Big Sky

April 2015 NSDA Public Forum Debate:
Grounds Troops and ISIL

Resolved: Committing United States ground combat troops to fight ISIL
is in the best interest of the United States.
April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL
Table of Contents
META...................................................................................................................................... 3
OBAMA PLAN DEFINED ................................................................................................................................................. 3
OBAMA PLAN LIMITS GROUND TROOPS ....................................................................................................................... 4
OBAMA PLAN DOESNT LIMIT GROUND TROOPS .......................................................................................................... 5
INTRIGUE ON TROOPS QUESTION BAD: STOPPING TIME SENSITIVE DEBATE ............................................................... 6
PRO ......................................................................................................................................... 8
AT THIS POINT, NOTHING SHOULD BE OFF THE TABLE! ................................................................................................ 8
CURRENT STRATEGY INEFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING ISIL ................................................................................................. 10
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE TROOPS TO DEFEAT ISIL ........................................................................ 11
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: REGIONAL TROOPS NOT ENOUGH ............................................................................ 14
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AIR STRIKES NOT ENOUGH ........................................................................................ 17
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: TRAINING AND ADVISING NOT ENOUGH .................................................................. 20
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MASSIVE FORCE NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE ................................................... 21
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: SHOULD USE SPECIALIZED FORCES TO DEFEAT ISIL ................................................... 24
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST GREEN LIGHT THE POSSIBLE USE OF TROOPS TO GET POLITICAL SUPPORT .... 25
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT ................................................................................... 26
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE A SHOW OF FORCE TO CONVINCE ALLIES OF OUR RESOLVE ................. 29
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST COUNTER BALANCE COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN .................................................... 31
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS PRESIDENTS ABILITY TO FIGHT ISIL ........................................... 32
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS GENERALS ABILITY TO FIGHT EFFECTIVELY ............................... 33
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: SHOWS THAT THE US IS NOT RESOLVED AGAINST ISIL .......................... 35
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: PLAYS INTO ISIL STRATEGY .................................................................... 36
CON ...................................................................................................................................... 37
BALANCE CON: RULE OUT NOW AND REASSESS IN THREE YEARS ............................................................................... 37
CURRENT STATUS: GROUND TROOPS CURRENTLY UNNECESSARY ............................................................................. 38
EVERYTHING BUT GROUND TROOPS IS NECESSARY.................................................................................................... 39
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: CURRENT STRATEGY DOESNT REQUIRE IT .......................................................... 40
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT GROUND TROOPS .......... 42
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: NEED NOT INVOLVE GROUND TROOPS TO HAVE A FLEXIBLE SOLUTION ............. 43
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LARGE INVASION FORCE WONT BE EFFECTIVE ....................................................... 44
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LOCAL MILITARIES BETTER ...................................................................................... 45
GROUND TROOPS BAD: MUST LEAVE THE FIGHT TO LOCAL ARMIES .......................................................................... 49
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GIVES OBAMA A BLANK CHECK ............................................................................................. 50
GROUND TROOPS BAD: = ENDLESS WAR! ................................................................................................................... 51
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GROUND TROOPS WOULD MAKE ISIL STRONGER ................................................................ 52
GROUND TROOPS BAD: WOULD HELP RECRUIT FIGHTERS FOR ISIL ............................................................................ 53
GROUND TROOPS BAD: IRAQI WAR PROVES .............................................................................................................. 54
GROUND TROOPS BAD: AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 55
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST CONSIDER POLITICAL ISSUES .................................................................... 56
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST DECIDE WHAT TO DO POST ISIL ................................................................. 59
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST SIMPLY DISENGAGE .................................................................................. 60
A/T: WE SHOULD SHOCK AND AWE!! .......................................................................................................................... 61
A/T: PRO CALLS FOR BOOTS NOW! ............................................................................................................................. 62
Page 2
Page 3
META
OBAMA PLAN DEFINED
OBAMA AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE HAS TWO KEY PROVISIONS-Doherty '15
[Daniel; Capitol Hill: Lawmakers Raise Serious Concerns About Obama's New AUMF; TownHall; 11 March 2015;
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2015/03/11/kerry-carter-isis-hearing-n1968981; retrieved 14 March 2015]
Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin
Dempsey all appeared on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify in defense of the presidents new Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF) request to combat ISIL. The provision needs congressional approval and would expire in three
years if authorized. It also has at least two key provisions: First, it would not permit, as Secretary Carter phrased it, a
long term, large scale American ground force to be deployed overseas to fight ISIL. Second, it would allow the
president to prosecute the war without geographical limitation. This means the president would have wide latitude to
go after ISIL terrorists outside Iraq and Syria.
Page 4
OBAMA PLAN LIMITS GROUND TROOPS

CURRENT OBAMA PROPOSAL WILL PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TO COMBAT ISIL WITHOUT DEDICATING THE USE OF
GROUND TROOPS-Saeed '15
[Yerevan; Obama administration asks Congress to authorize use of force in Iraq war; Rudaw; 13 March 2015;
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/130320153; retrieved 14 March 2015]
If passed, the new AUMF will expire in three years and replace a 2002 one that authorized the president to use military
force in Iraq. Republicans believe that the language of the three-page resolution is too restrictive, while the Democrats
want to curtail the power of the president to use military force, believing leeway in the resolution will lead to
deployment of ground troops.
Speaking alongside the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said the
proposed AUMF will provide flexibility, while it prevents long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat like those
of Iraq and Afghanistan.
CURRENT OBAMA PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY RULES OUT THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS-Pugliese '15
[David; U.S. general worried about what happens in Iraq after ISIL is defeated; Ottawa Citizen; 11 March 2015;
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-general-worried-about-what-happens-in-iraq-after-isil-isdefeated; retreived 12 March 2015]
Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he hopes the hearing will help start a process where both parties
can reach agreement on a new authorization to fight IS militants, who have seized territory across Iraq and Syria. Obama
sent his draft to Capitol Hill last month.
As we have received that authorization for the use of military force, what we have come to understand is that and
this is not a pejorative statement, its an observation we dont know of a single Democrat in Congress, in the United
States Senate, anyway, that supports that authorization for the use of military force, Corker said.
Obamas proposal would allow the use of military force against IS for three years, unbounded by national borders. The
fight could be extended to any closely related successor entity to the IS, which has overrun parts of Iraq and Syria. He
ruled out large-scale U.S. ground combat operations reminiscent of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Page 5
OBAMA PLAN DOESNT LIMIT GROUND TROOPS

CURRENT PROPOSALS THAT ARE AIMED AT LIMITED GROUND FORCES DON'T REALLY LIMIT GROUND FORCES-Graham
'15
[Chris; Editor; Sen. Kaine presses for clarity on ground troops in action against ISIL; Augusta Free Press; 11 March 2015;
http://augustafreepress.com/sen-kaine-presses-for-clarity-on-ground-troops-in-action-against-isil/; retreived 12 March
2015]
In an effort to seek clarity on language in the proposed AUMF regarding the prohibition of U.S. ground troops that no
enduring offensive ground combat operations would be permitted Kaine questioned the witnesses on whether
Operation Desert Storm, where nearly 700,000 Americans were deployed for up to seven months from 1990-91, would
be considered an enduring ground combat operation.
All three witnesses said no.
In closing, Kaine acknowledged the danger of a ground troop creep under the proposed AUMF language and pressed
for more clarity in the definition.
OBAMA PLAN IS UNCLEAR ON THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS-Boxer '15
[Senator Barbara; Other Voices: Boxer says limit ground troops vs. ISIL; The Desert Sun; 18 February 2015;
http://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/02/17/voices-boxer-aumf-isil/23585461/; retireved 13
March 2015]
This is the commitment the president made last June when he said, "I think we always have to guard against mission
creep, so let me repeat what I've said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again." He
made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, "Instead of getting
dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade
and ultimately destroy this terrorist group."
That is why I was so surprised by the administration's draft AUMF which would allow this administration and the next
one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no "enduring offensive
ground combat operations."
At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing and no one has defined the meaning of "enduring." At
worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American
troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Page 6
INTRIGUE ON TROOPS QUESTION BAD: STOPPING TIME SENSITIVE DEBATE

LACK OF US COMMITMENT IS FRUSTRATING THE COALITION FIGHTING ISIL IN IRAQ-Khan '15
[Taimur; Arab frustration comes into focus over US strategy on ISIL; The National; 7 March 2015;
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/arab-frustration-comes-into-focus-over-us-strategy-on-isil#full; retrieved
12 March 2015]
The operation to retake the city of Tikrit from ISIL has brought into focus the growing frustration among Washingtons
Arab allies with the US broader strategy in the fight against extremists.
The push to clear Tikrit is being led by Iranian-backed Shiite militias, who make up about two thirds of the 30,000 troops
involved, as well as Iraqi military forces. Perhaps most worrying for the Arab coalition members, Irans Revolutionary
Guards officers are helping to direct the offensive.
Conspicuously absent have been the US-led coalition airstrikes that have backed up a mix of forces elsewhere in Iraq,
with suggestions that Baghdad launched the Tikrit offensive last Monday without notifying US military commanders.
WE MUST HAVE SERIOUS RESOLVE TO BEAT AN ENEMY LIKE ISIL-West '14
[Bing; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; How to Defeat ISIL; National Review; 14 August 2014;
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/401009/print; retrieved 13 March 2015]
Bombing should not be the opening gambit in a game of bridge or whist. The president has already imposed boundaries
on himself. This is exactly the wrong strategy. By linking air strikes to one humanitarian gesture, the president has made
it more difficult, if not impossible, for him later to say, An Islamist fundamentalist state must be defeated, and America
will bomb and otherwise aid beleaguered states until that happens.
The publics sense of war-wariness is not due to financial or personal sacrifice. It is due to the correct feeling that our
leadership does not want to be involved in war. If they stop, we stop. The deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan
seemed like Groundhog Day, with the fighting accomplishing no goal. Similarly, America is drifting toward a decade of
war-jaw with an Islamic state in the center of the Middle East.
The public will be supportive if and only if our political and military leadership display the warrior resolve to
destroy the Islamist army. If you go to war, kill the opponent. Crush his body and spirit until he is destroyed or submits
to your goals.
DEBATE OVER GROUND TROOPS IS PREVENTING THE ISIL AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE FROM MOVING FORWARDParker '15
[Ashley; Staff Writer; Impasse With Congress Imperils Authorization to Combat ISIS; New York Times; 11 March 2015;
page A1]
President Obamas formal request for congressional authorization to fight the Islamic State once framed by
lawmakers as a matter of great constitutional import is now seriously imperiled because Republicans think it does too
little and Democrats think it does too much.
And neither the White House nor many members of Congress seemed in any rush to bridge the divide.
Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials urged members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on Wednesday to approve Mr. Obamas request, but it was clear during the contentious three-hour session
that lawmakers were far from reaching any agreement.

Page 7
MUST NOT SQUABBLE OVER OUR SUPPORT OF THE US FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Wright '15
[Austin; Obama's war resolution stalls on the Hill; Politico; 11 March 2015;
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/john-kerry-ash-carter-isil-military-force-115980.html; retrieved 12 March 2015]
His remarks came after top administration officials pleaded for congressional action on the White House proposal to
authorize the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant updating a framework that has governed U.S.
operations abroad since early in the George W. Bush administration.
Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Ash Carter urged senators Wednesday to approve an authorization,
with Kerry calling on Congress to make clear it supports the U.S. war against ISIL with a single, powerful voice.
A clear and careful expression of this Congress backing at this point and time would expel doubt that might exist
anywhere that Americans are united in this effort, he said.
Page 8
PRO
AT THIS POINT, NOTHING SHOULD BE OFF THE TABLE!
US SHOULD USE "ALL OF THE ABOVE" STRATEGIES TO WIDEN AND DEEPEN ITS FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Rubeiz '15
[Ghassan Michel; Former Middle East Secretary of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches; Commentary: Three
questions about the war on ISIL; Palm Beach Post; 26 February 2015;
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/opinion/commentary-three-questions-about-the-war-on-isil/nkKLh/;
retrieved 11 March 2015]
Many analysts claim that, with its blood-thirsty barbarism, ISIL is digging its own grave by uniting all Muslims against it.
The truth is that new terror formations will continue to emerge as long as the region continues to fragment, as ruling
elites exploit their people and as Western powers build short-sighted and selfish partnerships with such elites.
In his recent testimony before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Marc Lynch asserted that the United States
should recognize the political roots of ISILs spread, and refocus its efforts to promote political reforms and curb the
human rights abuses which fuel popular anger and alienation.
The United States campaign against ISIL should continue, Arab armies should be induced to augment their participation,
and the global campaign against terror must widen and deepen its political strategies to better alleviate injustice.
MILITARY EXPERTS DON'T WANT TO RULE ANYTHING OUT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Van Auken '14
[Bill; Boots on the Ground against ISIL? US Generals Challenge Obama on Ground Troops in Iraq, Syria; Global
Research; 21 September 2014; http://www.globalresearch.ca/threat-of-the-islamic-state-us-generals-challenge-obamaon-ground-troops-in-iraq-syria/5403271; retrieved 5 March 2015]
Odierno referred to the 1,600 US troops the Obama administration has already deployed to Iraq as a good start, but
added that as the US military campaign developed, so too could the demand for further deployments. Based on that
assessment well make further decisions, he said.
The Army chief warned that the US was embarking on a protracted war in the region. This is going to go on, he said.
This is not a short termI think the president said three years. I agree with thatthree years, maybe longer. And so
what we want to do is do this right. Assess it properly, see how its going, adjust as we go along, to make sure we can
sustain this.
As to US ground troops entering combat together with Iraqi units, Odierno stated, I dont rule anything out. I dont ever
rule anything out, personally.
ANY AUTHORIZATION OF FORCE SHOULD HAVE AS MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE AS POSSIBLE TO COMBAT ENEMIESWong '15
[Kristina; GOP senator: Obamas ISIS plan 'utterly stupid'; The Hill; 11 February 2015;
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232559-gop-senator-obamas-isis-plan-utterly-stupid; retrieved 14 March 2015]
A Republican senator on Wednesday ripped President Obama for seeking to limit the use of military force against the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), calling the proposal utterly stupid."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in a radio interview noted the recent death of Kayla Mueller, who died while held captive by
the terrorist group, to argue the president needs to threaten ISIS with "all the force he can get."
"And here we have the president coming up with this I think it's utterly stupid proposal," Hatch told KSL News
Radio. "And he's binding the next president also with really stupid language."
"Any president worth his or her salt is going to ask for as much authority as they can get, so at least the ISIS people know
that he has the authority to come in on them anyway he wants to.

Page 9
WE MUST HAVE ALL TOOLS AVAILABLE TO DEFEAT ISIL, INCLUDING GROUND TROOPS IF NECESSARY-Wheeler '15
[Marcy; Americas out-of-control war machine: Why the new authorization is so problematic; Salon; 17 February 2015;
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/17/americas_out_of_control_war_machine_why_the_new_authorization_is_so_probl
ematic/; retrieved 12 March 2015]
That may be part of the point. Republicans have already objected to the one biggest limit in the AUMF, its promise not
to use enduring ground troops, which hardliners think are needed. If were going to authorize use of military force,
the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that were in, John Boehner told the National Journal
and other reporters.
Page 10
CURRENT STRATEGY INEFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING ISIL

US HAS ONLY BEEN ABLE TO STALL ISIL, NOT ROLL IT BACK-Freedberg '15
[Sydney; Deputy Editor; 4,817 Targets: How Six Months Of Airstrikes Have Hurt ISIL (Or Not); Breaking Defense; 11
February 2015; http://breakingdefense.com/2015/02/4817-targets-how-six-months-of-airstrikes-have-hurt-isil-or-not/;
The ISIL offensive has certainly stalled. Last years lightning advances gave way to local stalemates and a meatgrinder
battle for Kobani, where ISIL troops massing to attack the Kurds on the ground made themselves easy targets for the
Americans in the air. Overall, the air campaign has hit some 395 staging areas where ISIL fighters were gathering.
While ISIL captured parking lots full of sophisticated military vehicles from the Iraqi military, shortfalls in training and
supplies mean it still relies on pickup trucks with weapons but no armor hastily bolted on: 396 of these technicals
were struck, compared to just 62 tanks. Looking at the target list overall, ISIL largely lacks heavy weapons to support its
fighters advance, armored personnel carriers to move them forward under fire, or tanks to spearhead the advance. Its
lightly armed fanatics can overrun demoralized enemies like the Iraqi army or the moderate Syrians, but against
determined resistance they end up replaying the Western Front of World War I.ISIL vehicles struck
But stalemating ISIL is a long way from rolling it back. Defense is easier than offense, but only offense can force an end
to fighting, Clausewitz famously wrote. So far, though, the Iraqi security forces lack the morale to take the offensive, the
Kurds lack the heavy weapons, and the moderate Syrian rebels lack both. They need US training, equipment, and air
support to advance. But do they need US troops?
Page 11
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE TROOPS TO DEFEAT ISIL

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE TERRAIN IN FIGHTING ISIL IN IRAQ REQUIRED GROUND TROOPS-Ackerman and Jalabi '14
[Spencer and Raya; US military considers sending combat troops to battle Isis forces in Iraq; The Guardian; 13 November
2014; http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/13/us-military-considers-troops-iraq-general; retrieved 13
March 2015]
The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the direct use of
troops in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama
doubled troop levels there.
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed
services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend
abandoning Obamas oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.
Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraqs second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis
has erased will be fairly complex terrain for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting, Dempsey
acknowledged.
UNITED STATES MAY NEED TO EVENTUALLY DEDICATE GROUND TROOPS TO DEFEAT ISIL-Tilghman '15
[Andrew; Dempsey does not rule out U.S. ground troops in Syria; Military Times; 4 March 2015;
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/04/dempsey-us-ground-troops-in-syria-is-anoption/24380755/; retrieved 11 March 2015]
The military's top officer said Wednesday that American military boots on the ground may eventually be needed in Syria
to fight alongside moderate Syrian rebel groups.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified on Capitol Hill that military commanders may
consider the need for small teams of U.S. troops to help local Iraqi and Syrian forces if that is critical for defeating the
Islamic State militants.
"If the commander on the ground approaches either me or the secretary of defense and believes that the introduction
of special operations forces to accompany Iraqis or the new Syrian forces, or JTACS, these skilled folks who can call in
close-air support, if we believe that's necessary to achieve our objectives, we will make that recommendation,"
Dempsey told the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel.
WE MUST HAVE TROOPS ON THE GROUND TO DEFEAT ISIL-Joyner '14
[James; US Ground Troops Fighting ISIL; Outside the Beltway; 21 December 2014;
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/us-ground-troops-fighting-isil/; retrieved 11 March 2015]
From the beginning, its been obvious that the goals of defeating ISIL and not sending in ground troops are mutually
contradictory. Given that President Obama is a pretty smart guy and is surrounded by experts in military affairs, the
obvious takeaway is that our goal is something short of defeating ISIL, namely containment. But the fact of the matter is
that, while the U.S. soldiers on the ground arent ground troops in the sense of infantry forces sent there with the
mission of actively closing with and destroying an enemy force, there presence makes their getting into the occasional
firefight inevitable.

Page 12
WE MUST USE TROOPS IN ORDER TO DEFEAT ISIL-Moore '14
[Martha; McCain: Ground troops needed to fight ISIL; USA Today; 29 September 2014;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/29/mccain-isis-strategy/16447511/; retrieved 4 March 2015]
Americans would support sending more U.S. troops to fight the Islamic State if U.S. strategy in the region were clearer,
Sen. John McCain, a longtime critic of President Obama's foreign policy, said Monday. And without more specialized
troops, he said, the U.S. mission against the Islamic State will fail.
"I wish the president would stop saying we're not going to have combat troops on the ground,'' McCain said in an
interview with USA TODAY. "In support roles, in special forces roles, intelligence, and particularly (in) target acquisition,
we can have people there.''
US GROUND TROOPS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED TO GET THE JOB DONE AGAINST ISIL-Boshart '15
[Graham: U.S. ground troops needed against ISIL; Waterloo Daily Courier; 20 February 2015;
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/graham-u-s-ground-troops-needed-against-isil/article_cacbd9129277-523e-b661-0c8ea07b441f.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, in Iowa Friday to test the waters for a possible 2016 Republican presidential bid,
said U.S. troops are needed on the ground to destroy the growing threat posed by Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.
The 12-year veteran of the U.S. Senate criticized President Obama's foreign policy as "a miserable failure." He said
Republicans who agreed with the president's call to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and to include military cutbacks in
the budget sequestration process were wrong and need to embrace a change of course to bolster the nation's defense.
"I put on the table to degrade and destroy ISIL will require an American ground component to assist those in the region
to get the job done," Graham said. "I say this knowing how hard it will be for many to hear," he said, notable soldiers
and their families who have suffered and "a war-weary public."
LIMITED GROUND FORCE STRATEGY WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE-Parker '15
page A1]
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the committee, said he did not know of a single
Democrat who supported the administrations current request, and he warned, What that does on this side of the
aisle is put Republican senators in the position of looking at a limited authorization for the use of military force that, in
some ways, ratifies a strategy, especially in Syria, that many people do not believe is effective.
LIMITING GROUND TROOPS LIMITS OR ABILITY TO TRULY FIGHT ISIL-Shane '15
[Leo III; Dems could block new force authorization in Iraq; Military Times; 11 March 2015;
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/03/11/isis-aumf-democrats-concerns/70147164/;
Obama has promised not to deploy ground troops in the region, but several Senate hawks have questioned whether the
radical militants of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, can be wiped out without some direct U.S. ground
intervention. They also questioned whether leaving that ground fighting to regional forces including Iran-backed
militias makes America safer.

Page 13
THE UNITED STATES IS FIGHTING A BIGGER FORCE THAN IN FALLUJAH DURING THE IRAQ WAR AND MUST COMMIT
TO USING GROUND TROOPS-Seck '15
[Hope Hodge; Senator to CMC: Marines might have to go back to Iraq; Marine Corps Times; 10 March 2015;
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/03/10/graham-to-commandant-you-may-have-togo-back/24704499/; retreived 12 March 2015]
"When it comes to Iraq and Syria, do you agree with me that if we take ISIL on and when I say 'we,' the United States
and the region we must win?" Graham asked.
"I agree, senator," Dunford replied.
Graham asked Dunford how many Marines were involved in the first and second battles of Fallujah during the Iraq War.
Counting Army ground forces in the total, Dunford estimated that 6,000 U.S. troops had taken part in the first battle,
and 14,000 in the second.
"OK, so we're about to fight a bigger force," Graham said. "And how many members of our military do we have in Iraq
today?"
Dunford said about 3,000 U.S. troops were on the ground in Iraq, 500 of them Marines. This number includes a Marine
contingent advising Iraqi troops in Anbar province, including two 25-man teams embedded with the Iraqi 7th division. It
also includes a detachment of Marines assigned to provide security for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
When Graham asked whether Dunford agreed sending ground troops to assist regional forces was "the best way to
degrade or destroy" the Islamic State group, Dunford demurred, saying Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S.
Central Command, would soon make a recommendation as to how force presence in Iraq might change. But Dunford
agreed with Graham that the Islamic State group posed a threat to the U.S. not just to Iraq and the surrounding
region.
"So, anyone who thinks that defeating or destroying ISIL is their problem, not ours, is making a huge mistake?" Graham
pressed.
Dunford and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert both said they agreed with the sentiment.
Page 14
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: REGIONAL TROOPS NOT ENOUGH

LEAVING THE GROUND WAR ONLY TO LOCAL MILITARIES WILL CAUSE THIS WAR TO LAST FOR DECADES-West '14
Air will accomplish General Dempseys first two objectives: contain and disrupt. Between 1991 and 2003, three U.S.
presidents maintained air patrols as part of the sanctions against Iraq, flying about 100,000 sorties annually for twelve
years. Routine strikes, with no American casualties, generate little news.
Settle in for the long haul, at least another decade. General Dempseys third objective, defeat the Islamists, requires
Muslim ground forces to push the Islamists out of Iraq and Syria.
Why? Because Secretary of State Kerry has vociferously insisted that no American combat troops will be placed on the
ground. Engineers, air controllers, special forces, etc. as well as grunts are combat troops. This rules out eyes on the
ground to direct our air a significant drawback. It rules out any systematic pushing back of the Islamist army as the
Taliban and al-Qaeda were pushed back in Afghanistan in 2001 by our special-forces teams on horseback, equipped with
ground-to-air radios. It sends a terrible message to the Army and Marines, informing them that everything they may
have learned over the last 15 years about fighting insurgents without uniforms among the people counts for nothing,
because this administration will not again employ ground forces.
LOCAL TROOPS WON'T BE EFFECTIVE ENOUGH TO DEFEAT ISIL-CCTV America '15
[U.S. Gov. outlines strategy to take Mosul, Iraq from ISIL control; CCTV America; 20 February 2015; http://www.cctvamerica.com/2015/02/20/u-s-gov-outlines-strategy-to-take-mosul-iraq-from-isil-control; retrieved 12 March 2015]
Although the Iraqi army has had some successes in fighting ISIL, some military minds believe retaking Mosul will be a
stretch.
It is going to be a bloody street by street, house by house fight, and thats why all of the skeptics are looking at it and
saying this Iraqi army, even the Peshmerga without massive air strikes, may not be up to it, Dr. Roby Barrett of the
Middle East Institute said.
Mosuls million citizens may not welcome the Iraqi government back.
There is a reason that ISIS took Mosul so easily and everybody ran, you dont have a few thousand guys take a city of
one point five million unless the people in the city are fundamentally alienated from the government like the way they
were from Baghdad, Barrett said.
LOCAL ARMIES WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST ISIL-Rubeiz '15
As for the second question, local armies cannot lead the war against ISIL. Arab generals are more preoccupied with the
safety of the rulers than they are with the security of national borders. The last time Arab armies led a war to reclaim
land was in 1973, when Egyptian and Syrian forces attacked Israel in a failed attempt to regain territories lost in the 1967
Six-Day War.
Consequently no national Arab army is the in the lead in the global fight against terror. The most powerful ground forces
against ISIL today are the Kurdish Peshmerga, the Iranian Quds forces and the Iraqi Hashd Shiite militias.

Page 15
REGIONAL ARMY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT US GROUND TROOP ASSISTANCE-Boshart '15
[Graham: U.S. ground troops needed against ISIL; Waterloo Daily Courier; 20 February 2015;
http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/graham-u-s-ground-troops-needed-against-isil/article_cacbd9129277-523e-b661-0c8ea07b441f.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
"I do not believe that it is possible for any regional army to degrade and destroy ISIL without American assistance. Most
of the fighting will be borne by the region, but we have capabilities that they lack, and it is our war, too," he said. "Those
who say I'm tired of fighting other people's wars don't understand what ISIL has in store for you and the nation, so we'll
have to be part of this team and the sooner we get on with it, the better."
ARAB TROOPS ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT ISIL-Ghosh '15
[Bobby; Why Arab Ground Troops Wont Defeat ISIS; Defense One; 23 February 2015;
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/02/why-arab-ground-troops-wont-defeat-isis/105876/print/; retrieved 12
March 2015]
Many in the West will take heart from the news that Egypts dictator, Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, is calling for a joint Arab
military force to take on Islamist extremism in the region. Coming shortly after his air force carried out bombing runs in
Libya against groups that have pledged fealty to ISIL, it is tempting to take Sisis proclamation as a call to arms against
the monstrous terrorist organization that calls itself the Islamic State. It raises the prospect of Arab boots on the ground
in Syria and Iraq, taking on with the help of Western planes and dronesISIL.
Ready for the reality check?
It is one thing for the Egyptian air force to bomb ISILaka ISISfrom the air. But when it comes to ground troops, the
ability of Arab militaries to fight an organized, motivated enemy is highly suspect. (That may explain why, only last week,
Sisi was calling for a United Nations force to bring order to Libya.)
It has been decades since the Egyptian military has fought a full-fledged war, and the last time it was deployed in
another Arab countryin Yemen in the 1960sit was humiliated. Since then, Egypts 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. Theyve 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 Egypts recent track record is dismal, the history of Arab military cooperation isnt 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.
Its worth remembering, too, that one of the most powerful Arab militariesSyriashas 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. Assads planes and tanks have flattened
entire towns and cities, and still have failed to defeat ISIL, much less recover territory under the terrorists control.
The other Arab military in the war against ISIL, Iraqs, seems to be leaving the hardest fighting to Kurdish militias and
Iran-backed Shiite gangs. Last week, as the Pentagon talked up an Iraqi-led, US-guided offensive against Mosul, many
Iraqi leaders were skeptical that their troops would be ready.
None of this is to suggest that the fight against ISIL will not require Arab military involvementit will. But just as in the
current air campaign against the terrorists in Syria and Iraq, regional forces can at best be expected to put in a token
effort. When the time comes for a ground offensive against ISIL, expect the heavy lifting to be done by battle-hardened
Western troops, rather than the tin soldiers who make up most Arab militaries.

Page 16
SYRIA DOESN'T SUPPORT FOREIGN TROOPS IN THE GROUND THERE TO FIGHT ISIL-Agence France-Presse '15
[Syria rejects foreign ground troops to fight ISIL; Agence France-Presse; 9 February 2015;
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/syria-rejects-foreign-ground-troops-to-fightisil.aspx?pageID=238&nID=78097&NewsCatID=352; retrieved 13 March 2015]
Syria will not allow foreign ground troops on its territory to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Foreign
Minister Walid al-Muallem said on Feb. 9.
Speaking at a news conference in Damascus, Muallem also said Jordan had not responded to a Syrian request to
coordinate efforts against ISIL after the group killed a captured Jordanian pilot.
"So far, there is no coordination between Syria and Jordan in the fight against terrorism," Muallem said at the joint news
conference with Belarus Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei.
"As for press reports about ground troops entering Syria, we say clearly that... we will not permit anyone to violate our
national sovereignty by intervening to fight ISIL," Muallem said.
"The Syrian Arab army is honourably undertaking this task."
Page 17
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AIR STRIKES NOT ENOUGH

TIMEFRAME DEMANDS THAT WE USE MORE THAN LOCAL FORCES AND AIR STRIKES-Moran '14
[Rick; Air Power vs. ISIS: What to expect; American Thinker; 25 September 2014;
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/air_power_vs_isis_what_to_expect.html; retrieved 13 March 2015]
ISIS is adapting to the new battlefield by not concentrating their forces as much and melting into the background of the
towns and villages they control. But as the analysis points out, at least part of their forces will still be vulnerable to air
attack - especially when they engage the peshmerga or Iraqi forces.
It appears that in order to be effective, the coalition will have to set up a series of air bases in Iraq where planes can be
dispatched quickly and effficiently to deal with ISIS threats. That will take many months - as will retraining the Iraqi
army. Do we have that long?
ISIS is betting no.
AIR STRIKES AGAINST ISIL WILL BE INEFFECTIVE-Linetsky '14
[Zuri; Researcher, The Foundation for Middle East Peace; ISIL, Iraq and Syria: Why Military Action Wont Do The Trick;
The American Prospect; 24 September 2014; http://prospect.org/article/isil-iraq-and-syria-why-military-actionwon%E2%80%99t-do-trick; retrieved 13 March 2015]
As well, military operationssuch as air strikesagainst 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 alQaeda 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.
THE EFFECT OF AIRSTRIKES IS LIMITED WITHOUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND-Beach '14
[Alastair; Iraq asks for US ground troops as Isil threaten Baghdad; The Telegraph; 11 October 2014;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11156264/Iraq-asks-for-US-ground-troops-as-Isil-threatenBaghdad.html; retrieved 12 March 2015]
But rather than silencing calls for a boots-on-the-ground operation, the campaign has so far served to expose the limits
of air power against a well-drilled army of battle-hardened militants.
Jets belonging to the US-led coalition have so far launched nearly 2,000 air strikes against Isil targets, dropping hundreds
of bombs on convoys, encampments and other jihadi positions.
And yet still the groups gunmen march on both in Kobane and throughout Anbar province. It emerged on Saturday
that one of the reasons why they were having only a limited effect was because of the lack troops on the ground to
gather intelligence on targets and then guide the strikes in using laser technology.
Speaking to the Daily Beast website, US pilots warned that air strikes were being compromised as a result.
AIRSTRIKES NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT ISIL-Moore '14
Airstrikes are insufficient to end the threat posed by ISIS, McCain said. "But I don't think it's necessary to have large
combat units ... Because I don't think we have to, number one, and the more we do send in, the higher likelihood of
casualties.''

Page 18
THE TYPE OF FIGHTING THE AIR FORCE IS USING AGAINST ISIL IS NOT THE TYPE OF FIGHTING THEY WERE DESIGNED
FOR-Freedberg '15
One fact leaps out: This is close air support against enemy ground troops, not the surgical strikes against strategic
targets that the Air Force was born for. Almost two-thirds of targets struck are troops, forward positions, and vehicles;
just one-third are buildings and other fixed infrastructure. This is an imperfect indicator, since some buildings may be
temporary staging positions close to the front line, and some troops may be hit far to the rear. Overall, though, the 2:1
ratio in targets by type indicates the air campaign is emphasizing ISILs forward fighting forces what pilots once
derided as tank plinking rather than its rear support structure.
AIR STRIKES ARE NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT ISIL-Van Auken '14
This hardly settled the question, however. Speaking on the same day as the president, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief
of staff and former top US commander in Iraq, told journalists that air strikes would prove insufficient to achieve
Washingtons ostensible goal of destroying ISIS. Youve got to have ground forces that are capable of going in and
rooting them out, he said.
AIRSTRIKES ARE NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT ISIL; GROUND TROOPS ARE NEEDED IN IRAQ AND SYRIA-Colman '15
[Zach; Lawmakers squabble over ground troops to fight Islamic State; Washington Examiner; 8 February 2015;
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmakers-squabble-over-ground-troops-to-fight-islamic-state/article/2559971;
Hawkish Republicans who have long pressed Obama for more decisive, aggressive action to curb the Sunni terrorist
group's advances are calling for a U.S. ground presence. Sen. Lindsey Graham last week on CBS's "Face the Nation"
suggested the U.S. should send 10,000 U.S. troops to areas the Islamic State has carved out to impose caliphate.
"An aerial campaign will not destroy them," Graham said, adding, "You're going to need boots on the ground, not only in
Iraq, but in Syria."
The authorization for the use of military force will be a key flashpoint. The Obama administration has so far been using
an existing authorization stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to carry out the current combat mission, and is
expected to soon propose a new one to deal specifically with the Islamic State.
US AIRSTRIKE STRATEGY IS NOT ENOUGH TO ERADICATE ISIL-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
The strategy as it stands, being limited to airstrikes, is not sufficient to eradicate ISIS, said Lina Khatib, director of the
Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, referring to ISIL by an alternative acronym. If anything, it is making all countries
that are part of the coalition, especially Arab countries neighbouring Iraq and Syria, more vulnerable.

Page 19
LIBYA PROVES THAT WE CAN'T DO A MISSION AGAINST ISIL WITH AIR POWER ALONE-Carroll '14
[Chris; Opponents Say Obama Will Need Ground Troops Against ISIL; Military.com News; 11 September 2014;
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/11/opponents-say-obama-will-need-ground-troops-against-isil.html;
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., dismissed what he called Obama
"minimalist" plan to the defeat Islamic State insurgents with the focus on air power. McKeon predicted that even in an
advisory role, U.S. troops would likely end up in the thick of the fighting and would ultimately need to more, including
fighting alongside Iraqi units, helping them with logistics and communications, and aiding in holding ground taken from
the Islamic State, group also known by the acronyms ISIL and ISIS.
"American boots will be standing on sand. Americans will be shot at, and they will be shooting back," McKeon said in
prepared remarks to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. "There's
simply no other way to do this."
He noted that U.S. reliance on airpower alone in the NATO campaign against the late Moammar Gadhafi had failed to
bring stability once the Libyan leader was gone.
"We tried that in Libya, and it hasn't worked," he said.
AIRSTRIKE STRATEGY IS REALLY PLAYING INTO ISIL'S HANDS-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
The formula of coalition airstrikes backing non-Sunni Arab forces on the ground in Iraq is playing into the extremists
hands, she said.
As a result, concern among the regional allies about their own security is also growing.
ISIL is under pressure to demonstrate that it possesses the resilience to withstand the war against it, and one way would
be by attacking coalition countries.
Page 20
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: TRAINING AND ADVISING NOT ENOUGH

ADVISING AND TRAINING IS NOWHERE AS EFFECTIVE AS PUTTING TROOPS IN THE FIELD TO ASSIST WITH COMBAT
OPERATIONS-Cordesman '15
[Anthony H.; Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Boots on the
Ground: The Realities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria; 13 February 2015; http://csis.org/publication/boots-groundrealities-afghanistan-iraq-and-syria; retrieved 11 March 2015]
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the earlier war in Iraq have all shown that new forces tend to be no stronger than their
weakest link, and simply providing formal training, equipment, facilities, and organization is no substitute for putting
advisers in the field, working directly with host country forces, and providing enablers that can help new and
inexperienced forces when they run into trouble.
Page 21
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MASSIVE FORCE NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE

AN EFFECTIVE FORCE IN IRAQ TO FIGHT ISIL DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN A LARGE FORCE-Ackerman and Jalabi '14
March 2015]
Even with potential US involvement in ground combat looming, Dempsey and Hagel said further troop increases would
be modest and not on the order of the 150,000 US troops occupying Iraq at the height of the 2003-2011 war.
I just dont foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military
contingent, Dempsey said.
EVEN A SMALL NUMBER OF GROUND FORCES CAN MAKE THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL WITH AIR SUPPORT THAT MUCH
BETTER-Freedberg '15
Currently, the US ground presence in the region is largely limited to rear-area training in Iraq. Senate Armed Services
chairman John McCain called months ago for more boots on the ground in the form of forward air controllers, special
forces and other people like that. Small numbers of such specialists can direct airstrikes to precise and devastating
effect, as they did in support of the Northern Alliance after 9/11, and arguably they are the crucial piece of our 2001
success in Afghanistan thats missing from the Middle East today.
US MUST HAVE AT LEAST A LIMITED USE OF GROUND FORCES TO DEFEAT ISIL-Acosta et al '14
[Jim; and Kevin Liptak and Josh Levs; Obama, Kerry: No U.S. troops will be sent into combat against ISIS in Iraq, Syria;
CNN; 17 Stpebmer 2014; http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/politics/obama-isis/; retrieved 11 March 2015]
The Prime Minister's remarks came a day after Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told
members of Congress he hasn't ruled out recommending U.S. ground forces deploy to attack ISIS targets if the current
air campaign in Iraq fails.
"To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific
ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President," Dempsey said.

Page 22
WHILE A MASSIVE FORCE IS NOT REQUIRED, WE SHOULD USE AT LEAST A SMALL FORCE IN ORDER TO DEFEAT ISILCarroll '14
Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters Thursday that the 475 advisers due to be sent to Iraq in
coming days would embed with local troops at brigade level and higher headquarters, and would not engage in
operations such as accompanying troops on combat operations or calling in airstrikes from the battlefield. James
Carafano, a former Army officer and security scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama is right to
avoid sending entire divisions back into Iraq. But the plan he has laid out is too stingy with troops, Carafano said.
"Conceptually, you look at the plan and you can live with that," he said. "But you have to look at what's underneath.
With the president you get the sense he's saying, 'I don't want to be accused of doing nothing, and I don't want to be
accused of being Bush, and a neocon."
The president is clearly avoiding "mission creep," Carafano said. But too few U.S. troops at the beginning of American's
war to destroy ISIS actually creates a risk of mission creep, he said.
US GROUND TROOPS SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A LIMITED ROLE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Aljazeera '14
[US could deploy ground forces in ISIL fight; Aljazerra; 17 September 2014;
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/us-could-deploy-ground-forces-isil-fight201491752135174676.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
American ground troops could be deployed against Islamic State and the Levant (ISIL) fighters in Iraq, according to the
most senior US military officer.
General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US military's joint chiefs of staff, said on Tuesday he might recommend having
US troops do more, potentially accompanying Iraqis during complicated offensives, such as a battle to retake the
northern city of Mosul from ISIL fighters.
"It could very well be part of that particular mission - to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that
mission," he said.
GROUND TROOPS ARE IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY THE RIGHT TARGETS FOR AIR STRIKES-Van Auken '14
Odierno intensified his argument on Friday, telling reporters that air strikes alone would grow increasingly problematic
as ISIS forces intermingled with Iraqs civilian population.
When you target, you want to make sure you are targeting the right people, the Army commander said. The worst
thing that can happen for us is if we start killing innocent Iraqis, innocent civilians. He added that US ground forces
would be needed to direct the bombing campaign.

Page 23
US MILITARY BELIEVES THAT AT LEAST SOME ROLE EXISTS FOR GROUND TROOPS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Van
Auken '14
The Washington Post pointed to the conflict Friday in a lead article entitled In military, skepticism of Obamas plan,
writing, Flashes of disagreement over how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and US
military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward and uneasy relationship.
The first major public airing of the divisions between the military command and the White House came Tuesday in
congressional testimony in which Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that
circumstances in Iraq and Syria could require the introduction of US ground troops and he would not rule out their
deployment. He added that the commander of CENTCOM, which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, had
already proposed the intervention of US troops in the campaign to retake the Mosul dam last month, but had been
overruled by the White House.
A LIMITED USE OF GROUND TROOPS TO SUPPORT THE MISSION IS REQUIRED AT THE VERY LEAST-Moore '14
"If you said we're going to send the 82nd Airborne and you're going to see Iraq and Afghanistan all over again, then, no,''
McCain said. "But If you said, we're going to send in support troops that can give vital information so that we can
successfully carry out an air campaign not put Americans into combat then I think a lot of Americans would say,
gee, if that's what it takes to beat these people that I just watched behead (Western journalists), the most grisly hideous
thing that most Americans have ever seen, then I think you could convince them.''
LIMITED GROUND TROOPS REQUIRED TO CHECK THE THREAT OF ISIL-Times News '15
[Weighing our actions against the Islamic State; the Times News; 13 February 2015;
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/our-opinion/weighing-our-actions-against-the-islamic-state-1.438022;
retrieved 13 February 2015]
Months after U.S. forces launched an air war against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, President Obama is seeking
congressional authorization for the effort. The presidents letter sent to Congress on Wednesday actually seeks to
expand the war a bit further, to include mounting rescue operations and allowing Special Operations forces to take
military action against ISIL leadership.
He left the door open to a limited deployment of U.S. ground troops to combat this emerging threat, which signals a
change of tone from the commander in chief that he may be starting to take the Islamist group more seriously than his
previous rhetoric had suggested.
If left unchecked, the president wrote, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States
homeland.
Page 24
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: SHOULD USE SPECIALIZED FORCES TO DEFEAT ISIL

WE SHOULD ALLOW US SPECIAL FORCES TO USE THEIR TRAINING IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Michaels '15
[Jim; Will U.S. troops be drawn back into Iraq war?; USA Today; 25 February 2015;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/02/25/mosul/23955799/; retrieved 13 March 2015]
Liberating Mosul will be a different challenge. Civilians largely evacuated Kobani, but hundreds of thousands of residents
remain in Mosul. That makes precision airstrikes critical, since the militants will probably attempt to hide among
civilians.
Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have called on the White House to allow Special Forces
teams to accompany Iraqi troops, so they can help call in airstrikes and aid in other functions. The GOP critics have
complained that Obama has placed too many restrictions on the U.S. military in Iraq.
THE USE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE STRATEGY TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT USING
REGULAR GROUND TROOPS-Rizzo '15
[Rachel; Staff, Strategy Initiative at the Atlantic Councils Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security; The Hill; 12
March 2015; http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/235424-congress-needs-to-change-the-new-aumf;
For the past six months, the United States has led a 62-nation coalition in an intense bombing campaign against the ISIL
in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, this strategy is not working fast enough. It is time for the U.S. to pass official legislation to allow
for a limited number of additional Special Operations Forces (SOF) to assist the Government of Iraq (GOI) to fight ISIL,
with their mission narrowly and clearly spelled out in the new AUMF. The question before Congress is how to strike a
balance between limiting U.S. engagement in Iraq, while still making enough of a difference to regain lost Iraqi territory
and stabilize the country long-term.The AUMF draft on ISIL sent to Congress in February, would allow the president to
use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or
associated persons or forces, within certain stipulated parameters. As Democrats and Republicans negotiate its
language, they need to include basic elements to prevent mission creep. The final bill should allow for the continued
deployment of only Special Operations Forces (SOF) to help the GOI regain lost territory, it should remove the sunset
clause of three years to avoid unrealistic deadlines, and it should clarify the ambiguous phrase associated persons or
forces to ensure sustainable but limited engagement.
This conflict cannot be solely won through military means. Allowing more SOF, but not regular ground troops, will force
US forces in Iraq to focus the majority of their efforts on advising the GOI and training the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) to a
point at which they effectively confront ISIL on their own and regain lost territory. This is an approach on which both
Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree. SOF teams conduct not only highly secretive and specialized
missions, but they are also cultural experts capable of advising government officials. Targeting high value ISIL leaders
should only be small a component of their overall mission. This approach will not only weaken ISILs decentralized
command structure, but also eventually defeat its ideology through strengthened government institutions and a highly
trained ISF.
Page 25
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST GREEN LIGHT THE POSSIBLE USE OF TROOPS TO GET
POLITICAL SUPPORT
GIVING GROUND TROOPS A ROLE IN THE RIGHT AGAINST ISIL IS CRITICAL TO GAIN POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR AN
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE-Pugliese '15
[David; U.S. general worried about what happens in Iraq after ISIL is defeated; Ottawa Citizen; 11 March 2015;
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/u-s-general-worried-about-what-happens-in-iraq-after-isil-isdefeated; retreived 12 March 2015]
Republicans expressed unhappiness that Obama had chosen to exclude any long-term commitment of ground forces,
while some Democrats voiced dismay that he had opened the door to any deployment whatsoever.
The 2002 congressional authorization that preceded the American-led invasion of Iraq would be repealed under the
White House proposal, a step some Republicans were unhappy to see. But a separate authorization approved by
Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would remain in force, to the consternation of some Democrats.
The struggle to define any role for American ground forces is likely to determine the outcome of the administrations
request for legislation. The White House has said that the proposal was intentionally ambiguous on that point to give the
president flexibility, although the approach also was an attempt to bridge a deep divide in Congress.
Page 26
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT

SUPPORT IS RISING FOR GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Washington Free Beacon '15
[Support Growing for Use of Ground Troops Against Islamic State; Washington Free Beacon; 5 March 2015;
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/support-growing-for-use-of-ground-troops-against-islamic-state/; retrieved 11
March 2015]
Support continues to rise for the use of ground troops against the Islamic State (IS), a new Quinnipiac University poll
shows.
The poll found that 62 percent would support ground troops in Iraq and Syria to fight IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Just
30 percent oppose ground troops in the area.
The Hill reports:
Seventy-three percent of Republicans surveyed would approve the use of ground troops, as would 53 percent of
Democrats. The poll also found strong support for ground troops among independents, with 60 percent saying they
would back their deployment in the fight against ISIS.
AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT MILITARY ACTION AGAINST ISIL-Kamisar '15
[Ben; Poll: Most back ground troops in ISIS fight; The Hill; 13 FEbruary 2015; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumf; retrieved 11 March 2015]
Two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to put some boots on the ground to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and a
majority wants Congress to authorize President Obamas plan for military action, according to a new NBC News/Maris
poll released Friday.
A majority of Americans polled, 54 percent, said their member of Congress should vote to authorize U.S. military action
against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while 32 percent are opposed to it.
THE BRUTALITY OF ISIL HAS DRUMMED UP SUPPORT FOR US GROUND TROOPS IN THE FIGHT-Chandler '15
[Adam; For the First Time, Americans Support Ground Troops Against ISIS; The Atlantic; 19 February 2015;
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/a-first-a-majority-of-americans-back-ground-troopsagainst-isis/385650/; retrieved 13 March 2015]
Barack Obama's closing remarks at the summit on Countering Violent Extremism on Wednesday were notable not only
for the president's avoidance of words like "Islamic" and Muslim," but also for their emphasis on ISIS. The terrorist group
merited a dozen mentions, more than double that of its rival, al Qaeda. "ISIL is terrorizing the people of Syria and Iraq,
beheads and burns human beings in unfathomable acts of cruelty," Obama said. "Weve seen deadly attacks in Ottawa
and Sydney and, Paris, and now Copenhagen."
The group's confounding brutality (see The Atlantic's March cover story for more about that) has also made a profound
impression on the American public, gradually turning a seemingly war-weary country in favor not only of airstrikes
against the group, but also, according to a new CBS News poll, the deployment of ground troops. "For the first time, a
majority of Americans (57 percent) favor the U.S. sending ground troops into Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS," CBS reported.

Page 27
AS TIME GOES ON, THERE HAS BEEN AN UPTICK IN SUPPORT FOR GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Washington Free
Beacon '15
[Support Growing for Use of Ground Troops Against Islamic State; Washington Free Beacon; 5 March 2015;
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/support-growing-for-use-of-ground-troops-against-islamic-state/; retrieved 11
March 2015]
The Quinnipiac poll shows a significant uptick in support for a combat mission. In late February, a Pew poll found that 47
percent would back boots on the ground. A separate CNN/ORC poll from the same month also concluded 47 percent
supported the same outcome.
The polls findings come as Congress debates whether to authorize a request President Obama made on Feb. 11 for war
powers against ISIS. His proposed authorization for use of military force (AUMF) would prohibit the use of enduring
offensive ground combat operations, language aimed at soothing Democratic fears about a prolonged war in the
Middle East.
AMERICANS SUPPORT GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL BY A LARGE MAJORITY-Gass '15
[Nick; Poll: Large majority backs ground troops against ISIL; Politico; 4 March 2015;
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/support-troops-ground-islamic-state-poll-115746.html; retrieved 12 March
2015]
The United States should put boots on the ground to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, according to
registered voters surveyed in a new Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Among registered voters nationwide, 62 percent support ground troops in Iraq and Syria, while 30 percent oppose it.
Men back the action 68 percent to 28 percent, while women support it 57 percent to 33 percent.
The numbers also project a conviction that the U.S. will prevail against ISIL, with 69 percent of those surveyed
responding that they were very confident or somewhat confident, compared with 27 percent who said they were
not so confident or not confident at all. A majority 53 percent also responded that they are more concerned
about the U.S. not going far enough to stop the spread of the terrorist group in the region.
Sixty-four percent responded that Congress should authorize President Barack Obamas request to use military force
against ISIL, which has been stalled on Capital Hill amid questions on both sides of the aisle.
The poll, conducted Feb. 26-March 2, surveyed 1,286 registered American voters by land line and cellphone. The survey
carries an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

Page 28
MAJORITY OF VOTERS SUPPORT GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Sherfinski '15
[David; Six in 10 voters support U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic State; the Washington Times; 4 Match 2015;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/4/six-10-voters-support-us-ground-troops-fight-islam/; retrieved 11
March 2015]
Sixty-two percent of American voters support sending in U.S. ground troops to combat the Islamic State terrorist group
and 30 percent are opposed, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.
And 69 percent are very or somewhat confident that the U.S. and its allies will defeat the group, also known as ISIS
or ISIL. Fifty-three percent are more concerned that the U.S. military will not go far enough in stopping ISIS while 39
percent are concerned U.S. military action will go too far in getting involved in the situation.
In his request for the authorization of force against the group, President Obama kept the authorization to a three-year
time frame, and it limits the use of ground forces. Sixty-four percent of voters say Congress should grant him the
authorization, though 55 percent of voters disapprove of the way Mr. Obama is handling the group.
More than seven in 10 voters also say the United States should never pay ransom to terrorists holding American
hostages.
Send in the troops and eliminate ISIS: The resounding hardline message from Americans who say, Dont negotiate with
terrorists; destroy them, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
The survey of 1,286 registered voters was taken from Feb. 25 to March 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7
percentage points.
AMERICANS INCREASINGLY SUPPORT GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Sputnik News '15
[Americans Increasingly Favor Using US Ground Force Against ISIL AP Photo/ Senior Airman Matthew Bruch, US Air
Force; Sputnik News; 24 February 2015; http://sputniknews.com/us/20150224/1018708045.html; retrieved 12 March
2015]
Americans increasingly support US-led efforts against Islamic State (ISIL) militants, with almost half of respondents to a
new Pew Research Center survey saying they favor sending US ground forces to fight the radical militia in Iraq and Syria.
The public has grown more supportive of the US fight against ISIS [ISIL], as about twice as many approve (63 percent) as
disapprove (30 percent) of the military campaign against the Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria, research group
said in a statement on Tuesday.
The proportion of Americans who favor deploying US ground forces against ISIL has also grown, with 47 percent now
supporting US boots on the ground, compared to just 39 percent in October last year, researchers said.
The researchers said that in October 2014, 57 percent of population approved and 33 percent disapproved of the US
fight against the ISIL.
Page 29
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE A SHOW OF FORCE TO CONVINCE ALLIES OF OUR
RESOLVE
IF ISIL IS A SERIOUS THREAT, WE SHOULD BE ACTING AS IF THEY ARE WITH OUR ACTIONS-West '14
With the Obama administration, nothing is ever what it was or may be in the future. There is no constancy. Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel has described the threat in terms of some of the most brutal, barbaric forces weve ever seen in
the world today, and a force, ISIL, and others that is an ideology thats connected to an army, and its a force and a
dimension that the world has never seen before like we have seen it now. The Visigoths, Attila, and Tamerlane have a
new rival. Obviously this new scourge upon mankind must be destroyed.
But wait: Then Mr. Hagel delivered the punch line. I recommended to the president, and the president has authorized
me, to go ahead and send about 130 new assessment-team members. Mr. Hagel is holding the rest of our force in
reserve in case the Martians attack. One hundred thirty assessors are sufficient to deal with the most barbaric forces
weve ever seen.
We have to get serious about this: Does the U.S. view the Islamist army as a threat that must be destroyed by American
force of arms, or not?
INSUFFICIENCY OF US STRATEGY AGAINST ISIL IS FRUSTRATING ALLIES IN THE REGION-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
The US has pressured Baghdad to rely less on the militias perhaps conditioning air support on compliance with such
requests but the requests have been ignored. Iraqi officials say that while coalition airstrikes would accelerate the
operations pace, Irans support on the ground is more than enough to succeed.
The insufficiency of Washington limiting its direct role to airstrikes while it coaxes Baghdad to take political steps to
address Sunni grievances and integrate the remaining Sunni tribal forces willing to fight ISIL has never been more
glaring, according to regional allies.
The primacy of Iran and its proxies in ground operations against ISIL have raised deep fears among the Sunni-led
coalition countries that even victory will be temporary if it plays into the extremists narrative of Sunni oppression and
their rival Tehran is further entrenched in Iraq at their expense.
US APPROACH IS ENFORCING NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF OUR POLICY IN THE REGION-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
The US strategy has also reinforced the long-simmering perception that there is a lack of commitment from a White
House that is still taking a minimalist approach to the Middle East, content to only react to events without considering
its allies interests.

Page 30
GULF ALLIES ARE FRUSTRATED WITH THE US INSISTENCE TO JOIN THE COALITION WITH NO SECURITY ASSURANCES
FROM THE US-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
Without a regional security strategy for Gulf countries to handle this backlash, and without a comprehensive political
and military strategy to tackle ISIS, Gulf coalition allies are left exposed and angry about being pressured by the US to
join the coalition without consideration of security implications, Ms Khatib said.
Page 31
GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST COUNTER BALANCE COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN

HANDS OFF APPROACH TO ISIL IS GIVING IRAN CONTROL OVER THE NARRATIVE IN THE REGION-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
Saudi Arabia underscores the importance of this coalition in fighting ISIL both in Iraq and Syria, Saudi foreign minister
Prince Saud Al Faisal said on Thursday, speaking next to Mr Kerry.
The hands-off approach to Syria and the reliance on militia ground forces in Iraq is feeding a perception among all the
allies that the US is allowing Iran to dominate both countries at their expense.
US MUST PUT BOOTS ON THE GROUND AGAINST ISIL TO HELP BALANCE OUT THE INFLUENCE OF COUNTRIES LIKE
IRAN-Spencer '15
[Richard; Iran is 'taking over Iraq' and Obama must put boots on the ground against Isil, warns Saudi Arabia; The
Telegraph; 05 March 2015; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11453242/Iran-is-takingover-Iraq-and-Obama-must-put-boots-on-the-ground-against-Isil-warns-Saudi-Arabia.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
Saudi Arabia became the second key American ally in the Middle East to demand President Barack Obama change tack
towards Iran on Thursday, as it called for US-led coalition "boots on the ground" to fight Isil.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, told John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that he risked allowing Iran to
"take over Iraq", echoing Israel's recent concerns over the White House's policy toward Tehran.
The United States and its coalition allies are attacking Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) positions from the air in
both Syria and Iraq, but refusing to send troops. As a result, outside Kurdish areas the offensive in both countries is
heavily influenced by Iran and its proxy Shia militias such as Hizbollah.
This has raised serious concerns in Saudi Arabia, Iran's Sunni rival for Middle East dominance.
US BOOTS ON THE GROUND IS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE INFLUENCE OF IRAN IN THE REGION CONTROLLED BY ISILSpencer '15
[Richard; Iran is 'taking over Iraq' and Obama must put boots on the ground against Isil, warns Saudi Arabia; The
Telegraph; 05 March 2015; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11453242/Iran-is-takingover-Iraq-and-Obama-must-put-boots-on-the-ground-against-Isil-warns-Saudi-Arabia.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
"We are witnessing the export of the Islamic revolution throughout the region," he said. "From Bahrain and Iraq to Syria,
Yemen and North Africa."
Saudi Arabia has long borders with Iraq and Yemen, and also has a restive Shia minority of its own.
"We see Iran involved in Syria and Lebanon and Yemen and Iraq, and God knows where," Prince Saud said. "This must
stop if Iran is to be part of the resolution for the region and not part of the problem."
Page 32
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS PRESIDENTS ABILITY TO FIGHT ISIL

HARD LINE AGAINST GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARILY LIMITS THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO FIGHT ISIL-Parker '15
page A1]
For now, the legislation appears to be faltering under the collective weight of lawmakers who all remain wary, but for
very different reasons. Democrats worry that the authorization allows the country to embroil itself in another endless
conflict overseas, while Republicans say it unnecessarily limits the presidents ability to fight the Islamic State effectively,
including the potential for American ground troops.
ANY USE OF FORCE SHOULD NOT TIE THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF'S HANDS-Wong '15
Hatch said a new AUMF should clearly articulate that the executive branch is authorized to use force against ISIS, be
flexible enough to be use against future forms of ISIS, and be able to target associated organizations.
"Most importantly, the president should be asking for an authorization that would not impose any artificial and any
unnecessary limitations such as those based on time, geography and type of force that could interfere with our strategic
objectives of defeating the Islamic State," he said.
"What he's doing is tying his own hands, and stupidly tying his own hands," he said. "I mean my goodness, talk about
telegraphing weakness. That's what he's doing."
"The AUMF should not be public relations tool, and that's what he's using it for," he said. "I can't believe it. I can't
understand what this man does."
WE SHOULD NOT TIE THE HANDS OF THIS OR THE NEXT PRESIDENT WITH LIMITS ON THE USE OF GROUND TROOPSTimes News '15
No matter what happens from here, theres a lot at stake. No doubt, should troops be deployed, even on a limited basis,
many will come from North Carolinas military bases. And while Obama neednt use a large American military force, the
resolution he seeks could tie not only his own hands but those of his successor. Thats unwise.
In this tricky scenario America is also in a position where standing still is not a viable option. We hope that Republicans
and Democrats in Washington weigh all options with care, remembering that any movement toward military action
would require giving commanders the ability to end any potential threat by forces of the Islamic State.
Page 33
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS GENERALS ABILITY TO FIGHT

EFFECTIVELY
LIMITS IN GROUND TROOPS HANDCUFFS GENERALS IN DEALING WITH THE ISIL THREAT-Times News '15
Despite that dire assessment, the president also wants to handcuff his generals. Approval of military force would not
authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
president said. Local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations. The
authorization would expire in three years.
SHOULD NOT AUTHORIZE MILITARY FORCES WITH A RESTRICTION LIKE NO GROUND TROOPS-Ackerman and Jalabi '14
March 2015]
Representative Buck McKeon, the retiring California Republican who chairs the panel, said that he would not support a
congressional authorization for the war against Isis that ruled out direct US ground combat.
I will not support sending our military into harms way with their arms tied behind their backs, McKeon said, predicting
that an authorization explicitly preventing ground combat would be DOA in Congress.
YOU SHOULD NEVER TAKE SOMETHING LIKE GROUND TROOPS OFF THE TABLE UP FRONT-Van Auken '14
Even more blunt was Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, the former commander of CENTCOM, who retired only last year.
Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, he directly attacked Obamas public position of no boots on the
ground, stating, You just dont take anything off the table up front, which it appears the administration has tried to
do.
Mattis added:
If a brigade of our paratroopers or a battalion landing team of our Marines would strengthen our allies at a key juncture
and create havoc/humiliation for our adversaries, then we should do what is necessary with our forces that exist for that
very purpose.

Page 34
TYING THE HANDS OF MILITARY ADVISORS ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ WILL DOOM ALL PROGRESS MADE AGAINST ISILMichaels '15
A coming Iraqi offensive to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq's second-largest city renews a debate on whether U.S.
forces should play a larger role in the operation despite the risk of drawing them back into a war.
The White House has pledged to keep American forces out of combat, but Iraq would suffer a major setback in Mosul if
its troops falter because U.S. advisers are restricted in what they can do, security analysts say.
Failure to retake Mosul from the militants would "reverse all the gains we made since August," when the United States
launched airstrikes to stem the Islamic State's advances in Iraq, said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
"A lot is riding on this operation," said David Barno, a retired lieutenant general.
Page 35
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: SHOWS THAT THE US IS NOT RESOLVED

AGAINST ISIL
RULING OUT GROUND TROOPS SHOWS THAT UNITED STATES DOESN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY COMMITMENT TO
DEFEAT ISIL-DeYoung '15
[Karen; Associate Editor and Senior National Security Coorespondent; Defense secretary: Politics dictates timeline in
authorization for war; Washington Post; 11 March 2015; http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nationalsecurity/administration-officials-testify-on-war-authorization-against-islamic-state/2015/03/11/0a39c900-c817-11e4b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html; retrieved 12 March 2015]
The quantity and role of U.S. forces, or where they might end up combating the militants, have also been left purposely
vague in the administrations proposal, as it tries to navigate between members of President Obamas own party seeking
strict controls on military action and Republican hawks who want a more aggressive administration policy against the
Islamic State.
We find ourselves in an interesting place, said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the committee chairman. While lawmakers
from both parties welcomed Obamas initiative, he said, we dont know of a single Democrat in Congress, in the United
States Senate, anyway, who supports it as written.
On the other hand, he said, many Republicans believe that it does not show the commitment necessary to be really
successful.
Page 36
ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: PLAYS INTO ISIL STRATEGY

LIMITING THE POTENTIAL USE OF GROUND FORCES IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF ISIL-Wenig '15
[Erica; Pentagons Top Officials Support AUMF, While Congress Is Wary; The Daily Caller; 11 March 2015;
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/11/pentagons-top-officials-support-aumf-while-congress-is-wary/; retrieved 12 March
2015]
Obamas AUMF has been met by criticisms from Democrats who say it could lead to full-scale war and Republicans,
who oppose limits on ground troops and say the commander-in-chief should have discretionary power.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) had choice words for the presidents proposal when it was released in February. He called it
utterly stupid, reported the Hill, and said the Islamic State could use the limiting language to its advantage.
ARTIFICIALLY LIMITING THE USE OF GROUND FORCES SIMPLY EMBOLDENS THE ENEMY TO ADOPT TACTICS THAT TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THAT LIMIT-Wong '15
Hatch said ISIS could use the restrictions in the proposal to its advantage.
"Why would we not only unilaterally impose limitations as to which types of tools and tactics our service members can
use then also broadcast these limitations to the enemy?" he said.
"If we're telling the Islamic State upfront that we will not using ground forces, will they not tailor their strategy around
that fact? Tell me!" he continued. "If we advertise when the authorization expires with the arbitrary date and time,
won't they just hunker down and wait for that date?"
Page 37
CON
BALANCE CON: RULE OUT NOW AND REASSESS IN THREE YEARS
AS OF TODAY, WE SHOULD RULE GROUND FORCES OUT BUT THEN REASSESS IN THREE YEARS-Newsmax '15
[Kerry Calls for US War Powers to Strike ISIS; Newsmax; 11 March 2015; http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/IraqSyria-conflict-US/2015/03/11/id/629540/; retrieved 12 March 2015]
Carter stressed that "the proposed AUMF does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations
like those we conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them."
But Senator Bob Menendez warned that "we all know that it may be the intent of someone not to have any large-scale,
long-term offensive combat troops, but that intention can honestly change along the way."
Carter, however, highlighted that the new war powers resolution would expire in three years and "wisely does not
include any geographical restriction because ISIL already shows signs of metastasizing outside of Syria and Iraq."
"I cannot tell you our campaign to defeat ISIL will be completed in three years," he said, but including a so-called "sunset
clause" would give the next president and "the American people the chance to assess our progress" at the end of that
period.
Page 38
CURRENT STATUS: GROUND TROOPS CURRENTLY UNNECESSARY

AT THIS TIME, ANY TALK OF GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL IS HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT NECESSARY IN LIGHT OF THE
CURRENT SITUATION-Tilghman '15
[Andrew; Dempsey does not rule out U.S. ground troops in Syria; Military Times; 4 March 2015;
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/04/dempsey-us-ground-troops-in-syria-is-anoption/24380755/; retrieved 11 March 2015]
Defense Secretary Ash Carter told lawmakers Wednesday that the "Syria piece" is a "much more difficult situation
wherein we're trying to create a third force that can both combat ISIL and set the conditions for the eventual removal of
Bashar Assad."
A spokesman for Dempsey downplayed the chairman's comment about potential deployment of troops in Syria.
"It was a hypothetical and there is no consideration of sending U.S. troops into Syria beyond personnel recovery/combat
rescue forces if necessary as the air campaign continues," said Air Force Col. Ed Thomas, a spokesman for the Joint Staff.
WE ARE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH OBJECTIVES AGAINST ISIL WITHOUT GROUND TROOPS-Michaels '15
Fred Kagan, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the ban on letting American advisers accompany
Iraqi troops on the battlefield is a self-imposed "red line." He said placing air controllers with Iraqi forces would make
airstrikes more effective, though the mission could be accomplished without them.
U.S. forces use drones and Iraqi ground forces to identify targets, which are cleared for bombing by American officers in
combat operation centers miles from the battlefield. That has been effective against militants in military vehicles or
bunkers.
"Thus far, we have been able to accomplish what we need to do with the current system of providing air support," said
Maj. Curtis Kellogg, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.
Page 39
EVERYTHING BUT GROUND TROOPS IS NECESSARY

US MUST DO EVERYTHING SHORT OF USING GROUND TROOPS IN IRAQ TO FIGHT ISIL-Rizzo '15
[Rachel; Staff, Strategy Initiative at the Atlantic Councils Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security; The Hill; 12
March 2015; http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/235424-congress-needs-to-change-the-new-aumf;
Both Democrats and Republicans should make reasonable compromises in a final AUMF and come to terms with the fact
that the United States be involved in the fight against ISIL for the long haul. There is no quick fix. The United States must
show our dedication to the long-term success of Iraq through training programs, advising the GOI, targeting high value
ISIL targets, and imparting US military knowledge to the ISF, not through fighting combat operations on behalf of the
Iraqis. Passing a bi-partisan AUMF that clearly defines US goals and intentions, puts a limit on how deeply the United
States can get involved, and allows the United States to assist for as long as the Iraqi people desire, is the first step
towards long-term success.
WHILE IT IS IMPORTANT TO FIGHT ISIL, WE MUST DRAW A CLEAR LINE AGAINST THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS-Boxer
'15
March 2015]
Three months ago when Democrats were in control of the Senate, I voted in the Foreign Relations Committee for an
AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) which authorized the president to continue working with a broad
coalition to degrade and destroy the terrorist group ISIL.
Unfortunately, that sensible AUMF never got a vote in the full Senate.
President Barack Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also
correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another
ground war.
WE MUST STRICTLY PROHIBIT TROOPS AGAINST ISIS-Radelat '15
[Ana; Murphy Sponsors Bill That Would Restrict White House's War Powers; Hartford Courant; 17 February 2015;
http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-ctm-murphy-war-powers-0218-20150217-story.html; retrieved 12
March 2015]
Few on the Democratic side of the political spectrum have been as critical of Obama's plans as Murphy.
"I simply can't rely on President Obama's promise that he won't use ground troops against ISIL because he's only got two
more years left," Murphy said in a speech on the Senate floor last week.
In that speech, Murphy compared ISIL to a flatworm that multiplies as you chop it up.
"We cannot authorize a strategy that could result in American combat troops going back to the Middle East," Murphy
said. "Now if this president or the next president put our soldiers into the Middle East to fight ISILan intervention of
this scale would ultimately create more terrorists than it destroyed."
Page 40
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: CURRENT STRATEGY DOESNT REQUIRE IT

CURRENT POPULAR STRATEGY DOESN'T REQUIRE THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS-Saeed '15
[Yerevan; Obama administration asks Congress to authorize use of force in Iraq war; Rudaw; 13 March 2015;
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/130320153; retrieved 14 March 2015]
"The proposed AUMF does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations like those we
conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them, Carter told members of the committee.
Instead, local forces must provide the enduring presence needed for an enduring victory against ISIL.
GROUND TROOP RESTRICTIONS HAVE NOT IMPACTED US MISSION IN IRAQ THUS FAR-Michaels '15
There are about 3,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, including hundreds of trainers and advisers. They are limited largely to
protected bases, not any battlefield, because of White House concern that an expanded military role could lead to
"mission creep," the slow expansion of involvement in another war four years after U.S. combat troops withdrew from
Iraq.
President Obama's proposed legislation authorizing military force against the Islamic State would prohibit "enduring
offensive ground combat operations."
Since the United States began bombing Islamic State militants in Iraq last summer, it has conducted the air campaign
without the benefit of American teams on the battlefield, which are typically used to control airstrikes in support of
ground forces.
The Pentagon says the restrictions have not hampered the effectiveness of the bombing campaign, which helped drive
militants from Kobani, a Syrian city on the Turkish border.
US SEES NO NEED TO UTILIZE GROUND FORCES AGAINST ISIL-Newsmax '15
[Kerry Calls for US War Powers to Strike ISIS; Newsmax; 11 March 2015; http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/IraqSyria-conflict-US/2015/03/11/id/629540/; retrieved 12 March 2015]
"The president already has statutory authority to act against ISIL, but a clear and formal expression of your backing
would dispel any doubt anywhere that Americans are united in this effort," Kerry said.
The top US diplomat also insisted that the "administration sees no need for US forces to engage in enduring offensive
ground combat operations against ISIL."

Page 41
CURRENTLY PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION FOR FORCE PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY WHILE SENDING A MESSAGE TO ISIL, ALL
WITHOUT COMMITTING GROUND TROOPS-Pellerin '15
[Cheryl; Carter: Proposed Authorization Gives Flexibility to Fight ISIL; DOD News; 11 March 2015;
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128340; retrieved 12 March 2015]
President Barack Obamas proposed authorization to use military force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is
flexible enough to allow for the full range of military scenarios, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told a Senate panel this
morning.
In reviewing the presidents proposed AUMF as secretary of defense, Carter said he asked himself two questions.
First, does it provide the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our campaign, allowing for a full range of likely
military scenarios? Carter said.
Second, he added, will it send a message to the people Im responsible for -- our brave men and women in uniform and
civilian personnel who will wage this campaign -- that the country is behind them?
Carter said he believes the AUMF accomplishes both, and urged Congress to pass the proposal.
THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED STRATEGY AGAINST ISIL DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF GROUND FORCES-Pellerin '15
[Cheryl; Carter: Proposed Authorization Gives Flexibility to Fight ISIL; DOD News; 11 March 2015;
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=128340; retrieved 12 March 2015]
The proposed AUMF provides flexibility in military means to prevail against ISIL, with one exception, the secretary
added.
The proposed AUMF does not authorize long-term, large-scale offensive ground combat operations like those we
conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, because our strategy does not call for them, he added. Instead, local forces must
provide the enduring presence needed for an enduring victory against ISIL.
The proposed AUMF expires in three years, although no one knows if the campaign will be completed over that time,
the secretary said, adding that he understands the reason for the proposed sunset provision.
It derives from the important principle stemming from the Constitution that makes the grave matter of enacting an
authorization for the use of military force a shared responsibility of the president and Congress, Carter said.
THE NO-GROUND TROOP STRATEGY IS CURRENTLY WORKING AGAINST ISIL-Boxer '15
March 2015]
That is what the President is supporting now and his AUMF should reflect his strategy, which I believe is the right one.
We are using our air power. We are providing critical intelligence. We are training and supporting our allies.
This strategy is already proving to be successful in halting ISIL's momentum by preventing the massacre on Mt. Sinjar
and pushing ISIL out of the strategic city of Kobani. These efforts have been backed by more than 60 countries.
Page 42
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: MANY OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT

GROUND TROOPS
CURRENT PROPOSAL GIVES MANY OPTIONS WITHOUT CREATED AN OPEN ENDED WAR-DeYoung '15
Carter, who testified alongside Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said that the proposal, known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) tries to strike a
balance between anticipating a wide enough range of contingencies ... while being restrictive enough to suggest the
limited nature of U.S. involvement in current hostilities in Iraq and Syria.
As written, it authorizes the president to use U.S. forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL
or associated persons or forces. Associates are defined as individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of or
alongside ISIL ... in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. ISIS and ISIL are alternative names for
the Islamic State.
The proposed AUMF prohibits enduring offensive ground combat operations and terminates after three years unless
reauthorized by the next U.S. president.
Page 43
GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: NEED NOT INVOLVE GROUND TROOPS TO HAVE A

FLEXIBLE SOLUTION
DESPITE THE LIMIT IN THE USE OF GROUND FORCES, THE OBAMA PLAN PROVIDES THE NEEDED FLEXIBILITY TO
DEFEAT ISIL-Osborn '15
[Kris; Pentagon Says Congress Must Send Strong Signal to ISIS with AUMF; Military.com; 11 March 2015;
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/11/pentagon-says-congress-must-send-strong-signal-to-isis-withaumf.html; retrieved 13 March 2015]
Lawmakers asked Carter and Dempsey whether the language in the AUMF restricting "enduring ground combat
operations" would limit the U.S. military's ability to destroy ISIS. The U.S. military's top civilian and uniformed leaders
said that was not the case.
Carter told lawmakers the ambiguity of the language in the AUMF could be helpful in providing needed military flexibility
to an ongoing effort which may need to adapt to changing threats.
"It does not try to say everything we might have to do that is a good sensible thing for a military campaign as you don't
know everything you would need to do," Carter said.
Page 44
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LARGE INVASION FORCE WONT BE EFFECTIVE

A LARGE GROUND WAR WOULD NOT BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST ISIL-DeYoung '15
Democrats expressed concern over the combat troop language and what Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) called the
possibility of ground-troop creep.
Recalling Desert Storm, the brief 1991 U.S. military operation that drove former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein out of
Kuwait, Kaine asked, 697,000 American troops for seven months, is that an enduring ground combat operation?
That isnt contemplated as part of the effort to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Dempsey said. And it
wouldnt lead to the defeat of ISIL. And so I can say with credibility, no. The militants are best addressed, he said, with
the current policy of helping local forces on the ground with training, equipment and airstrikes, and Obama has said he
would not send ground troops similar to the tens of thousands deployed earlier in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Page 45
GROUND TROOPS INEFFECTIVE: LOCAL MILITARIES BETTER

UTILIZING LOCAL FORCES IS THE ONLY WAY TO CREATE A LONG TERM SOLUTION IN IRAQ-Acosta et al '14
The U.S. is not returning combat troops to Iraq, President Barack Obama insisted again Wednesday, despite the
suggestion by his top general that option is something the Pentagon could consider.
Speaking at U.S. Central Command in Florida, Obama said again that U.S. troops "do not and will not have a combat
mission" in Iraq against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
"After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners
on the ground so they can secure their own countries' futures," he said. "And that's the only solution that will succeed
over the long term."
"As your commander in chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in
Iraq," Obama told troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa. Rather, the U.S. forces will support Iraqi forces on the
ground as the Iraqis fight ISIS, he said.
LOCAL NATIONS SHOULD BE THE COUNTRY COMMITTING TROOPS IN THIS SITUATION-Colman '15
Democrats are being cautious about recommending ground troops. Many Democrats prefer sticking to airstrikes that
have pounded Islamic State positions.
"They should be ground troops from the region and not U.S. ground troops," Kaine said, adding, "We cannot police a
region that cannot police itself."
Kurdish officials contend the intensity and frequency of coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State have increased since
the releasing the video of al-Kaseasbeh's death. Much of that has come from Jordan's anger over the video.
"The Arab states within this coalition are really providing important leadership in this regard," John Allen, the special
presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter the Islamic State, told ABC News this week.
KURDISH FIGHTERS ARE AN EFFECTIVE FORCE ALREADY ON THE GROUND THAT CAN BE USES AGAINST ISIL-Colman '15
Libertarian-minded GOP lawmakers and Democrats, who want to avoid more war spending and foreign entanglements,
have pressed for options such as arming Iraqi and Kurdish fighters.
"You know, I don't believe, right now, we need American boots on the ground, and the reason is we have boots on the
ground already with the Kurds. The Peshmerga are trained, effective fighters. They are close allies of us," Sen. Ted Cruz,
R-Texas, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

Page 46
US CAN DEFEAT ISIL USING LOCAL TROOPS-Talk Tadio News Service '15
[Gen. Austin: Coalition Can Defeat ISIL Without U.S. Combat Troops; Talk Radio News Service; 3 March 2015;
http://www.talkradionews.com/congress/2015/03/03/gen-austin-coalition-can-defeat-isil-without-u-s-combattroops.html#.VQW5DI7WqlQ; retrieved 12 March 2015]
Lloyd Austin, the U.S. Central Command chief in the Middle East, told Washington lawmakers Tuesday that ISIL terrorists
are on the defensive and will be beaten without putting U.S. combat troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq.
I think they can and they will (be defeated in Iraq), but well use Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish Peshmurga forces to
do this, Austin told the House Armed Services Committee. We intend to continue to execute the campaign as
designed.
Austin said that more than 8,500 ISIL fighters have been killed since Operation Inherent Resolve the U.S.-led air
campaign against ISIL in Iraq and Syria began last August.
SAUDI ARABIA SHOULD COMMIT ITS OWN TROOPS TO THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Sputnik News '15
[Saudis Should Send Troops Instead of Asking US to Fight ISIL; Sputnik News; 7 March 2015;
http://sputniknews.com/us/20150307/1019176293.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
The Saudi Arabian government must be responsible for stability in the Middle East and should send its own military to
fight the Islamic State (ISIL) rather than demand that the United States undertake such actions, US Senator Bernie
Sanders said in a statement.
I find it remarkable that Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq and is controlled by a multi-billion dollar family, is demanding
that US combat troops have boots on the ground against ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham]. Sanders said on
Friday. Where are the Saudi troops?
Sanders explained that Saudi Arabia, which has the third largest military budget in the world and an army much larger
than that of the ISIL, must accept full responsibility for stability in their own region of the world.
Sanders urged the anti-ISIL Muslim nations to lead the fight for the soul of Islam, and said that Western nations,
including the United States, should be supportive of such efforts.
During a meeting with the US Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday, the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud alFaisal, said that the US-led coalition against the ISIL should have "boots on the ground" to attack terrorists positions.
The ISIL militant group controls large areas of Syria and Iraq and declared an Islamic caliphate on the territories that had
fallen under its control. It is infamous for numerous abductions and brutal killings.
US GROUND TROOPS WON'T BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS THE MIDDLE EAST REGION ITSELF BATTLES ISIL-Graham '15
[Chris; Editor; Sen. Kaine presses for clarity on ground troops in action against ISIL; Augusta Free Press; 11 March 2015;
http://augustafreepress.com/sen-kaine-presses-for-clarity-on-ground-troops-in-action-against-isil/; retreived 12 March
2015]
This has got to be the regions fight against its own terrorism, said Kaine. If the region wont weigh in to battle its own
terrorist threat, theres no amount of [U.S.] ground troops we could put into Iraq or Syria to win the battles there.

Page 47
IT IS BEST FOR AFTER THE WAR IF LOCAL TROOPS ARE USED IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-CCTV America '15
[U.S. Gov. outlines strategy to take Mosul, Iraq from ISIL control; CCTV America; 20 February 2015; http://www.cctvamerica.com/2015/02/20/u-s-gov-outlines-strategy-to-take-mosul-iraq-from-isil-control; retrieved 12 March 2015]
U.S. involvement on the ground in Iraq would most likely be just a handful of advisers. Learning the lessons of the past,
U.S. officials said they want Iraqi forces to take the lead when they are ready.
We believe it is in the best interests of American national security for the Iraqi people and their nations military forces
to fight for their own country. We tried it a different way- we tried it in the previous administration by deploying more
than 100,000 US military personnel, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said.
US ALLIES IN THE REGION WILL COMMIT TROOPS TO FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Khan '15
12 March 2015]
Gulf officials say they do not expect a war-weary US to redeploy ground forces, and some have said privately that they
would be willing to commit their own troops as well as money and training for Sunni tribal forces. Recent reports
suggest Jordan and Turkey have been discussing creating a force to fight ISIL inside northern Iraq and Syria.
US BELIEVES IT HAS ENOUGH ALLIES TO DEFEAT ISIL WITHOUT COMMITTING US GROUND FORCES-Acosta et al '14
Kerry also told the senators that a number of countries have agreed to contribute to the fight against the militants.
Asked whether any of the nations agreed to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS, Kerry said no. However, Kerry
confirmed that some of the countries have committed to carrying out airstrikes. He did not publicly identify the
countries.
"We will have enough allies" for the military action needed to fight ISIS, he said.
US MUST NOT ACT ALONE WITH GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL; WE SHOULD USE OTHER FORCES-Simendinger '14
[Alexis; White House Coorespondent; Obama Insists No U.S. Ground Forces Will Fight ISIL; Real Clear Politics; 17
September 2014;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/17/obama_insists_no_us_ground_forces_will_fight_isil_124012.htm
l; retrieved 5 March 2015]
As your commander-in-chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in
Iraq, Obama said. After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in
support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries futures. And thats the only solution that will
succeed over the long term.
The new Obama war on terror, he insisted, is distinct from the Bush administrations Iraq operation in that fighters on
the front lines with the most to lose must be from countries and the region with the most to gain from securing peace
and strong representative government.
Were not going to do this alone, he said. The one thing we have learned is that when we do things alone and the
countries -- the people of those countries -- arent doing it for themselves, as soon as we leave we start getting the same
problems. So weve got to do things different.

Page 48
NO LONG-TERM VICTORY IS POSSIBLE IF THE LOCAL FORCE IS TOO WEAK TO FIGHT AGAINST GROUPS LIKE ISILCordesman '15
At the same time, no such effort can work if the local or host country forces are too weak and the United States does not
provide reinforcements or enablers. Every military force faces the threat of being attacked were it is weakest or there
are combat units that are ineffective and incapable of protecting the flanks or positions of the combat units that can
actually fight. These threats are far higher in newly forms and inexperienced forces.
Here, it is important to realize that unless major U.S. combat forces are deployed in significant enough numbers to
actually do all or most of all the fighting, local or host country forces will fail if they cannot get emergency support and
reinforcements. They also face a very different challenge in large countries, when they face a dispersed force of
nonstate actors that is on the scene and knows their weaknesses in detail, and where the real war is less one of short
tactical victories and more one of lasting attrition in fighting for control of the population.
Page 49
GROUND TROOPS BAD: MUST LEAVE THE FIGHT TO LOCAL ARMIES

US SHOULD COMMIT MILITARY RESOURCES TO THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL, BUT, GROUND TROOPS SHOULD BE LEFT TO
COUNTRIES IN THE REGION-Boxer '15
March 2015]
Let me be clear: ISIL is a threat to the civilized world and we cannot allow its reign of terror to go unchecked. The group's
vicious fighters kidnapped and murdered four innocent Americans. They savagely burned to death a Jordanian pilot, and
killed two Japanese citizens and two British aid workers. They have slaughtered thousands of ethnic and religious
minorities in Iraq and Syria, raped and enslaved thousands of women and girls, and trained children as young as 12 or 13
as fighters.
No civilized country should stand by in the face of this savagery. But this is not a battle America should be expected to
wage alone.
When I was growing up, my parents taught me that I should never expect someone else to fight my battles for me.
When ISIL comes after Americans and threatens our national security interests, we should fight back and that is
exactly what we are doing. But our partners in the region must also step up and fight their battle. They must be the
combat boots on the ground Iraqi boots, Kurdish boots, and moderate Syrian boots.
ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT ISIL IS IF REGIONAL TROOPS TAKE UP THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL-Wright '15
[Austin; Obama's war resolution stalls on the Hill; Politico; 11 March 2015;
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/john-kerry-ash-carter-isil-military-force-115980.html; retrieved 12 March 2015]
Carter tried to reassure the senators the administrations proposed authorization wouldnt lead to a large-scale U.S.
ground war in Iraq, saying the only way to defeat ISIL permanently would be through assisting local forces in taking on
the terrorist group themselves.
Page 50
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GIVES OBAMA A BLANK CHECK

MUST MAKE A STRICT OF A PROHIBITION OF GROUND TROOPS AS POSSIBLE IN ANY MILITARY AUTHORIZATION-Raju
and Everett '15
[Mani ad Burgess; War authorization in trouble on Hill; Politico; 5 March 2015;
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/no-clear-way-forward-isil-war-authorization-115773.html; retrieved 7 March
2015]
No, said New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, when asked whether
he would support the presidents proposal. I think we have to do a better job of defining what is no enduring offensive
combat troops. That is a critical element. I think if we can get past that element of it, other elements could fall into
place. But we need to do a better job of that otherwise, many members feel that is the equivalent of a blank check.
MUST RESTRICT THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS AS TO NOT GIVE THE PRESIDENT A BLANK CHECK ON MILITARY FORCEGaudiano '15
[Nicole; Key Senate Democrat says ISIL force request too broad; USA Today; 16 February 2015;
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/16/menendez-faults-military-force-request/23450885/;
President Obama's proposal for legislation to fight the Islamic State contains "largely undefined" wording that could be
interpreted as license to wage open-ended war, according to the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee.
The president's request that Congress approve a three-year authorization of military force specifically precludes
"enduring offensive ground combat operations," but what that means isn't clear, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey
said in a recent interview.
"The last thing we want to do is have an open-ended conflict without limitations," said Menendez, who voted against
the Iraq war resolution as a House member in 2002. "That's the challenge... to give the president the authority and the
support to defeat ISIL but not to give him and the next president an open-ended ability to conduct a very prolonged war
with combat troops on the ground and everything we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Menendez's reservations about Obama's proposed military-force resolution offer another example of his willingness to
challenge or even outright oppose the administration on foreign policy.
Page 51
GROUND TROOPS BAD: = ENDLESS WAR!

USING GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL COULD DRAG THE UNITED STATES INTO A LONG, BOUNDLESS WAR-Rubeiz '15
While a U.S. ground offensive would certainly defeat ISIL, it would not eliminate the underlying causes of terrorism.
Moreover, it could possibly drag America into a new war with unknown consequences. ISIL will continue to attract
alienated youth to confront the West, and its Middle East allies in power. Many in the Muslim world still seem to hold
the United States responsible for destroying Iraq, for underwriting Israels occupation of Palestine and for
supporting self-serving Arab rulers. Despite the Arab majorities rejection of the shameful barbarism of ISIL, the regions
hostility toward American foreign policy is widespread. Thus a new U.S. ground war in the Middle East is too risky.
Page 52
GROUND TROOPS BAD: GROUND TROOPS WOULD MAKE ISIL STRONGER

THE AGGRESSIVE USE OF GROUND TROOPS WOULD ONLY STRENGTHEN ISIL IN THE LONG RUN-Osborn '15
[Kris; Pentagon Says Congress Must Send Strong Signal to ISIS with AUMF; Military.com; 11 March 2015;
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/11/pentagon-says-congress-must-send-strong-signal-to-isis-withaumf.html; retrieved 13 March 2015]
However, Kerry emphasized a large-scale, long term ground occupation like that which the U.S. has conducted over the
last decade would hurt the American cause and only help ISIS recruit more fighters.
"The enduring transformation that has to take place is not going to take place if the United States just comes in and
knocks out ISIL. We could do that. We have that capacity but we are not asking to do that nor are they asking for us to
do that -- because the implications of that would be to aid in the recruitment (for ISIS) and create a bigger problem than
we face today," Kerry told lawmakers.
Page 53
GROUND TROOPS BAD: WOULD HELP RECRUIT FIGHTERS FOR ISIL

US ENGAGEMENT WITH ISIL IS PLAYING INTO THEIR HANDS AS THEY LOOK TO RECRUIT FOREIGN FIGHTERS-al-Gharbi
'15
[Musa; ISILs barbaric acts are highly effective propaganda; Aljazerra America; 23 February 2015;
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/why-did-isil-burn-the-jordanian-pilot.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
To hedge against this risk, ISIL is increasingly shifting its emphasis from local governance, focusing instead on drawing in
foreign fighters from the diaspora and raising the next generation of extremists. But even within Iraq and Syria, ISILs
conquests have prioritized sparsely populated areas, allowing them to basically carve a settler state out of ungoverned
territories and partially insulating them from the indigenous population.
While ISILs initial recruits were largely Iraqis and Syrians, its future lies with foreign fighters. It is an existential
imperative to keep the flow going. And one of the best ways to keep the recruitment pipeline going is to position itself
against Middle Eastern autocrats and Western imperialism. The U.S.-led bombing campaign and commensurate
counterterrorism trends have resulted in the surge of foreign recruits. ISIL hopes to lure more unpopular actors such as
Jordan and the United States more heavily into the theater. The question is whether the U.S. and its allies will take the
bait.
GROUND TROOPS COULD EMBOLDEN OTHER MILITANTS TO JOIN THE CONFLICT-Raju and Everett '15
[Mani ad Burgess; War authorization in trouble on Hill; Politico; 5 March 2015;
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/no-clear-way-forward-isil-war-authorization-115773.html; retrieved 7 March
2015]
Its not just Democrats who are pushing for a war authorization that limits the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Syria.
That issue came up during a recent discussion between the committees members and the Emir of Qatar and the King of
Jordan; the foreign leaders warned that using U.S. ground troops against ISIL could motivate more militants to join,
according to the senators.
They said: We dont want American ground troops. It will then become the U.S. against ISIL or the West against ISIL,
which would become a recruiting bonanza for them. It has to be the region fighting against ISIL, said Sen. Tim Kaine (DVa.), recounting the conversation last month. If we do that, we would love your help. But U.S. ground troops changes it
into a different kind of a battle.
Page 54
GROUND TROOPS BAD: IRAQI WAR PROVES

THE IRAQ WAR SHOWS US WHY WE MUST NOT USE GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Boxer '15
March 2015]
Even worse, some of my Republicans colleagues are now pressing to pass an AUMF with virtually no restrictions at all.
Some of these same lawmakers have argued that the only way to defeat ISIL is to have American troops on the ground
fighting against ISIL wherever they go.
It is stunning to me that so many lawmakers have forgotten the lessons of the Iraq War. After a disastrous war that was
launched under false pretenses and claimed the lives of more than 4,000 American service members, the last thing
America needs is another ground war in the Middle East.
Page 55
GROUND TROOPS BAD: AMERICANS DO NOT SUPPORT

MOST AGAINST THE USE OF GROUND TROOPS AGAINST ISIL-Kamisar '15
[Ben; Poll: Most back ground troops in ISIS fight; The Hill; 13 FEbruary 2015; http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefingroom/232759-poll-americans-want-congress-to-pass-aumf; retrieved 11 March 2015]
Theres a stark partisan split over the ground troop debate. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans support deploying a
large amount of boots on the ground, while just 16 percent of Democrats back that strategy. That largely mirrors the
debate in Congress: Republicans have panned the strategy for being too restrictive, while Democrats are worried the
vague language could give the president too much power.
NO POLITICAL SUPPORT EXISTS FOR THE UNITED STATES TO USE ITS OWN COMBAT UNITS AGAINST ISIL-Carroll '14
But national security analyst Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argued against
more U.S. ground troops, writing in an a paper Thursday that whatever the tactical needs, the United States' hands are
tied by a number of factors.
"The United States has no domestic political support for deploying its own ground combat units," Cordesman wrote. "It
would take months to deploy and organize a major land force presence to cover the large areas involved, and U.S.
ground troops would walk into Iraqi and Syrian civil wars where they would almost inevitably be seen as favoring one
side and being seen as an enemy by the other."
Page 56
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST CONSIDER POLITICAL ISSUES

A STRATEGY FOCUSED ON THE IRAQ GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT ISIL-Linetsky '14
Neither inaction nor American military action will ultimately destroy ISIL. U.S. airpower may succeed in eliminating ISILs
heavy armaments and dispersing its forces, but will not eliminate the organization. A clear strategy focused on building
Iraqs 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.
There exists a nexus of tribes, clans, Islam, and institutions in Iraq. These structures have overlapped and intermingled
with one another since the end of colonial rule in the region. The U.S. must work directly with regional actors that have
direct experience with these institutional structures. It must find common ground with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and
Turkey, among others, and help these actors find common ground with one another. Much as the U.S. did with the
Soviet Union during World War II, it must work with erstwhile enemies for the greater good of eliminating ISIL, and
through institutional design, ensure that ISIL does not return.
THE PRIME FOCUS AGAINST ISIL SHOULD BE REBUILDING IRAQI GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS-Linetsky '14
While the primary focus of the U.S. against ISIS should be rebuilding Iraqi governing institutions, the United States and
its collation allies have also begun bombing ISIL and Khorasan strongholds in Syria. The bombing campaign creates a
bizarre ad hoc community of interest between Bashar al-Assads brutal regime and its opponentsSaudi Arabia, Qatar,
Iran and the U.S.-led collationagainst ISIL and other radical Islamist organizations in Syria.

Page 57
FOCUSING ON GOOD GOVERNING AND INSTITUTIONS KEY TO DEFEATING GROUPS LIKE ISIL-Linetsky '14
Finally, arming the Syrian rebels remains as perilous now as it was at the outset of the Syrian conflict. The U.S. simply
does not have the necessary information to pick the right groups, if any exist. Moreover, it is unclear that arming the
rebels will work, or what will happen if they win. Is a chaotic Syrian without Assad better than his stable and predictable
yet repressive state? The U.S. cannot easily answer that question. Bombing and arming Syrian rebels while fighting in
Iraq, all the while depending on opaque intelligence information about these groups, adds a level of complexity to an
already chaotic military-strategic situation.
After 35 years of experience in dealing with quasi-states, its 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.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE UNITED STATES CAN DO IN ISIL IS FOCUS ON IRAQI GOVERNANCE, NOT COMMIT
GROUND TROOPS-Linetsky '14
In 1994 the United States faced a similar Salafi Islamist non-state entity: the Afghan Taliban. (Salafism is a strict
interpretation of Islamic theology, as laid out by the Quran and the Hadith, wherein life must adhere as closely as
possible to the conditions that existed during the religions first three generations). ISIL, like the Taliban, is a militant
Islamist reaction to failed governance. Examining American-Taliban history can help American leaders understand the
threat posed by ISIL, the dangers of trying to defeat the movement outright, as well as the hazards of doing nothing.
The most prudent American course of action with regards to ISIL is to help Iraq address governance issues like economic
development, sectarianism, and equal representation. The U.S. and its allies must work with local and regional actors
such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan to address internal Iraqi issues and provide military as well as diplomatic support.
The United States should conduct direct military operations only when absolutely necessary.
MILITARY SOLUTIONS AREN'T GOING TO GET RID OF THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF ISIL-Olson '15
[Gary; Professor of Political Science at Moravain College; Gary Olson: Is it worthwhile to send U.S. troops to fight Islamic
State?; The Morning Call; 12 March 2015; http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-islamic-state-us-responseolson-yv--20150312-story.html; retrieved 13 March 2015]
What to do? ISIS true believers won't be bought off, but other potential joiners need to see viable alternatives. As
Haykel suggests, marginalized, disenfranchised, humiliated young Muslim men (and now women and professionals) find
in ISIS "a ready-made ideology and packaged movement to express [their] sense of rage." And even if ISIS were to
disappear "the underlying causes that produce ISIS would not disappear." The solution, if one exists, lies in economic
security, peace, personal safety, jobs and hope.
Page 58
CURRENT STRATEGIES AGAINST ISIL IGNORE THE POLITICAL ISSUES UNDERNEATH THE SITUATION-Rubeiz '15
Like Al-Qaida in Iraq, Ansar Beit al Makdis in Egypt, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Nusra Front in Syria and the Taliban in
Afghanistan, ISIL is one of the many structures of terror which exploit the political vacuum of failing states or failed
states. ISIL continues to recruit new fighters; its influence is rapidly expanding in Libya, Yemen and possibly Egypt, not to
mention Europe. ISIL attracts thousands of indoctrinated, unemployed, rebellious youth in the Muslim world and in
Europes immigrant ghettos.
The International Coalitions war on ISIL has not yet adequately addressed the political issues which alienate millions of
young Muslims.
Page 59
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST DECIDE WHAT TO DO POST ISIL

TROOPS ALONE WON'T PROVIDE A LONG-TERM WIN AGAINST ISIL WITHOUT A STRATEGY FOR THE POST-CONFLICT
REGION-Cordesman '15
Anyone calling for boots on the ground needs to realize that the most urgent challenge may not be providing more of
our forces, but figuring out how to structure this kind of advisory mission, how to get skilled personnel, and how to deal
with risks that will inevitably kill or wound some of the U.S. military involved. Any president who does not provide such
capabilities needs to realize that he or she may have made the most critical decision in trying to make local forces
effective and that such a decision can mean failure and defeat.
Similarly, anyone calling for boots on the ground needs to realize that even the best such effort will fail if it simply
produces short-term tactical victories and not the ability to secure the population and hold territory, particularly
populated areas and key parts of the economy. It will equally fail if the civil side cannot build the kind of governance and
civil efforts that win broad support and bring lasting stability. Win is purposeless without hold, and hold is
purposeless without build.
Page 60
MILITARY SOLUTIONS TO ISIL BAD: MUST SIMPLY DISENGAGE

UNITED STATES INTERVENTION CAUSED ISIL IN THE FIRST PLACE-Van Auken '14
Underlying this semi-public dispute between the US presidentthe titular commander-in-chiefand the military
brass are the realities underlying another war of aggression being launched on the basis of lies for the second time in
barely a decade.
It is being foisted on the American public as an extension of the 13-year-old global war on terror, with Obama warning
this week that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) if left unchecked could pose a growing threat to the United
States.
In reality, the ISIS threat, such as it is, stems entirely from US imperialist interventions that have ravaged first Iraq,
through a war and occupation that claimed some one million lives, and then Syria, in a US-backed sectarian war for
regime-changein which ISIS was the beneficiary of arms and aid from the US and its regional alliesthat has killed well
over 100,000 and turned millions into refugees.
DISENGAGEMENT WITH ISIL WOULD BE ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES AGAINST THEM WITHOUT USE OF
MILITARY MIGHT-al-Gharbi '15
[Musa; ISILs barbaric acts are highly effective propaganda; Aljazerra America; 23 February 2015;
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/why-did-isil-burn-the-jordanian-pilot.html; retrieved 11 March 2015]
The U.S. and its anti-ISIL allies can deprive the group materially by restricting the flow of fighters, illicit funds, resources
and arms into the region. This entails cutting off aid to nonstate actors and proxies in Syria and across the rest of the
Middle East, as these assets often end up in the hands of radical groups such as ISIL.
Western powers can deny ISIL new fodder for propaganda by reconsidering the extent and modes of their cooperation
with Israel and Middle Eastern dictators and monarchs. This would reduce complicity in these governments abuses and
help spur positive sociopolitical developments in the region. These measures would greatly undermine ISIL without
further airstrikes or boots on the ground.
Page 61
A/T: WE SHOULD SHOCK AND AWE!!

NO QUICK FIXES AGAINST ISIL ARE POSSIBLE; IT WILL TAKE A GENERATION OR TWO TO ELIMINATE THIS PROBLEMRubeiz '15
Regarding the third question, there are many reasons the war on terror will take a generation or two. ISIL exploits
lingering and deep-rooted socio-political grievances. Conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan succinctly exposes the
complexity of ISIL: It is anti-American, anti-Zionist, anti-West. It promises to overthrow the old order of Sykes-Picot,
to tear up the artificial borders the West imposed on the Arabs.
Page 62
A/T: PRO CALLS FOR BOOTS NOW!

A BOOTS ON THE GROUND REQUIRED A VERY SPECIFIC STRATEGY AND NOT JUST AN EMPTY RHETORICAL CALLCordesman '15
Second, simply calling for more U.S. military forces in the abstract is as irresponsible and stupid as determining the type
and size of forces without regard to the facts on the ground. Boots on the ground can mean sending in more advisers
and trainers that cannot help host country forces learn how to become effective in combat, because they are not
allowed to help the forces in the field. No advisory effort is likely to work that focuses on generating forces from the rear
that have no real experience in combat, lack proven leadership, and cannot tie all of the elements of effective
operations together.

Big Sky

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Big Sky

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

April 2015 NSDA Public Forum Debate:

Grounds Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

OBAMA PLAN LIMITS GROUND TROOPS

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

OBAMA PLAN DOESNT LIMIT GROUND TROOPS

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

INTRIGUE ON TROOPS QUESTION BAD: STOPPING TIME SENSITIVE DEBATE

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

CURRENT STRATEGY INEFFECTIVE IN DEFEATING ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST HAVE TROOPS TO DEFEAT ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: REGIONAL TROOPS NOT ENOUGH

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AIR STRIKES NOT ENOUGH

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: TRAINING AND ADVISING NOT ENOUGH

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MASSIVE FORCE NOT REQUIRED TO BE EFFECTIVE

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: SHOULD USE SPECIALIZED FORCES TO DEFEAT ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: AMERICAN PEOPLE SUPPORT

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS NECESSARY: MUST COUNTER BALANCE COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS PRESIDENTS ABILITY TO FIGHT ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: LIMITS GENERALS ABILITY TO FIGHT

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: SHOWS THAT THE US IS NOT RESOLVED

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

ELIMINATING POSSIBILITY OF TROOPS BAD: PLAYS INTO ISIL STRATEGY

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

CURRENT STATUS: GROUND TROOPS CURRENTLY UNNECESSARY

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

EVERYTHING BUT GROUND TROOPS IS NECESSARY

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

GROUND TROOPS UNNECESSARY: CURRENT STRATEGY DOESNT REQUIRE IT

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL

April 2015: Ground Troops and ISIL