop the short-term
threats. In fact, the Pro team can say that doing both is even more successful, and it only falls on
their ground because Con cannot advocate for military troops on the ground.
"
CON – Backlash
Argument: American intervention with troops on the ground would lead to backlash and
increased terrorism.
Warrant: Increased American military personnel in the region empirically lead to a 24%
increase in anti-American terrorism.
Warrant: The initial American engagement in Iraq led to massive increases in suicide terrorism.
Pape, Robert. “Why U.S. military involvement will hurt Iraq and increase suicide
terrorism.” The Washington Post, June 19 2014.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/19/why-u-s-
military-involvement-will-hurt-iraq-and-increase-suicide-terrorism/>
The same data also promises that American military reengagement in Iraq to help
suppress the current Sunni revolt would lead to a resurgence of anti-American
suicide terrorism. This prediction was based on my compilation of the first
complete database of all suicide terrorist attacks around the world, totaling in 188, from
1980 to 2001. The data showed that Islamic fundamentalism was not the root cause
of suicide attacks like 9/11. Rather, what triggers this phenomenon most of the
time is a perceived foreign occupation. The martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers and
Osama bin Laden’s numerous statements confirm what the hard data shows. The
prediction that the U.S. occupation of Iraq would lead to numerous terrorist attacks
against the West was confirmed by al-Qaeda’s bombings of London (2005), Madrid
(2004) and numerous smaller attacks. Even Donald Rumsfeld felt compelled to ask
rhetorically in 2004 “Are we creating more terrorists than we’re killing?” By the time
America withdrew from Iraq in 2010, the phenomenon of suicide terrorism had
exploded around the globe, totaling more than 2,500 suicide attacks (nearly 1,000 of
which occurred in Iraq alone).
"
Warrant: The same logic applies to the current situation in Iraq; America would be seen as a
foreign occupier and would increase terrorist backlash.
Pape, Robert. “Why U.S. military involvement will hurt Iraq and increase suicide
terrorism.” The Washington Post, June 19 2014.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/19/why-u-s-
military-involvement-will-hurt-iraq-and-increase-suicide-terrorism/>
The current situation in Iraq is different, but still under the umbrella of foreign
occupation. It is an example of “internal occupation.” ISIS and many local Sunnis
perceive the Shiite-led government as occupying and controlling Sunni territory.
They are now fighting (via suicide terrorism) for their own self-determination.
Indeed, in 2013, 75 percent of the 171 suicide attacks in Iraq occurred in Sunni-
majority regions against targets intended to diminish Shiite control. Starting with
the first serious discussions of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the threat from al-Qaeda
diminished almost entirely. Partly, this was because of improved immigration controls,
intelligence gathering and other security measures. But mostly, al-Qaeda lost energy
(the ability to recruit and send people to die for its cause) as America disengaged
from the largest occupation of a Middle Eastern country by the West in modern
history. With the recent collapse of numerous cities in Iraq to a terrorist organization,
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, there have been numerous calls from both the left and
the right to reengage the region militarily. Both sides are ignoring the root causes of this
problem. The interests at stake in Iraq are not simply humanitarian concerns, oil or
preserving American credibility, but more fundamentally the size of the future terrorist
threat to the United States and other Western countries. Far from hurting the
terrorists, reengaging Iraq (and/or engaging Syria) would put us back on the path
of a rising terrorist threat that has taken us over a decade to escape. From the
perspective of the local groups to nations in the Persian Gulf region, there is no
impartial American military policy. Americans might think that we would be
fighting for humanitarian reasons — but we would absolutely not be perceived that
"
way. We would be seen — again — as foreign occupiers and become a target for
terrorist organizations again. Given the magnitude of U.S. military power, even
modest steps to help the Shia against the Sunnis would actually serve as a catalyst
for Sunni resistance, including and especially suicide terrorist organizations.
Worse, given the rising Shia anger against the Sunni revolt, there could well be
mass atrocities against the Sunnis. U.S. involvement would make us a direct
accomplice to their massacre, which we would be helpless to prevent.
Warrant: This backlash and instability brought about by military action makes it unsuccessful at
ending terrorist groups.
Jones, Seth. “How Terrorist Groups End.” RAND, July 29, 2008.
<http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29.html>
"The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism

campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how
terrorist groups end," said Seth Jones, the study's lead author and a political scientist at
RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "In most cases, military force isn't the best
instrument." The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed
between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND
and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way
that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process.
However, the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow
goals, rather than a broad, sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses. The second most
common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and
intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups.
Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent
presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said. Military
force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances,
military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups,
"
although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are
large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers.
Analysis: This argument is intuitive and many of the pieces of evidence surrounding it will be
familiar to more veteran debaters. The idea that intervention spurs terrorist backlash is nothing
new, and it is relatively simple to explain to judges in round. Another benefit of using an
argument like this is how easily it is quantified: a 7% success rate, 24% increase in anti-
American terrorism, and 2500 suicide attacks are all strong, memorable numbers that debaters
should make a point to extend through each speech.
"
A2 – Backlash
Response: The alternative to troops would be to continue the status quo or do nothing, both of
which would allow the vastly more deadly attacks taken by ISIS against people in the Middle
East to continue, an impact far outweighing those harmed by terrorism.
Warrant: ISIS has killed almost 10,000 civilians in just the first eight months of 2014.
Obeidallah, Dean. “ISIS’s Gruesome Muslim Death Toll.” The Daily Beast, October 7,
2014. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-
muslim-death-toll.html>
This report changes that. It provides us with evidence we were missing about the
specifics of ISIS’ actions towards Muslims. This investigation, undertaken by UN’s
Human Rights Office together with the UN’s Assistance Mission for Iraq, conducted
more than 500 interviews with witnesses and visited locations across Iraq to examine
how many civilians were killed in Iraq between July and September of this year. What
did the UN find? ISIS had “carried out attacks deliberately and systematically
targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, with the intention of killing and
wounding civilians.” The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at
least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these
deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor. (The
report also documents what could be considered war crimes committed by the Iraqi
military.)
"
Warrant: These deaths are only increasing year to year.
It's been a bloody year in Iraq, where ISIS militants have seized swaths of territory and
remain on the offensive. And the latest figures from the Iraq Body Count monitoring
project show that civilians, as so often in war, are paying a heavy price. At least 17,049
civilians were recorded killed in Iraq during 2014, Iraq Body Count said, roughly
double the number recorded in 2013 -- which in turn was about double that of the
previous year. The shocking rise in deaths in 2014 is due in large part to
the ISIS offensive and the military response to it by Iraqi forces and the U.S.-led
international coalition, the group said. Based in London and made up of academics and
human rights and anti-war activists, Iraq Body Count monitors and compiles media
reports of Iraqi civilian casualties resulting from the violence that followed the U.S.-led
2003 invasion of Iraq. Since that invasion [in 2003], "not a single day has passed
without Iraqi civilians being killed," it said. "The year 2014, however, reflects an
increase in violence to levels not seen since the worst years of 2006 and 2007."
According to the group, the greatest number of deaths in 2014 were in Baghdad,
Nineveh, Salaheddin and Anbar provinces, which together account for about 80% of
civilian deaths. The highest number of civilian deaths was seen in Baghdad, with more
than 4,750 reported.
"
Warrant: Since 1970, 4000 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks.
“American Victims of Terrorist Attacks.” Jewish Virtual Library.

<http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html>
The following is a listing of incidents in which American citizens were killed in attacks
worldwide carried out by Islamic terrorists. The exact number of American casualties is
difficult to calculate because of incomplete or inaccurate news reports regarding numbers
and nationalities of those killed or injured. Approximately 4,000 Americans have been
killed in terrorist attacks since 1970, including the atrocities of September 11, 2001.
Since Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Peace Accords in September 1993, at least 53
Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorism. The list does not include
American service-members killed on active duty.
Analysis: Pro teams should weigh the impact to human life from terrorism versus the impact to
human life if ISIL remains unstopped. 4,000 deaths over 45 years versus 18,000 deaths in one
year make it clear which side has the larger numbers. Making the comparison as basic and clear
as possible will provide the most persuasive weighing analysis to judges. The idea that terrorist
attacks will increase with foreign occupation is almost irrefutable based on decades of political
science studies and historical precedent, but a successful military operation to take out a terrorist
attack could certainly have a stronger positive impact than just letting the terrorist group continue
its rampage of an entire region of the globe.
"
CON – Harm to Oil Interests
Argument: American military involvement in the Middle East would lead to a spike in oil
prices.
Warrant: Iraqi oil supply is already being affected in the status quo, so more conflict from
American involvement would only worsen this impact.
West, James. “Here's What the Battle Over Iraqi Oil Means for America.” Mother Jones,
June 19 2014. <http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/iraq-obama-
baiji-oil-fracking>
Oil infrastructure is a major flash point in the Iraq crisis. After a week-long siege,
Sunni extremists from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS, fought their
way into Iraq's largest oil refinery in the northern city of Baiji on Tuesday and
Wednesday. There are conflicting reports about how much of the facility was seized
by the militants in the ensuing chaos, and whether Iraqi forces have in fact repelled
the attack, as Iraqi military officials claim. Previously, repeated attacks shut
down the major Turkey-bound Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline in the north. The Iraq
crisis is already affecting oil and gasoline prices. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the
country has steadily increased its oil production. It's [Iraq is] now the second biggest
producer of crude oil in OPEC, exerting a growing influence on the global price of
oil. And while the White House said Wednesday that there have been no "major
disruptions in oil supplies in Iraq," the crisis has clearly spooked the global market.
Bloomberg reported last week that one international benchmark used by traders
surged above $114 a barrel for the first time in nine months. USA Today reported that
even before the battle over the Baiji refinery, Iraq's oil production had already
fallen by about 10 percent, or 300,000 barrels a day, since March. The China
National Petroleum Corporation, the giant state-run company that is the biggest foreign
investor in Iraq's oil industry, is now nervously watching for any threats to its $4 billion
worth of oil interests.
"
Warrant: American involvement in Iraq and subsequent further disruption of Iraqi oil markets
can have a major toll on the US economy, as seen by this projection of oil harms from the 2003
invasion of Iraq.
Nordhaus, William. “The Economic Consequences of the War in Iraq.” National Bureau
of Economic Research, 2002. <http://www.nber.org/papers/w9361.pdf>
We should avoid the common fallacy of thinking that the U.S. or any country can
insulate its economy from an oil shock because it imports oil from “safe” sources.
As long as oil prices are determined in the world market, oil is a fungible
commodity, and a price shock anywhere affects importers everywhere. A recent
study by George Perry analyzed the short-run impacts of disruptions of world oil
supplies. He analyzed a bad case, a worse case, and a worst case. His “worse” case is the
same as the unfavorable case analyzed here. The results of Perry’s three scenarios for the
first year are shown in Table 5. Focusing on the worse case, Perry projects a tripling of
oil prices to around $75 per barrel, with gasoline rising to almost $3 per gallon. The
cost of imported oil is projected to rise about $200 billion per year, and the
projected decline in real GDP is almost 3 percent. Perry’s projection is not entirely
appropriate for the present purpose because it extends for only a single year and because
it includes business-cycle elements in the costs along with productivity losses. To
estimate the total impact of an oil-price shock similar to that of Perry’s worse case, I
follow his methodology by assuming that oil prices rise by a factor of three in 2003.
Based on historical data, I further assume that the real oil price regresses back to the pre-
shock level at a rate of 20 percent per year. I then track the impact on real national
income over the next decade assuming full employment and using a neoclassical
economic model of oil markets described in the appendix. 48 (The Keynesian or
business-cycle effects are provided in the next section.) The impact of the “worse” oil
shock is a reduction in real national income of $175 billion in the first year and
$778 billion over the entire decade (the full results are shown in Table A-1 in the
appendix). One-seventh of the decadal cost comes in higher cost of imported oil,
while the balance comes in lower domestic production.
"
Warrant: The Iraq War of 2003 led to major increases in oil prices.
Stiglitz, Joseph. “The $3 Trillion War.” New Perspectives Quarterly, April 15, 2008.
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2008.00980.x/epdf>
The war has led directly to the US economic slowdown. First, before the US went to
war with Iraq, the price of oil was $25 a barrel. It’s now $100 a barrel. While there
are other factors involved in this price rise, the Iraq war is clearly a major factor.
Already factoring in growing demand for energy from India and China, the futures
markets projected before the war that oil would remain around $23 a barrel for at
least a decade. It is the war and volatility it has caused, along with the falling dollar
due to low interest rates and the huge trade deficit, that account for much of the
difference. That higher price means that the billions that would have been in the
pockets of Americans to spend at home have been flowing out to Saudi Arabia and
other oil exporters.
Analysis: Though doing one’s own math is something I would never recommend in a debate
round, debaters should keep in mind that a nearly $800b decrease in real income, in the context
of a $1677b RGDP ($16.7t) is a nearly 5% decrease in RGDP, so this impact is catastrophic.
Though the impacts of oil shocks to American economic interests are high, it is the link from
American military action to those oil problems that is slightly more difficult to establish. The two
cards linking America’s involvement and prolonging in the Iraq war are what establish that link
most clearly, so I would recommend using this argument along with contentions about how
America putting combat troops in Iraq to fight ISIL will simply lead to a repeat of the Iraq War.
This not only lends this argument credence, but it places it in a historical timeline so judges will
more easily understand it.
"
A2 – Harm to Oil Interests
Response: The status quo instability is hurting Iraq’s oil more.
Warrant: The longer the current fighting continues, the more likely it is that ISIL will reach the
Southern Iraqi oil fields and cause even more damage to global oil supply.
Pollack, Kenneth “Oil and the Iraqi Civil War: How Security Dynamics May Affect Oil
Production.” The Brookings Institution, June 23 2014.
<http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/06/23-oil-iraqi-civil-war-
pollack>
Regardless of what happens with the balance of power in a protracted Iraqi civil war, the
longer the war goes on, the greater the potential for it to affect Iraqi production
from the southern fields. There are at least three problems that are likely to crop up:
Terrorism/Sabotage. ISIS and other Salafi Jihadist groups have been trying to curtail
Iraqi oil production by attacking the southern Iraqi oil infrastructure for years. As I
noted above, they have had considerable success with the northern infrastructure,
but so far have not had the same impact in the south. Now that they are locked in a
full-scale, conventional war with their Shi’a adversaries, they are likely to redouble
those efforts. After all, Iraq’s oil production is now the revenue stream funding the
Shi’a coalition forces. Just as Baghdad and Tehran tried to cut each other’s oil exports
for the same reason during the Iran-Iraq War, so the Sunni militants will make the same
effort this time around. Moreover, now that they control a huge swath of northern
Iraq, their ability to do so may improve. A Distracted Bureaucracy. Even before the
civil war re-ignited, Iraq was experiencing various problems ramping up oil
production. The Iraqi government is inefficient, corrupt and badly overcentralized.
Oil companies (and other Western firms) have had problems obtaining visas and
licenses, moving personnel and equipment, and securing resources that the Iraqis
were expected to provide. Some huge projects of critical importance to Iraq and its
"
hydrocarbon industry have encountered numerous bureaucratic SNAFUs that have
delayed their completion. These include crucial ventures to capture flared Iraqi natural
gas and bring sea water up for injection into the southern oil fields to substitute for Iraq’s
diminishing fresh water flows. With an all-out civil war to fight (as well as what is
likely to be a series of internal challenges), the Iraqi government is going to be even
more distracted and probably less efficient than it was before the events of the past
two weeks. Lawlessness. Over the past 6-8 months, the Iraqi government had been
pulling Iraqi Army and police formations out of southern Iraq and sending them
west to Anbar to fight the ISIS offensive that had captured Fallujah and threatened
Ramadi, Abu Ghraib, and Samarra. The removal of so many security personnel
from the south (for instance, 11 of 17 Iraqi army battalions had already redeployed
from Basra province) was already complicating the security situation in the south.
There were increasing reports of tribal violence, expanding organized crime rings, local
political violence, and just more criminal activity overall. Since then, Baghdad has
pulled even more troops and police from the south and sent them north to fight the
new Sunni militant offensive. Over time, it may be able to stand up new security units for
the south, but it will always face competition for more troops along the frontlines as long
as the civil war goes on, and historically it is the latter that gets priority over policing rear
areas. All of this will increase the costs of doing business in Iraq for the major oil
companies and make it harder for Iraq to reach its full oil-export potential.
"
Warrant: This escalation is already increasing oil prices.
“What does Iraq's crisis mean for oil?” BBC, June 18 2014.
<http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27838264>
The UN said hundreds have been killed as the Sunni-led Islamists advanced into Diyala
province in the east - near Iran and close to the capital - having seized Mosul and Tikrit
to the north. Militants have also invaded Iraq's biggest oil refinery at Baiji after a
siege lasting a week. Led by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), the
insurgents have threatened to push to regions further south dominated by Iraq's Shia
Muslim majority, whom they regard as "infidels". We take a look at why this is leading
to higher oil prices. Much of the fighting and seized territories are in the north of
the country, while about 70% of the production is in the south, says David Horgan,
chief executive of Petrel Resources, an oil company that's been in Iraq since 1999. "In a
way this isn't a new problem," as areas of Iraq such as Falluja, which was seized by ISIS
at the end of last year, have often been subject to unrest and rebellion, he says. "But
what's happened here is a major escalation. ISIS has managed to turn back the
army." "It's bad news but it doesn't affect production immediately," he says. But events
such as this make oil production difficult. Iraq produces around 3.3m barrels of oil
each day. Production didn't recover after the second Gulf war, and attracting the
money needed for wells and exploration is hard. "It's difficult to get people and
capital committed to Iraq."
Analysis: This response is saying that the Con’s argument is non-unique, since harms to oil
supply are already happening. It also goes a bit farther, showing that perhaps if the United States
does not intervene, the problem could get worse. This provides two outcomes to the judge that
debaters should distinguish: either the argument is non-unique, or better solved by the Pro.
"
Response: Iraqi oil markets do not have enough of an effect on global oil prices to have any
major impact.
Warrant: American oil production has risen so much that Iraqi oil supply will not have any
effect.
Rahemtulla, Karim. “ISIS’ Impact on the Oil Industry.” National Interest, June 18 2014.
<http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2014/06/18/iraq-tensions-wont-raise-oil-
prices/>
The United States, while strategically interested in Iraq’s future, is the beneficiary
of a massive oil boom at home. This lessens the need for Iraqi oil, which has only
begun to enter the market in earnest over the past couple of years. Plus, Iraq only
produces about 3.2 million barrels per day. That’s just not enough to affect global
oil supplies in the longer term. Another factor to consider is that the Iranians likely
wouldn’t cross into Iraqi space without the blessing of the United States on some level.
And any aid Iran is providing in the crisis could lead to sanctions on the Iranian oil
industry being lifted. In that case, any Iraqi oil that may be taken off the market could
be easily replaced anyway. Indeed, with U.S. oil production slated to grow and Saudi
capacity still available, supplies haven’t really been affected. I don’t expect this to
change much, either. History has shown that oil price spikes are usually short lived –
and any bump the resource receives because of the situation in Iraq will be no
different. Supply is ample, and that’s always what dictates the price of oil in the end.
"
Warrant: ISIS’ failure to capture southern oil fields and controls put in place by markets ensure
little impact.
Molloy, Tim. “Why ISIS Isn’t Affecting Gas Prices.” PBS, November 14 2014.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/rise-of-isis/why-
isis-isnt-affecting-gas-prices/>
The short answer is that ISIS didn’t have the impact many had feared, according to
energy and foreign policy experts. Iraq is the second-largest oil producer in the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), but ISIS hasn’t
captured the rich oil fields in the south. Iraqi security forces are holding out against
ISIS at a refinery on the outskirts of Baiji, even as the two sides fight for control of the
town. There’s also the grim fact that oil traders expect a certain amount of Middle
Eastern violence, says Anne Koren, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of
Global Security. “Radical Islamists terrorizing places where oil is produced have
been priced into the price of oil for a long time,” she said. And while ISIS has
strategically seized oil fields in order to fund its operations, the group only controls
a small percentage of the world’s oil supply, which it mostly sells on the black
market in Turkey at around $40 per barrel, according to a recent Newsweek
investigation. Those sales — which could bring in a up to $3.6 million per day — are
more important to ISIS than they are to global oil prices. “World crude oil
production is about 77 million barrels per day,” said U.S. Energy Information
Administration spokesman Jonathan Cogan. “$3.6 million per day divided by $40 per
barrel would indicate production of 0.09 million barrels per day, or 0.1 percent of
world production. That would not be likely to have much impact on prices.”
"
Analysis: This response is somewhat contradictory to the first, so determine which is
strategically most beneficial. Pro teams can either argue that Iraqi oil supply could disastrously
affect oil markets so America must intervene and bring peace to salvage it, or they can argue that
Iraqi oil supply is irrelevant so there will be no impact either way. If teams think they can
successfully make the first response, it is stronger because it turns offense to the Pro side and is a
reason to vote for that team. However, the second response is probably safer, as it takes out the
impact entirely for the opposing team and ensures they will be unable to win off of the argument.
"
CON – Veteran Assistance Programs can’t handle the overload
Argument: Putting boots on the ground endangers a lot of soldiers and in putting them in harms
way not only leads to a risk to their lives, but also leads to and increase demand for Veterans
Affairs and other assistance programs. These cannot handle such an increase, and therefore this
plan would cost the US an extreme sum of money as well as harm the programs the money is
often going towards.
Warrant: Middle Eastern occupation results in PTSD and amputation.
“These costs are only part of the picture, though. Thanks to medical advances, soldiers
are now more likely to survive catastrophic battleground injuries than in the past. For
instance, during the Iraq and Afghan operations there were seven injuries to each fatality
compared to 2.3 in World War Two and 3.8 in World War One. This increasing
likelihood of survival means a greater need for long-term support of veterans. US
operations in the Middle East over the past 13 years have resulted in 1558 major
limb amputations and 118,829 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. There have
also been 287,911 episodes of traumatic brain injury, often caused by a soldier’s
close proximity to mortar attacks.”
"
Warrant: This leads to an increase need for veteran support.
“These costs are only part of the picture, though. Thanks to medical advances, soldiers
are now more likely to survive catastrophic battleground injuries than in the past.
For instance, during the Iraq and Afghan operations there were seven injuries to
each fatality compared to 2.3 in World War Two and 3.8 in World War One. This
increasing likelihood of survival means a greater need for long-term support of
veterans. US operations in the Middle East over the past 13 years have resulted in 1558
major limb amputations and 118,829 cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. There have
also been 287,911 episodes of traumatic brain injury, often caused by a soldier’s close
proximity to mortar attacks.”
Warrant: The average health cost for a polytrauma victim is over $100,000 annually.
“The most serious of these injuries can incur more than 50 years of rehabilitation and
medical costs, with most victims in their early 20s. For example a typical
“polytrauma”, where a soldier has experienced multiple traumatic injuries, has a
calculated annual health care cost of US$136,000.”
"
Warrant: These costs are rarely taken into consideration when considering intervention.
“When rehabilitative hardware such as bionic legs is added – which can cost up to
US$150,000 – the expenditures are considerable over a lifetime. These costs also peak
30 years after conflict and therefore are rarely viewed in context of current
operations.”
Warrant: More than 50% of US veterans have filed disability claims.
“Less severe and less obvious disabilities are even more frequent. Towards the end of
2012, 50% of US veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan (over 780,000), had filed
disability claims ranging from military sexual trauma to mesothelioma.”
"
Warrant: Many veterans are homeless, commit suicides, or require counselors for alcohol
abuse.
“On top of this there are further hidden social costs: veterans account for 20% of
US suicides, nearly 50,000 veterans are at risk of homelessness, and one in eight
veterans between 2006 and 2008 were referred to counselors for alcohol abuse.
When these costs are combined, future medical outlay for veterans of the Iraq and
Afghan missions are estimated to be US$836.1 billion. In this context, the benefits of
solider-less modes of operation to military planners are clear.”
Warrant: Medical costs for veterans in the Middle East will be almost $1 trillion.
“On top of this there are further hidden social costs: veterans account for 20% of US
suicides, nearly 50,000 veterans are at risk of homelessness, and one in eight veterans
between 2006 and 2008 were referred to counselors for alcohol abuse. When these costs
are combined, future medical outlay for veterans of the Iraq and Afghan missions
are estimated to be US$836.1 billion. In this context, the benefits of solider-less
modes of operation to military planners are clear.”
"
Warrant: Average time for waiting for a claim through Veterans Affairs is over 162 days.
Dao, James. "Veterans Affairs Faces Surge of Disability Claims." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 12 July 2009. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/us/13backlog.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>.
“The department says its average time for processing those claims, 162 days, is
better than it has been in at least eight years. But it does not deny that it has a major
problem, with some claims languishing for many months in the department’s
overtaxed bureaucracy. “There are some positive signs in terms of what we’re doing,”
said Michael Walcoff, deputy under secretary for benefits in the Veterans Benefits
Administration. “But we know that veterans deserve better.””
Warrant: There is a backlog of nearly 1 million claims.

>.
“Veterans advocates say the actual backlog is nearing one million, if minor claims,
educational programs and appeals of denied claims are factored in. They point to the
discovery last year of benefits applications in disposal bins at several department offices
as evidence of shoddy handling of claims. And they assert that they routinely see
frustratingly long delays on what seem like straightforward claims.”
"
Warrant: It would be grisly fighting that US soldiers are not effective with and therefore would
likely get hurt.
Benen, Steve. "War-weariness Fades; Most Americans Support ISIS Ground

War." Msnbc.com. NBC News Digital, 05 Mar. 2015. Web. 05 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/war-weariness-fades-most-
americans-support-isis-ground-war>.
“As for the practical implications of a ground war against ISIS, Kevin Drum recently
explained, “[T]he only way to defeat ISIS would be in grisly house-to-house fighting
in Sunni strongholds like Mosul. We already know that U.S. troops can’t do that
effectively, and neither can the predominantly Shia troops controlled by Iraq. It
would be a long, grinding, disaster of a war. But apparently the American public hasn’t
quite internalized that yet. They’re becoming more and more enraged about ISIS, and
they want to do something. That’s a bad combination.”
Analysis: If veteran assistance programs cannot handle the overload, then the US is putting their
citizens and soldiers in harms way without a guarantee they will be looked after and kept healthy
afterwards. This is fundamentally against US policy, and is contradictory to the point of the
mission, that being to maintain an atmosphere of safety and prosperity for the US. The Con can
use this argument to outweigh Pro impacts, because even if they are trying to uphold national
security, they are hurting American citizens and our means for maintain the future of the security
in the process.
"
A2 – Veteran Assistance Programs can’t handle the overload
Answer: Current veterans are not overloading the system.
Warrant: Most of the backlog in VA is from older veterans, from wars like Vietnam, and not
new ones.
>.
“Aging Vietnam veterans with new or worsening ailments are requesting care. Layoffs
are driving unemployed veterans into the department’s sprawling health system for the
first time. Congress has expanded certain benefits. And improved outreach efforts by the
department have encouraged more veterans to seek compensation or care. Mr. Walcoff
said the vast majority of the 82,000 claims the department received each month were
not from veterans returning from the current wars. “We’re still getting a lot of
Vietnam vets,” he said.”
Analysis: If most of the problems the Con is talking about are not of a result of the plan the Pro
is advocating for, then the Pro can say that it is not applicable to the topic and non-responsive to
their case. In turn, the impacts can essentially be ignored in the round.
"
Answer: Soldiers are better protected by a victory over ISIL.
Warrant: A swift victory ensures the safety of the soldiers.
"Helm: 'End Game' Needed for Military Action against ISIL." The American Legion.
N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <http://www.legion.org/pressrelease/226070/helm-
end-game-needed-military-action-against-isil>.
“As recently as its 2014 National Convention, The American Legion passed resolutions
focused on both the global war on terrorism and the need to identify national interests
prior to committing military forces. The Legion urged that before deploying military
assets into harm’s way, specific goals need to be established, and necessary force levels
determined and shared with Congress and the public. “The American Legion urges
President Obama and Congress to work together on a strategy that puts U.S. troops in the
best possible position to put a decisive and swift end to ISIL,” Helm said. “The best way
to protect the welfare of our military men and women is to get this mission
accomplished quickly and successfully.”
Warrant: ISIL will threaten the US homeland if left unchecked, so we should use ground troops
now to stop them from building up force.
Gottlieb, Stuart. "Four Reasons ISIS Is a Threat to the American Homeland."The

National Interest. The National Interest, 20 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Mar. 2015.
<http://nationalinterest.org/feature/four-reasons-isis-threat-the-american-
homeland-11317>.
“Then in last week’s address, he said that while ISIS did not yet pose a direct threat to
the United States, it could “if left unchecked.” Efforts to differentiate threats posed by
militant Islamist groups to the regions in which they operate, as opposed to the world at
large, are certainly understandable, and important. As seen with the Obama
administration’s new threat assessment of ISIS, it can mean the difference between
"
passivity and intervention. But such efforts are inherently flawed—not because
understanding the local contexts of militant Islamist groups is not important (it is). But
rather because viewing such groups as of either local or global significance is precisely
the wrong way to approach the challenge. The fact is groups like ISIS always think and
act in terms of both local and global ambitions—or, in the parlance of the “defensive
jihad” they believe they are waging, their targets are both “near enemies” (apostate
Muslim rulers) and “far enemies” (the infidels that support them). While some in
Congress and elsewhere still believe ISIS is a localized problem of little concern to
the United States, the inconvenient truth is that ISIS actually represents a
dangerous new chapter in the global war being waged by Al Qaeda and its affiliated
and inspired groups, and a clear and present threat to the U.S. homeland.”
Analysis: If ISIL is threatening the US homeland and our safety, then it also threatens our
soldier’s safety. If the Con is advocating for keeping soldiers safe, then logically the most
effective way to do so is to eliminate any threats to the US as quickly and effectively as possible,
which is exactly what the Pro is advocating for through ground troops. Although this does rely
on the Pro to prove that ground troops are effective, this is something that is somewhat necessary
for most other arguments as well, so it should not be too burdensome. This turns their impacts,
and if anything makes their claims all the more reason to vote for intervention.
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
Answer: Veteran Assistance Programs are not against stopping ISIL.
Warrant: The programs acknowledge ISIL as a threat to the United States.
Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <http://www.legion.org/pressrelease/226070/helm-end-
game-needed-military-action-against-isil>.
“American Legion National Commander Michael D. Helm expressed support for

President Obama’s call today to use military force against the Islamic State, known as
ISIS or ISIL, which has been on a deadly rampage of organized terrorism for much
of the last year. However, the leader of America’s largest veterans service organization
is also asking for some clarifications. “There is no doubt that terrorist organizations
like ISIL and al Qaeda pose serious threats to America’s interests both here and
abroad,” Helm said. “ISIL’s violent and ruthless actions against the United States and
other nations have forced our nation’s hand and led the president to this important
decision.”
Warrant: The largest veteran service organization is for intervention.
Web. 06 Mar. 2015. <http://www.legion.org/pressrelease/226070/helm-end-
game-needed-military-action-against-isil>.
“American Legion National Commander Michael D. Helm expressed support for

President Obama’s call today to use military force against the Islamic State, known
as ISIS or ISIL, which has been on a deadly rampage of organized terrorism for
much of the last year. However, the leader of America’s largest veterans service
organization is also asking for some clarifications. “There is no doubt that terrorist
organizations like ISIL and al Qaeda pose serious threats to America’s interests both here
"
and abroad,” Helm said. “ISIL’s violent and ruthless actions against the United States
and other nations have forced our nation’s hand and led the president to this
important decision.”
Analysis: If veteran assistance programs are the ones that are also advocating for intervention,
then clearly backlog is not the true concern. This can be used in two ways:
First, it provides the logic that the safety of the US should be weighed over a small amount of
inefficiency in a US bureaucracy. At that point, the Con impacts, even if accepted, are
insignificant compared to the benefits the Pro attains.
Second, it shows that backlog must not be that large of an issue, as the very organizations that
have to deal with the backlog are advocating for intervention as well.
"
CON – Military Debris
Argument: The invasive nature of ground combat missions nearly guarantees pollution of the
local environment with weapon fragments and other toxic substances. The Pro’s advocacy would
generate large amounts of this type of pollution not only because of the invasive and involved
nature of ground missions, but also because ground combat troops are trained to disregard the
environment. The US Federal Government has expressed a commitment to help clear existing
debris from former American military occupations, so the generation of more pollution from a
new ground combat mission would increase the burden of this financially and temporally taxing
obligation.
Warrant: The Iraqi countryside is polluted with war materials and weapons after ground combat
troop presence
998718303
““Iraq's precarious state of the natural environment is further compromised by the

military's well-documented use of depleted uranium anti-tank ammunition, cluster
bombs, and landmines. n106 Not surprisingly, an increase in incidences of cancer and
birth defects in Fallujah subsequent to the 2004 U.S. operations has been reported by
non-government organizations. n107 The United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) has identified potential health effects on local civilians from the use of
explosive and toxic weapons combined with "military waste, including waste from
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programmes." n108 Currently, the Iraqi
countryside is strewn with the artifacts of war--i.e., a variety of toxic munitions and
"
war waste, including: "unexploded ordnance, spent cartridges/shells/penetrators,
military vehicles[,] . . . depleted uranium[,] . . . contaminated soils and demolition
waste (e.g. containing chemicals or asbestos), [and] human remains and animal
remains (leading to elevated disease risks, [*474] especially in urban areas)." n109
Warrant: Land pollution from ground troop missions will always happen because troops are
trained to disregard their proximity to and protection of the environment
998718303
““Military instruction also fosters a discharge ethos and has institutionalized a lack
of an environmental ethic of care. Military training normalizes the soldier's action
that "when firing a round downrange, an artilleryman wasn't 'discarding' the
round." n113 The soldier's task and his weapon are spent: i.e. done, so, he can now "cut
and run." n114 This permissive discharge ethos encourages toxic armaments to be
abandoned, disposed of, tossed away; distancing the ordinary solider from the
effects of discharging his weapons. n115 The military debris that now litters Iraq's
water and land is evidence of this discharge ethos. The indiscriminate dispersal of
toxic military armaments across the countryside points to an institutional mindset
that releases the environmental violence of its operations onto the [*475] health of
civilians and into the natural environment in which local citizens are expected to live
and to flourish socially, culturally, and economically in a post-conflict scenario. n116””
"
Warrant: The US government recognizes its obligation to help clear military debris after their
combat missions
“The US legacy of unexploded remnants of war”. Northwestern University Medill

Graduate School of Journalism. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://deadlydebris.nationalsecurityzone.org/home-2/overview/
““Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry unveiled the latest To Walk the
Earth in Safety report, which besides being the motto is also the US government’s
annual chronicle of its efforts to rid the world of landmines and cluster munitions.
Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, says the issue is a personal one for him. In his
travels, he said, he has watched legless small children forced to use little wagons to
maneuver the streets of Southeast Asia. He has watched men and women in Africa
balancing food baskets while using makeshift crutches to navigate crowded streets.
And he has talked to Colombian soldiers and police who were wounded by mines
during decades of conflict there. “Their stories are heartbreaking. In less than a
second, their lives were changed forever,” Kerry said. “Different countries, different
stories, different times — but none of these victims was the enemy of anybody.”
Kerry said that much progress has been made, especially thanks to US efforts at the
forefront of the global humanitarian effort to clear explosive remnants of war. But he
also noted that unexploded ordnance continues to endanger civilians in more than
60 countries. “Decades after soldiers have laid down their weapons and leaders have
made peace,” Kerry said, “these grim legacies of war kill and maim local
populations.”””
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
Warrant: Cleanup efforts, even when focused specifically on landmine removal, require
massive commitments of time, money and resources
Schehl, Matthew. “The devastating legacy of unexploded US ordnance in Iraq”. Medill

National Security Reporting Project. 31 Dec 2014. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/war/141231/the-devastating-legacy-
unexploded-us-ordnance-iraq
““Three years ago, the US withdrew its troops from Iraq, and the American public
for the most part has moved on from this conflict. But its legacy endures here. Some
Iraqi government estimates place the cost of cleanup in the billions of dollars, on top
of the $258.9 million already spent over the past decade by the United States and
smaller amounts by some other foreign donors. Even with a massive influx of money
and manpower, Iraq’s mine clearance effort could take decades, if not longer. In
2009, two United Nations agencies released a highly critical report of clearance efforts in
Iraq to date. Their report said unexploded munitions were not only a deadly risk to
Iraqis everywhere, but a major roadblock to the economic redevelopment of the
country still reeling from the US invasion and occupation, and the brutal civil war
and insurgency that followed. "Iraq is on the brink of a social and environmental
crisis if the situation stays as it is now,” Zahim Mutar, head of Baghdad-based NGO
Iraqi Mine and UXO Clearance Organization, or IMCO, told the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs at the time.””
"
A2 – Military Debris
Answer: Political violence and instability inflicted by ISIL is worsening the problem of military
debris by generating more pollution and thwarting cleanup efforts
Warrant: ISIL is making American-led cleanup efforts more difficult
Schehl, Matt. “A COUNTRY DIVIDED: The devastation of explosives in Iraq”.

Northwestern University Medill Graduate School of Journalism. Web. Accessed 9
Mar 2015. http://deadlydebris.nationalsecurityzone.org/home-2/future/kurdistan/
““That is especially the case throughout southern and central Iraq, where violence,
political uncertainty and corruption have plagued cleanup efforts and precluded
some international organizations from operating there. But it is also the case here in
Kurdistan, long considered the one bright spot in Iraq’s long struggle to rid itself of the
explosive remnants of war. The explosives litter the landscape, and have killed and
maimed farmers as they till their fields, mothers as they walk to the market and,
especially, young boys and girls as they try to lead some semblance of a normal
childhood. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines reported in August 2013
that more than 29,000 people have been victims of landmine accidents in Iraq since
the late 1980s. Nearly 15,000 of them, including 6,000 deaths, were in Kurdistan.
For years, the U.S.-assisted mine-clearing investment has yielded a healthy return in
Kurdistan, whose mine clearing programs – like the regional government itself — are
largely autonomous from the central government in Baghdad. Its relative stability and
autonomy, and its oil wealth, have allowed more than a dozen non-profit humanitarian
groups and private commercial companies like the Tennessee-based Sterling Global to
flourish. But more recently, the terrorist group Islamic State overran parts of
Kurdistan, and huge numbers of refugees have been pouring across the border from
Syria, swamping both the government and NGO community and setting off
hundreds of mines in the process. And infighting with the Baghdad government has
halted much of the money needed for mine clearance efforts here.””
"
Warrant: Lack of security in the region makes cleanup impossible
Voegel, Matthew. “Iraq Mine and UXO Clearance Organization”. Mine Action
Information Center. 2008. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/12.1/feature/voegel/voegel.shtml
““In addition to the severe landmine problem, the government of Iraq has faced its
share of domestic violence from non-state armed groups who have been creating
and using improvised explosive devices.1 Because of a lack of effective Iraqi military
control over munitions in the country before the invasion by Coalition Forces in
2003, many insurgent groups have been able to obtain various types of explosives
and create private caches for their own use.2 These IEDs are used in bombings and
attacks against Coalition Forces, Iraqi government officials and many civilians. The
attacks appear to purposefully inflict maximum casualties by targeting
marketplaces, places of worship and shops.3 Organizational problems within the
Iraqi government are an extra burden. In the summer of 2007, the Council of
Ministers, after much lobbying from the Minister of Planning and Development
Cooperation, decided to “disband” the National Iraq Mine Action Authority (NMAA) as
it was under the MoPDC, making the organization a “non-functioning entity” until a
decision was made about where it would be relocated.1 Finally, in the spring of 2008, the
NMAA was officially placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.4
According to Dennis Hadrick, the Iraq Program Manager in the U.S. Department of
State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military
Affairs (PM/WRA), the organizational problems with the NMAA were directly
correlated with the deteriorating security situation at that time. “Prior to the surge, the
security situation was extremely dangerous and people were unable to get to their
work,” he says. “Government people were being targeted for assassinations and due
to the security situation [the NMAA] became [ineffective].”2””
"
Analysis: This argument can be used to mitigate the Con’s solvency. With evidence that current
cleanup efforts are less effective because of ISIL, the Pro can create a sense of urgency during
the debate by arguing that unless ISIL is addressed then there can be no solution to this problem.
In this way, the Pro can argue that defeating ISIL is a necessary prerequisite to debris cleanup.
Answer: Current cleanup efforts in Iraq show that the damage from military debris is not
insurmountable, so the Con’s impact must be weighed accordingly.
Warrant: Organization in Iraq are making substantial progress in clearing pollution from past
armed conflicts
Voegel, Matthew. “Iraq Mine and UXO Clearance Organization”. Mine Action
Information Center. 2008. Web. Accessed 9 Mar 2015.
http://www.jmu.edu/cisr/journal/12.1/feature/voegel/voegel.shtml
““As things seem to be gradually improving in Iraq, IMCO’s future appears bright.
The organization has been involved in various projects and continues to keep a full
schedule. This includes various weapon-destruction projects as well as
reconstruction projects like the Shat al-Arab development project, and the
reparation of the al-Rumaila oilfields and the al-Zubair area.7 New clearance
operations within certain areas of Baghdad are now under way along with projects
in areas new to the NGO. “Now IMCO [has been] tasked [with] three humanitarian
projects in al-Kut, al-Muthanna and Babylon governorates,” said Mutar. For Mutar,
expanding IMCO is one of the organization’s long-term goals as he hopes to open
branches in the cities of Basra, Kirkuk and Kut. He also hopes to establish a school for
training staff members of official institutions, unofficial institutions and NGOs in
demining works.7 For Dennis Hadrick, IMCO is one of the many positive stories to
come out of Iraq. “I really respect IMCO as an organization for their hard work in
a dangerous environment, and they are one the true success stories of what a
sectarian organization can do,” says Hadrick. “To have the Sunnis, Shias, Kurds
"
and Christians work side-by-side…and getting along is what I would like to see for
the future in Iraq.” For Zahim Mutar, IMCO is set for a great future because it is not
only a pioneer in the field of Iraqi mine action, but also an example of progress for
Iraq as a nation. “The Iraqi community [now realizes] the importance of IMCO and
its existence because IMCO has [better] data and capabilities than [the] Iraqi
ministry,” says Mutar. He expects IMCO’s success to continue with the help of the U.S.
Department of State. IMCO was able to meet the challenges it faced and prove itself and
it will continue to be successful in the future he says.””
Analysis: This argument should be used in the context of an impact calculus. By giving
examples of successful solutions to this problem, the Pro can argue that their impacts outweigh
on magnitude because Pro impacts may not have a similar solution.

ISIL Champion Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISIL Champion Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Champion Briefs

Resolved: Committing United

international political question.

by making it to a predetermined outround at a national tournament. The largest tournaments

intimidated, which was a major part of my success at the tournament.

In terms of the debating itself, judging is generally similar to tournaments Harvard or

team that breaks and a team that does not.

Though I rarely give tournament-specific preparation advice, I think it is important to

Resolution Analysis and Background

relations theories that identify different approaches to identifying national interest.

killed in the conflict4.

States’ invasion of Iraq actually led to the creation of this group.

This topic should not be incredibly framework heavy as it is a straightforward

justifies less precaution than a high-probability, high-magnitude impact. Debaters should be

Affirmative: Strategy and Major Arguments

that a vote for the Con is a vote to do nothing7.

democratic values is a core component of U.S. interests.

Negative: Strategy and Major Arguments

to know history more simply appear more intelligent.

humanitarian and refugee programs.

arguments will make sense to judges of all varieties.

About Anna Waters

National Tournament. Anna is studying journalism at Northwestern University.

Topic Analysis by Justin Katz

Background and Definitions

not authorize commitments of ground troops engaging in combat operations.

Framing the Round

could invite interesting debates as well.

US would reap after deploying ground troops.

critical infrastructure and domestic security apparatuses in the US remain vulnerable to a

de facto genocide and crimes against humanity.

to the Middle East and fighting for the Islamic State.

improved view of US involvement in the region as a potential force for good.

suggest that the status quo is preferable to an intervention force.

First, ground troop commitments present major obstacles to victory. ISIL is a

decentralized organization that controls sprawling territory: there is no capital to invade, no

into a repeat of the 2003 war.15

more potent and drawing more fighters to the Middle East.

citizens should care about insurgent fighters across the world.

on the ground will begin to look much more palatable.

the debate where the Pro analysis is weakest.

provide a better, more sustainable solution to the ISIL threat.

Adapting throughout the Month

analysis under perhaps more commonplace arguments is the way to go.

About Justin Katz

Tournament, a semifinalist at the Tournament of Champions, a two-time semifinalist at the Laird

of the Year in the American Parliamentary Debate Association.

they appear here16.

to the reasoning behind their cards.

At first glance, the resolution seems to be posing a straightforward question – will

the creation of ISIL and its rapid ascent to power.

win the round.

what we think is the best argumentation from a strategic standpoint.

option for the United States.

inefficient to send in an unwanted party.

U.S. soldiers’ lives at risk.

tool to counter ISIL.

Tim and Zach

About Tim Perevozchikov and Zach Kirsch

Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight

Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge

against anti-aircraft emplacements. (Trainor, 1989)

A Majority of Americans support ground troops

ground troops.” (Griswold, 2015)