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.
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 10th
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.
