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.

Fracked Up for the Future

By Arnie Zemzow

US Senator John McCain declared the United States can begin deliveries of liquefied natural gas to Europe before 2020, as reported by Thomson Reuters.

McCain was openly pleased with the breakdown of construction of the project "South Stream” – a discontinued effort to channel more Russian gas into Europe whose failure was abetted by the Ukrainian crisis. According to Republican Senator, he himself put a lot of effort into this development, eventually persuading the Bulgarian government to count on Europe in terms of energy interests of the country and to cease cooperation with Russia. Furthermore, McCain proposed to establish a supply of liquefied gas to Europe from the United States.

Hello Ladies....
 
In June 2014, McCain and four other Republican senators introduced a bill in Congress called the "Act on the Energy Security of the North Atlantic." The bill proposes the acceleration of the process of issuing licenses for fracking system and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy for gas companies. The Department of Energy proposed to immediately approve the export of liquefied natural gas to Ukraine, Japan, and US allies in NATO. According to the authors, the new law will help the US get rid of excess gas, which is destructive to US energy systems due to lack of pipelines, and at the same time to strengthen the Russian economy and reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on December 1 Russia's final withdrawal from "South Stream". The project worth 15.5 billion Euros was designed for delivery to Europe 67 billion cubic meters of gas per year. It was planned that the pipe would pass through the Black Sea and through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Italy and Slovenia. The desire to participate in the new project was echoed by Turkey and Macedonia.

1001 Arabian Canals

By Alexander Vittorgan

The Egyptian government promulgated Sunday, October 18, the final agreements with six international corporations on accord of the construction of a Suez Canal alternative, according to Thompson Reuters. This is the flagship project of president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi's economic restoration program. The Egyptian economy is currently in dire straits due to the political instability of late. The construction of the new canal will be actualized with the enlisted help of UAE, The Netherlands, Belgium, and the US.

The Egyptian authorities hope that the new canal will increase national profits from waterways by 2023 twofold - from 5 billion dollars to 13.5. In the same vein, there are plans to construct a figurative rest stop for boats carrying large loads.

The head of the Suez Canal administration, General Lt. Mohab Meshim informed the public of their intention to begin work no later than next week, finishing before the fall of next year. According to Meshim, Egyptian engineers have already begun extensive research and will continue alongside their international colleagues.

The new yet-unnamed canal will stream parallel to an old land route, existing for more than 150 years. The Suez Canal is the shortest passage between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Critical to commericial and, to an extent, biological life, the Suez Canal is the dominant source of international capital and investment. That is amplified in its importance in these uneasy times of weakened economic structures and financial systems since the Tahrir Revolution of 2011. 

This is the Suez Canal, as it is seen from space. If the Suez Canal is at 10 o'clock on a watch, the new canal will run at 8 o'clock.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait sacrificed billions of dollars in aid since Sisi, the former Minister of Defense, rose to power through his own military coup, overthrowing Muhammed Morsi, the legitimately-elected president of the Muslim Brotherhood party.

The Bane of the Ukraine

 By Nathan Ausubel

               For the past year, Russia and Ukraine have engaged in a bitter struggle. The Ukrainian government, led by President Petro Poroshenko, wants to gravitate towards the European Union. Poroshenko realizes that an Association Agreement would bring much needed trade to the faltering Ukrainian economy, and he is eager to break free of Russian dependence. Unfortunately for him, Russian President Vladimir Putin stands in his way.

               Putin has grand plans for Russia. He wants to build Russian influence in the region by spearheading a new economic union called the Eurasian Economic Union. Russia desperately wants Ukraine to join this economic union. Putin will use any methods necessary to accomplish this goal, even stopping the gas pipes in Ukraine and refusing to pay off Russian debt to the gas company Gazprom.

               Ukraine finds itself in an unwieldy situation. Poroshenko needs to break his dependence on Russian gas, but he is faced with grim reality: according to the European Commission, as much as 66% of Ukraine’s natural gas came from Russia in 2006. If Gazprom fails to reach a gas agreement with the Kiev government, it can stop the pipes, which has immediate consequences for Ukraine and Eastern European countries. Gazprom carried through with this threat in January 2006 and January 2009, and Ukraine is certainly not eager to experience a similar situation in the future.

               To make matters worse, the European Union is reluctant to give a helping hand to Ukraine. European countries are just as dependant on Russian gas as Ukraine, if not more so, and they too face the threat of Gazprom stopping the gas. According to the European Commission, in 2007 Russia was the sole supplier of natural gas to several E.U. countries, including Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania, according to the European Commission. Russia also supplied 98% of gas exports to Slovakia and 92% of exports to Bulgaria. European countries are afraid to take comprehensive steps against Russia when Gazprom can retaliate with economic penalties.

               The European Union is, of course, responsible for some economic sanctions. It has frozen the assets of leading Russian officials and businessmen, revoked their visas, and suspended trade with leading Russian businesses with close ties with the Kremlin, such as Bank Rossiya. These efforts are, unfortunately, halfhearted at best because the E.U. is heavily reliant on Russian trade.

               With the European Union concerned with Russian commerce, only the United States can stand up to Putin. The United States’ sanctions are still selective sanctions, but American diplomats have acted faster to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for eastern separatists.

               Unfortunately, the United States’ sanctions campaign is almost certainly doomed to fail. In general, economists estimate that sanctions only have a 25% to 30% chance of success. The situation in Russia is no exception. Though the sanctions are a nuisance, Russia can bypass the sanctions by pursuing closer relations with China and Iran. Russia can also retaliate with its own sanctions. It has already banned European food products, and it is starting to seize American and European assets.

               Sanctions are failing to shift public opinion in Russia. From October 2013 to August 2014, Putin’s approval rating actually rose from 64% to 84%. Sanctions are failing to turn public opinion against the Russian government. The Russian people, more than ever, are firmly behind Putin’s foreign policy. With the Russian media leading many Russians to believe that Ukraine is led by a fascist, human rights-abusing government, Putin is finding little opposition on the home front.

               There is little more that the United States and European Union can hope to accomplish from sanctions. They rely too much on Russian trade and have too much to lose from a military confrontation to risk taking more severe measures against Russia. Ukraine will find little help from the Western world in coming days. Russia may have agreed to a cease fire, but Ukraine’s eastern regions are still under Russian de facto control. As long as Russian separatists control the eastern regions, and as long as Gazprom controls the supply of gas, Ukraine will never join the European Union.

Poroshenko’s dreams of a united Ukraine are over. With little doubt, Putin has scored a victory against the West.