The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 227 times Debate No: 90885
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Diplomacy vs Military with regards to the mid east. Diplomacy can include enforcement of treaties, and military can include direct intervention with appropriate statue or convincing argument of treaty agreement.
Pro is Diplo, Con is Mili. The resolution is to convince the audience as to a better policy (policy debate).

Round 1: Introduction
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Counter argument


I accept this debate, and intend to craft a 100 percent diplomatic policy on Mid Eastern intervention.
Debate Round No. 1


I believe military intervention is the better option when dealing with foreign policies in the Middle East. We need a combination of both military and diplomacy but when separating them to having just one or the other, military intervention trumps diplomacy.

I personally don't agree with how the US conducts these military interventions but regardless intervention has a better effect on the continent than resorting to only diplomacy.

The world economy is deeply engraved and dependent on each other. We need access to markets and in order for those markets to be accessible we need a strong military that will intervene if necessary in order to help keep those markets secured. The Middle East was and currently is often ruled by a dictator. With a lack of check and balances to control the dictator they can do whatever they want with little to no opposition as they can often just silence those oppositions. Diplomacy wouldn't have stopped Iraq from invading Kuwait in 1990, military intervention was necessary to protect our allies Kuwait. If we did not intervene Saddam would've set off a trigger which would've led to severe damage on the world economy, a weakened US position in the world stage etc. Dictators need to be controlled, military intervention will help control them. Dictators will not comply with just diplomacy.

Diplomacy is too reliant on the entire world to unify in order to have a real effect and it doesn't seem to be happening any time soon.


It has been stated many times that the pen is mightier than the sword. Sadly, precious little practice is given to this in an age of smart bombs and drone strikes. My policy for intervention in the Mid East involves one less making use of ordinance and one of using pen strokes. The world, being immediately connected, makes for an alliance on many fronts against those that would treat their neighbors, and their citizens unjustly.

For a moment, entertain what Sun Tzu stated about moving a military: “In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men”. To put a fine point on it, the war in Iraq totaled up to 814 billion dollars. In Afghanistan, 685 billion. (1) This comes to a grand total of 1.4ish TRILLION dollars. Trillion. One tenth our deficit.

Consider the possibility of aid packages, societal bribes, lives not lost on the matter, and willing coalition members that could have been purchased for a similar end? Diplomacy is the fine art of appreciating what the ‘enemy’ needs and denying them that without violence, or bribing their populace and neighbors. In the course of this debate, we will explore the adventures that 1.4 trillion dollars could have on a world stage, and how diplomatic negotiation can win the hearts and minds of foreign citizens in the Mid East such that regime changes are possible.

Debate Round No. 2


My fault, I didn't make a rule for Round 4. What would you like to do for that?

Anyway I still stand by my ideals.

Diplomacy alone cannot change the world, the international community has imposed sanctions on Russia after their military intervention in the Ukraine. After the sanctions, Putin's approval rating reached an all time high while Russia's disapproval of the US reached 81%. Diplomacy alone can't win the hearts and mind of the people.

While I do agree the cost of war is high we have also attempted to better Iraq and Afghanistan's infrastructure. We've spent nearly 53 billion building hospitals, water treatment plants, electricity substations, schools and bridges.Those investments would be a waste and counter productive if they reached ISIS's hands. Diplomacy alone can't protect aids we provide to the Middle East. Our military intervention has not been as successful as intended as a result of politics, excluding WW I and II we have been fighting with blind folds and one hand tied behind our back, as a result our spending increases with little progress achieved.



As it stands:

Currently as we talk about diplomacy vs miltary action, we are embroiled in two conflicts regarding nuclear power with Iran and the DPNK.

Iran is currently struggling to find the means of creating a nuclear program. Not to say they don’t have one, of course. The Democratic People’sRepublicofNorth Koreais much in the same way. Now, why have we not invaded? While there are plenty of implications for this, the reasoning is quite simple: military intervention is the surest way to invite problems. Seemingly all of America’s less than desirable outcomes in the mid east (and a handful of others) have all stemmed from some variety of putting of our blood and treasure to enforce a quasi-agreed upon dictum in place.


Diplomacy is not about winning hearts and minds, though that might be a happy side effect. It, much like its bullet bound counter part is about success, and success can be achieved through an assortment of means. Its not until the agreed upon (world stage agreed upon) enemy makes use of their own military does intervention of equal kind become justified.


Diplomacy carries with it the honor that those back on the home front will not be spending their taxes, their sons, and their daughters on frivolous or ill thought out occupations that can drive on for decades, and more over, are viewed as imperialistic at the onset from allied nations. Lets rewind time for just a few moments, and talk about Iraq, pre Desert Storm. What if the world simply stopped buying Iraqi oil? What if the world simply agreed through trade negotiation and native land incenctive to overcome the deficit by opening their own reserves, increasing quotas, or simply placing a cap on a barrel of oil beneath what was profitable for Iraq? What if Iraqcould not buy anything on the world market? These tools are the hallmarks of sanctions which have the ability to bring a country to its knees if enforced properly.

Peace, through Superior Fire Power(?):

When leveraging the cost of ambassadorial envoy, public works, trade agreements, and resource development against military action, the choice is clear. Even in the best of arrangements, the host land for the engagement is left with destroyed buildings, a potentially starving and spent populace, costs in the billions for repairs, ill sentiment to the invaders (no matter how righteous), and potentially the loss of their government to unknown power. On the home front, men and women are spent, tax dollars are spent, literally destroyed in the field of battle, which leads us to the thrust of the problem. Military actions destroy. That by nature is their purpose. Diplomacy is about victory. Shared victory, in which no lives are expected to spent to uphold a failed policy, and no money to be spent save for expected investment. The purpose of a military is to defend the home front, and beat the enemy into submission when employed abroad. We are expected to finance destruction in hopes that by razing the enemy, they will later feel not so bad about being beaten.

What sense does that make?

Debate Round No. 3


I disagree on why we have not used military to intervene on Iran and North Korea. We are in no position to wage another conflict with another country currently, any conflicts post WW II with a lack of support from the economy. We can't expect results when fighting blind folded with one hand tied in our back.
I agree fighting Iran would create more problems, we are in no position to wage another war especially when we don't have a plan to rebuild Iran. You are right diplomacy is way to go at this current day and time with Iran. Opening another front in the Middle East would increase the strain our current military forces are enduring with the draw down.

We have not invaded North Korea for a few reasons.
1. Economy, China and North Korea's relation has been deteriorating but there is no guarantee that China will stand by idly if we invade North Korea. I'm sure over time China will separate itself from North Korea but now is not the time.
2. North Korea is a nuclear threat but not to the US as their missiles are still unable to reach the US.
3. Refugees, South Korea does not want to deal with North Korea's shambling infrastructure. An invasion would create a 20+ million refugee.
4. South Korea's GDP as of 2013 is 1.305 trillion while North Korea as of 2011 is 12.38 billion. South Korea does not want to deal with that.

If we had the ability to invade North Korea with the ability to deal with and rebuild North Korea with little problems I would support invasion.

The United States can't defend the home front from standing idly by in the Continental United States every time, intervening is necessary at times especially with the world economy connected with each other. A recession in the US has a global effect on countries everywhere.

You are right at times intervention has created more problems than it had solved, this is as a result of the political aspect of military intervention. The military aspect of the invasion of Iraq (2003) was a success, however plans to rebuild Iraq and let them stand on their own was not. The military can only do so much with a government that limits their ability to rebuild and limited findings to support Iraq. The withdrawal of US troops from Iraq beginning in 2007 is what led to ISIS increasing it's territorial control and influence on the Middle East. Military intervention is extremely limited by politics, we can't expect construction workers to build a building without giving them a plan, supplies time etc etc.


The painfully Obvious:

Military intervention as a primary tool in the Mid East results in world stage embarassment as collateral damage is paraded about.

For those not familiar with the video “Collateral Murder”, or those of constitution not suitable for viewing graphic material, military policy enabled an allied gunship to dispatch potential insurgents, which is good… and their entrenched obviously unarmed journalists which is bad. To complicate things, this attack from an Allied Apache was conducted in an suburb, literally some one’s back yard. As traffic progressed down the road, good Samaritans, not knowing what had just transpired saw bloodied rubble and wounded people scattered about the through-way. During their attempts to lend aid, and evacuate people to medical assistance… they too were attacked, resulting in the deaths of more civilians. The icing on this military cake was the passenger door of a van taking a hail of 30mm armor peircing rounds where 2 children took head and stomach shots.

All Hail the Conquering Heros:

Military justice as invoked by pro infers that you as the aggressor are the one delivering justice, that might makes right. When such a blunder yields no positive results…

• “We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
o Interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week, March 30, 2003

(no significant WMD development was found in those areas)

And if your pretexts for Mid East Policy was never diplomacy, but orchestration for invasion, you get gaffes like this:

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

To two years later stating:

On Feb. 5, 2003, Powell told the United Nations Security Council: "The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.".

Blood and Treasure:

As you can see, post 9/11 diplomacy was abandon, and military justice was served. 15 years later, military justice is still being served with the 6,852 US soldiers killed in the “War on Terror”, and the five trillion, trillion with a “T” spent from the American tax payer. That is a rather signifigant portion of the world market, should anyone be curious.

Wait, what are we doing, again?:

Now that we have invaded and engaged in those military policies in the Mid East for nearly 2 years, what have we gained?

Fortunately, the evidence of my position is present every day on the news. Our military firmly entrenched itself in the Mid East and the results are plain. I leave it to the voting populace to determine with the lives, trillions, and gains of said are worth leveraging off against the time and stalemates that diplomacy might form.

Now, this part is not to be used as an argument, it is merely a suggestion for readership to explore:

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was made after unresolved allegations of slant drilling (Kuwait taking Iraqi oil field's supply via underhanded technique). That variety of shenannigans would get ya shot in Texas, I can imagine a dictator being any more pleased at the situation, especially with regards to Iraqi oil already being priced out of the market at the time.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Reigon 4 months ago
Posted by FaustianJustice 4 months ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.