I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Affirmation - Nathan Ausubel)

In his opening remarks, my opponent (Max Segal) raises some interesting points about the long-term goals of the US airstrikes against ISIS. He claims that United States’ objective “isn’t to obliterate ISIS” but “to secure Iraq.” My opponent also argues that airstrikes are the best option that the United States has against a borderless entity such as the Islamic State, and that the Kurds’ ground forces are performing surprisingly well against the terrorists.

Unfortunately, events in Iraq have not played out nearly as well as my opponent claims. The United States has launched airstrikes against the Islamic State for nearly half a year, and still ISIS troops are on the verge of taking over Kobani and other Kurdish cities situated on the border of Turkey. According to The Guardian, ISIS now controls “a 400-mile strip from Aleppo in Syria to Falluja in Iraq,” despite the frequent airstrikes and the efforts of the US-led coalition. To this day, ISIS remains one of the best funded terrorist organizations in the world, allowing it “to use social media to broadcast the attractions of a revived caliphate.” The United States will need to do more – much more – to drive ISIS from its current position of influence.

A good start would be getting the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakar, to change his lightbulbs sometimes...            

 My opponent argues that the Kurds have scored significant victories against ISIS. However, I see little evidence that Kurdish forces are actually driving back ISIS. Instead, the two sides seem to be locked in a stalemate. In October, we heard stories of ISIS troops fighting the Kurds within two kilometers of the center of Kobani, and we had reason to be worried, since Kobani is located only a couple miles away from the Turkish border. However, we expected – perhaps in vain – the US airstrikes to inflict some damage on ISIS. Two months later, Kobani is unfortunately still a warzone, and the Kurds have not managed to take back their city. In other parts of Iraq and Syria, especially in the Anbar province of western Iraq, ISIS has actually managed to gain land, instead of losing it to the US-led coalition.

               In light of recent events in the Middle East, we should be asking ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with repeated airstrikes. Is my opponent correct in his assessment that the US objective is not to obliterate ISIS but simply to secure Iraq? We need to look no further than Barack Obama to answer this question. Let me repeat what Obama said to the American people on September 10^th in his primetime address: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.” According to ABC News, the president has repeated this same exact message – verbatim – over a dozen times. Obama has made himself quite clear: the United States will secure Iraq but doing so will require the destruction of ISIS, despite what my opponent has claimed.

 Nice job plugging me, Ausubel. Not that my words weren't just blanket speeches, but hey...

My opponent has also asserted that airstrikes are the best option to use against the Islamic State. However, in an op-ed published in the New York Times, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “airstrikes alone won’t defeat this enemy.” Airstrikes might be an appealing option on paper, but they only work when used in conjunction with an effective offensive on the ground. Unfortunately, Kurdish forces are not strong enough to overpower the Islamic State, and neither is the “dysfunctional Iraqi army.” Meanwhile, US plans to train Syrian rebels are going nowhere. The United States needs to focus its attention on building an effective ground force, or else US airstrikes will be incapable of driving ISIS from its new territory.

 

The paragon of charity of the US with regards to Syria...

The US strategy against ISIS is not returning Iraq to more stable times, as my opponent claims. If that was true, then why would most of the Anbar Province, the largest territory of Iraq, be in the hands of the Islamic State? US airstrikes are even more of a disaster in Syria. Rather than strengthening rebel forces, the United States is instead propping up the unpopular regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad, who is guilty of killing more of his people than even the Islamic State, is clearly no friend of ours. However, as long as the United States is distracted fighting ISIS, Assad has a prime opportunity to win back land from rebel forces. Despite the US intervention, Syria is increasingly turning into a war zone between the Islamic State and the equally troubling figure of Assad.

Obviously, I am not eager for the United States to enter another prolonged war in the Middle East. However, until Obama realizes that he cannot win the war by airstrikes alone, the Islamic State will have a distinct advantage that cannot be overcome by Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian forces alone. The US strategy against ISIS is ineffective as it stands now, and it will need to focus increasingly on ground offensives if the United States hopes to defeat the Islamic State.